Lords Sitting of 23 August 1889

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL (No. 232.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered (on motion), and agreed to.
BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL, now BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL (No. 192)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments disagreed to, together with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 237.)
POST OFFICE SITES BILL (No. 230.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 234.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the object of the Bill to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is to encourage commerce and industry in Ireland. When the Government came into Office in 1886 they lost no time in initiating their policy of
  226
  doing all that lay in their power to promote commerce and industry in Ireland. They appointed a Royal Commission, which in its first Report dealt with the question of arterial drainage, and in its second Report with fisheries and railways. The proceedings of this Committee were followed by the introduction in 1888 of three Bills for the drainage of the Bann, the Barrow, and the Shannon. Unfortunately, from circumstances and influences which we were unable to control, we were unable to proceed with those Bills in that year. In May of the present year the Chief Secretary again introduced four Bills to deal with arterial drainage, one dealing with the River Bann, another with the Barrow, another with the Shannon, and another with the Suck, and at the same time he introduced a Bill to facilitate the promotion of Light Railways and to assist the means of railway communication in Ireland. Unfortunately, it has been found necessary, for reasons to which I will not now allude, to drop all the Bills connected with the question of drainage, and the only Bill which will be presented for consideration by this House is that of which I now have the honour to move the Second Reading, namely—a Bill to facilitate the promotion of Light Railways. Under the Tramways Act of 1883, upon which the present Bill is founded, Light Railways were promoted on the presentment of the Grand Jury by baronial guarantee out of the county cess or a fixed dividend not exceeding 5 percent on the entire paid-up capital, the Treasury guaranteeing the repayment of a sum not exceeding half the amount so paid, and not exceeding 2 per cent of the paid-up capital. Payments under that Act

  227
  of 1883 were limited to a total sum of £40,000 per annum, and out of that £40,000 £22,000 has been already dealt with, leaving an annual unappropriated sum, the interest of which is £18,000 a year. The present Bill alters the provisions of the Tramways Act in one respect especially, namely, that it provides a direct guarantee between the State and the promoters of the railway, whereas under the Tramways Act the guarantee was indirect. The Bill provides that either by a free grant or loan, or both, or by a lump sum, or by an annual payment, the Treasury is empowered to assist in the promotion of Light Railways. The scope of the Bill is limited to the poorer districts in which it is found absolutely necessary that State aid should be granted. Your Lordships will find in the second clause of the Bill that the Lord Lieutenant by an Order in Council is to declare that certain districts being in an impoverished state are unable to provide adequate communication themselves, and therefore the aid of the State is to be called in, and an Order in Council will then be made for that purpose. The Bill applies not only to Railway Companies constructing Light Railways as additions to existing lines, but also authorises assistance to be given to promoters who may promote Light Railways to be constructed and carried out and maintained by Railway Companies. Thirdly, it provides assistance in the case of ordinary promoters who wish to establish lines such as those to which I have alluded. The Treasury are empowered under the Bill to make an agreement with the promoters for the construction, maintenance, and working of the line upon such terms and conditions as the Treasury shall think fit. My Lords, with reference to the policy of granting State aid to undertakings such as these, perhaps your Lords-hips will allow me to read one paragraph at the end of the Second Report of the Royal Commission. They say:—
  "We have felt it our duty to recommend that the State should undertake far larger responsibilities in connection with public works in Ireland than would he considered proper in other parts of the United Kingdom; but oar investigations have convinced us that private capital will not at the present time he forthcoming for the execution of such undertakings without the help of the State, and that unless this be given it cannot he expected that
  228
  the works we propose, all of which are of importance, will be executed."
  That, I think, justifies the demand which will be made upon the taxpayers of the country to assist the Irish railways to the extent to which I have adverted. The total amount which may be so given is limited to a capital sum of £600,000, which at 3 per cent would give an annual sum of £18,000. But I may remind your Lordships that this £18,000 a year is in addition to the unappropriated residue which I have just now stated to your Lordships of the money which was authorised under the Act of 1883. It is not contended that these Light Railways will, or are likely to be, remunerative; but where that is not the case, Her Majesty's Government feel that it is especially desirable that State aid should be called in. In the West of Ireland, and in what are known as the congested districts of Ireland, there is a poor population along the shore engaged in the collection of seaweed which is valuable as manure; they cultivate their small holdings, and to a certain extent engage in the pursuits of fishery, but they do this entirely cut off from the rest of the world; and the Government feel, and I think your Lordships will feel, that any measure which will facilitate communication between those districts and places where the people can find a proper market for the fruits of their industry is one which is deserving of support. The details of the measure, being largely financial, may perhaps be considered as belonging to what is known as a Money Bill, and therefore I will not trouble your Lordships with them. This Bill, as I have said, met with a certain amount of delay and opposition, but that opposition has not been of a character to induce the Government to forbear from pressing it upon the attention of Parliament On the contrary, it is agreeable to remember that Members representing Ireland in the other House of Parliament were nearly unanimous in favour of the proposals contained in the Bill. Whatever differences of opinion may exist on this subject, and whatever may be the Government under which the Irish people may in future have to live, it is evident that no Government can afford to ignore the necessity of encouraging commerce and industry in Ireland, and of doing all in their power to assist materially

