Lords Sitting of 13 June 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices Act Amendment* (173); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental (No. 2)* (174); Land Drainage Supplemental* (175); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (176); Clerk of the Peace* (180); Burial Grounds* (181).
Second Reading—Betting (129); Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment* (135); Gasworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (No. 2)* (154); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (127).
Committee — Citation Amendment (Scotland)* (76–177); East India Stocks (Dividends)* (116–178); Postage* (118–179).
Committee—Report—Pharmacy* (153); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (103); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (149); India (Local Legislatures)* (150).

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 138.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(No. 138.)

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments, and Commons' Reasons for disagreeing from some of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYtrusted their Lordships would not insist on the retention of the clause which they had inserted in the Bill, and to which the Commons disagree. The clause in question—Clause A—raised a most important issue, for it proposed to impose a "negative test," as it had been called—a certain form of declaration—on persons admitted to tutorial offices in colleges. He had seen with as much regret as surprise that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had

  1963
  given Notice of his intention to divide the House in favour of the retention of the clause. The clause was only carried by the narrow majority of 71 to 66 —a majority of 5 votes only; while in the other House it was disagreed from without a division. And though he was far from saying that their Lordships should renounce their independent opinion merely because the other House took a different view, it was not unfair or unconstitutional to ask that when one House had so decided an opinion that there was practical unanimity, while the other was nearly equally divided in opinion, the latter should give way, and not insist upon the Amendment they had inserted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not agree with the somewhat summary view of the noble Earl who had so curtly addressed their Lordships, that whenever the House passed anything without a division it was the duty of this House to accept it. [The Earl of KIMBERLEY denied that he had said so.] He saw no reason why they should assume from the absence of a division in the Commons that their feeling was unanimous, for it was notorious that it was not so. When a party in any legislative Assembly felt themselves to be enormously over-matched, it was not uncommon for them to save their opponents the trouble of a division;—an instance of which occurred only last light, when the noble Earl (Earl Russell) though refusing to withdraw his Motion, in reference to the Treaty of Washington, did not press it to a division, because he knew he was in a minority. He had been assured, moreover, by two Members of the other House that the absence of a division was owing to a misunderstanding, and that it was not to be inferred that no portion of the House desired to support the clause. He freely admitted that, intended as a compromise between two opposing forces, the Amendment had, like all compromises, being little popular with the party from whom it took something, while it had not been accepted by the other to whom it refused something they demanded. The support it received had consequently been small. It was a declaration which did not satisfy the extreme and unbending friends of the Church of England. The time, he thought, had come when in matters of
  1964
  education we might look to our real enemies instead of to traditional conflicts, and might combine our forces in an attempt to exclude the unbeliever to whom we were all opposed, instead of wasting our scattered forces in internal divisions. That such a course would commend itself to the extremists on either side he never flattered himself; but he had hoped the Amendment would have received greater support from those Dissenters—and he believed that out of the House of Commons they were the enormous majority—who aimed at something else than the humiliation of the Church of England. But although it was true the Amendment had found no favour in the House of Commons, whether it would meet with favour from the country it was impossible to tell until the country had had an opportunity of discussing, not the particular phraseology of this declaration, but the great question whether, apart from all controversy as to the prerogatives of the Church, the Christian character of the education given in our Universities should be preserved. This had not been fairly submitted to the people; and he was not prepared to accept the voice of partizans in the House of Commons as showing what their decision would be. He did not feel himself justified by the smallness of the majority in this House in withdrawing from their Lordships an opportunity of determining whether or not they would insist on a declaration which they must have known from the outset would not be welcome to the majority of the House of Commons. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had alluded to the smallness of the majority by which the clause had been carried in their Lordships' House; but he would remind the noble Earl that Lord Melbourne, when once twitted with having only a majority of 1, replied that it was, at all events, rather more than the other side—an answer which had the advantage of being an arithmetical fact. The consideration which weighed with him in asking their Lordships to insist on this Amendment was that this was not a mere trivial Amendment, but was the assertion of a great principle, and that it was not for him to assume the responsibility of deciding whether the House should recede from it. Originally, he would remind them, these colleges had the right of electing whom they pleased

