The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

-/

THE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY Ex EN FEBRUARY 23, (856.

IMPERIAL PARL:AMENT.

Speaker of the House of Commons was liable to be in-
dicted fur a misdemeanour for disobeying the act of Par-
liament. The julgss must answer that question, which
depended entirely on the question whether a right to sit
in Parliament was conferred by a life peerage. But al-
thouc,,h the judges might be forced to give an opinion
up,n the main point he c mfessed that he should be quite
content to take their opinion on the questions lying
round about the main question, but which would throw
light up in it. Then with respect to the authorities cited
by his noble friend. No doubt the judges in Th.orpe's
case answered, and rightly so, thar they had no right to
give an opinion on the lex et c-nsuetu lo parliamenti, but
the point which he had always taken up, and from which
he had never been displaced, was that this question is
not a question of the consuetudo parliamenti, but of
the lex corona:. (Hear, hear.) The question was,
whether the Crown had a right to call upon one of its
sujects to give his services in that ',muse. With respect
to the next case ; it occurred in the time of Henry
VIII., and he certainly did not wonder that under those
circumstances the judges were not very anxious to:give
an opinion on the question referred to them by that
monarch. Then with respect to the authority of Lord
Coke. No doubt, the house had a right to decide upon
all matters relating to the regulation of their proceed-
ings ; but questions affecting their relations to the Crown
were t, he contended, within t'ie category of those
which depended on the lex et consuetudo parliamenti
He trusted the house would accede to the motion, in

Pa'd.

RAILWAYS;

Leasing
Compan.

cioNitut
yestee ay

'nosiness
this day.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YtaTEr.Dity).

The LORD CIIANCELLOR took his Eat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE.

There was an unusually large attenla.nce of peers this
evening. The space between the t►rone and the gal•
leries was crowded in every part hypersons anxious to
hear thediscussion upon the question if the life peerages.
Lord GLENELG moved that the allowing questions
be put to the Judges :—" Is it in the !)wer of the Crown
to create by patent the dignity of a Etron of the -United
Kingdom for life ? What rights aad prvileges does such a
grant confer?" The noble lord, who stoke inaudibly, was
understood to say that the subject now under their con-
sideration was one of the most impoitant that could be
submitted to them ; and it behoved hem to weigh well
the steps they ought to take in a question which would
hereafter be referred to as a greatprecedent. In all
cases involving serious questions m law they did not
think it unbecoming to consult the Judges ; and he
could not think, in a question invoving the preroga-
tives of the Crown and the constitutor al privileges of
that house, they would have any obection to ask the
opinion of these qualified by their legal knowledge and
experience as to the wisdom and propiety of the course
which they, under the circumstances, thought them-
selves justified in taking. Those barned lords were
the constitutional advisers of the country, and this
was a case above all others upon whi:h they ought to be
consulted. He for one wantel to know the

order to show to the country that, before they came to a
decision, they were anxious to ascertain what the law on
the snbject was. If the resolution which his n Ada and
learned friend intended to propose in the committee of
privileges should be carried, it would be the most un-
justifiable and unwarrantable invasion of the rights and
privileges of another branch of the Legislature. (hear.)
After a short speech from the Earl of WINCIIILSEA,

law on the subject. He felt it was to 3 serious

a thing for him to assent to the course proposed
by the noble and learned lord opposit —a course which,
if persevered in, could not be retrieval, but which might
involve the house in the most serous consequences.
He could not help observing that th 4 noble and learned

lord up to that moment had abstairsd altogether from
stating what the law of the land upm the subject really
was. It was no doubt alleged that tlisexercise of the pre-
rogative of the Crown was opposed to the practice of Par-
li Now, even if admitting twee allegations to Le
correct. he thought there was something more to be
ascertained, namely, whether the act complained of was
legal or not. The noble lord was proceeding to refer to
the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, as if it was the report of
the Committee of Privileges, when he was interrupted
by
Lord DERBY, who rose to order. He considered
the noble lord was not justified in commenting upon
what naught or might not be the report of the committee
before the committee had concluded its deliberations.

