Lords Sitting of 7 April 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* (54); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (55).
Second Reading—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (44).
Third Reading—Royal Titles (41); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)*(39), and passed.
Royal Assent—Council of India (Professional Appointments) [39 Vict. c. 7]; Sea Insurances (Stamping of Policies) [39 Vict. c. 8]; Mutiny [39 Vict. c. 6]; Marine Mutiny [39 Vict. c. 9]; County Palatine of Lancaster (Clerk of the Peace) [39 Vict. c. iii.]; Manchester Post Office [39 Vict. c. iv.].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Monday the 19 th day of June next:
That no Bill authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Monday the 26 th day of June next.
That no Bill confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Monday the 26 th day of June next.
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.

THE INDIAN TARIFF—THE COUNCIL OF INDIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, seeing the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in his place, he wished to refer to a matter respecting the production of a telegram of the 30th of September last, to which Sir Erskine Perry and Sir Henry Montgomery had

1379
dissented. On a former occasion the noble Duke had asked that the telegram should be laid on their Lordships' Table. His (the Marquess of Salisbury's) reply was that he could not consent to its production, because it was a document of a confidential nature. The noble Duke thereupon suggested that its substance should be given, and pressed for its production. He could not on the moment reply to that suggestion, but having looked into the matter, he thought he might produce the substance of the telegram. At the same time, he must express his regret that persons of such influence as the ex-Secretaries of State for India (Viscount Halifax and the Duke of Argyll) had taken a course which left him no alternative but to produce the substance of a confidential telegram. If he refused to produce it after the discussion of the other night it would be said that there was something which he wished to keep back. On the other hand, in producing it he was reluctantly establishing a precedent in favour of the production of confidential documents.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could assure the noble Marquess that neither he himself nor his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) had any wish to embarrass him. They were under the impression that the despatch in question was only directed against the policy of Lord Northbrook. From what he had heard since, he believed that in the Papers produced by the noble Marquess, Parliament had the substance of the despatch. However, if his noble Friend thought well to produce more of it in a fresh Paper, of course he had nothing to say against his doing so.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 44.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 44.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that before the Bill was read the second time he wished to make a few observations. When the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) introduced the Agri-
  1380
  cultural Holdings Bill for England last Session, and stated that it would be followed by one for Scotland, he (the Duke of Argyll) expressed his opinion that owing to the almost universal prevalence of leases in Scotland such a measure would have very little effect in that country; and when the present Bill was introduced he repeated his opinion that it would have no effect whatever, one way or another. He (the Duke of Argyll) had since examined the measure and thought very carefully over the matter, and the result was that he was confirmed in his belief that this Bill would have no effect whatever on Scotland, either for good or bad. In addressing their Lordships last year he pointed out that although the Bill might do some good in regard to those holdings which were not held on a lease, it was not applicable to any case in which leases were granted. From the peculiar conditions of agriculture in Scotland the owners of land would object to come under the Bill, not because they were averse to its principles, but because they asserted—and asserted truly—that the object of the measure was already accomplished by the system of leases. In Scotland the system was to let land for leases of 19 years, and therefore he could not understand how an Act of this kind could possibly apply there. The object of the Bill was to secure to the tenant a return of the capital which he might have spent in improvements which were unexhausted at the end of the tenancy. Now, there were three ways in which capital invested in farming could be lost. In the first place, it could be lost by bad farming; and he supposed that the most strenuous supporter of this Bill would not advance the doctrine that they could by any Act of Parliament prevent a man from losing his money by bad farming. The next way in which a tenant was liable to lose his money was by his rent being raised at uncertain times. This a lease effectually prevented. A third way in which a tenant might lose his capital was by his tenancy being determined altogether by eviction. Now, what he (the Duke of Argyll) desired to point out was this—that a lease was the great security to the tenant against both these latter causes of loss, because every holder was secured against being evicted or suddenly having his rent increased. Therefore the operation of the lease was

