Lords Sitting of 23 March 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL—Trinity College, Dublin (Perpetuity Grants), negatived.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Solicitors (Ireland)* (53).
Second Reading—Educational Endowments (Ireland)* (44); Elections (Hours of Poll)* (43).

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— MILITARY CO-OPERATION OF THE COLONIES.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  EARL SYDNEY (LORD STEWARD of the HOUSEHOLD)brought up and read at the Table Her Majesty's Answer to the Address in reference to the offers of military assistance from the Colonies and India, as follows:—
  MY LORDS,
  I have received your loyal and dutiful Address.
  The generous offers of Military service made to Me by My Colonies, and by India have given Me the liveliest satisfaction.
  I have gladly accepted the assistance thus loyally tendered, and I trust that it will be found practicable to despatch Contingents from several Colonies for service with My Army during the present year.
  The patriotic sympathy and spirit which have been displayed on this occasion in distant parts of My United Empire have caused Me the highest gratification.
  Address and Answer to be printed and published. (No. 52.)

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN —ARTICLES IN THE "TIMES" NEWSPAPER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he desired, in pursuance of private Notice he had given to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to put a Question to him re-

  197
  garding certain articles which had appeared in The Times newspaper, and which seemed to him to deserve some comment. Their Lordships generally and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Salisbury) had hitherto refrained from pressing Her Majesty's Government with any Questions calculated to embarrass them in the present critical state of the delicate negotiations between this country and Russia in relation to Afghanistan. He would prefer to follow the example which had thus been set, and also to refrain from making any comments upon those negotiations, had it not been left for The Times to rush in where angels feared to tread. It was the custom in foreign countries to have organs in the Press which were regarded as official or semi-official. For instance, The North German Gazette was the authoritative organ of Prince Bismarck at Berlin, and The Journal des Débats was the organ of M. Ferry at Paris; and just as it was an ineradicable opinion abroad that the Lord Mayor was, next to the Prime Minister, the most important person in the Government, so also it had always been believed that The Times was the semi-official organ of the Government of the day. We could hardly complain that these misconceptions should be so prevalent; but he regarded it as an advantage in many ways, one of which was that his communication to the noble Earl of his intention to ask a Question on the subject gave the noble Earl the opportunity of, once for all, authoritatively denying that there was any inspiration in the articles in The Times newspaper. The tone of these articles was extremely remarkable, one which would suggest to a reader that they might be official despatches from the Secretary of State to Ministers abroad containing instructions as to the policy of the Government. Their Lordships were aware that this assumption of authority was nothing more than what Lord Beaconsfield would describe as the pretentiousness of irresponsible frivolity. He, therefore, thought their Lordships would admit that it was desirable it should be publicly known that whatever the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government was—whether wise or unwise—it was initiated and inaugurated within the walls of the Foreign Office, and that in England the
  198
  Government did not employ even the respectable columns of The Times newspaper for official or semi-official announcements of that policy.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I believe that the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) is quite right in saying that what appears in The Times is of great interest on the Continent, and there is no doubt that the feeling there is rather of a double character; and it is thought either that The Times represents the views of the existing Government, or that it represents the public opinion of the country. I cannot, however, imagine how, in any way, any English or foreign reader of the articles, either respecting the policy of the Foreign Office or the conduct of the individual who unworthily is at the head of it at this moment, would think I had any share in inspiring those articles, or that I could have contributed to them. To do so would be to suppose me guilty of a Machiavellian device; and even if I had had the talent I should not have done so, unless I was to act on the principle of Sheridan, who, in order to lay the ground open for a defence of himself, after having written a most brilliant attack upon himself, entirely forgot to answer it. Be that as it may, I think it would be inconvenient, and a novel precedent for me to establish, that I should be called upon to express either agreement with or dissent from either the whole or part of any articles that appear in the public Press. At the same time, I entirely sympathize with what I understand to be the spirit in which the noble Duke has put the Question— namely, that while Her Majesty's Government adhere firmly to the policy which they think the interests and the obligations of this country require, they agree that they should not omit any opportunity of coming to a friendly agreement satisfactory and honourable to all the parties concerned.

