ADJOURNED DEBATE RESUMED. (Hansard, 19 June 1874)

§ LORD SELBORNE
said, his noble Friend Lord Granville, who was not now present, had suggested an Amendment of the Motion, which the noble Luke the President of the Council said he would consider. His noble Friend had come to the conclusion that the best Order of Reference would be that made to the Committee in 1869—namely, that the scope of the Committee should include the consideration of the laws relating to the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland. So far as the law relating generally to the Peerage of those parts of the United Kingdom had a bearing—as it unavoidably must have—upon the Representative Peerage, it would, of course, be included in the inquiry; and it did not seem to be either necessary or expedient to go further.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, that having, since the subject was brought before their Lordships on the 12th of June, 137 last, had an opportunity of considering these questions, he was willing to consent, on the part of the Government, that the scope of the inquiry should be extended a little beyond what was included in the noble Lord's Motion, and would therefore accept the Order of Reference of 1869, which was in these terms:— That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage in Scotland and Ireland and the laws relating thereto.

LORD ELPHINSTONE
said, he wished to make a few observations upon the remarks that fell from the noble Earl when moving for this Committee. The noble Earl said that a Peer of Liberal politics had no chance of being returned as a Representative, and therefore suggested that the cumulative vote should be substituted for the present mode of election. He was, perhaps, not aware of the politics of the Peers of Scotland. Out of the 34 Peers without hereditary seats, including the 16 Representatives, 27 were Conservatives, three had no politics, and four were Liberals, one of those four being already a Representative. It would be therefore difficult to make out a grievance for the Liberal Peers of Scotland so far as representation was concerned. He thought he should not be out of place, as a Representative Peer for Scotland, in taking this opportunity of pointing out what was the impression not only of the Scotch Peers but of the people of Scotland generally with reference to the present position of the representation of the Scotch Peerage in their Lordships' House. The views not only of the Peers of Scotland, but of the people at large, were that the Union of the two countries had now become so real and so complete that the time had arrived when all Peers of Scotland had a claim to be relegated to their ancient Parliamentary rights and privileges, such as they had enjoyed in the ancient Parliament, and as had been exercised by most of them for centuries before the Act of Union. They desired, in short, the absorption of the whole of Scotch Peerages into the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It might be said that one great objection to so large a measure of absorption as this would be that the number of Members of their Lordships' House would be increased to an unmanageable 138 extent. But if that were really the great objection, they might absorb the Scotch Peerage gradually by taking in a part every year. What the people of Scotland wanted to see was not the immediate absorption, but that they might be in a position to look forward to some particular and definite time when they might conclude that the whole Peerage of Scotland would be absorbed into that of the United Kingdom. It might be said that at the present time the Scotch Peerage was being absorbed into that of England; and he admitted that such an absorption was going on, but it was going on in a most uncertain manner. Taking the last three or four decades, for instance, they would find that if they took the statistics of the absorption of the Peerage between the years 1830 and 1840, eight Peerages had been absorbed within that period—five of them in the single year 1831. Again, between 1840 and 1850, two Peerages only had been absorbed; and between 1850 and 1860 two others—and one of these Peers died without taking his seat; whereas between 1860 and 1870 one Peerage only had been absorbed. If the absorption of the Scotch Peers did not go on at a more rapid rate than that, it would take something like three or four centuries to absorb them all He must not omit to add, however, that between 1870 and 1874 four Scotch Peerages had been absorbed into the Peerage of England. There was another point on which the people of Scotland felt strongly, and that was that the Scotch Peers ought to sit and vote under their own titles, and not under the English titles; and yet the universal practice was that whenever a Scotch Peer was made a Peer of the United Kingdom, he could only sit in the House of Lords under his English title; and the result was that an illustrious name that had been in the history of his country for centuries, was completely eclipsed by some modern English title. As an instance of this, he would instance the case of the Duke of Argyll, who sat in the House of Lords under the title of Lord Sundridge. Yet the Duke in Scotland bore a name which had been illustrious and connected with the history of the country for centuries; it was under that name he was known throughout Scotland, and all the noble deeds done by the family had been done 139 under that name. Why, then, should it be that he must sit in that House as a simple Baron of the United Kingdom? He could not but think that the Government was somewhat