Lords Sitting of 3 June 1872

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Earl of Belmore.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (121); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (122).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision* (107); Prisons (Ireland)* (108); Isle of Man Harbours* [83].
Select Committee—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* [101], nominated.
Third Reading—Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads * (94), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
    CORRESPONDENCE.
    Further correspondence with the Government of Canada, and correspondence with the Governments of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, respecting the Treaty of Washington (in continuation of Paper presented May 1872): Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    Draft of Article proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, 10th May 1872: Presented (by command), and to be printed.—North America (No. 8., 1872.)

  ARMY—BAND OF THE GRENADIER GUARDS.—QUESTION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDrose to put a Question to the noble Marquess the Under Secretary of State for the War Department (the Marquess of Lansdowne). As the circumstance to which the Question related admitted of no delay, he had not been able to give the usual Notice; but he had written that morning to the noble Marquess, so that he might be in a position to inform their Lordships what he intended to do, and he had also thought it his duty to apprize His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief of that intention. Their Lordships were probably aware that there were seven battalions of Guards, of which four were stationed in London. These had only three bands. Now, he was given to understand that on Thursday last the Adjutant General received orders from the War Office to cause one of the

    985
    bands to proceed to Liverpool to-morrow on duty, in order to embark next morning for the United States. The Adjutant General thereupon wrote to the Officer commanding the Home District, His Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, directing him to send the band of the Grenadier Guards—one of the three bands to which he had referred—immediately to Liverpool. The order had been accordingly given, and the band was to embark on Wednesday morning at Liverpool, in order to proceed to Boston, to take part in what was called the "World's Peace Jubilee and International Musical Festival." He was further informed that an officer had been ordered to go out in the same ship to take charge of the band. He only hoped that this gallant officer had great experience, tact, and judgment, for he could not conceive a more delicate office than that which he would have to perform. He was also in a position to state that the bandmaster of the Grenadier Guards, Mr. Godfrey, had actually received £1,000 for the purpose of paying the passage money of the officer and men. Mr. Godfrey was also to receive at the rate of £600 per week while the party was out, and each bandsman would receive £40 when he came back. He was also told—but of this he had no means of judging—that, the band not being of sufficient strength, in order to bring it up to the proper number certain civilians were to go out as members of it, dressed in the band uniform of Her Majesty's Regiment of Grenadier Guards. Now, what power would the unfortunate officer have over this band? It seemed to him that this was one of the most singular proceedings ever taken. It was extraordinary in every way; for the order was given from the War Office—at least he believed so—without the previous sanction of Her Majesty, or of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, or of the Colonel commanding the regiment. He granted that the information on which he acted stated that the sanction of the Sovereign had been obtained subsequently; but his position was that such an order ought never to have been given by a Civilian War Minister without the previous sanction of Her Majesty. Most heartily did he, for one, regret that such an order had been given. If a civilian could order out one of Her Majesty's bands, equally well
    986
    might he send out one of the battalions of the Guards without any reference to the Queen's pleasure or comfort. He would not make any allusion to the instruments being the property of the officers, because some change had been made at the time of the Crimean War with which he was not exactly acquainted; but his impression was, that before that time they belonged to the officers. The Colonel, he believed, paid £150 or £200 a-year, and the officers supplemented that sum to a certain amount both for the purpose of providing instruments and band's clothing. That was a strong reason why the Secretary of War should have consulted the officers of the Regiment, through their Colonel, before giving the order. The Officers of the Guards were very much averse to the proceeding, and he believed it would give them the greatest satisfaction if it were countermanded; but, unfortunately, we lived in days when everyone gave way in everything, and nobody stood up for anything. In nine cases out of ten judgment was now allowed to go by default. He hoped it would not be so in this instance, but that a voice of indignation would be raised against this unheard-of outrage. This money which was to be paid to the band could not be paid by the United States Government; therefore, probably the request came at the instance of some advertiser—some Barnum—who, to have the pleasure of showing off the band of Her Majesty's Grenadier Guards, was willing to pay them out of his own pocket, at so much per head. He concluded by asking, If it was true that such an order had been issued by the Secretary of State for War before Her Majesty's sanction had been received, or without the consent of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, or that of the Colonel of the Regiment?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that if the statement with which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hertford) had prefaced his Question were accurate, he would concur with him as to the demoralization of the times; but he must give an emphatic denial to two or three of the allegations contained in that statement. It was quite true that in consequence of a request made through the Foreign Office, conveyed through the Secretary of the American Legation in London, permission had been given to the persons conducting the arrangements

    987
    for the forthcoming musical Festival at Boston to engage the band of the Grenadier Guards for the purpose of taking part in the musical arrangements. The correspondence on the subject had been entered into as long back as September last; but before any order was given for the bandsmen to proceed to Liverpool the War Office had received the sanction of Her Majesty, obtained on the submission of His Royal Highness Commanding-in-Chief. The noble Marquess was mistaken in supposing that any civilians were to go in the band, and to be dressed in the uniform of the regiment. The men were to leave tomorrow; and it was true that they were to proceed to the United States in charge of an officer.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the answer of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was one of the most unsatisfactory statements he had ever heard;—and he had not answered two or three of the principal points made by his noble Friend who introduced the subject. He understood the noble Marquess to say that on the application of the Secretary of the American Legation, made through the Foreign Office in London, some persons were permitted to engage the band to go to America. To "engage"—that was his word—that meant that leave had been given to American speculators who were desirous of getting up a "World's Peace Jubilee and International Musical Festival," to enter into engagements with the band of one of Her Majesty's Household Regiments. The noble Marquess did not deny that, and therefore it would be assumed to be the case. He wished to know whether persons had come from the United States of America wishing to enter into an arrangement with, and to engage the services of, the band, and were permitted to do so before the sanction of Her Majesty had been obtained? He took it from the statement of the noble Marquess that it was so, and he ventured to say that a more irregular proceeding never took place, and that a more irregular proceeding never was sanctioned by the Secretary of State for War. The most essential part of the Question had been left untouched, and that was how discipline was to be maintained when the band went to America; because bandsmen were liable, like other people, to indulge in intoxicating liquors. Had the officer
    988
    any instructions given to him to whom was he to apply when he went to America, and under whose orders was he to place himself? He (the Duke of Richmond) hoped not under the orders of the person getting up this "World's Peace Jubilee and International Musical Festival." If so, it was very derogatory for an officer of Her Majesty's Army to be employed in connection with a musical troupe.
    EARL GRANVILLEmust say that the experience of the Government was not that judgment in their favour was allowed to go by default. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had much exaggerated the facts of this case. The proceeding complained of was not one without precedent. He himself had before now joined with other "speculators" in inviting the military bands of foreign Governments to visit us, and he had never found the proceeding other than productive of good feeling. These bands came under the command of officers, had been cordially received, had behaved admirably, and their performance had given a great deal of pleasure to English audiences. He was informed that military bands of three or four of the greatest countries in Europe—including, he believed, bands from Austria, Russia, and Prussia, but he was not sure as to these particular nations—were going to this Musical Festival at Boston, on exactly the same terms as those on which the band of the Grenadier Guards would go over. He was informed also by a noble Friend behind him that the band of the 71st Regiment of the Line had gone to America before now, had been cordially received there, and had in no way misconducted themselves. He must say that he did not think this was a moment for the House of Lords to show any grudging ill-will towards a country with which we might at present have some difference, but in relation to which we were desirous of standing on the best and most friendly footing.
    LORD DE ROSthought that on grounds of discipline the arrangement to which the War Office had given its sanction ought not to have been made.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEobserved that all the objections made to the permission given to the band to go to Boston would apply to any removal of a band from the regiment to which it belonged.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
    THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLE.
    OBSERVATIONS.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although the time is past for reading the Orders of the Day, I am sure your Lordships will excuse me if I say something with reference to a conversation which took place at our last meeting with regard to the negotiations between this country and the United States. At that time I certainly was in the hope—or possibly under the apprehension—that I should be in a position to give your Lordships a final statement on the subject either to-night or in the beginning of the week. My Lords, this is not the ease. Communications are still continuing. We have arrived at no final result; and the only fact of any importance I can give to your Lordships is one of which I believe your Lordships are already aware—namely, that Sir Edward Thornton has informed us that Congress has postponed its adjournment to this day week. Without knowing the reasons, I think we have a right to infer that this evinces a desire to remove obstacles to some possible arrangement. As to that possible arrangement I can give your Lordships no assurance whatever. In this position of affairs my lips are as much sealed as they were the other day, except as to some misapprehensions which evidently were in the minds of some of your Lordships on Friday last; and I have obtained the sanction of my Colleagues to make an explanation in regard to those points which do not involve in any way and will not complicate the negotiations now going on. I understood the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) to state that the declaration I made just before the Whitsuntide Recess had allayed the anxiety of the public.
    EARL GREY: No—I referred to the speech of my noble Friend on the Address.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly misunderstood my noble Friend. I may be allowed to state publicly what I have already said to him in private, that I was hardly ever more gratified than I was by a short letter which I received from the noble Earl at the Table (Earl Russell) after the Supplementary Article
    990
    had been published, couched in terms of his old and usual kindness to me, and expressing his satisfaction at what had been done. It appears that since that time certain things have happened which some of your Lordships think have tended to weaken what confidence you might have had in the course which the Government would take. These facts were of a different character. One was the publication of certain Papers which we had refused to the House, and which, though of a confidential character, were published in the United States. I can say for myself that, for obvious reasons, no one regretted more than I did the publication of those Papers; but in regard to it I heard afterwards that some of your Lordships believed that publication to be an act of the United States Government. Now, Sir Edward Thornton had informed me that those Papers were obtained surreptitiously by one of the New York newspapers; and the United States Minister, General Schenck, has since informed me that he believed they were not published with the privity or sanction of the President, the Senate, or the Secretary of State, but that the publication was due to the "enterprise"—he prefers to use no stronger term—of the proprietor or editor of a New York paper. Another point was that by that publication your Lordships were made aware of the Article which Her Majesty's Government had stated their willingness to adopt. Some of your Lordships thought the Article was weak in itself, and you were much alarmed lest it had been further modified and weakened by the United States Government; and you felt some apprehension that Her Majesty's Government would make some compromise, and would yield to an Article of a less sufficient character. Now, with regard to that Article, the noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord Westbury), in some observations which I am sure your Lordships will not have forgotten, advised me to consult our professional Advisers on questions connected with it. My Lords, we were in full pos session of the opinion of our professional Advisers; but I thought out of abundant caution I would submit exactly the words of the noble and learned Lord to the Law Officers; and I can only state that the opinion of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Dr. Deane, entirely concurred in not only by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack

    991
    but by Sir Roundell Palmer, our counsel in the case, is entirely satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government.
    LORD CAIRNS: What is satisfactory to the Government?
    EARL GRANVILLE: Their opinion. Then with regard to Her Majesty's Government being in danger of agreeing to some compromise that would further weaken the Supplementary Article, the public is under a misapprehension as to that part of the case. With regard to the operative part of the Article, so far as it has to do with the Indirect Claims, the American Government have not in the slightest degree proposed or endeavoured to modify that operative clause, and we have no reason to believe there is any difference of opinion between that Government and our own on that point. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) observed with regard to the correspondence which has been surreptitiously published—and I am not surprised at his being struck with the circumstance—that there are passages in that correspondence which show that Mr. Fish maintains the existence of the Indirect Claims before the Tribunal. Though it is not quite regular, I will ask your Lordships to read a record which I have made, and which I have shown to General Schenck, and which has been approved by him, of a conversation I had with him in consequence of what was thrown out by the noble and learned Lord—
    "I have spoken to General Schenck as to the annoyance which has been felt in and out of Parliament at the publication in the United States of the papers submitted to the Senate in their Secret Session.
    "I told him that, for obvious reasons, I much regretted it, but that I believed that it was no act of the Government of the United States.
    "Sir E. Thornton had informed me that these papers had been surreptitiously obtained.
    "General Schenck told me that he believed that the Government of the United States had not, through any of its Departments—the President, the Senate, or the Secretary of State—been a party to the publication of that correspondence. It appeared to have got out surreptitiously through the enterprise (if it may be called by so innocent a name) of the newspapers.
    "I have also spoken to General Schenck, and alluded to the unfavourable impression which has been created by certain passages in that correspondence, wherein Mr. Fish declares the determination of the President to maintain the Indirect Claims before the Tribunal of Geneva. I told General Schenck that from the various conversations which I have held with him, and from his written communications, I have been led to
    992
    believe that the position of the United States was this:—
    "The President held that the Indirect Claims were admissible under the Treaty; that the Treaty was made and ratified in that sense; and that, therefore, although he might by interchange of notes or otherwise agree not to press for compensation for those claims, yet, as being within the scope of the Treaty, it was not in his power to withdraw them—that could only be done by the exercise of the full Treaty-making Power, including the concurrence of the Senate; that it was for this purpose that the President preferred, instead of an interchange of notes, that Her Majesty's Government should adopt a Supplementary Article, which for some sufficient consideration might enable the Government of the United States to declare that they would make no claim for such losses, and that the Arbitrators would thereby be prevented from entertaining these Indirect Claims.
    "General Schenck informed me that he agreed with me in my construction of what had passed, and I have submitted to him this report of our conversation."
    I trust, as far as that goes, my explanation may be satisfactory to your Lordships. The point of difference which now exists between the two Governments is not with regard to the operative clause of this Supplementary Article, but with regard to the exact extent of the engagement by which both parties bind themselves for the future. That being the point of difference, I do not know whether we shall come to an understanding or not; but I see no reason why we should not. I am aware there are some difficulties at this moment as to the forms of procedure; but I am advised that, supposing we come to a substantial agreement on the subject, those difficulties may be overcome. With regard to the declaration with which I certainly understood my noble Friend (Earl Grey), for once in his life, to be satisfied, what I have to say is that Her Majesty's Government from the very first day we met determined it was impossible that these Indirect Claims should be submitted for arbitration. I adhere to that declaration, and I am willing to repeat it in any form your Lordships may desire.
    EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, with regard to the Notice which I put on the Paper for to-morrow—namely, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to give instructions that all proceedings on behalf of Her Majesty before the Arbitrators be suspended till the Indirect Claims have been withdrawn—I must say it appears to me that we have come to a stage in these discussions when it is necessary

