HL Deb 22 June 1903 vol 124 cc15-31
*THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

, who had given notice, "To ask His Majesty's Government whether Mr. Fellowes, representing His Majesty's Government, is correctly reported as having said on 21st April that the Lord High Commissioner's decision not to inhabit Holyrood Palace had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works, and to inquire what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence for the Sovereign or his representative; and to move for Papers." said: My Lords, before I put the Question of which I have given notice, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words as to the circumstances which have led to it. Your Lordships may remember that about two months ago a notice appeared in a leading paper, the Scotsman, that I, as His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, would not reside this year in Holyrood Palace. This brought about a storm of correspondence in the Press and speeches in Parliament. I may say that the attacks were almost as vigorous as they were numerous. The correspondence may be summed up under these two heads—first, that I have deserted and abandoned Holyrood lightly and without due reason; and, secondly, that I have done so without communicating my decision to His Majesty's Government. My position, representing His Majesty, is a high one. I feel that the right place to meet these accusations is your Lordships' House, and I should like to be allowed a few words to describe, as far as I can, the office which I have the honour to hold. It is less well known this side of the Tweed than I could wish. The Lord High Commissioner's appointment is an annual one, usually made about the month of March, and his duties are primarily to represent the Sovereign at the great General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which meets every year to carry out and to look after the interests of that Church. He opens the Assembly and attends its sitting as a rule every morning, and he continues during the whole of its session, which generally last about twelve days, to attend until he dissolves the Assembly at the close of its labours.

That is the sum-total, I think, of his actual duties. But in addition to these actual duties a great deal of extra work has grown up. It has become the custom to entertain very large numbers at dinner. Many years ago it was a very much smaller matter. I have heard that fifty or sixty years ago the appointment was a comparatively lucrative one. I find from Dr. Ramsay, who for many years was Purse-bearer to the Lord High Commissioner, that in the year 1852 a relative of the noble Lord on my right was then Lord High Commissioner and he was the first to get leave to have rooms in Holyrood Palace. Up to that time it had been the custom to entertain some leading men in the General Assembly at one of the hotels of the town. My own ancestors, I believe, who during the 18th century were there for over thirty years, went about in Bath chairs and dined at pothouses wherever they had an opportunity. Lord Belhaven, however, got leave to go to Holyrood, and as this was somewhat further off than the inn at which he had been accustomed to entertain, he invited the Lord Provost and a few others to dine with him there. That was the way the dinners began. They grew in the course of time until they averaged between 300 and 400 people in the twelve days. But by degrees that has grown and grown until, when I had the honour of being first appointed, something like 1,200 people came to dine in the twelve days. I do not complain; I merely mention the fact. It is a very pleasant thing and I enjoy it very much, but it ought to be understood that this is the case. In addition to that, we have large assemblies in the evenings which represent, as a rule, 600, 700, or 800 persons, according to the number of people who happen to be in Edinburgh. That is probably about the sum-total of what the entertainments really amount to, but your Lordships will readily see that entertainments of this size require a very large staff of servants. They cannot be carried on without a very large staff. During the last six years my household living in the house has averaged something like sixty or seventy, with thirty or forty more who are there all day long and in the evening. That puts a great strain upon any drains. It is not like an ordinary household of twenty, thirty, or forty people.

