Lords Sitting of 4 June 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Policies of Insurance nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Consolidated Fund* (£14,000,000); Exchequer Bonds* (£1,700,000); Metropolitan Police* (135); Houses of Parliament* (136); Public Works Loans* (137); Limerick Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (138).
Second Reading—Chester Courts* (77); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (117); Intestate Widows and Children* (120); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (115).
Committee — Contagious Diseases (Animals) (139); County Courts Acts Amendment (108).
Report — County Courts Acts Amendment (140); Army Enlistment* (112).

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.

  (NO. 121 & 122.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 30, inclusive, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 31 (Regulations respecting landing, &c, of Foreign Animals).
  LORD WALSINGHAMmoved the insertion of words giving the Government power to require that all foreign cattle should be slaughtered at the port of entry to this country without exception.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the question of slaughtering all foreign cattle imported into England at the ports of entry was a very wide one, and one upon which it was very difficult to come to a conclusion without much previous consideration. The subject referred to by the noble Lord had been maturely considered by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and a general feeling existed that the Privy Council ought to have the power of ordering the slaughter of cattle at the ports of entry. Some doubts existed as to whether the Privy Council already possessed that power under the existing Acts, and it was deemed desirable that those doubts should be removed, and a clause was introduced into the Bill for that purpose. The words of the clause gave power to prohibit or regulate "the removal or disposal of cattle imported into England," and it was considered that the word "disposal" would necessarily include the ordering of cattle into quarantine, their slaughter if necessary, and every other mode of disposing of them. His noble Friend (Lord Walsingham)
  1550
  had expressed his views before the Select Committee, and had proposed to introduce the word "slaughter;" but the Committee thought the clause as it stood was sufficient for the purpose intended. He had no objection to the insertion of the word if their Lordships thought proper—it was for them to say whether they concurred with the Select Committee on this point.
  LORD BERNERSsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was better to make the matter quite clear than to leave it in doubt.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was simply a question as to whether the interpretation of the clause on this point was doubtful or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 139.)

COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 108.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYobjected to Clause 4 (No Action for Beer, &c, consumed on the Premises to be brought), which he thought was calculated to prevent a certain class of persons from obtaining payment of their just debts. Scores were run up at public-houses by others besides labourers and watermen, and by this clause any clerk, for instance, would, if he felt disposed to be dishonest, be able to cheat the man from whom he obtained his daily supply.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the noble Earl that he would have an opportunity of discussing the clause when the Bill was again in Committee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not abandon what he regarded as the best clause in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhad not the slightest intention of abandoning any portion of the clause. He had simply reminded the noble Lord that the discussion of the clause was premature.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 17th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 140.)

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 129.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  EARL GREYcalled attention to the circumstances under which his clauses relating to Suffragan Bishops had been struck out of the Bill. Those clauses had been generally approved of by their Lordships on both sides of the House, and no notice had been given of any objection to them. At the last moment, however, on the proposal of a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), those clauses were, after a division in which the proposition was carried by the narrow majority of 23 to 20, removed from the Bill. He could not accept that decision as the deliberate judgment of their Lordships. He therefore intended to move upon the third reading that those clauses should be reinstated in the Bill, and should therefore ask the noble Lord who had charge of the measure (Lord Lyttelton) to postpone his Motion for the third reading until after the Whitsuntide holydays, in order that their Lordships should have ample notice of his intention, and opportunity for the consideration of the important question involved. He could not help thinking that a great deal of the objection which was felt to the measure had arisen from the enlargement of the provisions relating to Suffragans. He should prefer to see the class of persons from whom they might be selected reduced to its original dimensions, and the clause enabling territorial titles to be given them, struck out.
  LORD REDESDALEthought it was a most inconvenient course to raise a discussion on the third reading of a Bill on a number of clauses which were not before them in a tangible shape.
  EARL GREYsaid, having given notice of his intention, he would have his clauses printed, and laid on the table.
  LORD LYTTELTONdeclined to express any opinion upon the point of form. He was, however, quite willing to postpone the Motion for the third reading if such a course met with the approval of their Lordships. He should much prefer that the Bill should be read the third time; but he was willing to postpone it in deference to the wish of the noble Earl who had taken so much interest in the subject; but he confessed he did so with uneasiness.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it might be convenient to their Lordships, in reference to future arrangements, to inform them that he would propose to adjourn for the Whitsuntide holydays from Friday to the Monday week following.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested that it would be a more convenient course to pass the third reading of the Bill at once, and for the noble Earl to introduce his clauses in a separate Bill. It appeared to him that this measure would have a much better chance of passing through the other House without the proposed clauses of the noble Earl.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not assent to the third reading of the Bill without the clauses in question, or to their forming the subject of a separate measure.
  Third reading put off to Friday the 21st instant.

