MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 June 1874)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, that it might hardly seem necessary, after the announcement that had been just made by the noble Duke, to make any remarks on the Motion which he had now to propose to the House. No extended remarks from him would indeed have been necessary if the noble Duke had not accompanied his acceptance of the Motion by an insinuation that no good would be served by it. His proposition was that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present method of electing Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland, and to report what changes might be desirable therein. He should have been glad to have embodied this with the proposition which had been just made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Inchiquin), only that he had failed to discover how the noble Lord's Motion would meet the case of Scotland in any satisfactory manner. He therefore felt bound to bring forward his Motion; and he also felt bound, notwithstanding the intimation of the noble Duke, to make a few observations thereon, for the purpose of showing their Lordships that a genuine and practical grievance existed. To begin with, there was great confusion in connection with the election of Scottish Peers. There was no possible means whereby an objectionable vote could be rejected; and it was possible for two or three Peers to vote under the same title without any means of ascertaining the person really entitled to vote. No doubt the subject had not been altogether overlooked since the passing of the Act of Union to which so much reference had been made. A Committee sat on the subject in 1847, and examined two witnesses. To one of these witnesses these questions were put:— Suppose that there was one Peer of the 16 that had 20 votes and another had 21, of which 21 a claimant under a dormant peerage, voting under protest, was one, should you in that case be obliged to return the person that had the 21 votes?—I think so. Should you make any representation in the Returns of the election being carried by a protested vote?—Not on the Return, but in the Minutes. Does the Minute accompany the Return?—No. Then the Return on the face of it, would merely bear that A, B, was elected, although his 1490 election has been carried by votes under protest?—Yes. Surely such a system as this, by which a Peer might come to that House without having received a sufficient number of valid votes, called for Parliamentary interference. But this was only one instance of many that could be adduced of the unsatisfactory working of the present system. If, for instance, a Scottish nobleman was suffering from a twitch of conscience through a feeling that he had been improperly elected, there were no means open to him by which he could resign his seat in the House; so that in effect it was impossible for the House to get rid of a Peer who had been wrongly elected, or for such a Peer to get rid of himself. This was not, certainly, a state of affairs which should be perpetuated. The only remedy was for the Government to recommend that such a person should be made a Peer of the United Kingdom. Surely it was an unsatisfactory way of getting rid of a Scotch Representative Peer who had been unduly elected by making him a Peer of Great Britain even if the Government were prepared to do so. Then as regarded the system of election, a very great hardship was inflicted upon the Scotch Peerage by the manner in which the votes were taken; because an absolute majority of one would return the whole 16 Representative Peers. Again, there was another great hardship suffered by the Scotch Peers even as compared with their brethren of the Irish Peerage. The latter might represent Scotch or English constituencies in the Imperial Parliament—a similar privilege was denied to the former; and this he considered a real grievance upon the Scotch Peerage; and not only that—it might give, indeed had given, rise to an anomaly injurious to the public interest—for it might be that the heir to a Scotch Peerage might have a seat in the House of Commons where he was displaying ability creditable to himself and useful to his country, when he might suddenly succeed to the Peerage. When this happened he vacated his seat in the House of Commons, and unless he chanced at some future time to be elected a Representative Peer, his services were lost to himself and the country. He would refer to the celebrated case of Lord Marchmont by way of illustration. Lord Marchmont was a leading Member of the 1491 House of Commons and a formidable I opponent to Sir Robert Walpole. The father of Lord Marchmont dying, he succeeded to a Scottish Peerage, and was in consequence shut out from both Houses of Parliament and entirely banished from political life. It was said that Sir Robert Walpole congratulated himself on that occasion on the existence of a state of affairs which had so effectively banished his opponent from public life. An Irish Peer could in such a case have come to England and got returned to the House of Commons; but Scottish Peers could not. The case of the Scottish Peer was therefore very unfortunate and unsatisfactory. Besides this unfairness, there were many anomalies in the system which should, he thought, have been done away with long ago. Another hardship was that while the Irish Representative Peers were elected for life, the Scotch Representative Peers were only elected for the particular Parliament. As for the Union, the fact was that even at the time that Act was being passed much dissatisfaction was expressed regarding its provisions, and never since had that dissatisfaction been removed. Many suggestions had been made as to the manner me which these causes of dissatifaction should be dealt with, but none seemed to be of a character calculated to give general satisfaction or work well. The question of Scottish Peerages seemed to be attended with fatalities. From the Commission of Inquiry to which he alluded much did not result. In 1847 another Commission was appointed. They sat only 24 hours; only two witnesses were called, and 80 questions were put. Both these Commissions, however, placed on record the fact that legislation on the subject was necessary, and Lord Eglinton brought in a Bill on the subject. In 1869 the noble Earl below him (Earl Grey) brought the question forward. On the latter occasion the noble Duke opposite and those noble Lords who were now joined with him in the carrying on of the Government, complained that the House had not been sufficiently informed on the subject. After that the matter was allowed to fall into a state of obscurity. After this he was rather surprised at hearing the noble Duke state something to the effect that there was nothing that need be inquired into. Having shown their Lordships that there were hard- 1492 ships and injustices in connection with the election of Scottish Peers, and that there did not exist sufficient information on the subject, and this appearing to be the feeling of the House, he did not think it necessary to say anything further on the subject.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
suggested an addition to the Instructions to the Committee to the effect that the Committee should also inquire into the law relating to the Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
objected to the proposed Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
observed that the Amendment went beyond the object of the Motion, and involved the opening up of the subject of the constitution of the Peerage.

§ LORD SELBORNE
mentioned that the Amendment moved by the noble Duke in 1869, was in these terms— That a Select Committee he appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland and the laws relating thereto.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
pointed out that was a proposal for an inquiry with reference, not to the state of the Peerage, but to the state of the Representative Peerage.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
objected to the course taken by the noble Earl opposite in pressing his Motion in an altered form after having indicated that he was satisfied with the intimation made on behalf of the Government. He was not prepared to accept the altered Motion at that moment, but would undertake to consider the matter.