Lords Sitting of 29 May 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (64); Poor Law Conferences* (65).
Committee—Representative Peers (Scotland) (53–66).
Committee—Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry Paving) * (55).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (27), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT—BILL FOR THE BETTER PROTECTION OF YOUNG GIRLS.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Earl CAIRNS.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that on Thursday he would make a statement when a Bill by the Government for the better Protection of Young Girls would be introduced in their Lordships' House.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 53.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 53.)

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do go into Committee on the Representative Peers (Scotland) Bill, on re-commitment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman of Committees, Whether he was right in understanding that a Bill having been re-committed, there would be an opportunity of moving Amendments on Report? There had been no time to put down Amendments to the Amendments which the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Lord Chancellor) had put on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): Yes; certainly. Before taking the Chair, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the Bill, as re-cast, provided that the Committee of Privileges might submit a claim to the Peerage to the Court of Session for decision. He contended that it was absolutely the Privilege of the House of Lords to determine who were the proper persons to sit in it, quite apart from the Court of Session. The Lord Chancellor proposed, in order to secure a safe determination of any such proposal, to provide that no such Resolution should be passed, if the greater number of the Lords of Appeal present in the Committee dissent therefrom, al-
  1078
  though the majority of the Committee might decide otherwise. A most important principle was here involved—namely, that the minority was to override the majority. That was entirely contrary to Parliamentary Procedure, and he thought their Lordships ought on no account to agree to it.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he also wished to be allowed to protest against the new clause proposed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, which provided that no Resolution should be passed by the Committee of Privileges if the greater number of the Lords of Appeal—mentioned in Section 5 of the Judicature Act, 1876—present for the time being should dissent therefrom. He (Lord Denman) had protested, in 1876, against the necessity for three Law Lords being needed to form a quorum. Lord Hatherley had said, or written, that three Law Lords would not, although a good Court, be the House of Lords, and had pointed out that, under it, Lord Kingsdown—who sat afterwards, as one of three, from 1859 to 1867—would have been unable to form one of a quorum; and on one occasion, at a winter sitting, suitors had to withdraw because only two Law Lords were present. He had predicted the possibility of this in 1856. He himself had recently asserted his right to sit on the Court of Appeal, and he had even ventured to give what had been called only an "opinion." He firmly hoped their Lordships would not admit this new clause, because, if they did, it would destroy the whole hereditary character of the House. The Act of Edward III. made the Archbishop of Canterbury the Head of the five Lords who formed the Court of Appeal and who reported to the House. The Scotch Peers were, very properly and very legitimately and naturally, tenacious of their rights; but he believed that, if the Bill passed in the shape it was now proposed to be amended, when it came to be understood, it would be regarded with disgust by the people of Scotland, because they looked up to this House as the House of Lords, and would not approve of any such delegation of their power. During the 29 years he had been in this House, he had striven for nothing more earnestly than the maintenance of its dignity, and, therefore, he hoped their Lordships would excuse him for protesting against a mea-

