The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-12 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

The space below the throne and the galleries were com-
pletely crowded by members of the House of Commons and
strangers, in anticipation of an interesting debate on the
important question of the prerogative of the Crown on the
one hand, and the privileges of the House of Peers on
the other.
THE WENSLEYDALE LIFE PEERAGE.

Lord LYNDHURST moved " That the copy of the letters
patent purporting to create the Right Hon. Sir James Parke,
Knight, a baron of the united kingdom for life, which has
been laid upon the table, be referred to the Committee of
Privileges, with directions to examine and consider the same,
and report thereon to the house." The subject, he said, was
of great importance, as it referred to the constitution of the
peerage. In bringing it forward he had no personal objection
to Sir J. Parke, whom he had himself recommended for pro-
motion to the judicial bench, and whose abilities and impar-
tiality as a judge he warmly eulogised. The position he laid
down was, that no instance had occurred in the history of
this country for 400 years of any commoner being raised to a
seat in the House of Peers by letters patent creating only an
estate for life. There had been a few cases of the creation of
barons for life, but they were marked by peculiar circum-
stances, and to make them the foundation of a change in
the character of the house and the custom of parlia-
ment was a gross violation of the constitution. He
cited several of these cases, showing that they differed
essentially from the present creation. One was that
of a foreigner, who could not sit in Parliament ; others were
baronies without the right of sitting. He urged, also, as an
objection to these cases as precedents, that they occurred in
times of civil war and confusion, before the constitution of
England had been formed and settled. Coming to a later
period, he referred to the peerages for life created by Charles
H. some of them in favour of his mistresses, and others by
James 11., and the first kings of the House of Hanover, argu-
ing that the circumstances under which these dignities were
bestowed were not such as to render them precedents for the
creation of a peer of Parliament. Quitting the more strictly
legal view of the question, Lord Lyndhurst proceeded to show
its impolicy. It would divide the House of Peers into two
parts—the peer by descent, and the peer for life, without suc-
cession—and remove the great check to an arbitrary creation
of peers for any purpose of the Crown, which was provided by
the hereditary principle of the upper house. He denied the
necessity fpr increasing the numbers of the law-lords, on which
the elevation of Sir J. Parke had been advocated. Writs of
error were of rare occurrence, and on important points of com-
mon law the house had the power of summoning the twelve
judges to assist it when sitting as the supreme court. He
contended that no class of men had done more to build up and
defend the constitution of the country than members of the
legal profession, and it was invidious to place them below
those who were rewarded for other kinds of public services.
Earl GRANVILLE quoted several authorities of recent date to
prove the perfect legality of the creation of peerages for life—
amongst them an admission by Lord Campbell. In fact, the
legality of such peerages had never been disputed; and, being
in this case expedient also, it became constitutional. Some
accession of strength to the judicial portion of the house was
absolutely required to maintain its efficiency, and there were
grave objections to creating hereditary peerages, without ample
means of supporting them. The proposal to refer this patent
to the committee of privileges was unusual ; and, feeling as
strongly as any one the wish to uphold the honour and dignity
of the house, he would advise it to reject the motion.
Lord ST. LEONARD'S supported the motion, because, by a
creation of peerages for life, the character of the house would
be totally altered, and he strongly urged the peers to maintain
inviolate the hereditary principle. He cited a great number
of cases, through a long period of history, to show that a patent
of creation for life is illegal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the house, in referring
this question to the committee of privileges, might inad-
vertently destroy another principle, and trench on the preroga-
tive of the crown. It was a matter on which the house had
no power or jurisdiction. The question could not come regu-
larly before it, unless some heir of Lord Wensleydale hereafter
claimed a right to a writ of summons to parliament. It would
then be for the house to examine the patent of creation, and
decide whether he was so entitled to be summoned or not.
He declared confidently that a patent for life was perfectly
legal, quoting Lord Coke in support of his opinion, and that
authority had been endorsed by Sir Matthew Hale and every
great lawyer of more recent time. He strongly objected to
the legality and the expediency of the creation being mixed
up in one motion for reference to a committee.
Lord CAMEPELL said the change about to be introduced in
the constitution of the peerage was greater than that effected
in the House of Commons by the Reform Bill, and it was to
be made without the knowledge and assent of the peers by a
simple act of the Crown. He did not think any addition to
the law lords was called for ; on any point of difficulty or im-
portance it had the power of summoning the judges to assist
it by advice. He protested against a step that would be un-
just to lawyers as a class, unless the principle were extended
to other professions. It would be a precedent for depriving
future Lord Chancellors and Chief Justices of peerage for life,
and to that he could not consent. _ _

