Lords Sitting of 23 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) * (104); Gas Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (105).
Committee—Report—Water Provisional Orders* (92); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) * (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton-Barnes, &c.)* (85); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c.)* (86); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.)* (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.) (88); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.)* (90); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.) * (91); Colonial Prisoners Removal * (44).
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (The Labourers Act) (Enniscorthy, &c.)* (64); Criminal Law Amendment (99–107); Greek Marriages* (96).
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders * (82); Marriages Legalization (76); Public Libraries Acts Amendment * (95), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—OBSERVATION.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would announce to their Lordships that the present intention of the Government was to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Holidays on Tuesday next, and to re-assemble on Monday, the 16th June. It was not possible, however, to make any definite arrangement yet, as the exigencies of Public Business, in connection with the passing of a Money Bill, might require their Lordships to re-assemble at an earlier date.

SCOTLAND—HARBOURS OF REFUGE ON THE NORTH EAST COAST—RE PORT OF THE SPECIAL SUB-COM MITTEE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question, of which I have given private Notice. It is to ask, If the Special Sub-Committee appointed to make inquiries as to the best- position for a Scottish harbour of refuge have yet made their Report; whether the Committee on Convict Labour have made any recommendation on the subject; and when the place selected by the Secretary of State will be announced to Parliament?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: In reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that the Special Sub-Committee appointed to report on this question have, I believe, agreed upon their Report. I believe that that Report is now being

1155
printed for the consideration of the General Committee, and I have every reason to hope that it will not be long before it will be in the hands of the Secretary of State.

SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 97.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 97.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, whose name stood on the Paper to move the second reading, said he would ask leave to postpone it till after the Holidays. The intention of the Bill—not very obvious on the face of it—was to prevent the removal of a large number of poor persons back to Ireland from the North of England and (Scotland, as the present system was attended with very great inconveniences. He had only taken charge of the Bill on behalf of a noble Friend (Viscount Lifford); and since he had come down to the House to-day he had received a telegram from his noble Friend, saying that he had just heard the Bill was to be opposed, and asking him to postpone it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore) had exercised a wise discretion in asking their Lordships to postpone the second reading; and he would have acted still more wisely if he had postponed it for six months, as many of its provisions were objectionable. The present law was that a residence of five years gave a settlement; but the Bill contained a provision which would make one year's residence sufficient to give a settlement, and that would be an alteration affecting England and Scotland most prejudicially. He thought that was a change in the existing law which would require very grave consideration on the part of their Lordships before it could be adopted.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he could not accept the description given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) as the unanimous description of their Lordships. He thought that the Bill invited more favourable consideration.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the Bill was inconsistent in that it made one
  1156
  year's residence in England and Scotland sufficient to acquire a settlement; but the Bill did not apply to Ireland, so that natives of England and Scotland who went to Ireland would not acquire a settlement there in one year.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that no one of the class referred to would go to Ireland to reside there, or obtain a settlement who could possibly help it.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, there was no question as to Ireland being excluded from the operations of the Bill. In that country relief could be obtained anywhere without acquiring a settlement, for a poor person was entitled to, and got it, wherever he might be.
  Order discharged.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 99.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  Clause 3 (Procuring defilement of woman by fraud).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 3, after ("unlawful") insert ("carnal"); line 13, after ("unlawful") insert ("carnal"), and after ("connection") insert ("either within or without the Queen's dominions with any man"); and in line 20, after ("labour") insert as a separate paragraph:—
  "Every misdemeanour under sub-section four of this section shall, in England and Ireland, be deemed to be an offence within and subject to the provisions of the Act of the session of the twenty-second and twenty-third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventeen, intituled 'An Act to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanours.'"
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Defilement of girl between twelve and sixteen years of age).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed to amend the clause by substituting 14 for 16 as the age at which consent could be given. Formerly, the age was 12; but a Bill was brought into the other House in 1873 by Mr. Charley to raise it to 14. That change, however, was violently resisted; it was objected to by Members of Mr. Gladstone's Government, and it was opposed by Sir John Coleridge,