  1381
  infinitely better than the operation of this Bill. But while, in his opinion, in ordinary cases in Scotland the Bill would have no effect whatever, it did not at all follow that it would not have a good effect in England, where there were a great number of farmers holding land without leases. In general the provisions of the Act did not apply, because the landlords would not allow it to be brought into operation. He was informed that on a great many estates in England there was no written agreement; and he had been told in that House, by the owner of an estate celebrated in the history of agriculture in England, that as far as he knew, he had not a single scrap of agreement with his tenants, but that all his land had been held time out of mind under ancient customs. There was another point on which he regarded leases as being very important—namely, in regard to the operation of the principles involved in the 17th clause of the Bill. It was one of the principles of the Bill that the improvements effected by a tenant should not be compensated for if the landlord had given to the tenant value in consideration of improvements effected by him. Their Lordships would recollect that when the Bill of last year was before the House, he moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of withdrawing from the Bill all those cases in which valuable consideration had been given for the improvements by the landlord; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with his usual acuteness, had pointed out that in every case of lease there was a valuable consideration. On every ground, therefore, the Act would not be operative in Scotland. He ought, however, to limit himself a little in making that observation, because there were a certain number of small tenants in the Western Highlands called "crofters," who did not hold under any lease; but that class of tenants were so poor that they would never make any agricultural improvements, and it was with the greatest difficulty that they could be got to pay even the most moderate interest for improvements effected by the landlord. There was one provision in the Bill which he hoped the noble Duke would consent to alter, because it effected a change in the law of Scotland which no tenant that he had ever heard of asked for—namely, that clause which proposed
  1382
  the substitution of one year's notice of the termination of the tenancy, instead of 40 days. There might be very much to be said for it in regard to England, where tenancies at will so extensively prevailed, but in regard to Scotland, under the system of leases it would be injurious, because it would practically give 18 months to the tenant before he could be called upon to leave the farm. There was indeed one provision of the Bill of which he cordially approved, and that was the power given to the limited owner to charge on the inheritance improvements made by him—if the Bill had any extensive effect in that direction, it would be very valuable indeed: but the power, in fact, went very little further than was given by the Entails Bill of last year. It was, however, a step in the right direction. No doubt the measure would extend the list of improvements; but certainly the more important effect of the Bill would be the powers which it gave to entailed owners to borrow money, and charge the land for the purposes of improvements made by themselves. So far as it went the measure would be beneficial in this direction. He believed the English Bill had indirectly brought about agreements between the landlords and tenants, and in this respect had done good, but as far as concerned any general operation it would have on Scotland, his own opinion was that practically the Bill would be a dead letter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that when his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) said that the Bill would do less good in Scotland than in England, he was at a loss to understand how that could possibly be. He was one of the smallest landowners in their Lordships' House, though he had land in four counties; but his experience was that everybody had been contracting himself out of the English Act. Many public bodies had done so, and even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his official capacity, had adopted that course. He did not know whether it had been brought into operation on the estates of his noble Friend the Lord President.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that although there might be cases where the parties had contracted themselves out of the Act, they did not always contract themselves out of the whole Act:

