Lords Sitting of 21 June 1892

SAT FIRST.
The Viscount Hampden, after the death of his father.
The Lord Abinger, after the death of his father.

ROYAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEER FORCE.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Seeing my noble Friend in his place, I wish to ask him whether there would be any objection on the part of the Admiralty to lay upon the Table the Report of a Commission appointed by the Admiralty to examine into the claims for compensation, and to specify the compensation that will be due to the members of the Royal Artillery Force which is now disbanded? I understand that the Papers are already in print, and have been seen by some Members of your Lordships' House.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: There is no objection to lay the Papers asked for on the Table of the House.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
THIRD READING.
Order of the Hay for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, having a Motion on the Paper that this Bill should be read a third time this day six months, I might have been taken greatly by surprise, this being a Tuesday, if I had been down in the country intending to be in time for the meeting of the House at half past five, when I should have found this Bill had passed. My Lords, the speech which I ventured to make on moving the rejection of the Bill was never submitted to me for correction, and I am sorry that this measure should be passed without full consideration of those objections which I ventured to
1646
explain to your Lordships. My Lords, in my own small way I have had an experience of small holdings. There was one poor man had eight acres; he was employed in the mines, and therefore was enabled to pay for the mowing of his hay, and so it answered him to keep this small portion of land; but, in fact, unless persons have other means, it is impossible for them to go on with small holdings. So far as my experience goes I have two farms, one of 350 acres, and another of 50 acres; the land in one is extremely good, and the land in the other is not so good; therefore, for the benefit of my tenant, I put those two farms together, and I have never regretted it. Some of my neighbours are extremely desirous to have the best part of it, and are always asking me if I will sub-divide the farm, which I certainly never will. My Lords, the misfortune of the present day is that we do everything in extremes. The old system of Common rights over grass was the foundation of everything in Ireland, but it produced the greatest confusion. I can only say that I am ready to substantiate all I said on the Second Reading. My Lords, if you pass this Bill without having given full notice to the country that it is for Third Reading to day—for the Times has omitted all mention of the business for the day in the House of Lords, in that not very truthful journal—this is a thing which ought to be known by every holder of land, whether gentle or simple. My Lords, it would be a disturbance of every farm in the country, I am quite satisfied of that; and as for the possession of a small plot of land without plenty of capital to support it, it is nothing but ruin. You have been going upon the lines of John Bright rather too long. When Lord Ashbourne passed the first measure for the purchase of land I ventured to say: "All that is Bright must fade, the Brightest still the fleetest." He said to me "Pray do not have that reported in your speech," and, consequently, I omitted it. But it is only too true that poor proprietors cannot thrive. When many years ago my wife's father purchased a farm in East Lothian the price of corn was sixty-three shillings a quarter; now it

1647
is reduced to thirty shillings, and it is rather a loss to grow corn; but, for sake of the straw, and for the land, it has always been my endeavour to grow the greatest quantity of wheat I can; but it is not so good as that which comes from India. But, my Lords, if foreigners come in and take their place in our markets, surely they ought to pay market dues? Poor Mr. Bradlaugh thought market dues were injurious to the farmer. My Lords, when the late Prince Albert Victor went to Sheffield it was to inaugurate the opening of a new market by the Duke of Norfolk, which was built at an enormous expenditure of money. But is the Duke to lose his rights to the fees for the use of that market? My Lords, you are altogether tending to confusion. My Lords, mine is the speech of an old man; I give you Horace's description of an old man, and you will see how far I am pictured by it:
Multa senem circumveniunt incommoda; vel quod
Quœrit, et inventis miser abstinet, ac timet uti;
Vel quod res omnes timide gelideque ministrat;
Dilator, spe longus, iners avidusque futuri, …. laudator temporis acti
Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.
My Lords, my experience in this House gives me the right to explain my opinions, and they are these: that in any measure, involving many great and important principles, you never can by a free conference, which is likely to be absolutely necessary if the Amendments are submitted to the other House, get the House to remain patient and to state what they believe to be the truth. My Lords, I believe it would be much better in every respect for this Bill not to have gone into Committee at all. There is a very strong feeling, it is said in the Times, against this Bill on both sides of the House; I do not know how far that is true; but supposing, the Government being in a minority in this House, a new election should be rife in the country, just consider what an enormous quantity of intimidation and violence would ensue. There is nothing settled in Ireland; the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are more
1648
rife than ever. My Lords, you would hardly recollect what the author of Church and State said in the very first passage of his work—he said that the Roman Catholics think that every religion but their own ought to succumb. My Lords, the differences are exaggerated in every way. Let the Septennial Act have its full swing, and that will be the best thing for this country. I never heard that Her Majesty had told her people that she would submit to a Dissolution under any circumstances. I always thought that if the Government were a minority in the House of Commons they were obliged to resign—that was always the rule in old times; if the Government had not a handsome majority in the House of Commons they always gave the Sovereign an opportunity to change Her Ministers. That is not so now. I am a friend of every Government, and I wish to thwart no Government. For instance, the Women's Suffrage Bill was the first Bill after the Recess; but I with drew it beforehand, in order that any Government measure might come first. My Lords, it will not do to oppress any individual. I happen to have observed a great deal as I have gone through my short career; but I have also to look back to the career of my respected father, and to try to act as I know he would have done. My Lords, you little understand his memory; his memoirs were most unfairly represented by the editor—
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise to order; the noble Lord has not been anywhere near the Bill before the House for the last two or three minutes.
LORD DENMAN: You wish to cloture me again, do you? I am very much obliged to you. I beg leave to tell you that I have a right to refer in a Hereditary House to the best man that ever sat in it. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
Amendment negatived; Bill read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
RESOLUTION.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name; the object being to enable Private Bills that are interrupted during the present Session to re-appear in the next Session of Parliament without going through the formal stages.
Moved, "That such Bills shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill by an officer of the Department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill are made, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session, and where any sum of money has been deposited, as required by Standing Order No. 57, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the court in which such money was deposited;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That as regards all Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills which shall have been brought from the House of Commons in the present Session, such Bills shall be allowed to proceed to the same stage at which they shall have arrived in the present Session, on the same conditions as those set forth in the preceding Orders in respect to Bills originating in this House; the declaration to be signed as aforesaid, stating that the Bill is in every respect the same as when brought to this House in this Session;
That if any such Bill shall have been amended in this House in the present Session the same Amendments shall be inserted by the Committee on the Bill;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have been introduced into Parliament in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed;
1650
That all petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit in the next Session;
That the promoters of every Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid;
That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed."—(The Earl of Morley.)
Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords I beg to move certain Amendments to the Standing Orders of which I have given notice. I do not suppose the House will expect me to go through them all; but, if any noble Lord requires any explanation, I shall be happy to give it—
NOTE.—The words quoted are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
Moved, That the Standing Order be amended as follows:—
(Notices to specify limits in case of gasworks, sewage works, burial ground, destructor, or hospital.)
"5. In cases of Bills for constructing gasworks or sewage works, or works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products, or for making or constructing a sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, destructor, 'or' hospital for infectious disease, or railway or tramroad to be worked by electricity supplied from a generating station, the notices shall set forth and specify the limits within which such gasworks, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of residual products, farm, cemetery, burial ground, destructor 'or' hospital, or generating station, is intended to be made or constructed."
9. Publication of notices in Gazettes and newspapers—
"(3.) In the case of a Bill authorising the construction of works or the taking of lands, or extending the time granted by a former Act for the construction of works or the taking of lands, in more than one county, or relating to an undertaking situate in more than one county, or promoted by a company or companies or other parties possessed of an undertaking situate in more than one county, the noticeshall be published once in each of two successive weeks, with an interval between such publications of not less than six clear days, in some one and the same newspaper of the county in which the principal office of the company or companies or other parties who are the promoters of the Bill is situate, or in case there is no such office then in a newspaper published in each county in which any such works, lands, or undertaking are situate, and in some one and the same newspaper published in each county in which any new works are proposed to be constructed, or in which any lands are intended to be taken, or in which any works or lands are situate, in respect of which any new or further powers for the completion or taking thereof are intended to be applied for, or if there be no newspaper published therein, then in some one and the same newspaper published in some county adjoining or near thereto: Provided always, that if the Bill relates to lands or works situate in more than one county, it shall be sufficient (at the option of the promoters) to publish in each of such counties so much only of the notice as relates specifically to the lands or works situate in that county together with the short title of the notice, and an intimation that the notice has been published in full, or sent for publication in full, in the Gazette."
New Standing Order—
(Deposit of Bills at Board of Agriculture.)
"33b. On or before the 21st day of December a printed copy of every local Bill which relates to the drainage of land in England or Wales, or which relates to the improvement of land in England, Wales, or Scotland, or to the erection, improvement, repair, maintenance, or regulation of any market or market place at which cattle are exposed for sale or to any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture, or which proposes to alter the boundary of any county, sanitary district, parish, or any other administrative area in the United Kingdom, shall be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture."
New Standing Order—
(Lateral deviation of embankment or retaining wall of reservoir.)
"40a. In cases where it is proposed to make, vary, extend, or enlarge any reservoir, the plan shall describe the embankment or retaining wall
1652
thereof, and where it is the intention of the promoters to apply for powers to make any lateral deviation from the line of such embankment or retaining wall, the limits of deviation shall be defined on the plan, and all lands included within such limits shall be marked thereon."
67. Paragraph 2, line 1, after ("introduced"), insert ("or proposed to be introduced.")
(Petitions for additional provision.)
"All Petitions for additional provision in local Bills originating in this House shall, on the presentation thereof, be referred to the Examiners, who shall examine the same, and report thereon in respect of all Orders which would be applicable in the case of a Bill."
91. Time for Second Reading of Bills, line 1, leave out ("or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.")
(Terms of proposed amalgamation, &c. to be specified in Bill.)
"124. When by any Bill powers are applied for to amalgamate with any other company, or to sell or lease the undertaking, or any part thereof, or to purchase or take on lease the undertaking of any other company, public body, or private undertakers, or any part thereof, or to enter into a working agreement, otherwise than under the provisions of Part III. (working agreements) of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, as amended by the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1873 and 1888, the company, public body, person or persons, with, to, from, or by whom, and the terms and conditions on which it is proposed that such amalgamation, sale, purchase, lease, or working agreement shall be made, shall be specified in the Bill as introduced into Parliament."
137. Sub-section (2), leave out ("United Kingdom and the Isle of Man") and insert ("British Islands")
(Clause for defining limits of gasworks, sewage works, cemetery, burial ground, destructor, or hospital.)
"139. In every Bill for making or constructing gasworks or sewage works, or works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products, or for making or constructing, altering or enlarging any sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, destructor, hospital for infectious disease, or railway or tramroad to be worked by electricity supplied from a generating station, there shall be inserted a clause-defining the limits within which such gasworks, sewage works, farm, cemetery, burial ground, destructor, hospital, or generating station, may be made or constructed."
Appendix A.—Application to owners, &c. before 15th December, referred to in Standing Order No. 11, after the third paragraph as a separate paragraph:—
"We also beg to inform you that it is intended that the Act shall provide that where the tunnel [or other work] as shown on the deposited sections is to be constructed at a depth of (40) feet or upwards between the crown of the tunnel and the surface of the ground, the undertakers

1653
may acquire an easement or right of constructing and using the tunnel [or work] without being obliged to purchase the surface."—(The Karl of Morley.)

