Sitting of 22 February 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Aldershot Camp; Oath of Abjuration.
3° Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Commons Inclosure.

THE LOSS OF THE "NERBUDDA"— QUESTION.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he wished to put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the reported loss of Her Majesty's ship Nerbudda, off the coast of Africa, in June last. He had been told by the relatives of officers who were on board that ship, that the first information they had received of the disaster was contained in The Times of August last, and that no official report had been issued from the Admiralty either to the public, or to those more immediately interested. Great surprise and great pain had been caused by the absence of any official information as to the loss of a ship containing 180 souls, and he therefore requested the right hon. Baronet to state

1219
whatever details had reached him the subject.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was very sorry to say, that all the accounts he had received were of a completely negative character. The only information in the possession of the Government was, that the Nerbudda had been sent to the eastern coast of Africa, and had never since been heard of; but of course the Admiralty would not be justified in making any public statement on the subject until the last chance was gone. He could not, however, entertain the slightest hope that the Nerbudda had not foundered at sea. The Admiralty knew that she had not gone into any port of Madagascar, and, in fact, the only information they possessed was, that there was an absence of all information.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH IRELAND—QUESTION.
MR. GROGANsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any and what steps since the issuing of the Minute of the 10th of October, 1855, had been taken by the Government to facilitate and improve the postal and passenger communication between London and Dublin? Whether the hours of departure from and arrival at these cities respectively of the mails, and the time to be employed on the journey, had been decided on; whether any tenders for the performance of this service had been called for by the Government; whether any tenders for this service had been sent in to the Government; and what was the present state of the negotiations on this subject?
MR. WILSONsaid, that some measures on the subject had been taken since the issuing of the Minute. He had received a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin and Belfast, with a view of considering how far the hours it was intended to fix would be convenient with regard to Ireland. A form of tender was now being prepared according to the hours fixed on with the deputation, and when the tender was ready (which he hoped would be the case in a few days) it would be transmitted to in the railway companies.

ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE— QUESTION.
MR. PERCYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. President of the Poor Law
1220
Board, whether a Report had been presented to the Government on the state of the St. Pancras or St. Marylebone workhouses; and whether he would lay such Report on the table of the House?
MR. BOUVERIE, in reply, said, that in November last, one of the ordinary inspectors under the Poor Law Board had made a Report with regard to St. Pancras workhouse. In consequence of that Report, he had appointed a medical gentleman as a temporary inspector to inquire into the management of the establishment. He should state that the St. Pancras workhouse was under the direction of a local Board appointed by a local Act, and not under the immediate control of the Poor Law Board. He had lately received the Report of the medical inspector, which described the state of things in the workhouse to be horrible. He had directed the Report to be forwarded to the local authorities, and he hoped they would take steps to apply instant and urgent remedies to those evils.
MR. PERCYsaid, he wished to know whether the Report would be laid on the table?
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he should have no objection to do so.

OATH OF ABJURATION—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. The Motion with regard to the oath of abjuration could not come on till a late hour, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed with the discussion?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had put his notice on the paper in the hope that the House might allow him to introduce the Bill without discussion. He could not reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman without putting another question to him, as to whether he would allow the Bill to be laid on the table, and fix the second reading for such a time as would give fair opportunity for discussion? He wished also to know from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) whether the Government would have any objection to that course?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he would not object to any course the House thought fit to adopt.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he considered the suggestion of the right

1221
hon. Gentleman a very reasonable one. It was desirable they should see what the Bill was before they discussed it. He therefore would not oppose the Motion.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES—QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he hoped the Government would allow the House a few days more for the consideration of the Army Estimates, which had been placed upon the paper for that night. They were of peculiar importance; for they were different from former Estimates, and they had not been circulated many days.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, although the Estimates were so far new in form that one body of papers contained what was formerly in different Estimates, yet each part was very nearly the same as it always had been, especially with regard to the Army Estimates. Money being required for the public service, the Government intended to take a Vote on account, and he therefore hoped the House would allow them to proceed with the Estimates.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble Lord, he really must press for further delay.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had stated on the first day of the Session the course which the Government intended to take. They proposed to lay on the table Estimates framed for the whole year, on the supposition that the war would continue, but, considering that negotiations were about to begin, they would, in the first place, only ask Parliament to vote a portion of those Estimates relating to matters not affected by peace or war. Those sums having been voted on account, they would be obliged, in case either of peace or war, to come to Parliament for the remainder of the Estimates, and hon. Gentlemen would then have a further opportunity of discussing them.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that there was a very important proposition for a certain number of men and animals for the Land Transport service, and probably the Government would allow the House a little time for the consideration of that matter.

EDUCATION—QUESTION.
On the Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn till Monday,
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking the
1222
noble Lord the Member for London, whether he had any objection to give some further explanation of the course he intended to take with respect to his Education Resolutions? He (Sir John Pakington) could not help thinking that the course which the noble Lord intimated last night he intended to take was unusual, and likely to be attended with some inconvenience. At the commencement of the Session, the noble Lord intimated that, in consequence of the difficulty which independent Members felt in proposing Bills, he thought the most convenient course for him to take would be to move Resolutions and call on the House to pronounce an opinion on them; and, when the noble Lord gave his notice yesterday, he (Sir J. Pakington) hoped the noble Lord was going to take that course. But the noble Lord mentioned that on Thursday week he would only make a statement, and not call on the House to pronounce any opinion. Now, that appeared to him to be an unusual course, and might have the effect of creating apprehension among those who took an interest in the subject that the matter would be again indefinitely postponed. All that he desired was, that the House should come to some sound conclusion on the subject, and he therefore wished to know whether the noble Lord had any understanding with the Government as to the further progress of his Resolutions, or in what way he proposed to call on the House to pronounce an opinion on them?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood what he had stated on the previous evening. He certainly did not intend to state that he did not mean to ask for the opinion of the House on his Resolutions when the proper opportunity came, but that he did not mean to do so on the 6th of March, because, as there were several Resolutions, it would be hardly fair to ask the House to come immediately to a decision on the subject. But, after placing the Resolutions on the table of the House, and of course moving the first one as a matter of form, he should propose to postpone them till a future day. He certainly had no understanding with the Government as to the day when he should again bring them under consideration, but he recollected that, when the late Sir Robert Peel brought forward the Controverted Elections Bill,

1223
he (Lord J. Russell), being then in the Government, gave the right hon. Baronet a Government day for the purpose. If, happily, the negotiations to Paris should end in peace, no subject to which the House could turn its attention could be of greater importance than that of education, and be should then, not pressing the Government, of course, to give him a day while urgent business was coming on, which the affairs of the country might render it desirable to be immediately discussed, request the noble Lord at the head of the Government to consent that, at a certain time, those Resolutions should be taken into consideration—discussed from day to day until the House pronounced an opinion on the subject. He trusted that that course would be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whose wishes he should wish to consult, as he had taken so great an interest in the subject.

LEASES OF CHURCH PROPERTY— QUESTION.
MR. FREWENsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure during the present Session calculated to place the lessees of Church property on a more just and equitable footing than that in which they were placed under the existing Acts of Parliament. The House was aware that in some parts of England, especially in Durham, a large quantity of land was held on these leases, which were always for twenty-one years, but they were invariably renewed every seven. Parliament had now interfered, and put a stop to any further renewals, but gave power to enfranchise the tenements on terms to be fixed by the Ecclesiastical Commission, but the terms proposed were in many cases most arbitrary and unjust.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the House was of course aware that a Committee had been appointed for the express purpose of inquiring into the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and particularly the manner in which this matter had been dealt with by them. The interests of the people of Durham would be cared for, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) was on the Committee. He could give no intimation of what course would be taken until after the Committee had made the Report.

THE KING OF OUDE—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he rose to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, of which he had given notice. He did not, however, intend to enter into a discussion on the important subject of the annexation of the native states of India. His only object was to elicit some information as to the intentions of the Indian Government with regard to the King of Oude and his dominions. For some time past various rumours had been circulated as to the intentions of the Government on this subject. It was first said that the administration of the territories would be placed in the hands of General Outram, the resident at Lucknow; it was then stated that the revenues of the king would be sequestrated; but the report now was that the king was to be dethroned, and his dominions annexed to the British territories in India. Now that he considered was a subject on which the House ought to have some information. If the sovereign of a country larger and more fertile than Belgium was to be dethroned, and his subjects handed over to the authority of the East India Company, the House ought to know the reasons for such a step. He did not intend to enter into a discussion on the relations between the Indian Government and the native states, but he would read a dispatch written in 1814 by Mr. Ricketts, the then secretary of the Government of India, to Major Baillie, the resident at Lucknow.
"You are to inform the Nawab that the Governor General will be much gratified if he will show his anxiety for the promotion of British interests by advancing another loan of a crore of rupees. The Governor General is most anxious to know the result of your negotiation, as the Government will be seriously embarrassed if the loan is not obtained."
Major Baillie, in his answer, wrote that he had obtained fifty lacs of rupees with great difficulty, and further stated that—
"The Nawab is beginning to entertain suspicion of our disinterestedness; some persons are endeavouring to persuade him that our object is to drain him of all his wealth, and when we have plundered him entirely to take possession of his dominions."
He would, then, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether instructions had been sent out to Lord Dalhousie, empowering him to sequestrate or annex the territories of the King of Oude at his discretion; whether any desire had been manifested by the people of that country to come under our

1225
dominion; and lastly, when the correspondence would be laid on the table of the House?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not expect that the hon. Member who spoke last would have made a speech of; so much importance on the question of the adjournment of the House, but he had no objection to tell his hon. Friend how the question stood, although he was not prepared, nor was it usual to lay a paper on the table of the House before the correspondence to which they related had been brought to a conclusion. The House was, no doubt, aware that, for the last fifty-six years or thereabouts, the state of the kingdom of Oude had occasioned the utmost anxiety to the Government of India; and, to such an extent had these abuses reached during the last summer that General Outram, who was known to be strongly in favour of the rights of native princes, had reported to the Governor General that it was impossible for things to remain in their present state. That opinion was reported by the Governor General to the Home Government, together with a statement of several modes in which it was thought by himself and gentlemen with whom he had consulted that the deplorable state of things might be put an end to. The dispatches on the subject were taken into consideration by the Directors of the East India Company and by the Government, and, after going through the details and difficulties of the questions, and considering the great reputation and long experience of Lord Dalhousie, it was thought that the best course to be adopted would be to give a very largo measure of discretion to the noble Marquess in dealing with a matter requiring so much tact and delicacy. The result of that consultation was communicated to Lord Dalhousie on the 21st of November last, but no answer had as yet been received to it except a simple acknowledgment from the noble Marquess of the pride which he had felt in being intrusted with that discretion, and an expression of his determination to take the responsibility upon himself. He added, however, that, whatever course he pursued, he should use every possible means of avoiding all chance of a collision, and that he should have the most scrupulous regard to the feelings and claims of the natives. Thus the question stood at the present moment; but when a more detailed answer had been received from the Governor General, and the correspondence
1226
had been brought to a close, he would lose no time in laying it on the table. With regard to the second question put by the hon. Gentleman, as to whether there had been any expression of opinion on the part of the people of the kingdom of Oude as to their desire to be annexed to the possessions of Great Britain, he had to remind the hon. Gentleman that no appeals or expressions of opinion were permitted by the King of Oude to be publicly made, and that it was consequently very unlikely that the Government of India could obtain any clue to the general opinion of the inhabitants on the subject of annexation.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that in his opinion the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was most unsatisfactory. It was well known that the principles of Lord Dalhousie were in favour of annexing every native state whenever the opportunity occurred; and yet the question of annexing the kingdom of Oude was left to his unfettered discretion. The object of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) was, that the House should decide whether it was an expedient or honourable course that the kingdom of Oude should be annexed, and it was impossible to discuss that question unless the correspondence were laid on the table. The policy of Lord Dalhousie might be the right one, but it was at variance with that of Mountstuart-Elphinstone and Lord Metcalfe. Of late it appeared to be the policy of the East India Company to annex a State whenever it appeared to them that we were in the right; and as that Company always decided that we were in the right, it necessarily followed that they were always in favour of annexation. It had been said when the war against Russia was undertaken, that we had felt it necessary to interfere in order to protect weak States from the oppression of the strong, but he must confess that he had writhed under the eloquent denunciations of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), when he charged this country with having practised towards India precisely the same description of policy which Russia had adopted towards her weaker neighbours. To such a policy he would be no party, and he was, therefore, in favour of getting, on the earliest occasion, full information as to the steps taken by the Governor General of India on this subject.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he thought it was scarcely fair of the hon. and learned

1227
gentleman to anticipate the legitimate opportunity of discussing the subject, which he himself had pointed out, for the purpose of denouncing the policy of one of the most distinguished rulers India had ever known. He hoped the House would not take its idea of Lord Dalhousie's policy from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He utterly denied the truth of the statement of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) with regard to the monetary transactions of the Indian Government with the King of Oude. Every farthing received from the King of Oude had been received from him in the way of loan, and it had always borne the highest current rate of interest. Every loan had been repaid either in money or by transfer of territory, and if any portion remained unpaid it continued to bear the regular payment of interest just the same as any other loan granted to the Government of India. One reason which had induced the King of Oude to make these loans was that he was afraid, from the disordered state of his country, that his widows and other members of his family, for whom he was anxious to provide, would be left entirely without support at his demise, and he was desirous in that way of making the East India Company responsible for the payment of a regular stipend to those persons. Such statements as those of the hon. Member for Stafford, injurious as they were to the credit and honour of individuals belonging to the Government of India, ought not to be made except upon good grounds, and unless those who made them were prepared to support them.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he would remind the House that the hon. Member who had put the question had done so on the authority of a dispatch from the Resident at Lucknow to Lord Hastings, which itself disclosed a case of great hardship. The observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry), in regard to Lord Dalhousie, had been elicited by the panegyric which had been passed upon that nobleman by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control. It appeared to him (Mr. Phillimore), from all he had seen and read, that Lord Dalhousie was inflamed with a dangerous sprit of aggrandisement. He had already entangled us in one most unjust and indefensible war, and was not a person to whom he (Mr. Phillimore) should like a question of this importance to be referred.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he must warn the House to be very cautious of taking upon trust the ebullitions of virtuous indignation of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg). That hon. Member denied in that House the truth of the assertion as to the practice of torture in India. Taking that as an example and illustration of the value of the denial of the hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Roebuck) left him and the House to settle the matter.

CLOTHING FOR THE GERMAN LEGION.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that in justice to a firm which had been mentioned on the preceding evening as having supplied the defective trousers to the cavalry of the German Legion, concerning which he had put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, he must state that he had received from the firm in question (Messrs, Hibbert and Co.) a letter, of which he would read but one passage. That passage was as follows—
"The name of our firm has been mentioned as the suppliers of the articles. As the charge of inferiority of materials is still unrefuted, we think it right to state that we were not the exclusive contractors for the trousers, and that the number supplied by us, as we are ready to prove, was superior to the received pattern."
He believed he was correct in stating that but a small portion of the clothing was supplied by Messrs. Hibbert and Co., the greater part having been made by other firms. One circumstance which ought to be known was, that the pattern for these trousers was bound with a description of leather called Spanish horsehide. The leather used by Messrs. Hibbert and Co. was of that description, but other firms made the straps of an inferior article called sheepskin.
Motion for the adjournment of the House until Monday agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. FITZROY in the chair,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose and said, Mr. FITZROY, it now becomes my duty to move certain Resolutions, and to lay before the Committee such explanation as is necessary for their information in regard to them. The ordinary practice, when pacific relations subsist

1229
between the Government of Her Majesty and those of other independent States, is for the Finance Minister to submit to the House each year one financial statement comprising the revenue and expenditure of the preceding year, together with his estimate of those for the ensuing one. That practice has been found from experience to be convenient to the House, because it places before it at one view the finances of the two years under consideration. I should have been glad if it had been in my power to follow that course in the present Session; but the circumstances in which the country is now placed have left me no option. War imposes necessities upon senates no less than upon generals in the field, and renders necessary a deviation from the ordinary mode of proceeding imperative. The statement which it is my duty to submit to the Committee this evening will be confined to the finances of the present year, and will not trench upon the revenue or expenditure of that which will commence on the 1st of April next. This course, which it is necessary that I should pursue, is at the present moment not unattended with advantages. Although it might have been in some respects more satisfactory to the House that there should have been only one financial statement during the present Session, yet, considering the great efforts which the country has made during the last year, and considering the great expenditure which those efforts have occasioned, it may be satisfactory to hon. Members to learn at an early period of the Session the state of our revenue and expenditure. Uncertainty on a question of this sort must be attended with inconvenience. In friendly quarters it gives rise to apprehensions, in unfriendly ones to hopes; both of which I trust the Committee will find from my statement to be completely groundless. I will now, with the permission of the Committee, recall to its recollection the statement which I made on the 20th of April last, in submitting the budget for the year. The revenue, including new taxes, I estimated at £67,339,000; the loan was taken at £16,000,000, and there was likewise an estimate for Exchequer Supply Bills to the amount of £3,000,000, making the total estimated revenue £86,339,000. The expenditure, as I estimated it on that day, including the payment of £1,000,000 for Ways and Means bills on account of the preceding year,—that is to say, bills to cover expenditure incurred during the preceding year, and £1,000,000 for the
1230
Sardinian loan, was £81,899,000. The difference between these two sums was £4,440,000, which was the margin or surplus upon which I had calculated in that statement, so that if the expenditure and revenue had been equal to the estimate there would be on the 1st of April next, a surplus of £4,440,000. However in the supplementary statement which it became necessary for me to make on the 2nd of August last, I stated that in the former calculation I had estimated the total Ways and Means at £86,339,000; but that since that calculation was made I had abandoned an estimated amount of £200,000 from a stamp duty on bankers' cheques, thus reducing the estimated revenue to £86,139,000, and the estimated surplus to £4,240,000. The expenditure, as estimated on the 20th of April, amounted to £81,899,000, but the Committee will recollect that, towards the end of the Session, certain Supplementary Estimates for the military service were laid before the House and voted in Committee of Supply. These Supplementary Estimates amounted to £6,135,000, making a total expenditure for the year of £88,034,000. To meet this expenditure there was, as before stated, the reduced estimate of Ways and Means, amounting to £86,139,000. An additional grant of Exchequer bills and bonds was taken, in consequence of the increased expenditure, amounting to £4,000,000, making a total provision for the year of £90,139,000. The increased expenditure being £88,034,000 there remained a surplus of £2,105,000 according to the last Estimates submitted to the Committee. But this surplus was in a great measure required to restore the balances, which had been assisted at the commencement of the year by Ways and Means bills to the amount of £1,700,000, which were chargeable on the revenue of the current year. The second statement, therefore, presented nearly an equal amount of receipts and expenditure. It now remains for me to state to the Committee how far that estimate has been verified by the result. We are now not very far from the end of the fourth quarter of the year terminating on the 1st of April next, and the statement I am about to submit for the consideration of the House gives an account of the receipts and expenditure up to the latest period, together with an estimate as accurate as circumstances will permit, and derived from reliable authority, of the probable income and expenditure during the unexpired portion of the current quarter:—

ESTIMATED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1855–6.

Revenue.

Estimated Receipt.

Budget.

Excess.

Deficiency.

£

£

£

£

Customs

…

21,600,000

22,450,000

—

850,000

Excise

…

16,860,000

17,921,000

—

1,061,000

Stamps

…

6,930,000

6,815,000

115,000

—

Taxes

…

2,950,000

2,920,000

30,000

—

Property Tax

…

14,726,000

14,535,000

191,000

—

Post Office

…

1,141,000

1,438,000

—

297,000

Crown Lands

…

260,000

260,000

—

—

Miscellaneous

…

1,100,000

800,000

300,000

—

65,567,000

67,139,000

636,000

2,208,000

Loan

…

15,995,000

16,000,000

—

5,000

Exchequer Bills and Bonds

…

6,977,000

7,000,000

—

23,000

88,539,000

90,139,000

636,000

2,236,000

Deficiency

1,600,000

I will not trespass so far on the attention of the Committee as to enter into a minute statement of all the causes which have led to this deficiency; but a few explanatory observations may not be out of place. With regard to the Customs, the deficiency in that department of revenue is chiefly referable to the article of sugar. Sugar, tea, and coffee were the articles on which there was an increase of duties last year. With respect to the two latter, the result has corresponded as nearly as possible with the estimate; and it does not appear that the additional duty on these articles of foreign and colonial produce has materially diminished the consumption. As far as tea is concerned, the consumption has actually increased; the quantities entered for home consumption during the last three years being respectively as follows—in 1853, 58,860,000lbs.; in 1854, 61,970,000lbs.; in 1855, 63,454,000lbs. The same result is observable in the article of coffee. The great speculation in sugar
1232
arose at the latter end of October and the beginning of November, and was based on the short importations, which, up to the 30th of October, were as follows:—In 1853, 317,000 tons; in 1854, 389,000; in 1855, 281,000; and as the consumption has continued very large, the stocks on hand were reduced to nearly one-half the usual quantity. For the whole year of 1855, as compared with 1853 and 1854, the importations of sugar might be thus stated:—In 1853, 364,000 tons; in 1854, 455,600; in 1855, 367,000. The final deficiency, however, at the close of the year was not so great as it appeared at the end of October. The difference is no doubt chiefly to be attributed to the deficient supply of the article. As for the Excise, the deficiency in that branch of revenue is almost entirely owing to a cause which some Members of the House may not deplore, and which certainly cannot be regarded as a moral evil—the insufficient produce of the duty on spirits. Several

1233
circumstances have tended to bring about this result. One was the large drawback repaid on malt in consequence of a change made last year in the mode of taking the duty on spirits manufactured from malt; secondly the sacrifice of the duty upon certain articles manufactured from spirits; but the main cause was the high price of corn prevalent during the present year. The cost of provisions, cutting as it did into the wages of the working classes, furnishes a complete solution of the deficient result as far as the spirit duty is concerned. Since the 15th of September the average price of corn has not been under 75 s., and for six months it was above 80 s. There is another cause which may have to some extent influenced the price of spirits, and diminished the revenue derivable from that article. This cause is one which has proved beneficial to the distilling trade, and has greatly augmented the demand for barley. A great increase has taken place in the course of last year in the exportation of British spirits which has arisen in consequence of the extensive failure of the wine crops on the Continent. The diminution in the wine produce of the Continent, owing to that heavy failure, has not only diminished the quantity of wine, but also the quantity of brandy, and led to large exportations of British spirits to supply the void thus created, those spirits yielding nothing to the revenue because, being exported from bond to foreign countries, they are of course, subject to no payment of duty. Under the head of stamps there has been an increase, but coincident with that increase, there has also been a loss, as was anticipated in my Estimates of last year, amounting to £220,000, from the remission of the stamp on newspapers. That loss has to a certain extent been compensated by the post

Account of the Payments for Military and Naval Services during the last twenty-two months and a half of the War, compared with, such Payments for a similar period during Peace.

Service.

1853–4

From the 1st of, April, 1853, to the 16th of Feb.,1854

Peace Expenditure in 22½Months.

Army, Militia, and Commissariat

…

…

…

6,415,000

5,664,999

12,079,999

Navy

…

…

…

6,942,769

6,105,596

13,048,365

Ordnance

…

…

…

2,900,000

2,526,591

5,426,591

Votes of Credit

…

…

…

—

—

—

Kafir War

…

…

…

230,000

200,000.

430,000

Total

…

…

…

16,487,769

14,497,186

30,984,955

Office revenue accruing from the stamps on newspapers passing through that establishment without an impressed stamp. Nevertheless, on the whole, the receipts of the Post Office exhibit a diminution. The direct taxes, the property-tax, and the assessed taxes, have, as the Committee will perceive, yielded more than I estimated they would produce. With regard to the excess in the expenditure, the whole of that excess, within £300,000, has been owing to the Supplementary Estimates which have been either voted in the course of the present Session, or which now lie on the table of the House for future consideration. These Supplementary Estimates are as follows:—

1st. Ordnance.—Deficiency in the, amount of the grant for 1855–6

£1,346,023

0

0

2nd. Navy.—Excess of expenditure beyond the grants for1854–5, on the final closing of the account for that year

204,982

1

5

3rd. Army Medals.—Deficiency on the grant for 1856–6

80,000

0

0

Total

£1,631,005

1

5

The total amount of Supplementary Military Estimates either voted or to be voted in the present Session, referring to the current year, is therefore £1,631,005. Now, inasmuch as the Committee may desire to know what precise proportion of this heavy expenditure which it has been my duty to detail to them has been occasioned by the war, I shall now briefly show how much of it would have been incurred in an ordinary year of peace, and also how much is to be set down to the extraordinary cause which has been in operation. I have instituted a comparison, which I think will place clearly before the Committee the increase in our expenditure so far as it has been hitherto paid, which is attributable to the war. This comparison is furnished by the following

Service.

1854–5.

From the 1st of, April, 1855, to the 16th of Feb.,1856.

War Expenditure in 22½Months.

£

£

£

Army, Militia, and Commissariat

…

…

…

8,380,882

14,825,059

23,205,941

Navy

…

…

…

14,490,105

16,799,603

31,289,708

Ordnance

…

…

…

5,450,719

8,902,961

14,353,680

Votes of Credit

…

…

…

1,800,000

3,900,000

5,700,000

Kafir War

…

…

…

—

—

—

Total

…

…

…

30,121,706

44,427,623

74,549,329

—

Increase

43,564,374

Thus it will be seen that the difference between the peace expenditure for twenty-two months and a half preceding the war, and the expenditure for the twenty-two months and a half which the war has lasted—namely, £43,564,374, is, as nearly as can be calculated, the precise sum which the contest has cost the country up to the present day. That sum includes the expenditure for the Army, the Militia, the Commissariat, the Navy, the Ordnance, and all the Votes of Credit granted for those services—in short, it comprises everything that can be reckoned as a, charge of a military character. From the observations that I have now submitted to the Committee, it will appear that we find ourselves at this moment in a financial position something like £4,000,000 sterling less favourable than the one I estimated we should occupy in the last Session of Parliament. The margin which I originally reckoned at. £4,440,000 would, as nearly as possible, be exhausted, and would leave the revenue and the expenditure at the end of the year almost equally balanced, and without any certain reserve or surplus in the Exchequer. The Resolutions winch I shall place in the hands of the Chairman are intended to enable the Government, with the consent of this House, to restore the finances of the country in the present quarter to the position in which they would have stood if the Estimates which I submitted last Session had been verified by the result. That is really all, or little more than all, that I seek to effect by the Resolutions on which the Vote of this Committee is now to be taken. The excess in the expenditure and the deficiency in the revenue leaving a sum of about £4,440,000 to be provided for, I shall lay before the Committee Resolutions for raising a sum of £5,000,000 sterling, which will be an ample supply for the service of the present quarter, and will also yield some surplus,
1236
out of which to meet immediate demands in the ensuing financial year. Sir, the entire sum, which has been already borrowed in the present year, is made up as follows:—the loan, amounting to £16,000,000 Exchequer bills, £6,000,000 and Exchequer bonds, £1,000,000, making together £23,000,000. To that amount will be added, if the present Resolution should receive the assent of the Committee, a further sum of £5,000,000, which will make the total sum raised by loans within this year towards defraying the extraordinary expenditure, £28,000,000. I am well aware, Sir, of the great disadvantages of imposing so large a new burden on the public exchequer as the amount which I have just named, namely, £28,000,000 sterling, but in considering the magnitude of that additional burden we must not allow ourselves to be disheartened. We must not for one moment imagine that, in order to defray the expenses of this costly and gigantic war, we have yet loaded the springs of our national industry with a burden which is at all likely to crush them. We know the apprehensions which have been entertained in former times with regard to the successive additions made to the national debt. These apprehensions have been happily described by a passage in a work which, I have no doubt, most Members of this House have perused with pleasure and with instruction. I allude to Mr. Macaulay's recentlypublished volumes of his History of England, in which he illustrates the origin of our national debt. After showing the unfounded alarms which some of the greatest writers of the last century—persons profoundly versed in the most advanced doctrines of political economy current in their day—entertained on this subject, Mr. Macaulay says—
"A long experience justifies us in believing that England may, in the 20th century, be better able to bear a debt of £1,600,000,000 than she is

1237
at the present time to bear her present load. But be this as it may, those who so confidently predicted that she must sink—first, under a debt of £50,000,000, then under a debt of £80,000,000, then under a debt of £140,000,000, then under a debt of £240,000,000, and lastly, under a debt of £800,000,000, were, beyond all doubt, under a twofold mistake. They greatly overrated the pressure of the burden, they greatly underrated the strength, by which the burden was to be borne."
The circumstances of the country at present clearly show that we shall commit a great error if, in the words of Mr. Macaulay, we "underrate the strength by which this burden is to be borne." I will, with the permission of the Committee, call their attention to a few facts which indicate how little the trade and the general resources of the country have suffered, notwithstanding the great efforts which it has been necessary to make for carrying on the war. I first beg their attention to our exports, which, according to the following comparison, were as follows:—The total value of British and Irish produce was, in the year 1853, £98,933,000; in 1854, £97,184,000; and in 1855, £97,364,000. The value of the principal articles exported to Australia were, in 1854, £11,931,000; and in 1855 £6,279,000. The value of exports to the United States was, in 1854, £21,410,000; and in 1855, £17,312,000. The tonnage entered and cleared, with cargoes at ports in the United Kingdom:—entered, in 1853, 7,797,000 tons; in 1854, 7,890,000 tons; and in 1855, 7,018,000 tons; cleared, in 1853, 7,583,000 tons; in 1854, 7,870,000 tons; and in 1855, 8,348,000 tons. These figures, therefore, show a very slight diminution in the value of our exports since the year 1853, which was a year of unusual speculation both in American and Australian produce. This I decrease in our exports for 1855, as compared with those for 1853, is to be traced not to countries with which our trade would naturally have been affected by the war, but to Australia and the United States. In 1853 the value of the principal articles exported to Australia was £11,931,000; in 1855 it was £6,279,000, showing a large diminution in the Australian trade which can scarcely be attributed to the influence of the war. The value of exports to the United States was, in 1854, £21,410,000, and in 1855, £17,312,000; but this alteration in trade could not either be traceable to the effects of the war. I will now trouble the Committee with an account of the tonnage of the shipping which, during the last three years, has entered
1238
and cleared out of British ports, for that statement will afford an important index of the prosperity of the country. The tonnage entered and cleared with cargoes at ports in the United Kingdom was—in 1853, 7,797,000 tons; in 1854, 7,899,000 tons; and in 1855, 7,018,000 tons, showing a small, but a very small, diminution. There has, however, been an increase in the number of ships cleared out. In 1853, the tonnage of ships cleared out was 7,583,000 tons; in 1854, 7,870,000 tons; and in 1855, 8,348,000 tons. I will now state the number and tonnage of vessels built during the last three years. In 1853, 798 vessels were built, of 203,171 tons; in 1854, 802, of 196,942 tons; and in 1855, 1,098, of 323,200 tons. These statistics—which I will not trouble the Committee by following out in further detail—must, I think, be regarded as proving that, in the words of Her Majesty's Speech at the beginning of the Session, "the resources of the country are unimpaired." In considering the question as to whether the expenditure for the war should be defrayed by a loan or by taxation, the Committee must bear in mind that war expenditure is of necessity, in the language of political economists, unreproductive. From the very necessity of the case such expenditure can produce no durable result, beyond those results of security abroad and general protection to the liberties of Europe, for the sake of which this war was undertaken. But that character of a war expenditure belongs equally to revenues raised by loans and by taxation. If the amount I have mentioned, of more than £43,000,000, could have been raised within a year by taxation, it would equally have been expended in an unreproductive manner, and would have bequeathed no durable benefit to posterity. There would have been the same difference between such expenditure and the expenditure for railways, docks, canals, and other objects of reproductive outlay, whether the war expenditure had been defrayed by a loan or from taxation. Sir, the Resolution, therefore, to which I am about to ask the assent of the Committee will enable the Government to raise the sum of £5,000,000 by a loan. That loan has been arranged upon terms which, I trust, will be considered—looking to the present price of stocks—as not disadvantageous to the nation. The loan has been taken at £90 in Three per Cent Consolidated Annuities, which must be considered,

1239
on the whole, a fair price as between the nation and the subscriber. In addition to the Resolution I have mentioned, I shall also have to submit to the Committee certain Resolutions with respect to the funding of, Exchequer bills. These bills, from various, causes, have not been at a premium—indeed, they have been at a considerable discount—since last autumn. A partial increase of the amount of interest was made upon some bills of ½d., and upon others of ¼d., which produced some result for a time, but which did not permanently bring those bills to par. It therefore became necessary, for the Executive Government to resort to one of two expedients—either to fund a, certain amount of outstanding Exchequer bills, or in the beginning of next month to increase the rate of interest upon the Exchequer bills in circulation. Now, Sir, the process of funding Exchequer bills is simply the conversion of one Government security into another. It is not the creation of new debt, it is merely a commutation of that debt which consists of Exchequer bills into a debt represented by perpetual annuities. The amount of Exchequer bills which it is now proposed to fund is £3,000,000, and if the result of that operation should be to bring the rest of the Exchequer bills to par, it will be found that an advantageous arrangement has been made for the public. I may take this opportunity of stating to the Committee that the total amount of Exchequer bills now outstanding is £23,930,600, the interest being at the rate of 2½d. per diem. Of that amount £6,000,000 are not in the hands of the public, but the amount in the hands of the public may be taken at about £17,000,000, the rate of interest being 2½d. per diem, or equal to £3 16 s. per annum. Assuming that the measure which I am about to submit to the Committee should succeed in raising the £23,000,000 of Exchequer bills which will remain to par, a very considerable saving to the public will be effected as compared with the alternative of raising the rate of interest in March. It might, perhaps, have been possible, by straining the powers of borrowing which are entrusted to the Executive Government, to provide a little time longer for the deficiency of £4,000,000; but the powers of borrowing which Parliament has committed to the Executive Government have been confined within narrow limits by the wise jealousy of former Parliaments. The whole power of borrowing possessed by the Government
1240
is limited to the issue of deficiency bills for charges upon the Consolidated Fund, which must be repaid within the quarter in which they are issued; and also to the issue of what are termed Ways and Means Bills, which are applicable only to Supply services, and which must be paid off in the quarter subsequent to that in which they are issued. Beyond these two powers, which exist by Act of Parliament, the Executive Government is wholly unable to raise a single shilling by borrowing. They cannot issue a single Exchequer bill, nor can they sell a single perpetual annuity without the consent of Parliament. Therefore, however some persons, whose imagination takes fire at the sound of a loan to be raised in the market, may be disposed to blame the limited extent of the present loan, I think upon consideration they will be of opinion that the course which the Government propose to take is, on the whole, a prudent and a politic one. All that I propose to do by the present Resolutions, is to ask the Committee to place the Government in the same financial position in which it would have stood if no extraordinary expenditure had taken place in the present year, and if no extraordinary circumstances had arisen, from the high price of food, and from other contingencies upon which it was impossible to calculate, to diminish the produce of the taxation. If these Resolutions should receive the approbation of the Committee, and afterwards obtain the sanction of Parliament, they will provide ample ways and means for the present quarter, and for the commencement of the ensuing financial year. We shall then be in a position to judge how far the negotiations which are now in progress in a neighbouring country are likely to terminate in a safe and honourable peace. If, happily, they should lead to that issue. Her Majesty's Government will have it in their power deliberately to consider the state of the revenue, to reduce the Estimates submitted to the House, and to consider what expenditure will be required in the following year, and how that expenditure may best be met. If, unhappily, those negotiations should not terminate in so desirable an event as a peace which will cement, in a lasting and solid manner, the interests of Europe, it will then be the duty of the Government to appeal to this House to place them in a position in which they will be enabled to meet the large expenditure for warlike

1241
purposes, and to continue that struggle in which we have been engaged for the last two years. Having submitted this explanation to the Committee, I will now move, Sir, the Resolution which I have placed in your hands, namely—
"That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £5,000,000 be raised by Annuities."
The following are the Resolutions moved by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER in pursuance of the above statement:—
Resolved—
1. "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of five million pounds be raised by Annuities."
Resolved—
2. "That every contributor to the said sum of five million pounds shall, for every £100 contributed and paid, be entitled to the principal sum of £111 2s. 2d. in Annuities after the rate of £3 per centum, to commence from the 5th day of January 1856, and to be added to and made one joint stock with the existing Consolidated £3 per Centum Annuities, and to be payable and transferable at the Bank of England at the same times and in the same manner and subject to the like redemption as the said Consolidated £3 per Centum Annuities."
Resolved—
3. "That the said Annuities so to be payable as aforesaid shall be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Resolved—
4. "That every contributor shall, on the 26th day of February 1856, make a deposit of £10 per centum on such sum as he or she shall choose to subscribe towards raising the said sum of live million pounds, with the chief Cashier or Cashiers of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, as a security for making the subsequent payments on or before the days or times hereinafter mentioned (that is to say):
Payment of

£10 per centum on or before the 3rd March 1856.

£25 per centum on or before the 13th March 1856.

£25 per centum on or before the 29th March 1856.

£15 per centum on or before the 10th April 1856.

£15 per centum on or before the 24th April 1856.

That all monies so to be received by the said Cashier or Cashiers of the said Governor and Company of the Bank of England shall be paid into the account of the Receipt of Her Majesty's Exchequer at the Bank of England, to be applied from time to time to such services for Great Britain and Ireland as have been or shall be voted by this House, or to the redemption of the principal and interest of any Exchequer Bills issued or to be issued under the authority of the Act 57 Geo. III. c. 48, or under the authority of any Act of the last or present Session of Parliament authorising the application of monies out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1856 and of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1857, or to such services as are now charged on the Consolidated
1242
Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or shall be charged thereon by any Act that may be passed hereafter."
Resolved—
5. "That the several persons who have engaged to subscribe towards funding the sum of three millions in Exchequer Bills, dated in the months of December 1854, March, June, and August 1855, and charged on Aids or Supplies, and to make deposits of £10 per centum on the amount of their respective subscriptions on the 26th day of February 1856, shall be entitled, upon the completion of their subscriptions, for every £100 so subscribed in Exchequer Bills (or £100 5s. in money in lien thereof), to £111 2s. 2d. Capital Stock in Consolidated Annuities, bearing interest at the rate of £3 per centum per annum, the said interest to commence from the 5th day of January 1856, and to be payable by half yearly dividends on the 5th day of July and the 5th day of January in every year.
"That the several subscribers shall complete their respective subscriptions at the Bank of England by instalments, in the proportions and at the times undermentioned, (that is to say):
Payment of

£10 per centum on or before the 3rd March 1856.

£20 per centum on or before the 13th March 1856.

£30 per centum on or before the 29th March 1856.

£20 per centum on or before the 10th April 1856.

£10 per centum on or before the 24th April 1856.

"That interest shall be allowed upon the amount of Exchequer Bills deposited with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England for the; first instalment, from the dates of the Bills, up to the 26th day of February 1856, and upon the amount of the Exchequer Bills deposited for each subsequent instalment from the dates of the Bills, up to the day when the same may be delivered to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.
"That all the Exchequer Bills so to be deposited with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, shall be delivered over to the Paymaster General to be cancelled, and that all monies so to be received shall be paid into the account of the Receipt of Her Majesty's Exchequer at the Bank of England, to be applied from time to time in the redemption of the principal of Exchequer Bills charged on the Aids or Supplies, and such Exchequer Bills so redeemed shall be delivered over to the Paymaster General to be cancelled; and further the said monies shall be applied to such services for Great Britain and Ireland as have been, or shall be voted by this House, or to the redemption of the principal and interest of any Exchequer Bills issued, or to be issued under the authority of the Act 57 Geo. III. cap. 48, or under the authority of any Act of the present or the last Session of Parliament, authorising the application of monies out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1856, and of the year ending the 31st day of March 1857, or to such services as are now charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or shall be charged thereon by any Act that may be passed hereafter."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, it was quite clear, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was a bill

1243
which must be paid, and he did not know that the right hon. Gentleman could have resorted to a better mode of payment than that now proposed. He understood that the intended loan related entirely to the expenditure of the financial year, which would end on the 31st of March next, and had nothing to do with the expenditure of the incoming financial year. Now, on the 6th of February, he asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any financial statement before the Estimates were passed. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury replied that such was the state of the finances that there would be no occasion for any statement—an answer which certainly led the House to suppose that there would be no necessity for borrowing money until the usual time of submitting the Budget for the ensuing year. Now, he considered that it was rather unfortunate that such a statement was made, because it gave rise to some misapprehension in the public mind as to the; sum likely to be required for the public service, and nothing was gained by withholding the truth with regard to the amount requisite for meeting the expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that he wanted £5,000,000; in other words, he had reversed his Estimate of August last, having calculated his revenue too high and his expenditure too low. The expenditure had been in round numbers £90,250,000. The revenue had been £65,500,000, the loan 16,000,000, Exchequer bonds and bills £7,000,000 more, making a total of £88,500,000. There was consequently a deficiency of £1,500,000. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer call for a loan of £5,000,000 to meet a deficiency of £1,500,000? That brought him to the I question—was the right hon. Gentleman certain of the expenditure of the financial year ending the 31st of March next? Were all the bills in? It was hardly possible to know what would be the expenditure in the East, and, therefore, it was important to ascertain the data upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that £90,250,000 would be sufficient for the expenditure of the year. The right hon. Gentleman had not clearly stated what was the amount of the unfunded debt. Under the powers of a Bill passed last Session he had issued Exchequer bills and bonds to the extent of
1244
£7,000,000. Now, he should like to know what proportion consisted of bonds? The right hon. Gentleman had been understood to say £1,000,000, but in estimating the unfunded debt bills and bonds must be taken together. The issue of Exchequer bills amounted altogether to £23,000,000; but what was the issue of Exchequer Bonds?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We have issued altogether £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman must add the amount issued at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that period there were three classes of bonds issued payable in future years—1858, 1859, and 1860. Ho referred to these things because it was important to bear in mind what was the precise amount standing against the nation which did not assume the shape of stock, otherwise they might fall into serious error. He estimated that there must be at least £30,000,000 of unfunded debt at the present moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to fund only £3,000,000, which would still leave £20,000,000 of Exchequer bills and a large amount of Exchequer bonds unfunded. The financial question at present before the House was a very simple one. A much more important question would be raised when they came to consider the Ways and Means for next year. Meanwhile, although it was certainly a large operation to borrow £28,000,000 within one year, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted a wise course in not having recourse to additional taxation to meet the extraordinary wants of the year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must state, in reply to the hon. Baronet, that the full amount of Exchequer bills now issued was £23,930,600, of which £6,000,000 were not in the hands of the public. The amount of bills issued since the 21st of August last was £6,000,000, and the amount of bonds issued during last year was £1,000,000. The total amount of bonds issued previously was, he thought, £6,000,000; but the question of funding did not apply to Exchequer bonds.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued to pursue the imprudent course of

1245
raising money by adding to the Three per Cent Consols. Almost the whole of the debt was now in Three per Cents. Now, the interest of that description of stock could not be reduced without twelve months' notice, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer was precluded from taking advantage of a favourable state of the money market to reduce the interest of the debt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, when Finance Minister, made a praiseworthy attempt to effect a change, and would have succeeded had not the war unfortunately broken out before he had time to perfect his scheme. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he ought, had proposed to raise the new lean by receiving one pound sterling for every pound of the debt, he would have had an opportunity of reducing the interest of any portion of it whenever the money market was in a favourable condition. But he was now adding to the debt upon the most unwise principle that could be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly obtained very fair terms, considering the state of the market, but he greatly objected to the contracting of the debt. He thought posterity had not been honestly dealt with, for, while we were only to pay £15,500,000 towards the expenses of the war, we were about to throw a debt of £28,000,000 upon posterity. A day would come when posterity would get tired of paying that debt, and a dangerous day it would be for estates and titles, and he hoped it would not affect even the stability of the Throne. It appeared to him that the present system, if pursued, would be a ruinous one. Mr. Macaulay had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he (Mr. W. Williams) had yet to learn that Mr. Macaulay was a prophet as well as an historian. The money market had been too strong for every Chancellor of the Exchequer except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer might also have triumphed over that powerful interest if he had acted with the same resolution as his predecessors. He protested again most strongly against the addition now being made to the debt.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted a prudent and judicious course; and, as to what the hon. Member for Lambeth had said about Mr.
1246
Macaulay turning prophet, he (Mr. Macgregor) would remind the hon. Member that he had himself indulged in prophecy as to what the effect of the present system would be in respect to posterity.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had obtained money by means of Exchequer bonds at 4¼ per cent, when he might have obtained it by Consols at 3frac14;. The present high rate of interest arose from natural causes, and was, he thought, likely to continue. The discovery of gold, instead of diminishing the valuo of money, had had a contrary tendency, for it had caused large tracts of land to be brought into cultivation, and thereby increased the rate of profit. He believed that no very good opportunity was yet likely to present itself of paying off the debt upon good terms, and the price which the right hon. Gentleman had obtained for his stock proved that the apprehension expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) as to the payment of the debt by posterity was not very widely spread.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I had no intention of troubling the Committee with any remarks, on the present occasion, for I confess I have' very little fault to find with the proceedings of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I wish to make a few observations on some points that have been adverted to on the subject of the Resolutions. I wish, first of all, to set right the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as he was much mistaken in what he stated with reference to the history of Exchequer bonds. In the first place, Exchequer bonds are not a stock at all, and, therefore, a comparison between them and any particular kind of stock is perfectly irrelevant. In the second place, the hon. Gentleman has misapprehended and misstated both the terms upon which it would have been practicable to borrow in Consols when the Exchequer bonds to which he referred were issued, and the terms upon which they were issued. He said they were issued at 4¼ per cent. [Mr. WILKINSON—Some of them were.] None of them were issued at 4¼ per cent, and the average rate at which they were issued was considerably under 4 per cent. He is also completely wrong when he says that we might have borrowed money in Consols at 3¼ per cent. The rate at which we must have borrowed in Consols in April, 1854, was much nearer 3½ than 3¼ per

1247
cent. With regard to the contracting of the loan in Consols, it is a question involving different considerations, which tell in different directions; but considering the limited amount for which my right hon. Friend was about to operate, I cannot find any fault with him for not taking this opportunity to create new stock and to borrow on a new principle. I think his natural course was to deal with that stock which commanded the hest price in the market, and I join with the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me in congratulating him on the fair and equitable price lie has obtained. There are, however, one or two points touched on in the present discussion which I cannot pass by without notice. In doing so, I do not intend to question the correctness of my right hon. Friend's figures, but it is possible that some members of the Committee may go away with a false impression unless something be added to his statement with regard to the expenses of the war. I understood him to state that the Government had borrowed £28,000,000 during the present year; but do not let the Committee suppose that the amount we have borrowed in the present year is the total addition which has been made to the debt, taking the funded and the unfunded debt together, since the commencement of the war. The money we have borrowed is one thing, the stock we have created is another. My right hon. Friend has purchased unfunded securities to a considerable extent with money which he has obtained by the sale of funded securities, but in selling those funded securities in the open market he has created an amount of debt considerably greater than the amount of money he has obtained. It does not admit of dispute that, by the operation of to-night, we are dealing with a plan for raising £5,000,000 of money and funding £3,000,000 of Exchequer bills, but that the amount of debt to be created is nearly £9,000,000 instead of £8,000,000. I am subject here to correction by my right hon. Friend, but, as far as I can run over the figures from recollection, I should think that the present amount of the public engagements, if summed up and compared with their amount twenty-four months ago, represents, as nearly as possible, an increase of debt to the amount of £36,000,000 instead of £28,000,000. I am quite open to correction if I am wrong, but I do not think that I have overstated the case.
1248
Then, with respect to my right hon. Friend's statement as to the expense of the present war, I do not think it calculated to give an entirely just and accurate impression, because he has taken the twenty-two months and a half of war, and has compared them with twenty-two months and a half of peace, as if those months had been months of average expenditure as during peace. But it should be in the recollection of the Committee that the two years immediately preceding the outbreak of war were years in which there had been a considerable increase in I our military establishments, including not an inconsiderable expense on account of the Kafir war, which was an incident not belonging to a state of peace but to a state of war. That, however, is not the point to which I am most anxious to call the attention of the Committee. It is, I apprehend, a fallacy when we reckon the expense of the war, to reckon that which we have actually disbursed, and to: say that, because we have spent only £45,000,000, therefore, that is the cost of the operations of war up to the present time. The fair way to test the question is this:—Suppose the war to cease at the present moment, would that amount of £45,000,000 constitute the whole amount necessary to be paid on account of the war? On the contrary, however vigorous your system of administration, and however excellent your system of accounts may be, there is an immense charge actually incurred, which it is impossible to have got in, but which charge you must disburse in the future, though it belongs to the past, being already incurred. But that is not all. It is a necessary result of every war that, in proportion to the extent of the establishments you create, you should incur great prospective expense in the reduction of those establishments, in the half pay, pensions, compensation allowances, and in ten thousand different forms, connected with a great and sudden expenditure. It is not easy to make any accurate estimate of the expenditure you must make for such reasons, but I very much doubt, supposing war to cease from the present time, whether, before the account should be ultimately closed, it would not be found to be greater by the addition of 50 per cent, or one half more than the sum mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I am not stating these things as bearing on the policy of peace or war, but as bearing on

