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

IMPERIAL HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAY)• The LORD CHANCELLOR to..k his seat on the woolsacit. at five o'clock. _ _ The house was very fully attended this evening ; a number of ladies filling the side galleries, and tbe 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 very considerable 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 moment that tore 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 reform 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 ofUcial 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 him, his assiduity, his industry, his learning and impartiality, have done more than justify the appointment—they have done honour to the selection. (Cheers.) The position of the learned gentleman is of some importance to be consi deied. 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 a 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 ticnlarjuncture to introduce. (Cheers.) My lords, I must beg leave to protect myself against any misapprehen sion that may arise witk regard to what I am about to say. I have received too much of the favour of my SATO reign, and I am too grateful for it, to be capable of :enter 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 tho 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 country, 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 consistent with the Constitution ? Every grant of that kind would be strictlylegal, 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. (Hear.) Iu the same manner, the So vereign, instead of placing 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 fl agran t viola tion 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 award 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 we 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 tbesa days issue writs to certain bo roughs desiring them to return members to Parliament, and he would then issue writs a second time, discontinu ing some of those boroughs, or by a single phrase altering the composition of the whole constituent body. There are eases also of this Oescription. Peers were entitled to seats 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 ; and of persons being created peers to have all the lights 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 right 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 haie fallen into desuetude ; and to make those precedents for the purpose of altering the composition of either bottle 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 aro cited in support of this exercise of the preroga tive. The first patent for the creation of a peer was in the reign of Richard 11. ; and in the first years of that reign is the first case that Is relied upon in jastificatien of the step which has just been taken. That was a peerage g ranted for life to a for e i gner name d G u i scar d 1 de Daub ; but as a foreigner could not sit in this house, it was during the following year caueelled, 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 Guiscard 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 do Vere, Earl , of Oxford. Your lordship ;sill 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, ho 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 oleo in which a lady was created a countess for life, but that, too. cannot apply. And now, my lords, what was the state of things in the reign of Richard IL, which is the strong point of the case of those who support life peerages ? Why, my lords, at that, the most turbulent period 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 t o execute a commission trausferring all the authority of the Crown to certain pereoeu named tu that instrument—learned judges con sulted by the Crown as to the validity of the docaneent they giving their opinions that the instrument was illegal --the barons seizing their pemeons, executing without form 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 flush of his popularity, in the first year of his reign, created his brother Duke of 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 Duke of Bedford and to the Duke of Gloucester were soon after \verde surrendered, and new peerages in the usual form de scending to their heirs were substituted for them. (Hear.) There were also casts in which the Duke of Dorsetshire wa s created Duke of Exeter, and the Earl of Warwick, Earl of Albema r l e for life ; but to th o se c a ses th e p r i nc i p l e I have a l ready laid down - applies—the parties were already members of the House of Peers. An additional case has been cited. It occurred in the reign of Henry VI., at the end of the contest betwee n the Duke of Gloucester and the Bishop of Winchester. It is said thatJ. Cornowayll, who had married the gilpen,3 aunt, Sir for life by the title of Lord Faunh was created a baron Bat there are no sufficient groanespieeransadpLpeosridnglltihibatrotkheis. was a life peerage; on the cnntrar jy,,e,e4 the peerage was conferred in the presence of Partin, and it is natur a l to suppo se th a t the new b aron had conferred the rights and privileges of th e peerage, he up on . him all g that of transmitting his dignity to his descendants. ill ewes, it sh ou ld b e remem b ere d, are included All these period of about 40 years. There are nonegaonf totheblelietet.l2l)af Charles when our constitution first be or of the still more important period of the Revelutie; when the constitution ultimately took the form it e iew ! wears; and will you say that the cases I have cited are sufficient to justify the Crown in new modelling this house? (Cheers.) , DI9 lords. allow me to say that it is a flagrant violation as it strikes me—if I may use such a strong expression—of the great principles upon which our con stion is founded. I am always afraid to omit any way have beeu adverted to, lest it should be t t h h a in u g gh t t ha l t am apprehensiv.e.of_dealbeg with it. There is, Henry VII. At then, a case which occurred in the reign of w h e n every district i in Ireland was a princi pality,that time, a prince named Tho Toni waereated Earl of Tho mond. Henry VII. gave him t he tit le of prince, but it was only a nominal title, because in the sa me patent he was created Baron of Inchiquin. Bat mark, we are on l y talking of an Irish peerage. He took his seat in the Irish Parliament, and 'sat there in virtue of his barony. I have adverted to that particular case, lest it should be said that I had omitted any case which appeared to militate against the view that I 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 —I mean cases in Which ladles have been advanced to the peerage for life. There are several cases of that descrip tion. As your lords ih'ps very well know the personages so honoured were not all of them of the most moral de= scr iption. (A laugh,) Louis the Fourteenth desired at a particular period of his reign to establish tente cor ;live with our Charlerathe Second. He ank en the weak side of that monarch—o„ gbt _ r , new e 1 and he selected a very beautiful lady to come over fo this— atrix between the two. ThAtnie c d oun t try to act as successful .me and the result was, alter a c ons i t s. e i.ou, "el rable period, some lielr ~r ARLIAMENT. LOIN-156N, FRIDAY _EvEN NG, FEBRUARY 8, 1856. E*,;, S,li ea-- , s a children, tha e the lady was created Duchess of Ports- i off every arrear of business in that court. Then there is his country,i n fa c y w h b mouth for li fe. It can hardly be said that that case made I another noble and learned lord sitting before me (Lord St. who law o f fr froth s sembl amen the Sec end was not much distin is any a ration in the composition of your lerdshiiupe. niched I s L a eo y, n i a n rd t s h ) e , I S sat as immersed, LOr d Chancellor l may for his ity, though S.er grave tip his crown for his reli- of Ireland with the greatest reputation, and who also held igion, and he made Catherine Sedley a baroness for life. the o ffi ce of chancellor of your lordship's house. I ask iriliam 111. led a regular life, and created no peerages of where a more competent or efficient tribunal could be Melusine t i e S c h n l en - sons think that by a ddi ng to the number of judges you add that description, nor were any made in the reign o f Q ueen found for the pu r p ose o f a d ministering justice ? Most per- Anne ; but in the reign of George I. berg was created Duchess of Kendal for lif e , a nd M e l es i na to the weight a n d c h aracter of the