MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT said, his hon. Friend beside him (Sir George Jenkinson) had not received much encouragement to go on, and, on that account, he would be perfectly justified in adhering to his intention. MR. DISRAELI said, though he was anxious the Committee should have fair opportunity for discussing all important points, yet he believed there was a bond fide feeling in the House that they should advance Public Business. He must say, however, after the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman had just made, that he had himself made a case for reporting Progress, and they had better take time to consider what was really before the Committee. MR. AYRTON said, that must depend upon the progress made with the Irish Church Bill before Whitsuntitde. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow. House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, 27th April, 1869. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- MR. GLADSTONE said, that what he had stated was that the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin), which was payment for sites, was a very small one, Committee-Report-Norfolk Island Bishopric and it might be considered by Thursday, but the point now before the Committee was whether any payments at all should be made. (73). LIFE PEERAGES BILL.-(No. 49). (The Earl Russell.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."-(The Earl Russell.) MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) before, that the question as to what payments should be made would be considered between this and Thursday. ["No, no!"] They on that side of the House heard quite as well as hon. Gentle- THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, men opposite. He did not see very much having made no remarks on the introdifference between the two things. The duction of this Bill, and having paid question which had been argued that considerable attention to the subject for night was the question of payment. But a number of years, I am desirous of in this clause the only payments abso- stating how far I am able to concur in lutely necessary were the payments for the principle of the measure, and how sites, because the privilege offered to far I am obliged to dissent from its main those who took the glebes was payment provisions. The noble Earl (Earl Russell), for sites or for the building charges, and in introducing the Bill, stated very that was the very point the hon. Gentle- correctly the great difference which man opposite had raised. He must say exists between this question and that he thought there was every reason for which engaged your Lordships' attenreporting Progress. tion in 1856. The question then was whether there existed in the Crown the Prerogative of creating, without the House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit sanction of the House, an indefinite again upon Thursday. CONSOLIDATED FUND (£17,100,000) BILL-SECOND READING, Order for Second Reading read. MR. HUNT said, he would take the opportunity of asking when the House would have a further opportunity of considering the Financial Scheme? number of life peerages, conferring the right of sitting and voting in Parliament. It was raised as a matter of principle, and not as a question affecting an individual, for the occasion taken was to raise to the peerage, for the purpose of strengthening the appellate jurisdiction of the House, an eminent lawyer who was well qualified for a seat in this House and to assist in our ap It was not denied that 400 years ago, when the Crown possessed the Prerogative of giving representatives to certain boroughs in one Parliament and depriving them of that representation in another, some letters patent for life peerages had been issued; but even in those days only one or two instances could be found in which such letters patent had been granted to persons who had not previously been entitled to sit and vote in Parliament under another title. It pellate jurisdiction; and it was inge- | for Life, and in refusing upon that Assumption to nuously admitted by Lord Chancellor permit him to take his seat as a Peer.”—{Ibid., Cranworth that, Lord Wensleydale being 1179.] at that time far advanced in life, and with no reasonable probability of leaving a male heir, it was a fair and fitting opportunity for trying the question of principle. The question then raised was-has the Crown, by the mere exercise of its Prerogative, the power of creating an indefinite number of Peers for life, entitled to sit and vote in Parliament? My most learned Friend the late Lord Lyndhurst brought forward a Resolution in opposition to that assertion of Prerogative on the part of the Crown, in a speech which, for the knowledge it displayed of Parliamentary, legal, and constitutional history, would have been remarkable in the mouth of any man, and which was the more remarkable on account of his very advanced age. He was followed by my noble Friend the present Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Granville), who then held the Office of President of the Council; but I must be allowed to say that if the noble Earl was impar congressus Achilli, he undoubtedly displayed an ability in the manner in which he argued the case fully justifying the courage he had shown in presenting himself in opposition to so formidable an antagonist as Lord Lyndhurst. The discussion was conducted with great ability and learning on both sides; and, by a very considerable majority, your Lordships decided to refer the whole case to a Committee of Privileges, which should search for precedents and report their opinion to the