Lords Sitting of 24 May 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (110); Gas and Water Facilities* (111).
Second Reading—Railways (Powers and Construction)* (96); Norwich Voters Disfranchisement (88).
Third Reading—Poor Relief (Metropolis)* (97), and passed.
Withdrawn—Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment (23).

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT—THE PETITIONS.—QUESTION.
The Earl of MINTO presented 30 Petitions, praying for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he desired to put a Question, to the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) in reference to the Petitions he had just presented. Numerous Petitions relative to this subject had been presented to their Lordships, one of which, from Glasgow, presented by the Duke of Argyll, purported to bear 21,000 signatures. Now he (Viscount Lifford) had taken an opportunity of looking at some of those Petitions, and he found that of the signatures appended to them, many were written in the same handwriting. Many of the signatures were apparently those of children, and many were those of women: and when he considered the nature of the subject to which those Petitions referred, he thought it very doubtful whether women were thoroughly instructed as to what they were petitioning against, and he was quite sure that children knew no-tiling at all about it. There had been a great amount of misrepresentation on this subject. He would not enter into the question as to how successful the Contagious Diseases Act had proved in the Army and Navy; but in the printed form from which these Petitions were copied it was alleged—rather illogically—that these Act were immoral because they were successful, and that they were unsuccessful because they were immoral. There were other extraordinary statements in a paper which had been issued by an organization called the Ladies' National Association. It was stated, for instance, that the houses where the women who were subject to the Act congregated had the same protection as was

1265
afforded to private houses, and even to schools and churches. But that was quite untrue. The common law against houses of that description was in force as heretofore, and it rested with the magistrates to suppress such houses and punish the offenders. It was then stated that the Act deprived these women of every guarantee for personal freedom, which the law had asserted for all, and that it put the reputation and even the person of anyone suspected absolutely in the power of the police. But in this country everybody was to a certain extent in the power of the police. A policeman or anyone else could make any charge against any other person, whether Peer or peasant, but he would make the charge at his peril. Since this Act had been passed there had been only one case in which a respectable woman had been brought under its operation, and in that case there were certain extraordinary circumstances which led to the arrest. The Act was so guarded in that respect that any woman who gave security that she would give up her unfortunate avocation, or leave the district, was immediately released from surveillance. The third statement was even more extraordinary than the others. It described the Act as cruel to women, as violating the feelings of those whose sense of shame was not wholly lost, and as further brutalizing those who were already very much degraded. Those of their Lordships who had read the evidence of the Select Committee would know how entirely untrue that was, and to how great an extent the Act had exercised a reforming influence. At Devonport, for example, the number of prostitutes had diminished from 2,000 to 770, and at Plymouth 40 per cent had been reformed. One of the chaplains, moreover, had testified to the striking improvement in the behaviour of the women after being for a short time under his charge. The kindness they received, the time given them for reflection, and. the attention bestowed on them by the chaplains in the hospitals to which they were consigned, had exercised a most salutary effect. Ladies were, nevertheless, found to organize an opposition to a measure which was thus benefiting the most unfortunate of the sex, as well as conferring great advantage on the Army and Navy. The Act was, in point of fact, a law to prevent murder—to
1266
prevent the murder of the unfortunate children who died through the most horrible malady every week, and to prevent the murder of those who died later in life from a thousand other diseases all springing from that one. He wished to ask his noble Friend, Whether, in the Petitions he had presented, there were I not the names of persons who were I utterly incapable of forming a judgment on the matter, including the names of I children who were so young as to be unable to write at all, their names being subscribed to a mark under those of other members of their families?
THE EARL OF MINTOreplied that he had little information about the Petitions. He had simply discharged his duty in presenting the Petitions. As far as he knew, judging from the names of well-known persons who headed the list, he believed the Petitions to be of a bonâ fide character. Many of the signatures might be in the same handwriting; but he had heard no complaint of their being appended without authority. He did not know whether the head of a family might not in some cases have signed for all of her children. He did not say that he had made up his mind on the subject; but he was informed by persons in whom he had the greatest confidence that considerable feeling against the Act existed.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in presenting some further Petitions against the Act from Belfast, said he could not express an opinion as to the nature of the signatures to the various Petitions he had presented; but he agreed with the noble Earl that there was a considerable degree of feeling on the subject in the country. He had no reason to believe that the signatures to the Petitions he had presented were otherwise than genuine.

NORWICH VOTERS DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 88.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
NORWICH VOTERS DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 88.)

  SECOND READING. PETITION OF A. BIGNOLD.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CAIRNS presented a Petition from Arthur Bignold, praying that his name may be omitted from the list of scheduled voters, and gave Notice that when they got into Committee upon the measure he should call attention to the

  1267
  facts of Mr. Bignold's case, and propose a clause on the subject. Mr. Bignold stated that he was not, and never had been, a voter for the city of Norwich; but his name was included in the Schedule, and that he would then be prevented from, ever becoming a voter for the city. Mr. Bignold admitted that he was engaged in the transaction mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners, and which led to his name being put in the Schedule, together with those of Mr. Stracey and Mr. Allen. But when it became the duty of the Attorney General to institute prosecutions there was no evidence sufficient to proceed upon against Mr. Bignold. There was evidence against Mr. Stracey; he was put upon his trial and acquitted. In consequence of the acquittal a clause had been introduced into the Bill exempting Mr. Stracey from its operation; and Mr. Bignold felt that it was hard that Mr. Stracey, against whom there was a certain amount of evidence, should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, whereas, his (Mr. Bignold's) name was retained in the Schedule.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the facts on which the Bill was founded were simply these—In February, 1869, Mr. Baron Martin, after trying an Election Petition, reported pursuant to the Act, that bribery had extensively prevailed among certain persons at the Norwich election, though he acquitted the candidates of all complicity in it. A Commission was subsequently issued, which reported, last February, and they added to the Report a Schedule of three distinct classes of offenders—46 persons were reported as bribers, 119 as bribed, and 50 as guilty of treating. The Bill provided that these persons should not hereafter have a right to vote at any future election for Norwich; but a second clause enacted that any person against whom criminal proceedings had been instituted by the Attorney General should not be so disqualified, unless and until he were adjudged guilty. He would not, at present, enter into the question raised by his noble and learned Friend.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 23.)
(The Lord Redesdale).
IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 23.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this measure had been some time before their Lordships, and that, being simple, reasonable, and just, he could see no possible objection to it. Under the Act of last Session the Irish Church continued an Establishment until the 1st of January next, and it was provided that the proceeds of any preferment which might in the interim become vacant should be left in the hands of the Commissioners, and that those proceeds should be paid up to that date to any person who might be appointed to such benefice. No provision, however, was made for the case of a vacancy which might not be filled up, and the proceeds of such a preferment would, therefore, remain in the hands of the Commissioners, and swell the General Fund. Now, the provision securing payment of the income to any person appointed before disestablishment was a manifest admission that the income during that period belonged to the Church; and it was only just that if a benefice was kept open it should be paid to the Church Body, constituted for the purpose of taking charge of the temporalities of the Church. To correct this no doubt unintentional oversight was the object of his Bill, and the correction to be of any good must be made this year. It did not disturb the principle of the Act; and the Church Convention, while declining to recommend the proceeding with other suggested amendments of the Act, deeming it expedient to moot the subject of a general Amending Bill, had resolved that it would be for the benefit of the Church if this measure were carried.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion. It was somewhat difficult, even in answering the noble Lord to avoid saying things which, in all probability, would provoke the expression of a different opinion from other quarters. It was most un-

  1269
  desirable, unless urgent necessity existed, to enter on the delicate questions connected with, the Irish Church. Considering how infinitesimal the advantage to the Church would be from this proposal, he was sure their Lordships would not think it desirable to send it down to the House of Commons with the chance of exciting all kinds of angry feeling. The patrons had power to fill up vacancies if they thought proper, and in a matter of a very few hundred pounds it was unadvisable to re-open the question. If some great flaw or serious hardship had existed the Government would have fairly considered it.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the speech of the noble Earl reminded him of the virtuous indignation of the man who cut off his eldest son with 1s. and desired that his name should never be mentioned to him again. He would rather the noble Lord had introduced a Bill for the entire repeal of the Act which unfortunately passed last year; but he was willing to support this measure, such as it was, having been a member of the Convention which approved it.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not disposed to withdraw the Bill, for he thought it was important to show who were prepared to deal fairly with the Irish Church and who were not. No doubt it was a small matter; but with regard to the endowments of the Church very small matters were of great importance. Where any living fell vacant before 1871 the gain from commutation was lost, and therefore the only way of commencing an endowment was that the income should go to the Church.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would be glad to support anything which would add to the resources of a Church which would not be very largely endowed; but he could not quite understand what the practical evil was which called for this Bill. He was not aware that any vacancy had occurred which had not been filled up—so that the matter was one affecting less than eight months. A bishopric had become vacant and had been filled up; and if a person were appointed to any vacant preferment he would be paid by the Commissioners. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that unless some crying evil could be shown, it was undesirable to re-open the question in order to pro-
  1270
  vide for a contingency which, after all, might not occur. The arrangement, moreover, was not that Parliament set aside these particular benefices and left them untouched till the 1st of January; but that as soon as any vacancy arose the income merged into the general fund, the Commissioners being directed to provide adequate payment for any person appointed to fill it up to that date. The intention evidently was that vacancies should be filled up. He hoped his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) would not call on the House to divide on such a question, for votes might be greatly misunderstood, and those unable to support the Bill might be unfairly represented as hostile to the Church.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the provision as to paying incumbents up to the 1st of January was inserted with a view to respecting vested interests, even down to the last moment. Compensation was fully intended; but there was a strong feeling among many supporters of the Bill against anything in the shape of future endowment. In endeavouring to convert compensation into endowment the noble Lord would be departing from the principle of the Act.
  LORD REDESDALEinsisted that he was not disturbing the principle of the Act. It would, of course, be useless for him to divide if he had not the support of noble Lords behind him; but he regretted the reception the Bill had met with.
  Motion and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

APPOINTMENT OF LANCASHIRE MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DEVONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether any change has recently taken place in the mode of appointment to the Commission of the Peace in the County of Lancaster; and, if so, the nature of such change? He understood that an alteration had been made, by which, in future, appointments to the Commission of the Peace would emanate, as in other counties, from the Lord Lieutenant, instead of, as hitherto, from the Chancellor of the Duchy. He hoped that such a change had been made, for the Lord Lieutenant was the best judge of the qualifications of persons for the magis-

1271
tracy, while the Chancellor frequently possessed no local knowledge.
LORD DUFFERINstated that from the 1st of May the appointments had been, and would continue to be, made by the Chancellor of the Duchy on the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant, instead of directly by the Chancellor. This was but reverting to the old practice; which, he believed, was altered on account of some misunderstanding between the Lord Lieutenant and Chancellor of the day. He was glad the measure had the approval of the noble Earl, whose experience of the Duchy rendered his opinion of double value. The Lord Lieutenant did not change with every change of Government; he was superior to party influences, and, from his local knowledge, was a much better judge than the Chancellor as to what persons were qualified for the Commission of the Peace.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.