Lords Sitting of 6 May 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Appeals to the Privy Council from the Ecclesiastical Courts (Matters of Doctrine).
2a Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement; Parish Constables.
Reported.—Indemnity.

OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF THE PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY, after presenting petitions from two places in his diocese against Sunday labour in the Post Office, said: My Lords, I take this
1158
opportunity of explaining a matter relating to myself, which has been greatly misunderstood. It is with much reluctance that I trouble your Lordships on a subject chiefly personal, but I have no other means of clearing myself from an imputation which, I trust, cannot justly be laid to my charge. My Lords, it has been supposed—and your Lordships may perhaps have heard—that I have nominated one of my sons to a valuable reversionary sinecure in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. The case is so as regards the reversionary office; the case is not so as regards either the value or the sinecure. My Lords, it is not generally known, or I should not have the necessity of addressing you—it is not generally known, that in the Session of 1847 an Act was passed which placed the Prerogative Court of Canterbury under the control of Parliament in respect to all future nominations; and the office of registrar, if ever held by my son, which is very uncertain, not to say improbable, will be performed in person, and its salary regulated according to the duties and responsibilities of the station. So much, my Lords, in regard to the sinecure and the value. Indeed the value, according to the doctrine of chances, would be scarcely equal to the stamp on which the nomination is recorded. But it has been supposed, my Lords, that in making this appointment I have availed myself of a privilege which my venerable predecessor declined to exercise. My Lords, I have already explained the reason why my predecessor would not nominate to this office; it would have been inconsistent with that disinterestedness and moderation which distinguished all that he did if he had nominated to a reversionary sinecure. It was not till the close of the Session of 1847, a few months before his death, that the Act passed which took away the sinecure. It took away the sinecure, and it limited the value; but the office must remain, and must be filled; wherever there is a diocese there must be a registry, and where there is a registry there must be a registrar; and I trust that in nominating, prospectively, that registrar, I shall in the judgment of your Lordships have exercised a privilege to which I was both legally and morally entitled; and have done nothing which, when explained, can subject me to the charge of nepotism; an imputation which I hope neither has been, nor ever will be, the characteristic of my official career.
The BISHOP of LONDON: In reference to what has just fallen from my most rev. Friend and Brother, I wish to state to your Lordships a circumstance which, to my certain knowledge, occurred on another similar occasion. The office of registrar of the ecclesiastical court of the diocese of Chester is an office worth many thousands a year. A former Prelate of that see nominated to that office a son of his own, an infant not more than six months old. The person so nominated held that office for no less a period than seventy years. The office became vacant after I left the diocese of Chester. My most rev. Friend and Brother had afterwards the right to appoint to that office. He did not fill it up with the name of one of his sons, not having a son old enough to take it, except as a sinecure; but he gave it to a person totally unconnected with his family, on condition that he should always perform its duties in person. My most rev. Brother had not given away a valuable office, which he had in his own gift, to his own son, but to a stranger; but he has given to his son an office in reversion, which is subject to the control of Parliament, and of which the duties must be performed in person. I therefore think that the charge of nepotism cannot be preferred with any show of justice against the most rev. Prelate.

THE UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to ask his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council whether he had any objection to lay upon the table a copy of the Commission which had been issued or was about to be issued for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the universities? After furnishing the House with a narration of the course, which he had pursued when engaged in his inquiries into the state of the charities provided for the promotion of education, and after showing that he had always exempted the universities from those inquiries, he proceeded to maintain that the course which the Government was now prepared to pursue was not a fit course to pursue with regard to the universities either as proprietary bodies—and both the universities were proprietary bodies—or as superintendents of the discipline observed in those illustrious seats of education. It was a course which he was certain would not be efficacious for its own object. In all his Bills on education and charities, he had carefully exempted the
1160
universities from their operation. He did not wish to exempt the universities from inquiry now; but he would have it respectfully suggested to those learned bodies that they should submit to be examined in private. He could state to his noble Friend in private sufficient reasons for pursuing such a course; but he would rather decline stating those reasons publicly. He thought that Her Majesty's Ministers would do well to take this point into consideration before they finally resolved on the issue of a Royal Commission.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to say that no such Commission as that of which his noble Friend appeared apprehensive had yet been issued. The terms of such a Commission, the powers to be given to it, and the members who were to form it, would all require consideration; and when all those points were settled, they should be immediately submitted to the knowledge of Parliament.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that as far as he could learn, the Commission would only have power to receive voluntary statements, and would not be empowered to compel answers to the inquiries which it might be induced to institute. All who were inclined to attack the universities, would give voluntary evidence; and how were the universities to defend themselves from charges so brought against them, and of which, till the charges were published, they would have no information?
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that those whose province it was to defend the universities, ought to bring before Parliament that evidence which they had in their possession, and which was most essential to the proper consideration of this question. As to Cambridge, he was quite certain that the authorities of that most illustrious university would be ready to produce evidence as to the improvements recently introduced into its course of education—and very creditable those improvements were to those who had suggested and carried them into execution. Those who represented the improvements recently made at Cambridge, felt that such evidence would be a very essential document to lay before Parliament. After complimenting Lord Brougham for his great exertions in the cause of education and charity, he expressed a hope that in the progress of the Bill which must be brought into Parliament on the subject. Parliament would not only ascertain the extent of the evil to be remedied, but also the efficacy of the remedy to

1161
be applied to it. He would undertake to say, from his own knowledge of the improvements made in the system of education at Cambridge, that the cause of academical reform had never made more satisfactory progress than it had in that university in the course of the last three or four years. It was a question, therefore, which required serious deliberation, whether the issue of this Commission would promote or retard sound knowledge in the universities.
Subject dropped.

