Lords Sitting of 15 May 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Public Works and Harbours Act Amendment; Moveable Property (Scotland); Acts of Uniformity.
2a Saint Giles-in-the-Fields Disused Burial Ground; Edinburgh Roads and Streets.

REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 43] COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks to prepare alphabetical Lists of Voters for Counties, Cities, and Boroughs).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONopposed the clause on four grounds—first, because it was unnecessary; secondly, because it proposed to substitute an arrangement inferior to that at present existing; thirdly, because it involved heavy expense; fourthly, because it was compulsory, instead of permissive. It was unnecessary, for we already had a register in every county and borough, with the names, surnames, and Christian names, alphabetically arranged in polling-places; and the clause proposed a second list. The clause proposed the substitution of an arrangement inferior to that which already existed; because where there was a number of names common to many individuals, with Christian names also common to several, there could be no better way of distinguishing individuals than by the addition of the places of residence. In Scotland, where hosts of individuals bore names in common, they were known almost exclusively by the names of the places where they lived. Further, the new scheme must evidently involve great additional expense. As to his last objection, that it was compulsory and not permissive, he should propose an Amendment, by which it should be made optional, and that the clerks of the peace and the town clerks should be required to prepare the second register only when directed to do so by the Quarter Sessions or the Town Councils.
  LORD LYVEDENobjected that the Amendment was merely a renewed opposition to the principle of the Bill, which had been already decided by the House on the second reading. The Bill practically consisted but of this one clause, the rest of it being of merely a formal character; and if the noble Earl's Amendment were adopted, the effect would be to render nugatory the whole Bill.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall support the Amendment, because it mitigates the mischief of the Bill. I should have preferred its rejection. In any case, if it is to proceed, since the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill can give no information with regard either to the value of the measure, or to the expense of putting it in operation, I would suggest that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee upstairs. I will not use harsh terms in speak-

  1737
  ing of the Bill. I will not call it a job.
  "I never mention job to ears polite."
  I will use the mildest, the most gentle terms in which the Bill can be described. It is a measure for the accommodation of candidates for large constituencies, by throwing a portion of their legitimate electioneering expenses upon the poor rates. Doubtless, the Bill will facilitate the convenience of candidates; but then it should be remembered that by the second clause this is to be at the expense of the elector. This I object to. I have a great objection to the principle of the measure on this ground — I think that whenever it is determined to afford accommodation to an individual at the public expense, it is but fair to ascertain that the public will not be put to a larger expense than is proportioned to the advantage the individual receives. Now, in this case I believe that the expenses which will be thrown upon the public will be greatly in excess of the advantages which any individual can receive. It is, no doubt, desirable that a candidate should not have to pay un extravagant bill for electioneering purposes; but it must be remembered that these lists will have to be made out annually, and perhaps the expense will have to be incurred for four or five successive years before the one occasion arrives at which the proposed register will be of practical utility; and then in places where no contests take place no possible advantage can be derived to any one from the publication of the lists. If all these circumstances are taken into account, I believe the outlay on the part of the public will be ten times as great as the benefit which will be derived from the measure by individuals. This is, in fact, a measure for the purpose of facilitating the proceedings of candidates at elections, and in which the ratepayers have very little concern. In some cases it would, no doubt, facilitate the canvass of candidates, but it would be of no service to the voter, inasmuch as it does not matter to him whether there is a canvass or not. Your Lordships are asked to pass this Bill without being informed what the expenses of carrying out the measure will probably be. The present Government, like previous ones, has complained on various occasions that a considerable portion of the expenditure of the country is forced upon them by the House of Commons. I recollect the late Sir Robert Peel saying that the Reform Act, instead of putting an end to jobbing, had
  1738
  created more jobbing—but in this way, that while formerly jobbing was practised for individuals, it was now practised for classes, and this was much more expensive. I will not say that this is a measure of a jobbing character; but it is clear that her Majesty's Ministers are not responsible for it, and I do not believe that the House of Commons is generally interested in it. Not one-tenth of the Members of the Lower House were present when they divided upon it. I think the Members of the House of Commons would do well if they would more carefully consider those measures which tend to throw additional expenses on the country; for I believe, that if an estimate had been prepared of the probable expenses which would be incurred under this Bill, and the Vote proposed in the lump in a Committee of Supply, it would have been rejected; but when those expenses are thrown on the ratepayers, Parliament will have no knowledge of what they amount to, or how the money is expended. We are now spending about £20,000,000 annually more for our peace establishment than we were expending a few years ago; and, moreover, a large portion of the population, owing to circumstances over which the Government have no control, are suffering under severe distress. It is therefore by no means desirable that fresh burdens should be thrown upon the people. But if we now place these extra burdens upon the ratepayers, there is not a distressed man in Lancashire, being a ratepayer, who will not have to pay a portion of those expenses, which ought to fall on his rich representatives, or the candidates. I have always great; reluctance in opposing a matter which especially concerns the House of Commons; but, at the same time, as your Lordships know nothing of what the expenditure may be under this Bill, and as I believe that the benefit to be derived from it will be very small, I hope that your Lordships will reject the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not look on the Bill as a measure of great importance; but, on the other hand, he was of opinion that the objections to it were entitled to no great weight. The chief objection raised to it was that it would entail considerable expense, and that of the amount of that expense no estimate had been given. It would probably be very small—he could not, at all events, help thinking that the amount