INFECTIOUS HOSPITALS BILL [H.L.]
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, a very few minutes will suffice for explaining the Bill to which I trust your Lordships will give a Second Reading, in order that the subject may be discussed, and considered during the Recess. The Bill is brought in at the instance and recommendation of the County Councils Association; it is to provide for isolation hospitals, or rather to facilitate the promotion of isolation hospitals—or, in other words, hospitals for the reception of people suffering from dangerous infectious diseases. With regard to the necessity of such isolation I think I need say hardly a word. We all know that if there is one thing which is rendered more certain than another by the progress of medical science, it is that the most dangerous diseases that affect the human race, such as cholera, scarlet fever, or smallpox, may be to a great extent prevented by isolation. A vessel comes into port on which there is a case of cholera; the vessel is sent into quarantine, which is the most effectual isolation hospital, and the danger practically ceases. But we all know the dangers that occur from small-pox coming into a parish—it creates a centre of infection, and desolates the parish; whereas, if at the first moment the patient is isolated the disease is reduced to a condition in which there is little risk, and the patient alone suffers. At the present moment the authorities who have power to make infectious hospitals are the Rural Sanitary Authorities, and the Urban Sanitary Authorities. My Lords, I have no fault to find with these authorities; in the larger towns, notably in London, there are complete establishments for the purpose of isolation. But when you come to the Rural Sanitary Authorities, to the administrative counties, for which I am pleading, you find that in a great many cases indeed infectious hospitals are not established. The reason for this
1654
is not far to seek. The Rural Sanitary Districts are extremely inconvenient areas, they very often comprise parishes which are not connected together by any link; and, on the other hand, Urban Sanitary Authorities in counties are very often too small for establishing infectious hospitals. These then are the difficulties which this Bill endeavours to palliate; and it does so through the medium of the County Councils. The Bill says that when a local application is made to the County Council, the Council may then provide for the establishment of an infectious hospital. The procedure is as follows: A local application must be made by the Rural or Urban Sanitary Authority, or by a contributory place—that is by one of the constituent parishes, or villages, that form part of the Rural Sanitary district. There is also one provision which is in some degree a coercive power. The County Council may proceed on the authority of their Medical Officer as if it were a local application if he reports that any part of the county is so desolated by disease or so open to infectious disease, that it absolutely requires an infectious hospital. When this application is made the County Council are to direct a local inquiry whether an infectious hospital is wanted or not. Supposing the answer to be in the affirmative, they either adopt the area suggested in the Report, or they have power to subtract or add to the area. But here again the local feeling is consulted; for any Local Authority, or bodies of Local Authorities may appeal to the Local Government Board if they think that area is improperly constructed. Supposing the area to be approved of, then the next thing the County Council have to do is to establish a Hospital Committee. This they do, either out of the Local Authorities themselves, or partly out of the Local Authorities, and partly out of their own members. And here again we have safeguarded the Local Authorities, because any of them may appeal to the Local Government Board, if they think they are inadequately, or imperfectly represented. I come now to the powers necessary for establishing an infectious hospital. With regard to the power of purchasing land we

1655
give them compulsory powers only through a Provisional Order; so that there can be no complaint on that point. The expense is to be thrown, as it is now, upon the Local Authority, to be paid out of the sanitary rate. These expenses are divided into structural expenses, establishment expenses, and patients' expenses. The structural expenses are those of building; the establishment expenses are those of maintenance of the building; and the patients' expenses are the costs for the patient while lying on his sick bed—medicine and food. With respect to structural expenses, supposing the district consists of more than one contributory place, the constituent places are to contribute in proportion to the rateable value; we think the villages in the district ought to put up the buildings. On the other hand, the management expenses are to be paid in proportion to the population, as we think they ought to be paid according to the use of the hospital. These are details to be considered. With respect to patients' expenses we have adopted altogether the principle which prevails in the metropolitan infectious hospitals. We are told, and I believe rightly, that isolation is a public benefit, not a private good; it is for the public benefit that you take a man suffering from a dangerous infectious disease and put him into a hospital; we therefore adopt the principle of the present metropolitan legislation, and declare that the expenses of the patient, rich or poor, are to be paid out of the sanitary rate. There is one exception. We think, and I submit rightly, that there may be a class of patients who we hope will come to the hospital—a higher class altogether—well-to-do and rich persons, who we think may be very well asked to pay; we do not compel them, but give them inducements to do so. We say that if they like to pay their own expenses, and any additional sum which the hospital may have to incur, they can have separate rooms and attendance. That my Lords, is the scheme of the Bill. You will perceive that it interferes in no respect with the Local Authorities; it endeavours to aid them. I will not trouble your Lordships with any further
1656
description of the Bill; all I say is that it is an honest attempt on the part of the County Councils Association to improve the law. We create no fresh liabilities; we only aid the Local Authorities; and I trust your Lordships will consent to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thring.)
*LORD HENNIKER: Perhaps my noble Friend opposite, whose endeavour to improve our system of Local Government whenever he can we all appreciate, will expect me to say a few words. Looking to the fact that it is impossible that this Bill can be passed during this Session, your Lordships will not expect me to make any remarks on the details of the Bill; but it is, undoubtedy, a question of considerable importance, and very much to be desired, that these hospitals which the measure deals with should be provided much more generally than they are at present. I do not think I need say anything more at the present moment. I have no doubt the Bill cannot be proceeded with this year; but, perhaps, in the next Session, when it is brought forward, it may be put into shape.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I feel I ought to apologise to your Lordships for the numerous occasions on which it has been my duty to intrude on the business of this House during the last week; I can assure your Lordships that I have done so most unwillingly; but the fact is that in the present legislative orgy into which we are now plunged, your Lordships have pressed upon your attention Bills of all kinds and sorts, relating to various portions of the Empire, and all within a very limited space of time. My Lords, I will not refer to the remarks which have been made upon

1657
the conduct of business in your Lordships' House further than to say that the circumstances of the last few days have been especially inconvenient in this respect. The other House of Parliament has sent up a very large number of Bills, and it has been found necessary to take them all at once; and the result has been a considerable congestion in the printing department of the House, and also I think I may say a considerable increase in the business of the officers of the House; and in consequence I am afraid many of your Lordships have been put to serious inconvenience. With regard, for instance, to the Bill of which I have now to propose the Second Reading I may say that I only received a copy of it myself this day at one o'clock; and the same thing happened with a Bill a few days ago. This renders it difficult for noble Lords to place Amendments upon the Table within the various stages of a Bill, and makes it exceedingly difficult to secure a proper examination of Bills. With regard to this Bill, which I think noble Lords on both sides of the House will admit to be one of the very greatest importance, I do not intend at this stage to delay the House with any lengthened remarks, or to enter into any details; but I will endeavour briefly to expound to the House the main provisions of the Bill. My Lords, the circumstances under which we find ourselves in a position to deal with education in Ireland can be very briefly stated. Last year, as your Lordships know, by a grant of money education was practically freed in England and Scotland, and a sum of money, which may be considered to be an equivalent grant to Ireland, was voted at the same time. The opportunity therefore arose, not only for assisting Irish education, but also for taking steps to increase its efficiency, and to enlarge the scope of operations, in accordance with the legislative principles which were enacted in England. My Lords, the Irish National Education Commissioners have, since the year 1831, had the management of education in Ireland practically in their own hands. I think I may be permitted to say that they have carried out the important duties
1658
assigned to them, not only with credit to themselves, but with the greatest advantage to education throughout Ireland, and that they have earned a debt of gratitude from all those who value this important matter. It may be said of these Education Commissioners that they have more immediate relations with the schools than the Education Department has in England, and that they have a far larger responsibility, as noble Lords from Ireland know, as regards education than the Department in England. I may say in passing that, whereas in England and Scotland the State contributes two-fifths of the cost of education, in Ireland the State contributes about four-fifths. My Lords, I shall not enter into the vexed question of denominational as against mixed education; that is not a matter which I think need arise upon the present Bill. But there is little doubt that it is highly desirable, and that it would be extremely advantageous to Ireland, if national schools could be, not only encouraged, but increased. By the Act of 1870, coupled with that of 1876, education was, as your Lordships know, made compulsory in England. I shall avoid giving too many statistics; but, as this Bill deals with compulsion, I think it may be well, with the indulgence of your Lordships, that I should give a very few short statistics to show what the effect of that compulsion has been. My Lords, there has been undoubtedly an enormous increase in the attendance in schools in this country since the date of the passing of the measures to which I have alluded. In 1872 the average attendance in English schools was 1,300,000 odd; in 1876 it was 1,900,000; in 1880 it was 2,590,000; and in 1890 it had risen to 3,700,000. In 1872 the average attendance, compared with the population of England and Ireland, was about equal. But we find that the attendance in 1890 in England was nearly 80 per cent. of the children; whereas in 1890 in Ireland it was only 60 per cent. Therefore a fall of 20 per cent. has to be accounted for in the attendance in Ireland, as compared with that in England, since the passing of the compulsory Acts; or perhaps I ought to

1659
put it the other way, and say that there has been a rise of 20 per cent. in the average attendance in England and Scotland since the passing of the compulsory Acts, as compared with that which prevailed in Ireland. I may say that in England and Scotland we have an average attendance of nearly 13 per cent.; whereas the average attendance in Ireland is only 10 per cent. That difference of 3 per cent. has been roughly calculated to amount to 110,000 or 120,000 children in Ireland—that is to say, from the absence of compulsion in Ireland, it appears there are over 110,000 children who ought to go to school in Ireland, and who do not. I think these figures, at all events, not only establish a prima facie case for compulsory education, but go to show that in a comparatively short time there has been a large increase in the average attendance at the schools in consequence of the operation of these Acts. My Lords, the conclusion, therefore, that we have come to is that we must devise some remedy for this falling off in the average attendance at schools in Ireland, and we consider that that remedy can only be found in compulsion. In some portions, that is to say in the towns at first, in Ireland we propose to establish the principle of compulsion. In England, as your Lordships know, a parent is compelled to send his child to school from the age of six to fourteen; we propose to take the same standard in Ireland. We propose to make employment illegal up to the age of eleven, and, under exceptional circumstances, that is by certificates of proficiency, that age may be extended from eleven to fourteen. My Lords, the compulsion, as I said before, will at present apply only to the towns, that is to say to towns under Corporations or under Town Commissioners. Your Lordships will observe that those are authorities which now exist. There are no authorities outside the towns in Ireland to whom such duties and such authority could be properly committed; and we believe that the towns, in which compulsion will now be applied, will furnish about one-fourth of the population. Of course in future it is to be hoped that compulsion may be extended to the rural districts; but
1660
that will depend upon the establishment of some adequate authority, such as that proposed under the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, which the Government have, unfortunately, been obliged to drop for the present Session. The attendance of these children will be provided for by the Attendance Committee which is to be appointed, half by the Local Authorities and half by the Education Commissioners. The number of attendances required will be seventy-five for each half year. With regard to the financial arrangements, this House has less to do with them, and would probably not care to enter into them in great detail. But I may state that there was £90,000 due to Ireland on the last financial year, concluded on the 31st of March last, which was expended in additions to the Teachers' Pensions Fund. The sum to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks, as the sum which is at our disposal as an equivalent grant for the ensuing year, will amount to £210,000. And perhaps the House will allow me, very briefly, to state how it is proposed that that £210,000 should be expended. Roughly speaking one-half of it will go to an addition to the teachers' class salaries. I may say that there have been complaints, which I believe were amply justified, that teachers and assistant teachers in Ireland are underpaid; and, therefore, it is thought that this is a grievance which might be remedied; and one-half of the sum is to go to adding to the teachers' class salaries, and to the salaries of assistant teachers, and, further, to a bonus for the assistant teachers who have served five years There will also be a provision for a grant in aid for increasing the salaries of small school teachers. That will provide for the first half of the £210,000. The other half will be employed in increasing by 3s. 6d. the capitation grant to schools receiving such grant, and the residue to the capitation grant in aid of schools at present assisted by the Education Commissioners. In return for these grants of money we shall ask that all schools, the fees of which do not exceed 6s. a year per child, shall in future be freed from school pence.

1661
That is to say, that such freedom will chiefly act upon the poorer schools. The Bill, therefore, as summarised, deals with three subjects. It deals with compulsory education; it deals with prohibition of employment of children up to a certain age; and it deals, lastly, with freeing education in the poorer and smaller schools by the distribution of the grant of £210,000. My Lords, these I think are the chief provisions of the Bill. But there is one other to which, I think, the attention of this House will be probably directed, namely, that of Clause 17, which gives power to the Education Commissioners to authorise the compulsory purchase of land for school sites and for teachers' residences. I may say, in explanation of this provision, that I believe that any one who knows Ireland will admit the necessity of some such compulsory clause. Certainly when you establish compulsory schools there will undoubtedly be places—I am told that in fact there are many—where it will be impossible, within a radius of some miles, to obtain sites unless under compulsion. The power I need not remind your Lordships is given in England and Scotland, under the Education Act in those countries. And lastly, the Bill, as your Lordships see, provides for compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, which provision, if opposed, must be confirmed by Parliament—that is to say, it will be made subject to a Provisional Order which will be laid before Parliament in the usual way. My Lords, I really do not think I need detain the House any further on this stage of the Bill. The policy of the Bill is derived largely from that which has found favour and is established in the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is founded on the Education Acts, which are all within the knowledge of the House. It may be necessary to consider Amendments which may be proposed in Committee. But of the principle I am confident that the House will approve; and I can only trust that the House will believe, as I do, that some measure of this sort is not only urgently required, but that, as a matter of justice, it should be conceded to Ireland; and I have no doubt that it is one which will
1662
redound to the prosperity of that country, and will improve and increase largely the benefits derived from education. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this measure which has been introduced by my noble Friend. This is a Bill which consists of twenty clauses, and my noble Friend took great credit for the fact that compulsion had done so much good in England, and he hoped, and I hope he is right, that compulsion would also do great good in Ireland. This is a Bill which has peculiar Irish characteristics; it takes fifteen clauses out of twenty to arrange for compulsion in Ireland; but by one sub-section—I allude to Clause 1, Subsection 3 (b)—those fifteen clauses are rendered entirely inoperative. It is perfectly clear that anyone in Ireland who wishes to evade the Act can do so. I will point out what I mean. This sub-section begins by saying—
"Any of the following reasons shall be a reasonable excuse for non-attendance of a child";
and then it goes on to say—
"by reason of being engaged in necessary operations of husbandry."
Necessary operations of husbandry go on all through the year. But there is something worse than that—
"or giving assistance in the fisheries."
Well, my Lords, there is no close time for fisheries; that goes on the whole year; therefore, if a parent, living near a fishery, applies to have his son let off from attending school, he can do so during every portion of the year. Then it goes on again even worse—
"or other work requiring to be done at a particular time or season."
My Lords, I ask you whether this compulsion, which my noble Friend takes such credit for as having been put into the Bill, is not rendered entirely inoperative by those Amendments which were unfortunately admitted in the other House. As I said before, I think this is essentially an Irish measure. I hope my noble Friend will agree, if he