  STANDING ORDERS—RAILWAY DEPOSITS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYcalled the attention of the House to the inconvenience which had arisen from the discrepancy in the Standing Orders of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to the provision made in the last Session of Parliament for securing the completion of railways. The object of the deposit was to give security for the proper completion of railways; but the present state of matters relating to the Standing Orders was extremely inconvenient, inasmuch as it required the parties to comply with two sets of Standing Orders, which were wholly different. He thought what was requisite as to the required proceedings of railway companies should be comprised in the provisions of a Bill and submitted to the consideration of both Houses of Parliament. He would suggest to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that he should enter into communication with the Chairman of Committees in the other House, in order to see if some arrangements could not be made to form a Joint Committee of Standing Orders, or at all events to issue a combined set of Standing Orders in reference to proceedings of Railway Companies which introduced Bills into Parliament, so that when the companies promoting such Bills had complied with their Lordships' Standing Orders, they should have no further trouble with respect to those of the House of Commons. He wished to know

  1553
  what course the noble Lord was prepared to take in the matter.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was much obliged to the noble Lord for bringing forward this subject, because he wished to explain to the House, and to all others whom it concerned elsewhere, how the matter in question stood. He had last Session communicated with the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons with the view of obtaining his concurrence and approval of the Standing Order adopted by their Lordships' House; but Colonel Wilson Patten thought it then too late to propose any change in the Commons Orders, but advised him to proceed in the Lords, engaging to bring the subject before the Standing Order Committee in the Commons at the commencement of the ensuing Session. This Session he had again applied to the Chairman to have some arrangement come to; but one excuse was made after another with regard to it; the matter was put off till just before Easter, and the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, came to him and requested that he should withdraw their Lordships' Standing Order. He said he would consider the subject, and let them know the conclusion he came to. He had considered the subject fully, and seen what the effect of the Standing Order had been. He confessed he was not prepared to come to the conclusion that the Standing Order of that House should be given up. The intention of Parliament undoubtedly was that the deposit should be applicable to the construction of the railway, and that it should be deposited by the subscribers to the railway; but the usual course was to borrow the money from some bank at considerable expense, and the Act allowed the withdrawal of the deposit after the Bill had passed, by giving a bond; and although the Act provided that the money should be forfeited if the railway should not be completed within the time specified, there was no single instance in which that had been enforced. The Resolution of the House of Commons admitted that their Standing Order was defective, and he was satisfied great advantage would result from carrying out their Lordships' Standing Order. Everything that had occurred since the adoption of the Standing Order tended to show its importance. In the case of the Brighton line a great exposure had taken place in
  1554
  reference to engagements entered into by the Directors for the adoption of certain lines, and he expressed his belief that the complaints made on that subject had arisen in consequence of the want of security afforded by the Standing Order adopted by their Lordships, which, he maintained, was more in accordance with the Act of Parliament than the Standing Order of the House of Commons, because it insured a deposit by subscribers for the sake of the contemplated undertaking. A short time ago he had a conversation on the subject of the Standing Order with the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons and with the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who were not prepared to condemn their own Standing Order. He, on the other hand, was not prepared to condemn the Standing Order adopted by their Lordships, which, he thought, might without any inconvenience be tried for a short time by way of experiment. What he proposed as a fair compromise was, when their Lordships sent clown Bills containing the clause in conformity with their Standing Order to the other House, and when the other House sent them back amended according to the Standing Order of the Commons, that their Lordships should accept the Bill so amended, and that, in like manner,' Bills originating in the other House, when sent back amended according to their Lordships' Standing Order, should be accepted by the Commons.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsuggested the expediency of appointing a Committee composed of Members of both Houses to consider the point. The consequence of the position in which matters now stood would be that legislation with respect to railway subjects would be stopped for the present if their Lordships persisted in maintaining their Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought that, if a Joint Committee of the two Houses were appointed to examine into the Standing Orders, a satisfactory solution of the difficulty might easily be arrived at.
  EARL GREYwas of opinion that the Government ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of recommending to Parliament the course which they deemed desirable to be taken in the matter.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDlooked upon the suggestion for the appointment of a Joint Committee as one which it would be well to adopt.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDadmitted

  1555
  that the present state of things was attended with great inconvenience, and undertook to confer with the Members of the Government in the other House with the view of seeing whether some more satisfactory arrangement could not be devised.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it would be well if the arrangement should embrace not only the particular point at issue, but the general conduct of the private business which came before both Houses.

  POLICIES OF INSURANCE BILL.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee: The Committee to meet on Friday next, at Four o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:—

  Ld. Chancellor

  L. Somerhill

  E. Devon

  L. Cranworth

  E. Graham

  L. Cairns

  V. Halifax

  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.