Lords Sitting of 21 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Railways Clauses * (No. 238); Waterworks Clauses * (No. 239); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (No. 240); Expiring Laws Continuance * (No. 241); Petty Sessions (Ireland) * (No: 242); Poisoned Grain, &c. * (No. 243); Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange * (No. 244).
Second Reading—Charitable Uses * (No. 152); Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance * (No. 231); Companies Clauses * (No. 232); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (No. 233); Exhibition Medals [H.L.]*(No. 234).
Committee—Navy Prize Agents (Nos. 210 & 235); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * (No. 225); Public Works and Fisheries Acts Amendment * (No. 201).
Report—Fisheries (Ireland) (No. 229 & 236); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) *; Public Works and Fisheries Acts Amendment *; Vaccination (Scotland) * (No. 230).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (No. 220); Misappropriation by Servants * (No. 227); Harwich Harbour * (No. 174); Howth Harbour * (No. 180); India Stock * (No. 223); Sydney Branch Mint * (No. 217); and severally passed.
Royal Assent—Poor Law Board Continuance [26 & 27 Vict., c. 55];
Loan Societies [26 & 27 Vict., c. 56];
Regimental Debts, &c. [26 & 27 Vict., c. 57];
Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Provisional Order) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 60];
Growing Crops Seizure (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 62];
Volunteers [26 & 27 Vict., c. 65];
Waywardens' Contracts [26 & 27 Vict., c. 61];
Prisons (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 66];
Greenwich Hospital (Provision for Widows) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 67];
Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension [26 & 27 Vict., c. 68];
Officers of Royal Naval Reserve [26 & 27 Vict., c. 69];
Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 70];
Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 63];
Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity [26 & 27 Vict., c. 58];
Ruthin Charities [26 & 27 Vict., c. 59];
Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 17].

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to an article in the Stockton and Hartlepool Mercury of the 15th of July, in which it was imputed to him that having had a relative—the Rev. Henry Crispin—interested in the West Hartlepool Dock and Railway Bill, he had improperly made use of his position as a Member of that House and Chairman of the Committee to obtain for his relative more favourable terms than he would otherwise have obtained. He indignantly repudiated that insinuation, and would ask if there had been anything in his conduct during the twelve years he had been in the House to warrant such a charge. As he thought their Lordships would feel inclined to protect those to whom they intrusted important functions in the consideration of Private Bills, he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the matter; but, for himself, he had no intention to proceed further in so trumpery an affair.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that the charge was altogether unwarranted, and that the part taken by the noble Earl in the case of this Bill was highly creditable to him. The noble Earl had detected
1142
very great irregularities in the proceedings of the Company, and had very properly brought them under the attention of the House. It was a matter for grave consideration whether charges of this sort involving a breach of the privileges of the House, should be passed over, and it would be for the House to consider whether it was not their duty to summon the printer of the article to appear at the bar. As, however, it was perfectly impossible that any one could attach the slightest importance to the charge which had been made, and after the observations of the noble Earl, it would probably not be thought necessary to take any formal action in the matter.
LORD REDESDALEstated, that the particular portion of the Bill referred to in the article in the newspaper was settled by him as Chairman of the Committees, long before the Bill went to the Committee, and he did not believe that it came before the noble Earl at all. He thought, however, that if there was any like hood that these attacks would become habitual, it would be necessary for the House to adopt measures accordingly.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had felt it his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; and having done so, he had no desire to press it further.
LORD REDESDALEthought the editor of the paper ought to be thankful to the noble Earl for his forbearance.

NAVY PRIZE AGENTS BILL—(No. 210.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that while he was not averse to the main propositions of the Bill, he thought that the provisions would require amendment by the Committee, He had prepared the amendments which were deemed desirable by the Admiralty. The noble Duke then moved the first of these.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that he must oppose the Amendments, because they would destroy the whole effect of the Bill. From 1814 to 1854 all prize proceedings were instituted by the agents of the captors.
  After a short conversation, which was inaudible,
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would not press the Amendments.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 235.)

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]

  (No. 215.) COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was anxious that some Bill on this subject should pass, and he would therefore accept the Amendments made by the Commons, although he hoped he objection would be raised to one or two modifications in them. As the Bill left their Lordships' House the penalties were recoverable before the Quarter Sessions, and except oh points of law there was no appeal. In the Commons an appeal to the superior courts was given; but as the expense was not to fall upon any private individual, there was no harm in that. The Judge of the County Court was substituted for the Court of Quarter Sessions. This was rather an anomaly, inasmuch as it was unusual to give jurisdiction of a criminal character to the County Courts, and a mode was adopted to obviate the objection—namely, by providing that the proceedings should be in the form of an action by the Inspector, and the penalty was to be deemed a debt. He preferred the County Court Judge to the Quarter Sessions, for the reason that his sittings were more frequent; and so far he would not press any objection against the Commons Amendments. But, as the Bill came back to their Lordships, no conviction could be obtained unless the Inspector or sub-Inspector watched the individual factory for four hours, and could state that during the whole of the time the condensation of the gas did not, at any moment, amount to 95 per cent. In nine cases out of ten a stream of gas proceeded from the works which was visible to the eye, traceable by the nose, and capable of being tasted by its effect upon the lips—any man who could see, smell, and taste could prove, as well as ten Inspectors, whether the proper amount of gas was condensed or not—but, if there were fifty or sixty people who could speak to an uninterrupted stream of gas during a whole day, the Inspector could not succeed in his proceedings against the owner of the works, because he had not himself personally observed it during the whole period of four hours. He should propose, therefore, to restore the Bill to its original shape, by omitting the words "derived from his own
  1144
  examination or that of the sub-Inspector." He should also propose to omit the words "in any one period of four hours," so as to leave the offence completed by non-condensation at any time. With regard to the proviso requiring the Inspector to deliver a written statement of the grounds upon which he formed his opinion, he suggested that it was unnecessary, as the Inspector must product evidence sufficient to substantiate the charge.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that the evidence of the Inspector or sub-Inspector was the only evidence on which a conviction could be based. To the noble Earl's Amendment in the latter part of the clause he had no objection, but he could not consent to the third Amendment.
  Commons' Amendment by the insertion of the words "in any one period of four hours" disagreed to; the other Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to disagree to Clause A (Owner to be liable for Offences in the first instance), added by the Commons.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERDEYsaid, the clause followed the analogy of the Factory Act, which exempted masters under similar circumstances.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwas surprised to hear of the existence of such a clause in the Factory Act, for it was a plain violation of the principle of law, that a master was civilly liable for the acts of his servants.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, it was so; and he had noticed in the Reports of the Factory Inspectors complaints of a disposition among masters to throw the onus of infractions of the laws on their servants.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 24: Majority 23.
  Clause disagreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Saint Albans, D.

  De Vesci, V.

  Sutherland, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

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

  Normanby, M.

  Lifford, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Cardigan, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Derby, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Desart, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Devon, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Denman, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Romney, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Wilton, E.

  1145

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Llanover, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Taunton, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford)

  Overstone, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wodehouse, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aveland, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Somerset, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Crewe, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Cottenham, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  De Grey, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Seymour, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Abercromby, L.

  The other Amendments agreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the above Amendment: The Committee to meet on Thursday next: at a Quarter before Five o'Clock.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 229.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD WENSLEYDALE LORD WENSLEYDALE moved to insert the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, that this Act or anything herein contained shall not take away, affect, or prejudice any Right, Title, or Interest which is now possessed, enjoyed, or exercised under or by virtue of the Declarations or Enactments made and contained by and in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Sections respectively of the Act of the Fifth and Six Years of Her present Majesty, intituled 'An Act to regulate the Irish Fisheries,' anything herein-before contained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, this proposition was practically a repetition of what had been moved and decided before, and he could not, therefore, give his assent to it.
  LORD CRANWORTHsupported the Motion, believing it to be in accordance with every principle of right and justice. Was it not better to wait till next Session, and pass a proper Bill, than hurriedly to sanction a measure which everybody admitted to be full of gross injustice?
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, that it was with very great reluctance that he felt compelled to support an Amendment which was opposed by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley); but having been a party to the Act of 1842, which established rights which it was now proposed to destroy, he felt that he could not as an honest man refuse to listen to an appeal for the protection of those rights. The Bill of 1842 was introduced by the Government, it was referred to a Select Committee, and it was after full consideration that the Bill passed. That Bill recognized rights which parties had been since dealing with, and yet now it was proposed to confiscate them. Surely, this should not be done without giving compensation for the injury inflicted, for no such principle had ever before been recognized. He was of opinion that it was necessary that all obstructions to the full development of the salmon fisheries should be removed, but in doing so they should pay due regard to all existing rights and interests. He should certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDlooked more to the general spirit of legislation than to any particular measure. The Act of 1842 was not like a law of the Medes and Persians, which could not be modified for the benefit of the community.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOW, though he regretted that a Bill which would be so useful should be endangered by the Amendment being adopted, said that still he could not support the principle that rights should be taken away without any compensation being afforded. The adoption of such a principle would be thought unfair to the character of their Lordships' House, which the public had hitherto looked up to as a place where justice was sure to be done. He regretted, that owing to the late period of the Session at which the Bill had come up to their Lordships, there was no opportunity of hearing the parties who would be affected by the Bill; but it was clear that rights which had been created by Act of Parliament were now about to be destroyed; and therefore even although he should endanger the passing of the Bill, he should support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYadmitted that some private rights would be interfered with by this Bill; but, at the same time, the rights of all parties were likely to be

  1147
  materially increased in value by the improvement of the fisheries, and therefore there was no ground for asking for compensation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he desired to remind the House that by the Bill all rights existing in 1862 were preserved.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that they were dealing with property worth £300,000 a year; and he was told that one-third of that property would be annihilated by the Bill in its present shape. Although the measure was for the public good, and although some fisheries would be much improved by it, still that was no reason why they should take away the rights of individuals without awarding compensation.
  EARL GRANVILLEadmitted, that considerable hardship might be occasioned in individual cases; but he reminded their Lordships that yesterday he had voted in favour of a clause which gave compensation for all injuries sustained, which, however, their Lordships by a majority rejected. The question of compensation was not raised in the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, and he thought the adoption of that proposal would destroy the principle of the Bill.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 49; Majority 32.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Bath, M.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Normanby, M.

  Cranworth, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Derby, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]

  Bangor, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Granville, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Orkney, E.

  Romney, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Cottenham, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  De Grey, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Desart, E.

  Devon, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Effingham, E.

  1148

  Abercromby, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Overstone, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough, [Teller.]

  Camoys, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Seymour, L.

  Clarina, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Egerton, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Llanover, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Wynford, L.

  Further Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREgave notice that on Thursday next he should move that Clause 20 be struck out.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYtrusted that the noble Lord would acquiesce in the decision at which the House had already arrived.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREregretted that he could not do so.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYprotested against the unfairness of repeating these fights when the House was daily becoming thinner and thinner. Did Irish Members, he asked, know what they had done? They had actually prevented themselves from catching salmon more than a third of the year.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 236.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.