Editing Representative peer (section)

==Scotland==
{{See also|List of Scottish representative peers}}

[[File:Articles of Union between England and Scotland 28 Jan 1707.png|thumb|upright|The Act of Union 1707 was ratified in Scotland on 16 January 1707, and by the English Parliament on 19 March 1707]]

Under articles XXII and XXIII of the [[Act of Union 1707]], Scottish peers were entitled to elect sixteen representative peers to the House of Lords.<ref name="May treatise on law"/><ref name="Price">{{cite journal |last=Price |first=Jacob M |title=The Sixteen Peers of Scotland: An Account of the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland, 1707–1959 by James Fergusson |journal=The Journal of Modern History |volume=33 |issue=4 |date=December 1961 |page=439 |doi=10.1086/238935 }}</ref> Each served for one Parliament or a maximum of seven years, but could be re-elected during future Parliaments. Upon the summons of a new Parliament, the Sovereign would issue a proclamation summoning Scottish peers to the [[Holyrood Palace|Palace of Holyroodhouse]]. The elections were held in the Great Gallery, a large room decorated by eighty-nine of [[Jacob de Wet]]'s portraits of Scottish monarchs, from [[Fergus Mór]] to [[Charles II of England|Charles II]]. The [[Lord Clerk Register]] would read out the Peerage Roll as indicates his presence when called.{{clarify|date=November 2023}} The Roll was then re–read, with each peer responding by publicly announcing his votes and the return being sent to the clerk of the crown at London.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HYIDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA17 |pages=17–8 |title=A Treatise on the Election Laws in Scotland: To which is Added an Historical Inquiry Concerning the Municipal Constitutions of Towns and Boroughs |last1=Connell |first1=Arthur |year=1827}}</ref> The same procedure was used whenever a vacancy arose.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wight |first=Alexander |title=An Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of Parliament, Chiefly in Scotland |chapter=The Scottish Peers |volume=1 |publisher=W. Creech & J. Murray |year=1806 |page=127 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i2euAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127}}</ref>

The [[Plurality-at-large voting|block voting]] system was used, with each peer casting as many votes as there were seats to be filled. The system permitted the party with the greatest number of peers, normally the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]], to procure a disproportionate number of seats, with opposing parties sometimes being left entirely unrepresented. The Lord Clerk Register was responsible for tallying the votes. The return issued by the Lord Clerk Register was sufficient evidence to admit the representative peers to Parliament; unlike other peers, Scottish representatives did not receive [[Hereditary peer#Writs of summons|writs of summons]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990429/text/90429-16.htm |title=House of Lords Hansard for 29 Apr 1999 (pt 16) |work=House of Lords Hansard |volume=600 |access-date=7 April 2007}}</ref>
The position and rights of Scottish peers in relation to the House of Lords remained unclear during most of the eighteenth century. In 1711, [[James Douglas, 4th Duke of Hamilton|The 4th Duke of Hamilton]], a peer of Scotland, was made [[Duke of Brandon]] in the [[Peerage of Great Britain]]. When he sought to sit in the House of Lords, he was denied admittance, the Lords ruling that a peer of Scotland could not sit in the House of Lords unless he was a representative peer, even if he also held a British peerage dignity.<ref name="debrett p358">{{cite book |last=Debrett |first=John |author-link=John Debrett |title=Debrett's Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland |publisher=J. G. & F. Rivington |year=1839 |location=London |page=[https://archive.org/details/debrettspeerage02debrgoog/page/n465 358] |url=https://archive.org/details/debrettspeerage02debrgoog}}</ref> They reasoned that the Act of Union 1707 had established the number of Scots peers in the House of Lords at no more and no less than sixteen.<ref name="connell treatise">{{cite book |last=Connell |first=Arthur |title=A treatise on the election laws in Scotland |publisher=William Blackwood |year=1827 |location=Edinburgh |pages=9–11 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HYIDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11 |access-date=11 February 2013}}</ref> In 1782, however, the House of Lords reversed the decision,<ref name="debrett p358"/> holding that the Crown could admit anyone it pleases to the House of Lords, whether a Scottish peer or not, subject only to qualifications such as being of full age.<ref name="connell treatise"/>

Under the [[Peerage Act 1963]], all Scottish peers procured the right to sit in the House of Lords, and the system of electing representative peers was abolished.<ref name="Peerage Act 1963">{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10820.htm |title=Peerage Act 1963 |publisher=The Committee Office, House of Lords |access-date=7 April 2007}}</ref> Scottish as well as British and English [[hereditary peer]]s lost their automatic right to sit in the Upper House with the passage of the [[House of Lords Act 1999]]. During the debate on the House of Lords Bill, a question arose as to whether the proposal would violate the [[Treaty of Union]].<ref name="Slynn">{{cite web |author=Lord Slynn Hadley |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10805.htm |title=Select Committee on Privileges Second Report |publisher=The Committee Office, House of Lords |access-date=7 April 2007}}</ref> In suggesting that the Bill did indeed violate the Articles of Union, it was submitted that, prior to Union, the [[Parliament of Scotland|Estates of Parliament]], Scotland's old, pre-Union parliament, was entitled to impose conditions, and that one fundamental condition was a guarantee of representation of Scotland in both Houses of Parliament at [[Westminster]]. It was implied, furthermore, that the Peerage Act 1963 did not violate the requirement of Scottish representation, set out in the Article XXII of the Treaty of Union, by allowing all Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords: as long as a minimum of sixteen seats were reserved for Scotland, the principles of the Article would be upheld.<ref name="Slynn" /><ref name="case for the Lord Gray">{{cite web |author=Richard S. Keen |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm |title=Case for the Lord Gray |publisher=The Committee Office, House of Lords |access-date=23 February 2010}}</ref> It was further argued that the only way to rescind the requirement of Article XXII would be to dissolve the Union between England and Scotland,<ref name="case for the Lord Gray"/> which the House of Lords Bill did not seek to do.<ref name="Peerage Act 1963"/>

[[File:Holyrood from Calton Hill by James Valentine. 1878 or earlier..jpg|thumb|Scottish representative peers were chosen in the [[Palace of Holyroodhouse]]]]

Counsel for the Government held a different view. It was noted that the Peerage Act 1963 explicitly repealed the portions of the Articles of Union relating to elections of representative peers, and that no parliamentary commentators had raised doubts as to the validity of those repeals. As Article XXII had been, at least purportedly, repealed, there was nothing specific in the Treaty that the bill transgressed. It was further asserted by the Government that Article XXII could be repealed because it had not been [[Entrenched clause|entrenched]]. Examples of entrenched provisions are numerous: England and Scotland were united "forever",<ref>{{cite web |title=Treaty of Union 1707 |work=The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 |publisher=School of History at the University of St Andrews |year=1706 |url=http://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1706/10/257 |access-date=18 January 2013}}</ref> the [[Court of Session]] was to remain "in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10813.htm |title=Union With England Act 1707 |publisher=The Committee Office, House of Lords |access-date=7 April 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070802055031/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10813.htm |archive-date=2 August 2007 }}</ref> and the establishment of the [[Church of Scotland]] was "effectually and unalterably secured".<ref name="case for HMG">{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10811.htm |title=Appendix 3 'Case for Her Majesty's Government' |work=Select Committee on Privileges Second Report |access-date=7 April 2007}}</ref> Article XXII, however, did not include any words of entrenchment that would have made it "fundamental or unalterable in all time coming".<ref>{{cite web |author=Hector L. MacQueen, Scott Wortley |url=http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7400 |title=House of Lords reform and the Treaty of Union |publisher=University of Edinburgh |date=September 1998 |access-date=9 August 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927160116/http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7400 |archive-date=27 September 2011 }}</ref>

Further, the Government pointed out that, even if the election of Scottish peers were entrenched, [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] could amend the provision under the doctrine of [[Parliamentary sovereignty]]. Though the position of the Church of Scotland was "unalterably" secured, the [[Universities (Scotland) Act 1853]] repealed the requirement that professors declare their faith before assuming a position.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10812.htm |title=Union with Scotland Act 1706 |work=Select Committee on Privileges Second Report |publisher=The Committee Office, House of Lords |access-date=7 April 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930032832/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10812.htm |archive-date=30 September 2007 }}</ref> In [[Ireland]], the [[Church of Ireland]] was entirely disestablished in 1869,<ref>{{cite book |last=Hunt |first=Jocelyn |title=Britain, 1846–1919 |publisher=Routledge |year=2003 |page=225}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Evan |first=Anna Laura |title=The disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869 |location=Lancaster |publisher=James & Naomi |year=1929}}</ref> though the Articles of Union with Ireland had clearly entrenched the establishment of that body. In December 1922, the Union with most of Ireland was dissolved upon the creation of the [[Irish Free State]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/pagecurrent/8B9125171CFBA78080256DE5004011F8?opendocument |title=Early Irish Law and Brehon law |publisher=Courts Service of Ireland |access-date=7 April 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070406145704/http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/8B9125171CFBA78080256DE5004011F8?opendocument |archive-date=6 April 2007 }}</ref> though [[Great Britain]] and all of Ireland were supposedly united "forever." It was therefore suggested that Parliament could, if it pleased, repeal an Article of Union as well amend as any underlying principle.

The Privileges Committee unanimously found that the Articles of Union would not be breached by the House of Lords Bill if it were enacted.<ref name="case for HMG"/> The bill did receive [[Royal Assent]], and from 1999, hereditary peers have not had the automatic right to sit in Parliament.<ref>{{cite web |title=Different types of Lords |work=About Parliament |publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom |url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/ |access-date=21 January 2013}}</ref>