I have already said that my appointment is usually made in the month of March. The General Assembly sits in the middle of May, and the two months which elapse constitute a very short time in which to make the very large contracts necessary to carry out these entertainments. I therefore gave the Secretary for Scotland a gentle hint that if the appointment could be made a little sooner it would prevent rather serious handicapping of the Lord High Commissioner, who has to make these contracts in a short time, and is some times troubled with the difficulty of getting them done. Consequently, this year, with the view of enabling me to make these contracts more easily, I was appointed about the last week or February. It was not until the 17th of March that I happened to hear, while I was in London, on what I thought was sound authority, that there was really a serious question about the drains at Holyrood. Within half-an-hour I went to the Chief Commissioner of Works and asked him if he would be good enough to let me see the Report which I understood had been obtained as to the condition of the drains. Lord Windsor received me most cordially, and said it was perfectly right and that he would send me the Report next morning. On the following day, the 18th of March, that Report had not arrived. I had made arrangements to go abroad on the 19th, and, as I did not want to trouble my noble friend, I wrote an urgent letter to the Secretary of the Office of Works, Sir Schomberg M'Donnell, to the effect that these large contracts which were already being negotiated by my Purse-bearer were hanging in the air, that if I could not go to Holyrood they must be cancelled, and that it was, therefore, an urgent matter. On the 19th I received no Report, but I got a note from Sir Schomberg M'Donnell in which he said— There is no danger for you or your household. It would be very different with the King with his Court. Under such conditions the existing drainage would be inadequate. But as I have something like seventy or eighty people in my household, and thirty or forty more there all day long, it appeared to me that even His Majesty could not fill the Palace very much more than I did, and that what was quite inadequate for His Majesty and his Court might perhaps not be quite safe for me. On the 19th I had to leave England, and I wrote again. I have no doubt that my noble friend will give some explanation; but, though I continued writing first to the First Commissioner of Works, and then to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, it was not until the 30th that I received extracts from the Report. Lord Windsor, with the kindness which always distinguishes him, telegraphed that the Report should be sent at once. That was on 25th March, but, as I say, I did not receive the extracts till the 30th. The matter was, therefore, at that moment of quite extreme urgency. Contracts representing £600, £700, or £800 were hanging in the air, and I had to decide one way or the other at once. Sir Schomberg M'Donnell suggested that I should get an independent Report. It was perfectly impossible for me to let these things hang up while I got this independent Report; moreover, I did not see why I wanted an independent Report.

After receiving the extracts on 30th March I wrote on the same day to Lord Windsor at the Office of Works, and to Lord Balfour as Secretary for Scotland, asking if they thought it necessary to convey a message to His Majesty to express my extreme regret that I could not reside at Holyrood. I gave them briefly my reasons. What I said was— These drains appear to be very defective. There is a public sewer at one end, and they open into bedrooms at, the other. Under these circumstances, I ought not to put a great crowd of people into the Palace. I did that entirely on my own responsibility. Nobody else had anything to do with it. That was on 30th March, and you will understand my surprise when I came home to find that on 21st April, three weeks afterwards, Mr. Fellowes was reported to have said, in reply to Mr. Dewar, the Member for Inverness-shire, that the question of my not living in Holyrood had created great consternation in Scotland, and had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works. I cannot say when they received my letter of 30th March, but I sent it through my Purse-Bearer, and I do not think he could have delayed it many days. At any rate, the letter to the First Commissioner was despatched at the same time and in the same way as the letter to Lord Balfour which the latter acknowledged on the 11th of April, ten days before Mr. Fellowes' speech. I think Lord Windsor will agree that I have some reason to ask, first of all, what was the cause of the delay in sending the Report, and, secondly, how it came to be such a surprise to the Office of Works. There may be some doubt as to the precise words Mr. Fellowes used, because, although I have referred to Hansard, I find he is not reported in the first, person. But there can be no doubt as to the meaning of his words, because I find it from several speeches and articles which appeared afterwards. Mr. Dewar asked the question, Mr. Fellowes replied to it, and immediately afterwards Mr. Shaw, the Member for the Border Burghs, said— The Government say they are very much surprised. Mr. Weir said the Government ought not to come down and tell the House that they were surprised, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said— Lord Leven, I believe, was in constant communication with the Government, and the Prime Minister replied— I believe that is not so. On 22nd April Sir John Stirling-Maxwell brought the question up in another place, and Mr. Fellowes replied; but he did not retract anything as to this great surprise, and there appeared in the Scotsman on the 23rd, an article saying— We have been assured that until the unofficial statement was made in our columns on 17th April no Minister or Government Department had heard of Lord Leven's intentions. I have Lord Balfour's acknowledgment of my letter, dated the 11th. The Scotsman on the 23rd went on to say— What Mr. Fellowes does say is that it is a great surprise to the Office of Works to hear that Lord Leven is not going to reside at Holyrood. The same paper on the same day said— Lord Leven forgot the people and he forgot the Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues.' Very vigorous language was used, and I think it is fair that the explanation should be made as publicly as the statement which was made in another place.