House. That Committee sat for a considerable time, investigated various historical documents, and finally came to conclusion adverse to the Prerogative of the Crown in respect of the power of granting life peerages, carrying with them the right to sit and vote in Parliament. Lord Lyndhurst accordingly moved a Resolution affirming a "That neither the said Letters Patent, nor the said Letters Patent with the usual Writ of Sum mons issued in pursuance thereof, can entitle the Grantee therein named to sit and vote in Parliament." [See 3 Hansard, cxl. 1170.] was not denied, too, that the Crown had a perfect right to confer on any person the dignity of a Peer or Peeress of the United Kingdom; but the question was, whether in conferring that dignity the Crown was enabled to confer likewise the right of sitting and voting in Parliament. On a division Lord Lyndhurst's Resolution was carried by 92 to 57, the majority being 35. I should mention that the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had given notice of his intention, in case his Amendment was carried, of moving Resolutions which were of great importance, and in the spirit of which, had the Amendment been adopted, I should have entirely concurred. Those Resolutions admitted, in the first place, that no precedent had been found within the last 400 years for the admission of a commoner to this House by the grant of a peerage for life, and they proceeded to affirm that the Crown ought not to be advised, without the consent of Parliament, to exercise the Prerogative. While declining, under the particular circumstances, to express disapproval of the conduct of the Ministry in granting to Lord Wensleydale a life peerage, the third Resolution went on to say, "That the Grant of Peerages for Life might in some Cases be of Advantage both to the Ilouse of Lords and to the Public; but that the Practice of granting such Peerages would be peculiarly liable to Abuse unless guarded by some precautionary Regulations."-[Ibid., 1180.] And the fourth Resolution was— sideration to determine what Step it will be proper "That it will require further and mature Confor the Ilouse to adopt in order to prevent the Patent granted to Lord Wensleydale from being cross-drawn into a Precedent in favour of creating Peerages for Life, and in order to establish adequate Securities against Abuse if such Creations are hereafter to take place."―[Ibid.] After the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Resolution the Crown admitted the cor To this the noble Earl on the Benches (Earl Grey) moved an Amendment declaring that "The House of Lords would not be justified in assuming the Illegality of the Patent creating the Right Hon. Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale rectness of the view taken by your Lord- then, however, proposed that it should ships in a practical form, inasmuch as a be referred to a Select Committee, and new patent was granted to Lord Wens- that proposal was supported by very leydale, conferring a peerage in the high authorities, including my right hon. usual terms on him and the heirs male of Friend the present Speaker of the House his body. Now, the noble Earl (Earl of Commons, the present Secretary of Russell) has admitted, both by his speech State for War, the present Prime Minisand the Preamble to his Bill, the prin- ter, and Sir James Graham. The result ciple then laid down; so that we start was that on the 10th of July the Bill from this position-that the Crown has was referred to a Select Committee; and not the power of creating peerages for I need hardly say what the effect and life, carrying with them the right to sit indeed the avowed object of that Amendand vote in Parliament; and that, if ment was the Bill was never heard in certain cases the creation of life peer- of again. The measure, I may remark, ages ought to be sanctioned by the was opposed in the House of ComHouse, it would properly be as an addi- mons for the most contradictory reation to, and not as a restriction on, the sons. It was opposed, on the one hand, existing Prerogative of the Crown, and because it confirmed and secured to this would require to be limited by the House that which some persons wished strictest possible conditions. Starting to take away, its appellate jurisdiction; from that position, we shall have little and, on the other hand, there was much difficulty in considering the main pro- opposition to it because it proposed that visions of the Bill. I may, however, the legal life Peers should sit and decide first mention, in order to complete the questions during adjournments, and notnarrative of the proceedings of 1856, withstanding prorogations, without even that, shortly after the adoption of the an ostensible reference to the House at Resolution, I proposed the appointment large. Another objection, too, was that of a Committee to inquire into the whole it would be derogatory to the position of question of the appellate jurisdiction of Members of this House to accept a salary the House, and that your Lordships, for services rendered qua Members. being pleased to accede to that Motion, Well, as I have said, the Bill was rethe subject was carefully considered;-ferred to a Select Committee, and was the result being that, in order to carry never heard of again. From that time out the avowed object of Lord Wensley- the question of life peerages has redale's peerage, the Committee recom- mained in abeyance until it has been remended the creation of not more than vived by the proposal now before the four life peerages, to be held by men pos- House. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) sessed of legal qualifications, and fit to goes much farther in his principles, and discharge the duties of the appellate juris- still more in his details, than the prodiction. A Bill embodying that recom- position of 1856. He sets out by saying mendation was introduced by Lord Chan- -and I do not dispute it-that there cellor Cranworth, and passed through may be cases in which the Crown would this House without any material altera- be desirous of conferring a peerage on a tion. Being sent down to the House of person whose services and talents entitled Commons, it was accepted by the Go- him to the honour, but whose private vernment of the day, of which Lord means did not permit of his entailing on Palmerston was the head, and was offi- his family the burden of an hereditary cially supported by the then Attorney peerage. That is, no doubt, a possible General (Sir Alexander Cockburn), who case, and I admit that your Lordships now holds a very high position, and may properly consider the propriety of whose opinion is entitled to the greatest meeting it by sanctioning the creation of respect. I must say, however, that, life peerages; but I beg that you will while nominally supporting the measure, not come to a conclusion either way withhis speech was rather one damning it out bearing in mind certain considerawith faint praise, for it certainly threw tions. In the first place, you are proa considerable quantity of cold water on posing to give an addition to the Prerogathe scheme. It was supported by the tive of the Crown, and in these days an Government, and was assented to by addition to the Prerogative of the Crown those who represented the Opposition, means an addition to the power of the and passed the second reading. It was Minister of the day, and an addition to the power of the Minister, who depends | press upon your Lordships that you are for his position upon the votes of the about to increase the power of the Crown, House of Commons, means an addition and, through it, of the Ministry and the to the power of the House of Commons. House of Commons, and to establish a Now, I am not jealous of the privileges peerage the like of which has never and powers of that House over the other existed from the foundation of the Conbranches of the Constitution; but your stitution. The noble Earl, speaking of Lordships should consider how far you the number of life peerages, instanced would be justified, at this moment and in the cases of the Scotch and Irish peerthe present state of the Constitution, in ages and also of the right rev. Bench. investing the House of Commons with Now, I altogether deny that in the sense any greater influence than they now pos- contemplated by the Bill those can be sess over the constitution and action of regarded as life peerages. I read, with this House. I need go into no argument some astonishment, an article in a journal to show that the influence of the Crown which professes to guide public opinion has greatly decreased, and that the and which certainly is a very observant balance of the Constitution between Crown, Lords, and Commons is in more danger than is often anticipated of being disturbed by the preponderance of one of these three powers. You have to consider, therefore, whether you will of your own motion and accord intrust practically the House of Commons with a larger power than they already possess of influencing the constitution of the House. I am very far from denying the great advantage we derive from the frequency with which persons who are heirs to hereditary peerages obtain seats in the House of Commons-they thereby gain a political training and education, and become imbued with the spirit and conditions of the House of Commons, so that when, in the course of nature, they succeed to seats in this House, they bring with them those feelings and conditions to modify the exclusive feeling which possibly might otherwise exist in this House. It is an advantage, indeed, to both Houses; for it is an advantage to the House of Commons to have among its Members men who, after an education and training within its walls, will succeed to this House, and will thereby exercise an influence here in favour of popular rights and privileges. Nor do I at all disparage the very great advantage which your Lordships derive from the creation of Peers taken from other classes. An infusion of fresh blood into this House is one of the mainstays of our Constitution, for it gives strength and influence to the House, and tends to maintain that balance which, according to the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and to everyone who knows the value of our Constitution, ought to a certain extent to be maintained between the different Estates of the realm. But let me im follower of public opinion-arguing that, in point of fact, every peerage, whether hereditary or not, is virtually a succession of life peerages, granted once for all to the several descendants. Now it does not require the wisdom of The Times to know that not one of your Lordships can enjoy his peerage for a longer term than his own life; but to attempt to draw any analogy between life peerages and those descending to the heirs of those on whom they were originally conferred, is an argument, I must say, with all due respect, worthy of those valuable institutions to which a large portion of the property of the Church in Ireland is proposed to be transferred. The case of the Scotch and Irish peerages, or of the right rev. Bench, is not at all analogous to the principle sought to be introduced by this Bill. As to the Scotch and Irish peerages, it is quite true that the individual holds his seat either for life or