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

THE SVN, LONDON, SATURDAY EvENl'f,iri FREIRUARY 23 656.

LINES L mh.sF,ll FL E 1) ItENTALP.

L^naERR
Compan,

Clofttne
ye,ster .tcy

Tinsiness

this dAy.

Baness done
thle day

St.
• 6}

St.
Rt.
St.
25

London AI
N. West.
E. Un. -82
E. C
Cit. tdrton.
E. Conut.
ICaldonts.n.

(it. Wostr
Yk. Now.
& Berw.
,Y. N M
ID°
Do

S. Easton
Do

IPeto &CO.

'Norfolk
Do

L.&N.W
k Mi did.
'itckton &,
Darlingt.

94 - 96
95 -100 J

131 - 135
44 4t

13
234

too
all
100
100
100

- 107

- ISi
- 244
- 1124

A - 2i

92 - 14

En. Conn.
E. Count.

5E : k

Do
Do

L.&N.W
Do

Gt Northn
Lancash &
Yorksh.
T. Drassey
Bf.iktelean
Stockt. &
Darlingt
Do

132 - lii

••• - •••
74 - 8
3 - 234

lOi
1100
!ICY.)
1100
'too
100

:

!GtWq

- 85.

12,
12
123
St.

lE SIiA.R.EB.

82 f 86

tOO
100
100
/00
100

92 . - 84

96 98
15 —16 b

1.0.61

1100
100
100
all

iii - 4

a
1

12- -

l4na rTiZI
Anv GoV
Anglo Californian
A.nstratiam Cordillor•
XTO Maria

I'2

Baden (Gcl.Dneny of
Biaxial% Iron & Coa
British Iron
71razilianImp.(issuo.'
at f.!5 pm.)
Jo. Comes & Cuiab
no. St. John D,4 Itoi,
(11ar.milon Conn, Min
' Co. of Jamaica
~:obre Copper
Colonial G01d........

65 - 67

••• ••••• .
116 - 118

109• - 111
103 - 105

$ BP
9} 10

6 -6;
91 - 93
81 - S 3
80 - 82
95 • 100

9/ - 10}
16f -16 i
9/ - 101
71 -73
184 - 194
-9/
13t -14 f

4)
5
St.
25

,opper Min. of ping
Prof. 7. p. cart

Oopiapo
.Fortune.
elencAl
:It.NoggfitVeinßcg.
Great Polcooth
Gt Wheal Vor 'United
Liberty

Linares
Lusitanian
Wariquita.
New Granada
,Nouveau Monde
IPontgl.fiii. &Le. Min.
port Philip
quartz Rock
Rliymney Iron
Do. New

1 - i-,
(32 - 184

Santiago de Crib& .
Sort. Cons. Min. CO
ionth Australian....
Do. Scrip
Do. 10 per cent Prof
Tam. S. & L. Miu. Co.
Lin Croft...

10
28h'
1
1

all
all
all
1.25.

(Juitcd Mexican
YValler
West Mariposa
Worthing Mining 01
Auatrs►lia
Tabs

MISOILLLA

... '.... N.

•es "'"" see

... - ...F

i - i

,112 - 134

Australian Agrie-All.
Ana ;rain. Royal Mail
Berlin Water Works
Brit. American Land
Canada

4 4b

•,• ...

- 100
91 -43
- 5i

1 : cii

O. Go .13p.r . Jar 7olyl
Do. 6 p. c. Feb & Aug
Do. 6p. c. Mar & Sept
Crystal Palace
Do. Preference
Crystal Pal. of France
Duston Iron Ore
Eastern Steam
En. &Ans Cop Sm Co
Electric Telegraph
Electric Toleg. of Ir
Gen. Iron Se Collier
Gen. Steam Navigat.
General Screw Steam
Irish Beetroot Wow
Lond. Gen. Omiibus,
Magdalena St. Navin,
Ntediteran. Elec. Tel.
Mexican &S.Ameri
Nat. Pat. Steam ',mil
Vetherlands Land.
Do. Do.

all
all
all
all

Do. SpeP iss at 1 di
New B. & N. S. Land
NT. B. Australasian
th, ciEnropeSteare
Oriental Crag
Do. " New Shares "I
Peel Rr. Ld. & Minrl.
Peninsular& Oriental
Do. New

Portland Iron C 0.,,,,
;loyal Mail Steam
Scot. Austral. Invest
Ditto Nevi

is} is~

South Austral:Laud
Bubmsr. Tel. Scrip...
►)o. Registered.
rrusta L. Co.U. Can.
vas DiemAn'. Teknd
IT.Cio,6peco.ran&July

23 - 2f3t
95 - 100
94 - 9i

. . 4 .... •••

2i - 2F

4

••• .. •

, . ..... ...