TRINITY COLLEGE (PERPETUITY GRANTS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he regretted the absence of his noble Friend (the Mar-

  199
  quess of Salisbury), because, on the last occasion that the Bill was before the House, the noble Marquess expressed the opinion to him (the Earl of Leitrim) that he would carry his point upon the next occasion. When the matter was last year before their Lordships, it was adjourned in the hope that correspondence and communications between the College and the tenants might probably be the means of arriving at some agreement. He regretted that that had not been the result, and the College had not arrived at any agreement with their tenants. The case he wished to present was that of the grantees and sub-grantees of leases by Trinity College, many of whom, residing in Donegal and Kerry, had no Representative in that House but himself. They had, however, sympathizers in the other House in Mr. Blennerhassett, Viscount Crichton, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Trevelyan, the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), and many others. The grantees desired an inquiry into their grievances; and that could be had by a Select Committee if the Bill was read a second time and sent upstairs. The College had stated that it challenged the fullest inquiry into all its proceedings with its tenants; and nevertheless the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), who was Chancellor of the University, notwithstanding the assurances of Mr. Forster, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, had refused any inquiry into the tenants' case. The noble and learned Earl had alarmed their Lordships by saying the tenants were endeavouring to break their leases; but such a statement was absolutely incorrect. On the contrary, the tenants desired to retain the leases under the Act by which they held them; and they complained, not of the principle of the Act, but of its machinery, which compelled them to submit to a revision of the leases every 10 years. Such conditions were antiquated, cumbrous, and unjust, and needed to be reformed. All they desired was an inquiry. They were advised by high authority that the best means of obtaining it was by bringing in this Bill; and if their intentions were not clear, the promoters of the Bill would assent in Committee to anything being inserted that would make them clear. So far his opponents had never seriously attempted to argue this case on its merits;
  200
  but they had maintained that those who broke a lease were trying to get out of their contract. The tenants gave a direct negative to the idea of the possibility of this ever having been accomplished. It was a maxim that no public Act of Parliament could contain a contract within its four corners. The Public Bill introduced in 1850 bore on it the names of Sir William Somerville, the Chief Secretary, and of the Solicitor General for Ireland. This was lost on technical grounds; but it was reintroduced in 1851 as a Private Bill, with the names of Sir William Somerville, and of the two Members for the University on the back of it, but not that of any tenant. In this form it was passed, and it was this Private Act of Parliament which was said to constitute the contract. He might observe, however, that although called a Private Act, it was really a Hybrid Act, and that it received the Royal Assent in the Public Act form— La Reine le veut. The Bill originated in this way—the original tenure of the leaseholders under Trinity College was for 21 years, with renewal fines of 5s. 6d. in the pound of rent, which, if paid every year, procured an extension of the lease for a year. Therefore, they were always in the position of having a 21 years' lease. By the College Statutes the renewal fines were bound to be paid to the Board of the College, whereas the rent was the property of the College itself for educational purposes. It was thus impossible for the Board to run out the leases without starving themselves for 21 years, and so the arrangement was practically that of a lease in perpetuity. Shortly before 1850, in 1849, in consequence of the hard times, some of the tenants were unable to pay the renewal fines, so the members of the Board, who were almost starving, went to the Government of the day, explained their anomalous position, and asked for a remedy. The Government investigated the case, and decided if the Board would grant its tenants perpetuity leases, to give the College Letters Patent, enabling them to pay themselves out of the general funds of the College, and that the renewal fines should thenceforward become part of the general fund of the College. That was the origin of the Bill of 1850 and the Act of 1851 to which he had referred. The tenants petitioned against that Bill on the

