Lords Sitting of 13 June 1820

SCOTCH PEERS.
The Earl of Roseberryrose to move the second reading of the bill for regulating the right of voting at the election of peers to represent the peerage of Scotland. He observed, that neither in the acts of parliament relative to the election of Scotch peers, nor in any of the resolutions come to at different times on that subject by their lordships, was there any provision for the evil which the present bill was meant to prevent. The object of the bill was, to guard against cases of unqualified persons assuming the right of voting, there being no power to reject their votes at the time. He appealed to noble lords who knew the practice, whether it was not the fact, that scarcely an election occurred in which persons did not vote, who, in the opinion of every one present, were not entitled to give their suffrages. It was proposed by the bill to exclude from voting (with some exceptions) all persons who claimed as succeeding to deceased peers, until they had made out their titles. This would prevent the intrusion of individuals, who, from vanity or worse motives, often interfered in those elections. The right of petition and redress would, of course, be open to those who might consider themselves wronged. The inconveniences of which he had spoken would not occur at the election for the peers of Scotland, if the same provision had been made respecting them as exists with regard to the Irish peers. No Irish peer, not even the direct descendant of a deceased peer, is allowed to vote at the election of a peer to sit in that House, until he has folly made out his title. He did not mean to interfere with the claim to vote where the right was obviously undoubted. The bill, therefore, as far as regarded direct descendants, left the practice as it now stood, and only required collateral descendants to make out their titles.
Earl Cathcartthought that the object which the noble lord had in view might be more conveniently obtained by a resolution of the House. He concurred, however, in the necessity of some regulation being applied to the practice which at present prevailed.
Lord Melvilledid not oppose the bill, which, under all the circumstances connected with the elections of Scotch peers, was, he thought, entitled to their lord-

1045
ships approbation. How far the object could be obtained by a resolution he was not certain. He was afraid it could not; but if, on further consideration, their lordships should think such a course practicable, it might hereafter be adopted. With regard to the clause of the bill allowing direct descendants to vote, he approved of it, but questioned whether it might not be advisable to give the same right to brothers of peers as to sons of peers.
The Earl of Lauderdaleapproved of the object of the bill. Such was the practice at the election of Scotch peers, that he could at any time procure fifteen or sixteen votes, which would be good for the time, though protested against. He did not think it competent to the House to attain the object of the bill by a resolution. He believed it would not be necessary to insert the word brothers in the bill, as the brother of a peer must be also the son of a peer. As Scotch peers could not be created, it followed that the brother would be the son of a peer. It could not be otherwise, unless the deceased peer had succeeded collateral. He was fully of opinion that peers should make out their claim before they assumed the right of voting; but there was another class of claimants besides those to which the bill applied. Against two claimants of this description the House had passed a resolution, directing the clerk register not to receive their votes until they made out their claims. He should, perhaps, on a future occasion, propose a resolution that no person should vote until they had made good their titles.
Lord Melville,in explanation, observed, that the clause in the bill excepted the sons and grandsons of peers; but he still thought that brothers ought also to be excepted, because it might happen, from collateral succession, that the brother of a deceased peer was not the son of a peer.
The Lord Chancellorapproved of the bill. The provision in the law respecting Irish peers was extremely salutary, and be thought it might be properly extended to the Scotch. An English peer must have a writ before he appears to take his seat in that House. It was also necessary to prove that he was the legitimate son of his father, to whom he succeeded; and, in cases in which there could not be the slightest doubt, this proof often required
1046
some time. It might be worth their lordships while to consider whether a similar proof ought not to be required of persons claiming to vote at the elections of Scotch peers.
The Earl of Lauderdaleremarked, that such proof was not necessary in Scotland, from the nature of the law respecting marriage.
The Lord Chancellorwas aware that there were many modes of contracting marriage in Scotland. He had heard, he believed, three or four hundred ways pointed out by counsel at their lordships bar, who descanted on the subjects as learnedly as if they had had three or four hundred wives themselves.
The bill was then read a second time.