The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-08 00:00:00

chise them at once. But Lord Althorp himself was
obliged on that occasion to disavow the opinion of his own
Solicitor-General, and to declare that, although such pre.
rogative once belonged to the Crown, it had long gone, by
desuetude, and that the change could only be accomplished
now by an act of- Parliament, with the sanction of the
King, Lords, and "Commons. The noble and learned lord,
who was very indistinctly beard, was understood to pur-
sue much the same line of argument as that used by Lord
St. Leonards, and to state that, in some of the earlier
cases referred to, most of the peerages of that period were
created by the authority of Parliament. He then examined
some of the cases previously cited and discussed in the
course of the debate, and referring to that of Lady Rivers,
which was decided by Lord Chief Justice Rowe, in the
time of the Commonwealth, said that there was no actual
list of peerages during that period, and if Lady Rivers had
possessed the privileges of the peerage she would have been
freed from arrest on her application to the court ; but the
court thought she was not entitled to be discharged ou the
ground of privilege, s'ee being only a peeress for life. But
even if their decision had been different, it would not
have been conclusive that a male person possessing only a
title of honour fur life was entitled to sit and vote in the
House of Peers. Baronies by tenures were once created,
and no act of Parliament had taken away the'right to cre-
ate such title ; but it could be said that it now existed. 110
next examined the cases of Lord Hay, in James L's time,
and of barons created on the same conditions, that is, not
sitting and voting in the house, in the time of Charles 1.,
and that in the present case it wastrue that Lord Wensley-
dale might be a peer, but he was not a peer of Parliament,
and the sooner he got a patent extending his title to the
heirs male of his body the better. (Hear.) He thou alluded
to Daddridgo having been quoted as an authority; but
that writer could not be considered as an authority, for be
had gone the length of laying down that any kind of peer-
age might bs created so long as it did net pass to the exe-
cutors of the holder of the patent. If that was law, what

was to prevent, in the case of a critical division, a Minis-
try that wanted lo votes, creating the required number of
peers for that night? There had been no case of a peerage
granted to one man for the life.of another save in the case
of the eldest son of a peer. The Earl of Shaftesbury, when
Lord Chancellor, had laid it down in the Pur beck case,
that a peerage for life did not entitle a peer to si t in that
house ; and Lord Nottingham, although it would have
answered his purpose very well, did not venture to contend
that creations tor life did entitle a peer to sit and vote in
the house. Mr. Hargrearo, in a note upon Coke, said
that he doubted the prerogative of the Crown to create
peerages for life; for the hereditary principle was the es-
sence of the creation ; and such a right would give the
Crown the power gradually to alter the condition of the
peerage from its present state. There had been no :instance
of a peer being mane a lord of Parliament by virtue of a
life creation. He had the greatest respect for the
lower
house ; he had sat there for many years, and had been
amongst those who were most anxious to make U, more
popular, and more completely the representative. of the
people of this country. But the reform of that ho use had
been effected in the mode prescribed by the Consti.tution,
viz., by act of Parliament. If it should be the opi,aion ( f
the Government that it was desirable to alter the consti-
tution. of the House of Peers—to make it more pepnlar,
or by giving life peerages to infuse into it a greater
amount of legal knowledge, let it be done litn the
same way—not by the exercise of the prerogative in
an exceptional and doubtful form, hut by the act of
the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But let them pro-
ceed upon principle, and not make one portent of
the ho use hereditary, and the other to hold their
rank for life only. Ile could not give his support to a
measure which would in future limit the hereditary peer-
age, so far as lawyers were concerned, to the Lord Caancel-
lot and the Lord Chief Justice. They must have ono rule
for all the law lords, and that rule apperred to hire to be
the one which was generally adopted as the principle of
their lordships' house, viz., the hereditary principle. He
hoped the inquiry moved for by his noble and learned friend
would be conceded, and he believed if the committee were
appointed its decision would be, that their exercise of the
prerogative was, if not illegal, unconstitutional. Whatever
'night be the result, however, he trusted they would
speedily see the learned person whose case had given rise
to this discussion amongst them with such a patent ae
should place him in all respects upon a footing of equality'
with the other members of their lordships' house. (Hear.)

