Lords Sitting of 29 June 1882

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Robartes, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) * (171).
Committee—Cathedral Statutes Amendment, now Cathedral Statutes* (163–170); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (149).
Committee—Report—Entail Scotland) (115–169); Lunacy Regulation Amendment* (160).
Report—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) * (146).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) * (153); Lunacy Districts (Scotland) * (117), and passed.

ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 115.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, with regard to this Bill, I beg to propose that it should go into Committee pro formâ only, for it is not our intention to proceed with it to-night. My reason for doing that is, that we have received a great number of suggestions from private individuals and influential public bodies, which we conceive to be of great importance, and ought to be embodied in the Bill. We have, therefore, prepared Amendments, which we shall submit to your Lordships; but, as there are many of them fresh clauses, and other Amendments of great detail, I ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to go into Committee pro formâ, in order that the Bill may be printed with the Amendments we propose to introduce. Another reason for the postponement is this, that the writers to The Signet in Edinburgh—as your Lordships are aware, a legal body of the highest standing—have given very careful consideration to this Bill, and they have some suggestions to make upon it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before this Bill goes into Committee pro formâ, I wish, according to my Notice, to make a few remarks on the Returns relating to Scotch Entails recently presented to the House; but I must first thank the noble Earl (the

759
Earl of Rosebery) and the Scotch Office for the expedition with which those Returns have been prepared. The Returns which have just been furnished to the House appear to me a very valuable commentary indeed upon the various Acts which have been passed with the view of facilitating the disentailing of property. They exhibit very surprising results. On the 1st August, 1848, when the first disentailing Act came into operation, there were in existence 2,189 entails. After a period of 30 years, during which another and rather important Act has been passed, the result has been that entails, instead of diminishing in number, show a slight increase. It seems to me that this result is very strange. If your Lordships will refer to the Returns, you will see that during the first few years after the Act came into operation the number of entails did slightly fall away; but, at the same time, the number of entails which was created was fully equal to that which was destroyed. In the year 1875 an Act was passed by the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), and during the first three or four years after that Act came into operation it seems to have had a considerable effect. After that, the effect appears to have passed away; and, at the present time, the proportion between entail and disentail appears to be about the same. The total result is, that, after an experience of more than 30 years of the operation of the Disentail Acts, we find the total number of entails has increased. Instead of 2,189, as there were in 1848, there are now 2,350. Surprising as that result may appear, it becomes far less surprising upon further consideration. Parliament has never pronounced itself actively opposed to the policy of entail, so far. All that it has done has been to give facilities for disentailing. But, on the other hand, there is a numerous and very powerful body of the learned Profession, whose interest lies in the very opposite direction; and the result has been that they have been far more successful hitherto in tying up land than the efforts of Parliament have been in liberating it. Until Parliament sees fit to pronounce itself in a much more positive manner as to the policy of entail—for instance, by introducing a provision in this Bill to repeal the Act of 1875—I do not think that any of the existing
760
Acts, including the Bill which has now been presented to the House, are likely to produce very much effect in the way of diminution of the number of entails.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, in regard to the observations which have fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown), the thanks of the House are due to him for calling attention to the facts; but he has, I think, omitted to notice this. He speaks of the policy of entail; but he must remember that the Statute of 1848, and still more the Bill which is now under the consideration of the House, will alter altogether the nature of entail. Entail under the old Scotch system was an entail for ever, under the strictest possible limitation. There was no limit to the time, but there were the closest and most stringent limitations of the man in possession as to the use of his land. Under the Act of 1848, large additional powers were given for getting rid of the old entail; and I may mention that I got rid of my own entail under it, and I now hold under fee simple. Power was also given by that Act to make a new entail; but those who made it were under an entirely different system of law. The law and the policy of entail, therefore, was one thing at one time and another thing at another. If the Bill now before the House, in the charge of my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Rosebery), is passed, no doubt, in future, people can entail their land. But it will be entirely optional. In this Bill, very much as in the case of the English Bill passed at the instance of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), every man who entails his land in future will be able to sell it with the consent of the Court; and the effect will be this—that, in the future, entail will not mean holding the land in an unsaleable condition. Therefore, the policy of entail, of which my noble Friend spoke as one and the same in all these periods of time, will be entirely altered. I will only say that most of the arguments against entail have been urged on behalf of the agricultural interest. It has been said that entailed proprietors cannot manage their land to advantage. As tar as I can see, if this Bill is passed, and the English Bill also is passed by the other House, as it has already passed this House, that objection, at any rate, will be done away with. In future

