Lords Sitting of 8 June 1883

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord O'Neill, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 2)* (82); Sea Fisheries*(83).
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (68)*.
Committee — Report — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (64); Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) * (75).
Report —Representative Peers (Scotland)* (66–84); Naval Discipline and Enlistment Acts Amendment* (70).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (31), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I observe, from the Votes of the other House that have been laid upon the Table, that there are two measures at present before that House, which I suppose have a reasonable prospect of reaching this House. One of them is the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, and the other the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. With regard to the latter, I observe on the Notice Paper a crop of Amendments, very voluminous in character, proceeding chiefly from those hon. Members for the Sister Country, who add

  3
  so much richness and volume to the debates of the other House. It is probable, therefore, that it will occupy the attention of the other House for a considerable time, perhaps for some weeks, and it is a Bill which chiefly concerns the other House, though not exclusively so. The Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, on the contrary, is a Bill of general interest, and is one in which this House is quite as much interested as the other; and it would certainly be a great convenience that it should reach your Lordships' House in time for adequate discussion and examination. It is a Bill which consists mainly of details which it is desirable to examine and discuss. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) whether the proceedings of the Government in the other House could be so ordered that the Agricultural Holdings Bill, to which our attention should be particularly directed, should reach this House first? It would be a convenience, if it could be so arranged.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess gave me Notice of the Question, and I have communicated with Mr. Gladstone and some of my Colleagues in the other House. There is a general desire to meet the wish of the noble Marquess; but I find that there would be some inconvenience in departing from the order in which the House is engaged in considering the Bills. At the same time, with regard to both Bills, no effort shall be wanting to bring them, at the earliest time possible, under the consideration of your Lordships.

AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL DEPRESSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND, in rising to call the attention of the House to the depressed condition of agriculture and trade, said, ho would ask for that indulgence of their Lordships which was generally granted to him when he alluded to some statistics; but he would promise that they should be as brief and condensed as the great magnitude of the question would permit—the depressed condition of agriculture and trade. As regarded agriculture, he feared it would not be necessary for him to detain their Lordships at any length to show how depressed it was
  4
  at the present moment. All parties of all kinds knew that it was never so depressed before; and yet the Government appeared to treat the matter with contemptuous indifference, for he had not heard a word of sympathy from them, and the subject was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. What had been proposed for the relief of agriculture? The only measure which since then the Government had proposed for the alleviation of agricultural distress was the Tenants' Compensation Bill. But while he admitted that measure to be a sound and, perhaps, a useful one, and that it had been brought forward by the Government with an honest intention to do good to the agricultural interest, yet he must ask the Government whether they seriously believed that it was a measure which could, by any possibility, relieve the existing agricultural distress? It would merely compensate a tenant who was leaving his farm for unexhausted improvements, and make the tenant who took the farm pay for them; that was merely transferring the burdens from one to the other; it was no relief to the agricultural interest. He inquired of a gentleman in Leicestershire, for whose opinion he had great respect, what he thought of the Bill; and the answer was that it would do little harm, and less good. He (the Duke of Rutland) believed that was a faithful representation of the effect the Bill would have in most of the counties of England; but he objected to some parts of it; for he believed it would inflict hardship and injury upon small capitalists. At present, many landlords were willing and anxious to allow time to tenants who were in difficulties; but when the Bill was passed they would be prevented from doing so, and would give a year's notice. He wished the Government to consider what this distress in the agricultural districts amounted to, and what it really meant. It was said that in the last 10 years 1,000,000 acres of land had gone out of cultivation; and, at four quarters an acre, that meant a loss of 1,000,000 quarters, which, at £2 a quarter, meant a loss of £8,000,000 a-year. Could we lose that, and not suffer from it? Must not an increase of poverty and pauperism be the consequence? He was sorry to say that ho did not think trade was in any better condition than agriculture. The Trade

