HL Deb 08 May 1876 vol 229 cc189-204

Amendments reported (according to Order).

LORD INCHIQUIN

said, he had to propose the insertion of a new clause, in lieu of Clause 2, which was struck out in Committee. Their Lordships would probably recollect that in the discussions on the Motion for the Second Reading and also in Committee two objections were raised to the 2nd clause of the Bill. The first, that the number of Representative Peers he proposed to add was too large; and the second was the mode of election he proposed to introduce in order to give to the minority a fair share in the representation. In the clause which he now submitted he had attempted to meet both those objections. The clause would increase the number of Irish Representative Peers by two instead of four, as proposed by him originally. The increase, therefore, would be from 28 to 30;it provided that no election to make up the latter number should be held until the first vacancy among the existing Representative Peers; it then went on to provide that no vacancy hereafter arising in any manner among the Representative Peers of Ireland should be supplied until there were three such vacancies; and, lastly, it provided that at each election of Representative Peers for Ireland every Peer qualified to vote should be entitled to three votes, which he might give to any one Peer or might distribute as he should think fit; in fact, he proposed that the method of election should be what was termed "cumulative voting." He trusted that the alterations of his original proposal which would be effected by this clause would meet all the objections which had been urged against Clause 2 of the Bill. He thought there could be no valid objection to a representation of the minority in the case of the Irish Peerage. Supposing that the English Peerage were represented in this House by a body elected on the same principle as the Irish Representative Peers, how long did their Lordships think the country would stand such a principle? He did not believe it could last for a single Session. No one could advocate the principle of the representation of minorities more strongly than it had been advocated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the case of the representation of the people in the House of Commons. The noble Lord then moved the first (A.) of the new clauses of which he had given Notice— The number of Lords Temporal of Ireland elected for life to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Lords shall be increased from twenty-eight to thirty, but no election of Peers to make up this number shall take place until the first vacancy among the existing Representative Peers. No vacancy hereafter in any manner arising among the Representative Peers of Ireland shall be supplied until there are three such vacancies. For making up the full number of Representative Peers on the first vacancy and for supplying vacancies thereafter the Lord Chancellor shall direct a writ to be issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, directing him to cause writs for the election of three Representative Peers to be issued to the persons who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to receive writs in the case of a vacancy among the Representative Peers. At each election of Representative Peers for Ireland every Peer qualified to vote shall be entitled to three votes, and may give all such votes to any one Peer or may distribute such votes amongst various Peers as he may think fit; and the three Peers who have the largest number of votes at such election shall be returned to sit and vote as Representative Peers for Ireland.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