Earl GREY rose amidst calls for the.division. _tie con-
sidered it almost unnece9sary to add anything to the con-
cludve speech of the noble and learned lord on the Wool-
sack, and his noble and learned friend who had just sat
dawn seemed to feel se strongly convinced of the able
arguments of that speech that he had not ventured to la)/
before their lordships his own opinions in opposition to it-
The utmost his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell)
had ventured to say, as he understood him, was that the ,
question was open to doubt—that it was a question for
further inquiry, and did not depend upon the legality Of
the patent right, whether the peerage was limited or not.
In this his noble and learned friend had only followed the
example of the noble and learned lord opposite (Lord Lyn&
huist), who carefully avoided staking his groat reputation
on the opinion that the patent was illegal ; and, indeed, be
went further, and admitted by inference that it was legal.
With regard to the nature of the measure recommended by
the Government, he had heard with extreme suspicion from
his noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) that it was t
measure effecting an organic change of the constitution of
the House of Peers even more important than that which
was effected by the House of Commons by the Reform Bill-
But when were the schedules abolishing a large part of tho
hereditaary peerages as now existing and supplying their
plates with life peerages granted by the Crown ?
..vas there in this measure affecting the transfer of political
power from one class of the community to another, as was
the case in the Reform Bill ? A single patent was for eel!:
ferring a peerage for life in a case where everybody au
mitted that it could be of no consequence, in regard to the
succession, whether it were for life or permanently. Was
this a case to be taken up as one likely to lead to an or-
ganic change in the Constitution of the house ? The noble
and learned lord (Lyndhurst) had said that though this
exereise of the prerogative might not be illegal, it might
be unconstitutional. In that he (Earl Grey) concurred.
There would be no breach of the law if the Crown chose at
any moment to create a hundred peers, but it would be :r
violation of the principle of the constitution. In that he
fully concurred, and he sail that if her Majesty should be
advised by an undue creation of new life peers to sweauP
the House of Lords such an act would be unconstitutional.
But had it been shown that any injury or violation of con'
stitutional principle ensued from the cautious and prwlenct
creation of such peerages more than from the cautious and
prudent creation of hereditary peerages ? The prerogative
of the Crown was capable of being abused no doubt, bet'
SO also was the power of Parliament, but in what way thee'
moderate exercise of the prerogative in the creation of lire
peerages could imply injury to the character of that house,
he was at a loss to understand. They were told that peer;
who held the dignity only for life would be inferior to those
who sat under the ordinary creation. He thought tbrbie
opinion altogether erroneous. Look at the episcopal beneTho
were the right rev. prelates who sat there, and whose peer;
ages were only for life, inferior to the other members of
their lordships' house? Was their influence or authoritY
less than that of the otherpeers; and when Lord Wenger
dale took his seat amongst them, would any man venture t°
say that the influence which his high character and great
legal knowledge entitled him to, would bo lessened in the
slightest degree because his patent was for life 01319
Would any man say that there were not obvious advs,e;
tages to the country, and to the House of Lords in Par":
cllar, arising from the moderate creation of new Poel.-
from time to time ? (Hear.) There were two things that
lordships ought to desire—the one that there should 17e
always amongst them a sufficient proportion of those who
raised themselves to the dignity of the peerage by their
own exertions and by the services they had rendered to
their country. That was essential to the =internale° e
the character of that house with the public. His noble
and learned friend (Lord Campbell) assumed that this Pre"
posed measure only contemplated the creation of peen, for
life in favour of lawyers. lie (Earl Grey) hoped it would
not be so limited. (Hear, hear.) He hoped to see the
reward of the peerage conferred fur naval services, for
litary services, and for political services in the same we,y'
(Hear, hear.) Could any man doubt that it would be t°
the advantage of the house itself that a gentleman who, ill
the other House of Parliament, raised himself to great po'
litical distinction and acquired great knowledge of the
affairs of the country, should after long service, when be
felt the fatieues of the House of Commons too great fo!