  1383
  and even in cases where the parties had formally contracted themselves out of the Act it had had a very beneficial effect in bringing about agreements in conformity with some of its best clauses; and it would at any rate do good by giving the tenants the sense of security that was afforded by the compensation clauses.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the Bill was less important in Scotland than England because the larger part of the land in Scotland was leased, and this Bill did not affect leases; but in Scotland especially he deemed all legislation with regard to land unnecessary, and, therefore, injurious, for during the last 50 years the value of land in Scotland had trebled, the produce was much larger, the rents were much higher, and the tenants were more intelligent and more prosperous, so every one interested in land benefited. This Bill was permissive; but by it the Legislature declared that a certain system of dealing in land was that which was just and fair, and he could not see, should the system so laid down not be carried out, how Parliament could consistently refuse to make it compulsory, and that, as tending to interfere with freedom of contract in land, he thought the Bill most objectionable and contrary to the best Conservative principles.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked that probably where there were good existing agreements, the tenants would not make such a demand. He was in the unfortunate position of wishing to bring his property within the English Act, but his tenants refused. He ought, perhaps, to apply to Parliament to compel his tenants to take advantage of the Act.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: said, that he had never pretended that the Bill would have as great an effect in Scotland as the English Act in England. He quite approved of the principle of letting upon lease. In reply to the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) he was himself strongly in favour of leases, and all his Sussex tenants had leases. He had given his tenants an offer to cancel their leases in order that they might bring themselves under the Act—but they had declined the offer. In cases where there were no leases, no notices had been given on
  1384
  either side—so that as to these holdings the Act applied. He quite admitted that in Scotland the system of a 19 years' lease subsisted, but the Bill certainly contained a novelty with respect to Scotland, and that was the introduction for the first time into that country of the powers conferred on England under the 14th and 15th of Victoria, authorising the erection of cottages to be charged for as improvements. With respect to the limited owner, it gave him a power to borrow money to be invested in permanent improvements, and it also gave to the tenants a simpler and more efficacious machinery for determining any disputes by empowering them to resort to the Sheriff Depute rather than the Court of Session. He thought that provision would be of great utility both to the landlord and tenant. Of course he did not expect that the Bill would satisfy everybody, because there were some persons whom nothing would satisfy: but this Bill did introduce a great change and a great benefit into Scotland, because it introduced for the first time the presumption of law in favour of the tenant. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had referred to the necessity of altering the law of hypothec. That law was of great benefit to the smaller tenants, whilst those occupying large farms would be glad to see it abolished; but that was not a proper time for discussing a change in that law. There was only one point more, and that was with reference to the 40 days' notice. No doubt there were some objections to be raised to that, but it was thought on the whole to be a good plan to substitute 12 months for 40 days; but if there were any serious objections to it, it might be discussed in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 8th May next.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (ELECTION OF MINISTERS.)

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO THE EARL OF MINTO moved that there be laid before the House Copy of—
  "Regulations, framed and enacted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to be observed in the election and appointment of Ministers" under the powers conferred upon them by the Patronage Abolition Act; also for

  1385
  returns for each parish in Scotland, in which a vacancy has been filled up or is in the course of being filled up, under any such regulations or interim regulations of the General Assembly stating certain particulars [according to a tabular form set forth in the Motion.]
  The noble Earl said, that he was induced to move for these Returns because, as he understood, a great abuse had arisen under the Patronage Abolition Act, by reason that a large number of mere boys and girls, from the fact of their being communicants, had obtained votes in the election of ministers. He thought that such a system was very apt to create a scandal in the Church, and that the power had, in fact, been exercised in a very unprecedented and extraordinary manner. It appeared to him that the effect of the abolition of Church patronage in Scotland had reduced the Church of Scotland to the condition of a Dissenting body.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONexplained that it was impossible to give the Returns in the exact form in which they were moved, because, by the lapse of time, any Return given this year would be perfectly fallacious two or three years hence. Of course it would be quite practicable to give the Regulations of the General Assembly for the election and appointment of Ministers, and some of the other information required, which he had no objection to produce.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he entirely disagreed with his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Minto) that the power which had been given by Parliament to the General Assembly to create new constituencies had been exercised in an extraordinary and unprecedented manner. It was by his Amendment in the Patronage Abolition Act that an alteration was made in the clause relating to the constituency. The Act of Parliament defined the constituency. The Bill, as originally drawn, gave the election of the minister to the communicants. In the Amendment he had moved, the words "communicants and adherents" were inserted in the clause. Therefore Parliament having supplemented the communicants by the addition of those persons who were to be constituted adherents, it would have been illegal for the General Assembly to have left out that addition. He believed that the General Assembly in the regulations they had
  1386
  issued had acted strictly in the spirit of the Act. The noble Earl complained of scandals. He did not consider that the scandal was so bad as it was under the former system, when a patron could appoint any minister by his own vote, and he was glad to take this opportunity of saying that he had had some opportunity of personally ascertaining the effect of the alteration in the mode of election to one of the livings of which he was formerly the sole patron. Nothing could be more orderly and calmer than the election which had been conducted by the congregation; and though he could not deny that congregational election might give rise to some difficulties, there would be fewer scandals than under the former system. He contended that the Church of Scotland was now far more national than she was, and that the General Assembly was now more national than any other ecclesiastical assembly.
  Motion amended and agreed to.

