The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-22 00:00:00

846.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee, No. 2.
This Committee met shortly after twelve, in Room 6 ;
present Sir John Yarde Buller (Chairman), Mr. Acland, and
Mr. Walker.
THAMES HAVEN, DOME, AND RAILWAY.
This Bill stood over in consequence of the absence of a
witness, upon whom a summons to appear before the Com-
mittee will be served.
wAnverrcasmintz AND LONDON, No. 2
(WORCESTER AND WEEDON).
This adjourned case was called on, and evidence given in
support of the petition against the Bill.

NATARWICESHIZZ AND LONDON (WOE.
CESTZR. AND:WEEDON.BRAS CII).
_ _

In this Bill the standing orders were not complied with,

come under the sanction of the law. They would be strong
bodies, with large funds, which, by the indulgence of the
law, bore a high rate of interest •, and their funds might be
directed to the purpose of holding out, under the strife
with their employers, for a considerable length of time.
He conceived that the insertion of the words which he had
proposed was quite necessary to render the abuses which
might take place under the present law impossible.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the insertion of
the clause proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
of State for the Home Department. It was perfectly clear
that some such regulation was necessary.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that what he had proposed was
that if the member of a society wished to retire from it he
should have the privilege of transferring his rights, net to a
stranger to the society, or to one that was inimical to the
interests of the society, but to another member of the society,
or to a relative. Nothing would be so pernicious, fatal, or
injurious to these societies as to give them anything of a
gambling or speculative character such as that which had
been proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. But
he did not want to mix up the question of stock jobbing
with that of these societies. The Right Honourable
Gentleman had admitted that his object in introducing
this Bill was to make illegal all strike associations.
He had admitted at the same time that it was perfectly
legal for masters and men to combine for the purpose of
settling wages. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite had said that he had never seen the rules or regula-
tions of any society by which a party subscribing to a
society, was disabled from withdrawing his investments ; but
in point of fact, he (Mr. Duncombe) had then before him
the rules of a society held in the very borough which the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman represented, which en-
abled any member to do so; but that was a saving
society or a saving bank. It was true that a subscriber to
a friendly society could not withdraw his investments. All
he could do was to transfer his interests to another individual.
And lie agreed that it was right to prevent them from with-
drawing their investments. But when the Right Hon.
Gentleman said that those parties should be prevented
from disposing of their funds to the supporting of parties that
had struck for wages, he conceived that the Legislature had
no right whatever to say that men should be prevented from
combining to obtain a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.
He maintained that a man had a perfect right to combine for
such purposes, and that to deprive him of such a right was
illegal. Rules of societies in which there was a provision
made for the support of parties out on strike had been
certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt, because that Learned
Gentleman knew that such an object was perfectly
cno nat evnedreyd that
rti ha s
degßillree,
eßgirl le
ew, was
ec an!
pc ue
rl
aa
ttieodn toof ctihre-
cp legal.utensiesnc rti
it would very much limit the privileges of the members of
Hblaee:v with regard to friendly societies; at all events,
such societies. With regard to the decision of' Mr. Justice
Wightman, on the point alluded to in the course of this de-
,iate, he might state that the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-
General had stated that that decision was entirely wrong,
tnd that the decision could not be maintained if it were
appealed against. The opinion of the Solicitor-General was
that Friendly Societies, in whose rules there was a provision
for the support of members out on strike, had every right to
be certified and enrolled, because, as he and Sir Charles
Wetherell had stated in their written opinion, such a purpose
was perfectly legal. The fact of these societies
having applied for permission to be enrolled showed
that they wished to come under the operation of the
law. He felt quite confident that if the clause proposed by
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department was adopted, it would impose very grievous
and unnecessary disadvantages on manya deserving member
of the community as well as his family.—(Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that there were two
questions involved in this discussion which should be kept
entirely distinct; the first qaestion was, as to whether any
shares or interests in the funds of a friendly society should be
allowed to be transferred or not : and the second question
was, whether any such share or interest should be trans-
ferable by a member of these societies or his family.
In the belief, then, that the law still remained, and that it
would still remain as it was expressed in thh clause, it was
desirable to retain the enactment, which was framed ex-
pressly with the view of preventing speculation among those
classes of society to whom it was most mischievous, and it
was one of the chief ditties of the Legislature to take mea-
sures for saving such an evil from ever taking place. It
was true that if they had only to do with lawyers, the
greater part of the interests of friendly societies would be well
taken care of under the provisions of the present law. But
in reference to the observation of an Hon. Friend opposite,
he must beg to observe that the amount of the property of
any contributor to a friendly society's funds could no more
be disposed of than could any one in the receipt of such an
income, sell or mortgage his next quarter's salary. He
must positively assert that the transfer of any such,
power was altogether illegal, nor was there any power,
or any words, which at all sustained the opinion that
such contributions had been made, or could be made,
transferable. But, in order to save the public from such an
impression, and to give a sufficient reason for actually hin-
dering the transfer of contributions to the funds of friendly►
societies, this clause was expressly introduced, and it
was partly to remove the impression which seemed to be en-
tertained by his Honourable and Learned Friend opposite.
that he (the Solicitor-General) declared that was the case,
and he would emphatically state that the interests of a con.-
tributor to a friendly society were not transferable. It wag
the more necessary that this should be known, be-
cause •if they allowed one transfer to be made—if they once
threw around a transaction of this sort anything like the