  1965
  to form part of their own body; but Parliament had decided that they should elect simply by competitive examination—in other words, that a retentive memory should be the only qualification required to constitute the teachers of English youth. A fellowship was either a reward or an opportunity of teaching. As a reward it was not combated that a retentive memory should be the criterion; but he demurred to the assertion that this alone should be a qulification for the office of teaching:—and now that the test which had hitherto been imposed on fellows was to be repealed, he asked that tutors should declare that they would avoid teaching in opposition to the inspiration and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, which everybody in this House admitted to be their duty. The declaration had been objected to as vague and as offending tender consciences; but the House of Commons might have suggested another:—and that it would be a burden on tender consciences was sufficiently refuted by the numberless cases in which persons undertaking an office had to declare that they would perform the duties which it involved. He was conscious that this was not the only security which could be devised for the preservation of religious teaching and the existence of religious teachers in the Universities, and had the Government or the House of Commons shown any inclination to enter into discussion on these points he should have been glad to find some means less objectionable to them of attaining the object in view; but as they had simply and bluntly refused all securities for the exclusion of infidelity or the continuance of a class of religious teachers, he had no choice but to ask their Lordships to re-affirm the principle and to throw upon the Commons, if they would not meet them, the responsibility of a refusal. It was to the principle and not to the form that he adhered, and he believed the principle to be dear to the English people, for in the recent election of school boards they had reaffirmed it by large majorities with as much vigour and determination as at any previous period of our history. Their Lordships would be abdicating their duties and renouncing that guardianship of the essential principles of our institutions which specially belonged to them if, out of fear of the majority of the
  1966
  House of Commons, which appeared to be guided by catchwords more than by principles, they receded from the determination they arrived at the other night.
  Moved, to insist on Clause A to which the Commons disagree.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he was surprised that a statesman of the noble Marquess' ability should ask their Lordships to insist on an Amendment which had been adopted by their Lordships' House by a very small majority, and which found no supporters in the other. He did not think the noble Marquess had quoted quite correctly Lord Melbourne's answer, which was that a majority of 1 was the surest in the world; that every man would attach so much importance to himself as to consider that he was the one man, and would be certain to be in his place. Whether the noble Marquess' majority would be equally steadfast he was not so certain. He objected to this new test as vague, indiscriminate, and indecisive to the last degree; and for his own part he must say he should prefer subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, because from habit and frequent study men were willing to subscribe to them as each understood them. In the Select Committee it was proposed to debar tutors from impugning the divinity of Christ—a doctrine which was clearly understood—and this would have excluded Unitarians; but it was very properly asked whether it was fair to exclude one particular sect, and the proposal was negatived. The House of Commons had done everything they could to conciliate their Lordships, but their Lordships had responded to this by sending down a declaration that tutors should not impugn the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Now, there had been disputes of late years on the right rev. bench, in the Privy Council, and among the public as to what doctrines were scriptural and what were not, and a vaguer test could not be devised. If their Lordships insisted upon it the Bill would probably drop for the Session. Now, he did not know what the noble Marquess' wish was, but his own opinion was, that it would be well for the Bill in that case to drop, for when it came up again from the Commons it

