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

RAILWAY OMMIV
'C TEES.

(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.

TILAIKES HAVEN, DOCK, 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.
WARWICKSHIRE AND LONDON, No. 2

come under the sanction 4 the saw. They would be 11441
bodieo, with large Pantie, which, by the intluiseenee of the
law, bore a high rate of interest ; and their funda 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. DIJNCOMBE 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, not 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 net 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
lie could do was to transfer his interests to another individual.
And he agreed that it was right to prevent them from with-
drawing their investments. But when tle Right Hon.
Gentleman said that those parties should be prevented
from disposingof 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
legal. He contended that this Bill was calculated to cir-
cumscribe, in a very material degree, the operation of the
preient law with regard to friendly societies; at all events,
it would very much limit the privileges of the members of
such societies. With regard to the decision of Mr. Justice
Wightman, on the point alluded to in the course of this de-
bate, he might state that the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-
General had stated that that decision was entirely wrong,
and 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 be and Sir Charles
Wetherell had stated in their written opinion, such a purpose
less 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 pi-oposed by
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department was adopted, it would impose very grievous
and unnecessary disadvantages on many a deserving member
of the community as well as his family.—(Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that there were two
questions involved in this discussisn 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 this 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 duties 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 tke property of
any contributor to a friendly society's funds could no more
be di-posed of than could any one in the receipt of such an
income, sell or mortgage his next quarter's salary. Ire
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 was
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 the 3 permitted only a single
ease 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, mop gaging,
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 advantage 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 desirous 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
"'s " —es desired to put a still more stringent restriction
upon
of coptrllzbipiliniat?lriesndly so-
upon the selling e.
minuscetie or sorb vsomtletisp
ernsloenlsatilsidriae.giinc7l it was necessar.) co remove. It
was, iu the first place, supposed that if any person who had
contriLuted to the funds of a friendly society in London was
desirous of removing to some part of Scotland or Ireland,
that on doing so he ceased to become a member, and that he
lost his title to his portion of the funds in the hands of the
society, and was, consequently, deprived of all right to his for-
mer contributions to the society's funds. This was a great mis-
take, for it was a misapprehension to suppose that 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 desirousof rendering this power more 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
fcr the Home Department was to hinder the appropriation of
the funds of any society towards the support of individuals who
had entered into any association or combination for the purpose
of supporting two or more persons who were conspiring or com-
bining to raise wages, or had entered into any arrangement
to strike for wages. The object of the amendment, as pro-
posed by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) was, in fact,
one to be regulated by the rules for governing the society,
rather than for the law under which it was established, and
he believed that it was, in fact, comprised in the rules of
most friendly societies now in existence, and cams
more under the control of Mr. Tidd Pratt, who
was the proper officer to supervise or introduce it.
Au Hon. Member had stated that the law re-
lating to friendly societies as it then stood, was
very uncertain in its operation lle was not prepared
to state, that under the words in the existing
Act of Parliament, namely, " for any other purpose not
illegal," that the powers of the Act might not be applied to
purposes other than those connected with friendly
societies ; such, for instance, as the Hon. Member
had suggested. It WAS because there existed
so much uncertainty upon the present laws relating to
friendly societies that he considered some alterations were
essentially necessary.
Mr. RUTHERFORD, the opening part of whose speech
was perfectly inaudible in the gallery, 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
had paid, if they left: England for Scotland or Ireland, or
rice versa. _ _

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 dJubt 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 or' the National Debt.
The clause was then agreed to.

On clauss 5 being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the power proposed to be
givencertifi-
cates. to the
arrangementerSecretary ra of state
proposed over
wouldt 1 c granting
materially
He
t i
inter-
fere with the carrying out of the intentions of the Act. H
e
consent to the leaving out the relating
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J.
sweectriled
proviso .
tory of State.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the clause necessary as it stood.
In cases wherein the certifying barrister did not see proper
to grant a certificate, the parties had the power of peti•
tioning the Secretary of State. On receiving the peti-
tion, the leeafin
ittptNe;euurboat
dc-oso,tugui
tboll
hldot
ehdtrc:oeomfhtmoheer
omeit:wnugehonhole:
inconvenience
sda%i
.utteepnowprii
eodtonreutcrtleeoddt the law adviser
of the Crown, and if in his opinion the object of the society was
legal, then the Secretary of State, if he considered the
bsi so-
cietyhteUoilbsog'ldhrai caerfnorbartenetudghe. clause was agreed to. wouldhtochpeee reacrlttaei ariseufi sfe,rtue from
toe
cc
ioent
easi n et
od ,
within restricting
20oe interests t
roofylnine
umebhe rosf
Or. clause 6 being
proposed,
1.
Mr. 1. DUNCOMBE said he considered the provision it
and also operate injuriously on many societies in operation
under the existing law. itnh e thboesnee benefits,
Sir J. GRAHAM said the provision was not retrospective.
Mr. T. D UNCOMBE—So far that was good ; still he thought
2001. too small a sum as a maximum provision for insur-
ance in death. He considered that the limit of 200/.
would not be suitable to reach the objects of the Bill. The
law as it now stood was, that when these societies exceeded
tv.o hundred pound; 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 friendy 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 providA that
new societies formed hereafter should be kept entirely separate
from those now existing.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 7.