Election to the British House of Lords
The January 1908 Irish representative peer election was held to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords. Conducted by post, with ballots sent to the 134 holders of Irish peerages eligible to vote, the election was necessitated by the death of Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine. It resulted in the election of Lord Curzon, the former viceroy of India. Curzon narrowly defeated Frederick Trench, 3rd Baron Ashtown, and Arthur Maxwell, 11th Baron Farnham. Curzon's eligibility for election was questioned, but the House of Lords seated him.
Curzon was an Englishman who had been granted an Irish peerage to give him a title before beginning his position as viceroy; he had never been to Ireland and owned no property there. He contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The fact that Curzon was not Irish sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race worked against him. As he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, something required to vote in them, some argued that this made him ineligible to be elected.
Curzon headed the poll with two votes more than Ashtown, who had two votes more than Farnham, but the official return noted that Curzon was not among those eligible to vote and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those eligible to vote. When the House of Lords convened, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, ruled that the requirement did not apply to candidates and declared Curzon the winner.
Ashtown and Farnham tied in the next election, in November 1908. Ashtown won the election when his name was drawn from a glass before the House of Lords, the procedure mandated by the Acts of Union 1800, but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy, also in 1908.
Background.
The Acts of Union 1800, by which Great Britain and Ireland merged into one kingdom, terminated the old House of Lords of Ireland but provided for Irish representation in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. Elected at that time were 28 members of the Irish peerage who (at the time of their election to the House of Lords) were not also peers of the United Kingdom. These served for life as Irish representative peers. As the representative peers died, they were replaced by a vote of the entire Irish peerage, including those lords who also held a United Kingdom title. This was a small constituency—in 1800, there were 239 Irish peers, a figure which gradually decreased to 182 by 1883.
By the early 20th century, the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, one house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, consisted mainly of several hundred hereditary peers, along with 28 Irish representative peers and certain others, such as some Anglican archbishops and bishops. An Irish representative peer could not resign once elected, nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer; only death or disqualification to sit in parliament, including bankruptcy, would vacate his place. As of December 1909, there were 65 Irish peers with no seat in the House of Lords.
The law provided that upon receiving the death certificate for an Irish representative peer (signed by two lords temporal of the House of Lords), the lord chancellor would instruct the lord chancellor of Ireland to have the clerk of the crown and hanaper conduct an election. Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed with the voter's seal affixed and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin within 30 days from the date of the issuance of the writ. Before filling out the ballot, the voter had to appear before a judge of England or Ireland, a justice of the peace for any Irish borough or county, or, if abroad, an ambassador or secretary of an embassy, and take the oath of allegiance. This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not.
Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed with the Irish Free State's establishment in 1922. Although the existing Irish representative peers retained their seats for life, there was no longer a lord chancellor of Ireland or a hanaper to conduct elections. Still, the lord chancellor in London continued to receive documents asserting the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer, and, following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey in 1961, Irish peers petitioned the House of Lords for a declaration that they still had the right to elect 28 representatives. This was denied; one member of the Committee for Privileges declared that the right had ended when the Irish Free State left the United Kingdom, another stated that the end of the offices of lord chancellor for Ireland and hanaper meant no election could take place. The provisions regarding Irish representative peers were removed from the statute book by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1971.
Candidates and campaign.
On 9 November 1907, Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, died in Paris. Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer, returnable 20 January 1908. The press mentioned Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905 and thus had no need to stand) and John Bingham, 5th Baron Clanmorris as possible successors. 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers.
In the newspapers of 30 December 1907, it was announced that Lord Curzon, the former viceroy of India, would seek the office, and had sent letters to the Irish peers asking for their votes. The former MP for Southport, Curzon had been granted a peerage because it was thought that the viceroy and representative of Queen Victoria, the empress of India, should be a peer, and so he had in 1898 accepted the first Irish peerage to be created since 1868 (and, as it proved, the last ever created). This gave the new viceroy a lordly title as he took up his position, rather than serving as a commoner. The eldest son and heir of Baron Scarsdale, Curzon contemplated a return to the House of Commons after his time as viceroy. Curzon had taken an Irish peerage at the suggestion of the prime minister, Lord Salisbury, who pointed out that Irish peers lacking membership of the House of Lords could stand for the House of Commons. Despite Curzon's having no Irish property or connections, in September 1898 Victoria conferred on him the title of Baron Curzon of Kedleston, in the peerage of Ireland.
