Lords Sitting of 26 July 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Drainage Supplemental (No. 2) * (224); Overseer of the Poor (Small Parishes)*(225); Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment * (226); Colonial Branch Mints * (227); Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment * (228); Inland Revenue* (229); Court of Session (Scotland)* (230).
Second Reading — British Columbia * (213); Rochdale Vicarage (204); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (179); Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order * (217); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (220); Paupers (Scotland) * (223); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (212); Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment (165).
Committee—Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)* (205); Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (193).
Report—Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (231); Ecclesiastical Commission (232).
Third Reading—Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage* (150); National Gallery Enlargement * (171).
Richard Baron Cremorne in that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Earl of Dartrey of Dartrey in the County of Monaghan—Was in the usual manner introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer Lytton, Baronet, having been created Baron Lytton of Knebworth in the County of Hertford—Was in the usual Manner introduced.
Sir William George Hylton Jolliffe, Baronet, having been created Baron Hylton of Hylton in the County Palatine of Durham and of Petersfield in the County of Southampton—Was in the usual Manner introduced.

THE REFORM LEAGUE AND THE HOME SECRETARY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Seeing the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, I take the liberty of asking him a Question. There have appeared upon the walls in various parts of the metropolis and upon the Park gates a very long and grandiose proclamation signed "Edmond Beaks." I shall be glad to know from the noble Earl, Whether the contents of that proclamation are correct, and whether it contains an accurate statement of what has taken place between the Reform League and the Home Secretary?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for the opportunity he has given me of disabusing your Lordships and the public with regard to the communications which have taken place between the Council of the Reform League and Her Majesty's Government within the last twenty-four hours. After the discussion in the House of Commons the other night, the Council of the Reform League communicated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, stating that they had heard with great satisfaction the statement made by him last night as to the state in which he conceived the law to be, and were gratified by the conciliatory tone in which he had spoken; and stating that they were very anxious to have the opportunity of conferring with him next day, if he would receive a deputation. In consequence of this request my right hon. Friend, about two o'clock yesterday, received a deputation of the Council of the League, who expressed their great regret at the scenes which had taken place in Hyde Park. Of course, they had their own view of the matter as to the violence used by the police. That was not a question which it was necessary to discuss; but they expressed a great desire to do everything in their power to put an end to these outrages and to prevent any further damage being done in the Park, and they represented to my right hon. Friend that, if they were allowed to go into the Park without interference by the police or the military —without any demonstration of force by the
1492
authorities—they thought that they might be able to persuade those people who were still doing more or less mischief in the Park to retire quietly to their homes. Some conversation took place, which, as far as I can understand, is very accurately reported in The Times of this morning; and certainly, after reading the terms of the understanding and the proposal made by my right hon. Friend, I must say that nothing can be more directly opposed to the statement in the placards to which my right hon. Friend has referred, than what actually did take place. What my right hon. Friend did state was this—
"If you will assure your friends that the Government will give you every opportunity of trying the legal right, and facilitating the determination of that right, and that they ask of you in the interim not to insist on that right until it is determined one way or the other; that in the meantime you will convey to your friends that the Government wish to meet them in the fairest and frankest manner, as to the opportunities they may have of discussing public questions, in places which are recognized as places where the police would not be ordered to interfere;—if you will only do that, I think I see the solution of the present difficulty. In that case I will undertake to say that, unless any mischief arise to-night, unless any disturbance be created, unless property be attacked—which it is my duty to defend—there will be no demonstrations of either military or police."
The conditions, therefore, were that they should be permitted to address their friends who might be remaining in the Park to induce them to withdraw, and that every facility should be given them to try, if they were disposed, the legal right of the public to admission into the Park at all times and for all purposes. Every facility for the trial of this right was to be given upon the condition that in the interim there should be no attempt made to insist upon the exercise of the alleged right. This conversation took place between two o'clock and half past two. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted entirely upon his own responsibility and without communication with his Colleagues. Between four and five o'clock he informed me of what had taken place. I then expressed to him my doubts whether the influence of the Council of the League would be sufficient to effect the object they had in view, but I quite agreed with him that they should be permitted to try. Certainly, nothing could be greater than my astonishment when I found a placard posted up all over the neighbourhood of Hyde Park, stating directly the reverse