761
there will be no one who cannot sell his land for the purpose of improvement, and therefore the agricultural objection will fall to the ground. There are, of course, other objections to entail, but we should clearly understand what they are. If it is desired, by persons who object to entail, to strike altogether at the hereditary principle, of course you will prohibit the entail of land as you would prohibit the entail of personal property, of money, or jewels, or other things, and in that view the propriety of doing so cannot be denied. If it is the object to destroy absolutely the continuity of family life in Scotland, then, undoubtedly, you will abolish the limited powers of settlement which it is still contemplated to preserve in this measure. What I would point out, however, is that that is a totally different object to that of freeing the land for the purpose of agricultural improvements.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I could have wished this discussion had been somewhat more prolonged, because I think it raises a point of very great interest, not merely to Scotland, but to the community at large. I am grateful to my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) for raising it, because I think it is well that the points he has raised should be discussed, and that there should be no concealment or reticence about it. The noble Earl seemed to draw one conclusion, and that was that all the efforts of entail legislation had been practically abortive and inefficacious in checking the number of entails; and though the answer of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was perfectly complete so far as regards the policy of entails, in showing that the nature of the entails now made was perfectly different from that of the entails formerly made, yet I think that is not the whole of the answer which may be made to the noble Earl. Since the noble Earl gave Notice of his intention to call attention to the question, I have gone with some care into the Returns which I laid before the House, and they appear to me to have a different bearing upon legislation than that placed upon them by my noble Friend, for what do I find as bearing on the question of legislation as regards the number of entails? Since the Rutherfurd Act of 1848, which was cited by my
762
noble Friend, and justly cited, as one of the great Acts which have modified the entail system of Scotland, 34 years have passed since then; and, if the contention of my noble Friend is right, there ought to be as many entails made in these 34 years as in the 34 preceding the Act. Nay, considering that large estates have been broken up, and the growth of population and wealth has been enormous, we might fairly expect to see some considerable increase in the number of entails made since 1848. What is the result? Why, quite the reverse, for whereas in the 34 years preceding 1848, 866 entails were made, in the 34 years succeeding the Rutherfurd Act there were only 701, so that the number was actually one-eighth less. I will not, however, attribute that to the Act of 1848 alone. There was a very important Act passed in 1868 modifying the existing Law of Entail. In the six years previous to the Act of 1868 there were 152 registered entails; and in the six years subsequent to that Act 104 entails were concluded. Then I come to the Act of 1875, which was passed by the late Government. Then, I am bound to say, there is a very small increase in the years which have elapsed since that Act passed as compared with the years preceding it. In the six years preceding 1875 there were 104 entails, in the six years subsequent to the Act there were 111, showing an increase of seven. But, my Lords, the figures are very considerably modified when we take another fact into account, and take the number of disentails before and after that Act. In the six years prior to the Entail Act of 1875 there were 97 disentails, and in the six years which followed the Act no less than 151. I need not further obtrude upon your attention, but I wish to point out, as I think it is important, that the action of these Entail Bills has been successful and satisfactory, not merely in modifying, but in reducing the number of entails. With regard to the general remarks made by the noble Duke, I beg to be allowed to offer my humble concurrence. The effect of the Bill before your Lordships' House is this—that, for the future, no entailed property need remain entailed any longer than a man wishes; and I confess I cannot see that we can go much further in that direction with any considerable advantage. Of

