The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, 1279 he thought it necessary to state, very shortly, the circumstances which had led to its introduction. The object of the Bill was to reverse the attainder of the Earls of Perth, who were attainted in consequence of the part they had taken in the rebellions of 1715 and 1745. At a very early period, within the first year or two of the accession of James I. to the throne of England, that sovereign created a member of the family of Drummond, Earl of Perth, the title to belong to him and his heirs male. The first person so created died without issue male, and in consequence his brother succeeded to the title, and he was succeeded by his son. This third Earl had two sons, the eldest of whom was James, who became fourth earl, and the second, John. James, the fourth Earl, became Chancellor of Scotland, and had several sons, one of whom, James, adhered to the fortunes of the exiled royal family, and was engaged in the rebellion of 1715, for which he was attainted. He had two sons, who continued faithfully to adhere to the exiled family, and both of them were engaged in the rebellion of 1745. Only the youngest of them, however, was in fact attainted, because the Act of Parliament only threatened attainder to all those who continued to adhere to the Pretender, and who neglected to surrender themselves before a certain day, and before that day arrived the eldest son died. At length, the descendants of him who had been Chancellor of Scotland became extinct, from default of male heirs, and that being so, the party who became entitled to the earldom was John, the second son of the third earl, or his descendants. His representative, who succeeded to the title, was not affected by any act of attainder in England; but he, too, was an adherent of the exiled family, and, quitting this country, a decree of forfeiture, equivalent to an Act of attainder in England, was passed against him in Scotland. He went to France, and was there created Duke de Melfort. He was twice married, but the Melfort branch was limited to his issue by his second wife. Therefore now the representative of the Earl of Perth, but for the Scotch decree of forfeiture, would be the descendant of John, the brother of the Lord Chancellor, through the line of his second wife, namely, the Dukes of Melfort. The third Duke of Melfort had issue several children, all of whom died without issue, except the youngest, George, the present claimant. This George, being 1280 clearly the representative of the Earls of Perth, presented a petition to Her Majesty some years ago, praying that the dignity of Earl of Perth might be restored to him, and urging that the effect of the law of attainder in Scotland was not the same as in England, and that no person was affected by the Scotch attainder except the particular person to whom the Act applied. The case came before their Lordships' House when Lord Cottenham was Lord Chancellor. It was very carefully investigated, and doubts were entertained whether the view which was taken of the law of Scotland on behalf of the Duke of Melfort—namely, that the attainder did not affect any one besides the person to whom it specifically applied—was correct or not. After elaborate arguments it was agreed that the claimant would have succeeded in making out his title but for the forfeiture; but all their Lordships were clearly of opinion that the attainder was as complete a bar to succession in Scotland as in England. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) suggested, however, at the time, whether this was not a case in which it might be fitting to ask Her Majesty to give her consent to the removal of the bar created by the attainder. This was in 1848 or 1849, and the subject then dropped; but it had since been revived; and, Her Majesty having graciously consented that the attainder should be reversed, he (the Lord Chancellor) had laid the present Bill on the table with that object. Of course, the measure would not restore the Duke de Melfort to any of the estates of his ancestors, for his right to them would be barred by lapse of time over and over again, but simply to reverse the fact of the attainder, which would enable him to claim the honours and dignities of the earldom of Perth.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTwished to say a very few words on the subject of this Bill. He had been requested to sit on the Committee of Privileges during the investigation of this claim; he closely attended the proceedings, and, after a minute investigation, he was perfectly satisfied that the pedigree of the claimant was clearly established. The then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) concurred in that opinion; and the Lord Advocate, who attended at the bar to watch the evidence, was also perfectly satisfied. It was argued, on the part of the plaintiff, that by the operation. of the Scottish law, the attainder did not 1281 attach to the plaintiff. A case decided by Lord Hardwicke was relied upon in support of this view; but, after a long argument, Lord Cottenham and himself (Lord Lyndhurst) were clearly of opinion that that case had no application to the one before them, and that the claim of the Duke de Melfort was absolutely barred by the attainder. The Committee of Privileges, therefore, reported against the claim, and the House of Lords adopted that decision. He (Lord Lyndhurst) suggested, however, as his noble and learned Friend had mentioned, the propriety of an application to the Crown on the part of the Duke de Melfort, for the purpose of obtaining a reversal of the attainder; and it was with great satisfaction he had heard that Her Majesty had been advised by his noble Friends opposite to interpose, with Her usual benevolence and liberality, for the purpose of restoring the honours of this family. He need scarcely inform their Lordships that the family of Drummond was one of the most illustrious and ancient families in Scotland. One member of the family was so celebrated for his extraordinary military valour and prowess, that, having accidentally fallen a prisoner into the hands of Edward I., that king directed that public thanksgivings should be offered for his capture. The individual upon whom the Earldom of Perth was conferred was a person of great accomplishments; he was appointed by his Sovereign to negotiate a treaty of peace with the Court of Spain, and he discharged the duty with so much skill and talent, that he was rewarded with the earldom. During the troubles in the reign of Charles I., one of the Drummonds accompanied the gallant Montrose in his extraordinary and chivalrous expeditions, and afterwards he and his son suffered great persecution from Cromwell in consequence of their steady adherence to the Royal cause. It was not to be supposed that a family so distinguished for their loyalty would, at the time of the Revolution, desert their ancient Sovereigns. They adhered to the fortunes of the exiled Stuarts—relinquishing their stations in some instances, and exposing their lives in the service of that unfortunate house. At the battle of Culloden one of them was severely wounded, and afterwards escaped into France. A hundred years had now passed away since these events; the differences of those times were now happily forgotten; the line of princes to whom this family had so chivalrously adhered had become 1282 extinct, and there was no longer any reason to doubt the allegiance of any member of the family to the reigning Sovereign. The traditional loyalty of this family, indeed, afforded the strongest guarantee for their future loyalty and their stedfast obedience to their Sovereign; and he hoped that,' under these circumstances, their Lordships would give a unanimous vote in support of' the second reading of this Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire approval of the Bill. He approved of it, he said, upon this ground among others—that in doing an act of justice to the noble claimant, it did no injustice to any other person. He used the word justice—because, although it was true that it was an act of kindness and grace on the part of Her Majesty, he thought at the same time that it was nothing less than justice to that noble individual. He could not help remarking, in one word, that there were other cases which stood precisely in the same situation as the present, in which a similar concession might justly be made.
LORD CAMPBELLprotested against the Jacobite tone of the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst). He (Lord Campbell) admired as much as his noble and learned Friend could do, the chivalry of those who stuck by the family of the Stuarts, but he could never forget that that family was rightly and justly dethroned. He hoped that his noble and learned Friend, in his admiration of the clans who adhered to the Stuarts, did not mean to throw any slur on the clans who supported the cause of civil and religious liberty, and helped to place the House of Hanover on the throne.
§ The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that he also felt pleasure in supporting the Bill, particularly as the present claimant had served Her Majesty for many years with great credit to himself, and had, therefore, given a practical proof of his personal loyalty, in addition to that traditional loyalty which his noble and learned Friend had ascribed to him.
§ Bill read 2a.