  1079
  sure that was calculated to destroy its ancient character.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Roll of Peerages and Peers of Scotland to be annually prepared).
  On the Motion of The Duke of BUCCLEUCH, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 9, after ("Roll"), insert ("commonly called the Union Roll").
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 17, after ("January"), insert ("the name and titles of the Duke of Rothesay for the time being shall always stand first on the said Roll.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he should like to know what the necessity was for the Amendment, as the Duke of Rothesay was always put first?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that, in the next clause, directions were given for the preparation of the Election Roll; and that it was to consist of those persons who had voted in the last 21 years, or had sat as Representative Peers, or had had their rights established by the House of Lords. He thought it his duty to inquire whether His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay had voted within that period, and was informed that he had not done so since 1807; and, as he did not come within any of the other categories, there would have been no provision for putting his name there at all.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to know, whether, in the case of the Peer being a minor, his name would appear?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, it would; but of course he would not be entitled to vote, but the name and all the titles would appear.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Form of Election Roll).
  On the Motion of The Earl of GALLOWAY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 19, leave out ("Union"), and after ("Roll") insert ("heretofore called at elections"); and in line 21, after ("the"), insert ("Election").
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland"), insert ("other than the Duke of Rothesay"); and in line 26, after ("vote"), insert ("by any Peer at the same time present and voting").
  On the Motion of The Duke of BUCCLEUCH, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 32, after ("be"), insert—
  ("And the said Election Roll shall not contain any names of Peers other than those hereinbefore specified.")
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he wished to call attention to the way in which the Roll was proposed to be made up by the clause, which seemed to him to contain provisions partaking rather of a personal and individual character—that was, those provisions would exclude from the Roll some individuals who might think they were entitled to be on it. He, himself, did not come within any of the categories mentioned in the clause as it now stood. He had not sat before in the House of Lords; he had voted since 1862; and his Scotch Peerage had not been established by the House of Lords. He would thus be excluded from the new Election Roll. The Bill was intended to regulate the procedure at the election of Peers, and for "other purposes;" but if that was one of the other purposes, it was, as he had said—though, no doubt, not intended to be so—rather of a personal and invidious character. He was sorry that the first time he had risen to speak in their Lordships' House it should be to complain of a personal matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) that the Bill was not intended to have any personal effect either for or against any Peer, and that the mysterious words which had been quoted from the title had no such sting in them as was apprehended.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Publication of Roll).
  Amendment moved, in page 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("with the Deputy Clerk Register in the"); and in line 14, leave out ("Deputy"), and insert ("Lord.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he heartily approved of the Amendment, it being similar to one which he (Lord Watson) himself had moved last year. Its intention was to make it perfectly clear that the Lord Clerk Register was intended by the Act of 1878 to remain the supreme authority in all matters connected with the Scottish Peerage, and that he should undoubtedly be supreme in this particular matter.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Names on Roll only to be called at elections).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 22, after ("only"), insert ("other than and except the Duke of Rothesay"); and in line 32, after ("except"), insert ("the title of the Duke of Rothesay, and").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Proceedings by heirs of deceased persons).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the Proviso requiring the application of a Peer's heir, for insertion of his name on the Roll, to be accompanied by an extract decree of service of the applicant as heir, and of the evidence on which such service proceeded, said, that, generally speaking, there was no evidence, either documentary or oral.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 43, to leave out from ("majority") to ("and") in page 3, line 5.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sorry he could not meet the wishes of the noble Duke; but he had had some communication with the Lord Justice Clerk upon the subject, and he found that considerable importance was attached by him and others to the matter. He (the Lord Chancellor) quite agreed that if these services were to very remote ancestors, they would be of very little value. But, in ordinary cases, the succession would be proximate, as from father to son, and in such cases they would contain all the evidence which was required.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved an Amendment, with the view of giving power to the Lord Clerk Register, if satisfied with the claim of an heir, to insert his name on the Election Roll.
  Amendment moved,
