Lords Sitting of 24 July 1866

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order * (217); Courts of Justice* (218); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (220); County Assessments* (221); Suburban Commons* (222); Paupers (Scotland)* (223).
Second Reading—New Forest Poor Relief* (203); Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (97).
Report—Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage* (150); National Gallery Enlargement* (171); Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)* (178).
Third Reading—Postmaster General* (75); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (187); Extradition Treaties Act Amendment (200), and passed.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL—(No. 97.)
(The Chairman of Committees.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD REDESDALE,in moving the second reading of the Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) Bill, said, that its object was to obviate the necessity for re-consecration in the event of land being added to an already consecrated churchyard. A right rev. Prelate objected to the Bill, in the form in which it was originally introduced, that its operation would involve the desecration of churchyards by Act of Parliament—the very last thing that he (Lord Redesdale) would desire to do. He had, therefore, withdrawn that Bill, and had introduced the present measure amended in such a manner as would, he hoped, remove the objection of the right rev. Prelate. When an addition was made to a church which had been consecrated, it was held that the enlargement did not necessitate re-consecration; and, indeed, it was obvious that if further consecration were required, great inconvenience would be experienced. It seemed to him that the principle that was accepted with regard to churches might also be accepted in regard to churchyards. All that the Bill did was to say that there was no legal impediment to the application of this principle; but it left it quite open to the Church authorities to do what they liked, and either to adopt re-consecration or to dispense with it. He believed the passing of the Bill
1366
would be regarded by the Bishops as a great relief to the Church.
Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was much obliged to the noble Lord for the pains he had taken in reference to this subject. Great difficulty had been occasioned by requiring re-consecration when a churchyard was enlarged. It often happened that a landowner would give the land to be added to the churchyard, but neither he nor the Parishioners would incur the expense of re-consecration. The Bill was a most important one, and it would be very gratefully received. In the absence of the right rev. Prelate who had at first objected to the Bill, it might probably be taken for granted that the grounds of his objection had been removed.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had no objection that the Bill should be read a second time, but hoped that the future stages would not be taken without consulting the right rev. Prelate who had urged the objection.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYalso said, that, in his opinion, the Bill would confer a great public benefit.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EXTRADITION TREATIES ACT AMEND MENT BILL—(No. 200.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD TEYNHAMbegged the attention of their Lordships while he repeated the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. The presiding magistrate at Bow Street, in refusing to give up to the French Government an accused person unless there was sufficient evidence to render probable the conviction of the person demanded, was simply acting upon the principle adopted in the case of an English prisoner, who was not committed for trial unless a primâ facie case were made out against him. The effect of the alterations proposed by the noble and learned Lord would be, that instead of no prisoners being delivered up to the French autho-

1367
rities, any person who was accused would be delivered up. Under all the circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would reject the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I very much regret that making the original statement on the introduction of this Bill I should have expressed myself so imperfectly as to have been misunderstood by the noble Lord on my left with regard to the object of the measure. I explained to your Lordships that when treaties were entered into, in the year 1843, with France and the United States, it became necessary to introduce Bills for the purpose of carrying those treaties into effect; and, inasmuch as it could not be expected that the foreign countries should whenever they claimed a fugitive send over persons to give evidence in regard to the guilt of the accused party, the Acts of Parliament provided that the evidence to be adduced before the magistrate to whom the application was made for delivering up the accused should consist of copies of the depositions certified by the magistrate who issued the warrant, and also that such copies should be proved to be authentic by some person sent over for the purpose from the foreign country. I also explained to your Lordships that the mode in which documents sent from France were authenticated was this:—The juge d'instruction certified to the correctness of the copy of the depositions, and his certificate was authenticated by the Minister of Justice—the head of the law in France—who affixed his signature and seal of office. Now, it certainly seems an extraordinary thing that this authentication should be regarded as insufficient, and that it should be necessary for a witness to attend in order to prove that the copies of the depositions so verified and authenticated were true copies of the original depositions; and it is still more extraordinary that the presence of a witness should be required in extradition cases, because, if during a trial in a Court of Justice in this country these very documents verified in the same way had been produced as evidence they would have been admitted, without any further proof being required. The French Government thought it was a great indignity that a certificate under the seal and signature of the highest officer of justice in that country, should not be sufficient to authenticate documents sent over to this country, but that in addition a witness should be required to prove that they were correct
