Lords Sitting of 13 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunacy Districts (Scotland) * (108); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (109); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.) * (110); Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.) * (111); Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.)* (112).
Second Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (104); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Bandon, &c.) * (105); Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.) * (106).
Committee—Report—Looal Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.) * (95).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (88), and passed.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Bandon a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Dunboyne, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
TURKEY AND GREECE—THE FRONTIER.
  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION FOR PAPERS.

    QUESTION.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, who had a Notice on the Paper,
    " To call attention to the further correspondence on the Greek frontier; and to move for any protocol or treaty which forms the basis of the European concert alluded to in several despatches,"
    said, with the permission of the House, he would postpone the Motion until Thursday.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, seeing that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in his place, he begged to ask him, Whether all the Papers relating to the affairs of Greece had been laid upon the Table, or, if there were more to be presented, when he intended to lay them on the Table?
    EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships are aware that a series of Papers have already been presented on this question; but some other important Papers have not been, and cannot be at present, for
    308
    the simple reason that it will be necessary to communicate with foreign Governments and to obtain their permission before those Papers can be laid on the Table. I am quite ready to proceed with the discussion of the question, and am, therefore, very unwilling to interfere with the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell), whom I do not see present, in the Motion which he has on the Paper; but, at the same time, I think there are reasons why the subject should not be discussed until the Papers to which I have referred are in the possession of your Lordships. We are now engaged in ascertaining whether foreign Governments have any objection to the presentation of those Papers. I am glad to say that I now see the noble Lord present. I was not aware that the Motion was fixed for to-night until after the House had adjourned; and it is for the noble Lord to say whether he will bring it forward to-night, or whether he will defer it until all the Papers are presented.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) gave him an opportunity of repeating a statement which he had made before a much smaller number of their Lordships—namely, that he had determined to postpone his Motion until Thursday.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot promise that the Papers will be in the hands of your Lordships by Thursday.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, in that case, he was willing not to bring on the Motion until some day next week.

MINISTER FOR SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, that in rising to ask the Question of which he had given Notice, he wished to say, in starting, that he claimed no novelty for the proposal to which he was about to refer, as, indeed, it was one which had been for many years continually discussed in Scotland, and he felt sure that if the Government would only seriously consider it they would see their way to carry it out eventually. He had not the presumption of wishing to pledge the Government that Session to any definite scheme for the government of Scotland. It was, no doubt, a large question, and had many bearings—legal, administra-

  309
  tive, and financial—while they all knew that the state of Public Business was not very hopeful. But he must say that he should like to obtain from the Government an admission of the evils complained of, and would willingly leave the exact time and mode of the remedy in their hands. Up to the last Session of Parliament he had the honour and privilege of representing a Scotch constituency in the other House; and he might say, from personal experience, that there were many occasions on which the necessity was felt for the existence of some Minister, who should be other than a Law Officer, thoroughly conversant with Scotch affairs, and also with Scotch feeling and ideas. That feeling, he might say, was shared by all Scotch Representatives with whom he came into contact; and, although the necessity might not be the same in that House, yet he had had so many representations made to him on the matter that he thought he might fairly raise the question there, and, especially, at that moment, when their Lordships' time was not so much occupied. He did not wish in any way to diminish the importance of the Lord Advocate. That post had been held by most eminent men, and the Lord Advocate of the day was always one of the leading men of the Profession. But would it occur to any Englishman or Irishman to rely upon the Attorney General for England or for Ireland to undertake, over and above his legal duties and the largo practice which naturally fell to his lot, the conduct of the affairs of a large and important country? Indeed, this was so much felt, that he had always found a concensus of opinion in favour of some such proposal, except among those whose minds were imbued with official tradition—leavened, perhaps, if he might be allowed to say so, by official prejudice. The Home Secretary, he believed, was responsible for the management of Scotch affairs. But anyone who was at all conversant with the working of the Home Office, and the conduct of its affairs in Parliament, must be aware that that hard-worked official hardly needed the last straw to break his back, which was afforded by all the woes and clamours of oft-complaining, but long-suffering Scotchmen. The Home Secretary could hardly be expected to be a Scotchman, or to spend much of his time in
  310