bench. I entertain a de Schulenberg was also made a peeress fo r lif e , but by different opinion. I think that in proportion as you ex what title I unfortunately forget. So we went on till the tend the number you lesson the responsibility. I entertain reign of George IL, when we find the Countess o f Yar- the utmost possible .respect for Baron Wensleydale, but I month became a peeress for life. These are not very ' may say that he is conversant with the common law of bright colours in our history. It w a s m y d u ty t o re f e r to England, in w hi c h you want no assistance. He is not con them, but they do not bear on the question before your versant with the law of Scotland, or with the adnainistra lordships. Lady Rivers took a peerage for life, and she was tion of justice in the courts of equity. To place him in arrested for debt, and applied to theCourtof King's Bench this house for the administration of justice must be a mere to discharge her on the question of privilege. The question pretence tohjustify a violation of the constitution of this was ably argued, but the Lord Chief Justice at last said— house. What is the reason of this change in our system ? "It is questionable whethe r a countess, made so by patent Have we become so enamoured of the system of Govern. only for her life, be privileged or no ; therefore let her re- meat of our friends on the other side of the channel that we main in the custody of the sheriff till Saturday, and not be seek to imitate them in the composition of this house? turned over to the custody of the mareschall, and then It is but a few weeks since that I read in the elioniteur move it again." It is quite obvious, therefore, that this an article coming from the highest source, denouncing the case must be left entirelyont of our consideration, and that Senate of France for want of patriotism, for want of it forms no warrant whatever for the case we are consider- energy, for want of fitness for the destinies to which they ime There is anoth e r c l ass of cases of this description we re ca ll e d. I h ave no disposition myself to bring down where a for life • peerage is granted, with remainder to a the character of this house to that life interest upon which second or third s o n , or some other person. Now that i s a th e S ena t e of France is based. Are yo ur l or d s hi ps will mere form of convey a nce; it was necessary to put in th ese i ng , b y a lt er i ng t h e hered itary character o f thi s house , to to sustain a rem a inder. In most of the cases to w hi c h I di m i n i s h th e strong sympathy which it posse sses w i t h t h e am referring the grant of a pe erag e for life was to a man s t a bilit y o f th e C ons tit u ti on an d Crown? You will re already a member of this house. There are some cases that member that the hereditary principle is entwined with do not go so far, because they created not m ere ly an es t a t e every part of our constitution. W e enjoy the heredit ar y ' for life, but also in tail, and therefore it does not cen t re - pri nci pl e in this house in commo n w ith the Crown . We vert the proposition I have laid down, that f rom th e ti me an d th e C rown mu t ua ll y support and assist each of Henry VI. to the present time, a period of 400 y ears , oth e r. By t he legis existence of a b o d y o f hereditary upon no commoner has been placed in this house by v i r t ue o f a l a t ors i s f orme d a b arr i er t o pro t ect the Crown from - every patent creating a mere estate for life—(h ear , h ear )— an d no attackrin its hereditary right s . B rea k in upon that p lawyer, no friend to the Constituti o n, can f or a momen t ciple—destroy that outwork of monarc h y —and he must be donbi that the instances of this kind oc curr i ng b e f ore th e a b o ld man indeed, my lords, who will venture to say that formation of our ConstitutiOn, when the prerogative it se lf he can foresee the consequences. My lords, this question was in a state of doubt, never ac t e d upon f rom th a t ti me is one so extensive, it require s so muc h careful investiga to the present, can never be made to justify a patent time, that it will scarcely be possible for us, discussing it breaking in upon the long-established character of your in this house, to examine every p ar t o f i t with the minute lordships' house. I com e now to a part of the subject ness, attention,ansiacceiracy which th e su bj ect reqaires. which, from all I hav e h ear d, i s likely to be pressed upon I will propose, therefore, that the copy now upon the table the attention of y our l or d s hi ps. I mean the op i n i on of of these letters patent be ref erre d to the Committee of Pais that mmittee to report th ereon to this Lord Coke. Lord C o k e express l y l ays i t d own th a t th e v ileges , for their conside ra t ion and examination, and for house ; and with Crown, by its p reroga ti ve, may create a peerage f or life, but I hav e b e f ore s t a t e d t h a t th e ques ti on i s no t th a t ° motion I will now conclude. (Great applause.) what the Crown may do by its prerogative. (Hear, hear.) Earl GRA.NVILLE said he could hardly refrain from joining in the cheers which greeted the noble and learned I was in conversation with a noble friend of mine the other day, and he said, " The crown by its prerogative lord at the end of his remarkable speech, a speech that was .te t. yh , , remarkable even for him. In following one who enjoyed may send for a troop of the guards, m e ay make e os very ir t one Would o th ul e ion . such unbounded popularity among their lordship s,why And yet it would be an act within the prerogative, and possessed such great and 'various learning, and such an ex dinnaotpetehra'ttbbee p a e g e r r e n a g t e violation of t t o he bi c s on p stitu would be strictly legal. Great reliance is - placedtleudptoon tonsive experience, combined, as he (Earl Granville) was Lord Coke, and perhaps more than he is justly enti tle d . I know that in the reign happy still to see, with a s i ngu l ar degree of vigour, both made against him that i mind an d body, he f e lt hi mse lf to be at a great disad he of b J w a i m lueisdl. down a pu a public re c a h t ar t lgeea was l of in law from his own head and his own authority, without vantage; and it was only the poverty of the house, or at sufficient vouchers, and I know that on the subject of the least of his side of the question, in the number of law lords peerage he Lord ke was by no meaaysns doWn infallibl the law iu the mee. In the very bnner ooks it contained, w hi c h o bli ged him (Earl Granville) to make i „Co l which I have stated, that opinion is commen t e d on b y a this attempt to r e ply t o th e no b le and learned lord, which gentleman of profound learning, the late Mr. Hargrave. he should have hesitated otherwise to have undertaken, as No man was bettor acquainted with our constitutional he should hesitate to take the command of the Channel history than the learned gentleman to whom I have re- squadron, or to perform any other feat that would i n di ca t e Espied. He says in hi s commen t th a t he does not think the opinion of L or d C o k e can b e sus t a i ned ; he does not more of rashn ess th an o f eourage. Their lordships had all heard with pleas ure , h e was sure, t h at graceful compli think that the opini on i s es t a bli s h e d b y sufficient autho- rity. The learned author at the same time refers to a case wilt which was paid by the noble and learned lord to the to which lam about to call the attention of your lordships. former members of his own profession, and to those mem- It is a law case, but it is one in a v er y s i mp l e f orm, an d b ers of it who were now sitting in their lordships' house. drill 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• tiered his titleto the crown, and the question was whether always the vary best of its members to sit in that a peer could surrender leis title to the crown. It was ar- house. He remembered that, some quad-ter of a century gued at great length by Sir William Jones, who in the ago, there was a foolish, absurd cry raised in the cou n t r y course of his ar gumen t s t a t e d , b y way of b uilding a de- for the removal of - the spiritual lords 'frona that houie. duction upon it, that the King by his prerogative mi g ht There existed at the present time no such feeling in the create a peer for life, and he illustrated the main qu es ti on country; and especially their lordships'would themselves by arguments built upon that assumption. Th e l earne d think it one of the hardest blows that could be dealt judges who decided the case in this house were me n o f against their own house, if by a single individual the num great eminence—the Earl of Shaftesbury, w h o h a d j us t her of the spiritual peers were to be diminished. (Cheers.) given up the great seal, the Earl of Nottingham, by whom But if the advantages of having the spiritual lords in that he was succ ee d e d. Wh e n the E a rl o f Sh a ft es b ury came house were felt, even strong er was the fe e li ng t b at the to pronounce judgment in the case b e f ore hi m, h e re - n o bl e an d l earned lords who belonged to the legal proem ferred to the assumption made by the attorney-General sion were absolutely necessary. to it. Not only in the as to the King's ability to create peerage s for life, and evening debates those nobler and learned lords were pre what was the observation he made? H e sa id, 4. You sent, to explain what the law was, and to explain what, had no right to assume that; that qnestion is even more if a bill p wised. 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 that day that the right of the crown to create a peer for night was in itself a proof- how enorfnously the eminent life was not only doubtful, but that it was not in point of members of that profession had engaged the esteem and law to be sustained. There was no man of greater emi- 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 judgment, supported the argument of Sir Win. Jones, preciated when tho'highestjudicial tribunal was united to and came to the conclusion that the surrender was wrong, the authority of that house h He' believed really that He adopted most of the arguments of the learned Attorney- 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 be agreed in opinion with the learned lord who 'hail 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 acquainted with a case before this house, a case of peerage, on *high Lord law —common law the noble and learned lord seemed to Plunket presided, the opinion of Lord Coke was cited. It have excluded from this consideration—but of peers ac wag a clear, distinct, decided opinion, but it was over- quainted with Chancery law, civil law, Scotch law, and 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 110 reason in support of his house. Now, it had been found difficult to keep up niche judgment ho might, out of deference to him, have coin- supply of legal lords; and this difficulty hail repeatedly tided with him ; but as he had stated the reasons, and been felt by former ,governments. A friend, on whose tea those reasons hail no validity, he felt compelled to decide timony he dEarl Granville) could' rely, had assured 4sinf against it. My lords, I have stated this case, not to give that he was told by Lord Chatham that'Ldrd Liyerphoh e the ipse dixit of that learned person, bet to show that he government unanimously came, at one porioi, to the con took a different view even from thet 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 i 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 td legal right. The question. is This, which their lordships might think a piece of hearsay whether, Ott certain precedent% established four hundred evidence and political. gossip, was corroborated by a letter y rs ago, the Crown can at this period, after the consti. which he would read. He might also mention that in of both houses, create a peer for lif e— 1851, under the Administration of Lord J. Russell, an offer can bo considered as justifiable. of a'lifo peerage was made to a distingnished judge, who whetherea ie n a l t e r n a c i li n i a n g p ro c e e d i n g 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 through stated amongst other reasons for refusing that offer, that it. (Hear, hear.) I shall be followed by som e nobl 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 constitutional material which I have omitted. I will leave that part and expedient now, he knew the step would be very lin ed the care. Now, my . l or d s, w h et will be the coon. popular with hi s l egal brethren , and theref ore he owned quence of the establish men t o f suc h a precedent? Yeti that he hadethe weaknes s , as he himself said, to shrink will find this hou se di v id e d i n t o two classes, ,one being from being the first man to eel such an exam p le. Nosy 1 the hereditary p eers and the other peer s f or lif e. O ne t h at was an answer to the noble and learned lord 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 Parke, because of your lordships. No one would willingly encouhter the Baron Parke was not likely to have any children. If a life risk of cr ea ti ng a grea t num b er of hereditary peers. It peerage was illegal an I inexpedient, it was wro ng t o o ff er was done on one occasion in the reign of-Queen Anne, and it to anybody ; but if the Government were right in think lords, ha been a matter of denunciation ever eince. Ant, my i t it lc b ody expedient, and constitutional, then it was an if a few men advanced in life 'can-be 'created peers advantag e to hdve the offer of it eceepted by a man so during the the remainder of their short career, how easy will nent in his character and merits, and one so completely it be on an emergency, with an unscrupulous Minister—. separate from any political connexion with the Govern and we have had mane such, and may have many more— ment. Now, much was said at the opening of the session how easy will it bo for him to carry any measure by crest- of the doubtful legality of this ant ; but the noble and ing peers for life. It is said that this privilege or prerega- learned lord, who hail evidently examined the whole ques tire will be sparingly exercised. My lords, do not give tion with so much labour, had shrunk entirely from dealer way to thus delexion. It is too easy a method not to be ing it to be ill ega l. H e had been more than usually closer, had frequent r ecourse t o . I wou ld give no power that is ur doubtless very accurate, in his historicalstatement ; but capable of being abused unless where it is necessary for he had managed with peculiar skill to confuse the legal, the some very good reason. That I conceive: to be good eon- constitutional, and the expediency questions together. The stitutional doctrine. But are there no great authorities noble and learned lord, se bile evading the question of le -1 on this subject? I conceive that I can bring before you a gality, had talked about the constitusionelity 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 taro 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 Reform Bill was opposed in lord had brought forward a supposed case of the Crown this house; and the difficulty was to overcome that opposi- sending for a regiment of Life Guards, and giving them ill tion. The question was considered in a great variety of life peerages. That would certainly be unconstitutional, forms. It was sug g ested that the eldest son s o f p eers m i g h t and although it might perhaps be strictly legal, the mow be called to this ho use, 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 been 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 dan- bestow peerages for life. tie observed that the noble and gerous consequences, area 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 s t a t esman euterta i ned th a t o pi n i on , h u t th at no passage from the books to prove it ; and he (Earl Gran our then Soverei gn , Willi am IV., d ec lar e d that he would ville), though not learned in the law; had understood there never consent to the a d o pti on o f suc h a co ur se. Do not wire some such 1113XIMS as Arullunt tempus oceurrit regi, conceive, nay lords, that this is the sole authority on which which would have prevented the prerogative being affected. 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 wa s p ropose d i t b ecame necessary, for the it had not been exercised for 150 s• . But purpose of carrying it, th a t a great num b er o f peers s h ould the fact was that there had not been one uniform mode id be created ' • and so gr ea t was th e num b er, t h at i n t h e conferring peerages ; but some were given to a man with Union Act a clause was introduced providing for the gra- remainders to the heirs male, some limited to the heirs dual 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 believed there was an instance now proceedings, would have agreed to diminish those peerages in the house, namely, a peerage given with remainders unless he had thought such a course was requisite ? No ono that skipped a generation, and went to the second son of a can say that the influence of government in this house is daughter who never herself enjoyed it at all. Practically not sufficiently gro a t ; b u t i f 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, C16J . 144 est dare, ejus est disponere. The species of 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 is the case of the Earl of Devon, admittingt, the poesi- Crown in th e translation o:the membe rs o f th e ep i scopal bility of a peerage being legally bestowed by the Crown bench. It was said that those translations ought no longer for life. He next took notice of an occasion when Lord to be tolerated, that they ren d ere d t h e prelate too sabser- Redesdale suggested that the holders of ' certain o ffi ces 'Tient to the minister of the time, and it was in consequence should sit as peers in Parliament during the time they of this that th e i ncomes 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, Lord 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 annomicecl amidst the laughter of the house, were 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 in 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 person s who sistant in the work, the noble earl read a long letter of have themselves been distinguished by similar services ? I ' Lord Eldon s, which will be found in the biography of that do not moutho the length of the old Roman poet, who put into eminent personage, in which Lord Eldon had canvassed the of the Grecian warrior these words : the propriety of bestowing a peerage on the Chief Justice Nam genus et proceros et gum non fecirnus ipsi Vix ea nostra voce. of the King' s B enc h, an d commented on the pesaniary I do not circumstances o f some o f th e j u d ges who were at that time go that length, bat I say th a t w hil e 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 f for their country, I respect still mere those by whom the ' for their families ; and, amongst ether things, Lord Eldon great and glorious deedsdeds have been done, (Hear.) It is said, "I assure you that I have often thought, that if I had said that this is to nfined t o m em b ers o f th e profes- survived the acceptance of the peerage but a short time, I 'ion of the law. 'What has the professi on o f 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 say, and. with perfect confidenc this e, appeal n ing to every man lie." He considered it one of the most precious privileges aequainted with the history of coutry, that no body which a countryposeessed, that any man cou ld b y hi s mer i ts ?f men h ave b een more distinguished and m ore successful become a member of that house; but looking to the view In their exertions is supporting the liberty and maintain- of the question he had just stated, he would venture to say mg the constitution hhhon of th of this country than those in the pro- that, without making undue reference to the wealth of his 0 law. I hear it sometimes whispered that noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) it was well known their descendants are not so distinguished. I look round that he had enj the' lent lord disti ng uished this house, a n d g at a large and lucrative practice, that e See near MO, one of them a noble and gal- was possessed oftes in Ireland, was the master o fd iai, for personal bravery, one of the house in the aristocratic quarter of the town, and that his ablest o ffi cers and see a noble beer Majesty's service. I look further, eldest son bad entered into public life • but supposing he always attentive to his duties in put the converse of that case, and if the ' circumstances of this house, acute, lab o rious always to speak with his noble and learned friend had been different, and he had overpowering and corem n ali n i.i? i g ising ehemence, and I find him had only his official salary to live upon, would the descendant of a learnea n- it not have justice. I see another been likely that his son would have been unwilling to suc with intelligence and impartialiryt Itlt:e ffi ccsetlmwahtiiocnh noble lord, holding a tlistine c a lte i f teed tot bo peerage ? and yet' it would have been hard lordships. I rem em her a noble lord, lately o b f e y fi ou ll i s • upon Sir John Campbell, and hard upon that house, if at the head of her they had h heen deprived of his valuable services. The noble Majesty's Government, exclaiming i n a .• l'he are moment of excite- and learned lord (Lyndhurst) had referred in his argument meat and with great bitterness lawyers in this house." (Laugher.) I think°ver-ridden by to the point of the probable dependence of that house upon over if this new the ministry likely to be created by the system wero introduced, we should be so looking forward the noble ford would hastily take hie flight irulden that by possessors of life-peerages to hereditary titles. Why, It is said that we want judicial strength in' if when they were created, and had sufficient fortunes discharge the law business. Never was there so unfo thoisthhen u n3o e r i t t h e; and chose to do so, they might claim hereditary peerages. united But was there no similar influence now at work in that a charge. I will say that this house never at any m o e had more legal strength, more legal knowledge on which n to t house, was there no baron who wished to be a viscount— rely, than at present. There is my noble and learned friend. no viscou n t w h o d es i re d t o b e an earl—no earl who desired OD the woolsack, ed ucated in equity, removed to the t o be a marquis ? Was th ere none o f th e i r l or d s hi ps w h o with uni common-law bench, s itti ng there as a judge, re not desirous of a step in the peerage ? Was there no rena l praise of the profe • ant i the p ublic. Then du ke who would like to have the riband of the Garter, or profession for four years in the Court of Chan- such fair Y b' a no ' ive b . ' there is Thy noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham) his count ws tg . i uld anone say that ne, Or WO rformed what yip, c ons id ere d a moat ax- 9 • . , triordiwuy ac t, by pencil:sml uitry, until he Went e there were alroady soola cl eery, and ye who presided .p nuittal . o jects of am Aeon were not to b e tolerated or As to the creation of two classes of peers, why mice 11l 0 0419 o f th e qp ---- - • . th e of the jadges should be asked as to the legality of the pros 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 any question 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 preeedents 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 tutor of Richard 11. the question of the right had not come before Parliament, as the person i n whose favour th e p eerage was conferred died within three years without issue, and never eat in Parliament. When Edward 111. married his (laughter to a French count, and desired to confer upon him tho same honour as Richard 11. had bestowed on his tutor, 010 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 11., 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 tho grossest 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. Coneequently, so far from those cases being pre eeeents 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. He was happy to say that daring 400 years it could not be shown that the crown had ever once exorcised this pretended right until the present time. He could not deny that the Government had many circumstances which, at the first sight, appeared to be in their favour. They bad 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 bear examination. As for the argument which had been founded upon the creation of peerages with all kinds of remainders over, he was really surprised that any one should have thought of relying upon a fallacy so transparent. Why those cases actually formed a strong reason against the proposed now 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 Rot always granted ; but what said an authority they would, all respect, Cotton, upon that point? The learned writer stated that wilt* of sum mons always did issue, except the peer was under age or out of the country, or a woman, or in some other manner incapacitated from sitting in the house. Reference had been made to the right reverend bench ; but how could that possibly bear on the question? The baronies by vir tne 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 Kingdom. Indeed it was his decided opinion, 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 we ll b e alleges( against the course taken by the Government was the case of Lord Somers. Lord Somers was asked to accept the great seal, btit he declined on the ground that he had not saved an amount of fortune that 'would justify his acceptance of a peerage. It was then represented to hini that his services could not bo dispensed with. Ho was therefore made Lord Keeper, the result of which was that he sat as Speaker in the Rouse of Lords, without being able either to speak or vote, so that he was placed in the painful position of heir dug his jud,gnients pulled to pieces by Lord Mansfield and Lot fileerkwicke without being able to say.a word in re ply. Lord - Sinners . 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 peerage 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, he must give his decid e d o pi n i on th a t these life Peeragea were illegal, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would advise her Majesty to with draw the mitent, and issue one in the usual form. (Cheers.) The LORD CHANCELLOR, bade their lordships take care lest,' in attempting to vindicate the constitution, they should themsolvea - 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 precedent whatever save one which he should easily be able to dispose of, that could warrant their lordships in adopting the course they bad been 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 ha!)it of referring questions relating to writs of summons to their lordships, and the Crown would doubtless he 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 matter the House 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 inqui r e i n t o th e va lidit y o f a man ' s t i tle 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 tho 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 Lent ArensleYdales' 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 Le was not descended 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 ho 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 proent 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 coarse upon which they would embark if they attempted to interfere at the present stave. He was aware that there was one butane() which had been ranch 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 th e U n i on ; con f erre d upon himthe 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 be 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 he found tha t a motion was made that the judges should deliver their opinions. The motion was, however, resisted - -doubtless because it w as p re tt y well known what the judges' opinions would be ; and it was 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 Duke of Brandon,the question was referred to the house by the King, and their lordships reverend 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 Melt peer. The matter had only been referred to -con versationally, and it had passed sub sileatto, for the case had been felt to be one 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, be 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 exorcised such a powerexcept in the case he had referred to, and that widely differed from this ; for the ground on which the Duke of Hamilton's English peerage was opposed was, that the Queen had no more power to grant a peerage ton Scotchman than to a foreigner; and the house would no doubt be justi fied in interpreting whore the claimant was a minor, a foreigner, a woman, or any person labouring 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 andleerued friend (Lord St. Leonardo) had gone further than the noble mover of this motion, and had declared these life - peerages to be illegal. Now be (the Lord Chancellor) never approached a question with .more confidence than ho did the present; and as the noble and learned lord was no doubt equally 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 lawby referring to those decisions and those writ ingsein which learned men had from time to time handed down the legal traditions of our Norman and Saxon ances tors. In the first place, then, there was Lord Coke. He was almast ashamed to refer to that eminent lawyer Again; but be 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 visited with the severest censure—unless, indeed, his having taken considerable pain s t o a r r i ve a t th e truth were admitted as his excuse. H e f e lt th a t b e was th e constitutional law 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 were 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 exorcise 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 published by a well-known continental po litical writer, and• he said that he himself should have shrank from the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown on that occasion, and he 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 iu 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 much given to split ting hairs if he had not the sense to elect 20 persons like Baron Parke for the elevation and 20 eldest sous of peers ; and altogether the distinction between the two would'be so fine 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 pamphlet which had been addressed to the Duke of Wel lington on thisquestion, 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, for if it could have been circulated among their lordships it would have been of more effect than a dozen speedos. That it must be considered as an authority he would clearly show,for a friend of his, wisbing to consult it, went to the British Museum, and on inquiring for it was informed that it was in band, (Hear.) He went to another public library where there were three copies, and was told that they were in the hands of three of the hw lords. (Laughter.) Ho would 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 attendedwith positive inconvenience to the Government, probable danger to the constitution, and almost certain tic 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 impolicy 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 nuMber of creations of hereditarypeerages would-be_ as .satisfactory to the nation at large as so the House of, Lords generally. He felt that the first part of the sentence was true, and he • hoped that the latter part was true also. It would be wrong for the house to take any rash step to limitthe prerogative of the Crown - when it s/as 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 about the illegality of this proceeding, but had put the matter so much matte 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 Dignities was an authority this question could not be referred to a committee of privileges without reference to the Crown. On that ipoiut he would quote some memoranda of Cruise, which were prepared by him for the Attorney-General. The noble earl then reed in a tone of voice almost inaudible, an extract from Cruise, the effect of which, as far as ivo mad gather, was, that the Crown appeared from the earliest times' to have been entrusted with the power, and claimed the exercise of free jurisdic tion to grant life peerages, and that iu 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 house, he (Lord Granville) could only say that the small share he had taken in public affairs had been exercised in their lordships' house; and he had only been able to perform the duties devolving on him by the kind in dulgence which had always been afforded to him by their lordships; it was, therefore, only consistency in him to say that the stroegest political, feeling he had was one con nected with the maintenance of the honour and dignity of that house, and he thought he wasonly-acting consistently with that feeling when, in conjunction- eeftei his• on o+ friend (the Marquis of Lansdowne), he defended thQ,PSor: else of, that prerogative of which he was proud, amieWiefeb ha believed was consistent with a defence of - the eightriaqie honour of that house ; and ho must oppose the referring of this question to a committeer t for privileges when the noble and learned lord had not shown what steps were to he taken and what results were to be arrived at when the mat ter reached that corn:l.-Mee fur privileges. (Cheers.) Lord ST. LEONARDS said that the question for consi deration was whether the Crown, after so many centuries 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 men rich arpoor, to all men or all women peer ages for life. He wished the matter to be considerel from that point of view, not with reference to the persons to whom the grant was made, but with reference only to the right to confer such peerages at all. The noble earl had found fault with his noble and learned friend because he argued the case on moderate grounds, and he taunted his noble friend because he h tti:not said that the act in ques tion was illegal. Ho (Lord St. Leonards) would say that, so far as he could be taken as an authority, he was prepared to say that it was illegal—that in his conscience he believed it to be Moot —andlto wor.rd prvro it, to be so. Ho would go at once into the question of legality, with only ono pre vious observation on what had been said by the noble earl with regard to the. expediency of this measure. The monarchy of this country was hereditary, and the peerage of this country bad always been called hereditary; it pos. seesed that quality which enabled noble lords to spring up from the root which their ancestors had planted, and so to give solidity and. valise to the character and decisions of that house which could not be obtained by mere life renters of peerages. A. House of Lords 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 whoa he came to sit among hereditary possessors of titles ; and in fact that it would have the effect of altering the character of the h ouse . The noble and l earne d -lord then proceeded to do it 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; bat on the law of dignities, on which subject he was scarcely over right, 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 peCrage for a term of years, because then it would go to the executors or administrators ; and accord ing to that, if a grant *ere 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 ? He 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 honours, and not of tne rights to sit and vote in that house • and it was doing vi donee to his m oan i ng t o maintain thati ho was speaking of the case of life peerages. It was true that Henry VIII. made two Barons of the Empire Herons of England, 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 Hay the title ot Lord Hay, with precedence next after the Barons of England, but without a voice or a seat in Parlia • ment; and similar cases occurred in Charles L's time, While in the Earl of Rutland's case, who was OA son of the Duke of York, and others of the same kind, a persons so en nobled 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 11., and that they were legal. Lord Coke had never laid down any such thing, and hawan the only authority ou which the arguments in favour of these grants now rested. His re ports on these points were nut authorities; and in the case of the Earl of Shrewsbury, 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, were 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 declared 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 that a peeress marrying a peer of inferior grade retained her original rank ; but that opinion had been overruled, and the practice now was, th tt a duchess, marchioness, or conetesa, martying a baron, descended to the rank of her husband. He would run over some of the points upon which the law of peerage hid 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 decided that no such right existed. Then it was said that he was entitled by courtesy, anti that if a commoner married a peeress, and had issue by her, he would inherit the dignity as well as the es tate. Thi s po i nt, too, was 'exabsined into by Henry VIII., and the commission appointed by that monarch decided that 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. For 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 a long time was, that a peer could surrender his nobility to the Crown. That there had been instances of such surrenders at vat io ns per i o d s of the h i story of the country was true; but in the Purbeck case, 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 scended t o severa l d aug h ters, the oldest' 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 eight existed. Another in stance if) which the house had interfered, was when,' shortly after the union of Seetlend, 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 resolve that the crown did not possess the right it claimed, and revived ;4% the negative the question whether the opinion minister of the crown,;;;Fassuch ho had not hesitated fur a single moment as to the granting of this patent. The first authority to which he should refer as warranting hi m was that of Lord Coke. As to the authority of Lord Coke, he would quote a few words from a book which was not a law book. He alluded to the "Lives of the Chief J ustices," by Lord Campbell— (cheers and laughter)—who spoke of him as "a constitutional person in our history." I t was to him we owed the petition of rights. He said-- "H e was familiar to us as a lawyer. Smart legal practitioners who are only desirous of making money of their profession, neglect his works, 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 ho went on to say that " his opus magnu m is his comment on Lyttleton, which of itself may be said t o contain the whose common law of England." 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 might 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 Coko al luded to it. There must be a dozen passages in Lord Coke's works in which this was said. There wasa passage in his 9th volume, in which the Lord Chancellor called to his assist ance Lord Coke, the Lord Chief Baron, and the qlleetin - - was as to the power of the Crown to resume a grant which had been made of the7Marshalsea. 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 ie fee." Then there was the case of Lord Abergavenny, 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 an d th e h e i rs e f hi s b o d y, or for li!e, then he is ennobled." There were in the library at Lincoln's-inn the manuscripts copied trom Coke that were in the possession of Sir Matthew Hale, and who never said a word on that question, and who therefore treatedit as matter that admitted of no doubt. Next to Hale there was Lord Chief Baron Cornyns, who had writ ten a digest of the law, and under the head, "dignity," said, "4. roan 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 mast be in words to direct the inheritance, else it endured only to the grants for life. There was another authority. Justice Doddridgo, a very able judge in the time of Charles L, 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 " some grants . had been specially re strained to the life of the persons to whom the grants had been made. He referred to the case ef Guiscard de Denby, who was made 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 lands. It was afterwards discovered that there was not power to grant the pension out of those lands, and anothereepatent was issued granting it out of other lands. That was in the first year of Richard IL, 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. Cornewegb, who was made Baron Fauchope for life. Of the 45 grants of peerages, from the first of Ri c h ar d 11. t o a b out the middle o Henry VI., he should say that more than half of them weee granted accensa prelatorunt procerant et com munitatia. Of-the, 45 grants in that period, 11 were for the life of the partieSe 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—" (tarmac vita Parris sin duntaxit." Lord Redesdale, speaking of that case, said that, if Lord Rutland's father 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 400yoars since there had been any grant simpliciter of a life peerage to a man ; but wh ere cou ld any di st i nct i on b e found be tween the right of the Crown to vent a life peerage to a woman, and a life peerage to ama ? All the authorities for creating wo men p eeresses 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 grants to women were made for not very reputable consi derations. Now there hail 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 great eminence, had been guilty of a great neglect of duty in passing 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 ouch a case had happened to fail, it would havebeon sirap!iciter a grant forlife, because, techni cally 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, if it should happen that there were no such heirs, it would bo a grant for life only. But indeed ho (the Lord Chea pener) 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 vernment bad a right to complain of the two questions of legality and.expectiency being mixed up together as they were in one motion for a reference to the committee of pri vileges. 