Lords Sitting of 22 June 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Copyright (Musical Compositions)* (159).
Second Reading—Cathedral Statutes Amendment (99); Judgments (Inferior Courts) (110); Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers (143).
Select Committee—Report—Stolen Goods [No. 155].
Committee—Gas Provisional Orders* (96–157); Water Provisional Orders* (97–158); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* (78); Somersham Rectory* (116).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (122); Interments (felo de se)* (130); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (134); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (135); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10)* (136); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (132); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (133); Land Drainage Provisional Order* (131); Customs and Inland Revenue Buildings (Ireland)* (142).
Report—Artillery Ranges* (119); Stolen Goods* (64–156); Tramways Provisional Order* (No. 2)* (126).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (123); Election of Representative Peers (Ireland)* (137); Public Health (Fruit-Pickers' Lodgings)* (127); Local Government Provisional Order (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings)* (121); Intermediate Education (Ireland)* (138), and passed.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND—REPORTED DISTURBANCES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to know whether he can give us any information as to the serious disturbances which have taken place in Zululand? So far as I can understand, Cetewayo's brother has attacked one of the small Kings recently set up, and among whom Zululand was divided. A serious disturbance of this kind is, of course, of grave importance to South Africa and to this country. I

  3
  do not want to make any further comment at present, as the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this question must come under your Lordships' notice on another occasion, if, unhappily, the troubles should go further. It will be convenient if the noble Earl can put us in possession of any information he may have received on this subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the most convenient course for me to take in answering the Question of the noble Earl will be to state the telegraphic despatches we have received from Sir Henry Bulwer. On the 7th instant Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphed that Mr. Osborne reported that Oham and Umyamana were arming, that he feared a collision between them, and that he thought the movement proceeded from the ex-King's party. Sir Henry Bulwer had instructed Mr. Osborne to mediate, and endeavour to avert a collision. On the 17th Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphed that Mr. Osborne's Reports were still unsatisfactory, though not hopeless. Mr. Osborne was of opinion that the movement was directed by the Cetewayo party against the two Chiefs, with the view, if successful, of setting up Dabuko, the ex-King's brother, as King or Regent. And on the 20th he telegraphed that he had received a Report from Mr. Osborne, dated the 13th instant, which was more hopeful, but that the position of affairs was still serious. There appears to have been no actual outbreak and no fighting between the Chiefs.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have given Notice to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of a Question which I wish to put with respect to the Conference on the condition of Egypt. I wish to know whether the Conference which has now assembled, or is assembling, at Constantinople has assembled without the consent of the Porte? I am told that the noble Earl is not likely to be present. I do not know whether any other Member of the Government can answer the Question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has not given me any information on the subject; and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the Question of the noble Marquess.

CATHEDRAL STATUTES AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was founded on the recommendations of a Royal Commission, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, and was meant to provide a scheme whereby the Cathedral Statutes might be varied and modified from time to time to meet the altered circumstances of the day. It was obviously the wish of all parties in the Church that that power of modification which in ancient times was nominally vested in the Crown should become a reality. The cathedrals of the old foundation had seemed to many to have a power of altering their Statutes; but the result of the inquiry by the Royal Commission had been to give rise to serious doubts as to whether any such power existed even in those cathedrals, and it was absolutely certain that no such power existed in the new foundation. The Commission found, too, that many of the Statutes issued in very ancient times were totally inapplicable to the present day, and that those who wished to reform the existing state of things were perpetually hampered by the restraint imposed on their energies by old Statutes no longer applicable to modern times. Under these circumstances, the first thing the Commission had set itself to consider was how to remove all such doubts, and place all the cathedrals of the country upon the same footing by bringing forward a strong Constitutional measure whereby the undoubted rights of the Sovereign should be realized in those matters for the future. The Commission considered that no body would be more suited to give advice to Her Majesty on this subject than some Department of the Privy Council. Accordingly, this Bill proposed the formation of a Committee of the Privy Council, consisting, on the one hand, of persons supposed to be well-acquainted with cathedrals, and, on the other hand, of persons well-acquainted with the bearing of these institutions on the general welfare of the country. The Bill proposed that the Commit-