  5
  Returns for the first five months of this year and of last showed that the exports had fallen from £98,160,280 to £96,931,963, and the imports had risen from £149,625,193 to £155,704,412, showing an increase in imports of £6,079,219, and a decrease in exports of £1,228,317. There was an article in The Morning Post of that day on this subject, and he there found it stated—
  "Last month we remarked that the falling-off in the values of our exports, then £2,680,000, was not sufficient to be deemed of serious importance; but now that it is almost doubled by the £5,320,000 of last month, the same consolation cannot be accepted. Still, it does not yet amount to much more than 1¼ per cent on the whole transactions, though it is much to be feared that this will progress as the year goes on."
  This great diminution in the exports and the vast increase in the imports was a most serious matter. At present he believed there was great anxiety in the City as to the quantity of gold in the Bank of England. The value of the woollen goods we exported in 1872 was £32,383,273; the average in the last 10 years had been £19,252,699; so that there had been an annual diminution of £13,130,574. We imported silk goods of the value of £12,000,000, and this involved the displacement of about 36,000 labourers. The value of the cotton goods we exported in 1872 was £63,667,729; the average of the last 10 years had been £58,900,000; and that involved an annual diminution of £4,566,579. In 1872 we imported raw cotton of the value of £53,380,670; the average for the last 10 years had been £42,942,259; and the annual diminution was £10,438,140. He had received a letter from a manufacturer in Sheffield, who said—
  "As a rule, the majority is usually correct in its decision, and what do we find? That one by one the nations of the world are going over to protection—that is to say, to employ their own labour in preference to that of the foreigner. England alone stands out for Free Trade. In the year 1880 I returned from a tour in Australia, and upon landing at San Francisco was struck with the appearance of the people. The working classes were well clothed and well fed, and upon inquiry I found that the artizan received an average of 2½ to 3 dollars per day—10 s. to 12 s.—and in some cases much more. From advertisements in the trade journals, as I passed through the United States, I found labour in request. It may be said—'Yes; but living is much more expensive.' Granted; but even then the large wage received by the artizan leaves a large balance in favour of the
  6
  American workman. Arrived at Liverpool, I found a different state of affairs—workmen seeking employ, wages at a minimum, say about 4s. to 4s. 6d. per day. The want of Reciprocity necessitates the manufacturers here reducing the wages of the workman to a shockingly low scale to enable them to climb the barrier of Protection. And where it is successively done the attention of the foreigner is at once drawn to it, and the barrier is raised still higher, as in the case recently of France and the United States. The result is trade continues dull, there is no life in it, and in consequence of our suicidal policy we shall find ourselves supporting a large portion of our able-bodied workmen out of the poor rate. America has built up a large manufacturing community by the protection she has accorded to her enter prizing manufacturers, and already she has become the largest manufacturer of steel rails in the world. The scale of wages in this country for artizans is lower than it was 20 years ago, while the work put into the article is probably increased 20 per cent. I am speaking now specially of my native town. Local taxes, however, increase. The best thing this country could do, in my humble opinion, would be to promote the federation of our Colonies, and become in fact, what we are in theory, a mighty Empire."
  That letter was written by a gentleman who employed a great number of artizans in the town of Sheffield. Then, the leading newspaper, The Times, which certainly was not Protectionist, said—
  "Without in the least desiring to take pessimist views of our national condition, we venture to say that it is not one which dispenses us from strict caution and economy. In some respects it may he described as precarious. We depend upon foreigners to a greater degree than it is altogether pleasant to contemplate. We require that they should take an enormous amount of our manufactures, and should supply us with an immense quantity of food in exchange. They are straining every nerve to do without our manufactures, and they have already succeeded to such an extent that, though the volume of our trade remains, the profit has been reduced. No thinking man can avoid asking himself what will be the effect upon a country situated as we are of the extraordinary rapidity with which the population of the world is increasing."
  In fact, this question was constantly discussed in the papers, and the writers pointed out that the results of our exports and imports were not pleasant to contemplate. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that the trade of this country was not at the present time prosperous. He knew that subjects of this kind were dull, and that the figures were uninteresting; but he w as sure they would all agree with him that no question was so important to this country as the question of industrial prosperity. He felt that this country

