Lords Sitting of 25 July 1872

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Gifford, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland)* (246); Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* (247); Wild Birds Protection* (248); Irish Church Act Amendment (No. 2)* (249).
Second Reading—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections (228); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2) (240).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (202–250); Grand Juries (Middlesex)* (235).
Committee—Report—Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225).
Third Reading—Sites for Places of Worship and Schools, now Sites for Places of Worship, &c.* (214),discharged; Petroleum* (193); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (145); Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* (217); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* (220), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 37]; Naturalization [35 & 36 Vict. c. 39]; Infant Life Protection [35 & 36 Vict c. 38].

ARMY—THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he was about to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for War on one or two points in connection with the Autumn Manœuvres, and he ventured to think that it would be a great convenience to military men and the public if the noble Marquess could give him the information for which he was about to ask. He begged to ask, On what day the

  1743
  troops would be put in motion, and upon what day the opposing forces would come in contact with one another?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that the Southern Army would be assembled at Blandford on the 17th of August; the Northern Army would be assembled at Pewsey on the 31st; the two Armies would march from Blandford and Pewsey respectively on the 3rd of September. The Manœuvres would commence on that day, and continue until the 12th, when the march past would occur. He could not go so far as to say when, to use the expression of the noble and gallant Lord, the two Armies would come in contact.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL—(No. 228.)
  (The Lord Penzance.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD PENZANCE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it had a two-fold object—one to provide for the prevention of corrupt practices at municipal elections, and the other to furnish a tribunal before which the validity of all municipal elections might be tried. Their Lordships knew that after the passing of the Reform Act in 1832 an Act was passed which contained provisions against bribery and corruption at municipal elections. The penalty under that Act was £50. By the 27 Vict., c. 35, a penalty of 40 s. was provided, this latter penalty being recoverable in a County Court. It would be generally admitted that those two Acts were not adequate for the suppression of those corrupt practices. Since the passing of the Reform Act of 1867 the franchise for municipal electors had been lowered, and the number of such electors largely increased, so that it was now pretty nearly identical with that of the Parliamentary electors. It was generally known that those who took an active part in municipal elections did so to some extent in connection with the Parliamentary elections. Under these circumstances, it had been thought well to introduce this Bill. The first portion of it contained provisions similar to those in existence against corrupt practices at Parliamentary elections. The second portion contained clauses constituting a
  1744
  tribunal for the trial of the validity of municipal elections. Up to the present time there had been no such tribunal. The only manner of proceeding in such case was by quo warranto in a Court of Common Law; but by that process it was necessary to try the question of the validity of each individual vote, and to strike off votes one by one before a majority could be disposed of. That was a costly and cumbrous system, and one in no way suited to the state of things with which the Bill proposed to deal. The Bill provided that the Election Judges under the Act of 1867 should be authorized to nominate some four or five barristers, whose duty it would be to inquire into such cases. It was further provided that the barristers to be nominated should be in no way connected with the place in which the controversy had arisen. They were not to be barristers practising or revising on the circuit in which that place was situate, nor to have any kind of connection with the borough. Those barristers would have the power of awarding costs. In matters of law there would be an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ELECTIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
  (The Lord President.)

  (NO. 240.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that, with the exception of one provision, it was the same which was rejected by their Lordships on a former evening. It was confined to the continuance of the powers to regulate school board elections, conferred upon the Education Department by the Act of 1870; and it did not contain the clause directing those elections to be taken by ballot. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

BRICKFIELDS.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an Address for a Return relating to Brickfields, said, that in his Notice he had mentioned only three counties; but he wished the Return to extend to all the counties in which there were brickfields. He had received many letters from various parts of the country, which stated that, notwithstanding the Act passed last year, the evils to which he had called the attention of their Lordships on former occasions still went on in brickfields.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDrose to Order. There was a debate going on at the Bar which prevented the House from hearing what the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was saying. [Cries of "Bar!"]
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was informed by his correspondents that, owing to the number of Inspectors being too small, in some places there was scarcely any inspection of brickfields, and that the people working at brick-making in some districts had not even been informed of the provisions of the Act of last year. In Kent and other counties where there was an efficient inspection there was no complaint. He was led to believe that in some instances the Inspectors appointed were persons who had not had such experience as would qualify them for the post, and he thought also that the number of Inspectors might be enlarged. He begged to move for the Return in the enlarged form.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the number and names of the officers appointed to inspect brickfields, with the number of visits made by them to such brickfields during the past twelve months.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYventured to thank the noble Earl for having called attention to this subject. As to the inspection, he had to state that, though the Act putting brickfields under inspection passed last year, it was not until the dry weather set in that the brick-making began and the inspection could be carried out. The Act had been only three months in operation as regarded the brickfields, and this might account for the apparent laxity to which the noble Earl had called attention; but he
  1746
  believed that in the Eastern and Southern districts of England the inspection had been carried out in a satisfactory manner. The noble Earl complained that the number of Inspectors was not sufficient. Their Lordships would remember that the business of the Inspectors was increased last year by workshops having been placed under the Factory Acts, and by inspection having been extended to brickfields. When these changes came into full operation, if it was found that an increase in the number was necessary, no doubt it would be made; but he believed that at present it was not felt necessary that there should be any increase. There was no objection to the production of the Return moved for by the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE.

  EXPLANATION.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a matter which was a little personal to himself (Lord Redesdale.) On Tuesday evening, he had called attention to what he had always contended for—namely, that we ought, in the first instance, to deny our liability for the damage done by the Alabama and similar vessels, seeing that the Southern States had since become reunited to the American Republic, which was, in fact, now demanding compensation for wrongs done to it by one of its component parts. The noble Earl opposite, according to what appeared to be a very accurate report of his speech, said on that occasion—
  "The noble Lord must not think that he has the sole property of that argument, for the question was considered by the Legal Advisers of the Crown; and not only by them, but I have had letters on the subject from different persons, some of them of very great authority, and some of them of no particular authority."
  He (Lord Redesdale), however, found that on the 12th May, 1872, the noble Earl used this language—
  "The noble Lord had raised a point which had not, that he was aware, been previously raised. It certainly had not suggested itself to the Legal Advisers of the successive Governments which had to deal with the question, and it had not formed a portion of the instructions given to our Commissioners."—[3 Hansard, ccvi. 700.]

  1747
  He ventured, therefore, to think that the letters which the noble Earl had received on the subject must have been subsequent to the 12th May, 1871.
  EARL GRANVILLEmade some observations in reply which were not heard.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Irish Church Act, 1869—Was presented by The Marquess of LANSDOWNE; read 1a. (No. 249.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.