The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

SMITHFIELD MARKET BILL.

Lord CHELMSFORD moved the second reading of this
bill. The noble and learned lord said the object of the
measure was to erect a market for the sale of dead
meat on a part of the site of Smithfield-
market. Some mistake prevailed upon the quantity of
land appropriated to such a purpose, and to remove
that impression ho would at once state tkat only 550 square
yards would be occupied by the structure, and 2,600 square
yards would be devoted to open spaces and roads. The
object sought to be carried out by the bill was much re-
quired, and he hoped it would receive the assent of their
lordships.
Lord REDES DALE made a few observations, which
were quite inaudible.
Lord EBURY said he should not oppose the bill in its
preser stage, but in committee certain alterations would
havo to be Made before he could approve of the bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD said the noble lord, and those who
agreed with him, would have ample opportunity cf doing
so in committee.

The bill was then read a second time.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (AMENDMENT)

BILL.

On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Lord PORTMAN said the object of the bill was to re-
peal the clause which the noble and learned lord (Brougham)
objected to.
The bill passed through committee, and was reported
without amendment.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL.
This bill was read a third time, and passed.
NEWSPAPERS BILL.

Lord STRATHEDEN, in moving the second reading o

this bill, said that it dealt only with the 39th Geo. 111. chap.
79, the 60th George 111., chap. 9, and the Ist William IV.,
chap. 73. It did not interfere with or alter the acts which
required that newspapers should be registered at Somerset-
house, and that the name of the printer should appear. It
repealed a part of the first-mentioned act, of 1799, by which
debates wore prohibited in houses without a previous li-
cence, and printers, typefounders, and printing pressmakers
were compelled to obtain certificates from the clerk of the
peace before they proceeded to carry on business. The se-
cond act to which he had referred was one of the celebrated
six acts passed in 1819, and by its provisions securities were,
for the first time, exacted from publishers. The third act.,
which was passed in 1830, also required securities of pub-
lishers ; but, although such statutes might be defended in
times of revolutionary agitation, they had now outlived the
fears and passions by which they were created, and, as the
stamp laws had been abrogated, those securities had been
practically nullified. The bill had received the unanimous
approval of the other house, and he therefore trusted their
lordships would give it a second reading.
Lord CHELMSFORD said that the bill had passed the

other house, on more than one occasion, but without any
discussion. It was originallyintroduced in March, 1850, and
was withdrawn in consequence of the dissolution. It was re-
introduced after the new Parliament met, was read a third
time on the 19th of July, and came up to their lordships'
house on the 21st of July, when it was dropped in conse-
quence of the termination of the session. It was re-intro-
duced in the present session, and there could have been very
little discussion, as it came to their lordships' house on the
7th of February. Ever since that time it had remained,
without any noble lord thinking it his duty to move the
second reading. Under these circumstances it was neces-
sary to look very carefully to the bill, and to see what pro-
visions it would repeal. It was proposed to repeal sections
15 to 33 inclusive of the 39th of Geo. 111. Sections 15 to
22 made a licence necessary for places where meetings were
held for the purpose of debates and lectures, except houses
already licensed for the sale of beer, wine, &c. In times of
public danger it might be necessary to resort to stringent
measures to prevent seditious meetings, but probably there
was now no necessity for any of these provisions, and he
did not object to their repeal. The sections from the 22d
to the 33d were of a different character. They required that
all printers and typefounders should give notice of their in-
tention to carry on their business to the clerk of the peace,
that notice should be sent to the Secretary of State, and that
a penalty should be imposed on any printer or typefounder
who carried on business without the certificate of the clerk
of the peace. There was also a clause which required that
every printer should put his name and address to all papers
or bills which he printed. To show how little attention
had been paid in the preparation of this bill, it proposed to
repeal provisions in the 39th of Geo. 111. which were al-
ready repealed by the 2d and 3d of Victoria, chap. 12, but
a printer was still required to put his name to all papers
which he printed. There was another very important
clause in the 39th of Geo. 111., between the 22d and 23d
sections, which empowered all persons to seize any one
distributing or posting bills to which no printer's name was
attached, and to take him before a magistrate, in order that
the magistrate might hear and determine the case. From
his experience at the bar he knew that it was very common
for libellers to employ persons to distribute their libels with-
out a printer's name, and it would be impossible to de-
tect them if the persons so distributing the papers could
not be at once taken before a magistrate and required
to state by whom they were employed. He therefore
strongly objected to that clause being repealed. (Hear.)
He had also a decided objection to the proposed repeal of
the 60th of George 111., cap. 9, which referred entirely to
newspapers, and contained a clause of great importance,
requiring printers and publishers to enter into recognteances
by which they were to be bound in a certain sum to be an-
swerable for any fine or penalty which they might incur in
the event of their being convicted for a blasphemous or
seditious libel. The sante Act contained a clause empower-
ing a judge, when a person was brought before him, to give
bail for a blasphemous or seditious libel, to make it a con-
dition of the recognisance that the party should be of good
behaviour during the terms of his reeognisance. These
were provisions that he did not desire to sea repealed. Uri-
' der a subsequent act, which it was proposed to repeal, ex-
cept the first section, there was a clause connected with the
60th of George 111., which provided that where a person
1144 obtained damages against the pubiisher of a newspaper

for libel, and was unable to obtain satisfaction against his
goods and chattles, he could apply to the Court of Exche-
quer, and they might direct that the recognisances might be
used for the purposes of satisfying the damages that had
been awarded. The present bill, however, proposed to repeal
that clause. A bill that repealed so many important pro-
vision., of the 39th of George 111., the whole of the 60th of
George 111., and the whole of the 11th of George IV. and
Ist of -William IV., except the first clause, deserved the
careful consideration of their lordships. As there were cer-
tain clauses of the 39th of George 111. that ought to be
repealed, it would perhaps be desirable to read the bill a
second time. Perhaps it would be desirable, however, in
committee to confine the bill to the repeal of the6e clauses
in the 39th of George 111., and to omit the other provisions
of the bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the bill proposed
fo repeal provisions relative to newspapers which were a
dead letter and discreditable to the age, and he trusted their
lordships would not hesitate to read it a second time. Their
lordships might advantageously consider in committee how
far it was desirable to repeal the other provisions of the
law relative to newspapers.

Lord CRANWOitili said that the bill proposed to re-
peal certain enactments without stating what the effect of
such repeal would be. Had their lordships the least notion
what they were asked to do by this bill ? He ventured to
say they had not. Their lordships wore therefore indebted
to the noble and learned lord (Chelmsford) for going through
the provisions of the bill so carefully. This bill came up
to their lordships' house more than four months ago,
but until that afternoon when the bill was put down for a
second reading, he had not looked into Acts of Parliament
proposed to be repealed. The conviction he had arrived at
was that the repeal of many of these enactments would be
most impolitic and injurious. There was, for example,
nothing more reasonable than that persons publishing
newspapers should give security that they would not be
guilty of private malice. He had declined to take charge of
this bill, because, as a general rule, he objected to the intro-
duction of any measure which did not bear on its face an
intimation of its object and effect. In certain cases that
might perhaps be dispensed with, as in a bill to repeal all
the statutes which were consolidated in a general act, or a
vast mass of practically obsolete enactments. Put in thd
attempt to make legislation simple—a very desirable object
in itself—they must take care they did not expose them-
selves to the old maxim—Brevis esse laboro, obseurus flo.
Except to any one who took the trouble to refer to the sta-
tute-book, the present measure was quite unintelligible.
Lord WENSLEYDALE suggested that the bill should
now be read a second time, and then referred to a select
committee.

Lord DONO UGHMORE advised the noble lord who
had charge of the bill to withdraw it and introduce
another for the purpose of carrying out these provisions
which were not objected to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, saw no objection to refer-
ring the bill to a select committee, but hoped it would not
be withdrawn. It was of great importance that a number
of these enactments should be repealed, and as the House
of Commons had twice sent up a bill with that object, it
would scarcely be respectful to that house to dismiss the
present bill in a summary manner. When only a single
clause was to be repealed it might be very well to recite it
in the preamble, but there would be a great deal of diffi-
culty and inconvenience iu doing so whore whole Acts
were concerned.

Lord WYNFORD observed that as there was no urgent
nee,essity, for the bill it had better be withdrawn in order to
be amended.

Earl GRANVILLE suggested that the bill should be
read a second time, in order to give the noble lord (Lord
Stratheden) an opportunity of amending it so as to meet the
views of the noble and learned lords who had objected to it.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that he was the
first person requested to take charge of the bill in their
lordships' house. On examination, however, he found that
it gave no information as to the nature of the Acts to be re-
pealed, and, therefore, declined to adopt it. He was not
disposed to oppose the second reading, but ho hoped the
noble lord would afterwards omit those provisions to which
objection had been taken.

Lord REDESDALE pointed out that as the short title
of the bill was only " Newspapers, &c.," all that could be
left, if they struck out the clauses relating to newspapers,
would be " &c., Bill." (Laughter) If thenoble lord thought
he could make anything of the bill, under the circumstances,
it might be read a second time and committed pro forma.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said it appeared that the
bill had gone from one noble lord to another before any one
could be got to take charge of it. (A laugh.) He had him-
self referred to the statute-book to ascertain what were the
enactments to be repealed,and he was of opinion that it would
be imprudent to repeal some of those which were of a penal
character. He thought the noble lord had better withdraw
the bill, and introduce it in an amended form next session.
Lord STRATHE DEN saidthat, after the remarks which
had been made by the noble lord the President of the Coun-
cil and other noble lords, and in the absence of any decided
opposition to the second reading, he did not feel at liberty
to withdraw the bill. In consenting to the second reading,
their lordships would not he precluded from afterwards re-
ferring it to a select committee, or rejecting it altogether.
He asked their lordships to read the bill a second time,
without considering that any noble lord would thereby be
committed to its provisions.

Lord CHELMSFORD had hoped his noble friend would
have given a pledge that he would alter the bill in commit-
tee as he had suggested ; but as he declined to do so he had
no alternative but to move as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time that day three months.
Their lordships then divided. The numbers were :
Content
Net content
Majority against the second reading.. —26

The bill was therefore lost.
NUISANCES REMOVAL AND DISEASES PRE-

VENTION BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY (No. 2) BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of CARNARVON this bill was
read a second time.

BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND) ACT (1856)
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
The clauses were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to
be reported.

The Registration of Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill wen'
through committee.

The Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment Bill, and
the Enclosm•e (No. 2) Bill, were read a third time and
passed.

- The Isle of Man Harbour Bill, and the Dominica Hur
ricane Loan Bill, went through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock,
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Athenry and Tuam Railway Bill was read a third
ime and passed.