Lords Sitting of 30 July 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Seeds Adulteration * (242); Telegraph* (243).
Second Reading—Civil Offices (Pensions) * (157); Married Women's Property (212); Millbank Prison * (234); Fisheries (Ireland) * (236); Trades Unions (Protection of Funds) (226); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (230); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland Supplemental (No. 2) * (136); Straits Settlements* (231).
Committee — Evidence Amendment (110–239); Contagious Diseases (Animals) (217–240); Jamaica Loans* (204); Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal * (195–241).
Committee—Report — Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (211); 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).
Report—Contagious Diseases* (221); Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment* (238).
Third Reading—Imprisonment for Debt * (224); County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (1868) Amendment* (173); Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment* (178); Cinque Ports Act Amendment * (216), and passed.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Penzance.)
(No. 212.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD PENZANCE LORD PENZANCE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill had been maturely considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Its object was to redress grievances arising out of the present law as regarded the property of married women, which were keenly felt by a considerable portion of the population. The theory of the common law was that all property possessed by a woman at the time of the marriage, or acquired subsequently, passed absolutely to her husband, who in return was bound to maintain and protect her. Her identity merged as it were in Ms, and she could neither sue nor be sued—she being unable to enter into any contract, and the husband being civilly responsible for her actions. The upper classes, however, had found means to escape from the severity of this system by means of marriage settlements, and the courts of equity had gradually, and step by step, secured the property of the wives of the well-to-do classes from the carelessness or prodigality of their husbands. Among the poorer classes, however, all the harshness of the law made itself felt. Under the common law a man was bound to support his wife, but she had no direct means of obliging him to do so—she could only throw herself on the parish; and if she became chargeable to the public the parish officers had a right of recovering from the husband what was necessary for her bare support. If he squandered the property possessed by her on her marriage she had no redress; and if, during her married life, she earned anything by her industry or talents those earnings became his absolute property. Such a law, regarded in the abstract, could not be deemed satisfactory. According to the last Census there were 3,000,000 of married women
980
in the kingdom, of whom about 800,000 were persons working for wages or earning money in some other way. Now, in a certain percentage of cases, the husband became a spendthrift or a drunkard, and preyed upon her earnings, sometimes seizing and pawning her goods or breaking up her home. The law stood by, leaving him entirely master of the situation, and the more determined a wife was to preserve herself and her children from poverty, the more certain he was to come down and seize upon the pittance she had secured. Magistrates, clergymen, district visitors, and all acquainted with the poor, were aware that this grievance was widely felt, especially in the North, where it was commoner than elsewhere for women to be largely employed for wages. By a recent provision the earnings of a married woman were protected, in certain cases, against her husband—but these protection orders could only be granted where the husband had deserted the wife, and not otherwise. The Select Committee of the House of Commons took last year much evidence as to the frequency of cases of hardship, and they reported that an extension of the system of protection orders, which at present applied only to cases of desertion, to reckless, cruel, and dissipated husbands, would be a very inefficient remedy, since few women, while continuing to live with their husbands, would come forward and expose their domestic trials by making applications to adverse to them. These protection orders, granted under a clause in the Divorce Act to wives deserted by their husbands, had done a large amount of good; but it was obvious that if a worthless husband had a mind to prey on his wife's earnings he would not leave her sufficiently long to enable her to claim the protection of these orders. And, as a rule, such men took care not to desert, in a legal sense, their wives while they could live upon their earnings in idleness and dissipation. The law in this respect was peculiar to England—in no other country, he believed, did the entire property of a wife become the absolute property of her husband. The Select Committee had turned their attention to the state of the law elsewhere. In America, great changes had been made during the last ten or fifteen years, the common law which they inherited from us having been abrogated, and, ac-

981
cording to the evidence offered to the Committee, this had not caused disunion in families, or weakened the proper authority of the husband, nor had it put an end to marriage settlements, though it had diminished the number of them. The Bill, which was founded on the recommendations of the Select Committee, proposed that a wife should be capable of retaining the property she possessed at her marriage and afterwards of disposing of it; that as to marriages now in existence the wife should have all property accruing to her after the passing of the Act; that she might sue and be sued as if unmarried; and that her estate should at death be distributed in the same way as her husband's would be. As to subsequent marriages, women were to hold property belonging to them at the time or acquired afterwards. There were subsidiary clauses making the wife liable to the Poor Law for the support of her husband and children. He did not conceal from himself that the Bill proposed to make a fundamental change in the law which had hitherto regulated the relation of husband and wife—that it revolutionized that law. He could quite understand the alarm which some persons might feel at the notion that the wife could bring an action against the husband, and could deal with her own property — such a proposition was so utterly at variance with the principle of the common law that alarm and doubt might reasonably be generated. It might be urged that the indirect effect would be to set up two independent authorities in one household; that the proper authority of the husband in his own house would be weakened, and that disunion would be promoted. But notwithstanding that those feelings were natural in the mind of anyone who contemplated those changes for the first time they would not, he trusted, induce their Lordships to refuse to read the Bill a second time On the other hand, the common error of reformers was to fix their eyes upon a particular grievance, and to propose a sweeping change, without reflecting that the law with which they were dealing provided for cases in which there was no evil as well as for those in which there was an evil. We might flatter ourselves that the large majority of marriages were not unhappy, and that there would generally be no desire on
982
the part of married people to squander the property of each other; while it was possible that unions which had hitherto been harmonious would be seriously interfered with by the tendency to set up two independent authorities. Where the marriage was a success, and where the harmony of the home was maintained there was clearly no necessity for a change of this kind; and he supposed it was hardly necessary to say that by the very terms of marriage the husband ought to be the paramount authority in his own home. He understood that there had been a recent discovery by profound thinkers that there was no moral or intellectual difference between the sexes such as lead to the subordination of the one to the other. Truth, however, in the common affairs of life, lay very near the surface, and those who dug and delved into the lower strata of thought sometimes brought up ingenious theories, but rarely practical truth. His own belief was, that the relations of husband and wife were founded upon a condition of things which had existed without exception in all times and in all parts of the earth—the husband being the protector and support of the wife, and the latter subordinate to and reliant upon him; nor did he think that the women of this country would desire a change in an order of Providence which was the source of the highest pleasures which either men or women could enjoy. Unless the old idea of the husband being paramount and the wife subordinate was an effete and worn-out theory, the law obviously ought to follow in the same track, and hence the actual state of the common law. But it did not follow that grievances should be tolerated, and the practical question with which they had to grapple was, how far the paramount authority of the husband could be reconciled with a reasonable protection to women who are tyrannized over and down-trodden by those who disregarded their marriage obligations. If it was right that in an harmonious home the husband should support and protect the wife, there was no reason why, where harmony ceased and the home was broken up, the law should not step in and strip him of rights which had become a tyranny. It would not be difficult, he thought, to provide that the authority of the husband and the ordinary comity of goods

983
should remain so long as the parties lived together; but that when the home was broken up, or the husband did not perform his duties, the wife should be protected by the law. It had been suggested that an extension of protection orders might meet the difficulty; but to this it had been objected that the extreme unwillingness of the wife to go before a magistrate would, except in very aggravated cases, render this a dead letter. It had also been felt that to give the husband a right to his wife's property, barred only upon application to a magistrate, was to put matters on a wrong foundation, and that if, on the other hand, the law recognized the wife as owner of her earnings, she would be elevated in the eyes of her husband and likely to be better treated. These considerations, which had weighed with the Select Committee, were well worthy of their Lordships' attention. He regretted that the Bill had only come up to this House within a fortnight of the close of the Session, and he feared that by no amount of diligence on the part of their Lordships could it be sent back to the other House with any necessary Amendments in time to become law this year. He was anxious, however, that their Lordships should show their sympathy for the suffering class and their readiness to consider the question by reading the Bill a second time. The Preamble simply affirmed the desirability of amending the law of contract and property as to married women, and the principle of the measure was that the evils to which he had referred should be remedied, so that their Lordships would not be committed to anything further. This would facilitate the re - introduction of the measure next Session, in order that at no distant date a remedy for the existing evils of our marriage law might be provided. The promoters of the Bill ought not to feel surprise if persons did not in hot haste abandon settled opinions, which probably resulted from their familiarity with the present law, and if the measure did not find immediate acceptance. It had made its way — he was going to say slowly, but certainly progressively — in the House of Commons, the majority last year being only 1, whereas this year it was considerable— not I lawyer out of 33, as he was informed, voting against it. People would doubtless become educated into regard-