5
tee should consist of the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London, the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Council, and four other Members of the Privy Council, and that they should hereafter advise Her Majesty as to the issue of new Statutes, or the amending of old Statutes, for the time to come. All persons connected with the cathedrals had been invited to give as much information as they could to the Royal Commission; and he was bound to say that the Royal Commission had had abundant information given to them. The Commission laid down, as a first principle of their action, that each cathedral was to be treated according to its own peculiar circumstances, and therefore any general statement in the Report of the Commission would not apply alike to all cathedrals. There was a great difference, for example, between Manchester and St. David's. It would be folly to apply the same rule in detail to the Cathedral Bodies in both those places, the first being the centre of civilization in the North, and the latter amidst a sparse population in a very distant part of a Welsh mountainous district. The Commission had shadowed forth, with, perhaps, as much detail as circumstances admitted, the sort of changes which it was desirable to make, varying those changes according to the differing circumstances of the places in which they were to be applied. In order to ascertain distinctly what were the opinions of each capitular body, the Commissioners, when new Statutes in respect to any particular cathedral began to assume a definite form in their recommendations, sent such Statutes for observation and criticism to the Bishop and the Chapter. He should greatly regret any unnecessary delay in dealing with the subject. Twenty-six years ago a Report had been published upon it by very competent persons, and it had been discussed in many learned works. The time had come when legislation should at last be undertaken. Increasing respect was being shown to Cathedral Bodies, and the estimation in which they were held was growing day by day. The large attendance of worshippers at St. Paul's Cathedral was one proof of that. It was very desirable, therefore, that means should be taken to remove any restrictions which impeded the usefulness of bodies, which might be as serviceable in
6
the 19th century as they had been in past times. The most rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he regretted to find himself in opposition to the most rev. Prelate. The proposed mode of procedure was so contrary to sound principle, and so mischievous a precedent, and also so utterly unnecessary, that he could not conscientiously allow the Bill to be read a second time without stating his objections to it. To pass the Bill would be to legislate in the dark. The course which had been followed in connection with the subject before the House differed materially from the course usually followed in connection with kindred matters. The Commission which was appointed three years ago had collected a great deal of information about different cathedrals. Their Report, however, which was issued on February 8, 1882, was a most singular Report, for it did not contain one single statement of fact, and gave no idea of the nature of their proposed schemes. In fact, it was nothing more than a general expression of opinion with regard to what should be done with cathedrals. Fuller information had been promised, but it had not yet been given. The result of all this was seen in the peculiar form of the Bill, by which it was proposed to turn the present Commission of Inquiry into what might be called an Executive Commission, and to empower the Privy Council to hear objections. There the whole matter was left. The cathedrals, in fact, would practically be handed over to two irresponsible bodies, to whom no instructions would be given. There was nothing in the Bill to tell them what they were to do, and what the Commissioners thought should be done was only very vaguely suggested. If this Report had been put before the Commissioners at their first sitting by someone who had drawn it up because he thought that something should be done, and if this gentleman came to them to be examined, one of the first questions that would be asked of him would be—"Will you illustrate by one or two in-

