Lords Sitting of 2 August 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMUTES —Report — Despatch of Business in Parliament.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Education* (259); Basses Lights, Ceylon, * (254); Public Works (Ireland)* (255); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act (1863) Amendment* (256); Zanzibar (Jurisdiction of Consul)* (246); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * (251); Militia (Ireland)* (252); Militia Pay*; Accounts, &c. Presentation* (253); Nitro Glycerine* (245); Volunteer Act (1863) Amendment * (257); Criminal Lunatics * (247); Clerks of Assize* (248); Railways Abandonment* (249); Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland) * (250).
Second Reading—Courts of Justice Salaries and Funds (215); Seeds Adulteration (242); Land Tax Commissioners Names * (158); Dublin Freemen Commission (210).
Committee— Fisheries (Ireland) (236); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c* (230).
Committee—Report—Civil Offices (Pensions)* (157); Millbank Prison * (234); Trades Unions (Protection of Funds) (226); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* (136); Straits Settlements * (231).
Report—Evidence Amendment* (239–260); Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (240-261); Jamaica Loans* (204); Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal * (241).
Third Reading—Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (211); Contagious Diseases * (221); Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment* (238); Presentation of Benefices belonging to Roman Catholics, &c* (209); Valuation of Property (Metropolis) * (229); Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (232); Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment* (235), and passed.
Royal Assent—Diplomatic Salaries, &c. [32 & 33 Vict. c. 43]; Greenwich Hospital [32 & 33 Vict. c. 44]; Poor Law Union Loans [32 & 33 Vict. c. 45]; Debts of Deceased Persons [32 &c 33 Vict. c. 46]; High Constables Office Abolition, &c. [32 & 33 Vict. c. 47]; Companies Clauses Act (1863) Amendment [32 & 33 Vict. c. 48]; Fines and Fees Collection [32 & 33 Vict. c. 49]; Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland) [32 & 33 Vict. c. 50]; Municipal Franchise [32 & 33 Vict. c. 55]; Endowed Schools [32 & 33 Vict. c. 56]; County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (1868) Amendment [32 & 33 Vict. c. 51]; Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment [32 & 33 Vict. c. 52]; Cinque Ports Act Amendment [32 & 33 Vict. c. 53]; Seamen's Clothing [32 & 33 Vict. c. 57]; Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) [32 & 33 Vict. c. 54].

COURTS OF JUSTICE SALARIES AND FUNDS BILL—(No. 215.)
(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

SECOND BEADING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to transfer funds now standing to the credit of the Accountant General and the Accountant in Bankruptcy to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. The Commissioners would cancel stock representing these funds, and replace it by a book debt. These funds might be classed under three heads —1, funds representing investments for suitors in Chancery, standing in their own names and bearing interest for their benefit; 2, funds belonging to suitors, invested, however, not by their own desire but by the court, and bearing interest; and 3, funds consisting of fees, accumulations of interest, and so forth. Now, the Bill did not interfere with the first class, but transferred the second and third classes to the National Debt Commissioners, the funds of the Court of Bankruptcy being dealt with in the same manner. The salaries and pensions of Judges would henceforth be charged on the Consolidated Fund, while the minor salaries and expenses of the courts would be charged on the Votes, and would be subject to the annual review of Parliament. The Bill would put an end to much complication, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had always been opposed to the Government putting its hand on this fund, and saw no reason for the application of any portion of it, either to the building of new Common Law Courts or to the reduction of the National Debt. It was true that no individual could say "So much of that fund is mine; "but it had been contributed by suitors in equity, and suitors in that court as a class ought from time to time to have the benefit of it. As to the indemnity to be given to suitors out of the Consolidated Fund, that fund could not be got at except through the Votes of the House of Commons, and it was moreover greatly overcharged, while various Acts of Parliament provided that certain claims should have priority over all others. He once knew a gentleman who locked up his property in Chancery for the express purpose that it might be made secure for his children; but if this

