Sitting of 25 February 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2°. Friendly Societies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir Robert Harry Inglis, from Members of the Bath Church of England Lay Association, against the Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor Dioceses.—By Mr. Hale, from Landowners, Tenant Farmers, and others, of the Parishes of Dodington, Wapley, and Codrington, and by Mr. Buck, from Landowners, Farmers, and Labourers, of the Parish of Bradford, against the proposed Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation. — By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Inhabitants of the Borough of Rochdale, for Remission of Sentence upon William S. Ellis.—By several hon. Members, from various places, in favour of Limiting the Hours of Labour of Children and Young Persons employed in Factories to Ten.—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Inhabitants of the Borough of Rochdale, and by Captain Pechell, from Brighton, for Remission of Sentence upon Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Renton, West Linton, Kilmarnock, Tavistock, and St. Boswells, and by General Morison, from Coalsnaughton, against Enrolment of Militia.

THE CHURCH OF IRELAND.
On the Motion that the Orders of the Day be read,
MR. A. S. O'BRIENsaid, that so much anxiety existed out of doors in consequence of proceedings of a very extraordinary nature, as he must characterize them, which had taken place at the late South Nottinghamshire election, that he felt bound to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to them. According to the accounts of the newspapers it appeared that the hon. Member for Malton, in addressing the electors of South Nottinghamshire from the hustings, stated—
"That when Lord Lincoln wrote to ask for his support, he had answered, that if Lord Lincoln had come in his old office to ask for re-election on the ground of the Corn Laws, he had made up his mind, though not entirely agreeing with the Government measure, to give him without a reservation, and without a word, his cordial support. But as Lord Lincoln came in the new and responsible office of Secretary for Ireland, entertaining strong opinions, which he did, on certain points of policy, both as regarded Church and State affairs in Ireland, he could not offer the noble Lord an entire and cordial support without some explanation, in the first instance, as to the views with which he entered on that office. He had had a conversation with the noble Lord on Irish affairs, with which he was entirely satisfied; and, convinced that the noble Lord would enter on those high duties in a spirit of firm and liberal policy, he at once assured him of his cordial good wishes and earnest support."
The views, therefore, of the noble Lord were perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Member for Malton, who stated that he entertained very strong opinions on the subject, the nature of which might be gathered from the support given by the hon. Member to the Motion of the hon. Member

99
for Sheffield, for the destruction of the Irish Establishment. The Earl of Lincoln subsequently, in one part of his speech, mentioned that, although his opinions on the subject of the Corn Laws had changed, he had still remained on the Government benches; but that although his position in the Ministry would have entitled him to speak on the Corn Law debates, which had taken place on former occasions in that House, yet his convictions as to the necessity of abolishing protection altogether were so strong that he refrained from taking part in those debates. Taking these two circumstances into consideration, namely—the declaration of the hon. Member for Malton, that he was perfectly satisfied with the views of the noble Lord in reference to Ireland, and the declaration of the noble Lord himself that he considered it proper and right to remain a member of a protection Government, entertaining sentiments hostile to protection, satisfying his conscience by taking no part in the Corn Law debates—he felt called upon to tell the Government that the greatest consternation existed in the minds of the people as to the opinions of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, on the subject of the Irish Church; and he must take this opportunity of repeating publicly in his place in Parliament what he had stated at Northampton yesterday, namely — that he deeply regretted that a person for whom he entertained so sincere a regard should have uttered such sentiments as that he considered it right to maintain silence upon a subject respecting which his opinions were directly opposed to the professions of the Government to which he belonged. If the Irish Church was to be destroyed, and its revenues confiscated, he should most sincerely prefer that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London should have the task rather than the Members of Her Majesty's Government. It was not his intention to ask any question of Her Majesty's Government; it remained for them to decide whether they chose to make any comments. He had always said, if you turn out the Government you will have the noble Lord the Member for the city of London in power, and then what will become of the Irish Church? But if the sentiments of the Earl of Lincoln, so satisfactory to the hon. Member for Malton, who was distinctly pledged to the destruction of the temporalities of the Irish Church, were the sentiments of the Government of
100