763
course, it would be open, as I think my noble Friend hinted, to introduce a clause repealing the Act of 1875. Personally, I should have no objection to that course; but my noble Friend knows very well that, after all, the entail which would be left, and which it would be open for everyone to make under the operation of this Bill, would furnish a simple and innocuous form of settlement as regards the land of this country. Therefore, I do not think it would be necessary to deal with that Act.
EARL CAIRNS: I understand the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) to ask us to go into Committee pro form, â, in order that he may put some Amendments in the Bill. Therefore, it would be premature to enter into any discussion of the provisions as it now stands until we see how far the Bill may be modified by the Amendments.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 10th of July next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 169.)

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS—QUESTIONS—PRECEDENCE OF MINISTERS.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to move—
"That all Questions of which Notice has been given by any Peer who holds or has held any of the offices of Lord Chancellor of England, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, First Lord of the Treasury, Secretary of State, or First Lord of the Admiralty, do take precedence of all other Orders of the Day and Notices,"
said, his complaint was directed to Questions, and not to Notices of Motions. In "another place" the Questions asked must not be accompanied by remarks which might give rise to debate, but the rule in their Lordships' House was different. Any noble Lord putting a Question might make observations upon it, and debates might and did arise. He would further remind their Lordships that, according to the Rules of their House, Questions put without Notice, or after private Notice, might be asked before the time when the Notices on the Order Paper were taken. There had been protests against such a course on the part of those who came down to the
764
House later, not expecting that Questions would be put. He ventured to suggest that it was very important that, whenever possible, Questions should appear in print upon the Notice Paper of the House, and then any noble Lord would see them and be able to take part in the debates arising upon them. The result arising from the present practice was that noble Lords in Office or who had held Office were often deterred from giving public Notice of very important Questions, fearing that if they were to do so their Questions might not be reached until a late hour, when the number of noble Lords present would possibly be small. Inconvenience, too, was often caused by this practice of asking Questions without Notice, because, when they gave rise to debate, noble Lords, who would have taken part in the discussion if they had known that the subject would be brought forward, were either absent from the House or unprepared to speak. In answer to the possible argument that the change proposed might give an undue advantage to occupants of the Front Bench, he thought that would be counterbalanced by the convenience the arrangement would be found to give to all Members. He did not think the House would adopt the rule which obtained in "another place" of putting Questions without prefatory remarks; but it would be well to adopt his Motion, and, if possible, to have the Questions printed. In that case, noble Lords would be induced to give Notice of important Questions more often than at present, and the inconvenience of which he complained would less frequently arise. He would conclude by moving his Resolution.
Moved, That all questions of which notice has been given by any Peer who holds or has held any of the offices of Lord Chancellor of England, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, First Lord of the Treasury, Secretary of State, or First Lord of the Admiralty, do take precedence of all other Orders of the Day and Notices."—(The Earl of Limerick.)
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must acknowledge that they ought to be grateful to any Member of their Lordships' House who might make suggestions with a view of facilitating the progress of Business, especially with respect to giving Notices of Questions. At the same time, he must say that, though he had been many years in that House,