1663
really wishes for compulsion, to an Amendment of that particular clause. My Lords, I must say how grateful I am individually to Her Majesty's Government for having dealt with this most thorny subject in such a very clever and liberal way. I say "clever and liberal," because it appears that they have actually fairly satisfied all parties—and to fairly satisfy all parties in Ireland requires a great deal of cleverness. My Lords, the opposition in another place I do not think was a really genuine opposition: because I do not believe that one of those men who spoke against this Bill would really have taken upon himself to reject the benefits which this Bill undoubtedly gives to Ireland. Certain Amendments, one of which I have pointed out, were allowed to creep into the Bill in Committee in the other House, I fancy probably through stress of work owing to the period of the Session, and everything being in a state of winding up—certain Amendment which our friends objected to, and I hope some of them will find themselves amended again. Certainly that one about compulsion should be amended; and I propose to point out one or two others to my noble Friend. My Lords, this Bill is only one of several measures that the present Government have passed for Ireland. I do not think any Government has ever done so much for the benefit of the Irish people. Your Lordships must not forget that this Government succeeded to office when Ireland was in a state of actual chaos—when anarchy, terrorism, bloodshed, and boycotting reigned supreme—and that law and order have been re-established and prosperity is now beginning to return again. My Lords, we were told by the noble Lords opposite that it was impossible LO govern Ireland. Well, I think the late Chief Secretary has shown uncontestably that that is not the case. There can be no doubt that he has re-established the Queen's Law in Ireland, and has given back liberty to the Queen's subjects, that he has administered the laws with firmness and fairness to all classes. Great proof of whether a country is well-governed or not is whether prosperity is going away or coming
1664
back; and prosperity is coming back to Ireland. My Lords, last year you passed a kindred Act, and a most liberal Act too, which will be of the greatest benefit to Ireland if it will work—that is to say, the Land Act, 1891, in which Imperial credit was given for three millions of money. And you also passed the Congested Districts Act, which I am told is now already being put into operation, and is doing immense good; and which will no doubt produce prosperity in districts where prosperity has never been known before. My Lords, my noble Friend has told you what the present Bill proposes to do. It gives £210,000 in addition to the money already allocated to education in Ireland. Are your Lordships aware of the enormous sum that is spent upon education in Ireland? The grant for education in Ireland is about £800,000 a year, and this will make it £1,010,000 a year. As my noble Friend pointed out, up to the present time, unlike the procedure in England, you have been paying four-fifths of the expenses of education in Ireland, and I would ask you, when you think of this enormous sum of money going for the advantage of the country, whether it would be possible to expect a Home Rule Government to be able to advance anything of the kind with the other large expenses they would have to undertake? My Lords, the teachers in Ireland are a most deserving class, and they are very much benefited by this Bill. They have done their duty very well indeed, and I believe the education they have given in Ireland has been extremely good. They will have their salaries increased by twenty per cent., and in addition they will get a bonus of £9 if they have been five years in the service. That is an enormous thing to the teachers, who will have their result fees as well to trust to. But my noble Friend did not allude to another matter which I think is of very great importance—namely, the subject of pensions. Are your Lordships aware that, at this moment, there are something like 940 old and worn-out teachers who are receiving £33,000 a year in pensions? My Lords, I am informed—I can hardly believe it—that in England there is only a very

1665
small fund, something like £16,000 a year, voted by Parliament for pensions. It seems wonderful that Ireland in this respect should bestow so much more liberal a sum than England. I think if you look at the amount that the teachers are to receive in Ireland under this Bill, and take it with their pensions, there is no doubt that the Irish Education Board ought to be able to get the services of the very best men: and I sincerely hope they will. I consider this is a most liberal measure in every way. My noble Friend alluded to small schools. Well, my Lords, the small schools are of the very greatest importance to us Protestants in the South and West of Ireland, because it is difficult to get a sufficient number of children together in order to start a school. There is a great boon given I admit in reducing the number required to fill a school from thirty to twenty. If there are twenty scholars the teacher gets a third-class salary. But I would ask my noble Friend whether it would be possible to give two-thirds of a third-class salary if there were less than twenty scholars; because in many places in Ireland it is impossible to get twenty Protestants together. I will deal with denominational education afterwards, which no doubt now is accepted by all parties in Ireland. I wish to pass to the question of the Christian Brothers, of whom there has been a great deal of talk in another place. The Christian Brothers I know, from my own knowledge, give most admirable education, and I should be very glad to see them admitted under this Bill. But there is no reason in the world why they should not be admitted; they could have been admitted under the old Act; they have only to agree to the National Board Rules. My Lords, I am told—at least I saw in a newspaper—something about some arrangement by which the Christian Brothers were to be admitted under this Bill by altering the National Education Clause and inserting the Intermediate Education Clause instead, and I should have no objection to that; but I should object most particularly to doing away with the Conscience Clause in Ireland in any respect whatever. I think it would be the greatest possible injury
1666
to the country, and a great injury to education. My Lords, I would ask my noble Friend to explain to us—because it is very difficult at this period of the Session to understand what has been done; in another place—what is arranged about these Christian Brothers. If my noble Friend will tell us when we come to Committee I shall be very much obliged to him. I think it is necessary that the country should know. Some advocates of the Christian Brothers have given out that the Conscience Clause is to be done away with in their behalf; others say, nothing of the kind. We do not know what has been done, but I think we should be told. As my noble Friend has told you, school fees are to be practically done away with in Ireland. I think this treatment of Ireland is very superior to the treatment of England; because in England you had compulsion long before the fees were done away with, and it rested with Her Majesty's Government to do away with them, although I think another Government gave compulsion. But in Ireland you have got school fees done away with first, and compulsion, in a very moderate form, is going to be applied afterwards. I said just now that I would refer to denominational schools. I have always been in favour of denominational schools. I am told that we are gradually creeping into denominational education in Ireland under the National Board, because half the schools in Ireland are of one denomination, and therefore religious instruction can be given. I have always been in favour of religious instruction being given in these schools because it is the only opportunity that the children in any country of that class have of learning anything about religion at all. I know there is the greatest difficulty, where you have mixed religions, about religious instruction; and the fact of the matter is that there is none in schools where there are mixed religions; but where you have only one denomination there is no difficulty. I would ask my noble Friend whether he can do something for these smaller schools which are under the National Board, but which deserve some consideration, because if the children cannot

1667
go to them they must go to the mixed National Board schools where they get no religious instruction whatever. Then as to technical education, I am sorry there is nothing about it in the Bill. I believe a great deal has been done towards starting technical education in Ireland; but this Bill, at any rate, I am sorry to say, does not deal with it. I suppose we cannot expect too much. My Lords, I have only to conclude by mentioning the Amendments which I consider necessary to the Bill. Among others I refer to Clause 2 Sub-section 2, which is another of the Amendments that slipped in in another place at the last moment. It is an Amendment which will have the very worst effect in Ireland. It affects what are called half-time children. I allude to two lines at the end of the clause—
"But no employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which its parents object on religious grounds."
That sounds extremely reasonable, but the effect of it will be that Roman Catholic children will not be able to be employed in many of these factories, because no doubt their parents will remove them from the factory schools. In many of these factories where there are half-time children employed there are schools attached, and those schools are under the present Board and have a Conscience Clause, therefore no parent can have any objection to religious teaching, because he has only to make an objection to his children being taught religion under the Conscience Clause, and it cannot be taught. The effect of these two lines would be that the children would be taken away from these factory schools, where they are taught under the National Board rules with the Conscience Clause in existence by interested persons, and removed to schools at a distance, thereby causing the greatest inconvenience to the children and the greatest inconvenience to the employers; so much so that the employer will have to give up the employment of Roman Catholic children, which I assure your Lordships would be extremely distressing to the employers. I hope my noble Friend will agree to an Amendment on that point. That has really caused the greatest anxiety in the North of Ireland, where Protestants
1668
employ numbers of Roman Catholic children. If this clause is retained, and a fine of forty shillings is imposed for every breach of this law, I am quite certain that a large number of these children will be driven out of employment. My Lords, there is one other point I wish to mention. Perhaps my noble Friend will explain why it is so desirable, with the modified compulsion that this Bill gives, that the advantages of it should be put off till another year. The original draft of the Bill was that this Bill was to come into operation on the 1st January, 1893, and it only gives compulsion in the towns of Ireland; we are to wait for the County Councils Bill to give compulsion all over Ireland. But why are we to put it off to January, 1894? I hope my noble Friend will agree to put the date back to what it was originally. My Lords, I must again express my gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for this very liberal measure, and for the liberal treatment that Ireland has received at their hands; and I sincerely hope and believe that this Bill will have the most beneficial results, and will materially improve the system of education throughout Ireland.
*THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I must express my great regret that the Archbishop of Dublin, who, as Lord Plunket, has a seat in your Lordships' House, is not present on this occasion. I have no doubt that the circumstances that have been mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal in his opening address have made it necessary that this Bill should be brought on at short notice; but the absence of the Archbishop, or perhaps I should call him here Lord Plunket, has deprived us of a Member of your Lordships' House who is possessed of more information on this subject than any of your Lordships. It is especially unfortunate, I think, that he should not be present when we are discussing this matter in Committee. Whether it will be possible for him to be here then or not I do not know; but in his absence I feel bound to make a few remarks, connected as I am, as some of your Lordships know, with the government of the Church of Ireland. At the same time I would wish your Lordships clearly to understand that,

1669
in the few remarks that I shall make, I do not speak in any way with authority, and that any remarks of mine must not be taken as binding anyone but myself. My Lords, I may join, I think, in the expression, used by the noble Marquess who has just spoken, of gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced this measure. The contents of the Bill have been before the public in Ireland for some time; they have been discussed with the greatest care in different quarters, and I think have met with general approval. In one particular I regret that Lord Plunket, Archbishop of Dublin, should not be here, particularly if there is any discussion on the question the noble Marquess has raised as to increased grants to small schools. I know that the question of grants to schools is a subject of most anxious deliberation—that the whole subject was gone into with the greatest possible care; and I should certainly hesitate very much before consenting to any alteration which could in any way disturb the most carefully-considered plan which is contained in this Bill. My Lords, this measure has met with the approval of certainly all the Protestant subjects in Ireland. The national teachers of whatever denomination also approve of it. At one time there was a hope that the Roman Catholic Prelates would have approved of it, too; but after a certain time, a statement was made by Archbishop Walsh, speaking, I believe, in the name of others, that he could not approve of the measure that made no provision for the Christian Brothers. That apparently has been arranged; from a conversation that took place in the other House of Parliament. Mr. Sexton, who is supposed to represent the views of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, made an application for an alteration of the Conscience Clause on behalf of the Christian Brothers' schools. It was met by Her Majesty's Government in a way that satisfied Mr. Sexton. I would defer for the present some remarks that I have to make on that, because I think it requires very careful consideration; but the result is, I think I may say, that this is a measure that has met with very general approval in Ireland, and,
1670
as the noble Marquess has done on behalf of all Irishmen present, we may thank Her Majesty's Government for a most valuable measure. My Lords, with regard to the arrangement that took place in the other House of Parliament the circumstances were rather peculiar and a little unusual. As we all know, at the end of a Session the Government is liable to very considerable pressure. The Government are anxious—and no doubt the country is anxious—to pass a measure which they consider justly and very properly of great importance to the country. Mr. Sexton, speaking in his place, was perfectly well aware that, if the Bill was opposed in the interest of the Christian Brothers, it would have been lost, and that would have brought all the national school teachers down upon him; so he spoke under compulsion, too. Under these circumstances you may very well imagine that an arrangement was easily come to on both sides. But then what was that arrangement? When I first read the report in the papers it appeared to me that Her Majesty's Government had made a most dangerous concession, likely to give rise to very considerable excitement and very special dissatisfaction. But when I came to study the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the explanation that was given by Mr. Balfour on the following day, I felt quite satisfied that there was no pledge whatever given. I think the position of the Government was thoroughly put and may be taken in Mr. Balfour's words—
"That all his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had done was to promise that the National Education Commissioners should consider the two alternative Conscience Clauses referred to in the Debate."
The noble Marquess has made an appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to speak somewhat further on this subject in the course of this Debate, and I shall be glad if he does so; but, whether he does think proper to do so or not, it appears to me that that statement of Mr. Balfour is sufficient to show that the Government are not pledged to alter the Conscience Clause: that it is to be referred to the National Education Commissioners to see if the Conscience

