Lords Sitting of 18 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Private Chapels (96); Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels* (250); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) (258); Statute Law Revision (242); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (247); Railway Regulation Amendment* (253); Glasgow Boundary* (199).
Committee—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (249–265); Prevention of Crime (248–266).
Committee—Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (183); Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000)*; Exchequer Bonds (£700,000)*; Pedlars Certificates* (252).
Report—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* (241).
Third Reading—Clerk of the Peace* (180), and passed.

PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL—(No. 96.)
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL—(No. 96.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD LYTTELTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure, which had passed the other House with little opposition, had a two-fold application. The first portion of the measure extended to certain chapels more or less of a public

  1925
  character that exemption from the control of the incumbent already granted to certain institutions. It empowered the Bishop to license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform the services of the Church in any chapel belonging to any college, school, hospital, asylum, or other public institution, being duly consecrated and licensed, and to administer therein the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or such services as may be specified in the licence; but the licence did not extend to the solemnization of marriage. The clergyman so licensed was to be subject to no control or interference on the part of the incumbent of the parish or district; but without prejudice to the right of the incumbent to the entire cure of souls. The second part of the Bill applied these provisions to proprietary and other private chapels, the erection of which was sometimes thwarted by unreasonable opposition on the part of the incumbent. The Bishop, on being satisfied that the building was proper for the purpose, and that a sufficient stipend was provided, might license a minister to serve such chapel in the same manner as the first-named chapels. The Bishop was to give one month's notice to the incumbent of his intention, and in case the incumbent objected, was to transmit to the Archbishop his reasons for overruling his objections, and the decision of the Archbishop was to be conclusive. There was a provision with respect to pew-rents which he proposed to strike out in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the first part of the Bill referred to institutions of a public character, but under the second there might be two distinct churches in the same parish. In certain cases no doubt the working of the parochial system was too stringent, and he did not say that some modification might not be introduced into it; but our parochial system had been part and parcel of the system of the Church of England up to that time, and it ought not rashly to be parted with. This Bill would introduce a revolution into the Church of England, of which the clergy had had no notice whatever, and, influenced by these considerations, he now gave notice that in Committee on the Bill he should move
  1926
  the omission of the 4th clause. One further remark he had to make—the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill was under the impression that proprietary chapels were consecrated, but that was not the case—they were usually merely licensed buildings.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYconcurred in the observations that had fallen from the most rev. Primate. The Bill in regard to the first three clauses might be harmless; but the 4th clause ought not to be passed without very much consideration and inquiry, as it would authorize the Bishop to make a raid into every parish and set up an opposition chapel against the parish church. He doubted whether cases of unreasonable obstruction on the part of the incumbents were sufficiently common to justify so sweeping a measure. Even if the 4th clause were passed, it ought to be accompanied by a more stringent definition of what was a private chapel.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought it was hardly fair to say that the 4th clause would authorize the Bishop to make a raid into a parish, as it only empowered him to give a licence to a clergyman to perform service in a part of a parish which might have been theretofore entirely neglected. He could testify that there were many cases in which an incumbent did not do anything himself and would not allow anyone else to do anything—although a wealthy layman might offer to provide the pecuniary means—and the 4th clause of the present Bill would give the opportunity of remedying the serious neglect which occurred in some parishes. Nothing was more common than to hear a desire expressed for greater elasticity in the organization of the Church of England; and yet every measure brought forward with this object met with opposition at the hands of her friends. He should regret to see the clause struck out of that very useful Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he believed that in any case of insufficient ministrations for any hamlet an appeal by the Bishop to the incumbent would almost invariably be successful. The pecuniary means were frequently wanting; but where these were available he had never known an incumbent object, and instances of objection must be very rare. He had a strong objection to the clause, and hoped