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 not 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 improper exercise 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 in a ease in which no reflections would be thrown upon the descendants of the person to whom a life peerage shoul I be given, as if they had been deprived of the honour on acceunt of their foveae-, and the case of Lord Wensleydale appeared to be a very fitting one to be se l ec t e d. As for the expediency of such au exercise of the prerogative, there were reasons which made it peculiarly desirable that high legal functionaries should have readier access to the Legislature than of late years they had bad. 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, arid 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 au election. Th a t o pi n i on , wrong or right, was one ahich i weald 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 office, was a distinguished ornament. Well, that made it the more desirable, that iii the dignataries of the law caul,' not be admitted into one Haase of Parliament, they should be in the other. But how was that to be done, unless they could e cape iu some way the necessity of maintaining an hereditary peerage ? He knew how it had been done in for mer times--ber giving grants of money to them from the public purse; 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 large pensions or allowances as a compensation for sinecure 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 Anne, 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 " Barnet'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 bo 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 public opinion, and which would make such estop as impossible for it as 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 dif f iculty which this patent of a life peerage sought now to escape would bo at the present time, if not an uncOnstitutibnal, a most unwise and improper act, rind 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 preroeativet of the Crown to cr ea t e a life p eerage, w h ich had i been made available at some - farmer periods for - disreputable and disgraceful objects, ought not to be exercised in the present :age fur 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 having had any expression of public opinion on 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 uo right to inquire into the legality of this patent. Surely it be longed to every delioerate assembly to examine the . qualiflcations 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. H a d not the house, therefore, a right to investigate the validity of the patent ? It was the proper tribunal by which suc h a question should be tried • and although he (L or d Campbell), sitting in th e C ourt of Queen's Bench, where he was accustomed to issue a mandamus to require some other 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 Fernley. This question ought, therefore, 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 seal torn 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 constituticn 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 constitutiou and the law of parliament had been settled. The. text books of the civil law, at any rate, contained some passages that might be quoted to show the effect of desuetude and of a tacitus consensus 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 bilis; bitant of the place he represented ; but that law, which had never been expressly changed, had long fallen into disue tude. The Crown had also the prerogative, in former times, of sending write to whatever boro ug h s 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 th e h ouse and the treasury bench by suggesting that the Ciosvn had 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 Gistton and Old scram, Anti o disfren, chise them at once. But Lord Althorp himself was obliged on th a t occas i on t o di savow 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 heard, was understood to pur sue much the same line of argument as that used by Lord St. Leimards, and to state that, in some of the earlier cases referred to, most of the peerages of that period welt, created by the authority of Parliament. Ho 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 duritie , that period, and if Lady Rivers had possessed the privilegei 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 on the ground of privilege, she 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 for life was entitled to sit and vote in the House of Peers. Baronies by teuures 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. 11° next examined the cases of Lord Hay, in James I.'s time, and of barons created on the same conditions, that is, not sitting and voti ng in th e h ouse , i n t h e time of Charles 1. , and that inthe present case it was true that Lord Wensleye 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. (Hoar.) He then alluded. to Doddridge having been quoted as an a uth or ity; 13 ° that write r cou ld not be considered as an authority, for he had gone the length of laying down that any kind of peer age alight be created so long as it did not pass to the eV; caters of the hold er o f th e pa t en t. If t h at was law, wits' was to prevent, in the case of a critical division, a Minis; try that wanted la votes, creating the required number 01 peers for that night ? These 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, whe n Lord Chancellor, had laid it down in the Purbeck case , that a peerage for life did not entitle a peer to sit in that house ; and Lord Nottingham, although it would hey° answered his purpose very well, did not venture to contend that creations for life did entitle a peer to sit and vote Y; the house. Mr. Hargreave, 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 hoe, its present state. There had been no instance of a peer being ma to 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 years, and had been amongst those who were most anxious to make it m ore popular, and more completely the representative of the people of this country. B u t th e re f orm o f t h at h ouse had been effected in the mode prescribed by the Constitution , viz., by act of Parliament. If it should be the opinion of the Government that it was desirable to alter the consti tution of the. House of Peers—to, make it more popular , or by giving life p ee r ages t o rause into it a greater amount of legal knowledge, let it be done 'in the same way—not by the exercise of the prerogative in. an exceptional and d ou btf u l firm,' but by the act of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But let them Pr o : ceed upon principle, and not make one portion of the ho use hereditary, and the other to hold their rank for life only. He could not give his support to a measure which would in future limit the hereditarypeer age, so far as lawyers were concerned, to the Lord Cnancel lor and the Lord Chief Justice. They must have one rule for all the law lords, and that rule apperred to Min to he the one which w as generally adopted as the principle °f their lordships' house, viz., the heredit a ry p r i nc iple. Ja e , hoped the inquiry move d f or b y hi s no bl e an d l earne d f r ies ° would be conceded, and he believed if the committee wer e appointed its decieion would be, that their exercise of the prerogative was, if n o t ill ega l, uncons tit u ti ona l . Wh a tever ,1 might be the result, h owever , h e t rus t e d t h ey worn speedily see the learned person whose case had given ris e to this discussio n amongs t th em w i t h suc h a pa t en t es should place him in all respects upon a footing of equality with the other members of their lordships' house. (Hear.) Eerl GREY rose amidst calls for the division. He con' eidered it almost unnecessary to add anything to the con clusive sp eec h o f th e no bl e an d l earne d lord on the Wool sack, and hi s - no bl e an d l earne d fr i end who had just ea t down seemed to feel so strongly convinced of the abl e arguments of that speech that he had not ventured to Jai before their lordships his own opinions in opposition to it. % The utmost his nobl e an d l earne d f r i en d (Lord Campbell) had ventured to say, as he understood him, was that the question was open to doubt—that it was a question O f f further