765
the inconvenience against which the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) wished to guard had never impressed him. But, even if it really existed, he should be very sorry indeed to agree with his noble Friend as to the remedy which he proposed. In that House, though there were different grades of Peers, they were all equal, they had all the same right and the same privileges, and he should object greatly to the creation of privileges for a special class. He ventured to think his noble Friend would do wisely in withdrawing his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving—
  "That the case of the University of Oxford Commissioners in regard to a statute made by them for the University of Oxford concerning the nomination of examiners, as presented to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, and as argued before that Committee, be laid upon the Table of the House."
  said, that there would be no difficulty in doing what he asked, because the case in question had already been laid before the Privy Council. He had also to say that he had no objection to include "the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the University of Oxford" in the Motion as proposed by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the case of the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the University of Oxford, and the case of the University of Oxford Commissioners in regard to a statute made by them for the University of Oxford concerning the nomination of examiners, as presented to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council and as argued before that Committee, be laid upon the Table of the House.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EGYPT—ARABI PASHA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Arabi Pasha has been decorated with the Grand Cordon of the Medjidié, and has further received a letter from the Sultan approving his conduct in the present
  766
  Egyptian crisis? The noble Lord said, that, in putting the Question, he had no wish to embarrass the Government, or to add to the difficulties against which they had to contend; but the fact that a few days ago Arabi Pasha had received the Grand Cordon of the Medjidié from the Sultan, the highest honour it was in the power of the Sultan to bestow, and also communications highly approving his conduct, was a matter of such great importance that both the House and the country, he thought, was entitled to ask for some information on the subject from Her Majesty's Government. It appeared to him that the misfortunes which had befallen Egypt were entirely due to the policy of Arabi Pasha, and the disturbances at Cairo and Alexandria, and the massacre of Europeans about a fortnight ago within sight of our Fleet might be attributed to the same cause. There had been an exodus of Europeans flying for their lives, leaving behind all their goods and property, and quitting those industries and occupations which they had done so much to develop, and which had tended so much to the wealth and improvement of Egypt, and that exodus was plainly attributable to the action of Arabi. Threatened as all these Europeans had been with the fate of their countrymen, he very much doubted whether they would ever return to that country in the same numbers; and one thing was certain, and that was that if they did return, it would be with very different feelings towards the Government to those which they had entertained before. Some time ago—he believed in January—Her Majesty's Government had sent a Note to Egypt, in which they stated their intention of supporting the Khedive, and he hoped and believed Her Majesty's Government would not depart from that intention, and that at the proper moment they would exact due reparation for what had been done; but, at the present moment, there was really no Government or law in Egypt, but the country was at the mercy of one man, and he a successful military dictator. It might be said that the whole policy and diplomacy of Europe had been directed against that man, and especially, then, that of England and France was directed against one individual—namely, Arabi Pasha; and when they heard that that man had been received with high honour by the Sultan, and that a Conference was

  767
  sitting to consider and settle the affairs of Egypt, which Conference had not yet received the sanction of the Sultan of Turkey, in his opinion it was a matter of grave and serious consideration. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he rose to deprecate piecemeal discussion, and pressure being brought upon Her Majesty's Government to increase the very serious risks of war. This was at variance with a Notice of a Motion by another Member of the Conservative Party in "another place" in an opposite sense, with which he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) agreed entirely. The noble Lord (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley) had spoken of the Europeans who had been driven from Egypt, and who had increased the wealth of that country. The riot had been begun by Greeks and Maltese, and the greater number of the people killed had not been Europeans properly so-called, but Greeks and Levantines. The last Blue Book had given a list of the enormous quantity of Europeans in the Egyptian Civil Service, who drew an annual sum of £369,000. Since the Control was established, they had settled like locusts in the country; an Indian official, who was in Egypt a year ago, had told him (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that the quantity of foreigners in the Egyptian Service was so great that he felt certain that state of things could not last. It was out of all proportion to the number of Europeans employed in any Province of India. He had not before spoken on this subject, so he would take that opportunity of saying that he thought Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour was to blame for having allowed any of his officers and men to land, and thus running the risk of a collision when the population was already excited; the Admiral had not allowed anybody to land on a former and similar occasion, when he had been in command of a squadron of four ships of war.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am always very glad to have any support in the difficult circumstances in which we are placed, and I am very much obliged to my noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) who has just spoken for throwing his shield over me on this occasion. But I am bound to say that,
  768
  although I did not catch everything that fell, yet in that portion which I did hear, there was nothing said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley) with which I can in the least quarrel. I have only to state, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, that we have information as to the giving of the decoration to Arabi Pasha, though we have not received any as to a letter of approbation.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.