The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-11 00:00:00

when once we adopt it? (Hear.) What questions are in
volved in it ? If we wore to consider only the private rights
of Lord Wensleydale, I must confess it is not too much to
say that we ought well to scrutinise our proceedings before
we venture to damage those rights which, ho contends,
have been created by a solemn act of the Queen, and which
it may be in his power to submit to a court of law. (Hear.)
Is it not desirable that time should be taken to reconcile
the serious discrepancies among the supporters of this bill?
The bill has been objected to as a compromise, and the an-
swer made is, that many great measures of legislation are
founded on the basis of compromise. That is most true ;
but are those compromises on which great measures are
founded of a character analogous to the compromise in re-
spect to this bill ? (Hear.) Of the former kind of compro-
mises, it may be said that they are always arrived at sifter
great deliberation, and when, by repeated discussions, you
have well tested the state of the public mind and judgment,
and the strength, not only of parties, but of arguments, Be
that you are enabled, on the whole, to come to a conclusion
most agreeable to the general interests. Isthat the case here?
On the contrary, this compromise is of a totally different cha-
racter, and one which those who support it support with-
out approval, either in consequence of the imaginary horrors
conjured up by the Attorney-General, or with the declara-
tion of an intention of altering the bill in committee, as
intimated by the hen. and learned member for Wallingford
a declaration creditable to his acumen and candour, but
which, if acted upon successfully, would obviously be fatal
to the character of tee bill as a compromise. (Hear, hear.)
Compromise it leay be, but it is entirely different from
those respectable compromises which represent the tem-
scientious conclusions of men after full investigation
and deliberation. It is a compromise huddled up fur the
convenience of parties in some committee-room in another
piece—(hear, hear.)—then brought down to the House of
Coeumons, and presented to us for our acceptance in such
a shape and under such circumstances that it is not tool
much to say that if we pass the bill, in the wretched fag.
end which remains of the present session, we shall be doing
nothing short of abdicating our functions as legislators.
(Cheers.) Most of the points which concern this matter
have been already treated with so much ability that I need
not trouble the House by going over them again; but there
is one point in particular to which I venture to call the at-
tention of the house, because it affords such a very strong
ground of objection to proceeding with the bill during the
present session. It is said that this bill may be amended
in its details. It is, however, sometimes difficult to judge
what are details, If this bill is a compromise, it is emi-
nently desirable to know what are the essential parts of the
compromise. If you take the lax and latitudinarian doctrine
of the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down. it
appears that there are no essential parts in the compromise
except the creation of two great learned judges, and any-
thing else may either be excluded or inserted. If, again,
you were to adopt all the alterations suggested by the hon.
and learned member for Wallingford, I know not NUhat
security he gives that, after we have passed the bill on the
footing of a compromise, it would not then be rejected in
another place as being something different from what wee
intended--as not representing the compromise. (Hear,
hear.) This I may assume, that if there is any one
part of the bill which is the essence of the compro-
mise, it must be that portion which bears on the preroga-
tive of the Crown. I take it for granted that the whole
aim and object of the compromise were to save the consis•
teucy and to reconcile the opieions of those who were
placed in conflict with respect to au important prerogative-
of the Crown, asserted by a minority and denied by a ma-
jority in the Howe of Lords. I therefore assume that the
bill represents the sense and spirit of that compromise
with respect to the prerogative of the Crown. Well, what
does the bill say and do with respect to that prerogative ?
Is there any man who will answer me that question? I
wish I hell heard the noble lord at the head of the Govvrn-
went deliver his authoritative judgment as to the effect. of
this bill on the prerogative of the Crown. I did not hoar
the Attorney-General express his opinion, nor do I believe
that the Solicitor-General—though I did not hear Lis
speech—declared his upinioa upon this point. This ques-
tion is touched mainly in the fourth clause. Ido not pre -
sumo to give any opinion with respect to the important
inquiry whether the Crown is entitled to create life peers
of Parliament or not. Ido not dispute the doctrine of my
hon. friend the member for Wallingford, that the House
of Lords was acting within its competency when it thought
fit to take a proceeding weieh bait the effect of negativing
the exero:se of that prerogative. But, en the other hand,
I think it is perfectly plain that, when we are called
upon to legislate upon the matter of life peerages, the
douse of etetninons is entitled, nay bouad, to have an
opinion with respect to that prerogative. (Hear, hear.)
