Lords Sitting of 16 May 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Law relating to the Protection of Young Girls, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inclosure (Arkleside) Provisional Order* (92); Inclosure (Bettws Disserth) Provisional Order* (93); Inclosure (Cefn Drawen) Provisional Order* (94); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order* (95); Gas Provisional Orders* (96); Water Provisional Orders* (97).
Second Reading—Imprisonment for Contumacy (91); Documentary Evidence (87); Military Manœuvres* (86); Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) (79).
Committee—Report—Payment of Wages in Public Houses Prohibition* (41).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3), and passed.

IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTUMACY BILL.—(No. 91.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTUMACY BILL.—(No. 91.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would briefly state why it now became his duty to bring such a Bill before their Lordships. The continued imprisonment of a clergyman, whose incarceration had, last Session, been under consideration in that House, had seemed to him so important a matter that he had again, within the last few weeks, thought it his duty to call together the Bishops of both Provinces in order to request their advice. They were assisted by his most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of York), to whose Province the clergyman in question belonged, and who advised them to confine their attention to the one point which pressed at the time, and not to attempt at present to legislate upon the wider questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction with which the case was involved. That advice had been followed in the Bill, the measure dealing only with the case of the Rev. Mr. Green, and, of course, with any other cases that might arise of a similar character. If it was reckoned a hardship that a clergyman of unble-

  807
  mished personal character had been confined to a common prison for several months last year, it had become a much more serious matter when that imprisonment had been continued for nine months longer, and when there seemed to be a prospect of its being continued indefinitely. It would not be supposed that he was urging that any person, however conscientious his motive, was entitled to set the law at defiance; and the unfortunate fact that the rev. gentleman in question chose to set himself above the law was much deplored by the Bishops. It was true that the imprisonment was not, in the present case, a punishment for an ecclesiastical offence; it was for resisting legal authority; but even the offence of resisting legal authority, at the prompting of a wrong-headed and ill-informed conscience, might be visited by too severe a penalty; and it had appeared to the Bishops that, whether imprisonment be or be not a proper mode of visiting such contumacy, the clergyman in question had had more than enough of it, and none of them wished to see his imprisonment continued. It was admitted that there was no ground for any complaint against Mr. Green in respect of his discharge of the ordinary duties of a clergyman, and that his contumacy arose entirely from so-called conscientious conviction. That, however, was no good reason for disobedience to the law. In the case of Thorogood, who was imprisoned for refusing to pay church rates, a Bill was carried which had the effect of terminating imprisonment for that offence. This case was not exactly parallel; but, still, the Bishops thought themselves called upon to consider whether it was not possible, consistently with a due regard to the maintenance of the law in future, to take some steps whereby such imprisonment should be put an end to. Unfortunately, this was not the first case of imprisonment for contumacy. Some years ago a clergyman named Tooth was imprisoned for a not dissimilar offence; and he, like Mr. Green, pleaded conscientious conviction; but in the case of Mr. Tooth the prosecutors felt themselves at liberty to make a representation on his behalf to the Judge, and he was accordingly discharged. In the case of Mr. Green the prosecutors considered, for whatever reason, that they could not request the Judge to reconsi-
  808
  der the question. It was therefore suggested by the Archbishop of York that someone else besides the prosecutors should be entitled to bring the matter before the Judge. It had been suggested by some authorities that, even under the present law, there existed on the part of the Bishop of the diocese a power to intervene; but, to say the least, the existence of such a power was very doubtful, and they were, therefore, advised to bring in a Bill to enable the Archbishop of the Province, as a person who was responsible for the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline, to apply to the Judge to review the circumstances of the case, and consider whether the imprisoned offender should be released. As a Royal Commission was at present sitting to consider the intricate questions which clustered around the administration of the law in these Courts, it was thought it would be improper to propose any change which would appear like dictation to that Commission; and, therefore, the Bishops confined themselves to the small point to which this Bill referred. They considered that imprisonment for contumacy in matters ecclesiastical was never contemplated when Parliament passed the Public Worship Regulation Act. The penalty then provided was deprivation after three years; and he would undertake to say that none of their Lordships had any idea at that time that the passing of the Act would ever result in the incarceration of a clergyman. There had been a resuscitation, on the part of the prosecutors, of a particular clause of a section in an Act of George III.; and it was only called into operation because of the obstinacy of those who refused to obey the order of the Court. Considering what was the intention of those who proposed and of those who supported the Public Worship Regulation Act, it was much to be deplored that consequences such as those which had fallen on these clergymen should have resulted even indirectly from it. The promoters of the present Bill had adopted the suggestion that it should only enact a course of procedure for the next two, or perhaps three, years. Their hope was that by that time the whole of this complicated subject would have been thoroughly considered by the Commission which was now sitting, and that some legislation would have followed on the recommendations of that Commis-