- •••
3 5

2 - 24
2 -
26 - 28

It - lip
66 - 68

36 40
";6 28
22 24
14 16
2i
1 • id
A -
7•4

I -- 1-1
I I.

12 -

-
19 -
6 - 8
2i - 3
3i - 4
7

z d
x d

Sitf xd

-
3! -

... '"' ...

... .'. ...

ROUB.

25 - 26

64 74
4/ 50
127 132
1108 109
106 103
lel ill
21 2
4i 5

130
10$'

1
19i - 20i1

411

..g : fo
5i —5/

1
2 3
id
18 22

li - 1$

2i -

• • • . • •
.. ..•P

ip
Ssi -- 2
16i
--

35} 5 i

15 16

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE.

There was an unusually large attendance of peers this
evening. The space between the throne and the gal-
leries was crowded in every part by persons anxious to
hear thedis,cuseion upon the question of the life peerages.
Lord GLENELG moved that the following questions
be put to the Judges :—" Is it in the pawer of the Crown
to create by patent the dignity of a Baron of the United
Kingdom for life ? What rights and privileges does such a
grant confer?" The noble lord, who spoke inaudibly, was
understood to say that the subject now under their con-
sideration was one of the most important that could be
submitted to them ; and it behoved them to weigh well
the stew they ought to take is a question which would
hereafter be referred to as a great precedent. In all
cases involving serious questions of law they did not
think it unbecoming to ceosult the Judges ; and he
could not think, in a question involving the preroga-
tives of the Crown and the constitutional privileges of
that bailie, they would have any objection to ask the
opinion of these qualified by their legal knowledge and
experience as to the wisdom and propriety of the course
which they, under the circumstances, thought them-
selves justified in taking. Those learned lords were
the constitutional advisers of the country, and this
was a case above all others upon which they ought to be
consulted. He for one wanted to know the
law on the subject. He felt it was too serious
a thing for him to assent to the course proposed
by the noble and learned lord opposite—a course which,
if persevered in, could not be retrieved, but which might
involve the house in the most serious consequencee.
He could not help observing that the noble and learned
lord up to that moment had abstained altogether from
stating what the law of the land upon the subject really
was. It was no doubt alleged that this exerciseof the pre-
r vative of the Crown was opposed to the practice of Par-
litment. Now, even if admitting these allegations to le
correct, he thought there was something more to be
awertained, namely, whether the act complained of was
legal or not. The noble lord was proceeding to refer to
the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, as if it was the report of
the Committee of Privileges, when he was interrupted
by

Lord DERBY, who rose to order. He considered
the noble lord was not justified in commenting upon
what might or might not be the report of the committee
before the committee had concluded its deliberations.
The proper course, he submitted, would be
for the noble lord to allow the house
to go into a Committee of Privileges, and then he could
proceed with his comments.

L'rd GLENELG submitted he was right in the
course be was adopting, in commenting upon a
document which was about to be laid upon the
table. (Hear.) The difference that existed among
the highest legal authorities proved the necessity
of proceeding with caution, and to obtain all
the advice it was possible to obtain on the sub-
I lest.