7
stances what you mean by this? You say you will endeavour to guard against any rash or ill-considered changes in the conduct of the cathedral services. What do you mean by that? You say that you will permit flexibility. What do you mean by flexibility? You propose to strengthen the cathedrals by introducing preachers from outside. In what way is this introduction of men who are not members of the Cathedral Body to be controlled?" It was as clear as anything could be that according to the answers the man who drew up the scheme would give would be the judgment of the Commissioners on it. But if Parliament was to pass this Bill, and create these two irresponsible bodies at all, they would be legislating in the dark; and he could not understand how such a course was to be reconciled with their ordinary practice in all these matters. It was not so much that he objected to the machinery provided; he did not think it was a bad machinery; but what he objected to was that they should leave these two bodies absolutely without guidance. It was true that when the schemes were drawn up by the Commissioners and submitted to the Privy Council, they might then be discussed by Parliament; but Parliament would have to discuss them one by one. There were no general principles laid down to guide Parliament. If he was to object to what was proposed with regard to Exeter Cathedral, there would be against him the authority of the Commissioners, who would say that they had examined into the matter, and he would have nothing to appeal to except his own opinions of the particular working of his own cathedral, and it was obvious that Parliament could not decide except according to the view of the Commission. He could not help thinking that it would be no more than right that before assenting to this application Parliament should ask the Commissioners to lay before it a certain number of Reports upon special cathedrals. What was proposed with regard to his own cathedral might be excellent; but he did not in the least know what it was, and he did not at all like consenting to legislation which practically illustrated the old nursery rhyme—
"Open your mouth and shut your eyes.
And in your mouth you'll find a prize."
It was said they could not deal with
8
cathedrals as a whole. But his answer was—here were some general matters laid down, and could they not have some illustrations of them? He did not ask for indefinite delay, but only for such delay as would enable Parliament thoroughly to understand the case, which, very few Members of that House did at present. It seemed strange that Parliament should be ready to hand over everything without any real knowledge of the matter to those Commissioners to do as they thought best. It was not that he had not a high opinion of the Commissioners. He did not know that he would wish to change a single name; but the trust Parliament was asked to give them in this instance went beyond its ordinary practice, and would be a very bad precedent. If they waited until the early part of next year, no great harm would be done. For himself, he did not hesitate to say he was in no great hurry to reform the cathedrals, because he knew that if reformed on the Report of 26 years ago, they would not be reformed as they ought to be. No harm would be done by allowing public opinion in the Church and the nation at large to mature itself before making a change in those great institutions which must decide their character for a considerable time. The fact was that the cathedrals were becoming of more importance every day; and it was becoming evident to everyone how much they might do for the Church, and how important it was that they should do it well. He was told that the Bill was supported on both sides of the House, and that both Parties would unite to a considerable extent in carrying it. But it was a surprise to him that the Liberal Party, or anyone connected with a Liberal Government, should have anything to say to a Bill like this, because he always thought that one of the vital and cardinal principles of Liberalism was that whenever they legislated, they ought to do so in the light, with the fullest information and the most thorough discussion. He did not mean that the opposite Party at all flinched from the light; but they did not, like the Liberal Party, put that argument forward.
Amendment moved, to leave ont ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord bishop of Exeter.)
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that, as a Member of the Commission, he would ask their Lordships to hear him upon the question whether the Bill should be now read a second time. He regretted that the right rev. Prelate should be found in collision with the Primate and with himself, and still more the tone the right rev. Prelate had adopted with regard to this question. When the right rev. Prelate spoke of the solemn Report of the Commission, he spoke of "the man who drew up this Paper."
THE BISHOP OF EXETERexplained that what he said was, he could conceive that something of this sort should be put before the Commission by a gentleman from the outside; and it was in that way he spoke of this hypothetical gentleman drawing up the Report.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the right rev. Prelate had not shown the respect to the Commission and its Head with which he prefaced his speech. He was, indeed, in some of his statements, very rash, and not always consistent. The right rev. Prelate assumed that the machinery created for a special and limited purpose would carry everything of substance before it; but towards the end of his speech he said he did not think the machinery at all bad in itself. He said, also, that Parliament would not have an opportunity of discussing the schemes, and towards the close of his speech that it would have that opportunity. Then, as to his charge of darkness and secrecy, what did the Commissioners do? In the first instance, they sent out papers of inquiry to the Bishops, to the Deans and Chapters, and to everyone connected with the cathedrals, and endeavoured to ascertain their opinions as to the state of the cathedrals, and any changes that might usefully be made in their Statutes. Then, when those Papers came back, the Dean and one of the Canons of the cathedral which was to be examined by the Commission attended the Commission, as Commissioners themselves, with full powers for the time being. So far, there was no secrecy as between the Commissioners and authorities of the cathedral, but everything was done openly. Subsequently, when the first process had been gone through, recommendations would be made, which would be laid before the Bishop of the diocese and the
10
Cathedral Chapter before assuming their final form. A Report would be made upon each cathedral, and would be laid upon the Table of the House, so that the Bishops and all their Lordships would have the fullest opportunity of considering each scheme. The Report would then, either by the Commissioners or by the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral, in concert with the Commissioners, be taken before the Privy Council, where objectors would have an opportunity of opposing such Statutes as they deemed unadvisable. And, besides that, as soon as the Council came to a conclusion on the subject, the Statutes, as passed in the Privy Council, would be laid on the Table of the House. It could not be said, therefore, that opportunities would not be given for the fullest discussion; indeed, it seemed to him that this arrangement, whether invented by Liberals or by Tories, was as open a mode of proceeding as could possibly have been devised. The right rev. Prelate had spoken with approbation of the procedure of the University Commission; but the House knew comparatively little of the work of that Commission, and the opportunities for discussing its operations were no more in any degree or sense than would be given by this Bill. A great deal of attention had been given to the subject for many long years, and it was, therefore, not like a new one. The greatest disappointment had resulted from the abortive Report of the Commission that sat 20 years ago. The right rev. Prelate said that he wished for no reform at the present moment; but he himself was of a decidedly different opinion. The whole question had been considered very carefully, and each cathedral might be dealt with separately, by which means it was more likely that a rational conclusion would be arrived at, than if a number of cathedrals were included in the same scheme. It ought to be generally known that there would be a way of altering the Statutes of a cathedral. Times were changing, and circumstances required that many matters connected with cathedrals should be dealt with immediately, or, at any rate, as soon as possible. He wished that these desirable changes should be made speedily, and not adjourned sine die; and it was the object of the Bill to effect them. If the right rev. Prelate was, as

