The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-26 00:00:00

THE WAR DEPARTMENTS.

The Earl of DERBY moved for the production of any papers
limiting or defining the respective duties and powers of the
Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief of the
Army. In doing so he dwelt on the necessity of Parliament
having some positive information on the subject. He had
endeavoured to obtain such information last session, but all he
could learn was a list of many things the Secretary of State
could not do : all he could ascertain was a series of negatives.
He described the duties of the Secretary of the Colonies, who
formerly was also Secretary at 'War, as very unimportant in
time of peace : they were mere matters of routine. The recent
changes had so increased the authority of the Secretary for the
War Department as to make him in time of war almost a
dictator over his colleagues. He wished to know whether
these alterations had left to the Commander-in-Chief a full
control over the discipline, patronage, and promotion of the
army; whether the bestowal of honours and distinctions, the
appointments to foreign garrisons, and the movement of troops
rested with the Commander-in-Chief or with the Secretary for
War ; whether honours awarded in the field, on the recom-
mendation of the commander on the spot, and sanctioned by
the Commander-in-Chief at home, were still forwarded to the
Secretary of State to take the pleasure of the Crown upon
them, or whether the Secretary of State could disregard the
recommendations of the commander on the place of action.
He wished to know whether the responsibility of the appoint.
ment of, the Earl of Cardigan and General Airey rested with
Lord Hardinge or the Secretary of State. It was to the
Commander-in-Chief the officers of the army looked for pro-
motion; from him they were to expect censure; he was the
guardian of the character of the army; and he asked if it was
true that Lord Hardinge never received the report of the
Crimean commission till it reached his hands as a member of
that House ; he understood it had been withheld from him,
though in the possession of Lord Panmure in June last. He
alluded to the additional confusion of authorities caused by
the abolition of the Board of Ordnance, and again urged the
necessity of a distinct definition of the functions of all the
departments connected with the army; if there were no docu-
ments defining those powers, they ought to be prepared.
Lord PAxaturnE repeated his statement that the portion of
the report from the Crimea, received in June, was too slight
for the government to act on. He defended the recent alter-
ations in the war department, and gave an outline of the
duties transferred to the Secretary of State, which include all
the civil administration of the army, but leave to the Com-
mander-in-Chief, subject to the approval of the government,
all measures relating to discipline, patronage, and promotion.
On the higher promotions in the army it was the practice for
the Commander-in-Chief to obtain the consent of the Secretary
of State. For the appointments of the Earl of Cardigan and
General Airey, he admitted he was fully as responsible as
Lord Hardinge. But it was a mistake to suppose that the
Commander-in-Chief was not responsible to parliament, and
equally erroneous to say that parliament had no control over
the army, while the House of Commons provided the means
of paying it, and gave the power of keeping it together by
passing the annual Mutiny Act. To place the patronage of
the army in the hands of the ministry would be no benefit to
the nation, and he would support the system that left full and
proper powers to the Commander-in-Chief.
Lord HARDIISGE approved the nomination of the board of
inquiry, and defended the appointment of Lord Cardigan and
General Airey, as, when it took place, he knew of no allega-
tions against them.
The Earl of DERBY expressed himself satisfied with the
statement of Lord Panmure, and withdrew his motion.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter-past seven

FRIDAY.
Their lordships met at fire o'clock.
THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE

Before going into committee for Privileges on the Wensley-
dale Peerage Patent,
Earl GLENELG moved that the following questions be re-
ferred to the judges :—ls it in the power of the Crown to create
by patent the dignity of a baron of the United Kingdom for
life ? and what privileges does such a grant confer ?
Lord CAMPBELL contended that the questions did not come
within the province of the judges ; nor would they be able to
define all the privileges which a patent conferred.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported Earl Glenelg's motion,
and urged the house to have the assistance of the opinion of
the judges before taking a step so reckless as that proposed
by the resolution to be submitted to the committee by Lord
Lyndhurst.
Lord BROUGHAM protested against the term " reckless"
applied by the Lord Chancellor to the proceedings of the com-
mittee, and pointed out the impossibility of getting an answer
from the judges without a delay that would defer the decision
till another session. He admitted that the committee were
dealing with a part of the prerogative of the Crown ; but in its
exercise it had trenched on the privileges of the peers.
Earl GRANVILLE would vote for the motion, and urged on
the house the policy of taking the opinion of the judges, as
the legal authorities among the Peers differed so widely from
each other.