Amongst other authorities that had been re

ferred to, that of Lord Wensleydale himself had
not been alluded to, and he was therefore justified
in assuming that he was in favour of the exercise of the
prerogative in this instance, or he would not have ac-
cepted a life peerage. The legal authorities in
thin house were so nearly balanced that it was
absolutely necessary to call for other advice. (Hear.)
This was not a party question, and the house was now
called on t pronounce a decisionwhich affected the privi-
leges of the Crown. The House of Lords bad ever been
the champions of the monarchy and guardians of the
Crown yet now they had prevailed upon themselves
to contest the prerogative of the Crown ; and if they
went into committee to-night they would commit them-
selves to the contest ; and under these circumstances
it was the more necessary that they should arm
themselves before they did so with the highest legal ad•
vice they could obtain on the subject, which, after all,
was a question of law, and not of Parliament. The
noble lord concluded by moving that the opinion of the
judges should be taken on the legality of the patent
granted to Lord Wensleydale.
Lord CAMPBELL complained that his noble friend
should have entered at length into the discussion of the
general question on a simple motion for taking the
opinion of the judges. He had not, however, brought
forward a single argument to show that the questions
proposed to be submitted to the judges were such as
came within the category of the questions in which
they were the constitutional advisers of the house.
Now he denied that they did come within the category.
They were questions of privilege of which their lor
1-
ships were themselves the only proper judges. He
should not enter into all the topics with which the noble
lord dealt, but there was one to which he must allu le.
fie hail most unfeigned respect for the prerogative of
the Crown, but he hoped that he should never again
hear it contended that the house ought not to watch Its
exercise, and protest against it when it was improperly
exercised. That house was the cmstitutional guardian
if the privileges of the peerage, and if the doctrines ad
voceted by the noble lord were to prevail, and they
were to submit without opposition to every exercise of
the prerogative, that house would be reduced to the
' condition of a Turkish divan or eel the Roman senate,
ehich used to be consulted on the taste of a sauce.
Chen as to the questions proposed to be submitted to
the judges. There was not the slightest doubt that the
Crown had the power to grant the dignity of a peer ;
.here was not any question upon that ; anti there lV:k•
not the least necessity to summon the judges t
s dis-
cuss that subject. Bat then came the question
to whether the Crown liael a right to create a legis-
oitor—a member of the upper house f:r life. And that
question was one of the law of Parliament, and
one which did not fall within the cognizance of the
judges. Then the noble lord next proposed to ask what
were the privileges of a peer so created for life. That
was that the judges were to sit down and write a
treatise, setting forth the whole privilegea of such a peer.
He bad the greaeest respect for his learned brethren, but
he should be sorry to see them taken from their proper
luties to write such a treatise. Why, they could not
reasonably be allowed less than seven long years to an-
swer such a question. The real question was whether a
patent fur life to a baron could confer a seat in that
house. That was the question of privilege which that
'louse could only dates mine, and upon that he believed
'.hat the judges, following the example set by their pre-
decessors, would refuse to give an opinion. Its solution
lepended on the lex et censuetudo Parliamenti, upon
which the judges had uniformly refused to give an opi-
nion. In Thorpe's case, in the reign of Henry VI., the
judges were consulted on a question of parliamentary
privilege, and Chief Justice Fortescue and his brethren
replied that they ought not to answer that question, for
it hal riot been usual beforetirne that the judges should
determine the privileges of that high court of Perfia-
went ; and that the knowledge of that privilege belonged
to the lords of Parliament.