  229
  with money those who are in poorer circumstances than we are in England. For myself, and I believe I may also speak for my Colleagues, I hope that this measure will be considered as only an instalment of the policy of encouraging the enterprise and promoting the material prosperity of the people of Ireland, and will be the means of restoring peace and happiness to the inhabitants of that country. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 231.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CADOGAN: This is a Bill to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1888,under the following circumstances:—By Section 1 of that Act lessees and their assignees were admitted to the privileges of the Land Act of 1881, but the assignee of a lease could only avail himself of these privileges providing the assignment of the lease to him was one which was valid in law, and, where the lease could only be assigned with the landlord's consent, the assignment without that consent would not be valid, and the assignee under such an assignment could not have a judicial rent given. To remedy this state of things the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1888 was passed, providing that assignees under leases containing an agreement which restrained or prohibited the assignment should not be excluded from the above-mentioned benefits. It was, however, at the time overlooked that an old Act, the 7th of George IV., cap. 29, made an assignment of a lease without the landlord's consent given in a particular manner invalid where the leases, if made after the 1st June, 1826, did not expressly authorise the assignment, and that, although this Act was repealed as to future leases by the 2nd William IV., cap. 4, it remained in force as to leases made between the 1st June, 1826, and the 1st May, 1832. The result was to exclude certain persons holding under leases made during that period of six years from having the benefit of the
  230
  Act of 1881, which has been extended to other leaseholders under leases prohibiting alienation without the landlord's consent by the Act of 1888. To remedy this, this Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, where it met with support from Members on both sides of the House. I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL (No. 236.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CADOGAN: Last Session a Bill was introduced for a similar purpose which became law in 51 and 52 Vict., extending both to England and Ireland. When in the House of Lords a clause was moved at the instance of the Government providing that the Act should not apply to Ireland. It was found that the general circumstances of bankruptcy in Ireland were so dissimilar to those in England that it was absolutely necessary to exclude Ireland. The present Bill is so drafted as to meet the circumstances of the Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland, and therefore to extend the Bill of last Session with the necessary modifications to that country. I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Can the noble Lord inform me whether the fourth Subsection of Clause 4 is a repetition of what is in the English Act. I do not recollect that that is the law in England, but very likely it may have passed last Session.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am informed that the provisions of this Bill are drafted so as to meet all the requirements of the Bankruptcy Law in Ireland. The Bill does not follow entirely the lines of the English Bill; on the contrary, it was found necessary to make a special Bill in order to meet the special requirements of the Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Of course, if there had been the same provisions in the law for England, there would be an object in making the law for the two