The claim I make is this—and I think it is a resistless argu-
ment in support of the motion of my hon. friend—that we
shall be permitted to deal with this question of prerogative
in the daylight and not in the dark. (Hear, heer.) If we
are about to limit the prerogative, let us know it ; or if we
are about to save it, let us koo w that it is saved. (Hear. It is
quite plain that it would be unworthy of the framers of a bill
to p, opose to this house a measure couched in terms of
studied a nbiguity iu reference to that point, and, if there
could be a man who would frame a bill for the purpose of
deluding th house, it would be unworthy not only of our
dignity, but of our intelligence, to allow ourselves to be
taken in by such a delusion. (Hear.) This bill says, in the
fourth clause, that if her Majesty shall have granted a peer-
age for life to any person who shall be appointed Deputy-
Speaker, such person shall be entitled to receive a writ of
summons as a peer of Parliament. I do not now animadvert
—because it is a point of secondary importance-e-upon
the somewhat indecorous if not unconstitutional course
of providing by act or Parliament for the compulsory ex-
ercise of the Queen's prerogative with regard ye the issu-
ing of a writ of summons. (Hear.) I do not enter into
that question now, because it is possible that it may he
aineuded as a verbal question in committee; but I find
here a clear enunciation in an act of Parliament, that
when her Majesty shall have granted a peerage for life to
a Deputy-Speaker such person shall receive a writ of sum-
mons as a peer of Parliament as a matter of right. Is
not the maxin inclusto onus exclusio alias, I ask, most
clearly applicable in this case ? (Hear, hear.) If you say
that a pneou receiving an appointment as Deputy-Speaker
with a peerage for life shall be entitled to sit in Par-
liament, -do not you thereby inevitably and irrevocably
declare that no other person appointed a peer for
life shall sit in Parliament? (Hear, hear.) If there
be any doubt on the matter, turn to the 6th
clause, which says that nothing shall in any wise abridge
Or affect the right of her Majesty to appoint other
Deputy Speakers than life peers. If you mean to preserve
the right of appointing the peers of Parliament, why do you
not say, in like manner, that nothing shall in anywise
abridge or affect the right of her Majesty to appoint life
peers ? (Hear, hear.) Do you mean to preserve the right
or not ? If you do not mean to preserve it, let us know
that we are proreeding oe that basis. Y have granted
the right of appointing other Deputy Speakers besides the
two to be appointed under this bill ; you have also granted
the right of appointing four life peers of Parliament under
this bill, and 1 wan: to know why, while preserving the
right to make other Deputy Speakers, you do not preserve
the right to make otber life peers ? Taking this fourth clause
in connection with the rest, of the bill, I say that if you
meant to enact an absolute extinction of any claim on the
part of the Crown to exercise such a prerogative, you have
done it most effectuaily here. (Hear, hear.) Look at the
first proviso in the fourth clause, " Provided always (and I
beg the attention of the Government to this point) " that
not more than four persons shall have seats in the House
of Lords at one time as peers for life only." Are there
any words in the English language which could snore
clearly express a Parliamentary declaration that the tim-
ber of four peers for life was to be the absolute maximum
fixed by law ? It may be right that that should be so; I
do not enter upon that point; but, if we are to deal with
a compromise on this-question, I think we have a fair
claim to know what is the meaning of that compromise.
If you say that we must not inquire—that all we have got
to do is to vote, it is not too much that before we vote we
should ask you to explain to us what it is that we are going
to vote. But even if we had before us an explicit and
satisfactory declaration as to the question of life peerages
itself, I should still be precluded from giving my vote in
favour of this bill without further inquiry by the simple
consideration of the manner in which it deals with that
great question. I think it is impossible that there
could arise in this country a graver question than that
involved in the creation of peers for life. It may be
that that question has been inconsiderately raised.
