Lords Sitting of 27 November 1888

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Wolverton, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Public Health Acts Amendment (Buildings in Streets) (283).
Committee—Municipal Funds (Ireland) (278–290); Sea Fisheries Regulation * (264–291).
Committee—Report—Oaths (272); Statute Law Revision (No. 2) * (258).
Third Reading—Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment* (230), and passed.

AUSTRALIA—QUEENSLAND—APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR—SIR H. A. BLAKE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I beg to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have come to any descision as to the appointment of Sir Henry Blake as Governor of Queensland?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I have to inform your Lordships that Sir Henry Blake has stated to the Government that, after what has passed, it would be extremely unpleasant for him to undertake the Governorship of Queensland; and he has requested to be relieved of that appointment. Her Majestys Government, under the circumstances, have agreed to that request. On this day week I assured your Lordships that I was not unmindful of the grave responsibility attaching to the Secretary of State in selecting the Governor of a Colony, and I should like in a very few words to point out how eminently fitted Sir Henry Blake was for the Governorship of Queensland. I cannot but think that the opposition which has been raised against this appointment has proceeded from a misapprehension of the position, and from the want of knowledge of Sir Henry Blake's eminent qualifications and services. His service in Ireland was duly recognized by the appointment by the noble Earl opposite of Sir Henry, then Mr. Blake, to the Bahamas. I must add that this service in Ireland in no way rendered him unacceptable to the com-

277
munity and people of Newfoundland, although previously to his appointment there had been, unfortunately, serious religious and political dissensions in that Colony. In the Bahamas, which is not a Crown Colony, but which has a representative assembly in which the Government cannot command a majority, Sir Henry Blake did most excellent service. He interested himself largely in developing the industrial resources of the country; he showed great sympathy with all classes of the people; and upon his retirement general expressions of regret followed him from all sides. When he came to Newfoundland he had to administer a responsible Government, and he there showed the same conspicuous tact and judgment, and proved, moreover, that he thoroughly understood and recognized the relations which existed between the Governor and his responsible Ministers. As in the Bahamas, so in Newfoundland, he applied himself steadily to developing in every way the resources of the Colony, and to improving the condition of the working classes. As in the Bahamas, so in Newfoundland, when he departed expressions of esteem came in from all quarters. Addresses of regret at his departure were received from the Premier and ex-Premier, from the leading men of both political parties, and from the Bishop and other loading persons. I may say that his departure has been viewed with regret by all classes. I will only add that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, by the continued exercise of the tact and judgment which he has hitherto so conspicuously displayed, Sir Henry Blake would have amply justified the selection of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DERBY: As I was the Minister responsible for bringing Sir Henry Blake into the Colonial Service, I feel bound to express in a few words my entire concurrence with what the noble Lord has said. Sir Henry Blake seemed to me to be one of the very ablest men I ever came across. That is the account I also heard of him from others who were officially connected with him, and in my judgment he was, and is, fully fitted for the highest posts in the Colonial Service. At the same time, I think the Secretary of State is acting quite rightly and with sound judgment in not seeking to force
278
him as a Governor upon a Colony which, however unreasonably or from whatever cause, has taken a prejudice against him.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, it was hoped that the Irish Land Purchase Bill would come up from the Commons on a day which would permit of its being read a first time and the second reading being fixed for Tuesday next.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he would give his determined opposition to the measure. He had protested against the whole system of land legislation for Ireland, and more especially against Lord Ashbourne's Acts. He was satisfied that the tenants could not pay the instalments of purchase-money, and it was perfectly illusory to tempt them in the manner proposed in the Bill.

MUNICIPAL FUNDS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
MUNICIPAL FUNDS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (No. 278.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Short Title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Interpretation of terms.)
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving in line 12, after ("districts,") to insert ("the population of which exceeds 5,000,") said, he thought it was unwise to extend the provisions of the English Borough Funds Act to all the townships of Ireland, because the municipal institutions of England were widely different in regard to size from the townships that existed in Ireland. There were about 105 townships in Ireland, and, excluding the large towns, there were very few of them between 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. Their Lordships would appreciate the importance of this matter when he stated that some of the Irish townships were so small that there were 30 of those townships whose income from rates and other wise did not exceed £200 a-year. Some of them had an income as low as £64 a-year, and one of them, he believed, had only an income of £30 a-year. It appeared to him, therefore, that it would be highly inexpedient to entrust such townships with the power to originate