him, be traussferred to the House of Lords ? And was tt
desirable that the access of such persons to that house
should be precluded unless they possessed such pecuniary
means as would enable them not only to maintain their ratX
in their own persons, but to snake provision for its due
maintena ace by their successors ? It might often hapPee-
that such men had sufficient means to support the peerage
during their own livesbut from the extent of their familie!
ware unable to leave to tho next in succession that whine
would be requisite to keep up the dignity afterwards,
surely it Would not be desirable to deprive the house of the
benefit of the presence of such persons. It occurred Ire'
quently, no doubt, that military, naval, and other service;
to the State were rendered by men who possessed fortune;
sufficient to make provision for a peerage • and in others
where the service rendered was of a remarkable character,
ParliameAt very properly made the necessary provirioa
from the public funds. In such case it was undoubtedly
' right trist hereditary peerages should be granted. He new
sidered it of great advantage that the titles of Marlborough,
Nelson, imd Wellington, should continue to remind the
country of the glorious needs for which they were conferred
But would any man tell him that peerages might not have
been wisely granted to persons who had every claim to
them, but for whom the Government felt they could not
ask Parliament to make any pecuniary provision, and who
had not the enemies to maintain the dignity of the peerage,
themselves? He believed the effect of the measure would
be to open the door of that house more easily to men whom
it was moot desirable should have access to it without
creating a great future evil, by bringing permanently tee
that house those who had not the means of upholding the
station of peers of the realm. But it had been urged that'
a Minister might at any time abuse this power. 0°
believed that to be practically impossible. That house was
too numerous a body, and tote large a proportion of its mere-
hers ware Ledependent of the Crown for any abuse of the
prerogative of creating peers to take place. Any Minister
attempting such a step would array against him snob
powerful opposition that he would be sure to lose as many
u
votes at least as he would gain by the new creation. Ilebelieved,
believed, there.
c'r
peers ,
be securityquite
againsts
creation of life th
aito a
twouldthe
great as it was
against the creation of hereditary peers. With regard to
the motion itself, if he were convinced that tho legality of
the patent were more doubtful than he thought it we`'
and that the practice of creating life peers was dangerous
and improper, as had been contended, he should still say_
that the Durso proposed by the noble and learned lord'
(Lyndhural) was not the one the house ought to adopt. If
the noble and learned lord had asked their lordships to ar
point a eeloct committee, without expressingany previoue
opinionas to thele,gality of thepatent, and had proposed that
such comet ittee should inquire into the whole subject and
report then son, he would say that such a motion ought not
to he resist el—(hear) -and had Government resisted it, be
(E in Grey) would not have supported the motion. Con'
sidering that there was doubt as to the legality of the pa-
tent in the rst.nds of those whose opinions were entitled to
weight, and that ethers thought there had been a danger'
ous exercise of the prerogative—considering how generally
these opinions were entertained, be thought the pateot,
granted b;T the Crown to Lord Wensleydale was a subject
which might very properly be inquired into by a select
committee of their lordship's house. (Hear.) Such a cote-
mittee might inquire, first, whether such a patent was
legal or ills gal, and if illegal they might advise their lord
ships upon the very difficult question of what steps ougb,t_
to be takers. (Hear.) Or if the committee should not thins.
that the putout was contrary to law, but that it was a dar
gerous exorcise of the prerogative, they might advise their
lordships Neon the equally difficult question of the course
that ought so be pursued under the circumstances, whether
by legislat ion or by an address to the Crown. Such a eon!:
mittee, composed of a small number of those noble lords
well versed in the constitution, would be able, he was ow
vincerl, to throw light upon the question and to form the
best judgmea t as to the course which ought to be pursuers
(Hear.) But that was not the suggestion of the noble sag!
learned 1-.brd. The noble and learnel lord called upon tll°