ROYAL TITLES BILL—(No. 41.)
(The Lord President.)
ROYAL TITLES BILL—(No. 41.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would state the reasons which had led him to answer on Thursday evening that, in his opinion, no amendment was necessary in this Bill to exclude from its operation commissions, writs, and similar documents, operating in this country only. Their Lordships would remember that after he himself had raised a question on this point, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) expressed an opinion that without an alteration in the Bill it would be scarcely possible to effect by Proclamation such a limitation in the use of the new title as the Government intended. The opinion so given by the noble and learned Lord was shared in by other noble Lords. As, then, sufficient doubt had been expressed by great legal authorities as to what was the true construction of the Bill and the introduction of a few simple words would remove it, perhaps the

  1387
  noble and learned Lord would state the reasons which induced him to think that such alteration was unnecessary. Without some such statement he thought their Lordships ought not to consent to the third reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if any argument to show that there was doubt could be put forward by the noble Earl or by his noble and learned Friend, he would be happy to give it his best attention and make such answer to it as he might think it ought to receive; but he thought he ought to know what he was called upon to answer before he attempted to reply.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that surely the noble and learned Lord must have regarded the point raised as an important one, as he had taken time to consider it.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he was most reluctant to question any legal opinion given by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; he must, however, remind their Lordships that in the opinion he himself ventured to express on a former evening, on the point he was now about to bring under their notice, he did not stand alone. Moreover, one would have felt more confidence in the opinion given by his noble and learned Friend on Thursday evening if it had appeared that it had always been held by his noble and learned Friend. Their Lordships were aware that when the Bill was in "another place," it was stated that there were occasions on which the new title would require to be used in this country, however desirable it might be to minimize its use here. That announcement was made a considerable time before the Bill reached their Lordships' House. Accordingly when the Bill came to be debated in their Lordships' House, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was asked whether it would not be necessary that the altered style should be used in certain legal documents in this country; and on that occasion—and the question could scarcely have come upon him by surprise—he answered in the very words which had been used in "another place."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
  LORD SELBORNE: His noble and learned Friend might not have read those words, but he certainly referred to the statement, and said that in those classes of documents the altered
  1388
  style must be used. He hoped that in this case second thoughts might be best; but as his noble and learned Friend had just said that, before he expressed his reasons he should be happy to pay attention to anything that could be said in explanation of the point raised on a former occasion, he would put the case as it presented itself to his own mind, and as it had presented itself to the minds of others. He believed that up to the time of the Union with Scotland Parliament had not laid down any law as to the style of the Crown—it was in the power of the reigning Sovereign, without the authority of Parliament, to alter that style; and, in point of fact, in many successive reigns from the Conquest to the Union with Scotland that style was altered by different Sovereigns. The Union with Scotland made no difference in that respect, because there was not in that Act any express legislation with regard to the Royal style and title. But even in that state of things it was held by the Court of King's Bench, in the reign of Charles II., that in legal documents, such as writs—and what was applicable to them was applicable to other documents emanating from the Crown Office—the full style and title of the King for the time being should be used: and in 1676 a writ was held to be bad because the words "King of Scotland," which was then a part of the style of Charles II., were not in the writ. He did not say that if that question came before the Courts of Law there might not be room for canvassing it and challenging the doctrine thus laid down; but it was recognized, and cited as law, in a book of no inconsiderable authority—The Digest of Chief Baron Comyn. That was the law as laid down in the reign of Charles II.; and it would, he thought, be very imprudent, even if the point were regarded as doubtful, to act upon the supposition that it was not the law. With regard to the Royal style and title thus laid down as necessary to be inserted in certain legal instruments, legislation took place at the time of the Union with Ireland: and since that time the style of the Crown had been fixed by Act of Parliament. It was provided that, after the Union, the Royal style and title "appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies," to that one Imperial Crown,

