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

a sufficient ground for the adoption of the roble and learned
lord's resolution, unless it was clearly proved to be dies
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
ere Ltion of life peers, went strongly in favour of censuring
the act of the Ministers. Bat they did 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. Ia 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 Rodesdale,
particularly of the latter, to whom the helm referred the
consideration of the question of the " di,guity of a peer."
And yet Lord Redesdalo, 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 Crows 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 wore two grants ; ono to a man for
life, the other in reversion to a second person. low, 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'fer life in a
great number of cases. No doubt many of the later cases
were to women, who could not sit in Parliament. But 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
these creations as precedents in the present ease, that if
these patents had been filled op 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-
iug the ingenious argument of the noble and learned lord
with the patent in the case of Sir It. Cornewall before him,
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 coin.
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 been doubt cast
upon the Crown's possession of this prerogative. Indeed,
ever since this controversy had arisen, none of the noble
andl earned lords opposite had ventured to assert in so
many words that this creation was in excess 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-ekercise of the power, or upon. the assault).
tion that an hereditary character was of the very essence
of the peerage. Now he could not think that, under the cir-
cumstances of the exorcise of the power up to the timeof
George 11., mere subsequent disuse could deprive the Crown
of it. The second argument was a mere assumption, for
which no authority had 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 founnation for assaults on
their own power. The House of Commons had always
shown great jealousy of any encroachments on behalf of the
House of Peers. It was not impossible that a collision be-
tweet' 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.evas 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 case of law, if it had been like
that case in which a writ of summons had been directed to
a person who was clearly disqualified—it would have been
an entirely different thing. In this case, however, *much
larger authority had been assumed. Tho (hanger was the
greater because, if ho understood aright the noble and
learned lord who had introduced the motion, he did not
deny the prerogative, bat disputed its exercise. If this prin-•
ciplo were attirmod, 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
were adopted, it would frisk° that house an irresponsible
and uncontrollable authority. (Hear.) If that doctrine be.
came established; the constitution would be destroyed, and •
the most serious consequences would follow. Ho 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 strict legal power of the Crown. The
noble earl 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 former times, the House of Lords would not
be institied in assuming the illegality of the patent creat-
ing the Right Hon. Sir James Parke Baron Wen'sloydale
for life, and in refusing upon that assumption to •permit
him to take his seat as us peer."

The Earl of STANHOPE said if this wore only a legal
question, involving merely a profound knowledge of the
law, he should not interfere, but the constitutional bear-
ings of the question were now before the house, and that
was the point to be discussed. He regretted the course her
Majesty's Ministers had taken. He acquitted them of any
improper or sinister motives, but still ho thought they
bad taken an improper course in supporting a prertgativo
of such doubtful legality. Their Ilerdships must feel that
after such manifold changes in.the constitution the Go-
vernment had acted most unwisely in reviving a preroga-
tive which, if it were hot invalid, was equal. after the lapse
of so long a time, to creating new powers. There could be
no doubt that there was a po;ver in the Crown to refu-o
the royal assent to bills that hail passed both house of Par-
liament, and that power had undoubtedly been exerciAcel.
' Clear and certain as he admitted this privilege to be, would
it not be dangerous for her Majesty's Ministers now to
advise the Crown to refuse assent to hills which had passed
halt houses cf Parliament ? The privilege now claimed
heel been in abeyance more than 400 years. and for all
practical purposes it bail fallen into disuse. Therefore, he
thought, theme were sufficient grounds for supporting the
motion of the noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst).
Ho could go so far with the noble lord opposite (Lord
Grey) as to say that if life peerages could be guarded-from
abuse and limited in number, they might bo useful, but
still, he thought, independence was a necessary adjunct of
the peerage, aced if indigent peerages were created it would
un doubt lose its independence. (Hear, hear). He had
admitted that, under certain limitations, life-peerages
might be neriful. 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 'night be received. (Hear, hear). With
such power in his hands a minister might in each case
argue that he was not committing a perrnauent; 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 possible inconvenience must arise.
(Hear, hear). He lied the greatest respect for the late
Earl Grey, but he thought the threatened precedent of
1832 suggested the most serious doubts es-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 ? He
thought that such an act could only be jiretified by extreme
exigency, and he trusted their lordships would resist the
granting of any facilities fir the creation of such 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 iu the misty haze of that
amendment. As ho 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. lint still he thought i t was theduty 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 beet been not with the elective but
with the higher chamber, and ho might ald, that
, but that it
in almost every State et ates menbhearcni
acdoemaetteootohee conclusion
that a house of peers could not
could only grow. He would lay before their lordships the
opinion of the Emperor Napoleon I. on the subject. He
said that the House of Lords seas the great bulwark of the
English constitution. He could, ho said, make 40 new sena-
tors in France, but he could never create a House of
Lords. That was the opinion of Napoleon 1., as chronicled
by Lcrd Ebrington in 1814. If the system which her Ma-
jesty's Government had now introduced were allowed, it
would be dangerous, unless securities were taken against
its abuse; and unless such securities were given he should
give his vete in favour of the resolution of the noble and
learned lord. He did net think the appellate jurisdiction
of that house was in a satisfactory state, but there
were several means of improving it without the dangerous
blow to their lordships' life peerages. Ho thought the sys-
tem of lay peers was a mockery sod 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. •
The Duke of ARGYLL said that the object of the
creation of this peerage was simply to strengthen
had
appellate jurisdiction of that house. The Government had
no conception whatever that they were creating a co
tutional question. They found all great writers, from
Lord Coke downwards, in favour of the right. Nay, more.
they were supported by the judgment of man. of the legal
aGuotvheorrni
mt i eesn it n. thsattreashouse, w
had
bheeonwlearide
uponnow
opposed t
thefact
ofothe
tha
law officers of the Crown not having been consulted. That
objection came with a very bad grace from men who had
that night refused to consult the judges. They were not
a policy. They had a right, not as peers of Par-
liamentinognly, but as Englishmen, to consider matters of
discuss
constitutional right. That was a right inherent in every
Englishman. The constitution of this country was not
written, like the constitution of the United States. The
constitution here was the very air We breathed. Now, as to
the proceedings of the committee, what was the meaning
the resolution? Why, it
s
iLubt, on the legality of the
ohf()t the
edwtobradt pa; r
threw
g a "
patent, and bad no reference to the right of a seat in that
olesnnoebaliool einl
house. This, iu his opinion, threw suspicion upon !he pro-
kelppleoaeritnee(dLolrdordLsywndhbue
ryes sited
cNow
htbeeeebteiliibgealid affithith4erat no such consequences would floir Wm 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
this subject, simply upon the law and upon precedent. Not
only had the noble lords opposite failed to make out the
invalidity of the patent, but they slid sot dispute the TO