which he formed a part, however much they might have heard of common honesty and public faith, he did not think he was transgressing his duty us the Representative for Northamptonshire, and a Member of that House, in earnestly requesting the Members of the Government, as speedily as possible, to declare their views.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that had it not been for the declaration made by the hon. Member at the close of his speech, he certainly should have felt some surprise at the hon. Member putting a question to him without having the courtesy to give him notice. It was quite possible that in the course of a few days the Earl of Lincoln might be in the House to answer any question which the hon. Member might think proper to put to him with respect to his conduct in reference to the Corn Laws; and he trusted that the noble Earl, in his seat in Parliament, would be able to explain his conduct on that subject fully and satisfactorily, both to the hon. Member and to the House. The hon. Member had referred to a conversation which was said to have taken place between the Earl of Lincoln and a Member of that House, during the Northamptonshire election, on the subject of Irish policy. With regard to that conversation he (Sir J. Graham) had no more information than the hon. Member himself, or any other Member of that House. He had had no opportunity of conferring with the noble Lord, and had received no explanation from him in reference to that conversation. As he read the report in the newspapers, the hon. Member for Malton declared that the communication which took place between himself and the noble Lord was satisfactory to the hon. Member. He did not know what the opinions of the hon. Member for Malton were with respect to Irish policy; they might be satisfactory to him and to Her Majesty's Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Malton might entertain opinions with which he could not concur. The hon. Member said he had much rather see the destruction of the Irish Church intrusted to the noble Lord opposite than to Her Majesty's present Government. He was not aware that the noble Lord was at all prepared to destroy that Church; at all events, he had never heard him make any such declaration. He had differed from the noble Lord as to the appropriation of a portion of revenue of the Irish Church; but it remained to be shown that the noble Lord was prepared, either

101
in or out of office, to support a measure having for its object the destruction of that establishment. Certainly he was not in a condition to state the substance of the conversation which had been so vaguely rumoured abroad. As far as he was aware of the sentiments of his noble Friend with respect to Irish policy, it was in unison with those of his own; and those sentiments were decidedly opposed to any policy destructive of the Protestant Church in Ireland.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, as the hon. Member for Malton was not present, and as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had moreover, in his strictures upon the conduct of the Earl of Lincoln, referred to sentiments entertained by him (Lord J. Russell), he thought it due as well to his hon. Friend as to his own public character, to make a short statement to the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Malton had communicated to him generally all that passed between him and the Earl of Lincoln on the occasion alluded to. He was not authorised to make any statement on the subject; but in justice to the Earl of Lincoln he felt bound to state that nothing which the noble Lord stated to his hon. Friend the Member for Malton implied any opinion that he was prepared to assist in the destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland. Indeed, he believed his hon. Friend said little more than this—that he was for a firm and liberal policy as regarded the affairs of Ireland; that with regard to the particular measures in reference to that country he coincided with his Colleagues in the Cabinet in the course which they had hitherto pursued; to the future measures which it might be advisable to take he would prefer postponing an opinion until he had held the office of Secretary for Ireland some time longer. Those opinions, in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, were perfectly honourable to the noble Lord: whether they were satisfactory to the hon. Member for Malton was entirely a matter for the consideration of that hon. Member. It was to be considered likewise that the hon. Member for Malton had been long connected by ties of friendship with the Earl of Lincoln; that he entertained the highest respect for his character; and that it was that very respect which induced the hon. Member to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the noble Lord's views with reference to Ireland, in order to see whether the policy was likely to be such as he should be able to support. He did not
102
think that anything had passed in that conversation, as the information had reached him, at all inconsistent with the previous conduct of the Earl of Lincoln in reference to the Irish Church. With regard to himself he must decline the task which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire proposed to impose on him, of framing measures for the destruction of the Church of Ireland. He had never held the opinion that the Irish Church ought to be destroyed. He thought that a portion of its revenues were misapplied, and ought to be otherwise applied; but it was a matter of controversy between hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself what would be the tendency of such a measure—they contending that it would end in the destruction of the Irish Church; and he maintaining that it was calculated to preserve it. For his own part he was ready to declare that, although he could never think the present situation of the Irish Church endowment, as it stood with regard to particular parishes, satisfactory, yet with regard to that Church as a whole, his wished for its maintenance and support, and he trusted that Parliament would maintain and support that part of the United Church of England and Ireland. He, therefore, could not accept the duty which the hon. Member seemed to think should devolve on him. He would not disguise, however, that although he thought it would be inexpedient to introduce any measure with respect to the Irish Church at present, yet that when the time should come for the consideration of that question, there were parts of that Church which might be usefully and beneficially reformed, which would make that Church better able to withstand future attacks. He begged pardon of the House for thus entering into the subject, but he thought the explanation necessary, in order to correct unjust representations, which might, otherwise have gone forth to the prejudice of the Earl of Lincoln.