984
ing the Bill more favourably than at first sight; but it would not be surprising if it at first underwent severe scrutiny. On the other hand, he would remind the opponents of the measure that the existing grievance was neither a temporary nor a trivial one, it being widespread and fruitful in misery.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord Penzance.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHTTMBEBLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHTTMBEBLAND, who had given notice of an Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time this day three months, said, he did not intend, after the noble and learned Lord's speech, to press that Motion. That speech admitted that it revolutionized the present relations of married life—which was of itself a sufficient reason why the House should pause before making so enormous a change. He admitted at the same time, that the existing evil was of the greatest weight, and called for prompt legislation. Other evils, however, might be created by the present Bill, which would enable a wife to dispose of her property, and leave her husband without subsistence. The noble and learned Lord had rightly remarked that reformers were too apt to sweep away authority instead of restraining; whereas, care should be taken to separate the use from the abuse. He was glad that the question had been taken up by such a high authority as the noble and learned Lord, and thought that ultimately some remedy might be found for admitted evils, without revolutionizing a law which had existed time out of mind; but he could not support the Bill in its present shape.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdesired to express his general approval of the principle of the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought the details of the measure required very careful consideration. But it was evidently impossible that any Bill on the subject could pass during the present Session. The experience of the last few years, and the facts stated by his noble and learned Friend, left little doubt of the necessity of protecting women of the humbler class who acquired property by their labour. As regarded those in a better position, he would remind the House that from a very early period the Court of Chancery, feeling the necessity of affording married women protection,

985
had taken care that when any fund exceeding £200 came before them to which a married woman was entitled, they would not part from it until she had had ample opportunity of securing it, or a portion of it, to herself and her children. This attempt to mitigate the severity of the common law showed that the grievance had been long felt; and, though the upper classes were to a great extent protected, it was but right that as regarded women of the poorer classes a remedy should be provided. Having been so long acquainted with the great value of that protection to married women, he could not but express his assent to the principle of the Bill.
LORD CAIRNSacknowledged the fairness with which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) had stated both the arguments against the Bill and the objections which might be preferred to its particular form, and believed that by not carrying the measure any further this Session the end in view would be furthered. He was himself a supporter of the principle of the Bill; but he wished to explain what he regarded as its principle. There were two kinds of protection provided by the Bill. One regarded protection to the earnings of married women. It had always appeared to him impossible to defend the existing law as regarded the earnings acquired by married women through their industry and talents. It was inconsistent with justice that she should have no voice in the disposition of those earnings. The other protection related to the law which transferred to the husband absolutely all property belonging to the woman at the time of the marriage. In regard to this, it must be remembered that while the common law gave all present or future property to the husband, there was during a very long period, and increasingly in modern times, a standing protest against it in the circumstance that, with the rarest exceptions, a settlement was agreed to when the families were able to afford it, putting the property of the wife on a footing directly at variance with the common law. This being the usual practice among the upper classes, the law ought to provide for those who could not afford the expensive luxury of a settlement, and in some way give like protection to women with a small property. These two points he regarded as the
986
principle of the Bill. But a number of its clauses went further, and others would require a careful consideration by a Select Committee, for they raised a host of difficulties, and were the Bill to pass in its present form the whole law relating to husband and wife would be thrown into confusion; the result of which would be a much greater change than would accomplish the object in view. At this period of the year careful examination by a Select Committee was out of the question; but he would not oppose the Motion to read the Bill the second time.
