THE EARL OF GALLOWAYrose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the present state of the law as to claims and assumptions of titles of Peerage, &c., and to present a Bill for carrying out its recommendations. The noble Earl, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that it was now 14 or 15 months since a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the question of claims and assumption of Peerages was carried. The Committee had sat several times; but its Chairman had died, and it had been his (the Earl of Galloway's) duty to move the re-appointment of the Committee. The Committee had consisted of a very large number of Peers, and had come to the decision that there was nothing particular as regarded Irish Peerages that wanted looking into, or change of any sort or kind. Sir Bernard Burke, as Ulster King-at-Arms, had given evidence, and shown that on him rested the responsibility for the authorized Roll of Peers in Ireland, and it was thought that if the same course were followed in the case of Scotland as was followed in that of Ireland, the results would be advantageous. Sir Bernard Burke's evidence, he would repeat, was of value as showing that upon him alone rested virtually the responsibility for the authorized Roll of Peers in Ireland. He (the Earl of Galloway) thought it would be a good thing if the Lyon King-at-Arms, who held the corresponding position in Scotland, were charged with a similar responsibility; but the Committee did not adopt that view, for they practically proposed that the House should look to the Court of Session to aid them in the matter. After deliberation, the Committee came to the conclusion that the chief point they must consider was "the scenes at Holyrood" at election time during the last 15 years, and how to prevent their recurrence. But he must remind their Lordships of the number of protests continually made during the last 15 years by the Lord Clerk Register in regard to the legality of various votes given at these elections, and reported to that House as provided by law, but left by it entirely unnoticed. The Committee had had the advantage 1911 of making use of the Reports of previous Committees on the same subject—Reports of 1847, 1851, 1869, 1874, and 1877—and they decided, as the Committee of 1847 had done, that it was no use proceeding in these matters by Resolution of the House, and the consequence was that a Bill had been introduced and passed into law. Though, however, there had been two cases decided under that Act, there was plenty of evidence that the measure was, if not wholly, at any rate partially, inoperative. It was seen that it was necessary to take further steps. The recommendation of the Committee of 1874 was that there should be a nominal Roll, in addition to the Union Roll of Peers—that was to say, a Roll bearing not only each title of honour upon it, but also the Christian name and surname of each individual who was entitled to be upon it. As regarded the body to whom the matter was proposed to be intrusted, there could be no jealousy of the Court of Session on the part of that House. For the first century after the Union the House of Lords always referred all matters connected with the Scotch Peerage to the Court of Session, from which it constantly sought information and advice. He had already reminded the House that for 15 years there had been protests. During the last century these protests would have been remitted to the Court of Session, and he would ask what wiser course could be followed now? In conclusion, the objects of the present Bill were three—first, to secure an acknowledgment of the undoubted right to rightful tenant of "titular honour," or peerage, of every Scottish Peer to be on the Roll of the Peerage for Scotland; secondly, to secure every Peer holding such undoubted, acknowledged, rightful title, from annoyance of protest at the time and place of giving his vote; thirdly, to initiate a course of procedure in case of dispute among more than one claimant to a Peerage—or in regard to right of precedency—easy, quick, economical, in the Court of Session; and there was also a provision in the Bill naming Edinburgh, the Court of Session, as the place where all the State Records should be kept, so as to be immediately at hand. He might add that he could assure their Lordships that all these objects could be secured without in the least infringing upon the pre- 1912 sent Prerogative of the Crown, and without in the least degree trampling upon or abridging the present authority and Prerogative of their Lordships' House. The Bill, he would further state, was the joint production of Lord Moncreiff, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and Lord Watson. In the absence of those noble and learned Lords he (the Earl of Galloway) proposed, after consulting with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, to ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time to-morrow week, the 18th July; and as he did not anticipate any opposition to the second reading, he would then propose that the Committee stage should be taken on Friday, July 21.
Bill to regulate procedure at the election of Representative Peers in Scotland; and for other purposes—Presented (The Earl of GALLOWAY).
LORD BALFOURsaid, he had been a Member of the Select Committee in question, and as such had consented to the recommendations which had been made, with the exception of the one which had reference to the bringing in of the Court of Session as a Court to decide Peerage cases, and that he objected to, even subject to the revision of the House of Lords. To that part of the Bill he would offer his uncompromising opposition, and he should reserve his right of proposing the rejection of the Bill on a subsequent stage if it were retained. He wished to point out that there were a large number of Members of the Committee who were not present when the division was taken upon the question of bringing in the Court of Session, the number of Peers present being only 12, a number too small to be considered representative of the Committee; while, of those, 7 were in favour of and 5 wished to negative the proposal. It could not be said, therefore, that the proposal he objected to came before their Lordships' House in any form as a unanimous Report of the Committee. It was only by a narrow majority the recommendation was come to, and, in his opinion, it was one with which their Lordships would do wisely to disagree.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, undoubtedly, if the Bill were proceeded with, great caution would be required to be exercised in considering the 1913 provisions giving the Court of Session jurisdiction in Peerage cases. He did not, however, think it was expedient to discuss the Bill at present. He wished to know whether the evidence taken before the Committee had been printed?
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that it was not in the form of a Blue Book; but it had been printed and published. With reference to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), he thought it would be very unusual to stop a Bill at that stage. The noble Lord (Lord Balfour) had stated that the proposal was carried by a small minority in the Committee; but—[Cries of "Order!"]—upon which the noble Earl resumed his seat.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he felt very strongly with the noble Lord (Lord Balfour), that it would not be convenient for that House to take any step whatever in the direction of giving up its jurisdiction in regard to Peerage cases. It was in the power of that House, if it wanted advice, to seek it from the Court of Session or otherwise; but to enact that the Court of Session should take primary jurisdiction in any way in regard to the House of Lords would be extremely injudicious, and a proposal they ought not to countenance for a moment.
§ Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 190.)