Lords Sitting of 30 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a and passed:—Prisons (Ireland); Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Medway Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement, and for the Substitution of a Union Settlement in lieu of a Parochial Settlement.—By the Bishop of Oxford, from Repton, and Banbury, in favour of the Government Plan of Education.—From Dunbar, in favour of the Conservancy Of Tidal Waters.—From Haddington, for the Abolition of the Legacy Duty, and Inventory Stamp Duty, or to subject Real Property to a corresponding Tax.—From a great number of persons employed in Factories, for Limiting the Labour of all Females and Minors to Ten Hours.

ELECTION OF SCOTCH REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNrose, in pursuance of notice, to bring before their Lordships a subject of abuse which had from time to time occurred in the election of the Scotch representative Peers. He regretted that the duty had devolved upon him, in consequence of the absence of the Earl of Rosebery, who had long since turned his attention to the subject; at the same time, he did not hesitate to invite their Lordships to take the matter into consideration, inasmuch as he thought some legislative interference was necessary; and
202
he was confident that, when the facts were laid before them, they would be anxious that the abuse of which he had to complain should be put a stop to. By the Act of Union, sixteen Peers of Scotland were fixed as the number to represent the Scotch Peers in the United Parliament, and these were to be elected by the whole body of the Peers of Scotland, their heirs and successors. It, therefore, became necessary to ascertain of whom the body of Scotch Peers consisted; and, in 1738, Sir James Murray brought a list of the Peers before the House of Lords. In obedience to the Orders of that House, that list remained as the basis of the Union Roll. At the election at Holyrood House, the names and titles that still remained on the Union Roll were called over; the oaths were then administered; the clerk then asked those Peers who had answered to their titles for their votes, which votes were immediately recorded. If any one claimed to be a son, grandson, or descendant of any of the titles on the Union Roll, it was impossible for the clerk to question the claim; he must record the vote, although, if any Peer objected, the vote might be recorded under protest. There was no writ or previous form requisite, so that if any person chose to go into the room at Holyrood House, and declare himself to be the son, grandson, or lineal decendant of any Peer on the Union Roll, his vote must be received. This evil had been on former occasions so strongly felt, that the House of Lords had appointed Committees to inquire into the subject. In 1822 a Committee was appointed, a report was made, and resolutions in pursuance of that report were passed, one of which was to the effect that no person should be entitled to vote at the election of a Representative Peer of Scotland other than the son, grandson, or other lineal descendant of a Peer of Scotland whose title was set forth in the Union Roll, or, on any objection being made, until his right should have been admitted by the House of Lords. Either this resolution was not sufficiently stringent, or it had not been put in force; at all events, it had not had the effect of preventing the malpractice of which he complained. Another Committee was appointed in 1832 to reconsider the subject; they sat; resolutions were passed; but, from some cause or other, nothing was done upon them. A short Bill was brought in by Lord Rosebery, but it did not pass into a law. Since then the circumstance had occurred out of

203
which the complaint he was anxious to provide a remedy for had arisen. In consequence of the death of Lord Rollo, and pursuant to Her Majesty's Proclamation, there was a meeting in Edinburgh, on the 17th of March last, to elect in the room of the deceased nobleman a Representative Peer for Scotland. On that occasion, on the Union Roll being called over, a person was present who claimed to be Lord Colville, of Ochiltree. The Earl of Selkirk was present and protested; at the same time, the vote of Lord Colville was received. At the election of 1788, a person voted with that title, and attempted to establish his claim; but after evidence was entered into, his counsel abandoned his case. Such occurrences as this all their Lordships must be as anxious as he (the Earl of Eglintoun) was to prevent, as they brought discredit, not only upon the Scotch Peerage, but upon the Peerage of England; and nothing, in his opinion, it was incumbent upon them to guard with more watchful care than their honours. It was necessary that their Lordships should uphold the character which they still bore in the country, and prevent any one coming amongst them who had no right to the distinction of the Peerage. He moved—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to take into Consideration the existing Laws and Regulations which relate to the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland; to consider what Steps should be taken to prevent Persons from voting at such Elections who are not entitled to do so; and to inquire into and report upon the Proceedings which took place at the Election of Lord Gray, on the l7th Day of March last."
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the noble Earl had complained of an individual having voted for a Representative Peer of Scotland who had no title to vote; but, unfortunately, there were no means of establishing his claim, unless he came before that House. One of the resolutions of the Committee, which had been referred to by the noble Earl, had pointed out a remedy. It proposed that those persons who, in consequence of their titles being upon the Union Roll, had voted, and whose votes had never been disputed since 1801, should be allowed to vote without any qualification; but that no other persons should be suffered to vote; and the clerk registrar was required not to receive their vote, unless they produced a writ of qualification, in the shape of a certificate from the Speaker of that House, the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Keeper. That was the
204
main resolution of the Committee of 1831, and this was objected to by many Scotch Peers; it was a question, however, whether their Lordships had the power to issue such an order, which did not follow because the Committee had passed that resolution. The Speaker of the House of Commons had no power to issue an order to the sheriff to allow particular persons to vote for a Member of Parliament. This difficulty was felt in the Committee, and he mentioned this as an excuse for the House not acting upon the resolution. The Committee felt the evil most strongly, and were of opinion that the plan proposed in the resolution would afford an effectual remedy.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to offer no objection to the appointment of the Committee.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it had come to his knowledge that, by the existing state of the law respecting Scotch Peerages, tradesmen had suffered grievous losses. Let a person merely say he was a Peer, and he had unlimited credit. Not only the public suffered by this, but the individuals themselves. He knew a case in which a respectable individual had been told that he was entitled to a Scotch Peerage, and unfortunately, from that moment, he abandoned all he had in this country; his family, thinking they had acquired this distinction, followed the same unfortunate course, and were utterly ruined and undone by the notion. He was only sorry that the noble Earl had not gone a little further, and extended the inquiries of the Committee to the abuses as to the assumption of English titles, from which similar misfortunes had happened both to individuals and to the public.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.