COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 May 1883)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, I stated to your Lordships that I would give respectful attention to all Amendments which might make it more acceptable to any noble Lords who had special interest in the subject. I am happy to inform your Lordships that I have been in communication with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, who presided over the Committee of 1882, and I hope that we have come to a substantial agreement as to those points that were thought of importance. I will state to your Lordships the particular modifications in the Bill to which I think I can properly assent, and I will then ask your Lordships to allow it to be passed pro formâ through Committee, and to be reprinted, with the Amendments which I propose to introduce. My desire has been to deal with this matter in a manner which would secure the greatest amount of concurrence and meet all reasonable suggestions on the part of noble Lords from Scotland. Some of the proposed modifications I have already given Notice of, and the only material one, I think I may say, is this. I have adopted that part of the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) which is founded on what fell from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) on the second reading of the Bill—namely, that the power of reference to the Court of Ses- 1829 sion should not be quite so limited as I had proposed to make it. I had proposed that the Court might, if the Committee of Privileges thought fit, be consulted on matters of law, or for the purpose of taking evidence of facts. But my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) suggested that it would be better to leave it more wide, and to enable the Committee, in what it might think a proper case, to refer the Petition itself for consideration and report to the Court of Session, the House of Lords still reserving its own jurisdiction. This does not appear to me to affect the principle of the Bill, and I accordingly propose to adopt, in substance, that portion of the Amendment to the 7th clause of the Bill of which the noble Marquess has given Notice. The only other material point is this. I have proposed by the 5th clause to adopt, in substance, the same mode of determining the right of succession to Peerages on the death of a Peer which Parliament thought fit to adopt with regard to Irish Representative Peerages in the year 1857. The reference to Ireland was, I think, misunderstood. I stated, on the second reading, that I would substitute for any such reference words distinctly specifying the manner of proceeding intended, which was that in those cases where an application might be made by a person claiming to be the successor of a Peer, the House should cause inquiry to be made by the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal. But in certain communications which I have since had with the Lord Justice Clerk, he has led me to understand that it would be acceptable to many Scottish Peers that the mode of proceeding should undergo a modification which, in my opinion, involves no principle, and which, therefore, I shall willingly adopt, since it is acceptable to noble Lords from Scotland; and that is, in the same cases of succession for which my clause was intended to provide, an application should, in the first instance, be made by the successor to the Lord Clerk Register, accompanied by the production of a decree of service, finding the applicant to be heir to the person or persons through whom he professes to make out his title, together with the evidence on which such service has proceeded, and also a record, duly authenticated, of the proceedings. The 1830 Lord Clerk Register, on receiving such application, will refer it to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords will refer it to the Lord Chancellor, and he will report. These are the principal Amendments, and I now beg to move that the Bill be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with Amendments.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, it seemed to him that Clause 7, as it was proposed to be altered in regard to reference to the Court of Session, would be open to very great objection; and he wished to know if it would be competent to discuss the clause when the Bill again came up?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he wished it to be understood that the clause would be entirely open to consideration after it was reprinted.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, he was sure that he might state, on the part of a large number of Scottish Peers, that the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor was a most satisfactory one. He did not now consider it necessary to proceed with the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
, said, he must express his dissent from the modification proposed by the Lord Chancellor with regard to dealing with succession claims. He believed there had been a misunderstanding among the Scottish Peers as to what the proceedings had always been upon the subject. The practice hitherto observed was much less expensive than that would be which was now proposed. In the case of successions it was absolutely necessary that precautions should be taken against anyone but the proper successor being admitted.

LORD BALFOUR
said, he should like to hear a clear statement from the Lord Chancellor as to whether the effect of the Amendments he was to propose would be to give the Court of Session any jurisdiction in the matter of Peerage eases?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
was understood to convey that this would not be the effect of his Amendments.

LORD BALFOUR
said, he was glad to be assured on the point, because he thought that giving such jurisdiction to 1831 the Court of Session would be a most unwise step.