Lords Sitting of 28 February 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Masters' Jurisdiction in Equity; Commons Inclosure.
2a Party Processions (Ireland.)

PORT PHILLIP.
LORD MONTEAGLEpresented a petition from lessees of land in the district of Fort Phillip, in which the petitioners stated that the elective franchise was at present too restricted by the incorporating Act, the qualification being the possession of freehold property to the value of 20 l. a year, or of personal property to the value of 200 l.; the consequence of which was, that the vast and increasing interests of leaseholders, and what were called "squatters," and professional persons, were left wholly unrepresented. This question became more important, in consequence of the new constitution and the separate government that was about to be given to the colony. The petitioners stated that they had read a despatch from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, in which he mentioned the form of government about to be given to them. That announcement they had received with the utmost gratitude for the liberal spirit in which the plan was drawn up, and with the greatest anxiety that it should be brought fairly into operation. It was scarcely possible to conceive anything more rapid than the improvement of the colony of Port Phillip. It was founded in 1836; there were not more than thirty inhabitants in Melbourne in that year; Melbourne now contained 10,000 inhabitants and 2,000 houses, and the property was rated at 50,000 l. a year; whilst the returns showed that the exports in 1846 were to the value of 640,000 l. He (Lord Monteagle) would take that opportunity of asking his noble Friend—not for the purpose of anticipating the discussion which would take place when the Bill came formally before their Lordships, but merely to ascertain the fact—whether he was in possession of any despatches from New South Wales, or any other of the Australian colonies as to the manner in which the announcement of the proposed Australian Colonies Government and Constitution Bill was received by the colonists? It was a strong ground of objection, when the former Bill upon the subject was before the House, that no sufficient information as to the opinions of the colonists was before their Lordships; and he hoped there would not

123
be the same ground afforded again. He had the strongest objection to a single chamber, unless it was carefully controlled, and he should wish much to know what the opinions of the colonists themselves were with regard to it. He knew that his noble Friend had sent over to the colony a copy of the Order in Council; but he had seen no despatch as yet from the colonists in which their views were stated. He wished to know, therefore, whether any such despatch had been received, and, if not as yet, whether the House would be put in possession of such information before it should be called upon to give its opinion upon the second reading of the Bill?
EARL GREYreplied, that he had received no official information as yet from the Australian colonies, as to the manner in which the plan of the new constitution had been received. The news which he had had was extremely scanty. None of the Governors of the colonies had acknowledged as yet that they had received the Circular Order which had been addressed to them, or the report of the Privy Council on which the proposed constitution was founded; and their communications, so far as they had extended, had been laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament. But although the official despatches had not been received at the dates of the last accounts, a statement of the intentions of Government had appeared in some of the local newspapers, and had formed a subject of considerable discussion amongst the colonists of all grades, and the announcement seemed to have been generally received with great satisfaction by them. The Governor of South Australia, Sir Henry Young, and the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, Sir William Denison, although they had not received the official despatches, had both mentioned the fact of the announcement having reached the colonies. Sir Henry Young had merely mentioned the matter in a private letter to a friend, and from that it appeared that the plan had been very favourably received. Sir William Denison mentioned it in only a single line in his despatch, saying, that although they had not as yet received the official details, the plan appeared to be very favourably received by the colonists. This, however, he (Earl Grey) would say, that whatever information might be received by Her Majesty's Government, they would have great pleasure in laying it upon the table of the House in time to make it useful during the discussion. The
124
petition presented by his noble Friend was one which deserved deep and grave consideration. The parties whose signatures were affixed to it were of great respectability, and the grievance which they pointed out a very real and a very substantial one; but it was one which he (Earl Grey) did not think was capable of being dealt with in this country. It was a grievance that should be removed in the colony by the colonists themselves, and through the means which the Government proposed to furnish them with. Those Gentlemen complained that whilst the pastoral interest was a great source of wealth to the colony, the residences were too remote, and the number too small, to enable the possessors of the franchise to exercise their privilege with advantage; and they wished to have the right of voting considerably extended. But it was obvious that in the absence of correct local information, it would be impossible for the Imperial Parliament to lay down fitting electoral districts in which the increasing population should be properly arranged, as entitled to settle representatives to the Council. If Parliament made laws of that description, they would be risking the inconvenience of creating too much or too little local influence. The minute local information necessary for such a scheme was entirely wanting; and that was one of the reasons for adopting the form of Bill which was recommended by the Committee of Privy Council. Such of their Lordships as had given their attention to the subject were aware that the principle upon which that report was founded, was that of leaving things as nearly as possible as they were already; but at the same time providing for the gradual extension and alteration of the institutions so created, as to meet the growing wants of a rapidly increasing society. That, he believed, was the only principle that could be safely or advantageously adopted; and it was one which the colonists themselves, he was happy to see, considered to be most advantageous for them under all the circumstances of the case.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen moved, "That the report of the Amendments made on the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill be received."
