Lords Sitting of 9 April 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marine Mutiny* (76); Chester Courts* (77); Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act (1851) Amendment* (78).
Second Reading—Tenure (Ireland) (23); Vice Admiralty Courts Act Amendment (71); Canada Railway Loan* (73).
Committee—Judges' Chambers (Despatch of Business)* (58).
Third Reading—Oyster Fisheries* (75); Mutiny*; Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* (54), and passed.

THE LONDON UNIVERSITY—BURLINGTON HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Duke opposite to the subject of the new building which it was proposed to erect for the London University. He understood that some explanation had been given in the other House by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works on the subject; and he was gratified to learn that the noble Lord had stayed for a time the further progress of the building. The authorities of London University received an intimation from the present First Commissioner of Works that the Board of Works were alone responsible, and could not allow of any interference with regard to the elevation on the part of the London University. The representatives of the University had conveyed to Lord John Manners that they entertained the opinion, which he believed was held by the great majority of the people out of doors, that both the building for the London University and the other buildings on the same site should be in the same style and in keeping with each other. They had suggested that it was very possible that a building of a simple but substantial character, and in due harmony with the other buildings on the Burlington House site, might be erected at less expense than the proposed elevation, which was of a highly ornamental character, and could not be carried out satisfactorily except at great cost. He desired to state that the representatives of the University had received the utmost courtesy from the noble Lord throughout their communications with him; but they decidedly disapproved the design proposed for the elevation.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he could only confirm what had been already stated "in another place" by his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works—namely, that the works at the Burlington House site would be suspended for a few weeks, so as to leave open the question of any modification or alteration of the plan and elevation which had been proposed for the buildings for the London University.

TENURE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 23.)
(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
TENURE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 23.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that as he had last Session submitted a similar Bill for their Lordships' consideration, he need not enter into any detailed description of its provisions. There was nothing compulsory in the measure. On the contrary, its main object and principle were, that all transactions in regard to land between landlord and tenant should rest upon voluntary contract. It was a mistake to suppose, as some persons appeared to do, that the small class of tenants in Ireland were not as much alive to the best mode of making a good bargain for themselves and as capable of understanding the engagements they entered into as any other persons whatever. When Parliament was legislating on the question, it ought to legislate in a comprehensive manner, and with a due regard to other classes of occupiers of land besides the peasant occupiers. In Ireland there were tenants paying rents not only as high as £500, but £5,000—and he believed even £10,000 a year. He trusted that the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time; and he should be glad to see it referred to a Select Committee to which, if the Government desired it, the Bills on this subject, now in the House of Commons, might be remitted when they came up to their Lordships' House, so that they might be examined together, and, if possible, a satisfactory measure should be passed this Session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  LORD MONCKsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill, the main object of which commended itself to all, since it proposed to consolidate and simplify the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland; to provide for the formation of cheap and accessible tribunals for settling disputes, and to facilitate the granting of leases. So far the object of the Bill was admirable. Looking, however, to the intricacy of the subject, and the numerous difficult and professional questions which it involved, he was rather startled to find such a subject taken up by a private Member of Parliament; and he was therefore much relieved to find that the Bill was to be referred to the same Select Committee as the Government Bills, where it would undergo professional scrutiny by the responsible Advisers of the Crown. The Bill also professed to deal with the