(Cheers.) That, 1. confess, is my own opinion, but the
fact that it has been inconsiderately raised does not
justify us in inconsiderately fixing and fastening it
down by legislation. (Hear, hear.) I can see great force
in the argument for peerages for life ; your peerage, meant
to be transmitted to remote descendants, is so much con-
nected with the possession of large property in all cases,
except those where the personal distinction is so great as
to render it nugatory to inquire what property the person
raised to the peerage possesses, that it is a matter of
great importance to consider whether, in the professions
from which you nowadays mainly feed the peerage there
is a fair chance of the acquisition of such a property by
the persons distinguished in those professions as will make
it desirable, either for their own sakes or for the sake of
the country, that they shall have peerages transmissible to
their descendants. That is a matter on which this house
has a right to ask for some time to deliberate. On the other
hand, there are the considerations so ably stated bylmy right
hon. friend the member for Carlisle the other night. This
is an opinion which we must all entertain—that it is better
not to open this question of life peerages until we are pre-
pared to deal with it in a manner which shall probably
both open and close it. (Hear.) Ido not mean close it in
such a manner that it cannot be opened again, for of such
doctrines we are not accustomed to hear much here,
nor do I think their reasonableness is very generally
admitted; but it will be allowed that the subject of life
peerages is one which, if it be made the basis of a legisla-
tive measure, ought so to be dealt with that it shall both give
satisfaction to the public mind at the time, and shall bur
upon itself such marks of deliberation and adaptation to the
wants of the period in which we live, that at any rate, we
shall have the chance afforded to it of a fair consideration
without a perpetual recurrence of agitation. (Hear.) Does
this bill, I ask, fulfil this reasonable condition ? It is quite
plain that this measure opens the questio a of life peerages,
but it deals with that question in entire and exclusive due- .
servience to the constitution of a court of appeal. Surely
that is not the scope to which the question of life peerages
is confined? Is there anything in the question of life peer-
ages which has any inevitable relation with a court of ap-
peal ? On the contrary, will any man tell me that you
cannot constitute a court of appeal without touching the
question of life peerages 9 .
These two
great subjectsin no such relation to each other as that one of them oughtstand
in
d
to be made the accessory and the victim, so to speak, of
the other. (Hear.) If the house will recall the precedents
which have generally guided its conduct on great constitu-
tional questions, I am confident it will never consent to
pass, without due inquiry,. a measure on the subject of life
peerages, which fixes us with responsibility of understand-
ing
the full importance of the sueject, and of all the possi-
ble consequences which may flow from it, and which
raises the question, too, for a purpose so small and narrow,
and to which it stands in no immediate connection. (Hear.)
I know nut whether it is undue prudery which influences
my mind, but I am sorry to see the House of Lords be-
coming what I may call a pensioner on the public purse in
order to discharge duties which it claims to perform in •
virtue of its rights as a legislative body. (Hear.) The doc-
trine of our constitution is that legislative services are
unpaid services, and lain bound to say that in my convic-
tion there is no maxim which lies nearer the very root and
roundation of the institutions of our country. If we
are to be told of what is radical and revolutionary,
there is no change which I should be inclined to view'
- I will not say with such suspicion—but with such
aversion and detestation as the substitution of paid services
in the Legislature, for the gratuitous services which we
now freely and efficiently render here. (Hear.) Ido not
mean to say that this is the same thing as if we were to pro-
ceed to vote salaries to ourselves and the House of Lords,
but an enemy to the House of Li rds could hardly wish
them to take a step more unwise than that of making a
draught on the public purse. I think that the dignity of
the House of Lords will suffer from the adoption of such a
principle. (Loud cries of " Hear.") And I believe that the
independence of the House of Peers will be most Beeline so
long as all the functions which that house has to dischi trge
are discharged gratuitously, as they have been from i Ante