trusted their Lordships would refuse to accept the Amendment. The main object at which the Bill aimed was to prevent the creation of fresh Peerages of Ireland, and so to provide for the ultimate absorption of the Irish Peerage into that of England. That object was secured by the 1st clause to which the Bill was now reduced. He opposed the introduction of the other clauses, not so much on account of their containing a plan of minority representation, which, however, he did not like, as that he considered them unnecessary and calculated to prevent the Bill becoming law this Session. He reminded their Lordships that the Committee appointed to consider the questions connected with the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland had unanimously recommended that a stop should be put to the creation of fresh Peerages of Ireland, and that their Lordships' House had unanimously adopted an Address to the Crown on the subject; it therefore appeared to him that it would have been better that this Bill should be confined to that subject; but the noble Lord thought proper to introduce into it all the recommendations of the Committee relating to the Peerage of Ireland, and then in Committee took the unusual course of introducing Amendments which had been rejected by the Select Committee on the noble Lord's own Motion. Moreover, these provisions, if adopted, would create precedents affecting the Peerage of Scotland, if the Representative Peers for Ireland were increased, he did not see how they could refuse to increase the number of Scotch Representative Peers, and if the principle of the minority representation were adopted for Ireland it must be adopted for Scotland.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that if this was a question touching the Irish Peerage only he should not have dreamt of troubling their Lordships with any observations, so far as his knowledge of the question of representation went. So far as the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) for a representation of the minority touched the Irish Peerage alone, it was a question of the very smallest proportions. He begged it to be understood that in saying so he did not mean anything disrespectful to the Irish Peerage—far from it—he only meant to assert that the adequate or inadequate representation of the Irish Peerage was not now, and was never likely to be, one of the "burning questions" of the day. Whatever vote they might come to, it would have the smallest, almost an infinitesimal effect on the political opinion or the course of politics in the country. Nevertheless, he thought that a real interest attached to the Motion of the noble Lord. In the first place, he thought the proposal was highly honourable to the noble Lord who made it, and highly honourable to the Irish Peerage in so far as they sympathized with it. A proposal made by a Conservative Peer of Ireland in fairness to the order to which he belonged, and of which he was a distinguished ornament, that they should be afforded a chance of having their political opinions represented in that House—for without the proposal of the noble Lord, they would have no such chance—was creditable to him and to the Peerage which he represented. It was perfectly true that the effect upon the balance of political parties would be very small. They all knew well that the majority of Irish Peers were Conservatives, and the Liberal Peers a small minority. It was not very likely, even if the proposal of the noble Lord should be adopted, that the Conservative strength of the Irish Peerage would be very much affected as regarded its representation in that House; nevertheless it was important that the question should be discussed as regarded the principle itself and not as regarded its immediate effect. It appeared to him desirable to discuss in the first place the general principle of the representation of minorities, and, secondly, how far it was applicable to the Irish Peerage. It was now little less than nine years since he had the honour of following the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in a Motion which he made for giving effect to the principle of the representation of minorities. That was in 1867, and the division was a very remarkable one. That proposal was opposed by a Conservative Government then, as the proposal of the noble Lord opposite was now opposed by the present Government. It was opposed also by, he would not say a majority, but by a considerable number of his noble Friends behind him. In fact, it was carried by an insurrection of the back benches against the two frontbenches; and no doubt the result was greatly to be attributed to the influence of his venerable Friend Lord Russell. On the division the numbers were:—For the proposal, 142; against, 51; giving a majority of no fewer than 91. Since that time the principle had been carried into effect to a much larger extent in the Education Act. With respect to the representation on school boards, Parliament had decided that all over the country representation of the minority should be the principle of the law and constitution of this country. The question might arise, had the principle of the representation of minorities acquired a firm footing in the Constitutional system of the country? He was not quite sure that it had. It was applied, but to a very limited extent, in Parliamentary representation; and they must not conceal from themselves that, although on the whole it had worked without great friction in the case of the school boards, it had in some cases caused no slight degree of irritation—especially when the representative chosen by a small minority was at the head of the poll. He did not believe the principle of the representation of minorities was altogether so safe and so secure as some of their Lordships might think, and he was anxious that those of their Lordships who were favourable to the principle had better take care in the votes they were about to give to-night. He thought that was the only instance in which a suggestion of what might be called the doctrinaire school of politicians had ever succeeded, and the first occasion on which Parliament had accepted their principles. Generally speaking, in all our advances towards greater political freedom we had generally proceeded on the old lines of precedent, and had hardly ever adopted any proposition founded on an abstract principle, and they ought to look with some anxiety whether they were secure in its application or not. They must not conceal from themselves that the principle of the representation of minorities was open to some real and valid objections. What was the great objection to the principle of the representation of minorities? The old principle of the Constitution was simply the representation of individual constituencies—county divisions, great towns and boroughs, each having individual men and interests that would be represented in Parliament. The principle was that each community should be considered a political unit—that each county constituency and each town or borough should be considered an individuality, and represented by its own majority. In 1867, when he followed the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he could not help feeling that there was very great force in some of the objections raised by the noble and learned Lord against