  1325
  compensation to tenants for improvements, and also with the manner in which land for the future should be held in Ireland. These were subjects which had for many years excited the attention of the farming class in Ireland, and had created a great deal of excitement among other classes. Like all other subjects which became matters of public interest, this was liable to be, and had been from time to time, prostituted for party or personal objects. Making every allowance, however, for those feelings, he believed there existed among Irish tenant farmers a strong and well-founded sense of grievance in reference to their position. He believed that the people entertained a great desire for legislation on this subject; and he believed he should be able to show their Lordships that the demands of the people were not unreasonable, and might be satisfied without an invasion of the rights of property. Various measures had been introduced into Parliament; but, though some of them had become law, they had failed to set the agitation at rest; and, with one exception, none of those measures having the slightest chance of success had received the approbation of those who represented the tenant farmers. The reason for the failure which had attended every attempt at legislation he believed to be this—that they had dealt merely with the symptoms which appeared on the surface of the body politic, and had not probed the causes of those symptoms. They had not ascertained the real grievances of the tenant farmers, and therefore the remedies they had attempted to supply had been insufficient. Attention had been directed to the question of compensation to tenants for improvements, when the real secret of the discontent which prevailed was the unsatisfactory condition under which land was generally held by Irish farmers. Those who were old enough—as he unfortunately was—to recollect when the question first gained prominence among Irish political topics would remember that it bore the character of a claim for fixity of tenure. That idea had never been abandoned by the Irish farmers; and he (Lord Monck) believed that demand was not unreasonable, and might be carried out without any invasion of the rights of property. The Bill introduced last year by Ids right hon. Friend Mr. Chichester Fortescue, and which he had reason to know would have been accepted by those who represented the tenant farmers of Ireland as a fair
  1326
  settlement, proposed, no doubt, to give very stringent rights to tenants with respect to compensation for improvements; but only as an alternative to a lease, or a lease for less than thirty-one years, and every landlord who might grant a lease for that period freed himself from all claims for compensation. The effect of that measure would have been to compel landlords in their own defence to give leases; and it only provided such a certainty of tenure as would be required by any farmer in Scotland as a security for the investment of his capital and labour. In his opinion, the Bill of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) involved precisely the same principle. The third section of it enacted that all contracts respecting land should be in writing; and this obviously implied a lease, for no landlord would be at the trouble of a written agreement with each one of his tenants every year. The Bill also proposed that landlords who gave no leases should not have the benefit of that cheap court for the settlement of disputes which it provided in other cases—thus driving them to an action in the Superior Courts. It required them, too, to give a twelvemonth's notice to quit before bringing an action of ejectment; and it empowered the Judge who might try any of these actions to award costs against the party who should appear to have been in fault with regard to the absence of a lease. Of course, the fault would always rest with the landlord. He had not cited these clauses as an objection to the Bill, but simply to show that it was not of so voluntary a character as it had been described by his noble Friend, and that its tendency would be to oblige landlords to give leases. A measure had been introduced into the other House by his hon. and learned Friend Sir Colman O'Loghlen, enacting that in cases where there was no evidence of a lease the courts should presume, not a yearly tenancy, but a lease for a fixed number of years. When therefore he found the principle of compelling landlords to give leases pervading all three of the Bills to which he had referred, and which had emanated from different quarters, he could not help thinking that the satisfactory settlement of this vexed question was not far distant. That principle, moreover, was no new one; for the Statute of Frauds, as far back as the time of Charles II., enacted that all agreements affecting land for a certain term of years should be in writing; and he believed that its operation

  1327
  would be attended with salutary results. No good cultivation could go on where the tenure was involved in uncertainty. It was needless for him to prove that a lease would be beneficial to the occupier; and he could speak from his own experience of the benefit which would follow to the landlord. He had always entertained a strong feeling with reference to this question; and he was sure that unless something was done to satisfy the craving for legislation on the subject peace and satisfaction would never exist in Ireland; but he believed this desirable result might be obtained without any undue interference with the rights of property. The few observations which he had made were dictated by the most friendly spirit to the Bill of the noble Marquess. He was glad to hear that it was to be referred to a Select Committee; and if the noble Marquess could make the gentle pressure on the landlords a little more vigorous, he should be glad to give the Bill his support.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, their Lordships would agree with him that great credit was due to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) for the pains he had evidently taken in dealing with this intricate question, and producing, he would not say a Bill, but a regular code on the subject of Irish land tenure. Their Lordships were aware that Her Majesty's Government had brought a Bill into the other House; but, as it had not yet reached their Lordships, it would be irregular on his part to enter into its details. He thought the safest and best course for their Lordships to adopt was to allow this Bill to pass a second reading. To that the Government had no objection, guarding the objectives, however, that it should be without prejudice to their own Bill. When the measure of the Government came up to their Lordships' House it would then be time to consider whether it would not be desirable to read it the second time, and then refer both Bills to the same Select Committee. All that he wished to say further was, that the Government felt the great importance of this subject. It was one which had occupied the attention of Parliament Session after Session, and much disappointment had been felt that the question had not been settled. Considering the number of Bills on the subject now under discussion, he trusted that they would be able at length to frame a satisfactory measure.
  After a few words, in reply, from The Marquess of CLANRICARDE,
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 16 th of May, next.

VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 71.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 71.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to improve the jurisdiction of the Vice Admiralty Courts. In the year 1863 an Act was passed which defined the jurisdiction of those Courts in the colonies, and had been found to give the greatest possible satisfaction. Suggestions for its improvement, however, had been made from various colonies, and this Bill proposed to adopt those suggestions. By the Bill of 1863 the Chief Justice of a colony was ex officio Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court. That was an excellent provision; but in colonies like New Zealand, where there was an extensive seaboard, and a great number of maritime towns at a considerable distance from each other, it frequently happened that the Chief Justice, who was the only Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court, was engaged on circuit or in one of the maritime towns when there might be a cause awaiting him in another. Now, this Bill would enable the Chief Justice to appoint a deputy, with the approval of the Governor of the colony. Another provision of the Bill was to remove doubts as to the persons who might practise in those Courts. There was also a provision of some importance which removed certain difficulties that had arisen in respect of certain of these Courts, Courts which had been established by letters patent in colonies possessing an independent Legislature.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committe of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH—RITUALISTIC PRACTICES.—PETITIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH presented five Petitions of Women of the United Kingdom against any Innovation in the customary Ceremonial of the Church of England. The noble Marquess said, that one of these petitions had 17,188 signatures. One of these petitions stated that in the event of a Royal Commission being appointed to inquire into Ritualistic Inno-

1329
vations in the Church of England, there could be no confidence in the proceedings of such a Commission if right rev. Prelates were appointed thereto who were themselves compromised by the introduction of usages and practices which were rejected at the Reformation. The petitioners mentioned the cases of the Lord Bishop of the diocese of Oxford, who had conducted a novel, unauthorized, and superstitious service for the "Dedication of a Bell" in Bampton Church; the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, who used a similar unauthorized and superstitious ceremonial for a bell in Sherborne Church; the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, who inaugurated by a special service a new order of Church ministers other than those authorized in the Prayer Book; and the Lord Bishop of Chichester, who, in addition to novel proceedings in a private chapel, attended a special service in Chichester Cathedral in connection with "the presentation of a pastoral staff," having profane Popish emblems engraved thereon, and also held a highly-objectionable service for the consecration of a Lady Warden of a Tractarian sisterhood; and prayed the House to adopt an Address to Her Majesty on the subject. Having read the petition at length, the noble Marquess was understood to urge in support of it that whilst he admitted that it was entirely in the province of the Crown, on issuing a Royal Commission, not only to nominate who should compose it, but also to lay down the Instructions under which it was to act, he was, nevertheless, justified in presenting this petition, and in briefly supporting the prayer of it. At the same time, he disclaimed any intention to speak offensively of Bishops in proceeding to substantiate the allegation which rendered it inexpedient that they should be members of such a Commission as that referred to. He denied that there was the slightest authority for the Bishop of Chichester carrying a pastoral staff in procession, or to justify the dedication of a bell by a religious ceremony, which was the more objectionable in the English Church because it was common in the Church of Rome.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of addressing their Lordships on the general Question on which the noble Marquess had spoken at such length, but simply with the view of saying a few words on behalf of his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Oxford, who was unable to be present, and who
1330
was anxious that the charge which had been brought against him by the noble Marquess should not be left in the position in which he had placed it, but that the House should be put in possession of the real facts of the case. He (the Duke of Marlborough) felt himself to a certain extent justified in making a statement on what was a personal matter, inasmuch as, although he could not say that he was actually of his own knowledge acquainted with the facts as they occurred, yet he was thoroughly well acquainted with the clergyman of the Church in which the circumstances relating to the dedication of the bell in question took place; and that gentleman was, he could assure their Lordships, one of the most estimable, worthy, and moderate men in the diocese of Oxford, and a man, too, who was as little likely to promote or encourage anything of what was popularly termed a Tractarian character as any Churchman whom he knew. The Bishop of Oxford complained, and he thought not without reason, that the noble Marquess should bring so serious a charge against him as that of having violated the Act of Uniformity without having given him any notice whatever that it was his intention to do so, and should have thought fit to bring it forward, too, at a time when the right rev. Prelate, in common with many of his right rev. Brethren, was necessarily absent in the performance of his duties during the period of Lent. But, without entering further into that point, he would leave their Lordships to form their own opinions as to the propriety of the way in which the subject had been introduced to their notice, and would content himself with reading what he believed to be an authentic account of what was called the dedication of the bell at Bampton Church. That account was as follows:—
"A new bell, by great exertions of the parishioners, was provided for Bampton; and the vicar wrote to the Bishop stating the great wish of the parish that some religious service should accompany its erection. The Bishop consented to attend; they had in the Church the regular service of the day, and the Bishop preached a sermon, explaining the impiety and superstition of the Church of Rome in baptizing bells, and the piety of asking God's blessing, as they were going to do, on this addition to His house of prayer. After the regular service in the Church, the congregation adjourned into the churchyard, and while the bell was raised, sang a hymn and said some prayers like those commonly used at laying a foundation stone—praying that the bell might call men to God's house, might remind them to