1671
Clause existing in the Intermediate Education Bill cannot be applied to the Christian Brothers too. I think it is of importance to insist upon that condition, because I am very well satisfied that a claim will be made that a promise has been given to the Christian Brothers that the Conscience Clause shall positively be removed or altered in their favour. Should the present Government be in power, I can quite understand that pressure will be put upon them to fulfil what may be called a promise, where no promise has been made. Should noble Lords on the other side be in office, I am quite satisfied that pressure will be put upon them that the existing Government have given a pledge which they must fulfil. I think it is of the greatest importance that it should be understood that there is no pledge, further than is contained in those words of Mr. Balfour. It is of the greatest importance that the Conscience Clause, and the principle of the Conscience Clause, should be maintained in the national schools in Ireland. The noble Marquess spoke of it, and I can entirely concur with him. It is a general opinion that the Conscience Clause is only wanted for the poor Protestants in the South and West; but it is entirely forgotten and overlooked that there may be a necessity for the Conscience Clause for the Roman Catholics in the North. Perhaps some of your Lordships may have seen the Census Returns that are now being published, which contain very valuable tables on the subject of religion, and in connection with education. Taking the subject of population only, I find that the relative proportion of the Roman Catholic population in County Antrim is now 21·8 per cent., and that it is steadily decreasing, and has been decreasing for the last twenty years. It is the same with regard to Belfast and with regard to County Down. In each of those two counties and that city the relative proportion of the Roman Catholic population is steadily diminishing; and it will be of the greatest importance that the Conscience Clause shall be maintained in their schools. Mr. Sexton acknowledged that in his speech. He said there were, I think,
1672
thirty towns in which Roman Catholic boys had no option but to attend schools conducted by Protestant teachers. So that this question of the Conscience Clause is as much a Roman Catholic as it is a Protestant question. With us in the South and West of Ireland it is a most difficult question to deal with. I am of opinion, which others may not share, that a national school under Roman Catholic patronage is not a school that a Protestant child can go into with perfect safety to his faith; and I think, wherever it is possible, a Protestant school should be kept up. But, my Lords, connected as I am with the government of the Church, I know the extreme difficulty there is in keeping up the payment of the clergy, and in keeping up the Churches in the southern and western districts of Ireland; and, if it be difficult for us to pay our clergy and to maintain our Churches—if it is necessary to consolidate parishes—I need hardly point out to your Lordships that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain our schools; we do our best, but circumstances must arise in which the Protestant children must go into Roman Catholic schools; and, in protection of those minorities, I say it is of the most pressing importance that every safeguard that can be devised should be maintained. My Lords, with regard to the Christian Brothers' schools, I sincerely hope that some plan may be devised for bringing these schools into connection with the National Board. I believe they are doing a great and good work. And I must point out that, when the Lord Privy Seal speaks of the deficiency of education in Ireland, the great illiteracy is in the Roman Catholic population. I do not go into the causes—I merely assert the fact. In the Census Returns there are some Returns of population in connection with the education which show the percentage of the number of persons of five years old and upwards who are illiterate. My Lords, I find that the greatest number of Protestant illiterates is among the Church of Ireland population in County Armagh, where over fifteen per cent. are illiterate. The highest Roman Catholic illiteracy is in County Donegal, where it is over thirty-seven per cent.

1673
The lowest Roman Catholic illiteracy is in County Dublin, 13·2 per cent. I think the Lord Privy Seal, in speaking of the dropping back, as it were, of education in Ireland, cannot be aware of the progress that is being made; it may not be all that it should be; but it is being made; and I shall be very glad if the proposed system of compulsion will increase the spread of education. My Lords, I will say nothing further than to thank Her Majesty's Government for the great boon which has been conveyed to Ireland by this Bill.
*VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, after the clear statement made by my noble Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, I do not think I have any right to detain the House at any length this evening, further than to express my cordial agreement in the principle of the Bill, and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on this further instalment of the policy of assimilating the institutions of Ireland to those of the United Kingdom, when local circumstances and conditions permit. I only regret that the other great Irish measure has not been sent up to your Lordships to be passed into law. So far as that measure is referred to in the Bill before the House now, I would ask my noble Friend to consider before the Committee stage whether it is advisable to retain in Clause 15, Sub-section 2, those permissive portions which do not enforce on the future County Councils the putting of this Act into force. I do not press the point; I ask my noble Friend to consider it. My Lords, I pass to a far more important matter in connection with the Bill, which has been already alluded to by the noble Marquess and the noble Earl—that is as to the admission of schools managed by the Christian Brothers to the benefits and control of the system of national education. It is somewhat difficult to address your Lordships upon this point, because I cannot find in a single line of the Bill any reference to the Christian Brothers, or to the agreement that was made in another place; but I think it is common knowledge that the furtherance of this Bill was imperilled on that very point, and that some concession, or agreement at any rate, was
1674
made between the Government and those who espoused the cause of the Christian Brothers, by which a modified Conscience Clause was agreed upon. I am fully in agreement with the admission of these schools to the benefits of the national system of education, and I have not a word to say against these schools: they are admirably managed by a body of gentlemen who have enrolled themselves as a religious Order, mainly, if not entirely, for the purposes of education. But I would point out that this is a step, and a long step, towards the reversal of the policy of the undenominational education of Ireland; and I think it is only Light to ask my noble Friend whether at the Committee stage of the Bill—this point has already been pressed upon him by the noble Marquess—he will be prepared to lay on the Table the modified Conscience Clause, if it has been agreed upon and accepted by the Government and the superior authorities of the Christian Brotherhood. Besides this Conscience Clause—I speak under correction—I understand that for the future religious emblems will be permitted to be exhibited in schools. This is a concession which hitherto has been denied to all other national schools—it has naturally always been asked for in the Roman Catholic schools. If this is permitted, I would further press upon the Government that the National Board should be empowered, in cases where there is a scattered population of Protestants, as in the South and West of Ireland, to deal generously with those schools which now exist or may be provided for parents who object, on conscientious grounds, to send their children to schools where religious emblems, on equally conscientious grounds, are exhibited. My Lords, there is yet one more point that I wish to press in regard to the Christian Brothers. It is possible that a certain pressure may be brought to bear upon the Board of National Education to transfer schools which are now taught by laymen—and I am referring now solely to Roman Catholic laymen—to the management of the Christian Brothers. I hope the National Board will resist any pressure or attempt of that kind; it

1675
would be a source of injustice to existing teachers and those in training; and I think education generally would be deprived of the benefit of competition between the lay-taught schools and those managed by the Christian Brothers. My Lords, I have nothing further to say on the subject of the Bill. I only wish to say that I am confident that this Bill will be a success. I am sure it will be popular in Ireland, where the standard of education has always been higher than most people suppose judging from the returns of bogus illiterates at General Elections; and where education has always been gladly taken advantage of where proper facilities have been provided.
*THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I wish to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government, before we get into Committee, will consider the point raised by my noble Friend with regard to the date for the operation of the Bill. In the North of Ireland, where I live, this Bill is regarded very favourably, and there is a great desire that we shall be in a position to enjoy the advantages that it confers upon the community at as early a date as possible. My noble Friend has pointed out that the Bill, as originally drafted, was intended to come into operation on the 1st January, 1893, and I should have thought that six months would have been plenty of time in which to have done any necessary preliminary business. I hope, therefore, in Committee the noble Lord will consent to restore that date.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MILITARY LANDS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, this is merely a Consolidation Bill, which has been compiled for the purpose of consolidating the various Acts which have been passed, from time to time, to enable the Secretary of State for War to
1676
acquire lands for military purposes. There is nothing, I think, that is new in this Bill; some Acts have been repealed and some have been partially repealed, and some that have been repealed have been re-enacted, or partially re-enacted. There is only one clause to which, perhaps, I may be allowed for one moment to call your Lordships' attention, and that is Clause 24, which was put into the Bill on the representation of certain persons interested in the New Forest. By this clause the Secretary of State is bound, if he requires land for military purposes in the New Forest, to proceed by Provisional Order. The remainder of the Bill is of a purely formal nature; it has received great attention in another place; and therefore I trust your Lordships will be able to pass it without further Amendment. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Brownlow.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. If I were to detain the House with a speech, in proportion to the length of the Bill, I am afraid I should detain your Lordships for a considerable period, as there are 516 clauses in the Bill; but it has been before Parliament for more than ten years, and it has been sifted by a Select Committee both of this House and the House of Commons. The Bill is now presented to the House, practically, in the same shape in which it passed a Committee of this House seven years ago. Since that time some Amendments have been made in it, and some alterations which are rendered necessary in consequence of intervening legislation, but the structure and general provisions of the Bill remain as they were then settled. There will, I am hopeful, be very few

1677
Amendments to be proposed in Committee, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD BALFOUR: This, my Lords, is a Bill of a single clause, and its object is this: Under Section 24 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, the Board of Trade were directed to present Provisional Orders for the regulation of rates and charges upon railways and canals; but under one sub-section of that section it is provided that a recess should, in case of disagreement, intervene between the Report presented by the Board of Trade and the legislation consequent upon that Report. As the proceedings in connection with this Act have now gone on so long, it is generally agreed, both by those interested in canals and those who have objections to their Schedules, that it is not necessary that this delay should take place. In consequence of the termination of the Session of Parliament this year at an earlier date than usual, the inquiry which is being held into canals at the present time, at the instance of the Board of Trade, cannot be completed in time to enable the Board of Trade to present a Report during this Session. The sole object of the Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to legislate, with the consent, of course, of Parliament, in the same Session in which they present a Report. I am able to assure your Lordships that that is desired by both parties to the inquiry; the Bill passed through the other House without Amendment; and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

TELEGRAPHS BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to obtain Parliamentary authority, so far as may be necessary, for the purpose of giving effect to the policy explained in a Treasury Minute which was presented to both Houses of Parliament on the 23rd May in the present year. The main feature of the policy is the division of the system of telephones, now existing throughout the country, between the Postmaster General and private companies licensed by him. The lines upon which that division proceeds are these: The main or trunk lines of telephonic communication between town and town will remain the property of the Post Office; but the different companies will have the privilege of interchanging the business between town and town, and they are to be endowed with all proper facilities for effecting that purpose. They will also remain in possession of the communication between points in the same town. My Lords, there is only one clause of the Bill to which I think it necessary to call attention. In some districts of the country the inhabitants are deprived of the advantage of telephonic communication on account of the impossibility of getting the landlords to fix wires upon any part of their property, or to insert poles into the ground for the purpose of putting wires upon them; and the clause to which I refer proposes that in extreme cases, where the Postmaster General considers that the inhabitants of the district are being unduly debarred from a public convenience in the way of telephones, he may apply to the Railway Commissioners to authorise the fixing of wires to buildings, and, if the Railway Commission consent and the owner of the property is still dissatisfied, the Order is to be laid before Parliament, and will then be dealt with in the same way as all Provisional Orders are dealt

1679
with; so that ample opportunity will be given to those who think that they are being seriously damnified to appeal in the usual way. At the same time I think your Lordships will agree that the time has come when, if I may use the expression in an inoffensive sense, the obstruction of one or two people should not be allowed to deprive others of the advantages of telephonic communication. Some of the clauses of the Bill refer to money matters, which I do not think it necessary to deal with in your Lordships' House; but when we get into Committee, if there are any questions to be asked, I shall be glad to answer them to the best of my ability. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time, and I propose to take the Bill on Thursday next.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, this is merely a Consolidation Bill which makes no material alteration in the law. It was brought in by Sir John Lubbock and passed through the House of Commons with no opposition, and I beg to move that your Lordships give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 6.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out the following words:—
"And the arrears thereof to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears, accrued before such cesser or determination."
I cannot see on what principle the landlord is to be charged one year's arrears, for work that was done on the tenant's holding for the benefit of the tenant, before the termination of the tenancy. Why should not the Board of Works collect the money from the tenant? It is a time when probably the landlord might lose a great deal of money, for rent would in all probability be due, and why should he be responsible for these arrears in addition? Her Majesty's Government in this clause propose to make the estate liable for these charges in future at the end of the tenancy, and that is bad enough surely when it happens. Why should they go further back than the end of the tenancy and charge a year's arrears? We object very much to the way in which the work is done in Ireland—it is very often badly done. Supposing the tenant is in occupation, and has a lease during the last year of his lease he will, naturally, under this clause, not pay the Board of Works; then the Board of Works will not attempt to collect the money from him, because they know they can go to the landlord and make him pay. And the landlord has no means of recovery from the tenant. I must protest against this provision being put into this clause of the Bill, and I beg to move the omission of those words.
Amendment moved,
In page 3, line 5, to leave out "and the arrears thereof to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears, accrued before such cesser or determination."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I confess I have some sympathy with the grievance of which my noble Friend complains; but I think I ought to remind him that a great deal is covered under this Bill by the veto which I explained at the last stage, which, perhaps, to a certain extent removes the grievance. But my noble

1681
Friend complains, as I understand, not of the rent charged, which, naturally, must go on accruing after the determination of the interest, but simply of the year's arrears. I may explain that that was put in as a compromise. Originally the Board of Works, as my noble Friend knows, claimed the whole of the arrears, but after discussion, and as a compromise, it was settled that the rent charged should go on the fee, and one year's arrears. But, as I said before, I have considerable sympathy with my noble Friend, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment which will strike out the year's arrears while leaving the rent charged.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 7.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for having accepted my first Amendment, and I hope he will treat me equally well on this occasion. This Amendment is taken from the Board of Works Loans Bill of 1889; it proposes merely that if you are going to put this charge upon the fee simple, you should not put on a greater charge than the amount of the value of the improvement at the termination of the tenancy. Supposing £1,000 has been expended on a certain improvement, and whether, from the mis-management, or bad expenditure of money, or from lapse of time, when the landlord comes into possession, that drainage improvement is only worth £500, then only £500 should be charged upon the fee. And very often there is a great deterioration in these improvements; and I do not think, if the owner in fee is to have a charge placed upon his property, it should be a greater charge than the amount of the value of the improvement when he steps in. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move the insertion of this new clause.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 6, page 3, to insert new clause as follows:—"The rent charge charged under the next preceding section of this Act on the fee simple and inheritence shall not exceed the improved value of the land at the time of the cesser or determination of the particular estate, resulting from the outlay of the
1682
money advanced on loan, such improved value in the case of dispute to be ascertained by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, in accordance with rules to be made by him."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think this Amendment ought to be put in. There is no doubt that serious evils do occur from the way in which tenants' improvements are executed under the Act. Cases have come within my own knowledge in which complaints have been made, and admitted at the time, either from some oversight in inspection, or from some direct fraud, in the manner in which the work has been carried on. The result is that, if the landlord has to take to them at the expiry of the term for which the lease has been granted, they are not worth fifty per cent. what they profess to be worth. It is very easy, especially in such a climate as Ireland, to execute building work in such a manner that it may for a time pass muster very respectably, and then from the damp and other causes it gradually goes to decay. It is a very hard thing indeed if, at the end of the lease, the landlord succeeds to that property when it is in a thoroughly depreciated state. He has had no opportunity of prohibiting the improvements, such as they are, being made; he has had no opportunity of inspecting the work in progress, of checking waste, or of seeing that work done originally under these powers should be kept in proper repair; and yet he is to be saddled at the end with the full cost of that work as if for value received; instead of which he gets a very different value indeed from that which the law, as proposed, puts upon it. My Lords, I do not think the Amendment of the noble Marquess goes beyond what is fair and equitable, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble Friend who has just spoken in regard to the proposed Amendment. Only the other day I had, unfortunately, to take up a large farm, the rent of which was £350 a year, and I am sorry to say there was a sum of £1,100, and odd, due on that farm. As I understand I am to be saddled with the charge for drainage works which were supposed to have

1683
been executed on that farm. I walked over the whole farm the other day, and I could see no trace of any money having been laid out upon it, certainly within a considerable space of time. In our part of the country it is very frequently the case that tenants borrow money without the landlord having any information about it, or any opportunity of knowing whether it is for the advantage of the estate that it should be borrowed; the tenants are supposed to lay the money out in cleaning drains, and main outfalls, when very often the money, if expended at all, is not expended properly, or to any advantage. If the noble Marquess goes to a Division, which I hope he will, I shall be most happy to support him.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the clause which my noble Friend proposes is applicable to loans made to individuals under the Landed Property Improvement Act when the value deteriorates as time goes on. I think that view is borne out by the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down. I may point out that the proposed clause is not applicable to loans under the Drainage Acts relating to Drainage Boards, because the benefit to the land is permanent if the drainage works are maintained. I do not know whether my noble Friend sees the point.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I cannot see why it is not applicable to drainage loans, if it is applicable to other loans. In the Board of Works Loans Act, 1889, these charges were first placed upon the fee, and now, for the first time, under this Drainage Act, you propose to do a similar thing. Why not treat us in a similar way? My noble Friend's argument upon the Second Reading was that it was perfectly fair, under Clause 6, that the landlord should pay because his property would be improved. I only ask that he should pay the amount by which his property is improved, and not the amount of the original improvement.
LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot help suggesting that there is a little inconsistency between this proposal of the noble Marquess, and that which
1684
he has just succeeded in carrying; because, if in each case you are to have an inquiry as to whether the amount of the charge will be represented by the improved value, I do not see why the person who owns the land should not be responsible also for the arrears. The fair thing would have been to leave them in if you are to insert this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I quite see the noble and learned Lord's, argument; but he must remember that this charge is made previously, without the landlord's consent, and he knows nothing about it; but in the question of arrears, this, I understand, only deals with future loans; and I certainly object to the system of putting charges upon property that a man knows, nothing about.
*EARL CADOGAN: Might I say once more that there is a distinction between loans to individuals and loans for drainage purposes to Drainage Boards? In the case of loans to individuals under the Landed Property Improvement Act the value deteriorates as time goes on, which is the point the noble Marquess has made; but this clause which the noble Marquess has moved is not applicable to loans under the Drainage Acts to which the Bill refers.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I quite agree with my noble Friend that the clause does not apply when benefit remains; but it is only in cases where it does not remain that it can come into operation.
EARL CADOGAN: Not under the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEY: My Lords, it appears to me that the risk must be with somebody, and it is rather hard to put it upon the lender. If the Treasury lends the money, and; the improvement fails, I should have thought the risk must be with the person who borrows the money. Of course if a person borrows money without his own consent being asked, he is placed in a very hard position; but that, as I understand, is not the provision of the present Bill, because the landlord has the right of refusing to borrow if he likes. If he chooses to

1685
borrow it is, surely, hard to put the risk of the operation failing upon the Treasury. My experience is that improvements fail quite as often as they succeed, and therefore, it must be a risk that you must always look to.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: The noble Marquess says that the landlord borrows; really the landlord does not borrow. If a number of landlords agree together to veto the improvement they have the power of refusing; but by his position one man might have a very large estate, and he might be liable for a very high charge.
After some further conversation.
New Clause 7 negatived.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I move to omit this clause because I think it would be very injurious to Ireland to have these very small loans. I think £100 is quite little enough. These small loans are made to very small tenants in Ireland who very often apply for them, and expend no money in carrying out improvements, but do the work themselves, and the work is done badly; and the result of this lending is that we have these clauses that I object to put into the Board of Works Loans Act, and this Drainage Bill every year. The Board of Works is always lending money with out proper security, and it does not see that the work is properly carried out. That is the case all over Ireland; and it is monstrous to be obliged to pay for the bad debts incurred by the Board of Works. I am told they have volumes and volumes full of bad debts. My Lords we have been protesting all along against this system, and I think it would be a great benefit if the law were not altered in this particular, that a less sum than £100 should not be lent.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 26, to leave out Clause 9.—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
EARL CADOGAN: Might I point out to my noble Friend that this clause does not apply to drainage loans—
1686
it applies only to small loans for other purposes? My noble Friend will see that the title of the Bill is, "An Act to amend the law relating to the drainage and improvement of land in Ireland, and for other purposes", and it appeared desirable to make provision for smaller loans for other purposes.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I think it is a most undesirable thing myself, and I would wish the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) were here because he has protested against the loans over and over again.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, very often, in the case of these small loans, by the time the land, for which they were borrowed, comes into the landlord's hands, the improvements have disappeared altogether, and there is no benefit left.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I have got an Amendment to this clause which is very technical; but I believe the machinery put into this Bill has been put in by mistake. My Amendment is in line 30 to insert subsections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. I am told that the machinery in the clause is very much too cumbrous, and too expensive to deal with the collection of a £5 debt. I do not pretend to be able to argue the question, but I am sure it was not intended by the Government to apply such an extremely complicated clause to the collection of £5. I hope the noble Lord will agree to the Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN: If my noble Friend moves the Amendment as it stands on the Paper I am prepared to agree to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived.
Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Motion agreed to.
On Question? that the Bill do pass,
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I wish to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he would see any objection to inserting the word "default" in place of the word "offence" in Clause 2, line 15? The object of the Amendment is somewhat important, because, under an Act of 1884, anybody convicted of an offence is liable to be put into prison, and it is held by some that the occurrence of the word "offence" in this clause might apply to the defaults with respect to the nature of the publication or delivery of copies of certificates. Obviously, to put a man into prison for a default of that kind would be too severe a penalty. I think also the clause will run better with the word "default," because in the opening words of the clause the expression is "If any person makes default."
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I have no objection to the Amendment; I doubt whether the apprehensions are well-founded; but it is a mere matter of drafting, and I have no objection.
Amendment moved, in Clause 2, line 15, omit ("offence") and insert ("default").—(The Lord Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MAR PEERAGE.
MOTION—DISCUSSION.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that I should be called upon to detain your Lordships for some time, at this late hour, with reference to the letter which is referred to in my notice on the Paper; but the matter is of great importance to the persons interested, and I think it has reference to the regularity of your Lordships' House and the proceedings therein. I also think it has very serious reference indeed to the mode of administering judgment in this country. My Lords, before I refer to the contents of the letter, I wish to call the attention of the noble Lords who have signed
1688
it to the concluding paragraph. I should say, my Lords, that this question of the matter with which the letter deals would have been treated of long since, but that the noble Lord who is principally interested in the question requested, in consequence of the state of his health, that the matter should not be brought on before Easter—he being compelled, by the state of his health and that of some members of his family, to be away from England; and he afterwards requested a further delay, that it should not be brought on before Whitsuntide. My Lords, I say this to explain the cause of the delay that has taken place in bringing forward this matter for discussion here. Now, my Lords, I have thought it right,, before giving notice that I should bring this matter forward in your Lordships' House for discussion, to cause a letter to be written to each of the noble Lords who have signed this document, which purports to be a letter addressed to myself. Three or four copies of it have come into my possession; it appears to be a closely typewritten letter of four pages, containing a great number of statements, about which I must say a word presently; but the concluding paragraph is one which appears to me to raise a serious question, and I am anxious that the noble Lords who signed it, who I hope are here present, will give me some explanation as to what it is intended to convey by the paragraph in question. I have given notice, as I say, to each of them—no less than five and forty noble Lords, members of your Lordships' House, who have signed various copies of this document, apparently; and I want to know, from any one of them, if they will be good enough to explain what is the meaning of the concluding paragraph of this letter. My Lords, after reciting statements both of law and fact, to which I shall have to refer in a moment for another purpose, they proceed thus—
"It is obvious that the matter cannot rest in its present position; therefore, before bringing it forward publicly, and in the hope that it may be arranged so as to cause as little scandal as possible, we venture to ask your Lordship kindly to take the matter into your consideration, and also we venture, in accordance with the suggestion made at the recent meeting of Peers at Stafford House"

1689
what that refers to I do not know, and no information is conveyed to me by the document in question—
"to beg your Lordship to be so kind as to advise us as to what steps should be taken to remove this bar to property, which the action of the House of Lords has inadvertently placed to the obvious advantage of Lord Kellie, and to the serious detriment of Lord Mar and his heirs, thus unwarrantably interfering with individual rights."
My Lords, that is the concluding paragraph; and with perfect sincerity I am compelled to admit that I do not know what it means. Is it supposed that, speaking of myself in my judicial capacity, I am to give advice to some one of the parties to a litigation as to how they should proceed? I cannot suppose that any noble Lord who put his hand to this Paper could for a moment suggest that an ex parte application should be made to one of Her Majesty's Judges, who would ultimately have to decide some question judicially, to give him advice as to how he should proceed. My Lords, for reasons which I will explain in a moment, I was unable to give the answer that I should give to any such suggestion, if it were made seriously in the sense which I have attributed to those words—namely, that nothing could be more, irregular or improper than to apply ex parte, behind the back of the other side, to a Judge to step in and advise in any way on such a subject. The reason why I could not give any such answer is that the matter is, both by legislation and judicial decision, absolutely concluded, and that no question, no investigation, no further inquiry into the matter, can possibly be had; therefore I could not say that it would come before me as a Judge, because it certainly could not and I was for that reason unable to give that answer. But, my Lords, one knows that from time to time this question has been mooted in this House, and I shall have to read to your Lordships presently the Resolution which stands on the Records of this House upon this subject; and for that reason also I was unable to give the answer that I suggested should be given if a judicial matter was brought before me for advice by one of the
1690
parties. But, my Lords, I want now to ask another question of any of the noble Lords who are here and have signed this Paper. I find in it a great number of statements of fact and of law which, according to my view, are absolutely inaccurate. I do not say whether they are wrong—I only give my opinion upon the matter—but I think they are. And what I ask is: Do the noble Lords who put their names to this document, the five and forty of them, mean to suggest that they have investigated these facts for themselves and come to this conclusion? I am aware that, on a former occasion, the noble Lord, I think, rose in his place and said that it was a mistake to say that the noble Lords had pledged themselves to the various facts and statements, either of law or fact, that were therein contained, and that all that they intended to imply by their signatures was that the matter required investigation. Whether that proposition was a good excuse in that case or not, I cannot say; but it certainly is not applicable to the present document which I hold in my hand; because this is addressed to me under the signature of those five and forty noble Lords. They say, "We find"; and then they proceed with a variety of statements with which, as I have said, I am unable to concur. Now, my Lords, you will see at once that there are two things which are dealt with in this Paper. One is a question of principle; and, as your Lordships will have gathered from the concluding paragraph that I have read, it is said that some great injustice has been done to the noble Lord. Let me assure the noble Lord that what I have to say on this matter is conceived in no spirit of hostility to him. I can well understand and appreciate the fact that he, in common with every other litigant who is unsuccessful, is under the impression that the tribunal which decided against him is entirely wrong; I assume that that is the sincere state of his mind. But it is new to me that any litigant whatever, after a matter has been adjudicated finally by the final Court of Appeal, can ask again and again to raise the same question. Let me, in the first instance, apply myself to the question of the property