I leave that now, and come to the second indictment, which accuses me, without due cause, of having neglected and abandoned the ancient Palace of Holyrood. In many of these letters and speeches it was stated that I was thereby insulting the nation, showing a most offensive indifference to the Church and the Assembly over which I presided, and violating ancient traditions. I did not readily leave Holyrood Palace. I left it with most extreme regret, but in the face of the Report which I received I felt that I had no option but to leave.

His Lordship then read extracts from the Report showing that of the thirty-two water closets in the Palace nineteen would have to be removed or altered; several of these were in the walls of bedrooms, and one discharged into a rain-pipe. Some of the scullery sinks were also described as defective, and, apparently, discharging direct into the main drain. Reference was also made to unventilated pan-closets in walls adjoining bedrooms.

Continuing, his Lordship said: Of course, if the external arrangements had been very perfect a good deal might have been done by vigorous flushing. But when I come to the external drains I find that the Report states that the present outfall sewer of the Palace is built of rubble and very imperfect, that its level is too high to permit of a safe fall for the drainage of the Palace, and, as a consequence, the drains very quickly become choked. I did not think that was a house in which to put four or five scores of people. It is quite true that for five years previously I had lived there, and my predecessors had lived there, and that we had had no illness; but drains every year get a year older. Besides that, there was the additional strain upon them this year in that His Majesty was coming to Edinburgh the week previous to the General Assembly. You will readily see, therefore, that the danger was in increasing ratio. I do not think I am fairly subject to any great indignation from my countrymen or anyone else because I declined to put a large number of people into a house in that condition. The number of people themselves constitute a source of danger. The scullery refuse alone, owing to the enormous number of meals prepared in the Palace, would have been enough to choke most drains; however efficient. I entertain at regular dinner parties about 1,200 people in the twelve days, and then I have 100 people in the house during that time, each eating three meals a day at least, which makes 3,600 more meals, or a total of 4,800 meals in the twelve days. Besides that there are the stables and the military band of thirty or forty men. It seemed to me that this was a serious matter. It appeared to be a dangerous thing to do, and I decided at once that I would not do it, and I communicated my decision to the Secretary for Scotland and to the First Commissioner of Works at the earliest possible opportunity.

I now come to quite a different subject. The announcement was made in the Scotsman of the 17th of April. It was due to the extreme delay of getting the Report that all the trouble and correspondence took place. The news that I was not going to Holyrood leaked out when the contracts began to be cancelled. The Scotsman on the 17th sent to the Purse-bearer and asked for an official announcement of what we were going to do—was I going to be in Holyrood or not. The Purse-bearer said it was impossible for him at that moment to give any official announcement as the contracts were not completed. I suppose the Scotsman could not wait, for next morning the article appeared. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with the letters and speeches, but some of them were rather amusing One man said that my salary ought to be taken away, and that he was sure that it was from motives of economy that I did not go to Holyrood. He said— Lord Leven ought to face typhoid because he is paid for it. I suppose he did not know that my allowance only covers about two-thirds of my expenses. In fact, I really live at the rate of £90,000 a year for the twelve days. Another correspondent wrote— His not to reason why, His but to sniff and die. A third said that in dining elsewhere I was violating ancient traditions. Well, till within the last fifty years they always did dine elsewhere. Some of the critics were perhaps a little vicious. These correspondents seem to think that their mission in life is to go about stinging and showing up people without any particular reason. They remind me rather of the old lady's remark in regard to fleas. "I don't object to fleas," she said, "but I don't like the way they get their living." I have no fault to find with the critics. One thing is plain; they have evoked the national feeling, the passionate desire that Holyrood should be maintained. That spot throbs with historic memories; there is no place which appeals so strongly to our national sentiment and patriotism. On the site of the ancient Abbey, a cradle of the Church, a sanctuary and place of refuge through centuries of strife and turmoil, it is like sacred ground. Beneath the shadow of that hill, those towering crags, the landmarks of the capital, at the foot of perhaps the most interesting street in the Kingdom, still beautiful in the quaintness of its ancient homes of Scotland's nobility, dominated by that castle whose history is the nation's history, the Palace of Holyrood stands splendid in its quiet dignity. I do not plead on my own behalf. I ask on behalf of the Scottish nation that this ancient monument should be maintained and handed down to future generations as the home of the Scottish Sovereign. The Papers I move for are a plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it now exists, along with full reports showing the internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and the external drainage system as existing to-day, and a report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.

Moved that there be laid before the House—1. A plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it exists; 2. A full report, showing—(a) The internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and its external drainage system as existing to-day; (b) A report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.—(The Earl of Leven and Melville.)

*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR

My Lords, I should like to say at the very outset that I regret it extremely if anything has been said on behalf of the Office of Works which should give the impression for one single moment that I wish to transfer any blame which ought to rest upon myself to the shoulders of my noble friend. That, I am sure, he will acquit me of; it is the last thing I should attempt. But I think that he really has misinterpreted the answer that was given in the other House by Mr. Fellowes. I did not hear the debate myself, but I find from Hansard that Mr. Fellowes said— He knew that the question had created great consternation in Scotland, and he might say, on behalf of the Board of Works, that what they had heard and seen during the last two or three days had come as a great surprise to them. That I take to mean that the consternation and the outcry in the Scotsman was what occasioned the Office of Works great surprise. The Prime Minister, too, afterwards said in the same debate that it had never occurred to him that the fact that the High Commissioner thought it safer in the existing condition of the drains at Holyrood to live in an hotel would be the cause of an outbreak of national sentiment. That was certainly what the reply of Mr. Fellowes was intended to mean; but if the language was ambiguous I repeat that I regret very much that it should have been so interpreted, and that the noble Lord has any justification for thinking that blame has unduly been put upon his shoulders. There are one or two points in his speech that I must refer to briefly. I venture to think that I can show the House and the noble Earl that his grievance is against the Scotsman, and not against His Majesty's Government. I should like to say a word with regard to the delay in giving the noble Earl the Report upon which the Office of Works acted in recommending that the state of the drainage in Holyrood Palace was not such as could justify His Majesty occupying the Palace during his last visit to Edinburgh. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl says, that he saw me personally and asked me to let him see the Report. That was, as he explained to the House, on the eve of his departure abroad. I was unable until the next day to get at the Office, and it was impossible then to part with the actual Report. A copy had to be made for the noble Earl's inspection, and it did not arrive on the Continent, I regret to say, until ten days after. It might have reached him a few days before, I believe. I am sorry that there was any delay in his seeing the Report. But he will forgive me for reminding him that he mentioned in a letter to me that he had heard in October last from Sir Schomberg McDonnell that the condition of the drains in Holyrood Palace was bad, and he was told that if he would come to the Office of Works there was a Report open for his inspection.

*THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I have no recollection of Sir Schomberg's saying anything of the kind. What he told me was that the drains were in a bad condition, and I urged that they should not be touched in the winter. I never heard any more. I thought the drains were not in that serious condition, until I came to London and saw my noble friend.

*LORD WINDSOR

Of course I quite accept what my noble friend says, but I was under the impression that at that time he was informed that the Report was open to his inspection if he desired to see it. But that is not his recollection.

*THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I cannot say absolutely that it was not so; but I have no recollection of it. It was mentioned to me in an offhand way at a dinner. I said I was sorry to hear it, and that if the drains were touched in the winter they would be sure to be bad again in the spring.

*LORD WINDSOR

The point I make is that this Report was asked for on the eve of the noble Earl's departure for abroad, and that it was necessary to make a copy. Though I admit it might have reached him a day or two before it did, still it was only a question of whether the Office of Works could have got out a copy of the Report a day or two before they actually did. What I do wish to make quite clear to him and to the House is that there was no intention whatever of keeping back that Report from him, or of concealing it in any way in the Office of Works, so that those who had a perfect right to see it should not do so. There was another point in which I do not think the noble Earl correctly interpreted the debate in the other House. He referred to what Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said. He stated that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had asked whether the High Commissioner had not been in communication with the Government, and that the Prime Minister had replied that it was not so. But that is not, I think, quite the correct interpretation of what was said. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman was referring to the Lord High Commissioner's knowledge of the state of Holyrood Palace from the fact that he resided there for certain stated times for several years past, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said that what had been urged was that this was a piece of mismanagement on the part of a Department of the Government, because Lord Leven, whose knowledge of Holyrood Palace as a habitable house was derived from the experience of past years, had doubtless represented the condition of affairs to the Board of Works. He said that no doubt while in residence there he was in constant communication with the Office of Works. That was what the Prime Minister said he understood was not so, and I think my noble friend will agree with me that he did not complain, when he was in residence in Holyrood Palace, to the Government that the condition of the drainage was bad. Therefore, I do not think that the answers which were given in that particular case were otherwise than perfectly correct.