  1157
  who said that the law of all European nations fixed the age of a woman at 12, and that of a man at 14; and he could not consent to create a criminal offence in the case of consent by a girl over 12. The noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, also expressed himself in favour of the age of 12 as that at which there should be no power of consent, though he admitted that there might be cases of hardship in which it would be desirable to have a higher age. That Bill came to nothing; but in 1875 Mr. Charley brought in another Bill with the same object, when, by a compromise, and partly at the suggestion of the Recorder, Mr. Russell Gurney, the age of 13 was inserted; and in their Lordships' House Lord Lyttelton proposed 14; but the compromise of 13 was adhered to. Now it was proposed to jump to 16; but it was clear that the Government were not fully satisfied of the reasonableness of the proposal, because they had hedged it with two safeguards— one that the Act should not apply where the offender was shown not to have known the age of the girl, and the other requiring the consent of the Public Prosecutor before proceedings could be taken. Their Lordships would be surprised at the number of marriages which took place at 15 and 16, although in many cases the age was not ascertained, as the word "minor" was simply inserted in the certificate. But, according to the registers, there were, in 1878, 21 girls married at 15, and 291 at 16; in 1879, the numbers were, respectively, 32 and 253; in 1880, 28 and 272; in 1881, 20 and 288; and, in 1822, 29 and 299, and in each year one girl was actually married at 14. And yet it was now proposed to make it a misdemeanour to have connection with those mobile girls with their own consent, and even on their own solicitation. He would like to know whether the Government had consulted the Common Law Judges? Every Judge to whom he (the Earl of Milltown) had spoken on the subject had expressed himself as very dissatisfied with the Bill. Their Lordships' House had won a reputation for a sobriety of judgment which frequently corrected the impetuous and premature decision of the other House; and he trusted they would not in that Bill do anything to impair that reputation, and cause more to look to
  1158
  the Lower House to correct the ill-advised and rash legislation of the Upper.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 43, to leave out ("sixteen" and insert ("fourteen.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, that more knowledge of the sad circumstances that this Bill dealt with was now known; and if the learned persons to whom the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had referred had had before them the evidence which was given before the Committee they would have formed different opinions. Evidence of various kinds had been given before the Committee, and it was not without grave consideration that the age had been fixed at 16. It was shown that offences were committed on girls at lower and lower ages, and they required more protection against the snares and traps laid for them by a large class of degraded men and their female accomplices. The protection of the Bill against the accusation of having given consent to a seducer was fixed at the ago when girlhood passed into womanhood; but a girl under 14 was a child, and ought not to to be made responsible for the act that degraded and ruined her.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that noble Lords did not perceive how illogical and inconsistent it was to raise the age and increase the penalties in reference to an older girl, at the same time refusing corporal punishment in the case of brutal violence to a child of tender years, while the Legislature allowed the infliction of corporal punishment for violence towards officials of a gaol; therefore, in his opinion, the Bill was comparatively useless, because it failed to award a sufficiently stringent punishment for the crime most needed to be dealt with under the Bill—namely, the violation of an innocent child under 12 years of age.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the age of 16 was in the Bill when it passed last year; and for that reason he could not ask the House now to accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was unable to support his noble Friend's (the Earl of Milltown's) Amendment. When one age was put against another, it was difficult to bring forward the particular reasons which had induced

  1159
  the Select Committee to come to a decision. The Committee considered the matter with extreme anxiety, and resolved that the limit of 16 years should be adopted. He could not be a party to departing from that limit. It was itself rather in the nature of a compromise among the Members of the Committee. On the whole, he did not believe there would be any danger in accepting this age; and he doubted the power of that House, sitting as a Whole House, to determine such a matter as this in a satisfactory manner. If they wanted to re-open the decision of the Committee, they ought to appoint another Committee.
  LORD BRAMWELL, in supporting the Amendment, said, he did so because he thought it would be difficult to get a jury to convict at the age stated in the Bill, when they could find no more fault with the man than they could with the woman or girl.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNprotested against subjecting young men who might be led away by immoral girls under 16 to the penalties of the Criminal Law.
  On Question, "That the word ('sixteen') stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 102; Not-Contents 29: Majority 73.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Redesdale, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Devonshire, D.

  Canterbury, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Bristol, M.

  Eversley, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Exmouth, V.

  Northampton, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Carnarvon, E,

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Cowper, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Ducie, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Fortescue, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Granville, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. BP.

  Lathom, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Lucan, E.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Morley, E. [Teller.]

  London, L. Bp.

  Northbrook, E.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Powis, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Ravensworth, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  1160

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Hawke, L.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Bagot, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Lamington, L.

  Lawrence, L.

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

  Lovat, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Camoys, L.

  Carew, L.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Carlingford, L,

  Penrhyn, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Churchill, L.