1063
Bill passed no one but an idiot would take such a course. It made the Treasury the master of the Court of Chancery for all time to come; and its object was not merely to take the £4,000,000 now available, but to enable the Treasury to apply to the Court of Chancery whenever there was supposed to be a surplus, and to claim that surplus in order to appropriate it to the reduction of the National Debt. He saw no reason why the court should be tied hand and foot by the Treasury, nor why Parliament should, at one fell swoop, seize upon this fund. The administration of justice ought to be free, and it was unbecoming a great nation first to exact these payments from suitors, and then to apply £1,000,000 of the amount to the expense of building new Courts for other suitors, and now to confiscate £4,000,000 for the National Debt. The fund ought to be applied for the benefit of suitors themselves, whose fund it was, by the reduction or abolition of fees. In 1852 he had reduced the charges in the Court of Chancery by means of this fund, and he had hoped, if he remained in Office, to enable suitors in equity to enter that court without payment of the heavy charges to which they were liable. If this Bill passes there can no longer be any reduction of the taxation. The building new Courts for all suitors, and the reduction of the National Debt were national objects, to which the nation at large should contribute. Independently, moreover, of the objections to the principle of the Bill, their Lordships ought to reject it on the ground of time. It was introduced into the House of Commons on the 23rd of April, but it did not reach this House till the 23rd of July—almost the last week of the Session. The other House had thus several months allowed them for its consideration, and it was clear that their Lordships could not give sufficient consideration to it at this advanced period of the Session.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord St. Leonards.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had great satisfaction in hearing his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) state so clearly his views with reference to this Bill, and to the admini-
1064
stration of justice in the Court of Chancery without fee or payment by the suitors. For a very long time, and up to 1865, when an entire change was made in the principle on which this fund had been hitherto dealt with, he himself shared the hope that, in a very few years, when the compensations to clerks and others fell in, there would be an opportunity of so administering justice to suitors in the Court of Chancery that while, of course, litigants would have to act in the usual manner with regard to the employment of solicitors and others, no fee would be payable to the court. But, in 1865, a scheme was brought forward for the construction of new Courts of Law and Equity; and, though he concurred in the necessity of providing new Courts, he then protested, against applying funds paid into court by suitors in chancery, and the profits made upon those funds, to providing buildings wherein to transact the business of other courts than those of equity. However, his protest was in vain—it was determined that the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery should be applied to that purpose, and henceforth it appeared to him hopeless to expect that the fees would ever be done away with. That being so, any objection which he might have felt to the principle of this Bill, anterior to that period, appeared to him to be swept away. There was, he thought, a clear answer to the objections taken to the course proposed respecting these particular funds— namely, the cash paid into court by suitors as distinguished from the stock which stood to their credit. The matter might be easily explained. Suitors in the Court of Chancery might desire to have the money paid into court invested and carried to the credit of the particular cause; but, in many instances, they were not disposed to ask for this. Sometimes, for example, the cause was likely to be disposed of speedily, the sum might speedily be wanted in cash, and suitors did not desire to go to the expense of buying and selling out. In other cases, suitors were afraid of investing in the funds, with the possibility of a fall in value, and they, therefore, simply paid their money into court. In these cases, and in suits for the administration of estates in Chancery, the court was used by suitors simply as a private banker. Now, all the money so paid in was

1065
money which the suitor was only entitled to demand again in cash to the amount placed to his credit. But the Court of Chancery had felt itself at liberty to do with this cash just what bankers did when they had large sums standing to the credit of their various customers. Whether the court had herein acted properly or improperly was not the question; but he believed the practice had resulted very much to the advantage of all concerned. The Court of Chancery said—"We will not let this money lie idle; we will invest it, and thereby obtain interest upon the money, holding it as a fund out of which we may answer the call for any cash payments, the principal and the accumulated interest being sufficient to meet any possible deficiency caused by a fall in the price of stock, and being sufficient also to meet the cash demands of the suitor or customer." Accordingly, the cash had been from time to time invested in stock, the income of which was again invested, and the profits represented the sum of between £2,000.000 and £3,000,000, now proposed to be carried over to the Treasury, and applied in reduction of the National Debt. The simple fact was, that henceforth the Treasury meant to undertake the banking for the suitors, instead of the Court of Chancery. This stock, qua stock, in no way belonged to the suitors. It was the stock purchased by the gross amount of the cash tying in the Court of Chancery to the credit of all the suitors, each suitor being credited with the special debt due to him. But if you deposited £1,000 with your bankers you could not afterwards go and ask for the mortgage on which that money had been lent or the shares which it had purchased. You would ask for your £1,000, and to that you would be entitled. In the same way the Court of Chancery sold out stock to produce the specific sum which was wanted, and when that was done the suitor was satisfied and the court retained the profit. From year to year dividends were accruing upon this stock, and in those dividends the suitor had no interest. There were, in fact, two funds. One, consisting of the investments of the suitors' cash payments, was known as Fund A; and the income derived from Fund A was called Fund B. It was from that fund ' that the £1,000,000 was taken which had been applied towards the building of the Law
1066
Courts. He repeated that he should have been glad in 1863 to see the sum applied in reducing the fees payable by suitors; but it had not been so applied, and the Government had undertaken, all the responsibility which arose in connection with it. The Treasury now said, with regard to the remaining stock, that they would henceforth be the bankers of suitors in equity, claiming that any profit accruing there from should belong to the State. There were no individuals in the Court of Chancery to whom the profit could belong; and who was entitled to it, except the State? The Treasury therefore said—"As that is so in form at present, let it be so in substance." Nothing was really being given away to which the suitors had a right to look, and their security would be just as good in having a charge upon the Consolidated Fund as it now was in having a charge upon £2,500,000 of stock. The credit of the country would be pledged to satisfy the demands of suitors for cash paid by them into court, and the Government bound themselves to pay to the suitor, upon the direction of the court, the money to which he was entitled — always keeping the sum of £300,000 to the credit of the Accountant-General in Chancery for the purpose of satisfying current demands. The whole difference, in fact, would be that henceforth the suitors would have the State for their bankers instead of the court. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) said the Bill ought to have been before their Lordships earlier in the Session, and he (the Lord Chancellor) was anxious to explain how the delay had arisen. This Bill, though it originated with the Treasury, was submitted to him, and on examining it he found that there was a great deal in it which must be looked into and altered. Accordingly he placed it in the hands of the solicitor to the Suitors' Fee Fund— not, of course, that he should pronounce an opinion upon the expediency of the Bill, because the Government took upon themselves the responsibility, but in order that he, being a gentleman of extreme accuracy, and thoroughly conversant with the subject, might examine the details. Such an examination necessarily occupied many weeks; but the result was that, as he believed, there was now no risk of any mistake in the provisions of the measure. As to the several

