Lords Sitting of 18 June 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Established Church (Ireland) (157); Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation * (158); Inclosure (No. 2) * (159); Judgments Extension* (160).
Second Reading—Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland)* (104).
Committee—Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites) (128–161); Unclaimed Prize Money (India)* (121).
Report—Unclaimed Prize Money (India) * (121); Poor Relief (155–162).
Third Reading—Sale of Poisons and Pharmacy Act Amendment* (118) and passed.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON moved that the Bill be now read the first time.
  EARL GREYthereon gave Notice that he should move as an Amendment to the second reading that the Bill be read a second lime that day six months.
  Bill read 1a; to be read 2a on Thursday next, and to be printed. (No. 157.)

RELIGIOUS, &c, BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL.
(The Lord Cramworth.)
RELIGIOUS, &c, BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL.

  (No. 128.) COMMITTEE (ON-RECOMMITMENT.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  LORD ROMILLY LORD ROMILLY moved to omit Clause 2 and insert the following instead thereof:—
  "Provided also, that every such alienation grant, conveyance, lease, assurance, surrender or other disposition shall be absolutely and to all intents and purposes null and void unless and until the same or some deed or instrument
  1742
  declaring the trusts thereof shall have been enrolled in Her Majesty's High Court of Chancery."
  If deeds giving sites for religious and I charitable buildings were not enrolled, occasion would be given for great abuses. The Bill as it at present stood did not propose anything that could not be done at present. The object of his Amendment was to make the effect of the deed date from whatever time it might be enrolled. His proposal would admit of enrolment without the intervention of a solicitor. A deed might be sent up by post, and then it would only be necessary that some one should call for it and pay the fees. There might be printed forms of deeds as there were of leases, which, in fact, required more revision. His sole object was to combine cheapness with security.
  LORD CRANWORTHdoubted the expediency of insisting on the formality prescribed by the Amendment. The Bill dispensed altogether with the necessity of enrolment in the case of these small grants. In manufacturing towns there were many little buildings such as chapels, schools, and mechanics' institutions, the conveyances of which became null and; void unless they were enrolled, and yet; in nine cases out of ten they were never enrolled. The Court of Chancery, indeed, could authorize their enrolment after the time for it had elapsed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment. The Bill only dealt with cases where the land taken was for the purpose of erecting a building upon it for the promotion of religion, literature, or science. It was also provided that the grant or purchase should have been really and bonâ fide made for full and valuable consideration, and that the land granted or purchased should not be more than two acres in extent. The Bill proposed that in such cases it should be no longer necessary to enrol the deed in the Court of Chancery. It should be remembered that the Mortmain Act was passed on account of many large and improvident dispositions having been made by dying and other persons for charitable uses, to take effect after their death, to the disherison of their lawful heirs. But nobody could imagine that the sale of two acres of land would produce dangerous consequences in that respect. There was no doubt that under the Mortmain Act the system of enrolment was not contemplated at the time that Act received the sanction of the

  1743
  Legislature; and one religious body, the Wesleyans, had resorted to the practice in order that if any question should arise their deeds might be referred to with facility. The question at issue, therefore, was whether an unnecessary hardship ought to be imposed on all Her Majesty's subjects because the practice of registration had proved a convenience to a particular religious denomination. He might mention, however, that the passing of the present measure would not prevent parties from enrolling their deeds in Chancery if they thought fit to do so. On the whole, he thought their Lordships would do well to adhere to the original clause.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 161).

POOR RELIEF BILL—(No. 155.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
POOR RELIEF BILL—(No. 155.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported, (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, it would be in their Lordships' recollection that in the course of the discussion the other night he stated that, in the event of the House deciding on the rejection of the clause for removing idiots from workhouses, he would on the Report propose the clause that was originally in the Bill, but which had been rejected by the Select Committee. An objection was thereon taken by a noble Lord (Earl Grey) that such a clause ought to originate in the other House, Recognizing the force of that objection, he should be wanting in respect to their Lordships if he were now to propose the clause, and therefore he abstained from doing so.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that the Bill originally provided that strange ministers of religion should be allowed to visit the workhouses only "at the request of an inmate." Now these words were struck out of the present Bill. But unless the noble Earl had some valid and convincing reason for the omission of these words, he hoped he would re-insert them.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he must decline the suggestion for two reasons—first, that the words were found to interfere with that freedom of religious opinion which it was the object of the Poor Law Board to secure; and secondly, that there
  1744
  were often in the workhouses young children and others who were unable to recognize the value of religious instruction; and in fact the persons whom it was most important to visit were the least likely to ask for visitors.
  THE MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, the reasons given by the noble Earl for not complying with his request were not at all satisfactory.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the right which the Bill would give to able-bodied paupers to go out of the workhouse once a week under the cloak of enabling them to attend once every Sunday at some place of worship of his own denomination was an indulgence wholly contrary to the principle on which, that class of paupers should be dealt with. Then there ought to be a definition of what was "a convenient distance" in the clause giving permission to paupers to attend a place of religious worship. He apprehended that those facilities for going out would lead to mischief in affording opportunities to paupers to go away from a workhouse, leaving their families behind them, and would moreover prove completely subversive of discipline.
  EARL FORTESCUEthought there was much in the objection of the noble Chairman of Committees. He was against fettering the discretion of Guardians in these matters, as he believed the effect of such a course would be to render good men unwilling to act in that capacity.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he did not think the Bill went too far in the direction of giving the inmates of workhouses opportunities of going out.
  LORD LYTTELTONwas of opinion that the objections of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) and the noble Chairman of Committees were not well founded.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 162).