  7
  was year by year losing her high position in commerce; and, indeed, without any hope of returning prosperity—both agriculture and trade, and everything connected with them, were going to rack and ruin. He did not think that any remedy which he might propose would be acceptable to the Imperial Parliament; and, indeed, he did not know that, except Protection, there was any remedy that anyone could propose. Mr. Ecroyd, in a remarkable speech in "another place," had stated his views of what he thought might tend to stop decadence. In that speech the hon. Member proposed that the duties on Indian tea, and on sugar, coffee, chocolate, cocoa, and some other articles that were grown in India and in our Colonies, should be received duty free, as well as wheat and flour, and that a duty of 10 per cent should be raised on tea and similar commodities which were brought from foreign countries, as well as a duty of 4s. per cwt. on grain and flour from them. They had formerly been accused of having nothing to propose; but Mr. Ecroyd had met that charge by making his proposal. He (the Duke of Rutland) had just said that there was no remedy except Protection to propose; but he thought he ought in fairness to mention that the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) proposed emigration as a remedy, and that remedy had been very largely advocated in different quarters. At a meeting held the other day at Mile End, a system of State-aided emigration to our Colonies was earnestly advocated. It was suggested that about 200,000 of our working and artizan fellow-countrymen should thus be got rid of. Why should those people, who were the very life and backbone of the country, be thus expatriated, because England persistently refused to adopt any other policy than that of Free Trade? Were they not our fellow-countrymen? Had they not the same love of their Queen, their country, and of their homes, as the Members of their Lordships' House? They loved their cottages, and gardens, and flowers, and they could not be turned adrift as coaches and horses were put away? Besides, the country wanted those men—they were wanted for the Army and for the Navy, and we did not want to get rid of the most active and vigorous
  8
  section of the population. Why were they to be sent out of the countries in which their labour was protected, because in Free Trade England they could not find employment? Would it not be more statesmanlike and honest to say" We will protect your labour hero as well as it is protected in Canada or the United States. Remain where you are. We want you here." There were many ways in which the depression in trade and agriculture caused by our present Free Trade system made itself felt. No country in the world cared for its poor as did this country. Nowhere were there so many hospitals and almshouses. But our hospitals were suffering acutely in the present distress. Guy's Hospital, for example, which derived nearly all its income from land, had soon that income reduced from £50,000 to £32,000; and had been compelled, and would be still further compelled, to reduce the scale of its beneficent operations. How was the present state of things to be remedied? It could only be remedied by a recurrence to the policy of Protection, which we had so unwisely abandoned, either with or against the will of the Government, and by making the question of Free Trade or Protection the test question at the next General Election. The working men had the question in their own hands. If the industrial portion of the country were desirous to have their industry protected, they must do so at the next Election. They must see whether candidates were Protectionists or Free Traders, and return a majority in favour of Protection to the House of Commons. If that were done, from that day the industry of England would flourish. Agriculture would become prosperous, and trade revive; the furnaces of the great manufactories would again blaze forth, giving employment to thousands; and the country would soon be brought back to its former happy state.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, that, in his opinion, the establishment of an international arbitration tribunal, in order to settle any disputes that might arise, would do more than anything else to encourage and develop the trade of Europe, by setting free that large portion of the industrial power which was at present absorbed in military operations, in the shape of standing Armies; another principle which, he believed,

  9
  should be adopted to that end was that of taxing moderately every imported article of general consumption.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped that the noble Duke who bad brought this subject under the notice of the House (the Duke of Rutland) would not think him wanting in respect towards him if he did not attempt to follow him through all the topics into which he had entered. It was, unfortunately, an indisputable fact that agricultural distress did exist in this country, and had existed for several years; and that fact had been admitted by the late Government, who had appointed the Agricultural Commission, presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) to inquire into the causes of that distress. The present Government were also aware of the continuance of that distress, though, during last year, the country had not been subjected to such great difficulty respecting agriculture as during many previous years; and, therefore, it had not been thought necessary to make any allusion to it in the Speech Her Majesty was advised to deliver. There was a general opinion on one point—namely, that, whatever causes might exist, the chief one was an unusual succession of bad seasons. That, of course, was beyond the control of Parliaments and Governments to remedy, and they could only hope that they might have years of greater sunshine, and more favourable agricultural conditions. No doubt, there were measures of interest to the agricultural community, which were recommended by many people as a remedy; and the noble Duke had referred to the Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, which he said would, in his opinion, do very little towards relieving agricultural depression. When that Bill reached this House, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to state their views with regard to it; but, at the present moment, he (the Earl of Kimberley) was sure he should be excused if he declined to discuss the provisions of a measure which was not before their Lordships. The noble Duke had discussed this question from the Protection or Reciprocity point of view; but the noble Duke must pardon him for saying that the question was not one of practical politics at the present time. Therefore, he did not think it worth
  10
  while to occupy their Lordships' time by reiterating the arguments in favour of Free Trade, for there was a general agreement to adhere to the system which had been deliberately adopted. Our trade was not so flourishing as it had been at some other times; but to say that it was decaying would be a proposition it would be very difficult to maintain. The amount of shipping which passed through the Suez Canal showed that the trade, at all events, was not declining, for the greater part of it was British. The noble Duke brought forward the theory that the less they received for what they sold the richer they wore. He (the Earl of Kimberley) could not follow that, because, by that reasoning, if they sold something for nothing at all, they would be attaining to a height of wealth almost impossible. He did not, however, deny that we were hard pressed by the competition of foreign countries; but he thought that, with the skill and industry and resources of the country, our people might be relied upon to hold their own. On the whole, ho thought that there was no reason for us to despair of our commercial position among nations.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that the noble Earl had not touched upon the subject of emigration.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, personally, he had never been in favour of emigration on a large scale, though, no doubt, we must look to it as an outlet for our surplus population in certain congested districts, such as existed in Ireland, where it had been of great assistance; and it was to the advantage of our working population that they should be allowed to carry their labour to any part of the world they might choose, and where extraordinarily high rates of pay might prevail for the time. He had been informed that in certain districts in England men who had emigrated were returning home, finding that wages abroad were falling, and that the diamond fields of South Africa were, for the present, played out. The Government were exceedingly anxious that any measures should be passed which would, in their opinion, facilitate the recovery of agriculture from the distress it was now undoubtedly enduring.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should not like this discussion to close without thanking the noble

