Lords Sitting of 23 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Party Emblems (Ireland); Highways (South Wales); Prisons (Scotland; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Railways Act (Ireland) (1851) Amendment.
2a Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; Oxford University (No. 2.)
3a Criminal Lunatic Asylum; Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment; Enclosure (No. 2.)
Royal Assent.—Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment; Law of Property; Inland Bonding; Fisheries (Scotland); Railway Cheap Trains, &c; Phœnix Park; Tenison's Charity; Local Government Supplemental; Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland); Indemnity; Local Taxation Returns; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1858.

  PRIVATE BILLS AND BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTIONS OF 1816.
  LORD BROUGHAM presented petitions from various Courts of the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, and from the Bury District of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, who represented an im-
  2
  mense number of Friendly Societies all over the country, and who complained of a clause in the Friendly Societies Act of 1858, wholly altering the constitution of Friendly Societies in the most important particular of winding up and the distribution of their funds. The clause in question was never mentioned in the House of Commons, and no notice was taken of the subject till the Bill reached their Lordships' House. The Bill was reported without Amendments, and on the Report an Amendment of a most extraordinary character was added to it. By the Consolidated Act of 1855 great care was taken of the whole matter of winding up and dissolving, and the 13th section, to which the petitioners referred, required that no Friendly Society should be dissolved without the consent of five-sixths of the members. It laid down the manner in which the vote should be taken most minutely, detailing the regulations for the purpose of preventing surprise or fraud. Even where the consent of five-sixths was obtained to the dissolution and winding up the appropriation of the funds was restricted to the purposes of the society—evidently a most just, a most fit, an absolutely necessary condition. But what did the clause in the Act of 1858 provide? Why,

  3
  that only one-fourth of the members of a society might present a memorandum to any actuary who had been five years connected with an Insurance Company, who was then to consider the subject, and, if he chose, was to wind up and dissolve, it was expressly said, without any regard to the requirements of the 13th section of the Act of 1855; so that members who had paid only two years and six months or three years might have the funds distributed among them in equal proportions with those who had paid twenty or twenty-five years. He really thought there must have been some mistake in the petition until he looked into the Act of 1855, and compared it with that of 1858; when he also found thia—that, no doubt the clause objected to was moved regularly as an Amendment on the Report on the 27th of July, 1858. On the 29th of that same month the Bill was read a third time and passed. The consent of the Commons being obtained on the 2nd of August it became law. He wished the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who made a most important statement the other evening relative to the business of the House, had been present in order that he might hear how many Bills passed that day. No fewer than forty-nine Bills were passed on the 2nd of August, and the space given to the Commons and Lords for considering this entire revolution in the state of Friendly Societies was the interval between the 27th and 29th of July, when the Bill passed the third reading. He thought he could not do better than call the attention of his noble Friend on the woolsack to this case. He was anxious to contribute as far as lay in his power to the promotion of that great object, the facilitating of the business of the two Houses of Parliament; and with that view he could, he thought, make no better proposition than that their Lordships should assent to the twenty-four Resolutions, which, after considerable discussion, had in 1846 been brought forward on the subject, being printed and circulated.
  THE EARL OF DONOUUHMOREsaid, he recollected that the clause in question was discussed by their Lordships in 1858, and the objections then taken to it having been answered and overruled, the clause was agreed to as part of the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEobserved, that the Resolutions to which the noble and learned Lord referred related to the passing of private Bills, and therefore had no bearing upon the measure to which his remarks
  4
  were especially directed, that being a public Bill.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was aware that the proposition which he had made had nothing to do with the point to which he had more immediately risen to address himself. In making it he had in view the discussion which had taken place on Thursday last, and the fact that the great mass of private Bills which came before Parliament tended to obstruct the progress of public business.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that if the noble and learned Lord desired to move that the Resolutions of 1846 be reprinted and circulated he should give notice of his intention to do so.
  The Resolutions (Private Bills and Business of the House) moved and Ordered to be printed on the 4th May, 1846; To be reprinted.

