THIRD READING. (Hansard, 12 June 1883)

THE EARL OF KINTORE
said, he did not wish to impede the third reading of the Bill; and, knowing that it was a Bill of minor importance to many of their Lordships, he should not have risen but for statements made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack when the Bill was in Committee. The noble and learned Earl stated that if the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair) were agreed to, the effect would be— To introduce into the first Election Roll, and that by the deliberate act of this House, two Earls of Breadalbane, two Earls of Eglinton, two Lords Belhaven, and two Earls of Mar. The noble and learned Earl added that he was not prepared to put on the Roll the name of any person who had not at present proved his title, and stated that he could verify what he had said respecting the effect of the Amendment. In answer to these statements, he (the Earl of Kintore) had replied that these Peerages had no bearing on the Bill, inasmuch as protests against the holders of these Peerages were not made by Peers voting at elections. This being contradicted by the noble and learned Earl, with the authority which he naturally possessed, he (the Earl of Kintore) might be forgiven for not having discussed the matter further at the moment. He had since had an opportunity of inquiring into the matter. It was by this Bill essential that to go on the Roll any person must have voted without protest at an election of Peers since 1862. On the title of Lord Belhaven being called at the election on August 4, 1870, Colonel Robert William Hamilton gave in a statement claiming the title, but waiving 325 his right to vote on that occasion; and when the votes of the Peers present were called, they all voted— With the exception of the said Robert William Hamilton, who had waived his right to vote as Lord Belhaven. On March 7, 1872, Mr. John MacCallum voted, under protest by four Peers, as the Earl of Breadalbane; but in 1876 and 1879, when the Lord Chancellor said he had voted, and had had one protest presented against his right so to do, this gentleman, as a matter of fact, was travelling in the Transvaal State, South Africa; and so far from the protest being made by a Peer against his voting, the only protest presented was by his mother, the so-called "Countess Regina," in his favour. The Earl of Breadalbane (Gavin Campbell), whose right had been established under Resolution of the House of Lords in 1872, voted by signed list in 1876 and 1879. On the 18th of February, 1874, when the title of the Earl of Eglinton was called, Mr. William Stephen John Fulton gave in a protest, and lodged a signed list, claiming to vote as Earl of Eglinton, but "the said list was refused to be counted" among the votes. On the 16th of April, 1880, he again tendered a protest, which was not allowed to be read. No vote was given at this election in respect of the title of Eglinton. In none of these instances would the persons referred to by the Lord Chancellor be put upon the Roll, for the simple reason that they did not fulfil the first condition—namely, that of voting—excepting in the case in 1872 of the Breadalbane claimant, who would be excluded by the four protests against him in any case. The noble and learned Earl's case thus utterly fell to the ground, and afforded no argument against the noble Duke's (the Duke of Sutherland's) Amendment; but it was worth noting that if the claimants had voted as asserted, they would not have been excluded from the Election Roll by the Lord Chancellor's own clause, which required for the purpose of exclusion a protest against the vote by "a Peer at the same time voting." This condition of exclusion was not fulfilled in the Belhaven case, because the protester, Gavin Hamilton, who turned out eventually to have been the rightful claimant, and so a Peer at the time, did not vote. It was not fulfilled in the Breadalbane case in the instances of 326 1876 and 1879, because the protests were not made by a Peer, and were directed against a totally different person—namely, Gavin Campbell, the real Earl; and it was not fulfilled in the Eglinton case, because the protests similarly were not made by a Peer, and were not made against, but by the claimant, who protested against the real Earl. He would not have detained the House at such length were it not that he was anxious to clear himself from the possible imputation of having asserted as facts statements which, on cause shown, he was not prepared to substantiate.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was not sorry that the noble Earl had made the statement to which their Lordships had just listened, because whenever, through any cause, he had made a misstatement to the House he was glad when an opportunity was taken to put it right. The noble Earl was perfectly right in everything he had said, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had only to explain how he had fallen into error. He had desired to have extracted from the Papers which had been laid before the House a list of all the instances in which there were protests recorded by Peers against Peers. He was afraid that he must have convoyed his instructions for that purpose in a manner which was not understood, because they were given to one whom he had not only every reason to confide in, but who was generally most accurate in all that he did; but the extracts which were made included, in point of fact, protests made by persons who were not Peers against those who undoubtedly were, without showing that such was the case. As no other protests were of any use for his purpose than those made by Peers, he had assumed that the contrary was the case. This did not at all affect the principle of what he said, or the other reasons which he gave for objecting to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair). But, undoubtedly, a great deal that he said upon that occasion would not have been said if ho had not fallen into that error. No gentleman claiming to be a Peer, whose right to that Peerage was open to controversy, and was controverted, ought, in his judgment, to be placed upon the Roll. He doubted whether, if the Amendment 327 had passed, it would have had the effect contemplated, and whether the Lord Clerk Register would have been entitled to put that name on the Roll. At any rate, he should not be performing his duty if he had been any party to such a change in the Bill as would cause such an unproved claim, which had never been admitted by any competent authority, to be entered upon the Roll.