SIR R. INGLISthought the House greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton for calling their attention to the conversation to which he had alluded, and sincerely wished the noble Lord the Member for the city of London had confined himself to the cordial cheer with which he greeted the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, respecting his views as to the destruction of the Irish Church.
MR. O'CONNELLhad been extremely

103
gratified at that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire in which he drew the clear distinction—a distinction never to be forgotten—between the Established Church of Ireland and its temporalities. The distinction was emphatic, and should not be lost sight of: for he knew no one who desired the destruction of that Church, unless by the conversion of its members to the precepts of a purer faith. The Protestants of Ireland had as much right, he contended, to maintain their Church in Ireland as the Roman Catholics had to maintain theirs, which they did by their own exertions: would that the Protestant Church were on the same footing! But the temporalities were another affair. He could not allow that they formed any part of the Irish Church, and he begged to press on the House the consideration of their allocation. Let them remember the debt which they owned to Ireland after so many centuries of misrule, which had ruined the country; he wanted no other authority for this assertion than the Report of the Earl of Devon's Commission. They could never take the affairs of the Irish Church into consideration without making some better allocation of its temporalities. He wished to deprive no man of his vested rights, but would have him retain them for life; but he could not hold out the least hope to those who desired an amalgamation of the two countries, unless some very strong and decisive measure were taken in reference to the temporalities of the Irish Church.
MR. PHILIP HOWARDcomplained of those Gentlemen who had lately on the hustings at public meetings indulged in epithets towards their Catholic fellow subjects, calculated to embitter the feelings which existed between Catholics and Protestants, and to fan the almost extinct flame of religious discord. For his own part, he thought Gentlemen as much bound to be cautious in their expressions on the hustings as in the drawing-room. He could not conceive why these Gentlemen should think fit to describe those as Papists, and their religion as Popery, who, in the Votes which he held in his hand, were called Roman Catholics. If such were the conduct of Gentlemen of education, and who professed to represent the aristocracy of the country, what was to be expected from the ignorant and the low? Protectionists or anti-protectionists, it was by courtesy and argument—not by vituperation and invective—that men would recommend
104
themselves to the good feeling and honourable regard of their fellow-countrymen.

THE CONVICT SEERY.
SIR J. GRAHAMwas anxious to take the earliest opportunity of explaining the answer given by him to the hon. and learned Member for Cork on Monday last. The House would remember that the hon. and learned Member, on Thursday, gave notice of two questions which he intended to ask him (Sir. J. Graham). He did not happen to see the precise terms of those questions, and had no opportunity of writing to the Lord Lieutenant till Friday evening; and, therefore, answered the questions on Monday before he had received the Lord Lieutenant's answer. The first question related to a deputation which was said to have waited on the Lord Lieutenant respecting the case of Bryan Seery. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked him whether it was true that a deputation had waited on the Lord Lieutenant on this subject, and had prayed that the sentence of death passed on that individual should be carried into effect. He had answered the hon. and learned Member's question on the best information which he could obtain before receiving the answer of the Lord Lieutenant; and had stated that a deputation from the county of Westmeath had made such a representation, and that he deeply deplored it, as being, in his opinion, harsh and unusual. He held in his hand the answer of the Lord Lieutenant, received on Monday morning. It was as follows:—
"Dublin Castle, Feb. 22, 1846.
"My dear Sir James—You may very safely affirm that the language of the deputation that waited upon me had not the slightest influence on my mind, nor swayed my judgment in the least in deciding upon the case of Seery; nor did I give the least encouragement or countenance to such interference.
"But, in point of fact, the principal object of the deputation was to represent to me the lawless state of the county of Roscommon, and the neces-sitp of more stringent measures for its pacification; and it was only incidentally stated that any lenity shown to Seery would be considered as a proof of the weakness of the Government, and tend to encourage the perpetration of such atrocities, and to keep alive that sanguinary spirit so fatal to the peace of the country."
