Lords Sitting of 7 August 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prince Arthur's Annuity* (300); Summary Jurisdiction, &c. (Ireland)* (301).
Second Reading—Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* (279); Local Government Board* (291); Limited Owners Residence Act (1870) Amendment* (280); Sunday Observance Prosecutions (290); Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment* (269).
Committee—Intoxicating Liquors Licences Suspension (282); Friendly Societies Commission* (284); Sasines Register (Scotland) (200), discharged; Lodgers Goods Protection (283–302).
Third Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* (263); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* (274); Municipal Corporation Act Amendment* (273); Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels* (287), and passed.

ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 28th of July last, reported, as follows:—
  MY LORDS,
  I have received your Address thanking me for having presented to Parliament the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into several matters relative to the Royal Hospital of Saint Katherine near the Tower, and now situate in the Regent's Park; and praying, that in any scheme founded on this Report, due attention may be paid to the spiritual and educational necessities of the parishes adjacent to the old precincts of the Hospital.
  I will take your Address into consideration, together with the Report of the Commissioners.

METROPOLIS—MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE — LAW OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.—QUESTION.
LORD COLCHESTERrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether a notice dated from the Metropolitan Police Office, prohibiting a meeting in Trafalgar Square for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, was genuine, and why, if such be the case, the meeting in question was allowed to take place without interruption, and to call attention to the state of the law with reference to public meetings? The noble Lord said, that when he first gave Notice of his intention to bring this subject under the attention of the House, the circumstances appeared to him really to be of so inexplicable a character, and the position in which the Executive authority had found itself so remarkable and without parallel, that he had framed his Question with the view of ascertaining whether the notice prohibiting the meeting was a genuine document. Since that time the explanations which had been given "elsewhere" had so far modified the situation that the meeting seemed to have been first prohibited under one impression, and then allowed under another, more accurate, and that after a public and avowed prohibition it was permitted on a private understanding, by which, technically at least, the law was to be respected. But for the inquiries made "elsewhere," the later communications between the promoters of the meeting and the authorities would have remained unknown to the public, and the country would have inferred that a meeting of a somewhat extreme political character had, after being publicly prohibited, been triumphantly held in defiance of the Home Office. Those explanations, however, in whatever degree they exculpated the action of the Home Office, furnished evidence of a serious defect in the law, and of a loophole by which the whole object of legislation on the subject might be defeated. While the right of public meeting was, in due limits, an essential security of civil freedom, it might easily degenerate into one of the greatest dangers to order and liberty, and there was no question on which greater care, both legislative and Executive, seemed to be called for, while at no time, perhaps, had the subject pressed itself on our attention in a more

945
startling manner than this year. The ordinary quiet of the day of rest had been disturbed by a procession of societies almost openly seditious and disloyal, who had marched through the streets and assembled in a public park to express their sympathy with a sanguinary movement against social order in another country, mingled with ill-concealed aspirations for the overthrow of monarchy in this country. This, it appeared, could not be legally dealt with. On the other hand, another assemblage, of no political character, of persons who feared lest their humble industry might be seriously crippled by one of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared to have fallen within the wording of the Act of Parliament, which was summarily put in force against it. What had happened in the recent case? The meeting was for an object which, however objectionable in its tone and language, was perfectly constitutional in itself—namely, the discussion of a projected public grant. It was summoned by the Land and Labour League, a body of very extreme and startling views on agrarian questions, but which, to do it justice, did not, like the various Republican societies which had lately sprung up and thrust themselves into notice, carry disloyalty and treasonable purposes on the face of it. Now, after the meetings that had been tolerated, and the speeches which had been made in public places, it was almost surprising that the Home Office thought it worth while to attempt interference at all. It was still more strange that they should have rushed into the field with a public proclamation before ascertaining whether the meeting came within the law or not. That law, as laid down by the Home Office upon the Act of George III., made it unlawful to meet within a certain distance of the Houses of Parliament to prepare any remonstrance, petition, or declaration to Parliament concerning any matter in Church or State; while a meeting of any kind, however large, clamorous, or threatening, ceased to be illegal if only it declined to show so much respect to Parliament as to lay its desires before it at all. Under these circumstances, surely the Secretary of State for the Home Department must have foreseen what would happen — namely, that the meeting would assemble and talk, but would abandon any idea of
946
petitioning, and would triumphantly defy all attempt to arrest their proceedings? It appeared that communications passed between Mr. Bruce and the promoters, after the issue of the prohibitory notice, as to their intention of petitioning or not. Now, if the law was in this position, surely some such understanding should have been arrived at before the Secretary of State committed himself by a public notice? Whether, however, blame attached to anybody or not, he trusted that the Government intended, at the very earliest opportunity to rectify the deficiency of the law. The object of the Act clearly was to avoid the inconveniences—he might say the dangers—to which legislative assemblies might be liable in great capitals from large popular gatherings endeavouring to influence their proceedings by menace. Such dangers had been experienced both in America and in France. In short, the object of the Act was to prevent popular gatherings in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. It was not contemplated by its framers that such assemblies would meet without the professed object of presenting a statement of grievances to Parliament. If, however, they did meet without such object, the case became still more serious. The recent meeting, indeed, was unimportant; but such might not always be the case. An organ of pure philosophic Liberalism, which combined with that character the credit of being neatly epigrammatic on occasions, The Spectator, had remarked—
"According to Mr. Bruce's reading of the law, 100,000 men might assemble in front of Westminster Palace Gate and discuss angrily the conduct of the House of Commons, and he would have no power to make them move on. The Americans and Canadians are right, and we shall have to more Parliament into the wilderness yet. Burton-on-Trent would be about the central point, but then the draymen might overawe it."
Now, he had no desire to adjourn to Burton or elsewhere, and unless there was an extraordinary change in English habits, Parliament would always meet in the British capital. This made it the more necessary that public meetings in the capital, during the Session of Parliament, should be subject to a law that was clear, consistent, and rational. It ought not to affect those who met for a definite and a constitutional object, those who looked to Parliament for relief, and wished to approach it with deference,

947
while it gave absolute and triumphant impunity to those who assembled only to give play to seditious declamation, to threaten unconstitutional force, or to impose on Parliament the sense of a fraction of the population of the Metropolis as the voice of the English nation. He wished to know whether the Government intended to amend the existing law?
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he would like to know what the state of the law was, and whether it permitted the people to assemble in vast numbers within a few yards of Parliament? The meeting in question had been prohibited three or four days beforehand. The Guards were kept under arms, and at 7 o'clock in the evening out came a notice that the meeting was to go on. The Secretary of State had hoisted the white feather. This was a disgraceful policy, which brought law and order into contempt. Either the Secretary of State should not have issued the notice, or he should have acted upon it. Something like rigour had been exercised by the Irish Government on the other side of the Channel. They had issued a notice prohibiting the meeting and had acted upon it, and whether they were right or wrong, he respected them for it. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give some explanation of the extraordinary conduct of Government in reference to the Trafalgar Square meeting.
THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, he thought he should be able to show that the Home Secretary had acted not only with perfect consistency, but in entire conformity with the law. The facts of the case were very simple. A meeting was held in Hyde Park on Sunday week to consider a Petition to Parliament. It was adjourned to the following day in Trafalgar Square, notice being given that the object was to consider a Petition to Parliament respecting Prince Arthur's annuity. This clearly contravened the Act of George III., which prohibited meetings during the Session within a mile of the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of petitioning, and the Home Secretary had no alternative but to prohibit it. In the course of Monday it became clear to the promoters of the meeting that their position was an illegal one, and they accordingly announced that the meeting would be held at a later hour, and that
948
its object would be not to present a Petition, but to consider the subject to be brought before Parliament that evening. That being the case, it was plain that, although the Home Secretary was justified in prohibiting the meeting in the first instance, he was not entitled to forbid it when the intention to petition Parliament was abandoned, so long, at all events, as there was no breach of the peace. He would not enter into the question whether the law was sufficiently stringent or not. It was evident that at present a meeting could be prohibited if it caused terror to the people, or if it led to a breach of the peace; and that those taking part in it could be punished if they obstructed a public thoroughfare. The Statute of Geo. III., moreover, prohibited meetings with a view to petitioning Parliament held within a certain area; though, curiously enough, such part of the parish of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, as was within that area was excepted from the operation of the Act. Their Lordships would, he thought, be satisfied that the Home Office, so far from vacillating, had acted according to the law in prohibiting the meeting in its original form, and in permitting it under altered circumstances; and that, if any defect had been shown, it was in the law itself, and not in its administration.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS LICENCES SUSPENSION BILL—(No. 282.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS LICENCES SUSPENSION BILL—(No. 282.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Restriction on grant of new licences).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPproposed the introduction of words, the effect of which would be to place the licensed victuallers and the grocers who retailed spirits on an equal footing. The noble Earl said, as he understood the policy of Parliament during the present Session, it was that no new licences of any kind should be granted. Great injustice would be inflicted on the large and respectable trade of licensed victuallers if the Bill was passed in its present form.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, after ("1869") insert ("or under the 24 and 25 Vict. c. 21.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYobjected to the Amendment as an infringement of the privileges of the other House, and also as irrelevant, licences granted by the Excise not being touched by the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that this was really a Money Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYadmitted that, as far as the granting of licences was a money question, the House could not deal with it, but urged that in its moral aspect their Lordships were able to do so. Two years ago they made Amendments in a similar Bill, of which he was in charge, and the House of Commons offered no objection on the ground of privilege. If there were to be competition between the licensed victuallers and the grocers, privileges ought not to be granted to one which the other did not enjoy.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that the licences to which the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) alluded were granted by the Excise, and not by the magistrates.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would be possible by inserting the words "nor shall any licence be granted to dealers in spirits under the Act," to attain the object desired. Otherwise injustice would be done to licensed victuallers, and he trusted the Government would take the matter into consideration.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved, that it was important that no vested interests should be acquired under the existing system by retail dealers and grocers; but as he trusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) would be able to deal with the subject, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee), withrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Removal of licenses).
  LORD HYLTONobjected to the clause, on the ground that by sanctioning the removal of licences from one part of the country to another it introduced an entirely new law. The provision was not in the Bill as originally introduced, and would, he feared, have the effect of increasing the evils at present existing in populous districts in consequence of the large number of publichouses.
  Moved, to leave out Clause 2.—(The Lord Hylton.)
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEobjected to the clause, as calculated to produce inconvenience.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he thought that the clause would be of considerable use in limiting the number of publichouses by means of better distribution. In cases where there were too many publichouses in one district it would be an advantage if the magistrates could transfer licences to a neighbouring district requiring greater accommodation, for in this way the necessity for new licences would be avoided.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he believed the clause would cause great confusion in carrying on magisterial business. If the magistrates in the petty sessional division A thought they had too many publichouses they would be able to transfer licences to division B without consulting the magistrates of the latter division. Thus they would have jurisdiction over a division with which they were not connected.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXexplained that under the clause magistrates might transfer licences from one part to another part of their own division; and they could take licences from a neighbouring division. But words might be inserted requiring that the consent of the magistrates of the other division should be obtained.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, if the clause was retained, it would require a further amendment to meet the cases of those counties where the licensing meetings were held in the autumn, or otherwise due notice could not be given by the parties concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if the justices of one division held their licensing session some days before the justices of the neighbouring division, the latter would have to wait a whole year before they could obtain the consent of the former to a transfer.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the persons intending to apply for licences would take care to obtain the consent of the first-named magistrates beforehand. As this Bill would prevent the granting of new licences, the clause was necessary in order to supply licences to districts where, from increase of population or other causes, they might be required, and to diminish publichouses in places where there was an excessive number.
  LORD CHELMSFORDappealed to his noble Friend (Lord Hylton) to postpone his objection until he saw whether it was amended in the Report.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 13: Majority 13.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE PROSECUTIONS BILL—(No. 290.)—(The Earl of Morley.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, observed that the law upon the subject was certainly not in a very satisfactory state. The object of the Bill was to prevent vexatious prosecutions of individuals who really did not come within the spirit of the Act of Charles II. Prosecutions under this Bill were not to be instituted except by or with the consent in writing of the chief officer of police of the police district in which the offence is committed, or with the consent in writing of two justices of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where such offence is committed.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the object of the Bill was to disable the Statute of Charles II., which was in itself almost a dead letter, by preventing persons being prosecuted for Sunday trading without the sanction of the chief police officer of the district, or two justices of the peace, or a stipendiary magistrate. He hoped the whole subject would be taken into consideration by the Government during the Recess, with the view of introducing some measure next Session. If that was so, it would be necessary to bear in mind that the Act of Charles II. was literally almost a dead letter. It contained two classes of prohibitions. The first was against any person carrying on his lawful calling on Sunday, which made him liable to a penalty of 5s. The other was
  952
  against exposing for sale any goods on Sunday, which rendered the goods liable to forfeiture; but in both cases the difficulty of prosecuting or bringing evidence to support the prosecution was so great as almost to prevent any person being brought to account for infringement of the statute. The pecuniary penalty was in itself so small that any Sunday trader would be willing to give 5s. for the privilege of trading on Sunday; and the penalty was only incurred by one transaction, so that a man might carry on trading for the whole Sunday and be liable to only one penalty. The penalty did not attach to exposing goods for sale and inviting customers; some article must be sold before the penalty was incurred. Then, with regard to the forfeiture of the goods, there was no power to seize them. The only way in which they could be seized was by an application on the following day to the magistrate, and then a constable could only seize the goods which had been exposed for sale on the Sunday, which nobody could identify. Under these circumstances, he hoped Government would introduce a measure to prevent Sunday trading. He had no feeling on the religious view of the question; but he really was most anxious that the thousands and tens of thousands of traders should have the blessing of the day of rest secured to them by the Legislature, but who were now deprived of it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 200.)—COMMITTEE.
(The Earl of Morley.)
Order for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill, read.
LORD COLONSAYmoved that the Order be discharged. From 1617 to 1866 various enactments had been passed in regard to the registers of land rights which had worked well, and now it was proposed by this small Act to disturb a system of legislation which had existed for 250 years, and to give to a merely ministerial functionary discretionary powers which have always been systematically withheld from him. This Bill would confer on the registrar powers whereby the rights which parties had acquired for value would be imperiled

953
and might be destroyed by the mere fastidiousness or caprice of himself or his deputies. Meetings had been held in Scotland objecting to its passing, and hoping it would be put off until a measure might be framed which, while effecting the only reasonable object in view, would do no serious injury. The Lord Register Clerk, his immediate deputy Mr. Dundas, and other officials, were opposed to the Bill; and so were most if not all of the professional bodies engaged in the preparation of title deeds. Indeed, the working would be most difficult, for the registrar would be empowered to require, where land was in two or more counties, a correct description of the portions in each, and could object to register a deed if he thought the description was not satisfactory. But clearly this was a matter in regard to which compliance by the party demanding registration might be difficult or even impossible, and great inconvenience, considerable expense, and delay, perhaps fatal, would arise. It would be far better not to proceed with the Bill, especially as all the authorities of Scotland were against it, and as it had received no discussion in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the object of the Bill was to render more uniform the way in which registers were taken under the Act of 1866, and he had hoped the Amendments of which he had given notice would have satisfied the noble and learned Lord to some extent, and induced him to allow the Bill to be considered in Committee. If the noble and learned Lord would consent to the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill, he (the Earl of Morley) would accept those Amendments of which the noble and learned Lord had already given notice.
LORD COLONSAYsaid, he could not accept the proposal, as all the authorities of Scotland were so strongly opposed to the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsuggested that legislation on the subject should be deferred to another Session, as there was no reason for any haste, and as it would be very undesirable to run the risk of committing a great injustice in order to remedy a small and minor grievance.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLadvised his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) to withdraw the Bill, seeing that the autho-
954
rities of the Register House and the Committee of the Writers to the Signet were opposed to it.
Order for Committee discharged.