the principle of the the representation of minorities on part of the Conservative Government, and many on that side of the House. But what was the answer of Lord Russell, who took the lead in that insurrection against the front Benches which was successful on that occasion? He said—"It is perfectly true this is an entire novelty in the Constitution of the country. The old principle is that every community should speak through its majority and take no notice of the minority;" but, he said, "observe the process that has begun, and which will unquestionably be carried further. You are now doing away with a great mass of those small constituencies which were individualities of the Constitution, and you are accumulating Members in large towns and large divisions of the country which represent nothing but large masses of population. You are giving up the principle of individuality and accumulating Members in proportion to numbers." He said—"In proportion as this process goes on you will be in danger of accumulating the whole political power of the country in one description of majority, and practically one class only would be represented in Parliament." Lord Russell did not pretend to say that the destruction of small constituencies had yet gone to the extent that was dangerous to the Constitution, or that one Party only could be represented in Parliament; but what he represented to their Lordships, and what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in that very able and remarkable speech to which he had referred, had pointed out, was that this was a process that had begun, that would continue; and it was time for them to establish some balance to the abolition of small constituencies by securing to minorities some share in the representation. That was the view individually of Lord Russell; but if their Lordships referred to the debates that took place on that occasion they would see the arguments that then prevailed on either side of the House. Now he desired to ask, how far was this principle applicable to the case of the Irish Peerage? Was the Irish Peerage to be considered a constituency in the ordinary sense of the term? Was it an individuality in the Constitution that ought to be represented by its majority alone? Was it in the nature of a popular constituency, to speak through its own majority? He trusted the day would never come when they would consider the Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland as a body by itself—a separate political individuality, distinct from the rest of the community. That was not the position of the Peerage; and the principle of the 1st clause of this Bill, which was passed unanimously by the House, was that the Peerage was not to be considered a constituency to be indirectly represented in Parliament, and that the existing constituency as regarded Irish Representative Peers should be abolished as soon as possible, and that no new Peers should be created to make up for those who might die or be created Peers of the United Kingdom. The principle of the Bill was that the Peerage was an honour which ought to be inseparably connected, as far as it could be, with a seat in Parliament—and that it was a misfortune that there should be Peers without a seat in Parliament. But what was the obvious remedy? Of course they could not give all the Peers of Ireland and Scotland seats in that House; but they could at least distribute the privilege of voting as much as possible over that body. That was all that was asked—to allow the minority to dispose of the votes they had upon the cumulative principle. Now, no doubt, they were told with accuracy by the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) that looking back to the history of the Irish Peerage since the Union, he could only find one instance in which there was an Irish Peer returned to the House who did not hold particular views; and the consequence really was that the minority should be absolutely disfranchised. He did not wonder that the noble Lord, feeling great interest in his order, should characterize this as a great injustice. In point of fact it was a clear case of injustice to the individual Members of the Peerage, and the introduction of the principle of cumulative voting was quite consistent with the 1st clause, because it was only in that way that the minority could exercise the privilege of obtaining representation. He trusted the House would look a little beyond the immediate results of the question upon the Irish Peerage. We were now in the middle of what might be called, and had been called, a great Conservative re-action. It was a very dull time in politics, and there was not much danger of any great changes being proposed. But the re-action would not last for ever. The time of political change would come—a change which their Lordships might not be very well able to resist; and what would be the effect of a vote refusing to allow the principle of representation to minorities? They would be put out of Court. He should not wonder very much if it tended to checkmate and thwart the influence of the House in a sense to which they committed themselves in 1867. One other consideration he wished to refer to—the effect of all these changes in raising the character and intellectual representation of that House. They were differently situated from the House of Commons—there was a larger number of Peers in that House independent of Party than there were generally in the House of Commons. It was more necessary in the House of Commons that Party organization should be powerful; but there were occasions, such as that to which he had referred, on which the House of Lords was very apt to form an independent opinion, free from all Party discipline. This was, in his opinion, an element, not of weakness, but of strength and security to the House of Lords. Many of their Lordships might remember an anecdote of Mr. Pitt, when, on an occasion of great political interest to the future of this country, he was asked what part of the Constitution he thought would be the first to give way? and, after a few moments' consideration, he said—"The House of Lords." Now, his own impression was that since the days of Mr. Pitt the changes which had been made had tended rather to strengthen than to weaken the House of Lords. He recollected a noble Friend of his who spoke of the great changes which had been made in the House of Lords since his early days, and used to lament it—"Formerly," he said, "there was a certain number of old Whig families and old Tory families whose votes could be counted on with perfect accuracy, so that everybody knew what the result of a division would be. But now it is impossible to do that, so many new Peers have been created and so many new families introduced to the Peerage." His Friend deplored that change; but he (the Duke of Argyll) rejoiced at it. A noble Lord opposite (Viscount Midleton), speaking the other day of this Bill, alluded, with some asperity to the number of new Peers created by the late Government, very much exaggerating the number. No doubt, from time to time charges had been made of additions to the numbers of their Lordships against successive Governments; but for his own part, he heard the complaints made on that score, whether against one Government or another, with very little sympathy. He believed it to be for