Lords Sitting of 12 July 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inland Revenue (Stamp Duties)* (No. 198);Administration of Trusts (Scotland)* (No.199).
Second Reading—Indemnity * (No. 197); Street Music (Metropolis) (No. 196); India Stocks * Transfer Act Amendment * (No. 195); Defence Act Amendment [H.L.]* (No. 193).
Committee—India Office * (No. 191).
Report—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* (No. 200); India Office* (No. 191),
Third Reading—Facilities for Divine Service in Collegiate Schools [H.L.] (No. 183); Life Annuities and Life Assurances* (No. 116);Lunacy (Scotland)* (No. 172).

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY SCHEMES.
The Sessional Order of the 21st of April last dispensed with: Then Standing Order No. 179 Sec. 4, considered (according to Order), and dispensed with in respect to any Metropolitan Railway Bill which has been or may be brought from the House of Commons during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees)
MASSACRE OF SWEDES AT DUPPEL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwished to ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, Whether he had received any further information relative to a statement made by him (the Earl of Shaftesbury), a few days since, that a certain number of Swedes, lying on the ground, were massacred by the Prussians after the battle of Duppel?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that since the answer he had given to the noble Earl on a former evening he had received a further account from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Prussia. His statement was that, as far as could be ascertained, there were not more than seventy Swedes altogether in the Danish army, and that of these all who were known to be engaged at Duppel were five, who were taken prisoners. The total loss of the Danes in that encounter was not more than 400 killed altogether; so that the story in the newspapers respecting the massacre of 400 Swedes was altogether false.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that on the former occasion he had simply asked a question, but at the time he asked it he expressed an opinion that the story was perfectly true. He had since received a letter in which that opinion was supported, and it really appeared to be true that Swedish soldiers were fired at by the Prussians after the conflict was over. The letter was dated from Admiral Dacres, of Her Majesty's ship Edgar, who, writing to his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) son, said—
  "H.M.S. Edgar, Spithead, July 11.
  "Dear Mr. Ashley,—I now hasten to give you all the information in my power, which is contained in a note from Lieutenant Nordenfalk, a Swedish lieutenant serving in the Edgar, which details as dastardly conduct as one could well hear of; but the fact of this officer being in Danish uniform will give a colouring to any defence that the Prussian Government might choose to set up that they were indistinguishable from Danish troops; but I have yet to learn that firing on wounded men, whatever colours they may fight under, is justifiable. Lord Shaftesbury may make any use of Lieutenant Nordenfalk's or this note.—Yours, very truly,
  "J. S. DACRES."
  The note referred to in Admiral Dacres' letter was as follows:—
  "My brother, Otto Nordenfalk, aged 21, in the beginning of the year joined the Danish army, and in the present war was volunteering as officer in the 3rd Regiment (2nd company) of a Danish

  1367
  corps. In the forenoon of the 18th, the day when the Duppel forts were taken, he was at the head of a body of soldiers defending the retreat of a part of the retreating army, and having been wounded in his face by a projectile entering on one side, and hurting tongue, jaws, &c., and swooned, he, on recovering his senses, found himself lying on the ground among a crowd of wounded and dead men, and saw Prussian soldiery standing at a few paces distance. He rose now on his elbow, and these men fired at him a volley at this very short distance, after which they left him for dead. Many bullets passed through his cloak and coat, but did not hurt him. He fell down again, and kept quiet until he heard a voice he knew belonged to another Swedish officer in the Danish service, who now assisted him to escape, closely pursued by the advancing troops. Many instances of the cruelty of the Prussian troops against the country people I have heard from my brother, but not so as to relate them in detail.
  "E. NORDENFALK, Royal Swedish Navy."
  He thought, then, he was fully justified in the statement that he made, that a wounded officer lying on the ground, after the conflict, was selected by the Prussian soldiers and fired at. The Moniteur du Soir had registered an order of the day issued by Prince Charles Frederick of Prussia, in virtue of which
  "Any foreigner made prisoner in the Danish ranks, and unable to substantiate his Danish nationality, or to prove that he has been regularly enrolled in the army of Denmark, is to be dealt with as a brigand, brought before court-martial, and on conviction duly shot."
  This showed that the Prussian Government had no desire to mitigate the horrors of war.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he had reason to believe that it was not the intention of the Prussian Government to carry that order into effect.

STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  (NO. 196.) SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it had passed the other House by a considerable majority. He did not desire to stop street music altogether, but he supported the Bill, the object of which was to give to housekeepers the right of protection against the nuisance of music when it unpleasantly interfered with their quietude, by empowering the police to remove the offender. No man, he thought, had a right to ride his hobby, even if he were in the majority, at the expense of other people. The hon. Member who promoted the Bill in the other House (Mr. Bass) had published a book which contained a variety of facts showing how great was the nui-
  1368
  sance occasioned by the music in question. He showed that the nuisance was not confined to what might be called the aristocracy who lived in the large squares and streets of the metropolis, but that the poor who lived in narrow thoroughfares and crowded alleys were equally averse to street music, and they had made strong representations against it. It was a fact that the majority of the poor were more opposed to the nuisance of street music than their Lordships were probably aware of, and therefore it was not true, as had been said, that the Bill was directed against the amusements of the lower orders. A very remarkable petition had been presented against the Bill signed by men connected with literature, science, and art, and among them were the names of Charles Dickens, the Poet Laureate, and Maclise. The First Commissioner of Police said he was unable to satisfactorily work the present Act, and the police magistrates were of the same opinion, and were in favour of this Bill. The vestries in the borough of Marylebone had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought their Lordships would not refuse to pass the Bill.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FACILITIES FOR DIVINE SERVICE IN COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS BILL.