Curzon resigned as viceroy in 1905, an action sparked by his conflict with the Commander-in-Chief, India, General Lord Kitchener. On Curzon's return to Britain, he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and King Edward VII considered it marred the dignity of the viceregal office for a recent viceroy to fight for a seat in the Commons. Although Edward wanted Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, or at least wanted the matter postponed to January or February 1906, fearing that an immediate honour for Curzon would be seen as vindication in the dispute with Kitchener, in which Balfour considered Curzon in the wrong. But Balfour resigned in December 1905. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon an earldom or another United Kingdom peerage that would permit him, like other former viceroys, to sit in the House of Lords. The Unionist leader in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne suggested Curzon seek to become an Irish representative peer in place of Lord Kilmaine, and two prominent noblemen of the Irish peerage, the Duke of Abercorn and the Marquess of Londonderry, were willing to back Curzon for the position although Curzon had never been to Ireland.
In his letter to the voters, Curzon tried to answer concerns that he was unfamiliar with Irish issues such as land tenure, and asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only way he could see to re-enter public life. Curzon's candidacy was regarded by Unionists in Dublin with considerable satisfaction; his backers told the Irish peers his presence would boost the Unionist strength in the House of Lords. Despite this support, some opposed Curzon's candidacy, as a non-Irishman who had no real interest in Irish affairs. "The Manchester Guardian" thought it fitting that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry, stating that the Duke was of a Scottish family and that "Lord Londonderry is no more Irish than the German Emperor". Some peers had already cast their ballots when he entered the race, and others objected because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster for Curzon's lifetime.
Within a week of the announcement, the press stated that Curzon would be opposed by Frederick Trench, 3rd Baron Ashtown, Arthur Maxwell, 11th Baron Farnham, and Yvo Vesey, 5th Viscount de Vesci. Lord de Vesci, though, quickly dropped out of the race and expressed his support for Curzon. Ashtown, an outspoken Unionist, had been born in 1868, and succeeded to the title in 1880 upon his grandfather's death. He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry, including replacing local labourers with Scots, leading to a boycott against him and the explosion of a bomb near his home in Waterford in 1904. He blamed the bombing on supporters of the boycott but was also accused of planting it, though this was never proved. Farnham had been born in 1879, had served in the 10th Hussars and had succeeded to his title in 1900.
The Earl of Darnley (who was an Irish representative peer), the Earl of Norbury, Viscount Chetwynd and Lord Rathdonnell all stated their support for Curzon. The Earl of Cavan favoured Curzon's candidacy but had already voted by the time he heard of it. Viscount Hawarden also had voted, but considered Curzon's candidacy unfair to peers who had been waiting years for the honour. Viscount Dillon wrote to three candidates, including Curzon, that since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote for Irish representative peer. Viscount Harberton, also hoped to see Curzon elected, but "for myself, I have long since ceased to vote for the Irish Representative Peerage, as I am unable to take the thing seriously".
Once it was plain that Curzon would be opposed, Lansdowne suggested he withdraw, stating "it would be ridiculous to run you against an obscure Irishman". Curzon, though, insisted on standing, feeling he had spent long enough in the political wilderness. One issue in the campaign was whether Curzon was eligible for election; although he had been an Irish peer for nine years, he had never voted in Irish representative peer elections, nor asked the House of Lords to establish his right to vote. Those questioning his eligibility cited Article VIII of the Act of Union, which stated, "the temporal peers of Ireland shall in the manner hereafter provided choose another peer out of their own number to supply the place so vacant", for the proposition that the elected person must be one of the peers who had claimed his right to vote in such elections. "The Kerry News" reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston, an Irish peer who had sat in the House of Commons, had never attempted to establish his right to vote in the elections for fear that his political adversaries would force him to the House of Lords.
The MP for Liverpool Scotland, T. P. O'Connor, wrote that the election was of no concern to the people of Ireland since the Irish representative peers represented only themselves, and few if any were Irish nationalists which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by. The "Freeman's Journal" of Dublin pointed out that on the death of Curzon's elderly father, he would enter the House of Lords anyway, "Practically,