EARL WALDEGRAVEobjected to the 15th Clause, which, as amended by the Bishop of Salisbury, enacts that the income

125
of the Dean of York should not exceed 2,000 l. a year, and that the incomes of the Deans of Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Salisbury, and Wells, should not exceed 1,500 l. a year, and stated that all the bishops had voted in favour of the clause.
The BISHOP of ST. ASAPHsaid, that the noble Earl was wrong in stating that the whole of the bishops present had voted for the clause as it stood. And he begged further to say that he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had never made any complaint at all with regard to his income having been reduced to 4,000 l. a year. On the contrary, he thought it was a very right measure. What he complained of was, that his income was reduced to such a degree that he was unable to provide spiritual assistance for certain places in his diocese for which he would have been most anxious to provide had his means permitted. They might depend upon it, that the real efficiency of the Church would never be promoted by any attempt to draw a line between the working clergy and the dignified clergy. He was sure there were no men in the kingdom who worked harder than the bishops. They might be well classed among the working clergy; and he believed that the reason why the Church did not work still more efficiently in England was, that it had not a sufficient number of field officers, if he might so term the prelates of the Church. He should not, however, offer any further observations on the subject at present, as he would have other opportunities of doing so.
The BISHOP of CHICHESTERobserved, that his right rev. Brother, in moving his Amendment on this clause on a former night, had stated that the right interpretation of the former Act on this subject would have left to those on the old foundations the power of receiving their former emoluments, and had argued that the intent of that Act ought not to be interfered with by a Bill of which the only object was to remodel the Commission. He considered that it was not for the good of the Church that all the prizes of the Church should be withdrawn from it, and that there should be an uniformity of payment established for all its subordinate members. Advantage was gained to the Church by leaving inequalities among its members.
Amendments reported.
Further Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved the Second Reading of the Party Processions (Ireland) Bill. He said that as the Bill was one of considerable importance, and as it was of a restrictive nature, he did not think it would be proper for him to ask their Lordships' concurrence in it without stating in a very few words the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to submit it for the consideration of Parliament. At the same time, having every reason to hope that this Bill would meet the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, as it had already received the unanimous approval of the other House of Parliament, it was not his intention to occupy their Lordships' time for more than a very few moments. Their Lordships were aware that in 1832 it was found necessary, in consequence of disturbances that had taken place at these processions, and the effect which they were found to have on the peace of the country, to introduce an Act for the suppression of all party processions in Ireland. That Act had been renewed from time to time, but it had been allowed to expire in 1845. It certainly was the intention of Government to introduce another measure in 1846; but so earnest a hope had been expressed by various parties that no such a Bill would thenceforth be found necessary, and that the state of the country was such as to admit of the disuse of such a law, in consequence of the improved good temper and good feeling which were beginning to prevail, that under these circumstances the matter was allowed to stand over to another time. But though he did not propose on this occasion to imitate the example of those, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, who had been the authors or abettors of proceedings calculated to produce irritation and animosity between Her Majesty's subjects—though he did not intend to avail himself of this occasion to recall to their Lordships' attention anything that could awaken angry feeling, or renew differences of opinion—he wished to allude generally to the state of Ireland; to the inflammable nature of the feelings of the people in that portion of the united kingdom, produced as it had been by various causes, and liable as it was to be still called into action, inducing excited partisans heedlessly "to rush in where angels fear to tread;" and he was sure that, aware as their Lordships were of the prevalence of these feelings, they would at

127
once concur in the propriety of passing this Bill into a law. The fact was, that so long as facilities existed in Ireland for celebrating, and more than celebrating, these party anniversaries, so long would that country he left open as an arena in which every passion—every absurd prejudice and feeling were brought together. By this Bill it was proposed to close the field against such displays. It did not differ materially from the former Bills, at the same time that it was somewhat more comprehensive; and unlike the former measures no period was prescribed at which the Act would terminate. If the period arrived when it would be found no longer necessary to continue in Ireland an Act which was not required in this country, the Government would no doubt be willing to consider the propriety of repealing the Act; but for the present he thought it much better that men's should not be unsettled by knowing that there was any fixed period whatever after which the old system of party processions could be restored.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely agreed in the propriety of having this Bill a permanent measure. He should at the same time like to know whether the prohibition was intended to be confined to armed processions. He thought that it would be much better to prohibit all processions whatever that tended to lead to breaches of the peace. The only processions that he would wish to allow were those at funerals.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to answer in the negative.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHbriefly explained the provisions of the Bill. It prohibited armed processions, but not all processions. It prohibited processions with firearms and other offensive weapons, and with party badges, flags, and symbols, and with music playing party tunes, calculated to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects; but it did not prohibit processions without arms or badges, or with inoffensive music. Under this Bill the Orangemen might again meet on the 12th of July, provided that they met without arms or badges, and with bands of music not playing such tunes as the "Boyne Water," or "Croppies lie down," but such tunes as "See the conquering hero," &c. He should be very happy if he could indulge in the sanguine expectations of the noble Marquess as to the success of this measure. He