1691
That, my Lords, depended upon the construction of a written instrument. It came before the Lord Ordinary in Scotland; it then came on appeal before the Judges of the Court of Session. Both of those tribunals unanimously pronounced in one direction. It then came before your Lordships, sitting as a Court of Appeal—the final Court of Appeal in this country; and, by an equally unanimous decision of this House, the decision of the Lord Ordinary, and the decision of the whole Court of Session of Scotland, were affirmed. Now, in that condition of things, I do not know what privilege there is on the part of any noble Lord, a member of this House, any more than on the part of the humblest of the Queen's subjects, to raise again a question that has once been judicially decided; and I think it would be a most serious and important question if such a matter could be entertained for a moment. My Lords, I am aware that in this Paper, it is said—and I think most inaccurately said—that the noble Lord was precluded from urging his claim as he otherwise might have done, because he was not at that time permitted his right to call himself, and to claim the privileges of, the Earl of Mar. My Lords, such a question was absolutely irrelevant to the decision. The decision proceeded on the construction of a written document, and whether the noble Lord called himself by the title which he now, under Statute, enjoys, or whether he was only pleading in the Court as a commoner, was absolutely and entirely irrelevant. The unanimous decision of all the Courts in Scotland has been confirmed by the unanimous decision of your Lordships' House, and under no circumstances is it possible to raise the question again. My Lords, I will confine myself for a moment to the question of property, and I do entreat the noble Lords who have signed this document to ask themselves whether it is calculated to aid in the administration of justice, or in maintaining the dignity and position of your Lordships' House, that because a litigant is a member of your Lordships' House, he should be permitted to raise again, by a discussion, apparently, in this House, in its legislative and deliberative
1692
capacity, questions which have been finally decided by the final Court of Appeal? My Lords, I now turn to the question of title. That there were difficulties about the question of title there is no doubt. A great many people were under the impression that the noble Lord had not received what was justly due to him, namely the title and honours which he now possesses and enjoys; and accordingly, in order to get rid of the difficulty that was felt by himself and other persons, an Act of Parliament was passed on the subject, and that Act of Parliament is absolutely final so far as litigation can go. I am not aware of any greater power in this country on such a question; it is absolutely and finally determined. Then, my Lords, what remains? If the noble Lords who signed the Paper ask me publicly in my place in Parliament what is the mode by which they should proceed, my answer is very simple: Repeal that Act of Parliament; proceed in due course of law before the Courts on a question of litigation, and take the final decision. If you want to get rid of what an Act of Parliament has done, you must repeal that Act of Parliament. Therefore the answer is a very simple one; and in that form let the noble Lord, or some person who is interested on his behalf, prepare a Bill and bring it in; and then that question, which he thinks was erroneously decided by the Statute that has been passed upon the subject, can be properly debated, and if it should please Her Majesty—for Her Majesty's prerogative is included also in this transaction—that matter can be deliberated again. But, in the meantime, the question of title having been finally decided by Statute, and the question of property having been decided by the last tribunal in this country, it appears to me that such a letter as I have pointed out, about raising the question with as little scandal as possible—using the language of the document itself—and that something should be done to alter what has been finally decided, both by the Legislature and by the Courts of Law, is entirely inappropriate. My Lords, I have mentioned also that this question has already been raised in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Galloway,

1693
moved a Resolution; which was met on the 1st July, 1889, by an Amendment moved by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne), who is near me, which is in these words, and which now stands upon the Records of your Lordships' House:—
"That the right of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, in the Peerage of Scotland, to an Earldom of Mar, created in 1565, having been established on claim duly made before the Committee of Privileges, and confirmed by Resolution of this House in 1875, and having been since recognised by the Act of Parliament passed in 1885 for the restitution of the more ancient Earldom of Mar, and the late Earl of Mar and Kellie having sat in this House by that title as one of the Representative Peers for Scotland, the right and title of his successor, now Earl of Mar and Kellie, to that Peerage is unimpeachable in law, and cannot be called in question in this House."
That Resolution, I say, was passed, and stands on the Records of your Lordships' House; and under those circumstances I do venture to ask noble Lords whether it is consistent with the respect due to a Resolution so passed that such a document as I have referred to should be presented to me for my advice and assistance in order to raise this question again. My Lords, I have made this statement, and I do assure the noble Earl who is principally interested that it is with the most hearty sympathy that I have felt it my duty to say this. I am sure he thinks he is ill-used, and, for all I know to the contrary, he may have been; but what I venture to point out to him, as I would to anybody who is disappointed in litigation, is that he must acquiesce in the decisions of the Courts of Law, and that when once the decision of the final Court has been reached there is no appeal.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should like just to add a word only to what my noble and learned Friend has said. I can assure the noble Earl opposite that he is labouring under a complete misapprehension in supposing that the decision which determined the question of Privilege—which of course is a question in which he is deeply interested—was in the slightest degree affected by the question which was determined on by the Committee of Privileges, and afterwards affirmed by this House. Supposing that that decision had been the
1694
other way, supposing that the Committee of Privileges had found against the Earl of Mar and Kellie in his claim to the Earldom of Mar, the fact that they had done so would not have been a bar to his proceeding to obtain a declaration of his right to the property, and the decision of this House would have been precisely and absolutely the same. It is always difficult, I know, to persuade those who entertain a strong view about any question that nearly concerns themselves; but I am quite sure the noble Earl will believe me when I say that in saying this my sole desire is, if possible, to disabuse him of the impression that, as regards the question of property, any mistake, if a mistake was made, in the previous decision as regards title, can have in the slightest degree prejudiced him. The question of property was determined upon different considerations from those which had issue in the Peerage case; and, as I have said, if the claimant in the Peerage case had been unsuccessful, the decision of the Courts and of this House must have been the same. Under these circumstances I think the noble Lord will see that nothing really is to be gained by the continuance of this controversy. As regards the question of the Peerage, he enjoys now the ancient Earldom under undoubted right, for it has been confirmed to him by Act of Parliament. As regards the property, the decision has been against him—no doubt unfortunately for him—of the Courts and of this House; and that he has no means of altering; because I am quite sure that this House would never dream—nor would Parliament ever dream of altering by legislation—and that is the only way in which it could be altered—in favour of one of two litigants a decision of this House in favour of the other; it is a matter of absolute impossibility; it has never been done; it never could be done, if, therefore, I could only persuade the noble Earl that he is dissipating energy, really, on a hopeless endeavour, I should, I am quite sure, have done him the best service that anybody could possibly render him.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have been much more frequently called upon than I could wish

1695
to advise this House on questions connected with this subject; but I can assure the noble Earl opposite, and all your Lordships, that in anything which I have at any time said or done—and I am sensible that it has been in some quarters misconstrued—I have never had anything whatever in view but the honour and dignity of your Lordships' House, and the duty which I conceived to be incumbent upon those who occupied the position which I have had the honour of occupying, namely, to maintain the ordinary course of the administration of law, including the authority of the decisions of your Lordships' House in Committee of Privileges on the subject of claims to Peerages. My Lords, with regard to the property, it fell to my lot to be one of those Lords who had to hear the arguments in that case, and to take part in the decision; Lord Cairns was another, and Lord O'Hagan was a third. In the argument, some question was suggested as to an intention of the creator of the entail of the property to unite it with the Peerage. In the view of Lord Cairns and of myself, there was no foundation for that argument, as affecting the question under appeal, and I am satisfied that neither Lord Cairns nor myself so much as referred to the title to the Peerage in deciding that question. As the matter had been argued, it was noticed, I think, by our noble colleague, Lord O'Hagan, who said that if that point were material, or something to that effect, the right to the Peerage held by the Earl of Mar and Kellie had been established by this House, and that, in his opinion, from that point of view the case would not have prospered more than from any other. But I can assure the noble Earl that in the opinion of every one of the Lords who decided that case, and also, as I understood, in the opinion of both branches of the Court of Session of Scotland, the right to the property was clear, without any reference whatever to the Peerage.
*THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, I must first express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his good nature in allowing this matter to be postponed on account of ray absence abroad; and I must next regret the absence, through death,
1696
of several noble Lords who signed this letter to the noble and learned Lord. I may safely say, at the outset, that this is one of the gravest matters that have ever come before your Lordships; it seriously affects the dignity of this House and the integrity of the whole Peerage—not only of the Peerage of Scotland but of the whole Peerage—which has been violated by the action of this House, and by most of the members of this House in perfect ignorance of the facts which have caused that violation of the integrity of the Peerage. It has also affected, as I maintain and am prepared to contend, and I am sure my heirs after me will contend, in a most serious way the rights to the property enjoyed by my ancestors in the same line through which I maintain that I am entitled to the property, under the entail made by my ancestors, for the express and admitted purpose and determination of providing for the ancient Earldom of Mar attainted in 1715, and restored, emphatically and explicitly through female succession, by Act of Parliament, in 1824, and which has devolved upon me under that Act. I have a copy of the entail here close at hand, every word of which I published; I like every word that I say to be known on the housetop—the whole of the entail is public property, while my opponents try to hush it up and to stifle all investigation—and that being the case, with the entail before me which I could read, but from which I will only quote a short passage from memory, I say that it is absolutely impossible that the entailers could have intended the Mar Estates of Alloa to have devolved upon my opponent the Earl of Kellie. I say that with the most perfect confidence, and will quote as follows:—
"The entailers (foreseeing this restoration of the ancient Earldom of Mar through the female succession in 1824) expressly provided that the heirs male and female who succeed to these estates under this destination shall, in case the attainder of the Earldom of Mar be reversed, hold the ancient dignity of Mar."
They anticipated this restoration of 1824 in the plainest language, and went on to say:—
"This right shall always and unalterably fall and pertain to the nearest heir."
Now Lord Kellie does not even claim to be the nearest heir. My Lords, it is

1697
but right that I should explain to you in a word that Lord Kellie does not claim these estates as heir male, as it has very generally been given out that he does. If your Lordships will take the trouble to read the entail for yourselves, and also the judgments of the Courts, you will find that Lord Kellie is obliged to put a construction on the entail that it is neither for the Earldom of Mar, alleged to have been given to him and confirmed by this House in 1875, as a title restricted to heirs male, nor for the ancient Earldom of Mar, through female heirship, in right of which I have now the honour to address your Lordships. I say therefore: Is it right, in the face of that construction of this entail, which ought to be perfectly public and ought to be before your Lordships' House, that Lord Kellie should be possessing these estates? My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and two noble Lords opposite have been good enough to say that they consider that there has been no bar to my rights owing to the construction put on the entail by the decision of the Court of Session and the Court of Appeal. Now, my Lords, I beg to express a very different opinion. With all deference to their Lordships, I say that the bar is a very serious one, and that it has been caused by a perversion of the determination of the entailers. The Courts have adjudged these estates on the ground that I was a commoner. Now a man cannot be a commoner and a Peer at the same time, and I was a Peer when the case was before the Courts. There was an Act of Parliament passed in 1885, which has already been mentioned and which it will be my duty to refer to. Under that Act, which could not make me Lord Mar, it was declared that I had, in 1866, on my uncle's death, already inherited this Earldom through a long line of ancestry from early days. But, my Lords, I am independent of that Act. I stand here under the Act of 1824, which has been ignored and evaded by this House. That Act of 1824 assures me of my rights through the female succession; and I say that it is a very great indignity to this House that that Act should have been ignored and evaded. My
1698
Lords, what did the Committee of Privileges say with regard to that Act in 1875, on Lord Kellie's claim? The late Lord Chelmsford said, with reference to this explicit acknowledgment of the succession through female descent, that "it is an accurate description of his title without reference to the course by which it was derived." My Lords, I venture to say that that is in plain words nonsense. The late Lord Redesdale said that the Act could not be held to have any application to the matter, and it was not inquired into. Now, my Lords, there is a very serious point connected with that. The late Lord Redesdale must have been under a very serious misapprehension—I am afraid it was something rather worse—when he said it was not inquired into. What do I find? There was a Report of Inquiry by the Law Officers of the Crown preliminary to the Act of Parliament, and on which the Act was confessedly constructed, though the late Lord Redesdale said that there was no inquiry made. This inquiry and Report of 1824, which I hope your Lordships will order to be presented to this House, on which this Act was constructed, distinctly shows that my uncle, whom I succeeded in 1866, and his father and grandfather, succeeded as the heirs of Lady Prances, the daughter of the attainted Earl. The Report and the Act rest this restoration upon the fact of the female descent! Now, Lord Kellie claimed by a restriction to heirs male; and yet that Report, signed by the Law Officers of the Crown, declaring the Restoration to be through female heirship, was treated as waste paper. When this Report came before your Lordships' House in 1875, it was ignored and evaded and rejected as evidence, although, my Lords, the same three Lords on the Committee, who sat on the Nairn Peerage case shortly afterwards, accepted an exactly similar Report to that which they rejected in the Mar case on Lord Kellie's claim. My Lords, why are these things to be? Why should an Act of Parliament, and the opinion of the Law Officers which support my rights be scattered to the winds in your Lordships' House, either in Debate or when the matter is before the Committee