  In pages 3, lines 6 to 15, leave out from ("thereupon") to ("he"),both inclusive, and insert ("after due advertisement of the application, if satisfied that the applicant possesses the character of heir entitling him to such title of honour, insert his name in the Election Roll, or otherwise, if not satisfied, may refuse to make the insertion until the applicant.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not believe that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway) could be serious in proposing this Amendment, seeing it would devolve upon the Lord Clerk Register, who might or might not be skilled in the law, a duty not contemplated by his Office, and which ought properly to be discharged by the House of Lords.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Amendments of Roll), agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Petitions as to rights of peerage and precedency, and to correct errors in the Roll).
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in moving an Amendment, to provide that when any such Petition was presented to Her Majesty, it should be lawful for Her Majesty, after obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland, to refer the same to the House of Lords, said, his object was to apply the same procedure to Scottish Peerages as was applied to Peerages of the United Kingdom. It had been the custom to take the opinion of the Attorney General on questions relating to Peerages connected with England, and he asked that the same reference should be made to the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland in the case of Scottish Peerages.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 35, after ("Majesty"), to insert ("after obtaining the opinion of the law officers of the Crown for Scotland.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. The Crown was under no obligation to take the opinion of the Law Officers, either in England, Ireland, or in Scotland, and nothing could be more improper than to introduce that principle. When these cases came before the House of Lords, it was usual for the Attorney General or Solicitor General in English cases, and for the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland in Scottish cases, to attend to assist the House; but there was no obligation on the Crown to ask for their opinion.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he could corroborate what had been said by the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Lord Chancellor).
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYhere cited instances, with the respective signatures of various Secretaries of State for the Home Department, showing that the references in English and Scottish cases were entirely different, the Crown referring English cases to the English Law Officers of the Crown before being brought before the Committee of Privileges, but in Scotch cases only after they had been brought before that Committee.
  Amendment, (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he would next propose an Amendment requiring the Committee of Privileges to obtain the approval of the Crown prior to the rectification of the Roll.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 40, after ("may"), to insert ("after intimation of Her Majesty's approval.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in opposing the Amendment, said, that it was not the practice for the Crown to exercise a personal judgment, or to intimate approval or disapproval.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYcontended that it had always been the practice to report to Her Majesty; and, as an instance, he would refer their Lordships to a case in which a Scottish Peer was placed on the Roll by command of the Crown, and not by the House of Lords at all. He would not, however, press his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that, objecting to the matter being referred wholesale to the Court of Session, without the issues of law and fact having been adequately separated, he would propose, as an Amendment, to omit the words "the same or." As the clause had been amended, the Petition itself might be amended.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 3, to leave out ("the same, or.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD MONCREIFFsaid, the clause had been altered at his suggestion, and he, therefore, objected to the limitation proposed by the Amendment. To limit the reference to questions of fact or law, as proposed, would put the Committee of Privileges in a very awkward position, and impose upon it a duty for which it was not suited. It was often very difficult to separate questions of law from questions of fact; and, therefore, in complicated cases, he thought the Committee should have the power of refusing the Petition itself.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he could not conceive a more conclusive reason for limiting the reference. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Moncreiff) said it was difficult at times to separate questions of law from questions of fact, and therefore the Committee of Privileges should have power to bundle them altogether, and send the whole thing off to another tribunal to make the best of it. That was what he (Earl Cairns) objected to. It was an improper delegation of the work of this House to a different Court. By all means let them send any point which it was thought could be better settled in Scotland for determination there; but be objected to the whole matter being referred.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the power of reference in the original Bill was limited in the manner proposed; but, as he had consented to its being widened, he would, of course, vote for the clause as it now stood.
  After a considerable amount of inaudible conversation between The LORD CHANCELLOR and EARL CAIRNS across the Table,
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYrose, and stated that, as he understood that the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) had consented to accept the