  Scotland studying Scotch affairs; indeed, he could not necessarily be supposed to be even a frequent visitor to that country, except when lured by mountain breezes or the pleasures of the chase. But he (the Earl of Fife) remembered himself, and was only again told of it last week by a well-known Scotch Member, that there were always many important questions affecting Scotland, which Scotch Members of Parliament saw no chance of getting attended to in the absence of some Minister whose duty it would be to attend to them exclusively, and whose natural position would, of course, be, not in their Lordships' House, but in the other House of Parliament. He would not inflict upon their Lordships a long list of the measures, about nine in number, which had been promised; still less would be explain their provisions. All he wanted to point out was that there was no more prospect of progress being made this year than in any previous year, and that that was causing a natural feeling of disappointment to arise in Scotland which had become notorious. He might mention that that subject, along with many others, was gone into 12 years ago by a Commission, and that the whole tenour of Scotch opinion was in favour of some change in that direction, varying from the appointment of a Cabinet Minister for Scotland to that of a civil Parliamentary officer under the Home Office. The Commission in its Report even showed itself inclined to recommend the latter alternative. For his part, he (the Earl of Fife) was inclined to think the Commission presided over by his noble Friend showed a wise discretion; and that if, over and above the Lord Advocate, and without prejudice to his legal functions, they could secure a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, whose whole time could be devoted to studying Scotch affairs and interests, and so furthering Scotch measures in the other House of Parliament, all sensible people would be satisfied. Scotchmen had no desire to grasp at the dignity of a Cabinet Minister if they could secure by other means the practical advantages which they deemed requisite. The fact of the matter was, as had been often stated, that Scotland was governed by a series of Boards located in Edinburgh, with this special feature to recommend them,

  311
  —that the Lord Advocate, who had presumably to defend their policy, was not even a member of them. But in the course of the intervening 12 years various legislative enactments had taken place, which had greatly enlarged the functions of these Boards, and directed public attention more closely to them. Nor was that all. He was informed that the Lord Advocate was preparing for the information of Scotch Members of the House of Commons a sketch plan of a general measure of local government for Scotland. He wished to pay every tribute to the energy of the present Lord Advocate, and to own that there was much in his draft suggestions to arrest their attention, and possibly to command their assent. They contained the basis of large and complicated reforms, both financially and administrative, with which he would not trouble their Lordships; but many of which they would be glad, no doubt, to see matured. The very fact of a general measure of local government reform being mooted went far to prove his case, for it pointed to the reality of the needs which Scotchmen had long urged. But did anyone believe that a Law Officer was able to carry through so vast a scheme? Was it not patent that, after discussion of his admirable proposals, they would be dropped like many others, and their learned author would retire to the sanctity of what was called the "Lord Advocate's chambers," which seemed to be included in the places which were paved with good intentions? He thought that Scotchmen felt strongly that their Business was managed in a second-hand manner. If they went to the Home Secretary, they found that they must consult the Lord Advocate; and if they went to the Lord Advocate on a matter not purely legal, they felt that they were consulting an authority who must necessarily have recourse for information to other channels than those with which he was naturally familiar. If they now turned to the Sister Isle, their Lordships would find that a totally different course had been adopted there. In Ireland they had a complete paraphernalia of Government, with a whole array of functionaries, including frequently a Cabinet Minister. Scotchmen were not desirous of obtaining all that. They were only anxious for the exclusive right to the time and attention
  312
  of a directly responsible Minister, instead of which their interests were now confided to a single practising Edinburgh lawyer, no doubt an eminent one, who was constituted the sole Adviser of the Home Secretary in all Scotch Business. Why was there that singular difference in the mode of governing the two Kingdoms? Surely, it was not intended to place a fine upon the law-abiding tendencies of the peaceful Scot, or to wait till he had learned to indulge in the somewhat cogent arguments of his Irish neighbour. He need hardly say that he had no wish to embarrass the Government by the question. He was anxious to draw their attention to it as one of really great practical importance, and one on which people in Scotland, and all connected with Scotch affairs, felt very strongly. This was no hobby of his, but was a change which had been demanded time out of mind by men of all Parties, and on many occasions, as he could well testify. It was a change which he ventured to say was not only demanded by the importance of the administration of the affairs of Scotland, but justified by the position and dignity of that country. The noble Earl concluded by asking Her Majesty's Government, according to Notice, Whether, considering the importance of Scotch affairs and the strong feeling entertained on the subject in Scotland, they are willing to consider the desirability of appointing a Minister for Scotland other than a law officer?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, before the Question of my noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) is answered, I would like to say one word with regard to it. My noble Friend very truly said that this is not a new subject. It has been discussed and ventilated by Scotch Members for many years, at times with considerable insistance, and at other times more languidly; and the truth is, that the matter has been generally insisted upon when there has been some great block of Business, and when, in consequence of the pressure upon the various Governments, it has been conceived in Scotland that Scotch Business was insufficiently attended to. I can fully concur in the expression of opinion of my noble Friend, that, at the present moment, there is very great discontent in Scotland with regard to the manner in which Scotch Business is conducted;

  313