11
he had hinted, in the dark, the machinery of the Bill would bring everything to light. There would be in every respect the utmost publicity, and nothing would be done without the fullest information, or without several opportunities of discussion.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the motion? Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

JUDGMENTS (INFERIOR COURTS) BILL.—(No. 110)
(The Viscount Monck.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT MONCK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure had been carefully examined in the other House, and had been passed with the approval of the Law Officers of the Crown; its object was to remove an anomaly and to redress a practical grievance. The Bill proposed that the same principle should be applied to judgments of the Inferior Courts as was applied to judgments of the Superior Courts by the Act of 1868, and that power should be given to execute the judgments of the Local Courts in any part of the United Kingdom by the system of registration provided by the Act of 1868. He moved that the Bill be read a second time, and begged to express his readiness to accept Amendments in details.
moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Monck.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no objection to the principle or object of the Bill; but he had very considerable objection to the manner in which the desired object was attained by the Bill. What he objected to was that a judgment of a Local and Inferior Court should be placed upon the same footing as that of a Superior Court. The Superior Courts of each part of the United Kingdom had general jurisdiction within them, and there was no difficulty in extending it to the other parts of the Kingdom by the Act of 1868; but it was impossible to extend the jurisdiction of the Local and and Inferior Courts in the same way.
12
The County Courts in England carried out to the extent of their jurisdiction the object sought for, by the clerk of one Court sending his warrant to the clerk of another County Court where the defendant lived for the execution of the decree. Other Inferior Courts, both in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, had similar powers; and he had no objection to the extension of those powers to the other parts of the United Kingdom. As he understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was willing to adopt a different machinery, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

(NO. 143.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was for the purpose of improving the tenure of the teachers of the board schools in Scotland. It had been alleged that in some cases there had been arbitrary dismissal of teachers in Scotland, without any notice, and at very scanty meetings of the school boards. The Bill accordingly provided that teachers should not be dismissed without sufficient notice, and only by a full meeting of the board. That was the only object of the measure, and he hoped their Lordships would read it a second time.
moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had no objection whatever to this Bill, which referred to a very important subject indeed. He rather congratulated the Government upon the firmness with which they had resisted the movement on the part of the public school teachers for something very like fixity of tenure. For his own part, his experience led him to say that the tenure of the old schoolmaster in Scotland partook so much of the character of fixity that it was almost as difficult to remove a parochial school-

13
master as it was to remove a clergyman; and the educational interests of parishes suffered most severely from the survival of many teachers who ought to have been dismissed. He would not say there were many such cases, but he had known some; though, on the whole, the old teachers were a most respectable body. When the present Education Act was passed, it was very properly provided that those schoolmasters who were appointed subsequently to the passing of the Act should hold their office under a different tenure, that they should be the servants of the school board, and that they should be liable to dismissal by the body which was charged with the education of the parish. The new schoolmasters desired, however, to put themselves on the same footing as their predecessors. With this object considerable pressure was brought to bear on the Education Department; but he was glad to say that Lord Spencer, then at the head of the Department, offered a very firm resistance to those proposals, although he agreed to this modified Bill, which provided that sufficient time should be allowed to schoolmasters to answer any charge which might be brought against them, and that there should be a full attendance of members of the board at the trial. That was a very reasonable and moderate proposal. He had not known any cases personally of capricious dismissal; but it was quite possible there might be such, and it was, therefore, just and proper that there should be sufficient time given to the schoolmaster to answer any charges against him, and a full attendance of the school board before so serious a step was taken as his dismissal.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INTERMENTS (FELO DE SE) BILL.
(The Earl Fortescue.)