  Reay, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Colchester, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Denman, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Digby, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Harlech, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Houghton, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

  Ashburnham, E.

  Leconfield, L. [Teller.]

  Cadogan, E.

  Coventry, E.

  North, L.

  Milltown, E. [Teller.]

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Bramwell, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Dorchester, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  FitzGerald, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Amendment disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEmoved to amend the clause by inserting after the word "labour," in line20, words bringing every misdemeanour under Sub-section 4 within the Vexatious Indictments Act.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, leave out lines 15 to 20, inclusive, and insert—
  ("Every misdemeanour under this section shall, in England and Ireland, be deemed to be an offence within and subject to the provisions of the Act of the session of the twenty-second and twenty-third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventeen, intituled

  1161
  'An Act to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanours.' ") —(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was afraid that the Amendment would not prevent chantage, or the extortion of hush money.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he would remind the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the clause was intended for the protection of very young girls.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Vict, c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved to omit the clause, which provided for the arrest by the police of persons soliciting without any complaint of annoyance from the passengers, on the ground that it placed a most injudicious power in the hands of the police. How could they tell that soliciting had taken place unless complaint was made to them; and how could it be guaranteed that they would not arrest respectable women to whom loose men had made insulting overtures? Moreover, there were among the police black sheep who would abuse this power and levy black mail to any extent. It would, moreover, create a bad feeling between the police and the public, such as now existed in Paris, where the police possessed this arbitrary power. Young men would not stand by and see women dragged off to prison who had committed no apparent offence, and street rioting would be the result. The present law went quite as far as it was safe to go; and if the public did not take the trouble to make a complaint, they had only themselves to blame for any annoyance they suffered.
  Moved, To leave out Clause 10.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE EARL OE DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Motion, said, he maintained that the clause did not confer the dangerous powers mentioned by the noble Earl. He would point out to their Lordships that it could not apply to respectable women, as it distinctly specified "common prostitutes or night - walkers."
  1162
  Moreover, it was based on the recommendations of the Committee, and he must ask the House to agree to it.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 56: Majority 3.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L.

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

  Devonshire, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Bristol, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Derby, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Denman, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Sydney, E.

  Hawke, L.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. BP.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Lichfield. L. Bp.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Sudeley, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Waveney, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Canterbury, V.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Brabourne, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Bramwell, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Lathom, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Milltown, E. [Teller.]

  de Ros, L.

  Powis, E.

  Digby, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  FitzGerald, L,

  1163

  Forbes, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Houghton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kintore, L, (E. Kintore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Lamington, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Leconfield, L. [Teller.]

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  North, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Summary proceedings against brothel keeper, &c.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving the omission of the clause, which gave power to the police to enter without warrant or complaint a house of ill fame and to prosecute the keeper of such house, said, the question was fully debated last year, and their Lordships would stultify themselves if they now passed what they then strongly objected to. There was no evidence whatever that the present law was insufficient. When those houses constituted a nuisance they could be, and in fact were, successfully prosecuted and put an end to.
  Moved, To leave out Clause 12.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Motion, said, the retention of the clause in the Bill was necessary on the ground that the present law was inoperative on account of the unwillingness of people generally to enforce it. The clause did nothing more than give a power of summary procedure, with some enlargement of definition.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he believed Borne power was required beyond that of the present law, for there was hardly a local Bill came before him, by which the local authorities did not seek to obtain larger powers of the kind conferred by this clause. He always said it was a matter to be dealt with by the general law, and not by the local law.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the local authorities referred to by the noble Earl sought regulation rather than suppression. An officer of the Army Lad remarked to him that the
  1164
  repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act had resulted in about half the Army being in hospital; and under this Bill, if the clause were allowed to pass, the other half would soon be in prison.
  On Question, "That Clause 12 stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 72: Not-Contents 37: Majority 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L, Archp.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Bristol, M.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Belmore, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Derby, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Granville, E.

  Denman, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Morley, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Canterbury, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eversley, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Bangor, L, Bp.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Stratford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Sudeley, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Ventry, L.

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

  Waveney, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hertford, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Milltown, E. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lathom, E.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Lovelace, E.