NEWSPAPERS, &c, BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, which had come up from the Commons, said that it dealt only with the 39 Geo. III., c. 79, the 60 Geo. III., c. 9, and the I Will. IV., c. 73. It did not interfere with or alter the Acts which required that newspapers should be registered at Somerset House, and that the name of the printer should appear to each publication. It repealed a part of the first-mentioned Act, of 1799, by which debates were prohibited in houses without a previous licence, and by which printers, type-founders, and printing-pressmakers were compelled to obtain certificates from the clerk of the peace before they proceeded to carry on business. The second Act to which he had referred was one of the celebrated Six Acts passed in 1819, which brought such odium on the Government as being encroachments on the ancient freedom of the country; by its provisions securities were, for the first time, exacted from publishers. By the third Act, which was passed in 1830, the securities which were by the Act of 1819 required from publishers were to some extent modified. But, although such statutes might be defended in times of revolutionary agitation, they had now outlived the fears and passions by which they were created, and, as the stamp laws had been abrogated, these securities had been practically nullified.

  5
  The only question raised by the Bill was, consequently, whether those enactments should not be altogether abrogated. The Bill had received the unanimous approval of the other House, and he therefore trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD CHELMSFORDreminded the noble Lord that the Bill had passed the other House on more than one occasion with scarcely any discussion upon its merits. It was originally introduced into the House of Commons by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in March, 1859, and his hon. and learned Friend the then Solicitor General (Sir Hugh Cairns) stated that there were some portions of it to which objections might be taken. The Bill was read a second time without the least discussion, and went into Committee; but was ultimately withdrawn in consequence of the approaching dissolution. After the new Parliament met, it was again introduced, and having been read a third time on the 19th of July, 1859, it came up to their Lordships on the 21st, but was dropped in consequence of the termination of the Session. The Bill was re-introduced at the commencement of the present Session, scarcely a word being 3aid about it, and there could have been little discussion subsequently, for it came up to their Lordships' House as early as the 7th of February; but from that day until now it had lain on their table without any noble Lord thinking it his duty to move the second reading. Under those circumstances it was necessary to look carefully to the Bill in order to see what provisions it repealed. It proposed to repeal the sections from 15 to 33 of the 39 George III. These sections might be divided into two distinct classes. First, sections from 15 to 22, which were directed against houses and places where meetings were held for the purpose of debates and lectures, and which enacted that if money were taken for the admission of persons such houses and places must be licensed by a magistrate. There was also a rather curious provision to the effect that houses licensed for the sale of ale, beer, wines, and spirituous liquors should be considered as places licensed for the purpose of reading books, newspapers, pamphlets, and other publications. Those provisions were made at a time of public danger, when stringent measures were required to prevent seditious meetings; but as all such danger had happily passed away,
  6
  he saw no objection whatever to their repeal. But sections 22 to 33 were of a different character. They required that a printer or typefounder should give notice to the clerk of the peace of his intention to commence business. That notice was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and afterwards the certificate to carry on business was issued by the clerk of the peace, without which any such printer or typefounder was liable to a penalty. To show how little attention had been paid in the preparation of this Bill, it proposed to repeal provisions in the 39th George III. which were already repealed by the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12, but a printer was still required to put his name to all papers which he printed. There was another very important clause in the 39th of George III. between the 22nd and 33rd sections, which empowered all persons to seize any one distributing or posting bills to which no printer's name was attached, and to take him before a magistrate, in order that the magistrate might hear and determine the case; From his experience at the bar he knew that it was very common for libellers to employ persons to distribute their libels without a printer's name, and it would be impossible to detest them if the persons so distributing the papers could not be at once taken before a magistrate and required to state by whom they were employed. He therefore strongly objected to that clause being repealed. He had also a decided objection to the proposed repeal of the 6Oth Geo. III. c. 9, which referred entirely to newspapers, and contained a clause of great importance, requiring printers and publishers, before publishing a newspaper, to enter into recognizances by which they were to be bound in a certain sum to be answerable for any fine or penalty which they might incur in the event of their being convicted for a blasphemous or seditious libel. He considered this a very important clause, and he should be sorry to see it repealed. The same Act contained a clause empowering a Judge, when a person was brought before him to give bail for a blasphemous or seditious libel, to make it a condition of the recognizance that the party should be of good behaviour during the terms of his recognizance. These were provisions that he did not desire to see repealed. Under a subsequent Act, the whole of which it was proposed to repeal, except the first section, there was a clause connected wit the 60th of George III, which provided