  279
  expensive litigation. He thought his proposal limitating the operation of the Bill to townships of 5,000 inhabitants was a very moderate one; but, if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill did not think so, he was willing to meet him, and make the limit 4,000.
  Amendment moved, in page 7, line 12, after ("districts") insert ("the population of which exceeds 5,000.")—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, he should be very unwilling to reject any Amendment which commended itself to the knowledge and experience of the noble and learned Lord, but in that case he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the law in Ireland in regard to the application of municipal funds to the law in England, and it appeared to him that any limitation, such as that proposed by this Amendment, would create a difference between the law of the two countries without any corresponding benefit to Ireland. The provision requiring the approbation of the Local Government Board and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to be obtained would suffice to prevent the misapplication of the funds by the local bodies. He hoped, therefore, the noble and learned Lord would not press the Amendment. He also trusted that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Arran), who intended to propose to limit the operation of the Bill to townships of 8,000 inhabitants, would accept his observations in the same sense, and not move his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ARRANintimated that he did not intend to move his Amendment.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would not press his amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Cost of promoting or opposing Parliamentary and other proceedings for benefit of inhabitants to be charged on borough and local funds, except in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (No payment to member of governing body to be so charged) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Costs of promoting or opposing Bills to require sanction of special meetings.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that as the Bill stood it required that no such expense should be charged unless it was incurred in pursuance of a resolution of an absolute majority of the whole number of the governing body. That majority, however, might be a majority of one, and he therefore proposed as an Amendment that the required majority should consist of not less than three-fourths of the governing body. If one-fourth of the whole governing body were opposed to that expenditure of the rates, it ought not, in his opinion, to be undertaken.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 13, after ("majority") insert ("consisting of not less than three-fourths.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he must object to the Amendment because it would impose a limitation which was not contained in the English Act, and it was desirable to adhere as strictly as they could to the words of the English Act. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsupposed it was of no use pressing the Amendment, but, although it was desirable as far as possible to assimilate the law in Ireland and in England, he thought it was hardly a good reason for applying a faulty provision to Ireland that now existed in England.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in line 12, after ("expense") insert ("in relation to promoting or opposing any Bill or Bills in Parliament.")—(Viscount De Vesci.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, if the noble Lord (Viscount De Vesci) referred to the beginning of Clause 3 he would find that there were two objects proposed in this application of municipal funds. The first object was that of promoting or opposing any local and personal Bill or Bills in Parliament, and the second, or alternative, object was that of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the district. The noble Lord would, perhaps, see that if his

  281
  Amendment were inserted in Clause 5 he would limit the effect of the Act to the case of the promoting or opposing of Bills in Parliament, and would exclude the other purposes which he had just referred to as provided for in Clause 3. The result would be that the funds might be supplied for those purposes without the control of the ratepayers or the constituencies under the Bill. He imagined that it would scarcely commend itself to the approval of the noble Lord, and he hoped he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Viscount DE VESCI, Amendment made, in line 20, leave out from ("shall") to ("resolution") in line 27, and insert—
  ("Have received, in respect of matter within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board of Ireland the approval of such Board, and in respect of other matters the approval of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Vote of the electors).
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 18, leave out ("any person") and insert ("ten persons present at the meeting and.")—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD DE VESCIsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment. In the Public Health Act of 1875 a poll could be demanded by anyone, owner or ratepayer.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he must press at least for five.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 23, leave out from ("by") to ("where") in line 26, and insert ("Schedule III. of the English Public Health Act, 1875, which shall be applicable to any such poll.")—(Viscount De Vesci.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, the Schedule referred to contained 50 clauses, many of which it was impossible to embody in a Bill of this kind. The clauses applied to constituencies in England which were uniform, and in that respect they differed from those in Ireland. He was led to believe that the object in view was to obtain an enactment for the use of voting papers at those elections. He would frame a new clause in order to carry out that object, but at present he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 6, to insert as anew clause—
  "The approval of the Local Governmen Board, or of the Chief Secretary, as the case may be, shall not be given to any such resolution as aforesaid until the expiration of seven days after the second publication thereof as provided by this Act, and in the meantime any ratepayer within the district of the governing body may give notice in writing to the Local Government Board, or the Chief Secretary, objecting to such approval."—(Viscount De Vesci).
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he would accept the Amendment. He suggested that instead of "ratepayer" the wording should read—"Any person qualified to vote at the election of the governing body of the district."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Order of the day for consideration of Standing Order No. XXXV., read and discharged; The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 290.)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT (BUILDINGS IN STREETS) BILL.
(The Lord Basing.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT (BUILDINGS IN STREETS) BILL.

