Lords Sitting of 6 July 1877

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Byron, after the death of his Grandfather,
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* (137).
Committee—Report—Prisons (116); Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (175).
Report—Eeservoirs* (103).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (112); Municipal Corporations (New Charters)* (125).
Withdrawn—Tramways* (124).

PRISONS BILL—(No. 116.)
(The Lord Steward.)
PRISONS BILL—(No. 116.)

  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 (Preliminary), agreed to.

  PART I.
  Transfer and Administration of Prisons.
  Clauses 4 and 5 (Transfer of Prisons, Administration of Prisons), agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 12 (Prison Commissioners), agreed to.
  Visiting Committee of Justices.
  Clause 13 (Appointment of Visiting Committee of Prisons), agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Duties of Visiting Committee).
  LORD LEIGHsaid, that the Amendment which he wished to propose at the end of the Clause was one he trusted the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) would not object to, as it in no way affected the principle of the Bill. Their Lordships were aware that by Clause 13 Visiting Justices were to be continued, as now, to be appointed by Courts of Quarter Sessions, and his object in asking their Lordships to add the few words he suggested at the end of this clause was to secure that they should be called upon to report, as they did now, to Quarter Sessions. He was sure their Lordships would agree with him in considering it desirable that the office of Visiting Magistrate should not be a mere sham; consequently, in his opinion, the best way of keeping up their interest in the work was to call upon them not only to report to the Secretary of State from time to time, but also to Courts of Quarter Sessions in their respective counties and boroughs from whom they had received their appointments, and thus ensure for the management of our gaols attention and publicity on the
  870
  spot. Magistrates being entrusted with the administration of justice, he thought it most desirable that they should be kept well informed as to what was going on in their respective gaols, both county and borough.
  Moved to insert—
  "And such Visiting Justices shall send a quarterly report to the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction within the district from which they shall have been appointed."—(The Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Amendment of the noble Lord, as far as he understood it, if the report suggested was to have any value at all, struck at the very root of the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord laid down as the foundation of his argument that the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions were entrusted with the administration of justice, and ought therefore to be informed on all that went on in prison. As far as that argument was worth anything, it would on the same ground be right that the Visiting Magistrates should report to the Judges of the land as well as to the Court of Quarter Sessions, because the Judges who went Circuit were entrusted with the administration of justice. That Bill proposed materially to alter the relation of the Court of Quarter Sessions to the gaols, because under it the Queen would resume her jurisdiction over the prisons, and the authority would be vested in the Secretary of State, to whom the report should properly be made. No doubt they wanted efficient local supervision, and that would be provided for by appointing a Visiting Committee under the Bill. But to lay it down as an obligation on the Visiting Committee that they should report to the Court of Quarter Sessions would place everybody in a false and wrong position. Supposing they reported to the Court of Quarter Sessions, if there was a difference of opinion between the Visiting Committee and the Secretary of State, the Visiting Committee would report their view to the Court of Quarter Sessions—what in that case was the latter to do? Supposing it should pass a Vote of Censure on the Secretary of State, was the Secretary of State to enter into a controversy with the Court of Quarter Sessions, which really had no jurisdiction in the matter? Again, under the Bill the Visiting