  7
  that where a person had obtained damages against the publisher of a newspaper for libel, and was unable to obtain satisfaction against his goods and chattels, he could apply to the Court of Exchequer, and the Court might direct that the recognizances might be used for the purposes of satisfying the damages that had been awarded. The present Bill, however, proposed to repeal that clause. A Bill that repealed so many important provisions of the 39th of George III, the whole of the 60th of George III, and the whole of the 11th of George IV. and 1st of William IV., except the first clause, deserved the careful consideration of their Lordships. As there were certain clauses of the 39th George III. that ought to be repealed, it would perhaps be desirable to read the Bill a second time. Perhaps it would be desirable, however, in Committee to confine the Bill to the repeal of these clauses in the 39th George III., and to omit the other provisions of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORtrusted their Lordships would not hesitate to give the Bill a second reading. It proposed to repeal enactments that were a dead letter and discreditable to the age. How far their Lordships would carry out these repeals was a matter for consideration. As to those enactments that were obsolete it would be as well that they should be repealed. Under these circumstances, he trusted they would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and they could then deal with the details in Committee.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Bill proposed to repeal certain enactments without stating what the effect of such repeal would be. Had their Lordships the least notion what they were asked to do by this Bill! He ventured to say they had not. Their Lordships were therefore indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) for going through the provisions of the Bill so carefully, and giving them all the information they possessed upon the subject. This Bill came up to their Lordships' House more than four months ago, but until that afternoon when the Bill was put down for a second reading, he had not looked into the Acts of Parliament proposed to be repealed. The conviction he had arrived at was that the repeal of many of these enactments would be most impolitic and injurious. There was for example, nothing more reasonable than that persons publishing newspapers should give security that they
  8
  would not be guilty of private malice. He had declined to take charge of this Bill, because, as a general rule, he objected to the introduction of any measure which did not bear on its face an intimation of its object and effect. In certain cases, that might perhaps be dispensed with, as in a Bill to repeal all the statutes which were consolidated in a general Act, or a vast mass of practically obsolete enactments. But in the attempt to make legislation simple—a very desirable object in itself—they must take care they did not expose themselves to the old charge—Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. Except to any one who took the trouble to refer to the statute-book, the present measure was quite unintelligible.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEhoped that, if the second reading was agreed to the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, so as to make its provisions clearer than they were at present.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREconsidered that if the Bill was altered in Committee they would have to recite all the provisions that were repealed, and that would involve not only the alteration of the entire Bill, but its title also. Under the circumstances he thought it would be better to withdraw the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no doubt the noble Lord who had moved the second reading would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but he hoped he would not withdraw it. It was of great importance that a number of these enactments should be repealed, and as the House of Commons had twice sent up a Bill with that object, it would scarcely be respectful to that House to dismiss the present Bill in a summary manner. When only a single clause was to he repealed it might be very well to recite it in the preamble, but there would be a great deal of difficulty and inconvenience in doing so where whole Acts were concerned.
  LORD WYNFORDobserved that as there was no urgent necessity for the Bill it had better be withdrawn in order to be amended.
  EARL GRANVILLEconsidered that while it would be hard to insist on a withdrawal of the Bill, it would not be expedient to accumulate Committees. Now that they had heard the objections, some in substance and others in form, probably the most satisfactory course would be to read the Bill a second time, and perhaps