  (No. 283.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD BASING, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it proposed to confer powers on municipal authorities, in new localities, to prevent the bringing forward of houses so as to mar or interfere with the frontage of streets. The Bill, he believed, had the approval of the Local Government Board, and it had passed the House of Commons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Basing.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the Local Government Board did not propose to offer any objection to the Bill. On the contrary, they thought it a reasonable measure, which carried into effect what, until a recent decision, was believed by all parties to be the state of the law.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OATHS BILL.—(No. 272.)
(The Earl Spencer.)
OATHS BILL.—(No. 272.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl Spencer.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he trusted that the Bill would pass through their Lordships' House without Amendment. The subject had been thoroughly threshed out. He earnestly hoped that the Bill would be passed in its present state, and that no more discussion would arise with regard to it. The Bill ought to be passed quietly, and if a man chose to say that he desired not to swear he should be relieved of the obligation to do so, and those who suspected him should have the power of challenging him.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Affirmation may be made instead of Oath).
  LORD ADDINGTONmoved, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from "every" to the end of the clause, and to insert—
  ("Member of either House of Parliament shall (instead of making and subscribing the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance), subscribe the following declaration:—I, A. B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors; according to law.)"
  His Lordship remarked that the second reading of the Bill clearly indicated that the House wished the measure to pass. For his own part he did not desire to prevent its passing; but it related to questions of the highest importance, and therefore it ought to be treated with deliberation. In his opinion, the Parliamentary oath ought to be dealt with apart from the other oaths affected by the Bill. Surely, if an affirmation was good enough for one man, it was good enough for another. If it were good enough for a person who denied the existence of God, a fortiori it was good enough for Christians. Why should any Christian volunteer to take an oath which was not imposed upon him by law? The straightforward course would be to pro-
  284
  vide that nobody need do more than make an affirmation.
  Amendment moved,
  ("In page 1, line 5, leave out from ("every") to the end of the clause, and insert ("Member of either House of Parliament shall (instead of making and subscribing the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance) subscribe the following declaration:—I, A.B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law." (The Lord Addington.)
  EARL SPENCERunderstood that the House, in reading the Bill a second time, affirmed its principle, which would be done away by the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord wished to confine the Bill to the Houses of Parliament. Then the Bill as it stood was not obligatory. It did not sweep away all oaths; but the noble Lord wished to sweep them away altogether in the Houses of Parliament, and to leave matters as they were elsewhere. So far as his individual opinion was concerned, he should not object to the abolition of the oaths for Members of both Houses; but the Bill was a compromise, and if the noble Lord's Amendment passed their Lordship's House it would be lost in "another place."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which had not a single merit to recommend it. But, little as he liked the Amendment, he liked his noble Friend's argument still less. The Amendment made a declaration compulsory instead of optional, and would settle nothing and unsettle everything.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that it had come to him from many quarters that the Church of England was expected to oppose this Bill. But he thought the Church was in no way bound to resist the measure. The Church was thought somehow to be compromised in the maintenance of oaths, as if it held that truth itself depended on them. He, however, did not accept the interpretation which many moderns adopted, as it were almost in defence of our usages, that Our Lord forbade only "profane oaths," or levity in the use of oaths in common talk. But Our Lord was not speaking only of those oaths which Moses would have condemned with the same earnestness as Christ Himself. He was com-