sanction of legal approval, if they permitted only a single
case to occur, there would be no limit to the practice of dis-
posing of those contributions, and the wife and children of
the contributors might in the time of sickness, or suffering
from accident, be deprived of that relief which was their only
reliance. It was consequently necessary to prevent the
transfer of these contributions, either by selling, mortgaging,
or pledging, or otherwise raising money on them for any'
future period. Though the sums to which this clause re-
ferred might seem small to some persons, yet it was of immense
importance to the parties concerned, and these individuals
might in a moment of thoughtlessness, or by gambling, give
up all that, which a month afterwards, in the time of sick-
ness, they would need ; and thus the family of a man who
relied upon these contributions for their support, would be
deprived of all advent ge from them. If the House only
considered the subject, they would see, that of all the com-
munity it was this class of the people which was most entitled
to protection from the Legislature. He was now desircess of
removing the impressions of the Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Duncombe) respecting the words of the second Part of
this clause. Whether the words could bear the meaning
or not—he (the Solicitor-General) believed that they
did ; it was desired to put a still more stringent restriction
upon the selling or pledging of contributions to friendly so-
cieties by this measure. But mistakes had arisen in the
minds of some persons which it was necessary to remove. It
was, in the first place, supposed that if any person who had.
contributed to the funds of a friendly society in London wiles
desirous of removing to some part of Scotland or Irelassd,
that on doing so he ceased to become a member, and that he
lost his title to his portion of the funds in thihands, of the
society, and was, consequently, deprived of all right co his for-
mer contributions to the society's funds. This was a great mis-
take, for it was a misapprehension to suppose the :6 he was to lose
all this benefit. Although deprived of the right to sell his
contributions or to pledge them, yet he was entitled to re-
ceive back the whole worth of his property in the funds; and
it was desirous of rendering this powermore explicit, although
it was already in existence. There was no desire to prevent
any of those advantages, but the object of the Secretary of State
for the Home Department was to hinder the appropriation of
oht hfa elf
supporting
enteredfundspp or toifn
gant
intowy societyoa nory m associationtowards
ore
persons
were
ieneat oo fninfod ri
conspiringvthi de uoarl s
purpose w h
com-
bining to raise wages, or had entered into any arrangemen
otonestrtiok ebfeorrewages.
ed The object
the
be j eructleosf
forth
pro-
posed
by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombeegoverning the society,
amendment,svas ,a'sm tlic,
rather than for the law under which it was established, and
tfoacts,upceornviisreised in the rules of'
he believed that it was,
was
sst
tfhreiendpliy.spesrociestmiecserinnow in_ existence,p
An Hon. Memnber had ositatesdir.
more under the control
,sting to friend.ly societies as it then and cams
that
d t
he Pratt,
law who
Hon.
was
very uncertain in its operation. He was not prepared
Act
sotfatre,
arlitahmatenti,ider
namely,th e„
fowrords in the existing
any other purpose not;
illegal," that the powers of the Act might not be a pplied tm
purposes other than those connected with friendly-
societies ; such, for instance, as the Hon. Member
hhad suggested. It was because there e'S.isted
ie ndly much uncertainty upon the present laws relating to
societies that he considered some alterations were
essentially necessary.
Mr. RUTHERFORD, the opening part o'f whose speech
was perfectly inaudible in the gall.ery, said that
there ought to be a separate clause, providing that
members:of any friendly societies constituted under the pro-
posed law, should have the power of receiving the sums they
vice versa.
had paid, if they left: England for Scotland or Ireland, or
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was of opinion that as little inter-
ference as possible should be made with the free circulation
of labour, and if there was any doubt in the Bill as
it at present stood, to satisfy the Hon. and Learned
Member he would propose, in bringing up the report, to
add words to meet the difficulty. He would also have a
special proviso, that the funds of the societies should not be
invested in any savings' banks, or with the Commissioners
for the Reduction of the National Debt.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clauss 5 being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the power proposed to be
clause necessary Anlc)t.wntHilde
given to the Secretary of State over the granting of certifi-
out the proviso relating
certifi-
cates. The arrangement proposed would materially withinter-
hfeorpeed
th the
e R carryingight u oout
n. Goefn
ttlleiemiannt intentions njs. of the
rtahhea
toasthiet Satsecorde-.
consent to the leaving
tary of State.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the
barrister, did not see proper
In cases wherein the certifying
tinning the Secretary of
ot
fo t grant
ho cro
lay
h, certificate,
an and
ifin h itshoep s had the power of peti-
inmPianurnntiietchaetenhijtenttonfththe
tion, the latter would corn
legal, then the Secretary of
No doubt
ciety for the public good he State, State.
te,
if
fOhne
ereecheeiivdinergedththe.epeeetii
this arrangement, sell elsaowcieatdvvwis:
public benefit
The clause was agreed would order the certificate to
some inconvenience would arise from
be granted,
; and, therefore, he supported the clause as it
1 he thought it would operate for the
stood.
fl,
On clause 6 be'
Mr. T. DuNcatroposed,
contained, restricting E said he considered the provision it
cieties to within 200
the interest of members in those so-
and also would destroy much of the benefits,
operate injuriously on many societies in operation
under the existin
M
g
law"
AAI said the provision was not retrospective.
T.DUNCOMBE—So far that wae good ; still he thought
200/. too small
ante a sum as a maximum provision for insur-
ance"ueath. He considered that the limit of 200/.
not
would•
, be suitable to reach the objects of the Bill. The
law as it now stood was, that when these societies exceeded
two hundred
_ pounds they then became liable to stamp-duty,
and the additional interest of three pounds eighteen shillings
was not granted ; and, therefore, in point of fact, they could
never have friendly societies beyond the limit of two hundred
pounds.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM considered that the Hon. Member did not
clearly apprehend the cases to which the Act applied. The
2001. did not apply to the cases of illness or death. He
wished to remind the Hon. Member that it was paragraph
five which -was then under the discussion of the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Bill provided that
new societies formed hereafter should be kept entirelyseparato
from those now existing.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 7.
(i.s.rr ammo.)