  1389
  which was regarded by the statute as the Crown of the United Kingdom and all its Dependencies—should be settled by a Proclamation under the Great Seal; and King George III., on the 1st of January, 1801, issued a Proclamation by which he declared, in execution of that power, that the Royal style and title of the Imperial Kingdom and its Dependencies should run thus—substituting the name of her present Majesty—"Victoria by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith." That was the Royal style and title by Act of Parliament at the present moment—the Royal style of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, India included. The Bill before the House, reciting that state of the law, proposed to give power to Her Majesty by her Royal Proclamation to make "such addition to the style and title at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, as to Her Majesty may seem meet." Now the question he desired to put was, would that power be duly and properly executed by making an addition which would be limited by Proclamation, so that it would be used, not throughout the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, but in one particular Dependency of the United Kingdom? He did not think that any such thing could be held to be contemplated by the words he had mentioned. The addition was one which when once made would be, under the Act of Parliament, inseparably part and parcel of the style and title appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and of all its Dependencies, as much in the United Kingdom itself, and in every one of the Dependencies of the Crown, as in India. Now, if Her Majesty should be advised to issue a Proclamation in which it should be set forth that this style was not to be used on particular occasions, he apprehended that that might hold perfectly good as to all matters in which it was not necessary to use the full legal style and title of the Imperial Crown; but that it would be bad as to any matter concerning which it was necessary by law that the full style and title of the Imperial Crown should be used. His noble and learned Friend, for example, on a former occasion had referred to the fact that in
  1390
  the Proclamation of George III. there were some clauses as to the coinage of the Realm and stamps, the effect of which was that, until further directions should be given, the then existing coin should continue current under the old style of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and that any further coin to which the same die might be affixed should be perfectly good for the purposes of the circulation of the coinage; and in like manner as to stamps. Now, that, he had no doubt, was perfectly consistent with the Act of Union, and anything of the same nature would, of course, be perfectly within Her Majesty's power now; because he was not aware of any principle of law which required that the full style and title of the Crown should be expressed on the coinage or on any of those stamps. But, according to the authority which he had cited, it was laid down that in writs it was by law necessary that the full legal style and title of the Imperial Crown and its Dependencies should be used; and he apprehended, therefore, that, so far as instruments of that kind were concerned, the use of that title would be required. That was the nature of the difficulty which he felt in connection with the Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would excuse him if he had ventured to dwell upon it at such length.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure his noble and learned Friend that he was very much obliged to him for having stated so distinctly the difficulty which he felt; and it was with the view of obtaining such an explanation that he had asked the noble Earl who first spoke (Earl Granville) what was the precise nature of the point which he wished to raise. The attention of the Government had already been called by the noble Earl and others to this fact, that there were a great many formal official documents operating in this country—such as writs, commissions to magistrates and officers in the Army, charters and documents of that kind—in which the title of the Crown was recited; and the Government were asked whether it was their intention, after what had been stated in the other House of Parliament, that the style of the Crown in those documents should in future include the title to be assumed for India. The Government gave an undertaking on that point to which they were pledged,