  809
  sion. He thought he had now explained to their Lordships the simple nature of the Bill. It had the concurrence of the Bishops of both Provinces; it was introduced, as far as a Bill could be introduced in that House, by the Heads of the two Provinces; and he trusted their Lordships would not see in the adoption of it any violation of such rules as were consistent with the good government of the Church. The most rev. Prelate concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he was opposed to this measure. The most rev. Prelate had told their Lordships that imprisonment was not contemplated by those who passed the Act of 1874; but the fact was it was not contemplated that clergymen would set their faces against the law, or, if that had been so, those who passed that Act would not have given clergymen three years' time in which to change the practices which they adopted. The most rev. Prelate had said that no ill had accrued from the release of Mr. Tooth; but he seemed to forget that the new practices in the Church of England had largely extended, and in more than 1,000 churches there were, on the anniversary of Mr. Green's imprisonment, prayers for him as a martyr.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Hear, hear!
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Earl belonged to a Society the Chairman of which stated, when the practices complained of were introduced, that as soon as the law was ascertained they would abide by it. When, however, after a long and costly litigation, the law had been ascertained, they treated it with the most utter contempt. Mr. Green was in the same position which any other person, whether lay or clerical, would occupy if he treated the process of a Court of Law with contempt. If imprisonment were to cease for this offence, what punishment was to be resorted to? How were the decrees of the Courts to be carried out? Were clergymen to do just what they liked, each according to his conscience, without any regard to the law? That doctrine,
  810
  he contended, was most unsound. There was no Irish proprietor at the present moment who, in his conscience, did not believe that he had been treated with the grossest injustice. If Irish proprietors acted according to their conscience, they would not submit to the law; but they were obliged to do so. Mr. Green had a very easy way of getting out of prison. If he would give up the emoluments which he obtained on the conditions on which every clergyman held his position, he might do what he liked according to his conscience. In his opinion, Mr. Green was a wrong-headed man; and, without any wish to detain him in prison, he thought that, while he refused to obey the law, he ought to suffer the penalty. The Bishop of the diocese did not permit the proceedings to be taken against Mr. Green until he had been contumacious for some years, and had refused to regulate his Church Services according to the law of the land. That was the course Mr. Green would continue to pursue if he were let out of prison. Should this gentleman be released in order that he might carry on his illegal practices? He did not think the Church of England was a Congregational Church; and, therefore, they could not have Services in each church according to the wishes of the congregation. It had been stated by the Bishop of Manchester, in a speech delivered in Convocation, that formerly Mr. Green had a congregation of parishioners who were driven away by his teaching, and that now he had another congregation of an entirely different kind, who were not parishioners. One objection he had to the present Bill was that it left the matter in the hands of the Archbishop and Judges, and ignored the parishioners altogether. He hoped that no mawkish feeling would be allowed to interfere with what was proper in this matter, and that their Lordships would say that clergymen should not be more free than laymen to disobey the law. As to Mr. Green's alleged martyrdom, he was informed that his room was luxuriously furnished and his food supplied from the best hotel in Lancaster, while the prison was situated in a most healthy position, with a lovely view, and his friends had free access to visit him. In conclusion, the noble Lord moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the motion ("this day six months").