The LORD CRANCELLOR asked what the ques-
on asked was

Lard CAMPBELL sail it related to the Speaker of

. •
the Home of Commons being taken in execution. Then
came another case in the reign of Henry VIII , in which
the question was whether the husband of a peeress of her
own right was entitled to sit in the House of Loris ;
and they then refused to give any opinion, saying that
such questions had been uniformly decided by the consta-
bles and marshalil.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked who put the
question ?
Lord CAMPBELL—The King. (Hear, hear.) He
now csme to the authority of Lord Coke, who said that
as every court of justice bath laws and customs for its
direction. some by the common law, and others by par-
ticular law, so it was the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti
that all weighty matters relating to peers and members
of the House of Commons should be decided secundem
legem et consuetudinem Parliamenti, and that the judges
should not presume to give an opinion thereon. This was
a decisive authority, to show that according to the con-
stitutional practice the judges should not be consulted on
such a question as that now before them. To a similar
effect were the authorities of Justice Blackstone and '
Chief Justice de Grey. Tne proper course to pursue was
that they should at once resolve themselves into a commit.
tee of privileges, and then decide this question. Let the
house just consider the inconvenience of referring the
question to the judges at the very time when they were
just setting out for their circuits. For the sake of Lord
Wensleydale ho would ask them in what a condition he
would be placed by such a reference to the judges ? At
present they did not know whether he was a peer or not,
whether he had a right to sit there or in the House of
Commons. He trusted that the house would negative the
motion, and that they might now proceed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR felt the difficulty in
which they were placed inconsequence of the judges hav-
ing left, or being about to leave town. But still he felt so
strongly the consequences which might follow the course
on which the house was now so recklessly hurrying, that
he must urge them not to proceed without taking steps
to obtain the best information and advice in their power.
His noble and learned friend had commented on the gene-
ral and, as ho said, vague manner in which his noble friend
proposed to put these questions to the judges. The ques-
tions put to the judges were often put t 3 them in the ge-
neral words in which the questions on the paper wore
framed. The judges on such a reference would tell the
house only the great leading principles inferred by the pa-
tent for life. They would not embarrass themselves or the
house with those minuter points to which his noble friend
had referred. No doubt the object was to guide the house
to come to a safe conclusion as to whether the peer created
by patent for life was entitled tea summons to come to that
house. An it was said that that was a question which
could only be decided in that `house. But would other
points on which the judges might express an opinion
threw no light on this ? Suppose the judges were, forin-
stance, to say that a peer so created by patent for life
bad a right to be privileged from arrest, had no right to
be tried by his peers, and had other privileges ordinarily
possessed by peers, would net that create a presumption
that he was also entitled to a writ of summons as a peer
of Parliament,and would it not cast upon the noble lords
opposite the onus of making out by the strongest proof,
the case on which they relied ? He could, however, show
the house a case—not, certainly, one likely to arise—in
which the judge might be forced to give an opinion upon
the main question—whether a peer created by patent
for life was entitled to sit in Parliament. There was an
act, the 24th Geo. 111., e. 26, which provided that if a
member of the other house became a peer during the re-
cess, and this was certified to the Speaker by two mem-
bers of the House of Commons, the Speaker was required
within a certain time to issue his precept for a new writ.
Now, suppose such a case as this were to arise. Sup-
pose he put it to the judges that A B bad received a pa-
tent and writ in the terms of Lord Weneleydtles'e, and
, that the Speaker, notwithstanding this, did not issue his
writ, and that he that asked the judges whether the

Speaker of the House of Commons was liable to he in-
dieted for a misdemeanour for disobeying the act of Par-
liament. The judges must answer that question, which
depended entirely on the question whether a right to sit
in Parliament was conferred by a life peerage. But al-
though the judges might be forced to give an opinion
up in the main point ho c infeesed that he should be quite
content to take their opinion on the questions lying
round about the main question, but which would throw
light up in it. Then wit's respect to the authorities cited
by his noble friend. No doubt the judges in Thorpe's
case answered, and rightly so, thar they had no right to
give an opinion on the lex et consuetudo parliamenti, but
the point which he had always taken tip, and from which
he had never been displaced, was that this question is
not a question-of the consuetudo parliamenti, but of
the lex corme. (Hear, hear.) The question was,
whether the Crown had a right to call upon one of its
subjects to give his services in that house. With respect
to the next case ; it occurred in the time of Henry
VIII., and be certainly did not wonder that, under those
circumstances the juslges were not very anxious to give
an opinion on the question referred to them by that
monarch. Then with respect to the authority of Lord
Coke. No doubt, the house had a right to decide upon
all matters relating to the regulation of their proceed-
ings ; but questions affecting their relations to the Crown
were not, he contended, within Vie category of those
which depended on the lex et consuetude parliament' I
He trusted the house would accede to the motion, in
order to show to the country that, before they came to a
decision, they were anxious ke ascertain what the law on
the subject was. If the resolution which his noble and
learned friend intended to propose in the committee of
privileges should be carried, it would be the most un-
justifiable and unwarrantable invasion of the rights and
privileges of another branch of the Legislathre. (Hear.)
After a short speech from the Earl of WINCHILSE A,
Lard BROUGHAM a iii he should confine his obser-
vations to the simple question, as to whether they should
now take the opinion of the judges. There was one word
which he was surprised to hear from the Lord Chancellor
under present circumstances. That word was" reckless."
Now, considering hew they came into the position in
which they were now placed, he must say that, of all the
words in all the dictionaries in our Saxon tongue, that
was the very last that he should have expected to find
applied by his noble and learned friend, or by her Ma-
jesty's present advisers, to the conduct of his noble friend.
The question before them was simple and practical. It
was this. Coull the house now get an answer from the
learned judges? He presumed by that was meant the 15
judges. It was admitted that they could not. It was
admitted that all were either out of town or were on the

