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

a sufficient ground for the adoption of the noble and learned
lord's resolution, unless it was clearly proved to be dis-
tinctly illegal. That was the only issue raised by his reso-
lution. Now there was the greatest possible difference be-
tween an unlawful act and the wrongful exercise of an
existing prerogative. The arguments that rested on the
inexpediency of reviving an obsolete prerogative in the
creation of life peers, went strongly in favour of censuring
the act of the Ministers. But they -dia not go for anything
in support of the resolution before the house. But had the
noble and learned lord proved that the creation of this
life peerage was clearly in excess of the prerogative ? He
thought this had not.been done. In the first place, there
was a consistent stream of legal authorities to that of Lord
Redesdale, all tending to show that this power was in the
hands of the Crown ; and it did appear a most extraordi-
nary way of destroying these authorities to tell the house
that they came to nothing because they all blindly followed
Lord Coke. He thought this could hardly be said of
such men as Selden, Blackstone, and Lord Redesdale,
particularly of the latter, to whom the house referred the
consideration of the question of the " dignity of a peer."
And yet Lord Redesdale, in the elaborate report which he
wrote on the subject, assumed the fact of the power of
the Crown to make such a creation as it had done in
this case. Then, if they looked to analogy, there was the
strongest reason to suppose that the Crown had the right
to create a peerage for life. It possessed the right to create
peerages in fee and tail, and also in remainder. Now, in
the latter case there were two grants; one to a man for
life, the other in reversion to a second person. Now, surely
if it was lawful to grant the particular estate and the re-
version at the same time, surely it was also lawful to grant
the particular life estate without any remainder. Then it
was admitted that peerages had been granted for life in a
great number of cases. No doubt many of the later cases
were to women, who could not sit in Parliament. Brit it
was rather too strong a conclusion to draw from this that
no person who had only a peerage for life granted to him
could not take his seat in Parliament. Peerages were
granted for life without contest up to the reign of George
11. Two of them were summoned to the coronation of
George 11. Now it must be proved, in order to discard
those creations as precedents in the present ease, that if
these patents had been filled up in the name of a man
in-
stead of a woman that would not have entitled him to sit
in Parliament. But this had not been done. He admitted
that the life peerages at an early date could not be quoted
' as precedents, because they were in many eases conferred
with the assent of Parliament. He did not think that this
had been proved in all cases. For.instance, notwithstand-
ing the ingenious argument of the noble and learned lord
with the patent in the case of Sir R. Cornewall before bins,
in which there was no remainder to heirs, he could not
come to any other conclusion but that the Crown had then
the power to create a peerage for life. "Until the com-
mencement of the present controversy, with the exception
of the anonymous note to Coke upon Lyttleton, there was
not an authority to show that there had keen doubt cast
upon the Crown's possession of this prerogative. . Indeed,
ever since this controversy had arisen, none of the noble
and' earned lords opposite had ventured to assert in so
many words that this creation was in eicess of the pre-
rogative. Indeed Lord Lyndhurst, both in his former
speech and in that he had just delivered, had studiously
abstained from giving a positive opinion upon the point.
Lord Campbell was equally dubious ; and Lord Brougham
stated that he inclined to the opinion that in point of strict
law the Crown had such a power. That being the case,
let them look to the arguments that were relied on to esta-
blish the invalidity of the patent. They all rested either
upon the non-exorcise of the power, or upon the assump.