Earl GREY • thought the question had been unduly exag-
gerated; it was not a total change of the constitution of the
house ; he believed the character and influence of the house
would not be lowered by a more frequent creation of peerages
for life.

The Earl of DERBY contended that the patent for life in-
volved an organic change in the whole constitution of the
house, and that in referring it to the committee of privileges
they were taking the most moderate and practical course.
Any change in the constitution of the house should be made
by a distinct law, not by a mere act of the Crown. If this pre-
cedent be allowed, he said, why should not men who have
served with distinction in the army and navy, men of science,
too, for aught I know, who labour under the impediment of
poverty, be placed in this house to exercise co-ordinate juris-
diction with your lordships ? If you admit this claim of
Baron Parke, you admit the power of the Crown to grant a
patent similarly limited in all cases. The Lord Chancellor
said that the danger of a minister swamping the house was
perfectly visionary. But although the house consists, as he
said, of 450 members, of what does a majority of the house
consist ? Will he tell me that no influence might be exer-
cised by the introduction, not of 100, not of 20, but of nine
members ? Might not 12 or 14 peers introduced with the pe-
culiar qualification of poverty, and therefore the more under
the influence of a minister, with peerages held during the good
pleasure of the Crown (because if they are admitted for life,
they may also be admitted upon those terms), altogether alter
a decision of this house ? Would a minister obtain no undue
influence by being able, as one of those peerages dropped off,
or as an hereditary peerage became extinct, to supply its place
with another peerage for life ? You say there is no danger,
because every minister must be guided by public opinion. But
that is the greatest of all dangers if, by public opinion, you
mean the opinion of the other house of parliament. Suppose
the Lords oppose a measure which a minister desires to carry,
and which the Commons have passed by a large majority—
what more easy than to create a sufficient number of peers to
carry the measure through the Lords ? The minister would
run no greater danger of impeachment, for he would have
acted in deference to public opinion, and the consequence
would be that this house would become an absolute cipher in
the legislature. My lords, if you admit the power of a
minister, to introduce even one life peerage at his discretion,
and to keep that peerage dangling from father to son as a bait
for further services, I tell you that the hereditary character
of this house is gone—its usefulness in legislation is gone—its
independence is gone—and you had better abdicate your
functions and intimate your readiness to assent to anything
the House of Commons may please to dictate. This is not a
visionary apprehension. I am putting a case which must
arise, in the struggle of parties, whenever we have an unscru-
pulous minister, or a weak minister, who being dependent
upon a narrow majority, and wishing to stengthen it, chooses
to court the worse feelings of the lowest class in the other
house, in order to obtain for himself a temporary renewal of
power.
The Duke of AEGYLL alluded to the plan for swamping
the House of Peers in 1832, to prove that there was as much
danger from the undisputed power of the Crown to create
hereditary peerages as from the right of creating them for
life.

Lord BROUGIIAM explained the part he took in the trans-
actions of 1832, and declared that life peerages were inexpe-
dient and incompatible with the safety of the constitution.

The house then divided :

PEES T,

Contents ...
Non-contents
Majority
PROXIES

. 79
. 63
. -26

Contents
Non-contents
Majority —7
The motion therefore was carried.
The house then adjourned, at a quarter to three o'clock.