SALE OF POISONS AND PHARMACY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 148.)
(The Earl Granville).
SALE OF POISONS AND PHARMACY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 148.)

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved the introduction of a clause to secure for the protection of the public the use of one uniform bottle for holding poisons, to be called "the Poison Bottle." Its intro-

  1745
  duction might be gradual but in course of time it would come to be recognized by all. He had originally suggested on the Report the adoption of a bottle of a particular shape; but on reflection he had no objection to leave the matter to the decision of the Privy Council and of the Pharmaceutical Society. He believed that there was no objection to the introduction of this clause, which he felt confident would tend in practice to the prevention of very serious danger.
  After Clause 17, moved to insert the following Clause:—
  "From and after the Thirty-first Day of December One thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight it shall not be lawful to sell any Poison in a Bottle required to be labelled as aforesaid unless such Bottle shall be of a Shape and Character to be thenceforth known and described as a Poison Bottle; and it shall not be lawful to sell any Preparation not poisonous in any such Bottle; and any Person offending against either of the aforesaid Provisions shall be liable to the Penalties herein-before enacted for selling Poison not distinctly labelled. The Shape and Character to be prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Society, with the Consent of the Privy Council, within One Month after the passing of this Act, and advertised and published in such Manner as the Privy Council shall direct."—(The Chairman of Committees)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Lord had failed to answer the objection raised on a former occasion by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that many of the poisons which he proposed to put into these special bottles were poisons entering into the almost daily prescriptions of physicians.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Marquess was mistaken. The only poison with regard to which his clause would enforce the use of a special bottle were those which by the previous clause were required to be labelled as poisons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that one so well versed in the rules of the House as the noble Lord must see that there was great inconvenience in discussing a totally new provision of which no notice whatever had been given. The distinction taken by the noble Lord it would be seen on examination was not well founded; for the earlier clause provided that no person should sell any poison, wholesale or retail, unless in a wrapper distinctly labelled. A letter in The Times recently had given the names of some of the drugs in constant use, such as arsenic, prussic acid, strychnine, all poisonous vegetable alkalies and their salts, aconite, corrosive sublimate,
  1746
  belladonna, and cantharides. Every one of these drugs entered into the prescriptions of physicians, and were used sometimes in cases of great emergency. A physician in some urgent case might send to a chemist in whose possession he knew the particular drug to be; and yet that chemist, merely from the fact that his stock of this particular poison bottle happened to be exhausted, would be absolutely prevented from supplying the medicine. The bottle, of course, would be patented, being the invention of some particular person.
  LOED REDESDALE: It is not a patent to begin with.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, then, it was to be defined and published.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had already expressed his willingness to leave the shape of the bottle to be settled by the Privy Council and the Pharmaceutical Society.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But there was great inconvenience in introducing extensive additions of this kind upon the mere discussion of some particular clause of a Bill—and that, too, without Notice. Apart from the practical objection that a particular medicine sent for in great haste in the middle of the night might fail to be procured, in the absence of the poison bottle, he objected to the whole principle of the proposed legislation on this point. Hitherto we had proceeded upon the principle of protecting persons from wrongs or injuries wilfully wrought by others; but we had never acted upon the principle of protecting sensible people from possible dangers merely because foolish people might have it in their power to injure themselves. Because somebody might be foolish enough to get up in the middle of the night, and, without taking the trouble to strike a light, might drink off the contents of a bottle, therefore the noble Lord proposed to introduce entirely new restraints affecting a whole profession, This was a principle of legislation not unknown to foreign countries, where Governments were very fond of protecting people against the consequences of their own acts; but it was totally opposed to the habits of this country, its direct tendency being to hinder the general business of mankind. The principle was one that, if adopted in this country, would tend, he felt sure, to greater evils than those which it sought to prevent.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that the clause framed by the noble Lord might be modified with advantage before it was submitted to the House. On this subject he had received a letter from a gentleman of much practical experience; and read to the House the following extract:—
