Lords Sitting of 23 June 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Boundary* (170); Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds* (171); Uniformity of Public Worship* (173).
Second Reading—Voters in Disfranchised Boroughs* (153); Representation of the People (Scotland) (164); Municipal Rate (Edinburgh)* (167); Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) Act Amendment (156).
Committee—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) (142–172); Local Government Supplemental; (No. 2)* (119).
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (119).
Third Reading—Poor Relief (162). Pier and; Harbour Orders Confirmation, &c* (120); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (139); Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland)* (104), and passed.
Withdrawn—Metropolitan Roads * (150).

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD PENRHYN,seeing on the Notice Paper two Notices of Amendment that this Bill be read a second time that day six months, wished to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether he had any objection to state what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Amendment of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had given Notice? It would be convenient for many noble; Lords to know what course the Government proposed to take.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: In Answer to the Question of my noble Friend, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are undoubtedly extremely anxious at once to follow the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who has given notice of the Motion for the second reading of the Suspensory Bill, inasmuch as it is a question of the very highest magnitude and importance, and one which should be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government as soon as possible. According to the forms of your Lordships' House, it would be—I will not say the right, but at all events, the usual practice—that Her Majesty's Government should follow the Mover of the second reading on such a question; and under that impression I have done my best to obtain that position for Her Majesty's Government. I have written to the noble Earl who has given Notice of his intention to move the Amendment—I will mention
1910
his name as he is not present, Earl Grey—stating my reasons for wishing that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative in opposition to the Bill; but I am Sony to say with no effect. The noble Earl still perseveres in his intention of moving the Amendment; and that being the case I should think it unseemly if we were to test in any way the wishes of the House as to who should take precedence. I think it better that Her Majesty's Government should give way to the noble Earl; and therefore I conclude that on Thursday night he will proceed to move the Amendment to the Motion for the second reading.

POOR RELIEF BILL—(No 162.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
POOR RELIEF BILL—(No 162.)

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY THE EARL OF HARROWBY moved to add clause—
  "Where any Parent having resident with him a Child not earning Wages, above the Age of Six years and under the Age of Twelve Years, applies for Relief, the Guardians may make it a condition of out-door Relief that the Parent of such Child shall send him to School at the expense of the Guardians, provided there is a School of the religious denomination of the parent, or to which he does not object on religious grounds, situate within two miles of his residence."
  His object in proposing this clause was to promote the education of the most neglected children in the country—those of paupers in the receipt of out-door relief. I He admitted that some progress had been made in this direction by Mr. Denison's Act, passed a few years ago; and although what he now proposed would be no great step in advance, yet, considering the class of persons to whom it applied, it would be well to do what they could. Paupers receiving out-door relief were supplied with the mere means of living—they bad no means of providing for the education of their children. There would be some difficulty in making it compulsory upon the Guardians to impose this condition upon giving out-door relief; for the short period during which this relief was frequently given would make such a condition illusory. The clause would, therefore, leave it optional with the Guardians to require that applicants for out-door relief should send their children to school at the expense of the parish. There would be no tampering with the religious faith of the parents; the schools would be filled;