the good of the House that both political Parties when they had an opportunity should recruit the benches of this House with able and accomplished men who had done good service to their country—ay, and who had done honourable service to their Party. He believed, on the whole, that by such a process the House was strengthened in its representative character and in its reputation with the country. He believed the old families would be always able to hold their own; but who could deny that the country was proud of the additions of intellectual power which had been made to their Lordships' House by noble Lords introduced during the last 10 or 20 years? He would ask whether the tendency would not be in the same direction if they were to give to the Liberal minority of the Irish Peers at least a partial representation in their Lordships' House. Without saying that minorities were always right—which, indeed, it would be foolish to say—and majorities always wrong, this he would say—that men whose opinions were opposed to those of the great majority of the body with which they were connected were just as likely to be right as the majority. Looking to the tendency of what was sometimes called Liberal opinion in Ireland, he would like to see specimens of Peers who, in the face of the peculiar circumstances of their country, had been able to maintain their ancient hereditary traditions. He hoped this House would not be influenced on this occasion by Party considerations, or by the observation that had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Courtown); but that looking to the influence his vote would have on their future deliberations, they would not throw away the opportunity the were now offered of adding the names of distinguished men to the representation of the Irish Peerage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he would be glad to say a few words, mow particularly after the allusion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) to the part he had taken on the question of the representation of minorities. He entirely agreed with the noble Duke that this was a question which might be discussed by their Lordships without the least in fusion of political considerations, and without any fear that it would have any effect on the political composition of that House. The Bill of his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) was a Bill connected with the Irish Peerage, and intended to remedy an admitted evil with respect to its representation; but in the course of its passage his noble Friend had originated another subject which was not connected with the Irish Peerage alone, but quite as much with the Scotch Peerage. Now, if it should be their Lordships' opinion that any change should be made in this matter, it should be made not in a Bill dealing with the Irish Peerage, but one applying to the mode of election both of Irish and Scotch Peers. Their Lordships would remember that the present mode of election of Irish and Scotch Peers was regulated by the Acts of Union with both countries. Their Lordships' object, if it could properly be done, was to provide for the ultimate absorption of the Scotch and Irish Peerages. Those Peerages were now in a state of transition. The Scotch Peerage was hastening to absorption, and before long would be reduced to such a number that there would not be more Scotch Peers than there were at present Scotch Representative Peers. In the case of the Irish Peerage the transition was not so rapid:—and the object of the present measure was to put it on the same footing as the Scotch and provide for its extinction. Now, he had not altered his opinion in the slightest degree with respect to the representation of minorities from the time when he moved the proposition which their Lordships had accepted and was now the law. He quite admitted the accuracy of the description of the noble Duke, when he termed the constituencies units of representation, and that it was necessary to provide for a representation of the minority in places where large masses were accumulated, and this was what was done in 1867 with his entire approval. The original constitution of this country was that every community which elected Members elected two—there was no such thing as the election of one Member. In the process of time by disfranchisement some constituencies came to elect only one Member, and some counties were allowed to elect an additional Member. In the Bill of 1867 their Lordships were entering upon a course of augmenting the Representatives of various constituencies—and he maintained that they arrived at a wise conclusion in what they had done. But let their Lordships contrast the necessity of what they did then with the present case. What was the position of one of those boroughs which was to elect three Members? It might be a borough with 12,000 voters, 7,000 of one way of thinking and 5,000 of another. If the majority elected the whole three Members, the constituency of 5,000, as he might call the minority, would be entirely unrepresented, for they had no means of being represented in any other way. But that was not the case with the Irish Peerage. Here there were about 100 Peers, who elected 28 Representatives. The majority in politics elected 28 Representatives of their own views. What was the case with the case with the minority? Were they unrepresented? He took the liberty of stating on a former occasion what he found to be the fact—namely, that since the Union, so far was the minority from being unrepresented, there were actually made out of the Irish Peerage no fewer than 61 Peers of the Realm. He did not mean that they were all on one side of politics, but he believed the large majority of those so created were of Liberal politics. A noble Friend of his (Lord Dunsany) who was connected with Ireland, said the other night it was perfectly well known that if there was an Irish Liberal Peer who desired to become a Member of their Lordships' House, he stood two elections, was defeated, and then he was made an hereditary Peer. Those persons, therefore, who represented the minority were introduced, into this House, and there were as many such Peers, or nearly so, who had been made Peers of the Realm as there were Representative Peers of Ireland. The difficulty was to introduce such a principle of voting as had been proposed into elections of this sort. These elections were for life. The principle of cumulative voting would therefore not only hold out an inducement, but would almost make it compulsory on the electors to choose as far as they could young Representatives in the place of those who might be more fit from their experience and otherwise, but who might be older. If one party were to choose young Representatives and the other those who were more advanced in life, the result would be against the party who chose the latter. By minority voting, therefore, you created a strong temptation to sacrifice fitness in order to obtain a longer hold on the representa- tion. This case was one in which none of the principles urged by the noble Duke properly applied. The House was asked to deal with Peerages which in process of time would, he hoped, be absorbed in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and he thought it would be unwise to alter the system of Representative Peers which now prevailed.