The only inaccuracy in the statement which he (Sir J. Graham) had made, consisted in saying, that the deputation came from Westmeath instead of Roscommon.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEmoved the Second

105
Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill. The House was aware, that in the year 1829, an Act was passed to consolidate the Friendly Societies Act. In 1834, 4th and 5th William IV., another Act was passed to extend the objects of the former Statute, which had worked remarkably well until within a short period since. The object of the Bill was to remove doubts which had arisen in consequence of a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench upon an appeal in a case connected with the South Shields Loan Investment Society. A dispute had arisen between that society and one of its members named John Scott, who had allowed his contributions to fall in arrear. He was summoned before the magistrates, who refused to interfere; a mandamus was obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench, and the question to be argued was raised by doubts which existed as to the interpretation and construction of the Act; of which doubts, Scott, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of his contributions, had taken advantage. The case came on before Mr. Justice Wightman. It was shown that the society was established on the 7th of December, 1841, and that its rules had been duly certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt, shortly after which this dispute arose. The case was ably argued, and the decision of Mr. Justice Wightman, as reported in the Legal Observer, was as follows:—
"I am of opinion that this society is not a friendly society, and that the words 'or any other purpose not illegal,' in the second section of the 4th and 5th William IV., c. 40, must be construed so as to bear some relation to the declared objects of the Act—namely, for the mutual relief and maintenance of all and every the members there-of, their wives, children, &c., in sickness, infancy, advanced age, widowhood, or any other natural state or contingency whereof the occurence is susceptible of calculation by way of average. If these words were to receive a more extended construction, they would then include societies which it is not contended fall within the Act, namely, for insurance on lives, and numerous others. But there is an additional circumstance which leads me to this conclusion, which is, that the Legislature has passed distinct Acts for the regulation of loan societies, and I cannot make any real distinction between the societies framed under the 5th and 6th William IV., c. 23, and the present. That Act does not expressly provide for the case of loans to the members themselves; but I see nothing to exclude such a case from its operation, or to prevent rules from being framed to meet it. However that may be, at all events this does not appear to me to be a friendly society, and consequently the present rule must be discharged."
It certainly would be very unbecoming in him to impugn the correctness of Mr. Justice
106
Wightman's views; but he thought it full time that some decision should be come to in reference to the numerous societies of the same nature which were now in existence, and that the learned Judge could not have been acquainted with their importance in the country. At that very moment there were not less than 5,000 societies, possessing capital from 50,000 l. up to 70,000 l., founded for the mutual relief of the members, their wives and families, in sickness and advanced age, and other contingencies. The greatest consternation would be caused by that decision among the numerous persons connected with those bodies. In the event of any disputes, the magistrate would refuse to interfere, and the case would then be brought into the Court of Queen's Bench, where expense and delay would waste the funds of the society; or the trustees might run off with all the money in the interval, and nothing but confusion and actual robbery could ensue from such a construction of the Act of Parliament. The question was no crotchet of his—it was no business of his; but in consequence of that decision, Mr. Tidd Pratt was obliged to hold his hands, and could not enrol parties who were perpetually applying to him; and it was with the sanction of that gentleman that he (Mr. Duncombe) brought the matter before the House. The decision in effect was, that no societies could be enrolled or entitled to the benefit of the Act, except those "ejusdem generis," with the object of mutual benefit to the members. He believed that those friendly and loan societies were of the greatest advantage to the poorer classes, and that the more their sphere could be extended, and the less the members were put to expense in having their rules and regulations certified, the better would it be for the country. The only alteration he sought to effect in the Bill was, after the words "or for any purpose which is not illegal," to add, "whether of the same description as is hereinafter mentioned, or otherwise."
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that no person could be more favourably disposed towards friendly and mutual benefit societies than he was; or be more willing to promote their extension. However, as he had not had any opportunity of conferring with Mr. Tidd Pratt on the subject, he thought it would not be proper to enter at once into the views of the hon. Member. There were considerable difficulties in the alterations he proposed. Any one looking to the Bill

107
would see that its whole purpose was contained in the words "and otherwise." The preamble contained the whole force of the law, which was applicable to mutual insurance and friendly societies, ejusdem generis, as the purposes specified, with objects legal in themselves, and of the same kind. By the insertion of the words "and otherwise," the privileges of friendly insurances and mutual societies would be extended to societies for promoting or carrying out all objects of every kind. What would be the effect of that extension? There were many objects, not illegal in themselves, which it might not be the policy of the State to encourage. Friendly societies, as at present constituted, had a great many advantages. They could make by-laws which might be enforced in the most stringent manner, and had numerous facilities in the advantageous employment of their capital. It would be well to pause before those advantages were universally extended. For instance, he was not prepared to say that a combination of masters to reduce the rate of wages, or of workmen to raise them by legal means, was illegal, and might be inexpedient; but if workmen were to enter into friendly and mutual benefit societies to maintain themselves during a strike, though it might not be illegal in itself, he nevertheless doubted whether it would be the policy of the State to extend the advantages of those societies to men engaged in any such object. The words sought to be introduced, however, would have the effect of sanctioning their enrolment. He was not prepared to deny, that all objects, ejusdem generis, should be brought under the general Act; but the words in question would extend the present application of the law to societies of any kind. He could not understand that any societies for political purposes, though not illegal in themselves, should be brought under the provisions of the Act. Reserving to Government the full right of opposing the introduction of those words on a future occasion, he would, with that protest, consent to the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member had stated his objects with candour and clearness, and he thought it right to be equally explicit in stating the course which he would be prepared to take in reference to the Bill before the House.
MR. HENLEYwas extremely favourable to friendly societies; he believed they were of great value to the class of people who made use of them; but he feared the
108
adoption of a measure so vague in general as the one now proposed would endanger the operations of a system which had hitherto worked so well. As the right hon. Baronet had justly stated, it might be applied to purposes extremely inconvenient. The House ought to bear in mind too the great privileges which friendly societies presented in regard to the depositing of their money in savings banks; and if care was not taken the country might be subjected to great convenience by extending this privilege to societies instituted for improper purposes. There was one matter, however, connected with friendly societies which had come under his own knowledge, which he wished to state to the House; he meant the power of carrying actions against friendly societies into the Court of Chancery, which he feared might become a great abuse. In the county with which he was connected (Oxfordshire), a dispute similar to the one referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe) arose in a friendly society, which was taken hold of by a professional man, who raised a Chancery suit against the whole members of the society; and he understood that the latter had consented to pay the costs, amounting to a considerable amount of money, rather than allow the action to go on, because they were afraid that the proceedings might be so protracted as to swallow up the whole of their funds. He (Mr. Henley) did not know whether any means could be adopted to improve the law in this respect; but he thought the point well worthy of consideration.
Mr. DUNCOMBEassured the House, that as the object of the Act 4th and 5th William IV. was understood to extend the operations of friendly societies to all purposes not illegal, and as a construction had been put upon that Act at variance with this object, he only wished, by the present measure, to carry out the intentions of the original framers of that measure. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had expressed his fears of political objects coming under the operation of this measure. He could only say that he had introduced the measure for no political purpose whatever; but, after all, political societies were not illegal, and he did not see any harm would be done, even if they were to come under its operation. Since he had brought in this Bill he had been overwhelmed with letters complaining of its defects, and asking him to introduce all sorts of amendments, but which he had declined to do, because it would require a new Act of Parliament to

109
meet the wishes of all the people who had addressed him. He intended merely to confine himself to extending the operations of friendly societies to the objects originally intended by the last alteration of the law. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would take an early opportunity of seeing Mr. Tidd Pratt, who would explain the matter much better than he (Mr. Duncombe) could do, and who could assure him that there was no such danger to be apprehended from the measure as he seemed to think.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEYsaid, that Mr. Duncombe had misconceived the intention of the Act 4 and 5 William IV.; for, so far as the object being as he had stated, in 1834, when the Act was passed, an Amendment by Mr. Bernal, the Member for Weymouth, that it should be extended to other purposes than those ejusdem generis which were specified in the Bill, was proposed in Committee and rejected, on the ground that it might be abused. With reference to Mr. Justice Wightman's decision, he had not seen any authorized report of it; and he believed that great misconception often arose from trusting to those ephemeral reports which appeared in the weekly law journals. But if any doubt had arisen as to whether societies for the mutual insurance of lives came within the meaning of the Act, the simplest way would be to introduce a Declaratory Act, removing the doubt; but he thought it most desirable that these societies should be preserved from the contamination of political or religious objects.
MR. HAWESurged on the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) the necessity of giving this Bill, at the earliest period, his best consideration; he also suggested whether or not the Bill ought to have a retrospective effect, so as to cover all those societies which might be registered now, but whose legality was rendered doubtful by the recent decision.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe) would put the Bill for Committee on Wednesday next, he (Sir J. Graham) would take the opportunity before that time of seeing Mr. Tidd Pratt, of conferring with the law officers of the Crown, and considering the effect of Mr. Justice Wightman's judgment. He would also confer with the hon. Member himself before Wednesday, and point out what alterations he wished in the Bill.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned.