The Duke of Newcastle, referring to a letter which had appeared in The Morning Chronicle, dated Pavilion, 15th May, and which purported to be a letter from his Majesty, pledging himself to the Minister to create as many Peers as might be necessary to carry the Reform Bill, expressed his wish to know, from the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, whether or not that letter was authentic?
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, it gave him very great pleasure to hear it; but he had, on a former night, given notice to their Lordships of his intention to bring forward a motion that would test the opinion of the House as to the prerogative of creating Peers. His motion was intended to refer to that point particularly, but he did not know in what shape it might be most conveniently brought forward. Perhaps the best plan would be, to submit a motion on the state of the nation.
The Marquis of Clevelandhad expected that the noble Duke would, on consideration, have thought no more of his motion, on discovering that he had no authority to proceed upon; but, at all events, he understood, that the noble Duke intended to limit his motion to the particular point of the prerogative of the Crown to create Peers.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, it might be more convenient to bring the matter 1097 forward in the shape of a motion respecting the state of the nation; and he named Thursday for the motion, and proposed that the Lords should be summoned for that day.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, Thursday might be a very inconvenient day for bringing forward a motion, when the House would be proceeding with the Committee on the Reform Bill. The best plan would be, to watch the progress of the Committee, and then to appoint a convenient day.
The Duke of Newcastlewas perfectly willing to appoint a day that might be convenient for their Lordships, but he was determined to make his motion.
§ Earl Greyasked, did the noble Duke mean by his motion to question the prerogative of the Crown to make Peers for such an object as this? He was not aware, that there was any limitation to the royal prerogative in the creation of Peers.
§ Earl Greysaid, if he understood the noble Duke, it was the exercise of the prerogative he intended to question, and not the prerogative itself.
§ The Earl of Eldonsaid, there was no man in that House, he supposed, who would dispute the prerogative of the Crown to create Peers; but it was his decided opinion, that the prerogative had been intrusted to the King, not for his personal advantage, but for the purpose of being exercised for the benefit of the people [cheers]. He was glad to hear that cheer from the noble Lords opposite; for the prerogative was vested in the Sovereign only for the purpose of being exercised for the benefit of the country; but it would require some better argument than "hear, hear, hear!" to prove that the exercise of the prerogative, in the manner now alluded to, would be an exercise of it for the benefit of the country. He maintained, that the prerogative was given, in order to be exercised wholly for the benefit of the country. He did not mean to say, that the existence of the prerogative ought to be called in question; but, certainly, whether the exercise of it on a particular occasion, or for a particular purpose, was for the benefit of the country, might be made matter of discussion. He maintained, that it was contrary to the duty of the Crown, and to the trust reposed by the Constitution in the Kings of 1098 this country, and by virtue of which they reigned, to exercise the prerogative in this manner. He maintained, that it would not only be a departure from the proper exercise of the prerogative, but a most abominable exercise of it, to create Peers for a purpose adverse to the interests of the people. If the prerogative were to be exercised in this manner, the prerogative might continue to exist, but the Crown itself would not long exist.
§ Lord Wharncliffesuggested, that it would be better to defer any discussion on this subject.
The Duke of Newcastlewished to know from the noble Lord on the Woolsack, whether it was his intention to institute any proceedings against the paper in which the letter to which he had adverted had been published?
The Lord Chancellorhad only to repeat, what he had lately before said on a similar occasion, and that was, that the consideration of what ought or ought not to be made the subject of prosecution did not belong to his situation. The letter appeared to be entirely fictitious; but, supposing it became a question whether it was or was not a libel, it was not for him to give any opinion about it, as the matter might come before him and the rest of their Lordships for judgment in the last resort. His noble friend had already stated, that the letter was fictitious, and what proceedings might be necessary was quite another question. He begged leave to remind the noble Duke, that he was not the public prosecutor.