  but I cannot help thinking that this discontent arises from the general block of Business in the House of Commons, of which the English people have quite as much reason to complain as the Scotch. I cannot distinctly trace it to any fault on the part of the Government, or on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. There is, for example, one very important measure before the House of Commons, which has been prepared by the Lord Advocate—the Teinds Bill—to which I understand there has been some objection taken that it is of a sectarian character, and it has been said—but I hope it is not true—that the Lord Advocate was inclined to give way slightly with the Bill, on account of that very absurd opposition. I do not believe in the truth of that report; and if it were possible to get no other Business affecting either England or Scotland through the House of Commons, good service would be done if that Bill alone were passed this Session. I will not deny that it is rather an anomalous system of government by which the affairs of an important country are mainly conducted by the Law Adviser of the country; but when we look to the remedies that have been proposed, I confess I have very grave doubts as to the efficiency of any of them. My noble Friend has said that the feeling in Scotland was that their affairs were conducted at secondhand. Well, there is this alternative—either we must have as Minister for Scotland a man who is in the Cabinet, or a man who is not in the Cabinet. I will venture to say that there will be no remedy whatever, as regards the importance given to Scotch affairs, in having any man who is not a Member of the Cabinet, because I believe that the position which the Lord Advocate has had in the Government of the country is quite as good a position as any mere Under Secretary of State would have had in that Government. The truth is that the men who have held the position of Lord Advocate have been among some of the most distinguished, not only as members of the Scotch Bar, but some of the most distinguished men in the country. In my recollection, I have seen measures of the very largest character connected with Scotland carried through both Houses of Parliament, mainly under the advice of the
  314
  distinguished men who held that Office. I need not go further back than a measure which many of your Lordships will remember—the introduction of the Poor Law into Scotland. It was conducted under the Government of Sir Robert Peel, mainly by the able advice of my late noble and learned Friend, Lord Colonsay—a man whose high position in this country and whose great abilities were highly appreciated by his brother Peers. Again, I also recollect of important modifications of the Law of Entail being carried through by another most distinguished Scotchman—Lord Robertson. There are various other measures, during the last 25 or 30 years, which have been carried through Parliament; and I will venture to say that their progress was expedited and very much favoured by the fact that practically the Minister for Scotland was not only an eminent Scotchman, but a man who, being an eminent Scotchman, had an intimate knowledge of Scotch law. Now, what I want to point out to my noble Friend is this, that if we go in for having a Scotch Minister who is a Member of the Cabinet, we cannot be sure that he will be a Scotchman. We have in the Lord Advocate this great advantage, at least, that he must be a Scotchman; that he must be a member of the Scotch Bar; that he must have a thorough knowledge of the Scotch law; and that he must have an intimate knowledge of the feelings and habits of the Scotch people. We could not be sure, however, of the same advantage if the Scotch Minister is to be a Member of the Cabinet. Among the Cabinets which I recollect we have very often had very eminent Scotchmen in high places; and if we look back to the political history of this country, we shall find that in the distribution of Cabinet Offices Scotland has had no inconsiderable share. I recollect a case in which the Prime Minister was a Scotchman; I recollect another case in which a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a Scotchman; I recollect another case in which the Home Office was filled by a Scotchman; and another case where the position of First Lord of the Admiralty was held by a Scotchman. I myself have had the honour to serve in some four or five Cabinets in different positions during the last 25 years. Now, looking to these facts, I cannot think that Scot-

  315
  land has been unfairly represented in the Cabinet Offices. I confess I cannot aspire to seek for Scotland any place designated necessarily to be a place held by a Scotch Member. Still less do I desire to see Scotland governed as Ireland has been governed of recent years through the Irish Secretary, who now generally has a seat in the Cabinet. Formerly, the Irish Secretary used not to have a seat in the Cabinet, and Ireland was governed only by the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Cabinet. In recent years it has been usual to find a place in the Cabinet for the Irish Secretary, and in that manner it comes to be that Ireland is mainly governed by men who are not Irishmen, though I believe with great advantage under the peculiar circumstances of that country. But I do not think that Scotchmen would like to see Scotland governed by men who are not Scotch. Therefore, on the whole, I confess, looking on the difficulties that surround this question, feeling quite convinced that we should gain nothing by having a mere Under Secretary of State instead of the Lord Advocate, feeling that we cannot secure in the Cabinet a place that shall be exclusively our own, I can only say that I hope the Government, looking at the difficulties of the case, will be in no hurry at least to commit itself to the appointment of a Scotch Minister.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I only rise to trouble your Lordships, because I think the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has not given a very complete account of the transactions to which he referred. It is quite true that Scotchmen have had a considerable representation in the Cabinets of this country. It is quite true also that at certain times this question has been discussed with vigour, and at other times has sunk to rest. The noble Duke himself is one of the main reasons why this question has been at rest for a considerable time. The noble Duke, as he truly said, has been a Cabinet Minister in four or five different Governments. What was the result? The Scottish nation looked to the noble Duke as Minister for Scotland. The noble Duke said he would be sorry to see an Under Secretary of State substituted for the Lord Advocate. I did not understand the noble Earl (the Earl of Fife) to say that there was any question of doing any-