There is another question on which I should like to say a word—the question of blame that may be thought to attach to the Government and myself representing the Office of Works in this matter. I think that if this is looked at calmly, without the, shall I say, irritating effects of the Scotsman before us, we shall see that it is impossible in the case of all country houses to alter completely the whole system of the drainage each time that some professor of sanitary science discovers some newer and better method. It inevitably comes to this—that you arrive, after a certain number of years, at the conclusion that the system of drainage is antiquated and that the whole thing must be redone. It may be said, at any time when you arrive at that point, that you ought to have discovered it before, but, as I say, you cannot continue year after year completely to alter the system of your drainage. You have to keep it in good order, and go on with it, until after a certain time the newer methods have to be adopted. With regard to the upkeep and maintenance of the drainage at Holyrood, I do not think there is any complaint to be made. The system is antiquated. There is a new main sewer being put in in the town which will enable a better outfall from Holyrood to be made, and though the Government considered it right, after the Report they had received that His Majesty should not be advised to occupy Holyrood, they had taken a sum of money in the Estimates for this year for the purpose of putting the drainage in a satisfactory state. My noble friend asks in his Question what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence of the Sovereign or his representative. We believe that the money we have got this year will put Holyrood Palace into a perfectly fit condition to receive the Sovereign. The work is to be put in hand at once, and the intention is to complete it, if possible, by the end of this year. Further, I may assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Government to see that the work is thoroughly and efficiently carried out, so that there shall be no question whatever at any future time of advising His Majesty that Holyrood Palace is not in a fit condition to receive him. That is the intention of the Government, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Earl to refrain from pressing for the Papers for which he has asked.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I have some diffidence in interfering in this interesting discussion, but I must confess that the statement of the First Commissioner of Works leaves something to be desired as an answer to the statement made by the Lord High Commissioner. The First Commissioner has gone into generalities, with which I perfectly agree, as to the impossibility of varying a system of drainage annually according to the views of any expert that you may consult. But that is not the point which I understand was raised by the Lord High Commissioner. He says that nothing has been done to the drainage at Holyrood, and it is no answer to say that you cannot annually vary the system of drainage according to the report of experts. As I under stand the matter, the report of the experts was distinctly unfavourable, and, therefore, I think that we shall all agree that the Lord High Commissioner was justified in feeling some apprehension at visiting the Palace or residing in it in existing circumstances. But think the whole gravamen of this charge has been missed by the First Commissioner. There used to be a story of Lord Holland, a nephew of Mr. Fox's—I think it was the third Lord Holland—that when in office in the Cabinet, and any thorny question of administration came up for discussion, he was in the habit of saying, Fiat experimentum in corpore vili. Let the experiment be tried in Scotland before going any further. I think that the real sting of what has occurred in the Lord High Commissioner's mind, is that it was proposed that he should be the vile corpus on which the experiment of residence in Holyrood should be tried, under the somewhat unfavourable conditions he has described with so much minuteness, and I doubt not with so much accuracy. I do not want to lay too much stress on the informal note of Sir Schomberg McDonnell, but it was certainly almost brutal in its frankness with reference to the possibility of my noble friend residing in Holyrood and the impossibility of His Majesty going there with his Court. I think that is the real case that the First Commissioner has to meet. The truth of the whole matter is this—that if the Lord High Commissioner had had time to make his own announcement in his own way, things would have gone very differently. I cannot answer for the Scotsman newspaper here. I am not qualified to act in its defence, but I quite agree with my noble friend that its hand falls uncommonly heavy on those whom it wished to smite. No one can speak with more painful experience than myself, but I quite agree with the Government that they cannot be responsible for the truculent nature of their own organ in Scotland. I do not believe that the Secretary for Scotland inspired its phillippics against my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner. I could have wished in the interests of this historic Palace, that we could have heard less of the seamier and darker side of the arrangements of that edifice, but it was necessary, for the proof of my noble friend's case, and I trust with all my heart that the discussion may result in the consummation he so devoutly wishes, to render the Palace sufficiently cleanly and healthy for the residence of the Lord High Commissioner next year.