Lords Sitting of 30 July 1861

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Right honourable John Russell, commonly called Lord John Russell, having been created Earl Russell of Kingston Russell—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aNewspapers, &c.
2a Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Larceny, &c.; Malicious injuries to Property; Forgery; Coinage Offences; Offences against the Person; Public Works and Har-

1779
bours; Lord Clerk Register Salary Abolition; Durham University; Trustees (Scotland); Conjugal Rights (Scotland); Metropolitan Building Act Amendment; Drainage of Land; Public Offices Site; Pensions, British Forces (India); Windsor Suspended Canonries; Public Works (Ireland); Edinburgh University; Inland Revenue; Stamp Duties on Probates, &c.; Revenue Departments Accounts.
3a Salmon Fisheries; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Ordnance Survey Continuance; Dealers in Old Metals; Parochial and Burgh Schools (Scotland); County Voters (Scotland); Probates and Letters of Administration Act (Ireland) Amendment.

EAST INDIA IRRIGATION AND CANAL COMPANY.

  PETITION. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from the Cotton Supply Association, praying for the Parliamentary Encouragement of the East India Irrigation and Canal Company; and asked, Whether the Governor General of India had been informed that the settlement and execution of a contract between the Government and the East India Irrigation and Canal Company had been left entirely and without reserve in his hands, and that the Secretary of State was prepared to sanction any arrangement the Governor General might consider fair and equitable?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: Sir Charles Wood is ready to sanction any arrangements which the Government of India, after mature deliberation, may consider fair and equitable.

ACCESSORIES AND ABETTORS BILL.
  THE CRIMINAL LAW BILLS.

    SECOND HEADING.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Accessories and Abettors Bill be read a second time said, he should now proceed, according to his promise, to explain to their Lordships the alterations which had been made by the Commons in this and the other Bills for the Consolidation of the Criminal Law; for although these Bills had been brought up to their Lordships from the other House, they might be said to have in fact originated in their Lordships' House; because, as their Lordships were aware, after much time had been spent in deliberation as to the best mode of consolidating the criminal law, certain well-considered Bills were brought to their Lordships' House in the course of last Session, where they received
    1780
    a large share of attention and careful deliberation, and were sent down to the other House; but from the late period of the Session at which they arrived there it was found impossible to proceed with them last year. They, therefore, stood over to the present Session, when they were, in the exact form in which they left their Lordships' House, re-introduced to the House of Commons. They were there referred to a Select Committee, where they were carefully and deliberately considered, and certain alterations were made in them; so that, in point of fact, these Bills might be considered to have come back to the House in which they originated with the Amendments of the House of Commons. The most important of these Bills was that which related to Offences against the Person, and with regard to that Bill he thought the most material alterations were those which related to the punishments to be inflicted. Great mitigations had been made in the punishments attached to various offences as they stood in the Bill when it left their Lordships' House. The first section of the Bill as it left their Lordships had been struck out in the Commons, but its substance was re-introduced into the 9th Section, so that, in point of fact, no alteration was thereby made in the Bill. The first material alteration made in the Bill was in the punishment of the offence for conspiracy to murder. In Ireland conspiracy to murder had long been punishable by law as a capital offence. By the Bill as it left this House it was also declared to be felony; but in the House of Commons, by the 4th Section of the Bill now on their Lordships' table, the offence of conspiring or soliciting to commit murder, whether within or without the Queen's dominions, was made a misdemeanour, punishable with penal servitude for a period not exceeding ten nor less than three years; or by imprisonment for a term of one year, with or without hard-labour. There were also considerable alterations in the punishments awarded to attempts to commit murder by administering poison or causing grievous bodily harm, which were made punishable by penal servitude for life or imprisonment for a period of not less than two years, with or without solitary confinement. Here there was, no doubt, a great latitude allowed to the discretion of the Judges. There were other alterations in the punishments of minor consequence, but which he might state were generally on the side of

    1781
    mitigation. Passing from offences against the person to offences against property, he came to the Larceny Bill, the most important alterations in which related to the punishment to be inflicted after repeated conviction, the power to award the restitution of stolen property even where the jury did not convict, which was struck out by the House of Commons, and also the power for persons other than the police to apprehend persons suspected of being in possession of stolen property, which also the Commons had struck out; while a provision had been inserted that where a person was indicted for a subsequent offence he should not be arraigned on the former conviction till he had been found guilty of the subsequent offence. In the very important Bill dealing with malicious injuries to property and their punishment, that had been altered in some respects in the way of mitigation; and penal servitude for life j had been reduced to penal servitude for eight years. In other respects the alterations made in the Bill were not important, and rather affected the words than the meaning. Very slight changes had been made in the Bill relating to forgery, and no material alterations in the Accessories and Abettors Bill. In the general Bill for the repeal of the antecedent law, where it was at variance with the present enactment, no alteration whatever had been made beyond bringing the repeal down to the present time. It might, therefore, be said that, with the exception of the two changes to which he had specially called attention, none of the Amendments introduced by the Commons were of an important character. He trusted their Lordships would, therefore, not object to read the Bills a second time. The noble and learned Lord then formally moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
    LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his gratification that these Bills were likely now to become the law of the land. Those who sat upon the Select Committee to which these Bills were referred would know that very great care and attention had been bestowed upon them, and he agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they had not undergone material alteration in the House of Commons. Since the 99-100th of the provisions they contained had been agreed to by the other House, he hoped their Lordships would deem it in accordance with practical wisdom not to raise any objection to the few Amendments that had
    1782
    been made. With regard to the increase of punishment for certain offences and the diminution in other cases, he trusted their Lordships would not raise much discussion. Whether conspiracy to murder should be called a felony or a misdemeanour appeared to be of little importance if there was power to award a punishment of ten years' penal servitude for the offence.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHinquired how far these Bills would extend to Scotland?
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that none of the provisions of the Bills applied to Scotland. The proviso that nothing in these Acts contained should apply to Scotland except when expressly provided was inserted in order to prevent doubt.
    LORD CHELMSFORDthought there was good reason to complain of these Bills being brought forward at so late a period of the Session. The first of these Bills came up to the Lords on the 18th of June, the last of them—that relating to offences against the person—on the 15th of July; yet here they were, on the 30th of July, on the second reading. Considering the punishment provided for the offence of conspiracy to murder he thought it of little consequence whether it was designated a felony or a misdemeanour, though he should prefer characterizing it as a felony. The power to apprehend persons who were suspected to be in possession of stolen property had been expunged by the Commons, and this was a serious alteration. Most of the alterations were so trifling that they might be accepted as matters of course; but there wore others of a somewhat important character, to which it was impossible at that period of the Session to give duo consideration. As it was the House had no alternative but to pass the Bills as they had come up to them.
    LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, the consolidation of the law was undertaken six years ago, and the understanding was that no alteration should be made in that law, the consolidation consisting of the classification of existing offences.
    LORD REDESDALEthought there was a great deal of inconvenience in taking it for granted that Bills were all right which next year they might be called upon to amend. There were some of these Bills in which there was. no material alteration from the form in which they were agreed to by their Lordships last year,