LORD O'HAGAN

said, he heard with extreme regret that the Government had not seen their way to accept the proposition of the noble Lord; for neither upon the last occasion when this subject was discussed, nor upon the present, had he heard any sufficient reasons urged against the merits of the proposal for the representation of the minority. No one had attempted to controvert the statement that there was a great grievance, or had shown why the Government should not attempt to remedy that grievance. It was said that the proposal was inopportune. The question, however, came legitimately before their Lordships, after full consideration by a Committee, and why should the occasion be deemed unfit for doing an act of simple grace and justice? The Committee recommended that four Representative Peers should come into this House in the place of the right rev. Prelates who formerly sat here. They agreed as to the right of Ireland to have 32 Representative Peers in accordance with the arrangement made at the Union. It was not because there were four Irish Bishops in the House of Lords that the number of Representative Peers was so fixed at that period. The number was fixed with reference to the numbers of the Scotch Peerage. Unless the present occasion was used to remedy the grievance now complained of, no other opportunity might arise for many years to come. Then, it was said that the question indirectly affected Scotland. But why should justice to the Irish Peerage be postponed till the Scotch case came before the House? There was an admitted wrong to be rectified, and their Lordships ought not surely to refuse to redress the grievance of Ireland because hereafter the same redress might be necessary in the case of Scotland. As to the minority vote, he thought the principles enunciated by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) applied in effect and in essence to this case as strongly as to cases in which the representation of thousands of persons was concerned. The majority of Irish Peers would not be induced to elect a single member of the minority, who were thus deprived of all opportunities of political influence or political activity. If the concession were made there would be no appreciable increase of power on that side (the Opposition) of the House; the balance of political power would remain unchanged, whilst an act of grace and justice would be done. It was a case in which, for the interest and honour of the House itself, some redress should be given. The Irish Lords at the time of the Union had made a sacrifice for a supposed public advantage, but they had not received the compensation to which they were entitled, by being associated in fair proportions with the Peers in this House. There was a manifest personal grievance. Within the last three months a Representative Peer for Ireland had been elected, and the oldest Baron in the Empire had been on that occasion a rejected candidate. Was it desirable that the political representation of Ireland in this House should be all on one side, and that the Party who were notoriously not in sympathy with the great body of the Irish people should alone be represented here? In the House of Commons the majority of the Irish people were adequately represented, while here that majority was absolutely not represented at all. Would it be tolerated for a moment that the English Peerage should be so arranged as to sustain the views of only one of the political parties in this country? Of course it could not, then why should a different measure be meted out of Ireland? Why should one third, at least, of the Irish Peers be denied the possibility of a fair proportional representation? He trusted that the House would accept the clause to which no valid objection had been offered by any one.