LORD DUFFERINsaid, there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of legislation in this direction, a number of Petitions numerously signed having been intrusted to him for presentation.
LORD ROMILLTdesired to express approval of the principle of the Bill. No doubt, it would revolutionize the common law, but not the existing law, for the former practically applied only to the poor, the other classes almost universally excluding its operation by marriage settlements. The humbler classes, not being able to afford settlements, experienced much suffering and hardship. Among the tipper classes a woman's portion was usually well ascertained at the time of the marriage, and it was rare for a lady of the higher ranks to acquire any money afterwards by her industry, this being almost invariably confined to literary qualifications; but among the lower classes it was common for a married woman to earn considerable sums by her own industry or the exercise of her talents, and all this is taken by the husband. He should have been glad if one or two clauses in the Bill could have been passed this year; but he admitted that the Bill, taken in its entirety, required more careful consideration than could at present be given to it. He earnestly hoped, however, that next Session their Lordships, who did such good service in Select Committees in questions of this kind, would alter the present law, which practically made the women of the lower classes the slaves of their husbands.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that a Bill of this kind, dealing universally with all marriages, was not analogous to settlements, which were formed to meet the peculiar circumstances of each case. Unless settlements

987
were brought within the reach of the poorer classes, they would not enjoy the same advantages as the rich.
THE EARL OF SHAETESBURYadmitted the necessity of proceeding cautiously in this matter, the tendency of the Bill being materially to alter all the relations of husband and wife. To appreciate the necessity of legislation one must go to the manufacturing districts, where many married women earned large wages and carried on distinct employments. Their earnings were a great temptation to idle and profligate husbands, and the most heartrending things occurred, homes in many instances being broken up and the wife and children sent to the workhouse. This was a wide-spread and increasing evil, and he trusted that earnest attention would be given to it next Session.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 110.)
(The Lord Penzance.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. s. 4., part of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 85. s. 2., and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 20. repealed).
LORD DENMANobjected to witnesses being allowed, as a mere matter of caprice or convenience, to substitute an affirmation for an oath.
LORD CAIRNStook the same view, and said that he had already pointed out on the second reading of the Bill that the 1st and 4th clauses in their present form would have the effect of doing away with judicial oaths altogether. They proposed that if witnesses simply disliked to take an oath they should be allowed to affirm that what they were going to say was the truth. He thought it would be quite sufficient to provide for the case of those who had conscientious scruples against taking oaths, and for the case of those who declared they were so unfortunate as to have no religious belief whatever. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was anxious to encourage a state of feeling which would lead persons to regard a solemn statement as equally obligatory with an oath — and this, no doubt, was desirable; but if the country were to be educated up to that point
988
oaths should be abolished altogether. Now, however much it might be regretted, large numbers of people regarded statements made under the sanction of an oath as much more solemn and requiring much greater accuracy than others. This was shown by the frequent appeals to witnesses by Judges and counsel to remember that they were on their oath, and it was notorious that truth was thus elicited in many cases where it would not otherwise be extracted. If it were left to individual discretion, the witness who at present would not tell the truth unless he was sworn would decline to take the oath; while it would be taken by the witness who in any case would tell the truth— so that those who most required the obligation would escape it. Sometimes the only witness to a particular transaction was a person with no religious belief, upon whom the sanctity of an oath had. no binding effect, and some provision should be made for such persons as well as for those who had religious scruples. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance), who was not responsible for the present form of the Bill, might bring up Amendments on the Report limiting the operation of the Bill to those two classes.
LORD PENZANCEadmitted that the effect of the clause would be wider than was intended. He had considered the noble and learned Lord's objections, and as he thought they were well founded he had no objection to introduce such alterations in the clause on the Report as would meet his noble and learned Friend's view.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Parties in actions for breach of promise of marriage).
LORD CAIRNSmoved the addition of a proviso, to the effect that the plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage should not be entitled to a verdict unless his or her testimony was corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise.