  201
  ground that any compulsory change in respect to their tenure should be based on a fair consideration of the advantages they had hitherto possessed, and on the faith of which large outlays had been made. They could not have made a stronger protest against the Bill which now they were represented as having contracted; and although he did not in the slightest degree wish to represent that the Government of 1851 had done anything unfair—on the contrary, they had done all they could to be fair—in the matter, yet they inserted in the Bill a provision which was very unfair. It was to the Government of that day that the tenants owed their present tenure; but the practical working of the Act had proved to be absolutely unfair. The provisions of the Act had been proved by the College itself to be unjust. The College authorities said that they were entitled, under the provisions of the Act, to a rise of 47 per cent on the perpetuity rents; but they had not sought to raise them by that amount, because they could not, they would not, and they dared not. For the first 10 years they had raised those rents only 25 per cent, and that increase was still being paid, and it had materially affected the interests of the tenants. As things were at the time the increase was made, he did not know that the tenants had anything to complain of, for they were in hopes that, if the then state of things could be maintained, they would still be able to pay this 25 per cent. But, unfortunately for them, there came on a depreciation in the price of land, and the under-tenants were unable to pay the middlemen rents sufficient to enable them to pay to the College treasury the advanced rents which he had specified, and certainly incapacitated them altogether to make reductions to improving tenants, and the College absolutely refused to reduce the rents. Then another grievance arose out of the machinery by which the increase of the rents was to be effected. The Act of Parliament prescribed that the proceedings under an arbitration should be at the cost of the party who asked for it. The College asked for such an inquiry in the case of the late Lord Leitrim, and obtained thereby an increased rent of 25 per cent, upon the strength of which it induced the tenants to agree to an increase of 20 per cent without the expense of
  202
  an arbitration; and yet the cost of the one arbitration was levied upon Lord Leitrim's estate. This, however, was incidental, and did not bear on the question before the House. He had no hesitation in saying that the College authorities had been most distinctly guilty of fraud in connection with some of the arrangements. The leaseholders, as he had said, had petitioned Parliament against the Bill introduced by the Government, and then followed a lot of correspondence, in which they threatened to withdraw the Bill unless the opposition was withdrawn. If that had happened, the Government of the day would have said that the Bill had been lost through the factious opposition of the tenants; and if the tenants had really been factious, the Government might have granted the Letters Patent sought for by the College. The tenants accordingly accepted the arbitration of the Government of the day; and it was on this ground that they had always appealed to the Government to protect them when it was found that the Bill was practically unworkable. The letter from the tenants could not properly be regarded as a contract, but only as a courteous letter sent at the end of a long controversy. He (the Earl of Leitrim) had himself paid as much as £4,500 to the College, when he only received £700 from his own tenants, which was the best testimony he could give of the anomalous character of this tenure. But he did not object to that, for he found himself in the position in which he was placed, and so he paid the money like a man. All he asked was that, their rents having gone up in a good time, some recognition should be taken of the bad time. The present Bill was based on the evidence of the Provost of Trinity—not the present Provost—oh, no!—but Dr. Macdonald, who gave evidence in 1844—who gave evidence before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the occupation of land in Ireland. The object of the Bill was to ascertain the real letting value of the land by substituting not theory, but actual facts, for the scheme which had proved so unworkable. Since the Bill had been last before their Lordships, the College authorities had, to some extent, abandoned the idea of a contract, and had suggested various Amendments to the Bill which the

  203
  tenants were unable to accept. Their desire was that the merits of the scheme should come before a Select Committee, and they were quite willing to abide by the result. Nothing, he thought, could be fairer than that; and he did not see how the noble and learned Earl could say that there was any intention on the part of the tenants to break their leases. That he distinctly denied, and, in conclusion, would move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he could not imagine anything more dangerous than the principle sought to be established in regard to lessors by this Bill. This was, in fact, a proposal to allow one of the parties to a contract, who might be dissatisfied, to come forward to Parliament for a Private Act, in order to break it through, so that he might get more favourable terms for himself. It was a practice which, if allowed, would be at all times unfair and unjust, and would lead to great confusion, unless the consent of the lessor was first obtained. The noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) had tried hard to persuade them that there was no contract or arrangement; but, in his (the Earl of Redesdale's) opinion, the arrangement of 1851 was one of very great importance. This Bill was utterly inadmissible, unless their Lordships were prepared to lay down the principle that any tenant was at liberty to bring in a Private Bill to have his rent fixed at his own valuation, and thereby render no property safe from one end of the United Kingdom to the other.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he could not help expressing his surprise at hearing the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) say that the College authorities had been guilty of fraud.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he would explain it. The Act of Parliament provided that the costs of arbitration and inquiry, and all proceedings consequent thereon, should be borne and defrayed by the party requiring the same. Yet, in face of that, they had received the letter to which he had referred from the solicitor of the College.
  EARL CAIRNSthought the noble Earl would himself regret, upon reflec-
  204
  tion, that he had made such a charge without having the slightest foundation for doing so. He objected not only to the details of the Bill, but also to its principles. The case made by the Bill was very simple. As he understood it, the position was this—Trinity College had a considerable amount of landed property, 70,000 acres, let to about 50 tenants. These tenants had become middlemen, and held, by lease, the perpetuity on certain terms. Owing to the depreciation of landed property through the action of the Legislature brought to bear upon the occupying tenants, the rent paid by the occupying tenants had been considerably reduced. Thus, the middlemen were unable to get the rents they formerly did. Then they came to the landlords, Trinity College, and said they objected to pay the rent they had agreed to pay. Now, they were promoting the Bill now before their Lordships' House—a Private Bill—in order to alter the terms under which their leases were held. If that were not an attempt to break a lease he had never heard of one, and he did not know what it was. The noble Earl said—" "We do not want to break our leases; we want to keep them." He dared say they did. They wanted to keep them, but to alter their terms. They wanted to get rid of the old form of valuation, and introduce the entirely new principle of arbitration. That might be a right or a wrong principle; but it was contrary to the contract of which they were trying to get rid by means of a Private Bill. If the subject-matter of the Bill was proper for a Private Bill, it ought to go before a Select Committee; but if it was improper to bring forward such a Bill, it ought to be rejected altogether. They had heard a great deal of the Private Act of 1851, but the object of that Act was very simple. It was simply an Act to allow the Trinity College authorities to grant perpetuity leases in lieu of leases for 21 years, and it provided that every 10 years either party should be entitled to demand a revision of rent. The only consideration for making the change was this right of decennial valuation. It was said that there was no contract; but nothing was more clear than that the tenants agreed to the arrangement. Now they wished to get rid of the terms of their tenure, and he repeated that if this was not an attempt