  1911
  the children would be kept out of the streets as long as the relief was received; and an immense advantage would be conferred in this way on some of the poorest of the population. He believed that at Birmingham the number of children who would be sent to school by a provision of this kind was 1,500 or 1,600, while the expense to the rates would be almost no thing. By implication the clause repealed one in Mr. Denison's Act, and, being optional, it could do no harm, and might do much good.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, that primâ facie a strong justification should be made out for accepting a clause which adopted a principle which had been distinctly negatived by the Legislature a few years since. He would say nothing about the policy of Mr. Denison's Act; but strong opinions were then expressed against the plan which the noble Earl now recommended. The whole history of Poor Law legislation, from the time of Queen Elizabeth downwards, showed that the destitution of the applicant had been the one recognized ground of justification for giving relief. It was true that able-bodied paupers were required to give certain labour; but he could nowhere find in any measure for the administration of the Poor Law the insertion of any other condition of relief except destitution. The possible operation of the clause would furnish their Lordships with additional ground for withholding their consent from it. He was not one who thought lightly of the discretion ordinarily exercised by Boards of Guardians; but he would shrink from intrusting them with the power to apply this clause. He could conceive that crotchety Guardians might, by annexing the prescribed condition to the relief, interpose, however unintentionally, various difficulties in the way of obtaining necessary relief by the really destitute. Another objection to the clause was, that Guardians might allow their wish to promote education to determine whether they should grant in-door or out-door relief. On these two grounds the operation of the clause was likely to be attended with dangerous results. If the condition was to be introduced as preliminary to the granting of out-door relief, why should not other conditions be imposed? The Guardians, for instance, might insist on an applicant for relief attending church. If once we went beyond the simple ground of destitution, well examined and ascertained,
  1912
  we got into difficulties we could not see the end of. To a certain extent too the clause recognized the principle of compulsory education, which involved many and various considerations, and ought not to be adopted in the shape of a small clause introduced on the third reading of a Poor Relief Bill. The Poor Relief Committee of 1864 devoted much time to the question of education, and resolved that to impose it as a condition was inconsistent with the principles on which the Poor Law was established. Therefore the objections founded on principle which he urged against the clause were supported by the authority of that Committee.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsupported the clause, which he pointed out was permissive, and not compulsory, so far as the Guardians were concerned. It must be remembered that at present children admitted into workhouses received education, and why should they not when their parents applied for out-door relief? He believed that re-consideration would weaken the force of the objections that had been raised to the clause.
  LORD LYTTELTONwas understood to oppose the clause, on the ground that, in operation, it would have an unfavourable effect on the labouring part of the population, by inducing some to seek out-door relief with the object of getting their children educated at the public cost.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the proposition in the clause was virtually rejected by the Committee of 1864. There was, no doubt, something seductive in it; to those who wished to improve the education of the people, it seemed a very simple matter when you were relieving the poor to insist upon their children being sent to school. The objection was that the laws for the relief of the poor should be, as far as possible, carefully confined to the direct object of the relief of destitution. Everything seemed to him objectionable which tended to increase the scope and operation of the law. He could not admit that the education of children in a workhouse proved that they ought to be educated when their parents were relieved out of it. To go so far was to offer an inducement to persons to rely upon out-door relief, because by so doing they would get their children educated at the expense of the rates; and anything which tended to increase the desire for outdoor relief seemed to him objectionable. Poor men who struggled hard to maintain their families

  1913
  and send their children to school would not like to see worthless persons obtaining out-door relief because they would not work, and, at the same time, throwing the cost of the education of their children on the rates. He was a strong advocate for the education of the poor; but he did not wish to promote it in an indirect manner.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, his own experience told him that the clause would act satisfactorily; and, while it would give a fair and proper amount of out-door relief, would at the same time afford education to children whose parents had positively no means of educating them. Though very loth to divide the House, he must press the adoption of his clause.
  After some observations from the MARQUESS of WESTMEATH who was understood to support the clause.
  Amendment negatived: Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. (SCOTLAND) BILL. [No. 164.]
(The Lord Privy Seal).
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. (SCOTLAND) BILL. [No. 164.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I need not descant on its importance. Your Lordships will see at once that it is part of a great system of the Reform of the Representation of the People of the United Kingdom, being the part of that system which applies to the representation of Scotland. My Lords, I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I were not to go at any length into the Bill this evening, because I shall propose that your Lordships take it into consideration in Committee on Tuesday next, and I presume that is the stage in which any of your Lordships who may propose to move Amendments will find it most convenient to do so. I shall, however, give your Lordships a brief sketch of what is proposed to be done by this Bill, In the boroughs a vote will be given to all house holders who stand in the same position as the householders in this country to whom a vote is given under the English Bill—that is, who have paid their rates. With regard to the payment of rates, there is this difference between the English and the; Scotch Bills, that the assessment is not made in the same manner. At first it was
  1914
  the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make the law in this respect identical in the two countries; but when the Scotch Members considered the proposition of the Government they unanimously gave it as their opinion that the law of assessment in Scotland ought not to be altered, and that therefore it would be better to arrive at the object in view by retaining the mode of assessment hitherto in operation in Scotland. In Scotland the valuation is by a system of county assessment, which secures the advantage of a more exact valuation than can be had by means of our more local system. But there are 100 parishes in Scotland which pay no poor rates at all. In those parishes the provision for the poor is managed by a voluntary arrangement. There has been no assessment in these parishes beyond the assessment of the county assessor. But under this Bill, while following up the present system of assessment in Scotland, it is provided that those 100 parishes shall be valued like others, and will have to pay poor rates, and that no one who is unable, from poverty, to pay those rates, and who is exempted on that account, will enjoy the franchise. Then, in the counties, there is the same provision with regard to the payment of rates as is made in the English Bill; but £14 is the figure fixed on as the qualification for the franchise, that being considered the equivalent in Scotland for a £12 rating qualification in England. So much for the franchises under the Bill, and the conditions under which those franchises are to be enjoyed. With respect to the re-distribution of seats, we propose a very moderate scheme. We propose that the Universities—of which there are four in Scotland—should return two Members—that is to say, that the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's should return one Member, and that another should he returned by the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. We propose that the counties of Selkirk and Peebles, which are very small, should be united, and that a new district of burghs, consisting of Hawick, Galashiels, and Selkirk, should be created, and together return one Member. The town of Dundee and the counties of Lanark, Ayr, and Aberdeen will each return two Members to serve in Parliament in future; and certain counties named in the Schedule to the Bill, are to be divided. I do not know that I need say more at present with respect to the framework of this Bill, but if your Lordships have any Amendments to offer,

  1915
  either of principle or to any of the details of the Bill, I respectfully suggest that it would be better to do so in Committee; and if that proposal were assented to, I should propose that the Committee be taken upon this day week.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, this Bill, dealing with one of the subjects most important to Scotland that could come under the consideration of this House, was only printed and distributed to Members of the House this morning. In "another place" the Bill was debated for weeks, and it is exceedingly difficult for anyone who has not given the closest attention to the debates to follow all the changes, and all the consequences of the changes, which were made during that time. The Government now move the second reading of the measure. Under ordinary circumstancs, I should take objection to the proposal, not deeming it a fitting course, either as regards the Scotch Members of your Lordships' House, or as regards the House at large, that they should be called upon to approach a Bill of this magnitude without a full opportunity of considering its details. But I understand that there are circumstances which make it not unimportant that this Bill should go through Parliament as quickly as possible, inasmuch as some of its provisions affect not only Scotland but several seats in England, which the noble Earl forgot to mention. It, therefore, may he convenient to discuss any proposition which hereafter has to be made, upon the Motion for going into Committee, instead of upon the Motion for the second reading; and on that understanding, I am willing to assent to the proposition of the noble Earl. In the meantime there will be sufficient interval to examine and form an opinion upon the the details of the measure.
  On Question? agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Richmond.)
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 142.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdesired to call attention to one unforeseen result of recent legislation affecting the herring fishery trade. Various Bills had been passed for
  1916
  the protection of the salmon fisheries, I which he need not say was a national object; but some years ago a Bill was passed on another subject, which indirectly had a most injurious effect upon the salmon fisheries. He alluded to the Bill which legalized trawling with herring nets. It had been represented to him, and indeed the fact had come under his own observation, that the restrictions upon trawling having been removed, trawlers now carried very large nets and approached close to the embouchures or mouths of salmon rivers, and, under the pretence of fishing for herrings, carried away fish of a much more valuable character. This was clearly contrary to the spirit of the law, and some of the earlier statutes, which now had been virtually repealed, were especially directed against such a practice. Until a clause was introduced into the present Bill, restoring the policy of those earlier Acts, the salmon fisheries of Scotland would be rendered totally insecure. He begged, therefore, to ask his noble Friend opposite what were the intentions of the Government with regard to this point?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the question was an exceedingly difficult one, especially as restrictions on trawling had been recently removed. But he should be happy to facilitate the object which the noble Duke had in view upon a clause suitable for the purpose being prepared and submitted to him.
  THE EARL OF MINTOcomplained of the stringency of the clauses of the Bill that related to the mills and other manufactures on the rivers. He believed that nothing was more demoralizing than to make stringent and irritating clauses which they had not police enough to enforce. He moved to omit the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had inserted the clauses because he found them in a Bill which in 1866 had been considered by a Select Committee, and which had passed their Lordship's House, though it was not proceeded with in the Lower. However, he admitted there was some weight in the noble Earl's objections, and if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment he would consider it before the Report.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday the 2nd of July next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 172.)

THAMES EMBANKMENT AND METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT (LOANS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Clinton.)
THAMES EMBANKMENT AND METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT (LOANS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 156.) SECOND READING.
  LORD CLINTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: This is a Bill to extend the provisions of the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) Act of the year 1864, and to authorize the application of the London Coal and Wine duties to the; Metropolis Improvement Fund. It also enables the Metropolitan Board of Works, to borrow an additional sum for the completion of its Embankment works on the north and south side of the Thames, and the new approach to the Mansion House from Blackfriars. By several Acts of Parliament since the year 1861 the Metropolitan Board have been empowered to raise sums amounting in the whole to £2,480,000 for carrying out their works on the banks of the Thames; but, for various reasons, with which perhaps it would not now be necessary to trouble their; Lordships, this sum has been insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended. The Board is therefore authorized to raise a further loan of £1,850,000, and the Bill enables the Treasury to guarantee this additional sum. As collateral security to the Government, the Board charge these loans upon the metropolitan rates and also upon the lands purchased for these improvements. It has been agreed with the present mortgagees that £185,000 a year will pay off the principal and interest of the existing debt by the year 1882, and as the amount of the Coal dues, which by an Act of the present Session have been extended to 1888, produce upwards of £210,000 a year, the security to the Treasury appears adequate, and it is not likely that any charge will fall upon the rates of the metropolis. I beg to move, the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.

  PETITION.
  LORD LYTTELTON presented a Petition of Clergymen of the Church of England in favour of the Disestablishment of the Established Church in Ireland. He did not propose to go into the merits of
  1918
  the question to which the Petition related; but still he thought it of sufficient importance to call their Lordships' attention to it. The prayer of the Petition was for the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, and it was certainly a subject worthy of attention that this Petition should be signed by such a number of beneficed clergymen, who were all residing and beneficed in England, with one exception. There was, indeed, one distinguished man who had otherwise taken an active part in this controversy—Dr. Maziere Brady, who was a beneficed clergyman in Ireland: but except him, all the subscribers to this Petition were resident and beneficed in England. It was obvious that it must have been a very painful and invidious task for them to put forward their opinions in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. The signatories said that they felt that they placed themselves in an invidious position by petitioning to the effect they bad, but they also felt that no other course was open to them if they wished for justice to Ireland. The number of signatures did not adequately represent the clergymen who held the opinions embodied in the Petition, which be might remark had not been made in any way the subject of a canvass. The Petition was signed by 261 clergymen who desired to show that they did not in any way agree with the sentiments expressed at the meeting held some little time since at St. James's Hall. Having looked through the list of names, he was unable to say how many of those who had signed the Petition belonged to the "High Church," the "Low Church," or the "Broad Church." Some, however, he was able to recognize as belonging to the High Church party, but his belief was that the majority might be regarded as Broad, Among others who had appended their signatures to the Petition were Professors Kingsley, Maurice, and Jowett; the Head masters of Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Haileybury, and the City of London School; while there were also the names of many Rural Deans, and Fellows and Tutors of Oxford and Cambridge.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he would remind the House that a great many Petitions had been presented lately by noble Lords against the proposed disestablishment of the Irish Church; and though the names appended to those Petitions did not perhaps stand so high as those whose signatures were presented by the noble Lord, they were yet much better able to judge