    993
    that the words used should not only be enough to satisfy the Law Officers, whether on this or the other side of the Atlantic, but should be clear and open to but one interpretation. It is with that impression on my mind I must say that, though I was originally satisfied with what I saw in the papers as to the terms of the Supplemental Article, yet I found afterwards by the correspondence published in the The New York Herald that I had misunderstood that Article—that it could be taken in a different sense from that which I at first supposed it to bear, and that it would not be satisfactory in the way in which it was understood. I was also convinced by those letters addressed by the Secretary of State for the United States to the Minister of his Government in London that there were ways of evading the apparent sense of that Article. Any one of the Arbitrators might say—"There are on the table certain Indirect Claims, of which the Arbitrators are in possession, and of which they have been declared to be in possession by the accredited organ of the United States Government, and it is necessary we should take those Claims into consideration, together with all that is contained in the Case of the United States." This is a danger so great that it appears to me nothing but an explicit declaration that those Claims are withdrawn can be satisfactory. It appears to me that if the proposal of my noble Friend can be adopted by Treaty, there is no reason why a new Treaty should not be framed; and in that Treaty it should be expressly provided that none of these Indirect Claims, which are sufficiently defined by Mr. Fish and my noble Friend, should be produced before the Arbitrators. Having this impression on my mind, I shall certainly proceed with my Motion to-morrow and take the sense of the House on it.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to ask my noble Friend whether he will proceed with the Motion which he placed on the Paper before the Recess, or one for Correspondence, of which he gave me Notice by letter this afternoon?
    EARL RUSSELL: I shall proceed with the Motion which I placed on the Paper before the Recess.
    LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government on this very important question is somewhat unusual
    994
    and very inconvenient. Up to the present time the language held by the noble Earl opposite has been this—he has deprecated in the strongest way any discussion on the subject of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States; he has deprecated any reference to the points in dispute, and, indeed, to any specification of what the points in dispute were. Nay, more—on Friday evening, when the noble Earl was requested to lay on the Table the text of the Supplemental Article which he had proposed to the United States Government, he declined to do so, although—if I am not misinformed—the ordinary sources of information—the journals of the metropolis, one or more of them, had received copies of that Article, and had stated that they had received them from the Foreign Office. It seems strange, if that be so, that your Lordships should not be allowed to have on your Table the text of the Supplemental Article which had been so dealt with. But a further move has been made this evening. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) comes down to your Lordships' House, and no doubt anxious to give every information in his power, he has gone beyond anything he did up to this time. He has not only referred to the Supplemental Article, but he has stated the points of difference in respect to it, and has endeavoured to calm your Lordships' apprehensions by the statement that the Law Officers of the Crown have given an Opinion which is perfectly satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. I am at a loss to conceive what was satisfactory. I asked him whether it was the Opinion? and he said it was. I have no doubt the Opinion is satisfactory to the Government. What, however, we want to know is, not whether the Opinion of the Law Officers is satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, but whether the terms of the Article under negotiation are satisfactory to the people of this country. Then the noble Earl goes further. He reads an extract from a despatch recounting the statements made in a conversation between him and General Shenck—statements which relate to the construction of a document which the noble Earl will not allow us to see. That being the state of things, I think the time is come when we should no longer hear comments made by the noble Earl on his

    995
    view of what the Article is, but when we should he free to look for ourselves and express for ourselves our view on the propriety and expediency of that Article. I, for one, do not scruple to say that I look on the Article in the form proposed as so unsatisfactory and so pregnant with elements of danger, and so inconvenient in the future, that a source to me of the greatest alarm is the probability of that Article being adopted in the form proposed by the noble Earl. The sooner we discuss that question the better; and I rejoice that the noble Earl (Earl Russell), by persevering with his Motion to-morrow night, will give us an opportunity of expressing freely and openly what is our opinion of the Article. That must be decided, not by statements as to what the Opinion of the Law Officers is, but by the common sense construction to be put on such English words as occur in the Article—for all the words in it are not English—and therefore I rejoice at the opportunity which the noble Earl will afford us.
    LORD WESTBURY: I want to point out a misapprehension on the part of the noble Earl (Earl Granville). I do not want the Opinion of the Law Officers; but I should like to see the Case. I will not stop now to point out how entirely the noble Earl—from my fault, no doubt—has misapprehended the difficulties which presented themselves to my mind; but, as he now seems to be desirous of sheltering himself under the Law Officers, I should like to have an opportunity of seeing how far the shield is likely to be an effectual protection. I do not want to see the Opinion, I want to see the Case.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) says there is something unusual in the course I have taken; but I do not think I am at all to blame in the matter. Your Lordships will see that I am placed in great difficulty. I doubt whether in any foreign affair, or in any great international question, any Minister was ever more cross-examined than I have been in this, notwithstanding my statements that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it was impossible to give the explanations required. I say this while acknowledging that the general forbearance of the House has been remarkable. I think—if as a layman I maybe allowed to say so—there is the greatest inconvenience
    996
    during diplomatic negotiations in the utterance of extra-judicial opinions by noble and leaned Lords of great weight, and which opinions neither the people of this country or the people of America understand to be very different from judgments given in a different way. In the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns)—his speech of last year, which augmented his fame to a considerable degree—he gave an opinion as to the construction of a particular Article in the Treaty; but I beg to remind your Lordships of the circumstance of the case. After a challenge by the noble Earl, I stated what was my view of the construction of the Treaty. I think that statement, coming from the Minister of the Crown who was responsible for the Treaty just concluded, was one of considerable weight and authority. I went on, yielding to the temptation to which we all too often yield, and made a sort of ad hominem attack on the noble Earl opposite, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I said his Treaty did not exclude the Indirect Claims. What happened then? The noble and learned Lord got up and said he entirely agreed with me.
    LORD CAIRNS: No, no.
    EARL GRANVILLE: The report may be wrong. If I am not mistaken, I stated that the Stanley-Johnson Treaty did not exclude those Claims, but ours did. Thereupon the noble and learned Lord said that ours did not exclude them any more than than the Stanley-Johnson Treaty. I believe we were both wrong. But if the Stanley-Johnson Treaty did exclude them, it was no depreciation of our Treaty to say that it did not exclude them more than the former Treaty had. But if he meant that he condemned them both alike, when the noble and learned Lord says that we seek to shelter ourselves under the professional advice of the Law Officers, I do not consider it a reproach when we avail ourselves of the advice of the professional advisers of the Crown. I must repeat that those extra-judicial opinions appear to me to be of no value', and should not be expressed when they can lead to no practical result. If the noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) wishes to bring forward his opinions in the shape of a deliberate Vote of Censure let him do so. Her Majesty's Government must deal with that in the best way they can.

NAVY—STEAM AND COAL—ADMIRALTY ORDERS.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  Return respecting (laid before the House on the 7th of May last): To be printed. (No. 120.)
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE, in moving for Copy of the revised Orders from the Admiralty to admirals and captains relative to the use of steam and consumption of coal in the Navy, said, that while he did not go the length to which Lord Clarence Paget went in his pamphlet on the subject, he believed the restriction of the use of coal in Her Majesty's ships had been attended with injurious consequences. Under the regulations which have been in force for some years, steam was never allowed to be used if it possibly could be avoided. Now, he (the Earl of Lauderdale wanted to know how a captain could be up to managing his ship in action under steam if he was never allowed to practice; besides, if he did get up steam he was only allowed to go at five knots. Steam at low speed was easily managed, but steam at full power required the greatest attention and care, and would always be required in action; and he repeated that, without practice, the consequences would lead to disaster, as neither captain, engineers, nor stokers, would be up to their work. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) had been kind enough to produce certain Papers on the subject, but they did not contain all the information he sought for, and he therefore begged to move for Copies of all Orders issued on the subject from 1865 up to the present time.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Copy of the revised Orders from the Admiralty to admirals and captains of Her Majesty's ships relative to the use of steam and the consumption of coal.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he believed the Papers he had already laid upon the Table contained an exhaustive statement of the Orders and Circulars issued from the Admiralty with reference to the consumption of coal in the Navy, and he did not think he could produce any further information; but he would make inquiry, and if there were any other Papers he was quite willing to supply them. With regard to the pamphlet of the noble and gallant Admiral
  998
  (Lord Clarence Paget) which the noble Earl had quoted he did not think the cases it cited bore out the inference drawn—namely, that the Admiralty paid more attention to economy than to the proper management and safety of Her Majesty's ships. The reports concerning the various ships mentioned showed, with reference to the Captain, a strong probability that she had her steam up when the catastrophe occurred. In his report, Admiral Sir A. Milne said—"I directed Captain Burgoyne to get his funnel up, steam ready, and to connect his screws." Again, the Admiral said that after leaving the ship he made signal to get steam ready to keep station if required. Chief Gunner Hay said—"Steam was up, but I do not know whether the screw was revolving." So much as to the Captain. Now, as to the Agincourt—at the time she ran on the Pearl Rock the Admiral's order was that the ships were to have steam up sufficient to steam six knots if required. With respect to the Lord Clyde, in the night orders it was directed that the after-boilers should be kept banked and the foremost boilers should be ready for use with 10 minutes' notice. She was under steam even during the night, and could have been under steam according to her orders in 10 minutes at any time. Then as to the Defence. She ran ashore owing to an accidental mistake in the transmission of a message from the engineer to the captain, in consequence of which the ship's cable was shipped before steam was up in her boiler, and she was unable with two boilers only to make head against a heavy sea. With regard to the Royal Albert, she grounded through a mistake that was made as to the latitude. That mistake was not shared by her consort, the Danæ, which consequently escaped; and the captain of the Royal Albert, Captain Nicholson, himself admitted that he would have increased his steam if he had seen sufficient reason for so doing. If this had been the first time economy in the consumption of coal had been enjoined he could have understood the objection raised by the noble Earl; but the fact was that from the very earliest employment of coal and from the invention of steam the necessity of economy in the consumption of coal had been generally recognized, and by no one more than by the noble and gallant Admiral whose