—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he did not know what Lancaster Gaol had to do with the subject. But there was a strong prejudice against the imprisonment of a clergyman, both among the clergy themselves and a good many of the laity, more especially in a case like Mr. Green's. He was not there to defend Mr. Green, and whenever he had had occasion to speak of him he had not praised him. But he and his brother Bishops had been trying to devise means by which to extricate an obstinate clergyman from an unfortunate position. They had looked to the Government. The Government had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and were advised that the clemency of the Crown could not be exercised in the case. The Bishops did not in the least desire to interfere with the course of justice, though they would be glad to see the clergyman in question released. It was well known that the sentence of deprivation would soon come into force, and people comforted themselves with the notion that when that period arrived Mr. Green would be set at liberty. But that was not the case; and it would still be necessary to devise a means for his release. The sentence did not work itself out in that way. He quite admitted that the power they asked for in the Bill was exceptional; but the case was exceptional of a clergyman seeking a kind of spiritual martyrdom; and he hoped their Lordships would assent to the measure as one that was calculated to meet the difficulty which had arisen.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he thoroughly sympathized with the most rev. Prelate in that particular case. While, however, he recognized that the difficulty which had arisen called for some action on the part of the Legislature, he did not see why, instead of bringing forward a Bill of this exceptional nature, the right rev. Prelates had not rather sought for a remedy in the clauses of the more general measure which last year received the general assent of their Lordships' House, and which apparently only the state of Business prevented passing through the other House. By that measure it was provided that any
  812
  person committed for contempt should be discharged from custody at the end of six months, subject to the penalty of perpetual deprivation in the event of his remaining contumacious after his release. By the enactment of the provisions of that Bill the difficulty would be got rid of, without exposing the right rev. Prelates to the odium which might attach to the exercise of the power now sought to be conferred upon them—a sort of dispensing power enabling them to measure out such punishment as they might think fit.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend with respect to the noble Earl's (Earl Beauchamp's) Bill of last year; but he did not think he was inconsistent in supporting the present Bill. All that it would do was, when an imprisonment had been for some time continued, to give the Archbishop of the Province, as well as the promoter of the suit, a right to apply to the proper Court; and it would be for the Judge of that Court then to release the prisoner, or not, as he might think right, after hearing whatever the promoter might desire to say to the contrary. This was not a very great power to give to the Archbishop. He would remind their Lordships that as this measure was to be of a very temporary character, being limited to a duration of three years, it would, in substance, only apply to a single case which was not likely to occur again. He thought, too, that if the Bill were to pass exactly the same result would follow as would have been produced if the Bill of last year had been it force. Mr. Green had been inhibited under the Act, which was miscalled the Public Worship Regulation Act, from performing the offices of the Church in the Diocese of Manchester, and perhaps also in the Province of York. Three years after the date of the inhibition he would ipso facto be deprived. The inhibition was on the 16th of August, 1879, and the three years would expire on the 16th of August, 1882. If, therefore, the Bill became law, the interval between its passing and the 16th of August, if there was any interval at all, would be a very short one. There was only one other case to which the Bill, if it became law, might possibly apply, if proceedings for the imprisonment of the offending clergy-