1493
of that which my right hon. Friend had said; not that in the interim no attempt should be made to insist upon the supposed right, but, on the contrary, setting up an agreement between the Government and the Council of the Reform League, and proposing to hold a Reform meeting in Hyde Park at six o'clock on Monday evening next. My right hon. Friend was just as much surprised as I was. The fact is that, after the deputation left him, Mr. Beales and one or two more personally returned to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consent to a meeting being held in the Park on Monday night next. My right hon. Friend gave the only answer he could—namely, that the question was one of far too much importance for him to take the responsibility singly of coming to a decision upon it. He also said that, in order to prevent the possibility of mistake on so important a matter, the request must be made in writing, and that after he had had an opportunity of consulting his Colleagues an answer should be given in writing. This was between two and three o'clock. About half past six my right hon. Friend received from Mr. Beales a letter, of which I have a copy—
"The Reform League. Manhood Suffrage and the Ballot. 8, Adelphi Terrace, London, July 25.
"Sir,—I am requested by the Council of this League to most earnestly press upon you the advisability and even urgent necessity—as the most effectual means of putting an end to the dangerous state of exasperation now existing in the public mind — that you will offer no opposition to the meeting proposed to be held by the League in Hyde Park, on Monday afternoon next, at six o'clock; such meeting to be held on the general subject of the Elective Franchise and Reform, and to be without prejudice in any way to the decision of the question in Parliament or in a Court of Law as to the abstract right of the people to meet for political discussion in that or any other Park, the Council of the League undertaking on their part to do everything in their power to preserve the peace and prevent any act tending to riot or disorder.—I am, Sir, with the utmost respect, your obedient humble servant, "EDMOND BEALES, President." "The Right Hon. Spencer Walpole."
To that letter, up to the present time, no answer has been returned. Yet within half an hour of the sending of that letter a placard was posted all over the Park intimating that the Secretary of State, on the part of the Government, had given his consent to the holding of a meeting at six o'clock on Monday next. One of the members of the deputation was Mr. Holyoake, and having seen the placard, Mr. Holyoake this morning came to the Home Office to
1494
repudiate, in the strongest terms, Mr. Beales' proclamation. He perfectly understood Mr. Walpole to decline to sanction any meeting in the Park, and to ask that any application for that should be made in writing. He spoke to many Liberal Members last night, and also to Mr. Beales when the proclamation was being posted. There is, therefore, on the part of one of the deputation themselves, on the part of one of those who asked for the meeting, a distinct repudiation, and a declaration of the absolute falsity of the placard. My right hon. Friend thought it necessary to refer this question to his Colleagues, and I hope that your Lordships will approve the answer, not yet sent, but determined upon by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have directed Mr. Walpole to acquaint the Council of the League that they have no disposition whatever to interfere with a meeting held in any proper place for the purpose of discussing Reform or any other political question; but that it is impossible they can give their sanction to the holding of a meeting for that purpose in any of the Royal Parks; at the same time, they are quite ready to give the Council or any other person every facility for trying the alleged legal right; but, in the meantime, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to sanction that which they believe to be a violation of the law. It is added that if they desire to hold an open-air meeting no objection will he raised to their meeting, as on former occasions, on Primrose Hill; but a meeting in any of the Royal Parks will not be sanctioned. That is the answer which will be given; and I hope the good sense of the leaders of this movement, after fully considering all the consequences of their action on Monday last, the serious damage done, the alarm excited in the minds of quiet persons, the injury which has been done, not to property only, but in some cases to persons also, and the impossibility of their being able to answer for the conduct of those who do not belong to them, but who follow in the train of a monster procession, will show them that they are incurring very serious and grave responsibility. If, after the warning which has been given—after the voluntary offer to permit a meeting upon Primrose Hill, they persist in that which we believe to be a violation of the law, they must be held responsible for all the consequences which must follow from such a reckless course of procedure.