1331
hallow joy by prayer, and, as it tolled, to think of death in life."
That statement came from a private source; but their Lordships might, he thought, form some idea of the fairness with which the subject had been treated by the noble Marquess when he read an extract from a report of the proceedings on the occasion which had been published in a local paper, which report the noble Marquess had in his hand while he spoke, but from which he omitted to quote the passage to which he alluded. That passage was as follows:—
"The Bishop's sermon, taken from the Prophet Jeremiah, was one of the most striking and deeply spiritual discourses we have ever heard his Lordship deliver. In one part of it he gave an account of the first introduction of bells into the early churches, and described the gradual growth of those gross and baneful superstitions which formerly attended their erection, forcibly dwelling on the contrast between them and the offering up of our prayers that God would accept the work of our hands for His glory and for the benefit of His people."
He would only, in conclusion, bear his testimony to what the right rev. Prelate had accomplished, to his own knowledge, in the diocese of Oxford. He would state, from his own knowledge of the diocese of Oxford, that he knew nobody who was so happy in uniting moderate men of all shades of opinion and impressing them with the religious character and fervour of his work than his right rev. Friend who presided over that diocese.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he had not given the right rev. Prelate notice simply because he thought there was no time to be lost in drawing attention to the subject before the appointment of the Royal Commission, of which the Bishop of Oxford, who seemed desirous of having a hand in everything, might wish to be a member—a position for holding which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) held he was incapacitated by what had taken place. He had no passage of anything relating to this subject in his hand which he had purposely omitted, and he did not understand the charge the noble Duke had made against him; but if there had been anything omitted which was pertinent to the case, it must have been that he was averse to overlay the subject with too many quotations.
Petitions to lie on the table.

STATE OFFICES—THE NEW BUILDINGS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he rose to
  1332
  call attention to the state and character of the new Buildings which were being erected for the Government Offices near Downing Street, and to move for a Return in connection therewith. Their Lordships must have been struck with the great size of the buildings which had been already erected, and the incomplete state in which they were left, and also with the fact that no further progress was apparently being made to cover the site still vacant with the buildings necessary for the other offices. They understood that the new Foreign and India Offices were to be the first erected; and he wished to know whether it was intended that those large buildings were to be occupied solely by those two Offices, or whether any other of the public Departments would be accommodated in them. They all knew that it was much more expensive to live in a large house than in a small one; and it was a question of great importance to consider what additional expenditure would attend the transfer of the staff and business of those Offices from the old quarters to the new. He should therefore like to know whether any estimate had been made of the difference of charge for the respective Offices in occupying the new buildings as compared with the charge for occupying the old ones. He was afraid that the great extra expense would not be fully compensated by great additional advantage to the public. The new buildings were also of great height, and he did not know how they were to be usefully occupied. He supposed that all the documents and papers would be sent to the higher stories, which would be extremely inconvenient; and that possibly some few of the attendants would live there. He wished likewise to ask whether it was intended to pull down the present Colonial Office before the new building was prepared for the reception of that Department. That, he conceived, would cause a most wanton expenditure. He understood that when the Foreign Office was removed, the Colonial Office would be moved into its place; but all these temporary changes from one building to another involved a large expense. He wished to know how much of the property in Parliament Street and King Street had been purchased for the extension of the new State Offices, whether any plan was in existence for the completion of those buildings, whether its execution was in the hands of the same architect as the rest, how it was to be carried out, and what offices were to be accommodated in