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, there could be no question that the argument originally brought forward by the Lord Chancellor for rejecting the Amendment, to which reference had been made, exercised a great influence on the House. But the effect of the Bill as it stood was reduced to this—that, as regarded keeping Peers off the Roll, it would have effect upon one individual Peer, and one only. The fact remained that the Peer in question was on the Union Roll now. ["No, no"] The gentleman representing the ancient Earldom of Mar had voted on several occasions. The House having, in 1872, declared that the title of Mar only dated from 1565, the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had had the courage, in 1877, to come forward and ask the House to amend the Roll, and place this name in its proper place. On the advice of the present and the late Lord Chancellors, their Lordships recoiled from doing so; and what were they going to do now? They were going to do by Statute what they had recoiled from doing by Resolution. This Bill would be marred by what had taken place—marred by, the resistance to what was a fair and just Amendment. He regretted that the Lord Chancellor, having resisted the Amendment upon certain grounds, which he admitted to be no longer tenable, still held to the Bill in its original form. Clause 7, going forth in its original form, would perpetrate an injustice on one of the Peers of Scotland. He would ask the Lord Chancellor to state clearly what was to be the position on the Roll, as regarded dates, of the Earldom of Mar, after this Bill had passed? He thought the noble and learned Earl would have a difficult task; and he did not expect that their Lordships' House, with the assistance of this Bill, would be able to get out of the mess which, rightly or wrongly, this question had got into.
328 Motion agreed to; Bill read 3^a accordingly.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, that after the very frank statement made by the Lord Chancellor, that ho had been made the victim of misplaced confidence, he would much rather have kept his seat without saying a word; but there was one particular sentence of the noble and learned Earl, used on the occasion which had been alluded to, with regard to which he hoped the same frank declaration would be made. The noble and learned Earl used the following words on that occasion:— That before the adjudication in favour of the Earl of Kellie, the gentleman I refer to"— that was, the owner of the ancient Earldom of Mar— presented himself, and claimed the Earldom of Mar on no less than six occasions"— the noble and learned Lord referred to the Holyrood elections— and on each of these occasions one protest was recorded against him. As regarded the protests, up to that time he believed the noble and learned Earl was perfectly accurate; but he went on to say that after the adjudication in favour of the Earl of Kellie, the gentleman—that was, as he (the Earl of Galloway) described him, the owner of the ancient Earldom—never presented himself, and had, therefore, given Ho opportunity of ascertaining whether one protest, or more than one, or none at all, would be recorded against him. He could inform the noble and learned Earl that he (the Earl of Galloway) and other noble Lords in the House had been present on a memorable occasion since 1875, the year of the decision of the Committee of Privileges upon the claim of the Earl of Kellie, when the gentleman referred to got up and asked to be allowed to record his vote. He had seen the late Lord Clerk Register, who was then very aged, and consequently somewhat weak in body and mind, take the paper, and on the spur of the moment throw it on the ground and say—"I cannot take this, Sir, because you are a Peer of your own creation." ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees cheered that statement. Perhaps he would not cheer the statement that the late Lord Clerk Register, before he died, 329 expressed himself as very deeply regretting the course ho had taken upon the point, because on investigation he found that he was utterly and entirely wrong in what he had done. The Lord Chancellor had been entirely misguided in this matter. He had trusted to information which was entirely incorrect. Here was a clause of a Bill directed against one individual, who had gone through the same legal course as was usual to every other Scotch Peer to go through upon his succession to the previous owner of a title, and which was perfectly sufficient in Scotland. He did not think that the Bill should be allowed to pass without a protest on the part of those who knew the facts.

LORD SALTOUN
said, he thought the noble Earl who bad just sat down was quite mistaken in saying that Mr. Goodive Erskine had gone through the same course as every Scotch Peer. When he (Lord Saltoun) succeeded his uncle, he had to prove his right to the title before the Committee of Privileges of their Lordships' House, as every Scotch Peer then had to do.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
, referring to the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), said, that no doubt there had been a proposal by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) to place the Earldom of Mar on the Roll on the date that was found by the Committee of Privileges to be the date of the creation. This was objected to on the ground that no alteration had ever been made upon the placing on the Roll, however inaccurate some of the placings had been.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) had appealed to him to make another admission of error. He could not exactly do that. He might have used a rhetorical expression, which he certainly should never have used if he had thought it would have given pain to anyone. He did not, of course, know anything about the claimant to the Earldom of Mar presenting himself beyond what was stated in the Returns.
Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.