  316
  thing of the kind. What I understood, the noble Earl to say was, that it was desirable that there should be an Under Secretary of State for Scotland as well as the Lord Advocate, and I do not see anything in the statement of the noble Duke which touched the statement of the noble Earl. The question is a rather larger one than it has been, perhaps, represented in this discussion. The question really appears to be this. Is the government of Scotland to be restricted to one lawyer, who might possibly not be able to obtain a seat in Parliament, and who, if he did, might just come into it, to the exclusion of the 59 other Scotch Members who might be men of great Parliamentary experience? That seems to me a very difficult question to answer. The present Prime Minister is a Scotch Member, and at this moment holds the two most important Offices in the Cabinet; but the Prime Minister is not qualified, and never could be qualified under the present system, to be Minister for Scotland. How did this very anomalous condition of things grow up? I do not wish to weary your Lordships; but the history is rather curious, and I think I can put it in two or three sentences. At the time of the Union there was no idea of any arrangement such as at present exists. There was then the whole apparatus of Government almost as it exists now, and very much, too much, indeed, of Government, instead of too little. There was a Scotch Secretary of State in the year 1707, and until 1725, when the Office fell into abeyance for six years. From 1727 to 1736, Duncan Forbes, of Culloden, who was a very considerable Scotchman and lawyer, did, no doubt, govern Scotland as Lord Advocate; but he did it under an ancestor of the noble Duke, who from the year 1725 till his death in 1743 was, under one designation or another, Prime Minister for Scotland. Besides that, from the year 1731 to the year 1746 there was a Secretary of State for Scotland. In the year 1746, immediately after the Rebellion, the Secretaryship of State for Scotland was suppressed, and then occurred a period of about 30 years in which it is rather difficult to ascertain how the government of Scotland was carried on; but it certainly was not carried on through the means of the Lord Advocate. At that time, we occasionally meet with transitory glimpses

  317
  of ephemeral personages in various Offices who conducted affairs in Scotland. One, I recollect, was a brother of the Prime Minister, the Earl of Bute, who as Lord Privy Seal for Scotland did conduct these affairs. In 1775, we come to a distinct historical epoch. In that year Henry Dundas became Lord Advocate, and until 1811 ruled Scotland under one designation with an absolute rule. On his death in that year, his son succeeded to this hereditary post, and as Privy Seal conducted affairs until 1827. In that year Mr. Canning became Prime Minister, and in the ordinary course of events he proposed to "make over Scotland," as it was called, to Lord Binning, who was afterwards Lord Haddington, and who was First Lord of the Admiralty; but the Scotch were so wearied of the intolerable oppression of the half-century of Dundas rule, that, at the instance of Mr. Abercombie and others, they went to Mr. Canning and begged that this management might be cancelled, and that some responsible Minister might be found, instead of the irresponsible Governors who had for so long been in possession of affairs. Well, the appointment was cancelled. At that time there was no particular person to take up the post, and the Lord Advocate assumed many of the duties of the position. There was no question of his being the sole Minister for Scotland. There was a Scotch Lord of the Treasury, who assisted in 1831, and there were various Scotch Ministers, such as Mr. Kennedy, who was First Commissioner of Woods and Forests. Among other Cabinet Ministers there was Lord Minto, and there were in the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Aberdeen. I do not think that, from the time of Sir Robert Peel's Government to the present time, there has ever been a Cabinet which has not contained one or two Scotchmen. As regards the question of a Scotch Cabinet Minister, it is clearly one that is quite beyond the cognizance of either House of Parliament. Cabinets must be arranged, not with a view to peculiar interests, but solely with regard to the best possible manner of carrying on the Government. But I learn from the statements of the noble Duke that there would be no objection to a Cabinet Minister, who would be a Scotchman, taking charge of Scotch affairs. I believe what
  318
  Scotland wants is, that it should have some person, in a responsible position, able to look after those matters ready for legislation. Before the Commission to which the noble Earl has referred there was evidence given by two very eminent Members of Parliament One had 14 years experience of Scotch affairs in Parliament—I allude to Mr. Duncan M'Laren, late the Member for the City of Edinburgh—and another was Mr. Baxter, the late Secretary to the Treasury, who had 26 years' experience in the House of Commons and in Office. Mr. M'Laren gave before the Commission the following evidence, in which he put the matter very plainly. He was asked to be good enough to state his objections to the way in which the Lord Advocate carried on Scotch Business. He replied—
  " I object to the Lord Advocate; first, because he has more than sufficient to do in attending to his proper legal businees as public prosecutor in Scotland, in giving advice to the Crown, and in filling up legal appointments."
  Here I may be allowed to interpose with the remark that one of the results of the accumulation of Offices on the head of the Lord Advocate is this—that he practically has the appointment of the very Judges before whom he pleads as a practising barrister, which I suppose is not the case in any civilized country in the world. Mr. M'Laren continued—
  "And, secondly, I object to throwing on him the work that naturally belongs to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, so far as it relates to Scotland. I do consider that the Lord Advocate is Secretary of State for Scotland, because, except on certain important occasions, his advice is taken on Scotch affairs as a matter of course. I object to these duties being thrown upon him, because, in my opinion, the inevitable effect is that nothing is done as it ought to be."