1067
Acts of Parliament which it was proposed to repeal, they had been gone through with the same pains, and he believed that no apprehension need be felt on that score. As to the salaries of the officers being placed in the Votes, he must say that it did not appear to him that the Court of Chancery ought to claim an exemption, which was not enjoyed by other departments, from being subjected to the necessity of having the number of clerks inquired into by the Treasury, so that they might not be allowed to exceed the number requisite.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 236.)
(The Lord Dufferin.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD CAIRNScalled attention to the 16th clause, of which he said he should probably feel it to be his duty to move the omission in Committee. The Act of 1863 gave power to the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland to order the destruction of stake nets where they deemed them to be illegal, but that power was to be exercised subject to an appeal to the Queen's Bench under a special case. As a matter of fact, a number of orders had been made by the Commissioners in accordance with the authority thus vested in them, and had, on appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, been reversed. The Commissioners, notwithstanding, refused to grant certificates as to the legality of the fishing in those instances, and the Act of 1863 contained no provision to meet that difficulty. That being so, the present Bill proposed to enact that no mode of fishing should be legal unless the certificate of the Commissioners was obtained—thus rendering valueless by a sort of side wind the decisions of the Queen's Bench, and to declare that to be legal which the court had declared to be illegal. That was a point on which he should like to have some explanation from the Government.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 16 (Penalty for fishing with fixed engine without certificate of commissioners or inspectors).
LORD DUFFERINsaid, that, as far as he was instructed, the clause was not open to the criticism which the noble and learned Lord had put upon it; but he thought the point which had been raised had better be dealt with on the Report.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that if a clause were introduced on the Report, which would entirely save the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, he would be satisfied.
LORD DUFFERINacceded to the suggestion, and the Bill passed through Committee.
An Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

TRADES' UNIONS (PROTECTION OF FUNDS) BILL—(No. 226.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."
LORD CAIRNSsaid, there appeared to be a misapprehension as to the object of the Bill. He understood from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night that this Bill had been brought in, because there had been certain decisions given by the courts of law under which, by reason of some technical illegality on the part of trades unions, the executive bodies of those trades unions were unable to proceed against and convict persons who had been guilty of embezzlement of their funds. He (Lord Cairns) had endeavoured to ascertain the particulars of those decisions, and he thought the noble and learned Lord had been misinformed. What he understood the courts to have decided was that where trades unions, by reason of the illegality in their rules, being in restraint of trade, were not able to register themselves as friendly societies, they could not have the benefit of that summary proceeding against their officers which friendly societies by law enjoyed. There was no difficulty in trades unions benefit societies proceeding against their officers for embezzlement, any more than other benefit societies, and it was only when their rules were in restraint of trade that they were

1069
prevented from doing so; and it had not been decided that trades unions were not entitled to the full benefit of the Act passed last Session, which enabled all societies of any kind to proceed against their officers for embezzlement of their funds. It was a very unusual kind of legislation to introduce a Bill which was to last only for one year in the face of the Report of the Commissioners on Trades Unions, whoso recommendations went to this effect— that trades unions might be registered as friendly societies, provided they complied with certain conditions. It was a very unusual kind of legislation to authorize trades unions to register themselves for the purpose of recovering from their officers. There was no difficulty in trades unions recovering from their officers for embezzlement under the Act of last Session.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think his noble and learned Friend would say that an illegal society could recover by virtue of the Act of last Session. It was held by the majority of the Judges that a trades union whose rules were in restraint of trade, and therefore illegal, could not be registered under the Friendly Societies Act. The Act of last Session could not improve that state of things in any way, and great anxiety was therefore felt in regard to this Bill, which had been brought in for a temporary purpose, while a general measure was under consideration.
LORD CAIRNSobserved that the Act of last Session said that no person should be acquitted of a charge of embezzlement, on the ground that he was a partner along with those whose money had been taken. The illegality of those trades unions had nothing whatever to do with that. The Commissioners reported—
"That the registration of trades unions might be effected through the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and it would be his duty to see that the rules and by-laws of a society claiming to be registered were unobjectionable—that is, not intended to promote those objects which we now proceed to specify as justifying, in our opinion, the refusal of registration—
"1. To prevent the employment or to limit the number of apprentices.
"2. To prevent the introduction, or to limit the use of machinery in any trade or manufacture.
"3. To prevent any workman from taking a sub-contract or working by the piece, or working in common with men not members of the union.
1070
"4. To authorize interference, in the way of support from the funds of the union, by the council or governing body of the union, with the workmen of any other union when out on strike, or when otherwise engaged in any dispute with their employer, in any case in which such other union is an unconnected union."
In the face of that Report they were, by this Bill, going to allow to be registered as friendly societies those trades unions who might infringe every one of those four articles which he had just read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought his noble and learned Friend would not say that on an indictment being laid the property embezzled must not be described as the property of somebody; and it could not be set out as being the property of an illegal society.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) said the Bill flew in the face of the Report of the Commissioners. Now, at page 20 of their Report, paragraph 59, the Commissioners said—
"It may be assumed, therefore, that the trades unions, with very few exceptions, have, by their rules and proceedings, placed their funds more or less beyond the protection of the law; and they are not altogether relieved either by the Act (31 & 32 Vict., c. 116) giving remedies to associations in cases of larceny by members thereof, or by the section in the Friendly Societies Act applicable to trade societies (18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, sec. 44) since that section applies only to societies established for ' any purpose which is not illegal.' This is a state of things which we think ought not to be allowed to continue; and we are brought therefore to the consideration of that part of your Majesty's Commission which directs us to suggest any improvements to be made in the law with respect to trades unions."
Therefore the majority of the Commissioners were distinctly of opinion that the state of things by which the funds of trades unions are very imperfectly protected by law should not be allowed to continue. It seemed to him that the Act of last year did not meet the case of the trades unions thoroughly. That Act had two objects. First, it repealed the doctrine of common law by which co-partners were not liable to be sued in case of the embezzlement of the property of the partnership. In the next place it extended to the crime of embezzlement the provisions of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, which authorized summary prosecutions in cases of larceny and other offences. But those offences could be brought before justices of the peace in a summary way only if the