  1333
  the buildings there erected? He should also like to have an answer to a Question which he had asked when those buildings were first projected—namely, how the buildings in Downing Street were to be joined to the new buildings? He thought it would be extremely difficult to make a good junction between them, and that the result when the work was completed would be eminently unsatisfactory. What, again, was proposed to be done on the south side of Charles Street, and with that portion of the ground which was lying waste? If it was intended for public offices, he supposed it would be requisite to purchase ground for the frontage towards Parliament Street, and also for the frontage towards the Park. He thought there ought to be a far more matured scheme for the accommodation of all these different public Departments; and, as far as possible, none of the Departments should be removed until the new buildings intended for their use were ready for their reception. In that part of the town they had a large space now left in a disgraceful state as far as appearances went, and also in a most useless state as respected the public advantage. The subject was one which ought to be attended to, and that as speedily as possible.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House, Return of Property purchased in Parliament and King Streets for the Extension of the new State Offices.—(The Lord Redeschde.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, the answer to that part of the noble Lord's Question with regard to the ground bought as sites for the Public Offices which was now lying idle was, that the House of Commons had not yet voted the money required for the buildings which were to occupy that ground, and therefore it was impossible to proceed with their erection. As to how much of the site fronting Parliament Street had been purchased, he might state that a considerable portion of the freeholds and leaseholds had been bought. There were four properties remaining, of which neither the freeholds nor the leases had been purchased. The present new buildings were to be entirely appropriated to the India Office and the Foreign Office. The new India Office had been built with funds supplied from the Indian revenue, and the amount paid to the Commissioners of Works for the portion of the land required for it was £86,000. Her Majesty's Government had no jurisdiction in respect to the interior arrangements of the India Office. The estimated
  1334
  cost of the portion of the building which was to be occupied by the Foreign Office was £250,000, and the cost of the site £89,000. The new Foreign Office would contain accommodation for the clerks employed in the Department, and for the papers belonging to the Office, which were formerly kept in the State Paper Office; and the necessary arrangements for printing and other matters connected with the Department were likely to occupy the greater part, or nearly all, of the available room. The rooms in the new building were not so numerous as those in the old one, though they were larger. Large rooms were required, and the upper portion of the building was to be devoted to the storing of papers. A new Colonial Office was to be built, and the subject of the accommodation was under the consideration of a Commission appointed by the Treasury to consider generally the question of the Public Offices. No one would deny the great importance of having the Public Offices together. To have one portion of the staff in one street, and another portion in another street, was most inconvenient; but until the House of Commons devoted sufficient funds to supply the requisite accommodation, the inconvenience and the expense must be borne. He had before him a letter from Mr. Gilbert Scott, stating that he did not think there was any reason to complain of the want of speed at which the works were proceeding. On the contrary, he stated that he had had to restrain the builders from proceeding too rapidly with some portions of the fine work. With regard to the ground fronting Charles Street, beyond the India Office, no plan had been agreed to with regard to its occupation.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should like to know whether the House of Commons had been asked to vote the money necessary to carry on the required buildings. He believed that if an application were made for a moderate sum of money it would be cheerfully met. The question he had asked why the houses fronting Charles Street had been pulled down if no plan was ready had not been answered. The ground, which was once profitably occupied, had been cleared, and was now unprofitable, and could not be made the site of new official buildings without further purchases being made at both ends, to the Park and to Parliament Street.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.