point of leaving it. Then were they to ask the judges
their opinion without giving them time for deliberation ?
It was a question of great difficulty, and one on which
considerable difference of opinion existed. Were they,
then, to administer an interrogatory to the judges, and
call on them to give an answer in 24 or 43 hours ? Whe-
ther they wished or not to have the opinion of the

judges, they could not have it now. Then after the cir-
cuit came term, and then the long vacation, so that it
was quite clear they could not get the judges' answer
till next session. He was surprised to hear his noble
_ .

friend complain of the wilful and reckless conduct of his
noble and learned friend Cord Lyndhurst in pressing on
_ _ .. .

their lordships to agree to the resolutions which he was
about to propose in committee. The noble and learned
lord on the woolsack agreed in that opinion, so that he
supposed that those noble lords who were now so anxious
for full discussion and deliberation had voted with the
majority the other night for referring this question to a
committee of privileges. That, however, inferred—he
could hardly believe it—that those noble lords who were
now thus anxious for careful and de:iberate proceeding,
even after the matter had been referred to and discussed
by committee, had on the previous evening voted against
its being even referred to a committee, and had sought
to induce the house at once to decide upon it without
any inquiry. ([rear.) If the course recommended by
the noble lord who introduced the motion were adopted,
the house would now, in effect, say, after having decided