  999
  name the noble Earl had quoted (Lord Clarence Paget). That necessity was recognized in the Circulars which bore that noble and gallant Admiral's name, and in the Queen's Regulations and Instructions from 1861 down to the present time. He believed with the noble Earl that it was absolutely necessary that a discretion upon this subject should be vested in the officer under whose control the vessel was placed; and the noble Earl would find that, not only was this discretion reserved in all the Circulars and Instructions referring to this matter, but that it was also alluded to in express terms in the very Circular to which the noble Earl had alluded. Observations had at various times been made by officers upon the paragraphs of these Circulars, and some recommendations had been made as to certain changes which it was stated would, if adopted, tend to the more economical and efficient use of coal in the service; and if the noble Earl would look at the heading of the last Circular he would find that it was owing to these reasons that the restrictions formerly imposed had been considerably modified, and that more latitude had been left to the officers in certain cases with regard to the employment of steam. He would undertake to make inquiries as to any other Orders on this subject which might have been issued from the Admiralty, but he believed that there were none in existence beyond those which had been laid upon the Table of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, that he had not the slightest doubt from the evidence that the Agincourt was carried on shore in consequence of not going at a sufficient speed to resist the force of the current, and that the accident would not have occurred had that vessel, instead of going at six knots an hour, been going at a greater speed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNobserved that the speed of the Agincourt depended, not upon any orders from the Admiralty, but on the speed of, and on orders received from, the flag-ship. She had orders to have steam sufficient for six knots, but at the time of the accident she was only going at the rate of three.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, said, that he had every reason to ask for their Lordships' indulgence, because, while on the one hand he should have to refer to some trying details, he should on the other hand have to state some circumstances so extraordinary to English ears that he should probably be told—as he had been told out-of-doors—that there was a screw loose somewhere, and that there must be some mistake about the matter. He might also be told that the cases to which he was about to refer were still pending; but, in reply to that objection, he could only say that if they waited until no case was pending, they would never enter into the matter at all. He might also be told that there must necessarily be some difficulty in working the Act at first; but he should be able to show that there were good reasons for bringing forward the subject at the present time. The point to which he proposed to address himself was the absolute necessity of uniformity in the decisions given under the Act, so that they might learn in Ireland what they had lost as landlords and what they had gained as tenants. In doing that he had not the slightest intention of attacking the principle of the Act. It was an accomplished fact, and they must make the best of it, although he believed it was opposed to the principles of political economy. Nor had he the slightest intention of attacking the persons by whom its provisions were administered, and still less of attacking the Irish Judges. Their Lordships would, no doubt, remember that in the Act a wide distinction was drawn between the case of Ulster and the rest of Ireland. In the rest of Ireland the amount of compensation for disturbance was limited to £250; in Ulster there was no limit whatever. He had at first believed that tenant-right arose from the circumstance that the tenant had for a long time done everything for the farm; but, on inquiry, he found that in large districts in Ulster in the course of the last century houses were built, lands drained, and fences made, such as they were, by the tenant,

  1001
  who in consideration of this work received a lease for, probably, 70 or 80 years. He, consequently, at last came to the conclusion that tenant-right in Ulster merely implied the difference between the proper rent which the landlord might have asked and the real rent which the tenant paid; and in that view he was supported by Mr. Senin, the able Poor Law Commissioner. The administration of the provisions of the Land Act in regard to tenant-right, was confided to certain gentlemen called in that Act "Judges of the Civil Bill Court," whose position was similar to that of the County Court Judges in England. It was a singular circumstance, however, that in Ireland the least efficient Chairmen were appointed to the most important counties, because in a large county the Barrister who took the chairmanship could not practise on his own account. He would not say one word against these gentlemen, for he did not wish to assume that any one of them had ever intentionally given a wrong judgment. Having looked at the tribunal, let them see what these Judges had to administer. It would be invidious to say that any man was the ablest of his class, but every noble Lord of those he addressed would admit with regard to Mr. Butt that his tendencies were essentially popular, and that he would desire to uphold the Land Act in every way. Mr. Butt had written a work characterized by great learning and the deepest research on the subject of the Land Laws in Ireland, in which, as a general rule, he expressed approval of the Land Act, but in which there occasionally peeped out an expression of actual contempt for the enactment in question as being one which placed immense difficulty in the way of the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts who had to administer it, particularly with regard to the compensation for improvements to be paid to out-going tenants. No Act of Parliament had ever been passed; the alterations to be effected by whose provisions depended so much upon the mode in which it was administered; and to many, at all events, it was a matter of regret that the power was committed to a number of co-ordinate tribunals, instead of to one tribunal, by which general principles might be laid down, and a certain uniformity of decision secured. But while a large discretion was given
  1002
  to the Judges, very little assistance was afforded to them in order to guide their discretion in accordance with the general principles of law. Such being the difficulties of this dangerous and uncertain Act, its administration was intrusted to the tribunals to which he had alluded. In England, questions relating to property such as were involved in the Land Act could be taken from Court to Court, until they were finally settled by the highest tribunal; but in Ireland the questions were left to be settled by a single Judge, who could grant an appeal from his own decisions if he chose, and not otherwise. Such being the case, some of the decisions arrived at were of a startling character. He would call their Lordships' attention to a few which seemed to him, to say the least, curious. In the early part of the Session he had directed attention to a case which had occurred in the county of Antrim. Here was another. Within half-a-mile of the borough bounds of Waterford there was an estate which for many years had been used as a gentleman's domain, but for which the Assistant Barrister granted compensation because it had once been occupied as a farm. In another case a landlord, acting upon the wish of his late tenant, granted a lease of the farm to the second instead of the eldest son, who thereupon claimed and obtained at the hands of the Barrister compensation from the landlord for disturbance. In yet another case the Barrister, contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter of the Act, decided the case on the evidence of witnesses who were practically a jury called, not by the Sheriff, but by the plaintiff, and who decided not on the matter of fact, but as to the amount of compensation in a case that might any day be their own. The farm was originally let at £53 10 s. 9d.; last year it was valued under the Ordnance Survey at £151, and the tenant claimed £2,000 as compensation when deprived of the farm. The Barrister, with the assistance of the jury of tenants, awarded £1,400, and, addressing the witnesses, the Chairman said—
  "This is the first time I have had the pleasure of meeting the fine, independent, seaside farmers of the county of Down, who have come forward so nobly to give their testimony in this case, utterly irrespective of the odium they will incur from both landlord and agent."
  This was followed by shouts of applause

