Lords Sitting of 3 May 1822

SCOTS REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.
The Earl of Roseberyreminded their lordships, that he had last session introduced a bill for regulating the election of the representative peers of Scotland, which had gone through two of its stages. It was proposed to be enacted by that bill, that no person claiming to be a peer of Scotland, except the son or lineal descendant of a deceased peer, should vote at the election of the sixteen representative peers. This proposition was received with approbation by their lordships in general. Only one noble lord urged any objection to the measure, and that noble lord suggested that it would be better to attain the object in view by a resolution of their lordships' house, than by a legislative enactment. It was also thought advisable that a communication should be made to every individual peer of Scotland, in order to obtain his opinion. In consequence of these suggestions, the bill had been withdrawn, and a communication of the kind referred to had been made. The result of the correspondence had confirmed him that it was necessary for parliament to interpose its authority on this subject. Nearly all the peers of Scotland had expressed their complete approbation of the proposed measure, and none had objected to it. One had thought it not necessary. Another had qualified his assent by observing, that he apprehended such an arrangement might not be the wish of all the peers. Another, again, was of opinion, that a resolution of the House would be preferable to an act of parliament. The evil of which the Scotch peers had to complain was, that from the Union down to the present time, it had been in the power of any person claiming to be a peer, though he possessed no right to such dignity, to vote at the election for the sixteen peers to sit in parliament; there being no provision in the act of Union requiring that the right of the claimant to a title should be proved before he was allowed to vote. That any body of men should be subject to such an intrusion, must appear very extraordinary; but to the peers of Scotland it was a particular hardship; for, excluded as they were from becoming members of the House of

315
Commons, they were besides, by the irregularity of their election, liable to be kept out of their seats in that House. He could refer to cases which would show that the system was as bald fact as in theory. One case of injustice, he believed, would be all that he need state. At the election of 1790, only 13 peers out of the 16 were returned. Six others had an equality of votes, and it remained to be ascertained which three of those six were entitled to sit. After three years of laborious investigation, it was determined by their lordships' House to which the majority of the legal votes belonged. It might be said, there was another question mixed up with this; namely, whether British peers, who were also peers of Scotland, were entitled to vote: but this was a question of so narrow a compass, that it was capable of being settled, as indeed it was settled, by one deliberation of the House. Its discussion, in fact, occupied only one day of the three years during which three peers had been excluded from their seats. The next question to which he had to call their attention was the best means of removing the evil. After consulting with persons best qualified to give an opinion on this subject, he thought it advisable to propose two resolutions to be referred to a committee of privilege. The purport of the first resolution was, that, upon the decease of any peer, no person except the son, grandson, or other lineal descendant, or the brother of such peer, should be permitted to vote at the election of the sixteen representative peers of Scotland, until his claim to the peerage be made good before a committee of privilege. The object of the second was merely to provide, that the first resolution should be no obstacle to claimants challenging the right of persons who now held peerages. If the committee should agree to these resolutions, he wished still to reserve the question, whether or not they ought to be made the subject of a legislative act.
The resolutions were referred to the committee of privilege.