to go into committee, " Do not fro on in that way. The
beet plan you can adopt is to delay,' for the matter is too
important to be g)t rid of so speedily and so rashly."
He would not follow the argument of the noble lord,
who had affirmed that this was not a question of
privilege, but a right of the Crown. It was a right
of the Crown which materially trenched upon the
privileges of their lordships' house, and their lordships
not only could, but must consider it. According to the
argument of the noble lord, the Crown might cast aside
th 3 old modes of creating peers, and, ex mere meta, send
down a person to sit in that house without either sum-
arms or patent. He was quite astonished to hear such
arguments from lawyers, especially from Whig lawyers.
No one could be more anxious to have the opinion of the
learned judges upon the p >int in question, but the pe•
retnptory refusal of Baron Wensleydale to appear by
counsel before their lordships, seemed to impse an addi-
tional obstacle to taking the opinions of those learned
persons. Under such circumstances, the judges would
have to decide without hearing any of the arguments on
either side of the question. Their lordships could not ask
them to sit on the woolsack whilst the house diecossed
the question at issue, and then aek them what might be
their opinion upon the matter. lie did not deny the
power of the house in such a case, but it would be most
inconvenient and most unsatisfactory to adopt such a
course. An opinion so obtained would be worth very
little, and the learned judges themselves. would be theiirst
to acknowledge that it was of little use when they had
not heard the case properly argued by counsel. In fact
there were so many obstacles in the way, that he could
not under any circumstances accept the proposal which
h:td been embodied in the motion now before the house.
E trl GRANVILLE said it was his intention in the
fe v remarks he intended to make, to confine himself
ktrictly to the question before the house. He thought.
it was a most unjust accusation against the noble lord
who had introduced this question, that he had wandered
from the p,int. When the noble lord was discussing-
this point in reference to the judges, it was imposAib e
that he should ignore end put out of sight the C unmittee
of Privileges, for he had an undoubted right to refer
to any matters that were on the paper. Ho could not
help thinking that there were some inconsistencies in the
epinions that hal been advanced by the noble lord Opp-
site (L ad Lyndhurst) ; for when he was sitting in his
judicial capacity in that house last year he male this
remark —" It was usual formerly to grant life peerages
in England. 13 it so in Scotland ?" and the noble baron
who had just spoken had freely admitted that such peer•
ages were within the prerogative of the Crowe. Their
lordships were told that they must rely upon •the opi-
nion of the law lords in order that they might come t ) a
final and satisfactory conclusion, but these opinions
were very contradictory, and he could hardly admit that
they were safe guides upon the question. Some surprise
list been expressed that the house had consented to the
Committee of Privilege. He (Earl Granville) was of opi-
nion that it wawa most undesirable step to take, and it
was some consolation to him to find that morning a pro-
test in the Townsend case, which was signed by Lord
Cettenham, in the course of which that learned lord ex-
pressed an opinion that it was improper for the house to
enter upon such an inquiry without leave and license of
the Crewn. (Lord Campbell remarked that that was an
essentially different case, the question raised being one
of legitimacy.) The noble lord, the Lord Chief Justice,
did not always hold the opinions which he 1107: seemed
to entertain, for in the case of Knowles the noble lord
was reported to have said that the proceedings were
coraw non juqice, because they had beet, undertaken
without any reference to the permission of the Crown.
But he (Earl Granville) was consent t ) let bygones be
byegones, for he was anxious to get out of the committee
as soon as he could. Then as to referring the matter to
the judges. It had been said that precedents were against
such a course, but he need not further allude t that
point, because it had been succes'fully demolished by
the nobl and learned lord on the woolsack. He might
refer to the bill passed by the House of Lords which en-
abled King William to delegate certain powers to the
Queen during his absence abroad. That question was re-
ferred to the judges, and Chief-Justice Holt decided that
without an act of Parliament that step could not be
taken. This certainly was a case in point. (Hear, hear.)
It had also been urged by the noble lord (Lord
Brougham) that the, matter could not be referred to the
judges, because Baron Wensleydale had refused to be
heard by counsel ; but in the case of Knowles the judges
had unanimously decided that the house had a right to
put questions to them upon abstract points. The argu-
ment that the judges were on circuit was idle, for if it
were tenable their lordships would never be able to put
questions to them at all. (Hear, hear.) As far, then,
as he (Earl Granville) was concerned, he had no doubt
of the propriety of submitting to the Queen's writ. The
Queen, there could be no doubt, had a perfect right to
confer peerages for life, and it was equally clear that
when conferred such a peerage entitled its possessor to
a seat in that house. In confirmation of this, he might
refer to a note of Mr. Hargreave, the keeper of the
rolls, who, in referring to the case of Knowles, said
that although the claim was finally rejected, still it was
contrary to the opinion of many peers, and the protest
of 20 of them : and that if it had not been refused to
hear the judges, in all probability the claimant would
have succeeded both upon the facts and the law of the
case. (Hear, bear.) Now, he came to another point.
He certainly did not hold the doctrine that their lord-
ships' house was servilely to support the prerogative of
the Crown, or to uphold any abuse of that prerogative ;
but when their lordships dealt with a question which
was at the root of that prerogative, they certainly took
a most unusual and unprecedented step. He did not
think it was decent with regard to the Crown itself,
respectful to the other House of Parliament, or treating
with due respect the feeling of the country. (near,
hear.) He should certainly with the greatest satisfac-
tion vote for the motion of the noble lord.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, their
lordships divided, when there appeared—
Contents—Present
Proxies - 49

Non•Contents—Prosent
Proxies 45
—142
Majority against the motion
The house went into committee, and Mr. Tomlins, the
keeper of the rolls of the Rolls Chapel, produced the life
peerages up to the 25th of Henry.
After some questions had been put to the witness by
Lord LYNDHURST,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he did not know whe-
ther it would be any convenience to his noble and learned
friends, but be believed there were eighteen grants to
women and grants to persons for life with remainder to col-
lateral heirs. He had not the paOiculars, but he believed
there were not any since those early times.
Lord LYNDHURST then rose for the purpose of pro-
posing the motion of which ho had given notice. He said
he was not sure he should be able adequately to perform
the task he had undertaken, or whether his strength would
bear him through, but having undertaken it he would do
his best. The question had been so fully discussed, and
noble lords were po intimately acquainted with ovary part

