Lords Sitting of 17 June 1828

SCOTCH PEERAGE BILL.
Lord Belhaven, in moving the second reading of the Scotch Peerage Bill, contended that this measure was not a contravention of any of the articles of Union. He introduced it with the consent of the great majority of the Scottish peers. His first object was to place the representative peers of Scotland on the same footing as other noble lords in that House; and next, to have them eligible, if they thought proper, to sit in the lower House of parliament, as members for counties and boroughs.
The Earl of Mansfieldfelt convinced, that the bill not only went to repeal some of the provisions of the Act of Union, but of another act connected with it. The first clause went to allow the sixteen Scottish peers next elected to sit for life. This was contrary to the Act of Union, for, by that act, a certain number of the peers were selected lo represent the whole body; and though the connexion between the constituency and the elected was weak, still it was, at certain intervals, redeemable, and the electors could on such occasions testify their sense of the manner in which the trust was performed, by either rejection or re-election. Another part of the bill went to empower Scottish peers to be elected as members of the Commons. This practice was tolerated by the Act of Union with Ireland, still he could not consent, to tamper with the compact made in behalf of Scotland. They should always remember, that one of the parties could never be replaced in its previous position. In the peerage question of 1719, and in the duke of Richmond's bill of 1780, the Act of Union was held to be inviolable. If they now began to alter it, where would they stop? Would they go on to avoid the other proviso, by which papists and persons suspected of popery, were excluded from being either electors or representatives. The next point related to eldest sons of peers; and he did not know how far this arrangement was stipu-

1393
lated for by the Act of Union He knew that in the Scottish parliament, a resolution was proposed, that peers and their eldest sons should not be eligible to represent Scottish boroughs; but it eventually settled into a resolution, that none who were not eligible at the time of the Union, should thenceforth be eligible. Complaint had been made of the return of four eldest sons at the Union, and lord Haddo and other lords were afterwards voted ineligible. Under all the circumstances, he was averse to the introduction of this bill.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that he had been at first adverse to this measure, but was now in favour of it. As to the argument of its being in contravention of the Act of Union, that act had been violated within a year and a half after its enactment? By the 6th and 7th of queen Anne, the mode of electing Scottish peers, as fixed by the Act of Union, had been entirely altered. In George 2nd's time the hereditary jurisdiction had been overthrown, and the law of forfeiture had undergone great alteration. There could, therefore, be no great stress laid upon the inviolability of the Act of Union. The question that followed was simply this—was the proposed alteration likely to be beneficial or not? He thought that to elect the representative peers of Scotland for life would be a great improvement on the present system. It would be more consistent with the dignity of a legislative peerage; it would elevate the character of the representative peers; and it would, therefore, confer a benefit on all who were entitled to aspire to that high honour.—With regard to that part of the bill which would enable those peers who were not representative peers to sit in the House of Commons, he was surprised to hear it represented as a degradation to the peerage of Scotland. It appeared hard that the eldest sons of Scottish peers should not sit in parliament for the counties and boroughs with which they were connected; and still harder that the eldest sons of Scotch gentlemen, created peers since the Union, should possess that privilege which was denied to the eldest sons of the old aristocracy. He was, however, of opinion, that a bill to remedy this anomaly ought to be introduced. The bill, as a substantive measure, appeared to him calculated to raise the character of the peerage of Scotland.
The Earl of Huddingtonsaid, he would
1394
not consent to that part of the bill allowing the eldest sons of peers of Scotland to sit in the House of Commons if he considered it an infraction of the treaty of Union; but he had doubts whether the parliament of Scotland had ever come to a final decision on the subject. True, it was proposed in that parliament, that no eldest son of a Scotch peer should be eligible to represent Scotland; but the proposition was negatived, and left for final adjustment to the imperial parliament. As to the decisions in the cases of lord Livingston, and others, the parliament of Scotland did not hold them clear. He would grant that two eldest sons of Scotch peers, who had taken their seats in that parliament among the Commons were unseated, but for this reason, that it was argued, that as the entire parliament (Peers and Commons) sat together in the same room, if the eldest sons of peers were allowed to sit among them even as commoners, the entire representation would fall into the hands of the noble families; but that argument was not applicable to the present state of things, as, since the Union, the eldest sons of peers in the House of Commons would be merged among the representatives of the general empire. The result of the discussion on the subject in the Scotch parliament was, that all who at the time held the privilege were declared entitled to it. In fact, it was a drawn battle between the parties; and hence it was not clear, that the clause of the bill enabling the eldest sons of peers to sit in the House of Commons was a violation of the articles of Union. It was really hard, that the eldest son of a peer of Scotland, subsequently created a British peer, should be eligible to sit for a county, while the son of the mere Scotch peer should be debarred from that privilege. Nor would any inconvenient increase of the influence of the peerage result from it; for though the peerage of Scotland had been numerous formerly, they were not so now. They were reduced by one half. The principal clause of the bill, however, he held to be a violation of the articles of the Union. The peers of Scotland had been held for one hundred and twenty years to be peers of the realm, and had taken their place and station as such. The effect of the bill would be to degrade them: not that he thought it a degradation for peers to sit in the House of Commons, but it was a degradation to the