1699
of Privileges? It seems to me extraordinary that the interests of one individual should be bolstered up by evasions and distortions, while the Restoration Act of 1824, under which my uncle and his ancestors held the title of Mar, should be scattered to the winds, as well as the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which distinctly declared that the estates as well as the title, to the exclusion of the heirs male, had been transmitted to the heirs of the Lady Frances—thereby putting Lord Kellie, if I may use a common expression, out of the field. My Lords, I must allude to one authority whom all of your Lordships will respect very much indeed—I refer to the late Lord Farnborough, whom I had the privilege of knowing very well as Sir Erskine May. He told me again and again that it was all very well for the House of Lords to try and ignore the fact, but they never could get over the fact that the 1824 Restoration Act, which was passed by the Crown, Lords, and Commons, effectually put Lord Kellie out of the field if it was given the weight that it was entitled to, and that it substantiated my rights to the ancient Earldom of Mar. My Lords, this was long before 1885; and I think Lord Farnborough was as good an interpreter of Acts of Parliament as anyone else — indeed a good deal better—and as we all know he was the greatest authority on constitutional law. Now, my Lords, the Preamble of that Act of 1824 states that "whereas he was the grandson and lineal representative through his mother" therefore he was restored. Another authority, Sir Peter Maxwell, in his work on the interpretation of Statutes, says that the Preamble of an Act is to represent the meaning of it. My Lords, I will pass on from the Act of 1824, pausing only to say this. I am reminded that, when this Act of 1824 was brought before a Committee of your Lordships' House on the Bill of 1885, the noble and learned Lord who has gone out of the House (Lord Selborne), who was then in the Chair, actually got this Act of 1824 rejected. That is the way in which Acts of Parliament have been treated when they go against
1700
Lord Kellie and when they support my rights.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I rise to Order. I do not offer any opinion upon the merits of this case; but I really do not think that the noble Lord behind me has any right to impugn the character and conduct of Lord Selborne in the way he has now done. Lord Selborne has told your Lordships very plainly the course which he took and which was taken in this House; and for the noble Lord behind me to say that Lord Selborne got an Act of Parliament set aside, because it was in Lord Mar's favour and against the noble Lord who was contending with him for the title, is a line of conduct which I do not think your Lordships will consider ought to be pursued.
*THE EARL OF MAR: In reply to the noble Duke it is but fair to me that I should recall, in as few words as I can, the action of the noble and learned Lord who has left the House (Lord Selborne) with regard to me. It is but a very short time ago that his Lordship got up in his place and said that he bad received a letter from the Earl of Kellie asking him to advocate his cause—"an appeal," his Lordship said, "which I could not resist." I venture to say that it was very extraordinary conduct for a noble and learned Lord, who has been Lord Chancellor, and whose duty I conceive it may be to sit on a judicial question still, to get up in this House and say that he is advocating the cause of one individual and throwing the whole weight of his influence and the very great weight that attaches to every word that he says in favour of one litigant!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid I must interrupt the noble Lord; he is, unintentionally I have no doubt, misrepresenting my noble and learned Friend who is absent. All that Lord Selborne did on that occasion—it was on a former occasion, long after the judicial decision had been arrived at—was this: the matter was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Galloway, and Lord Selborne said that he had received a letter from Lord Mar and Kellie, who was at that time a minor and not a member of your Lordships' House,

1701
and, therefore, was not able himself to answer the noble Earl who is addressing your Lordships now; and Lord Selborne said that as, under these circumstances, Lord Mar and Kellie was unable to appear himself, he had been appealed to to give his version of what the noble Earl is now discussing, and which without Lord Selborne's advocacy, or whatever phrase was used, might, according to the view of Lord Mar and Kellie, not have been represented in this House. I wanted to correct the noble Earl in what he appears to be representing—that Lord Selborne, in his judicial capacity, ever uttered any such phrase.
*THE EARL OF MAR: I am obliged to remind your Lordships of the action of Lord Selborne, who has left the House; because he made a remark of which I took a note just now. His Lordship said that he had never done anything but to uphold to the best of his ability the dignity of this House, and to maintain law and order. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that it is not exactly maintaining law and order and upholding the dignity of this House to have brought in, as his Lordship did when he was Lord Chancellor, a Bill, called the Scotch Representative Peers Bill, but which was a Bill really framed with the object of altering the time-honoured Union Roll, scattering to the winds the Treaty of Union, and making a list of Peers instead of Peerages; and, when it was narrowed down to its true intent, the noble Lord was obliged to get up in his place in his defence and say that he had been very seriouslv misled in the framing of that Bill. But it was found that the Bill was for the sole purpose of, I must say, bolstering up the title of Lord Kellie, which is widely known all over the world to have been an official fiction of 1875, and never to have been among the Peerages of Scotland; and it never can be among the Peerages of Scotland, because, by the Treaty of Union, the Grown, Lords, and Commons are precluded from creating a Peerage of Scotland, which in this case is attempted. The Bill was accepted by your Lordships unwittingly. But, my Lords, what happened to this Bill of Lord Selborne's in 1875? I am bound
1702
to say that, with the great weight attaching to the position of the noble and learned Lord, especially as Lord Chancellor at the time, it passed through your Lordships' House. But what happened immediately after? This Bill was protested against by no less than eighty one Peers—a most unusual event to happen—and I trust such a thing will never happen again, that this House should be so disgraced by that noble and learned upholder of law and order! It went down to the other House protested against by eighty-one Peers as "an act of individual injustice" against me, and the Bill was perforce withdrawn. My Lords, what did the late noble and very learned Lord Crawford and Balcarres say in his great work on the Earldom of Mar? He said that "Lord Selborne's views were fatal to the whole Peerage of Scotland, if not to the Kingdom of Scotland itself." (Vol. ii., p. 294). You must admit that no one has ever given such attention to the matter of Scotch Peerage Law as the late Lord Crawford, who, although he was a layman, was really in intelligence, cultivation, and knowledge one of the greatest Peerage lawyers of the day. My Lords, I think it does not come very well from the noble Lord, Lord Selborne, to say that he has been consistent in endeavouring to maintain law and order and to uphold the dignity of the House. Now, my Lords, it is my duty to allude to the Bill of 1885. That Bill was produced under very peculiar circumstances; it was led up to, I may say, by the voice and opinion of public feeling among Members of this House that I had suffered from great injustice. They addressed a Petition to the Queen, which Her Majesty received most graciously, and it is an open secret that it was Her Majesty's wish that the matter should be put right, and that I should no longer suffer from the denial of my rights which I already inherited under the Act of 1824. More than one hundred Peers who addressed that Petition, to the Queen declared most emphatically that I was already Lord Mar by the laws of my country. My Lords, I did not need the Act of 1885, but my friends on my behalf advised me, and I reluctantly

1703
acquiesced, to avail myself of that Bill as a means of getting this House out of a dilemma and difficulty through the continued recognition of Lord Kellie as Mar.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is the noble Lord in Order in calling the Earl of Mar and Kellie the Earl of Kellie?
*THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, what did Lord Mansfield, who I am sorry not to see in his place here, say some time ago? Very soon after the decision of the Committee of Privileges, Lord Mansfield got up in a House of 160 Peers, including the three noble Lords who formed the Committee of Privileges, and who, I must say, fabricated this title for Lord Kellie, and he said fearlessly before this House that "there was not a scrap or tittle of evidence for this new creation which you have conceded to Lord Kellie"; and then he went on to say that "the noble and learned Lords who wrote their judgment must have taken great pains, because to write a judgment with all the facts against you must be a difficult thing to do." If Lord Mansfield was in order in addressing the House, including the noble Lords who formed the Committee themselves, in such powerful and forcible language, I venture to say that I am quite in order in what I say, and that it is for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to call me to Order if he thinks fit. My Lords, I am detaining you to a late hour; there is not much time for all I wish to say. It has been very generally stated that I accepted that Bill of 1885 as a settlement of the question. To that I must give the most complete and emphatic denial. As the hour is late, I cannot venture to read, but I beg to refer your Lordships to, a letter which was printed in the paper Piccadilly last week, and which I recommend to your Lordships' notice, stating that, so far from accepting that Bill, I looked upon it as a very ambiguous advantage to me. I am deeply grateful to Her Majesty for Her wish that some such method should have been adopted, because it was felt that the tardy recognition of my rights, unjustly withheld for ten years, and causing this bar to the property that I refer to, should no longer exist. Therefore I expressed my acknowledgments from
1704
that point of view. But the Bill contained provisions which I believe were drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Selborne, because he confessedly took charge of the Bill before and afterwards in the House—there is a provision in that Bill that Lord Kellie should vote as Earl of Mar, "the Decreet of Ranking and the Union Roll notwithstanding." My Lords, is it respect for law and honour, and upholding the dignity of the whole Peerage that a provision should be made in a Bill, brought in ostensibly as a measure of tardy justice to me, and yet especially to provide that Lord Kellie, another individual, is to vote in a place different from what he had voted in for ten years? If his title of Mar has any solid foundation, why cannot it stand on that foundation, without all this tinkering and tampering with the position of the Earldom of Mar on the Roll accepted as "authentic" at the Union? For ten years he appropriated my place, and voted under the ancient title, through female succession, through a chain of seven ladies; and yet, under the title that your Lordships' House conceded to him in strict male succession, he actually voted in that place for ten years. After that, he has been voting in another place. All the other Peers of Scotland, when they go to Holyrood House, vote in their place in the Roll; they do not vote in one place and then in another. At the election at Holyrood, all the Peerages are put down in their proper places, without dates; but they now call this alleged title of Mar that Lord Kellie assumes, which never has been on the Roll, and never can be, with an assumed date, 1565, after it. Is it not against law and order, and the dignity of the Peerage, which the noble and learned Lord says he has done nothing but uphold, that Lord Kellie's title should rest on such a shallow and shadowy foundation? And, my Lords, he did not pretend to vote under the decision of this House, because he voted directly against it. This House decided that he was entitled to the Peerage of 1565; yet he went against it, and voted under the old title. Now my noble Friend near me will have something to say with regard to the voting at

1705
Holyrood; but, before I conclude, I must say that I think it is very extraordinary that the Act of 1824, and the Report of the Law Officers of the Crown, on which that Act proceeded, should be evaded by your Lordships' House. I must also say, with all respect for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that I think he has failed to answer the two points of the letter—namely, Was not the title of Mar assumed by Lord Kellie as a creation of 1565, under attaint in 1715; and has it ever been restored? I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord, as this letter has been brought forward in this public way by his Lordship, if he will be kind enough—I speak on behalf of the forty-five Peers who signed the letter as well as in my own interest and that of my heirs, and in the interest of the integrity of the Peerage—to put in writing his definite reply to the letter. Does he consider that the title of Mar, conceded to the Earl of Kellie in 1875, and restricted to heirs male has, if it, ever existed, ever been restored: and if so, how is it that the Act of Parliament never mentioned it; because the Act of 1824 mentions only one Earldom of Mar, which your Lordships' House has distinctly acknowledged has been transmitted to me? I say, if it was created in 1565, it was attainted in 1715, and it must either have been restored or not by the Act of 1824. If it has been restored, I hope that Bill of Restoration will be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, so that your Lordships will see the exact position on which the alleged title of Lord Kellie of 1565 stands. If it cannot be produced, there is only one conclusion to be drawn—namely, that the title never has been restored at all because it never existed.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I am really loth to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely there is no Motion before the House. The noble Lord is making a long speech about nothing. Nobody has moved anything. The Lord Chancellor has explained to us what he has done with regard to the letter that he has received, and the noble Lord is now going over the whole of this case again, when really there is no Motion
1706
before the House. I think your Lordships ought to decide whether it is proper that this discussion should continue.
*THE EARL OF MAR: One single word more, as it is so late in the evening. I am happy to say that it is beginning to be understood very widely that the Mar case is a question of property, and that Lord Kellie's assumption of a title of Mar has caused, and still causes, a bar between me and my estates; and I venture to trust that it will be unnecessary that the matter should be taken up vigorously in other quarters, and that your Lordships will uphold the dignity of the House by moving that there should be an investigation into the whole matter, which would tend to terminate the odium that has attached to the House so long, and remove the bar which exists, and the grievous wrong from which I still suffer through my having been prevented from claiming, in the course of law, as Earl of Mar, my estates, which, by the entail, are entailed upon my Peerage.
*THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: My Lords, some of your Lordships, whose faces I recognise before me, are aware that, as at the present moment, I have not always been fortunate in the hour when I have brought on a Motion, cognate with that on the Notice Paper in your Lordships' hands. But I wish to assure your Lordships that on this occasion I really have no intention and no desire to keep you for any length at all; and I think, if you will bear with me while I read just two or three lines of this protest, you will understand why it is that I have felt it my bounden duty, under the Treaty of Union between the two countries, entered into in 1707, to bring this Motion before you. By the provisions of that Treaty of Union, you are bound to hear the protest that I made at the election under Royal Proclamation by Her Majesty's command at Holyrood House, and it is the business of the Lord Clerk Register, whoever may officiate in that position, to accept that protest, and at any rate not to stifle it before he oven knows one word in the protest. That is his duty, ratified especially by the Act of 1847, which I know is an Act specially entitled "to

