The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

LIFE PEERAGES.

THE situation in which the new Lord WENS-
LEYDALE is placed by the resolve of the Go-
vernment to try, in his case, the extent to
which the prerogative may be stretched, is
peculiar and embarrassing. If he claims to
take his seat in virtue of the writ of summons,
his peerage becomes at once, according to im-
memorial custom, an hereditary one ; while,
on the other hand, if he claims in virtue of
the patent, the validitj of his claim is con-
fessedly within the cognisance of the body
which he seeks to enter. We most sincerely
hope, therefore, that when he does make his
appearance at their Lordships' bar, it will be
in the character of an hereditary peer. It
cannot, we are sure, be the wish of her
Majesty to provoke a collision with the House
of Lords. Since her accession to the Crown
she has avoided with remarkable tact any
appearance of a hostile attitude towards either
branch ~of the Legislature ; and to assume it
for the first time on a question, to say the
least of it, of an extremely doubtful character,
would be as ill-advised as unnecessary. A
Declaratory Bill %% ould have allowed a full
discussion of the subject, and in cases where
the prerogative is doubtful such is the course
which common sense and precedent would
both seem to indicate.

IVe have been taunted, as Tories, with
questioning the Royal Prerogative. But what,
in the present day, does the prerogative

■

SATURDAY,

of the prerogative is the measure of Minis-
terial mean ? As Lord DERBY well said, the e tht
ilie.oectst t
of
irresponsibility. Impeachment is obs
tfohbnaei responsible ibtighli
lete ; and if a Mitt stet can shelter himself
htb
to account
tht
tie n,n yd to hnb egef
eopria. r
sbae
drew i
00l
out! ii
nits Togi ed
' r
itl i the 1
odt useil
sorb u 13r disougthp ii! it
#
o sudden invention
of the bvernitlefit tb itiget a p • articular emer-
getig. It wag iii Fibffitemplation at least a
tar tk,as 1851. It is therefore a deliberates
eoect?van
ilel
cae
and-
and well-considered scheme. But in • 1851 the
distinguished Judge to whom a life peerage
was offered was compelled to decline it by the
unanimous disapproval of the Bench. What
could have been the reason of this hostility.'
The Judges have no special interest in the here-
ditary character of the House of Lords. The
innovation would have primarily benefited
themselves. Must they not have believed
they foresaw a wide inroad on the Constitu-
tion? a most pernicious facility for invading
the independence of that House on the inde-
pendence of which the stability of our other
institutions so intimately depends? In
point of fact, the change effected by life
peerages in the House of Lords would be
greater than that effected by the Reform Bill
in the House of Commons. For, while the
principle of representation on which the latter
is founded was in that case confirmed, the
principle of hereditary descent, which is the
basis of the former, is in the present case
directly attacked.
It is to be observed, that none of those
journals which support the principle of life
peerages have as yet attempted to grapple
with the most formidable objections they pre-
sent. They ride off exultingly upon two
arguments—one the necessity of more law
Lords, the other the unseemly spectacle
presented by the impoverished descendants
of hereditary law Lords. But of the danger
to the independence of the House of Peers,
and the wound inflicted upon its original
character, they say not a word. To contend
that the danger is fanciful, and therefore not
worth discussion, is but confessing an unit
willingness to look consequences in the face.
Life Peers would never have the same interests
as feudal and hereditary Peers, or share in
their conservative traditions. And, if we con-
sider on the one hand the rapidity with which
hereditary families become extinct, and the
natural inclination there would be to create
many men life Peers who are now made here-
ditary, it is surely no ungrounded alarm to
anticipate the day when the latter might form
a decided minority.
The possibility of any more open invasion
of their Lordships' rights is one to which the
public is loath to listen ; yet that which
was done in the last century, and nearly
done in the present, can hardly be considered
impossible now, should the path to it be ren-
dered more easy. Is the existence of a Govern-
ment strong in numerical support, but weak
in Parliamentary talent, wholly improba-
ble? But what more natural than that such
a Government should endeavour to repair its
native defects by the assistance of mercenaries'
What more obvious than that under the
proposed system it would be an, easy thing to
carry out such a design in the Lords which
would be difficult in the Commons ? Men
whom the constituencies would reject as re-
presentatives might be forced as life Peers
upon the Lords—adventurers, whom necessity
had made bold and debating clubs fluent, the
Swiss of the peerage, who would be at the beck
and call of their patron alone—an/us addict&
jurare in verbs magistri—and only too glad to
overbear the sentiments of the constitutional
nobility.
One word in conclusion to those who assert
that the peerage is " the creature of the
Crown." Is this true in any sense bearing on
the present inquiry? Separately, no doubt,
the Peers are indebted for their titles to the
favour of the Sovereign. Yet, considered in
the aggregate, we doubt if it is not truer to
say that the Crown was created by the peer
age, than the peerage by the Crown 13arons
—or what answer to such—existed bel"l'
kings ; and we might as well say the Church
the creation of the Crown, because ;
the
Crown nominates bishops, as that the ay's-

FEBRUARY 16, 1856.

tocracy is the creature of the Crown, because
it gives titles of honour. Its functions in both
cases seem to be dispensatory more than
creative. The aristocracy of this country is
not merely a collection of individuals, it is
an order in the State; and this fact it is which
the advocates of life peerages seem too much
inclined to pass over. To decree that the Crown
should be elective, or that a certain number
of the House of Commons should occupy
seats for three years instead of for seven, would
be an innovation conceived in a very similar
spirit to the present one. Such measures
are, of course, impossible ; but why should
a like interference with the House of Lords be
more possible. Why should that be the only
branch of the Legislature subject to alteration
without the consent of the whole Legislature ?
Such an idea is an anomaly that could only
have recommended itself to minds ignorant or
careless of the principles of the Constitution.
Let not her Majesty's advisers deceive them-
selves. Let them not by this measure im-
agine they are strengthening the hands of the
Crown. They are, son the contrary, weaken-
ing the great support of the Crown. Let not
the people deceive themselves either. The
House of Lords, as at present constituted, is
one of the best bulwarks of that sober and
genuine liberty which our forefathers valued.
And Europe might have been spared those
alternations between popular fury and despotic
torpor which recent times have witnessed,
had continental countries possessed the same
court of arbitration between prince and people
as the English House of Lords.