  1003
  and clapping of hands, which were not repressed. In the county of Tyrone a Judge of the Civil Bill Court used this remarkable expression—"I always think I am bound to interpret on the friendly side of the tenant." He did not know which to admire most in this passage, its orthography or its morality. On one estate two of this gentleman's decisions—both of course in favour of the tenant—were reversed. The third case, which was the most extraordinary of all, occurred in the county of Donegal, where a landlord who desired to make a new road over his land found it necessary to evict one of his tenants. The tenant threatened to shoot the bailiff, and the consequence was that he was dispossessed. The man made a very large claim, and went before the Judge of the Civil Bill Court, who gave him very nearly 42 years' purchase of the rent of the land, although the fee simple of land in that county was only worth 21 years' purchase—so that the landlord was obliged to buy back the land at double the value. The result of this decision was extremely curious, for the landlord had better have written—"Take the farm in fee simple for evermore, and do not apply to me to pay you double its value."[A laugh.] The news of decisions of this kind flew like wildfire through the county of Donegal, and it was spread abroad that everybody who quarrelled with his landlord could get double the value of the land he occupied. Laughable as such an idea might appear, it had a very serious effect. Their Lordships were doubtless aware that in Ireland turbary was a very valuable possession, being a property above ground very like what a coal mine was below ground. Well, throughout the county of Donegal there had been a general seizure of this and other landlords' rights. A neighbour of his possessed some very valuable moor land, and he annually let to Englishmen for a considerable sum the right of shooting over a portion of it. Recently the tenants wrote him a letter saying that the game was now their property and not his; but that, in consideration of his kindness as a landlord and his uprightness as a magistrate, they would give him a day's shooting occasionally if he asked for it. Indeed, in the present state of the law two codes of Land Law were growing up—one administered by the Judges and the other by Barristers,
  1004
  many of whom had seldom held a brief. As Judge Christian prophesied in his celebrated judgment—
  "The Judges who attempt to carry out that section (the 18th) will be placed in the position of the Judges of primitive times, who made laws as fast as they administered them."
  Subscriptions were being raised in all parts of the country to enable tenants to prefer their claims; and even the Press was becoming demoralized in consequence of the necessity of pandering to the people who supposed they had these rights over the land; the class of low attorneys were reaping a rich harvest, and many of them who were before unheard of had acquired extensive practices. When all these circumstances were taken into consideration it could hardly be said that it would be premature to inquire into the subject. All he asked for was that the landlords should be enabled to ascertain on trustworthy authority what the landlords had lost and what the tenants had gained by the Act of 1870. This was a subject on which even Judges of great eminence held different opinions. It entirely depended on the Judge who went a circuit whether a gentleman had to pay a large sum or nothing at all at the termination of a lease; and he was told that Chief Justice Monahan had said the Ulster custom applied to the termination of a lease, while Judge Lawson held a different opinion. All he asked for was uniformity, and he would suggest that, instead of these important cases being tried by Judges of the Civil Bill Court, two or three Judges of high character should be sent twice a-year to try all cases arising under the Act. On the 11th of March, 1870, the Prime Minister used the following words:—
  "We are called upon, therefore, to begin this rectification of land tenures in Ireland with a plan which, if it be good at all, is good not for Ireland only, but for the whole of the Three Kingdoms, and which certainly amounts—I do not wish to describe it in language of excessive strength—to, perhaps, a peaceful, but yet a very searching and complete social revolution."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1848.]
  He thoroughly agreed with the latter portion of the statement. By refusing inquiry into what he had described, their Lordships would say that this state of things was to continue another year, and that rights were to be assumed day by day and month by month which would produce difficulties and heart burnings—

  1005
  especially in Ulster, where there always had been attachment between landlord and tenant. Would their Lordships do this, or would they grant a Committee, which would probably make a very moderate Report, pointing out the weak parts of the Act from which these varied decisions spring, and advising the appointment of a tribunal to administer the present law with uniformity and with justice?
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,"—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, their Lordships would recollect that when the Irish Land Bill was under discussion in this House there was no part of it that was more difficult than that which related to the Ulster tenant-right. There were two courses which might have been pursued. One was to attempt to define the custom by statute; and the other was not to attempt to define the custom by statute, but to make the custom statutable, and to leave it to the Courts of Law to determine between the parties where the custom applied, and to what extent it applied. Parliament deliberately determined upon the second course, and, in his opinion, it wisely determined upon it. He should not think it would have been possible, by any inquiry that could have been made, by however competent persons, to devise any scheme which would have done complete justice in all the cases of minute differences existing in Ulster, and which would not have erred by giving either too much to one party or too little to another. No doubt the other alternative left considerable uncertainty and considerable chances of conflicting decisions. It was not surprising we should hear that decisions had been given which had not given satisfaction, at all events to one party in a suit—he never heard of a decision which gave satisfaction to both parties—but it was not always that the losing party had the chance of bringing his appeal to the House of Lords, and of asking for a Committee to which the question in dispute should be referred. It was still more unusual that cases should be brought on, as it were, for a fresh trial though not in a judicial manner, when in those very cases appeals had been carried to the proper
  1006
  Court, the decision of which was not yet given. He did not wish to identify the Government or himself with any particular decision; he was not competent to say whether any decision was the wisest that could have been given; he would not examine into the grounds of any decision and pass censure or approval upon the learned Judge who tried the ease; and he did not think it at all convenient that any attempt should be made on the part of the Government to review such decisions; but as the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) had mentioned two or three cases, he would explain what he believed to be the facts of them in order to remove some misapprehension. The case decided in the county of Down involved the question whether, on the termination of a long lease—a lease for three lives—a claim for compensation under Ulster tenant-right would arise. On the expiration of the lease the landlord wished to resume possession; the tenant made a claim for tenant-right, and the Chairman held that the custom applied in the case, and gave an award in favour of the claimant; that decision was now appealed against. This was a proper question to be argued before a Court of Law—he could not imagine that in the administration of the Act any more important question could arise than that of determining precisely within what limits and under what circumstances Ulster tenant-right existed on the termination of a lease. There had been another decision, to which the noble Viscount did not refer, by which it had also been held that Ulster tenant-right existed on the termination of a long lease. In mentioning it he was not arguing the principle that tenant-right existed at the close of a lease; he was only pointing out that this was precisely the matter which had to be argued before a Court of Law, and it was not a matter of policy for discussion in Parliament. It was not the intention of Parliament to take away by statute any rights which tenants enjoyed by custom in Ulster; but it was the intention of Parliament to preserve to tenants the rights that belonged to them by custom, and to make them statutory instead of customary; and if after a full inquiry by a competent Court it should be found that Ulster tenant-right might be properly claimed at the end of a lease, it was the policy of the Act not to deprive

  1007
  the tenants of Ulster of their tenant-right. The whole question turned on a matter of fact—was or was not an Ulster custom one which arose at the end of a long lease? If it did, great injustice would be done to the tenant if it were taken away, and no injustice to the landlord if it were maintained. If on full inquiry before a competent Court, it should be shown that the custom did not arise, it would be so decided; the Act would take effect, and no injustice would be done. He must not be understood as giving an opinion on the decisions of the Courts, for these were questions of evidence and of law which he was not competent to discuss. He was arguing that it would be premature and most unwise for the House to insist upon an inquiry into an important branch of the subject by a Committee which might possibly decide contrary to previous decisions of Courts of Law how the Act was intended to apply; and this was the most important of all branches of the subject. The second case arose in the county of Donegal and had excited great attention. The property was owned by a noble Earl. In this case an appeal was made to a very competent judge, Mr. Justice Lawson, who upheld the decision of the Chairman that tenant-right existed upon the estate in question at the time when the tenant entered on his holding, and that no act done since had extinguished the tenant-right. That seemed to him to be a decision which was quite in accordance with the principle of the Act. He did not say whether Mr. Justice Lawson was right or not; he assumed that the Judge was right in the particular case; it was a simple question of fact whether tenant-right existed or did not, and he could add nothing to the case by expressing an opinion of his own; but surely there was nothing outrageous or monstrous in the decision, which, upon full inquiry, found that on a particular estate tenant-right had existed and had not been extinguished by anything done, and which, therefore, sustained the decision of the Chairman. A smile was excited by the statement of the amount of the award in that case. There was nothing more astonishing to English landlords, and to himself as one of them, than the extraordinary amounts at which Ulster tenant-right was valued. It was a thing he never understood, and
  1008
  he never should understand it; he doubted if any Englishman ever could understand it; he really did not know upon what principle the calculations for these purchases of Ulster tenant-right were based. What they knew was that as a matter of fact these large sums had been for a long course of years given for the Ulster tenant-right; and they must assume that the Judges who administered the Act were guided by the ordinary rules of evidence in endeavouring to give such sums as from the custom of the country appeared to be right and fair. The game case which the noble Viscount referred to was a peculiar case. As he understood it, the landlord had grouse moors, over which the right of shooting had been reserved, and, without interruption from the tenants, he had exercised that right and had left it for a considerable sum. The tenants, finding there was no actual reservation of the exclusive right on the letting of the farms, demurred to the landlord any longer exercising his right by letting it to another person. Now, there was a clause in the Irish Land Act which specially dealt with this class of cases. That was Clause 14. The first part of that clause dealt with cases where the right on the part of the landlord to shooting, fishing, &c., had not been expressly reserved, and the second part of it where there was an implied right in the landlord to shoot and fish. In this he thought Parliament had gone as far as it could in giving the right to the landlord. The other objections of the noble Viscount were directed against the character of the Courts before which these cases had been tried. He confessed he had but little experience of this part of the subject—much less, probably, than the noble Viscount who introduced the subject to their Lordships. He must say, however, that the gentlemen who presided over these Courts were considerably higher in position than briefless Barristers. They were usually selected from those who were just below the highest ranks of their profession.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: They are Assistant Barristers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No doubt they were Assistant Barristers, but they were drawn from a class by no means contemptible, and by their position, experience, and knowledge, were generally competent to discharge the duty imposed