  9
  with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack the Bill might be rendered useful.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was the first person requested to take charge of the Bill in their Lordships' House. On examination, however, he found that it gave no information as to the nature of the Acts to be repealed, and he, therefore, declined to adopt it. He was not disposed to oppose the second reading, but hoped the noble Lord would afterwards omit those provisions to which objection had been taken.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that as the short title of the Bill was only "Newspapers, &c," all that could be left, if they struck out the clauses relating to newspapers, would be "&c, Bill." If the noble Lord thought he could make anything of the Bill under the circumstances, it might be read a second time and committed pro formâ.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, it appeared that the Bill had gone from one noble Lord to another before any one could be got to take charge of it. He had himself referred to the statute-book to ascertain what were the enactments to be repealed, and he was of opinion that it would be imprudent to repeal some of those which were of a penal character. He thought the noble Lord had better withdraw the Bill, and introduce it in an amended form next Session.
  LORD STRATHEDENsaid, it was impossible for him consistently with the usages of Parliament, or the duty he owed to the measure, to withdraw the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, which would not preclude its reference to a Select Committee, or its ultimate rejection. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had stated, with greater confidence than accuracy, that this Bill had passed the other House with no consideration, and he was justified in opposing a respectful contradiction to this by referring the noble Lord to the Debates of 1859. In that Session the measure was fully discussed, and a distinct understanding was arrived at, and one of the assenting parties was the Solicitor General. It was incorrect, then, to say that in the other House of Parliament this Bill had received no consideration, and under the circumstances, he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time upon the understanding that by so doing they should not be committed to any particular provisions in it,
  10
  leaving the details to be considered in Committee.
  LORD CHELMSFORDhad hoped his noble Friend would have given a pledge that he would alter the Bill in Committee as he had suggested; but as he declined to do so he had no alternative but to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day month.
  Amendment moved. To leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Month.")
  On question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 36: Majority 26.
  Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a on this day month.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Llanover, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  De Grey, E.

  Granville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Stratheden, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Melville, V.

  Airlie, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Churchill, L.

  Churston, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Foley, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Portman, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Wodehouse, L.

  Wynford, L.

  MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he thought certain alterations were necessary in Clause 2. The principal object of the Bill was to afford protection and security to persons employed in mines, and it enacted that children under twelve years of age were not to be employed in mines;

  11
  but, then, certain exceptions were made in the case of children between ten and twelve years of age, who have certificates as to education and school attendance; and a proviso was added by which it was endeavoured to secure the continuance of the education by the employers of this infant labour; but care must be taken that these enactments did not defeat their own object. The education test applied only to children employed in mines and collieries, and as they worked only at unskilled labour, it might be fairly argued that the education test should be applied to children employed in skilled labour. The parents also were not debarred from sending their children to other kinds of unskilled labour, and therefore they would in preference send them to those kinds of labour in reference to which there was no education test. This difficulty was felt in the other House of Parliament, and Mr. Adderley brought in a Bill extending this principle of the education test to all kinds of labour; but that Bill was rejected on the Motion for the second reading by a large majority. He did not object to the educational test being applied in reference to mines, but he thought that the application of that test in the way proposed in this clause would be productive of inconvenience. He should therefore move the omission of certain words from the second part of the clause.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it was clearly desirable that children under twelve years of age should receive a certain amount of education, and that in order to make it effective it must be continuous. To secure that, it was necessary that the clause should be compulsory. He was, however, willing to modify the clause, if by so doing he could render it more practicable.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYacquiesced in the principle that they should insist upon the test that young people employed in mines should attain a certain amount of education; but he would propose that the children so employed should receive a certificate of their having made certain acquisitions in elementary knowledge, or else that they should continue to receive instruction during the time they were employed.
  Clause amended and agreed to. Further Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.
  House adjourned, at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.