inquiry, and did not depend upon the legality 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 Lend. burst), who carefully avoided staking his great reputation on the opinion that the patent was illegal ; and, indeed, h . e went further, and admitt e d by i n f erence th a t i t was legs' 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 I measure effecting an or g ani c c h ange o f th e const it u tion . the House of Pe e rs ev en more i mportan t th an that wh.i°l' wee effected by the H ouse o f C omtuons b y th e R e f orm Bill. But when wore the schedules abolishing a large part of the heeetlitaaay peerages as now existing and supplying theirplaces with life pee rages gran t e d b y th e C rown ? was there in this measure affecting the transfer of politics', power from o ne c l ass o f th e commun i ty to anot h er, as so' the case in the Reform Bill ?; A single patent was for con' ferring a peerage for life in a case where everybody a° mitted that it could be of no consequence, in regard to th e succession, whether it wore for life or permanently. sire this a case to be taken up as one likely to lead to an o r ' gamic chang e i n th e cons ti tution of the house ? The noble awt learned lord (Lyndhurst) had said that though this exercise 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 n violation of the principle of the constitution. In that he fully concurred, and he saki that if her Majesty should be a lvised by an undue creation of new life peers to swami) the House of Lords such an act would be unconstitutional . But had it been shown that any injury or violation of cons stitutionat principle ensued from the cautious and prudent creation c,f such peerages more than from the cautious and prudent creation of hereditary peerages ? The prerogative of the Crown was capable of being abused no doubt, but so also was the power of Parliament, but in what. way the moderate exercise of the prerogative in the creation of life peerages could imply injury to the character of that house , he was at a loss to understand. They were told that peer s who held the dignity only for life would be inferior to tiros° who eat under the ordinary creation. He thought that opinion altogether erroneous. Look at the ep i scopa l bench; were the right rev. p re l a t es w h o sat t h ere, and whose Peers: ages were only for lif e , i n f er i or t o t h e other mem b ers 0' their lordships' house? Was their influence or authority less than that of the otherpeers; and when Lord Wenaler dale took his seat eneonest them, would any man venture t° say that the influen ce which his high character a nd great legal knowledge entitled him to, would be lessened in the, slightest degree because his patent was for life only Would any man say that there were not obvious a dvan; tages to the country, and to the House of, Lords in Part': cuter, arising f rom th e mo d erate creation of new Peel;",. from time to tim e ? (H ear. ) Th ere were two things the"' lordships ought to desire—tbe one that there sh o uld h e always amongst them a sufficient proportion of those wil t ' raised themselves to the dignity of the peerage by their own exertions and by the services they had rendered t° their country. That was essential to the maintenance of the character of that house with the public. Hi s nobi° and learned friend (Lord Campbell) assumed that this pro posed measure only contemplated the creation of peers for, life in favour of fltwy ere , lie (Earl Grey) hoped it would not be so limited. Meer,. hear.) H e hoped to see th e reward of the peerage conferred for naval services, for wi" litary services, and for political services in the same (Hear, hear.) Could any roan doubt that it would be to the advantage of thti house itself that a gentleman who, in the other House of Parliament, raised himself to great po' litical distinction and acquired groat knowledge of the affairs of the country, should after long service, when he felt the fatigues of the House of Commons too great for him, be transferred to the House of Lords ? And wa s it 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 rank in their own persons, but to melee provision for its due maintenance by their successors ? It might often happen that such men had sufficient means to support the peerage during their own livosbut from the extent of their families were unable to leave to the next in succession that wbich 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 (re' quently, no doubt, that heilieary, naval, and other services to the State were rendered by men who possessed fortunes sufficient to make provision for a peerage ; and in others where the Service rendered was of a remarkable character, Parliament very properly made the necessary proviriou from the public funds. In such case it was undoubtedly * right that hereditary'peerages should be granted. H o coo' sidered it of great advantage that the titles of Marlborough , Nelson, and Wellington, should continue to remind the country of the glorious aoeds for which they were conferred. But would any man tell hint that peerages might not have been wisely granted to perspire who had every claim to them, but for whom the Government felt they could not ask Parliament to make any pecuniary: pro Vision, and who had not the means 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 wheel it was most desirable should have access to it without creating a great future evil, by bringing permanently to 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. 11 0 believed that to be practically impossible. That house Was too numerous a body, and too large a proportion of its mem bers were independent of the Crown for any abuse of the prerogative of creating peers to take place. Any Minister attempting such a step would array against him such a powerful opposition that he would be sure to lose as many votes at least as he would gain by the new creation. Ile believed, therefore, that the security against abuse in the creation of Life peers would be quite as great as it wits against the creation of hereditary peers. With reward to the motion itself, if he were convinced that the legZity of th e patent were more doubtful than he thought it was , and that the practice of creating life peers was dangerous , and improper, as had been contended, he should still say that the course proposed by the noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst) was not the oue the house ought to adopt. if the noble and learned lord had asked their lordships to ap point a select committee, without expressingany previous opinion as to the legality of the paten t, and had proposed that such committee should inquire into the whole subject and report thereon, he would say that such a motion ought not to be resisted--(hoar)--and had,Governrnent resisted it, he (Earl Grey) would not have supported the motion. Con sidering that there was doubt as to the legality of the pa tent in the minds 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, he thought the patent granted by the Crown to Lord Weneleydale was a subject which might very properly be inquired into by a select committee of their lordship house. (Hear.) Such a com mittee might inquire, first, whether such a patent was legal or illegal, and if illegal they might advise their lord • ships upon the very difficult question of what steps o ught to be taken. (Hear.) Or if the committee should not think that tho patent was contrary to law, but that j was &dan gerous exercise of ,the prerogative, they might advise their lordships upon the equally difficult question of the course that ought to be pursued under the circumstances, whether by legislation or by an address to the Crown. Such &com mittee, composed of a small number of those noble lords well versed in the constitution, would be able, he was con vinced, to throw light upon the question and to form the best judgment as to the course which ought to be pursued. (Hear.) But that was not the suggestion of the noble and b awd l a d, Tile noble an d l ewd Ind aged IT's2 the , ti, Settee, 'a_ho 411—t Possil S hip, earl, Cipit: adopt leg e , great the a again net t tion cony( .. "I then Whet] raisin Whicl Thq noble haust 12), any g argo t cite it invol , the B I can: being never deren croacl I cam * 8 1 d honor earld ( 13 37 he When On Om Of g p to thm of a 81 pros consic day,. ROUSE againt of the But tl Lot c c that ] ercwc Crow ] elanm in her; table pressl Paten (hear _ , with pct,i What of 8 11( Nl , lion ever ; lord a, moat by th