Star.
London, England, 1820-06-14 00:00:00

ELECTION OF scoTen PEERS.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY moved the second
reading of the Bill for regulating the mode of elect-
ing the Representative Peers of Scotland. ,His Lord-
ship briefly pointed out the inconveniencies which the
Bill went to remedy. He said their Lordships had,
at various times, passed Resolutions affecting the
Election of Scotch Peers, but no provision had been
made for the case to which. the Bill applied. Ac-
cording to the existing mode, any subject might, on
the assumption of a tttle,- before his claim was esta-
blished, give his vote, and the Returning_Officer
could not, as the law now stood, refuse it, although
all the Peers of Scotland should protest against it.—
He was aware, that in some instances, the Returning
Officer had rejected such votes, but in so doing he
had over-stepped the bounds of his legal authority.—
Yet there was scarce any Election in which some
votes were not justly protested against. He appealed
to those Noble Lords who had attended on such oc-
casions, whether he made an over-statement, when
he said there was no Election in which there were
not some votes given that all present looked upon as
unfair. • He trusted that this made out a case de-
serving of the Legislative interference of their Lord•
ships. It was very necessary to guard the Peerage
from the intrusion of those who had no lawful claim,
and to make the power of protesting, not a nugatory,
but an efficient privilege. He then stated, that the
leading principle of the Bill was, that all persons as-
suming the right of voting for Scotch Peers, should
qualify themselves by previously proving their title
before a Committee, except the sons and grandsons
of Pet rs. A regulation of this kind -was acted upon
in the case of Itisl Peels, where even the direct de-
scendants were under a necessity of making out their
legitimate title before the House; and it was also re-
quired that the heirs of English Peers should esta-
blish their right by the production of the necessary
legal evidence. There was, of course, some expense
and trouble attached to it, but it was not to be put
in competition with the guarding an impottant right
against the possibility of violation. As the measure
was prospective, no existing right of any individual
could be touched by it. It only prevented future
claimants who assumed a title on collateral grounds,
from voting before a Committee had decided upon
the validity of their claim, leaving the direct de-
scendants in the same circumstances in which they
already stood. He trusted that their Lordships were
satisfied of the necessity of the case, and that it was
manifest the irregular practices which took place at
the Election of the sixteen Representative Peers of
Scotland, were derogatory to the whole body of
Electors, ::nd required some such measure as he pro-
posed, to obviate and remedy.
Lord CATHCART said, that he should not op-
pose the principle of the Bill, but he thought that
the same object might be more properly obtained
by a resolution of the House. He thought, at least,
that further proceedings in regard to it should be
deferred until it was seen whether a resolution might
not be passed to the same effect. •
Lord MELVILLE was of opinion, that the Noble
Lord who had introduced the Hill was entitle& to
the thanks of the House. He did not think that the
Mime object could be obtained by a resolution of the
Ems,. If their Lordships thought it could, he was
satisfied; but in the view which he at present took
of the subject, Le thought the Bill necessary. But
there was one consideration which he would suggest
to the Noble Earl—he thought it proper_and advise-
able that the brothers of Peers themselves, and the

sacs of Peers, should he included in the same excep-
tions with the sons and grandsons.
_ Lord LAUDERDALE said that the Bill was ne.
cessary ; the present mode of election required mo-
dification. He said he could himself make out 15
or 16 voters having no real Claim, whose votes on
the day of election would be as good as those of any
of the Peers of Scotland. He meant for that day
only—(A laugh ).—He agreed with the Noble Lord
who preceded him, that it was not competent for a
resolution of the House to do what this Bill went to
enact—because a resolution of the House couhl not
take away a right vested by law. All the Peers of
Scotland had, as the law now stood, a right to vote
without previous qualification; but the Bill went to
divest a certain class of that unrestrained privilege
to which they were at present legally entitled in the
Scotch Peerage, and the case of the sons of Peeresses
in their own right. He stated that it was customary
for those who petitioned the Sovereign as claimants
of a title, to vote before the merits of their petition
were decided upon. This ought not to be in any
instance allowed.
Lord MELVILLE said a few words in explanation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the House was
indebted to the Noble Earl (Roseberry) for his exer-
tions on this subject. There was a great defect in
the law, as it regarded the title of Scotch Peers. As
it now stood any person might vote who, prince facie,
appeared to have a right to the title which he as-
sumed. He would not enter into the question whether
brothers should be put on the same footing as the di.
rect descendants ; but he thought the law affecting
Irish Peerages a salutary one, which required proof
to be made.out before the House, of the legitimacy
Of the claim of both the sons and grandsons of Irish
Pam. It certainly imposed a painful daty, but it
was a regulation that was strictly observed even in
cases where its application was known not to be at