  285
  menting on and correcting the grave Mosaic precept itself, which had been as much as "the old time" could bear, and which simply required faithfulness to oaths sworn. His express words, that whatsoever was more than "Yea" and "Nay" came of evil, precluded this narrow interpretation. He there traced the substitution of adjuration for affirmation to an evil source. What that bad source was in part was patent. Unhappily, the experience of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that there were multitudes of people who would speak falsely but would not swear falsely, could be confirmed by every clergyman. The word of masses of mankind was not credible, though their oath was. The necessity, then, for oaths was to be deplored, but was to be acquiesced in so long as the civil magistrate, "who did not bear the sword in vain," declared oaths to be found essential to the ends of justice for the eliciting of truth and the conduct of government. But that could not make the exacting of an oath more or less to be a thing indifferent, or the taking of oaths as if they were not only a sad necessity, but a good thing, justifiable. He did not find that the ancient writers took the line that profane oaths only were against the Christian ideal, He held with Augustine that oaths were in necessariis but not in bonis, and with Chrysostom that the oath was a security so long as men distrusted each other. The last conversation he had with the statesman whose condition at that moment was causing so much anxiety, alike to those who agreed and those who did not agree with him, was on this subject. The Article of the Church of England, which they then discussed, said exactly this upon the subject—namely, that oaths at the command of the civil magistrate were not prohibited—that was, so long as owing to the imperfection of Christian society they remained the security for truth; they could only be taken rightly if this condition were fulfilled upon the declaration of the supreme authority that they were indispensable. Even then, the Article laid upon the individual conscience these cautions—that the oath must "be in a cause of faith and charity," and "made in justice, judgment, and truth." The Article was an Article of Religion, and it simply allowed that an oath under such
  286
  circumstances might be taken "without sin." In almost every age the Church had protested against oaths being of more account than this. In a Council even of the 16th century the "Immoderata, iuramentorum exactio" was condemned. The Church, therefore, was bound by its principles to accept any relaxation in oath-taking which the Government thought possible; and he considered it a real gain when at last the making of a false statement became as punishable as a perjury, when saying untruly was to be counted as wrong as swearing untruly. It was a sign that Christian feeling had made progress. Should it still be ruled that any class of oaths was to be retained, we should bow to the decision but look on to its reversal. For the present, there appeared to be a certain obscurity in the words, which provided that an affirmation might be made where a person stated that the taking of an oath was "contrary to his religious belief." Would that include the case of a Churchman who, though considering himself justified in taking an oath at the bidding of the civil magistrate, yet had an aversion to taking an oath, and a conscientious feeling that an affirmation was the more desirable form? He hoped those words would include such a case, or, if not, that they would be amended, for otherwise in practice the effect would be that an unbeliever's word would be treated as being as good as a Christian's oath. Lastly, with regard to this measure generally, he knew that it had been urged in some quarters that the Church ought, having regard to its origin, to reject it altogether; but he hoped that that was not the opinion of any of their Lordships as to the Church's duty. If any body in the world was bound to judge any measure honestly for what it was in itself without respect of persons, it was the Church. The measure ought to be treated on its merits, and he felt bound to support it.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsuggested the substitution of the words "religious conviction" instead of "religious belief."
  EARL SPENCERsaid he did not think that there was any real difference between the words in the Bill and those suggested by the most rev. Prelate, and

  287
  he thought it better not to introduce any unnecessary changes in the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYremarked that if the word belief clearly included conviction he should not suggest the alteration, but "belief" might very well be understood to be the religious creed of the Church to which the person belonged, whereas he wanted to include the case of a personal religious aversion to taking an oath, irrespective of whether the taking of an oath was or was not against the creed of the Body to which the person belonged.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, the words "religious belief" were already on the Statute Book, and were well understood in Courts of Justice. The common thing was to ask a man whether the taking of an oath was contrary to his religious belief.
  LORD ESHERsaid, be was anxious that the Bill might be passed without Amendment, so as to obviate further discussion, and hoped that no unnecessary verbal Amendments would be made.
  LORD HALSBURY, in moving the following new Clause:—
  "Such an objection and statement, on the ground that he has no religions belief as in the first section of this Act mentioned, if made by a juror shall he good cause of challenge to that juror by the Crown or by the prisoner in any criminal proceeding, and by any party thereto in any civil cause or matter;"
  said, that juries had intrusted to them the property, character, and, in some cases, the life of individuals, and he thought that those individuals ought to have a right to have their case tried by a juror who was bound by the sanctity of an oath and influenced by considerations of a judgment to come and a hereafter. He believed that a great many persons would object to have their rights, much more their lives, committed to the charge of persons uninfluenced by these solemn feelings, and while Parliament might think it expedient to relieve certain persons of disabilities, they ought not to deprive other persons of the right of having their cases tried by jurors acting under the solemn sanctity of an oath. There were already several grounds which entitled the parties to a case to challenge jurors "for good cause," and he proposed by this Amendment to make this statement on the part of a juror "good cause." He should
  288
  certainly press this Amendment to a Division.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert as a new Clause—
  "Such an objection and statement, on the ground that he has no religious belief, as in the first section of this Act mentioned, if made by any juror, shall be good cause of challenge to that juror by the Crown or by the prisoner in any criminal proceeding, and by any party thereto in any civil cause or matter."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ESHERsaid, he had the greatest respect for anything coming from the noble and learned Lord; but he nevertheless would earnestly appeal to their Lordships to reject this Amendment. The Bill was an attempt to terminate an irritating and distressing controversy, and such an Amendment would seriously affect this object. The Bill was a compromise agreed to by persons in the other House who were interested in the same view of religion as that which he and his noble and learned Friend held. He thought, therefore, that such a Bill ought not to be altered unless it was absolutely necessary that there should be some alteration. The Amendment, if carried, would inevitably keep open an irritating and distressing controversy—that seemed to him sufficient reason for refusing to adopt it—while it would be very small in its effect. The challenge for good cause was not necessary, and never came into play until the challenges which every party was entitled to make, or did make, without stating any cause, were entirely exhausted; therefore, the Amendment would, in addition to casting a slur, keep open a sore in order to give a right of challenge for cause which would hardly ever arise. Besides that, it seemed to him that the Amendment would bring about an extraordinary anomaly, because a person making a declaration would be allowed to give evidence upon which the jury and the Court must act in a matter in which he was interested, and five minutes afterwards objection might be raised to his going on a jury to try a matter in which he was not interested. He was afraid that the Amendment would, if their Lordships carried it, bring about the loss of the Bill. He earnestly advised their Lordships to pass the Bill without any Amendment of any kind.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he could not agree with the noble and

