Lords Sitting of 11 August 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * (252); Public Health (Members and Officers) * (253).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Disused Burial Grounds (249).
Committee—Report—Cholera, &c. Protection* (247).
Third Reading—Revenue, &c.* (242); Public Health (Ireland) (Districts) * (238–254), and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL AND REDISTRIBUTION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, as they have admitted that redistribution ought to accompany the extension of the franchise, they are prepared to inform the House before the Session closes how far they have perfected any scheme for redistribution; and, whether the necessary provisions on that subject will be submitted to Parliament at the commencement of the Autumn Session, or when? As it was a matter of extreme importance that the House and the public generally should know in what position the question of redistribution stood, he would merely ask the Question he had put upon the Paper, and would make no further remarks until the Question was answered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has confined himself simply to asking a Question, and I will confine myself to answering it. I should think that this is the first time almost that any Government was ever asked to state the precise point at which they had arrived in the preparation of an important measure. The noble Earl, and, of course, everyone else, is aware that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been very much directed to the question; and they have, as might be expected, gone even, indeed, so far as to indicate to both Houses of Parliament some general principles at which they thought they would be able to arrive. But, beyond saying that, I can only tell the noble Earl that we shall be fully prepared, at the when we consider it fit

  407
  to present a Bill for redistribution, to present such a measure as we hope will prove satisfactory to, and claim the acceptance of, Parliament. But more than that I cannot say, nor do I think that any Government ever informed Parliament of the precise state of the legislative egg which they were engaged in hatching. The second part of the Question of the noble Earl has been often answered before, and I am surprised at the noble Earl asking it again. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) is unfortunately absent to-day, being at Osborne in attendance on the Queen; but he has stated only the other day, plainly and distinctly, that it was the intention of the Government to submit a Franchise Bill in the course of the proposed Autumn Session, and when that Bill passes into law, which I hope it will then do, we shall be prepared to introduce the Redistribution Bill.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in 1832, many Peers, and others, besides Mr. Hawkins—to whom I alluded before—gave up their interest in boroughs, and Parliament should be trusted now. The hon. Member for Berkshire, on March 31, 1859, made known his intention to support the Bill of the Government, and to vote against the Resolution of Lord John Russell; but he seemed to have changed his mind, for his name is in the majority against the Bill.
  "And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times."—[Isaiah, chap, xxxiii. v. 6.]
  It has always been known, before a Reform Bill was passed, what distinction was to be made between boroughs and counties by apportionment of votes.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, it would be necessary, in any scheme of redistribution that might be introduced, to take especial care that the boroughs in Ireland were disfranchised, with the exception of the eight maritime boroughs and Armagh. The borough seats should be given to the county representation respectively. With regard to some of those boroughs in particular, certain peculiarities would be found to exist, inasmuch as they were intended for one purpose and had become perverted to another.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was very much disappointed at the Government not being able to give some better as
  408
  surance than they had given that the question would be dealt with in the autumn. It was admitted by all that redistribution was necessary in connection with the extension of the franchise; and, being necessary, it was really impossible for anyone to form an opinion upon the matter, as to the effect of the increase of the franchise on the House of Commons, until they had something more before them, and knew what the redistribution scheme was. Was it not a most unjust and unreasonable thing to ask Parliament to sanction a part of a measure which was imperfect, in order that Government might have their own way on the subject? He asked anyone whether it was proper or just that a person should be asked to affirm a particular part of a measure without knowing the whole of it, especially when it was admitted that it was necessary the whole question should be dealt with? They were all aware an agitation was going on throughout the country, and it was an agitation directed against that House. And why? The ground on which it was admitted to be directed against that House was based on falsehood. It was based on the assumption that that House was opposed to the extension of the franchise; whereas the fact was that, in order to accept such extension, they only required that the franchise should be connected with redistribution. He asked their Lordships to consider, not what might come out in the newspapers at the moment, but to look to the future writing of the historian, who would, no doubt, say that the House of Lords had been quite right, and the House of Commons quite wrong? He considered it a very great responsibility on the part of the Government, when they knew what was taking place, and when they knew the unfairness of the agitation, that they should proceed with a half measure. He would ask whether anyone could believe that that House would stultify itself by doing in the autumn what it would not do in July? If the course that House adopted in July was right, it would be right to do the same thing in November. The whole course of this question had excited an erroneous idea in the country. The fact was, the excitement got up was in the wrong direction, and he regretted to say that the Government were creating a wrong impression, and stirring up a

  409
  bad feeling which would be injurious to that House and the country generally; and he hoped that before the Autumn Session the Government would see reason to change their plans.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that the subject of redistribution was in a state of great uncertainty, and they were all in want of better information before proceeding with it. One element in the uncertainty of the effect of redistribution was that the old engines for the management of constituencies would no longer avail, as the people were determined to act for themselves. The practices which prevailed upon the last occasion of redistribution would be found to be utterly useless in this one. He doubted very much whether redistribution would have the effect that was commonly supposed.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he hoped that when the Government really did consider the matter, they would recognize the necessity of providing for the representation of minorities. Some years ago, in 1879, Mr. Leonard Courtney, the present Secretary to the Treasury, had declared that to introduce a Franchise Bill without minority representation would be a proposal which showed neither foresight nor insight. Those who read the hon. Member's speech might derive greater advantage from it than the hon. Member himself appeared to have done, for he appeared to have forgotten it altogether on the present occasion.

  DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  (The Lord Fitzgerald.)

  (NO. 249.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that certain questions of a scandalous nature having arisen with regard to attempts which had been made to build over disused burial grounds, the present measure, which consisted of one clause only, had been introduced into the House of Commons, with the object of rendering it unlawful to erect any buildings upon any disused burial ground, except for the purposes of the church attached thereto. He hoped that the measure would recommend itself to their Lordships. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he regretted to find there was a great deficiency in the Bill; and, in order to correct it, he would suggest that it should be amended by the addition of words which would permit the erection of mortuaries, of which there was a great want in the Metropolis, on such grounds. In his opinion, that was a matter of the highest importance, considering the crowded condition of the dwellings of the London poorer classes. It was too late, he was sorry to say, to amend the Bill at that period of the Session; but he hoped next Session to be able to do so.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—METROPOLITAN POLICE—MISCONDUCT OF CONSTABLES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to call attention to a case brought before Mr. Woodlock, one of the Divisional Magistrates of Dublin, on Friday, the 1st of August, when a charge of most serious misconduct appeared to have been established by sworn evidence against two constables of the Metropolitan Police of that city; and to ask, Whether the Irish Government intend to proceed by summons against these officers in order that a full and open inquiry may be made into the matter? said, that the case was remarkable for two circumstances—first, it disclosed very gross misconduct amongst a body of men usually notable for their good conduct; and, secondly, on account of the conduct of the learned magistrate who heard the case arising out of such misconduct, and who appeared to have thought it right to pass the matter over, treating it as a trivial case, although he said the police were clearly wrong. In dismissing the case, the magistrate gave the impression that policemen who had been guilty of serious offences were to go absolutely unpunished. He (the Earl of Milltown) could not conceive anything more injurious to respect for the law than that such an idea should go abroad as that; if it was necessary to protect the police

  411
  in the execution of their duty, it was equally necessary to protect the public, when the police misused their great powers for purposes of oppression. The circumstances of the case were very short. They were contained in a paragraph in The Irish Times newspaper of August 1. A man named Williams, a letter carrier, was charged with attempting to rescue a woman from the custody of two constables, 119, of the B division, and 137 of the same division. No. 119 swore, in answer to questions put to him in the Court, in cross-examination, that he had not visited any improper house, and that Williams did not accuse him of ill-treating the old woman whom he had arrested. Although the man Williams had not made such an accusation, the other constable, on oath, admitted both offences; but, in addition to that, it was proved by four witnesses—perfectly independent, respectable men—that No. 119 had come out of an improper house with the other constable; that both of them were drunk; that No. 119 was fighting with a man, whom he knocked down; that he tripped up the poor old woman who had a basket of mushrooms for sale, and was standing by perfectly quiet, and dragged her along the ground. Williams, accompanied by another letter carrier, coming up, remonstrated with No. 119, who arrested Williams, and preferred against him the false charge of endeavouring to rescue the old woman from his custody. Thus it was clear that the constable had made a false charge against Williams, committed perjury, and had committed a series of grievous assaults, besides being drunk and frequenting an improper house. Yet the magistrate only said the police were clearly wrong, and he dismissed the case. He (the Earl of Milltown) hoped to hear from Her Majesty's Government that an open inquiry would be held, and that, if found guilty, the constables would be punished for their offences. He must, however, say that the case was not so clear against 137 B.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (for Lord CARLINGFORD), in reply, said, that the facts of the case were not quite so serious as the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) had been led to believe. There were two policemen. One of them, Constable 119 B, seemed to have behaved very badly—indeed, as badly as possible—and the other constable not
  412
  so badly. But the magistrate, finding that the policemen had brought an accusation which they could not prove, took the only course open to him, and dismissed the case. The conduct of the police was not before the magistrate. Therefore, there was no ground whatever for censuring the magistrate, who merely discharged his duty by dismissing the case. It was no fault of his that the police were not punished. However, according to the Report furnished to him (the Earl of Kimberley), inquiry was made into the whole circumstances of the case, the result being that 119 B had been dismissed from the force. 137 B was a younger man, and, the case against him not being nearly so bad as that against the other, it was thought that a severe reprimand would be sufficient. As regarded the assaults committed by the constable, there appeared to be conflict of evidence; but it was, of course, open to the person who had been assaulted to proceed against the constable in the usual manner.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: What I complained of was, that the magistrate did not direct a summons to be issued, which would have been in accordance with the almost invariable custom.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that that would not rest with the magistrate, who would report the matter to the police authorities. That appeared to have been done, and the conclusion arrived at by those authorities was that 119 B should be dismissed, but that there was not a sufficient case with regard to perjury, nor sufficient evidence of the assaults, to lead to the probability of a conviction on a criminal charge.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD WAVENEY, in rising to move an humble Address to Her Majesty on the conditions under which certain Scottish and Irish Peers are elected periodically, or for life, as Representatives in the House of Lords, said, that he had at one time intended to postpone the question until next Session; but circumstances had occurred which had led him to alter his determination. Since that withdrawal a great deal had happened, and it appeared to him that if they wanted to maintain their corporate