  1391
  and which they were bound, to fulfil—and that was that there should be no change in the Royal style and title in such documents operating only in this country. If they should be unable to carry out that undertaking, he apprehended that the first consequence which would arise would be injury to the Government themselves. But what was the difficulty which occurred to the mind of his noble and learned Friend? The noble and learned Lord had adopted a hypothesis for himself as to the form in which the Proclamation under the Bill was to be issued, and upon that hypothesis he had founded the difficulty which he had just stated. He supposed the Proclamation would begin by enlarging the Royal style and title by the addition of certain words and by declaring that should be to all intents and purposes the Royal style and title as a whole. The noble and learned Lord then assumed that this having been once done by the Proclamation, nothing further could be done by the same means confining that peculiar style to particular documents and occasions. In support of that proposition he disinterred a case of very questionable authority, said to have been decided 200 years ago in the Court of Queen's Bench—of which he would say nothing more than that he thought his noble and learned Friend would have been the very last person to produce that fossil of law and hold it up to admiration at the present day. For his own part, he should be extremely sorry that the Government should issue a Proclamation depending upon the questions which were said to be raised in that case; although he did not agree with his noble and learned Friend that even if the Proclamation were to begin in the way which he supposed, and were then to define the occasions on which the Royal style and title were to be used, the results which he apprehended would follow. But it was quite possible—and that was sufficient for his purpose—to say that in the Proclamation issued under the present Bill which authorized Her Majesty to make—
  "Such addition to the style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies as to Her Majesty may seem meet,"
  such addition should be confined to all documents other than those to which he
  1392
  had referred as operating in the United Kingdom. If that were done, the Proclamation could not operate beyond the words of it, and the difficulty suggested by his noble and learned Friend would not arise.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, he believed that their Lordships were all desirous that this Bill should be passed in a form which could not hereafter be questioned, and at the present moment there could be no difficulty in making the intention of the Legislature so clear and plain that no question could arise in the future. Now, after listening to his noble and learned Friend—to whom he was in the habit of deferring—he was not satisfied with his explanation, or that the doubt that had existed had been cleared away. His noble and learned Friend treated very lightly the authority which had been referred to, but which, until overruled by their Lordships' House was law, as Lord Chief Baron Comyn considered it, and which had never been doubted by any subsequent authority or text writer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that it was no doubt a valid decision, and he did not wish to controvert it.
  LORD HATHERLEYunderstood that his noble and learned Friend had criticized the reference to "a case which was decided more than two centuries ago." He (Lord Hatherley) had formed an opinion that there was sufficient doubt in the case to justify those who wished to see this Bill perfectly safe from discussion hereafter in suggesting an Amendment on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said the title would be localized except in those cases where it was necessary the full title should be used. That was not very satisfactory. He (Lord Hatherley) submitted that the Proclamation would make the addition part and parcel of the style and title of the Crown of Great Britain and her dependencies, and that the new style and title could not be localized in any way whatever. Half-a-dozen words inserted in the Bill would set the doubt beyond all question.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not anticipate what Her Majesty's title in the Proclamation would be. He felt that he might use an illustration from the hunting field, for they were all too forward. He had been reminded of a scene in Leicester-

  1393
  shire where everyone had been hurrying on, and Sir Lawrence Palk exclaimed, "Let the fox come!" Even as early as March, 1800, the Irish Parliament had issued the Resolution as to a Proclamation respecting the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and had fixed the date of the following January for the issuing of the Proclamation. He had come up from Scotland at some inconvenience to consider the Earl of Shaftesbury's Motion, but found he could not vote on either side. He earnestly trusted that Her Majesty would take into consideration what had passed on this question in that and the other House of Parliament. The Act for transferring the dominions in the East Indies from the East India Company in 1856—merely contemplated a transfer to the Queen. And as the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland only passed in November, he hoped that as much delay as to the Proclamation, might take place, as between November, 1800 and January, 1801.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK— THE SERPENTINE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked the Lord President a Question with regard to the Mounds between Rotten Row and the Serpentine, and in doing so said they were a great disfigurement to a very beautiful part of Hyde Park and interrupted one of the most charming views in it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONobserved that as the matter was under discussion in "another place," and the debate there had been adjourned, it would have been better had the noble Marquess avoided any reference to the subject. In answer to his Question, however, he might inform him that there were eight mounds in the portion of the Park which he referred to, four of which were planted with shrubs, and four had no shrubs. The mounds on which there were no shrubs were in course of being demolished, and with regard to the others, it was being considered whether they should be removed or not. No decision had been arrived at at present.

  METROPOLIS—NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNasked the President of the Council, with respect to the Northumberland Avenue, Whether, in the view of not disappointing the public, the upper end of that Avenue could not be spread out wider than is now the intention to make it, judging from the fencing on both sides, so as to afford a better view of Charing Cross and the southern side of Trafalgar Square?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreplied that it was at first intended that the centre of the Avenue should have been in a straight line from the Nelson Column; but after the inquiry by the Select Committee of 1873, and in deference to the views of Mr. Barry and the President of the Society of Architects, it was decided to make it in a straight line from Cockspur Street. The land on each side within the fences had been laid out for building on, and to widen the upper end would involve a great sacrifice to the ratepayers, who would, to a certain extent be benefited by the erection of buildings on that land, if it were not used for that purpose.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday, the 27th instant, a quarter before Four o'clock.