Upon a division there appeared—
Contents, 62; proxies, 49
Non-contents, 97 ; proxies, 45
Majority against government -31
Their lordships then went into committee, when Mr. Thos.
Tomlins was called, and examined by Lord LYNDHURST.—
He deposed that he had carefully searched the records in the
Rolls Chapel, from the reign of Richard HI. to Mary, and
that he had not found more than two instances of the creation
of a peer for life during that period.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not subject his noble and
learned friend to the necessity of proving a negative, but
would admit that he knew of no other cases, with the excep-
tion of some 18 cases of peerages being conferred upon women,
and of some in which a peerage had been conferred upon per-
sons for life, with remainder to collateral heirs.
Lord LYNDHURST moved :—" That in the Committee for
Privileges appointed to examine and consider the copy of the
letters patent purporting to create the Right Hon. Sir James
Parke, Knight, a baron of the united kingdom for life, pre-
sented to the house on Monday, the 4th inst., and to report
thereon to the house, the committee do agree to the following
report :—The committee have, as directed by the house, ex-
amined and considered the copy of the letters patent purport-
ing to create the Right Hon. Sir James Parke, Knight, a
baron of the united kingdom for life; and they report it as
their opinion that neither the said letters patent nor the said
letters patent with the usual writ of summons, issued in pur-
suance thereof, can entitle the grantee therein named to sit
and vote in Parliament." He laid down two main positions—
that there were certain limits to the power of the Crown in
the creation of peers, and that the House of Lords had a juris-
diction and a right to decide on the patents by which common-
ers are admitted to the privileges of peers. Thus an alien,
though he might receive a patent of creation, could never sit
in Parliament ; nor could the Crown create a peerage for a
term of years. When a person presented himself at the
bar, claiming to sit and vote in that house, the peers had the
immediate right of deciding on the validity of the claim,
and with the peers alone rested the jurisdiction on the
subject. These positions he supported by a long and minute
reference to precedents, and defied the Government to prove a
single case in which the right to a seat in the House of Peers
had been connected with a patent to a commoner for life. If
the judicature of the house was defective, there were easy re-
medies. They could call in the assistance of the judges ; and
if they made some of the Scotch judges privy councillors they
could have their help also. Rights that had sprung from long
usage were not to be lightly touched : the succession to the
crown itself was founded on the same principle. They were
.told this power would be moderately used ; but Earl Grey had
admitted by one of his resolutions that it was open to great
dangers : with unscrupulous men in power, and in times of
excitement, this right might be much abused ; and there
would be a great temptation to abuse it.
Earl GREY moved, as an amendment, to leave out all the
words after the word "opinion," for :the, purpose of inserting
the following words, viz., " That the highest legal authorities
having concurred in declaring the Crown to: possess the power
of creating peerages for life, and :this, power'. having, in some

cases, been exercised in former times, the House of Lords
would not be justified in assuming the illegality of the patent
creating the Right Hon. Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale
for life, and in refusing, upon that assumption, to permit
him to take his seat as a peer." He contended that the
right of the Crown to grant hereditary peerages involved
the power of granting them for life. In fact, life peerages
had been created down to the time of George 11. That
these patents were given to women did not affect the prin-
ciple. They had all the right of peers, with the exception of
being summoned to parliament. They were summoned as
peeresses to attend coronations, and if they committed offences
they would be tried by the House of Peers, not by a court of
law. Most of the arguments used by Lord Lynhurst resolved
themselves into the proof of disuse of the power of the Crown,
and an asnmption that the hereditary principle is the essence
of the peerage. If they rejected the patent of Lord Wensley-
dale, they would create a very dangerous precedent, as the
majority of the house would be erected into an irresponsible
tribunal, deciding on the acts of the Crown ; and, that majority
being quite uncontrolled, the balance of the constitution
would be destroyed.
Lord STANHOPE supported the motion, and the Duke of
ARGYLE opposed it.
Lord BROUGHAM declared that he had now no doubt the
creation of a peerage for life, with the right of sitting in par-
liament, was beyond the prerogative, wholly unknown to the
law, and therefore illegal. He cited many powers anciently
exercised by the Crown, with regard to taxation and repre-
sentation, which, havingfor a long period fallen into desue-
tude, would be considered tyrannical if now revived as parts
of the prerogative. The long disuse of the right now exer-
cised was of the utmost importance; and he denied that be-
cause the Crown had the unquestioned right to create heredi-
tary peerages, it had therefore the power to make them for
life, as something less. They were a totally different thing.
He did not believe, if the house exercised its undoubted privi-
leges, there was any danger of giving offence to the Crown ; that
was an utter impossibility, and it was a question with which
the House of Commons had nothing whatever to do. The
Peers might as well interfere with that house in any case of
disputed election.

The LORD CHANCELLOR explained the law respecting writs
of summons, and contended that the writ alone was the
authority by which a_peer took his seat. There were cases in
dangerous times when peers had been heavily fined for not
obeying the writ ; whoever received one was bound to obey it ;
and Lord Wensleydale was exactly in that position. The
report of the committee impeached the writ as well as the
patent, and if the house persisted in refusing to admit Lord
Wensleydale, it would be the most extraordinary invasion of
the prerogative he had ever heard of.
Upon a division, there 'appeared
For the amendment 57
Against it
Majority against Government —3s
The original motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.
The Trial of Offences Bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordships adjourned at twenty minutes past one o'clock.