  1009
  on them, and generally speaking, had considerable local knowledge. He had had the honour of selecting three or four gentlemen for that special duty, and he was sure those of their Lordships who knew the facts would admit that, as a class, they were the most competent set of men that could be obtained, and quite fit to administer the law. He very much doubted whether some of the observations which the noble Viscount had quoted with reference to their decisions were correct, and whether considerable colour had not been given to them. With regard to the inquiry proposed, their Lordships, he ventured to think, would not inquire into the working of the Act until they had some considerable experience of its alleged failure. They had as yet no such experience. He believed the Act had succeeded on the whole very well and worked good in Ireland. Doubts might be expressed by persons qualified to express them whether in all cases the best decisions had been given by the Courts; but he asked—could such an Act be administered without some such cases having arisen? This, it must be recollected, was a new law, admitted on all hands to be of a very unusual character. A number of Courts held in different parts of the country had to administer that law as to which there was no body of precedents. In such a state of things it was impossible, however competent the Judges might be, that there should not be occasionally conflicting decisions and erring from the path ultimately found to be the straight one. They must wait for a body of decisions which could only be formed after appeals to the Judges. No doubt it might be said that it was a hardship on landlords and tenants to be compelled to bring questions before the Courts, which led to expensive and burdensome litigation; but that was the inevitable result of an Act like this, which was new in its nature, and which brought into play new principles. It was foreseen from the first that there would be considerable difficulty in working out the Act. They must be prepared for objections being brought against it; but within two years of its enactment were they to say this Act had failed, and an inquiry ought to be made by Parliament into its operation because it had been found that difficulties had arisen, which difficulties must have been foreseen?
  1010
  He had little more to say than to appeal to their Lordships not to agree to the Motion of the noble Viscount. After full experience had been obtained of the working of the Act, no doubt some amendments of it would in different respects be found necessary; but to have an inquiry at this period, after only two years experience, and especially in that House, composed entirely of landlords, would not, he thought, be productive of the slightest benefit, and certainly it would not be creditable to their Lordships' House.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he did not rise to make any observations with reference to the proposed inquiry, but to read a statement, which he had been requested to do by Mr. Justice Lawson—a very old friend of his, for whose learning, judgment, and impartiality he entertained great regard—in consequence of a decision of his having been impugned by a noble Earl. Mr. Justice Lawson informed him that it was only when a question of law arose that a Judge was to call in his colleague, and if he thought it expedient to reserve a question, by way of case stated, for the Court of Land Cases Reserved. The case was "Friel v. Lord Leitrim," and the statement of Mr. Justice Lawson was as follows:—
  "This was an appeal from a decree of the Chairman, awarding £235 upon a claim for disturbance by the plaintiff under the Irish Land Act, The claimant proved before me that he paid £180 to his brother Patrick for the tenant-right of part of this farm, and that this payment was made with the sanction and approval of Mr. Wray, who was the agent over the estate at the time. This evidence was wholly uncontradicted. He also stated that his brother John had an adjoining part of the farm held separately under Lord Leitrim, that Lord Leitrim evicted him two years ago, and that he, the claimant, was served with notice to quit because he had given shelter to his brother after he was so evicted, It was proved that the Ulster custom of tenant-right had always existed upon this estate and all the estates in the district. A respectable surveyor, Mr. M'Neely, swore that the profit rent of the claimant's farm was worth £19 7s. 6d. a-year, and that the tenant-right would sell for £278. The only witness produced for the respondent was Lord Leitrim himself. He proved that Wray was his agent down to 1857, he having succeeded to the estate in 1855; he stated that he had evicted many tenants and had never recognized the tenant right-custom. I held that it was clearly proved that the holding was subject to the Ulster custom of tenant-right, and I saw no reason to reduce the amount given by the Chairman, as there was no evidence to contradict the value put upon it by the claimant's witness. After I had pronounced my judgment, the junior counsel for the respondent asked me to reserve a point for