  413
  dignity and cohesion, they could not move too soon. He referred mainly to the dissemination throughout the country of views and statements hostile, and in some cases even personally hostile, to Members of that House. In saying that, he did not speak of the magnificent demonstration in Hyde Park, but of the feeling of hostility disseminated throughout the country by some who, being Ministers of the Crown, ought to restrain such violence. There was, it appeared to him, a great misconception in the public mind with regard to the decisions of that House; and it was their duty to place that House before the country in the full lustre of its independence. He would call their Lordships' attention to the Committees which sat in 1867 and subsequent years on the question of Representative Peers, and would urge the importance and advantage of bringing the Irish Peerage and Scottish Peerage into a line with the English Peerage. It was important that the House should know what men thought of the constitution of the House elsewhere; and, as an instance, he would say that he had had forwarded to him the result of a great meeting in Belfast, a meeting composed of men faithful to the Constitution. The Ulster Liberal Society, holding its meetings at Belfast, by its committee of management, passed various resolutions, the first of which stated—
  "That this society strongly condemns the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Franchise Bill, and pledges itself to support the Government in whatever action they may think necessary to secure its passing into law."
  It was quite clear from that, that it was all-important, at the present juncture, that they should endeavour to remove any blot from the system under which the House was constituted.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying that the prerogative he not interposed to prevent the substitution by statute of a more suitable form of securing the presence of Irish and Scottish Peers in the House of Lords than is afforded by the existing modes of election."—(The Lord Waveney.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree with my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) in thinking that the subject is undoubtedly very well deserving consideration; but if my noble Friend will look round him, I think he will see that,
  414
  on the present occasion, we hardly fulfil the first condition he has mentioned—namely, that we should be present in some force in order that we may be able to reform ourselves. I am sure, therefore, my noble Friend will not be surprised if I tell him that, having regard to the state of the House, it is quite impossible for us to agree to the course suggested by him, though I quite agree with my noble Friend in what I understand to be his view—namely, that the present mode of electing the Scotch and Irish Peers is not satisfactory. My noble Friend (Lord Colchester), in connection with a Question in the former part of the evening, made some allusion to the system of the representation of minorities; and he thought that, in any reform of the system of representation in Parliament, the minority should be secured by some special enactment. Without entering in any way into the large question of the application of that principle, I may say that if there be any particular case to which that system is applicable, it would be the election of Scotch and Irish Peers. I have not a word to say against noble Lords who represent Ireland and Scotland under the present system of election; they are chosen by those who have a right to choose them; but it seems to me unreasonable that the natural operation of the present system of election should result in all the Representatives of Scotland and Ireland belonging to one political Party, and it would be better to secure a more proportionate representation in the Scotch and Irish Peerage. While I cannot advise your Lordships to agree to the Motion, I fully admit that any practical measures taken with this object must receive very careful consideration—indeed, I think the whole subject is one well worthy of attention.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he thought they were indebted to the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Kimberley) for having done that which the noble Lord who introduced the subject had failed to do. In other words, he had addressed himself to the Notice on the Paper. The noble Lord (Lord Waveney) had pursued the inconvenient course of putting on the Paper a Notice in reference to the election of Scotch and Irish Representative Peers. With regard to the matter, he had to com-

  415
  plain that, in the course of his speech, the noble Lord only made one passing and fleeting allusion to that topic. That allusion was the assertion that Scottish and Irish Peers were a self-constituted Body; but he failed to understand how they could be described as a self-constituted Body, or, indeed, how any body of Peers could be so described, unless they selected their own fathers and mothers. As a matter of fact, the Scottish and Irish Peers were not half so much self-constituted as hereditary Peers were. The noble Lord had urged that, as people were now saying ill-natured and unpleasant things about the House of Lords, that Assembly should take steps for its own reform. But to those who were averse to any reform of the House of Lords the proposal of the noble Lord would not recommend itself; while to those who were in favour of reform the proposal would appear to be wholly inadequate. Great as were the anomalies in the mode of electing Scottish and Irish Peers, those Peers, at all events, had constituencies, and that was more than could be said for the major part of the House, as they were not elected. He therefore ventured to urge on that crowded House, on that interesting occasion, that the proposal before the House was insufficient to meet the requirements of the case. The speech of the noble Lord had neither been commensurate with the occasion, nor at all relevant to the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.