  1967
  would, probably, be with important modifications, such as those which he had himself proposed for the abolition of clerical fellowships, but which he withdrew at the solicitation of Government. He should, however, deprecate any step which should prolong the controversy between the two Houses of Parliament on this question, and the continued irritation of the public mind; and he entreated their Lordships not to retard the settlement of a question which had alienated many of the moderate and more liberal of the opposite party. That settlement, he believed, would conduce to the improvement of the Universities, and of education throughout the country. He trusted that the Motion of the noble Marquess would be rejected, not by a majority of 5, but by such a majority as would make a continuance of the conflict hopeless.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he quite agreed with the course taken by the noble Marquess. His noble Friend, and those who acted with him, were ready to accept a compromise; but in doing so they were anxious to obtain some security for religious teaching, and this declaration had been recommended as the best that could be adopted. Whether this was a vague declaration, as it had been described by the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden), or not, he was not going to discuss; but the House of Commons had not proposed to alter it, nor to substitute another; nor had the noble Lord himself proposed anything of the kind. It had been said that it would be an insult to those who had to take it; but he (the Duke of Rutland) thought it was rather an insult to them to suppose that there could be any hesitation in making such a declaration; or that, if they did take it, they would not take it bonâ fide. If these colleges had been endowed by an eminent Dissenter like John Wesley, and the Legislature had proposed not only to confiscate the emoluments with which he had endowed them, but had refused them any security for the religious character of the education to be given in them, there would have been a great outcry.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he objected to the imposition of any new test, and this one was open to all the objections taken to it by the House of Commons. As long as the general tone of the country was favourable to religion the feeling at
  1968
  the Universities would continue to be so also, and more reliance could be placed on this security than on a test which apparently bound persons, but which did not really do so. A sincere and earnest believer might regard certain parts of the Bible as not of Divine authority, while others would maintain the opposite view, and the taking of a declaration like this would expose him to being pointed out as unsound in his opinions—thus introducing into the Universities doubt and controversy much to be deprecated. He hoped their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment, and that the settlement of this question would lead to great improvements at Oxford and Cambridge. The Government had done wisely in not carrying the Bill further, and in avoiding the question of clerical fellowships and other points, for he believed the Universities and colleges would be able themselves to make the necessary reforms. The Master of Balliol, Mr. Jowett, had proposed a plan which seemed to him essential and adequate. His proposal was that there should be two classes of fellowships—one for persons employed in teaching in the college, while the other class would be held for a certain number of years, giving their holders the opportunity and means of pursuing studies which would ultimately bring them to eminence and to a competence, but which their circumstances would otherwise prevent them from pursuing. It was also desirable that men who distinguished themselves in the study of modern literature should be awarded honours equally with those who excelled in the older branches of study. With the vast resources at their disposal Oxford and Cambridge would be able to carry out many useful reforms; and he trusted that by the settlement of this question they would become, in every sense of the term, national institutions.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had supported the Amendment, though he had done so on grounds different from those stated by the noble Marquess in bringing it forward. The issue was no longer between Church and Dissent, but between Christianity and Rationalism. The country, he believed, were it appealed to, would ratify the Amendment; and, though its phraseology might be criticized, it would be a pledge on the part of the country in favour of

  1969
  religious teaching in the Universities. He understood that in the Scotch Universities a similar test existed, and met with no objection, and he could see no reason why it should be objected to as regarded ours. The only fault found with this declaration was that some clever Sophist or Rationalist might evade it; but on the principle of mental reservation no promise was binding; but he believed the parents of this country would approve it as an expression of opinion that Christianity should still be taught in the Universities.
  EARL GREYadmitted that the danger against which the Amendment was directed was by no means an imaginary one. Undoubtedly, the mode in which fellows of colleges were formerly elected—namely, by favour of the electors—was open to grave abuses; but he was by no means sure that Parliament had acted wisely in making their election depend altogether on competitive examinations, for by so doing we had lost the security we formerly had that those intrusted with the government of the colleges should be men of religious convictions. He was sensible of the danger of a school of men being formed in the Universities, men of great intellectual power, who rejected to a certain extent the principles of Christianity, and who by their possession of fellowships might exercise too great an influence in the government of the colleges; but, though the danger against which it was sought to provide might be a real one, he could not see how the Amendment would meet it. The best guard against this danger would be not the imposition of a negative test, but restoring to those who had the election of fellows some of the discretion they formerly possessed, and by which they were able to give preference to men of religious character. It was difficult, however, by a test to ascertain whether men were favourable to Christianity or not, and this declaration seemed to him quite inadequate to meet the danger against which it was directed. He did not wish this House to set itself in opposition to the other House, except in a case where it had reason and sound argument on its side, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that though originally a supporter of the Amend
  1970
  ment, he could not follow the noble Marquess in adhering to it after the small majority by which it was adopted by their Lordships, and after what had occurred elsewhere. He voted for it, though not attaching much value to it, as being in consonance with the feeling of the parents of this country, but without wishing that it should have the effect of the loss of the Bill; and the opposition to the principle of the measure having ceased, so that its passing in some shape was certain, he preferred to sacrifice the Amendment to a prolongation of irritation and controversy.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he would have preferred not voting on a measure which was chiefly intended to benefit persons who were not Catholics; but, in token of his sympathy with those who were making a stand against the party who wished to exclude religion altogether from education, he should support the clause.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYhoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would explain what would be the effect of the Bill on the question whether intellectual attainments were alone to be the criterion of elections to fellowships, or whether religious character was also to be taken into account.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, reminded the noble Marquess, who had said he stood upon the principle though not the form of the Amendment, that though principles were excellent things, the application of them was the main question. In stating that he did not care much about the form, but insisted on the principle, he had really given up the whole case. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that there was some danger of religious opinions of an objectionable character arising from time to time in the Universities and in the country, but the test proposed was utterly and absolutely inadequate to meet any such danger. Nor was it merely inadequate—it was objectionable and injurious, because, while it would be a trap to catch some sensitive consciences, it was so vague and elastic that it would be readily taken by those whom it was most desirable to exclude. Such a test could not attain the object which the noble Marquess had in view, and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would reject it.
  On Question, Whether to insist? their their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 129: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Boston, L.