  1011
  the Court above, on the ground that there was no compensation given to John, the claimant's brother, when he was evicted. I refused, being of opinion that there was no question of law fit to be reserved."
  He (Lord Romilly) must be permitted to say that it did not accord with his ideas of judicial procedure that a noble Lord who had been an unsuccessful suitor should, under such circumstances, make an appeal to their Lordships' House.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he could not help thinking that there was some mistake in the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) supposing that the noble Viscount had made an attack on the Act of Parliament. What had been complained of was not the Act itself but the administration of the Act; and what was desired was, that a more satisfactory tribunal for giving effect to the Act should be appointed.
  LORD LURGANsaid, that whatever affected Ireland would sooner or later be felt in other parts of the United Kingdom; and therefore he had heard with regret the speech delivered by the noble Vicount (Viscount Lifford) who introduced the present Motion. The noble Viscount had, in his opinion, alluded to circumstances which were only exceptional, and he could not concur in the noble Viscount's conclusions; for as a resident in the province of Ulster, he could assure their Lordships that the Irish Land Act was, to the best of his belief, working satisfactorily, and had in no way diminished or impaired the good feeling which, as the noble Viscount stated, had always existed between the Ulster tenantry and their landlords. He would go further, and say that the legitimate influence of the landlord was as great as ever. He was still the guide, friend, and counsellor of his tenants in all cases of difficulty. He could confirm what had been stated before, that it was not the estates of the large landed proprietors, but of the smaller proprietors, which furnished cases to go before the Assistant Barristers. He thought that the noble Viscount had been rather hard in his remarks on the Chairmen of counties. It should be borne in mind that the work falling on them was new work; and, speaking in respect to the Chairman of his own county, he could state that that gentleman anxiously and studiously devoted days and weeks to the
  1012
  consideration of the cases coming before him, and he believed that the Chairmen of other counties acted in the same spirit. One case had been alluded to which, as the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies stated, was still under adjudication; and therefore he should follow the good example of the noble Earl, and refrain from saying one word either in favour of one side or the other. He could not but think that the Assistant Barrister, who, the noble Viscount assumed, had engaged himself in collecting evidence, pursued a wise course when he tried to get the very best testimony from the stalwart farmers of the county of Down as to what was the practice of the district. As to the Ulster custom, many of their Lordships did not understand what that custom was, and he thought Parliament had exercised a wise discretion, when the Irish Land Act was under consideration, in not laying down any definition of the Ulster custom, but in leaving each particular case to be decided on its own merits. He felt bound to state his belief, and what he knew to be the belief of a large body of the manly and upright tenantry of Ulster, that the expiration of a lease did not do away with the Ulster custom of tenant-right. That circumstance might modify or diminish the amount to be paid by the landlord if he wished to take the law into his own hands, but it did not do away with the tenant-right altogether. That he thought to be a wise arrangement, for the recognition of the fact induced the tenant, instead of exhausting his farm, as he might do if he knew that he had no security for compensation on leaving it, to endeavour to keep his farm in a state of improvement and good cultivation. It was with great satisfaction he had heard that, so far as the Government were concerned, it was not their intention to comply with the Motion of the noble Viscount. He thought it would be unwise on the part of the Government and ungenerous on the part of their Lordships to agree to the Motion. He rejoiced to find the character and conduct of the landlords coming out so well in the debate in 1870 on the Land Act, and he hoped that their Lordships would bear in mind that the Irish Land Act was passed not for the protection of the landlords, but for the protection of the tenants.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not but think that the subject brought under their Lordships' notice by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) was of great importance, and well worthy of consideration. In a great deal of what had fallen from the noble Earl the Secretary of State he agreed. He thought nothing could be more undesirable and inconvenient than that the House, in its legislative capacity, should pass in review the merits of particular judgments which might hereafter come before their Lordships on appeal. So far he agreed with the noble Earl. The noble Earl also described truly the considerations which had led to the establishment of the tribunals by which the Act was administered. The Government at the time of its passing admitted that there was a great deal of vagueness in the Act—and nobody, for example, could explain in what the custom of Ulster consisted. A great deal of power had to be given consequently to the Judges under the Act, and there was in it a clause called the "Equities Clause," which armed them with a degree of authority and discretion which never, he supposed, had been committed to the hands of any Judges before. That he was not complaining of; he simply mentioned the fact without suggesting that any alteration should in that respect be made. There was, moreover, a complete absence of any precedents by which the Judges could be guided, which rendered the Act and the proceedings under it a measure altogether without parallel. He should be sorry at the same time to see any steps taken by the Legislature for the purpose of altering the provisions of the Act. Indeed, he himself no later than last Session had introduced a Bill for the purpose of explaining some portions of it which seemed to be open to doubt, and that Bill had received the assent of the Legislature. But let him for a moment ask their Lordships to consider what was the character of the tribunals which were established for the purpose of administering the Act. He was not going to say one word with regard to the merits or demerits of individuals, with one exception. The noble Lord the Master of the Rolls had referred to Mr. Justice Lawson; and although he (Lord Cairns) did not know the merits of the case mentioned in the least, he must observe that he knew no one to whom, in
  1014
  his judicial capacity, he should be more willing to submit the decision of a question than Mr. Justice Lawson. He must not be understood as wishing in the slightest degree to depreciate the Judges by whom the law was administered, while at the same time he regretted the want of uniformity in the decisions. But who, he would ask, were the primary Judges who carried out its provisions and had to decide on the difficult and intricate questions which arose under it between landlords and tenants? There were 32 Assistant Barristers in Ireland, and to them was intrusted that duty. Now, he dared say these 32 Assistant Barristers were very proper persons for the discharge of the duties which they were originally appointed to perform, which was to decide on what were known in this country as County Court cases—cases not exceeding, he believed, in value £40, which arose in various districts of Ireland. Not merely was there that limit to their jurisdiction, but the cases which they were appointed to decide were cases governed by clear precedents—ordinary cases of contract and the administration of the common law of the country, as to which there could be very little doubt, and in regard to which there could be no vagueness. Such were the Judges who were all at once transferred into Judges to administer the Land Act in the cases under which the amount of money which might change hands was absolutely without any limit, and to decide those cases under an Act which was vague, indefinite, and difficult to administer beyond any measure which had, he believed, ever received the sanction of the Legislature. They had, he admitted, a very difficult task to perform; but there was another remark which he also wished to make. The number of the Assistant Barristers was 32, and they had to administer the Act in the different counties of Ireland. Now, it was notorious—and the truth of the allegation ought to be inquired into—that, without impugning the uprightness of these Assistant Barristers or their capacity in an ordinary way, there had, as a matter of fact, owing to the way in which the Act was administered, already sprung up in Ireland completely different systems of law as between landlord and tenant. He could name two counties within sight of each other in which the law as between landlord and

  1015
  tenant had come to be as different as the law of England was different from that of the Mauritius. But the noble Earl had told them this was a state of things which could be rectified by an appeal to the Judges. Now, to whom did the appeal lie? To the Judges of Assize. But when it was considered that there were 12 Judges of Assize for Ireland, it was not to be wondered at that the decisions of these learned functionaries should also be at variance with each other. Instead, therefore, of having one Appellate Court to steady and rectify the decisions of the Assistant Barristers, there were 12 distinct tribunals. It should be borne in mind, also, that the Judges of Assize were men who were very much pressed for time, who went down to the assize towns to transact business of great urgency and importance, with only a limited number of hours for the purpose, and that these cases were submitted to them without notice; yet those Judges suddenly found themselves, while thus engaged, face to face with appeals from the Assistant Barristers, involving not merely difficult questions of law but of fact, in which the different opinions of surveyors, tenants, landlords, and other persons had to be heard. In the midst of the scramble of civil and criminal business on his circuit, the Judge of Assize had interposed those weighty and tedious and embarrassing cases—in which great latitude was left to him, too, in point of discretion, in consequence of the vagueness of the Act. The result was, that as there arose great differences in the decisions of the 32 Barristers in the first instance, so there were differences between the decisions of the Judges in like manner; so that the appellate tribunal had not had the effect, he believed, of reducing the law to any system whatever. Now, he wanted their Lordships to observe in what the urgency of the question consisted; because, unless the question were urgent, the Act ought, perhaps, to be allowed to go on working a little longer before any decided conclusions were drawn with respect to its operation. The urgency of the matter seemed to him to lie in the fact that there were a great many of those cases, and that once a decision was given by it with regard to the custom of Ulster, or any other custom in reference to a farm, that farm would become indelibly impressed
  1016
  for all time with the character of that custom, or until the landlord abolished the custom by buying it up. Now, it was a very serious thing that farm after farm should thus have a custom finally settled upon it. Another reason for urgency was that, as their Lordships were aware, the Act of Parliament provided that the Government might increase the salaries of the Assistant Barristers in consideration of the greater amount of business which they would have to transact. No increase had, he believed, been given, although strong pressure was being put upon the Government with that object. That being so, it was no wonder that certain proposals for effecting a change were made. What was proposed was, that instead of there being 32 Judges deciding those cases in the first instance, there should be two Judges appointed, of the character of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court; that they should visit all the counties in Ireland, and that they should transact the whole of the business now transacted under the Act by the Assistant Barristers. In that way, by having Judges of a superior stamp, uniformity of decision, as well as greater expedition in hearing the cases, would be secured. The arrangement, instead of being more expensive, would be less expensive, inasmuch as the salaries of the two Judges would not amount to so large a sum as the increased salaries of the 32 Assistant Barristers. The question was one which he hoped would be carefully considered before any such increase was made. It was also proposed that, instead of there being an appeal to the Judge of Assize, who might, if he pleased—but only if he pleased—allow an appeal to the Court of Land Cases Reserved in Dublin, there should be no appeal to the Judge of Assize, but an appeal as a matter of right to the Court of Land Cases Reserved. In that way we would have one appellate tribunal reducing to uniformity all the decisions of the primary Court. What they desired to avoid was the difference which at present existed in the mode of administering the Act in different counties, and the danger of the opinion arising that there was one set of Assistant Barristers whose decisions were always in favour of the tenant, and of another set of Assistant Barristers whose decisions were as invariably favourable to the landlord.

