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

as to whether the peer could be tried by his 'peers. The
noble and learned lord then read the opinion of Lord
Redesdale, in which that judge stated that Lord Chief
Justice Holt,was in error. There were several other cases,
all of which went to establish the right, when applications
wore made, to examine into titles. Such cases had been
printed, and were on the table of the house. One e 9.30 was
that of the Earl of Lincoln. The house referred that case
to the Committee of Privileges. That committee examined
the patent and the pedigree of the claimant, and reported
in favour of the claimant taking his seat. A case occurred
where a peer was elevated to that house as baron in the
lifetime of his father. That baron died before his father,
and his son claimed the barony without the intervention
of the Crown. That claim was referred to the Committee
of Privileges, and the claim was allowed. There were
persons who were incapacitated from sitting in either
house of Parliament. The Crown could grant a peerage
to such persons, but that would not give them a right to
sit in that house. (Hear.) He had referred to these
cases in consequence of the peremptory tone which had
been adopted by the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack. The noble and learned lord then road an
extract from an opinion of Lord Redesdale, in which he
' said, that although he had great respect for the name of
Lord Coke, yet he could not conceal from himself the fact
that ho would tell any untruth to support his opinions.
(Laughter.) Ho (Lord Lyndhurst) could state many cases
in which the judgment of Lord Coke had been reverse 1.
Mach stress had been laid on the dictum of Lord Coke in
this matter. All the legal authorities that had been cited
tarried on the dictum of Lord Coke. That dictum of Lord
Coke's cited no authority and no cases. Ile (Lord Lynd-
heret) would show that in no instance had the Crown crea-
ted a peer for life to sit in that house without the autho-
rity of Parliament. do would prove that to domoustrati;2.
Tim next 'authority that had been relied on eras that of a
Judge—, who was merely the author of a divst. How
could that be called an authority ? Then there was the au-
thority of Blackstone. He merely took the question upon
the bare authority and dictum of Lord Coke. It was clear
that bo had never discussed or considered the subject. '
Then there was the authority of Sir Matthew Halo, and
that was the most curious of all. It was sail that because
that judge had Rai I nothing about it that therefore he was
of the same opinion as Lord Coke. Then the authority cf
Selden was cited. He trendy said that in sonic instances
peerages had been granted for life. Why, that was true
enough, anti amounted to nothing. Ire referred to the mar-
(pinata of Dublin, but that peerage was granted by the au-
thority of Parliaarent. (Hear.) That was the case which
hie noble aud learned friend had made as to authority. It
was wholly founded on the distitui of Lord Coke. There
was no instance of a peer for life sitting in the house, ex-
cept where the peerage was created under the authority of
Parliatneut. The opinion of Lord Shaftesbury had been
cited, but he was not a good technical lawyer, although he
was a gt oat parliamentary lawyer. My noble and learned
friend read a short extract from ItracaulaY's "History,"
with reference to the character of Lord Shaftesbury. lie
was tempted to throw a little sunshine upon this doll dis-
cussion, by quoting the words of Dryden, descriptive of
Lord Shaftesbury

" In Israel's court ne'er sat an Abethain
With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean,
Uubrib'd, unsought, the wretched to redress ;
Swift of despatch, and easy of access.
Oh ! had he been contest to serve the Crown
With virtues only proper to the glwn,
Or, had the rankness of the soil been freed
From cockle, that oppress'd the noble seed,
David for him his tuneful harp had strung,
And Heaven had wanted one immortal song."