hostile to allowing the Scotch noblemen their privileges. The noble Duke, being a Peer of Scotland, ought to sit in the House of Lords as a Peer of Scotland. If he himself were made a Peer of the United Kingdom, he should be obliged, when entering their Lordships' House, to sink 365 years of his family history, and take his seat as the junior Baron in the House. Suppose a distinguished Scotchman was sent abroad in the character of the Governor of a colony, or suppose he rendered distinguished, military services abroad, and when be returned homo his services were so recognized that both Houses of Parliament accorded him a unanimous vote of thanks. But the Crown was anxious to confer a more tangible mark of approbation. In the case of a Peer of the United Kingdom, there was but one mode in which this could be done—he would be raised to a higher grade in the Peerage; but the Peer of Scotland was rewarded by a British Peerage—in other words, he was raised to a position of equality with Peers 300 or 400 years his junior. No one felt the privilege of sitting in their Lordships' House more than did the Peers of Scotland, but still they were of opinion that they ought to be able to sit in that House under their Scotch titles. Then, with respect to the House of Commons, it had been suggested that he should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. No one less than himself was disposed to underrate the privilege of sitting in that House; but the Peers of Scotland were created. Peers of Parliament, and as Peers of Parliament the House of Lords alone was the House in which they had a right to sit. Peers of Scotland were Peers of Great Britain, and unless a Bill was brought in to enable all Peers of Great Britain to sit in the House of Commons, they could not open that House to the Peers of Scotland. It was said that these arrangements had been settled by the conditions stated in the contract and Articles of Union; but he contended that the frequent changes of the other Articles of Union would quite justify their giving way upon this point. There were 25 Articles of Union, and from the 1st to 140 the 15th they might all be described as Articles equalizing various matters as between the two nations. But the 16th Article provided that the Mint should be retained—whereas the Mint had been abolished. The 19th said that the Court of Admiralty should be maintained; but that had been amalgamated with the Court of Session; and the same with the Exchequer Courts. The 22nd Article related to the placing of the Members in both Houses of Parliament—namely, 16 in the House of Lords, and 45 in the House of Commons; but the number in the House of Commons had been twice altered—so that every one of the Articles of Union had been changed. And, if they went by the Articles, they formed a stronger ground and a stronger argument for enabling the Scotch Peers to sit in their Lordships' House than any that could be brought. He assured their Lordships there was a considerable feeling of discontent in Scotland upon this subject, and he asked whether, if the Articles of Union were now being framed, the people of Scotland would be content with such a miserable fragmentary representation in that House as they possessed? Considering the closeness of the union of the two countries, and the fact that the Scotch Peers were as high in rank as the English Peers—considering also the very large number of creations since the union of the two countries, he asked whether it was just that they should remain in their present position? For a long period Scotch Peers had been suffering under disabilities and disqualifications, and there was a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction existing among them—a feeling far more dangerous to every political party than open and avowed hostility. If it had been the case with respect to English Peers, he was quite sure they would not be satisfied; and, on the principle of doing what they would be done by, he thought the claim of the general body of the Scotch Peerage to sit in that House ought to be recognized.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
regretted to hear the noble Lord say, that he considered Her Majesty's Government hostile to the feelings and claims of the Peers of Scotland. Nothing-could be further from the views of the Government, as they had proved by having willingly consented to the Committee moved for. He had listened 141 with great attention to the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie). No doubt, there was great anomaly in reference to the Peers of Scotland—some of them sitting in their Lordships' House, and others not; and there was also a great anomaly in the fact that no Scotch Peers could sit in the House of Commons, while that privilege was accorded to Irish Peers. There were, however, other anomalies which existed in the British Constitution; and, considering that the Government had not been in existence for more than three months, they were hardly responsible for the state of things which had existed for a century. He assured the House that the Government, far from having any hostile opinion whatever to the Peers of the two countries concerned, were most anxious to investigate the case and give it the very fullest consideration.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
addressed to the House a few observations, which were inaudible.

Ld. Privy Seal.	L. Elphinstone.
E. Doncaster.	L. Ponsonby.
E. Haddington.	L. Inchiquin.
E. Airlie.	L. Rosebery.
E. Lucan.	L. Oxenfoord.
E. Belmore.	L. Monck.
V. de Vesci.	L. O'Hagan.
V. Halifax.	L. Carlingford.
L. Saltoun.