§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Lord Cranworth, speaking as Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords on 7th February, 1856, that the right of a Peer to sit in the House of Lords is not derived from the patents but from the writ of summons 1153 which he is entitled to receive in consequence of his patent of nobility, and the question whether a person is or is not entitled to such a writ rested with the Crown to decide; whether he is aware that there are cases in which Peers have been summoned for a single Parliament and for a single session, then discontinued, and then summoned again; and whether he, in his proposed modification of the powers of the House of Lords, in acting in opposition to the other estates of Parliament, contemplates that these modifications should be in substitution for, or exclusive of, or ancillary to, the resources furnished by the Constitution for bringing the House of Lords into subjection to the will of the people.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have no doubt my hon. friend correctly cites the opinion to which he draws my attention. He is a high constitutional authority, and I would not think of verifying his references or disputing his history. But after my statement of yesterday, I do not think he requires any more instruction on the subject.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLThat is a perfectly satisfactory Answer.