LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 9 March 1869)

§ MR. STAPLETON

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the mode of electing Representative Peers in Scotland and Ireland, and to enable the Crown to summon such Scotch and Irish Peers as may not be Representative Peers to sit in Parliament for life, said, he would state to the House that the ob- 985 ject which he had in view was to introduce in the electoral system, by which Representative Peers were permitted to sit in the House of Lords, something of that principle which was sought to be introduced, and which in some instances had actually been introduced into the election of Members of that House, by what was generally known as the minority clause. Another object which he had was to give power to the Crown to summon Peers to Parliament from Scotland or Ireland by their Scotch or Irish titles. With regard to the first of those points, so far as Scotland was concerned, he proposed that at the general election of Representative Peers for Scotland no Peer should have more than ten votes; he did not make any proposal with regard to by-elections of Scotch Peers following therein the precedent which was set in the minority clause as applied to the Members of that House, an illustration of which they had just seen in the election for the City of London consequent on the death of Mr. Bell, where the minority clause became inoperative, there being only one Member to elect. Then, with regard to Ireland, he proposed that the Irish Peers, who were elected at present only one by one as vacancies occurred, should henceforward be elected in batches of three, and that at those elections no Peer should have more than two votes. Of course, it might be said that by the election of Irish Peers in batches of three the practical effect would be to diminish the number of Peers by two, inasmuch as it would be necessary to wait until there were three vacancies. But ho wished the House to bear in mind that there was another measure contemplated, under which it was proposed to release four Irish Bishops from their attendance in the House of Lords; and therefore if it should be thought desirable to increase the number of Irish Peers, it would be very easy to do so by adding two to their number. Even without such an addition he thought his next clause would prevent any injustice being done. The next clause, and the last, was one which he thought the House would entirely agree with. It was that the Crown should have power to summon the Scotch and Irish Peers in Parliament either by their Scotch or Irish titles, the Peers so summoned to be Peers of Parliament for life and for life only. In applying the operation of the mi- 986 nority clause to the election of Representative Peers, he felt confident that if that House passed the Bill it would be accepted by the other House, which it; more especially concerned; because it would be in the recollection of everybody that the minority clause came down during the last Parliament from the House of Lords to that House; and therefore he thought that they would not object to apply that principle to their own House. With regard to the objection which was made to the operation of the minority clause, so far as Members of the House of Commons were concerned, it did not hold good with respect to the election of Representative Peers, because the argument which was made use of, that the minority of one constituency might prove the majority of another, had no force when they were speaking of the election of Representative Peers. Then with respect to summoning Peers by their Scotch or Irish titles. He was quite aware that it was always in the power of the Crown to confer an English Peerage on a Member of the Scotch or Irish Peerage, and ho did not see any reason why they should not have the same chance of being made Peers as an English country gentleman. Yet that hardly met the case, because an English Peer must be an hereditary Peer. Some time ago, when he was looking over the list of Peers in Dod, in reference to that matter, in order to see how many were on one side, and how many on the other, he came to a title formerly borne by a friend of O'Connell's, an Irish Peer, who had been created a Peer of the United Kingdom, the present holder of which was put down as a Conservative, this showed that conferring English titles on Irish Peers was a blundering and awkward way of redressing the balance Moreover, when such Peers went into the House of Lords, they went into it not as Scotch Peers or Irish, but as English Peers, and they had precedence only according to their title in the English Peerage. Take, for instance the Duke of Argyll. He was a very great man in Scotland, as they all knew. He was the Macallum More, and yet he sat in the House of Lords merely as one of the Barons, and only had precedence as a Baron. It was difficult to obtain precise information as to the political opinions of some of those Peers who were not in Parliament. He (Mr. Stapleton) would only 987 say that, so far as Ms own opinion went, the minority in each case consisted of about a third, so that it would be five Scotch, and ten Irish Peers, or in all fifteen. Of course, upon a division in the House of Lords that counted for thirty. He was anxious to have it understood that he brought forward that question, not in the interest of the Scotch and Irish Peers, but in the interest of the community at large. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than a collision between the two Houses. He sat there as a strong Liberal; but, at the same time, he had an earnest desire to preserve the institutions of the country. He would go as far as any man in that House in the direction of reform but not of revolution. But the mode of election of Representative Peers being what it was, if there was any collision between the two Houses, unless the majority of the House of Lords upon the question was more than thirty, the whole collision would arise, not out of any misunderstanding between that House and the hereditary Members of the other House, but out of a misrepresentation, or rather an inaccurate representation of the two subsidiary Peerages; and it might be, unless the Bishops redressed the matter—and they had been told by the Archbishop of York that they were the Liberals of the House—that a majority of twenty hereditary Members of the other House might be in accord with the Members of that House, notwithstanding which a great crisis might arise which would be entirely attributable to the misrepresentation of the Irish and Scotch Peerage. He trusted therefore that he should be permitted to bring in the Bill; for he was quite sure it would meet with the approval of the other House. At all events, they would have the opportunity of making any Amendments to it which they might think proper. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved for leave to introduce the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I do not perceive any disposition on the part of the House to refuse leave to the hon. Member—to my hon. Friend if he will permit me to call him so—to introduce this Bill, and I hope he will not think I am taking too great a liberty in the suggestion which I am about to make. I think the argument in favour of the principle for which he contends is irresistible; it is impossible not to see that 988 the arrangements for the election both of Scotch and Irish Representative Peers are unsatisfactory and. require re-consideration. The case has been stated in the speech of the hon. Member sufficiently, though very briefly, to develop the irresistible strength of the general proposition that there should be a change in this respect. And yet if I might give a recommendation to my hon. Friend, it would be that he should be satisfied with the introduction of the Bill, and that he should not attempt at the present time to press it further. I should not certainly venture to make any recommendation of the kind in a manner implying the slightest derogation from the title of any Member of this House to introduce a Bill, or of this House to pass through all its stages a Bill affecting the constitution of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has at all times exercised its unquestionable right of passing and of modifying or rejecting measures affecting the constitution of this House. The rights of the two Houses in this respect are incontestable. At the same time, as a matter of policy, I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is desirable that the initiative should be taken by the House of Lords itself in legislation of this kind. Any decided attempt on the part of this House or of any party in this House to modify the constitution of the House of Lords, particularly at this special period, and with the questions that are likely to come before the House of Lords during the present Session, might produce an effect which, for the time, would be injurious. I think my hon. Friend must also feel that it would be judicious that some time, at any rate, should be afforded to the House of Lords to consider the state of its own subsidiary arrangements in detail, after the very great change that has taken place in the representation of the people and the constitution of the Lower House. And until we come to the conclusion—which I hope we shall not come to—that there is no likelihood that an effort will be made by the House of Lords itself to improve the existing arrangements, we ought not, I think, to show too great an eagerness to take the matter into our own hands. That is the recommendation which I venture to make to my hon. Friend, with great respect and deference. He will understand that it rests on grounds of general prudence, and that 989 it is not offered by way of derogation either from his purpose or his argument, but, on the contrary, in furtherance of that argument and of the cause which he has at heart. If he is disposed to accede to that suggestion, he will probably find that the fruits produced by the efforts which he now makes will be beneficial and without any admixture of dissatisfaction or inconvenience.