ROCHDALE VICARAGE BILL—(No. 204.)
(The Earl of Chichester.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Chichester.)
THE EARL OF POWIStrusted, that when in Committee, their Lordships would see that a clause was inserted in it empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make provision for the appointment of two or three curates to assist the Vicar of Rochdale. Such assistance would be absolutely necessary, if the vicar's labours were to be fruitful. Much had been said respecting the large amount of detail work with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were saddled. He thought it would be better if estates were managed by local trustees, subject to the examination of the Commissioners, in the same way as charity trustees managed estates under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for To-morrow.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL—(The Lord Redesdale.)

  (NO. 193.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD REDESDALE,in moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee, said, that he had been in communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect to the measure; and, as the most rev. Prelate had raised objections to a portion of its provisions, he did not mean to proceed further with it until the Members of the right rev. Bench should have an opportunity of stating their views upon the subject.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that he and his right rev. Brethren had felt much obliged to the noble Lord for having taken up the subject. It was, no doubt, very desirable that the expense of consecrating additions made to churchyards should, as far as possible, be diminished. But the question was one of a complicated nature; and, without entering into its details, he would state that a very large portion of the expenses were incurred not in connection with the performance of the ecclesiastical rite, but from the difficulty of proving the title to the ground, and then transferring it for the purpose. He had ascertained
  1496
  that in the diocese of London the mere consecration charge did not amount to more than £14 10 s. within the limits of the metropolis, and £18 for those districts lying beyond the metropolitan radius. The Members of the Episcopal Bench were anxious that the expense should be as far as possible reduced, and any means that the noble Lord could devise would be favourably considered by the right rev. Bench; but he doubted whether the present Bill would provide the best mode of attaining that object.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYremarked, that his information led him to believe that the expenses of consecration often amounted to £70. He knew of no valid objection to the Bill, and would be glad to hear from the right rev. Bench on what grounds they opposed its progress.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved, that the principal expenses in connection with consecrations arose from the investigation of title; but he did not see anything in this Bill to meet the case of a complicated title. He thought it would be better to defer legislation till they could pass a measure of a more comprehensive character.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not see why their Lordships could not proceed with the consideration of the Bill, and hear any objections which the right rev. Bench might have to urge. It appeared to him to be a very simple and effective measure.
  LORD REDESDALEremarked, that his first Bill was certainly of a more simple character, inasmuch as it merely declared that any addition made to a churchyard should be considered to form part of it without any further consecration; but he had felt bound to meet the objection that it would seem to institute a consecration by Act of Parliament. The present Bill was directed to meeting legal difficulties, and in no way interfered with episcopal authority. He would ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the Bill, with the understanding that the objections of the most rev. and right rev. Prelates should be considered before the measure was passed.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONshould be quite ready to enter into the difficult questions which, in his opinion, would arise on the preamble and other parts of the Bill; but he thought it would be a wasting of their Lordships' time to do so. He might observe, however, that in the preamble things were taken for granted which, so far from being at all settled, were the subject of grave question. Again, he did not

  1497
  think the Bill afforded sufficient security that ground to be added to churchyards would be conveyed in perpetuity. This was an important point, because the expense of consecration depended, on a very large degree, on the investigation of title.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that if it were intended to dispense with consecration in any case, the language used upon that point ought to be most explicit.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the preamble of the Bill very clearly explained the intention to which the clause subsequently gave effect. The principle was clearly established, that any additions to a consecrated building became likewise consecrated by the mere fact of being attached to the original edifice. The principle, he thought, was one which might still more fairly be applied to ground than to buildings.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee; an Amendment moved, and negatived; Bill reported without Amendment; an Amendment made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended (No. 231).