1395
peers of Scotland to give them liberty to unpeer themselves, and to descend from the order to which they belonged. He was aware that men of the first blood and birth sat in the House of Commons, and that the ancestors of some of the first peers in their lordships' House had come up from the Commons; but he thought it would be an anomaly to allow a peer to divest himself of his rank. As to the injurious effect on the independence of the peerage apprehended from this bill, he did not see any injury that could arise from it, the peerage of Scotland having been so considerably reduced by the number of peers created British since the Union. There was no analogy between the case of Scotch and Irish Peers; for many of the Irish peers were members of the English House of Commons before the Union. They, of course, would not have accepted an Irish peerage, if they were to be excluded by the Irish Union from the parliament of the United Kingdom. Thus it happened, that not many of the Irish peers took advantage of the privilege given to them by the Union. The number of Scotch peers who would have a chance of being benefitted by the proposed bill was not more than forty-two; and was it worth while to violate the treaty of Union for such a small number? That treaty said, that sixteen representative peers should be elected for Scotland every general election. If, instead of that, they were henceforward to be elected for life, would not that be a violation of the treaty of Union? He wished the bill could be divided into two.
Lord Melvillesaid, he should oppose the bill in all its parts, as a direct violation both of the letter and spirit of the treaty of Union. It was as competent to their lordships to make a law, declaring that the forty-five representatives of the shires and boroughs should hold their seats in the other House for life, as it was for them to carry the proposed bill into a law. Nothing short of absolute necessity could justify their lordships in departing from the treaty of Union; and no such necessity existed. A majority of the Scotch peers being favourable to the measure was not a sufficient ground for passing such a resolution: if a single peer were against it, he had a right to demand that the treaty of Union should be adhered to. The measure was against the interest of the peers of Scotland. It had been contended that not more than forty Scotch peers
1396
were capable of being elected; but, until 1782, it had been the doctrine of that House, that the king could not grant to a Scotch peer a patent of English peerage; but, in that year, the doctrine was reversed, and twenty of the Scotch peers had been created peers of Great Britain, and took their seats in that House from such creation. If only forty peers remained, it would be better for them to take their chance of obtaining hereditary peerages, than to give it up by looking for liberty to sit in the Commons. Besides, if they insisted on the articles of the Union, they might not gain much by the argument, for it was one of the articles, that when the land-tax should have risen to two millions, Scotland should be called on to contribute; yet, if the chancellor of the Exchequer should call on the Scotch peers to pay land-tax, would they not exclaim against such an impost, one hundred and twenty years after the Union? The present measure was not justified by necessity, not advantageous to the interests of the peers of Scotland, and a violation of the articles of the Union. He should therefore oppose it.
The Earl of Lauderdaleapproved of the measure, and thought it would be highly advantageous to the peers of Scotland to have their privileges, with respect to sitting in parliament, assimilated to those of the peers of Ireland. The measure was founded upon the experience drawn from the Irish Union, and from seeing how well it worked with respect to the representative peers in that House. He could inform the noble viscount, with respect to the twenty Scotch peers put into that House by patents of English peerage, that the House had come to a resolution, that they should not have the right of voting. But, in a few years, in the case of a contested election, the House violated its own order. On that occasion the articles of Union were dwelt upon by both sides as making out their case. The Union had always been kept or violated by the hand of power, as it was found convenient. With respect to the proportion of the land-tax settled by the act of Union, it had been virtually violated by the imposition of the property tax. He had wished to resist this latter imposition in the court of Exchequer, as a breach of the articles of Union; but he could not procure a single peer to join him in his resistance. He thought it right that the eldest

1397
sons of Scotch peers should sit in the House of Commons. If any persons conceived that the peers would have Jess interest from their eldest sons being in the lower House, they were much mistaken. With respect to the proposed measure degrading the peerage, he could not conceive that a power of selection was a power of degradation. If he thought it degrading, he would not assume the power. He had been six years in the House of Peers, and had afterwards been out of it for twelve years; and if in that period he could have come into the House of Commons, he would have resigned his chance of being a representative peer of Scotland. He had a right to sit in the Irish parliament before the Union, and had he not been so marked a man, he would have agreed to what was now called a degradation, for the sake of sitting in the Irish House of Commons. The peers of Scotland ought to come forward in a body and claim the privileges enjoyed by the peers of Ireland; and he trusted that they would not be contented, until they obtained greater advantages than they now possessed.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the measure was directly opposed to the articles of Union. No doubt their lordships had the power to alter those articles if they thought fit; but it would be a question whether it would be right to exercise it. If the measure were to be brought forward at all, it should be in another shape.
Lord Belhavensaid, that after what had passed, he would not take the sense of their lordships upon the measure, but should consider himself pledged to bring it forward next session.
The amendment was agreed to. The bill was consequently lost.