1368
copies of the originals. On a former occasion I explained to your Lordships that the magistrate of a former day thought it was his duty to inquire, not as the noble Lord supposes, whether there was a sufficient charge to warrant him in sending the accused party to his trial, but whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to secure a conviction. I think it is perfectly clear that the view which is now taken is the correct one—namely, that all the magistrate has to inquire into is whether there is sufficient evidence to send the accused parties to trial. The Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a third time will merely assimilate the law with regard to evidence in cases of extradition with the law which prevails with regard to foreign documents in our Courts of Justice; and how that can possibly make the slightest difference in the opinion of the magistrate as to the duty he has to perform I cannot understand. But it does seem to me a most unreasonable thing that more evidence should be required in cases of extradition than is required in our Courts of Justice. The noble Lord evidently does not understand in the least the object of the Bill. On inquiry, however, he will find that what I have stated is perfectly correct. Now, can there be any reason why this Bill should not pass? Its provisions will not confer on foreign Governments any greater advantages than they at present possess with regard to the extradition of criminals. Indeed, a recent case shows plainly enough that there need be no apprehension that persons whose extradition is demanded will not have ample protection. The case in question was heard before Sir Thomas Henry, who thought he was bound upon the evidence to deliver up the prisoner. But a writ of habeas corpus was immediately obtained, and the Court of Queen's Bench was applied to to prevent the extradition. That Court, however, confirmed the decision of the magistrate; and afterwards an application was made on behalf of the prisoner to the Court of Chancery, so that not only the Court of Justice in the first instance but two Courts of Appeal decided his case before he was delivered up. I am quite sure the noble Lord will find that what I have stated is correct, and I think there can be no just objection to the Bill being read a third time.
On Question, agreed to; Bill road 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to a subject of some importance. He understood that there was in the House of Commons at the present time a Bill on the subject of vaccination, and if he were correctly informed that Bill had passed a Select Committee. Now he was very anxious to ascertain whether Her Majesty's Government intended to proceed with that measure during this Session. He was also desirous of saying a few words with respect to the present state of vaccination and small pox. In London alone, in 1863, there were 2,000 fatal cases of small pox, which at the very lowest computation would show 6,000 cases of attack; and in 1864 the number of fatal cases in England was 7,684, which would show at least some 24,000 cases of attack. He was informed that in the present year there were symptoms of a great increase of that epidemic, and that the small pox was likely to spread more fatally than in any preceding year. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the measure which had been introduced into the House of Commons for the purpose of stopping this fatal malady should as soon as possible be passed into law; and this was the more necessary because the disease was one which by sanitary regulations had become almost extinct in Austria and other countries of Europe. There could be no doubt that if measures were adopted in this country such as had been adopted on the Continent they would be attended with similar results. He begged to ask the noble Duke the President of the Council, What steps will be taken this Session in respect of any Bill regulating vaccination?
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMassured the noble Earl that the Government were quite sensible of the importance of the subject; but, as the noble Earl was evidently not aware the Bill had been withdrawn in the House of Commons on the previous night because, from the numerous objections raised to it, there was no hope of passing it during the present Session. It was generally admitted that some of the clauses adopted by the Select Committee would have been a very valuable addition to existing legislation; but there were other points on which there was much difference of opinion, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not think the object in view would be forwarded by
1370
further pressing the question during the present Session. It would, however, receive the attention of the Government during the recess; and they hoped to be able next Session to introduce a satisfactory measure.