  813
  men were taken in it, which had not yet been, and probably never would be, done. That case had been recently before their Lordships' House, on certain technical objections to the validity of the proceedings, which, if they were to prevail, would put an end to the inhibition which had been issued in it; but, if they did not prevail, and if the inhibition were still disobeyed, the time for deprivation, fixed by the Act of 1874, would, in that case also, soon run out. He looked upon the present Bill as being the same in principle as the Bill of last year, and he thought their Lordships would do wisely to pass it, since it came to them recommended by the right rev. Bench, which would be certain to give satisfaction to a great number of the clergy. They all felt that the punishment of imprisonment for these offences ought not to be too long extended, because it certainly resulted in considerable scandal to the Church, which it was most desirable they should put an end to, and therefore he advised their Lordships not to be too critical upon the Bill, but to accept it; or, at all events, to give it a second reading. He would not undertake to say which did the most harm, the disobedience of contumacious clergymen, or their imprisonment; but the effect of both together was certainly most disadvantageous to the interests of religion and the Church.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought it was a sufficient scandal in itself that under the existing law it should be possible for a clergyman, for doing that which was not in itself a criminal offence, but had only become so incidentally from falling within the definition of contempt of Court, should be exposed to a punishment that might, in its extent, be worse than was inflicted even for the most serious and abominable offence. He felt so strongly the scandal this case had caused, and the injury it was doing to the Church, that he would be prepared to accept a very inferior remedy, if it were the only remedy possible, rather than that the evil should go on. The point of the present discussion seemed to be as to whether the Bill or the measure of last year furnished the better machinery for attaining the end which all agreed was in the highest degree desirable. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to argue that
  814
  there was no probability of this Bill being applied to anybody except Mr. Green, and to suggest that their Lordships had better not be too critical, but pass the measure. That was not quite a safe way of arguing with respect to a measure which was entirely novel in its principle. It was true that this was a temporary Bill, which expired in 1885; but, like other temporary Bills, it might be renewed from time to time as occasion arose, so as, practically, to become permanent. The evil of allowing this plan—of allowing the Archbishop to decide whether the imprisonment was to be permanent or not—was twofold. It was objectionable with respect to procedure, and also with respect to substance. With regard to procedure, the matter would be attended with greater prejudice in "another place," where Bishops were not so popular as they were in their Lordships' House; and the fact of this plan being recommended from the Episcopal Bench, and placing a power entirely new in the hands of the Archbishops, although it might be a recommendation to their Lordships, might, in the other House, be a very strong argument against the Bill; and, although it might not be rejected, there would be a long discussion, which would be as fatal to it as a division. But there was a still more serious objection in regard to substance. The most rev. Prelate on whom it was proposed, in the first instance, to confer the power was known and could be thoroughly trusted; but their Lordships were bound to contemplate the possibility of this power being exercised by some Archbishop whose qualities for its exercise might not be quite so apparent, and who, perhaps, might not think it necessary to take any steps for releasing clergymen imprisoned for such offences at all.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONremarked that there were always the prosecutors.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, their Lordships knew what prosecutors were. The position of the Archbishop under the Bill was that if he refused to assent to the release of the clergyman he would, in fact, become his gaoler. The effect would be to bring into an invidious position the highest dignitary in the Church. It appeared to him that the proposal in the Bill of last year was preferable to the present one, for by that Bill, when the imprisonment had lasted