    1783
    but there were others which did not come within that category, and he thought it better that they should be deferred to a future Session. He objected to the provision contained in the Bill which deprived the police of power to arrest persons who were in possession of goods supposed to be stolen.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the power of the police in this respect stood exactly as it did before this Bill was introduced. All that had been done in the House of Commons was to strike out a provision introduced by their Lordships conferring a similar power upon persons not police officers. He regretted that these Bills had not come up to this House earlier in the Session, but the delay had been entirely unavoidable.
    LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that the alterations in the punishments carried the Bills beyond the recommendations of the Committee, who proposed that the actual law should be consolidated.
    EARL GRANVILLEexpressed his satisfaction at hearing the noble and learned Lord opposite say that he should have been willing to make conspiracy for murder a felony.
    Motion agreed to.
    Accessories and Abettors Bill; Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill; Larceny, &c. Bill; Malicious Injuries to Property Bill; Forgery Bill; Coinage Offences Bill; Offences against the Person Bill; were severally read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to introduce into the law of Scotland three distinct things. The first was to give to Scotland the advantages of certain provisions of the Matrimonial Act of 1857, which enabled a magistrate to grant an order protecting the earnings and property of a deserted wife against a profligate husband. The second was to extend to Scotland the improved process of obtaining a judicial separation, or what was usually called in law sentences of divorce a mensd et thoro. A third provision of the Bill was to provide a remedy similar to that which was called in England a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. There was a power reserved to the Lord Advocate of intervening in cases
  1784
  of collusion or imperfect evidence similar to that which had been given to the Attorney General in England. Another portion of the Bill introduced into the Scotch law the principle known in England as the wife's equity, by which a woman upon whom no settlement had been made at the time of her marriage could require a provision to be made for her out of property subsequently accruing to her.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 2 (Construction of Section 57 of 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76),
LORD WENSLEYDALEmoved the omission of the clause.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that provision was intended to establish beyond all doubt what had hitherto been the general rule.
LORD CHELMSEORDcondemned the clause. It might, perhaps, work very well in large towns where the mayor was generally a person of station, but would be productive of mischief in little places where the office was often filled by a small tradesman.
LORD BELPERsupported the clause.
LORD WYNFORDsaid, the Lord Mayor of London did not preside simply because he was Lord Mayor, but because he had been for three years an Alderman, and had had experience in the discharge of duties pertaining to the office. He hoped their Lordships would pause before they allowed the mayors generally to supersede justices created by the Crown and approved by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD CRANWORTHwas convinced that the course proposed by the Bill was the correct one. It appeared certain that it had been the usage for the mayors to preside. The decision of the Queen's Bench was conclusive that they did not preside by right; but they could not alter the usage without casting a slur upon the mayors throughout the kingdom, and he considered nothing more socially important than to keep up the character of those who occupied that position. If the mayor of a town thought that another person might be voted to preside he would probably not attend the meetings at all, and that would

1785
not be desirable. They would do well, in his opinion, to assent to the Bill, which only kept matters in the state in which they were.
LORD DENMANsaid, he should vote with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wensleydale).
On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 25: Majority 1.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Boroughs having a separate Commission of the Peace to be deemed Towns Corporate for the Purposes of the Alehouse Licensing Act),
LORD WENSLEYDALEmoved the omission of this clause.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to create an unreasonable distinction between towns which had Quarter Sessions and those which had not, and he should therefore oppose it.
After a few words from Lord CHELMSFORD
On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 23: Majority 3.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

DRAINAGE OF LAND BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it had only yesterday come up from the other House. It contained about 80 clauses, and it would, therefore, be necessary that their Lordships should adopt its provisions, confiding very much in the attention which had been already bestowed upon them by those interested in this subject, or that a very useful measure should be postponed until the next Session of Parliament. The measure was one which had been suggested and urged upon the Government by the country gentlemen.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was to be regretted that a Bill of so much importance had been brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session. He admitted, however, that its objects were in themselves extremely desirable, and if no serious objection should be made
  1786
  to the clauses there was no reason why it should not become law this Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHdid not wish to delay the passing of the Bill, but every clause would require careful consideration in Committee.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven
  o'clock, to Thursday next,
  Twelve o'clock.