  1165

  Hardinge, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  North, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Houghton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Future tenancies determinable for keeping brothels).
  Amendments made, in page 7, line 4, by leaving out ("and his") and inserting ("his executors, administrators, and"; and in lines 7 and 8, by leaving out ("and all persons claiming any estate or interest through or under him") and inserting ("his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns.")
  LORD BRAMWELLmoved the insertion of an Amendment directed against making a lessee of a valuable property lose his lease simply because some subsequent assignee or tenant had used the house for disorderly purposes.
  Amendment moved, in page 7, line 12, leave out after ("building") to ("require") in line 15, and insert—
  "Provided, that where any other house or premises is or are included in the same lease, agreement for a lease, or other contract of tenancy, with the house or building so used as aforesaid, and any person other than the person or persons so using such house or building is interested therein as lessee, tenant, or occupier, the landlord shall not have power by virtue of this Act to determine or put an end to the said lease, agreement, or contract of tenancy, so far as relates to such other house, or premises, or the estate, term, or interest of any person so interested therein as aforesaid, but the same shall remain in full force as if the house or building so used as a brothel as aforesaid had not been included in the said lease, agreement for a lease, or contract of tenancy; and in the event of the house or building so used as aforesaid being subject to an undivided rent in common with such other house or premises, the rents shall be apportioned as in case of eviction of part of the premises let, and all covenants and conditions contained in such lease, agreement for a lease, or contract of tenancy shall remain and be applicable to such other house or premises as aforesaid."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was no greater hardship involved in the clause than was involved already in many leases where particular trades or occupations were forbidden under pain of forfeiture.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that in the cases referred to by the noble and learned Earl equitable relief was afforded. He did not know whether it was so in this case; but if not the offender ought to be made liable in damages to the original lessee. The clause itself was bad in principle, as if a sub-lessee committed an offence under it not only his lease, but all other leases prior to his, would be forfeited.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause was a very beneficial one for the ground landlord. But it was a strong thing that the landlord who had had a house built for him, and done nothing to deserve such good fortune, should be able to take possession of the house of his lessee because some person over whom the lessee had no control had let, it might be one room, for immoral purposes.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrepeated that this was nothing more than the restrictive covenants to be found in most leases, and he did not see that any injustice would be done.
  LORD BRAMWELLpointed out that in the cases referred to by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, the lessee had the covenant clearly expressed before him, so that he knew his liabilities, and also that it was by agreement between him and the lessor; while by the clause proposed they were compelled to have the conditions in the lease.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would suggest that the Amendment should be inserted, and then, after the third reading, the Government would consider whether any further modifications could be made. Of course, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) could, if they pleased, move the rejection of the clause on the third reading.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made, in page 7, line 32, by inserting after ("occu-

  1167
  Pier") ("not being the owner); "and in line 21, leaving out all after ("shall") and inserting—
  ("Operate in law as an absolute forfeiture and determination, so far as respects such premises, of any lease, agreement for a lease, or other contract of tenancy whereby such premises are held by him without any other action, suit, or proceeding at law for that purpose.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 107.)

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that any news has been received direct from General Gordon since the 8th or 9th of April, and if there has been no more recent news directly from him; whether Her Majesty's Government are still prepared to decline making any public announcement as to whether it is their intention to send an expeditionary force for his rescue as well as for the relief of the beleaguered garrisons of the Upper Nile, said, that, from his Memorandum of the 22nd of January, General Gordon had evidently expected to be forced to military measures, and that preparation ought to have been made at home for the emergency that had arisen. He thought the time had arrived when the Government could no longer content themselves with verbal professions of a general nature as to their responsibility for the life of General Gordon. On the 28th of April he asked the noble Earl a Question as to the correctness of a telegram dated the 26th April, in reference to a proposal to send an expedition to Berber, and its being stated that it would be impossible for such an expedition to start for four months. He, by request of the noble Earl, postponed his Question for a day; and on the next day—the 29th of April—the noble Earl said that the Papers he had just laid on the Table would show what had been done on the subject. For some reasons, those Papers were not distributed till the 3rd of May, on which day he (the Earl of Galloway) came down to the House to give Notice of some Resolutions based upon matter contained in
  1168
  those Papers for the 8th of May; but, acting on advice, he, for two reasons— first, that there had been a Division on an analogous subject earlier in the Session in that House; and, secondly, because Notice of a Motion had just been given in the other House of a similar character—did not bring his Resolutions forward. His proposed Resolutions were, in effect, that the Papers showed that the several massacres which had been perpetrated in Egypt were the direct result of the absence of any well-defined or continuous policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government; that, in consequence, the honour of the nation rendered it incumbent upon Parliament to insist upon measures being taken to establish order in the Soudan, and to deliver General Gordon — that, with this object in view, it was essential to make an announcement that a military expedition would be sent to Berber and Khartoum—and that, in the interests of humanity alone, an assurance should be obtained from the Government that a military occupation should continue until a stable form of government had been established on a permanent footing. Those Resolutions would show the drift of his present Question. He contended that it was evident from the very first that General Gordon contemplated the possibility of having to fight, although, of course, his mission was intended to be a pacific one; and, secondly, that his policy of handing the country generally back to the old families of the local Sultans never, in his opinion, could apply to Dongola, Khartoum, or Kassala, more especially the latter two places, as they had but recently sprung up, in regard to which he had expressly stated in his Memorandum that no decision should be arrived at as to the mode in which they were to be dealt with until their inhabitants had made known their wishes. It was quite evident, from the terms of his Memorandum, that General Gordon was aware that he could not rescue the garrisons without the aid of troops; and if Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds definitely not to send him such aid, they should have informed him of the fact before he left Cairo. He did not want to press the Government to state the exact moment or the exact route at which or by which aid would be sent to General Gordon; but he