  205
  to break leases he did not know what it was. What was the difference between the tenants of Trinity College and other tenants in respect to this matter, and why should they be able to bring forward such a Private Act? It would be fatal to all contracts if the tenants of a public Body were permitted to set aside a contract into which they had deliberately entered. In the case of the Irish Land Act of 1881, one of the great matters of discussion put forward by those who were strong advocates of a considerable change in all property in Ireland was, that there should be a power of opening up and of breaking all leases in Ireland. The Government of the day had not acceded to that proposal at the time, nor had they done so up to the present time. But, if this Bill were to be passed, he could not see how their Lordships could logically oppose that principle in a Public Bill; for the fact that this property was held by a public trust, he contended, was no reason whatever why different principles should be applied in this case from what were applied in ordinary cases of land tenure. If they agreed to alter these leases, as proposed by the Bill, it would give the power of altering the terms of leases all over Ireland, for what argument could they use against it? In conclusion, he hoped that their Lordships would reject the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD FITZGERALD,in strongly supporting the second reading of the Bill, suggested that it should be referred to a Select Committee, where, if the Preamble were not found to be proved, the Bill might then be disposed of accordingly.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that on a former occasion the proposal made on the part of the tenants of Trinity College was the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Government did not think it part of their duty to undertake the appointment of such a Commission, and he had, therefore, opposed that Motion; but on the present occasion, as this was a Private Bill, the Government as a Government did not propose to take any part in it. But he, personally, like his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald), was disposed to vote for the second reading of the Bill, as he was not by any means convinced by the arguments of the other side, thinking
  206
  as he did that the points which had been raised were essentially matters for Committee. It was a matter affecting the rights of the parties concerned, and was properly one for a Private Bill Committee, for it in no way touched public interests.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was surprised that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) should speak of the Bill as one which in no way interfered with public rights, and as only touching private interests. Leases were matters of public interest, and he was astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) hold out hopes that all leases might be broken at some future date. His noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) might well cry out —"Save me from my friends!." for if the noble and learned Lord's proposals were carried out, the noble Earl who moved the second reading of the Bill (the Earl of Leitrim) would be in a worse position than he was at present. These tenants of the College had, of their own accord, entered into a contract, and were bound to adhere to it. It would be impossible at the present moment to ascertain what was the letting value of land in Ireland, as the Land Act had thrown all the relations between landlord and tenant into a hopeless state of chaos, upon which it was impossible to base any calculations. The noble and learned Lord had pointed out that it was the Land Act which brought about this Bill, which no doubt was the case. But interests were involved in this Bill which had been thought too sacred to be dealt with in the Land Act, and a new Land Act was being introduced in the form of a Private Bill. No class had suffered so much from the Land Act as those who had mortgages and charges on their property. Yet they had not been relieved. Like the persons claiming relief under this Bill, he (the Marquess of Waterford) was himslf a middleman; but he had never asked for an Act of Parliament on his own behalf. Trinity College, the tenants, and the Government had entered into a contract which was indorsed by an Act of Parliament. If that was to be set aside, what arrangement in the future would be binding between parties? His noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) had said that there was no contract. However, the noble and