1071
defendants consented, and if the defendants objected the proceeding must be by indictment; and that being so trades unions were placed at a disadvantage. The object of the present Bill was to enable trades unions to have the same advantages as friendly societies in regard to proceeding in a summary way in cases of embezzlement or misappropriation of their funds by any of their officers. But another important point not touched by the Bill of last year was that trades unions could not recover their property in the shape of books, papers, or other documents. The present Bill would provide a remedy for that evil. He desired also to point out to their Lordships that by this Bill no sort of civil status was given to trades unions. It gave no advantages to any association for criminal purposes, nor, indeed, to any society whatever for illegal purposes, except it be in restraint of trade; but he ventured to submit that "restraint of trade" was a somewhat ambiguous term, and that there was great difference of opinion in the country as to what was "restraint of trade "and what was not. He ventured to submit that the law on this subject was at present anything but clear and precise. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would assent to this Bill, seing that it had passed the House of Commons without any opposition whatever, and almost without discussion. If their Lordships were to pass this Bill they would be conferring great advantages on trades unions, without in any way touching those controverted questions to which the Commission had referred.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Lord had read a passage from the Report which pointed out certain difficulties in the way of trades unions recovering as against their officers; but the Report went on further to say that it would be the duty of the Registrar of Friendly Societies "to see that the rules and bylaws of a society claiming to be registered were unobjectionable"—that is, not intended to promote certain specified objects. By allowing, therefore, trades unions to be registered as friendly societies they would be able to recover as against their officers, provided they did not infringe any of the four cardinal points which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, would make such societies absolutely and radically illegal.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he desired to call attention to some remarks of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) on the second reading, because they had led to some misapprehension. as to the views of the Commissioners, and he believed also as to the objects of the Government in introducing the Bill—though he had no communication with them on the subject. The remarks to which he referred were that the provisions of this Bill were not framed in accordance with the views of the Commissioners, and that the Bill had been introduced by the Government | with the object of recognizing in some way those trades unions as friendly societies. These were two very important points, and he wished to call attention to an opinion which he held very strongly, that the provisions of this Bill were not at variance with the Report of the Commissioners. But first he would ask their Lordships' attention to the position of these societies, and why it was that they asked for the protection it was proposed to give them by this Bill. To obtain a correct notion of that position it was necessary to refer to certain decisions in our courts of law. In the year 1867, the case of "Hornby v. Close" was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench, and that decision was that the society, which was then prosecuting an. officer for embezzling its funds, had no grounds for proceeding in consequence of its being an illegal society, through one of its rules prohibiting piece-work. The next ease, that of "Farrar v. Close," was in 1868. In that case the Court of Queen's Bench decided that, although there was a rule providing for the support of members out of employment, that rule did not operate necessarily in restraint of trade; and, therefore, as the case was brought before the court, the society would have had ground for proceeding against its officer. But the case having been referred from the justices at Bradford, the Court of Queen's Bench intimated that possibly evidence might be adduced to show that this rule did operate in restraint of trade. The case was then remitted to the magistrates, and evidence was taken, from which it appeared that this rule had been made to operate in restraint of trade, by encouraging and promoting strikes. The case then came back before the Court of Queen's Bench, and the judgment of the magistrates was confirmed. Now, when