  815
  for six months, the clergyman was free. He did not think that any case had been made out for introducing a principle, the like of which had not been applied, he believed, to the English Church since the days of Archbishop Laud. Although he would much rather that this Bill should pass than none at all, because the scandal referred to ought to be put an end to, still he thought that legislation on this subject should be such as would be more in harmony with the general law than were the principles of the present measure.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the reason for making this Bill a temporary one was because a Royal Commission was inquiring into the subject; and, doubtless, they would propose that considerable changes should be made in the general law relating to the question.
  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 on Monday next.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL.

  (NO. 87.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was brought in in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat last year on the Stationery Office, and which had since been confirmed by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. In order to secure some guarantee for the genuineness of documents to be produced in Courts of Justice, the law, in several instances, had defined by whom such documents were to be printed. But in the Acts containing these definitions, which were passed at different times, there were variations of wording which might open the door to considerable inconvenience. In some the "Government printer" was mentioned; in others the "Queen's printer," or "the printer to Her Majesty," and there were several other varieties. The present Bill was intended to remove these inconsistencies and doubts, and to make admissible in Courts of Law all documents purporting
  816
  to be printed under the authority of the Stationery Office, which was the Department now held responsible under the Treasury for Government printing. The Bill contained suitable penalties for forgery—that was to say, in cases of documents falsely purporting to be printed under the constituted authority. It had been passed by the other House of Parliament, and he now asked their Lordships to give it a second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.—(No. 79.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not think he need detain their Lordships long. It had fallen to the lot of a Liberal Government to propose the Bill; but it was really intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was appointed during the term of Office of the late Government. It appeared from the evidence that had been taken before that Commission that there were originally 284 Municipal Corporations in this country, and that the Act of 1835 had dealt with 178 of them. Others had come under the operation of subsequent Acts, and there now remained 76 which had not been touched in any way. The Commission, after collecting a mass of evidence on the subject, had come to the conclusion that great changes in these bodies ought to be effected. The members of these ancient boroughs held their offices under various titles; sometimes they were bailees, sometimes they were mayors, sometimes portreeves; but in nearly all cases they were men of a low class, regarded as magistrates, having the cognizance of crimes in their districts. It was true that these ancient boroughs were very picturesque both in their origin and their nature, and their officials presented a very curious appearance, and their customs were more or

  817
  less strange; but they were the occasion of certain evils that ought to be put an end to. In one case, where the population of the borough was some 7,000, the mayor or portreeve was nominated by a Member of their Lordships' House, while in others there was no property whatever belonging to the Corporation, who possessed no privileges, and who had no duties to perform. Another interesting fact connected with these bodies was that they had occasionally been in the habit of depositing both their maces and their consciences in the keeping of some neighbouring potentate, who exercised their powers in their names, and who in return expended a certain sum per annum in providing dinners for them. Besides mere quaint anomalies there were serious inconveniences arising from the position of these boroughs, and especially from the possession of the powers of licensing magistrates by councillors who were persons of a low class. In one borough which was unable to deal with its own drunkenness, the habit was to push drunken men across the borough boundaries, so that they might be dealt with by the county police. In other boroughs the Corporation property was either squandered or was mismanaged. The Bill divided the boroughs dealt with into two classes. The first contained those which still had some elements of vitality, and some recuperative power, and which might be placed under the Municipal Corporations Act. As to the remainder, the Report of the Commission showed that they were no longer entitled to retain municipal functions; and they would, therefore, be deprived of them on the 1st of January, 1883, and the administration of their funds would be placed under the Charity Commission. In the first class municipal functions would be suspended on the 1st of January, 1883; and, as soon as possible, inquiries would be made as to the expediency of future incorporation. By the end of 1885 all the places that had not received Charters of incorporation would cease to be corporate boroughs. Power was given to the Local Government Board to supervise the management of these places during the period of transition. The measure was not a very large one; but as it would remove a considerable anomaly he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that inconvenience would result from the proposed manner of effecting the change in the cases of the boroughs to be afterwards incorporated. If their Corporations were dissolved, and they were afterwards incorporated, town clerks and coroners would be entitled to compensation, and then the same or fresh officers would have to be elected to discharge the duties. Further, it would create unnecessary confusion if the inhabitants were sent to the County Petty Sessions for a short time, and then brought back to a new municipal jurisdiction. The County Justices Clerks would claim increased salaries, which would not easily be reduced again. It would be better that things should be allowed to remain as they were until the question of future incorporation had been determined.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

