§ On the Earl of MAR rising to put a question, of which he had given notice, to the Lord Chancellor, namely—
- "1. Whether his Lordship will read to the House the whole of the letter addressed to him by 45 Peers, referred to on the 21st instant, which points out that the entail of the Mar estates at Alloa in 1739 specially provides that, should the ancient Earldom of Mar, attainted in 1715, be restored (as it was restored through female heirship by Act of Parliament in 1824), the nearest heirs male and female who succeed under the said entail to these estates shall carry the said restored honours of Mar; and which letter also points out that the denial of the rights of the holder of the said ancient Earldom of Mar (thus restored), under the said Act of 1824, to claim these Mar estates as Earl of Mar, was not good in law, being in direct disregard of the said Act of 1824; and also that the alleged 'Earldom of Mar created in 1565,' assumed by the Earl of Kellie, not having been restored by the said Act of 1824 from the attainder of 1715, is, if it ever existed, still under attaint;
- 2. Whether, as his Lordship observed on the 21st instant, that the said letter 'contained a great number of statements of fact and law which are inaccurate,' he will kindly send to the Peers who signed that letter an answer in writing to the said points raised therein; and also be good enough to state definitely in
1885 writing all the alleged inaccuracies, and explain exactly in what respect these statements are 'inaccurate'"—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, before the noble Earl puts the question upon the Paper, I think, both in justice to the noble Lords who sent the letter to me signed with their names, and in justice to myself, I ought to ask him whether, since the explanation I gave the other night, he has received the authority of those noble Lords to put that question again, and especially in the form in which it now stands on the Paper?
THE EARD OF MARMy Lords, in answer to the question that the noble and learned Lord has just put to me, I have not had an opportunity of seeing all the noble Lords who signed that letter, but I have seen some of them, and I consider myself quite justified, on behalf of those whom I have seen, in saying briefly that—
*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONMy Lords, I rise to move that the noble Lord be not heard. After what took place on Tuesday night when this matter was under discussion, and the very full and clear statement made by the Lord Chancellor who put before us all the facts,—in fact it was more like reading a written judgment than anything else, because he went so minutely into the details,—and after what fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) and from Lord Selborne, it seems to me that we should be guilty of disrespect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and that it would not be consistent with the dignity of this House, if again to-night the very same question should be discussed as was discussed, and, as I think, very properly dealt with on Tuesday night. I therefore ask your Lordships not to hear the noble Earl.
§ Moved, "That the Earl of Mar be not heard."—(The. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I must say that I agree with the noble Duke, and I should put it very much on this ground: that it seems to me indecorous and improper that any 1886 case which has been decided by litigation should be constantly a matter of Debate in this House.
§ Motion agreed to.