  871
  Committee would be appointed by different Courts of Quarter Sessions in various cases. In the county of Lincoln, for instance, one gaol would probably suffice for all the prisoners in that county, where there were three Courts of Quarter Sessions. Were the Visiting Committee to report to each of those three Courts of Quarter Sessions. For the reasons he had stated he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONmade some remarks, which were not heard. The noble Lord supported the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought that the Amendment was an extremely harmless one, and one that came fairly within the scope of the Bill. He did not see why it should be objected to, seeing that it had a tendency to chock the centralizing principle. Having introduced the Visiting Justices into their measure, he should have thought the Government would have wished to make their supervision a reality. It was said the Visiting Justices would report to the Secretary of State, as if they were officers of that Minister; but, surely, it was desirable that there should be some independent authority to report on the condition of a gaol. It would be an advantage to the Secretary of State to have some check on the Prison Commissioners and Inspectors. The magistrates were a local body interested in knowing all about the gaols to which prisoners were sent, the effect of the sentences passed on prisoners, and the like:—the Judges, who had to go to different parts of the country, were not exactly in the same position as local magistrates in regard to those matters.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Earl had not told them what would be the result of a report by the Visiting Justices to the Quarter Sessions. It would be simply nil—the report would lie upon the Table, and no action would be taken upon it. The Bill provided that the Visiting Justices should report to an authority who had power to act in the matter—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and so far as publicity went, that would be ensured by the Reports of the Prison Commissioners, which by the 10th clause were to be laid before both Houses of Parlia-
  872
  ment. The Visiting Justices would go over the gaol, and see the prisoners and hear if they had any complaint to make. That which they would do under this Bill they had done before—they were the proper body to see if prisoners were properly treated—to see that no oppression on the part of authorities in the gaols was used as against prisoners. He should be sorry to see the Amendment introduced into the Bill.
  LORD SELBORNEexplained that what his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Kimberley) desired to point out was, that the magistrates would be deprived by the Bill of powers which they at present exercised, and which it was most desirable they should still exercise.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, one or two instances of hard treatment in gaols had happened lately. Suspicion of hard treatment might arise in cases where accidental death took place, or epidemic disease in the prison had proved fatal, or been communicated in the neighbourhood. Questions would assuredly be asked of the Visitors at the next quarter sessions. He thought it would be much better that a written Report of the condition of the gaol should be given to the Quarter Sessions than that a vivâ voce account only should be obtainable.
  LORD DENMANsaid, there was no necessity for the clause proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Leigh), because Visiting Justices would always let their brother magistrates know what was passing between them and the Home Office. In the county to which he had the honour to belong, they had lost one of the best Visiting Justices that ever lived (Mr. Mundy), and no successor would be elected to that honourable gentleman who would not explain all proceedings. No notice of this (Prisons) Bill had been taken for the Quarter Sessions, and no objection was made to it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsupported the Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that to a certain extent, the principle of this Bill was already carried, out in Worcestershire. The gaol at Worcester had for some time ceased to be under the control of the Quarter Sessions, the county gaol had ceased to be under the control of the County Justices, and the whole jurisdiction in respect of the city gaol

  873
  and the county gaol had been transferred to a Committee of Visitors of Prisons. He saw no reason why anything should be done to create an anomalous jurisdiction after arrangements had been made, or were proposed to be made, by means of the Bill under consideration, for the efficient management of prisons. Why should they, when they created one authority entrusted with the proper supervision of prisons, create another by which nothing could be done?
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, his vote would be determined by the consideration that the Bill, as it stood, would practically put an end to the local supervision of prisons. He strongly objected to any proposal which could have the effect of decreasing local interest in prison discipline.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONadmitted that there was some force in what had been said in support of the proposed Amendment, and was willing to undertake that before the Report on the Bill, the whole question should be carefully considered; and he hoped to be able to make a proposal that would meet the views of the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment and those who thought with him.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsupported the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would not be difficult to deal with the broad principle contained in the Amendment, if patience were exercised until the Bill was reported to their Lordships.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 58; Not-Contents 80: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Minto, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Morley, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Sandwich, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Cardwell, V.

  Ducie, E.

  Halifax, V

  Fortescue, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Granville, E.

  Beaumont, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Carew, L.

  Laneshorough, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Lovelace, E.

  874

  Clinton, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L. [Teller.]

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Manchester, D.

  D'L'Isleand Dudley, L.

  Northumberland, L.

  Denman, L.

  Richmond, D.

  de Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Bath, M.

  Digby, L.

  Bute, M.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Forbes, L.

  Forester, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Coventry, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Lindsey, E.

  Morton, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Nelson, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Manners, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Abinger, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Airey, L.

  Sackville, L,

  Alington, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Aveland, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Bagot, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chelmsford, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Visits to prison by any justice), agreed to.

  PART II. SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
  As to Obligation to Maintain Prisons.
  Clause 16 (Termination of local obligation to maintain prisons), agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Compensation to be made in place of prison accommodation), agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Compensation to be made to prison authority in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).
  EARL COWPERpointed out that by Clause 17, where the prison accommodation was insufficient the prison authority was to pay into the Exchequer £120 for every additional cell that was required; and the clause in the commencement recognized the principle that where the accommodation provided was more than was required, the prison authority should receive compensation of the same amount. What was thus given, however, with one hand was taken away with the other, and he therefore moved the omission of the words which so took it away—namely, from the words "Secretary of State" in line 18 to the word "that" in line 20.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Proviso, the omission of which was moved, was directed against a different case from that to which the noble Earl alluded—namely, where the county had been extravagant, or had through miscalculation built largely in excess of what was required. In such a case the loss must fall somewhere, and it was considered that the county, and not the Imperial Treasury, should bear the burden.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that when the Government took over a prison with excessive accommodation, they ought to pay in the event of their being able to make that accommodation available for prisoners from another county.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the noble Earl that the effect of his Amendment would be to throw upon the public funds a charge which it could not be supposed would be sanctioned by the other House.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 23 (As to contracts and debts), agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 29 (As to classification and commitment of prisoners), agreed to.
  Clauses 30 to 32 (As to jurisdiction), agreed to.
  As to Discontinuance of Prisons.
  Clause 33 (Power of Secretary of State to discontinue prisons).
  THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment, with the object of restoring the clause to the form in which it was introduced in the other House. The clause as it stood empowered the Secretary of State to abolish the local gaols in counties having less than a certain population. In his opinion, one gaol should be kept up in all counties for the convenience of untried prisoners, who might otherwise be conveyed to places far distant from their homes, where they would be unable to communicate with their legal advisers and their witnesses without incurring considerable expense and being otherwise subjected to disadvantage. It would not cost much to keep up one or two of the smaller gaols which it was contemplated to abolish, the expense of maintaining a small staff of officers and of keeping the premises in repair being very slight. In this case area was quite as much a matter of consideration as population. The loss of the gaol would certainly lead to the abolition of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and so seriously affect the constitutional position and completeness of the county.
  An Amendment moved,
  In page 12, lines 40 and 41, to omit "unless the Secretary of State otherwise order, for special reasons to bo stated in his order."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that the arguments of the noble Earl went far to prove the necessity of the words which he sought to strike out of the clause. The noble Earl appeared to think that inconvenience might arise from the Secretary of State making such Orders as would inconvenience the public; but he had never known a Secretary of State who was likely to disregard the

  877
  convenience of the public. The provisions of the Bill, by requiring the Order of the Secretary of State to be laid before Parliament before it could be enforced, afforded an efficient guarantee against an abuse of the power by that Minister. He declined to accept the dictum of the noble Earl, that requirements under this section should be regulated by the extent of the area of the county. The case of the gaol of the county of Rutland, where a few prisoners were maintained at an expense of £117 per head per annum, was an instance showing the necessity for abolishing prisons of that class. The noble Earl had drawn a harrowing picture of the untried prisoner being unable to communicate with his friends and his legal advisers; but he must submit that such inconvenience must necessarily be occasionally endured, because it would be impossible to keep up gaols in all parts of a large county like Lincolnshire in order to the convenience of untried prisoners. The Bill contained provisions that mitigated the hardship upon the prisoners who were to be removed out of their own counties, and to enable the Visiting Justices of their district to have access to them at all times.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Effect of discontinuance of prison), agreed to.
  Clauses 35 and 36 (Status of prison officers), agreed to.
  On Clause 35,
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, it enabled the Secretary of State to take over the present officials of prisons, who at present were local officers, and to redistribute them as he might think proper, for the performance of the same or analogous duties. It was feared by many that great hardships would be caused to them if they were moved from place to place. He hoped that some assurance would be given that all the circumstance of these officials would be fully considered.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpromised that great care should be taken in carrying out the provisions of this clause so that no injustice should be done to the present officials.
  Clauses 37 to 54 (As to miscellaneous matters), agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Arrangement and arbitration), agreed to.
  Clauses 56to 61 (Definitions),agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3ª on Monday next.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS).

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE, on rising to call attention to the Correspondence between the Earl of Redesdale and the Postmaster General laid before the House on the 28th June last; and to move a Resolution, remarked that no man had been a more consistent supporter of the Government than himself; but that, as Chairman of Committees appointed by the House to watch over its private legislation, he had thought it his duty to take the course he was now pursuing. He desired that, at any rate, the responsibility in respect of these clauses should rest upon the House, and not upon himself. The provisions which the Post Office sought to introduce into certain Private Bills appeared to him objectionable, not in themselves, but because they would be of piecemeal and partial application in the country, and as the Postmaster General had challenged his right to veto them, he had deemed it right to bring the question under the notice of the House. In the Correspondence which had passed on the subject, the Postmaster General reminded him that the assent of the Crown must be given to any Private Bill affecting Crown property before it could pass. That statement was, no doubt, true, but it applied only to landed property of the Crown, which could only be dealt with in special Bills relating to particular cases. The Post Office clauses wore of a different character altogether. They were to a considerable extent positive enactments conferring certain rights and privileges upon the Postmaster General as against the corporations or companies in whose Bills they were to be inserted. Now, if those clauses were required on public grounds, they ought, in his opinion, to be applied to all companies, in all parts