  289
  learned Lord who had just sat down. A witness who made a declaration was subjected, if he stated that which was not true, to the penalties of perjury; but a juror who gave a false verdict could not be subjected to those penalties. If a man came forward as a juryman and objected to be sworn because he had no religious belief, thousands of persons might very fairly object to be tried by him. He did not see how the Amendment would cast a slur upon any man. By objecting to a man who held no religious belief going on the jury, they would not say that he was a dishonest man, but simply that a person to be tried had a right as of old to be tried before a jury of 12 good sworn men.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he did not agree with the opinion expressed by the late Mr. Justice Mellor in regard to oaths—namely, that they were of very little value. He regarded them as of very considerable value, especially in those oaths the breach of which was followed by possible punishment. A man with an oath which he believed was binding on his conscience must have an additional inducement to tell the truth. Undoubtedly, where there was no penalty, the efficacy of the oath was not so great as in other cases, but even then it had some effect. He had seen a jury who had made up their minds to give an untrue verdict so shaken by being abjured to tell the truth upon the oath they had taken that they had done so. But the Bill dealt with those who could not truthfully take an oath. If it was right, then the Amendment was not right. The Bill affirmed the fitness of the man who could not take an oath; the Amendment said that he might be objected to as unfit. The Act, of course, would be the Act of Crown, Lords, and Commons, and yet the Amendment said the Crown might object to the man it had declared fit.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that he had listened to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Bramwell), but had not been convinced by what struck him as rather loose logic; for if his noble Friend was right, as he doubtless was, in pronouncing unsworn jurymen less trustworthy than sworn ones, he did not see what right they had to force the inferior juryman on either prisoners,
  290
  or suitors, or the Crown. But he had been convinced by the Master of the Rolls (Lord Esher) that this Amendment was unnecessary, because, by the existing law in criminal cases and the practice in civil cases, the parties could protect themselves.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the Amendment was rendered unnecessary by the existence of a general right of challenge. In cases of felony there was a right of challenge; but the law gave no such general right of challenge as had been supposed. A loose practice had sprung up. Counsel on both sides might, indeed, agree to say in respect to a particular person—"Don't let that gentleman get into the jury-box;" but the question with which their Lordships were dealing was what the law ought to be; and he was surprised to hear what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls on that point.
  LORD ESHERsaid, that in his experience of 40 years it was the invariable practice that if a solicitor said to the officers of the Court—"Please don't call that man," without any demur the man was told to stand down.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that might be by the concession of both of the parties; but they were now concerned with what was the law, and what the law ought to be, and a practice of that sort ought not to guide them in determining that question. The noble and learned Lord opposite said that the promissory oath of a juryman was of considerable value, and that he had known jurymen who would have attempted to find a verdict contrary to the evidence being so impressed by having the obligation of the oath they had taken impressed upon them that they had been compelled to find a verdict according to the evidence. Could they have a stronger argument than that in favour of this Amendment? If this Bill were passed as it stood, they would force every suitor and every prisoner, whether he liked it or not, to have his case tried by a person or persons who had not that sense of obligation which the noble and learned Lord opposite had shown to be so important. He trusted that their Lordships would give all the subjects of the Queen the right of being tried, if they