  1739
  which would fall on the individual ratepayer of Lancashire would not be very great. It was true the Government were not responsible for the Bill, but then it should be borne in mind that it had received the sanction of a large majority in the House of Commons. It was promoted by two county Members, one on each side, in the other House of Parliament, and there had been a division of four to one in its favour. That circumstance showed that the House of Commons had a very decided opinion as to its merits, and it would therefore be a matter of discourtesy to the other House if they were to reject it. He might add that he thought it very desirable, that if there were a public register at all, it should be as perfect as possible. Such a register would, he contended, be of advantage not only to the candidate but also to voters and the public generally.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that as to the Bill having been carried by a large majority of the other House, he would remind their Lordships that it was passed in a House composed of less than 100 Members. That argument, then, of the noble Earl's was not of very great weight. He agreed in opinion with the noble Earl that this was not a measure of great importance with regard to the magnitude of the object concerned. But with regard to the principle of the measure he thought it was important, on the ground of expenses which would be incurred under it. If he had entertained any doubt as to the wisdom of their refusing their sanction to the compulsory powers of the Bill, it would have been removed by the arguments used by the noble Lord who had charge of it (Lord Lyveden), and who desired to make that compulsory on the members of quarter sessions which was now permissive. But he (the Earl of Derby) thought the quarter sessions should have a discretion as to whether the provisions of the Bill should be enforced or not. The question was whether there should be a consolidated index or three or four indexes or lists of voters, and whether it should be reprinted at the public expense. In his opinion the Bill was unnecessary. At the same time, he should support the Amendment of his noble Friend behind him, in order to give the local authorities a discretion in the matter as to whether they would allow this increase of expenditure or not.
  EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him,
  1740
  that if the local authorities were to be responsible for ordering those extra expenses, which would have to be paid out of the rates, it would be only reasonable that they should have power to exercise a discretion in the matter, and therefore he should support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYwas understood to say, that the expense of this measure would add about one-third to the existing expense of the parish registry.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to; a further Amendment made: The Report of the Amendments to be received Tomorrow.

OUTRAGES (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, who had given notice to move an Address for—
  "Copies of the Criminal Calendar of each County, and of any Reports upon the State of Crime in the County, presented to the Judges by the Inspectors of Police at the last Assizes in Ireland:"
  "Return of all Homicides and Aggravated Assaults that have been committed in Ireland within the last Twelve Months, and of the Trials of Persons accused of such Crimes and the Result of each Trial"—
  said, that the subject to which his intended Motion referred was one of importance, and, considering the amount of money paid for the prevention of crime, it was astonishing that the exertions of the Government in that respect were not more successful. The state of Ireland generally was by no means such as could be called disturbed; and the people, generally speaking, had less inclination to crime and violence than any other people in the world; but, unfortunately, there was a feeling prevalent among them that when a wrong was supposed to have been done the injured person should take the redress of their own grievances into their own hands; and this notion had not only produced a frightful amount of crime and assassination, but had also most unhappily produced a most culpable mode of viewing the perpetration of such crimes; so that when murders had been committed, it too frequently happened that the assassins remained undiscovered. He attributed the latter result to the military character and organization of that force to which the name of constabulary had been given, and to which the military character was no longer so much wanted. In old times there used to be strong and organized parties in the country ready to