  Bath, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Cairns, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Churston, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Abergavenny, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Denman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Headley, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Northwick, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Raglan, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Howe, E.

  Kellie, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Manvers, E.

  Morton, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Radnor, E.

  Romney, E.

  Sinclair, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Vane, E.

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

  Verulam, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Thurlow, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Hood, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Somerset, D.

  York, Archp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cleveland, D.

  Camden, M.

  Devonshire, D.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Grafton, D.

  Westminster, M.

  1972

  Abingdon, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Cowper, E.

  Craven, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Dartrey, E.

  De Grey and Ripon, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Derby, E.

  Greville, L.

  Devon, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Essex, E.

  Harris, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Keane, L.

  Grey, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Londesborough, L.

  Leicester, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Morley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Russell, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Halifax, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Sydney, V.

  Monson, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Northbrook, L.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Hereford, Bp.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Portman, L.

  Acton, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Ashburton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Belper, L.

  Seaton, L.

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

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Carew, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Suffield, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Castletown, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think it would serve any useful purpose to divide on the other points, but trusted the noble Earl would not assume that because they did not divide the House was therefore unanimous.
  The rest of the Amendments to which the Commons disagree not insisted on; and the Commons Amendments agreed to.

BETTING BILL—(No. 129.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
BETTING BILL—(No. 129.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to amend the Act of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, entitled an "Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses." That Act, passed in 1853, had failed to effect the purposes for which it was passed; and, moreover, it was confined to England and Ireland and did not extend to Scotland. This Bill would extend the Act to Scotland, and they would thus be enabled to reach a class of offenders who at present escaped with impunity. There were a class of men who got their living by advertising to give information and advice in respect of betting, and to make bets on behalf of other persons. When the Act of 1853 became law these people retired to Scotland and issued their advertisements from that country, where the Act had no operation. Their circulars went through the length and breadth of the land, and, offering very great temptations, they entrapped a great number of unwary persons to entrust them with money for the purpose of making bets. These sums were frequently as small as 1s.; but these small bets were perhaps the most pernicious part of the whole system. When the time came, these advertising betting men presented their dupes with a debtor and creditor account, by which it was made to appear that their money had been fairly lost—because lost it invariably, or almost invariably, was. They were, in fact, in the great majority of cases, mere swindlers. He did not at all suppose that betting could be put down by Act of Parliament; but the Legislature could at any rate do some service by putting a stop to the depredations of this description.
  1974
  The 3rd section was directed to the Amendment of that clause of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, which related to betting houses. At present, the penalties of the Act were restricted to the owner or occupier of any house or office used for betting, or his servants or agents. This restrictive part of the clause was repealed, and now any person who should receive money for betting purposes was brought under the Act. As in the existing Act, this clause affected only what was called deposit betting—that is, when a sum of money was handed over to another person before the event on which the money was staked, came off. By the 4th clause, persons advertising that they will give information or advice as to betting, or with intent to induce any person to resort to them for such information or advice, or to take shares in any bet or wager, were made punishable as by the 7th section of the principal Act. And the 5th clause enacted that a circular or letter, sent by post or by any other means, in connection with betting transactions of this kind, shall be deemed an advertisement within the meaning of the 7th section of the principal Act, and be punished accordingly.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE IRISH LAND ACT.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD GREVILLErose to call attention to the judgment delivered on Friday last in the Court of Appeal in Ireland by Lord Justice Christian, involving a point of great importance in connection with the Act of last year. The Landed Estates Court decided that they were not bound to insert in the particulars of the sale of an estate the claims of the tenants to compensation for improvements under the Act of 1870. The tenants thought they would be injuriously affected by this decision, and accordingly they carried their case to the Court of Chancery Appeal, which was constituted of two Judges, one a permanent Judge entitled the Lord Justice of Appeal, and the other the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The latter affirmed the decision for the same reasons as had been given by the Court below—namely, that he did not think that the interests of the tenants were in any way affected by

1975
the conveyance. The Lord Justice of Appeal also affirmed the decision, but on the ground that he did not consider that the tenants possessed any right whatever under the Act of 1870. He would quote the exact words of the learned Judge, who was one of the ablest Judges in the land, and whose opinion, therefore, carried great weight. He said—
"They were asked to ascribe to the Land Act an effect which would be confiscation pure, simple, and uncompensated—a specimen of legislation unparalled in the whole range of real property statute law. It was sought to have that effect given to the first clause of the Land Act by the use of the words that the usage prevalent in Ulster should be declared legal. He could give no such construction to that clause. He supposed that the Act was passed from the highest motives of Imperial policy, and he might suppose that it was passed as the price of keeping a political party in power. But all that was beside the question."
The 1st clause of the Act passed last year enacted that the Ulster tenant-right customs should be legal, but now the Court of the highest Court of Appeal in Ireland had declared that they were not legal.
LORD CAIRNSrose to Order. He did not dispute for a moment that the subject was of great importance, or that the noble Lord had the right to ask a Question respecting it. As, however, the Question related to expressions alleged to have been used by a learned Judge, he submitted that those expressions ought not to be quoted from a newspaper report.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had hesitated to interpose, but he ought now to state that the learned Judge who was alluded to entirely disavowed the accuracy of the report.
LORD GREVILLEsaid, there was nothing more to be said if the learned Judge asserted that the report was in the main inaccurate. He would not go into that part of the case, but it was a very serious thing if the tenantry generally throughout Ireland—and particularly in Ulster and those other districts in which tenant-right customs prevailed—were to be left in doubt as to whether their property in improvements which was supposed to have been created by the Act of last year did not really exist, and if any proprietor could by selling his estate defeat the whole object of the Act. He should be very glad to find that the learned Judge had not used the words attributed to him; but as
1976
great fears were entertained on the subject by many persons in Ireland, he would ask what course the Government intended to pursue if the report turned out to be substantially correct?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not at all surprised at the noble Lord (Lord Greville) asking the Question, which he would answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. On examining the newspaper reports—which had not attracted his attention until it was brought before him in connection with this question—he found it contained expressions so strong and singular alleged to have been made by Lord Justice Christian, that, supposing them to be correct, he should have felt some embarrassment as to the course proper to be pursued. He had, however, now been allowed to see a letter from the learned Judge, who, speaking of the report, said, in substance—
"It is not a report, but rather a travesty of what I was supposed to have said. The strong expressions which I may have used with reference to one subject have been transferred and carried to a totally different subject, and the whole report, as it appears in the newspapers, is unintelligible and does not contain anything that I expressed."
So far for the report. Under these circumstances it would of course be impossible for him (the Lord Chancellor) to express an opinion on the statements attributed to the learned Judge. With regard to the subject-matter itself, he must observe that no decision had been given to the effect that the Ulster custom was not protected and rendered valid by the Act of last year. Indeed, the learned Lord Justice of Appeal concurred with the Lord Chancellor in the judgment. The matter, therefore, amounted to this—supposing that the words attributed to the learned Lord Justice of Appeal were actually used by him—that there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Court, with respect to a matter which was not before them for decision at the time. Unless the tenantry carried the case further, there would be no means of obtaining a legal decision as to the construction to be placed on the Act; and until the Government knew what the actual construction was he did not see how any legislative measure could be brought forward with reference to the subject.

CLERK OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for making regulations as to the office of Clerk of the Peace for the county palatine of Lancaster—Was, presented by The Lord CLANDEBOYE; read 1a. (No. 180.)

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law of Burials in England and Wales—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a. (No. 181.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.