  "I find that Lord Redesdale retains his faith in the poison bottle, and intends to propose it again on the third reading of the Pharmacy Bill, adopting that which I certainly believe to be by far the most distinctive bottle ever used. But the more I consider his Lordship's proposition, and the more I think of the value pertaining to special bottles of any shape, when used according to the discretion of dispensers who understand their business, the more impressed I become with the impolicy of specific enactments concerning them. I have already told your Lordship that most chemists in London use distinctive bottles for dangerous articles and external applications; they have done so for the last six or seven years, the practice gradually increasing. I have also said that the use of these bottles should be restricted to such articles. Now, I presume the words 'poison' and 'poisonous' in the proposed clause must be construed according to Clause 2. If so, we should be prohibited from using such bottles for every medicine not in the Schedule; and I need scarcely say the Schedule does not contain a sixth part of the dangerous preparations daily passing through our hands. I should not think now of selling laudanum in any other than a poison bottle. Laudanum is not in the Schedule; consequently I must, if the Amendment pass, discontinue that precaution. I know Lord Redesdale thinks it is the inconvenience of the compulsory enactment which actuates the Pharmaceutical Society in resisting his proposal; but I can assure you most honestly that they are anxious, both by example and recommendation, to promote his views, and really apprehensive that his Amendment would prevent their doing so."
  If the securities sought by the clause were not complete it would be worse than no precautions at all, and resemble that very dangerous gun invented some years ago, which was provided with a complicated contrivance to prevent its going off.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that although the clause had been greatly improved since last it was offered to the House he thought the disadvantages connected with the proposal outbalanced the advantages. The better course would be to leave it to the discretion of the Pharmaceutical Society and the Privy Council to take what precautions they thought necessary against the careless sale of poisons. If they thought it necessary to adopt a peculiar bottle they could do so; but such a course ought not to be imposed upon them by Act of Parliament The proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) was defective, inasmuch as his Schedule of
  1748
  poisons for which the bottles were to be used omitted mention of many substances more harmful than those it contained; and the result would be that poisonous liquids would be placed in ordinary bottles, and comparatively harmless liquids in poison bottles. He recommended his noble Friend not to press the clause.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was difficult to know what to do; but the arguments offered against his proposal seemed by no means conclusive. Respecting the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that it was contrary to English practice to make laws for the safety of those who were well able to take care of themselves, he reminded the House that many instances of such legislation already existed; persons were every day being punished for stepping from a train in motion, and it was held to be no excuse that they could do so without danger. He thought it would be better to insert the clause, that it might be fairly discussed in the Mouse of Commons.
  THE EAEL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, chemists were of opinion that security would not be gained by insisting on the use of any particular bottle. Even if it were adopted there would be no security against mistaking medicines intended for outward application for medicines to be taken internally. An eminent chemist from whom he had received a letter suggested that a case might arise in which diluted prussic acid would be dispensed for internal doses of a spoonful each in company with a highly poisonous lotion of belladonna. Both would be dispensed in poison bottles, and no security would be had that the lotion would not be taken for the diluted acid. His correspondent hoped their Lordships would not adopt the clause unless they wished to be killed by Act of Parliament.
  After a few words from the Earl of AIBLIE and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 45: Majority 6.
  On Question, That the Bill do pass?
  THE MAEQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas understood to express a hope that the provisions of the Bill would eventually be extended to Ireland.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NOVA SCOTIA.—PETITION.
LORD CAMPBELL, who had given Notice—
"To present a Petition from Nova Scotia alleging the Existence of much Discontent in the Province in regard to an Act passed last Session under the Title of The British North America Act: and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to proceed to Nova Scotia for the Purpose of examining the Causes of the alleged Dissatisfaction with a View to their Removal."
said he rose to postpone his Motion. His reason for doing so was chiefly on account of the lateness of the hour, and the existence of certain rules or understandings with respect to the conduct of Public Business on Tuesdays and Thursdays. A good many Members had left the House on the understanding that the subject would not come on after six.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that this Motion had been twice on the Paper and had been twice postponed. He protested against the continual postponement of important Notices—a course which was highly inconvenient to noble Lords who felt interested in the discussions which were likely to arise, and one which was also highly detrimental to the public interests. It was now only half-past six o'clock, and he could not see why the Motion should not be proceeded with.
LORD LYVEDENremarked that the inconvenience arising from the course adopted by the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) was felt not only by many Members of their Lordships' House, but also by the Delegates from Nova Scotia, who were naturally anxious to be present at the discussion. He trusted that the noble Lord would place his Notice on the Paper for a day when it could have precedence, and that the date would be sufficiently early to admit of the Delegates from Nova Scotia being present at the discussion before leaving this country.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND.) BILL.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second reading of the Suspensory Bill relating to the Irish branch of the Established Church I shall move; that it be read a second time that day six mouths.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.