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL. (No. 212.)—(The Earl of Belmore.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREexplained that the object of the Bill was to further the formation and maintenance of oyster and mussel fisheries on the shore of the bed or sea or estuaries. The Bill authorized the Board of Trade on a memorial presented by any person or persons to make an order for a several fishery of that kind. The fishery having been established, the Bill made provision for its preservation, for enforcing the rights of the undertakers, and for the reservation of the rights of others that might be injuriously affected. A Commission which had sat upon the subject had recommended the adoption of those provisions. The Bill also provided remedies for all persons whose rights should be affected, and, on objections being made to the Board of Trade, that Board might send down inspectors to hear complaints, which would certainly be a much cheaper means for redressing such grievances than those hitherto in use.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. (No. 232.)—(The Earl of Chichester.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that as there were certain clauses in this Bill which would lead to a great deal of controversy in another place, in order to facilitate other clauses, to which no objection could be taken, he moved that the Report be now received with the omission of the clauses he had first adverted to.
  Further Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with regard to Clause 25, he believed that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Chichester) intended to move an Amendment. He hoped, however, that he did not propose to strike out the whole of the clause, seeing that it had been very carefully considered by the Select Committee. Its object was to enable the Commissioners to raise the salary of certain officers connected with the Cathedral.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he would not detain the House by again stating to their Lordships the objections he entertained to this clause. He moved that after the words "minor canon" the words "schoolmasters and organists" should be struck out, as well as that portion of the clause following "vicars choral and lay clerks."
  LORD TAUNTONheld that Cathedral schools were very useful, and that nothing should be done to discourage the schoolmasters. They were as much entitled to consideration as other officers.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERobserved, that the clause in question was no part of the original Bill, and had been introduced by the Select Committee against the desires of those best informed on the subject. The pupils of the cathedral schools were to a large extent choristers, and the masters had been provided for by the Commissioners, who had shown no desire to stint them.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the officers proposed to be excluded by the Amendment while they remained in connection with the Cathedral ought to be amply remunerated. Had the clause been compulsory there might have been some objection to it; but, as the Commissioners were to be given discretionary power, he hoped the clause would be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the clause had received the approval of two most rev. Prelates, and one right rev. Prelate, as well as that of the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government. It appeared to him that the noble Earl (the Earl of Chichester) had struck out certain classes of officers from the clause in a most capricious manner, for, besides schoolmasters he proposed to erase organists and choristers. He trusted the noble Earl would not persevere in his Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered by this clause, if they should think fit, out of the income of the Cathedral to make adequate provision for all those persons who were essential for the proper services of the Cathedral. He could not understand how the Commissioners could decline to take this discretion upon themselves, and as the clause had been sanctioned by the Select Committee, ho hoped the noble Earl would not give the House the trouble of dividing.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, his objection was that after the Commissioners and the Chapter had agreed between themselves to make sufficient provisions for all these different officers, then Parliament should step in and say that out of the funds which had already been devoted to another purpose further provision should be made for the same object.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause merely provided that when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in receipt of any income accruing to the Dean and Chapter, they should be at liberty out of such income to make adequate provision for these various officers. There was nothing compulsory here. At present the maximum salary of the minor canons, who did nearly all the work, was £150. Now, why should not the Commissioners be free to exercise their own judgment in giving remuneration to those persons who were required for the proper service of the Cathedral?
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 27 (Cathedral and Collegiate Chapters may prepare new Codes of Statutes) struck out.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended (No. 232.)

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 165.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this was a Bill introduced by the late Government. Under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, Her Majesty was authorized to exercise any power or jurisdiction which she possessed in countries out of her dominions in the same way as if that jurisdiction had been acquired by cession or conquest. It was considered important to confer an appellate jurisdiction upon the High Court of Bombay in cases arising at Zanzibar and other places; but it was doubted whether that jurisdiction could be given. The late Law Officers of the Crown thought that the Foreign Jurisdiction Act did not give this power, and the Bill was consequently introduced. He thought they were right in this opinion, and therefore moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.