  Mr. Baxter proposed that there should be a Secretary of State for Scotland in connection with the Privy Council rather than the Home Office, holding exactly the same position as the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I do not propose to enter into details as to the present method of managing Scotch Business, as it must rest with Her Majesty's Government whether they will entertain the question of the noble Earl; but I would point out this—that the government of a country by the Legal Profession is almost unexampled in the history of the world. I have only come across one in-

  319
  stance of a similar government, which was more or less an efficient government, though it has now ceased to exist. There is a Government in the recollection of your Lordships where, with regard to the Cabinet Offices, if we may so call them, there was almost no restriction as to rank, title, or property of the person who filled an Office; there was only one necessary qualification, and that was that he must be in Holy Orders—and that was the Government of the Holy See. We, in Scotland, have been handed over to the legal rather than to the spiritual arm; but I do not know that, in that respect, the Government of Scotland is a very great improvement on the Government of Rome. There are one or two other disadvantages, which I might point out, incidental to this anomaly. One is that, whatever happens, the Minister for Scotland, as a matter of fact, never can be in the Cabinet. No Lord Advocate has ever been in the Cabinet. If the Government would put the present Lord Advocate in the Cabinet all our objections would be answered; but there is no indication of any intention of the Government to do this. It really is, however, a considerable disadvantage for the country to have its Chief Officer permanently excluded from the Cabinet. Well, there is another very tangible disadvantage. For every other part of the country and every other Department of the Government there is a permanent staff, and when a new Minister comes into one of these Departments he finds the traditions and arrangements of the Office working on, whatever political changes occur. But there is no such Department and no such tradition for Scotland. Everything has to be begun again de novo on the accession of a Lord Advocate, and everybody can understand the disadvantages that arise on that person entering upon his Office. There is also another disadvantage. When a Party goes into Opposition, it is usual for the Minister then in power to confer with his Predecessor as to matters over which he has cognizance, and that arrangement causes the wheels to work perfectly smoothly. But what does that mean as regards the position of Lord Advocate? In almost every case when a Government is overthrown by any unexpected event, he is hurried on to the Judicial Bench, and the result is that as regards official experience Scotland is
  320
  left without any Representative whatever when a Party is in Opposition. Let us put it in this way. Suppose the present Government had come into Office without a Dissolution, there would have been no person qualified in the Party to be the Lord Advocate, there being no Scotch lawyer in the House of Commons. Suppose that the Party opposite, which is much to be deprecated, were to come into power, there would be no one qualified to be Lord Advocate. That is surely a strange thing, and a matter of importance—that on neither side of the House, in these circumstances, would there be a single person qualified to fill the office of Lord Advocate, so important a post in the government of one-third of the United Kingdom. The late Government were alive to the importance of this matter, and the Home Secretary pledged himself to introduce a measure to provide an Under Secretary of State for Scotland. The pledge, however, was never carried into effect, because, I believe, of the pressure of Business; but that shows that it was a clearly recognized evil then, and it is no less so now, although the legislation of the country is in such a state as to prevent all attention to Scotch Business. But there have been two results in this Session of Parliament from the neglect of this question. One is that a Memorial very numerously signed by a considerable majority of Scotch Members of the House of Commons has been presented to the Lord Advocate, couched in the spirit of the question raised by the noble Earl. To that Memorial an answer was given, promising consideration of the matter. Two or three months have elapsed since then, and I hope that the consideration given to that Memorial will bear fruit in the answer to be given by the Government to-night. But there is another side, which I think still more serious and important. It is this—tho words "Home Rule" have begun to be distinctly and loudly mentioned in Scotland. There is a body in Scotland, which any Members of your Lordships' House coming from that part of the country will recognize as forming a fairly representative body—the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland. At the Convention of the Royal Burghs this year there was a Motion brought forward urging that a separate and subordinate Legislature should be set on

  321
  foot to consider Scotch questions. That Motion was not largely entertained; but it is a significant sign of the times that in Scotland, where no mention of Home Rule has been made up to this time, under the present circumstances it should be heard. My Lords, I remember that the late Lord Beaconsfield, on one occasion in Scotland, implored the people of Scotland to give up "mumbling the dry bones of political economy and munching the remainder biscuit of an effete Liberalism." I believe the people of Scotland, at the present moment, are mumbling the dry bones of political neglect, and munching the remainder biscuit of Irish legislation. It is in the hope of putting an end to that state of things that I conceive this question has been put by my noble Friend, and, consequently, I most sincerely implore the attention of the Government to this question.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, while believing the Lord Advocates for Scotland had been men of high professional standing, said, it appeared to be their condition that they had often to hang about for a seat in Parliament, which they only procured after repeated attempts. That was not a satisfactory state of things, that the Minister who was supposed to make the arrangements for Scotch affairs should be in the position that he often could not find a seat in the House of Commons. It must be so from the necessities of the case. The chances were limited, because for Lord Advocate they must have a lawyer of eminence. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said, that an Under Secretary of State would not be a satisfactory change for the Lord Advocate. He (the Earl of Airlie) agreed with that statement. What they suggested, and what he understood the proposal of the noble Earl who raised the question to be, was that there should be a responsible Minister devoting himself to the affairs of Scotland, and that in matters requiring a legal opinion he should have the assistance of the Lord Advocate.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to add a feeble note to the chorus of Scotch discontent he had heard that night. That discontent was not merely confined to certain Members of their Lordships' House. He was convinced that it was very deeply rooted in