' tint' that an hereditary character was of the very essence
of the peerage. Now he could not think that, under the cir-
cumstances of the. exercise of the power up to the timeof
George 11., mere subsequent disuse could deprive the Crown
of it. Tice second argument was a mere assumption, for
which no authority bad been given. He did not ask the house
to assert the validity of the patent, and the desirability of
granting it. All that he asked was to come to the deter-
mination that it was not right, on doubtful and uncertain
grounds, to refuse to admit the exercise of the prerogative
of the Crown; and to decide on their authority against the
right of Lord Wensleydale to take his seat. Let them con-
sider how great were the difficulties in which they might
involve themselves by adopting the resolution of Lord
Lyndhurst. Let them beware how they incurred the re-
proach of stretching their privileges and their authority
beyond their just bounds. That house was most deeply
interested in maintaining the authority of prescription ;
and in attacking the prerogative of the Crown on this ques-
tion they might be laying the fonunation for assaults on
their own power. The House of Commons had always
shown great jealousy of any encroachments on behalf of the
Ileuie of Peers. It was not impossible that a collision be-
tween the two houses might be the result, if the lower house
thought the upper was endeavouring to extend its privi-
leges. Before he concluded there was one point to which he
must advert. He would entreat their lordships to reflect
upon the great danger that would result from rejecting
Baron Wensleydale when he offered himself, upon the
grounds that had been argued for during that debate. If it
had been put upon a clear ease of law, if it, had been like
that case in which a writ of sumniona had been directed to
a person who was clearly disqualified—it would have been
an entirely different thing. In this case, however, a much
larger authority had been assumed. The danger was the
greater because, if he understood aright the noble and
learned lord who: had introduced the motion, he did not
deny the prerogative, butiiisputed its exercise. If this prin-
ciple were affirmed, it might be argued another time that
too many hereditary peers were created, and the house
might interfere to prevent the extension. If such a course
wore adopted, it would mike that house an irresponsible
and uncontrollable authority. (Hear.) If that doctrine be-
came established, the constitution would bo destroyed, and
the most serious consequences would follow. He thought
such a course ought not to be adopted ...unless their lord-
ships were firmly convinced that the act which had been
done was beyond the stlict legal power of the Crown. The
noble girl concluded by moving the following amendment:
—" That the highest legal authorities having concurred in
declaring the Crown to possess the power of creating peer-
ages for life, and this power having in some cases been
exercised in formes times, the House of Lords would not
be justified in assuming the illegality of the patent creat-
ing 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."

q
g
y
l
t
inaw:l,glTiretotosheihftpoeyeEtea
hers,pahero:
eliiint tsisSnoe,
tti
iiTeetosb)
discussed.e rineEte,
idrrroaoeftitnlry koeEae rubuieor
Htluffeoottier:fheoasuetgtch,
tireigil
ohesrtoekihtwstaehottedlorta,utetie.
hihs
toteoe::,noiucgolufgoa
nymotithuhel
rdtoaloesfbceththe hagnheoaearayyetrt.l
M
rs
n.
f
r
ter
leuhi rotelsent.:neureTns eleaiiinsrtehsli
unwisely
reviving
tan:
uigespetar prerogative
afterffeatr(settuir
Go-
vernment eahetkl
eel itni
doubtfulhae,n:
d,
fie
actedier :gi)
preroga-
tive which, if it were not invalid, was equal. after the lapse
of so long a time, to creating new powers. There could he
no doubt that there was a power in the Crown to refuse
the royal assent to bills that had passed both houses of Pei-
Hainaut, and that power had undoubtedly been exerci-ed.
Clear and certain as ho admitted this privileee to be, would
it not be dangerous for her Majesty's Ministers now to
advise the Crown to refuse assent to bills which had paesed
both houses of Parliament? The privilege now claimed
had been in abeyance more than 400 years. and far all
practical purposes it had fallen into disuse. Therefore, he
thought, there were sufficient grounds for supporting the
motion of the noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst).
He could go so far with the noble lord opposite (Lord
Grey) as to say that if life peerages could be guarded from
abuse au.l limited in number, they might be useful, bin
still, he thought, independence was a necessary adjunct of
the peerage, as.d if indigent peerages were created it would
no doubt lose its independence. (hear, hear). He had
admitted that, under certain liwitatiens, life-peerages
might be useful. Why then did he object to the patent of
Baron Wensleydale? Simply because he thought the
power given to the Ministers of the Crown in overruling
the decisions of that house greatly preponderated over any
advantage that might ho received. (Hear, hear). With
such power in his hands a minister might in each case
argue that he was not committing a permanent, but merely
a temporary inconvenience. If a minister created ten or
twelve peers, another minister might create ten or twelve
more to counterbalance their influence, and a third might
create another batch to overrule the influence of the last,
and so the greatest puesiblo inconvenience must arise,
(Hoar, hear). He hot the greatest respect for the late
Earl Grey, hut ho thought the threatened precedent of
1832 suggested the moat serious doubts as to the policy
of such a movement. If Lord Grey did not adopt that
course, must it not have been because he entertained the
most serious doubts as to the legality of such a course ? Ho
thought that such au act could only be justified by extreme
exigency, and he trusted their lordships would resist the
granting of any facilities for tho creation of.euch peerages.