  231
  countries uniform, and I should not have troubled the House with any observations; but it does strike one as curious that when a man becomes bankrupt or a company is wound up, if a landlord or any other person has distrained upon the goods within three months before the winding up or the bankruptcy, the preferential debts (which include parochial rates or Income Tax for a year) shall be a charge not only on the goods and effects distrained, but on the proceeds of them. The effect of that would be that if the landlord had paid himself his rent within three months by a distress, then that money in his hands becomes charged with the Income Tax or parochial rates of the tenant for a year. That does seem a little strange.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am informed by the Irish Law Officers that the Bill was not altered in any essential particular, and therefore I conclude that that was in the English Act; but I will make inquiries, and let the noble and learned Lord know in Committee.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (No. 235.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD DENMAN: The notice which appears on the Paper in my name is to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. I would like to explain that that notice is incorrect, because the notice which I handed in, and which I intended to move, was that it be read a second time this day six months. It is sometimes supposed that if Parliament were adjourned until February no Bill could be then taken up at the point which it reached previously to the adjournment; but that is a mistake. If Parliament were to be adjourned until another year any Bill only postponed could be proceeded with. I should like to remind your Lordships of the 59th Standing Order. I am convinced that even in Committee this House has full power to sift and to alter a Money Bill, and that it is not at all
  232
  impossible that any alteration made by this House may be accepted in another place. The Order is this—
  "Upon Report made by the Lord Chamberlain, from the Committee of the Whole House, concerning the Bill for raising £310,000, by an imposition on wines and other liquors, that in regard the said Bill being very long, and consisting of many paragraphs, came from the House of Commons so near the time of Adjournment, he was commanded to report it as the opinion of the Committee, that it might be entered into the Journal Book of this House that there may be no such argument hereafter used in this House, as was upon this Bill (of shortness of time for the passing of Bills), to precipitate the passing thereof; but that due consideration may be had hereafter, according to the course of Parliaments, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, agreed with the Report made from the Committee, and ordered, that this Order be entered on the Roll of the Standing Orders of this House."
  We have now got to a system of adjourning before 5 o'clock, and it does seem to me that it is a very extraordinary innovation. It is doing away with an old Standing Order for beginning at 5 and commencing Debate at 5.15. These Standing Orders were well-considered, and certainly worked extremely well. I certainly do protest against Bills being brought in so late in the Session, and with regard to this particular Bill I conceive that it is altogether on an unsound foundation. I venture to say that it was hurried through the House under a misapprehension altogether. The noble Earl, formerly Secretary for the Colonies and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, said that he did not mind sacrificing part of his vacation; but he was told that his vacation could not begin until this Bill was passed. The electors are not a body so to be depended upon as the householders paying scot and lot. The old elections were a scene of confusion, but a Clerk of the Peace told me that the new County Council Elections were worse than any General Election. I cannot conceive that it is my duty to consent to a Bill for wasting the public money upon building an expensive hall which is intended for a body, subject at any time to a repeal of the Act which founded that Body. In fact, the whole system is on its trial, and you may depend upon it that this money is not wanted. There is plenty of room for the County Council already; their quorum is not a large one. If your

  233
  Lordships read the history of the Revolution in Sweden you will see how the Administrator was superseded by Gustavus Vasa, and how the hereditary system was established. The Standing Order goes back to the time of Charles II., and it is a good one. Really so late a period of the Session as this is not the time to pass Votes of public money. It is in the power of any two of us now to stop this Bill for one day. If I had a Teller the other side would have to be told as well, and then it would appear that there were not 30 Members in the House, and in accordance with the new Standing Order the matter would have to stand over. It only requires a malignant oppositionist to prove the fallacy of that regulation. I do most earnestly hope that this Bill will not be carried before February of next year, and I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  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 on Monday next.

