The Sun. — London, England, 1856-02-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS -(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR tovk his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. The house was very fully attended this evening ; a number of ladies filling the side galleries, and the greatest interest was observable both inside and outside the house relative to the motion of Lord Lyndhurst. LIFE PEERAGES. Lord LYNDHURST—My Lords, the subject which I am about to bring under the consideration of your lord. ships is one of vericonsiderable interest, because it relates to the composition of your lordships' house. The question is, whether the ancient hereditary character of this house is to continue, or whether it is to be broken in upon to any extent, according to the discretion and the interest of the Minister of the day. (Cheers.) I am requested by some of my'friends to bring this subject fully before your lordships, and in the performance of that duty I will en deavour to state the case plainly and simply, so as to ren der it perfectly ictelligible. It must not be supposed for a moment that there is any personal objection to my learned friend late Baron Parke, in the motion I am making—(cheers)—the objection is that he should have been raised to the peerage in a form which is shorn of one of the usual consequences of a patent of peerage. My lords, it is now nearly 30 years since I was first entrusted with the Great Seal. One of the earliest acts of my official life was to recommend to the Sovereign this learned gen tleman for a seat on the judicial bench ; and the manner in which he has discharged the duties imposed upon hitn, his assiduity, his industry, his learning and impartiality, have done more than justify the appointment--they have dune honour to the selection. (Cheers.) The position of the learned gentleman is of some importance to be consi dered. He is advanced in life; he is a married man ; he has no son, nor, allow me to say, though I do so with some hesitation, is there any likelihood of his having one. It is quite clear, therefore, that whether he had a life peerage or e peerage in the usual form it would be precisely the same thing. The obvious consequence is—nay, I believe it is not attempted to be denied—that this is intended to act as a precedent for future occasions, to enable the Minister for the time being to place in this house as many tenants for life of the peerage as may suit his interest at any par tieular juncture to introduce. (Cheers.) My lords, I must beg leave to protect myself against any misapprehen sion that may arise with regard to what I am about to say. I have received too much,of the favour of my Sove reign, and I am toe grateful for.it, to be capable °flouter taining any disrespect whatever. It must therefore be considered that in everything that may fall from me I am not speaking of the Sovereign personally, but of the ad visers of the Sovereign. (Hear.) lam not talking of her personal exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown, but of the manner in which, in accordance with the constitution of the cone try, she has been advised to exercise it. (Cheers.) My lords, it has been said, and it has been re peated over and over again, that this is a pure matter of prerogative, and that the Crown may legally appoint a person to be a peer for life. Assuming for a moment that, that is the case, it does not follow that every exercise of such a prerogative would be consistent with the principles of the Constitution. (Hear.) The Sovereign may by his prerogative, if he thinks proper, create a hundred peerages with descendable qualities, in the course of a single day but would that be C nesistent with the Constitution ? Every grant of that kind would be strictlylegod, but every. body must feel and know that such an exercise of the pre rogative would be a flagrant violation of the principles of the Constitution. (Rear.) Iu the satho manner, the So vereign, instead of piecing the Great Seal in the hands of a person like my noble and learned friend on the woolsack, distinguished for his legal and other attainments might give it to a layman, a person wholly unacquainted with the laws of the country. That, too, would be a flagrant viols tiou of the Constitution. Other instances of the same kind might be adduced, but the examples I have given are suffi cient to illustrate the principle to which I wish to call at tention. The position, however, which I mean to lay down and which I can maintain is this—that no instance has occurred in this country in which any Commoner has been raised to a seat in this house by a patent of peerage containing only an estate for life. (Hear.) Every person who at all knows the constitution of this country or who is at all conversant with • the principles upon which it is founded, must be aware that one of those principles . is, that long continued usage has the force of law. To go back, therefore, for a period of 400 years, to collect three or four or half-a•dozen instances in which the Crown has performed an act of virtue of its prerogative—before the constitution was formed, before it was put into its present shape—and to make those few instances a precedent upon which to found a change in the composition of either house is, I contend, a gross violation of the principles of the constitution. (Cheers.) My lords, let me go back to the time to which I refer; what extraordinary powers were then exercised by the sovereign, and were considered a part of the undoubted 'prerogative of the Crown! The sovereign would in these ?lays issue writs to certain bo roughs desiring them to return members to Parliament, anti he would then issue writs a second time, discontiuu iug some of those boroughs, or by a single phrase altering the-composition of the whole constituent body. There are cases also of this description. Peers were entitled to bests in this house ; writs of summons would sometimes be sent to them, and sometimes discontinued, at the discretion cf the monarch for the time being. There are cases of peers being summoned for a single session ; of peers being cre ated peers during pleasure ; snit of persona being created peers to have all the rights of the peerage except a seat in this house. At the time to which I refer the Crown ex ercised the power of dispensing with the laws of the coun try. It exercised the rie,bt of placing the country under martial law, of issuing commissions, of levying money, and other rights of a most extraordinary character. Many of these have been abolished by act of Parliament ; others have fallen into desuetude ; and to make those precedents for the purpose of altering the composition of either house of Parliament appears to me, I repeat, a gross violation of the constitution. (Cheers) It now becomes my duty to call the attention of your lordships to the cases which e cited in support of this exercise of the preroga tive. The first patent for the creation of a peerwas in the reign of Richard 11. ; and in the first years of that reign is the first case that is relied upon in justification of the step which has just been taken. That. was a peerage granted for life to a foreigner named Guiscard Ile Denby ; but as a foreigner could not sit in this house, it was during the following year cancelled, and a pension of about 1,0001. was given him as an equivalent for the loss of his peerage. It is quite clear that as Gniscard de Denby never sat in Parliament, and had no right to sit in Parliament, this case can have no bearing upon the present question. The next case is that of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Your lordships will recollect that De Vere was the favourite of Richard 11., and he was created Duke of Dublin. A NOBLE LORD—Marquis of Dublin. Lord LYNDHURST—That case, again, has no bearing upon the question, because at the time when the marquisate of Dublin was conferred upon Robert De Vere, he was already entitled, as Earl of Oxford, to a seat in Parliament. There is another similar case to which the same answer will apply. The Earl of Bedford, the King's uncle, was created Duke of Aquitaine ; but he likewise was already a member of your lordships' house. The next case was one in which a lady was created a countess for life, but that, too e cannot apply. And now, my lords, what was the state of things in the reign of Richard 11., which is the strong point of the case of those who support life peerages ? Why, my lords, at that, the most turbulent perioi in our annals, the barons and the King were at perpetual war—the King and the barons alternately getting the upper hand—the King compelled by the barons to execute a commission transferring all the authority of the Crown to certain persoue named in that instrument—learned judges con sulted by the Crown as to the validity of the document — they giving their opinions that the instrument was illegal - the barons seizing their persons, executing without orm of trial the Chief Justice, and banishing the rest of the judges by way of mitigation of their sentence—then the King obtaining a triumph over the barons, and the Duke of Gloucester being thrown into prison and murdered —the barons again getting the upper hand, seizing the person of the King, imprisoned him at Pomfret, and mur dered him there. Can any precedents be obtained from a turbulent time of this description that can be of the slightest use in discussing the proper exercise of the powers of the Crown? In the following reign (that of Henry IV.) there is no instance alleged in support of life peerages. Henry V., in the fluslra his popularity, in the first year of his reign, created his brother Dukeof Bedford for life. He created another brother Duke of Gloucester for life ; and he created his cousin Earl of Cambridge for life; but this latter personage never took his seat, and was executed in the following year for treason. The grants to the Dake of Bedford and to the Duke of Gloucester were soon after wards surrendered, and new peerages in the usual form de acending to their heirs were substituted for them. (Hear.) There were also casts in which the Duke of Doraetshire was created Duke of Exeter, and the Earl of Warwick, Earl of Albemarle, for life ; but to those cases the principle I have alr ea d y laid down applies—the parties were already members of the House of Peer.. An additional case has been cited. It occurred in the rein of Henry VI., at the end of the contest bet ween the Duke of Gloucester and the Bishop of Winchester. it is said that Sir J. Cornewayll, who had married the queen's aunt, was created a baron for life by the title of Lord FaiinhOpe and Lord Miibroke. Bet there are no sufficient grounds for supposing that this was a life peerage; on the eontrary, as the , 3 was m conferred in the presence of rarliaent, au _ a is fte9ra na tural to suppose that the new baron had c on f erred u the rights and privileges of the peerage, inclurint him m at all of transmitting his dignity to his descendants. All the se cases, it should be remembered, are incl u d e d within a period of about 40 years. There are none of the period of Charles 1., when our constitution first began to be settled ; or of the still more important period of the Revolution; when the constitution ultimately took the form it new wears; and will yen say that the cases I have cited are sufficient to j testify the Crown in new modelling this house? (Ch eer s.) My lords, allow m e t o sa y th a t it is a flagrant violation as it strikes me—if I may use such a strong principles upon which our con stionexnression—of the, great . ( l e d lam always afraid to omit any thing is fool • • ma y have be . e v n e apeitted to, lest . it should . be that thought lam apprehense dealing with it. There is, then, a ease w hich occurred in the reign of Henry VII. At that time, when every district in Ireland was p i ' pality, a prince named M ee r ut ' was created Earl a ral rlof T hae - mond. Henry VII. gave him the title of prince, but it was only a nominal title, b e cause in the same patent h e was created Baron of Inchiquin. Bat mark, we are only talking of an Irish peerage. He took his seat in the Irish Parliam e nt, and sat t here in virtue of h is barony. I have ad ver t e d to that particular case, lest it sh ould he said t hat I had o m itt e d any case which appeared to militate against the view that 1 have taken. There is another class of cases to which I am bound also to allude, and a very im portant class of cases they are considered to be, but which I consider have really no application to the question — l mean cases in which ladies leave been advanced to the peerage. A for life. Th ere are severa l cases o f th a t descrip tion. s your lordships very Well know, the personages e e so honoured were not all of them of the most moral de scription. (A. laugh.) Louis the Fourteenth desired at a particular period of his reign to establish an entente cor aide with our Charles the Second. He knew the weak side of that monarch—(,aughter)—and he selected a very beautiful lady to come over to this c ountry atria between the two. That to act as medi mediation was successful, and the result was, niter a 00 1 1 11kier019 period. some THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1856. off every arrear of business in that court. Then there is another noble and learned lord sitting before me (Lord St. Leonards), who from his infancyhas been immersed, I may say, in the law of his country, whe sat as Lord Chancellor of Ireland with the greatest reputation, and who also held the office of chancellor of your lordship's house. I ask where a more competent or efficient tribunal could be found for the purpose of administering justice ? Most per sons think that by adding to the number of judges you add to the weight and character of the bench. I entertain a different opinion. I think that in proportion as you ex tend the number you lesson the responsibility. I entertain the utmost possible respect for Baron Wensleydale, but I may say that he is conversant with th e common law of England, in whichyou want no assistance. He is not con versant with the law of Scotland, or with the administra tion of justice in the courts of equity. To place him in this house for the administration of ju.stice must be a mere pretence tol justify a violation of the constitution of this house. What is the reason of this change in our system ? Have we become so enamoured of the system of Govern ment of our friends on the other side of the channel that we Beek to imitate them in the composition of this house? It is but a few weeks since that I read in the Moniteur An article coaling from the highest source, denouncing the Senate of France for want of patriotism , for want of energy, for want of fitness for the destinies to which they were called. I have no disposition myself to bring down the character of this house to that life interest upon which the Senate of France is based. Are your lordships will ing, by altering the hereditary character of this house, to diminish the strong sympathy which it possesses with the stability of the Constitution and Crown? You will re member that the hereditary principle is entwined with 'every part of our constitution. We erijo; the hereditary principle in this house in common with the Crowe. We and the Crown mutually support and assist each other. By the existence of a body of hereditary legis lators is formed a barrier to protect the Crown from every attack upon its hereditary rights. Break in upon that prin ciple—destroy that outwork of monarchy —and he must be a bold man indeed, my lords, who will venture to say that he can foresee the consequences. - My lords, this question is one so extensive, it requires so much careful investiga tion, that it will scarcely be possible for us, discgssing it in this house, to examine every part of it with the minute ness, attention, and accuracy which the subject requ ir es . I will propose, therefore, that the cony now upon the table of these letters patent be referred to the Committee of Pri vileges, for their consideration and examination, and for that committee to report thereon to this house ; and with that motion I will now conclude. (Great applause.) • Earl GRANVILLE said he could hardly refra'n from joining in the cheers which greeted the noble and learned lord at the end of his remarkable speech, a speaoh that was remarkable even for him. In following one who enjoyed such unbounded popularity among their lordships, wh• possessed such great and various learning, and such an ex tensive experience, combined, as he (Earl Granville) was happy still to see, with a singular degree of vigour, both in mind and body, he felt himself to be at a great disad vantage; and it was only the poverty of the house, or at least of his side of the question, in the number of law lords it contained, which obliged him (Earl Granville) to make this attempt to reply to the noble and learned lord, which he should have hesitated otherwise to have undertaken, as he should hesitate to take the command of the Channel children, and that the lady was created Duchess of Ports mouth for life. It can hardly be said that that case made any alteration in the composition of your lordships' as sembly. James the Second was not much distinguished for his morality, though he gave up his crown for his reli gion and he made Catherine Sedley a baroness for life. William 111. led a regular life, and created no peerages of that description, nor were any made in the reign of Queen Anne ; but in the reign of George I. Melusine de Schulen berg was created Duchess of Kendal for life, and Melesina de Schulenberg was also made a peeress for life, but by what title I unfortunately forget. So we went on till the reign of George IL, when we find the Countess of Yar mouth became a peeress for life. These are not very 'bright colours in our history. It was my duty to refer to them, but they do not bear on the question before your lordships. Lady Rivers took a peerage for life, and she was arrested for debt, and applied to the Court of King's Bench to discharge her on the question of privilege. The question was ably argued, but the Lord Chief Justice at last said— " It is questionable whether a countess, made so by patent only for her life, be privileged or no; therefore let her re• main in the custody of the sheriff till Saturday, and not be turned over to the custody of the mareschall, and then move it again." It is quite obvious, therefore, that this case must be left entirelyont of our consideration, and that it forms no warrant whatever for the case we are consider ing. There is another class of cases of this description where a peerage for life is granted, with remainder to a second or third son, or some other person. Now that is a mere form of conveyance; it W. 15 necessary to put in those to sustain a remainder. In most of the cases to which I am referring the grant of a peerage for life was to a man already a member of this house. There are some cases that do not go so far, because they created not merely au estate for life, but also in tail, and therefore it does not contro vert the proposition I have laid down, that from the time of Henry VI. to the present time, a period of 400 years, no commoner has been placed in this house by virtue of a patent creatinga mere estate ferlife—(hear, hear)—and no lawyer, no friend to the Constitution, can for a moment doubt that the instances of this kind occurring before the formation of our Constitution, when the prerogative itself was in a state of doubt, never acted upon from that time to the present, can never be made to justify a patent breaking in upon the long-established character of your lordships' house. I come now to a part of the subject which, from all I have heard, is likely to be pressed upon the attention of your lordships. I mean the opinion of Lord Coke. Lord Coke expressly lays it down that the Crown, by its prerogative, may create a peerage for life, but I have before stated that the question is not what the Crown may do by its prerogative. (Hear, hear.) I was in conversation with a noble friend of mine the other day, and he said, " The crown by its prerogative may send for a troop of the guards, may make every one of them a peer, the peerage deseendible to his posterity." Would not that be a great violation of the constitution? And yet it would be as act within the prerogative, and would be strictly legal. Great reliance is placed upon Lord Coke, and perhaps snore than he is justly entitled to. I know that in the reign of James I. a public charge was made against him that ho had laid down a great deal of law from his own head and his own authority, without sufficient vouchers, and I know that on the subject of the peerage he was by no means infallible. In the very books in which Lord Coke lays down the law in the manner which I have stated, that opinion is commented on by a gentleman of profound learning, the late Mr. Hargrave. No man was better acquainted with our constitutional history than the learned gentleman to whom I have re ferred. He says in his comment that he does not think the opinion of Lord Coke can be sustained ; he does not think that the opinion is established by sufficient autho rity. The learned author at. the same time refers to a case squadron, or to perform any other feat that would indiclte more of rashness than of courage. Their lordships had all heard with pleasure, ho was sure, that graceful compli ment which was paid by the noble and learned lord to the to winch lam about to call the attention of your lordships. former members of his own profession, and to thoso mem- It is a law case, but it is one in a very simple form, and hers of it who were now sitting in their lordships' house. will be very readily understood by every one of your lord- He (the noble earl) entirely agreed with him in his admi ships. It is the case of Viscount Purbeck, who surren- ration of the legal profession, and in his anxiety to have dercd his titleto the crown, and the question was whether always the vary best of its members to sit in that a peer could surrender his title to the crown. It was ar- house. Ho remembered that, some quarter of a century gued at great length by Sir William Jones,_ who in the ago, there was a foolish, absurd cry raised in the country course of his argument s t a ted, by wa y of building a de- for the removal of the spiritual lords froni that house. duction upon it, that the King by his prerogative might There existed at the present time no such feeling in the create a peer for life, and ho illustrated the main question country ; and especially their lordship would themselves by arguments built upon that assumption. The learned think it one of the hardest blows that could be dealt judges who decided the case in this house were men of against their own house, if by a single individual the num great eminence—the Earl of Shaftesbury, who had just leer of the spiritual peers were to be diminished. (Chsers ) given up the great seal, the Earl of Nottingham, b y w h om But if the advantages of having the spiritual lords in that he was succeeded. When the Earl of Shaftesbnry came house were felt, even strone"er was the feeling th a t th e to pronounce judgment in the case before him, he, re- noble and leernel lords who belonged to the legal pteues forted to the assumption made .by the Attorney-General Ilion were absolutely necessary to it. Not only in the as to the King's ability to create peerages for life, and evening debates those noble and learned lords were pre what was the observation he made? He said, " You sent, to explain what the law was, and to explain what, had no right to assume that; that question is even more if a bill p &end containing certain words, the law would difficult and more obscure than the main question which henceforth be, but the manner in which the house had is before us." It is quite clear that he considered even at received the speech of the noble and learned lord that th a t d a y th a t the right of the crown to create a peer for night was in itself a proof how enormously the eminent life was not only doubtful, but that it was not in point of members of that profeesion had engaged the esteem and law to be sustained. There was no man of greater eroi- attachment of the house. If such was their value in the nence than Lord Nottingham, the then Chancellor. He; in debates of the evening, how much more was it to be ap his judereilltit, supported the argument of Sir Wm. Jones, preciated when the highest judicial tribunal was united to and came to the conclnsion that the surrender was wrong. the authority of that house ! He believed really that He adopted most of the arguments o f the l e arned Att orne y. there could be no severer blow struck against the dignity General, but he passed over the argument to which I have and utility of their lordships' house than any severance of referred, thereby showing, in the most marked manner, their judicial duties from that house; but, in order that that he agreed in opinion with the learned lord who had such business might be properly carried on, the house preceded him. Allow me to proceed one step further. In ought to be well supplied with persons acquaints,' asith a case before this house. a case of peerage, on which. Lord law—common law the noble and learned lord seemed to Plutiket presided, the opinion of Lord Coke was cited. It have excluded from this consideration—but of peers ac was a clear, distinct, decided opinion, but it was ove r - quaintest with Chancery law, civil law, Scotch law, a n d ruled, and Lord Plunket, in giving his judgment, stated other branches of the law a supply must be kept up in that that if Lord Coke had given no reason in support of his house. Now, it had been found difficult to keep up such a judgment he might, out of deference to him, have cob:- supply of legal lords ; an 1 this difficulty ha I reee ,tedly tided with him; but as ho had stated the reasons, and been felt by termer governments. A friend, on whose tes those reasons had no validity, he felt compelled to decide tiniony he (Earl Granville) could rely, had assured him against it. Hy lords, I have stated this ease, not to give that he was told by Lord Chatham that Lord Lirerpoore the ipse dixit of that learned person, bat to show that he government unanimously came, at one perio I, to the con took a different view even from that of such a person as elusion that it was necessary upon that account to make Lord Coke. But it is unnecessary elaborately to go into life peers; and it was only a change of Lord Liverpool's this part of the case. It is not. a question of technical law opinion about it that prevented it from being carried out. —it is not a question as to legal right. The question is This, which their lordships might think a piece of hearsay whether, on certain precedents established four hundred evidence and political gossip, was corroborated Ova letter years ago, the Crown can at this period, after the contdi- which he would read. He might also mention that in tatienal framing of both houses, create a peer for life— 1851, under the Administration of Lord J. ltu3.cll, an offer whether such a proceeding can be considered as justifiable. of a life peerage was made to a dietineuished judge, who Now, my lords, I have passed over what I consider the would have been an ornament to the house, and who dry part of this subject. I was compelled to go throng'n *toted amongst other reasons for refusing that offer, that it. (Hear, hear.) I shall be followed by some nob!e although he thought this exercise of the prerogative quite and learned friends who will supply anything that is fitting, as he continued to think it legal and constitution I material which I have omitted. I will leave that part and expedient now, he knew the step would be very un of the case. Now, my lords, what will be the consul- popular with his legal brethren, and therefore he owned quenee of the establishment of such a precedent? You that ho had the weakness, as he himself said, to shrink will find this house divided into two classes, one being from being the first man to set such an example. Now, the hereditary peers and the other peers for life. On e that was an answer t o th e no bl e an d l earne d l or d when he great bar to the creation of peers for the purpose of an- accused her Majesty's Government of having wantonly swering any occasional purpose is the hereditary character chosen to begin with the case of Baron Pallas, because of your lordships. No one would willingly encounter the Baron Parke was not likely to have any children. If a life risk of creating a great number of hereditary peers. It peerage was illegal an I inexpedient, it was wrong to offer was done on one occasion in the reign of Queen Anne, and it to anybody; but if the Goyernareat were right in think ii has been a matter of denunciation ever since. Rut, my ing it legal, expedient, and constitutional, then it was en lords, if a few men advanced in life can be created peers advantage to have the offer of it accepted by a man so mai during the remainder of their short career, how easy will neat in his character and merits, and one so completely it be on an emergency, with an tinscrupnlous Minister— separate from any political connexion with the Govern and, we have had many such, and may have many more— meut. Now, much was said at the opening of the session how easy will it be for him to carry any measure by creat- of the doubtful legality of this act ; but the noble and ing peers for life. It is said that this privilege or pre/vv.- learned lord, who had evidently examined the whole ques- ' tive will be sparingly exercised. My lords, do not give. tion with so much labour, had shrunk entirely from declar way to that delusion. It is toe easy a method not to be fug it to be illegal. He had been more than usually clear, had frequent recourse to. I would give no power that is and doubtless very accurate, in his historicalstatomont ; but capable of being abused unless where it is necessary for I he had managed with peculiar skill to confuse the legal, the some very good reason. That I conceive to be good con- constitutional, and the expediency questions together. The stitntional doctrine. But are there no great authorities noble and learned lord, while evading the question of le on this subject? I conceive that I can bring before you a gality, had talked about the constitutionality of the case. very high authority. A noble lord, formerly the leader of Why, the Government had never contended that if the the Government in this house, of great constitutional act were wholly inexpedient it could be a constitutional principle, deeply versed in the constitution of this country, measure; all they contended for was, that it was legal, considering this house as one of the great bulwarks of our and that being also expedient, it became constitutional, constitution—that noble lord, for whose memory I enter- and the word " constitutional" could not be defined better tain the highest respect, had to take a course at a time of than by those two qualifications. The noble and learned great excitement, when the Refo4oe Bill was opposed in lord had brought forward a supposed ease of the Crown this house, and the difficulty was to overcome that opposi- sending for a regiment of Life Guards, and giving them all tion. The question was considered in a great variety of life peerages. That would certainly be unconstitutional, forms. It was suggested that the eldest sons of peers might and although it might perhaps be strictly legal, the proper be called to this house, but it was found that the number course would be, if such a thing were done, to impeach and of them was by far too small to produce the desired effect. hang the minister who had advised it. The noble earl then Then it was said that peers for life might be created, and adverted to several of the ancient precedents which had the matter was considered by Lord Grey, but only to be bean noticed by Lord Lyndhurst, and proceeded to quote rejected. Important as the measure was to be carried, the dicta of Lord Coke, of Selden, Blackstone, and other agitated as was the country in favour of it, he considered great authorities, as to the prerogative of the . Crown to that it would be a great innovation, attended with clan- bestow peerages for lif e . H o o b serve d th a t the 'noble and gerous consequences. and subversive of the character of learned lord had spoken of a maxim of desuetude taking this house, and it was rejected ; and I believe that not away from theexerciseof such aprerogative, but had quoted only that great statesman entertained that opinion, but that no passage from the books to prove it ; and he (Earl Gran our then Sovereign, William IV., declared that he would ville), though not learned in the law, had understood there never consent to the adoption of such a course. Do not were some such maxims as Nullurn tempus occurrit reyi, conceive, my lords, that this is the sole authority on which which would have prevented th e p reroga ti ve b e i ng a ff ecte d . I rely. At the time when the great measure of the nation The Crown had a right to veto a bill in Parliament; though with Ireland was proposed it became necessary, for the it had not been exercised for 150 years. But purpose of carrying it, that a great number of peers should the fact was that there had not been ono uniform mode of bo created ' • and so great was the number, that in the conferring peerages; but some w e r e g i ven t o a man w ith Union Act a clause was introduced providing for the gra- remainders to the heirs male, some limited: to the heirs deal reduction of these peerages. And do you suppose male of his own body, some with very extraordinary re that that great statesman, Mr. Pitt, who directed all those mainders, of which he a e beli p e e v e e r d ag t e ho g r in e v N e vas w an itn ins r t e a m n a c i e n iLw e proceedings, would have agreed to diminish those peerages in the house, namely, unless ho had thought such a course was requisite ? No ono that skipped a generation, and went to the second son of ia can say that the influence of government in this house is daughter who never herself enjoyed it at all. Practically not sufficiently great; but if you create a new class of the Crown had been exercising that discretionary power peers, many of whom will be desirous of having a limited in the mode of its bestowing peerages which was implied peerage extended to their successors, you create a new in the maxim, Guilts eat dare, ems est disponere. The species ?f* subserviency, and you augment the influence noble earl then quoted the language incidentally used by which is already sufficiently extensive. I remember a cry Lord Lyndhurst himself, when sitting as Lord Chancellor used to be urged with regard to the prerogative of the in the case of the Earl of Devon, admitting the poe.d. Crown in the translation of the members of the episcopal bility of a peerage being legally bestowed by the Crown bench. It was said that those translations ought no longer for life. lie next took notice of an occasion when Lord to be tolerated, that they rendered the prelate too subser- Redesdalo .suggested that the holders of certain offices vient to the minister of the time, and it was in consequence should sit as peers in Parliament during the time they of this that the incomes of the bishops were equalised. held such offices; and observed that, in speaking of an• But what are you now doing? You are creating a new other case, Lora Campbell once said that the Crown body, to be placed in the same situation, in the same posi- might grant by its prerogative a peerage for life. These, tion of subserviency. It is said that the prerogative is only he announced amidst the laughter of the house, wore his to be exercised in reward for great and eminent services. authorities for the legality of this measure. After adverting Will you place men who have served their country in the to the note 'upon Lady Rivers's case, which note he showed highest positions—who have bled for their country—who could not have been written by Mr. Hargreaves, being have by their exertions added to the power and glory and found only iu an edition subsequent to his death, but the character of the nation --will you place them in a class was probably written by Mr. Butler, or by some other as lower than those who reflect only the lustre of persons who *natant in the work, the noble earl read a lung letter of have themselves been distinguished by similar services ? I Lord Eldon's, which will be found in the biography of that do not go the length of the old Roman poet, who put into eminent personage, in which Lord El lon had canvassed the mouth of the Grecian warrior these words : the propriety of bestowing a peerage on the Chief Justice Nam genus et proceros et slum non fecimus ipsi of the King's Bench, and commented on the pecuniary Vix ea nostra voco. circumstances of some of the judges who were at that time Ido not go that length, but I say that while I respect the most eligible for promotion, with a view to their capability descendants of men who have done great and glorious deeds of supporting the expenses of the dignity of the peerag for their country, I respect still more those by whom the for their families ; and, amongst ether things, Lord Eldon great and glorious deeds have been done. (Hear.) It is said, " I mime you that I have often thought, that if I had said that this is to be confined to members of the profes- survived the acceptance of the peerage but a short time, I sion of the law. What has the profession of the law done should have found that I had accepted what would have that it is to be brought into this humiliating position ? I been a nuisance to my family, and no benefit to the pub sey, and with perfect confidence, appealing to every man lie." He considered it ono of the most precious privileges acquainted with the history of this country, that no body which a country possessed, that any man could by his merits of men have been more distinguished and more successful become a member of that horse • but looking to the view in their exertions its supporting the liberty and maintain- of the question he had just stateil, he would venture to say ing the constitution of this country titan those in the pro- that, without making undue reference to the wealth of his fission of the law. I bear it sometimes whispered that noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) it was well known ittah:etirioselredscedniadtain:zent:t so distinguished. I look round that he had enjoyed a large and lucrative practice, that he g al ' , and. see near me one of them a nable and gal- was possessed of estates in Ireland. was the master of a ablest , officers in her foe' personal bravery, one of the house in the aristocratic quarter. of the town, and that his Majesty's service. I look further, eldest sore had entered into public life; but supposing he and see a noble baron, always attentive to hie duties in put the converse of that case, and if the circumstances of this bout°, acute, lab o • . laborious, rising always to speak with his noble and learned friend had been different, and he had the et overpower ing escentian ta and d f r learned commanding chief eief eloquence, and I find him had only his official salary to live upon, would it not have Justice. I see another been likely that his son would have been unwilling to sue noble lord, holding a distinguished office, which he fills coed to the peerage? and yet it would have been hard with intelligence and impartiality in the estimation of your upon Sir John Campbell, and hard upon that house, if lordships. I remember a noble lord, lately at the head of her the y heel been deprived of his valuable services. The noble • Majesty's Government, exclaiming i n a moment of excite- and learned lord (Lyndhurst) lied referred in his argument meat and with great bitterness, "We are over-ridden b to the point of the probable dependence of that housed or. lawyers in this house." (Laughter.) think:if this nes y r the ministry likely to be creatd by the looking forwaesd • system were introduced, we should be so over -ridden that by possessors of life-peerages to here( 'tarptitles. ay, L the noble lord wou ld h a stily take hisitigihnt t t h e in th h e ou n s o e rt t h. if when they were t er e eated,and had sufficient fortunes : It is said that we want judicial strength discharge the law business. Never was there so unfound:l and ri chose to do so, h But was there no similar . influence y might in claim ei h r er a e t dit w a e ry ik pe i e e r'at h e a s t . a charge. I will say that house never at any m oment " bad more legal strength, more legal knowledge on which to house, was there no baron who wished to be a viscount— no viscount who desired to be an earl—no earl who desired r ely, than at present. Th ere i s my no ble and learnediriend to be a marquis ? Was there none of their lordships who on the woolsack, educated in equity, removed to the was not desirous of a step in the peerage ? Was there no co mmon-law bench, sittin g th ere a s a judge, with u n i- duke who would like to have the riband of the Garter, or versal praise of the profession and the 'Public. Then there is my noble and learned friend (Lord Brou h 'who would not be displeased if the lord-lieuteAantcy of g'"uo his county was not given to him, or would any eme say for four years in the Court of Chan- such fair objects of ambition were not to be tolerated or that performed what was considered a most ex- per 'tt I m' ?As to the creation of two classes of peers, why c w e h ry 9 , p a r n e d side p d tr a ordinary Act, by PerocTering industry, u ntil he swept there were already such classes in the case of the Scotch and Irish representative peers, who might as well be sup posed to be actuated by such feelings as had been alluded to by the noble lord, and there wore also the spiritual peers who only held their dignity for life. The strongest point urged by the noble and learned lord was that which referred to the power that might be given by this exercise of the prerogative to swamp the house with peers for life. They all knew the particular case which was referred to by the noble and learned lord, which it was supposed would have given a death blow to the constitution in the time of William IV., and that was felt by Lord Grey and those who acted with him, although backed by the country and the House of Commons. That case had been mentioned in a book recently phblishedhy a well-known continental po litical writer, and he said that be himself should have shrank from the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown on that occasion, and be believed that Lord Grey was of the same opinion, and would have shrunk from exercising it. He (Lord Granville) did not know whether Lord Grey would have shrunk from it or not, but of this he was sure, that it was a case which would or could oc cur only once in a century, and if it did occur, he be lieved that no Ministry would venture to use such a power. If it was exercised in the case of a small number of life peerages it would do nothing to increase the majority of a Ministry, for in order, to have any effect there must be a creation of at least forty peerages. For such a purpose there would be no difference between life and hereditary peerages, and a Prime Minister who was ready to create 40 peerages must be touch given to split ting hairs if he had not the sense to elect 20 persons like Baron Parke for the elevation and 20 eldest sons of peers ; and altogether the distinction between the two would be so tine that it was not likely a Prime Minister would be inclined to draw such a distinction in such a combination of circumstances. There was one other objection of the noble and learned lord to which he would advert. The noble and learned lord seemed to think that this step had been taken in imitation of some foreign aristocracies. Why, if there was any one thing more fatal than another to fo reign aristocracies, it was the great increase of their num bers, and the proportionate decrease of their wealth ; and as regarded the exercise of this prerogative, after all, it mast be regulated by public opinion, if the consciences of Ministers and the honour of the Crown were not to be trusted. He wished to refer to one more document, a pamphlest which had been addressed to the Duke of Wel lington on this question, which was published anonymously but which was known to have been written by Sir Harris Nicolas. That pamphlet was very scarce, and he regretted that it was, fur if it could have been circulated among their lordships it would have been of more effect than a dozen speechee. Then it must be considered as an authority he would clearly ahow,for a blend of his, wishing to consult it, went to the British Museum, and on inquiring for it was informed that it was in hand. (Hear.) He went to another public library where there were three copies, and was toll that they were iu the hands of three of the law lords. (Laughter.) Ha -.vould not trouble their lordships with any extract from the pamphlet, but he would only read the conclusion. 1. That the creation of hereditary peers, without a suffi cient estate being annexed to the title to support the dignity, is attended with positive inconvenience to the Government, probable danger to the Constitution, and almost certain de gradation to the peerage. 2. That it is desirable that the country should have the benefit of every description of talent in the House of Lords calculated to ensure the administration of justice in all the various cases brought before it. 3. That the impeller of multiplying hereditary peerages tends to prevent the Crown from placing in the house per sons whose peculiar talents and acquirements would be ex tremely beneficial to the country. 4. That any measure which would lessen the nmnberof creations of hereditary peerages would be as satisfactory to the nation at large as to the House of Lords generally. He felt that the first part of the sentence was true, and he looped that the latter part was true also. It would bewrong for the house to take any rash step to limit the prerogative of the Crown when it was only intended to strengthen the house in something in which they were weak, and to gain a certain advantage to the people. The question of referring the matter to a committee of privileges had come upon him by surprise. The noble and learned lord had not said any thing stout the illegality of this proceeding, but had put the matter so much on the constitutional ground that he could not conceive hoW a committee of privileges, which was only a committee of - the whole house under another name, could be the proper 'tribunal to deal with it. If Cruise's hook on Dignifies was an authority this question could not be referred to a committee of privileges without reference to the Crown. On that Ipoint he would quote some memoranda of Cruise, which were prepared by him for the Attorney General. The noble earl then read in a tone of voice almost inaudible, an extract from Cruise, the effect of which, as far as wo could gather, was, that the Crown appeare.l from the earliest times to hare been entrusted with the power, and claimed the exorcise of free jurisdic tion to grant life peerages, and that in cases relating to those peerages the court to which they were referred was that of the High Constable or Earl Marshal. (Hear.) When the noble and learned lord talked of the dignity of that hone; he (Lord Granville) could only say that the small • shale he had taken in public affairs had been exercised in their lerdihips' house; and he had only been able to perform the duties devolving on him by the lcual in dulgence which hail always been afforded to him by their lordships; it was, therefore, only consistency in him to say that the strongest political feeling he had was one con elected with the maintenance of the honour and dignity of that house, and he thought be was only acting consistently with that feeling when, in conjunction with his noble friend (the Marquis of Lenstlowne) he defended the exer cise of that proeugative Of which ho was prowl, and which he believed was consistent with a defence of the rights and honour of that house ; and he must oppose the referting of this question to a committcorfor privileges when the noble and learned lord had not shown what steps were to be taken and what results were to be arrived at when the mat ter reached that coinleittee for privileges. (Cheers.) Lord ST. LEON"..A.E.DS said that the question for consi deration was whether the Crewe, after so many centurion . of disuse, had the power to grant to all men, not merely to a lawyer, to assist in the legal discussions of the house, but to all mete rich or poor, to all men or all women peer ages for life. He wished the matter to be considered from that point of view, not with reference to the persons to whom the grant was made, bat with reference. only to the right to confer such peerages at all. - The noble oat' had . found fault with his noble'and learned friend bebause he argued the case on moderate grounds, and ho taunted his noble friend because he led not said that the act in ques tion was illegal. He (Lord St. Loonards) would say that, so far as he could be taken as an authority, ho was prepared to say that it was illegal—that in hieconscience he believed it to be illegal—and he would prove it to be so. Ho would go at once into the question of legality, with only one pre vious observation on what had been said by the noble earl with,regerd to the expediency of this measure. The neonaecheeof this country was hereditary, and the peerage of this country had always been called hereditary ; it pose seised that quality which enabled noble lords to spring up from the root which their ancestors had planted, and so to give solidity and value to the character anti decisions of that house which .could not be obtained by mere life renters of peerages. A House of Lards composed of peerages for life could not stand for a moment before a House of Commons elected by the people ; and that class of peerage was calculated to cause its. possessor to ex perience some feeling of inferiority when he came to sit among hereditary possessors of titles ; and in fact that it would have the effect of altering the character of the house. The noble and learned lord then proceeded to de d with the question. of legality of these peerages, which he con tended rested entirely on the authority of Lord Coke, who was a first authority on real property ; but on the law of dignities, on which subject he was scarcely over sight, Coke had laid it down that nobility might be obtained by grant without an act of, law, and the case he put was that of a woman ennobled by marrying a peer; and therefore, as a person might become noble by operation of law, the Crown might make a man or woman noble by grant for life. Coke spoke of a man or woman, and no woman could sit or vote in that house. Coke also said that the Crown could not grant a peerage for a term of years, because then it would go to the executors or administrators ; a nd accord ing to that, if a grant were made forlo years, if the grantee should live so long, it would be good ; and what would the noble earl say to the grant of an earldom for 10 years ? Ile hoped that the authority of Sir Harry Nicolas, in the pamphlet referred to by the noble earl, would not be relied on, for it was full of inaccuracies and illogical reasoning. All the authorities quoted by the noble earl depended on that of Coke; and Coke, in the dicta of his which were quoted, was speaking only of grants of honotue, and not of tne rights to sit and vote in that house • and it was doing violence to his meaning to maintain that he was speaking of the case of life peerages. It was true that Henry VIII. made two Barons of th e Empire Barons of E ng land, but he never issued writs of summons to them, and they never sat. Again, James 1., in Coke's own time, granted to Sir James Hey the title of Lord Hay, with precedence next after the Barons of England, but without a voice or a seat in Parlia ment; and similar eases occurred in Charlesl.'s time. While in the Earl of Rutland's case, who was the son of the Duke of York, and others of the same kind, the persons so en paled were the eldest sons of peers, and their cases were no authority. Sir Harris Nicolas had stated what fell from Lord Coke very unfairly when he said that Cokehad stated that there were life peerages in the time of Richard and that they were legal. Lord Coke had never laid down any such thing, and he was the only authority on which the arguments in favour of these grants now rested. His re pents on these points Ivere not authorities; and in the case of the Earl of Shrewibary, who was also Earl of Water ford, when the estates and title of Shrewsbury were for feited in the time of Henry VIII., the judges to whom it was referred, as reported by Coke, wore of opinion that the earldom was forfeited also under the act! but notwith standing that authority, a decision of their lordships' house had since overruled that decision, and dehlared that the earldom of Waterford was not affected by the act of attainder of Henry VIII. That showed that Coke was not always trustworthy in these cases. It had been held then is peeress marrying a peer of inferior grade retained her original rank ; but that opinion had been overruled, and the practice now was, Wet a duchess, marchioness, or countess, marrying a baron, descended to the rank of her husband. He would run over some of the points upon which the law of peerage had been altered, not by act of parliament, but by the force of circumstances. Formerly it was supposed that a man marrying a peeress in her own right became entitled to take rank as a peer. That point was first raised in the 'reign of Henry VIII., and, legal assistance being called in, it was dad led that no such right existed. Then it was said that he was entitled by courtesy, and thet if a commoner married a peeress, anti had issue by her, he would inherit the dignity as well as the es tate. This point, too, was examined into by Henry VIII., and. the acommission appointed by that monarch decided tent a man did not acquire any right of no bility, by courtesy or otherwise, by marriage. The next question that arose was whether a peer could alienate his dignity. Fee a long time it Was thought he could, and that if a man sold or transferred his barony, the honour went with it ; but after examination, it was decided that he could not. Another opinion that prevailed for along . time was, that a peer could surrender his nobility to the Crown. That there had been instances of such surrenders at various periods of the history of the country was true; but in the Purbeck ca.so, which arose in the reign of Charles the Second, two resolutions were passed by Par liament unanimously, declaring that the right of a peerage could neither be surrendered, transferred, nor alienated, even with the consent of the Crown, nor by a fine. In an other case the question arose whether, with a barony de seended to severa l d aug ht ers, th e oldesti was entitled, and the Crown could claim the right of conferring the dignity upon her husband if she married ? In this instance, too, the decision was that no such right existed. Another in stance in which the house had interfered, was when; shortly after the union of Scotlind, it was sought to give the right to the Duke of Hamilton to sit as an English duke under the title of the Duke of Brandon. The deci sion was that the House of Lords was competent to moll that the crown did not possess the right it claimed, and resolved in the negative the question whether the opinion ofethejadges should be asked as to the legality of the pro ceeding. He quoted these cases, not as bearing exactly upon the one under discussion, but to show what the course of Parliament had been when anyquestion as to the right of the Crown had arisen. It would not do to say that Lord Coke had held an opinion one way or the other, or to bring his opinion forward as final against the right of house. The question now before them had never hitherto arisen, and the precedents which had been quoted in favour of the right had no bearing' upon it, and could have no weight whatever. The question was not whether the patent was legal, but the extent of the validity to be given to it. In the case of the tutorof Richard 11. the question of the right had not come before Parliament, as the person iu whose favour the peerage was conferred died within three years without issue, and never sat in Parliament. When Edward 111, married his daughter to a French count, and desired to confer upon him' the same honour as Richard IL had bestowed on his tutor, that was the right to sit as a peer during his daughter's life, Parliament by a unani mous vote refused. All precedent showed that the crown could not grant a dignity involving parliamentary right, except such as was known and recognised, without the assent of Parliament ; and he would venture to say that there was not a single case on record of the recognition or admission of the right claimed in the present instance — viz., that the crown might upon its own simple preroga tive, create a peer for life, and introduce him into the House of Lords as a peer of the realm. (Hear, hear.) When, in the reign of Richard IL, the crown created the Earl of Oxford Marquis of Dublin for life, and transferred to him the whole kingship of Ireland, the assent of Parlia ment was obtained ; and he had not a word to say against any grant made by the crown, supported by the concur rence of the House of Peers. But that which was one of the grossed cases on record of the transfer of privilege, was no precedent for such an exercise of the prerogative as was now claimed. The right had been exercised, he was aware, of granting life peerages to women, but in those cases the question could not come before Parliament, , and Parliament therefore had no opportunity of challeng ing it. Consequently, so far from those cases being pre cedents in favour, he regarded them as precedents against the right. The noble and learned lord referred to other cases which had been quoted, but contended they all came within the same category. - Ho was happy to say that during 400 years it could not be shown that the crown had over once exercised this pretended right until the present time. Ho could not deny that the Government had many circumstances which, at the first sight, appeared to be in their favour. They had a man of unimpeachable character, and a lawyer of first-rate ability ; and they had also the excuse that they wished to bring legal talent into the house without insisting upon hereditary peer ages. Now, all that looked plausible enough ; but it would not boar examination. As for the argument which had been founded upon the creation of peerages with all kinds of remainders over, ho was really surprised that any one should have thought of relying upon a fallacy so transparent. Why those cases actually formed a strong reason agaiust the proposed new class of peers. They merely indicated in what, manner the dignity should descend ; and they at all events showed that they were in tended to be hereditary. Again the fact had been pressed that writs of summons were not always granted ; but what said an 'authority they would all respect, Cotton, upon that point? The learned writer stated that writs of sum mons always did issue, except the peer was under age or out of 'the country, or a woman, or iu seine other manner incapacitated from sitting in the house. Reference had been made to the right reverend bench ; bat how could that possibly bear on the question ? The baronies by vir tue of which the bishops sat were perpetual dignities, al though the persons representing them were continually changing. Lastly, reference had been made to the Scotch and Irish peerages : but surely they were as much heredi tary peerages as those of England or the United King log. Indeed it was his decided (pinion, that to create life peer ages in this country would be a direct infringement, of the two Acts of Union. (Hear, hear.) One of the strongest arguments ' however, that could well bo alleged against the course taken by the Government was the case of Lord Somers. Lord Somers was asked to accept the great seal, hat ho declined on the ground that he had not saved au amount of fortune that-would justify his acceptance of,a peerage. It was then represented to him that his services could not be dispensed with. He was therefore made - Lord Keeper; the- result of which was that he hat as Speaker in the House of Lords, without being able either to speak or vote, so that he was placed in the painful position of hear ing his judgments pulled to pieces by Lord Mansfield and Lord Herdwick° without being able to say a word in re ply. Lord Somers submitted to that indignity for four years; but did any one believe that Lord Somers— who certainly knew something of the constitution—would not have thought of so simple a device as a life peeeage had such a thing ever been considered legal ! (Cheers.) Again, did anybody suppose that the question had not been' carefully considered at the paSsing of 'the Reform Bill? (Hear, hear.) On a review of all the circum stances of the case, ho must give his decided opinion that those life peerages were illegal, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would advise her Majesty to with draw the patent, and issue one in the,usual form: (Cheers.) The 1,011 la CHANCELLOR bade their lordships take care lest, in attempting to vindicate the constitution, they should theinselaes be inadvertently trenching upon it, by infringing upon the prerogative of the Crown in a matter upon which they had neither authority nor jurisdiction. (Oh.) Ho might