Lords Sitting of 7 May 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Appellate Jurisdiction, The Viscount Ossington added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (101).
Second Reading—Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal (87); Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2) * (98).
Committee—Pacific Islanders Protection (48–100).
Committee—Report—Pensions * (93).
Report—Prison Ministers (91–99).
Third Reading—Royal Parks and Gardens * (79), and passed.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(Nos. 72, 91).
(The Duke of Claveland.)
PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(Nos. 72, 91).

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause 3 (Order of Secretary of State for appointment of ministers under 26 & 27 Vict. c. 79).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert, line 22, after ("notice")—
  "It shall also be lawful for the prison authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to revoke such appointment when the number of prisoners of that persuasion shall have for a space of twelve months fallen short of the daily average of twenty."
  Motion agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord ORANMORE AND BROWNE the word "daily" was inserted before "average number"—and the words "at one time" struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as the clause now stood it was provided that no order be made requiring the appointment of a minister of any church or religious persuasion to attend at any prison if the average number of prisoners belonging to that church or persuasion confined at one time in such prison during the three years immediately preceding the date of such order has been

  361
  less than 10. He proposed an Amendment raising the average number to 20.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that since the noble Duke had placed his Amendment on the Paper he had made inquiries and found the fact of requiring an average of 10 prisoners, as the Bill now required, would exclude 27 gaols from the operation of the Bill; and if the average were raised to 20, no fewer than 14 gaols in addition to those 27 would be excluded. He could not consent to this. He should prefer a revision of the salaries inserted in the Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not at all desire that his Amendment should have the effect pointed out by the noble Duke. He should, therefore, withdraw the Amendment, and leave the average at 10.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEadhered to his view that it was unreasonable to appoint a minister for so small a number as 10 prisoners. There could be no difficulty in removing them to another gaol when there were a larger number. He also believed that by appointing ministers for each denomination, when there were 10 prisoners, the charge would be very large; for in half the prisons in Great Britain there were five denominations having above 10 prisoners, and though Nonconformist clergymen had not claimed the position of chaplains heretofore, yet he believed the only cause of their not having done so was because they did not wish to create a precedent in favour of the appointment of Roman Catholic priests; but that if this law passed, making such appointment obligatory, these other clergymen would certainly put in their claims. He therefore thought that no chaplain should be appointed where there were less than 30 prisoners.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 4 (Status of ministers appointed under Act, and provision for ministrations).
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved an Amendment limiting the power of the Secretary of State to "order an expenditure exceeding £50 (not including salary of clergyman) for the purposes of this Act." If some limit were not put on
  362
  expenditure for this purpose it might amount to perhaps £200, though no such sum ought to be absolutely necessary. Anyone who had read the evidence given by Roman Catholic priests before the Committee must know that he was not exaggerating when he said that one of those reverend gentlemen might make a requisition for so large a sum as he had named: under the pressure of political exigencies a Home Secretary of either of the great parties in the State might yield to such a requisition, and this was what he wanted to guard against by the Amendment he now submitted to their Lordships.
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, that a large sum—£50 or £60, perhaps—might be asked by a Roman Catholic priest for vestments.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDentertained no such apprehensions as those which had been expressed by the two noble Lords. An expenditure of £50 or £60 for vestments would be quite out of the question if they were intended to be used in a prison and re to be paid for out of the rates. If a priest wished for such expensive vestments his general congregation outside the walls must supply them. He thought the matter might fairly be left with the Home Secretary.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEappealed to the noble Lords present, whether the sum he stated was not a very moderate estimate for vestments, &c.?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas not for any undue charge on the ratepayers; but he would prefer to leave the clause as it was, and place his confidence in the common sense of the Secretary of the State rather than insert such a limitation as that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne).
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that seeing the feeling of the House, he would not divide on the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedule—Scale of Salary—
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Schedule at present proposed the following scale of minimum salaries:—10 prisoners and less than 20, £25; 20 to 100, £50; 100 to 200, £100; 200 to 300, £150; more than 300, £200. He proposed to reduce the scale to £20, £40,