128
admitted that, when a similar measure was in existence, no Orange processions and no Riband processions were ever attempted. He hoped that the same result would be accomplished now. He thought that the unfortunate events which occurred at Dolly's Brae were a sufficient justification for the introduction of this Bill. He regretted, however, that the noble Marquess had not gone further into the details of it, in order to show the manner in which it differed from the Act which expired in 1845. This Bill created two misdemeanours. The first consisted in being present at a meeting or procession rendered by this Bill unlawful, and for that the person offending might be punished by indictment. The second consisted in not dispersing when the magistrates, after declaring its illegality, had ordered the meeting or procession to disperse, and for that he might be proceeded against in a summary way before two justices, and, being convicted, might be punished by a fine not exceeding 5l., or by imprisonment not exceeding one calendar month. In the Act of 1845 the magistrates had no option as to the extent of the imprisonment, therefore that Act was more stringent than the present. There was another point in the Bill which he must not pass over unnoticed, as he entertained some doubts about it. With regard to the second misdemeanour, no option was left to the magistrate; he must declare the meeting illegal, and after declaring it illegal, he must order its dispersion. Now, it was evident that there might be circumstances in which it would be inexpedient to disperse a meeting decidedly unlawful. There had been such meetings in England, aye, and in this metropolis too, in which he thought that the Government had exercised a sound discretion in not dispersing them, though notoriously illegal. He thought that the magistrates had acted rightly in not dispersing the two assemblies at Dolly's Brae; for to have attempted the dispersion of both would have led to a grand mêlée, and would have terminated in a greater sacrifice of human life than had actually taken place. In this Bill, he repeated, that the magistrate had no option, for it was obligatory on him to declare the meeting unlawful, and to disperse it. Now, if the magistrate had not a sufficient force with him to disperse it, he would only be bringing the law into contempt by issuing an order which he could not enforce. The last clause in the present Bill was not in

129
the Act which had expired. It provided, that any person who should have been proceeded against in a summary way for not dispersing within a quarter of an hour after the reading of the notice to disperse, should not he indicted likewise for a misdemeanour for having been present at the unlawful assembly; but if he had not been proceeded against in a summary way, he might be indicted. Now, the unlawful act consisted in being present at such an assembly. The person ordered to disperse had committed a misdemeanour in being present, and for being present he might be liable to a greater punishment than for refusing to disperse. The question would therefore arise in the mind of such a man whether it was not better to disobey the notice and remain on the ground; for if he were punished summarily for the misdemeanour of not dispersing, he could not have more than a fine of 5l. or a month's imprisonment inflicted upon him; whereas, if he were indicted for being present at an unlawful meeting, he might be sentenced to a heavy fine and to imprisonment for 12, 16, 18 months, and even longer. He therefore thought that this clause should be more carefully considered. These meetings, besides, though unlawful under the Bill prohibiting meetings with arms and objectionable badges, banners, and music, might also be unlawful at common law from the great numbers composing them. He thought that nothing in this Act contained should prevent the proceeding at common law also against a person who might be punished summarily under this Act. He believed that as the Act stood, it would still be open to the Government so to proceed. But it was a matter lawyers might make speeches about, and juries might differ about, and it would be far bettor to render it clear by a proviso saving the common law.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that the Bill of 1832, introduced by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), was considered to apply only to the Orangemen, and to processions held on particular festivals, and much complaint was expressed at its not being applicable to the monster meetings held by the Repealers. The present Bill was also not intended to apply to all meetings and processions; and he believed that if the Ribandmen met on the 17th of March next, they might march legally through the country, provided they did so without arms, or banners and music, calculated to excite hostility among different
130
classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He did not think that the phrase "different classes" was one that ought to be used in the Act. It was usually applied to the higher and lower orders, whereas, in the present instance, it was evidently intended to mean persons of different religious persuasions—a construction which he thought could not be properly put upon it. He thought the phrase "different religious persuasions" used in the former Act much preferable. As the Bill now stood, two meetings, one having "Free-trade," and the other "Protection," on their banners, would both be illegal—a construction which was clearly not intended to be conveyed by the Bill.