be wrong; but he thought he should satisfy their lordships that there was no preeedentewhatever save one which he should easily be able to dispose of, that could warrant their lordships in adopting the course they had bcea asked to pursue. What were the legal consequences of a grant of nobility ? He took upon himself to say that they were all privileges and rights without the walls of that house. That which gave every noble lord around him a seat in the House of Peers, was, not his patent, but his writ of summons. Within the last century and a half, or two centuries, the Crown had been in the habit of referring questions relating to writs of summons to their lordships, and the Crown would doubtless be very ill-ad vised if it were not to act upon their lordships' opinion reported to it. But it was laid down in all the books,it was the universal doctrine, that in this matt e r the ouse of Lords had no original jurisdiction. They had no more right to say that a will was valid or not valid, than he was to inquire into the validity of a man's title to his estate. As he had already observed, the privileges of the peerage were external to the house. The first and most important of those privileges was, no doubt, the right to demand a written summons; but there were also the right to be tried by, in a particular way, the right of freedom from arrest, and other important rights. Now suppose, for example—and he really must beg his noble and learned friend Lord Wensleydales' pardon for the supposition— his noble friend was charged with felony, and to suppose he were to plead his peerage what would a court of law say if they were told that the House of Lords had decided against the claim ? This was no chimerical supposition. In the time of William 111. it actually occurred. A person named Charles Knowles pleaded that he was the Earl of Banbury. To that it was replied that the House of Lords had decided that he was not deicended from the person to whom the patent had been originally granted. Lord Chief Justice Holt decided that the decision of their lordship's was of no moment, and when he was called to their lordship's bar and asked to ex plain, he respectfully refused to do so. The proper time to try the question that had been raised in the present in stance, would be when some descendant of Lord Wensley dale—his daughter's son, for instance—demanded his writ "of summons; and he (the Lord Chancellor) would warn their lordships against the dangerous course upon which they would embark if they attempted to interfere at the present stage. He was aware that there was one instance which had been much relied upon in the course of this dis cussion as a precedent. It was the case of the Duke of Hamilton, which arose when Queen Anne, two or three years after the Union, conferred upon him the dignity of Duke of Brandon, in England. He found by the journals that on the 12th of December, 1711, it was ordered that the house would take the subject into its consideration. There was subsequently a great debate—for the question assumed, what he hoped the present would not, a strong • party aspect—and it was resolved that the subject. should be discussed in the presence of the judges. That was done, and hefoundthat a motion was made that the judges should deliver their opinions. The motion was, however, resisted —doubtless because it was pretty well known what the judges' opinions would be 2 • audit WAY finally resolved that the Queen had no power to confer an English peerage on a Scotchman. That was the solitary and very unpromising precedent upon which their lordships were now invited to rely ; for in 1782, when the grandson of the Duke of Hamil ton applied for his writ of summons as Dake of Brandon,the question was referred to the house by the King, and'their lordships reversed their decision in 1711. Since . he (the Lord Chancellor) had come into this house, he had been re minded of what had passed last session. The question then was one whether Lord Fermoy had been properly created an Irish peer. The matter had only been referred to con versationally, and it had passed sub silent so, for the case had been felt to be ono of great urgency, and every one had been anxious to put his shoulder to the wheel. Indepen dently then of what he (the noble and learned lord) might call the meritS, of the case, he protested against the course they were now asked to pursue, as a most unconstitutional attempt to arrogate to the House of Peers a prerogative which they did not possess. It had never exercised each a poweroxcept in the case he had referred to, and that widely differed from this ; for the ground en which the Duke of Hamilton's Eeglish peerage was opposed was, that the Queen had no more power to grant a peerage to a Seotchman than to a foreigner; and the house ,would no doubt be justi fied in interpreting whe re the 'Claimant was a minor, a foreigner ) a rrordan, or any person laboaring under any in capacity to sit. Let it not, be supposed, however, that he (the Lord Chancellor) at all shrunk from arguing this ques tion upon its merits. His noble audlearnod friend (Lord St. Leonards) had gone further than the noble mover of this motion ) and had declared these life peerages to be illegal. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) never approached a question with more confidence than he did the present ; and as the noble and learned lord was no sloubt•equalles as confident, he was afraid they would offer an exhibition not very cre ditable to the certainty of the law. :(A.laugh.) . What he (the Lord Chancellor) said, and said distinctly, was, both that the granting of this patent was a legal- act, and that it entitled his noble and learned friend to his writ of sum Mons. Now, fortunately or unfortunately, we had in this country no code to which we could refer. We could only know our lew by referring to those decisions and those writ high in which learned met had from time to ti ale handed down the legal traditions of our Norman and Saxon minces tore. In the first place, then, there was Lord Coke. lie was almest.ashamed to refer to that eminent lawyer again; but ho was really on his trial before their lordships. If this patent was illegal, he did not know that he should not, be impeached for it, and certainly he should be vis i t ed with the severest censure—unless, indeed, hi s having taken considerable pains to' arrive at the truth, were admitted as Ms excuse. Ho felt that ho was the constitutional law minister of the crown, and as such he had not hesitated for a single moment as to the granting of this patent. The *fi ee t a h u a t t h ( 0 ) rf Lord tyto Coke.which 8h h A er sto 'Ni th li e l r a e n fe th r o a r s it w y a o r t r‘ ro t rd ing Co h k ial e, he would quote a few words from a bookhvhich was not a law book. He alluded to the "Lives of the Chief -lustices,' by Lord Campbell—(cheers and laughter)—who spoke of him as "a constitutional person in our history. It was to him we einsaacillitiOnlieresewvhaos owefamiliar to u c s l t s t a e plaeltviy,eiern. of sm ri a g i h t t l s e . p E l f are only desidins of making money of their profession, neglect his wicks, but they continue to be studied by all who wish to know history and acquire a scientific know ledge of our political and judicial institutions." And he went on to say that " his opus magnunt is his comment on Lyttleton, which of ibself, may be.said to contain the whose common law of E Now, what did :Lord. Coke say in that opus magnum, which contained the whole common law ? He said, " The king may create either a man or a woman noble for life, but not for years, because then it /night go to executors or administrators." There his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) stopped, and inferred that this meant merely that the king could give a patent of precedence, or that sort of nobility or rank ; but Lord Coke wenton to add the word, " as a lord of Parliament." But that was not the only instance in which Lord Coke al luded to it.. There must be a dozen passages in Lord Coke's works in whichthis was slid. Thorp wasa passage in his Oth volume, in which the Lord Chancellor called to his assist ance Lord Coke, the Lord Chief Baron, and the question was as to the power of the Crown to resume a grant which bad been made of the Marshalase. Among other matters, the case of peerages was discussed, and this was what Lord Coke gave as the unanimous opinion of himself and the other judges—" But as the king cannot grant a peerage for years, which would go to executors or . admi nistrators, so without question the king may- create an earl for life, in tail or in fee." Then there was the case of Lord Abergaveeny, in the 12th volume of the cases, in which it was held that a writ of summons did not give a right to nobility, unless the party summoned sat under the writ; " but if the king creates any baron by letters patent under the great seal to him and the heirs of his body, or for li!e, then ho is ennobled." There were in the library at Lincoln's-inu the manuscripts copied from Coke that were in the possession of Sir Matthew Hale, and e whw never said a word on that question, and who therefore treated it as a matter -that admitted of no doubt. Next to Hale there was Lord Chief Baron Comyns, who had writ ten a digest of the law, and under the head, " dignity," said, "A man may be created earl or baron by patent, limited to the heirs of his body, and so it may be limited only for life." Then Blackstone said that a patent of no bility must be in words to direct the inheritance, else it endured only to the grants for life. There was another authority. Justice Doddridge, a very able judge in the time of Charles 1., who said that a patent of nobility " may be for life, or for some other man's life." The same thing was laid down in other works, but they were mainly repetitions of the opinion of Lord Coke. But it did. not rest there. Some thirty years ago, a committee of their lordships' house investigated the whole subject of the doc trine of peerages; and Lord Redesdale, who wrote their report, stated that "souse grants had been specially re strained to the life of the persons to whom the grants had been made. He referred to the case of Guiscard de Denby, who was toad© Earl of Huntingdon. His noble friend said the patent was cancelled, but that was an error. A pension was granted by the patent, payable out of certain lauds. It was afterwards discovered that there was not power to grant the pension out of those lands, and another patent was issued granting it out of other lands. That was in the first year of Richard 11., and in the first, second, third and fourth writs of summons issued by that monarch Guiscard de Denby was included. The next case was that of Sir J. Cornewegh, who was made Baron Fauchope for life. Of the 45 grants of peerages, from the first of Richard 11. to about the middle of Henry VI., he should say that more than half of them wore granted acansa prelates-tun Drocernin com inunitatis. Of the 45 grants in that period, 11 were for the life of the parties, and one for the life of another per see. The only one he would refer to was the Earl of Rut land, who was the son of the Duke of York, and who was created a peer for the life of his father---" dmrante vita dnntaxit." Lord Redesdale ' speaking of that case, said that, if Lord Rutland's fathar had been attainted of treason, he would not have been Earl of Rutland, or a peer of the realm any longer. All those persons, to whom peerages were granted during the life of another person, had received writs of summons, and some of them were proved to have taken their seats in the house. He (the Lord Chancellor) admitted that it was more than 400 years since there had been any grant simpliciter of a life peerage to a man ; but where could any distinction be found be tween the right of the Crown to grant a life peerage to a woman, and a life peerage to a man ? All the authorities for creating women peeresses for life were just as valid, on the present occasion, as if they had related to peerages for life granted to men, although, undoubtedly, some of those :Joints to women were made for not very reputable consi derations. Now there had been in all 18 such cases between the reigns of James I. and George 11., and if the legality of them were doubted, it must be supposed that such men as Lords Clarendon, Shaftesbury, Nottingham, and