for the duration of the Parliament; but he holds it as the representative of a permanent succession of a body of men whose numbers the Crown has no power of increasing or diminishing at all events without the sanction of Parliament. Is that, in the slightest degree, analogous to a proposal which gives to the Crown the power of creating at its pleasure a number of Peers, limited if you please, but without any succession, without any right of keeping up that title except by another creation on the part of the Crown? The case of the right rev. Bench is not quite so strong a case, because they owe their seats in this House to the favour of the Crown, which has the right of appointing their successors. The office of a Bishop, however, is an hereditary one, and the offices are held in right of baronies, the Crown "I remember that some quarter-of-a-century ago a foolish and absurd cry was raised in the country for the removal of the Lords Spiritual from this House. I am satisfied that at the present moment no such feeling exists; and I believe it would be considered both in this Ilouse and by the country to be a serious blow if the number of the Lords Spiritual were to be diminished even by one."-[3 Hansard, cxl. 280.] I hope the noble Earl adheres, and will adhere during the present Session, to the principle he then laid down-that it would be a serious misfortune if the number of Spiritual Peers were to be diminished even by one. being unable to take away from or add permanently increased by twenty-eight. to those baronies. I dare say noble The noble Earl urged that the influence Lords opposite wish the Crown had the of any particular Minister in creating same influence over the Scotch and Irish these Peers would be thus limited; but Peers as over the right rev. Bench; but he himself was in Office five or six years, the position of the latter is very different and Lord Palmerston for about the same from that proposed by the Bill. And, period. The present Minister, moreover, while on this subject, I wish to call the has succeeded to the position by a majoattention of the noble Earl the Secretary rity of 100 or 120, and I see no sort of for the Colonies to a passage in the reason why, unless he commits some admirable speech which he delivered in strange blunder which, of course, he 1856. He then saidmay do-he should not retain his majority for the whole period of the present Parliament. If he retains it for five years, he would have the opportunity of creating twenty Peers, his devoted followers, and thus of exercising no inconsiderable influence over this House. [The Marquess of SALISBURY explained that he had not supported the Bill with the object of bringing the two Houses. into greater conformity of sentiment, but because he wished this House to have more of a representative character.] But why of a more representative character? The great merit of the balance of the Constitution consists in thisthat the Minister of the day, be he who he may, is compelled, or at least it is his duty, so to form his measures as to conciliate or secure the approval and consent of both Houses, representing distinct and different classes, however much in particular cases they may be combined. If this House is to be representative, you had better go further and say it should be elective. That may be a fit subject for argument; but it would be the destruction of the Constitution as at present existing, and the utter overthrow of the balance pointed out by the noble Earl. With regard to the number twenty-eight, I am sorry to have to refer again to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, but having referred to the discussion of 1856, I find he made this remark— you I now come to consider the provisions of the Bill; and having in view the vast change which will be made, in the constitution of this House-in its principle, I mean, if not in its composition-it is not unreasonable to express a hope that will confine these peerages strictly within the limits of proved or probable necessity. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) proposes to limit the number to twentyeight, and that not more than four should be created in any one year. Now, it seems to me that that number is far in excess of the necessities of the case. I do not know whether the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) is present; but I regret to say I cannot concur in the view he expressed-namely, that one great object ought to be to produce greater harmony of feeling and uniformity than may under present circumstances exist between the two Houses. If I could concur in that, it is clear-as I think he admitted that the Bill ought to go much further than it does, for it would practically do nothing to produce such uniformity. It will no doubt give an additional power to the Minister for the time being of introducing a certain number of persons into this House who will vote for him, without incurring the risk of unnecessarily increasing the permanent number of the House; that number, however, being in seven years "The chief objection was that it introduced a principle capable of almost indefinite extension; that Her Majesty might be advised to create not one but twenty life Peers, and that there was no security against the House being swamped by such creations. He need not say that, as far as the Government were concerned, that objection was entirely unfounded. What they wanted was to strengthen a little the number of law Peers in the House by means of life instead of hereditary peerages." The noble Earl admitted that the creation of twenty life peerages might inflict a serious injury on the constitution |