LORD CAMPBELLcollected that their Lordships were agreed on the necessity of a Party Processions Act, and that the common desire was to make it as effective as possible. It did not at present appear to him that any alteration would be necessary in this Bill, but all that had been said should be fully considered before it went to a third reading. It was framed almost entirely after the model of an Act which answered the object in view from 1832 to 1845. It was intended that with perfect impartiality processions of all sorts tending to produce a breach of the peace should be prohibited. It would be difficult to intro duce words more stringent than those inserted in this Bill, without including processions altogether innocent, such as of a school or a temperance society. He apprehended that upon the true construction or this Bill a magistrate would be justified in not interfering with an assembly if he considered that it would tend more to the preservation of the public peace that he should not interfere. The clause preventing a person from being proceeded against both for a misdemeanour for being present, and in a summary way for not departing after command, was necessary to protect the subject from a danger to which he ought not to be exposed.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHstill thought, in regard to the former point, that the language was imperative upon the magistrate; and, as to the latter, that the punishment annexed to the double offence of being present and not departing within the time limited, ought not to be lighter than the punishment for merely being present.
LORD CAMPBELLhad no doubt that those who had to administer the law would see that the punishment awarded was just.
The EARL of ENNISKILLENdid not rise for the purpose of saying a word against the Bill, but merely to express a hope that temperance processions might not be left out. He feared that advantage would be taken of the omission.
The EARL of RODENdid not wish to say anything against a measure the object of which was to put an end altogether to party proceesions in Ireland. All he should say was, that if the Bill had been the same as that of 1845, he would have given it all the opposition in his power, because that was a one-sided measure, affecting only the anniversaries of the Orangemen, while the opposite party were left to act as they thought fit. He thought that the Bill could not be made too stringent, as his firm belief was, that no procession could be formed in Ireland without its eventually becoming a party procession. He did not know to whom the noble Marquess's quotation, about fools rushing in, applied; but, if it applied to the Orangemen, he could only say that such language was not held by Her Majesty's Government in 1848, when the Orangemen ranged themselves in procession on the side of law and order. Of the present measure he had nothing to complain, and he felt sure that the Orangemen would be the first to give it effect, by refraining from those processions which they had so much enjoyed and so frequently indulged in.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought it an important object that the Bill should be as comprehensive as stringent; if the words used were not sufficient to embrace all phases of an evil, it would inevitably spring up in some shape. With relation to temperance processions, there was no one evil connected with political or party processions that was not capable of being revived under that title. He spoke not only prospectively, but as a witness, in reference to what he had himself seen. With the Irish peasantry, in this as in other matters, the certainty of punishment was one of the great objects to be aimed at in the suppression of crime. He hoped the Bill might be successful, but as to the peace of the country, he doubted whether it could be attained, so long as the possession of arms by the peasantry was left wholly without restriction, without regulation, and without protection to the peaceful inhabitants. He was not now suggesting extreme or unconstitutional measures, but he must say that the possession of arms by the peasantry, whether the man was a dis-
132
turber of the peace, or a faithful subject of the Crown, was equally dangerous. In the one case it brought down vengeance on him for keeping arms in his own defence; in the other it became the instrument of crime in his own hands or those of others. He thought, however, an Arms Act, to produce all the good effects that might be expected from it, should be permanent, and not annual.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought the question of an Arms Act one of the most difficult that could be mooted. On different occasions these Acts had been proved an intolerable restriction, and injurious to well-affected persons, whilst arms were found in the possession of those who ought not to have them. Another difficulty was the disinclination of people of all classes in Ireland to execute an Arms Act. He believed that the Act introduced by the noble Earl opposite, when a Member of the late Government, was very well framed; the failure of it was not due to the manner in which it was framed, but to the inertness of the magistrates who ought to have attended to it. In short, it was not in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the community, and therefore was not put in force. He was in a condition to show the number of troops and stipendiary magistrates sent down to the north of Ireland to a very considerable amount on the anniversary of July, 1848, and their Lordships would at once see that the obligation which the Irish Government thought incumbent on them to provide against breaches of the peace in the north of Ireland, led to a serious diminution of the amount of force at their command in other parts of the country. If any credit was to be given to any portion of the Irish of any class, for any degree of common sense, he did not think that the objections which had been taken against this Bill would be found valid in practice. If there were any discretion left, either at common law or under this Bill, he could not think there would be those means of escape to persons committing misdemeanours which had been apprehended. It was impossible to make an Act so stringent that some way would not be found of eluding it; but this Bill was directed against all party processions indiscriminately, and not one could take place without its being brought under the operation of the law—for a temperance society to have a procession would at once bring it under the Act.
The EARL of GLENGALLthought

133
there would be no difficulty in passing an Arms Act. He wished to see the nature of the different sorts of processions more clearly defined in the present Bill.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdid not think the Bill required any material amendment, but the suggestions made would be carefully considered.
Bill read 2°.
House adjourned till To-morrow.