  363
  £60, £100, and £150 for each respective class.
  Amendment made.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he had no objection to the proposed reduction of the scale.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had intended to propose a scale in accordance with the capitation grant paid to Roman Catholic chaplains in the Army; but, as the scale now proposed on one side was accepted on the other, he would not press his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDremarked that there was the greatest diversity in the salaries paid to gaol chaplains in England; some were paid generously, and others received salaries that were far too low. The scale now proposed would, at all events, give a status to Roman Catholic chaplains, make them officers of prisons, and put them to a certain extent on an equality with the Protestant chaplains, which was the main object of the Bill.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday next, and to be printed as amended (No. 99).

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 87.)
(The Earl of Dufferin.)
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 87.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUFFERIN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he never addressed the House with greater pleasure than he did on the present occasion, when he asked their Lordships to consent to the repeal of this Act. For a long time past he had entertained a strong conviction that the effect of this Act remaining on the Statute Book was very different from the effect it was intended to have had by its promoters. Instead of imposing equal restrictions upon all party demonstrations in Ireland, and operating impartially against all sections of the community, it had, through circumstances peculiar to the country and over which the Government had no control, only reached one party, and had consequently come to be regarded as one-sided, vexatious, and unjust. It had, therefore, lost one essential characteristic which Acts of
  364
  this kind should possess. It would readily be understood that when an Act which was passed for the express purpose of preventing party processions only restrained one party and permitted another party to indulge in those very excesses from which the rival faction was debarred, instead of mitigating hostility and controlling animosity it was regarded as affording a triumph to one side and imposing unjust disabilities on the other. He did not propose to trouble their Lordships with any account of the circumstances under which this Bill was originally passed; nor need he describe those demonstrations to which it immediately pointed—unhappily, their Lordships were only too well acquainted with the sinister history of party demonstrations in Ireland—it was sufficient to state that, with no inconsiderable experience, and with only too accurate a sense of the difficulties with which they had to contend, Her Majesty's present Executive in Ireland had come to the conclusion that the common law provided powers amply sufficient to prevent a breach of the peace. More than once they had had occasion to take precautions against contingencies arising out of these demonstrations, and on every one of those occasions they had found the powers conferred upon them by the common law sufficient for their purpose. Not only had they found they never had any occasion to resort to the powers conferred upon them by this Act, but they also had occasion to observe that this Act itself was regarded with the greatest disfavour by a considerable portion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. These persons complained—and he thought with justice—that whereas in the South of Ireland party processions, banners, colours, and tunes were paraded with perfect impunity, sometimes not without leading to sinister consequences, in the North similar demonstrations were pronounced by law to be illegal, and those who had taken part in them had been subjected, under previous Administrations, to fine and imprisonment. God forbid that he should appear as the advocate or apologist of any unnecessary act which could in the slightest degree offend or wound either the reasonable or the unreasonable susceptibilities of any class of his fellow-countrymen; whenever such performances had occurred he had always been the first to deprecate and to condemn

