Lords Sitting of 23 May 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Tenure (Ireland); Contagious Diseases (Animals).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—National Debt* (111).
Second Reading—Criminal Law (81); District Prothonotaries, Court of Common Pleas, County Palatine of Lancaster (107).
Committee—British White Herring Fishery (80); Sale and Purchase of Shares* (74).
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* (93), and passed.

GLOSSOP CONVENT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYasked the noble Earl at the head of the Government, Whether any inquiries had been made into the case of the six young ladies
932
who had run away from the convent at Glossop and arrived at Sheffield, and there had been taken to another convent in that town; and whether he could give the House any information on the subject?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, although his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had been making inquiries into the subject, he did not himself see what there was to inquire about. It would appear that these six young ladies had run away from a convent or school at Glossop; but they were not bound by vows, or anything of that kind; the youngest was thirteen, the eldest twenty. They travelled twenty-five miles to Sheffield, and arriving there at twelve o'clock at night, they applied at the police-station to know where they could obtain a lodging for the night. They were told that there was in Sheffield a similar institution to that which they had left, and upon application to the Superior they were admitted into that institution. The police-officer, as he thought, displayed good judgment in asking the Superior of the convent at Sheffield whether the young ladies could be taken in for the night. He did not, indeed, know where the police could at that hour of the night have discovered decent lodgings for these young ladies, unless by taking them to an institution of a character similar to the one they had left; for it should be borne in mind that those young ladies did not in any way complain of the character of the Glossop institution, but merely of the ill-treatment which they stated they had received at a particular school. As his noble Friend had only given him notice of his question a short time before the meeting of the House, he had not been able to ascertain the result of the inquiries made by the Home Secretary.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwished to know whether the police had exercised any power of detention over these young ladies?
THE EARL OF DERBYsignified that they had not.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL—(No. 81.)
(The Lord Cranworth)
CRIMINAL LAW BILL—(No. 81.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTH,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said,

  933
  that it had been introduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. and learned Recorder of London for the purpose of amending the criminal law by restricting the operation of the provisions of the first section of the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17, which was an Act passed to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanours, such as conspiracy, obtaining money under false pretences, &c. A few years ago in the then state of the law, prosecutions for certain offences were used as a means of extorting money, and any one might indict in the first instance before a grand jury for conspiracy or obtaining money under false pretences. But that was remedied by the Act to which he referred. That Act obliged the prosecutor in such cases as those to which he referred to go before a magistrate before he preferred any bill before the grand jury. The 1st clause of the present Bill provided that the provisions of the first section of the Act to which he had referred should not extend to prevent the presentment to or finding by a grand jury of any bill of indictment containing a count for any of the offences mentioned in that Act, if such count were such as might now be lawfully joined with the rest of the bill of indictment, and if it were founded, in the opinion of the Court before which the indictment was preferred, upon the evidence disclosed in any depositions taken before a justice of the peace; and that nothing in that Act should prevent the presentment to a grand jury of any bill of indictment if such indictment were presented to the grand jury with the consent of the Court before which the same might be preferred. The 2nd clause provided that where a magistrate had refused to commit and the prosecutor, having indicted before a grand jury, failed to establish the guilt of the person charged, the Court should have the power to order the prosecutor to pay the costs of the accused person in the event of its thinking that the prosecution was unreasonable. The next clause was one which it was most important for the honour of the country should be made the law of the land. In almost all prosecutions the expenses of the witnesses bound over to prosecute were allowed; but it was not so on the part of the defence. Complaint was frequently made by persons charged with indictable offences upon their trial that they were unable from want of means to call witnesses who would prove facts which would establish
  934
  their innocence; and accordingly the 3rd clause provided that where a person was charged with any indictable offence the magistrate should, before committing him for trial, ask him whether he desired to call any witnesses in his defence; and in the event of his answering in the affirmative the magistrate should take the depositions of such witnesses, who should be bound over to appear to give evidence on the trial, in the same manner as other witnesses, in which case their expenses would, of course, be paid. There were some other clauses of minor importance in the Bill to which he need not refer.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.'—(The Lord Cranworth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill had been introduced into the other House by very high authority, and as he had no objection to any of the clauses he should assent to its second reading.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

DISTRICT PROTHONOTARIES, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER, BILL—(No. 107.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
DISTRICT PROTHONOTARIES, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER, BILL—(No. 107.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON moved the second reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to divide the County Palatine of Lancaster into three districts, and to appoint a prothonotary to each. Originally there had been only one, when the assizes were held at Lancaster, but since the establishment of the assizes at Liverpool and Manchester this had been found very inconvenient. The general scope of the measure had been long under the consideration of the Duchy, and the proposed arrangement would greatly facilitate assize business.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  TENURE (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee: The Committee to meet on Monday next, at Four o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:—

  935

  P. Devonshire

  E. Kimberley

  M. Bath

  V. Lifford

  E. Devon

  L. Somerhill

  E. Clarendon

  L. Clandeboye

  E. Lucan

  L. Churston

  E. Rosse

  L. Westbury

  E. Grey

  L. Meredyth

  E. Stradbroke

  L. Cairns

  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.