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1862, AMENDMENT BILL (No. 228.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL (No. 227.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 5a on Monday next.
REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (No. 229.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Then Order of the Day for considering Standing Order No. XXXIX. read, and discharged: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) BILL (No. 233.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
PARTNERSHIP BILL (No. 188.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a measure which has passed the other House, its object being to codify the Law of Partnership. The Bill was introduced at the instance of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It was carefully drawn, and considered and revised by a Select Committee of the other House, but it did not reach your Lordships' House until the month of August. I was asked to move its Second Reading, with a view to its being carried, if possible, this Session; but I said that, as far as I was concerned, I could not urge the House to attempt to pass the measure during the present Session, because it appeared to me to be impossible at this late period to give to it that attention without which I do not think it would he right to pass a Bill of this character. I have always been an advocate for dealing in the manner in which this Bill deals with the Law of Partnership with different branches of our law; but, at the same time, I believe that if any such codification is to be at all successful it can only be so if the utmost care and deliberation are used, so as to make the result of the labours of Parliament as perfect as possible, and any hasty or immature legislation would be only likely to retard the cause of codification as well as to do actual mischief. I am quite aware that great attention has been given to this subject in the other House. At the same time, we who have had to do with matters of this description know that, however much care is exercised, the more a measure of this description is criticised and revised the more likely it is to be found in the result to meet the desires of those who advocate the legislation. I trust that this measure in the coming Session may receive the attention and

  235
  consideration of your Lordships in the way it deserves; but I am quite sure that it ought to be most carefully considered by those who have experience both in commercial matters and in the law relating to this subject. My object in making these observations, and in moving the Second Beading of the Bill, is to explain why it has been found impossible to pass it into law, or attempt to pass it through your Lordships' House in the present Session, and also to invite the criticism of the public, and more especially of the legal profession upon the Bill in the shape in which it has emerged from the Select Committee of the other House. I am quite sure that such criticism is likely to be valuable when your Lordships come to consider the Bill on a future occasion. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot speak with the same degree of fervour about the codification of the various branches of the law as my noble and learned Friend does; but whenever such measures are likely to be successful, I think it can only be when they are brought in under the responsibility of the Government for the time being. I think this is the first and a very ambitious attempt made by those not charged with the responsibility of the Government to codify the law. I do not propose to express any opinion whatever as to the skill with which this measure has been prepared, simply because I have had no opportunity of considering it. My noble and learned Friend quite recognised the fact, and told your Lordships that with a Bill of this sort it would be impossible to carry it through without the most careful consideration. I need not remind your Lordships that the Law of Partnership is delicate and intricate and difficult, and the attempt to codify it, if it is to be successful, must be the result of very long and laborious consideration. Therefore, whether such a Bill as this ought to be permitted to be in private hands, or not to be either accepted by, or promoted by, the Government itself, is a question which may require consideration hereafter. All I would at present say is
  236
  that in consenting, as I shall, to the Second Reading of this Bill, it is only upon the ground that some Bill of the sort may be considered desirable to promote. I remember hearing a great Parliamentary authority in the other House (Mr. Gladstone) saying that the only thing that the House committed itself to by reading a Bill a second time was that there should be some Bill of the sort, and in no way adopting any of the provisions of the Bill in question. In that spirit, and in that spirit alone, I think it is that your Lordships may safely read this Bill a second time when you learn that it is to proceed no further this Session; but whether it does or does not sufficiently codify the law in the sense in which it is desirable that it should be codified, I hope your Lordships will keep your judgment quite free when the question comes for consideration hereafter, because, as I have said, it is far too difficult and intricate a question of law for your Lordships to commit yourselves to one way or the other without very careful consideration. In the meantime, with the harmless declaration, if that is all it amounts to, that some codification of the Law of Partnership is a desirable thing—if that is all your Lordships commit yourselves to by reading this Bill a second time, I do not propose to oppose the Motion made by the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would like to say just one word by way of reply to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He is under an error in supposing that this is the first attempt made by those not in Office to carry out any codification of of the law. The only successful piece of codification of the English Law that I know of was a Bill introduced by a private Member in the other House for the codification of the law relating to bills of exchange and negotiable instruments. That has been a great success, I say, without hesitation, and it has been treated as a model, indeed almost adopted in its terms, by other Legislatures. I am not myself prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that codification ought only to be undertaken by the Government of the day, although I freely recognise that they have facilities which no private Member can have, and if they are willing to undertake the

  237
  work no one would be more heartily glad than myself.
  Bill read 2a (according to order): then Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till Monday next, at Three o'clock.