1249
a dry financial statement; and, as all these things in this country are supposed to be brought to account and presented to the House, it is the duty of Members of the House to make any contribution in their power towards a fair, accurate, and perfectly full statement of the subject. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one criticism on the speech of my right hon. Friend, and that has reference to his quotation from Mr. Macaulay. I would rather have heard Mr. Macaulay quoted in almost any other passage of his wonderful book than in that relating to the National Debt of this country. But if he were to be cited on that particular passage, I would rather have heard him cited in reference to it by any other Member than by my right hon. Friend who holds the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer not to anticipate in this House too great a disinclination to borrow. When my right hon. Friend comes to us to propose loans, let him rely on it, he has no need of citations from Mr. Macaulay. When he comes to impose taxes—to propose some painful and self-denying Resolution, at the hazard, to us, of encountering the displeasure of our constituents—when he should call on us to make vigorous efforts to prevent the contraction of enormous permanent obligations—then let him cite Mr. Macaulay. Let him, I adjure and I implore him, search the pages of that writer and get the most eloquent and best passage he can to wind up the House to a resolution necessary for such a course. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that we must borrow some more money, necessary for the discharge of certain expenses, he has no occasion whatever to consult Mr. Macaulay. My right hon. Friend adverted to another point, in respect to which, though it is not at present under consideration, I must say I cannot quite agree with him, and that was his statement that the wise jealousy of Parliament has greatly curtailed the borrowing powers in the hands of the Government. I am sorry to say, on the contrary, that it appears to me that, instead of a wise jealousy, there has been a very unwise liberality, a great carelessness and neglect on the part of Parliament in intrusting to the Executive Government powers of borrowing by indirect process, such as ought not to be given to any Executive Government whatever. Nor is this a discovery I now make
1250
for the first time, because two years ago I ventured to state this opinion when I held the office of Minister of Finance; and, before I quitted office, I presented to the House a Bill for the purpose of limiting and restraining within what I considered safe bounds these, in my opinion, very unwise powers. I will now conclude with expressing a hope that my right hon. Friend's anxiety in respect to the management of our finances during a time of war, great as it must be, will not prevent him preparing some measure with a view to the reformation of our financial system. If we are blest with an honourable termination of hostilities, I trust my right hon. Friend will apply his mind to that subject, and present some measure to establish better and more effectual safeguards on the borrowing powers of the Executive Government than can be said to exist at present.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he thought that the present loan would entail a smaller charge on the country than if it had been borrowed in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson).
Resolutions agreed to:—to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.
House resumed.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that no explanation had been given of the very large Estimates which had been laid on the table. Great changes had recently been made in the War Department, and he was afraid that no person in the department could exactly state what were the duties of the new offices which had been created. The salaries had been enormously increased, and the duties of the department had been most inefficiently performed. There was great cause to complain of the unintelligible manner in which the Estimates were drawn up. Every thing was jumbled together in the greatest disorder, and he had great doubts whether the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance himself would be able to unravel the confusion. He should, however, reserve his remarks on the details of the Estimates for a future occasion, and confine himself at present to calling the attention of the House to the extravagance of the War

1251
Department. Last year the War Department cost the country £169,260, while the two departments of Secretary of War and Secretary at War, before they were consolidated, only cost £102,244, being an increase in the expense of about £67,000, though the work now was certainly not so well done. For instance, nothing could be more expensive and absurd than the present mode of clothing the British troops. Formerly the clothing of our soldiers was intrusted to a Board, composed of general officers, being colonels of regiments, who were allowed to make a profit on the contracts. But that system, though approved by the Committee of 1833, had been lately abolished in deference to the public voice, which had been loudly raised against it. Last year, the Ordnance directed the commanding officers of regiments to make bargains with the contractors at a price which the Ordnance fixed. Nothing could be more advantageous than that system. The commanding officers were by far the best judges of the quality of the clothing to be supplied to the men, and their interest was the same as the men's, to get the best cloth possible for the money. Of the system which the Government proposed to adopt he must express his condemnation; and he hoped that, if the House did not feel justified in going so far as to concur with him in that censure, it would at least refer the two systems to a Committee. The plan, as far as he could understand it, was to make the Government itself the clothier for the entire army. Now he considered that it was impossible that that plan should succeed; and he feared that great losses might be incurred in the attempt to carry it into operation. In the French army the materials were supplied by the Administration, and the clothes were made up by the soldiers. That system might work well in the case of a large army composed of conscripts, among whom there would probably be a good many tailors, but it could not be acted upon in our much smaller regiments without taking too many men from the fighting portion of the army. He even understood, that the Government intended to go further, and proposed to manufacture the cloth. To do so they must erect manufactories. Taking the strength of our army at 300,000 men, and allowing five yards of cloth per man, it would require 1,500,000 yards per annum to clothe the army. The erection of a manufactory which would turn out fifty
1252
pieces of thirty yards each per week would cost £30,000 or £40,000. The cost, therefore, of erecting manufactories which should make the cloth required for the whole army (for in his statement of the amount required he had not included great coats) would be about £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. What must they do then, how was the army to be clothed? It must be done by contracts, but not according to the system of taking the lowest contract. The proper plan was, to ascertain as nearly as possible what was the real value of the requirements of the army, and to give such a price as would hold out to a respectable tradesman the inducement of a fair profit. The security would then be in the respectability of the contractor, and it did not then matter by whom the contracts were made, although in his opinion the lieutenant-colonels were the proper persons to be charged with that responsibility. He could point out many cases in which evil had arisen from adopting the lowest tender. Not long ago tenders wore received for making trousers for the Land Transport Corps. Several respectable houses in the City tendered to make them at 23 s. per pair; but the tender accepted was one from a party offering to make them for 18 s. The cloth used in the sealed pattern was worth 8s. a yard. That employed in making the trousers sent in by the party who obtained the contract could be purchased for 5s. 10 d. The trousers were made with more seams than there were in the pattern, and the work was very badly done; yet 1,200 pairs were accepted by the Board of Officers, and the Ordnance were now ashamed to issue them. If they were issued, some compensation must be given to the soldier at the expense of the country. He was informed that this contract, even at 18 s. a pair, allowed a profit of 60 per cent to those who took it. On a previous occasion a, question had been asked as to the failure of the saddles and bits supplied to the German Legion. The fault in the case of these articles was not in the patterns, but in the- workmanship. He had had a, saddle of the same pattern made by Mr. Gibson, and nothing had happened to it. The bits were made of cast instead of forged iron, and to this cause, and not to their form, their fragility was to be attributed. The evils of the present system were to be attributed to the absurd and shortsighted policy of the Government in accepting the lowest

1253
tender without regard to the character or competency of the contractor. There should be a total change in the present arrangements regarding contracts, and an inquiry should be instituted by means of a Committee into the principles upon which it would be advisable to conduct such arrangements for the future. Nothing could be much worse than the present state of things with regard to the supplies required for the army. Whether regard were had to the provisioning of the army or to the supplying of gunpowder, or to the furnishing of any of the requirements of a great military establishment, he would not hesitate to say that our operations were carried on in a less satisfactory manner this year than last, when the old system of divided departments prevailed. He had been a Member of the Committee appointed to consider the general subject of firearms, and the particular question of the propriety of erecting a Government manufactory of arms. The Government wanted more money for the purposes of that manufactory than the Committee was willing to give, and the result had completely vindicated the judgment of the Committee. He remembered the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) prophesying at the time that not a single rifle would be made for two years in their manufactory, and the hon. Member was perfectly correct; for if he (Colonel Dunne) moved for a Return tomorrow, he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman could show that it had turned out a single rifle. What was more, he did not believe the whole of the machinery was yet erected, though he admitted much work had been executed there in another way, that was in setting up muskets. In the Estimates he observed the sum of £700,000 for firearms, an amount sufficient to supply 200,000 stand of arms. He should have thought, from the anticipations expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance last year, that ere this there were rifles for the whole of our force, large as it now was. But the militia had them very sparingly, and he was not sure that the several foreign legions in our service were better armed than they. At all events, he was satisfied that the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as to this manufacture had not been realised. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman also whether all the men in the Estimate were actually enlisted. The number was put down at 264,000; and he wanted to know
1254
if we had really all those men under arms. The Estimates represented that we had 20,000 men in the German legions, now he did not believe we had. So with the militia—had we all the men who were mentioned in the Estimates, or was it only intended to enlist them? He saw with regret the number of foreign legions in the service of the Crown, because they were the most expensive troops we could have, whilst they did less service than any other corps. He observed that £778,000 had been laid out upon the German, Swiss, and Italian legions, and he contended that up to that moment we had received no equivalent for that enormous sum of money from anyone or all of those corps, and that should the war end the whole of the money would have been thrown away. For the Turkish Contingent the sum of £475,000 was put down in the Estimates, and he wished to be informed if that was the whole sum that would be required for the force? But the most monstrous item in the Estimates was that for the Land Transport Corps. He found that rather more than £1,250,000 had been laid out on that service, of which not less than £400,000 was for animals; and yet the fact was notorious, that at the time it was most wanted there had been an almost total absence of the means of carrying provisions from the rear to the front of the army before Sobastopol. How far the officers of the staff might have been blamable, inquiry alone would tell; but certainly the main cause of the disasters suffered by the army in the Crimea was the inefficiency of the Land Transport Corps. The army had been sent out without adequate preparations being previously made for supplying it, and the abominable system of contracts, which in a country like Turkey was absurd as well as abominable, was had recourse to. The evils of the present system lay too deep for the mere condemnation or acquittal of individual staff officers to remedy them. Nothing would suffice that fell short of the proper organisation of our army departments at home as well as abroad. Before Lord Raglan went out he (Colonel Dunne) expressed to him his anxiety to go out with the army, but that noble Lord answered him, that if he wished to sec service it was no use for him to go, because there would be not a shot fired. Officers were, however, selected and sent out who were wholly without experience and without any knowledge of the country. The same applied equally with respect to the

1255
huts for the army in the Crimea. The timbers were sent in one direction—the nails and screws in another; and when they reached Balaklava they could not be got to the front, though it was a distance of only seven miles. So far as huts were concerned, however, he would direct attention to those which wore being erected a home; and he believed that the whole system of hutting at Aldershot and the Curragh had been conducted in the most extravagant manner possible, and even without the precaution having been first taken of draining the ground. No one who had visited the barracks in Ireland could have failed to see that the system was one entire blunder from beginning to end. Yet nobody was responsible for it. Now if the House were required to vote large sums of money, and if there was to be administrative reform, they ought, without respect to party, to take those matters into their consideration; and, supposing they could not decide themselves, to refer them to a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the ideas entertained by him and other were right or wrong, whether the expenditure incurred was extravagant or not, ant whether appointments had not been made of men who were utterly unfit for the situations into which they had been thrust. It was his opinion that this last circumstance lay at the bottom of all the disasters we had experienced in the course of the war. We had changed the system of contract, and the result was an extravagant expenditure. We had changed the system of promotion by seniority, and the result was incompetency, with one or two exceptions. Selection had taken the place of seniority. Favouritism had governed the selection, and from one end of the army to the other there was nothing but discontent. These were all matters which demanded searching inquiry, and he therefore begged to move that the Estimates (or at least that portion of them which related to clothing) be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he could not help thinking that the greater part of his hon. and gallant Friend's speech had much better have been delivered in Committee, when the different Votes to which he had alluded would naturally come under consideration. Take, for example, his reference to small arms, which it was quite impossible for him (Mr. Monsell) to follow him in, without anticipating the statement he intended to make in moving a Vote on
1256
the Estimates. With regard to army clothing, he had never heard of anything that was founded more purely on imagination than the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend. The fact was, that the idea had never entered into his (Mr. Monsell's) mind of having a Government establishment for the supply of clothing to the army; and further, he did not believe it had crossed the brain of Sir Thomas Troubridgc, who was at the head of the clothing department, and who, he was satisfied, had too much good sense to have entertained an idea so absurd. But the criticism of his hon. and gallant Friend applied to what had been done under a system that was confessedly incomplete, and rather to parts of the old system which had not yet been altered, than to that which was new. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would not consider that he (Mr. Monsell) was treating his remarks with disrespect; but it was obvious that it would be better to discuss the various points alluded to as they arose on the Votes. He could not, however, allow his hon. and gallant Friend's statement as to the condition of the army in the Crimea, and the selection of officers at the head of that army, to pass without giving it an emphatic contradiction. He was aware of this as a fact within his own knowledge, that every one of the officers at the head of the army had been selected simply and solely, because the Government believed they were the most fitting persons to occupy the position to which they had been appointed, and he had never heard of any action of theirs which would lead him to suppose that the Government had in any way been deceived or disappointed in the selection they had made. He rejoiced to say, that the army in the Crimea was in as good and perfect a state as any army that wd ever gone out from this country to meet an enemy; that it was well clothed, well fed, and well looked after. The most constant attention was paid to the drill of he men, and to practising them in the use if small arms. Everything was done which was desirable and necessary to make the army efficient, and certainly one of the last remarks he should have expected to hear n that House was, that it was either improperly officered or improperly provided.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance in no way answered the complaints of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Dunne),

1257
who had chiefly condemned the evils of the open tender system in relation to Government contracts. That system appeared now to be the rule of the service, any other form of contract being the exception He considered that the open tender system had been pushed to its utmost extent. The Clothing Department might be taken as a type of the system. The model or pattern of a coat was laid before the Clothing-Board, and contractors were invited to send in tenders; but the lowest tender sent in, no matter what might be the position of the man by whom it was made, or whether he was in the trade or not, was accepted. The party who had got the contract then sent in a sample, which was scaled up, and the coats contracted for were made according to that sample, and not according to the original model. The person whoso duty it was to judge of the sample was the deputy Director General of Clothing, who, although a most estimable man in private life, knew nothing, he apprehended, about cloth or clothing. The result was that respectable men would not tender, while others, being aware that the deputy Director General knew nothing about clothing, were ready to tender, and to send in inferior cloth, on the chance of being able to deceive him. Sometimes those deceptions were discovered, and fines and penalties were imposed; but those penalties would not find shoes or clothing for the soldiers, or forage or harness for the cavalry and artillery. Now, what sort of articles were sent out to the Crimea for the use of the troops? They had been described in a recent letter from The Times' correspondent. He was quite ready to admit that, in describing the rnanœuvres of an army, or the details of a battle, The Times' correspondent might be mistaken, or altogether wrong; but he could not conceive how he could make any mistake with respect to stores which came under his own observation, whether at Scutari, at Constantinople, or in London. On the 22nd of January last, The Times' correspondent said—
"The number of pairs of woollen stockings and socks in store is over 200,000. Of course I have not had the opportunity of counting them, but I give the above figures on excellent authority. Those that are being reshipped are only fit for children. They are German goods, and were purchased in all haste last winter by consuls and agents. When they came nobody could get them on, and, as they were extremely short socks, there was no leg into which the men might have thrust their feet. The same deficiency in size was found
1258
in many of the flannel or woven waistcoats sent for the army last winter, and obtained in a similar manner. They were so narrow that the men had to cut them open all down the breast, thus leaving exposed the very part of the body they were chiefly meant to protect. The children's socks are now being sent back to Constantinople, and will, doubtless, have to be sold for a, song, or given to the poor in England, which latter would be the best way of applying this precious Vienna-made hosiery."
He understood that some hon. Gentleman below him (on the Treasury bench) denied the authenticity of this Report. [Mr. G. BERKELEY: No, no!] Well, whether that were so or not, he could also cite the Report of the Commissioners who had been sent out to the Crimea—Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch. They said—
"So long as the men had to pay for their boots and shoes, there was a disinclination to purchase them from the public store on account of their alleged inferiority in quality. Like all articles obtained by contract from the lowest bidder, the workmanship was bad, and totally unfit for endurance in the tenacious soil of the trenches, or for travelling along the muddy roads in which the men were often half-leg deep. It is stated that, even when sufficiently large, they were altogether unsuited to resist the wet, and that the soles frequently came off in a few days. It was not until the arrival of boots coming up to the knee, and of superior materials and workmanship," (not contract boots taken by the lowest tender)" that the condition of the soldier appears to have been materially improved in this respect, or that he was able to do his duty without the discomfort arising from being ill shod in such a soil. Similar complaints were made by the commanding officers regarding the quality and workmanship of the clothing. It is described as extremely spongy in its texture, badly put together, and quite unfit to stand the tear and wear of the tough work of the trenches. Some of the officers who had examined the clothing of the French soldiers stated that it was greatly superior in texture to that which was supplied to the British troops. The experience gained in the Crimea appears to establish the expediency of improving the quality and workmanship of every part of the soldier's clothing. But it would be vain to look for improvement, so long as it is procured from the man who offers it the cheapest, instead of from him who manufactures it of the best quality."
He thought no one would entertain any doubt that a pair of shoes which cost 16 s., and which would last for a month, were infinitely cheaper than a pair which cost 8s., and lasted only for a week; but he did not blame either the present Government, or any preceding Governments, for the mismanagement he had pointed out. He found fault with the system, which imposed no check upon fraudulent proceedings. Now, what check existed upon the contractors for boots and shoes? Why, they had an inspector, who was sometimes

1259
called upon to examine 30,000 or 40,000 pairs of boots or shoes which were required for immediate shipment, and how was it possible that such a duty could be satisfactorily discharged by a single individual? The consequence was, that the examination was not made by the inspector, but the duty was transferred to subordinates, who were open to all sorts of influence. He believed that many articles were passed in consequence of the exercise of such undue influence, and that many articles were rejected because that influence was not employed. He had known cases where articles which had been rejected were afterwards passed under another contract; and there could be no doubt that some of the officers—he would not say the inspectors—were ready to pass goods on the receipt of gratuities. He regretted that he was not present when Mr. Speaker called on him to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, and to which he believed the Government would offer no objection, and he had rather availed himself of that opportunity to show the reasons why that Committee should be appointed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to remind hon. Gentlemen of the inconvenience of the course they were now pursuing. The Motion before the House was, that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on the Army Estimates; when his right hon. Friend who submitted those Estimates to the Committee would have the opportunity of fully explaining their details, and of speaking as often as might be necessary in order to meet and answer the various observations and objections which might be made by hon. Members in the course of the discussion. If, instead of allowing the House to go into Committee, hon. Gentlemen would enter into a detailed discussion which properly belonged to Committees, those who filled the position of his right hon. Friend were placed in a very inconvenient situation, for after having once replied to one hon. Member they had to be silent during the rest of the evening, and were thus totally unable to give that information in order to obtain which the House was asked to go into Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Dunne) made a long speech, touching upon a great number of topics upon which it was quite fitting that information should be afforded him; but, if his right hon.
1260
Friend (Mr. Monsell) now gave answers to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he would only anticipate the statement he was prepared to make if the House went into Committee. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had made a parenthetical speech that he had intended to make in moving for a Committee, which the Government had expressed their readiness to grant. He had received a communication from his hon. Friend to the effect that if his health compelled him to leave the House before the time came for his Motion, he would get some Friend to move it, on the understanding that it was not to be opposed. If it were inconvenient that Gentlemen should discuss the details of the Army Estimates on the Motion for going into Committee, how much more inconvenient was it for his hon. Friend (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) after his right hon. Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance had spoken, and could not, therefore, say another word, to make a speech which he had intended to make upon moving for a Committee upon army contracts. With regard to the subject of his hon. Friend's speech, he would confine himself to one observation. It was very remarkable and curious how opinions vibrated and oscillated in that House from time to time in entirely opposite directions. He had now been a long time in Parliament, and if there was one thing which he had more earnestly and frequently recommended to successive Governments than another, it was that all supplies should he obtained by open tender and contract. There was nothing more frequently urged by the late Mr. Hume, whom they all regretted, than that that was the only way of obtaining good and cheap things. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. L. Ricardo), however, appeared to be of a different opinion. But the instances quoted by his hon. Friend in which the supplies were not good in their kind, and were much too dear, occurred a year and a half ago, in the winter of 1854–55, and were all cases in which things had been obtained upon a sudden emergency, and not by contract. They were ordered from Vienna, in consequence of the calamity of a storm which destroyed the stores which had been sent out, and which it was urgently necessary to replace at any cost, anyhow. The clothing which his hon. Friend said was so bad was not provided under the present arrangement, but was, for aught he knew, furnished by the colonels, according to the system which then

1261
prevailed. At all events, those instances were not applicable as proofs that the present system, which began in June last, was a bad one. He had, perhaps, followed the example he had deprecated; but he put it to the House whether it would not be more convenient to go into Committee, and allow his right hon. Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance to give a full explanation upon all points with respect to which it might be demanded.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he thought the discussion had arisen in consequence of a misconception of the statement of the noble Lord in the early part of the evening. He understood the noble Lord to say he only intended to take a Vote on account, and not to go through the Estimates.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Pardon me. What I said was this. My hon, and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans) seemed to think that this was the last occasion upon which he would be able to call the attention of the House to the Estimates; and I told him we were going to take Votes on account, and it would be competent for every hon. Member to discuss the question to which these Votes related, but, as we should again be compelled to come to the House for Supplemental Votes, another opportunity would be given for the discussion of the Estimates.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that further proceedings on the subject wore likely to be more supplementary than complimentary to the Government. The Estimates proposed on this occasion were three times the ordinary bulk; they involved an expenditure equal to £35,000,000; they were, moreover, constructed on a now form; and yet the House was called on to discuss them without having had the time to read them—within thirty-six hours, in fact, of their being delivered to Members. That was sharp practice on the part of the Government, he had no hesitation in saying. It was no use to appeal to the House, for the leaders of the Opposition had abandoned their post; but he would appeal to the Treasury bench and to the country against such unseemly haste. He would say distinctly, that there was a totally new arrangement of the military expenditure of the country. From the cursory view he had had of the Estimates, he could not see how, in thirty-six hours any one could examine into the mode of expending some £35,000,000; he could not so soon understand the system which was now adopted; and he did not believe that
1262
any one could, except Members of the Government. He would say, again, that it was very sharp practice—to bring on the Estimates only thirty-six hours after they had been circulated among the Members—and was a course he was sure the country would not approve. It was no use to bring any question to a Vote; for if the noble Lord asked for £20,000,000 more, the House would give it, for there was no leading Member of the Opposition present. [Colonel DUNNE here came down from the back seats, and took his place in the front row.] He begged the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), which had been given to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne), was not at all satisfactory. Was that all the statement that was to be made on the part of the Government? What opportunity would there be for a discussion on the administration of the army during the war if the Government was now allowed to go into Committee? This was a most important occasion. It was doubtful whether the Estimates were for war or for peace; and they were brought in on a new plan, the Army and Ordnance Estimates being for the first time taken together, and they were to be brought forward by a right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, who up to a recent period knew nothing whatever about the Army or the Ordnance, and he was to dictate to the House on those subjects. He thought that when he appealed to the noble Lord to give two or three days for the consideration of those Estimates he ought to have answered otherwise than he did. He (Sir De L. Evans) considered that he ought to know something of those matters, and if he made any observations on the Estimates which were inefficient he must be excused, as he had not had time to make himself acquainted with them. If it was thought inconvenient for him to go into the general question of the administration of the army before the House went into Committee, he would not say a word, but he protested against these Estimates, important as they were—the most important that had been brought forward for forty years—being brought on for consideration only thirty-six hours after they had been delivered to Members.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the Estimates were very voluminous, and had only been delivered recently, so that he had not had time to read them. He did did not object to passing Estimates required

1263
for carrying on the war, but there were many Votes unconnected with the war which the House ought to have time to consider. He was inclined to move the postponement of the Committee till Monday next.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had very justly observed that in former years great stress had been laid on the system of tender; and he (Mr. Muntz) admitted the system of tender afforded very good means of obtaining goods advantageously, but then the goods supplied ought to be strictly examined by persons competent for the duty.
COLONEL SOMERSETsaid, he had seen the clothing of soldiers for the last twenty years, and all he could say was that it was not possible for anything to be worse than the clothing of the private soldiers at the present time. He could bear testimony to the goodness of the articles furnished to the regiment to which he belonged. Mr. Isaacs had been in the habit for a number of years of serving the regiment he had the honour to belong to with articles of necessity, not clothing, and had done so in the most satisfactory way. He understood that Mr. Isaacs had also supplied 40,000 suits of clothing during the last year, and that none of the suits had been returned by the persons to whom they were supplied. He thought it most unfair on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to assert that the officers holding command in the Crimea were totally incompetent. [Colonel DUNNE denied that he had said so.] Another remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was equally ill-founded, to the effect that Lord Raglan had chosen the staff entirely in the idea that they would not hear a shot fired. Lord Raglan could not have made that observation in respect to the staff, because he knew that they would rather be fired at than not.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had entirely misunderstood him. He said that there had been a system of selection instead of the system of seniority, and he certainly added that he did not think that there was so much incompetency in former years. He, however, observed that there were exceptions, such as his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir De L. Evans) and others. He had never made the slightest accusation against Lord Raglan, but merely repeated what that noble Lord said, that he (Colonel Dunne), if he went to the Crimea with him, would not see a shot fired.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to say a few words on the question of open contracts, which he thought a good system if it was coupled with an adequate system of inspection. He had peculiar opportunities of ascertaining that abuses existed in the present system. He had always held the opinion that the Government establishments could not compete with private establishments if they were well managed; and he had always heard with grief and annoyance observations made in that House tending to a preference for private establishments, when he believed that those of the Government were quite equal to what was required. Government supplies should be thrown open to contract, with a special provision for accurate inspection. He was most desirous to see some such system introduced into the public service. He did not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Ricardo) that competition should be confined to respectable manufacturers, because the word "respectable" was open to misrepresentation. It was, however, the duty of the parties who held the patterns to see that every article was properly examined hymen of integrity. An officer had just been appointed to make contracts, but there was no officer to sec that they were fairly executed. The officers were anxious to do their duty, but not being practical men they were deceived and imposed on in the grossest manner. Last year some waggons were built to be sent out to the Land Transport Corps. They were very beautiful to look at, and were highly praised by every person who saw them; but when tried, they proved useless and inefficient and utterly failed. The Report on the state of the Army showed the lamentable results of the inefficient supply of boots and shoes; articles were sent out that would not wear a week. Whoso fault was it? It was the fault of the inspector, whose duty it was to examine them. If the contractors knew there was an honest and efficient person to examine the supplies, there would be no more tenders at insufficient prices. He would not dwell further on those points, but wait until the details came before them in the Estimates.
MR. SPOONERsaid, they were proceeding in a most inconvenient course, as they were wholly departing from the question, which was, whether the House was in a fit state to go into the details of the important Votes to be brought before them. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) said