  1919
  of what was good for Ireland than any of those High, Low, or Broad Petitioners.
  LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, it is impossible not to remember that the service to which the property of the Irish Church is devoted is a high and holy one, and not to regret that a Petition, asking that what has been devoted to God's service should be taken away and applied to other purposes, should have proceeded from the present Petitioners.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that they petitioned for no such thing.
  LORD REDESDALE: It moans that, or it means nothing; for it is impossible to separate the Petition from the Bill which will occupy your Lordships' attention on Thursday. Then I am justified in saying that it is simply a proposition to alienate what is devoted to God's service and apply it otherwise. [Lord LYTTELTON: No, no!] Then what is to be done with it? Is it desired that it should be applied to the support of the Roman Catholic Church, whose doctrines, in the opinions of those who signed this Petition, must be considered erroneous? The noble Lord has said that the signatures were nearly all those of beneficed clergymen in England. I must say that I think it ungenerous in them thus to come forward, and without regard to the feelings of their brethren connected with the Irish Church to say, that to maintain the Irish Church is an injustice legitimately offensive to the majority of the Irish people. How long has it been so? Forty years ago, when the Emancipation Act was passed, we were told that it was no offence to the Irish people, and that they did not desire its removal, and upon the strength of that assurance the Emancipation Act was passed. But now it appears that, for recent purposes, the Church has just been discovered to be a legitimate offence; but on the same ground, many other things may be described in the same manner—anything, in short, that is offensive to the religious opinions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. My Lords, this is a question with respect to which a great number of people feel very deeply. I say for myself—and I say it with all possible earnestness and sincerity—that to deal with the property of the Church in the manner proposed "elsewhere" would be, in my opinion, an act of sacrifice. I should consider it to be not only impolitic, but sinful. Your Lordships must also consider that there are many persons who hold this opinion. I say that this is a
  1920
  question which requires very grave and delicate handling—much more so than I believe it has yet received from those who have taken it in hand; and we, who have to deliberate upon the question, should remember this—that supposing the attempt be successful, and a new Government were to come in and pass a Bill for the abolition of the Irish Church, and supposing also that the Sovereign were to hold the same opinion as I do, and were to say, "When you ask me to consent to this measure, I think you are asking me to do that which would be sinful and an act of sacrilege"—supposing this to be the case, I say that such a position would be one of the most delicate and dangerous character—that it cannot be lightly put aside—and we are under the necessity of reflecting seriously upon it before committing ourselves to such a possibility. Looking, too, at the Oath which the Sovereign has taken with regard to the maintenance of the Protestant religion and the Church as established by law it was difficult to say what difficulties and embarrassments might not ultimately arise. The question had been looked at as a way of pleasing the Roman Catholics by getting rid of the Protestant Church. But what was to be done with the Protestants? The proposal was nothing but to rob one class of people for the purpose of pleasing another. I believe the proposal to be most impolitic. It would work injustice in many cases. For example, a person may have gone over to Ireland very lately, and purchased property there, induced by the fact that there was an Established Church in the country, that there was a clergyman in the parish, and that the tithes would be devoted to the maintenance of the clergyman whose ministrations he expected to have the benefit of. Was it to be supposed that such a man would be content with the proposed change, or that the parishioners who would be deprived of the ministrations of the clergyman would be content? Sure I am you are about to raise in Ireland a far more bitter feeling than has hitherto existed; that, instead of peace you will introduce discord and dissension, and that the whole of these proceedings, whether regarded as a political move or otherwise, cannot fail to be most disastrous.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it was the wish of their Lordships that they should anticipate the debate which was fixed for Thursday next, and therefore he would not attempt to answer

  1921
  the argument of the noble Lord, He would content himself with pointing out that the noble Lord had most amply justified what his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) had stated—that the persons who had signed the Petition had exposed themselves to much obloquy, because they had the courage to protest against what they believed to be an injustice. He could not sit down, however, without entering his protest against the charge of sacrilege which the noble Lord, by inference, had Drought against the Petitioners and those who supported the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdesired to make one remark with respect to the Petition. He had only had time to go through 111 names out of the 261 signed to the Petition, and of the 111 he could say that eighty-seven were not incumbents at all.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had understood his noble Friend who had presented the Petition to read the names not only of incumbents, but of persons who are not incumbents—for example, Professors, and the heads of some of the greatest educational establishments in the country.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwished to say that he had given to deans and others the benefit of being beneficed clergy; but there were some who could merely be regarded as clergymen unattached.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the Petitioners had not described themselves as incumbents at all. All that the Petitioners stated was that it was the Petition of "the undersigned Clergy of the Church of England."
  Petition to be on the Table.

  UNIFORMITY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill for better enforcing Uniformity in the Performance of Public Worship in the United Church of England and Ireland—Was presented by The Earl of SHAFTESBURY; read 1a (No. 173)
  House adjourned at, a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.