The proper course, he submitted, would he
for the noble lord to allow the house
to go into a Committee of Privileges, and then be could
proceed with his comment.,.

of the subject, that he need not detain them at any great
length. He need not dilate upon the question of jurisdic-
tion, but as the noble and learned lord opposite (the Lord
Chancellor) had more than once referred to the question,
and denied the jurisdiction of their lordships' house, in a
tone not very respectful to their lordships' house, he must
advert to it in passing. The noble and learned lord had
intimated thlt whatever might be the decision of their
lordships, it would be unavailing. (Hear, hear, from the
Opposition.) The other House of Parliament was in a
much more favourable position than their lordships' house
on the question of privilege. The Speaker of that house
was the guardian of its privileges and authority, and when
those privileges were invaded he stood forward to protect
them. (Hear.) The noble lord opposite, after having pro-
posed an objectionable measure, said' their lordships ought
not to touch it as it was a matter of prerogative of the
Crown. Another per;on, who was waiting for their lordships'
doors to open to admit him. saiddogwatically that his claim
could not be resisted. If this were allowed, there would be

an end to the independence of their lordship% That indepen -
cloaca would be prostrate in the dust. There was a case which

was dlcisive a; to the jurisdiction of their lordships, and
th%t the privilege for which they were contending was part.
of the independence of that house. An alien, it was Nell
known, could not sit in that Louse, but the Crown could

make an alien a peer. Suppose such:alien were to come to
the bar with a writ of summons, why, of course, they
would not admit him. He had another case equally strong.
Suppose a person, created a peer for life, came to the bar
with his writ, were their lordships to co-operate with him
or were they to racist his admission? Wha'.; was the first
step taken on the admission of a newly-created peer?
Why, it was t) read the patent. What was that for if
they were not to consider the patent. These facts he con-
si(iered were decisive as to their jurisdiction. It was the
right of their for lships to see that the assembly was pro-
perly constituted. If a writ of summons wore withheld,
they had a right to demand it, and if a patent wore in-
valid, they had a right to reject it in order to see that that
house was properly constituted. The noble and learned
lord on the woolsack had said there were no means of en-
forcing the right. If a writ was withheld after they had
called for it, there was a remedy, for the house could re-
fuse to proceed to business until the house was properly
constituted. That was the remedy when is writ was with•
held. On the other hand, if a person obtruded himself
without proper authority, it was their duty to direct the
officers to refuse to administer the oath, and to prevent
him taking his seat. Now, as to precedent. There was
but one precedent, that of the Duke of Hamilton and Bran-
don, that was relied on by the noble and learned lord. The
ease which it really presented had never been met by the
noble and learned lord on the woolsack. The cave at the
time it occurred was discussed in the house with great
energy and zeal, and the house came to the conclusion that
the claim was invalid. The question now was, not
whether the dicision of the house in that case was right,

bat as to the forte of proceeding. Not a single observa-
tion, not even in the protest of the claimant to the peerage,
was made as to the course of proceeding. For seventy
years that had been acquiesced in. The decision of the
house was reversed, but even when the case came again
before the house not a single word was raid against the
course of proceeding. On the other occasions, when peti-
tions were presentel, a similar coarse was taken—that of

referring them to the Committee of Privileges. There was
another case, that of the Earl of Banbury, who petitioned
to be tried by his peers. The Committee of Privileges in-
vestigated his title, and said he had not made out his title,
and the petition was dismissed. That case came before the
Queen's Bench, and Chief Justice Holt took upon himself
to say that this house had no jurisdiction. Let them see
how erroneous that was. They had an absolute jurisdiction
when a peer presented his patent. They, therefore, must
have jurisdiction to try every matter incident to it. The
house had the jurisdiction as to the principal matter, whe-
ther he was a peer or not, and hence they had jurisdiction