ACCIDENTS IN COAL MINES.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEpresented a petition from coal miners, praying for legislative interference for the better ventilation and regulation of coal mines, and in doing so the noble Lord observed, that in asking for better protection in their arduous occupation no class of Her Majesty's subjects were better entitled to the consideration of their Lordships, whether the benefits rendered by their labour to the community were considered, or the danger of the occupation itself. After stating a few facts illustrative of the nature of the miners' work and the peculiar risks they encountered, he remarked, that, although some of the casualties they suffered might be beyond human precaution or prevention, there were other causes in existence which might be removed, and there had been cases in which fatal accidents had occurred through the negligence of those who employed the labour. In such cases it was not unreasonable for the Legislature to interpose, in order to obtain more security under a better system of management. It had been ascertained that during the last few years the number of lives lost by accidents in mines had considerably increased. In 1838 the number was 349; in 1840, 498; in 1845, 562; in 1847 there was a small reduction, as the number was 462; in 1848 it rose again to 570; and in 1849 there were no fewer than 704 lives lost. The question then arose, whether, by improved regulations, greater security of life could not be attained. Inquiry into this subject had been made, in 1835, by a Committee of the House of Commons, which had made a report; and since then there had been a series of inquiries into accidents in coal mines by Commissioners appointed by the Government, besides other spontaneous inquiries down to the report of last Session, when their Lord-
1162
ships had acceded to his suggestion for repeating the inquiry. In all these reports there was no difference of opinion as to the possibility of instituting better precautions against the loss of life. The noble Lord then adverted to the fact, that in the Belgian mines there had been a decrease of accidents during the years in which there had been an improved system of inspection. It was clear, from the facts recorded, that something might be done by an efficient system of ventilation. He thought some regulations should be adopted which should entail a more direct responsibility upon those who ought to bear responsibility—the owners and managers of mines. He trusted that every facility would be given for the appointment of competent inspectors. He wished to know if the Commission appointed by the Government had yet reported, and, if so, when it might be expected to be laid before the House?
EARL GRANVILLEstated that the report was in preparation, and would be laid upon the table before the end of the present Session.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that nobody could deplore more than he did the loss of life which was occasioned by accidents in mines, but yet he thought that the Government deserved much credit for acting with so much caution before taking any direct steps in the matter. He was sure that the Government would see the great importance of guarding them as much as possible from accidents, but yet it was necessary to have some regard to the interests of the proprietors of these mines. He hoped that the inspection would be instituted, but it was not desirable that Government inspectors should become directors of these mines.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that they should be particularly cautious in enforcing any particular plan on the proprietors of mines. If they gave the inspectors a compulsory power, it cast the responsibility on the inspection, and diminished it on the part of the proprietors. Much injury would arise from such a course.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that he hoped that what had fallen from the noble Earl who bad just sat down Would not deter their Lordships from sanctioning an inspection. He should like to know an instance where the responsibility in any of these cases had ever been brought home to the proprietors?
Petition to lie on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL moved the Second Reading of a Bill for the Improvement of Procedure in Criminal Courts. He hoped in a few words to state grounds which should be sufficient to induce their Lordships to agree to the principle of the Bill. The object was to prevent the defeat of justice, which not unfrequently took place by means of technicalities wholly unconnected with the guilt or innocence of the party. One great source of such defeat was to be found in the variance in what was illegal in the indictment, and what came out in the proof. For example, it might be alleged that the prisoner stole a cow, and it turned out to be a heifer; that he had stolen five lambs, and it turned out that they were sheep. In things of that sort it was proposed to allow the Judge power to amend the indictment upon the proof as it came out; and, if necessary, the trial should be postponed; but, if it could proceed without depriving the prisoner of the opportunity of asserting his innocence, it should proceed without delay. By this power, which he thought might be satisfactorily given to the Judge, much scandal would be obviated in the administration of justice. There was another principle involved in the Bill, which was to allow a more general allegation of the crime that was charged. According to the old forms it was necessary to enter with great minuteness into details in an indictment for murder, specifying, for instance, the length and depth of the wound, the nature of the instrument with which the crime was committed, and the like. As the law now stood, it was necessary in a very particular manner to describe how the death actually was caused, and if it turned out that the death was not actually caused in the manner described, the prosecution failed. To avoid that danger, counts in indictments were infinitely multiplied. All he proposed was so to frame the law that an indictment for murder might simply charge the prisoner on such a day and in such a place with "killing or murdering." There were other enactments all introduced with the same view of preventing a defeat of justice; but he hoped he had stated enough to induce their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned till To-morrow.