  879
  of the Kingdom, and not merely to those who happened to have particular Bills before Parliament. In. one town a Gas Bill would subject the gas works to the penalties laid down by the Postmaster General, while the waterworks in the same town which had no Bill would escape scot-free. A corporation with a Bill was made liable, while the companies in the same place were not. That seemed to him an extremely unfair mode of proceeding with regard to public property. Whatever provisions the Postmaster General might think necessary for the working of the telegraphs ought, in his opinion, to be uniform in their application, and to form the subject of public legislation. He accordingly declined to sanction the introduction of the clauses referred to in the private Bills. His views on the subject were fully embodied in the Correspondence which he now moved should be laid before the House, and he trusted the subject would receive from their Lordships the attention which, in his opinion, it deserved.
  Moved, "That it is not expedient to agree to the introduction of the clauses proposed by the Post Office for partial protection of their telegraphs into certain private Bills."—{The Earl of Redesdale.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORfully acknowledged the great energy and activity which his noble Friend had always shown in the conduct of Private Business, and the great weight of his authority on that subject; but he was nevertheless of opinion that, in the present instance, he had taken an altogether untenable position. The Resolution he had submitted to the House was, he would venture to say, without parallel in Parliamentary history. His noble Friend did not say that the clauses to which he referred were improper clauses—he only said that they ought to be made general. Whether the clauses in question ought to be introduced into certain private Bills was a point which his noble Friend was perfectly entitled to raise. He might have moved that one of those Bills should be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and he might then have taken the opinion of the House upon the clauses to which he objected. But instead of following that course—which would have been in accordance with Parliamentary practice—his noble Friend had introduced a Motion apply-
  880
  ing to particular clauses in something like half-a-hundred Bills, and the result might be this—The House might be induced—though that was not very likely—to accept the Motion, and when the clauses in question came before it in each of those Bills it might vote in the opposite way. He (the Lord Chancellor) entirely protested against the Motion, and in all friendliness challenged his noble Friend to produce a single example of such a course as he proposed being adopted in either House of Parliament. What was the nature of the clauses to which the Motion of his noble Friend applied? They were simply intended to prevent Gas and other companies who had obtained power to carry out public improvements from meddling with the telegraph wires and poles without obtaining the consent of the Postmaster General or his representatives; and if such interferences took place penalties were made exigible. These were, surely, safe provisions. As an example of the kind of cases for which some provision of that kind was necessary, he might mention that, at Manchester, some workmen finding telegraph wires in their way, cut them without notice, and thus caused great inconvenience to the public. There were now something like 60 Private Bills which had come up from the other House, in which the Post Office Department had proposed in the other House that those protective clauses should be inserted. Into a great number of them they were introduced with the consent of the promoters; but with regard to others objections were made by the promoters. Those objections were considered by Select Committees of the other House, and the result was that the clauses were inserted either as they had been first proposed or, in some particular cases, with modifications suited to the locality in which they were to be applied. Those Bills had come up to their Lordships' House, and the question which his noble Friend raised was whether it was right that that House should reject those clauses which, after consideration and in many instances with the consent of the promoters had been inserted in the other House. There was also a certain number of other Bills—bringing the whole up to about 100—as to which the question was sub judice in this House, whether clauses of that description should be introduced. There-

  881
  fore, what his noble Friend proposed was that they should undo what had been done in the other House in the ease of some 60 Bills, and declare what they would refuse to do in respect to some 40 more Bills. His noble Friend said that if those clauses were proper to be introduced, they ought to be introduced by a general measure. He conceded that it might be advisable to introduce those clauses by a general measure, and there was a strong probability that they would be so introduced; but still, it was new to him that it was contrary to Parliamentary practice or at all unusual when the promoters of private Bills came to Parliament for powers to enable them to interfere with public property or public rights of a particular kind, for Parliament to put them under terms requiring them in executing such powers not to do injury to those public rights. It was the most common of all cases for Parliament to require clauses of that kind to be inserted. His noble Friend had complained that the Government had brought in an additional Bishoprics Bill, and occupied the time of Parliament with that, whereas they ought to have endeavoured to pass a general Bill in regard to those clauses. With all courtesy he told his noble Friend that the Government must be the judges in a matter of that kind. He demurred to the proposition that because it might be desirable hereafter to have a general measure on that subject, therefore they were to allow the promoters of a number of Private Bills to carry them through Parliament, to acquire vested interests, and to meddle with public property without putting them under reasonable terms as to the exercise of those powers for which they were soliciting Parliament. He would commend to the attention of his noble Friend the passage in Sir Erskine May's valuable book as to the Practice of Parliament in regard to Private Bills. That work gave the history of what was done generally by the public Departments in regard to such Bills. The authorities of those Departments in both Houses frequently suggested Amendments in Private Bills, which were either agreed to by the promoters, or the promoters suggested similar Amendments of their own for the same purpose. The Board of Trade assisted at the revision of Railway Bills, and suggested such Amendments as
  882
  they thought necessary for the protection of the public, or for the saving of private rights. The Home Secretary exercised a similar supervision over turnpike road Bills. When, again, Private Bills affected places where there were naval dockyards, the Admiralty required protective clauses to be inserted. And so the Board of Trade, the Board of Health, the Treasury—in fact, there was not a single Department of the State which was not in the habit of watching in that way over the public interests committed to it, and of having the Private Bills of the year submitted to it, with a view to the insertion in them before Committees of both Houses of provisions analogous to those which the Post Office now required in the ease of the telegraphs. Finding in Private Bills powers taken the exercise of which would interfere with the telegraphs under their protection, the Post Office Department framed a set of model clauses, moderate and proper for their purpose, and they asked Parliament in the case of every such Bill to adopt them. Those clauses, in the great majority of instances, had been inserted without the slightest objection on the part of the promoters until they came to that House, when they found they had an unexpected ally in his noble Friend, who became their champion; and, although they had assented to the insertion of the clauses in the other House, those Gentlemen would be exceedingly glad to have them rejected in their Lordships' House. It was perfectly right, when an application was made in that House to have those clauses inserted in any Bill, that the question should be fairly considered whether there was a justification for their insertion; but a sweeping Resolution like that proposed by his noble Friend was an entirely different matter. The Post Office was only following the practice adopted by every other Department, yet his noble Friend said they were to have no protection until they had a general measure. But he submitted that those who came to Parliament for powers, in the exercise of which they might cause inconvenience to the telegraphic system of the country might fairly be put under the terms which Parliament thought just and reasonable.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, having a strong

  883
  opinion, rightly or wrongly, that those clauses ought not to be introduced into Private Bills in the present manner, should have brought the matter before their Lordships. The noble Earl had suggested that the remedy on this subject would be to pass a general Bill with regard to it. In answer to that remark, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that it was too late for Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a Bill this Session. He (Earl Granville) thought Her Majesty's Government ought to give a pledge that they would prepare and introduce such a Bill in the next Session.
  After a few words from the Earl of POWIS,
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he quite admitted that a general Act on this subject should be passed, and Her Majesty's Government would undertake the duty of bringing in a general Bill. But he trusted that after the declaration on the part of the Government, there would be no further opposition to the Bills—of which the number was considerable—now before the House awaiting its sanction, and in which great interest was felt.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE, in reply, said, he regarded these clauses as unjust, and the promise just given by the Prime Minister, in fact, admitted that they were so. Of course, if their Lordships took upon themselves the responsibility of sanctioning the insertion of them, it would be useless to press his Motion; but he must observe that their sanction of them was the worst precedent in his time with regard to Private Legislation.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONFESSIONAL IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND—"THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION."—QUESTION.
LORD ORANMORE AND BEOWNErose to call the attention of the House to the notice which appeared in the "Ecclesiastical Gazette" of the 15th of June, that the Lord Chancellor had appointed the Rev. Edgar Herman Cross to the Rectory of St. Nicholas, Lewes, Sussex; and to ask the Lord Chancellor, Whether he was aware that the name of the Rev. Edgar Herman Cross appeared in the list of members of the Society of
884
the Holy Cross, the Society which countenance the use of the book called "The Priest in Absolution?" The noble Lord said the public opinion—and he believed it to be right—was that no one more than the noble and learned Lord himself disapproved the proceedings of this Society, and it was difficult to understand how this appointment was made. It might be said that the Rev. Mr. Cross was an excellent man; but he hardly expected that would be said by the noble and learned Lord, because there were excellent clergymen in every Church. What we wanted in the Church of England were clergymen who would work honestly and consistently in accordance with the doctrines of that Church.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my answer to the Question of the noble Lord must be in the negative. I am not aware of the fact he has stated in the Question.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid, he had instituted this gentleman to the parish referred to in the parish church, and in the presence of the parishioners, after having taken every possible precaution. With regard to this particular Society, how could the Lord Chancellor know anything of it, when the very existence of it he (the Bishop of Chichester) thought was unknown in that House until attention was called to it by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees? Therefore he hoped their Lordships would under these circumstances extend their indulgence to the Lord Chancellor and to himself with regard to this subject.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that he understood the answer of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the sense that he had made no such appointment. ["No, no!"] The answer meant, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord did not know that the gentleman in question was a member of the Society of the Holy Cross.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.