  1169
  did press them to state distinctly that aid would be sent to the rescue of that gallant officer and of the beleaguered garrisons. Such an announcement of their intentions would spread like wildfire through Egypt and the Soudan. He could not disguise from himself, however, that what would probably have cost thousands to effect a few weeks ago would now cost millions. He trusted that any plans for the relief of General Gordon would be framed in the most ample manner, with the view of dispelling the state of anarchy now prevailing, and rescuing that gallant General from the terrible fate which seemed to threaten him in his present perilous position. With these observations he begged to ask the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am sure my noble Relative will readily believe me when I assure him that I have not the slightest ground to complain of his having refrained from putting to the House the Resolution which he has read to us to-night, and which he intended to put on a former occasion. I am bound, at the same time, to say that I cannot agree with all the assertions which he has made. I cannot, for instance, agree with him in thinking that General Gordon undertook his chivalrous expedition with the expectation of receiving military aid from this country; and I also disagree with his statement that it would have been wise to send a few hundreds of Cavalry to Berber as recommended by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I only said that, in my view, preparations should have been made in this country, upon the receipt of General Gordon's Memorandum, which would have enabled us to send such a force, if necessary, after the battle of the 12th of March, as six weeks' preparation would thus have not been thrown away.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I was under the impression that the noble Earl cited, with approbation, the proposal to send a certain number of Cavalry to Berber; and I still less agree with him in thinking that it would have been judicious to prepare for a summer expedition six weeks ago, and that such an expedition would have been cheaper than an expedition undertaken in the cooler season of the year. I am sorry that, with regard to the last part of the Question, I can
  1170
  add nothing to what was said at the close of the debate in the House of Commons the other day by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. With regard to the previous part of the Question, as to whether we have received any further information from General Gordon since the 9th of April, I can only say that we received information as late as the 10th, and that that information has been published and is in your Lordships' hands. I may mention, as bearing on this subject indirectly, that we last night received a telegram, stating that the Mudir of Dongola believes that a messenger to General Gordon has entered Khartoum, but cannot leave it, and that the Mahdi is prevented by his followers from going to the White Nile. The Egyptian authorities have taken every possible means for conveying messages to General Gordon, and I have strong hope that they will be successful.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask which debate the noble Earl refers to, and what it was that the Marquess of Hartington said?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I can quite understand the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) not being able to distinguish between the numerous Votes of Censure which have been moved and debated on this question; but he calls on me at very short Notice to explain what was said at the close of the last debate in the House of Commons. The debate was closed by the Marquess of Hartington and Sir Stafford Northcote; and if he wishes me to read the speech of my noble Friend I will do so. The noble Earl, accordingly, having read a copious extract from the speech of the Marquess of Hartington, said: I could have given the words which I myself used; but, as my opinions are exactly those of my noble Friend, I thought in a matter of military operations it was better to refer to the utterances of the Secretary of State for War.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl need make no apology for the course which he has taken. The Marquess of Hartington has been an admirable pupil of the noble Earl in the art of answering Questions. He invariably says — "We are bound to consider;" "We are bound to inquire;" "We will give no decision if we can possibly help it;" and so on. The noble Earl referred to the debate

  1171
  as having been closed by the Marquess of Hartington; but, as a matter of fact, the debate was finished by Sir Charles Dilke, which was my reason for asking what speech and what debate he was referring to.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.