BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 4 April 1873)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, their Lordships would recollect that when this Bill came up from the Commons it was found that there were several blunders in it, and also that much intricacy and confusion were created by the reference which the Bill contained to Acts of Parliament some of which had been repealed. Their Lordships not only removed the blunders, but simplified the bastardy laws by making the Bill one of consolidation. In that state the Bill went down to the Commons. It appeared now that the Commons accepted the removal of the blunders, but refused to accept the consolidation. He understood that this refusal was at the instance of the Local Government Board, and that it was based on the allegation that the Board itself intended at some future day to bring in a Consolidation Bill. He must say that he thought there was much inconvenience in the practice of the Government allowing subjects of this kind to be dealt with in Bills brought in by private Members. The Government ought to take the full responsibility of such Bills; and in that case Parliament would have some security that they were properly drawn. The Government said consolidation on the subject was necessary, and when they got a consolidated Bill they refused to accept it. Under the system of passing partial measures while waiting for consolidation, there was a complete entanglement of legislation. Numerous were the subjects awaiting consolidation. They had been promised a consolidation of the licensing laws; now they were promised a consolidation of the bastardy laws, and for the last 20 years they had been waiting in hope for a consolidation of the merchant shipping laws; but while they were waiting the Consolidation Bills still remained in the pigeon-holes of the various Departments. Each imperfect Act added to the perplexity. He protested against the Government giving its weight, authority, and influence in favour of piecemeal legislation.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he did not understand what the noble Marquess would have the Government do. Were they to say that there was to be no legislation on any subject until they could have a general consolidation of all the law relating to that subject?—because, if that were so, all legislation would have to be suspended for a considerable time. The case of the Merchant Shipping Acts was an example of the exceeding difficulty attending this kind of legislation. A consolidation of the laws relating to this subject had been under consideration for some years, and he would ask, ought Parliament to defer dealing with the evils to which Mr. Plimsoll had called attention until a consolidation of those Acts could be effected? If they did so, how many lives might be lost in the meantime I He quite concurred with the noble Marquess that consolidation was desirable—against that proposition he had not a word to say; but though it sounded exceedingly well to say, "We must have a Consolidation Bill" on all occasions when it was proposed to remedy pressing evils, the thing was impracticable. The Government could scarcely be held responsible for this Bill. It had been introduced in the other House by an hon. Member who did not usually support them; but he had yet to learn that it was the duty of the Government to prevent the introduction of Bills by private Members. He thought it was desirable in many cases that legislation should be set on foot by private Members. The merits or demerits of this particular Bill he was not competent to discuss; but if the noble Marquess, with all his ability, had not been able to avoid some of the extraordinary slips which occurred in the Amendments, how difficult must it not be to draw a Bill in such a manner as that its phraseology was not open to objection.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, it appeared to him that the noble Earl who had just spoken had completely missed the point raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Earl had spoken as if the noble Marquess had laid down the proposition that all legislation should be suspended till there was a measure of consolidation dealing with the subject on which it was proposed to legislate. Now, what his noble Friend stated was this—that a Bill had 601 come up to that House dealing with certain portions of an Act of last year—that Bill was not only amended in their Lordships' House, but turned into one of consolidation—consolidating as it did those portions of the Act of last year which it was proposed to retain with the other provisions which would apply to bastardy cases if the Bill passed. That consolidation was rejected in the other House on the ground that at a future day a general measure of consolidation would be introduced by the Local Government Board. His noble Friend complained of this, saying that it would be better to have one statute which should contain the required changes, and all that was necessary to be retained of the Bill of last year, rather than have two statutes—that of last year and the one it was now proposed to pass.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, their Lordships had now before them not only the Bill as it had left their Lordship's House, but the Lords' Amendments and the Commons' Amendments and the Commons' Reasons for disagreeing from the Lords. It was difficult to find out what the shape was in which the Bill was now supposed to stand. If they were to go on to consider it as amended, they ought to have it reprinted; but what he would suggest was this—let their Lordships send their Bill back to the Commons again and say they preferred one Act to two Acts. When pains were taken in this House to make a Bill perfect the Commons objected to it because it was perfect.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that having been intrusted with the charge of the Bill in their Lordships' House, he desired to see it as perfect as possible; but as, owing to the flaw in the existing law, a great many poor women were suffering serious wrong, he would ask their Lordships not to endanger the passing of an amending Act by holding out on any point of form.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that even though he might not agree with the other House as to the point of form, he should regard it as a great evil if a necessary amendment in the law were defeated by any differences between the two Houses on a question of consolidation.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he was inclined to take the same view as that put forward by his noble Friend 602 (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. He believed the Bill had been much improved by making it a Consolidation Bill, and he thought he could show the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that there were not the slips in the clauses which he seemed to suppose; but rather than that the flaw in the Act of last year should not be made good, he would give up the point of consolidation.