  1927
  their Lordships would not be induced to adopt it by the more favourable opinion expressed by his right rev. Friend who had just sat down. He also thought that care should be taken that services in chapels belonging to public institutions should be conducted mainly, at all events, for the inmates.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONhoped that, whatever might be done with the 4th clause, the earlier provisions would not be rejected. In the case of the chapels attached to infirmaries and other charitable institutions, no service could be carried on in them without the consent of the incumbent of the parish; but it was most important that services of a special character, adapted to the circumstances of the inmates, should be held in those institutions, and they would not in any way interfere with the exercise of the incumbent's rights. In his own diocese there was an institution to promote the temporal and spiritual welfare of discharged prisoners, and there it was specially necessary to have services adapted to the circumstances of the inmates; but the incumbent of the parish had stepped in and exercised his power to interfere with the ministrations of Divine worship, and thus a great injury had been inflicted on the spiritual and moral welfare of the inmates of the institution. He thought that chapels of this kind ought to be regarded as extra-parochial; and viewed in that light the Bill could not be considered as interfering with the parochial system.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that inconvenience frequently arose from the incumbent's power of veto in the case of chapels connected with alms-houses and other charities; it being sometimes interposed not from any bad motive, but from an old incumbent's indisposition to change. He should be sorry to see the parochial system broken up; but he thought the Bill contained sufficient safeguards in the shape of a notice to the incumbent and power of appeal to the Archbishop.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND BILL—(No. 258.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND BILL—(No. 258.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to give certain administrative powers to the Charity Commissioners of Ireland, and to make regulations with regard to their proceedings. The present Board consisted of five Commissioners, and as it was sometimes difficult to get five gentlemen together to gratuitously administer charitable funds, it was now proposed that three Commissioners should be deemed sufficient. Then there was a proviso inserted in the Bill with regard to the cy prés power of the Board. In a number of small charities it was found impossible to carry out precisely the intentions of the testators, and as the Commissioners had at present no powers to vary the strict application of the fund, they were by this Bill empowered, in the case of donations and bequests not exceeding £300 principals or £30 annual, to direct the trustees to apply the fund to such pious and charitable purposes as they shall judge to be best, having regard to the direction and intention of the donors; and in the case of larger charities the Commissioners were to apply for directions to the Court of Chancery, as provided by the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 54, sec. 8. There were many other provisions in the Bill relating to smaller matters, but he need not trouble their Lordships with them now. The Bill had been most carefully considered, and it was entirely approved by the Commissioners themselves.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  THE EARL OF POWISobjected to some of the powers conferred on the Commissioners as too large. Some of the proposals of the Bill were unobjectionable; but others, he thought, were to be looked upon with suspicion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEfeared there was little chance of the Bill passing through the other House, the Government haying abandoned two more important Irish measures—the Debtors

  1929
  Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill—though the first of these would have liberated persons now in prison under a system which had been amended in England. Those Bills, which had been long under consideration, might have been passed earlier in the Session by dint of a little energy and forethought, and he regretted their failure the more as the wish for "Home Rule" and the feeling that their interests were subordinated to party interests were every day extending among the people of Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Marquess was irregular in referring to the progress of legislation in the other House on the second reading of this Bill; but he supposed the noble Marquess, like other persons who took an interest in any particular measure, was of opinion that it should be carried at the expense of other Bills. The noble Marquess must be aware that there had been some obstruction to legislation in both Houses, and the Government had thought it only fair to announce that Bills the passage of which was hopeless would not be proceed with. Considering the amount of Irish legislation since the last General Election, the noble Marquess could not think Ireland had been neglected by the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not responsible for whatever might have happened in the other House, and he was at a loss to know of any obstruction to legislation in this House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not intend to re-open last night's debate; but the Amendment then carried by a considerable majority certainly amounted to an obstruction of legislation. ["Order!]
  LORD O'HAGAN, in reply, gave a short explanation.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 242.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 242.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure carried the work of revision and expurgation
  1930
  down to the Act of Union with Ireland, and repealed nearly 1,100 Acts and parts of Acts. The task commenced by Lord Westbury had been going steadily forward, and after some years of laborious work two volumes of the Revised Statutes had been published, bringing the statutes down to the 10th of George III. He could not, he was afraid, hope that the reduction in the subsequent volumes would be on so large a scale.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 248.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 248.)

  COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Clause 5 (Convict holding licence to notify residence to police).
  LORD HOUGHTONobjected to the clause, which provided that convicts holding tickets-of-leave should be compelled to report themselves monthly to the police, under the penalty of having their licence revoked if they neglected to do so. It had been, he believed, the practice in that country to draw a positive line between a man who was actually under the action of the law, and a man who was placed in a position in which he was free to perform all the duties of a citizen. The power of supervision, however, which was given under the Bill simply meant that a man should be liable to be hunted down by the police, so that he could not possibly enter on any new course which would enable him to obtain an honest livelihood. Owing to it, in fact, a convict would be as completely under the operation of the law as if he were confined within the four walls of a prison, and would be led to look on the policeman as an enemy instead of a protector. In practice the system had not worked well, and he held in his hand a Report of the Surveyor General of Prisons which spoke of the present course of public policy as being directed principally to the hunting down of criminals. He should, therefore, advise their Lordships to express their disapprobation of that portion of the Bill to which he was referring. The noble Lord concluded by

  1931
  moving, in page 2, line 20, to leave out from ("reside") to the end of the paragraph.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He wished, however, to draw attention to the provision of the clause in accordance with which a holder of a ticket-of-leave would be obliged within 24 hours after his change of residence to notify that change to the chief officer of police of the district to which he happened to have removed. That was scarcely a sufficiently long time, he contended, to allow for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYconcurred with the noble Duke in the opinion that 24 hours was rather too short a time; but it should be remembered that the notification of change of residence need not be by personal application, but might be conveyed by letter. There was also a proviso that it need not necessarily be made to the chief officer of police, but that it might be made as effectually to any person authorized by him. He was, however, prepared to extend the time. He begged, in reply to the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), to say that the change to which he objected was in accordance with the almost unanimous opinion of the Prisoners' Aid societies as well as of the chiefs of police. He did not at all see that there was anything in that provision at all calculated to prevent the persons implicated from obtaining an honest livelihood. There was no question of hunting down the holders of those licences, because they might make their applications by letter—so that they need not become marked men at the police stations. A monthly report was the only means by which the police could exercise the necessary superintendence over the criminal classes.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved in line 26, after ("letter") to add—
  "And such reports shall be confidential communications, and shall not be divulged, except when the public service may require."
  His object was to give the criminal a fair chance of being absorbed in the working population, and earning an honest livelihood. It was therefore necessary to make the police more guarded in their conversation with respect to the
  1932
  criminal, and that the reports should be kept as quiet as possible.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYentirely sympathized with the object of the noble Earl, but held that the matter was one for regulation by the Executive rather than for introduction into an Act of Parliament.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Penalty for harbouring thieves, &c.).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved in page 8, line 3, after ("months") to add—
  ("And the owner of any such premises who, after the receipt of a notice in writing, signed by a superintendent of police, of the conviction of any occupier of any such premises, or of any person acting in his behalf, for an offence against this section, permits any such premises to be used for either of the purposes aforesaid, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour, and in addition to or in lieu thereof to enter into such recognizances as aforesaid.")
  He thought it was right that the owner who knowingly permitted his premises to be so used should be punished as well as the occupier. On the other hand, he proposed that such misconduct on the part of the occupier should incur the forfeiture of the lease to the owner.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that if the clause were made too stringent its effects might be nullified.
  After short discussion, Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Penalty on assaults on police).
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that it was frequently regarded as a matter of amusement, by classes who should know better, to assault the police in a brutal manner, as appeared from the reports in the public journals for the last twelve months. It was incumbent on their Lordships to show, by the severity of the punishment they would inflict, that they looked upon such conduct as disgraceful. He therefore proposed to make the penalty £100, instead of £20, or imprisonment for twelve months instead of six. He thought it necessary that young men should be taught that they were not to knock policemen about out of sport.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was rather surprised to hear that it was regarded as sport among the upper classes to assault the police in a brutal manner. He thought, however, that the disgrace would be felt to be as great by incurring a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment as of £100 or twelve months, and for summary jurisdiction £20 or sis months' imprisonment was probably as much as could well be inflicted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Children of convict women).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the clause provided that the children of women convicted of crime should be treated as children entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Schools Act, and to be fed, clothed, and lodged at the public expense. This he regarded as a direct encouragement to crime.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the object was to prevent the children from falling into the hands of the associates of the woman in crime. Although the principle was open to some doubt, the case seemed to be one where the children should be sent to industrial schools rather than to the poor-house. It was consistent both with good policy and humanity to send them to a place where they would be duly educated.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsuggested that in that case provision ought to be made in the Bill that when the mother came out of prison she should not have the power of reclaiming the children; or power should be given to some person in authority to say whether she should be entitled to them or not.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would take the suggestion of the noble Earl into consideration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 266.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.