SALVATION ARMY.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in rising to call attention to the treatment of the Salvation Army in different parts of the country, and to move for—
  "A Copy of any authentic report that may exist of the proceedings in the case of the Queen against the Justices of the county of Southampton in the Court of Queen's Bench,"
  said, he regretted much the delay in bringing forward the question of which he had given Notice before the Easter Recess; but every postponement had been made at the reasonable request of some noble Lord. He had learnt that the remarkable body called the Salvation Army originated more than 12 years ago, though it had only of late attained its present daily-increasing development. It had more than 300 corps in the United Kingdom, and supported some 650 missionaries called officers and cadets. On Sunday, April 30, more than 22,000 attended its morning services at 7, and more than 50,000 marched in its processions. More than 5,000 attended its weekday services. The Army had now invaded France, and had its head-quarters at Paris; and numerous French papers had noticed, several of them with sympathy, the proceedings of

  819
  the Armée du Salut. One of them even warmly welcomed the Army's French paper, called En Avant. The English paper, The War Cry, quite ignoring all secular matters, already, it was said, reached a circulation of 300,000 a-week. The local contributions to it were estimated at £57,000 a-year, besides £18,000, daily increasing, secured for building a congress hall, &c., as certified by chartered accountants and solicitors in the City, who also testified that General Booth, its head, had never touched any of the Army money, except for strictly Army purposes. Till quite lately the newspapers had constantly reported disorders and outrages in different parts of the country, East, West, North, and South, in connection with the Salvation Army, in some few instances members of it being convicted of obstructing some highway by processions, or halts for singing and prayer, or of disobeying some prohibition of their proceedings by the local authorities; but never of violence, even towards their ruffianly assailants, much less towards the police. Almost invariably they were complainants of having been insulted, assaulted, and sometimes seriously injured or put in peril, without provocation. At Chester, for instance, Miss Falconbridge was stunned by a stone; near Crediton, some of the Army were attacked in their carriage, beaten, and put in great danger by having had their reins cut and one of their wheels loosened by some of the Skeleton Army, as it was called, which seemed everywhere to be composed of the worst roughs in the place. Of course, there was in the Salvation Army that mixture of good and evil, of wheat and tares, to be found in everything human; but there could be no reasonable doubt that the immense majority of the Army believed themselves to be engaged in a holy work; and when numbers of old and young of both sexes were found publicly declaring that, whereas before joining the Army they had been living moat shameful and wicked lives, but had since been enabled, for so many years, months, or weeks, to lead new and better lives, and finding a peace and comfort in so doing, previously unknown, meant to persevere, he could not but feel thankful that even if, in some cases, only for a while, so many should have been cheered, purified, and elevated, who had before been lying hopeless, foul, and helpless
  820
  in their degradation. Such being the Salvation Army, with nothing apparently very ephemeral in its character, its treatment by the different local authorities became important from the large numbers and vast extent of country affected by it, quite apart from the question of the individual rights of law-abiding Englishmen, justly dear to a nation long accustomed to orderly liberty, and apart from the question, also, of the bearing upon the national character of any toleration of ruffianism in connection with that Army. It was not his object to find fault with any of the authorities, Metropolitan or Provincial, much less with the Government, for their treatment of the Salvation Army. He did not know enough about it to venture to do so; but from what he had gathered from a cursory view of the cases reported in the papers, he was inclined to doubt whether, on the one hand, the authorities had always sufficiently borne in mind the legal difference between the case of a man, by some lawful action, giving an opportunity to others of committing an unlawful act, and that of a man causing another to perform some unlawful act; and, on the other hand, whether the members of the Salvation Army had borne sufficiently in mind St. Paul's declaration that all things which were lawful were not necessarily expedient; and the lesson taught by his earnest anxiety that he should not, by any liberty of his own, lead weaker brethren to stumble. In conclusion, he would, with their Lordships' permission, state from a memorandum received from one of the Army the views taken by them of their legal rights, and of their cruel wrongs. Many of these wrongs, they stated, proceeded from the spirit of ruffianism now so rife, which, whenever unchecked, had shown itself in violence done to others besides the Salvation Army, as, to take an instance out of many, in the attack upon the Bishop of Exeter's Temperance Meeting. Instances of this spirit had, he would observe, been seen quite recently in England, Wales, and Scotland, to say nothing now of Ireland, as the proceedings at Camborne, in Cornwall, and at Wrexham, in Kent, and in the Isle of Skye proved. They stated that, where the authorities had shown themselves determined to put down disorder and protect the Salvation Army, they had always suc-

