Lords Sitting of 16 July 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2)* (193); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government* (195).
Second Reading—Dogs (170); Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage (208).
Committee—Glebe Lands (Scotland)* (194); Crown Lands* (114); Carriage and Deposit of Dangerous Goods* (159).
Report—Crown Lands* (114).
Withdrawn—Consecration of Churchyards (97).
Royal Assent—Drainage Maintenance (Ireland) [29 & 30 MVict. c. 49]; Burials in Burghs (Scotland) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 50]; Lunacy Acts (Scotland) Amendment [29 & 30 Vict. c. 51].

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS BILL—(The Lord Redesdale.)
(No. 97.) BILL WITHDRAWN.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that some time ago he had introduced a Bill relating to the consecration of churchyards. Objections had been raised to some of the provisions of the measure, and he would, therefore, with the permission of their Lordships, withdraw it, and introduce another Bill in its stead.
Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then—

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL.
A Bill relating to the Consecration of Churchyards was presented by The Lord REDESDALE; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 193.)
DOGS BILL—(No. 170.)
(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in moving the second reading of this Bill,

813
said, its object was to render the owners of dogs liable by summary process for injuries inflicted by their dogs to persons or property. The measure was founded on the same principle that had been adopted in several Acts recently passed on the subject.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he would offer no opposition to the second reading, although he was of opinion that it would be necessary to alter the Bill very considerably in Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he understood that Bills for Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales had been already passed, imposing liabilities on the owners of dogs which worried sheep, although there had been no want of care on the part of the owners. One of the first principles of the law was that no one should be answerable for injury happening to another person unless some negligence on his part were proved; but the Acts on this subject formed exceptions to the general rule. The present Bill proceeded still further in this wrong direction, because it provided that the owner of a dog should be liable in damages for any injury done by his dog to the person or property of any other person, notwithstanding he had no previous knowledge of any mischievous propensity in the dog, and had not contributed to the injury by any neglect. Therefore, under this measure, if two dogs were to fight, and one of them were injured, the owner of the dog which inflicted the injury would be liable,, without any consideration whether his dog was the one which commenced the fray. Then, again, there might be a cross action, because each of the dogs might be injured, in which event each owner would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the other. A playful dog, intending no mischief, might tear a man's trousers, which would be an injury to property; and the proceedings being by summary process he thought the Bill would tend to increase very considerably the business of magistrates, particularly in the metropolitan districts. Still, as the Legislature had thought proper to go astray with respect to this matter, he supposed he must follow in the same course, and therefore he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, though when it was in Committee he might make some proposals for the purpose of rectifying too great a
814
violation of the general principle with regard to personal responsibility.
LORD REDESDALEremarked that they had passed a Bill relating to dogs last Session. The Bill was a very good one, and he saw no reason why they should be called on to legislate year after year on the same subject.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYstrongly objected to the second clause, under which if a dog were to accidentally bite a man, or to tear a man's trousers, the owner would become liable to a summary penalty of —5. He hoped his noble Friend would alter that part of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that under the present law the owner was liable if it were shown that he knew the dog to be a vicious animal.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that might be so, but there was not at present a summary procedure.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsupported the Bill, because it was only following out the principle laid down by the Legislature in the measures relating to the worrying of sheep by dogs.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARA TION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 157.)
(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

ORDER FOR SECOND READING DISCHARGED.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I hope that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) who has charge of this Bill will not persevere in pressing this stage. I think it is a very indiscreet measure. It professes to retain the exclusion of Roman Catholics from certain offices, but to abolish the oath required to be taken for the purpose of showing that the holders of such offices are not Roman Catholics. There is no question of principle involved in the Bill in the slightest degree, the question turning, I think, upon the terms of the oath and the manner in which it is taken. If the terms of the oath are considered by Roman Catholics to be offensive, and if they are offensive, or if the manner of taking the oath be offensive, I have not the slightest objection to apply a remedy. Though there was an almost unanimous opinion in favour of the Bill when it was

815
introduced in the House of Commons, there was also an expression of opinion that the oath to which it referred should be dealt with in connection with the general subject of the vast number of oaths now required to be taken. It was thought desirable to adopt some resolution which would tend to diminish the number of those oaths; and after this Bill had been read a second time the suggestion thrown out by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was acted on, and a Commission was appointed to look into all the oaths required to be taken by persons appointed to high offices. I myself took the liberty of throwing out a similar suggestion, and I am glad to say that the Commission of Inquiry is now sitting. This being so, I should think it would be better not to proceed further with the Bill at present, but to await the result of the inquiry. We can then deal with the subject as a whole. This course would appear to be the more desirable in consequence of the fact that the case is not in the slightest degree a pressing one, as far as any practical grievance is concerned. I may observe with reference to this Bill that, while it takes away an existing test, it provides no substitute whatever. The oath which the Bill abolishes is totidem verbis the same as the one required to be taken by the Sovereign at His or Her coronation; and consequently the Bill does open up a much larger question than at first sight it would appear to do. I should be quite satisfied to abolish this oath, but I think we ought to provide some substitute for it; and therefore I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Bill till the Report of the Commission is received.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas sorry that there was the slightest opposition on the part of the noble Earl to this Bill being read a second time. The oath which it proposed to abolish was offensive not only to Roman Catholics, but to Protestants. The Lord Lieutenant was obliged to take it in the presence of Roman Catholic gentlemen who, the next minute, were to sit with him at the Council Board. He thought that no time should be lost in doing away with such an oath; but after what the noble Earl had said he would not press the second reading of the Bill. As, however, the House of Commons had put on record its desire that these objectionable oaths should be done away with, and the Home Secretary had said that this declaration ought to be done away with,
816
and as the noble Earl concurred in that opinion, he hoped the Government would lose no time in bringing forward a Bill on the subject immediately the Commission made its Report. He begged to observe that the Bill had nothing to do with the Coronation oath, to which it did not even refer.
EARL RUSSELLconcurred with the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury in thinking it better that the subject of these oaths should be dealt with as a whole.
LORD LYVEDENregretted that this Bill, having passed through the House of Commons, was not to be allowed to pass through their Lordships' House. Still, he was glad to hear that the subject was about to be dealt with comprehensively. He would suggest to the noble Earl at the head of the Government whether it would not be well to enlarge the reference to the Commission, so as to allow it to inquire into the oath taken by the Members of the Houses of Parliament; because it might be that the Commission would report in favour of doing away with all the oaths referred to it; in which ease they would have oaths taken by the Members of their Lordships' House and Members of the House of Commons, while all persons appointed to high offices would only be required to make a declaration on their appointment.
THE EARL OF DERBYreminded the noble Lord that the oaths taken by Members of Parliament were settled by a very recent statute.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the noble Marquess had done right in yielding; but he could not agree with the noble Earl at the head of the Government in thinking there was no hurry in this matter. At a moment when a new Lord Lieutenant and a new Lord Chancellor of Ireland were being appointed it would be a graceful act to do away with an oath so offensive to Roman Catholic gentlemen in high employments under the State.
Order discharged.

STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND COINAGE BILL—(No. 208.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF BELMORErose to move the second reading of this Bill, when he briefly stated its provisions. It was brought

817
in by the late Government, and its object I was to amend the Acts relating to standard weights and measures and the coinage. The Bill was founded upon the Report of the Standard Commission, and provided that the custody of the Imperial standards, which were now deposited in the office of the Exchequer, should be transferred to the Board of Trade, together with all duties connected therewith. The stamp duty and fees on the indentures of verification were abolished; a department of the Board of Trade to be called the Standard Weights and Measures Department was established, who were to make an annual Report. The custody of the standard trial pieces for coinage, &c. was transferred to the Treasury, and it was provided that they should be removed from their present resting-place in the cloisters, Westminster Abbey, to any place the Commissioners of the Treasury might direct, thus leaving that place disposable for any purpose that might he deemed desirable, after the proposed restoration of the Chapter House. It further provided for periodical comparison of the Board of Trade standards with the Imperial standards, and empowered the Queen in Council from time to time to declare what amount of error might be tolerated in the secondary standards, of which there were no fewer than seventy-seven. The noble Earl then moved the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

MARRIAGES (SYDMONTON) BILL. (No. 141.)
(The Bishop of Oxford.)
COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the recent decisions of the Courts of Law having rendered this Bill unnecessary, he would, with their Lordships' permission, move that the Order for Committee be discharged, and withdraw the Bill.
Order discharged accordingly.

THE "GREATHAM HALL" PRIVATEER. LETTER OF CAPTAIN FOLEY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF POWISrose to ask, If the Letter from the Captain of Her Majesty's ship Caledonia to the Editor of The Times, which appeared in that paper on Friday, and detailed the proceedings
  818
  of the ship is approved of by the Admiralty. The letter in question, he said, gave an account of Her Majesty's ship Caledonia having been sent on a special service to the Channel in pursuit of a vessel called the Greatham Hall, the officers of which it was believed had been infringing the Foreign Enlistment Act. He had always understood that it was contrary to the usages and traditions of the naval service that information of any special duty that the ship might be engaged in should be communicated by officers in Her Majesty's navy to a public journal. In the present case no inconvenience had arisen; but it was obvious that in times of emergency such communications might be very detrimental to the service. He had, therefore, thought it right to ask, Whether the conduct of the Captain in this matter had received the approval of the Admiralty?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I had not seen the letter to which my noble Friend adverts when I received notice of the Question he has now put. I find that the letter was addressed to The Times of Friday, and that it details the whole course of a pursuit of a vessel which it was supposed had been engaged in illegal practices. I do not, however, understand that my noble Friend desires me to enter into the question of the facts of the case, which at the present moment are undergoing investigation; he only asks the opinion of the Admiralty in regard to the conduct of the captain in publishing the letter to The Times. I can only say that it does surprise me that an officer of the experience and standing of Captain Foley should have committed so great a violation of his duty as to make a communication to The Times newspaper, and make no communication at the same time to the Admiralty. My right hon. Friend who has recently assumed the head of the Admiralty has expressed his regret at having, on the first occasion on which the Board should be summoned, to express his disapproval of the conduct of an officer of the experience and standing of Captain Foley.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that although the letter itself was not of much importance, yet it was of the greatest importance that their Lordships should express their opinion that officers employed in the army or navy, or in any department of the State, should not communicate their opinions to the public journals, but should make their reports to the proper officers or to the chiefs at home. He dif-

  819
  fered from his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) when he said that the occurrence would have contained less ground for complaint had the captain reported to the Admiralty before he caused his letter to be published.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had not expressed that opinion.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEregretted that he had misunderstood the noble Earl.
  LORD FOLEYsaid, that he agreed in the observations made as to the impropriety of any officer writing to the public papers, and therefore he could not defend his brother from the remarks which had been made. His brother himself very much regretted what he had done; but the reason he gave for writing the letter was that he saw a statement in the paper in question to the effect that his ship had been out only ten days, and he wrote the letter to contradict that statement, and to show what operations his ship had performed, and not with any desire to publish information in an irregular manner. However, his brother very much regretted having written the letter.

  NEW SOUTH WALES AND VAN DIEMEN'S LAND GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to repeal Part of an Act, intituled "An Act for the Government of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land"—Was presented by The Earl of CARNARVON; read 1a (No. 195).
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.