  1017
  Whatever the decisions might be, let them be uniform throughout the whole country. The subject was one to which he thought it was extremely important that the Government should turn their attention, and he did not believe that, in the long run, the working of the Act could be made satisfactory without some provisions of this kind. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Lurgan) lived in a county where there was an able and experienced Barrister, and being satisfied with his decisions, did not wish any alteration. If, however, he would go a little further, and inquire into the decisions in other counties, he would see the necessity of some change.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORbegged their Lordships to pause before, at the expiration of two years only from the passing of a Bill of the utmost importance, and considered with the deepest deliberation, they adopted the Motion of the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford); for by adopting such a course they must shake public confidence in legislation so deliberately adopted, and which had, as he believed, been attended by the most admirable results as far as concerned the country to which it was applied. Were they to do so—if, after the lapse of two years from the planting of a new system, they were to grant the Committee of Inquiry asked for by the noble Viscount, they would act like children who pull up a plant to see how it is growing. No worse course could be adopted in legislation. There was serious objection against taking such a course with regard to any measure whatever; but with regard to the present Motion there was this further objection—in which his noble and learned Friend who had spoken last (Lord Cairns) evidently agreed—that nothing could be more prejudicial to their Lordships' authority, both as legislators and as Judges, than to mix up the two capacities, and to attempt to investigate in this House, by means of a Motion of this description, questions which were the proper subjects of legal inquiry and decision before properly constituted tribunals. It was quite clear that a Motion such as this should not be supported—looking to the very recent passing of the Act, looking to the care bestowed upon it, and looking to the large interests involved in it—it was quite clear that a very strong case must be made out before such a
  1018
  Committee was appointed; and this the noble Viscount who moved for the Committee evidently felt, for he had sought to make out his case by citing instances of grievances; and this his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) also evidently felt, although he had declined to follow the noble Viscount, for he felt it would be wrong to enter into the merits of cases which had been recently decided and some of which were at this moment under appeal. His noble and learned Friend, therefore, instead opened new ground, and said that, according to his own knowledge and according to notoriety, a conflicting series of decisions, some on behalf of the landlord, and some on behalf of the tenant—which he (the Lord Chancellor) supposed were to be assumed consonant with a strict construction of the Act—had been established in adjoining counties, and therefore that there was a grievance which ought to be inquired into in regard to the administration of justice. One remarkable thing, however, was that all the cases cited by the noble Viscount in that part of his speech he had heard—for as the noble Viscount's back had been turned towards him he had not heard him distinctly—were landlords' cases—not in the sense of corruption, but in the sense of undue and improper decisions with regard to the construction of the Act of Parliament. But the argument urged by his noble and learned Friend was that there were conflicting decisions delivered in adjoining counties. If that were so, why had not the tenants complained? How was it that under those circumstances the grievance of the landlords had alone reached their Lordships' House. But whether it were a landlords or a tenants grievance, how was it possible to inquire into it in the course of a debate of this kind? No doubt it would be said that it was proposed to make the inquiry by means of a Select Committee; but a very strong case ought to be made out before they questioned the policy of an Act passed so recently, and under the circumstances to which he had alluded. The noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) had referred to a case decided by an Assistant Barrister—whose judgment but not whose motives were assailed. But it appeared that this decision on appeal had been confirmed by an eminent Judge, to whose ability, honour, and capacity noble Lords

  1019
  on both sides of the House had in the course of this debate borne testimony. That fact alone showed how dangerous it was to take up the case of disappointed litigants, and then, on the ground of the decisions in those cases, to ask for an inquiry into the working of the Act. Where, again, the language of a Judge was complained of, as his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had said, he should be glad to hear what the Judge had to say upon the point. Again, with reference to certain warm language said to have been used by one of the Lords Justices of Appeal with regard to this very Act, that learned Judge, when appealed to, had authorized him to state that his judgment had been entirely misreported. He would ask their Lordships to recall the discussion which was held upon this Act two years since, and would ask their Lordships whether this question of a fitting tribunal was not carefully and thoroughly discussed, and whether the position and the characters of the gentlemen selected were not thoroughly well known. Were they now going to refer the whole question of the Act to a Select Committee solely on the ground that these gentlemen had not delivered judgments in strict conformity with each other? The appointment of a Select Committee would imply either a vote of censure upon those gentlemen—and that upon the very slender grounds put forth by the noble Viscount—or it would virtually assume the character of an attempt by dissatisfied litigants to obtain through this particular medium a review of the decisions with which they were discontented. It would also be asked who those were who were discontented? and he conceived the answer must be, the landlords and the landlords only; and, further, it would be remembered that the only case they had inquired into at all, and which had been referred to by his noble and learned Friend, would be the case of a Member of their Lordships' own House. Was it wise or prudent to revise the whole course of proceeding with reference to any Act of Parliament which had been passed so recently—and, in particular, was it a wise or prudent course to adopt with reference to an Act which had, as he believed, contributed more to the promotion of peace and harmony in Ireland than any measure which had been passed for centuries?
  1020
  His noble and learned Friend, apparently, had no expectation of obtaining anything but conflicting decisions, because, in his belief, each decision was regulated by the whim of the Judge. The liberties of the people would be imperilled if the decisions of our Judges came to be generally regarded as the result of whim or prejudice; and the noble and learned Lord must be prepared to prove some very extraordinary proceedings before the Committee if he proposed to show that the Judges of whom this tribunal consisted were not men to be trusted. He, for one, denied that any real grievance had been shown to exist, and asked the House not to take a step which might result in altering an Act of the working of which they had only an experience extending over two short years. To appoint the Select Committee asked for by the noble Viscount would be to inflict a grievous wrong upon Judges whose conduct was impugned, but who had no opportunity of reply, without conferring any advantage upon the tenants, who were well satisfied with the existing state of things.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he should support the Motion, but he certainly should not have done so if he thought the appointment of a Select Committee would have the effect of overthrowing the policy of the Act—it would be most unwise to attempt to repeal the Act, or in any material degree to set aside its principle. The Act was irrevocable; but that was no reason why they should not make its working more agreeable to both parties. It had been found in the short experience they had had that the measure was imperfect in some respects, and he supported the Motion of the noble Viscount because it would afford a means of remedying these imperfections. The tenant farmers in different parts of Ireland were strongly in favour of amending the working of the Act, and Mr. Butt, who could scarcely be regarded as a strong supporter of the landlord as against the tenant class, had already introduced into the House of Commons a Bill the object of which was to amend the working of a measure which was interpreted differently by almost every Judge who had to administer its provisions. The noble Lord behind him (Lord Lurgan) had argued that the law worked extremely well—but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would

  1021
  like to know whether that noble Lord could tell what the law was? He hoped the Act would be further revised by Parliament, and, therefore, he should vote for the Motion of the noble Viscount for the appointment of a Select Committee, which would be able to elicit valuable evidence, particularly from the Judges who at present tried cases under the Irish Land Act.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 53; Not Contents, 29: Majority, 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Cairns, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Clinton, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colonsay, L.

  Denman, L.

  Amherst, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Digby, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

  Coventry, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Harewood, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Powis, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  Strathallan, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Boston, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Buckhurst, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Acton, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

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

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Clermont, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Dufferin, E.

  Granville, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Morley, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Wrottesley, L.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 107.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 107.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, this was one of a series of Bills of which the object was the reduction of the bulk of the Statute Book with reference to repealed and expired statutes. The present Bill disposed of some 400 statutes dating from the year 1800 to the year 1806, and he hoped that in the course of this year another measure extending to 1810 would be prepared in order to enable the Statute Law Commissioners to carry on their work of the re-publication of the statutes.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdesired to point out that there was an Act to enforce the due observance of the canons and rubrics of the Church of England as to the age of persons admitted to the sacred orders of deacon and priest. It was alleged that this Act had been virtually repealed by the Irish Church Act; but on examination he found that although the Preamble of the latter Act was directed to remedy a certain abuse which had arisen in Ireland, yet the enacting part, which extended to Great Britain as well as Ireland, declared that from and after the passing of the Act no person should be ordained deacon till he had attained the age of 23 years complete, or priest until he had attained the age of 24 years complete, and that if any person infringed this enactment his admission to Holy orders should be void in law. It was true that by the Act of Uniformity that prohibition already existed in the English Statute Book, but neither that Act nor any canon of the Church said that orders given to persons under those ages should be void. He apprehended that this was a most formidable change to introduce, for if orders were void ab initio, the validity of marriages celebrated by, and other acts done by persons holding such orders, might be impeached. Therefore he earnestly hoped that before the Bill went into Committee the noble and learned Lord would turn his attention to this

  1023
  particular Act, and consider whether it ought to be included in the schedule.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad the noble Marquess had brought this subject under his notice. He wished their Lordships to understand that he was only doing his best with the agents employed to carry these Acts into effect. When it was remembered that the Bill dealt with some 400 statutes, it was not to be wondered at that some error, such as he presumed this to be, should have been committed, notwithstanding the competence of the draughtsmen employed. He would make a note of the matter and have it looked into.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee:—E. Cadogan (chairman), E. Rosse, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Blantyre, L. Balinhard.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.