  365
  them. At the same time, it must be remembered that there were districts of the country where the unity of religion and political sentiment was so complete that these demonstrations incurred no risk whatever of interruption or of giving offence to those who did not take part in them. In those districts they were simply regarded as for holiday occasions, and women and children frequently took part in them. Of course, there were other districts the circumstances of which were very different: yet even in those districts it must be remembered that, in the original conception of those demonstrations, no slight whatever was intended either to the religious or political sympathies of those who were opposed to them. So far was this from being the case, that he believed originally, even in Derry, both Roman Catholics and Protestants took equal pride in commemorating the Siege of Derry; and he was not afraid to confess that, to anyone to whom the records of Irish bravery and courage were dear, the reminiscences afforded both by the defence of Derry and the defence of Limerick were equally subjects of justifiable pride. Unfortunately, however, since the Roman Catholic population of Derry had increased, the demonstrations there had assumed a very different aspect, and they had come to be regarded with unmistakable hostility by a great proportion, if not by a majority, of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. As a consequence, it had been necessary to take extraordinary precautions against a breach of the peace. Of course, it would always be the duty of the Government to maintain peace and prevent bloodshed, and to continue to take the same precautions in the future that they had taken in the past. With the powers granted under this Bill the Government were of opinion that they would be in a better condition than ever to exercise these essential functions, and to prevent conflicts and stop the effusion of blood. It was his misfortune to have found himself on one occasion in the midst of the carnage arising out of one of these feuds, where he had seen a greater number of dead and wounded persons taken from the field than had often fallen on board the leading line-of-battle-ships, in one of England's bloodiest naval victories. In any event, feuds and broils of this kind did not need to be fomented by the provisions
  366
  of an Act of Parliament which was distasteful both to those in whose favour it was passed, and to those against whom it operated. But, while pressing their Lordships to agree to the repeal of this Act, he could not help also addressing an appeal to his fellow-countrymen in Ireland, beseeching them in taking advantage of the privileges Parliament was thus willing to restore to them, to do so with forbearance and caution; to forbear from exercising them in those districts where they were likely to give offence or likely to lead to breaches of the peace, and to show a generous and magnanimous consideration for the reasonable, or even unreasonable, prejudices and susceptibilities of the rest of their fellow-countrymen.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dufferin.)
  LORD CAIRNSjoined with his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Dufferin) in expressing the very great pleasure it had given him to find that it was thought possible to propose to Parliament the repeal of this Act. It was his fate, when he had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, very often to urge on the Government of the day the repeal of that statute; and he felt the Government now took a wise course in proposing its repeal. The details of the statute and the cognate Act subsequently passed were so petty, the annoyances under it were so continuous and so minute, that it often appeared to him vain to expect that any people professing to be free would long submit to them. Another reason why he thought the statute had been productive of evil consequences, however excellent the intentions of those who proposed it, was this—he believed it to be utterly impossible for any Government, he would not say to execute its provisions impartially, but to avoid the suspicion of executing them with partiality. He believed that every Government, of whatever party, was always in a position of suspicion. Those who considered themselves in Opposition were always watching with the keenest and most scrupulous eyes to discover some case in which they thought the Government had failed to enforce the Act against their opponents. That had been the uniform position of the Irish Government under these Acts. He thought there was another very serious

  367
  objection to the provisions of such statutes. He was afraid it was part of our human nature which must be dealt with that if you subjected people to petty curtailments of what they naturally consider their privileges, many would take a kind of pleasure and delight in trying to balk and violate the law which they thought improperly fettered and restrained their free action. That was eminently the case with these statutes. He believed that even women and children took a pleasure in displaying banners, guns, and pikes, and marched in procession simply to show their contempt for the law. He cordially joined in the appeal of his noble Friend to their fellow-countrymen in Ireland that they would show their good sense by abstaining from these processions; and he believed the most effectual way of inducing them to do so was to leave the people free and unfettered in matters so minute and trifling in themselves. He rejoiced the repeal of these statutes had been proposed, and he hoped the Government would find that, in place of the Executive being weakened in Ireland, the common law would be found sufficient.
  THE EARL OF ENNISKILLENwas understood to express his approval of the measure.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEapproved the repeal of the Act, for the actual result of the action of the Government under it had been the permission of Fenian meetings, while Protestant meetings in the North had been interfered with. It was, therefore, desirable that the Processions Act should be repealed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in view of the happy unanimity that prevailed on both sides of the House as to the wisdom of repealing this Act, it was not his intention to have addressed their Lordships on the subject; but he could not allow the statement of the noble Lord who had just spoken to go forth uncontradicted. He emphatically denied the noble Lord's statement. No Government—and certainly not the present one—had ever permitted a Fenian meeting. Undoubtedly there had been meetings held by what were called the Green Party in Ireland, and these could not, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, be touched by the Party Processions Act. Hence
  368
  had arisen an appearance of partiality which was much to be deplored. That was one reason why these Acts ought to be repealed.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexplained. He might instance two meetings, one held on the occasion of the funeral of a Fenian, and the other in Dublin, on the raising of a statue to Mr. Smith O'Brien, a convicted rebel.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that having been unfortunately absent from illness on the occasion of the second reading, he would beg permission to make a few observations now. He quite approved of the principle of the Bill; but he thought there had been great exaggeration in the stories of the kidnapping and treatment of the natives of the South Pacific. He thought there was a great distinction to be drawn between the natives of some of the islands—such as the Fijis and others, where, from the powerlessness of the Government, abuses very probably took place—and the natives of the Pacific Islands who were removed to Queensland. He was informed by persons of property and authority that in regard to the latter, in the great majority of cases, they went there of their own accord; that they were free to return after having served for the time stipulated in their indentures; and that during their stay they were much morally benefited, and, in some degree, civilized. At the same time, it might, no doubt, be desirable that the arrangements of the service should be supervised by the English Government, in order to make sure that it was carried on in a proper manner. He understood that the main difficulty with regard to these islanders was their feebleness of constitution, so that they readily succumbed to any attack of disease. On one other point, he desired to say a word. In the debate that took place upon the second reading of the Bill reference

  369
  was made to the murder of Bishop Patteson, and the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies was understood to have expressed himself in terms condemnatory of the proceedings that had since taken place. Now, all the facts attending the attack upon the ship were not yet known; but he believed that when the captain of the English vessel had proceeded to the island for the purpose of inquiry into the murder of the Bishop, he was fired at, and one of the crew was either killed or wounded, and therefore the captain assumed the aggressive. It certainly was not clear to him that the captain was wrong in so doing. It was at least a remarkable fact that many years before any question arose as to this illicit deportation of South Sea Islanders, one of the attendants of Bishop Patteson was murdered by the natives of this very island, in the self-same spot and under the eyes of the Bishop. It was anyhow clear from this that these natives were, apart from any sense of wrong done to them for the kidnapping of their own people, a barbarous and savage race. In the same discussion a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) expressed an opinion that no retribution should be exacted for the murder of Bishop Patteson, but that it should be left to God to punish the offence, and that that would have been the feeling of Bishop Patteson. Such a sentiment might be very becoming in the mouth of a Christian Bishop; but the judgment by which the action of the State should be guided was very different, and he should be extremely sorry to see it accepted without some protest from that House. No one could entertain a higher opinion than himself of the late Bishop Patteson, who, he believed, fell a martyr in the cause of Christianity; but murder required punishment, and he did not think it well that in such a case the State should do nothing, but leave the matter to the vengeance of God.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had referred to a great number of subjects, into which he (the Earl of Kimberly) hoped the House would not expect him to follow, inasmuch as they really had no particular connection with the subject before their Lordships. The Commission on the subject of Coolie labourers
  370
  in British Guiana had carried on inquiries at the expense of its colony. It did not seem to him unreasonable that the colonies should bear the expense of such inquiries. Perhaps, in the case of Queensland, there might have been an apprehension that the inquiry would extend to matters which did not directly concern that colony; and on that ground objection was raised to the whole of the expense falling on the colony. It was said that the Imperial Government ought to have been more active in endeavouring to check this traffic. But to do so would be impossible without sending out such a fleet of cruisers as their Lordships probably never contemplated. These islands extended over thousands of miles of sea, and were hundreds—probably thousands—in number; and it would be quite impossible to keep an efficient police over such a network of islands, reefs, creeks, and harbours. The Government had, however, been endeavouring to do their best to meet the difficulties, and he hoped that with regard to some of these islands a tolerably good watch would be kept up. It had been resolved to reinforce the Australian Squadron, and to give instructions that steamers should visit the islands from time to time in order to prevent abuses. The best mode of preventing the evils which existed would, however, be found in making effective regulations with regard to these islanders when they arrived at their destination. He was, he might add, unable to agree to one suggestion which had been made, to the effect that those immigrants who might not have thoroughly comprehended the contract into which they had entered should be entitled to have that contract made void, and to be taken back to the place whence they came. There were two or three objections to the adoption of such a course. Who was to provide the funds for this purpose? If the immigrants were landed in Queensland, it was not a subject for Imperial but colonial legislation.
  House in Committee.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 100.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.