Lords Sitting of 6 March 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Register of Voters (No. 34); Union Relief Aid Act (1862) Continuance (No. 35).
Second Reading — Illegitimate Children (Ireland) (No. 17); Poor Relief (Ireland) Act Amendment (No. 12), referred to a Select Committee; List of the Committee.
Select Committees—Drainage of Land (Ireland) Bill, Report (No. 32); Illegitimate Children (Ireland) (No. 17).
Report—Drainage of Land (Ireland) (No. 33).

DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL (No. 18.)
Report from Select Committee made, and to be printed (No. 32): Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 33.)
REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL—(No. 34.)
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTINUANCE BILL—(No. 35.)
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 17.)—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated that its object was to enable Boards of Guardians to recover costs of maintenance of illegitimate children in Ireland in certain cases. It was an amendment of the
1122
Law passed at the end of last Session upon the construction of which doubts had arisen and conflicting decisions had been given. The process against the putative father was to be by civil bill, to be heard before the Chairman at quarter sessions.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he objected to the measure, as did many Irish Members of the House of Commons whose opinions were entitled to the highest consideration. No doubt these cases imposed a very unpleasant duty on the magistrates; but in his opinion they were far more competent to deal with them than an assistant barrister from Dublin, who could not understand the character of the people or weigh the value of the corroborative evidence. He objected also to the hardship it would inflict on the woman who had to make application under it. The existing law had acted well in Ireland, and he trusted their Lordships would not assent to this unnecessary alteration. He would move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that although the Bill had been introduced by the Government, he should not be induced to support the Amendment on that account. It would require some ingenuity to convert a question as to Irish illegitimate children into a party question; his only object was that their legislation should be satisfactory and adapted to the occasion that called for interference. The object of the Bill, as he understood, was to repeal the 10th section of the Irish Poor Law Act, and to substitute other provisions instead of it. He thought, however, that the necessity for the Bill had arisen in consequence of an erroneous construction which had been put upon the Poor Law Act by the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland. The Bill was, in truth, a declaratory Bill, to make law the erroneous opinion of the law advisers of the Crown. The 10th section provided, that oath having been made before any two justices by the mother of any illegitimate child, and that the same should have been supported by corroborative evidence, it should be lawful for the guardians to proceed by civil bill before the barrister at quarter sessions to recover from the putative father the cost of maintaining the child and the costs of the proceedings. He understood that, in consequence of the opinion of the Law Officers, a circular had

1123
been addressed to the magistrates, which stated that their duty was simply to receive the sworn information of the mother, and thereupon to return that information to quarter sessions, where corroborative evidence was to be heard. He did not think that this was the correct construction of the statute. He also thought that the course pointed out would lead to great hardships, and money would be extorted under threat of swearing such information. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) who had moved the Amendment to the second reading had himself brought in a measure by which he proposed to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of this country except in this, that proceedings were to be taken by the guardians instead of by the woman; and it was also provided that the money should be recovered by summary process instead of by civil bill. He (Lord Chelmsford) suggested that this Bill should be read a second time, and then that it and the measure of the noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) should both Lo referred to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEagreed that some legislation was absolutely necessary, but the subject certainly required a great deal of consideration.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the real question was whether the court of quarter sessions or of potty sessions was the proper tribunal for deciding questions of bastardy. The provision of this measure was in accordance with the recommendation of the Irish Poor Law Commission. He could not have acceded to the Motion of his noble Friend (Viscount Lifford), who wished to postpone the second reading of this Bill; but he thought his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) made a very fair proposal in wishing to refer this particular question to a Select Committee.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it was the intention of the Legislature, when passing the Bill of last Session, that the jurisdiction should be vested in the assistant barrister at quarter sessions, and the tenth section embodied the recommendation of the Irish Committee, ipsis-simis verbis, The doubts which had arisen on the subject were in consequence of words which had been introduced in their Lordships' House without any intention of departing from the principle recommended by the Committee on the Irish Poor Law which sat in 1861. There was this strong objection to making the magistrates at petty sessions decide
1124
bastardy questions, that the board of guardians were to take the initiative; and as the magistrates were ex-officio guardians, they would be plaintiffs quâ guardians, and judges quâ justices at petty sessions. In addition to such a serious objection, it was to be remembered that the assistant barristers were gentlemen learned in the law; while the magistrates at petty sessions were not, as a general rule, learned in the law. With respect to the proposition to refer the question to a Select Committee, he was in the hands of the House; but after what he had stated, perhaps their Lordships would be of opinion that such a course was unnecessary. His own objection to it was that it would cause delay in the passing of a Bill to render the law certain on the point of jurisdiction.
VISCOUNT LIFFORD,in reply, said, that this Bill was accepted only as an alternative for the English system.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should earnestly press upon the noble Duke that he should accede to the proposition; and he begged to state to their Lordships his conviction, that while the construction which had been put upon the existing Act, was, he believed, quite erroneous, yet that the measure involved questions very different from mere questions of tribunal. It had been held — quite erroneously, as he thought—that it was the duty of the guardians who made the preliminary inquiry to consider the question who was the putative father in these cases. But that would be instituting an inquiry behind a man's back. All that was required at the preliminary inquiry was, that the mother's oath should be supported by corroborative evidence. Unfortunately, that was not the view which had been taken by the law advisers of the Crown in Ireland, and hence the necessity for the present measure.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend had no wish to oppose what seemed to be the general wish of the House, and would therefore accede to the Motion for a Select Committee, on the understanding that there would be no unreasonable delay in proceeding with the Bill.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that with that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT AMEND MENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 12.)
On Motion of Viscount LIFFORD, Bill read 2a, and referred to the same Select Committee; and on Monday next the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Ld. Chancellor