1073
this case came back before the Court of Queen's Bench it was clearly decided that a society subscribing funds for the support of strikes, and thus having a rule operating in restraint of trade, was thereby an illegal society. Now, upon this subject he must call attention to the views and recommendations of the Commissioners as contained in their Report. And here he must remind their Lordships that he was not one of those who signed the Report—that is to say, the Report of the majority. He wished to observe, however, that in the Report of the majority of the Commissioners were to be found views which, in his opinion, were in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. He would first call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to page 20, paragraph 60. in which it was said—
"With regard to the general question of the light of workmen to combine together for determining and stipulating with their employer the terms on which only they will consent to work for him, we think that, provided the combination be perfectly voluntary, and that full liberty be left to all other workmen to undertake the work which the parties combining have refused, and that no obstruction be placed in the way of the employer resorting elsewhere in search of a supply of labour, there is no ground of justice or of policy for withholding such a right from the workmen. It cannot be doubted that a demand, backed by the resolution of a large body of workmen to decline work if the demand be not acceded to, cornea with more force than that of an isolated workman; and we think that the workmen may reasonably claim to be allowed any advantage which they can derive from such concerted action in bargaining with their employer from time to time as to the terms on which they will dispose of their labour."
These were the views of the Commissioners as to the right to combine. Then, if their Lordships turned to page 22, paragraph 73, they would find what the Commissioners' recommendations were—
"With regard to the general question of the right of combination, we are prepared to recommend, in accordance with the principles above stated, that a Bill be brought in, so far relaxing the existing law as in substance to enact that no combination of persons for the purpose of determining among themselves, or of stipulating for, the terms on which they will consent to employ or be employed, shall be unlawful by reason only that its operation would be in restraint of trade."
Now, that was a direct recommendation by the Commissioners of some such Bill as was now before their Lordships. If their Lordships turned to page 24, paragraph 78, they would find that the Commissioners said—
"With regard to existing trades unions, we
1074
think that, subject to certain conditions, to be presently stated, they should be relieved from their present anomalous position."
And in paragraph 79 they said—
"We notice also that societies have now facilities to apply the law against larceny and embezzlement to offences by their officers and other members coming within the recent ' Act to amend the Law relating to Larceny and Embezzlement, 31 and 32 Victoria, c. 116.' But, although some progress has thus been made towards security for the rights of members of unions, there would be advantage to the unions if they were established with the capacities, rights, and liabilities arising from a status recognized by law; and there would be advantage to the public if their proceedings were made public, and the officers of unions acting according to law had the position to which persons discharging important duties are entitled."
He entirely agreed with the last half of that paragraph, and it was because he held that view that he dissented from the conditions laid down by the Commissioners, as conditions without compliance with which no society ought to obtain the protection of the law for its funds. There were only four conditions laid down by the Commissioners, and that principle upon which the last decision of the courts was based—namely, that a society was illegal which subscribed funds in support of strikes—was not one of them. Of the four objects deemed objectionable by the Commissioners, and as justifying in their opinion the refusal of registration, the fourth and most important—relating to the support by unions, in cases of strike, of men belonging to other and unconnected unions—was not thought objectionable by two of the Commissioners, who entered a dissent upon this point at the end of the Report. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, were not at variance with the opinions or recommendations of the Commissioners. He (the Earl of Lichfield) appreciated the difficulties of the Government in their endeavours to define what should make a society illegal, and pronounced the four conditions quoted by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) inconsistent with paragraph 73 of the Report, in which the Commissioners say that societies should not be held illegal on account only of any rule operating in restraint of trade. He felt it would be also inconsistent to declare illegal societies having rules to limit apprenticeship or to prohibit piecework, when other societies recognized as legal had rules quite as unsound upon economical grounds. The noble and learned Lord had hinted

1075
the other night that this Bill was designed to recognize trades union societies by a side wind, and in that way to give them all the advantages of the Friendly Societies Act. If that were so, he would be the first to oppose it— and, moreover, the Bill would have been opposed by the trades unions themselves. The Bill simply gave trades unions the advantages conferred on friendly societies by the 44th clause of the Friendly Societies Act — that summary mode of procedure in cases of fraud so necessary to such associations. Having given much consideration to the matter, he was extremely grateful to the Government for having introduced a measure calculated to do away with what he felt to be a great injustice; for trades unions were, after all, simply associations of persons combined together for the purpose of promoting their own interests— the uniform object of most associations. Why, therefore, should these trade societies be deprived of the legal protection to their property which every other person in the country possessed? He confessed he could not understand upon what ground of expediency or policy their Lordships could refuse such an equitable demand, so long as those societies conducted their affairs in a manner unstained by anything criminal. If their Lordships believed those societies to be criminal or manifestly illegal, they ought not to rest satisfied with punishing them by simply withholding from them that legal protection which all other societies possessed; but they ought to go much further, and boldly declare that such societies should be altogether prohibited. He trusted their Lordships would assent to the Bill.
LORD PENZANCEthought the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) took an extravagant view of the case. The Bill simply proposed to confer upon trades unions for one year—during which a more efficient measure might be matured—the same legal means of protecting their funds from fraud and embezzlement as was enjoyed by friendly societies. The noble and learned Lord opposite said they had the power to protect their funds from fraud already under the statute of last year. Without inquiring whether this was so or not, he (Lord Penzance) wished simply to point out that the only object of this Bill was to give them a more efficient
1076
and ready means of access to that power —such means as the law already gave to friendly societies. It might be a question whether it should be pronounced unwise and unjust to say trades unions should not recover in cases of fraud; but surely it would be still more unwise if, having that power, the Legislature should refuse to give them a ready means of availing themselves of the remedies the law gave them. Looking at the limited time the law would operate, and the limited nature of its provisions, he could not conceive what objection could be raised to, it even from the standpoint of his noble and learned Friend opposite.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SEEDS ADULTERATION BILL.
(The Earl of Devon.)
(NO. 242.) SECOND HEADING.
Order of the Day for the Second Heading, read.
THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its purpose was to repress by more effectual enactments than those at present in force the practice of adulterating seeds in fraud of the purchasers and to the great detriment of agriculture. As to the prevalence and extent of the practice he would only refer their Lordships to the evidence taken before the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred by the House of Commons. The practices against which it was directed, and which prevailed extensively, were the sale of seed which had been "killed "by the action of fire, or by other artificial means by which it was deprived of the power of germination, and the sale of spurious seed which had been fraudulently coloured in imitation of genuine seed. Adulteration was carried on principally in turnip seed and clover seed, and in the interests of agriculture, and as affecting the food supplies of the country, it was important that it should be stopped. The penalty imposed for the commission of either of these kinds of fraud was for the first offence a penalty not exceeding £5; and for the second and any subsequent a penalty not exceeding £50; and in the