It was not Lord Shaftesbury who alone pronounced the de-
cision in the CAW to which reference had been made; Lord
Nottingham also took part in it—one of the greatest chan-
cellors that over satin the Court of Chancery. He would di-
rect their lordships' attention to those cases in which peer-
ages for life bad been granted. The first case was that of
a foreigner ; lie had no right to sit in Parliament, and
it was clear that he never could have sat. In the
charter he was created en earl for life. The next char-
ters were those of the Earl of Oxford and afterwards Doke
of Ireland. They would find that the limitation for life
was not to the person, but to the estates that wore granted
to him. Then it would be fonni that the charter was
passed by the authority of the lords spiritual and temporal
in Parliament assembled. No person who know anything
of the law of this country could deny that that charter was
in reality an act cf Parliament. He might spare the house
the trouble of going through these charters, because they
were all made with the assent of Parliament..
The LORD CHANCELLOR —Above half.
Lard LYNDHURST—The whole. The dukedom of
Aquitalue was riot only granted by the king in his capacity
of King of France, but ee also with the assent of Parlia-
ment. The grant to thwe DUC:IO3S of Norfolk was to a wo-
man, and did not touch the present question. The char-
ters conferring the dignity of a peer on the king's brothers,
the Earls of Bedford and Gloucester, were with the aseeut
of Parliament, arid there was every reason to believe that
this assent was also given iu the case of the Earl of Cam-
bridge. The same result applied to the dukedom of Exeter.
Sir John Cornwall was created a peer with the assent of
Parliament ; but these was more than that. When a peer
took his seat by virtue of a writ of summons that con-
firmed a peerage in fee. When, therefore, the king con-
ferred a peerage in Parliament, and placed the grantee per-
sonally in his place in Parliament, such summons was un-
necessary. Now, as there was no charter in existence in
this case, and as the dignity was conferred in this manner
in Parliament, there was every reason to believe the peer-
age was one in foe. There was no proof of a peerage for
life haying been conferred by the Sovereign without their
assent. What was now sought to be done had never be-
fore been done, and there was not therefore a straw to
save the noble and learned lord from sinking. Long con-
tinued usage was the basis on which our constitutional
system rested. Look at the descent of the Crown. It
was different in two important particulars from the de-
scent of private estates. The rules of descent, therefore,
depended entirely upon tune. Upon this in like manner
depended the peculiar position of the Queen-Consort, and
upon this also, and not upon any Act of Parliament, de-
pended the position of the Prince of Wales. The practice
and powers of the courts of common law and of the other
House of Parliament depended upon usage. In former
times the Crown could send writs to summon such boroughs
to Parliament as be chose, bat it was never contended that
he could exercise that power at the time of the Reform
Bill. He exhorted their lordships to consider how they
broke in upon this principle of the constitution. Thelocon-
stitutional system consisted of King, Lords, and Commons
)e * e —depending for its harmony upon the balance,eroint
nnr
amongst them. But what would becomeeotihrtehe eI-
e states had
or harmony of the system if one of. th
ence had been made to the defective state
that
the power of invading and remodellingtheoofthterast?hoßuseefears-
a court of judia.teroo.Bd outoifiotthhaet
nweasisstsaon,ntehneorte
ownalys an
f
easy remedy. They could
the common law, but also of the equity judges, and if the
judges of Scotland were made
_privjhcouncil ors, their as-
sistance mig admitted obtained. e noble earl opposite
(Earl Grey) that the power of granting life peer-
wt t he
t soundh a
tm
ight constitutionalb eabused. principle
itwas
not was one that might be abused in difficult and trou-
r
was
yßw‘pilaoen important subjoctemight come up for
blons tgimirees.ao
npooststibole
to
say
discussion, and the passions of men might be excited. Un-
scrupulous men might again become Ministers ; arbitrary
monarchs desirous to extend their power might again sit
upon the throne. He conjured the house not to place in
their hands this formidable means of attaining their ends.
The noble earl, who was nearly inaudible during the
latter part cf his speech, concluded by moving that the
committee do agree to the following report :—" The com-
mittee has, as directed by the house, examined and con-
sidered the copy of the letters patent purporting 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 pursuance thereof, can entitle the grantee therein named
to sit and vote in Parliament."
Earl GREY said he was induced to make the motion of
which he had given notice from a strong sense of the dan-
gers which would attend the adoption of the motion made
by the noble and learned lord. Though he could not say
that the noble and learned lord had convinced him upon
the legal point, yet ho admitted that the house had prac-
tically decided that question by going into committee, and
he should not seek to induce them to rescind that decision.
But even if he admitted that the prerogative had in this
crow beau improperly exercised, still that would not affurd