  1085
  Amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns), he (the Earl of Galloway) must interpose, and ask the Lord Chancellor to stand to his own clause, as amended, widening the reference to the Court of Session, and to divide the House upon the question.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied, that, upon this expression of opinion from the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway), he was ready to stand by his own amended clause.
  On Question (leave being given to the Lord MOSTYN to vote in the House)? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Not-Contents 56: Majority 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Beaufort, D.

  Crofton, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Derwent, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Portland, D.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Greville, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Houghton, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Clonmell, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Feversham, E.

  Granville, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Haddington, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Kintore, E. (E. Kintore.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monson, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Reay, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Romilly, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  [Teller.]

  Auckland, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Brabourne, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Carrington, L.

  1086

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Blackburn, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Boston, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denman, L.

  Bath, M.

  de Ros, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Elphinstone, L. [Teller.]

  Amherst, E.

  Forester, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Inchiquin, L. [Teller.]

  Carnarvon, E.

  Keane, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Kenlis, E. (M. Headfort.)

  Lamington, T.

  Lathom, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Milltown, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Norton, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Melville, V.

  St. Vincent, V.

  Trevor, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Wimborne, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had no doubt the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) would agree to his next Amendment—namely, in page 4, line 4, after ("to"), to insert ("either division of the Inner House of"). His object was to refer Petitions to either division of the Inner Court of Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly not.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had only moved this Amendment, that it might not be thought that Peerage cases were to be submitted to the Outer House, which would hardly be consistent with the dignity of the House of Lords.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 11, at end of clause, to add the words ("Provided also, that every petition presented to Her Majesty claiming a higher order of precedency upon the Roll than that which has been accorded the name of any Peer, shall be referred as heretofore to the Court of Session, whose judgment, subject to appeal to the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom, shall be final and conclusive in law.")—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, for which there was no precedent since the Union. The most consistent and convenient and the least circuitous and expensive course was that proposed by the Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Protests).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 15, leave out ("and received").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, as to the reception of a protest against a claim to vote, providing that it should be made only by any Peer present and voting at the election, and received by the Lord Clerk Register.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 16, after ("Parliament"), to insert ("by any peer present and voting at such election, and received by the Lord Clerk Register.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he strongly objected to the proposed alteration. He should like to hear some reasons why there should be a departure from the ancient custom, under which protests had been made by Peers who had been unable to be present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it seemed to him to be only reasonable, if a Peer desired to come forward as an objector to the right of someone else to be on the Roll, in order that the question might be solemnly considered by the proper tribunal, that he should take the trouble to personally present his protest. Further, no protest should be allowed after the matter had once been adjudicated on by the House of Lords. The present arrangement had given rise to scandals and inconveniences, and his only reason for retaining protests at all was that there must be some means of correcting errors, and it was impossible otherwise to guard completely against errors creeping into the Roll.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that occasions might arise when, from illness or other causes, a Peer could not be present. Peers should be jealous of parting with a Privilege they had long
  1088
  enjoyed, and he trusted their Lordships would decide against the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF STAIRappealed to the noble and learned Earl to accept this Amendment. Scotch Peers had, from time immemorial, had the privilege of protesting in writing; they were very tenacious of their ancient rights, and no good reason had as yet been given for this change. A Peer wishing to be present at an election might be prevented by illness or urgent business. He had often known snowstorms which prevented locomotion for days. He still trusted that the noble and learned Earl would accept the Amendment.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that, having served upon the Committee to which this subject was relegated, and having paid some attention to it, he wished to join in the opposition to the proposal to abolish written protests. He desired to point out the strangely illogical position taken by the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor). The noble and learned Earl said that he desired to limit protests, because there had been indecorous scenes at certain elections of Scotch Peers; and, in order to effect this, he proposed to abolish those protests sent by absent Peers, who could, by no possibility, have been guilty of the indecorum of which he complained. By all means, let all precautions be taken against disorderly scenes at these elections; but that might be done without forbidding the handing in of written protests from Peers, who might be ill, or, for other reasons, unable to attend. It might be desirable to know whether certain protests proceeded from the isolated action of individuals, or from a wider feeling among Scotch Peers; and there seemed no valid reasoning why this ancient Privilege should be swept away.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he most heartily supported the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor). He (the Duke of Buccleuch) had been present at many elections, and could testify to the scandals, and inconvenience, and confusion which arose from the presentation of protests under the present system. Surely, any Peer wishing to protest, and unable to attend, could have no difficulty in finding a friend who would enter the necessary protest. Great inconvenience had arisen at Elections of Representative

  1089
  Peers, from the practice of gentlemen unconnected with the Election, advocates in wig and gown for the most part, jumping up among the spectators, and lodging a protest on behalf of some individual Peer. The protestor might be within, or without the Kingdom; he might be ill in bed, or in perfect health; but the practice had given rise to a great deal of scandal and confusion at the Elections.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked, if it was permissible for a Scotch Peer to enter his protest by proxy?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that he had never heard so. A Scottish Peer might vote by proxy; and he could at present enter his protest, not by proxy, but by some person whom he deputed. He need not necessarily be a Peer.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that that was exactly the point he wished to urge. After the speech of the noble Luke (the Duke of Buccleuch), he (Lord Brabourne) should claim his vote against the abolition of written protests, since all he desired was that Peers present should be able to hand in protests from those Peers who might be unable to attend, but who ought not, on that account, to be deprived of their right to protest.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought there was ground for saying that there were objections to the practice of protests being delivered by some person not a Peer acting on behalf of a Scotch Peer. But was it necessary, in order to stop that practice, to go so far as to say that every protest should be delivered by the Peer himself? It was obvious that there might be cases where a Peer was prevented by illness or other causes from appearing; and, in such cases, when a friend incurred on his behalf all the liabilities and responsibilities, he considered that should be sufficient. Therefore, it was clearly desirable to modify the Amendment, so as to admit of the presentation of a protest by another Peer entitled to be present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not at all object to the principle of the suggestion put forward by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury); but he thought it better to give effect to it at a later stage of the Bill. His object would be attained if
  1090
  the protest were made, either on his own behalf, or that of another Peer, by some Peer actually present and entitled to vote. He would, on Report, propose words to give effect to the suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 17, to insert after ("accustomed") the following Proviso:—
  ("Provided, that no such protest shall be made by or received from any person, other than a Peer present and voting at such election; nor shall any such protest he made or received against the vote or claim to vote of any Peer whose right shall have been established, either before or after the passing of this Act, by any Order or Resolution of the House of Lords upon any Petition referred to the House of Lords by Her Majesty.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he objected to the latter part of the clause, inasmuch as it did not meet existing difficulties with regard to questions of precedence according to the Union Roll. One noble Friend near him had, in the aggregate, 47 protests against his vote, not because he had voted as a Peer in a Peerage given him by Resolution of the House, but because he had voted as the Representative of a much more ancient Peerage, his right to which the House itself had declared was by no means clear.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he most decidedly objected to the adoption of the clause as it stood.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he also protested against the clause, and would press upon the noble Earl (the Earl of Kintore) the necessity of dividing against it.
  LORD MONCREIFFsaid, it was extremely doubtful whether the way proposed was the best to pursue in order to deal with this question; and he, therefore, should certainly have been glad if his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had seen his way to depart from this Amendment. It was a question whether the Act of 1847 should be interfered with in this respect at all; but, in any case, he doubted whether the clause proposed the right way of dealing with a judgment of the Committee of Privileges as regards any subsequent question raised upon the rights of any individual Peer. By its means an invidious distinction was drawn between Peers whose claims had been ac-