  207
  learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) admitted that there was a contract. but, because certain tenants objected, thought it right that the Bill should be read a second time, and the matter inquired into. But to read the Bill a second time would be to admit a most dangerous principle which ought to be repudiated. This proposal was most dangerous, and if accepted by their Lordships would probably lead to serious results.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, it was clear that these tenants of Trinity College had entered into a bargain with that institution; they now felt it irksome, and wanted to be relieved from it; but that was a violation of agreement which Parliament could never sanction. The bargain had been made, and they were bound to stand by it. All the Act of Parliament did was to give legality to the bargain between the parties; and in resisting this attempt to evade it he should vote against the second reading.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he should also oppose the second reading.
  LORD ZOUOHEsupported the second reading of the Bill, in the belief that the subject was one well deserving the consideration of a Select Committee.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 42: Majority 26.
  Resolved in the negative.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 44.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CAELINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was a Bill for the purpose of reforming and re-organizing the educational endowments of Ireland—a Bill which their Lordships had agreed to read a second time towards the end of last Session, but which, in consequence of the position of Government Business caused by the events of that period, they were prevented from passing into law. The present Bill was identical, or all but identical, with that of last year; and, as he had given a full explanation of its provisions on that
  208
  occasion, he would not occupy the time of their Lordships by repeating it now. It would be enough if he said that the object of the Bill, which was a very important one, was to do at last for Ireland what ought to have been done many years ago—namely, to re-organize, revise, and reform her educational endowments in the same manner, by the same methods, and on the same principles, as those on which the educational endowments of England and Scotland had been and were now being revised and reformed. The case in favour of this revision and reform was of the strongest possible description. Inquiries of every kind had gone on year after year, or rather generation after generation. Committee after Committee, and Commission after Commission, had all come to the same conclusion—that the very considerable endowments of Ireland were, in their present condition, very far indeed from conferring the benefits which they ought to confer, and were, to a large extent, wasted. The Bill provided that these endowments should be dealt with by an Executive Commission. There was to be no more inquiry. That had been accomplished to excess. The Commission would have power to revise and reform the endowments in the same way as those of England and Scotland had been and were being revised and reformed. The Bill had been framed on the same lines as the English and Scotch Bills, conferred the same powers on the Commission, and contained the same safeguards. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

MINISTER FOR SCOTLAND—SCOTCH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO,who had the following Question on the Paper:—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is intended to introduce a Bill on the subject of establishing a new department for the administration of Scottish business; and, if so, whether the superintendence of the Scottish national schools will be included in its functions,"