1077
latter cases the court were authorized in addition to cause the offender's name, business, place of abode, and the particulars of his offence to be published in any newspaper or in any other manner, at the offender's own expense.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a "—(The Earl of Devon.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he rather doubted the expediency of multiplying offences for the purpose of preventing practices such as those described. It might be that seeds were adulterated, and that farmers suffered in consequence; but he believed that in most cases they might by reasonable precaution protect themselves. He would not offer any opposition to the Bill, for though he did not think it likely to be of any particular use, he thought it would be harmless. In Committee he would propose certain Amendments, which he had submitted to his noble Friend opposite, and the object of which was to simplify the provisions of the Bill. He would take care that the Amendments were placed in the hands of their Lordships before the Bill went into Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

DUBLIN FREEMEN COMMISSION BILL.
(The Lord Lurgan.)
(NO. 210.) SECOND BEADING.
On Order of the Day for the Second Reading,
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he felt it his duty to move that the Order be discharged.. Their Lordships were aware of the care he had always taken to prevent the Business of the House at the close of the Session, being conducted in a manner injurious to the character of the House. He thought it of the greatest possible importance that the House should never be taken by surprise by any measure, and particularly by one of great importance. This Bill came to their Lordships some time ago without any notice of its being a Government measure; and now, when many of their Lordships had left the House for the Session, notice was given—not by a Member of the Government—of an intention to proceed with it. Whether the step was taken
1078
with the concurrence of the Government he did not know; but, whether it was or not, he must say that this was a Bill which ought not to be proceeded with at this period of the Session. It was of considerable importance in point of principle, and it was entirely without precedent. There had never before been an inquiry with respect to one class of voters in a borough. He would put it to their Lordships to consider how unfair such a proceeding would be in itself. Suppose a Judge had reported that bribery had prevailed in a particular ward of a borough, would that justify an inquiry with regard to that ward, alone, with a view to its disfranchisement? Their Lordships might feel that this was a Bill affecting the other House, and that it therefore called for some concession from this; but on that very ground he contended that the Bill required particular attention. They all knew that where party feeling ran high, things might be done for a party object, although they were ostensibly done in the name of justice. For this reason their Lordships ought to be jealous of any action of an unusual character in a matter of this kind. Their Lordships could not help knowing that a large body of voters in Dublin were supposed to entertain views which were not in favour with a majority of the present House of Commons; therefore, their Lordships ought to be particularly careful what they did in a matter of this kind, and ought to see that equal justice was done as between the two parties. If there had been any precedent for this Bill, and if it had come before their Lordships under ordinary circumstances, it would have been open to fair discussion; but, considering what had taken place upon the subject, as well as the history of the Bill, and the time of the Session at which it had come up to their Lordships, it was a serious question whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed further. The question of the Dublin election was discussed in that House on the 8th of June, when their Lordships were asked to concur in an Address to the Crown sent up by the Commons, praying for the appointment of a Commission to make inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at the last Dublin election. In the course of discussion it was shown that the Report of the Judge did not authorize such, a pro-