He thought their lordships might well consider whether or
not the motion of the noble and learned law lord afforded
them the greatest security ; and if he came to the propo-
sition of the noble lord opposite (Earl Grey), he found only
a weak protest, and no security in the misty haze of that
amendment. As he had before stated, he should have no
objection to life peerages if they could be limited in num-
ber, or if the qualifications of the persons admitted could
be secured. But still he thought it was the duty of their lord-
ships to do all they could to avert the threatened evil, for
any large extension of life peerages would soon entirely
alter the constitution of their lordships' house. In almost
all States the difficulty had been not with the elective but
with the higher chamber, and be might add, that
in almost every State statesmen had come to the conclusion
reeeegtrhtehealetr
hstaliohi rjw. (el:art posi. tHtbheee
that a house of peers could not be made at once, but that it
H hoe could,
could h
never
said,
createm ak e 4ao nnewousesenaa-f
Csoaopitildnl dit,h, on
an
tol only grow.
hgtehr oeHwo. u
House
lie
Ehnperore wouldN a p
LordsJ a
wywabns e ftl oh.
t
tELoonrrgsdl in France,
s. Thatc ans
ntwictaens, ttibhune opinion of Napoleon 1., as chronicled
by Lcrd Ehrington in 1814. If the system which her Ma•
iesty's Government hal now introduced were allowed, it
-would be dangerous, unless securities were taken against
its abuse; and unless such securities were given be should
give his vete in favieur of the resolution of the noble and
learned lord. He did not think the appellate jurisdiction
of that house was in a satisfactory state, but three
were several means of improving it without the dangerous
blow to their lordships' life peerages. He thought the sys-
tem of lay peers was a mockery and a farce, and it was not
good for the dignity of their lordships house to maintain
it. He should vote for the resolutions of his noble and
learned friend, to whom he thought their lordships owed a
deep debt of gratitude. There was no other instance of a
statesman past four score being able to take such a part
in public affairs, and he hoped that he would yet be spared
for years to do so.
ARGYLL ss simplythataid t
the
etheorebjeccetheoef
tthhee
creTalt)ieonDuokfe of
this peerage
no conception t writers, from
appellate
tutional question. They found all a
jurisdiction
w whatever eort thata
t house.
they
wTe
rhea
rGoverneata g
on
ot
nhs at
ad
hee Nafaytilamloagrea,l
send to the
authorities in that house, who were now p
they
yd downwards,wtake
supported
hy isiefajvuodugmr oefutthogefrre manyo
been consulted. That
law officers of the Crown not having from men who had
e
inThehteeyntwienreevneorty
objection Gov nm emu tm. Swtirtehssa
veryhad gradbbeeetanlaid upon nth fact of the
to consider matters of
liament only, but a
discussingt a t night ar e
policy.f ue d tos Theyei. o
nn
gs
rui v
itha
dar
ash
rg
ihggthe,
constitutional right. That :riot as peers of par-
The cot.latitt.utiori
tohfetubias.tcodunty wan' not
written, like United States. The
what was the meaning
ition hare was the very air we breathed. Now, as to
ecfotiihsetateuemiomnitotee,
of the word "purporting in the resolution? Why, it
showed that they threw a doubt on the legality of the
patent, and had no reference to the right of a seat in that
threw suspicion upon the pro-
etresptirtLeedintgbse
cheoeudsien.gTs hofistlinosehinsoobpliensionnd, learned lords who supported
the noble and learned lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst); Now
he believed that no such consequences would flow from this
measure as were anticipated by the Lord Chief Justice,
namely, that in future no lawyer would be created an
hereditary peer. They ought to come to a conclusion upon
simply upon the law and upon precedeut:tll
et
thiseey
invalidity.hueete
ht:ec
noble lords opposite failed to make ou
the Tali
the patent, but they did not dispute ,