LORD DUNSANY

said, that although the Liberal Party were willing to consent to a minority vote, they would not agree to a future increase of the Irish representation. Of course if the Government did not support the present proposition there could be no hope of carrying it through the other House.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, there appeared to be some misrepresentation as to the course which noble Lords on that side of the House intended to pursue. After what was stated the other day, he thought it was generally admitted that a grievance existed, and in order to provide a remedy they were prepared to sacrifice some portion of the objection they felt, and would not oppose the immediate addition of two Peers to the Irish Representatives in that House. With respect to the general question of giving the Irish Peers a minority vote, he should follow the noble Lord into the lobby with the utmost cordiality. There could be no doubt that a great grievance existed, and he did not think it would be met by the power that the Government possessed of creating Irish Peers, Peers of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, he believed of the last 80 Irish Peers created English Peers about 50 were Conservatives. He was not quite so strong on the minority clause as some of the noble Lords who had addressed the House, because he did not think that there was so much reason for its adoption among the Irish Peerage constituency as among the voters of the English borough constituencies, or for the school boards. It had been said that young men would probably be elected because they would remain the longer in that House. He doubted whether this would be the result; but even if it were, a certain infusion of youthful Irish blood would not be wholly undesirable in an assembly composed chiefly of middle-aged men.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 66: Majority 12.

CONTENTS.
Grafton, D. Halifax, V.
Saint Albans, D. Powerscourt, V.
Somerset, D. Sidmouth, V.
Lansdowne, M. Abercromby, L.
Airlie, E. Auckland, L.
De La Warr, E. Belper, L.
Devon, E. Calthorpe, L.
Fortescue, E. Carlingford, L.
Granville, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Grey, E. Dinevor, L.
Ilchester, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Kimberley, E. Emly, L.
Lovelace, E. Foley, L.
Morley, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Powis, E. Hanmer, L.
Spencer, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Sydney, E. Inchiquin, L. [Teller.]
Bangor, V. Lawrence, L.
Eversley, V.
Lyveden, L. Romilly, L.
Manners, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Selborne, L.
Monson, L. [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
O'Hagan, L. Ventry, L.
Oxenfoord, L.(E. Stair.) Waveney, L.
Poltimore, L. Wolverton, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lichfield, Bp.
Richmond, D. Aveland, L.
Wellington, D. Bagot, L.
Abergavenny, M. Bloomfield, L.
Bath, M. Bolton, L.
Hertford, M. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Amherst, E. Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Beauchamp, E. Clinton, L.
Cadogan, E. Colchester, L.
Clonmell, E. Cottesloe, L.
Dartmouth, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Egerton, L.
Ellesmere, E. Ellenborough, L.
Erne, E. Elphinstone, L.
Feversham, E. Forbes, L.
Haddington, E. Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Hardwicke, E. Hampton, L.
Jersey, E. Headley, L.
Lauderdale, E. Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Lucan, E. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Malmesbury, E. Penrhyn, L.
Morton, E. Redesdale, L.
Nelson, E. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) [Teller.]
Onslow, E. Saltoun, L.
Rosslyn, E. Sherborne, L.
Shrewsbury, E. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Stanhope. E. Sondes, L.
Verulam, E. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Waldegrave, E. Templemore, L.
Bridport, V. Tollemache, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Westbury, L.
Hardinge, V. Winmarleigh, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Resolved in the Negative.

LORD INCHIQUIN

moved to insert new Clause (B)— Upon the Lord Chancellor's being satisfied that any person, being a Representative Peer of Ireland, shall have hereafter become entitled by creation or descent to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords, the seat of such person as a Representative Peer shall be deemed vacant.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

objected to the clause.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

On the Motion of Lord Inchiquin, Preamble amended by inserting before ("Whereas")— Whereas in the last Session of the present Parliament of Her Majesty Queen Victoria an humble Address was presented to Her Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, praying Her Majesty that the power conferred on Her Majesty under the Act of Union for the creation of Irish Peers may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure relating thereto that may be introduced: And whereas to the said Address Her Majesty was graciously pleased to return the following answer: 'Relying on the wisdom of Parliament I do not desire that the powers reserved to Me by the Act of Union of making creations and promotions in the Peerage of Ireland should stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure that may be introduced on that subject: And.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 75.)

House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.