LORD PENZANCEsaid, he had not the least objection to the Amendment.
Amendment made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 239.)

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
( The Lord President.)
(No. 217.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Bill).
THE EARL OF EEVERSHAMsaid, that although the Bill so far as it went gave, no doubt, considerable satisfaction to many persons, the impression, at the same time, prevailed among the agricultural classes that it did not go far enough in the direction of imposing restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle. He should, therefore, move that the following new clause be inserted after clause 20:—
"Notwithstanding anything herein-before contained, no foreign animals shall be landed at any other than the ports or parts of ports so defined by the Privy Council, and such animals shall not be moved alive there from, except for slaughter to slaughter-houses adjacent thereto, licensed by the Privy Council, or except after undergoing a quarantine of not less than fourteen days, and being pronounced free from disease: Provided always, that such regulation shall not apply to the following animals if conveyed in vessels which shall not have touched during a period of three months preceding at any port of any country which may have been affected with cattle plague or sheep-pox—namely, animals imported from any country in which during the previous twelve months cattle plague or sheep pox shall not have existed, and through which animals shall not have passed from countries so affected."
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was quite impossible for him. to agree to the clause of his noble Friend, which differed very little from one which, when moved in the House of Commons, was rejected by a large majority. He could understand, although he entirely disapproved, the adoption of a system under which every foreign animal brought into this country should be slaughtered at the port of landing; and he could also understand the principle on which this Bill was based—namely, that of intrusting large powers to a Department to be exercised under the authority of Parliament. He was unable, however, to comprehend how such a principle as was embodied in the noble Earl's clause could be adopted. If there were a "hard and fast" line drawn by Act of Parliament, the inevitable result would be that the parties with whom that Department of the Government had to deal would take their stand on the enactment and insist that the Department should be guided by it
990
and by it alone. The result of the clause, if carried, would be to prevent healthy cattle from coming into the country whenever it could be shown that there had been a single case of disease in any part of any country through which the healthy cattle had passed. Such a provision would be totally inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and he trusted therefore their Lordships would not agree to it.
On Question? their Lordships divided —Contents 11; Not-contents 56: Majority 45.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 64 (Water and food on railways).
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, some people thought that under the clause as it stood the railway companies would only be obliged to fill their troughs on a demand being made to that effect. To remove all doubt, he moved the insertion of words providing that every railway company should have a supply, to the satisfaction of the Privy Council, of water and food for animals at such stations as the Privy Council should from time to time by order direct; and that animals travelling along the line should be supplied therewith on the request in writing of the owner of such animals or of any persons in charge of them.
Amendment agreed to.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that in his remarks last night he had ventured to suggest that twelve hours, rather than the thirty hours mentioned in the Bill, should be the maximum length of time during which these poor suffering animals should remain without a supply of food and water. He found that in 12 & 13 Vic, c. 92, there was a power to supply food and water to animals which might be impounded after twelve hours, and the owner who neglected to provide food and water was made liable to the charges incurred by the person who did so provide them, and for this reason he had thought that twelve hours should be the limit in this case. Questions had been addressed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the most eminent vete-

991
rinary surgeons in the kingdom as to whether, considering the natural requirements of these animals and their increased thirst when crowded together in railway trucks and steam-boats, they ought to remain longer than twelve hours without food and water. The whole of the answers sent in were decidedly in the negative, and some of the writers said that the time ought to be much less than twelve hours. He might state that those answers were all given without fee or remuneration of any kind. However, he had the opportunity last night of conferring with benevolent persons who were deeply interested in that subject, and in consequence of certain difficulties which had been pointed out to him in connection with the "untrucking" of those poor animals, he thought he would, perhaps, be doing the best he could do for their interest in adopting the suggestion made to him out of pure kindness towards those suffering creatures, that he should fix the limit at twenty hours instead of twelve by his Amendment. He therefore proposed to insert twenty hours for the thirty hours named in the clause. By that Amendment he must abide, and he trusted their Lordships would be pleased to spare those dumb creatures those last ten hours of suffering—the worst in their whole journey.