  291
  wished it, by persons who were impressed with the sense of religious obligation.
  LORD COLERIDGEwas understood to say that the Lord Chancellor appeared to him to be right in his view of the law and the Master of Rolls to be right in regard to the practice. That was a practical matter; and the practice was that if objection was taken to a juryman, and both sides agreed not to have him on the jury, he was not forced into the jury-box unless it was absolutely necessary through the panel running low. He earnestly trusted that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would reconsider the matter, and not press his Amendment, but would allow that long and painful controversy now to be settled by the compromise which had been anxiously arrived at.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, which would still leave open one grave and very important part of a long controversy which it was most desirable to have settled. He would ask, was it not rather absurd that when the Judge and the witnesses could affirm, a juror must be put under the stigma to which a challenge of that kind would subject him? Again, by that Amendment, they would place a scrupulous and honest unbeliever under a stigma. The scrupulous and honest man who thought that he could not take the oath would be liable to a challenge, and, therefore, would be placed under a religious stigma, whereas the less scrupulous man, who was a disbeliever, would be sworn and go on the jury. He begged their Lordships not to accept the Amendment, but to leave the Bill as it stood, and so help forward in a small way the settlement of this great controversy.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he differed from the noble and learned Lord behind him. If the question were a new one, he might take a different course, and consider the whole question an open one; but it was no longer in this position. Progress had been made in the direction of settling this controversy, and they could not go back. This was a Bill to remove a disability, and it seemed to him absurd that it should depend on any one person as to whether
  292
  or not a man should be relieved from that disability, that it should no longer depend on Parliament, but on a person taking an objection in Court.
  LORD HALSBURYargued that the observations of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would apply with equal force and cogency to affirmations as to oaths. To be logical, the noble Earl ought to abolish all affirmations, and so prevent anyone from being called upon to take an oath of any kind.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to retort that there were several noble Lords who were willing to see the oath abolished for affirmation, but who, in order to agree to the compromise, were willing to abstain from proposing Amendments. This was an example which it would be well for the noble and learned Lord to follow.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 14; Not-Contents 54: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

PROROGATION AND ADJOURNMENT—PUBLIC BILLS.—QUESTION.
LORD DENMANasked the Lord Chancellor, If all Bills passed over by the Adjournment to 6th November are to be deemed the subjects of lapsed Orders as they would have been if Parliament had been prorogued instead of having been adjourned on Monday the 13th of August?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that there had already been a discussion on this subject. An Order which did not come on at the appointed time became a dropped Order, but could be revived by specific Motion. But a mere Adjournment could not destroy a Bill.
LORD DENMANsaid, that he had always thought that his first Bill appointed for six months after January 31, 1887, might be read a second time after the six months; but it was not on the Paper he could not apply for an appointment. There would be plenty of time now ot appoint any of his three Bills waiting for second reading before an Adjournment or Prorogation.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS-NEW BUILDINGS—MARYLEBONE ROAD.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works, in opposition to the wishes of the Vestry of St. Marylebone, have sanctioned, contrary to the Act 29 Geo. II. c. 88, buildings to be erected on the south side of the Marylebone Road, east of Seymour Place, encroaching 35 feet upon the 50 feet from the margin of the road within which distance, by the above Act, it is illegal to build; and, if so, whether they will take steps to prevent the Metropolitan Board of Works from permitting the Marylebone Road to be thus narrowed, and the limited amount of breathing space within the Metropolis from being diminished?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that personally he was unable to enter upon the discussion of the question; but he had been asked to read a reply which had been furnished by the authorities concerned. An application was recently made on behalf of the Committee of the Samaritan's Free Hospital, Marylebone Road, for permission, in rebuilding the hospital, to advance the frontage of the building to a line at the centre 15 feet and at the wings 19 feet back from the public way. As the Vestry of St. Marylebone objected to the proposal, the application was referred to the Building Act Committee for consideration. The Committee, having regard to the objects and public character of the institution, thought that the building might be enlarged without injury to the adjacent property, and the Board, on the recommendation of the Committee, granted the application. Since the permission of the Board was given, the Vestry of St. Marylebone had requested the Board to reconsider their decision, and the parties interested had been invited to attend the next meeting of the Building Act Committee, which took place on the 27th instant. That was today.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.