of the subject, that he need not detain them at any great
length. Ho need not dilate upon the question of jurisdic-
tion, but as the noble and learned lord opposite (the Lord
Chancellor) hail more than once referred to the question,
and denied the jurisdiction of their lordships' house, in a
tone not very respectful to their lordships' house, ho must
advert to it in pulsing. The noble and learned lord had
intimated that whatever might be the decision of their
lordships, it would be unavailing. (Rear, hear, from the
Opposition.) The other House of Parliament was in a
much more favourable position than their lordship,' house
on the question of privilege. The Speaker of that, house
was the guardian of its privileges and authority, and when
those privileges were invaded hp stood forward to protect,
them. (Hear.) The noble lord opposite, after having pro-
posed an objectionable measure, said their lordship; ought
not to touch it as it was a matter of prerogative of the
Crown. Another person, who was waiting. for their lordships'
doors to open to admit him. saiddiegmatically that his claim
could not be resisted. If this were allowed, there would be
an end to the independence of their lordships. That indepen-
dence would be prostrate in the dust. There was a case which
was decisive as to the jurisdiction of their lordships, and
that the privilege for which they wore contending was part
Of the independence of that house. An alien, it was well
known, could not sit in that house, but the Crown could
make an alien a peer. Suppose such alien were to come to
! the bar with a writ of summons, why, of course, they
would not admit him. He had another case equally strong.
Suppose a person, cleated a peer for life, cams to the her
with his writ, were their lordships to co-operate with him
or were they to resist his admission? What was the first
step taken on the admission of a newly-created peer?
Why, it was to read the patent. What was that for if
they were not to consider the patent. These facts he con-
sidered were decisive as to their jurisdiction. It was the
right of their for [ships to see that the assembly wts pro-
perly constituted. If a writ of summons wore withheld,
they had a right to demand it, and if a patent were in-
valid, they had a right to reject it in order to see that that
house was properly constituted. The noble and learned
lord on the woolsack had said there were no means of en-
forcing the right. If a writ was withheld after they had
called for it, there was a remedy, for the house could re-
fuse to proceed to business until the house was properly
constituted. That was the remedy when a writ was with-
held. On the other hand, if a person obtruded himself
without proper authority, it was their deity to direct the
officers to refuse to administer the oath, and to prevent
him taking his seat. Now, as to precedent. There was
but one precedent, that of the Duke of Hamilton and Bran-
don, that was relied on by the noble and learned lord. The
case which it really presented had never been met by the
noble and learned lord on the woolsack. The case at the
time it occurred was discussed in the house with great
energy and zeal, and the house came to the conclusion that
the claim was invalid. The question now was, not
whether the dicision of the house in that case was right,
lent as to the form of proceeding. Not a single observa-
tion, not even in the protest of the claimant to the peerage,
was made as to the course of proceeding. For seventy
years that had been acquiesced in. The decision of the
house was reversed, but even when the case came again
before the house not a single word was said against the
course of proceeding. On the other occasions, when peti-
tions were presented, a similar course was taken—that of
referring them to the Committee of Privileges. There was
another case, that of the Earl of Banbury, who petitioned
to he tried by his peers. The Committee of Privileges in-
vestigated his title, and said he had not made out his title,
and the petition was dismissed. That case came before the
Queen's Bench, and Chief Justice Holt took upon himself
to say that this house had no jurisdiction. Let them see
how erroneous that was. They had an absolute jurisdiction
when a peer presented his patent. They, therefore, must
have jurisdiction to try every matter incident to it. The
house had the jurisdiction as to the principal matter whe-
ther he was a peer or not, and hence they had jurisdiction
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
were made, to examine into titles. Stich cases had been
printed, and were on the table of the house. One case 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 claiiiiantteking his seat. A case occurred
where a peer was elevated to that house as e 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 read an
extract from an opinion of Lord Redesdale, in which he
said, that although he haul great respect for the name of
Lord Coke, yet he could hot conceal from himself the fact
that he would tell any untruth to support his opinions.
(Laughter.) He (Lord Lyndhurst) could state many cases
in which the judgment of Lerd Coke had been reverse 1.
Mach stress had been laid on the dictum of Lard Coke in
this matter. All the legal authorities that had been cited
turned on the dictum of Lord Coke. That dictum of Lord
Coke's cited no authority and no cases. He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) would show that in no instance had the Crown crea-
ted a poor for life to sit in that house without the autho-
rity of Parliament. Ile would prove that to demonstratim.
The next authority that had been relied on was that of a
Judge—, who was merely the author of a digest. How
could that be called au authority ? Then there was the au-
thority of Bleekstone. He merely took the question upon
the bare authority and dictum of Lord Coke. It was clear
that he had never discussed or eousidered the subject.
Then there was the authority of Sir Matthew Hale, and
that was the most cations of all. It was said that because
that
_judge had said nothing about it that therefore he was
of the same opinion :es Lord Coke. Then the authority of
Selden was cited. He irorely said that in some instances
peeregos had been granted for life. 'Why, that was true
enough, anal amounted to nothing. He referred to the mar-
qnisate of Dublin, but that peerage was granted by the au-
thority of Parliamesit. (Rear.) That was the case which
his noble and learned friend hail made as to authority. It
was wholly founded on the dietnin of Lord Coke. There
was no instance of a peer for life sitting in the house, ex-
cept whore the peerage was created under the authority of
Parliament. The opinion of Lord Shaftesbury had been
cited, but ho was not a good technical lawyer, although he
was a great parliamentary lawyer. My noble and learned
friend road a short extract from Macaulay's "History,"
with reference t i the chereeter of Lord Shaftoshnry. He
was tempted to throw a little sunshine upon this dull dis-
cussion, by quoting the words of Dryden, descriptive of
Lord Shaftesbury :

" In Israel's court ne'cr sat an Abethdin
With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean,
Uabrib'd, unsought, the wretched to redress ;
Swift of despatch, and. easy of access.
Oh ! had he been content to E e rve the Crown
With virtues only proper to the gown,
Or, had the rankness of the soil boon 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 case to which reference had been mede ; 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 had been granted. The first ease was that of
a foreigner ; he hed no right to sit in Parliament, and
it. was clear that he never could have sat. In the
charter he was Created an earl for life. The next chat•
ters were those of the Earl of Oxford and afterwards Duke
of Ireland. They would find that the limitation for life
was not to the person, but to the eetatesthet were granted
to him. Then it would be foaled that the charter was
passed by the authority of the lords spiritual and temporal
in Parliament assembled. No person who knew anything
of the law of this country could deny that that charter was
in reality an act cf Parliament. Ho might spare the house
the trouble of going through these eltarterg, because they
wore all made with the assent of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR —Above half.
Lord LYNDHUMT—The whole. The dukedom of
Aquitaine was not only granted by the king in his capacity
of King of France, but wits also with the assent of Parlia-
ment. The grant to the Duchess of Norfolk was to a wo-
man, anti did not touch the present question. The char-
ters conferring the dignity of a peer oe the king's brothers,
the Earls of Bedford and Gloucester, were with the assent
of Parliament, and there was every reason to believe that
this assent was also given in the case of the Earl of Cam-
bridge. Thu same result applied to the dukedom of Exeter.
Sir John Cornwall was created a peer with the assent of
Parliament ; but there was more than that. When a peer
took his seat by virtue of a writ of summons that con-
firmed a peerage in foe. 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 fee. There was no proof of a peerage for
life having 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 he two important particulars from the de-
scent of private estates. The rules of descent, therefore,
depended entirely upon usage. 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 practise
and powers of the courts of common law and of the other
House of Parliament depended upon usage. In former
times the Crown couldsend writs to summon such boroughs
to Parliament as he 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. The con-
stitutional system consisted of Sing. Lords, and Commons
—depending for its harmony upon the balance of pots or
amongst them. But what wouldobefcothineeotfhrtheee peesrtmataensehnacde
or harmony of the system if ne
the power of invading and remodelling the others ? Refer-
once had been made to the defective state of that house as
a court of judicature. Bat if that was so, there was an
easy remedy. They could call in the assistance not only of
the common law, but also of the equity judges, and if the
judges of Scotland were made privy councillors, their as-
sistance might also be obtained. The noble earl opposite
(Earl Grey) admitted that the power of granting life peer-
ages was one that might be abused in difficult and trou-
blons times. That the sound constitutional principle was
not to give any power that might be abused. It was im-
possible to say when important subjectsmight come up for
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
case been improperly exercised, still that would not afford.