1265
Government only proposed to take a Vote on account, and that the House might at a future time discuss the expediency or amount of it. But he considered, if the House agreed to a preliminary Vote, the House would be precluded hereafter from questioning the Vote either on principle or detail. It would be much more satisfactory to adjourn the consideration of the subject until they could come to it with more satisfaction. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir De L. Evans) that these were peculiar Estimates, and that it was sharp practice to vote them at so short a notice.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could not understand why the hon. Member could object to a Vote upon account, or think himself precluded thereby from future discussion.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that he had said no such thing, He would point out the first Vote on the paper, which involved a pledge which could not be revoked.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman had given the subject a moment's consideration he would see the incorrectness of his opinion, that, by giving a Vote on account they were precluded from afterwards going into the details. He would only remind the House of what had taken place with regard to the Navy Estimates. He had asked the House to vote 76,000 men for three months, and, of course, he must come for another vote for whatever number would be required for the remaining nine months; instead of £3,500,000 he had only taken £2,000,000 on account, and the whole details of the Navy Estimates would have to come again before the House when he asked for the Supplemental Vote. Nothing could be more inconvenient than what had taken place for the last two hours. Hon. Gentlemen got up and made objection to details, and complained that the Estimates were obscure, not reflecting that by preventing the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance from making his statement they were depriving themselves of the explanation they desired. He hoped that as two or three hours had been already wasted no further interruption would be offered to the public business.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he proposed, in the first instance, to submit to the House four Votes on account of expenditure incurred
1266
in the Ordnance Department, which had not already been voted by Parliament. The first item was £294,154. Of this sum £65,373 was for barrack supplies. This had been expended partly on supplies for hospitals—among them were some cork beds, which had been found exceedingly useful. £91,077 was for boots and shoes, the demand for which had been greatly increased, beyond the regular quantities, by our having to provide them for the Turkish Contingent as well as for the rest of our army. The sum of £137,704 was for warm clothing, an addition to £120,000 already voted. This had been needed in order to supply all the demands made by the Quartermaster General in the Crimea. Most of the other items were for expenditure rendered necessary by the preparations for the great mortar equipment which was being sent to Sebastopol just at the time of its fall; and by those which had been made for fitting out the Baltic fleet at the present time. When he informed the Committee that the expenses of the portion of that equipment to be supplied by the War Department amounted to about £530,000, they would see that the Supplemental Estimate of £23,000 for wages for the carriage department, £11,000 for the Royal laboratory, £5,000 for the gun factories, £4,000 for the storekeeper's department, and also £200,000 for miscellaneous stores for the manufacturing department, were at once accounted for. There was, however, one item of those Supplemental Estimates to which, as it had been referred to in the course of the discussion which took place before Mr. Speaker left the Chair, he would direct the attention of the House. That was a sum of £15,000 for wages at the Tower. It was quite true that during a considerable part of last year the arrangements for the inspection of articles received at the Tower were most unsatisfactory. All the passages were crowded up with goods of various descriptions. To remedy this great inconvenience, the Government took a considerable amount of accommodation at the London Docks, and absolutely prohibited the reception of additional articles at the Tower; all the hands at that establishment being thenceforward employed in the arrangement of the articles already received. The result was, that at present the storehouses at the Tower were in a very satisfactory state. Within a short period the whole system of inspection there had been altered. Some persons

1267
had been, and others were to be, selected, who had special knowledge of the articles which they were to inspect. He therefore hoped that all causes of complaint would be removed, and that in future the system would give entire satisfaction to the public. While it was right to insist on fining contractors who did not deliver goods in proper time, it was impossible for that to be done, so long as obstacles were placed in their way by delays in the inspection of goods delivered. The next item referred to the expenses for the Land Transport Service. The sum required was £40,144. The greater part of that sum, about £37,000, was for carts for the Crimea, for which there had been a great demand. Hon. Gentlemen had complained that these carts and wag-gons had not turned out so well as they ought to have done. The fact was, that orders were given that the carts should be made not to exceed a certain weight, and he had been informed by the able officer who presided over the Carriage Department that they had been as strong as it was possible to make them in accordance with those instructions. Some of the axles which had been complained of had been sent from the Crimea to Woolwich, where they had been tested up to four times the weight that they were intended to carry, and had answered perfectly. The reason of the failure was obvious, those carts were, on account of their exceeding lightness, not adapted to the rugged paths over which they had to pass in the Crimea, and he thought that, in future, it would be necessary to sacrifice lightness to an increase of strength. The item of £26,000 for machinery for the Royal laboratory was one of considerable importance. Last year he (Mr. Monsell) stated that a small shell foundry was about to be established, and he anticipated that the public service would be greatly promoted by the increased facility of obtaining shells, and that there would be a great saving in their cost compared with the price paid to contractors. Those anticipations, he was glad to inform the Committee, had been completely realized. Shells, for which the price paid to con tractors was £11 15 s. per ton, had been produced at the Royal Arsenal under the direction of Captain Boxer, the inventor of the machinery, at a cost of only £6 6s. 8d. per ton, including a fair charge for the deterioration of plant and for the interest of the money spent on the
1268
erection of the building. These facts were brought before him in an able paper by Captain Boxer, who recommended that a foundry should be erected which would produce shells as fast as they could be bushed and their fuses supplied by the Royal laboratory. That paper was submitted to his noble Friend at the head of the Government and to his noble Friend the Secretary for War. It had been carefully considered by them, and it had been resolved by the Government that the foundry should at once be erected. The £26,000 now asked for was a portion of the sum of £55,000 which the foundry would cost. That sum was in course of being expended, and would be spent by the 31st of March. He hoped that the saving in the cost of shells would to a considerable extent reimburse the country for the expenditure; and, he was certain, that there could be few things more important than to have the means of producing at a moment's notice a large quantity of a species of ammunition which every day's experience showed to be of such great importance in modern warfare. He therefore was convinced that the Government had acted rightly in commencing the erection of the enlarged foundry.
The next item was £1,268 for the payment of the Select Committee at Woolwich—a sum which, regard being had to the fact that no fewer than 1,200 inventions had been brought under their consideration in the course of the past year, would scarcely, he thought, be deemed exorbitant. Then came a Vote of £1,100 for the Board appointed to examine candidates for admission into the Artillery and the corps of Engineers. That expenditure had been rendered necessary by the substitution at the Royal Academy of Woolwich of a system of open competition, for the plan of patronage heretofore prevalent. The latter practice had been completely abolished, and any person of the proper age and properly recommended could now offer himself as a candidate for a cadetship in the Royal Artillery or the Royal Engineers. The examinations were conducted under the superintendence of Professor Mosely and a staff of examiners, who had displayed much learning, skill, and ingenuity in the difficult task of constructing a new system. The result had proved most satisfactory; they had received the best possible accounts from Colonel Portlock and the other authorities at Woolwich, of the conduct of these young men, and their proficiency in

1269
the different branches to which they had since applied themselves. They had also shown remarkable skill in those other preparations for military service which some gentlemen thought young men chosen in that way would not be well adapted for; experience showed that they possessed not only intelligence, but military bearing. He would now pass from the Supplemental Estimates.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that the Government intended to maintain, on a satisfactory footing, the establishment at Shoeburyness.
MR. MONSELL: Assuredly. That establishment was one of very great importance, and, in fact, the only place at the disposal of the Government for making experiments with heavy ordnance. The experiments made there during the present year had been attended with the most interesting results—results, however, which as yet had less relation to the introduction of new inventions than to the detection of certain fallacies which had taken possession of the public mind with respect to particular kinds of guns and projectiles, As a place of practice range the establishment was of the utmost utility, and the Government intended to keep it in the best possible condition.
He would now enter upon the Army Estimates for the present year, he did not think that they would be difficult of comprehension to any man having a practical knowledge of such matters. Many of the Votes wore not at all changed, and the mode in which others were blended together was clearly explained in a table in which the different services of Ordnance, Commissariat, and Army were lucidly arranged. In submitting the Estimates in the form in which they were now presented, the Government had but carried out the suggestions of the Committee of 1837, who recommended that the Votes for all branches of the service should be placed before the House of Commons at the same time, so that the House might see at a glance the military expenditure for the year. This could now be done; but it was not practicable until the whole of the civil departments of the army had been placed under one head. At the same time that those departments were placed under the absolute and undivided control of a Secretary of State there were removed from the War Department certain duties not properly belonging to it. Formerly the Commissariat had under its charge not only the duty
1270
of providing food for the army, but also that of "raising, upholding, and outlaying" certain funds required for the military and other services. Those duties were now thrown upon the Treasury, to which, as the financial department of the country, they properly belonged, and the principal duty of the Commissariat now was to provide food for the army. The present Estimates, though largo as compared with those to which we were accustomed in time of peace, were light as contrasted with those of the last three years of the last war. In 1813 the expenditure for Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat, was £36,245,238; in 1814 it was £49,482,911; in 1815, £49,562,269—an expenditure considerably in excess of the Votes now submitted. The first Vote he had to propose was for 246,716 men, which showed an increase of 30,378 men over last year. Before proceeding to explain it, however, he would take leave to say a few words on the present condition of the army serving in the Crimea. Of their heroic fortitude, gallant service, or bravery, it was unnecessary to speak, but he might be allowed to express, in passing, with what pleasure he had learnt that it was intended to give to the new Order of Valour a retrospective operation, so that all who during the last campaign had fulfilled the prescribed conditions would be eligible to be enrolled among its members. And first he would beg to call the attention of the Commitee to the state of the health of the army. A return of the admissions into hospital during the months of September, October, and November, in the Crimea and at home, showed that—
"During the month of September, 1855, the admissions into hospital from the army in the Crimea amounted to 12·59 per cent of the force, whereas the army serving at home furnished only 10·40 per cent, a difference of 2·19 per cent. The deaths during the same month amounted to 0·36 per cent and 0·10 per cent respectively of the force serving in the Crimea and at home, a higher rate of mortality by 0·26 per cent in the former than in the latter. During October the admissions to hospital amounted to 10·07 per cent and 9·66 per cent of the force serving in the Crimea and at home respectively, a difference of 0·31. The deaths in the army serving in the Crimea and that at home amounted respectively to 0·33 per cent, and 0·08 per cent, a higher rate of mortality of the former than of the latter by 0·25 per cent. During November the hospital admissions of the army in the Crimea amounted to 10·23 per cent of the force, and 8·95 per cent of that serving in Great Britain and Ireland, a difference of 1·28 per cent. The deaths amounted to 0·51 per cent and 3·07 per cent respectively of the troops serving in the Crimea and at home, a

1271
difference of 0·44. The high rate of mortality of the army in the Crimea during this month is to be attributed to the prevalence of cholera at Scutari.—Army and Ordnance Medical Department, Jan. 24."
When it was recollected that the army in the Crimea consisted of men, a large part of whom had undergone considerable labours and privations, it could not but he satisfactory to the Committee to learn that the general health of that army was almost equal to that of the troops in this country, and even superior to that of the troops on foreign stations for a period of twenty years anterior to the year 1836. Great care and attention had been paid to the food and the clothing of that army; but it should not be forgotten that a debt of gratitude was due to Dr. Sutherland, Dr. Gavin, and Mr. Rawlinson, who went out to the Crimea as Commissioners last spring, and, by the admirable sanitary arrangements they devised for the camps, helped materially to ward off sickness and disease from the troops. A general impression prevailed that a great proportion of the recruits sent to the East were mere boys below the age of eighteen. That opinion, however, was certainly not borne out by facts, as a return which he held in his hand would show—

"AGES OF THE ARMY.

When the War began.

Now in the Crimea.

Under 18 years

576

499

From 18 to 30

11,922

13,201

From 30 to 40

3,455

2,437

Above 40

159

15

Total

16,112

16,152

"Ages of 10,268 men sent to the Crimea between April and October, 1855:—

"AGES BY YEARS.

Under 18 years

162

From 18 to 21

5,318

From 21 to 24

2,822

From 24 to 30

2,244

Above 30

412

Total

10,958

Another return, giving the actual ages of the soldiers now in the Crimea, and the ages of the army when the war began, contained evidence to the same effect. The next point to which he would refer related to crime. No doubt, immediately after the fall of Sebastopol a considerable amount of drunkenness, perhaps not altogether unnaturally, prevailed; but recent reports received from General Codrington showed that that vice had now greatly abated; and the last accounts stated that only about one man out of a company of 100
1272
men was brought up every second day for insobriety. The report as to admirable order and discipline of the corps of 14,000 men in the Bosphorus under General Storks, and also as to the excellent condition of the foreign legion at Kululee, were highly satisfactory. Perhaps the Committee would not deem it irrelevant in him to point out the changes that had been made during the past year to promote the comfort and well being of the soldier. In the first place, the bounty money received by him on enlistment, though fixed at a proportionably lower rate, was now paid without any deductions. Under the old system every recruit used to commence his military career with an unpleasant feeling that, in regard to the money taken from him for his "kit," the public had what was called "done him." That cause of scandal had now, however, been removed. The same was also the case with respect to the sum annually abstracted from the pocket of the soldier in the shape of canteen rent. Formerly the canteen keepers were required to pay a certain sum over and above the fair rent of the house they hired, and calculated at so much extra per 100 men. That sum, he need not say, the canteen keepers knew how to reimburse themselves, with good interest, out of the poor soldier's pocket. Canteens would be henceforward let simply at the rent which they were worth as shops, and thereby a pecuniary boon of £20,000 per annum would be accorded to the army.
An avenue to advancement had also been opened to retired non-commissioned officers of the Artillery, and of the Sappers and Miners, who, by a general order, had been made eligible for appointment under certain conditions, for a considerable number of Government clerkships at Woolwich. He hoped to see the same system extended in regard to other clerkships, to the rest of the army in the course of the year. Such a measure, by holding out to the deserving soldier something to which he might aspire after he quitted the service, would doubtless operate as an excellent incentive to good conduct in the army. In the next place, the Government might take credit for the extra sixpence per day which they bad allowed to the troops in the Crimea. To those who thought that liberality but a doubtful advantage, he might mention that Returns showed that since it had been granted increased sums had been sent home by the soldiers in the East, both for the

1273
use of their friends in this country, and to be deposited here in the savings banks in their own names. Moreover, those soldiers who used to linger about the hospitals at the Bosphorus now manifested an eagerness to go to the Crimea to secure the extra pay; and for the same reason, the position of an officer's servant at Constantinople, which used to be much coveted by the troops, was no longer popular. The pay and the status of medical men in the army were also about to be raised; but the warrant on that subject not having yet been issued, he would reserve his observations upon it till the measure had been finally completed. Another important advantage had been conferred on the soldier by the establishment of a Medical Staff Corps—a step which had been followed by the best possible results. That corps was composed of ten companies of 120 men each. A few members of that body might not have been very well chosen at first; but latterly the selections had been made with the greatest care. One company of these men, besides a reserve, were attached to a hospital, having charge of 500 patients. They also acted as servants for the surgeons; and the great improvements effected in our hospitals in the East had been materially promoted to the admirable organisation of this valuable corps. He wished also to say a word with reference to the civil hospital established at Renkioi, when great sickness and mortality existed among our troops. It was, in the first instance, intended that 3,000 beds should be made up in that hospital, hut at present 1,000 beds were provided, and the number of inmates as patients was 250. It appeared from the monthly Reports, which had been forwarded to the Government, that the hospital buildings were found perfectly suitable for the purpose to which they were applied, that there was an abundant supply of water, that animal and vegetable food was abundant, and that during a period of seven months not a single casualty from death or invaliding had occurred throughout the whole of the hospital staff.
He would now proceed to direct the attention of the Committee to the separate Votes. The number of men of all classes proposed to be voted for this year was 246,716, being an excess of 30,378 men over the vote of last year. Of that number 224,997 were British troops, and 21,719 comprised the foreign corps. The number of British troops employed in India last year was 29,629; this year it would
1274
be 26,363, the decrease having been, occasioned by the withdrawal of two regiments of cavalry and two of infantry. The increase in the number of troops was occasioned, in the first instance, by two cavalry regiments, numbering 1,460 men, having been brought from India, and to the augmented establishments of nine other cavalry regiments to the extent of 2,924 men. The artillery force would also be augmented by additions to the horse artillery, and by the addition of 4,000 men to the infantry artillery. He thought that addition to the artillery was of great importance, and he wished to explain to the Committee that, in order to provide to some extent for this augmentation, 2,000 men had been deducted from the non-effective men of the line for the purpose of adding that number to the artillery. The Secretary of State for War had taken that course because he considered it of the greatest importance to mark his opinion, that the relative numbers of the artillery, as compared with the other descriptions of troops in our army, should be increased. The experience of the last year had shown the importance of increasing the strength of that branch of the army, for it was known that, especially when the bombardment of Sehastopol on a more extensive scale was contemplated, great difficulty was found in obtaining a sufficient number of artillerymen, and men in that department of the service could not be rendered efficient so speedily as other descriptions of troops. The next increase to which he had to call the attention of the Committee was also of great importance—1,192 men were to be added to the Sappers and Miners, and a warrant was to be issued very soon which would constitute that corps part of the Engineer corps. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that, in addition to the difficulty which was, in the first instance, experienced by our army in the Crimea from the want of a Land Transport Corps, great inconvenience also arose from the want of a sufficient number of military workmen. It was, consequently, found necessary to form a civil corps, which was called the Army Works Corps. It was now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase considerably the number of military workmen, or Sappers and Miners, and to give great prominence to that branch of the service. The men, were to be stationed at Chatham—the headquarters of the force—in sufficient numbers to enable them to receive a proper training, and bodies of them would also be employed

1275
in. the camps at Aldershot and the Curragh. The next increase arose in consequence of the augmentation of two infantry regiments from India, from the number of 1,200 men each, to the Crimean strength of 2,000; and also from sundry small additions to regiments. The Medical Staff Corps, numbering 1,202 men, consisting of cooks and stewards, were employed most efficiently in the various hospitals. Last year only 14,950 men were voted for the British Foreign Corps, but this year the number was 21,719 men. There were at present about 11,000 men enlisted in the German and Swiss Legions, and about 2,500 in the Italian Legion, and he might state that he had received the most satisfactory accounts with regard to the class of men who were being enlisted in Italy, and the creditable manner in which they conducted themselves. The Government were also informed that the German Legion, whether at home or on the Bosphorus, had behaved most satisfactorily, and the utmost confidence was reposed in them by their officers, who did not doubt that they would fully support the reputation earned by the old German Legion during the late war.
The next item of increase was 9,020 men for the Land Transport Corps. There were about 7,000 Europeans attached to that corps already in the Crimea, and steps had lately been taken by General Codrington, in connection with Lord Hardinge, to organise the corps upon a different footing, giving it a more military character, and placing it under the management and control of the generals of division. It would be very unjust if he were not to take that opportunity of acknowledging the very important services which had, under great difficulties, been rendered by that corps, under the direction of Colonel M'Murdo, to the army in the Crimea during the last year. Colonel M'Murdo had to organise entirely a new corps; he had the greatest difficulty in obtaining proper drivers and men who would be amenable to discipline; but he persevered in his exertions, and he (Mr. Monsell) believed not a day elapsed on which shot, shell, powder, and all ammunition necessary for carrying on the siege were not conveyed to the front. The next Vote was for the increase in the amount of staff pay over that for last year. The charge for the camp at Alder-shot was £2,909; that for the camp at the Curragh was £2,286. The increase for
1276
the medical staff was chiefly occasioned by the camps which had been established, and by the preparations for sending out a large force if it should be necessary to do so. There had also been an increase in the Ionian Islands, in Malta, Heligoland, and I other places, but the principal increase had taken place in the army in the field. In the general staff there had been an increase of £16,123; in the Commissariat, £17,244; in the medical staff, £16,977; servants' allowances to staff officers, under a regulation introduced for the first time this year, £57,000; and staff attached to foreign troops, £20,721. That increase was accounted for by the extended nature of our operations in the field. The next item was the levying money of recruits, in which there was a decrease of £121,180. But that decrease was only apparent, as it arose from the new rule with regard to bounty, and the amount apparently deducted would be found in another Vote. The next item was £443,028 for the Land Transport Corps, and it was accounted for by the fact that the European part of the corps had been quadrupled since last year, and now consisted of 9,000 men. The number of horses belonging to the corps was 24,000. There were upwards of 14,000 natives attached to the corps, but it was intended to reduce their number and to use them chiefly at the depôts in reserve. Colonel M'Murdo, whose opinion, from his ability and experience, was of great weight, had told him that, although it was necessary that the body of the corps should consist of trained European soldiers, it would he impossible for it to conduct its operations without the assistance of natives. The next item was £300,000 for the Turkish Contingent. No detail was given as to this item, because no accurate information could be obtained with regard to it, and they had, therefore, put down the best approximation to the possible cost at which they had been able to arrive. The number of men was 29,000, and the pay of the Turkish rank and file was about £4 per annum. The next item was an increase of £81,204 for field allowances, and £639,000 for the charge of the additional 6d. a day in the Crimea, to which he had already adverted. The next item was for the purchase of horses, £351,811. There were 16,000 animals for the Land Transport Corps at £25 each, and 2,000 for the Turkish Contingent at £40 each, but a deduction must be made for the decrease which had

1277
taken place in the cavalry and the line. Having now accounted for the excesses of the Estimate for the present year over that for last year he would proceed to the militia. They required for the militia last year the sum of £3,435,728, and the amount now asked for was £3,150,129. The strength of the militia last year was 38,520; its present strength was 66,317. For the forty-nine disembodied regiments of English militia in January, 1855, the number of soldiers called out was 22,845. The number of volunteers of the seventeen regiments who still remained disembodied in January, 1856, was 3,286. The Irish and Scotch regiments had not been trained until they were embodied. There were only twenty militiamen now billeted in Ireland, about 7,000 in England, and about 2,500 in Scotland. Barrack accommodation to the extent of 45,000 men and 3,000 horses had been erected during the last year. In a month or two he hoped there would be accommodation for 5,000 or 6,000 men more. Ten militia regiments had been sent on foreign service, and fifteen English regiments had been sent to Ireland, and twelve sent from Ireland to England. The number of volunteers who had gone over to the line between the 20th of November, 1854, and the 31st of December, 1855, was 22,014, and since December, 1855, to the present time, 4,830. With respect to the volunteer corps he would make no remark at all, as they caused no expense in the Estimates over the amount charged last year.
The next item to which he would refer was that for the Army Works Corps. He had already adverted to the necessity which existed for establishing this corps on account of the absence of a, sufficient number of military workmen. An hon. Friend of his in that House had been good enough to transmit to him an account of the valuable services which the corps had performed for the army during the last year. There could be no doubt that without the existence of that corps the greatest possible difficulty would have been felt in respect to making the roads and the railway, and getting up the huts. The conduct of the men generally had been exceedingly good, and great credit was due to the gentleman who had managed it for the manner in which he had conducted its affairs. Though he wished as much as any person could that a portion of the Army Works Corps should be supplied by trained military workmen, still he did not think
1278
that that consideration should make any one indisposed to recognise the services which, in a state of transition, the Army Works Corps had performed. He would not now say a word with respect to the floating factory. That, to use an expression contained in a letter from the Crimea, was a successful attempt to remove the laboratory and manufacturing departments of Woolwich to the Crimea. The floating factory contained a variety of machinery of all kinds necessary for such work as was carried on in the laboratory and carriage department of Woolwich, and until the arrival out of the floating factory that kind of work could not be done without sending to a great distance and incurring an enormous expense. The floating factory had been of enormous utility to the army, and nothing was more often mentioned with approbation by persons writing home. The next vote was for the salaries and contingencies of the War Department. There was a decrease of £36,291, which was occasioned by the postage being carried over to the credit of another department. There was, on the other hand, an increase in some of the items, amounting to £24,285, such as the charge for quarterly clerks, who were engaged during the pressure of war, where the increase was £11,390, and the expense for a topographical department, for which the estimate was £5,000. That was merely an approximate estimate, for the department was only in the process of formation. The department, when organised, would no doubt confer great benefit on the country, and it certainly would be disgraceful for this nation to be without an establishment which existed in every other country. There was an increase also in the item for the professional staff of the Inspector General of Fortifications. That was rendered necessary by the enormous amount of duty which had devolved on the Barrack Department. Another item of increase, amouning to £875, was for junior clerks, selected to take charge of the different branches of the service, and who had to do the work of senior clerks. Fifteen clerks of the Ordnance Department had likewise been transferred to the Department of the Secretary for War at the time the superintendence of the artillery and engineers was transferred to the Secretary for War; and their salaries now; included in this Estimate had been by accident omitted last year. The next Vote (No. 7) was for head quarters, Military Department. This Vote last year