INDIA—GENERAL WHITELOCK'S PRIZE MONEY.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of any communication in May last from the Secretary of State for India to the Government of India, relative to a claim for arrears of interest on prize property lodged in 1858 by General Whitelock's prize agents in the State Treasury at Allahabad."
  The noble Earl said, that next year he should bring the whole subject under the notice of the House, and urge that in this, as in other similar cases, claims for prize money should be adjudicated upon by a competent tribunal and not be left to the arbitrary decision of the Treasury.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, a Blue Book had been published which contained every document connected with those claims except one, which was withheld in accordance with the rule that a despatch from the Secretary of State to the Government of India was not produced till the answer to it arrived. That was a reasonable rule, and he thought they ought to adhere to it. He hoped that long before next year the whole Correspondence would be concluded.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought the noble Duke had given a proper reason for withholding the despatch for the present. He (the Earl of Longford) was one of the claimants, the majority of whom were private soldiers, and, speaking for them rather than for himself, he would say that they did not acquiesce in the course pursued with regard to the examination of their claims. As the case was to be brought forward more fully hereafter, he would not now enter into the subject at length, but hoped to have the assistance of Parliament in referring the matter to a tribunal which would dispose of it in a satisfactory manner.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

LODGERS' GOODS PROTECTION BILL.
(The Lord Chelmsford.)
(NOS. 283–302.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee read.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he was willing to assent to an Amendment which would, he hoped, disarm some opposition which had arisen to the Bill from an unexpected quarter. It was meant that the Bill should apply strictly to the case of lodgers, but unfortunately the word "under-tenant" was introduced into the Bill. Now, if a lessee were to grant the whole of his lease except one day to another person, the latter would be an under-tenant. It would be highly improper to exempt such a person from a distress levied by the superior landlord. He proposed, therefore, to strike out the word, "under-tenant" wherever it occurred, and also to provide that the Bill should not apply to Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the system of what he might term small hour legislation in the House of Commons had the result of sending Bills up to this House, especially the Bills of private Members, in a condition so imperfect that the duty of additional vigilance in respect of them was imposed upon this House.
House in Committee.
Amendments made; The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 302.)
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.