  209
  in rising to ask it, said, their Lordships would be separating in a few days for the Easter Holidays; and, therefore, he thought it was not premature to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government as to the Business for the remainder of the Session. At all events, he thought it was perfectly legitimate on his part to ask for some information in answer to the Question he had placed on the Paper. Their Lordships would no doubt recollect what passed on this subject last year. A Bill was introduced last Session into this House; it passed through various stages, in the course of which it received several Amendments, and it stood for third reading on the 10th July. The House assembled on that day, expecting to go on with the Bill; and it seemed that after another half-hour's talk the Bill might have passed this House and been sent down to the House of Commons; but it so happened that, two days before, a division had been taken on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and a decision had been come to which was evidently not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. In consequence of that decision the Government decided to throw over all their other legislation, and this measure, among others, was sacrificed; and in that connection he must say there was more alacrity shown in giving it up than seemed to him to be necessary, because, as he had said, another half-an-hour would have sufficed to send it from this House down to the House of Commons; and if it were not considered desirable to pass the Bill in those circumstances, at all events they would have had the credit of passing it in this House. However, as it nearly passed this House, he thought it very desirable that a Bill of the same character should be introduced this Session; and in regard to the second part of his Question, whether, in the event of such Bill being introduced, the subject of education would be included in the functions of the new Department, he begged to intimate that, unless that was done, they had really better leave the subject alone. It seemed to him to be quite ridiculous to propose the formation of a great Department for Scotland at all, unless they introduced that very important subject; and, for his part, he did not care for a Bill at all unless that were done. He believed the desirability of including education had been gene-
  210
  rally and heartily approved of in Scotland; and in proof of that assertion he would remind their Lordships that at the great representative meeting of Liberals and Conservatives which was held in Edinburgh last year, on the subject of appointing a Scottish Minister, though it was not proposed that the matter of education should be there discussed, yet, if there was any one subject that came out more distinctly than another, it was the desire of the people of Scotland that the education of Scotland should be managed by a purely Scottish Board. He might say, further, that it seemed to him to be of great importance that the Privy Council should have nothing whatever to do with it. He thought it was contrary to the historical characteristics of education in Scotland that it should be managed from London; and he was perfectly certain that the whole subject would be much better managed if it could be entirely separated from all control of the Privy Council in London.
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, that before the Question was answered, he wished to make a suggestion to those who, like himself, had taken a considerable interest in this matter. It had always been a subject of great regret to Scotsmen that in the last two Sessions of Parliament there should have been abortive attempts made to deal with this question; and he considered that the time had now arrived when they had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to create a Scottish Minister who should really, in all respects, have control over all Scottish affairs, and should be, in every sense of the word, a strong Representative of the country, and able to deal with all its interests. He, therefore, hoped that their two last failures to deal with the matter, together with the great difficulty there was at the present time of getting any legislation through the House of Commons, would really induce the Government seriously to take the matter into their consideration, because he hardly thought that the two Bills which they had produced on the subject had borne very great evidence of such treatment of the subject. His object in rising now, however, was simply to suggest that, unless the Government had made up their minds to place under the charge of this new Scottish Minister

  211
  all Scottish Administrative Departments, and especially all matters relating to education, which was a question of vital importance in Scotland, he should strongly advise them to abandon any attempt to deal with the question now in a dying Parliament. Of course, he might be told that there were differences of opinion in Scotland, as to whether education at all, or in part, or wholly, should be placed under this new Minister. He did not propose to offer at this time any argument on the point; but he should like to say that he had found very little differences of opinion on the subject amongst the general public, and all the arguments he had heard against placing education under this new Minister seemed to him to come entirely from professional sources, and to savour a great deal of red tape and Departmental jealousy. In his opinion, if the new Office was worth creating at all, it was worth while to place under it one of the most important matters affecting Scotland. Unless that was done, and unless a thoroughly representative Scottish Minister was appointed, it would be better to postpone any attempt to deal with the question until after a General Election, when the whole question could be submitted to the opinion of the people of Scotland.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that while he concurred generally with his noble Friends, he would venture to express the hope that if Her Majesty's Government were not at present in a position to announce that they intended to insert a provision in the Bill placing education under the new Minister they would be able to do so later on, when the measure was before the House. His noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) had given full expression, not only to the feeling of interest, but also, he might say, to the anxiety which existed in Scotland as to the intentions of the Government on this question. As to the general question of the introduction of some measure, the anxiety on that point had been set at rest by the general assurances of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in reply, said, he was happy, on behalf of the Government, to be able to answer the first part of the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) in the affirmative, and to state that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a
  212
  Bill providing for a Secretary for Scotland after the Easter Recess. It would be introduced into their Lordships' House. As to the question whether education should be given in charge to the new Minister, that was a matter which the Government thought had better be discussed when the Bill was before their Lordships. The Government did not think it would be convenient to enter into a discussion of the matter now, or even to state whether such a provision would, or would not, be inserted in the Bill. It was neither usual, nor was it convenient, to state before a Bill was produced what it would contain, and the Government did not think this was an occasion for departing from a salutary rule.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYgave Notice that if the Bill did not contain the provision as to education, he would bring forward an Amendment, as he had done before, that education should be included in the jurisdiction of the new Department.
  THE EARL OF MINTOasked, whether the Bill would be introduced in this House, or in the House of Commons?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: I believe, as I have already said, it will be introduced in your Lordships' House.

  SOLICITORS (IRELAD) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the laws for the regulation of the profession of solicitors in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord FITZGERALD; read la. (No. 53.)

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday the l9th day of June next:
  That no Bill originating in this House authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Friday the 24th day of April next:
  That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Friday the 24th day of April next:
  That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 26th day of June next:
  That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 26th day of June next:
  That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments those orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
  Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 54.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.