  1091
  knowledged and other Scottish Peers. The Act of 1847 had subsisted for nearly 40 years, and he suggested whether it would not be better to leave it as it was.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he must ask a clear answer from the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) as to the effect of these words. Suppose a noble Lord, to whom the Committee of Privileges had adjudged a certain Peerage, answered to his name, and claimed to vote in an order and precedence higher than that particular Peerage, would, or would not, these words have the effect of preventing any protest or objection against such vote?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that the Proviso had nothing to do with precedence, and would have no such effect. It was entirely limited to protests against the votes of Peers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it appeared to him that the clause made a distinct change in the status of the Peers who were protested against, and it was undesirable. He admitted that the difference in question might be merely a technical one, and might not have any practical value; but, while acknowledging the fact that there appeared to be some inconveniences inherent in the present system, he did not think the practical advantage of passing the clause sufficient to justify the inconvenience of making an innovation and the invidious contrast to which several noble Lords from Scotland had very properly objected.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that noble Lords who objected to the clause seemed to lose sight of the real nature of the clause, the object of which was to put an end to constant disputes, which were certainly not desirable, and to settle the manner in which disputed questions in regard to Scotch Peerages might be determined. No Peer would think of protesting against a right to vote, which had never been in controversy. That protests should continue to be made against rights which, after controversy, had been conclusively established by the House, whose decision, by the express provision of this Bill, was to be final and conclusive in the future, and in the past was made equally so by the Act of 1847, would be, to say the least, indecorous.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 63; Not-Contents 36: Majority 27.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ampthill, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Bedford, D.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Derwent, L.

  Portland, D.

  Douglas, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Forester, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Bath, M.

  Hammond, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth).

  Inchiquin, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort)

  Bradford, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

  Leigh, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller]

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Morley, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife).

  Melville, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  St. Vincent, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Wimborne, L.

  Wimmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Brabourne, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Calthorpe L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Crofton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Elphinstone, L. [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Innea, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Houghton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Wilton E.

  Lamington, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Moore, L, (M. Drogheda.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  1093

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Reay, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  [Teller.]

  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Short title) agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had put a new clause on the Paper, requiring the presence of a quorum of Lords of Appeal at meetings of the Committee of Privileges, at which references were made to the Court of Session; but the clause was now unnecessary, as the power of making these references had been withdrawn from the Committee and vested in the House itself; and, therefore, he was not disposed to press it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 8th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 66.)
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) when it was proposed to take the Report? He would remind him that it was Ascot week.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORin reply, said, it had been intended to take Report on Monday, and the third reading on Friday week; but, to suit the convenience of noble Lords, they would take Report on Friday week, and the third reading on the following Monday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.