  821
  ceeded in doing so; but that, when the authorities had shown themselves unfavourable to the Army, and had prohibited its processions, these outrages had almost always occurred. The Army was determined to carry on its proceedings resolutely, but without violence, in spite of the outrages of the lawless and the proclamations of the authorities. It hoped to receive the protection to which it had a right; but, whether that was given or refused, it would persevere in its work. Such were the views and declarations of these well-meaning and harmless, if somewhat wild and eccentric, tens of thousands of their fellow-citizens. He would now, with many thanks for their kind indulgence, conclude with the Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of any authentic report that may exist of the proceedings in the case of the Queen against the Justices of the county of Southampton in the Court of Queen's Bench.—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, that he was not aware what line his noble Friend would take on the subject before their Lordships, or of the particular instances which he would bring forward. He (Lord Coleridge) spoke in that House under considerable restraint, because it might be his duty to sit elsewhere in judgment upon a case connected with the Salvation Army, and he should be sorry to say a word which might prejudice a case which might come before him. He had only heard one side of the case now before the Queen's Bench—namely, that on behalf of the Salvation Army. Only one of the magistrates in that case had made a statement with regard to it. He had known that gentleman from his youth, and he knew that he was a man of the highest character, who was absolutely incapable of doing anything intentionally unjust. If, therefore, he and his colleagues had erred, he (Lord Coleridge) felt sure that it was the result simply of a mistake in their judgment. The two conflicting rights which magistrates had to consider must be regarded. He took it that every Englishman had an absolute and unqualified right to go about his business and perform legal acts with the protection of the law; and he apprehended that walking through the streets in order and in procession, even if accompanied by music and the singing of hymns, was
  822
  an absolutely lawful act, an act in the doing of which every subject had a right to be protected. On the other hand, there was hardly any act which could not be so done as to become a nuisance to the public peace; and the circumstances were such at times as to compel the local authorities to determine that such acts, though lawful in themselves, should not be done, because the public peace was thereby endangered. In such a case, the duty of the magistrates was equally clear. Their first duty was to preserve the peace, and to take care that there was no disturbance of any kind. Those conflicting rights might give rise to extremely delicate questions; but he felt sure that where the magistrates insisted on law and authority being respected there was little danger of the peace being disturbed. Their Lordships would understand his reason for abstaining from giving an opinion on the case to which the noble Earl had referred; but he might say that the "hard labour" did seem to him to be an unfortunate part of the sentence, very different to account for or to justify. As to the question whether or not the procession ought to have been stopped in that particular case, of course he was unable then to give an answer.
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, that, looking to the disposition abroad to lawlessness and violence, the impunity of outrage on the Salvation Army might establish an evil precedent for other cases more generally approved. The peculiarity in this case was that the struggle was between physical force and moral force; between arbitrary, violent tyranny and patient endurance. The object of this "Army" was simple, honest, and praiseworthy. They persuaded working classes to give up intemperance and vice, and to lead self-denying, religious lives. To gain attention they marched in procession, and sang hymns in thoroughfares. They required from their members a pledge of abstinence from beer, spirits, and tobacco. This had been injurious to the business of the licensed victuallers, and their adherents mobbed them, hurled stones, and struck blows; and met with passive perseverance, without even irritating words. In some places this cruel violence was easily stopped; in others the authorities would not afford protection. The influence of the publicans' interest was already powerful, If they acquired a new