  322
  Scotland, and that it was daily finding more forcible expression. At the time that the Commission which had been referred to sat in 1869, a very considerable amount of evidence was taken. There appeared before the Commission Members of Parliament and persons of high position, holding the most opposite opinions on political questions; but in regard to this point of Scotch government there was virtually no difference of opinion amongst the witnesses. Men holding opinions as different as Mi. Baxter and Mr. M'Laren on the one side, and the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell and the late Mr. Nisbet Hamilton on the other, all agreed on this—that the system of conducting Scotch administration through the Office of a Legal Adviser alone was by no means satisfactory. The statement which his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) made who raised the question was perfectly correct—that Scotch Business was done second hand; because, although the Home Secretary was clearly the Minister for Scotland, yet, as their Lordships must be perfectly well aware, and as, indeed, was stated by Lord Moncreiff, who had lately been Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate of the day was consulted and his advice always taken with reference to Scotch Business; so that, in reality, the Lord Advocate was the Minister for Scotland. No doubt, the complaint at this moment was rather more loudly made because of the present state of Public Business. It was not merely that the Business was not done, but it was because it was not, and did not seem to be, satisfactory that the Public Business of Scotland should be done by a lawyer alone. Reference had been made to the question of local government, and while desiring to speak with the greatest respect of the able men who filled the position of Lord Advocate, he asked how was it possible that a lawyer who, through his training and occupation, had naturally had his attention called to a different state of Scotch life, could be familiar with the details and with Scotch, feeling with regard to such a question as local government and local taxation? Sooner or later there must be a change in this form of government. He did not think it was necessary to appoint a Chief Secretary for Scotland. He would rather, at that point, not express any definite opinion on the matter. There were, no doubt, reasons which had been urged by

  323
  the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) which rather tended against putting the Scotch Government on exactly the same footing as the Irish Government at the present time; but, in some form or another, Scotland did most imperatively demand that some change should be made in the system of administration. It was customary to allude to the Scotch Members as almost a solitary instance of a body of men who, without much talk, managed to get through a great deal of Business. But the Scotch Members did their Business in that way, not because that was the way in which they wished to do their Business, but because it was the only way in which Scotch Business could be conducted at all. Looking back to the few last years of Parliament, in which scarcely a single measure of any importance had been carried through for Scotland, it did seem to him that the noble Lords who had represented this grievance to the House had done Scotland a very great service.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, no doubt this is a very important subject; and I think your Lordships will agree with me that it has been brought forward very kindly and with great moderation by my noble Friend who asked the Question (the Earl of Fife). The House has had the advantage of hearing very-able counsel on both sides. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I am not prepared to give a final judgment to-day, for reasons which I shall now state to your Lordships. No doubt, those who desire the change have very clearly proved that there is something theoretically anomalous in the present system, though I think there is some exaggeration, in regard to the anomaly, because certainly, theoretically at all events, the Lord Advocate is not the Minister of Scotland governing, but the Legal Adviser of the Home Secretary for that purpose. A painful picture has been presented of the state of Scotland. The noble Earl who first began stated that his experience in the House of Commons, where he performed his duties with great satisfaction, showed him that there was much dissatisfaction among the Scotch Members and the public. I am bound to say that this dissatisfaction is rather of recent date. During a political life of some years, my experience has been that jealousy has been felt in the other
  324
  part of the Island, of the very superior way in which Scotch Business was transacted in Parliamant. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), who spoke third, has stated that the Government of Scotland is as bad as possible. What I have always been told, in the first instance, was that Scotland was so much better governed than England or Ireland, that it required less legislation than the other two parts of the country did. I certainly was also told that it was not so much a question of the Lord Advocate governing Scotland as of Scotchmen governing themselves, a form of Government of which men of their calibre were not incapable. The real difficulty arising at the present moment is that mentioned by three or four of your Lordships—the immense block of Business in "another place." It is a very delicate matter in this House to speak of any failure in the House of Commons; but after Mr. Gladstone, Lord Hartington, Sir Stafford Northcote, and the highly respected Speaker of that great Assembly, have declared that it is impossible that Business should be continued in the state it is in now, it is clear that it is the duty of the Government most carefully to consider how to remedy the unfortunate state of things which now exists, either by relieving the House of Commons from the pressure of some of the Business that belongs to it, or introducing new modes of dealing with the Business. It is the duty of the Government to try to deal with this great evil. It is clear that, connected with changes of that sort, there must be very considerable changes with regard to Administrative and Executive Offices. We-have heard to-night a strong plea put forward for a Scotch Minister; but it is not Scotland alone that is putting forward a plea for a new Minister. Nothing can be more important than the administration of justice in the Three Kingdoms. "We have been asked for a Minister of Justice; we have been asked for a Minister of Education; we have been asked for a Minister of Agriculture—the most important industry of this country; we have been asked for a Minister of Commerce; and we have been asked for a Minister of Mercantile Marine. A noble Earl spoke of Ireland having the whole paraphernalia of Government ready; but there are persons irreverent enough to think that reforms

  325
  are needed in the Irish system. This is a matter which I do not think can be considered as one with which the Government should deal piecemeal or singly. Believing, as I do, that it is their duty and wish to deal with the question of the mode of legislation in this country, and to accompany that with whatever is right in the particular changes of Administration and of the Executive Government, I hope my noble Friend will be satisfied with my assurances that the fairest and fullest consideration will be given by Her Majesty's Government to the proposals which have been put forward by so large a number of their Representatives in the House of Commons and of the Peers in this Chamber.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
  THE EARL OF MINTO, in rising to call attention to the secrecy of the system of criminal procedure in Scotland in its preliminary stages; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they will consider the expediency of promoting, by means of legislation or otherwise, a greater degree of publicity than is now accorded to inquests and precognitions by public prosecutors in cases of death under suspicious circumstances and in cases involving criminal charges? said, he wished, at the outset, to guard himself against the supposition that he aimed at the introduction of coroner and coroner's juries into Scotland. In that country they had no high sheriff and grand juries, no coroners and coroners' juries, and what was especially noticeable, they had no magistrates sitting in public for receiving and determining whether an accused person should be dismissed or committed for trial. They had instead a Lord Advocate, who was the chief prosecutor for Scotland, and sheriff substitutes, and last—but not least—a procurator fiscal for each county. The duties of the procurator fiscal were of the highest importance, in consequence of his functions being carried on in private and behind the back of the public. He received information and took evidence in private, not even the prisoner receiving information as to its tenour; and to such a degree was the rule of secrecy carried, that a prisoner's declaration was made by him in private, and
  326
  he was not allowed to be accompanied by a friend or professional adviser. If the investigation did not result in a trial, then the whole evidence was kept secret. The number of such cases in which no trial took place was naturally very large, and of the merits of such cases, or why they were not pushed to trial, the public always remained ignorant. This led to, perhaps, unfounded gossip and unjust suspicion, and a good deal of mischief was sometimes engendered. Even an application by a friend or by an interested party for a copy of the precognition was met by the statement that it was contrary to the rules of the Crown Office. In some cases a complete summary of what occurred had been published by a local newspaper; but although the summary was complete, it did not carry the authority with it that the evidence itself would have carried. In the House of Commons, in 1875, Dr. Cameron pointed out that the Procurator Fiscal of Glasgow had imparted the precognition he had taken to certain private parties at his own discretion, and was found fault with by the Lord Advocate. Crown agents themselves sometimes gave information to the Press; and in the Report of the Roxburghshire Justices in 1876 on criminal proceedings, it was stated that a certain eminent Judge, when he was Crown counsel, was in the habit of communicating the results of investigations in certain cases to the Press, for the satisfaction of the public mind. Further, in what were called sensational cases, the evidence given found its way to the public in a very irregular way, and in most cases in a very imperfect and misleading form. He remembered a case in which a constable was violently assaulted, and where, in self-defence, he struck his assailant a blow, from the effects of which he died. The procurator fiscal and the sheriff held the preliminary investigation, and, after taking all the evidence, decided that there was no case on which they could send the man for trial, as he had been compelled to act, and did act, in self-defence. In the meantime, great agitation was got up, immense excitement prevailed, and unauthorized and erroneous accounts of the evidence were published. In the result, a second investigation was ordered, and was made with the same result. Soon afterwards a Member of the

  327