1707
correct abuses." Now I think it is very unfortunate that my noble Friend, for whom I have always entertained great regard, the noble Duke the Lord Clerk Register, whom I hoped I should have seen in his place on this occasion, is not here; because I do think he was most ill-advised on the occasion—I am quite sure it was not by either of the officiating Clerks on the right and left of him, for I am certain that if he had appealed to them for advice he would have got good advice. It is not for me to say, though I think I could mention it, to whose very foolish advice he gave way; and in consequence did that which I say under the provisions of the Treaty of Union, confirmed again in the year 1847 by a fresh Act of Parliament, was utterly illegal. My request at that time was a most legitimate one to the Lord Clerk Register—to receive from my own hand the protest that I held in that hand. I pressed him, at the same time, to follow the Act of Parliament, by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Parliaments for the knowledge of the House, and that the House might deal with it. Having been precluded from my right in that way, I now ask your Lordships' permission to allow me to hand in this protest which I signed on the 7th December last, three days before our meeting at Holyrood House, on account of being ill at the time, and not expecting to be able to attend. Happily I found myself better, and was able to attend; and therefore I wished to present it in person, which is the usual way if a Peer can be present on the occasion of a Convention of Scotch Peers by Royal Proclamation. Having been unable to induce the Lord Clerk Register to receive it, I hope I shall meet with your Lordships' acquiescence if I now hand it in to the Clerk at the Table; and it will be for your Lordships to say whether you will have it printed, which I should think would certainly be a matter of satisfaction to the House, in order that you may see what is in it. I should have ventured to read it if it were a little earlier. I am quite sure there is not one single word in it that cannot be borne out, and in very appropriate language. I cannot, of course, press my three Resolutions upon your Lordships
1708
under the circumstances of the late hour; but I do say this: that I am quite confident that had you heard the words of the simple protest, you must have come to the conclusion that my three Resolutions were a simple corollary to the protest, narrating the effect of the various provisions of the Treaty of Union, and especially that the only one title of Mar in the Peerage of Scotland, as certified to this House in the year 1707, was what is termed the ancient Earldom descendible in direct line from Isabel Countess of Mar. 1404. I thank your Lordships for having heard me, and I hope you will permit me to hand in this protest to the Clerk at the Table.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Earl moves that, I am sorry to say I feel it my duty to move your Lordships that the Motion be not accepted, and that the noble Lord be not permitted to hand that protest in. My Lords, this matter has been the subject of constant debate, and I believe some unpleasant scenes at the elections in Scotland. The Lord Clerk Register has been good enough to favour me with his view of the grounds upon which he rejected the protest, and they seem to me to be very well-founded and good grounds in law. A protest may mean nothing, and very often it is said that a person may protest and may do no harm, because a protest effects nothing; and I believe some noble Lords have been induced to fall into that view, because they did not understand what the meaning of a protest was at these proceedings in Scotland. That is not quite accurate as applicable to the proceedings there. A protest on that occasion is supposed to have some operation as an appeal for redress to the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord assents to that view, that a protest has a different operation there from what is generally ascribed to it, namely, that as long as the matter was in debate it could be received.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: What matter?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The matter of privilege—namely, the order in which the Earl of Mar should be called. As long as that matter was in debate protests were received. But the Lord Clerk Register was of opinion—and I, for one, think he was absolutely and entirely right—that, to proceed in taking those steps towards the redress of some irregularity in the order of the noble Lords who were then called would be in the face of the Act of Parliament, being entirely inconsistent with the clause of the Earldom of Mar Restoration Act, 1885, which clause is in these words—
"From and after the passing of this Act the Earldom of Mar hereby restored shall be called at all elections of Representative Peers for Scotland next after the Earldom of Sutherland; and the Earldom of Mar now vested in the said Walter Henry, Earl of Mar and Kellie, shall be called at all such elections in the place and order properly belonging to an Earldom created in the year one thousand five hundred and sixty-five."
As I understand, the Protest was against that proceeding, and the Lord Clerk Register was of opinion—and I think he was right,—that to receive the Protest, as a step towards a proceeding in this House in the face of the Act of Parliament, would be irregular and improper; and for those reasons I move the House that the Protest now sought to be handed in by the noble Lord be not received.
Moved, "That the Protest refused acceptance at Holyrood House by the Lord Clerk Register on 10th December, 1891, and now offered for presentation to the House by the Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway), be not received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: May I have one word? I am afraid I cannot have made myself very clear. [Cries of "Order!"] I think I made it clear to your Lordships that I was not allowed to say one word as to what my Protest was to the Lord Clerk Register. [Repeated cries of "Order!"]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): The noble Lord has spoken already.
*THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I am explaining. If any noble Lord says I did say that before, I am afraid I
1710
must have been misunderstood; but I will not press the question now.
*THE EARL OF MAR: The noble and learned Lord has read the provision in the Act with regard to Lord Kellie voting as Earl of Mar in that place. That, my Lords, is the reason why a great many Peers have thought it right to protest at Holyrood; and I was one of those Peers whose Protest was not looked into; therefore how could the Lord Clerk Register know what was in it? He does not know what I said and what I did not say. A great many Peers, I say, felt it their duty to protest at Holyrood against the violation of the Treaty of Union, and the Decreet of Ranking, by going through the farce, as I must call it, and the pretence that there is a second Earldom of Mar, and that Lord Kellie can vote under it, which of course is laughed at throughout Scotland, where everybody knows that the title never existed and never can be on the Roll. My Lords, it has been said by the other side that the Act of 1885 prohibited Protests. I venture to say that if your Lordships look through the Act you will find that there is not one word in it to prohibit Protests; on the contrary it has opened the way to Protests; it is because of that provision that noble Lords have felt it their duty to protest. What does "Robertson's Proceedings at Holyrood Elections" say? That there is a place provided for Peers to protest, and that if they feel aggrieved they must protest. The noble Duke who presided on the occasion may not agree with the terms of Protests, and may not sympathise with them; and I understand the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not sympathise with them; but I say that that is beside the mark entirely. It has been the custom from 1707 for Protests to be made by Peers who feel themselves aggrieved; and I conceive it is their duty to make them. It is a time-honoured custom for the Lord Clerk Register to receive Peers' Protests, and under the legislation of 1847 it becomes the duty of the Lord Clerk Register to transmit those Peers' Protests to this House. My Lords, has that Act of the Legislature of 1847—which you cannot say is obsolete—been acted up to, or has it

1711
been violated? As I have already said, I should be much obliged if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be so kind as to give a direct written answer to the letter of the forty-five Peers; and I ask him the plain question: Has the Lord Clerk Register acted in accordance with the Legislature which enjoins that a certain thing shall be done, or has he not done so? The noble Duke who presided was new to the office, and I think he must have been extremely badly advised, and rather sorry that he acted as he did. My Lords, I may say this matter is well known. What did the Scotsman say? Why, it had a leading article, in which it said that the rejection of Protests was illegal. Do you think that such a respectable paper as the Scotsman would, unless it were true, commit itself to a leading article saying that the noble Duke acted illegally, and giving chapter and verse for it? I venture to say that the question will have to be threshed out and answered; and it is only, I think, consistent with the dignity of this House that the whole matter of what is called the Mar case, and the wrongs I suffer, shall be threshed out from beginning to end by a free and open inquiry—free from the heat of debate in this House—by investigation by a Committee or in some other manner.
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene in this discussion, but I was present upon the occasion of the election which has given rise to the Motion which is proposed to be made by the noble Lord behind me, and I have in my hand the official Minutes of what took place on that occasion; they are in a public document, printed by Order of your Lordships' House, and anyone can refer to it. On Page 4 will be found a clear, succinct, and, in my opinion, accurate account of what took place. It is quite short, and I will read it to your Lordships—
"During the calling of the Roll, and immediately after the title of the Earl of Mar of 1565 had been called, Mr. W. C. Smith, Advocate, as Procurator for the Earl of Mar, rose and said that he understood that although Lord Kellie was not present he had sent in a signed list.
1712
"The Lord Clerk Register rose and inquired as to the purport of counsel's interruption, and object to be gained.
"Mr. Smith replied that it was to lodge, as on previous occasions, a Protest against the Earl of Kellie answering to the title of Mar.
"The Lord Clerk Register said it had been decided by Act of Parliament that the Earl of Mar and Kellie should be called in the position in which his name was on the Roll, and as it would require an Act of Parliament to alter that he must decline to receive any protest.
"Mr. Smith said the object of his intervention had been misunderstood."
Then he made a short speech, and after that—
"The Lord Clerk Register said he thought this was an interruption of the proceedings. It was impossible to go back on the Act of Parliament, and if there was to be any Protest it must be to the House of Lords.
"The Earl of Galloway rose and said he hoped the Lord Clerk Register would allow him a word He thought his Lordship had misunderstood the object of the learned counsel. His request, as he (the Earl of Galloway) understood it, was that his Lordship should receive this Protest, as had always, from time immemorial, been done, and forward it to the House of Lords. That was the whole object, as he understood it, of the learned counsel. He thought it would be found that there had never been any objection yet to any Protest of the kind being received. The Lord Clerk Register said he had not thought it right to interrupt the noble Earl in his remarks; being a Peer, he was quite entitled to make them. But he had already said that he must decline to receive the Protest that had been attempted to be lodged."
And now, my Lords, comes the decision of the Lord Clerk Register. And here I pause to say that the Lord Clerk Register has communicated with me by a letter that I received this morning, saying that if any allusion was made to his absence he desired it to be explained that he was serving in Scotland with the Yeomanry, and that the interval since the noble Earl's Motion had appeared on the Paper was too short to enable him to get here in time for this discussion. Therefore I can assure the noble Earl that it is through no discourtesy on the part of the noble Duke that he is not here on this occasion. My Lords, it is inaccurate to suppose that the Lord Clerk Register acted without precedent at the recent election. He followed the precedent set at the Election on the 6th January, 1890, when the late Lord Glasgow was Lord Clerk Register, and delivered a written judgment upon the matter terminating in these words—

1713
"Inasmuch, therefore, as the Protests now tendered are entirely inconsistent with these clauses of the Earldom of Mar Restitution Act, 1885, the said Protests cannot be received or recorded. It could only be minuted that the Protests were tendered, and that they were neither received nor recorded."
Now an attempt has been made, I am perfectly sure in good faith, to indicate that that is in contravention of the terms of the Act of 1847. It is not so. I thought that point would be raised, and I have prepared myself upon the subject. The duty of the Lord Clerk Register, as enjoined in the Act of 1847, is to record and transmit all Protests to the House of Lords. It may be observed that the allegation of the noble Earl in his Motion is that that Act enjoins upon the Lord Clerk Register the duty of recording and transmitting all Protests to the House of Lords. Those are not the terms of the Act. Section 3 directs that where any Protest shall be made by any two or more Peers against a claim to vote, the Lord Clerk Register "shall forthwith transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a certified copy," not of the Protest, but "of the whole proceedings at such meeting." My Lords, the Lord Clerk Register has done so, and I hold in my hand, and have read from, the Minutes taken on that occasion; and I maintain that, in the course he took, the Lord Clerk Register has acted according to the spirit and the letter of the Act of 1847. And I do not think that the Act of 1847 can be made out, in any way whatever, to lay a greater duty upon the Lord Clerk Register. My Lords, the result of those Protests, if transmitted to this House, would be to lead this House into an inquiry into the matter raised by such Protests. But it has been pointed out—and into that I shall certainly not go—by three noble and learned Lords, that that matter is res judicata, and it is absurd to ask that an inquiry shall be made into a matter which has been directly settled by an Act of Parliament: unless that Act of Parliament is repealed. My Lords, I apologise for having trespassed upon your Lordships' time, and I certainly should not have done so if it had not been, first, that I was present upon the occasion; and, secondly, owing to the absence of the noble Marquess, whom
1714
we Scottish Peers recognise as our leader—an absence which arises from a cause with which every one of your Lordships will sympathise, and but for which I should not have thought it right to intrude myself upon the House.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.

ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
Ordered to be laid before the House,
Report of a Committee appointed by the Board of Admiralty to inquire into the amount of compensation to be awarded to the late corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers.—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
POLICE RETURNS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3"a on Thursday next.
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a and passed.
PIER AND HABOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committeee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Amendment reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl Stanhope.) (No. 208.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord President [V. Cranbrook].) (No. 209.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 210.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. — (The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 211.)
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Watson.) (No. 212.)
MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Knutsford.) (No. 213.)
BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. — (The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 214.)

SHOPS HOURS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Knutsford.) (No. 215.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock.