LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE LATE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH.
• [To TIM EDITOR OF THY "SPECTATOR."] Sia,—Will you allow me to correct two misapprehensions which appear in your article upon the late Duke of Buocleuch P Your 'article is so fair that I am sure you would not desire to do in- justice, or be the means of perpetuating error. You say,—" He 'broke with all precedents, and even with Constitutional etiquette, rather than allow an Atheist to vote as a Scotch Representative Peer;" and further on,—" Throughout his public life he virtually nominated the Scotch Representative Peers, and held even in
extreme cases a power of dismissal which he once exercised to exclude the Marquis of Queensberry for Atheism." It is not correct to say that the Representative Peers were nominated by the Duke of Buccleuch, and I am able to assure you, from personal knowledge, that the primary cause of the refusal of the Scottish Peers to re-elect Lord Queensberry in 1880 was not his public profession of Atheism, but his infre- quent attendance at the sittings of the House.
You are correct in saying that, once elected, a Scottish Representative Peer usually sits for life, or as long as he cares to do so (I do not know what Constitutional etiquette is*), and there is always an understanding upon whom the selection to fill the next vacancy will fall ; meetings of the Conservative Peers are held for the purpose of selecting the candidate of the party. No doubt the influence of the Duke of Buccleuch was great, but it was entirely an influence due to his great personal qualities. But that influence was most sparingly used; in fact, so much was this the case, that for some years the Duke did not attend the meetings of Peers, and often could not be induced to express a decided opinion in favour of one candidate, because he knew it was said, as you have done, that he " virtually nominated the Represen- tative Peers." That this is not correct is further proved by the fact that on two occasions within the last ten years the candi- date for whom he indicated a personal preference was not chosen at the preliminary meeting, and was not elected.
The fact that in 1880 Lord Queensberry was passed over was not due in any way to the influence of the Duke ; a large number of the electing Peers had resolved to pass him over and vote for another before his public declaration of Atheism was made, and that on the ground I have indicated. I believe the records of the House would show that Lord Queensberry did not attend on an average much more than once a year during the time he was a Representative ; but I cannot give the exact facts without a reference to the journals of the House. That some votes were influenced by his declaration is exceedingly probable, but I am certain the result would not have been different had that declaration never been made.—I am, Sir, &c., ONE wno KNOWS.
Previous page