1079
ceeding, and their Lordships did not concur in the Address. In the other House of Parliament, on the 17th of June, a Bill was introduced for disfranchising the freemen of Dublin; but that was thought rather a strong proceeding, and therefore, on the 1st of July, leave was given to introduce this Bill for a Commission. It came up to their Lordships' House on the 22nd of July; and from that date to the 30th no notice was taken of it, although the Bill had been introduced into the other House by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Under such circumstances most of their Lordships must have believed that the Bill was dropped, and that it was not intended to proceed with it. It was extremely objectionable that a Government measure should pass without notice for so many days at the close of the Session, if it was intended to proceed with it, and such a proceeding was calculated to bring discredit on their Lordships' House. For these reasons he moved that the Order for the second reading be discharged.
Moved, "That the Order of the Day for the Second Reading be discharged." —(The Chairman of Committees.)
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, as to this Bill reaching their Lordships at a late period of the Session, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had shown that it did not leave the House of Commons until a very late period; and, as to many noble Lords having left town, there had been above an average attendance that evening; therefore he could not attach the slightest importance to the reasons alleged for rejecting the Bill before the second reading was moved, and he must urge their Lordships to consider the Bill on its merits. He entirely repudiated the idea that the Government was actuated by party motives; and he could not conceive how that stigma could have been applied to the Government if the noble Lord himself had been entirely free from such motives—particularly as the Government had left the Bill to be taken up in that House by a Peer who did not belong to the Administration.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not go into the merits of the Bill, which everyone must admit was one of very great gravity. It proposed ex post facto legislation and legislation without precedent.
1080
The Bill came up to this House on the 22nd of July; it was now the 2nd of August; during that interval it might have been carried through all its stages if their Lordships had approved it; and now a number of noble Lords, and especially those connected with Ireland, had left London having fairly concluded that the Bill would not be proceeded with. It was not right that such a measure should be brought under their consideration after the Appropriation Bill had been introduced into the other House.
On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 32; Not-Contents 33: Majority 1.
Resolved in the Negative.
Order of the Day read accordingly.
LORD LURGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, that it had been carefully considered and fully debated in '' another place,'' and on two occasions had been carried by large majorities. He was aware that the Bill was objected to as a piece of exceptional legislation, and that it was said that the usual course was to act on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. But that course had been adopted in the other House, and their Lordships had declined to join in the Address, owing to some alleged informality in the Judge's Report. The matter had for the time dropped; but that could not be accepted as a final settlement of the question, and the present Bill was introduced, being simply a Bill for the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices among the freemen electors of the City of Dublin. It was based on the Report of the learned Judge who tried the petition, before whom an immense number of witnesses were examined, and who reported that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among the freemen. This was certainly a grave charge against them; and, supposing it for a moment to be true, he did not see how another election could be held until after full inquiry—for surely it would be worse than ridiculous to give these freemen, who had thus unworthily exercised the franchise, an opportunity of again disgracing, not only themselves, but also, indirectly, the whole constituency of the metropolis of Ireland. The freemen were undoubtedly a large portion of the constituency of Dublin, number-

1081
ing between a fourth and a fifth of the whole body. Under present circumstances he would offer no opinion respecting them; but any noble Lord who wished to learn more of their proceedings at contested elections could read the report of the proceedings at the late trial of the election petition. If all there stated were true, it was quite clear that a case was made out for inquiry and exposure. If, on the other hand, there had been any misapprehension or misrepresentation, it was incumbent on those who agreed with him, and doubly incumbent on noble Lords opposite, who had always found these freemen firm allies, to give them the opportunity, which this Bill afforded, of vindicating their character by an inquiry before Commissioners in whom the utmost reliance might be placed. On these grounds he ventured to ask their Lordships to assent to the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Lurgan.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Bill involved a principle which ought not to be sanctioned by the House, and he would therefore move an Amendment that it be read a second time this day three months. Last year an Act had been passed after considerable discussion, putting an end to the trial of election petitions by Committees of the other House. Now, it was because the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Dublin election petition did not conform to the condition of the Act, which would alone justify the issue of a Commission, that their Lordships had refused to concur in the Address which had been sent up from the other House on the subject in the early part of the Session. That Justice Keogh was a man who was likely to commit an informality, no one who knew the distinguished reputation of that learned Judge was likely to believe; and if he had been of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed at the late election for Dublin he was not the person to shrink from giving expression to that opinion in his Report. No objection, he might add, had been made by the Members of the Conservative party in the other House to the issue of Commissions in those cases in which the Judge had reported that extensive bribery prevailed, and to endeavour to make
1082
such cases the subject of party contests, and to enter upon the course of legislation proposed by the Government would, he contended, be to run the risk of returning to a state of things in every way discreditable to Parliamentary Government, when almost every contested election was made the subject of a Parliamentary battle. Without wishing to say anything offensive to noble Lords opposite, he must be allowed to point out that in the division which had just been taken the majority against the Motion of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees for the discharge of the Bill was only 1, and that if such questions were to be decided in that sort of way the public out-of-doors could scarcely be expected to regard the decision of the House with any great respect—seeing especially that those who voted in the majority were, for the most part, composed of Members of the Government whose official duties compelled them to stay in town. As to the freemen against whom the Bill was directed, they amounted, he believed, in all to 2,700; and was it right, he would ask, because charges were brought against some 250 of that number, to pass against the whole of them a measure which could not be regarded otherwise than as a measure of pains and penalties? Those 2,700 electors comprised a most respectable class of men, and he for one protested against having the innocent confounded with the guilty in the way proposed, and a stigma cast upon them which they by no means deserved. It should, moreover, be borne in mind that the Act of last Session provided a remedy in cases of corruption. The Attorney General might have prosecuted in those cases; and if he had done so, and it had been proved the law was not sufficient to meet them, then the Act of last Session might have been supplemented by further legislation. Nothing, however, so far as he was aware, had been done by the Government to vindicate the majesty of the law by prosecuting those whose names had been laid before them as guilty of bribery; and he for one objected to the ex post facto legislation which they now invited the House to sanction—legislation, too, which would violate the fundamental principle that a Member of the House of Commons represented the whole of his constituency and not a fractional part of it, whether represented by freemen or lodgers or