others of greet eminence, had been guilty of a great neglect of duty is pessing them by. There were innumerable instances of peerages granted to persons who were not members of the house before, with remainder to collateral persons.'Now, if the collateral branches in such a case had happened to fail, it would have been sinepliciter a grant forlife, because, techui• tally speaking, there was no such thing as a remainder of a peerage ; every remainder was properly a new grant ; and when a peerage was granted to A for'his life, with a re mainder to B, it was, strictly, two several grants. Many of their lordships now sat in that house by virtue of grants of that description. So when there was a grant to a man and to the heirs of his body by a particular wife, it it should hipper' that there were no such heirs, it would lee a grant for life only. But indeed he (the Lord Chan cellor) need not occupy the house with such arguments as these, which were probably not at all interesting to them, for the truth was that it was stated universally in all writers upon the law, without any contradiction, from Lord Coke downwards, that the grant of a peerage for life was perfectly lawful. He thought the house and the Go verninent had a right to complain of the two questions of legality and expediency being mixed up together as they were in one motion for a reference to the committee of pri vilege;. Disguise itas they might, what noble lords wanted was this, to censure the Government, or at least to express a strong opinion that such a grant as this ought rot to have been made, and it was most unfair to attempt it by such a motion as this. If the noble and learned lord had pro posed a resolution declaring it to be the opinion of the house that this was an improperexercise of the prerogative, such a course would have been quite legitimate. With re gard to the circumstances of this particular case, it was thought to be desirable that the exercise of this prerogative should be made ier a case in which no reflectious would be thrown upon the descendants of the person to whom a life peerage should be given, as if they had been deprived of th e honour on account of their poverty, and the case of Lord Wensleydale appeared to be a very fitting one to be selscted. As for the expediency of such an exercise of the prerogative, there were reasons which m a de it po e uliarly desirable that high legal functionaries should have readier access to the Legislature than of late years they had had. The course of legislation in the other House of Parliament had been to exclude them altogether by act of Parliament. The judge of the Admiralty Court, who used always to have a seat there, and whose advice was very serviceable, was now excluded from the House of Commons. The Master of the Rolls was not excluded by law, but at the last general election, the present Master of the Rolls being a candidate, some people regarded it as a great scandal, and inconsistent with high judicial functions, for him to go about canvassing at an election. That opinion, wrong or right, was one which would tend very much to exclude the Master of the Rolls from the House of Commons, of which the noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst), when he filled that of was a distinguished ornament. Well, that made it the more desirable, that if the dipataries of the law could not be admitted into one House of Parliament, they should he in the other. But how was that to be done, unless they could e cape in some way the necessity of maintaining an hereditary peerage ? He knew how it had been done in for osi 'er times—by giving grants of money to them from the public puree • but surely that was not a precedent which ought to be followed. It was very invidious to speak of such things in connection with living persons, but there were some who yet received largo pensions or allowances as a compensation for cincture offices, which were now abolished, formerly held in this way by their families. It had been said that such a precedent as this would lead to the swamp ing of that house by the introduction of large batches of life peers. Now, considering that the hereditary members of the house were some 450 or 500 in number, he did think the apprehension of any such number of peers for life being created as would materially influence its decisions, was quite chimerical. In the reign of Queen Anue, upon the occasion when the house came to the decision, contrary to law, that it was not in the power of her Majesty to grant a patent of peerage to a Scotch peer, it appeared from "Burnet's History" that some apprehended that, by means of the Scotch peers, the court would always have a ma jority. That apprehension had proved to be unfounded. and so would this one. The real check that would prevent the Government creating any improper quantity of peers would not be in the absence of the power to grant them for life, but in that wholesome and ever active control which was exercised over it by pubic opinion, and which would make such a step as impossible for it t s the ennobling a regi ment of Guards. After referring to the fact which is mentioned by Mr. Macaulay, in respect to the assistance by which Lord Somers was enabled to 'maintain his dignity when created Lord Chancellor, he said that such an expe dient of evading the difficulty which this patent of a lire peerage sought now to escape w ou ld b e a t th e p resen t ti me, it' not an unconstitutional, a most unwise and improper act, and the course here adopted was infinitely preferable. He (the Lord Chancellor) should now be disappointed to the last degree if their lordships came to any vote which would imply that this prome ° ative of the Crown to create a life peerage, whi c h h a d been made available at some former periods fur disreputable and disgraceful objects, ought not to be exercised in the present ;age for purposes which would enhance the dignity and usefulness of their lordships' house. (Cheers.) Lord CAMPBELL insisted much on the importance of this question, which involved, he said, a charge in the constitution of the country more important than had oc curred since the Revolution of 1639—an alteration in the House of Lords greater than that which was made in the House of Commons by the Reform Bill. The latter change occupied and agitated the country for two years ; but this it was attempted to effect by the Lord Chancellor directing the Clerk of the Crown to introduce the words, " during the term of his natural life," into a patent of peerage, without having consulted Parliament about it, and without leaving had any expression of public opinion ou the subject. (Cheers.) It appeared that the Attorney and Solicitor General had not even been consulted about it, perhaps because it was well known that as lawyers they would have disapproved of it. He regretted to hear the Lord Chancellor say that the House of Lords had no right to inquire into the legality of this patent. Surely it be longed to every delioorato assembly to examine the qualifications of any one who claimed to sit as one of its members. When a new peer was admitted, he would present, kneeling, the patent and the writ, which together formed one instrument, the writ being merely ancillary to the patent, by which he was entitled to sit. Had not the house, therefore, a right to investigate the va lidity of the patent ? It was the proper tribunal by which eac h a questiou should be tried; and although he (Lord e ma phell), sitting in the C our t o f Q ueen ' s B enc h , w h ere he was accustomed to issue a mandamus to require some ether tribunals to perform their functions, could not issue a mandamus against either house of parliament, he might nevertheless call upon that house to perform its proper function in the examination of this question. In the case which had been mentioned of the dukedom of Beaufort, which was conferred upon the Duke of Hamilton in 1711, the House of Lords came to what the noble and learned lord now upon the woolsack called a wrong conclusion, but there was never a doubt that the house had a right to determine such a question ; and only last session their lordships took into consideration the case of the barony of. Fermoy. This qu e sti o n ou ght, th e refore, to be thoroughly argued and solemnly decided by the house, for which pur pose it should be first referred to the committee of privi leges. It was not contended that the patent ought to be annulled, or the great sealtorn off it; but merely that there was ground for considering whether the nominee in that patent had a right to sit and vote in the house. Now, the law, upon such a question as this, might not be expressly written or prescribed, but the usage of the c onstitution was that by which it should be governed, and that was, that for the last four centuries no such instance as this had occurred —not since the constitution and the law of parliament had been settled. The text books of the civil law, at any rate, contained some passages that might he quoted to show the effect of desuetude and of a tacitus coiaenBu3 in abrogating a prerogative or a law, without its ever being expressly repealed. There was formerly a law requiring every member of the House of Commons to be an inha bitant of the place he represented ; but that law, which hail never been expressly changed, had long f a ll en i n t o dime tude. The Crown had also the prerogative, in former times, of sending writs to whatever boroughs it pleased, or omitting any particular boroughs, for the election of members of the House of Commons • and he well remembered, that during the Reform Bill debates, a legal member of Earl Grey's party startled the house and the treasury bench by suggesting that the Clown bad still a prerogative which would enable it to do all that was wanted by the reformers, to send writs to Birmingham and Manchester for two representatives from each, and to cease to send writs to Gatton and Old Sarum, and so disfran. chise them at once. But Lord Althorp himself was obliged on that occasion to disavow the opinion of his own Solicitor-General, and to declare that, although such pre. rogative once belonged to the Crown, it had long gone, by desuetude, and that the change could only be accomplished now by an act of- Parliament, with the sanction of the King, Lords, and "Commons. The noble and learned lord, who was very indistinctly beard, was understood to pur sue much the same line of argument as that used by Lord St. Leonards, and to state that, in some of the earlier cases referred to, most of the peerages of that period were created by the authority of Parliament. He then examined some of the cases previously cited and discussed in the course of the debate, and referring to that of Lady Rivers, which was decided by Lord Chief Justice Rowe, in the time of the Commonwealth, said that there was no actual list of peerages during that period, and if Lady Rivers had possessed the privileges of the peerage she would have been freed from arrest on her application to the court ; but the court thought she was not entitled to be discharged ou the ground of privilege, s'ee being only a peeress for life. But even if their decision had been different, it would not have been conclusive that a male person possessing only a title of honour fur life was entitled to sit and vote in the House of Peers. Baronies by tenures were once created, and no act of Parliament had taken away the'right to cre ate such title ; but it could be said that it now existed. 