  House of Commons asked the Government whether it was true that a constable had killed a man, and yet was still at large; and the reply given was that an order had that day been given to put the constable on his trial. The trial took place, and the jury unanimously acquitted him. All this would be avoided if the authorities were permitted to give authentic information to the Press, so that the public might have before them a reliable version of what took place at the preliminary investigation. He was strongly of opinion that the affording of such facilities to the Press of arriving at the facts would be accompanied by good results. The Miners' Association had strongly recommended that in the case of mining accidents a public inquiry in the nature of a coroner's inquest should be held. He thought, on the whole, that the criminal business of Scotland was very fairly and well conducted. At the same time, there were some defects which he thought well worthy of consideration. For instance, it was very unsatisfactory to find that in 1874 Dr. Russell, medical officer of Glasgow, reported there were in Glasgow 16,323 deaths, of which 3,601, or 22 per cent, were uncertified. The House of Lords Returns for January and May, 1878, showed that in 1876, in respect of cases of death under suspicious or unknown circumstances connected with murder, culpable homicide, &c. there were 92 investigations, resulting in 48 trials, leaving a balance of 44 cases respecting which the public were entirely uninformed from official sources. In regard to all other cases of sudden death, or death under suspicious or unknown circumstances, there were 2,606 investigations by the procurator fiscal, resulting in only four trials, so that 2,602 had been entirely hidden from the public view. In pressing the subject upon their Lordships' attention, he had fortified himself with the opinions of persons who were well worth listening to—with the opinions of Lord Young, Lord Shand, Lord. Rutherfurd Clark, Mr. Charles Morton, and the late Mr. Justice Willes. Lord Young, Judge of the Court of Session, and who was a Member of the Courts of Law Commission, referring particularly to this question of preliminary investigation, and as to precognition and commitment to trial, said—
  328
  " My opinion is hostile to the system of secret investigation which now prevails in Scotland. I do not think it right in itself, or required in-the interests of justice, that any person should be committed to prison on evidence taken he-hind his back—not even in presence of a magistrate—and studiously concealed from him. I have ever regarded this system, which has descended to us from remote and comparatively dark times, as a blot on the Criminal Law of Scotland. I am not of opinion that the ends of public justice are thereby aided. On the contrary, I think public justice would be promoted by adopting in substance the suggestions set out in the 7th and 8th pages of the Report of the Courts of Law Commission. The apprehensions stated in the Report are, I think, fanciful, and not warranted by the experience of England, to which it appears to me legitimate to appeal."
  In conclusion, he must say that he did not expect any positive answer to the Question of which he had given Notice, and which he now asked; but he would venture to suggest, in order not to make the discussion quite barren, that the Government might grant a monthly Return for each county of the cases of sudden death that had been inquired into by the procurator fiscal, with a statement of the result of the inquiry, in each case distinguishing those on which precognition had been taken with a view to criminal proceedings, and that a copy of such Return should be communicated to the convener of each county.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, I am afraid the answer I have to give the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) he will scarcely think satisfactory, although it is nothing more than he expects. The Question that he has brought before your Lordships is one that is not at all easy for the Government to deal with, partly for one of the reasons to which he has alluded—namely, the unpaid magistracy of Scotland exists in reality in little more than in name. If the preliminary investigation which takes place in cases of criminal proceedings were conducted in public, it would be necessary to conduct it in the presence of a magistrate—that is to say, in the presence of a paid and legally trained magistrate. The paid magistrates consist of the sheriffs and sheriffs' substitutes, and they are already over-burdened with a large quantity of work in addition to the amount of general work they have to get through, and it would be necessary to add very largely to the staff of salaried

  329
  Judges in Scotland before it could be possible to carry out the suggestion of my noble Friend. It has already been under consideration whether it would be possible for the sheriffs to attend all these criminal investigations in which public interests are involved—in such cases as railway accidents or loss of life at sea or mining explosions; but, up to the present time, it has not been possible to make any arrangement for doing so; and before it could be done I think the Secretary of State would be compelled to have recourse to Parliament for provisional legislation in the matter. I have to say, in reply to my noble Friend, although it is impossible for the Government to pledge themselves to any particular course in regard to this matter—and I am bound to say in addition, as far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, there exists no general desire in Scotland for the change he has mentioned—the Government are alive to the importance of the question, and undertake to give it their careful consideration, and more than that I am unable to say.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he must apologize for interfering in Scottish affairs; but it seemed to him that the remedy existed in returning to the old ways which existed before Government agency was substituted for the services of the landed proprietors. The Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745 led the Hanoverian Government to put an end to the system of magistracy which then prevailed among the country gentlemen, owing to the suspicion which was entertained of their tendencies. It would be, he thought, a very great addition to the satisfaction of the Scottish proprietors in general, and an advantage to the country and public service, if a return were made to the old ways, or, at all events, that the Scottish gentlemen had the power of participating in the government of the country beyond their duties of Commissioners of Supply.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: I may, without indiscretion, I think, give a very short answer to the suggestion of my noble Friend (Lord Waveney). The answer is simply this—that the people of Scotland would not understand it, and, I may say, would not stand it either. There is a very strong feeling in Scotland against any unpaid magis-
  330
  tracy similar to that of England, and it would be perfectly hopeless for any Government to attempt to introduce a system other than that which now exists.

  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for altering and varying Lunacy Districts in Scotland—Was presented by The Lord RAMSAY; read 1a. (No. 108.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.