  1741
  resist the Government and the law, and serious conflicts occurred; and, consequently, at that time it was wise to give a military character, more or loss, to the constabulary; but at present he objected to their being disciplined as a body of soldiers, disallowing them the liberty of action of ordinary constables. The consequence was, that when crime was committed, it was not always by the connivance of the people that the perpetrator escaped. A case had come under his own observation in which three men returning from a country fair picked up a quarrel with two persons unknown to them, and one of the latter was so severely beaten that he died in a few days. The outrage was committed about six o'clock in the afternoon, and there was not a person within five or six miles round that did not know who all the parties wore. Information was given to the police; but as the post had gone out at the time, and they were forbidden to send a messenger to the stipendiary magistrate or to communicate with him except by letter, they were under such strict discipline that they did not stir out to get a warrant to apprehend the offenders, or to make the facts known to their commanding officer, who lived about four miles away. The consequence was that they were not able to despatch a letter to the magistrate or the officer before the next evening, and it was not received until the day after the occurrence. Fortunately, however, the matter was well known to the public, and the magistrate and police officer did not wait for the arrival of the formal notice, but went off at once to take the informations of the injured men. A boy who had taken very little part in the outrage was arrested at home. The other and more guilty persons absconded when in their sober moments they found what a serious offence they had committed; one gave himself up ten days after, and the other remained at large until the time of the assizes drew near, when he also surrendered himself, and the men were found guilty and punished. That case would show how injurious was this discipline of the police, and how it interfered with their action. Last year he took occasion to quote the opinion of Judge Lefroy on the subject; and at the last assizes three judges, one of them being a new and distinguished ornament of the bench, Judge Christian, stated in their charges that there was a vast disproportion between
  1742
  the number of offences in the Report submitted to them by the County Inspector, and those which appeared in the Calendar. The constabulary numbered about 12,000 men, and, if efficient, would be far more than was required for police purposes, considering the diminished population and improved condition of Ireland. A mistaken opinion prevailed as to the riband system. He had taken at one time an active part in putting down that system, and he could state that it had never been so perfect as was supposed, and anything more absurd than the idea that the organization was perfect and extensive could not be conceived. It was, of course, part of the policy of the ribandmen to pretend that their organization was extensive, but in the cases which had happened lately, it was well known that it was the individuals who fancied themselves aggrieved that had committed the crime. Something must be done to repress crime in Ireland. The Government would never get together a better set of men and officers; and if the police were only told that they were not soldiers, but constables, their zeal and intelligence would do the rest. He understood that Returns had been presented to the House of Commons which embodied the information he desired their Lordships to possess, and he would not therefore put the country to the expense of having the Returns printed, for which he had intended to ask; he would, instead of moving for the Returns indicated in his notice, move for those which had been laid before the other House; namely—
  "Return of outrages reported to the constabulary officers in Ireland during the year 1861, with Summaries of preceding years; and also Return of Outrages reported by the constabulary in Ireland during the month of April 1862."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that there would, of course, be no objection to the Motion. He thought the noble Marquess would find in the Returns laid before the House of Commons more information than he had asked for.
  Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORSHIP BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he did not intend to proceed with this Bill. He had, however, prepared another Bill on the subject, which he trusted would meet with the approval of their Lordships.
  Bill withdrawn (on Motion), by leave of the House.

ASSENT TO USE OF PRAYER BOOK BILL.
Order for the Second Reading, on Tuesday, the 27th instant, discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
ACTS OF UNIFORMITY BILL.
  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  A Bill to amend the Acts of Uniformity presented by The Lord EBURY; and read 1a.

RUMOURED RIFLE MATCH BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
EARL GRANVILLE: Before the House adjourns, it will be convenient for your Lordships to know whether there is any truth in a certain rumour that this House is likely soon to be at war with the other House of Parliament. It appears that a challenge has been offered in due form, and accepted. How far my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was authorized by any order of the House to go the length of accepting that challenge without some preliminary notice, which might have led to a more amicable understanding between the two Houses, I am not prepared to say.
THE LORD CHANCELOR: My Lords, it is undoubtedly true that the Lord Chancellor stands before you as one who has to confess, I am afraid, to another irregularity. But, my Lords, I will state the manner in which it occurred. As I was leaving the House I had the honour to receive from the Speaker of the House of Commons a challenge. It came from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, and it was delivered to me. It is true that I did not stop to inquire whether I had the authority to accept such a challenge. But having that spirit which I am sure every one of your Lordships would have desired me to exercise and exhibit, I accepted at once that challenge on behalf of your Lordships, and returned an answer that we would meet the House of Commons in honourable rivalry at any place, at any time, and with any weapon. I might probably have been irregular, but I felt at the time that it would not do to hesitate, although if I had had the fear of the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) before my eyes, I might have abstained until I had referred the question to your Lordships. I trust that we shall meet the House of Commons in the same spirit in which they have offered to meet us. I
1744
am sorry to say, therefore, that your Lordships stand pledged to this combat, and I venture to prophesy that you will not recede from it, but that you will enter the lists in a manner worthy of this House of Parliament.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.