  823
  power of putting down by violence any moral demonstration against the liquor traffic, what security had we that they would use their power with moderation? Those who worked by appeals to conscience to raise men out of vice ought to receive protection from the savage violence of rioters.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYfelt that he ought not to allow this subject to pass without remark. His noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) had mentioned that the Lower House of Convocation had addressed the Upper House on this subject, and had asked that it should be considered. Accordingly the Bishops had appointed a Committee of their own Body for that purpose. Some difficulty had doubtless arisen in reference to this subject, in consequence of the members of the Salvation Army acting in a way which was not customary among religious bodies, and many good people were shocked by what they regarded as a want of reverence on the part of the "Army." But it had been well remarked that, perhaps, their peculiar mode of proceeding was such as might have considerable influence over uncultivated minds; and, looking to the fact that there was in this country a vast mass of persons who were not at present reached by the more regular ministrations of the Church, it was not unlikely that much good might eventually result from the more irregular action of the Salvationists. He had been informed that the leaders of the movement were persons of unimpeachable character, and that they were most desirous of checking the extravagances of many of their followers, and that there had been much misrepresentation spread abroad with regard to them. He trusted, therefore, that any movement of this kind, provided it were carried on with decency and propriety, would be encouraged, and that it would be able usefully to supplement the efforts of the regular clergy in affording spiritual aid to the great mass of the population.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that, speaking from his own personal experience, he could testify that the action of the Salvation Army was not such as to call for the interference of the authorities, as had been recently shown at Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland. He believed if proper protection were afforded to these persons there would be no breach
  824
  of the law arising out of their proceedings.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, their Lordships would quite understand the difficulty which a Member of the Government found himself in, in having to take part in such a discussion as this. The noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) had given their Lordships a full description of the Salvation Army. Even if he had any personal views on the subject, it would not be right for him to state them upon that occasion; and, on the part of the Government, he could only deal with the Motion as it stood upon the Paper. The noble Earl had moved for a Return of certain Papers which were at present in the Crown Office. He could assure the noble Earl, in the first place, that the Secretary of State had no information with regard to what had taken place before the Lord Chief Justice than what was to be derived from the newspapers, and no official documents whatever were in existence in connection with that case other than the affidavits which had been filed, and the rule requiring the Justices to state a case for the consideration of the Court. It was not customary for such documents to be laid upon the Table of the House, and he could not consent to produce them at the present stage. The object of the noble Earl, however, had doubtless been fully satisfied by the very interesting discussion to which his Motion had given rise. As to the views of the Home Secretary, they had been stated by the Home Secretary in a letter which was in the hands of their Lordships, and which was addressed, on the 1st April, 1881, to the magistrates of Basingstoke. That letter had been so often printed that he did not think it necessary to repeat it now. The matter was still sub judice, and he did not know whether, when the decision was given, it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to add anything to the letter which he had referred to; but it was clear that he could make no further statement on that subject now.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRELAND—ASSASSINATION OF MR. BURKE, THE LATE UNDER SECRETARY—PENSION TO MISS BURKE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he rose to ask whether it was the

  825
  intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant a suitable pension to Miss Burke, sister of the late Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in recognition of Mr. Burke's long and faithful service in the difficult and dangerous position he held, and of his having lost his life in the service of his country? He did not ask the Question in consequence of having had any communication with any member of the family. This was a case in which Her Majesty's Government would recognize the truth of the adage that those gave twice who gave quickly; and a suitable provision for Miss Burke would be at once an expression of deep sympathy with her in the circumstances in which she was placed, and a tribute to the real worth of her unfortunate brother.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am happy to be in a position to answer the Question of the noble Lord. It is with great satisfaction I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been advised by the Prime Minister to grant a pension of £400 a-year to Miss Burke, in recognition of the services of her unfortunate brother.

  LAW RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF YOUNG GIRLS.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Braye.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Leigh.

  E. Mount Edgcumbe.

  L. Ramsay.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Tollemache.

  E. Cairns.

  L. Norton.

  L. Bp. London.

  L. Mount-Temple.

  The Committee to meet on Monday next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.