Lords Sitting of 11 February 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Statute Law Revision
2a Indictable Offences (Metropolitan Districts).

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED— FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill having for its object clearing the statute-book of a mass of useless matter, which, he said, was a preliminary stage in the grand work of the consolidation of the statute law. It was not possible to make much progress in that important undertaking without knowing exactly what the statute law was. The Statutes at Large now occupied more than forty most ponderous quarto volumes. In most countries laws that were obsolete, or had gone out of use were considered as repealed, and ceased altogether to be binding; but in this country an Act of Parliament remained in force until it was expressly repealed. Many of these quarto volumes consisted for the greater part of Acts of Parliament now no longer in force, some of which had been repealed by implication, and some had become obsolete by disuse. The object of this Bill was expressly to repeal those Acts which might be considered to be now no longer in force, so that there might be an expurgated edition of the statute-book. We had fallen into a most vicious system in legislation of introducing into Acts of Parliament a provision repealing so much of any former Act as might be inconsistent with the present Act, and there was no editor who would like to take on himself the responsibility of publishing an edition of the statutes which would con-
  268
  tain only just those portions which were actually in force. This Bill had been very carefully drawn by Messrs. Reilly and Wood It had been circulated during the recess to all the public offices, and they were asked whether any of the Acts proposed to be repealed were still in force or were of any utility, and the answers received from them in reply showed that it would require very slight amendment. The result of the repeals proposed by the Bill, if they were agreed to, would be that the statute-book would be reduced to one-fourth of its present bulk. The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill for repealing divers Acts and parts of Acts, which have ceased to be in force.
  Bill read la.

SALMON FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, it would be remembered that last Session a Select Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire whether, having regard to the rights of property of the Crown and individuals, it was expedient that any legislation should take place for the regulation of salmon fishing on the sea-coasts and rivers and estuaries in Scotland. That Committee sat for sixteen days, and, after hearing evidence, expressed the opinion, "That, with a view to the improvement of the Salmon Fisheries in Scotland, all cruives and fixed engines of whatever kind, both in the rivers and in the seas, should be abolished, and, at all events, no new fixed engines of any description should be permitted to be erected;" but, fearing that it would not be practicable to carry out so comprehensive a mea-sure, they unanimously agreed upon a more moderate Report, and concluded by recommending "that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the next Session of Parliament in conformity with their Report." He wished to ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill into Parliament this Session founded upon the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon Salmon Fisheries in Scotland? The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the English salmon fisheries had, he believed, made their Report, and, if so, he would also ask the noble Duke whether that Report would be laid before the House.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to

  269
  introduce a Bill on the subject of Salmon Fishing in Scotland, and the Bill would mainly be founded on the Report of the Committee. The clauses of the measure were now under consideration. He could not say that they would entirely carry out the views of the Committee, but the leading provisions were founded on the Report. When the Bill would be introduced he could not exactly state, but at all events it would be brought forward in time to allow of its discussion in both Houses of Parliament. With regard to the second Question asked by the noble Lord, he was unable at this moment to answer it, but would do so on a future day.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS IN SPAIN.—THE PROTESTANT ALLIANCE.

  PAPER MOVED FOR.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYrose, in pursuance of notice, to move for a copy of a Memorial from the Protestant Alliance, presented to Lord John Russell, on the subject of the alleged religious persecutions in Spain. The noble Marquess said, that when he gave notice of his intention to move for the copy of the memorial he mentioned to his noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse) that he would, at the same time, ask whether Her Majesty's Government assented to doctrines which were stated as facts in that document. The memorial, after setting forth certain alleged cases of persecution, went on to say that in the instance of another individual, a man much respected, he had been punished "solely for being a Christian, and for quitting the Church of Rome." Now, any person reading these words would perceive that they would be interpreted by Roman Catholics as implying that, in the opinion of the memorialists, a Roman Catholic was not a Christian, and that the words were calculated to give offence to a proud and high-spirited people such as those of Spain. He understood that his noble Friend was inclined to give another interpretation to these words. If so, and if the memorialists did not intend to convey the meaning which he (the Marquess of Normanby) had cited, he could only express his regret that they should have expressed themselves in such a manner as to be liable to misconstruction, and that they should, as they too often did, use language which was calculated to defeat rather than promote the objects which they had in view. Had the memorialists stated that the individual's
  270
  sole offence was quitting the Church of Rome, he could understand that that might not be objectionable; but to say that he was punished "for being a Christian, and for quitting the Church of Rome," seemed to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the memorialists were of opinion that members of the Church of Rome were not Christians. As the words stood their plain meaning was that the man had being punished for being a Christian, and the intervention of the Foreign Secretary was asked for on this ground. Then the memorialists went on to express their fear lest persecution should extend to other towns, and they said that many Christians in Malaga were much alarmed. The phrase "many Christians in Malaga" seemed to point to the time when there were Moors as well as Christians there, else the conclusion to be drawn from the whole memorial was, that the members of the Romish Church were not Christians. Such a construction had been put upon these words, and he was sure that if this memorial were put into the hands of our Minister at Madrid, and it were shown to the Spanish Government, they would regard it as insulting. An injudicious use of expressions such as these was not likely to advance the objects which the society had in view, and abroad was calculated to produce a most unfavourable impression. The noble Marquess then moved an Address for
  "Copy of Memorial from the Protestant Alliance Society presented to Lord John Russell on the subject of Alleged Religious Persecutions in Spain."
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had no objection to produce a copy of the memorial; but really he was at a loss to know how the intentions of the memorialists could be misapprehended. What led to their adoption of this particular form of words he could not, of course, say; but, no doubt, they meant that the person who had been imprisoned wa3 a good Christian, and was only punished because he had embraced Protestant principles. At all events, I the Foreign Secretary was not to be held responsible for particular expressions contained in any such document. He would leave the interpretation to the noble Earl I (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who had signed I it, and who was present.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that as his name was appended to the memorial he might, perhaps, be permitted to I make one or two remarks. He could assure the noble Marquess that it was not

  271
  the intention of himself or of any of the memorialists to convey the notion that Roman Catholics were not Christians. By the laws of Spain no religion was tolerated but the Roman Catholic; and what the memorialists meant to convey was this, that although a person left the Church of Rome, he did not by any means lose his Christian character. If this were so, the man was persecuted for being a Christian who had left the Church of Rome. He thought the grievance of the noble Marquess—if it were one—was not worth occupying their Lordships' time.
  THE MABQUESS OF NORMANBYremarked that, if the memorialists had meant what the noble Earl now stated, it was a pity that they did not express themselves more clearly. He could not see the use of some of the words employed unless they had a meaning. They said that a man was punished "for being a Christian, and quitting the Church of Rome." If they meant merely to state that the man was punished "for quitting the Church of Rome," why did they not state so simply? Did not, he asked, the words "for being a Christian" mean something? He was satisfied when his noble Friend declared that it was not the intention of the memorialists to assert that the Church of Rome was not Christian; but he regretted that they had thought it proper to use words which, he was quite sure, would he interpreted by many as he himself had understood them. Supposing the Foreign Minister here was about to act upon the representations made to him, it was surely as well that he, too, should see that the memorial was not worded in an offensive manner to the Foreign Government whose conduct as to their own subjects was called in question.
  Address agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.