An Amendment moved, in line 42, to leave out ("thirty") and insert ("twenty.")—(The Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol).
THE EARL OF ROMNEYsaid, he was sorry the right rev. Prelate had not insisted on twelve hours. Twenty hours he thought excessive. In the United States of America the different States had their own laws on this point, and some States had fixed eight hours and others ten hours as the utmost limits.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he entirely sympathized with the object which the right rev. Prelate and the noble Earl who had spoken last had at heart, and he had a suggestion to make which he trusted would meet their views. There was no doubt considerable difficulty connected with "untrucking"—a process from which the animals suffered very much; and to enact off hand by a provision which was to take effect immediately that water was to be supplied every twelve hours to cattle
992
travelling by railway would, he thought, be a somewhat hasty and ill-advised proceeding. He would therefore suggest that the clause should be left as it stood, but that words should be inserted requiring water to be supplied to cattle after they had travelled thirty consecutive hours, or such other period, not less than twelve hours, as the Privy Council might by Order in Council from time to time direct—making thirty hours the maximum. That would leave it open for the Privy Council to consider what arrangements might be fairly and judiciously made with the railway companies in the matter.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLwas grateful to the noble Earl for the suggestion he had just made, but felt it to be his duty to stand out for a maximum not exceeding twenty hours, as the period within which food and water should be supplied.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, there was no doubt that many cattle now came from Scotland in very good condition, and he could not advise their Lordships at once and without due consideration to substitute twenty hours for thirty.
On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 40; Not-Contents 29: Majority 11.
Amendment made by inserting "or such other period not being less than twelve hours as the Privy Council may from time to time direct."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Further Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 240).

TRADES UNIONS (PROTECTION OF FUNDS) BILL—(No. 126.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND BEADING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was temporary, being to protect the funds of trades unions until another Bill was introduced next Session on the subject. At present these trades unions were re-

993
garded as private societies, and were prevented from taking advantage of the Friendly Societies Act of 1865. By this Bill they could, by depositing a copy of their rules, as provided by the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act, be brought within its scope, and a remedy given in cases of misappropriation, where at present there was no remedy at common law. The simple object of the Bill was to prevent the misappropriation of the funds of trades unions, and the Bill would remain in force for one year only.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Morley).
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the Bill was anomalous and premature, inasmuch as a Royal Commission had sat on the subject, and the Bill was not framed in accordance with any of that Commission's recommendations. The Government evidently hoped by this Bill to get trades unions recognized in some way or other as friendly societies; for the measure recited that although the object of the society might be illegal, inasmuch as it tended to restraint of trade, yet it should rank as a friendly society for the purpose of protecting its funds. If the measure were necessary, there would be some shadow of excuse for accepting it; but it was not—as the Act initiated by Mr. Russell Gurney protected the funds of legitimate friendly societies — and he objected to giving trades unions, illegal in their object, the protection of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the measure was necessary, and had resulted from a somewhat strict construction having been put on the word '' illegal "as applied to trade societies by the Court of Queen's Bench, which had declared that persons joined together as a trade union, not for the purpose of restricting trade by intimidation, but simply resolving among themselves not to engage in their trade except under certain conditions, were illegal. This decision prevented the societies from recovering money due to them, or punishing those who embezzled their funds. This decision had created great alarm among the trades unions, and, in consequence, a Bill had been introduced in "another place," giving to trades unions all the benefits enjoyed by friendly societies; but, thinking this was out of the question, the Government had re-
994
solved to introduce this temporary measure, in order to protect these societies from robbery, until the whole matter could be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.
In reply to Lord CAIRNS,
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the decisions of the courts were that, if a society had anything in its rules which operated in restraint of trade, then it was an illegal society.
LORD CAIRNS: The result is, we are now to declare that, although its regulations may operate in restraint of trade, they are, notwithstanding, to make a society a legal society.
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock,