HL Deb 24 June 1844 vol 75 cc1256-63

The Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill, having been read,

Earl Fitzhardinge

said, he wished to make a few observations before the House went into Committee on this Bill. When it was referred to a Select Committee of that House, he had the honour of being a member of that Committee; but he did not long continue so, for he withdrew, thinking that the Committee were not pursuing a proper course; he would— —nothing extenuate, Or aught set down in malice. but he could not help saying that he thought the Committee pursued a wrong course, when they refused to go into evidence on the subject. He divided the Committee on the subject, and they thought otherwise; but he thought it desirable that they should have full information before they proceeded to pass an Act which contained some very stringent clauses—not that he was one of those who gave way to morbid feelings upon the punishment of criminals. He did not fear the effect of legislative enactments to check crime, if they legislated upon such subjects on sure grounds. He proposed no other test than that which he would have required himself, viz., he would have inquired what prohibitory clauses had been put into leases to prevent the evils complained of. On his own property, he had no prohibitory clauses in his leases, but then there were no brothels. On the property of the Marquess of Westminster, prohibitory clauses had been introduced; on the property of the late Duke of Dorset they had also been introduced. Now, he held in his hand the copy of the prohibitory clause in a lease of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, taken from a lease in 1841; but there was no prohibitory clause against brothels. Other nuisances were prohibited, such as the making of tallow and glue, but not brothels. He had also a copy of the prohibitory clause in leases of the property of a most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He did not know whether the right bank of the river was defiled by the same im- purities as the left bank, but he did not find that brothels were amongst the nuisances forbidden. But he would take no unfair advantage. After it was decided that no evidence should be called, he directed his agent to call on Mr. Vincent, the agent of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to inquire if there were prohibitory clauses in their leases against brothels, and the answer which had been given was, that in some of the leases the prohibitory clause against brothels was inserted, but in others it was not, that it was not the practice to insert in ancient leases, but only in the modern. His agent was referred for further information to the Bishop of Gloucester. Now, it was said in the Committee, and it had been also said elsewhere, that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but he had not made any accusation at all—he knew nothing of them—he wanted to know something, and that was the reason why he moved for evidence; he told them when the accusation was made, and he knew nothing of it himself. If this subject was fit for legislation, it was necessarily fit for examination. If they would look into a sewer they must expect to find a certain scent; and he must say that he thought they had been rather too hasty in their legislation. It was said that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; but he would repeat that he had not done so. He would, however, now make an accusation against them, and he would say that the brothels within two minutes' walk of that House, on their property were still extant, and he would give his authority to their Lordships. [The noble Earl then mentioned several houses and streets which were notorious.] He had no great reason to doubt the accuracy of this information; for it was given to him, not by any schismatic or anonymous writer in a newspaper, but by the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret's. They might legislate on the subject if they pleased, and he would not oppose their going into Committee upon the Bill before the House; but if the statement of Mr. Rogers, the vestry clerk, were true, he thought they were rather premature in legislating on this matter. He would beg to call their Lordships' attention to the third Clause in the Bill: And be it enacted, that any person who shall knowingly participate, directly or indi- rectly, in the profits arising from the keeping of any brothel, or who shall on any pretence directly share or become a partner with any prostitute in the wages of her prostitution, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished in the same manner in all respects as hereinbefore authorized with reference to the keepers of brothels. After what he had stated did anybody mean to say that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were ignorant of all this? Did they not then come within this very Clause? If their Lordships legislated at all, let them legislate fairly. Let them not attack consequences without examining first into causes. Let them not satisfy themselves with lopping off' twigs, but let them lay the axe re the root of the evil. If they passed that Bill, knowing that the Dean and Chapter had been breathing the air of prostitution, and sharing the very wages of public infamy, he would tell them that they would not deal out even-handed justice unless they brought in a Bill of pains and penalties against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

The Bishop of Gloucester

said, he was sure that their Lordships would lend an ear to a member of a body against whom there had been dealt out very large, loud, and he must say, intolerable accusations. From the tone and manner of the noble Earl it appeared that his temper had been greatly moved by what had passed the other night. He (the Bishop of Gloucester) did then complain, as he might now, that he had received no notice of the intention of the noble Earl, nor had any person connected with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; otherwise he should have been provided with those details in a manner fitted to he laid before their Lordships. At that time, however, he could only state everything he knew, or had heard, or could recollect upon the subject; which was, that two years ago it had been communicated to him, for the first time in his life, that there stood upon the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in the Almonry houses of ill-fame, and he mentioned the matter to the proper authority immediately, urging that steps should be taken at once for the removal of that nuisance, which he saw was so discreditable to a religious and learned body. Their Lordships would recollect that he also stated that all the property was under leases of forty years, and their Lordships were well aware that during the currency of those leases it was impossible for the Dean and Chapter to take steps against the possessors, provided the conditions of the leases were not infringed. He had heard with satisfaction that a resolution had been taken long ago that those leases should not be renewed, and that they were in course of expiration. It was right to say for himself that, though be had been for many years a member of the body, he had never taken any part in the management of the property belonging to the Dean and Chapter, his time was entirely occupied by duties of another character, and more appropriate—duties which he could exercise with more benefit to the Church. The property of the Dean and Chapter, though very trifling as compared with that of the noble Earl and many of their Lordships, being of a scattered and complicated kind, it was thought better to leave its management to two or three members of that body, or even to one only,—to the Dean, who was more properly vested with the charge and attention to all that concerned the credit, respectability, and honour of the body; and he was glad to say that he could at this time give his confidence to the present Dean of Westminster, a gentleman whom he had known from his earliest youth, and of whom he could say that there lived not a man of purer mind, or one more incapable of encouraging, or profiting by, or tolerating such abominations as those described by the noble Earl. He said also on the occasion previously alluded to, that he had the satisfaction of learning, that not only had some of the leases expired, but that the Dean and Chapter had purchased some of the unexpired terms, and had pulled down some of the houses. Now, he was assured by those who best knew the detail of the subject, and to whom he had referred, that his statement was substantially correct; and had he gone further the statement would have told more creditably even than that to the Dean and Chapter, for not only had they expended their money in purchasing the unexpired terms of some leases, for the sole purpose of suppressing these nuisances, but they had also, under the power of a private Act of Parliament, expended considerable sums of money in purchasing freehold land in the vicinity on which stood houses of the same description, because they felt that the mere suppression of such houses on their own ground would not be of any benefit to the community if their inhabitants could immediately take refuge in the vicinity. He was not aware that in what he had said he was guilty of any inaccuracy. He understood that the houses were let on lease for forty years. But if he had received due notice he should have told their Lordships that a great many leases, not one only, were let upon similar terms, and that the Dean and Chapter, when aware that houses of an improper kind existed, had in every instance refused to renew the lease. Though the property seemed to be of considerable extent, its value was small, being situated in the lower parts of Westminster; and their Lordships might be assured it would be much more agreeable to the Dean and Chapter to possess property in other parts of the town,—in Berkeley-square for instance, where they could command the most respectable tenants in the kingdom. But there was a matter which the accusers of the Dean and Chapter had kept out of view, and when he said accusers, he meant the noble Earl and the newspapers upon which he built his faith, that was, that those leases were frequently under-leases, and that there was very great difficulty indeed in exercising that influence of property of which the noble Earl spoke in such cases; though it might happen, and did happen in the cases under consideration of which he had spoken, that the immediate tenants were respectable persons, but that the property had got into the hands of under-lessees, over whom there was no means of exercising a salutary control. However, the present state of things was this: several of these leases (the whole number of which was considerable—he believed between a dozen and twenty-some of them comprising a good many houses) had already fallen in—the forty years had expired; others had been bought, and as to others, the Dean and Chapter were at that moment in negotiation for the purpose of purchasing them, and pulling down or shutting them up. Some had been pulled down and others had been shut up; one in particular he was told was formerly held by Caxton, the celebrated printer. The noble Earl stated the other night that he grounded his accusation upon the fact that it had been made two years and a half ago in a newspaper, and had never been contradicted; and that the noble Earl repeated with much emphasis. Now, he (the Bishop of Gloucester) must complain of that reasoning. If it was to be held that an accusation was true because it was made anonymously in a newspaper, he wished to know which of their Lord- ships or what number of the community would be safe? Most happy must the noble Earl be if he had passed through life unassailed by slander: but it was surely an untoward and tyrannical doctrine that a person should be considered guilty of a charge made in a newspaper, because he had not chosen to come forward and defend himself from an anonymous accusation. He would add one thing more—it was not always possible to do it—contradictions of anonymous calumnies might be sent to newspapers, which if they had an object in view—that of writing a person down, as it was termed—they would refuse to insert; though, to be sure, generally speaking, they might be printed in the form of a paid advertisement. But the truth must be told; the noble Earl was far too hasty in his reasoning and conclusions. He also omitted, no doubt through forgetfulness, to acquaint their Lordships what newspaper it was that he rested upon. Their Lordships might suppose that it was one of those papers which might come under the eyes of the Dean and Chapter, and therefore they would be obliged to know of the accusations. But he (the Bishop of Gloucester) had found out what paper it was — it was a paper called the Patriot. [Earl Fitzhardinge.—"No. no."] I have the paper in my pocket.

Earl Fitzhardinge

I made no charge on mere newspaper authority; and I now make the charge on the authority of Mr. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret. It was not in that paper that I saw the statement; it was in the Examiner of the 18th of December, 1841. I never saw the Patriot in my life.

The Bishop of Gloucester

believed that the explanation of the noble Earl would not very much alter the state of things. But he held the Patriot newspaper in his hand, a paper which was devoted to the most bitter and rancorous attacks upon the Established Church of this country, which paper contained the statement. But the noble Earl dwelt much on the circumstance that the accusations had not been contradicted. It did so happen that they were contradicted in two respectable newspapers, the Morning Herald of the 16th of January, 1843, and the Standard of the 18th of January, 1843, and they were contradicted not anonymously, as the charge had been made, but with the name of a respectable member of society attached, Mr. Hunt, a house-agent and surveyor, who was employed by the Dean and Chapter in surveying these houses and property, and his statement was a very satisfactory contradiction. Had the noble Earl been aware of the fact, he would not have read with so much glee as he did the statement of the atrocities which the Dean and Chapter tolerated. He said that in Pye-street there were forty brothels, and in Orchard-street thirty, most or all of them being the property of the Dean and Chapter. Now, what was stated upon the plain authority of a man of business? There were two streets in Westminster, at right angles with each other, called Great Pye Street and Little Pye-steet, but in neither one of them did the Dean and Chapter possess a single house. So much for the accuracy with which the noble Earl's statements were made. But why was this bitter attack made upon a body which, at least, were entitled to respect and decency. A few years ago it was found, and complained of loudly, that a house which the Dean and Chapter had leased for forty years as a dwelling-house, had been converted into a Dissenting meeting-house. When this lease came to be renewed, the Dean and Chapter inserted a covenant that the premises should not be occupied as a Dissenting meeting-house, and they inserted similar covenants in other leases. Hinc illœ lachrymœ! Hence all the rancour which they had been subjected to. In future they would take care also that a covenant (thanks to the noble Earl for his suggestion) should be inserted in their leases to prevent the evil complained of; and the first time he was present at a Chapter meeting he would recommend it to the body to which he belonged. Their attention had been anxiously directed to this subject—they had done all that they could do to remedy it, and much as the noble Earl had said about love of lucre, and of the money the Dean and Chapter put into their pockets, the wages of prostitution, as he was pleased to call it, he should observe that a very slight inspection of the accounts respecting those leases, the fines received for them, and the money paid for purchasing the remaining terms, would make it appear that the Dean and Chapter had not profited at all, but had rather been losers by the property. He could not help again saying to their Lordships that he did think it would be a proper, as well as courteous practice, whenever attacks of that kind were to be made, that previous communication should be given to the parties who were to be at- tacked, in order that they might be prepared to answer, for when persons so attacked replied upon the spur of the moment they were liable to be charged with inaccuracy, and, in fact, could not be expected to be sufficiently informed so as to give a complete answer, which he trusted he had now done. From his own personal knowledge of course he could not speak, but he rested upon the statements of persons of veracity, and not upon anonymous paragraphs in newspapers, as the noble Earl had done.

Earl Fitzhardinge

No, no! I found my accusation upon the authority of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, and not upon anonymous papers. His name is Rogers.

The Bishop of Gloucester

The noble Earl has told the House what Mr. Rogers states; but not that the property is under the control of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That very day being quarter-day, the Dean of Westminster had sent notices to parties to quit houses belonging to the Dean and Chapter, in order that inquiries might be made as to the respectability of their houses, upon which some suspicion had been thrown; because their Lordships must be aware of the exceeding difficulty of obtaining respectable tenants in a neighbourhood which laboured under the disadvantage of a bad name.

The Bill went through Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received tomorrow.

House adjourned.