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, I certainly should not have risen but for the final challenge of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think, if I may venture to say so, that he misses one point in the difficulties which beset the Office of Works in regard to this matter. The state of Holyrood was found in the course of the winter to be not satisfactory. I need not go further into the matter, because I think it was admitted by everybody that it was not entirely satisfactory. It was impossible to take it in hand, as I understand, early in the winter for two reasons. In the first place, nothing of the magnitude required could be done until the House of Commons had voted the necessary supplies for the purpose, and therefore it was absolutely impossible to do the work before the time when the Lord High Commissioner had to take up his residence in Holyrood. It was also, I understand, physically impossible to get such work as was necessary completed before the date fixed for His Majesty's visit to Scotland. His Majesty was not going to reside in Holyrood for the reasons which were announced at the time, and it would obviously not have been wise to be digging at the drains at the time, and while there were Courts and levées going on there. The noble Earl put his finger upon the real cause of the outcry when he indicated that if a judicious and frank announcement had been made of the reason why the Lord High Commissioner had resolved not to reside in Holyrood this year at a sufficiently early date, no strong feeling would have been evinced in regard to the matter. Perhaps I may venture to say, as my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner mentioned my name in his statement, that so far as I am concerned officially I have nothing to do with the noble Earl's appointment; I have nothing to do myself with Holyrood, nor have I any sort of control, official or otherwise, over the place where the Lord High Commissioner resides. It is perfectly true that my noble friend left a letter for me to be delivered after he had gone abroad, stating that he could not reside in Holyrood. But my noble friend will bear me out when I say that the moment I heard of his decision I telegraphed to him urging that a proper announcement should be made, and warning him that unless that was done, a considerable amount of feeling would arise. I ventured to say that if it had been frankly announced on the part of the Lord High Commissioner, either directly or through his Purse-bearer, that in the circumstances, and for this year only, he could not occupy Holyrood, nothing would be said about it at all. But there was a sort of vague apprehension, perhaps stimulated by interested persons, that this was part of a consistent policy to abandon Holyrood altogether, and this gave a certain amount of force to the outcry and the agitation. I know perfectly well that the Lord High Commissioner had no such intention, because he knows as well as I do what Scottish sentiment in regard to Holyrood is, and that such a thing would not have been tolerated. I think a great deal has been made by the noble Earl of a certain amount of newspaper correspondence, which after this lapse of time it was hardly worth while to dig up from the obscurity into which it had gone. But he has liberated his soul, and, therefore, I hope the matter will end. But I repeat what I began by saying, that the noble Earl of Rosebery was, I think, absolutely correct when he said that if a judicious announcement had been made on the part of the Lord High Commissioner at the moment it was first decided not to occupy Holyrood Palace this year, we should never have heard of a tenth part of the correspondence which has taken place in regard to it. I am authorised to repeat, if there should be any doubt about it, that I know it to be the intention of the Office of Works to do all they can to put Holyrood Palace into a thoroughly satisfactory state of sanitation I hope the House will allow the matter to rest there, and that my noble friend, who has indicated his intention to move for Papers, will not at any rate at present press the Motion further.

*THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I need hardly say that it is with great satisfaction that I accept the explanation of Lord Windsor, that it was not intended to convey the impression that I had not communicated to His Majesty's Government or to him any intention not to reside at Holyrood. As to blame, I do not think any excuse was needed for not having repaired the drains since they were found faulty in October of last year. It would have been impossible to have effected such work properly during the winter months; in my opinion it would have been perfect madness. I never imputed any blame to the Office of Works for not attempting what I think it would have been a most imprudent thing to do. I accept with great frankness my noble friend's assurance. Lord Balfour seemed to imply that I ought to have made an official announcement in time, that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, but if he will go back to the dates he will find that it was not possible. I was away and my Purse-bearer could not be expected to state officially that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, unless he was in a position to state where I was going to stay. It was quite impossible that he could make any announcement until the contracts were complete. Upon the assurance which has been given I will not press for Papers. The Government have promised to put the drainage right, and I think they had better.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.