  11
  Duke (the Duke of Rutland) for the very interesting speech he has made. It was thoroughly characteristic of him, as a gallant defence of opinions he has long been known to hold upon the subject; and, whether we agree with him or not, we shall always listen with interest and with pleasure to opinions independently formed, and vigorously sustained. With regard to the question of agricultural distress, I think there are grounds on which we may complain of Her Majesty's Government. We have stated that before, and we may have reason to state it again. I wish they could be induced to pay a little more attention to the burdens which press on agriculture, and to take an interest in the gradual transformation of a large quantity of land from arable into pastoral farms, and mark the impediments thrown in the way of the healthy progress of that process, by the introduction of diseases from the Continent, which are fatal to the industry of the farmer. While making these remarks, it is almost superfluous to add that it was thoroughly ascertained by the Commission over which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) presided that it was from causes outside any legislative control that, in the main, the sufferings of agriculturists were caused. That is admitted on all sides, and we can only hope for better things in the future. But I still regret that the Government, under these circumstances, have not found, for the comfort and sustenance of agriculturists, any food more encouraging or nourishing than that very insignificant Tenants' Compensation Bill which is now making its way through the other House. I thoroughly concur in the opinion of the noble Duke that, so far as I can judge, it is a measure which will not do much harm, and probably do less good. My noble Friend did not confine himself to agriculture; but he also dealt largely with the question of the decline of trade. I must say there is one point on which he has reason to complain of the tone of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), and of the tone generally adopted on that subject. Whatever our opinions as to Protection and Free Trade may be, we must never lose sight of the fact, the startling fact, that we are in a small minority in the world on the subject; and that the advocates of Free Trade, however deeply
  12
  convinced they may be of the truth of their position, have no right to assume the airs of orthodoxy, and treat with contemptuous indifference all arguments that might be advanced on the other side. There is a vast majority in the world in favour of Protection. I belong, I regret to say, to the comparatively insignificant minority which believes in Free Trade; but, holding and avowing that position, I think the proper frame in which to approach this subject is to consider all the arguments adduced upon it, and to examine whether there is not in our system, however firmly we believe in our principles and mode of applying them, any weak point that vitiates the excellence of the principles we desire to uphold. There is one matter which interests very considerable classes in this country. It is a question called by some Reciprocity, and by others Retaliation; and it has, of late years, excited very great interest among those whom the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) told us the other night would decide the fate of the institutions of this country—namely, what he called "the masses." They see the undoubted fact that a wall of tariffs exists around our trade; and they see that these tariffs do not diminish in severity, but that, as far as there is any movement, it is in the opposite direction, tending to grow more and more severe. They see we are isolated in this matter among the nations of the world, and that the promises and the sincere conviction under which the system of Free Trade was originally passed have not been fulfilled, and that other nations have not followed our example. They also see that this state of things forces our diplomatists into a position of singular weakness when they wish to argue for the relaxation of these terrible tariffs. They are like unarmed men going forth to meet men fully armed. They have no weapons by which they can instil fear of the consequences of refusing the alteration of the tariffs for which they plead; and, therefore, there has grown up—I do not say I agree with it—a feeling which I cannot ignore, and which, in considerable quantity, undoubtedly exists, a feeling in favour of that policy that is sometimes described as Reciprocity, but is more accurately described, I think, as a policy of Retaliation. I do not agree with it, because it do not see that it is immediately

  13
  practicable. Whether, as a principle, Retaliation should be exercised or not, is a very difficult question of economics to decide. The arguments against it are very much the same as those against war of all sorts. You injure yourself in the effort to protect yourself, by injuring others. That is, no doubt, true; but arguments of that kind have not prevented mankind from seeing that in war often lies their only protection; and it may be that a retaliatory fiscal system, under certain circumstances, would be wise and profitable to a nation. Your Lordships will hardly forget the remarkable speech delivered by the late Lord Beaconsfield on this subject, four or five years ago. He then pointed out what seemed to me unanswerable—that the policy of Retaliation, whether good or bad, was not, at all events at that moment, open to the country to pursue. We have wound around ourselves a skein of obligations, in the nature of the "most favoured nation clauses," which would absolutely preclude us from adopting, on any extensive scale, such a policy of Retaliation, or of reserving to our diplomatists the liberty to use it or threaten it; and, therefore, so far as the immediate policy of the Government is concerned, it must be dismissed from the category of practical remedies for our distress. In saying that, I wish to carefully guard myself from saying that I think there is no foundation for the contention that a policy of Retaliation is consistent with the true principles of Free Trade. If it were possible, it might be necessary—it might be advantageous. I have no doubt that the Free Trade originally looked forward to by those who introduced that system was a Free Trade in which all nations should take their part. An enormous amount of the benefit, however, which we thought would come from the measure has failed to arrive in consequence of other nations refusing to follow our example; and, unless we take heed in time, and take the requisite precautions, we run the danger that our Colonies may follow in the same path with foreign nations, and that we shall be shut out from the ports, not only of Colonies, but of Dependencies, as we have been from the ports of foreign nations. I am, therefore, glad the noble Duke has brought the subject before us, for I do not think a question which so deeply
  14
  concerns large masses of those employed in our agriculture or commerce ought to be pushed away from us, as if it were too unholy to discuss. We are in the midst of great difficulties, and we have very serious dangers and troubles to surmount. Poverty is growing, and the means of meeting and conquering it are not growing at the same time; and, therefore, I thank the noble Duke for having called attention to the subject. I think the Government will misconceive their duty if they cast it away in an indifferent or contemptuous manner.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am satisfied with the discussion, and with the answer the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) has given with regard to Reciprocity. I should like to know, however, on what he founds the statement that pauperism is increasing in this country?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said "poverty," and I take the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) for it, that it is so.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Oh! then, it is entirely founded on the statement of the noble Duke.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; it is not. I imagine that where there is distress there must be poverty, and in the last four or five years there has been great distress and poverty in very many classes. I could very easily produce, at some future day, evidence of the statements I have made; but I have been assured by persons well acquainted with the labouring classes, that they suffer seriously from want of employment, both in this city and in other large centres of industry. I know, with reference to the great agricultural interest, that many farmers are in such a condition that those who have been rich are now poor. There has been retrenchment on every side, and you cannot have retrenchment without throwing large numbers out of employment. I thought these facts were obvious to everyone, and I am surprised that the noble Earl should have treated them in this manner, and made them matter of debate. It would be easy to produce evidence of these things.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I dare say that I am mistaken, and that the noble Marquess is right; but until he brings me the evidence alluded to I shall be rather doubtful. My impression is, that pau-

  15
  perism has decreased, that poor rates in agricultural districts have decreased, and that there is a very great increase in the deposits in the savings banks.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said "poverty," not "pauperism."

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 66.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 66.)

  REPORT.
  Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments to be received, read.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Roll of Peerages and Peers of Scotland to be annually prepared).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 15, after ("annexed") insert ("and").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Form of Election Roll).
  THE EARL OF STAIR (for the Duke of SUTHERLAND)regretted the noble Duke was not there to explain his own Amendment; but the object of it was to bring the 2nd clause of the Bill into conformity with the 8th clause. As it at present stood, it would have the effect, no doubt unintentional on the part of the noble and learned Earl, of excluding one Peer, and one only; and it seemed specially directed against that noble Lord. He trusted, therefore, that this Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 29, to leave out ("any peer") and insert ("two or more peers.")—(The Earl of Stair.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in opposing the Amendment, said, he thought it would go extremely far to defeat the object in view under the Bill. The Committee of 1882, presided over by the Lord Justice Clerk, made this recommendation upon the subject and manner of preparing the Election Roll, and it had been followed in the present Bill. The Committee recommended that the Roll should be prepared by the Lord Clerk Register in the first instance, and that he should enter on it the name of every Peer who had voted at the election of Representative Peers without any objection or protest having been at any time made or taken against his right
  16
  of voting within the last 20 years, and also the name of every Peer whose right had been considered and sustained by the House of Lords. The Committee went on to say, in the next paragraph—
  "This proceeding would very nearly embrace the whole existing Peerage of Scotland, for the cases of protest daring the period in question are few."
  Their Lordships would observe that its Committee recommended omissions of any Peer against whom there was any protest recorded, unless the House of Lords had sustained the claim; and the Bill which was last year introduced by his noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway) followed that proposition, and also laid down that the Roll should not contain the name of any Peer against whom any protest had been taken. There would be no injustice to any gentleman or nobleman, if such there were, whose name would be omitted by reason of a protest; because the Bill provided a simple and straightforward means by which ho could get his name inserted upon the Roll by Petition to the Crown, if he were able to establish his claim. It had beers said by the noble Earl that the Bill would only exclude one individual; but he believed the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, might be to introduce into the first Roll two Earls of Breadalbane, two Earls of Eglinton, two Lords Belhaven, and two Earls of Mar. He (the Lord Chancellor) supposed that the last was the only name which was thought by the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair) to be affected by the Amendment; but it would be seen that that was not so. He was not prepared to put the name of a person upon the Roll who had not proved his title. Taking up the other cases he had mentioned in the order of time, in the year 1870 a gentleman, a Relative of his own, claimed the Peerage of Belhaven, and voted in respect of that Peerage, and only one protest was recorded against him, and no protest had been recorded against him at any subsequent time, because the House of Lords determined that another person was entitled to the Peerage; but if this Amendment were adopted, it would be the duty of the Lord Clerk Register to put upon the Roll, in addition to that of Lord Belhaven, who had established his right by Resolution of the House, the name of his Relative,

  17
  who was the unsuccessful claimant to the Peerage. Coming to the next case, which was still more singular, in 1872 a person, not the present Earl, claimed the title of Breadalbane, and four protests wore recorded against him. The consequence was that, under the Act of 1847, the matter was reported to the House, and the House was called upon to establish his claim. The claimant took no steps in the matter, and it fell to the ground. The gentleman, in 1876, again appeared, and again voted, and only one protest was recorded against him. He did the same in 1879, and again only one protest was recorded against him; and if this Amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to put the name of this gentleman upon the Roll, as claiming to be Earl of Breadalbane. What the use was of making out a Roll of that sort he (the Lord Chancellor) did not know. The third case was that of the title of Eglinton. In 1874 a gentleman, not the present Lord Eglinton, voted, and one protest was recorded against him. In 1876 he did the same thing, and only one protest was recorded, and a similar thing occurred in 1880. Under this Amendment, that gentleman's name would be put upon the Roll, as well as that of the present Earl. Then he came to the case of a gentleman whom ho always would speak of with respect and sympathy, and whom he should as readily as any man congratulate, if he should, in the proper and regular course, bring forward a claim to the ancient Earldom of Mar, and succeed in establishing it on proper evidence. If there ever was a claim to a Peerage, since the world began, which was surrounded with difficulty, it was certainly that claim. It was claimed six times by one gentleman, and on each occasion only one protest was made. After the adjudication in favour of Lord Kellie, that gentleman had never presented himself again, so as to give any opportunity for more than one protest. It was perfectly obvious that, if they were to have a Roll at all, they would stultify themselves, and set about it in the most extraordinary manner, if they were to insist on putting upon the first Roll the names of three claimants, as to whom no human being had any ground for believing that they had any right to be there, and of another, whose right was not only established or un-
  18
  controverted, but was as much the reverse as anything possibly could be. He ventured to suggest that their Lordships should not accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, that the Amendment would make it lawful for the Lord Clerk Register to place on the Roll the name of the gentleman who claimed the ancient Earldom of Mar. His case really stood by itself. It must be remembered that, in order to make these protests valid, they must be handed in by Peers; and, so far as he was aware, that had not been done in any of the cases cited by the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that was not so; for, if his information was correct, every one of the protests were handed in by Peers.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYwas understood to corroborate what had been said by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Kintore).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his information was derived from a Return made to the House itself.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he believed that the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack had been misinformed, and that the whole effect of the Bill would be to keep off the Roll one heir of his uncle, who, undoubtedly, was Earl of Mar. The gentleman in question did all that any of them could have done to take up his title; he had been served heir to his uncle, had matriculated his arms in the Herald's College, and had voted. at elections in 1868, 1870, 1872, and 1874; and in no case was more than one protest recorded against him. Surely, it would be fair and right to allow his name to go on the Roll; and if he was not the Peer he claimed to be, anyone who had a better title should come forward and prove his claim. If, by this side-wind, they should keep one individual off the Roll, their Lordships would agree with him, it was not a course which should be taken.
  THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIEsaid, that, on former occasions, he had always avoided saying anything when a question of this kind was raised; but, really, after the remarks which had been made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kintore), he felt bound to utter a few words. He should like to know when that House had said ho had no title to be on the Roll? There was only one

  19
  title on the Roll, and that he claimed, on the ground that the ancient title had come to an end. The House of Lords, in their decision, did not, however, say that the ancient Earldom had come to an end; and it was, therefore, possible for anyone to come forward and say he had a right to claim it. But, in order to do so, he would have to prove that the ancient Earldom existed, that it descended to heirs general, and that he was the heir-general. He (the Earl of Mar and Kellie) denied that the gentleman who claimed it could fulfil any of these conditions; but he would be extremely obliged to him if he could do so in regard to the first two, because then he (the Earl of Mar) should at once claim it on the ground of the subsequent charter, which limited the title to heirs male.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to point out that the clause, as it stood at the present moment, would embrace the persons to whom the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had alluded, with the one exception of the owner of the ancient Earldom of Mar. He (the Earl of Galloway) did not know against whom the Bill was directed, if not against the owner of this ancient Earldom. The noble and learned Earl had certainly been misinformed, for none of those holding the titles of Belhaven, Breadalbane, or Eglinton, to whom he had referred, had been protested against by a Peer. As the House was thus being entirely misled by these misrepresentations of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he (the Earl of Galloway) hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Stair) would take the sense of the House on the Amendment which he had moved in the absence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Sutherland), in whose name it stood, in which case he should certainly support him.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he only rose because, having gone upon the Committee which sat upon this subject last year without knowing any of the parties concerned in the Mar case, he had formed a very decided opinion upon the point now at issue. The noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack might, indeed, have shown that the Amendment proposed to his clause would still leave it defective; but the consequence of leaving it in its present shape would be that a gentleman would be struck off the Roll
  20
  merely because one individual Peer had protested against him, that Peer being the one person who had claimed his title, and had not got it. For their Lordships ought to recollect that the Peerage granted to the noble Earl (the Earl of Mar and Kellie) was expressly stated not to be the ancient Earldom of Mar, but a Peerage supposed to have been created in 1565. The present holder of the ancient title had succeeded his uncle as heir-general; and it was the fact that, when the attainder was taken off in 1824, the Peerage was restored to an heir who succeeded through his mother. The present holder bad done all that was required of him on succeeding to the title; and if he was to be struck off the Roll as proposed, their Lordships would, by that retrospective action, do an act of grave injustice.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the object of the Bill was to prevent unpleasant disputes arising at the election of Scotch Peers. It was desirable that a Roll should be provided, and under the Bill that would be done; and no person would be allowed to be on it, or have a right to vote, unless he had proved his claim to be there. But it was now proposed to put two persons of the same name on the Roll, in order that, at the very next election of Scotch Peers, a dispute might arise. As to the gentleman who claimed the ancient Earldom of Mar, all he (the Earl of Redesdale) could say was, that he had never attempted to make good that claim, although he had been invited to do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, interposing, rose to Order, and asked where all this discussion was to end? He was afraid it never would do so if they went into the question of the ancient Earldom of Mar. He deprecated any further discussion upon that subject, for there were many advocates who might be interested in it, and the question had been disposed of by their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he could assure his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) that he had no wish to weary the House, and would, therefore, say no more upon the matter.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the result of the Bill, as it now stood, bore a personal, and, he ventured to say, an