  (No. 183.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be read a third time without making a few observations which he had intended to make on a former stage of the Bill, and to move an Amendment; but it was not his intention to trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Bill. Their Lordships were aware how largo was the number of grammar schools established in this country, and of the injunction that required that the scholars should attend the parish church. It had been a great object of the Court of Chancery so to arrange matters that these schools should educate the children of Dissenters, for a large number of Dissenters did not object that their children should attend divine worship in the parish church, though they did object that the religious tenets of

  1369
  their children should be interfered with by private religious teaching. The effect of this Bill would be, he contended, to set aside altogether the injunctions of these grammar schools in this respect, and would offer opportunities for the teaching of doctrines at variance with the known and received doctrines of the Church of England. The 71st canon strictly enjoined that no minister should administer the Holy Sacrament in any private house, except in cases of necessity, and not frequently in any chapel, so that families intending to communicate should ordinarily attend the parish church. Now virtually this Bill repealed that canon. In these times it was of special importance that the religious education of youth should be imparted openly, and in such a manner as that its nature should be known to the parents; but this Bill was so framed as to have an entirely opposite effect. He hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass the other House without serious consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdenied that it was the principle that in all grammar schools the scholars should attend the parish church. So far from that, in a very large number of them it was provided that prayers should be read in the school-room or in some appropriate room. He had received letters from the masters of such grammar schools showing the exceeding difficulty that arose, sometimes owing to the crotchets of a new clergyman interfering with the long-standing arrangements of the schools, and throwing all into disorder. The object of the Bill was not to provide for those populous schools where there was not room for the scholars in the parish church, but to make them more perfect in the matter of religious instruction. Parliament should never forget that the parents of children select the schoolmaster to whom they would commit their children; but they could not use that freedom of choice with regard to the priest in whose parish the school might be situated. It was, therefore, palpable they were carrying out the view of the parents with regard to religious teaching in placing it in the hands of the conductors of those schools. He believed the majority of their Lordships were in favour of the Bill.
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEMORIAL OF SIR FRANCIS BOND HEAD.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,who had given notice
"To call the Attention of the House to the Momorial of Sir Francis Bond Head to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, laid upon the Table of the House on the 6th of June last; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the great, successful, but heretofore unrequited services rendered by Sir Francis Bond Head, Bart., as Governor of Upper Canada in the years 1836 and 1837, call for the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
said, it had been his intention to bring under the notice of the House a document on the table, in which was contained a memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but in consequence of what appeared to have taken place in the other House last night, he was induced, with the permission of their Lordships, to withdraw his notice. He might be permitted, however, to say a word or two as to the circumstances which induced him to bring forward the question after the lapse of so many years since Sir Francis Head was employed as a public servant. He should not certainly have thought of now reviving the question but for the document referred to, which, if it did not challenge a discussion, at all events left it open for any noble Lord to take notice of the matter. By no man now living, he believed, had the public been better served than by Sir Francis Head, who was Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada at a period of the greatest difficulty, when that valuable province was in a state of open revolt against the authority of the Crown. At that critical period Sir Francis Head was suddenly sent to administer the province of Upper Canada, and by his promptitude, energy, and courage, saved that colony to the British Crown. From that period to the present, owing to circumstances which it would be needless to mention and difficult to explain, the services of Sir Francis Head had been passed over without the slightest notice. From his modest nature, unpresuming character, from anxiety to retire from public notice, that valued public servant had not pressed the subject, as he might have done, upon Members of the Legislature and the public generally, but he (the Earl of Hardwicke), nevertheless, felt it a great misfortune to himself and to the honour of the country, that his services were not requited with public notice. He

1371
had intended to have troubled the House with a proof of Sir Francis Head's services, but he was led to believe that the Government were prepared to take the subject into consideration, and hoping for an assurance to that effect from the noble Lord who represented the Colonial Department in the House, he begged to withdraw his notice.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that whilst he did not wish to detract from the claims of Sir Francis Bond Head, it should be borne in mind that he did not complete his work—that he resigned before the revolt was crushed. Sir George Arthur, his successor, completed the work, and was entitled to a large share of the reward.
LORD LYVEDENthought it much better to leave the distribution of rewards with the Crown, and allow the whole question of Colonial Governors to be considered generally as a question of public policy, instead of bringing forward individual cases. Though he was generally in favour of the payment by the colonies of the expenses of their government, still he thought that the pensions of Governors who were sent to the colonies by the mother country should form an exception and should be paid by the mother country. He thought that the mother country should provide for an official whom they forced upon the colony, whether they would or no.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord. He hoped that the position of the Colonial Governors as a body, would be taken into consideration. They were in the receipt of very moderate salaries, the whole of which they generally spent at their posts; they frequently received honours for the services rendered by them; and then they returned home as poor as when they commenced life. This was a state of things which ought not to continue, and he hoped that the Government would consider the question in a liberal spirit.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to promise that the whole subject should undergo consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he considered that Sir Francis Head had preserved Canada to this country in a dangerous crisis, when there was every danger of a war with the United States, and that it was to his energy that Canada owed that she was not involved in the miserable condition of the country adjoining her. Sir Francis was not supported as he ought to have been at home during
1372
the rebellion; but in the instructions given to Sir George Arthur, who was appointed Governor of Canada when he resigned, the energy and the success of his career were especially alluded to, and his example was held up for imitation. Sir Francis Head resigned his office because he refused to promote and reward men who had been openly and boastfully disloyal. In his present advanced age a pecuniary reward would form but a slight burden on the country, while it would be some consolation to Sir Francis Head to feel that his services were appreciated.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.