THE REFORM MEETING IN HYDE PARK.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Before the adjournment of the House, I wish to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government respecting the deplorable events of last night. As I did not give the noble Earl notice of my Question before coming to the House, I only expect that he will give me exactly such answer as may be convenient to himself and to the public service; but I believe it would be satisfactory to the country if the noble Earl would inform the House, Whether he has any objection to lay before Parliament the instructions which were given to the police and the military; and also whether he can give any assurance with regard to the precautions about to be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar scenes?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Although my noble Friend had not given me any notice before I came to the House of the Questions which he intended to put, I cannot be surprised that he should have been desirous of taking the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of your Lordships and the country to what he has justly described as the deplorable events of last night—events which I am sure all persons in the country, whatever may be their political or their private opinions, cannot regard without feelings of the deepest regret, and also of some shame and humiliation. There is only one source of satisfaction in connection with those occurrences—that we find on inquiries made up to within the last hour that there has been, up to that time, at all events, no actual loss of life. There have been injuries, some of them of a serious character; but from the latest information it appears that there has been no loss of life whatever, and it is hoped no loss of life will ensue. But, my Lords, it is impossible to deny that the proceedings of yesterday were of a very grave character. My Lords, I entirely acquit those who were the leaders of the movement of any intention to produce the consequences which followed from it. I do firmly believe that those who desired to make a great demon-

  1371
  stration had no intention of causing any breach of the public peace. But, on the other hand, I think it is idle to contend, that what they desired was to afford a fair opportunity for public discussion. It was impossible to believe that any such fair discussion could take place under such circumstances; and I cannot but think that the object was, not by a breach of the peace, but by a demonstration of physical force to overawe the Legislature and give a false impression of public feeling upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. However, though I acquit the leaders of any intention to violate the public peace, I do hope that the experience of last night will show them how impossible it is for those who take upon themselves the responsibility of collecting tens and hundreds of thousands of persons together, and assembling them for a demonstration of physical power—how impossible it is for them to answer for persons who are not in immediate connection with them, but who, half in sport and half in earnest, are ready perhaps to join in any riot and disturbance—or, perhaps, I may say, in any frolic which may arise. I believe that a great portion of those who assembled in Hyde Park last night were boys and young men, who had no serious views with regard to the demonstration, but joined in it merely for the purpose of assisting in any row or disturbance that might take place. There was among them a great amount of good humour, rough jokes were bandied about from side to side, and I really believe that a great deal of the mischief which resulted was not intended in the slightest degree, nor anticipated even by those who were the principal actors. At the same time, it is impossible not to see that the result was of a very serious character. The leaders of the demonstration, I dare say, were sincerely desirous to try the point of law—whether the Parks ought to be open for all purposes and at all times to all Her Majesty's subjects? But that point of law is one on which I believe there can be no question whatever. There can be no doubt that the Crown is the owner of these Parks. It is true they are kept up at the expense of the public, and for the enjoyment and recreation of the public; but the Crown has the undoubted right of exercising such control over the Parks as to prevent them from being diverted from their proper purposes to objects which may interfere with the enjoyment and recreation of the people. I
  1372
  believe this has been laid down at all times. It is a question on which there is not the smallest doubt; and that opinion was emphatically declared by the Home Secretary of the late Government in the most handsome manner when he was expressing his concurrence in the course proposed to be taken by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary for the Home Department. As to the propriety of imposing certain restrictions and regulations in the Parks, I believe no Member either of the late or the present Government, and no one who has considered the question can have the slightest doubt. The measures adopted yesterday for enforcing the rights of the Crown were those which were thought least likely to produce a collision between the police and any number of the persons who might attend. Whether the course adopted was really the most prudent one I do not pretend to say; but there can be no question that it was for the purpose of preventing a collision the gates of the Park were closed. Unfortunately, it happened, partly from the pressure of the vast multitude collected, and partly from a spirit of mischief, that a portion of the railings was pulled down. I am told that not less than 1,400 yards of iron railing were pulled down in the course of last night. The consequence was that the Park was left open, and very considerable destruction has taken place of those ornamental flower-beds and shrubberies which have afforded so much delight to the people, and much injury has been done to the property of the Crown. I believe the leaders, having ascertained that they would not be admitted, desired to withdraw and to hold their meeting in some place where the same objection would not apply as in the Parks; and, whatever I may think of their prudence in assembling where they did, I can safely say that there is no desire on the part of any one to interfere with that which is the right of British subjects—namely, to assemble for the discussion of political and public questions wherever they do not infringe upon public or private rights, or obstruct legitimate traffic. There is no doubt that in this case the leaders endeavoured to withdraw their forces from the scene of action; but after they had done so a multitude of "roughs" and idle characters assembled, and from these in the main the mischief proceeded. My Lords, I believe that the police acted with great forbearance and temper; and I have also