1279
amounted to £19,694, and in the present year to £22,791, being an increase of £3,097, partly occasioned by the employment of an additional number of temporary clerks.
The next Vote was for the civil establishments. The amount this year was £514,141, and last year £402,335, being an excess of £111,806 for the establishment at home and abroad, the increase for the latter being £43,822. The increase in the establishments at the seat of war had occurred chiefly in the Ordnance establishments at Balaklava and Scutari, and in the Commissariat establishments at the same places. The Government and the country would derive, and had derived, great advantage from the services in the War Department of a chemist, who examined the supplies sent in by contractors. The effect of this would be to improve the materials supplied by contractors. He could not let the present opportunity pass without alluding to the valuable services of the present head storekeeper at Balaklava. The stores under his charge were organised in the most admirable manner. The Committee would remember that at one time great complaints were made of the confusion in which the stores there were, but at present the things were all classified and arranged, and the highest encomiums bad been passed on the storekeeper by the Commander in Chief and every other officer who had been brought in contact with him. In our colonial establishments, he was happy to say there was a decrease to the amount of £7,405. The next Vote was for wages, and in that there was an increase of £175,000, chiefly incurred in our establishments at Balaklava, Scutari, and Malta. There was also an increase in the Woolwich, Waltham Abbey, and Enfield establishments. He was sorry to say that the progress of the small-arms manufactory at Enfield had not been so rapid as he had expected. [Colonel Hear, hear !] That cheer certainly came very inopportunely from the hon, and gallant Gentleman, whose opposition to the establishment of the factory proceeded from an idea which he entertained that contractors always kept their word, whereas the delay which had taken place at Enfield was, to some extent, caused by the want of punctuality on the part of the contractors. The great obstacle to the completion of the establishment was the non-arrival of some machinery from America, but when that machinery did arrive and
1280
was set to work he had no doubt that the manufactory would do all that had been anticipated from it. There was also an increase of wages at Portsmouth and one or two other places, incurred on account of the embarkation of troops. In the eighth Vote, for the supplies for the service of the troops, there was an excess of £431,000. That increase was made up of items for clothing and supplies to additional men in the different branches of the service, and of sums due to clothiers and agents. The charges for the Land Transport and Medical Staff Corps did not appear in the Estimates of last year. The increase of £12,595 in the expense of the enrolled pensioners had arisen from the supply of new clothing to that force. In the item for warm clothing there was a reduction of £130,000, which arose from the fact that much of the clothing which had been provided last year was not worn out, and it would therefore be unnecessary to replace it. It had been the practice to provide for a variety of articles under one general head of accoutrements; but he was of opinion that the more satisfactory way to put those matters before a Committee of the House was to provide for them under detailed items; and that would be done in future. Several attacks had been made on the new clothing department—attacks founded chiefly, he thought, on abstract reasoning, but promoted by certain statements with regard to the mode in which things had been managed during the last twelve months. He, however, begged to remind the Committee that this clothing department had not been formed until the 6th of June last; and it was utterly impossible that such a department could get into full play and working order all at once. Therefore, whether for good or evil, the new department could not be in any way responsible as yet. Whether the clothes lately issued were well or ill done, he did not think anything in connection with them could be attributed to that department. Cearly the desideratum was, to obtain good cloth; for as to making up the material there could be no difficulty, whether they lad the clothes made by contractors, or whether the regiments were made responsible for making up their own clothing. No clothing had yet been received, inspected, and issued by the Clothing Department. Under these circumstances, the Committee night, perhaps, consider that the working the department a fit matter of speculation

1281
or prophecy; but it was idle to apply to it the test of experience.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some clothing had not been already issued by the department?
MR. MONSELLsaid, that no doubt clothing had beenissued—clothing had been sent down from the Tower to Weedon; but it had been inspected under the old system. What he meant to say was, that there was as yet no experience of clothing which had been ordered by the department, received by the department, inspected by the department, and issued by the department.
The next portion of the Vote—for provisions, forage, fuel, light, and money allowances at various stations—was, he must confess, a very large one. The increase in the cost of provisions for the men was£347,871, which was caused by the increase of the estimated number of men at the seat of war to 100,000; the total expense, adding 25 per cent for unforeseen expense and losses, was £2,268,003. This estimate was founded on the present average cost of each ration, which was about 1s. 2d. per day. The item for forage for 60,000 horses amounted to £4,861,928. This sum would provide forage for 60,000 horses, at the rate per horse of 3s. 3d. per day, and an addition of 25 per cent was taken for contingencies. Last year the expense of forage was only £1,418,300; the increase this year was therefore £3,443,628. The increase of expenditure for fuel and light at the seat of war amounted to £78,000. On the Vote for the Ordnance stores for the land and sea service there was a decrease this year of £175,000; but a very large sum would be demanded in the first instance for the supply and repair of smallarms. The contracts at Liege were going on admirably, and the guns procured from that place were fully equal to any obtained elsewhere. £13,378 was required for the smallarms' factory at Enfield, where it had been found necessary to erect additional barrel machinery. In the item of gunpowder there was an increase of £90,000, attributable to the fact that a much larger quantity (56,000 barrels) had been contracted for this year than last. The present Vote for the Royal laboratory was in excess of last year's by £246,518, which represented among other things, 50,000 tons of sheet iron, to be used for making shells, &c. The next item showed an excess of £56,224 for waggons, carts, harness, &c., for the Land Transport Corps.
1282
The proposal to establish a gun foundry at Woolwich for the manufacture of iron ordnance would necessarily involve considerable expenditure, but the object was well worth the cost. Heretofore the Government used to manufacture their own brass ordnance and to depend on contractors for the iron; but this course was no longer expedient. Last year when there was a great pressure upon the Board for procuring 13-inch mortars, 68-pounders, and other guns that were deemed essential, at the moment the Government went to all the best contractors in the country, and gave their orders to them without undue consideration of an economical nature, and the result was that they had satisfied themselves—and he spoke the opinions of gentlemen who were far better able to judge than himself—that it was not safe to trust the manufacture of those articles to the trade. It happened that we stood higher than any other nation in the world for our ordinary iron, but there was a very small demand for the iron required for these guns. It was a special article required for a special service, and he was ashamed to say, but he had a deep conviction of its truth, that our iron ordnance was inferior to the iron ordnance of many other countries. The Secretary for War had sent a Commission of most able men to Berlin, Liege, and Rouen, the result of whose labours was a most interesting Report, which he proposed to lay on the table of the House, and which, he thought, would substantiate in the fullest manner the statement he had just made. The Committee would not, he was sure, hesitate to take any steps necessary to improve the production of an engine of war which it was absolutely essential to have of the highest possible quality, he was satisfied it would not refuse to authorise an expenditure of some £60,000 or £70,000 for the erection of a gun foundry such as he had described. In one year of war the whole amount would be saved. The Vote for works and buildings was necessarily a large one—£2,044,069; but of this sum £1,072,164 was required for works of fortification already set on foot in Kent, Sussex, Devonport, Aldershot, Dublin, and other places, £317,670 was wanted for current repairs, and there was an item towards the erection of a largo hospital at Southampton Water, to complete which a total outlay of £150,000 would be required.
Next, there was a Vote of £105,000 for barracks at Dublin, Chatham, St. Helena,

1283
Woolwich, and the Cape of Good Hope. The question of barracks was certainly a very important one. The Committee appointed last year by his noble Friend Lord Panmure to inquire into the improvements that might be made in barracks to promote the health and convenience of the troops had presented a very interesting Report on the subject, which was now lying upon the table. In consequence of that Report plans had been advertised for, and a great number sent in by the architects of the country. A minute calculation had also been made as to what would be the expense of carrying out the suggestions of the Committee—those suggestions being that good rooms should be provided for a portion of the married soldiers; that certain improvements should be made and additional facilities supplied for the amusement of the men; that the number of square feet in the hospital accommodation should be increased; and that some additional advantages should be given to the officers. Now the expense per 1,000 men for infantry barracks, constructed according to the system at present sanctioned, was somewhere about £86,000, or £86 per man on the average. The expense of building barracks according to the recommendation of the Committee would be about £130,000 per 1,000 men, or an excess of £50,000. Of course the Government had some difficulty in knowing what to do upon the subject—for, on the one hand, it would be perfectly absurd to build merely one barrack for 1,000 men on the new system,at a cost of £136,000, and stop there; whilst, on the other, the House would require to reflect a good deal before they actually determined upon placing the whole of the barracks in the kingdom upon that improved footing. He would take another opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this important question. The course that had been taken was this—the Inspector General of Fortifications had been called on to make a return of all the barracks in the country that he considered worth preserving, on account of their position and the accommodation they afforded; how many of them did not come up to the present requirements; what expense would have to be incurred in making them equal to those requirements; and also what the expense would be of bringing them up to the higher requirements of the Barrack Committee. Until some such Report as that had been made, neither the House nor the Government
1284
would be in a position to arrive at any final decision upon the question, which was certainly one of great importance. The Government were taking some small steps in the way of providing accommodation for an additional number of married men; but beyond that he did not think that any determination had been come to with regard to carrying out the recommendations of the Barrack Committee, and he did not think they could come to any determination upon the subject until they saw their way clear as to what the whole of the expense of carrying out those recommendations would amount to. He had already mentioned the two principal items for the shell and the cannon foundries at Woolwich, and he could only say that he wished hon. Members of that House who voted these sums would personally visit the establishments at Woolwich, and see how admirably they were conducted, with the invaluable assistance of Captain Boxer and other able officers. \f Vote 13, for the educational and scientific branch, there was an increase of £17,369. Under that head a Director of Artillery Studies had been appointed to train cadets who had received provisional commissions after passing successively through the competitive examination. Colonel Wilford and his staff were training a most efficient body of young officers for this important branch of the army. In Vote 18, for pensions for wounds, there was an increase of about £34,000, arising from the augmented number of wounded officers. In the out pensions there was a decrease of £20,000. This item had been constantly decreasing since the last war, and the present war had not yet had any sensible effect upon its amount. There was an addition of £10,000 in the amount of the Vote for superannuation allowances occasioned chiefly by the retirements consequent upon the consolidation of the different War Departments. He had now gone through the whole of the lengthened details, to which it had been his duty to call the attention of the Committee—the difficulty of the task he had had to discharge being increased from his having that night for the first time to bring under one general review the whole of the items relating to the different consolidated services of the War Department. The whole of these different departments were now governed by one directing head—the Secretary of State for War; yet it had not been possible to bring them all under one roof. Until that had been clone the consolidation

1285
could not be said to be complete; but he trusted that that object would be attained in the course of the present year. He would only add, that if any hon. Gentleman wished for any further information which he was able to afford, he would be most happy to furnish him with it.
(1.) £294,154 Barrack Supplies, year ending 31st March, 1856.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to the questions he had put to him. The right hon. Gentleman had given them no explanation of the duties attached to the various offices in the new War Department. His statement with regard to the Commissariat was by no means clear, but it seemed that there was to be one department of that service acting under the Secretary for War, whose function it would be to furnish provisions, and another department acting under the Treasury, which would attend to the financial arrangements. The right hon. Member had taken credit for the new Order of Merit, but he (Colonel Dunne) would much prefer to see a lower Order of the Bath instituted for the private soldier. Then as to the new regulation, giving to the soldier £5 and his kit, he did not see the great advantage that regulation would confer on the soldiers. When the bounty was £9, he got his kit for £4, so that by the new regulation he was £1 out of pocket. He regretted also that the right hon. Gentleman had not given the Committee some information with regard to the clothing of the Army. At present there was not any military man who was responsible for the clothing of the troops, and the consequence was, that innumerable troublesome and expensive changes in the uniforms were made.
Vote agreed to, as was also—
(2.) £62,316, Wages, year ending 31st March, 1856.
(3.) £987,185, Stores, year ending 31st March, 1856.
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply to Colonel Knox, that it had been deemed advisable to provide additional accommodation for troops in case it should be required, and that, if necessary, a large encampment could be formed in Scotland, and other camps could be established throughout the country. As there was a general outcry against the system of billeting, it was proposed considerably to extend the permanent accommodation for troops.
COLONEL LEGHsaid, he objected to the erection of huts in the north of Ireland,
1286
and wished to know if he should have another opportunity of stating that objection?
MR. MONSELLsaid, he was afraid that there would be no other opportunity, as the expense was already incurred.
COLONEL LEGHsaid, he must then state that he considered the erection of those huts, which were fragile and inconvenient, highly injudicious. The same expense would have provided additional accommodation in barracks of permanent brickwork, and have been much more useful to the Army. The whole of the north of Ireland was being covered with huts, which might be burned down and destroyed at any time.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the Government could not wait the time necessary for building new barrack accommodation. They were obliged to do what was to be done with the least possible delay. He admitted that it would have been much better if the accommodation could have been provided in a permanent manner, but the Government had no option.
COLONEL TAYLORsaid, he thought that iron huts, which had been proposed, would have answered the purpose, and would have been much more durable. Perhaps the expense was the objection; he should be glad of information on that head.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must complain of the loose manner in which they were voting away money for barracks without due inquiry. He saw several expensive propositions for warming the barracks with steam or hot water, which he thought quite useless.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask whether the hon. Gentleman wished soldiers to be treated like brutes? The hon. Gentleman opposed every proposition for the soldier's improvement and comfort.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished every provision to be made for the comfort of the soldiers, but objected to unnecessary expenditure.
Mr. MILESsaid, he wished to know if the hon. Member recollected the time when barracks had been knocked down from a false economy. If they were to have good soldiers, they must keep them warm.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that in reference to the question asked him respecting iron, huts, the expense of each hut would have been £6 7s. 6d.; but the objection to them, was on the score of their unhealthiness. In reference to what had been last said, he quite

1287
agreed as to the false economy which had pulled down valuable barracks and sold the materials for a trifle.
Vote agreed to, as was also,
(4.) £2,368, Scientific Branch, year ending ending 31st March, 1856.
(5.) £246,716, Men, Land Forces.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that previous to the change recently made, those officers who had arrived at the rank of full colonel also arrived, as a matter of course, at the rank of general officers, but, owing to the recent change in reference to the system of selection, a great number of old officers saw no prospect whatever now of arriving at that rank, after having spent much money in the purchase of their commissions. A case of considerable hardship was that of Colonel Upton, who commanded the Coldstream Guards at the Alma, at Inkermann, and during the Crimean campaign. Owing to having got a certain step in his regiment, he was obliged to return to command his regiment at home, while other officers who remained behind had attained the rank of brigadier-general, and it was consequently impossible to say when Colonel Upton would become a general officer. The Order of Valour had been referred to in the course of the evening, and that, no doubt, would give great satisfaction to the army; and he now took the opportunity of expressing a hope, as many gallant officers were rewarded for their services with the Order of the Bath, that the noble Lord, considering that officers in the army were not over rich, would recommend that in their case the payment of the enormous fees might be remitted.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask whether it was not intended to take the same course in the case of the Army Estimates which had been pursued in those of the Navy; that was, to vote the number of men, and then take a Vote for three months on account for pay and provisions?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That is what we propose; but we want to have the number of men voted, because that is necessary as the foundation for the Mutiny Act.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that under those circumstances he would consent to withdraw his Motion.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

OATH OF ABJURATION.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
MR. MILNER GIBSONplaced in the hands of the Chairman a Resolution authorising him to introduce a Bill to abolish the Oath of Abjuration.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he should not oppose the Motion, as he understood that it had been arranged that the discussion should be taken when the Bill was before them. The Oath of Abjuration in itself contained a provision which had certainly become obsolete, and was inapplicable to the present time, and he quite admitted that, for the purpose of simplifying the oath, that portion of it might very well he done away with. Still, that oath contained a principle which ought to be retained in any oath which should be substituted for it. The Act of Parliament at present obliged Members to take throe oaths—the Oath of Allegiance, the Oath of Supremacy, and the Oath of Abjuration—and each of these oaths contained a principle of its own. In the Oath of Allegiance was contained the principle of simple allegiance to the Queen; in the Oath of Supremacy, by which Members were required to declare that no foreign prince, prelate, or power had any jurisdiction within these realms, was contained what he would call the principle of undivided allegiance; and the third principle, contained in the Oath of Abjuration, was, that Members were called on to pledge their simple and undivided allegiance to the Throne according to a particular line laid down in the Act of Settlement. That principle he conceived to be of the utmost importance, and he should be very sorry to see any oath imposed which did not contain those three principles. Indirectly the Bill would raise a great question, which bad been discussed and decided by several Parliaments. If there was to be any proposition to omit from the oath the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," he must warn the right hon. Gentleman that he must not look for the support of Gentlemen on that side of the House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped it would be understood that he, for one, would be prepared to offer the strongest possible opposition to the passing of the Bill. He must say he could conceive no proposition more offensive to the religious public of England—no proposition more offensive to Parliament itself—than the Bill announced by the right hon. Gentleman.

1289
He could foresee nothing but defeat for this attempt to infringe upon the Christian character of the House of Commons.
Resolved—" That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for abrogating the Oath of Abjuration and the Assurance.
Resolution reported; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. RAIKES CURRIE, and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE.
The House adjourned, at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Trial of Offences.

THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE— MOTION.
LORD GLENELGsaid, that in bringing before the House the Motion of which he had given notice, to refer certain questions to the Judges, he was not about to enter upon the merits of the general question, nor was it necessary that he should discuss whether the instruments on their Lordships' table were legal or illegal; neither should he discuss whether it was expedient or wise to raise the question at the present time. But he felt it to be his duty, as a Member of that House, now that the question had been unexpectedly raised, to consider what was the prudent, the proper, and most wise course to adopt under the existing circumstances. He confessed he looked upon the subject as one of the most important ever brought under the consideration of that House, and that being his opinion, he thought it should be considered with all the advantages of the assistance and counsel which the constitution of the country had provided for that House of
1122
Parliament. That was the simple object he had in view in making the Motion which he was now about to submit. He wished to know why, in this case, far more important than those cases in which that advice and assistance was usually obtained, the same course was not to be pursued, and why the House was upon this occasion to be deprived of that valuable assistance? It was well known that from time immemorial the constitution had provided for that House certain constitutional advisers and counsellors, and that when those great legal authorities were appointed they received a writ from the Sovereign directing them to attend that House and assist them with their advice. That had been its practice from a remote period, and was not now obsolete, for in conformity with that obligation they constantly attended in that House, and were perpetually called upon to give advice in matters of great importance. There was great wisdom and prudence in providing the House with such assistance, because in every legislative assembly composed of men endowed with certain privileges there was a possibility of their being carried away by temporary excitement, arising, perhaps, from the most generous motives, and, in consequence, the House might be led into adopting rash and precipitate measures; but the constitution interposed and provided a remedy, by giving them the aid of men selected by the Sovereign for their high posts on account of their professional knowledge and wisdom—men who had no interest in the subject under debate except that which the nation in general had, and free from excitement or passion of any description—men who entered not the stormy arena of politics—dispassionate advisers, called upon, not to control the decision or to bind the House by their opinions, but to give their Lordships all the assistance which eminent wisdom, knowledge, and experience could afford. That was a noble part of the constitution; and he would ask again why had not their Lordships availed themselves of it on the present occasion? The decisions and measures of the House were looked forward to with interest by the whole country, and whatever the decision might be, if those learned men to whom he had referred were consulted, it would have greater weight and authority with the country; but for their Lordships not to avail themselves of the advice of the dispassionate advisers pointed out by the constitution, and held in high estimation

1123
by the country at large, was wilfully to impair the solemnity and dignity of their decision. It might suffice to rest his case, but there was more than this to be considered. He confessed that, as an individual Peer of Parliament, he found himself placed in a position which required peculiar consideration. He was no party to the proceeding which originated the discussion; it was as new to him as to any Member of that House; but he found himself called upon to decide upon measures of great constitutional importance—measures connected with the law and the constitution of the country; and he ventured to ask—for he believed other Peers felt the same difficulty—whether the House ought not to have recourse to those persons who were especially given by the constitution to supply them with advice and assistance? No doubt they had already learned men in the House: he had heard their able and ingenious arguments with great pleasure; but he would inquire, with all deference to noble and learned Lords opposite, whether they formed proper substitutes for those learned personages to whom he had alluded? The noble and learned Lords who had urged able legal arguments upon this question were Peers of Parliament, and no doubt shared the feelings, and, it might be, the prejudices of other Members of that House; but the attendance of the law officers of the Crown and the Judges, in all cases where the peerage was concerned, was an indispensable adjunct in the deliberations of that House. Moreover, he must further observe, with all deference to noble and learned Lords, and admitting the ability with which they had argued the matter, that their able and ingenious arguments rather tended, in his opinion, to cast greater doubt and uncertainty on this question than in the first view of the case it seemed to have. The arguments, he repeated, were very able, but there had been something not quite satisfactory. There had been a shrinking from what appeared to be the main point. He wanted to know what was the law upon the subject. They were now called upon to take a most serious step. If they went into Committee, and agreed to the proposal of his noble and learned Friend, they would enter upon a course the end of which he could not see, and the House would pledge itself to a line of action from which it could not retreat with honour nor unscathed. He felt for the honour of the House, for the integrity
1124
of its decisions, for the very safety of its constitution. Their Lordships' proceedings now challenged universal observation. They could not confine the question within that House. If they went into Committee, they would engage in a contest in which they must either persevere, or retreat in a manner which he did not like to contemplate. He was sure his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) would forgive him for saying that there had been a complete shifting of the ground on which the question had been originally placed. They had begun with one thing, and were now engaged in arguing a very different thing. At first the question was nothing but the legality or illegality of the grant. Such was the question, as it was stated in various parts of the country, that was about to be raised even before the Session. The very day on which the House met he found in the lobby a number of persons, Members of the other House and others, who said that the only question was, the legality or illegality of the grant, and, if legal, the whole dispute would end at once. Now, the question was debated upon the ground of expediency and constitutionality. When his noble and learned Friend commenced this discussion, with the wisdom that became him he abstained from grappling with that question—namely, what was the law of the land upon the subject? He said distinctly, the law of the land—for he was not at that moment speaking of the law of Parliament. His noble and learned Friend hovered upon the brink of the subject, but without entering boldly into it, and, finally, he altered the question and turned it into one concerning the practice of Parliament. But another noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards), not acting with the same reserve, at once rushed into the question of legality or illegality, and without hesitation stated that the measure was illegal, and upon that ground he was prepared to decide the question. That being the first ground on which the case was put, he (Lord Glenelg) wished to ask why they had departed from it? Why had the question of legality been abandoned, and the case reduced to one of expediency, policy, and constitutional law? He was anxious to know what was the law of the land upon the subject; but the noble and learned Lord evaded that question; he banished his original argument, and suddenly introduced the question of expediency. But he (Lord Glenelg) did not want to be told what was expedient. He was uninformed

1125
as to the state of the law; he confessed himself so. He wished to know how to act in a great crisis; and therefore it was that he complained of his noble and learned Friend not giving him that information which would enable them to decide legally. It seemed to him that the Report returned by the Committee was not an answer to the question referred to them.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I rise to order. The Committee have not yet come to any Report. Their Lordships were about to go into Committee for the purpose of considering their Report, and, when the Report was agreed to in Committee and was laid before the House, their Lordships could discuss it.
LORD GLENELG: Surely I may refer to a paper on the table?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Not as the Report of the Committee.
LORD GLENELG: Not the Report of the Committee e! Why, it has been before us for several days.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It has not been agreed to.
LORD GLENELGsaid, that the Report of the Committee, which their Lordships would be called upon that night to sanction, supposing it came before them, told them what they were to do. They were asked to examine and consider the letters patent creating Sir James Parke a Baron for life, and to report thereon. Those words were of a very wide and general character. Well, what was proposed to be the answer? Why, that the Committee, having examined the letters patent purporting to create Sir James Parke a Baron for life, report that neither those letters patent, nor the writ of summons annexed to them, entitled the grantee to sit and vote in that House. Now, supposing that the House were to sanction that Report, then he maintained that that answer did not at all correspond with the question, which was one of legality or illegality. If the instruction to the Committee had been that they should Report to the House whether the grant entitled him to sit and vote, then that would have been a direct answer; but that was not the question. He begged to state this view of the case in confirmation of what he conceived to be the exact nature of the argument as it had been hitherto conducted. The case had been argued by the law Lords as a question of authority. Were they to let the discussion rest upon authority alone? They had legal authorities in that House,
1126
and he confessed that, after what he had heard from those noble and learned Lords, he did not feel certain that their authority alone could with confidence be relied upon. But, if they were to be led by authority, he must consider what those authorities were, and the weight to which they were justly entitled. Now, he found that those authorities considerably differed from each other, and some of them from themselves. He alluded to this fact, not with a view of accusing them of any inconsistency, but with the purpose of showing how cautions and careful they ought to be in coming to a decision when they found that the best and ablest men differed from one another, and that they ought to surround themselves with all the legal advice which the constitution afforded them. Neither ought the decision of their Lordships to be impugned, because it might be shown to be opposed to some legal authority; but he wished to know on which side the greatest weight of authority was to be found. It seemed to him that the opinions of the most eminent authorities in the House were pretty equally balanced. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack was decidedly in favour of the legality of the grant. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) was equally decided in opinion of its illegality. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice had argued the case on either side in a very powerful speech. No doubt the authority of the noble and learned Lord who commenced this discussion (Lord Lyndhurst) was of the highest kind; but he did not express any decided opinion on the point. But he (Lord Glenelg) begged to say—not with any disparagement to the authority of that noble and learned Lord—that there was an authority connected with this very subject to which he was surprised that no reference had been made in the course of the debate. He had a right to assume that the authority of Lord Wensleydale, who was second to none in legal knowledge and experience, was in favour of the legality of the grant. Did any man believe that that learned person, with his talent, experience, and honourable feeling, would have consented to come to their Lordships' House and assume his seat by virtue of a grant from the Crown, if he had not been deeply convinced that the grant was altogether legal? It would be an insult and an injury to that learned person to entertain a moment's doubt on the subject. Therefore, however great might be the legal authority of the