(NO. 130.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl Fortescue.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that, in his opinion, it was unwise
14
to bring in this Bill, as he thought the present law, by which persons guilty of felo de se were buried without religious rights, had a deterrent effect in preventing suicide. No one supposed that the law had a deterrent effect upon those who were already upon the verge of suicide; but it had an effect on public opinion, and prevented persons not yet driven to despair from familiarizing their minds with the idea that suicide was an allowable remedy. He would, therefore, move that the Committee on the Bill should be taken on that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, the scope of the Bill was very small. The barbarous requirement that the interment of felones de se should be made at four cross-roads with a stake driven through their bodies was abolished nearly 60 years ago; but by 4 Geo. IV., c. 62, there remained the prohibition of any religious service. The interment of a felo de se must take place within 24 hours after the finding of the verdict; and, as the law had been interpreted, it must be conducted between the hours of 9 and 12 at night by the police, and not by the members of the family of the deceased. A religious service approved by the Ordinary was conceded by the Burials Act of 1880, and the only practical effect of the present measure would be to enable the relatives to bury the deceased at a more convenient hour than between 9 o'clock and midnight. He did not believe that the present law had any deterrent effect, while it was very painful to relatives to think that, through an act of temporary insanity, their connections had been deprived of Christian burial. He therefore asked the House to remove the last legal vestige of a barbarous mediaeval requirement.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYasked their Lordships whether, in their experience, they had ever known an instance where a man or woman had determined to commit the sin of suicide, they had ever been deterred by the reflection that they would be buried by the police in the night without religious rites. All persons of any knowledge on the subject would tell them that it was perfectly

15
ridiculous to suppose that in such a state of mind they would be troubled by the consideration of what would become of their bodies. The public generally were always disposed to attribute such acts to insanity and no other cause; and it might be shown that, though there were, no doubt, cases of felo de se, the majority of self-destroyers approached as nearly as possible the condition of insanity, and was, availing themselves of the notion, the reason why coroners' juries, almost invariably brought in a verdict of temporary insanity. He might mention to their Lordships that in one year there were 6,000 suicidal patients confined in the public and private asylums of England; of these, only 21 succeeded in perpetrating the act of self-destruction; but of those at large no less than 1,600 had committed suicide. From this it must be inferred that care and early treatment were the best preventive against the extension of this evil.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he desired to express his entire approval of the measure proposed by his noble Friend. The sole object of the present Bill was to relieve the surviving friends of those unfortunate persons who might take their own lives under circumstances in which a jury might hold the act to be wilful from the additional distress and misery which arose out of the present harsh regulations of the law, and to enable them, if they could derive consolation from the use of religious services, to have the benefit of such consolation. He was wholly unable to conceive on what reason, either of principle or of policy, that consolation could be denied them; and, therefore, he cordially supported the measure of the noble Earl.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the object he had in moving the rejection of the Bill had been partly obtained by the speech which they had heard from the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and insuring that the Bill should not pass without some discussion. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Original motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 117.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD BALFOURsaid, he wished to know why it was thought necessary to give to the Parochial Boards the powers contained in the 1st clause of the Bill? It was, no doubt, the case when the powers of the Prison Boards of the various counties of Scotland expired, that it was necessary somebody should be put in their place to have the power formerly possessed by them of petitioning for the variation of the different districts into which Scotland was divided for the administration of the Lunacy Acts. It seemed to him, however, that the body more nearly representing the old Prison Boards were the Commissioners of Supply in counties or the magistrates in burghs. He should like to know why it was proposed to give the same power of petitioning to such a very small body as the Parochial Board? There were a great many such Boards interested in any lunacy district, and the reason for the proposal did not seem very plain.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) was not in his place; therefore, the Committee stage would be postponed until Monday, to give an opportunity for the question to be answered.
Committee put off to Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.