  21
  invidious character, because the clause they were now discussing would have this effect. It would affect one Scottish Peer, and one only; and, if the clause were not amended, his name would not be put upon the Roll. If the clause were amended, it would be open to the noble Earl who had protested before, and who was the only protestor against the Earl of Mar being on the Roll, and to any other Peer, to come forward and protest. The Peer in question, Mr. Good-eve Erskine, who, on the death of his uncle, was put upon the Roll as a Peer, and whose vote at the Election of Representative Peers had been received several times, would, by this Bill, be struck off the Roll, though he had only been protested against once; whereas the noble Earl who protested against him (the Earl of Mar and Kellie) had been protested against 41 times, and 26 Peers had entered a protest against the course taken in 1881. It would be well if, by adopting the Amendment, they wore to strike out any invidious personal matters.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was surprised at the noble Earl who had last spoken (the Earl of Wemyss) having referred to Mr. Goodeve Erskine as an Earl. That gentleman had claimed, in the Court of Session, the estate of the noble Earl behind him (Lord Elphinstone); but he was not allowed to appear as Earl of Mar. He appealed to the House of Lords, where he was told, however, he must claim as Mr. Goodeve Erskine, and not as Earl of Mar. Further, he appealed to the Home Secretary for precedence, as Earl's daughters, for his sisters; but that right hon. Gentleman, after taking the opinion of the Heralds' Office, refused the request.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: That is not the case.
  A noble LORD: I must call the noble Earl to Order; this sort of language is not proper to be used in this House.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE, continuing, said, he could prove what he was saying by documents, which could not be gainsaid. Then Mr. Erskine was presented at Court, under the title of the Earl of Mar, and the Lord Chamberlain's Office cancelled the presentation; and yet, after all that, they were now asked by this Amendment to say that Mr. Erskine was a Peer. He hoped the Amendment would not be supported.
  22
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 51; Not-Contents 27: Majority 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aveland, L.

  Balinhard,L.(E. Southesk.)

  Grafton, D.

  Braye, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Cottosloe, L.

  Bath M.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Derby, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Leconfreld, L.

  Morley, E.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, E.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L.(E. Dalhousie.)

  Eversley, V.

  Reay, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrinngton.)

  Alcester, L.

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Ampthill, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bristol, M.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Bute, M.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Forester, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Devon, E.

  Morton, E.

  Oxenfoord, L.(E. Stair.) [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sondes, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Sidmouth, V.

  Abinger, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Wemyss,L.(E. Wemyss.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wimborne, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Zouche of Haryng worth, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHAN CELLOR the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 29, leave out ("present and"); in page 2, line 6, leave out ("before"); and in line 7, after ("herein") insert ("before.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to,
  Clause 4 (Names on Roll only to be called at elections).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 40, leave out ("title") and insert ("titles.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Proceedings by heirs of deceased persons).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 9, after ("when") leave out ("Such Roll is"), and insert ("this Act was passed, or when the Election Roll for the time being in force"); and in line 16, leave out ("thereupon.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Petitions as to rights of peerage and precedency, and to correct errors in Roll).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in moving, as an addition to the clause, a Proviso that, before any order should be issued by the House of Lords, altering the order of precedence on the Election Roll on the Report of the Committee of Privileges, such Report, together with the Evidence upon which it rests, should have been presented to the House, and laid upon the Table, not less than one month from the date of its presentation, said, it would in no way take away any power from their Lordships under the Statute to alter the Union Roll on a Report of the Committee of Privileges. But, before that was done, he asked that they should not issue any order with reference to the alteration of the order of precedence without the Report and Evidence having been laid on the Table of the House, that time might be given for publicity, say not less than one month before any action was taken.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 20, at the end of clause to add — "Provided also, that before any order shall be issued by the House of Lords altering the order of precedency on the Election Roll on the report of the Committee of Privileges, such report, together with the evidence upon which it rests, shall have been presented to the House and lain upon the Table not less than one month from the date of its presentation."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment, and would, therefore, accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Protests).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 26, after ("election") insert—
  ("Or by any such peer in the name and on behalf of any other peer voting by proxy at such election");
  In lines 28 and 29, leave out ("present") in line 28, and ("and") in line 29; and in line 34, leave out ("present and.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 84.)

  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to carry into effect an International Convention concerning Fisheries in the North Sea, and to amend the laws relating to British Sea Fisheries—Was presented by The Lord SUDELEY; read 1a. (No. 83.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.