1083
any other class of voters. For those reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if he might venture to express an opinion with respect to the credit of the House to which the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) had alluded, he did not think it would be consulted by a refusal to pass the present Bill, and thus far placing their Lordships in the position of protectors of corrupt voters. What was the exact point involved in the measure? The noble Earl seemed in his speech completely to overlook the fact that Mr. Justice Keogh, who tried the election petition, had reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among the freemen of Dublin at the last election—a fact which, by no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, had been deemed sufficient ground for praying the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry. Their Lordships refused to concur with the other House in the Address praying for the issue of such a Commission, because it was pointed out that there might be some doubt—which he supposed was what his noble Friend behind meant when he spoke of an informality—as to whether such a Report as Mr. Justice Keogh had made entitled the House to vote an Address to the Crown. That was a technical difficulty; but looking to the spirit of the Act of last Session he felt sure that the noble Lord opposite would feel that it would be absurd that Parliament should be precluded from dealing with the case of a corrupt class of voters, merely because they happened to be supporters of the one political party or the other in the State. Mr. Justice Keogh, at the end of his judgment, said that it was proved by what appeared to him most conclusive evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the freemen of the City of Dublin had been shown to a great extent to be corrupt voters, and that he would leave the House of Commons to deal with their case and with the constituency as affected by it. What could be more clear than that Mr. Justice Keogh contemplated Parliamentary action in that case? The clear intention of the Act and of Mr. Justice Keogh's
1084

judgment was that that corruption should not pass without notice. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would not follow the advice given them to reject that Bill.
LORD CAIRNSmaintained, in opposition to the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that there was no question of technicality or informality raised in the discussion that took place on the proposed Address in their Lordships' House. The objection raised was that the Act of Parliament had not been complied with, and that therefore there was no power to address the Crown; and on that ground their Lordships refused to concur in the Address. The Bill was very objectionable on the ground that it proposed ex post facto legislation, and that upon a subject to which of all others that kind of legislation ought not to be applied. He looked upon the Act of last year as an extremely valuable one, and as effecting one of the greatest improvements ever made in election law; and it was by that Act that proceedings relating to elections ought to be governed; and he maintained that the resort to special Acts of Parliament to deal with cases was the most dangerous of all undertakings in which Parliament could engage. If they legislated to-day specially with the Dublin election after it had taken place, they must legislate to-morrow specially with some other election after it had been held. And if they pursued that course—although he did not suggest that any person was actuated by party motives in that or any other ease— the consequence would in the long run be that they would get into that line of action which Parliament years ago avowed its desire to abandon—namely, that of dealing with particular cases in a way which excited the party feeling and prejudice of those who engaged in such legislation. It was from that dilemma they were extricated by the Act of last year, and it was in that direction that the present Bill proposed to make a relapse. On that ground he objected to the measure.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was extremely surprised at the opposition now offered to the Bill. When, on a former occasion, their Lordships were requested to join in an Address which the House of Commons was prepared to adopt under the Act of last Session, it was said to be dangerous to take that course, because, should it turn out that

1085
the Report of the learned Judge did not justify such an Address, in what a position would the learned Judge and the Commissioners be placed if they attempted to commit anybody by virtue of that Act, and if it were found that by committing any person they exceeded the powers given in the Act? He had not been prepared to face the possibility of there being such a difficulty on the part of those who conducted the inquiry—so that they would have had to act under very considerable disadvantage. And what did his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) say then? Why, that that was not the right course to take— that they had other remedies; that they might have a Committee of the House of Commons, or they might bring in a Bill. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in "another place," took exactly the same line and recommended a Bill. Again, it was said that this was ex post facto legislation; but a Committee of the House of Commons had examined into the corruption of the freemen of Yarmouth, and a Bill was afterwards brought in disfranchising them. Mr. Justice Keogh had found extensive bribery to exist among a large class of the constituency, consisting of 2,700 persons: about 270 cases of gross corruption had been proved against the Dublin freemen; The House of Commons, being anxious to preserve the purity of its elections, but at the same time wishing to avoid party bias, concurred in resigning its power to deal with these matters by its own Committees, and passed an Act by which such questions should be investigated by the Judges. Well, that new method of investigation had been adopted; and when about one-tenth part of a large class of voters had been found by a learned Judge guilty of flagrant corruption, their Lordships would place themselves in a strange position if, in opposition to the desire of the other House to purge itself of that gross corruption, they would not allow any further step to be taken for its punishment.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 27: Majority 2.
Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EDUCATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Town Councils to promote Education in England and Wales—Was presented by The Lord STRATHEDEN; read 1a. (No. 259.)
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.