110 next examined the cases of Lord Hay, in James L's time, and of barons created on the same conditions, that is, not sitting and voting in the house, in the time of Charles 1., and that in the present case it wastrue that Lord Wensley dale might be a peer, but he was not a peer of Parliament, and the sooner he got a patent extending his title to the heirs male of his body the better. (Hear.) He thou alluded to Daddridgo having been quoted as an authority; but that writer could not be considered as an authority, for be had gone the length of laying down that any kind of peer age might bs created so long as it did net pass to the exe cutors of the holder of the patent. If that was law, what was to prevent, in the case of a critical division, a Minis try that wanted lo votes, creating the required number of peers for that night? There had been no case of a peerage granted to one man for the life.of another save in the case of the eldest son of a peer. The Earl of Shaftesbury, when Lord Chancellor, had laid it down in the Pur beck case, that a peerage for life did not entitle a peer to si t in that house ; and Lord Nottingham, although it would have answered his purpose very well, did not venture to contend that creations tor life did entitle a peer to sit and vote in the house. Mr. Hargrearo, in a note upon Coke, said that he doubted the prerogative of the Crown to create peerages for life; for the hereditary principle was the es sence of the creation ; and such a right would give the Crown the power gradually to alter the condition of the peerage from its present state. There had been no :instance of a peer being mane a lord of Parliament by virtue of a life creation. He had the greatest respect for the lower house ; he had sat there for many y ears , an d h a d been amongst those who were most anxious to make U, more popular, and more completely the representative. of the people of this country. But the reform of that ho use had been effected in the mode prescribed by the Consti . tution, viz., by act of Parliament. If it should be the opi , aion ( f the Government that it was desirable to alter the consti tution. of the House of Peers—to make it more pepnlar, or by giving life peerages to infuse into it a greater amount of legal knowledge, let it be done litn the same way—not by the exercise of the prerogative in an exceptional and doubtful form, hut by the act of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But let them pro ceed upon principle, and not make one portent of the ho use hereditary, and the other to hold their rank for life only. Ile could not give his support to a measure which would in future limit the hereditary peer age, so far as lawyers were concerned, to the Lord Caancel lot and the Lord Chief Justice. They must have ono rule for all the law lords, and that rule apperred to hire to be the one which was generally adopted as the principle of their lordships' house, viz., the hereditary principle. He hoped the inquiry moved for by his noble and learned friend would be conceded, and he believed if the committee were appointed its decision would be, that their exercise of the prerogative was, if not illegal, unconstitutional. Whatever 'night be the result, however, he trusted they would speedily see the learned person whose case had given rise to this discussion amongst them with such a patent ae should place him in all respects upon a footing of equality' with the other members of their lordships' house. (Hear.) Earl GREY rose amidst calls for the . division. _tie con sidered it almost unnece9sary to add anything to the con cludve speech of the noble and learned lord on the Wool sack, and his noble and learned friend who had just sat dawn seemed to feel se strongly convinced of the able arguments of that speech that he had not ventured to la)/ before their lordships his own opinions in opposition to it- The utmost his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) had ventured to say, as he understood him, was that the , question was open to doubt—that it was a question for further inquiry, and did not depend upon the legality Of the patent right, whether the peerage was limited or not. In this his noble and learned friend had only followed the example of the noble and learned lord opposite (Lord Lyn& huist), who carefully avoided staking his groat reputation on the opinion that the patent was illegal ; and, indeed, be went further, and admitted by inference that it was legal. With regard to the nature of the measure recommended by the Government, he had heard with extreme suspicion from his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) that it was t measure effecting an organic change of the constitution of the House of Peers even more important than that which was effected by the House of Commons by the Reform Bill- But when were the schedules abolishing a large part of tho hereditaary peerages as now existing and supplying their plates with life peerages granted by the Crown ? ..vas there in this measure affecting the transfer of political power from one class of the community to another, as was the case in the Reform Bill ? A single patent was for eel!: ferring a peerage for life in a case where everybody a u mitted that it could be of no consequence, in regard to the succession, whether it were for life or permanently. Was this a case to be taken up as one likely to lead to an or ganic change in the Constitution of the house ? The noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst) had said that though this exereise of the prerogative might not be illegal, it might be unconstitutional. In that he (Earl Grey) concurred. There would be no breach of the law if the Crown chose at any moment to create a hundred peers, but it would be :r violation of the principle of the constitution. In that he fully concurred, and he sail that if her Majesty should be advised by an undue creation of new life peers to sweauP the House of Lords such an act would be unconstitutional. But had it been shown that any injury or violation of con' stitutional principle ensued from the cautious and prwlen c t creation of such peerages more than from the cautious and prudent creation of hereditary peerages ? The prerogativ e of the Crown was capable of being abused no doubt, be t ' SO also was the power of Parliament, but in what way th e e' moderate exercise of the prerogative in the creation of lire peerages could imply injury to the character of that house, he was at a loss to understand. They were told that peer ; who held the dignity only for life would be inferior to those who sat under the ordinary creation. He thought tbrb i e opinion altogether erroneous. Look at the episcopal beneTho were the right rev. prelates who sat there, and whose peer; ages were only for life, inferior to the other members o f their lordships' house? Was their influence or authoritY less than that of the otherpeers; and when Lord Wenger dale took his seat amongst them, would any man venture t° say that the influence which his high character and great legal knowledge entitled him to, would bo lessened in the slightest degree because his patent was for life 01319 Would any man say that there were not obvious advs,e; tages to the country, and to the House of Lords in Par": cllar, arising from the moderat e crea ti on o f new Poel.- from time to time ? (Hear.) There were two things that lordships ought to desire—the on e th a t th ere should 17e always amongst them a sufficient proportion of those who raised themselves to the dignity of the peerage by the ir own exertions and by the services they had rendered to their country. That was essenti a l t o the =internale° e the character of that house with the public. His noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) assumed that this Pre" posed measure only contemplated the creation of peen, for life in favour of lawyers. lie (Earl Grey) hoped it would not be so limited. (Hear, hear.) He hoped to see the reward of the peerage conferred fur naval services, for litary services, and for political services in the same we , y' (Hear, hear.) Could any man doubt that it would be t° the advantage of the house itself that a gentleman who, i ll the other House of Parliament, raised himself to great po' litical distinction and acquired great knowledge of the affairs of the country, should after long service, when be felt the fatieues of the House of Commons too great fo! him, be traussferred to the House of Lords ? And was tt desirable that the access of such persons to that house should be precluded unless they possessed such pecuniary means as would enable them not only to maintain their ratX in their own persons, but to snake provision for its due maintena ace by their successors ? It might often hapPee that such men had sufficient means to support the peerage during their own livesbut from the extent of their familie! ware unable to leave to tho next in succession that whine would be requisite to keep up the dignity afterwards , surely it Would not be desirable to deprive the house of the benefit of the presence of such persons. It occurred Ire' quently, no doubt, that military, naval, and other service; to the State were rendered by men who possessed fortune; sufficient to make provision for a peerage • and in other s where the service r en d ere d was o f a remarkable character , ParliameAt very properly made the necessary provirioa from the public funds. In such case it was undoubtedly ' right trist hereditary peerages should be granted. He new sidered it of great advantage that the titles of Marlborough , Nelson, imd Wellington, should continue to remind the country of the glorious needs for which they were conferred But would any man tell him that peerages might not have been wisely granted to persons who had every claim to them, but for whom the Government felt they could no t ask Parliament to make any pecuniary provision, and wh o had not the enemies to maintain the dignity of the peerage, themselves? He believed the effect of the measure would be to open the door of that house more easily to men whom it was moot desirable should have access to it without creating a great future evil, by bringing perma ne ntly te e that house those who had not the means of upholding the station of peers of the realm. But it had been urged that' a Minister might at any time abuse this power. 0 ° believed that to be practically impossible. That house was too numerous a body, and tote large a proportion of its mere hers ware Ledependent of the Crown for any abuse of th e prerogative of creating peers to take place. Any Minister attempting such a step would array against him snob powerful opposition that he would be sure to lose as many u votes at least as he would gain by the new creation. Ilebelieved, believed, there. c'r peers , be securityquite against s creation of life th a ito a t would the great as it was against the creation of hereditary peers. With regard to the motion itself, if he were convinced that tho legality of the patent were more doubtful than he thought it we`' and that the practice of creating life peers was dangerou s and improper, as had been contended, he should still say_ that the Durso proposed by th e no bl e and l earne d lord' (Lyndhural) was not the one the house ought to adopt. If the noble and learned lord had asked their lordships to ar point a eeloct committee, without expressingany previoue opinionas to thele,gality of thepatent, and had proposed that such comet ittee should inquire into the whole subject and report then son, he would say that such a motion ought not to he resist el—(hear) -and had Government resisted it, be (E in Grey) would not have supported the motion. Con' sidering that there was doubt as to the legality of the pa tent in the rst.nds of those whose opinions were entitled to weight, and that ethers thought there had been a danger' ous exercise of the prerogative—considering how generally these opinions were entertained, be thought the pateot, granted b;T the Crown to Lord Wensleydale was a subjec t which might very properly be inquired into by a select committee of their lordship's house. (Hear.) Such a cote mittee might inquire, first, whether such a patent was legal or ills gal, and if illegal they might advise their lord ships upon the very difficult question of what steps ougb, t _ to be takers. (Hear.) Or if the committee should not thins . that the putout was contrary to law, but that it was a dar gerous exorcise of the prerogative, they might advise their lordships Neon the equally difficult question of the course that ought so be pursued under the circumstances, whethe r by legislat ion or by an address to the Crown. Such a eon!: mittee, composed of a small number of those noble lord s well versed in the constitution, would be able, he was ow vincerl, to throw light upon the que s ti on an d to form th e best judgmea t as to the course which ought to be pursuers (Hear.) But that was not the suggestion of the noble sag! learned 1-.brd. The noble and learnel lord called upon tll° at le o: e s s e v t v terms t Thus it • no grea • deiber ,privilei '1N.72!.0 ad ':o:Jared. 'tion s it serve aspect that thi tion of elined meant it but t eutuunit the hot Lord of privi tiound f a pn le that • of a sea