L. Ponsonby

D. Marlborough

L. Somerhill

D. Newcastle

L. Stanley of Alderley

Ld. Steward

L. Monteagle of Brandon

V. Lifford

V. Hawarden

L. Chelmsford

L. Boyle

COURTS OF LAW (IRELAND)—JUDICIAL STATISTICS.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE rose to call the attention of the Government to several instances of inconveniences arising from the insufficient time allotted to the Irish Judges to complete the business of certain Circuits, and hoped that some steps would be taken to remedy an evil which caused much expense and delay to suitors in Ireland. He also wished to know, Whether the noble Earl the President of the Council could give any assurance when the Judicial Statistics for Ireland, promised in 1861, will be laid upon the table of the House? He doubted whether these statistics would be laid upon the table in sufficient time to be of any use this Session, as he believed that no steps had been yet taken to collect the civil statistics of the past year. The noble Marquess concluded by moving an Address for a series of tabular Returns relating to Judicial Business in Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was no objection to grant the Returns moved for, although they would take some time to prepare. With regard to the first point referred to by the noble Marquess, he was not aware of any inconveniences such as those alluded to; but if any such did exist, he was sure the Irish Judges would direct their attention to them, and take measures to prevent them in future. He had not received the Judicial Statistics that had been ordered, but understood that they were in course of preparation.
  Motion agreed to.

THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKErose to ask the Postmaster General, Whether, in
  1126
  connection with the proposed Restoration of the "Galway Subsidy," it is intended to make any Alteration as to the Port of Departure or Destination of the Vessels of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company, carrying Her Majesty's Mails to America; and whether any Arrangement having such an Object in view is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, or has been proposed by the Company in question? The noble Earl said, that though this matter had been designated by the Members of the present Government "a notorious job," it appeared that they were about to renew it. Under such circumstances it was not unnatural that he should put the Question of which he had given notice. It was understood that the subsidy was originally given upon the distinct understanding that there should be a mail packet communication between America and some port on the west or south of Ireland, with the object of conferring a benefit upon Ireland; and if it were now to be renewed, he hoped it would be on the ground of its being of advantage to Ireland. The Treasury Minute of the 3rd of January, 1863, was something to the same effect, giving, however, liberty to the Directors to state their views upon the matter. He believed that the Company since its first formation had undergone some changes, or had been formed afresh; indeed, he heard that it was not now the same Company that it was originally. From rumours which were spread abroad it appeared it was now contemplated to change the port of departure from Galway to some other port in Ireland or England; and Liverpool was freely spoken of as the place from which the vessels were to start in future. Much jealousy, in consequence of this report, had been created in the minds of other Transatlantic companies. And it was the knowledge of such a feeling existing that induced him to put this Question. He saw in a letter of Mr. Inman, of Liverpool, the owner of some vessels, and he believed the head of a steam-packet company, a statement to the effect that the writer had reason to know that the American mail was no longer to start from the port of Galway, but from Liverpool or some other English port. Mr. Inman said that the ground on which the subsidy had been originally granted was the benefit that would result to the port of Galway, and to Irish commerce generally; but it was obvious, that if Liverpool was to be the port of departure, the port of Gal-

  1127
  way would not be benefited, while the unsubsidized lines would be injuriously affected. He hoped that the noble Lord would give some explanation on the subject.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that no communication had been made to the Company alluded to, on the part of the Government, further than that they were ready to listen to any proposition they could make in reference to the renewal of the contract. No communication whatever had been made to the Government by the Company in respect to any alteration of the port from which their vessels were to start. At the same time he might mention that the Government had laid down certain necessary conditions preliminary to their entertaining the question at all— namely, that the Company should be able to show that they had a sufficient number of vessels properly qualified for the service, which must be surveyed by the Admiralty, who must report to the Treasury and the Post Office that the vessels were adequate and competent for the service. As those reports had not as yet been received, the Government were not in a position to take any active steps in the matter.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Then am I to understand from the noble Lord that those vessels are not to start with the American mails from an English but from an Irish port?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: No application of the kind alluded to has been made to the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas sorry to hear from his noble Friend below him—if he understood him right— that the ground on which the subsidy was granted was that of conferring an advantage upon Ireland. Now, the whole ground upon which the people of Ireland claimed the subsidy, and that by which they were prepared to stand or fall was this:—That by departing from a western port of Ireland there would be established a quicker communication with America than if the departure took place from any other port in the United Kingdom.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Again, I say the question has never been entertained of the departure from an English port. The noble Marquess is perfectly right in his observation that this subsidy was obtained on the ground of a quicker communication by the departure from an Irish port. As to the particular Irish port
  1128
  for this departure, that was left an open question.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE:—It will be satisfactory to know that the question of selection is confined to Irish ports, and not an English port. Is not this the understanding?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:— I understand so. There can he no question about it.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.