The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-18 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord GROSVENOR said, that as the Archbishop
of Canterbury's Registrar Bill had been agreed to with-
out any amendments by the Commons, he "um
now have no opportunity of discussing its merits; he
regretted that it had been introduced here as a private Bill,
and not as a public one. He however gave notice that,
whenever the subject again came under the consideration
of their Lordships, he should propo,‘ that they would
treat it as if the present Bill }id never passed,
and that no claim to vested rights should he founded upon
the provisions of the present Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that as Le under-
stood the Bill, it really was a private one ; the parties who
were interested in it were desirous of making the arrange-
ment among themselves, but found that it would be inure
convenient to apply to Parliament fora Bill to carry into
effect their wishes.

Lord ELDON explained the nature of the Bill, which
was meant to convey a reversionary interest.

Lord GROSVENOR observed, that the Archbishop not
having been able to carry his purpose itit9;effect otherwise, •
he brought forward this Bill; to him it appeared to partake
of the nature of a public Bill. This was a sinecure office;
which had increased and was increasing very consider-
ably. The income last year was 6;700/., and this year it
was 8,2001., and to what extent it might increase no man
under the atm knesV. The office, Which in 1810 was so
inconsiderable, now amounted to a large sum. In con-
clusion, the Noble Esti, as we understood, set the Duke of
Wellington right as to his not having wished the House to
pledge itself to consider the office on any future occasion,
if the Bill hadsnot passed, but only that he himself should
so consider it.

Lord CAIINARVON then proceeded to bring forward
his motion to consider the propriety of suspending the
standing Orders of the House, with respeet to Lord
Shrewsbury's Estate JIM.

After a short discussion on the subject,
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question, and the
flou.e divided, when there appeared—

Contents
Nou Contents
Alajority against the ►notion
SCOTCH PEERAGE BILL.

2,~
27

Lord BF-LII AVEN, in moving the Second Reading of
this Bill, said, that its first object was to place the Repre-
sentative Peers of Scotland on the same footing with all
other Peers who sat in that House. lie thought such an
object was strictly consistent with the character of that as-
sembly. The next object was to place such of the Peers
of Scotland as were not Representative Peers, on the same
footing With the Peers of Ireland, who were not elected to
represent their own body in Parliament. In this respect,
it seemed to bins that the Treaty of Union with Ireland
was an improvement of the Treaty of Union with Scotland.
Not only were Scotch Peers who were not representa-
tives excluded from sitting in the other 'louse of Par-
liament, but their eldest sons were also unable to he Mein-
bers of that Assembly. Now he thought that last exclusion
depended solely on a Resolution of the Peers, and not on
the law; and that it vught not to continue any longer.
Under these circumstances, he should move that the Bill be
read a second time.

The Earl of MANSFIELD opposed the motion, al-
though he Mt as anxious a desire as the Noble Lord oppo-
site to 'confer a benefit upon the Peers of Scotland ; hut his
objection was that the Bill was in contradiction to the Act
of Union itself. ."

The Earl of ROSEBERRY had Leen formerly opposed to
this measure, but now warmly approved of it. But while
he advoCated this motion, he thought their Lordships were
bound to allow the eldest sons of Peers to represent
Scotch Counties, and also to allow the other Scottish
Peers to sit in the House of Parliament as Representa-
tives, either for English'or Scottish shires or boroughs.

The Earl of HADDINGTON concurred in what had
fallen from the Noble .Earl as to allowing , the eldest sons
of Peers to sit for ,Scottish counties, hut objected to. the
other branches of the motion. He looked upon the mak-
ing the eleetion -of the sixteen Scotch Representative Peers
for life to he clearly an infraction of the Treaty of Union.
Ile thought, under all the circumstances of the case, it
would be better not to proceed any further with the Bill
during the present Session.
Lord MELVILLE did not feel any embarrassment as to
the course he should pursue with respect to this Bill ; for
he was determined to oppose it in all its parts, as a direct
• violation both of the letter and spirit. of the Treaty of
Union. No precedent or case analogous to the present had
necurred since the Union. Nothing short of absolute ne-
cessity could justify- their Lordships , in departing from the
Treaty of Union ; and, in his opinion, no such necessity
existed. A majority of the Scotch Peers being favourable
to the measure was nut a sufficient ground for passing such
a resolution ; if a single Peer were against it, he had a
right to demand that the Treaty of Union ought to be ad-
hered to. 'the measure was against the interest of the
Peers of Scotland. He thought the Noble Lord ill•advised
in bringing forward the measure.-
The Earl of LAUDERDALE approved of the measure,
and thought it would he highly advantageous to the Peers
of Scotland to have their privileges, with respect to sitting
in Parliament, assimilated to those of the Peers of Ireland'.
—The measure was founded upon -the experience drawn
from the Irish Union, and; from seeing how well it worked
with respect to the Representative Pe(l'M
.iu that House.—
lie thought it right that the eldest sons of Scotch Peers
skoph) sit in the House 'of Commons. He had himself sat
in that Ho;lse for the space of nine yeas. With respect
to time proposed Meagpre degrading the Peerage, he could •
not conceive that a powee cf ;election was a power of de-
gradation. If he thought it -degrading, lie would .not
assnme the power. The Peers of Scotland ought to come
Forward in a body awl claim the privileges enjoyed by the
Peen of Ireland, and he trusted that they would not be
contented m 0 they obtained greater advantages than they
now possessed.
Lord REDESDALE thought dua a;ihjpet required more
consideration than to be assented to that night. The pri-
s.ihrgPs of the Irish Peers had arisen from the circumstance,
that at stiv titne of the Union several of the Irish Peers
happened to ho lakr,abers of the English. House of Com-
mons. The present utts,aive was a violation of the Act of
Union, and if the Parliament had th,:l power, he maintained
tbo they had not the right to altet: that Act.. This had
been ais.o of Lord Cowper. In his if
a majority a the Peers of Scotland did . apprOVe the
present measure, that 4long. &vas not sufficient to induce the
House to accede to the propoaitioa. P.::::,ogapd at the period
of the Union being the weaker• party, relied on the honour
,91 pie people of Englnd for holding sacred every article of
the coutpi4; and it ought not to be infringed or violated
in the smallest
,4;,gree, unless with the consent of the
whole of the people of fri'er aii. 1, The present measure was
a violation of that conip!Lci, "Pt 14 :1)e therefore give it
his apposition.
The Ead ofW;LIIA IV EN very briefly repiiell,t9 a few of
the observations made :;gainat the measure, and concluded by
'saying, that he should certainly forward next• Se-
ssion ; if not in its present form, in sons 2 alte74 s,liape less
likely to meet with opposition.
.•
Thp question was then put, and negatived without a
division. •