  1373
  to say that the troops, whom ultimately it was found necessary to call out, behaved with the utmost forbearance. Whatever may be the rumours as to charges made on the people, or anything of that kind, such rumours are absolutely and entirely unfounded. The troops confined themselves as far as possible to keeping the crowds moving, and at a not very late hour the Park was comparatively clear, and very little damage was done in the streets. I believe my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was an unfortunate sufferer in consequence of his near proximity to Sir Richard Mayne, who yesterday was not a very popular character; and between two and three o'clock in the morning I was honoured with a visit from the mob. But beyond the breaking a few windows, I do not think any damage was done, except in the immediate neighbourhood of the Park. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Government to use every means in its power to prevent a repetition of dangers of this kind. I have no reason to apprehend that there is likely to be a repetition tonight of the scenes of last night; but, at the same time, it is not to be concealed that there were a number of idle people about the Park this afternoon, probably with no political object, but bent on mischief, and it will be necessary to take precautions for the purpose of interfering with their unlawful proceedings. There will be no attempt to exclude people from the Park, because circumstances have made that utterly impossible, but what will be done will be to prevent assemblages by keeping the crowds in motion. This will be done by the police—for I hope there will be no occasion to call out the military. It may, however, be necessary to patrol the Park and the immediate neighbourhood; and if the spirit of mischief and insubordination should continue, it will be necessary to take those steps which were taken on a former occasion, and call on the well-disposed inhabitants of the district to enrol themselves as special constables for the preservation of the public peace, in which all are interested, but more especially those whose residences are in the vicinity of the Park. I cannot undertake to say what are the precise instructions which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given, nor whether it will be possible to produce those instructions; but I know that my right hon. Friend has been in constant communication with Sir Richard Mayne, and I believe also with
  1374
  the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief. We have full confidence—as I am sure my noble Friend opposite has also—in the judgment and discretion of Sir Richard Mayne, who I am sure will use all the means at his disposal, should it become necessary for him to do so, to preserve the peace of the metropolis.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The Questions which I put to the noble Earl—though he might have objected that he was taken by surprise—I am bound to admit have been answered with candour. In some points I entirely agree with the noble Earl. I think we must regret with him that these monster meetings should be held in the metropolis, where they cannot be of any use in furthering what is professedly the object of those who call them together. I am as strongly as possible in favour of the right of public meeting; and I think it must be borne in mind that some difficulties have been placed in the way of persons regarding whose conduct observations are now made by the course events have lately taken with regard to the measure of Reform introduced in another place. One of the strong arguments used against the necessity for such a measure was the apathy and indifference shown by the working classes to any such proposals. At the same time, I believe that for the purposes of real discussion these monster meetings are valueless. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that, not only on the part of the leaders, but of the real working classes of the metropolis, their desire was to maintain perfect order; but in these very large meetings numbers make discussion almost impossible, and therefore, whether such be the desire or not, they cannot fail to be taken to some extent as embodying the desire for a display of physical force. I believe there can be no doubt whatever as to the state of the law regarding Royal Parks. It is quite clear that if no legal power exists to prevent these meetings, there must be a great abuse of power in preventing carriages from going through, in shutting the gates at particular hours, in placing policemen to regulate the riding in Rotten Row, in prohibiting preaching meetings and cricket matches—and other things, which are prohibited from being done. These are all restrictions imposed in order to maintain the Parks for the general purposes of the recreation, health, and amusement of the people at large. But I wish to have it clearly understood that Sir

  1375
  George Grey, while stating the other day, entirely in accordance with the sentiments expressed by the present Secretary for the Home Department, that in his view it was not desirable to allow public meetings of this monstrous extent to be held in the Park, gave no opinion whatever as to the mode of proceeding which ought to be adopted. I do not wish at present to discuss the means which should have been adopted for preventing these very deplorable events; but the public will certainly be anxious to know, and I trust on calm consideration the noble Earl will not find it inconvenient to give full information as to the instructions which were given and the mode in which those instructions were carried out. I do not offer any opinion of my own, as to whether it was desirable to bring out troops at the particular moment, or whether they should have been called out at all. But it certainly is an unusual circumstance in this metropolis for the military to be called out, and I think it ought to be clearly known to the public under whose authority they were called out, and under what circumstances the occurrence happened. My real object, however, in rising was to assure the Government that they will have the co-operation, as far as I know, of every single person, not only in this House, but of the public, if necessary, in that most important object of maintaining order in this great metropolis by all modes consistent with the liberties of the people.
  LORD TEYNHAMwas understood to suggest that means should be given to the public by the Government to hold large meetings in such a manner as not to interfere with the public peace.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.