The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-04-19 00:00:00

DEATH OF THE DUKE OP BITCOLETICH.

The Duke of Buccleuch died early on Wednesday
morning at his residence, Bowhill, Selkirkshire, in the
78th year of his age. The Standard, in an obituary
notice of the late duke, says: As the head both of the
Scotch Peerage and of the Tory interest in Scotland,
his position was unique, and his political influence,
both direct and indirect, unrivalled. His Grace was
born on the 25th of November, 1806, and succeeded
to the title and estates, while still a minor, in 1819.
He entered public life as a representative of the
old Scotch Toryism which was so powerful before
the Reform Bill, a measure which he opposed
to the best of his ability, dwelling par-
ticularly on the alleged wrong done to
Scotland, which ought, he declared, to have
had eighteen additional members instead of
eight. On the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office
in 1841, the Duke of Buckingham was appointed
Lord Privy Seal, but resigning his office in conse-
quence of Sir Robert Peel's views upon the Corn
Laws, was succeeded by the Duke of Buccleuch, who
subsequently became Lord President of the Council.
in place of Lord Wharncliffe. While in this position
be had the management of a good deal of legislation
of a useful and practical character, and showed all
that turn for business which is so general a character-
istic of our large landed proprietors. He was
chairman of a Sanitary Commission appointed in
1842 to consider the best means of improving the
dwellings of the poor; and his speeches in the House
of Lords attest the deep interest which he took
in this important social question. This was
just about the period of the great Free Church
secession in Scotland, which the Duke, as a strong
Conservative, regarded, of course, with much dislike.
But he seems to have been very undeservedly attacked
for his behaviour in connection with it. The seceders
had sufficient influence to get their case brought before
the House of Lords by the Marquis of Breadalbane,
who complained of the refusal of Scotch proprietors
to grant sites for kirks to the new body of Dissenters.
In the petition which he laid before the House the
Duke of Buccleuch was mentioned by name, but
he defended himself with much spirit, saying that
he had been described by the agitators as a " god-
less tyrant," and maintaining that the seceders
ought to be satisfied with the same accommodation
as was afforded to other Dissenters in Scotland,
and procure what they wanted in the towns. He
at the same time, expressed himself with considerable
severity on the conduct of those "itinerant agitators,"
who make religion an excuse for attacking the insti-
tutions of the country, and setting class against class.
The debates afford tolerably ,conclusive evidence that
. the duke took rather after his father than his grand-
father, who, according to Sir Walter Scott, was too
soft-natured, and allowed his kindness to be abused.
The duke, however, was a liberal and public-spirited
nobleman, and the pier and breakwater at Granton,
constructed at an expense of nearly a million, are the
last monuments of his munificence, which is likely for
long time, at all events, to be its own reward.