1127
noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), he felt that he was not doing that noble and learned Lord any disparagement or injustice if he ventured to quote, in opposition to his opinion, the authority of Lord Wensleydale. He had already alluded to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), who having, on a former occasion, admitted the power of the Crown to grant a peerage for life, had since made an able speech against its legality; his noble and learned Friend might, therefore, be very fairly allowed to pair off with himself on the subject. The opinion of the author of The Lives of the Lord Chief Justices might be put against the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. Amidst this variety of legal opinion, it was difficult to come to any conclusion, and therefore it was desirable to have all the legal authority which the constitution provided for the House in difficult and important questions. But, speaking of authority, he could not but observe that it had always been considered a habit among lawyers to look with veneration and almost with idolatry to the great men who had been their predecessors in the law. But there never was such a demolition of legal authority as had been effected by the legal authorities in that House during the last few weeks. The names of Coke, Selden, Dugdale, and Blackstone were held in high esteem by all who succeeded them; and yet it was remarkable that on the present occasion those authorities were no longer held in respect. And yet it was upon the authority of such men that this country had depended for ages past for guidance in constitutional law. It was upon the authority of those great men—the supporters of British freedom—that British law had been built; it was to them they were accustomed to appeal in difficult questions. He did, therefore, feel deeply, as every Englishman must feel, when he found the authority of those men set at nought and discarded by those who professed to be anxious to uphold the privileges and honours of their Lordships' House. But when they were told that, under these circumstances, they should follow the guidance of the great legal authorities in that House, he wanted to know whither those authorities would carry them? He must say they were carrying them to an extent to which he was not prepared to go. Let them consider that this was not a mere party question. They were called upon to-night, or would be called upon, to pronounce a decision affecting
1128
the prerogative of the Crown—the undoubted prerogative, which had never to that moment been disputed; and to gain their object, they were asked to demolish all those venerable authorities by which the prerogative had been supported. The House of Lords, interwoven as it was with the Monarchy—the proud champions of the Monarchy—the guardians of the Crown—whose ancestors had, with chivalrous daring, defended the Royal prerogative—were now, for the first time, endeavouring to assail that prerogative. They should beware how they called in question the exercise of the prerogative by which they had themselves been created. They should beware how they embarked upon such a course, and how, by acceding to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, they entered upon a contest with the Crown. Let them pause for a moment before thus committing themselves; let them give themselves breathing time, and in the meanwhile resort to their legitimate councillors to know what the law of the land really was on the subject. It might be that the law was adverse to this exercise of the prerogative; and if such were the case, however much they might lament it, their Lordships would be compelled to bow to what was pronounced to be the law. Before the House committed itself to the declaration that the exercise of the prerogative, hitherto unmolested, was now for the first time to be called in question, he wished the matter to be further considered. At least, let them ascertain the law, whether it was with them or against them. It had been said that the proper questions to be referred to the Judges were such as related, not to the privilege of Parliament, but to the law of the land; and that was the very ground on which he based his Motion. The simple question was, was the patent legal or illegal? That was a question of law, and the Judges were the fittest men to decide it. The noble and learned Lord opposite had argued that precedents on this subject prior to the Revolution of 1688 were of no value; and the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights had been insisted on. This raised a question on which he wished the opinion of the Judges to be taken. He wanted to know, as a question of law, what effect had the great settlement of the Revolution of 1688 on the prerogative of the Crown? The answer to that question was involved in the Resolution which had been placed on their books. He wanted to ask the

1129
Judges to look at the Petition of Right, which was the commencement of the assertion of our great liberties, and the Bill of Rights, which was the recognition of those liberties, and to tell him, as lawyers knowing the laws of England, whether any of those Acts touched the prerogative of the Crown. Again, they were told that 400 years had elapsed since the exercise of this prerogative, and that consequently it had been brought into desuetude, and had become extinct. This was a novel doctrine in the House of Lords; it was asserted by great legal authorities; but he wanted to know what other legal authorities would say about it. He wanted to ask those learned lawyers whether, according to the law of England, there was any period of time which barred the prerogative of the Crown? Such an objection coming from that House seemed to him to be peculiarly ungraceful. They were now consulting for their own privileges; and they were asked to declare that the prerogative of the Crown should be limited, shorn of some of its powers, and that the mere lapse of time should be a bar to its exercise. What was the law which that House and the nation recognised with respect to the lapse of time in enforcing the claims of Peers? By the law of the land, no length of time could bar a Peer from claiming his rights in that House. This principle had been asserted by the House most unqualifiedly. In one case it was alleged that a lapse of 315 years, during which the peerage had been in abeyance, barred a Peer from coming into that House; but all the law and learning of the House rose to protest with one voice against such a doctrine, and to declare that, according to the laws of this country, there was no length of time which would constitute such a bar. Such being the case, it would be peculiarly ungraceful in them to go out of the way to assert and maintain that lapse of time should be a bar to the exercise of the Royal prerogative. Such a course was unworthy of the House of Peers—unworthy of those who existed by virtue of the prerogative. As a question of law, he should like to know upon what grounds and principles it was contended that the exercise of this prerogative was barred. He could not see why the prerogative of the Crown should not be placed on as favourable a footing as the privileges of that House. At all events, let them place themselves in a condition to give an
1130
opinion upon the subject. He particularly regretted that this question should have come before the House of Peers. It was their undoubted right to prevent unauthorised strangers from entering their chamber; but they might carry the principle to an extreme. Was it ever heard that any body had the right of questioning the exercise of that authority by which itself existed? He could not but think their Lordships were little aware of the difficulties into which the House was about to plunge. The House was in a false position—in a position in which it never ought to have been placed. He had had no share in such a result, but he felt the deepest regret that anything like a contest should take place between the House of Lords and the Crown. As a loyal subject of his Sovereign, he objected to the slightest abridgment of the Royal prerogative. It was not consonant with the principles of that House—it was against their feelings and their hearts to contest the prerogative of the Crown. Believing that the liberties of the country, the exercise of the Royal prerogative, their Lordships' privileges, the privileges of Parliament, and the liberties of the people, were all bound up together, and that one could not be shaken without weakening the others, it was with deep regret he saw the House of Lords engaged in such a conflict. Let them, at all events, not take a plunge in the dark. Let them ascertain what the law of England was on this question by consulting the highest authorities to which they could refer. They were not committed to any measure; the step they had already taken was not an irretrievable one; and he warned them not to defer until the time for consideration was past, and repentance was in vain. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That the following Questions be put to the Judges; namely—
"Is it in the Power 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?"
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he entertained the most sincere respect for his noble Friend who had just addressed their Lordships, but he felt bound to complain of the course which he had adopted on the present occasion. He did not complain of the Motion of his noble Friend, that the Judges should be consulted, but rather of

1131
the manner in which he had brought it forward, for he had taken the opportunity of entering into the whole events of the case, and had made a speech which would have been much more appropriate when their Lordships were considering in Committee the Resolution of his noble and learned Friend. This the noble Lord had done instead of supporting his own Motion; and then, to his great astonishment, his noble Friend had sat down without even telling their Lordships what the questions were which he had risen to propose should be put to the Judges. It became, therefore, his (Lord Campbell's) duty to state to their Lordships what those questions were it was proposed to ask the Judges. The questions were—Is it in the Power of the Crown to create by Patent the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom for Life? And, what Rights and Privileges does such a Grant confer? Now, his noble Friend had not brought forward a single argument to show that those questions were questions which could properly be submitted to the Judges. The Judges were the constitutional advisers of their Lordships' House upon matters which fell within their cognisance, and upon such matters they could be properly consulted; but it was the duty of his noble Friend to show that those questions came within that category. Now, he (Lord Campbell) would take it upon himself to say that, upon subjects like the present, the Judges were not the constitutional advisers of the House. The question was a question of privilege, which must be dealt with by their Lordships themselves. He should not follow the example of his noble Friend by entering into the merits of the question, or in adducing any argument with regard to the Resolution of his noble and learned Friend opposite, which would be proposed in Committee; but there was one topic which he could not refrain from noticing, which had been adverted to by his noble Friend. His noble Friend had suggested that their Lordships should not entertain this question, because, by doing so, they might place themselves in antagonism with the Crown. Now, he had the greatest possible respect for the Monarchy; and would uphold all the first prerogatives of the Crown, properly exercised. But that prerogative might be exceeded; and, if it were, then it became the duty of those who respected the prerogatives of the Crown to see that their exercise was restrained. All the
1132
arguments which had been adduced by his noble Friend would apply equally to a patent for a term of years, or for a single light, or during the pleasure of the Crown; but if grants of such peerages were conferred, were their Lordships bound to admit that such grants conferred upon the recipients of them the right to sit and vote in Parliament? The noble Lord upon such a principle would make the House like a Divan under the Grand Senior, or reduce it to the condition of the Senate of a neighbouring country, whose only office was to register the decrees of the supreme power. The exercise of the prerogative of the Crown might be watched, and ought to be watched; and there was a tribunal appointed to decide whether the Crown exceeded or had acted in accordance with its prerogative in matters referring to the creation of Peers, a tribunal recognised by the constitution of the country, and that tribunal was their Lordships themselves. With regard to the creation of a Peer, that House was the tribunal to decide whether the creation was legal; and if they had not that power, the sooner they abdicated their functions the better. Now, with regard to the first question which it was proposed should be submitted to the Judges, was that a fitting question to submit to the Judges? Why, it was a question to which there could be but one answer. There was not the slightest doubt that the Crown could create a Peer for life, or for a term of years, or for the life of another, or during will, or could create any new dignity, and confer it upon any one it pleased. But that was a very different thing from having the power to appoint a legislator—a person to sit and vote as a Member of that House; and the question which their Lordships would have to decide would be, whether a life peerage conferred the right of sitting and voting in Parliament, and it certainly was not necessary to assemble all the Judges to answer a question upon which no doubt existed. The second question was, what were the rights and privileges conferred by a peerage for life? It was not proposed that there should be any argument of their Lordships' House, in the presence of the Judges; but the Judges were to be asked to sit down and write a treatise upon the privileges of a Peer for life. Now, he had that morning looked into Blackstone, and he found that the first privilege of a Baron, mentioned by that high authority,

1133
was that, in coming to Parliament, he might in passing through any of the King's forests kill a deer, and if the keeper were not there he was to blow his horn, and it might be one of the questions for the Judges whether a Peer for life would be entitled to a similar privilege. The next privilege of a Peer was, that he was the hereditary councillor of the Crown. That could hardly be said of a Peer for life. Did they suppose that all the fifteen Judges would agree upon these questions? Then a question would arise, whether the widow or daughter of a Peer for life would be entitled, on his death, to certain privileges. The noble Lord had said that he should like to know what effect the lapse of time had on the prerogative of the Crown; but there was no such question here. What the Judges would have to do was, to sit down and write a treatise upon all the privileges of a Peer, which would of necessity be a somewhat voluminous publication. He had the utmost respect and reverence for his learned brethren on the bench, who, he believed, discharged their duty in a manner worthy of the highest praise when that duty fell within the limits of their own legitimate functions; but he did not wish to see them taken from their proper sphere, and engaged upon such a task as it was now proposed to allot to them. They might reasonably require, not until the end of the Session merely, but until the meeting of another Parliament, before they could possibly be expected to give an answer to the question. The learned Judges were treated rather sharply in the Bridgewater case for giving their opinion a little hastily, and he thought they ought not to be allowed a less period than seven long years for considering this question. But then came the real question, whether a patent from the Crown to a Baron for his life gave him a right to sit in that House. He should not try to reconcile—which he might easily do—the authorities on this subject, which his noble Friend had a little perverted; but he thought it clear that this was a question of privilege which that House, and that House alone, ought to determine, and on which, he believed, the Judges would refuse to give an opinion. Certainly, if the learned Judges regarded what their predecessors had done, they would refuse to answer the questions which his noble Friend proposed to put to them, and would say it was for their Lordships to say
1134
whether the learned Baron ought to sit in that House or not. It resulted from this—that it was a question of privilege pending on the law and custom of Parliament, upon which the Judges had invariably refused to give any opinion. In Thorpe's case, in the reign of Henry VI., the Judges were consulted upon a question of Parliamentary privilege, and he held in his hands the record of what they said. The question arose in the time of that great Judge Chief Justice Fortescue, and he and his brethren acted unanimously—
"Chief Justice Fortescue and all the justices answered and said that they ought not to answer to that question, for it hath not been used aforetime that the justices should in anywise determine the privilege of this High Court of Parliament; for it is so high and so mighty in its nature that it may make law, and that that is law it may make no law; this is a question of their privilege; and the determination and knowledge of their privilege belongeth to the Lords of Parliament, and not to the justices."
EARL GRANVILLE: What was the, question which was referred to the Judges in that case?
LORD CAMPBELL: The question was, whether the Speaker of the House of Commons could be taken in execution when the House was in Committee. He admitted that it was not a question for the admission of a Peer, for now for the first time a demand for the admission of a Peer was made when there was good ground for believing that the patent was in excess of the prerogative. In Talboy's case, in the reign of Henry VIII., the Judges were consulted as to the claim of a commoner, the husband of a Peeress in her own right, to be summoned and to sit in that House in her right. They answered—
"That the common law dealeth little with titles and customs of chivalry, but such questions had always been decided before the Constables and Marshals of England."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Who put that question to them?
LORD CAMPBELL: The King. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: Hear, hear!] And if the Judges would not answer to the King, à fortiori they would refuse to do so to a similar question put by that House. Lord Coke in his Institutes said—
"And as every court of justice hath laws and customs for its direction, some by the common law, some by particular laws and customs, so the High Court of Parliament suis propriis legibus et consuetudinibus subsistat. It is lex et consuetudo Parliamenti that all weighty matters in any Parliament moved concerning the Peers of the realm or Commons in Parliament assembled ought to be

1135
determined, adjudged, and discussed by the course of the Parliament, and not by the civil law, nor yet by the common laws of this realm. And this is the reason that Judges ought not to give any opinion of a matter of Parliament, because it is not to be decided by the common laws, but secundum legem et consuetudinem Parliamenti; and so the Judges in divers Parliaments have confessed."
These authorities would prove to their Lordships that it was contrary to the invariable usages and constitutional practice of the country for the Judges to be consulted upon questions of Parliamentary privilege. Justice Blackstone approved—
"The practice of the Judges in refusing to give any opinion upon the law of Parliament, with which they are not supposed to be conversant."
Chief Justice De Grey said—
"Courts of justice have no cognizance of the acts of the Houses of Parliament, because they belong ad aliud examen"
Had he not now said enough to show that these questions ought not to be given to the Judges, and that their Lordships ought to proceed upon the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and determine the question for themselves? Several of the Judges had set off for their circuits, and the others would very shortly be dispersed all over the country. With every respect for Lord Wensleydale, he doubted whether he had properly considered this business, or that he could be said to have given a legal opinion upon it. Their Lordships had been told that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were the constitutional advisers of the Crown. But the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack had admitted that he had consulted neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor General before this patent had issued. Lord Wensleydale was his (Lord Campbell's) private friend, and was highly honoured and beloved. In what situation was Lord Wensleydale now? In the earlier discussions on this subject noble Lords on the Ministerial bench were eager for despatch—"Let there be no delay," they said, and when it was proposed to make a further search for documents, they opposed the postponement of proceedings for a single day; and they complained of the hardship towards Lord Wensleydale, who was kept in uncertainty whether he was a Peer or not—whether he had a right to sit in that House, or whether he was eligible to sit in the House of Commons. Such a situation was a little unfair to him. He trusted their Lordships would be of opinion that this Motion ought to be negatived,
1136
and that their Lordships ought to proceed to the decision of this question.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he quite felt the difficulty involved in the last observation of the noble and learned Lord—the House, no doubt, were placed in some difficulty in respect of the proposal immediately under their consideration, by the circumstance that the Judges, or at least the greater portion of them, had left or were about to leave town for the purpose of going circuit. But unless he was greatly deceived, the course on which their Lordships were—let him be permitted to say it—somewhat recklessly hurrying was fraught with so many dangers, that, in spite of all the difficulties and inconveniencies which would attend delay, he begged of them to consider whether they would seriously proceed to a Resolution upon this subject without having first taken the best means of ascertaining the legality or the illegality of the step they were invited to sanction. The question, it was quite true, was not one merely of the legality or illegality of life peerages. Even if it should be established that to all intents and purposes the creation of life peerages was strictly legal, he should still be prepared to admit that those who advised the measure might be obnoxious to the censure of their Lordships. But the country must surely feel that they were proceeding recklessly, if, before they took any step in a matter of such grave importance, they did not avail themselves of every means in their power to ascertain what were the precise rights which such a patent as that legally conferred. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice commenced his speech by some amusing suggestions as to the course the Judges would take if such a reference were made to them, and had attempted to show that it would be impossible for them to go into all the points raised by the question, and to define every privilege which was obtained by the holder of a patent of peerage. But the Judges might very properly confine themselves to an examination of the main results of such a patent. Now, one of the first questions which had been put by Parliament to the Judges after he had the honour of occupying a seat on the bench of a common law Court, was the occasion of the discussion of the Canada Clergy Reserves question. The Judges were requested to state whether under the words "Protestant clergy," there were included any ministers except ministers of the Episcopal Church, and if

1137
any others were included under those words, who those others were? It was obvious that it would have been not less difficult to supply an exhaustive answer to a question like that, than to give a complete answer to the question—What were the rights of a Peer for life? and, accordingly, in replying to the questions thus addressed to them, the Judges did not think it necessary to go exhaustively through the whole list of the persons comprised, as they thought, under the terms "Protestant clergy;" but they knew in what respect their Lordships required to be informed, and they framed such a general answer as they believed would be sufficient to guide the judgment of Parliament upon the point under its consideration; nor had he (the Lord Chancellor) the least doubt that those learned persons would again be actuated by the same spirit if this question also were referred to them. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chief Justice) had taken umbrage at the fact that the first of the present questions was, whether the patent was legal. His noble and learned Friend had scouted the notion of asking such a question. But was that the impression of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), who first brought that subject under the notice of the House? And if it was, what did his noble and learned Friend mean by the statement in his Resolution—that the patent "purported" to create the right hon. Sir James Parke, Baron Wensleydale for life? It was pretty clear that his noble and learned Friend, at all events, had originally entertained considerable doubt as to the legality of the patent—a view of the case from which he was now willing to recede. The second of the questions set forth in the present Motion was, "What rights and privileges does such a grant confer?" Now, no doubt, the object of that question was to ascertain whether such a grant did or did not entitle the holder to sit and vote in that House. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) said that that question was one upon which the Judges could give no answer. But he (the Lord Chancellor) said it was a complete fallacy to suppose that that was a matter in which the Judges could not give any opinion; and that it was such a fallacy he believed he could prove to the satisfaction of their Lordships, or, at least, of all those Members of the House who were familiar with legal subjects. It was very easy to see that the Judges might come to a decision which would, for all
1138
practical purposes, conclusively dispose of that question. If, for instance, the Judges should say that a person who had obtained such a patent had no right to be tried by his Peers, and had no right to freedom from arrest, it would only be natural to conclude that in their opinion he had no right to sit and vote in that House. But if, on the other hand, the Judges should decide that he had a right to be tried by his Peers, and that he had a right to freedom from arrest, it would only be reasonable to hold that in their judgment he must be entitled to the other privileges of the peerage. At least it would throw a strong burden of proof on those who denied his right also to his writ of summons. He could state a case—not a probable one, he admitted, but still a possible one—in which the Judges might be compelled to adjudicate upon the question then at issue. By a Statute of 24 Geo. III. chap. 26, it was provided that if any Member of the House of Commons should become a Peer of Great Britain during the recess, the Speaker should, as soon as he should receive a certificate under the hands of two Members of the House that a writ of summons had been issued to summon such Peer to Parliament, issue his warrant within a certain time to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ. Now, suppose that in such a case as that the Speaker wilfully refused to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, and in the case of a Member of the House of Commons created a Peer for life, and if he were on that ground indicted for a misdemeanor for disobeying the Act of Parliament, it was clear that the decision of the Judges upon the point whether or not he could be convicted on that indictment would involve the question whether the patent of the new Peer, so to speak, turned him out of the House of Commons by making him a Member of their Lordships' House. It was true that, in Thorpe's case, the Judges declined to interfere with the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti. But his point was, that if the Judges were called upon for their opinion on the subject then under consideration, they would not have to decide on the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti, for this was not a question of lex et consuetudo Parliamenti, but a question of lex Coronæ—a case that involved the rights of the Crown. The real question was, whether the Crown had a right to command the services of one of its subjects in the House of Peers, and

1139
whether, when Lord Wensleydale presented himself with his writ of summons, the House had a right to say that he should not take his seat among them. Surely, in a case like that, they could not say that the Judges could give no opinion on the question in dispute. In the case which had arisen in the reign of Henry VIII., to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, the question had been put by the Crown itself, whether a particular person had or had not a right to a writ of summons? The Judges answered that that was a question for the decision of the Earl Marshal; and as the Sovereign whom they were addressing was Henry VIII., he (the Lord Chancellor) did not wonder that they had manifested no anxiety to give an opinion on a point connected with his prerogative. But, in real fact, the case was made for him (Lord Cranworth); for it was a question which the Crown had to decide for itself, and the Judges only told the King that the custom was to refer such question to the Earl Marshal and other high functionaries. The noble and learned Lord then referred to Lord Coke's Fourth Institute. Lord Coke was quite consistent with himself. He had, no doubt, stated that questions relating to the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti were not questions for the consideration of the Judges; but the question whether a person had a right to come into Parliament was not a question of lex et consuetudo Parliamenti, but a question of the law of the land. On these grounds he hoped their Lordships would accede to the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord Glenelg); and that they would show to the country that which, let them give him leave to say, the country would not otherwise believe—that they were anxious, before deciding on a question of this importance, to ascertain what was the law with respect to it. He (Lord Cranworth) might feel an undue excitement upon the subject, and he might exaggerate its importance; but if the Motion which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had placed on the notice paper for that evening were carried, he protested that he believed it would be the most wilful, the most unprecedented, and the most unjustifiable invasion of the rights of another branch of the constitution that it had ever been his lot to witness. He believed it would be a proceeding for which there was no precedent, and in support of which no recognised principle of the constitution could be alleged. His noble and learned Friend had given notice that he
1140
meant to propose that their Lordships should not receive in that House one of Her Majesty's subjects, who might present himself at the bar with a writ from Her Majesty commanding him to give Her his services. Before they adopted such a Motion, he trusted they would well consider the matter, and as a foundation for such I inquiry accede to the proposal of his noble Friend, and ask the opinion of the Judges as to the legality of the patent, and the nature of the rights which it conferred.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he could not consent to allow precedents drawn from the time of the Plantagenets to be employed for the purpose of destroying the hereditary character of that House. No attempt had been made on the part of the Government to show that any life peerage, such as the one they were then considering, had been granted either in the time of the Tudors, or in the time of the Stuarts; and, above all, they had not attempted to show that any such creation had been made since the Revolution of 1688, which had consolidated the liberties of this country. He trusted their Lordships would not destroy the hereditary character of that House by giving every future Minister the right to create as many life peerages as he might find necessary for the purpose of carrying any particular measure. If this attempt were allowed to pass, what security would they have in case there should arise some arbitrary monarch, who, unlike Her present most gracious Majesty, did not reign in the affections of Her subjects—or some female Sovereign burdened with a connection with some foreign Prince little accustomed to our English rights and liberties—what security would they have, in such a case, that a blow might not be aimed at the independence of their Lordships' House, and so at the continuance or the stability of our institutions?
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he should decline altogether following the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), or the noble Lord who had made this Motion, into the question of legality, constitutional nature, or expediency involved in this matter. The question before their Lordships was of a very limited nature—it was simply whether they would or would not proceed into a Committee of Privileges and report on the subject referred to that Committee, without referring certain questions to the Judges, or would first take the advice of those learned counsellors? With respect

1141
to his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), there was one word used by him more than once, and which he (Lord Brougham) was rather surprised to find uttered by him on this occasion, in connection with the unhappy predicament into which their Lordships had been he would not say drawn, but rather driven—and that was the word "reckless." Of all the words in all the dictionaries of the Saxon tongue, that word "reckless" was the last which he should expect to find in the mouth of any of the present Advisers of the Crown in speaking upon this measure of theirs. His noble and learned Friend, as well as his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice, had reduced the question to this—whether the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti were involved in the creation of life peerages; and whether they could frame the questions in such a manner as to compel the Judges to answer as to points upon which the Judges on former occasions had wisely and consistently declined to reply? The question for their Lordships, in his view, was short, simple, and practical—whether, if they chose to ask the opinion, they could get an answer from the learned Judges? By the learned Judges, he assumed, was meant the whole fifteen Judges; but he would remind their Lordships, that fourteen of the fifteen—that was, all except the one who remained in town during the vacation—had either left town or were on the point of leaving it to go the circuits. Could they then get the benefit of these learned persons' assistance? It seemed to him they could not. The point was not like one of those ordinary matters in the practice of the Courts, which twenty-four hours' or forty-eight hours', or say a week's consideration, would enable any Judge to answer satisfactorily. It was a question full of difficulty. It was a question upon which, as they knew, there had been great difference of opinion among lawyers in that House and out of that House. In those circumstances, were they to administer interrogatories to the learned Judges, and call upon them within twenty-four or forty-eight hours to return an answer? If they desiderated the opinions of the Judges ever so much—if they had had ever so many or so good reasons shown them why they should call for that opinion—and his noble Friend's (Lord Glenelg's) reasons, by the way, had been very few and therefore very indifferent ones practically—in point of fact they could not obtain it.
1142
The Judges would say this was not an ordinary matter, and they wanted a few months for consideration; it was a matter which did not press, but might stand over until next Session. That would be the inevitable consequence of accepting the Motion of the noble Lord, and putting questions to the Judges. He was a little astonished to hear complaints of the rapid, wilful, and inconsiderate haste of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), and those who agreed with him in pressing to have a decision on this great and important constitutional question. The noble Lord (Lord Glenelg) complained of their wishing to go on without consulting the Judges, and said they could not take too much precaution against falling into error; and his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack entered thoroughly into the same view—deprecating hasty proceedings, and expressing himself anxious for further inquiry and fuller investigation.
It might be consequently supposed that those two noble Lords, who considered a little delay did not signify compared with the evils of a hasty and erroneous judgment being arrived at, voted the other night for going into a Committee of Privileges; but, if he was not misinformed, though he could hardly believe it, both voted against proceeding further in a Committee of Privileges—one thought it better to proceed in a different way, and the other was for at once rejecting the Motion for inquiry without further consideration:—They would have decided without inquiry: and now, after the House had determined to inquire, had actually in part examined the subject, and were about to go into Committee in order to complete the inquiry, the noble Lords turned round and said, "We cannot go on with it; the best thing is to delay inquiring into the subject; it is too important to be speedily or rapidly settled." He (Lord Brougham) would not enter at length into the argument which had been used by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, that this was not a question of privilege, but a question of the prerogative of the Crown. It was true it was a question of prerogative; but it was of the prerogative trenching upon or infringing the privileges of the House, which the House not only could consider, but must consider. According to the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, the Crown, ex mero motu, without writ or patent, could send down any person to that House; and if their Lordships refused

1143
to allow him to take his seat, producing no authority, it would be a question not of privilege, but of the prerogative of the Crown. Would the noble and learned Lord then say, "This is no question of privilege—it is a question of the prerogative of the Crown:—do not put yourselves into collision with your Sovereign?" So that a person having neither patent nor writ might be by the prerogative marched into the House, and the House must suffer him to sit and vote for fear of setting itself against the Crown. He (Lord Brougham) was quite surprised to hear such arguments from any lawyer, especially from a Whig lawyer. Now as to the Judges; no person could entertain greater respect for them than he did; no one was more anxious to have the benefit of their assistance; but there were difficulties in the way of calling upon them in the present instance; and the peremptory refusal of Lord Wensleydale to appear by counsel had aggravated those difficulties, for the Judges would be asked to decide without hearing the case argued, and he was sure that they would themselves be the first to declare that an opinion obtained from them in such circumstances would be worth but little. The Judges could not be invited to that House to listen to the conflicting arguments of noble Lords upon which their opinions were to be taken. He did not deny the competency of the House to call in the Judges, but he contended that to do so in the present instance would be most inconvenient, and they would be required to give an opinion without having the ordinary benefit of hearing the arguments upon the case. There were many objections to the Motion of the noble Baron, but he had only referred to one or two in addition to those mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice; they were, however, quite sufficient to justify him in opposing the proposition which was now made, and to which he hoped and trusted the House would not listen.
EARL GRANVILLE: I hope your Lordships will not be alarmed by the books before me, nor fear that I am about to trouble you at any great length. I can assure your Lordships I shall confine myself exclusively to the point before the House, although I must say I never heard a more unjust charge than was made by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down against the noble Baron who made this Motion as to having wandered from the point. The noble Baron certainly touched
1144
upon many points, but they all bore strictly upon the subject before the House. I really think it is too much to expect, in discussing a matter of this kind, that my noble Friend should wholly ignore and put out of sight the point to which the Committee was about arriving, and he had an undoubted right to refer to a notice upon your Lordships' Minutes. The noble and learned Lord also said that four of the law Lords in that House were agreed in opinion against the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. I will go further than the noble Baron (Lord Glenelg), and say that upon the question of the legality of Lord Wensleydale's patent we have a right to claim a majority of the law Lords on our side. I agree that the noble and learned Baron opposite (Lord St. Leonards) has been consistent; he has never given any opinion upon the point, he has never, to my knowledge, given an opinion in favour of the legality of life peerages. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) carefully abstained from saying anything upon it; and I am not surprised that he should have done so, for he acted in a judicial character only last year upon a question of a life peerage—a Scotch peerage—and the noble and learned Lord on that occasion put this question to the counsel, "It was usual formerly to grant life peerages in England; is it so in Scotland?" Now, it would have been irreconcilable with the character of the noble and learned Lord for consistency if he had got up now and said it was perfectly illegal. The noble and learned Lord who just addressed us (Lord Brougham) has expressed an inclination to believe that the patent is strictly legal. As to my other noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), he stated in his place as a Peer, in opposition to another plan which had been proposed, that it was within the prerogative of the Crown to grant life peerages. The noble and learned Lord also, in that delightful book which has been already quoted—the Lives of the Chancellors—in which in the life of Lord Eldon he gives a qualified approval as to the expediency in some cases of granting such peerages, has given his undoubted opinion that such is within the prerogative of the Crown. I think I have made out a case to show that implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the opinions of noble and learned Lords, and when they come to this House with a violent and unusual resolution your Lordships must be guided upon the point of legality

1145
or illegality by the opinions which they have already given. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) has expressed his surprise at the course which has been taken upon going into Committee. I must say I think it was a most undesirable step to take at all, and I own I experienced some slight consolation for the part we have taken when I found by chance this morning a protest in the Townshend case, signed by Lord Cottenham and other Peers now in the House. The first sentence of that protest is, "Because the Bill is an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown and the rights of the subject—of the prerogative of the Crown as adjudicating upon the titles of Peers without reference from the Crown, or leave given for that purpose." [Lord CAMPBELL: That was a question of illegitimacy.] I read this to show that Lord Cottenham objected to this particular Bill, which must have received the sanction of the House of Commons, and would have to be assented to by the Sovereign before passing—that it affected the power of the Crown, no reference by the Crown having been made, or leave given. The only conclusion I can draw is, that, agrave; fortiori, that noble and learned Lord would have objected to our resolving ourselves into a Committee of Privileges without the leave of, or a reference from, the Crown. I hope my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice will believe that in appealing from himself to himself, I do so to bring the weight of his learning and knowledge to bear upon the case I offer to your Lordships; but in a case heard in a court of law, the noble Lord, referring to the Banbury case, in which there was a charge of murder, and Lord Banbury pleaded in bar that he was a Peer and entitled to be tried by his Peers, "that plea," said the noble and learned Lord—"was held to be bad, and properly so, quia coram non judice—their Lordships not having had the case referred to them by the Crown, without which they had no jurisdiction." These are some consolations for our objections to the Committee. But I do feel strongly that bygones should be bygones, and, once being in Committee, we must all unite to try and come out as creditably as possible. An objection has also been made by the Lord Chief Justice that the precedents are against the Motion of my noble Friend. I must say, the precedents quoted by him were demolished by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, and the noble and learned Lord who followed him did not attempt any rejoinder. I
1146
think there are precedents the other way. In Cruise's Book of Dignities I find these cases:—Mr. Longville, in 1640, claimed the barony of Grey de Ruthyn. That case was referred to the House of Lords, and a question was put to the Judges with respect to the succession. Another case he might mention is the Clifton case, in which the Judges, on being consulted, declared that the said person, by virtue of the said writ of summons, and his sitting in Parliament accordingly, was a Peer and a Baron of this kingdom, and his blood thereby ennobled; secondly, that his said honour descended from him to Catherine, his sole daughter and heir, and successively after several descents to the petitioner as lineal heir of the said Lord Clifton; thirdly, that therefore the petitioner was well entitled to the said dignity. A third case is the barony of Fitzwalter, in 1668, when the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron Hall were consulted, and agreed that "the half blood was no impediment to the descent of a dignity to an heir general," with which opinion the King, who was present, being satisfied, Mr. Mildmay got the barony. These are all cases in point to prove that the Judges have been consulted upon questions of this kind. Reference has also been made to a Bill which enabled King William to delegate certain powers to his Queen during his absence abroad. This was referred to the Judges, and Chief Justice Holt decided that, without an Act of Parliament, the Sovereign could not exercise such powers. Surely, my Lords, this affords another reason why your Lordships should refer the present matter to the Judges. To my great astonishment, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) stated that, if your Lordships were to call upon the Judges to advise you upon the question, they could not do so, because they would be deprived of the assistance of counsel; and because, in M'Naghten's case, one of the Judges objected to the opinions of Judges being asked without their having an opportunity of hearing counsel. I was surprised to hear that, because I well remember that objection was overruled by every one of the remaining Judges; and Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Cottenham, Lord Wynford, and the Lord Chancellor, laid it down that the House of Lords had an undoubted right to have the opinions of the Judges on abstract questions of existing law. The noble and learned Lord also alluded to the delay which would be occasioned

1147
by referring the matter to the Judges, and, in doing so, I thought he proved more than was necessary for his case. He referred to the circuits, and to the terms and vacations with which the noble and learned Lord is much more conversant than I am, and he endeavoured to show that it would be impossible to get the opinion of the Judges during this Session. Surely it is idle to urge such an argument, which would be a bar to your Lordships ever putting any question to the Judges. When the noble and learned Lord says that it ought to take the Judges seven years to discuss the question, it is due to the noble and learned Lord to suppose that he spoke it humorously. But, my Lords, I do think that if we are able in seven days to arrive at an opinion upon the matter, notwithstanding that the opinions of noble and learned Lords are inconsistent with one another, and, in some instances, even inconsistent with themselves—if within that period we are expected to dispose of so great a question of jurisdiction and prerogative, surely the Judges might reasonably be expected to be able to come to a decision within the period of the Session. The noble and learned Lord has said that Her Majesty's Government, in the first instance, wanted to have the question decided without going into Committee at all, and that we are, therefore, very inconsistent in wishing to interpose any delay. But I think, my Lords, the course we are pursuing is perfectly justifiable. We ourselves entertain no doubt about the legality of the patent and of the writ issued by the Queen. But when your Lordships overrule us, and bring us into a Committee, and when you propose to adopt a course which is utterly unusual, and altogether without precedent, I do not think you have any right to turn upon us and accuse us of causing delay when we show a desire that your Lordships should seriously deliberate upon the question thus brought before you, and use every means in your power to come to a satisfactory arrangement. My Lords, are there no points raised of importance? The noble and learned Lord says that the first question proposed to be asked the Judges was useless, because he could assure your Lordships that no doubt exists as to the Queen having the power to make a Peer by patent for life. But, as the noble and learned Lord has on another occasion expressed a different opinion, it is possible that he may reconsider the more recent opinion he has pronounced, and at
1148
some future time given an opinion diametrically opposite. Therefore I should like to have the opinion my noble and learned Friend has this evening expressed confirmed by the learned Judges of the land. This, to me, my Lords, appears to be a point of great importance; for, although the Queen has the power to create a Peer for life, yet it may be argued and indeed decided in the course of this Session that such a dignity does not confer a right to sit in this House. Yet, my Lords, in the Third Report of the Lords' Committee on the Dignity of the Peerage—a Report known to have been drawn up by that great lawyer, Lord Redesdale—it is stated that—
"Whatever may have been formerly the constitution of the legislative assemblies of the realm, the dignity of Peer of the realm, from the time the present constitution of those assemblies was clearly established until the union of England and Scotland, gave to the possessor of that dignity, as one of its inherent rights, the character of a Member of such assemblies."
If the Judges should confirm this opinion, we should then have not only their judgment, but the opinions of Lord Redesdale and my noble and learned Friend; so that the case would appear to be absolutely decided. I will refer your Lordships to a case which I met with very providentially. It was first brought to notice by the noble and learned Lord who began this debate, and nothing can be more fair than to show what was the result of it. The Peers, having refused to take the advice of the Judges, and having decided quite contrary to the law, were obliged, seventy years after, to call in the assistance of the Judges, and they then gave quite a different decision. I hold in my hand a book of some authority. I am going to quote Mr. Hargrave—a passage this time really written by him, and not a note which he never wrote and never saw. It refers to the case of Sir Charles Knollys, who claimed the Banbury peerage. Mr. Hargrave says—
"Though this claim was finally rejected, yet it appears that a great number of Peers—twenty of them—protested against the decision. Such a circumstance goes far to induce the great probability that had it not been refused to hear the Judges the claimant would have had their opinion both on the facts and the law of the case in his favour."
My Lords, I now come to another question. I certainly do not hold the doctrine that this House is servilely to support the prerogative of the Crown in whatever way

1149
that prerogative may be exercised; but I do say, that when you are dealing with a prerogative of the Crown in a manner that goes to the very root of that prerogative, and when I consider that in the exercise of your own privileges in questioning that prerogative you are taking an unprecedented and unusual step, I think that, although the act itself may be right, and may be required by the necessity of the case, yet it is decent, with regard to the Crown, it is respectful to the other House of Parliament, and it is showing due consideration to the feelings of the country, that, before coming to so strong a decision, you should make it appear that you have neglected no single means of informing yourselves upon the law affecting the question. I will call to the attention of your Lordships a case in which your Lordships' predecessors took great steps with regard to the privileges of your Lordships' House, and with a view to strengthen and extend those privileges. There is hardly any one of your Lordships who will not agree in thinking that it was fortunate they were defeated in the attempt. I allude to the peerage question. It passed this House twice, but was defeated in the House of Commons by the efforts of that great and sagacious statesman Sir Robert Walpole. The House may sometimes take an erroneous view of its own interests. Your Lordships have been entreated not to prevent the House coming to a decision by any unnecessary delay; but, my Lords, whatever may be the evil of delay, even for a short duration, it is not to be compared with the evil Denbigh of having hastily, and without the fullest and maturest deliberation and information, come to a decision upon so important a question. I shall, therefore, vote with the greatest satisfaction for the Motion of my noble Friend, and conclude by requesting your Lordships to support the proposition for referring this matter to the Judges. On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content, Present 62; Proxies 49–111. Not Content, Present 97; Proxies 45–142: Majority 31.
Resolved in the Negative.

List of the CONTENT.

PRESENT.

Lord Chancellor

Roxburgh

ARCHBISHOPS.

Wellington

Canterbury

MARQUESSES.

York

Ailesbury

DUKES.

Breadalbane

Argyll

Clanricarde

1150

Lansdowne

Salisbury

Townshend

Worcester

EARLS.

BARONS.

Abingdon

Arundel

Aberdeen

Ashburton

Albemarle

Byron

Bessborough

Camoys

Burlington

Cremorne

Cowper

De Mauley

Craven

De Tabley

Devon

Dufferin

Effingham

Erskine

Elgin

Glenelg

Ellesmere

Keane

Fitzhardinge

Lilford

Gosford

Manners

Granville

Milford

Harrowby

Monteagle

Meath

Mostyn

St. Germans

Overstone

Somers

Panmure

VISCOUNTS.

Poltimore

Enfield

Saye & Sele

Falkland

Stafford

Sydney

Stanley of Alderley

Torrington

Sudeley

BISHOPS.

Wodehouse

Chester

Wrottesley

Manchester

PROXIES.

DUKES.

Scarborough

Devonshire

Stair

Leeds

Suffolk

Sutherland

Yarborough

MARQUESSES.

Zetland

Anglesey

VISCOUNT.

Bristol

Massareene

Donegal

BISHOP.

Headfort

Peterborough

Huntley

BARONS.

Normanby

Crewe

Westminster

Dorchester

EARLS.

Dunfermline

Camperdown

Godolphin

Clare

Harris

Cork

Holland

Denbigh

Howard de Walden

Ducie

Howden

Fingall

Londesborough

Gainsborough

Lovat

Glasgow

Lurgan

Kintore

Methuen

Leicester

Monson

Lindsay

Portman

Minto

Rossmore

Morley

Stuart de Decies

Portsmouth

Vaux of Harrowden

Radnor

List of the NOT CONTENT.

PRESENT.

DUKES.

Winchester

Beaufort

EARLS.

Buccleuch

Abergavenny

Buckingham

Bathurst

Manchester

Beauchamp

Montrose

Cardigan

Somerset

Carnarvon

MARQUESSES.

Cawdor

Bath

Chesterfield

Drogheda

Cottenham

Salisbury

Darnley

1151

De Grey

Lifford

De Lawarr

Melville

Derby

Sidmouth

Desart

BISHOPS.

Donoughmore

Exeter

Eglintoun

Rochester

Egmont

BARONS.

Ellenborough

Abinger

Enniskillen

Bateman

Erne

Berners

Grey

Blayney

Hardwicke

Brougham

Harrington

Campbell

Home

Castlemaine

Lanesborough

Clarina

Longford

Colchester

Lonsdale

Colville of Culross

Lucan

Congleton

Malmesbury

Delamere

Mornington

Denman

Orkney

Dinevor

Pomfret

Downes

Romney

Dunsandle

Sandwich

Feversham

Seafield

Forester

Selkirk

Grantley

Shaftesbury

Kenyon

Sheffield

Kilmaine

Stanhope

Lyndhurst

Strathmore

Polwarth

Verulam

Rayleigh

Wilton

Redesdale

Winchilsea

St. Leonards

VISCOUNTS.

Sandys

Canterbury

Sondes

Doneraile

Southampton

Dungannon

Templemore

Falmouth

Tenterden

Gage

Walsingham

Hawarden

Wynford

Hill

PROXIES.

DUKES.

Orford

Hamilton and Brandon

Poulett

Marlborough

Stradbroke

Northumberland

Tankerville

MARQUESS.

VISCOUNTS.

Ailsa

Bangor

EARLS.

Combermere

Bandon

St. Vincent

Buckinghamshire

Strathallan

Beverley

BARONS.

Bradford

Berwick

Clancarty

Blantyre

Courtown

Bolton

Crawford

Braybrooke

Ferrers

Clonbrock

Guilford

De Saumarez

Harewood

Farnham

Howe

Gray

Huntingdon

Hawke

Lauderdale

Heytesbury

Leven and Melville

Northwick

Limerick

Plunkett

Macclesfield

Ravensworth

Mansfield

Rodney

Onslow

Sinclair

PAIRS.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Strafford, Earl

Glengall, Earl

Clifden, Viscount

Cadogan, Earl

Grafton, Duke

Digby, Earl

1152

Lovelace, Earl

De Ros, Lord

Ribbesdale, Lord

Ely, Marquess

Auckland, Earl

Waterford, Marquess

Leinster, Duke

Middleton, Lord

Hereford, Bishop

Warwick, Earl

St. Asaph, Bishop

Hopetoun, Earl

De Freyne, Lord

Crofton, Lord

St. David's, Bishop

Mountcashel, Earl

Suffield, Lord

Rutland, Duke

Elphinstone, Lord

Talbot, Earl

Durham, Bishop

Rosslyn, Earl

Clarendon, Earl

Cloncurry, Lord

Ripon, Earl

Northumberland, Duke

Conyngham, Marquess

Bayning, Lord

Norwich, Bishop

Gloucester, Bishop

Bedford, Duke

St. John, Lord

Waldegrave, Earl

Cathcart, Earl

Spencer, Earl

Exeter, Marquess

Carlisle, Earl

Aylesford, Earl

Kinnaird, Lord

Ranfurly, Earl

Fortescue, Earl

Mayo, Earl

Carew, Lord

Downshire, Marquess

Foley, Lord

Exmouth, Viscount

Belhaven, Lord

Douglas, Lord

Hatherton, Lord

Dartmouth, Earl

Leigh, Lord

Willoughby de Broke

Strangford, Viscount

Stamford, Earl

Durham, Earl

Willoughby de Eresby

Stourton, Lord

De Lisle, Lord

Petre, Lord

Manvers, Lord

Dormer, Lord

Bantry, Lord

Rivers, Lord

Cleveland, Duke

Chichester, Earl

Richmond, Duke

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—THE WENSLEYDALE PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges to examine and consider the Copy of the Letters Patent purporting to create the Right Honourable Sir James Parke, Knight, a Baron of the United Kingdom for Life (presented to the House on Monday the 4th instant), and to Report thereon to the House.
Mr. THOMAS EDLYNE TOMLINS was called to the bar and examined by LORD LYNDHURST, as follows:—
Have you examined the Records of the Rolls Court?
I have examined them.
For what period?
From the first of Richard III., inclusive, to the end of the reign of Queen Mary.
Have you examined them with care and attention?
With as much care and attention as I
could.
How many cases of peerage are upon those Rolls?
I cannot precisely recollect.
About the number?
Seventy or eighty.
Have you found any instance of a life peerage among them?
Yes; in the 25th of Henry VIII.
What case is that?
The case of Maurice and Donacius O'Brien, upon whom was conferred the title of Earl of Thomond for life, in the 35th Henry VIII.
A grant of the Earldom of Thomond:—Is there not also a grant to Maurice of the Barony of Inchiquin, to him and his heirs male?
I cannot recollect. I tried to ascertain, but I was told it had been taken to the House.
Has it been laid on the table of the House?
I believe it has.
Have you found any other instance but that?
None.
Have you found time to examine the Rolls down to the date you mentioned?
No, I have not.
Have you been industriously engaged in it since you began the examination?
Yes, day by day, without any intermission.
Have you found no other instance of a grant for life during the whole of that period?
No.
LORD LYNDHURST: I may inform your Lordships that, with all his industry, the witness has not been able to carry the examination beyond the reign of Queen Mary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether it may be convenient to my noble and learned Friend that I should state that I and my Friends raise no objection on the score of further search being made for these grants. We know of none except that we know of many, I believe eighteen grants to women, and a great many for life, with remainder to collateral branches. I have not the particulars of these, and have not made any search. I do not think it necessary.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able adequately to perform the task which I have undertaken,—whether my strength will be sufficient for that purpose; but having undertaken that task, I shall perform it to the utmost of my power. I shall confine myself as strictly as possible to those matters which appear to me to bear directly upon the matter now before your Lordships, and which, I think, will enable your Lordships to form a correct opinion upon this important constitutional question. I shall not, I hope, find it necessary to take up very much of your Lordships' time, be-
1154
cause the subject has been so fully discussed already, and because there are so many of your Lordships who are intimately acquainted with every branch of the subject.
In the first place, I find it necessary to direct my attention to the subject of the jurisdiction of your Lordships on this question. I should have been satisfied to have kept silent upon that subject, resting on the circumstance that your Lordships have affirmed your jurisdiction by consenting to refer the subject to a Committee of Privilege, were it not that my noble and learned Friend opposite has upon more than one occasion denied that jurisdiction, and, permit me to say, has denied it in a tone and manner which I did not think at the time very respectful to your Lordships; for he intimated, obscurely I admit, but still in a manner intelligible to me, that your Lordships' decision, whatever it may be, will be entirely unavailing. The other House of Parliament, my Lords, stands in a more favourable situation than we do when questions of privilege are raised. The Speaker of the other House of Parliament is the guardian of the privileges of the House and of its authority; and, if those privileges are invaded, he is there for the purpose of defending the character of the House. I think it extraordinary that the noble and learned Lord, having recommended a measure which almost all your Lordships have considered an improvident and rash measure, should now, when we stand forward to condemn it, deny that we have anything to do with the subject, and to declare that our censure of it will be altogether unavailing and without any practical result; that we have no jurisdiction in the case, that it is ultra vires of this House, and that as it touches the prerogative, we cannot give effect to the opinion which we may form upon it. But, my Lords, there is something even more extraordinary than this. A learned person, who has never had a seat in this House, but is waiting to have your Lordships' doors opened to admit him:—who knows nothing of your Lordships' privileges and your rights—who has never had an opportunity of becoming conversant with them—he tells us dogmatically that we are doing that which we have no right to do, and that whatever judgment we come to in his case will be unavailing; and he instructs my noble and learned Friend opposite to communicate his opinions to the House for the purpose of influencing and controlling our proceedings. But, my Lords, if this opinion is

1155
well founded, there is an end to the independence of your Lordships' House. The Minister for the time being may trample upon your rights and privileges, and you will lie prostrate before him. But, my Lords, I undertake to state and to prove, in opposition to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, that there is no foundation for the opinion which has thus been expressed. My Lords, a case has been put before your Lordships which, if it be well considered, is decisive as to the jurisdiction of your Lordships; but I will advert to that case to show that this privilege which we are now considering is admittedly part of the independence of your Lordships' House. My Lords, everybody knows that an alien has no right whatever to sit in your Lordships' House. At the same time everybody knows the Crown has a perfect right to confer a peerage on an alien. Suppose that an alien had obtained a writ of summons and presented himself at your Lordships' bar, are your Lordships, knowing that he has no right to enter your House, and that if he did so it would be a violation of the law—are you quietly to suffer him to take his seat without interference? Are we all to be passive spectators of the violation of the law, and to be co-operators with him in the violation of the law? Is not the very statement of such a case sufficient to satisfy your Lordships, beyond all doubt, that you have a right to investigate the title by which a Peer claims admittance into your Lordships' House? I will put another case equally striking. It has been said by Lord Coke—I know not on what authority—that the Crown cannot grant a peerage for years; and he gives a reason for it which every lawyer knows—a reason extravagant and absurd. But suppose that a person created a Peer for a term of years comes to the bar and brings his writ of summons. Suppose your Lordships look at the patent and find that it contains a peerage for years, are you to admit him to take his seat, and suffer him to violate the law, and to become, indeed, co-operators with him in the violation of the law? That would be abrogating your right; and would it not be your duty to prevent him from taking the oaths and his seat among your Lordships? My Lords, look at the form of proceeding. When a person comes to the bar with his patent of creation and his writ of summons, what is the first step that is taken? The first step is to read the patent. Why is that patent read?
1156
For what purpose is it read, if your Lordships are to exercise no opinion with respect to it? Or, is it not read that your Lordships may have an opportunity of considering its validity and of acting according to the opinion you may form respecting it? I consider these cases very decisive as to your Lordships' authority and jurisdiction. My Lords, it is the right and duty of your Lordships, and of every assembly summoned in a similar manner, to see that the assembly to which they belong is properly constituted. If a writ of summons to which a party is entitled is withheld, your Lordships have a right to insist that it shall be issued. If, on the other hand, a party appears at your bar with an invalid patent, your Lordships have an equal right to prevent his admission into this Assembly. In both cases the right is the same, and it is your duty as well as your right to see that the House of Peers is properly constituted. It is asked, how are these rights to be enforced? I think my noble and learned Friend opposite has hinted that we have no means of enforcing them. My Lords, I will explain that in a few words. If a writ of summons is improperly withheld, your Lordships can insist upon its being issued. You may address the Crown for that purpose, if you think proper. If that address to the Crown is unavailing, there is a remedy that in a remarkable case has been resorted to, and which was effectual to attain its object. The Peers in Parliament in that case refused to proceed to business until the writ of summons was issued, and until the House was properly constituted; and the historian who records this fact says that the means adopted were so effectual that the King was induced to issue the writ of summons, and that the abuse of which they complained never occurred again. That is a remedy when the writ of summons is withheld. On the other hand, when a party has obtruded himself upon the House, in which he has no right to sit, the remedy is equally plain. It is your duty to direct your officers to refuse to administer the oaths, or allow the party to take his seat. So much for that part of the question.
Now, my Lords, with respect to the precedents in the case. My noble and learned Friend no doubt remembers he told us there was only one precedent adduced—the case of the Hamilton and Brandon peerage. I think that your Lordships can hardly have forgotten the kind of

1157
triumphant air with which he stated that he would soon dispose of the authority of that case. I was curious to know by what means my noble and learned Friend could get rid of the obligation of that precedent. I followed him throughout his argument, and he concluded his speech, leaving the obligation of the authority of that case wholly untouched. What was the case? A peerage of Great Britain had been granted to the Duke of Hamilton, a Scotch Peer. The question was, whether that peerage was valid or invalid. It was contended that a Scotch Peer since the Union could not receive an English peerage. It was argued that such a peerage was quite contrary, both to the language and spirit of the Act of Union. The question was discussed with great zeal and earnestness. If your Lordships look to the division, you will see that the discussion attracted great attention, and that the House came to the conclusion that the peerage was invalid. The party who thought he was entitled entered a protest, which goes into the minutest particulars of the objections taken. The question in this case is, not whether the decision of the House was right that the peerage was invalid, but as to the form of proceeding and the course adopted by your Lordships in having upon your own authority investigated the subject and decided upon your own privileges. During the whole of that discussion, amid all the zeal and warmth and energy with which it was debated, not one single observation was made against the course of procedure. I have looked minutely into that protest, and I have found that, although every possible objection was taken, not one single objection was taken as to the authority of the House, or to the course of proceeding that was adopted on that occasion. For seventy years that decision was acquiesced in; but it was then decided that the judgment was invalid, and that the peerage was good. The decision of the House was reversed. But even then, when it came on again for discussion, not a single objection was taken to the course of proceeding, but the judgment pronounced by the House was reversed. How has the noble and learned Lord destroyed that precedent? In the Brandon case the question was, on two separate occasions, raised in a very marked manner as to the control of this House over the writ of summons. What course did the House take on that occasion? It referred the question to the Committee of Privileges. On two occasions petitions
1158
were presented to the House, and in both they were referred to the Committee of Privileges, which investigated the title of the claimant. The result was, that the House was not satisfied with the title, and upon the report of the Committee the petition was on the first occasion dismissed. There is another case to which I am particularly desirous to allude, in consequence of some reference having been made to it by the noble Lord the President of the Council; I allude to the case of the Earl of Banbury. One of the claimants to this peerage had the misfortune to be engaged in a duel, and came by petition before your Lordships' House, claiming to be tried by his Peers. The House referred the case to the Committee of Privileges to investigate his title. They said he had not made out his claim to be a Peer, and dismissed the petition. The question, in another shape, came before the Court of Queen's Bench, and Lord Chief Justice Holt took upon him to say that this House had no jurisdiction in the matter:—he said the case was coram non judice, and that we had no authority. Now, my Lords, I am anxious to point out the erroneous conclusion arrived at by Lord Holt on this occasion, because I believe my noble and learned Friend, and other noble Lords, have placed considerable reliance on his decision. Nothing could be more erroneous in principle than that decision was. It is clear that you had a direct jurisdiction where an application was made to you by a person claiming to be a Peer. It is for this House only to say whether such a person should be tried by his Peers or not. It is also a clear point of law, to the accuracy of which every lawyer will subscribe, that where any tribunal has a jurisdiction in a principal matter, it has also a jurisdiction incident to it over every correlative matter that belongs to it. It is clear, therefore, that Lord Holt's opinion, if he really expressed it, was erroneous, for the House had clearly jurisdiction in this case as to the principal matter—namely, whether the person claiming had a right to be tried by his Peers, and, having that jurisdiction, they had a right to inquire whether the claimant was a Peer or not. Perhaps I should hardly have ventured to express this opinion had it rested on my authority alone, but it is confirmed by one of the highest legal authorities that ever sat in your Lordships' House—I mean Lord Redesdale. I shall read an extract from an opinion given by

1159
Lord Redesdale in the Banbury case—not the Banbury case to which I have just alluded, but another which came subsequently before the House. He said—
"This Resolution"—that is, the Resolution with respect to the application to be tried by his Peers, which was refused, as I have stated—"passed as it was with great solemnity, ought in my opinion to have all the force of a judicial decision. It was denied by Lord Holt. No doubt can be entertained of the jurisdiction of the House, for surely it had a right to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to be tried as a Peer, and this could not be done without ascertaining whether he was legitimate."
Again—
"I think Lord Chief Justice Holt was mistaken, if what fell from him is correctly reported, otherwise the Crown might refuse a writ in a subsequent Parliament, to any Peer now sitting in the House."
Again he says—
"I cannot approve of the opinion of Lord Holt in this case. The House acted with great propriety. It had been said that the Resolutions of the House on the petition were extra-judicial; that, the object of the petitioner not being to establish the legitimacy of the claimant, the House had nothing to do with it."
Now, I apprehend it is upon that opinion of Lord Chief Justice Holt, who stated upon that occasion that the House had no jurisdiction in the matter, that my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) has relied in saying that we have no authority to decide this question. I have stated what I consider to be the principle that justified the decision of the House on this case. I have shown that that decision was impeached by the authority I have mentioned—namely, Lord Holt; and I think I have shown that the decision at which he arrived was erroneous; and this is one of the cases by which my noble and learned Friend is guided on this occasion. Several other cases might be cited from the Journals, all of which go to establish the fact that this House has a right, on application or petition, to be admitted by a writ of summons, to inquire into the title, and pronounce a judgment accordingly. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: What are the cases?] My noble and learned Friend will find the cases in the Journals of the House. One of them is that of the Earl of Lincoln, who came to the bar with a writ of summons. There was some reason to object to that writ; it was suggested that he was not entitled. And what did the House do? It referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges, and directed the Committee to examine into his title and pedigree.
1160
The Committee accordingly entered into an examination of the patent and the pedigree of the claimant, and, having reported in his favour, Lord Lincoln was allowed to take his seat. I could quote other cases, but I am afraid I should not have sufficient strength to go through them. I may allude to one case, however, in which the son of a Peer was called to this House by one of his father's baronies during the lifetime of his father. He died in the lifetime of his father, and the question was, whether his son was entitled to succeed to the barony without the intervention of the Crown. It was submitted, without any intervention of the Crown, to the Committee of Privileges, which decided in favour of the grandson's claim, and the claimant took his seat accordingly. All these cases show that where a person is entitled to a seat in this House, and the Crown does not interfere to assist them, he may petition the House for a writ of summons. The House, through the Committee of Privileges, investigates the claim, and acts accordingly. We know that particular persons have been disqualified by Act of Parliament from sitting in either House. In any of these cases the Crown has a perfect right to grant a peerage to the individual, but that grant of peerage does not give him a right to sit in your Lordships' House. If he should be summoned, your Lordships would immediately investigate the case, and say to him, "You have no right to sit here: we refuse to let you be sworn and take your seat." Indeed, from all the cases I have referred to, the matter appears to me to be so clear that my noble and learned Friend cannot possibly give a satisfactory answer to what I have brought forward. I say, then, on the authority of the decisions I have referred to, that in principle we have a perfect right to proceed with this case, notwithstanding the peremptory tone in which the noble and learned Lord has denied it. My Lords, leaving this part of the case, to which I have adverted at such length in consequence of the peremptory opinion expressed by my noble and learned Friend opposite, I will now proceed to the consideration of the other and more material part of the question. A great deal has been said about the authority of Lord Coke. We see him through the haze of distant time, which magnifies his proportions; but I admit he was a great lawyer. At the same time, I am bound to state, what

1161
is well known to every one conversant with the subject, that he was never considered a great authority on Parliamentary or constitutional law. Here, again, I do not wish to rely upon my own personal opinion alone. I will read what Lord Redesdale, an eminent authority on a subject of this kind, says of Lord Coke. Lord Redesdale writes:—
"I have a great respect for the memory of Lord Coke, but I am ready to accede to an assertion made by some of his contemporaries, that he was too fond of making the law instead of declaring the law, and of telling untruths to support his own opinions. Indeed, an obstinate persistence in any opinion he had embraced was a leading defect in his character."
And, speaking of a certain dispute in which Lord Coke was engaged with Lord Ellesmere, he says—
"This dispute furnishes us with a very strong instance of his forcing the construction of terms, and making false definitions, when it suited his purpose to do so."
Such is the character given to Lord Coke by a noble and learned Lord who deservedly stood high for legal knowledge in the opinion of your Lordships and of the country, and I believe he was so held by many of his contemporaries. In the view which I take of Lord Coke I am supported by corresponding facts. I may recall to your recollection the many important instances in which, with respect to the creation of peerages and other questions, his judgments have been since reversed. I stated two of them upon a former occasion, and could add many more if it were necessary for my purpose. But first let us consider the dictum of Lord Coke upon which so much stress is laid. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) states, in one of his intended Amendments, that the right of the Crown to create peerages for life rests upon the highest legal authority, which is supported in substance by many corresponding instances. It has sometimes happened—not unfrequently indeed—that intelligent persons not conversant with legal inquiries are apt in questions of Parliamentary or constitutional law to mistake show for substance; and I am bound to say that my noble and learned Friend opposite on a former occasion did produce his authorities, or his seeming authorities, with so much confidence and with so plausible an air that it was well calculated to mislead the noble Earl. But I will show, before I sit down, that all these pretended authorities depend upon
1162
the dictum of Lord Coke. We in the profession of the law all know that when an opinion is cited in a court of justice, it is over and over again asked, however eminent the authority may be, what authorities, what cases does he produce in support of his opinion? Lord Coke cites no decisions—no instances—in support of his dictum; while I will undertake to satisfy your Lordships, with a clearness amounting almost to demonstration, that in no case, without the authority of Parliament, has the Crown created a Peer for life so as to enable him to sit in this House. I pledge myself to prove it only short of demonstration, always going upon the cases before us. Lord Coke, then, laid down the doctrine we have heard, citing nothing to support it. Who was the next authority adduced by my noble and learned Friend opposite? Chief Justice Comyn. What was the nature of his evidence? He is the author of a digest of the law; but his digest is nothing more than a collection of cases and decisions arranged under different heads. What has he done bearing upon the present question? He has inserted, I believe, under the head "Prerogative," or some similar head, this very dictum of Lord Coke, to which he puts the name of Lord Coke and the page, but he makes no observation upon it whatever. Do you call that an original authority? Was Chief Justice Comyn called upon to discuss and consider the question? His business was simply to insert what he found in Coke as the opinion of that learned person. So much for that authority. But we come next to Justice Blackstone. My noble and learned Friend opposite almost smiled when he appealed to the authority of Blackstone. What did Blackstone do? He extracted the opinion of Lord Coke and inserted it in his popular work; but he never entered into the question, never discussed it; he assumed it upon the bare authority of Lord Coke. Such are the authorities produced by my noble and learned Friend. They do not support his opinion; they merely quote the dictum of Lord Coke, adding nothing themselves. But then my noble and learned Friend brings forward a curious authority—the most curious, indeed, ever attempted to be palmed off on any audience—founded upon an omission by Sir Matthew Hale. Sir Matthew had a volume of Coke upon Littleton, in which he was in the habit of making notes from time to time on the margin; but there happens to be

1163
no note on the passage relating to life peerages; and, therefore, my noble and learned Friend comes to the conclusion that Sir Matthew Hale was entirely of the opinion of Coke, and so did not think it necessary to make a note. Will my noble and learned Friend repeat his argument drawn from the omission of Sir Matthew Hale? But Selden is said to be an authority. He was cited as such by the Lord President of the Council. But he does not carry the case a bit further, for he simply says that peerages were generally granted as inheritances, but in some instances they had been granted as estates for life. That is perfectly true; but look at the cases to which Selden refers. One is the Countess of Buckingham, a woman; another the Marquess of Dublin, whose case is upon your Lordships' table. The Marquisate of Dublin, though it was a peerage for life, was created by the authority of Parliament. It has nothing to do, therefore, with the question at issue. My noble and learned Friend has also referred to Lord Redesdale in support of his argument; but there he is equally at fault. Lord Redesdale states, almost in the words of Selden, that peerages are generally granted as inheritances, but that they have been granted for life. Unquestionably they have, as proved by the cases on your table; but I will show that a peerage for life has in no instance been granted except upon the authority of Parliament. Most, if not all the cases which my noble Friend has stated are founded solely on the dictum of Lord Coke, whose authority has been questioned. I referred on the last occasion to a note as the note of Mr. Hargrave. Mr. Hargrave edited the first part of Lord Coke's book. Mr. Butler, a man equally learned, or, perhaps, more learned in constitutional law, edited the second part. This note is in the early part; and, in looking at it I supposed it was the production of Mr. Hargrave. It turns out to be the production of Mr. Butler. It was inserted in the nineteenth edition, edited by Mr. Butler, and the publisher stated that Mr. Butler had added the notes which were marked by capitals. This is one of those notes, and it combats most effectually the doctrine of Lord Coke. Mr. Butler said that it was in the very nature of the peerage to be hereditary, and he did not believe a single instance of a person sitting in this House under a peerage for life could be found. As far as my own researches go I can vouch that there is no
1164
such instance, except where the peerage was created by the authority of Parliament. My noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) refers to Lord Shaftesbury and Lord Nottingham, and he says Lord Shaftesbury was not a good lawyer. I admit the education of Lord Shaftesbury was of a character to prevent his being a good lawyer; but he was a great Parliamentary and constitutional authority, and his opinion would be entitled to great weight. My noble and learned Friend read a short extract from Mr. Macaulay's History, with reference to the character of Lord Shaftesbury, stating what I have stated; and here, my Lords, I am tempted to throw a little sunshine upon this dull discussion, by quoting the words of Dryden, descriptive of Lord Shaftesbury—
"In Israel's court ne'er sat an Abethdin With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean, Unbrib'd, unsought, the wretched to redress; Swift of despatch, and easy of access. Oh! had he been content to serve the Crown With virtues only proper to the gown, Or, had the rankness of the soil been 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 decision in the case to which reference has been made; Lord Nottingham, also, took part in it—one of the greatest Chancellors that ever sat in the Court of Chancery. Permit me to make this observation upon Lord Coke—that Lord Coke wrote 200 years ago; and if I know anything of his character and turn of mind, had Lord Coke written in the present day, after 200 more years had passed without the creation of a peerage for life, he would have said desuetude had destroyed and taken away the prerogative, and it was one which could not now be exercised.
It is not a very inviting task I am about to perform, but I must direct your Lordships' attention to those instances in which peerages for life have been created. The first case referred to in the papers on your Lordships' table is that of the creation of a foreigner, Guichard D'Angle. He had no right, nor could he by the law of the land sit in Parliament. An alien can never sit in either House of Parliament. It is clear, therefore, he never sat; and it is not only clear he never sat in Parliament, but a few months after the creation the patent, or charter of appointment, was cancelled—vacated, as was stated in the margin. He died a few years afterwards;

1165
but summonses were issued subsequently, that being the ordinary act of the clerks of the House, who often issued summonses after the death of the persons to whom they were directed. A very curious comment is made upon this case by my noble and learned Friend. He says this foreigner was created Earl of Huntingdon for life, and the charter referred to another charter, providing a certain pecuniary grant to maintain the dignity, and, though "vacated" is written in the margin, that it referred to the other charter. If any of your Lordships look at the place where the note is written, I feel confident you must come to the conclusion that it relates to the charter upon which the note is subscribed. A very curious and ingenious device seems to have been resorted to by translating "isti" in the note as "those," though afterwards in the body of the charter, it is translated, as it should be, "these." I venture to assert that the marginal note relates to that charter, and that charter alone, and that the peerage was vacated. The next charters are two, which I shall take as one, the Marquis of Dublin and the Duke of Ireland—titles which were granted to the same person. But by looking into those charters, it will be found that the limitation for life relates not to the honours, but to the estates granted for the purpose of supporting those honours; and, moreover, it is distinctly stated that the charters were passed with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled. These words, though in a charter, have been decided by the highest legal authorities to give the document effect equal to an Act of Parliament. [Lord CAMPBELL: He was also Earl of Oxford.] My noble and learned Friend reminds me that this Peer was Earl of Oxford; but if it had not been so, no one who knows anything of the law of the country will care to deny that if these charters were creations of peerages for life, they were passed with the assent of Parliament. I need not refer to all the cases, for I believe my noble and learned Friend will agree with me that these significant words are to be found in all the patents or charters creating peerages for life. I do not find any assent to that statement from the noble and learned Lord opposite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: About half of them.
LORD LYNDHURST: I will show that
1166
the whole of them are. Take the case of the Duke of Lancaster, which was a grant of the Duchy of Aquitaine for life; but that was made by the King, not in his character as King of England, but as King of France, and homage was to be done him as King of France. That also was expressly confirmed by the authority of Parliament. In the case of the Duchess of Norfolk, also, there was the concurrence of Parliament, although being a woman that case is not a precedent. The Duke of Bedford and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester were the King's brothers. They were created for life; but the charters expressly provide that it was with the authority of Parliament. In the case of the Earl of Cambridge, there were no means of knowing exactly whether that peerage was for life or in fee; but there is every reason to believe that the creation was made with the authority of Parliament; for there is a short memorandum in which it is stated that the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, and the Earl of Cambridge, were all commanded to take their seats in the same Parliament and by the same authority. So, again. Thomas Holland, the King's uncle and Earl of Dorset, was created Duke of Exeter for life in Parliament. The last case to which I shall refer is that of Sir John Cornewall, who was created Baron Faunhope for life. The circumstances of this creation are somewhat different from the others, and on that account it did not require that the authority of Parliament should be expressly set forth in the charter. Your Lordships are aware that when a writ of summons is directed to a party, and that party appears, and is allowed to take his seat, that confers a title to him and his heirs. The object of the writ of summons is to have the party personally before Parliament, so that he may he clearly identified. But when the King is present in Parliament personally, and the party appears, a summons is unnecessary, the object being accomplished. Sir John Cornewall appeared in the Parliament when the King was present, and the King invested him with the robe and other insignia, and directed him to enjoy all the honours, dignities, and privileges of the other Barons. Here there was no charter used; there was nothing to show and support the title assumed, but the Parliamentary Roll and the Parliamentary records describing the ceremony of investiture. I have now gone through

1167
all the cases bearing upon this point; and your Lordships will observe that in no instance is there an estate for life created in a peerage without the consent of Parliament directly expressed or implied. When, therefore, the noble Earl (Earl Grey) in his Resolution talks about no peerages for life having been created for 400 years, and, as an inference, leads the House to believe that the creation of Baron Wensleydale for life is reprehensible, surely, when he finds that in no instance has an estate of dignity for life been created by the Sovereign without the consent of Parliament, the only conclusion at which he and all of us must arrive is that what is now attempted to be done never was done at any period of the history of this country. What, then, is there for the Government to rest their justification on? Nothing, absolutely nothing:—there is not a shadow, not a straw to save my noble and learned Friend from sinking. I have before observed, and I would enforce it upon your Lordships' minds, that long-continued usage is the basis and principle of our laws and our constitution. It is upon that our whole system depends. Look at the succession to the Crown. It is hereditary; but the descent does not follow the rules in ordinary cases, but depends entirely upon long-continued usage. The privileges and rights of Parliament also rest upon the same basis—the hereditary constitution of your Lordships' House rest on the same basis. The succession to the Crown itself depends upon the law of usage; the rights and privileges of the Queen's Consort and of the Prince of Wales—though the latter, in his character of Duke of Cornewall, derived his title and estates from the statute law—depend on the same principle. If you break in upon that principle, you destroy it. I exhort your Lordships to consider well what may be the consequences before you consent to any invasion upon this long-established law of usage. Let your Lordships remember that the constitution consists of three estates—of King, Lords, and Commons—united in the State, but each independent of the other, and producing harmonious action by the balance of their powers. But I will put it to your Lordships whether it is likely that this harmony can be continued, or this balance of power preserved, if one of the Estates can exercise such a power as is now asserted against the other? Will not the exercise of such a
1168
power, by the Crown, overthrow the balance and destroy the harmony of the whole; and when that is accomplished, what becomes of the purity, freedom, and independence of our boasted constitution?
It has been urged as a kind of justification of the measure we are now considering, that it has become a matter of necessity, for the purpose of the due and proper exercise of the judicial power of this House and the due administration of justice. Give me leave to tell your Lordships that, if there be any defect in that tribunal, you have a remedy in your own hands. About two or three years ago I ventured to point out the course which might be pursued in that respect, and referred to the issue of "writs of assistance," by which the House could call in common law or equity Judges to assist them; and if some of the Judges of Scotland were made Privy Councillors, they may also be called in to assist in the judicial business of this House relating to that portion of the kingdom.
But, my Lords, the principle upon which I proceed—the old constitutional principle—is, that I will give the Crown no power that is capable of being abused, unless some great and overruling necessity can be shown to exist. In the present case, my Lords, no such overruling necessity has been shown to exist. I look with all constitutional jealousy, and not with confidence, to those who are the depositaries of power. I remember it was over and over again said by one of the most illustrious statesmen England ever produced, that jealousy, and not confidence, was the maxim on which the British constitution was based. I believe the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) is a decided, uniform, and constant adherent to that principle. Jealousy and not confidence is the eternal governing principle of the British constitution. It is true, my Lords, that the danger of any undue exercise of its prerogatives by the Crown may at present be remote; but how long the present state of things may continue, how long it may be before a storm may arise, when important questions may start up, and the passions may be aggravated and excited, no one can venture to foretell. A day may arise when an arbitrary monarch, who may be desirous of increasing his prerogative, may again sit on the throne, and I am therefore anxious, my Lords, to guard against any such danger. We all remember, in the reign of James II., the conspiracies of that monarch, who by cabals

1169
was most unconstitutionally plotting the destruction of the living constitution. My Lords, the time has been when there have been men who have had the determination to establish an arbitrary monarchy. We know that James II. determined to repeal the Test Act, and to violate the constitution for the purpose of obtaining a pliable House of Commons; but when he obtained it the question arose how he should deal with the House of Lords. I will read an extract from Mr. Macaulay's History, which is pertinent to the present question, and will serve to show what difficulties may arise against which it is our duty to guard ourselves beforehand. He says—
"By such means the King hoped to obtain a majority in the House of Commons. The Upper House would then be at his mercy. He had undoubtedly, by law, the power of creating Peers without limit; and this power he was fully determined to use. He did not wish—and, indeed, no Sovereign can wish—to make the highest honour which is in the gift of the Crown worthless. He cherished the hope that, by calling up some heirs apparent to the assembly in which they must ultimately sit, and by conferring English titles on some Scotch and Irish Lords, he might be able to secure a majority without ennobling new men in such numbers as to bring ridicule on the coronet and the ermine. But there was no extremity to which he was not prepared to go in case of necessity. When in a large company an opinion was expressed that the Peers would prove intractable, 'Oh, silly,' cried Sunderland, turning to Churchill; 'your troop of Guards shall be called up to the House of Lords.'"
I think, my Lords, this will show that it is wise to devise guards against such attempts being made at a future period, and that it may not be unnecessary even to strengthen the rights and privileges of your Lordships' House. At least, your Lordships will take heed how you suffer the well-recognised and constitutional law of usage to be departed from. But without going back so far as the reign of James, we have a nearer and yet more striking experience to guide us, in the fate of the citizen King (Louis Philippe). For the sake of securing a little momentary popularity, that unfortunate monarch sanctioned the introduction of life Peers into the Chamber of Peers of France. And with what result? He soon found that the defence and barrier which should have defended him in times of difficulty and danger had been destroyed by the course he had pursued, that the equilibrium of the State was disturbed; his throne fell from him, and he found himself alone, deserted by those he had elevated, and surrounded
1170
only by a few false friends and insidious advisers. He fled disguised, and died dethroned and an exile.
I have now, my Lords, performed the task I have undertaken, and I have, I trust, fully warned your Lordships of the dangers that lurk beneath the proposed creation of life peerages. I have now only to move, That the Committee do agree to the following Report—
"The Committee have, as directed by the House, examined and considered the Copy of the Letters Patent purporting to create the Right Honourable 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: Though I fear, my Lords, that I shall incur the charge of presumption by attempting to move an Amendment to the Resolution of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), I am induced to take the course of which I have given notice by the strong sense I entertain of the danger that may arise and the very serious evils that may result from adopting the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, while it also seems to me desirable that the objections to that Motion should be brought under your consideration by some Member of your Lordships' House entirely unconnected with Her Majesty's Government, and who is not prepared to go the length of approving the measure which has been adopted by them, and is now in question. I am relieved from the necessity of following the noble and learned Lord through a great portion of his speech. I will not touch at all upon the question as to whether any clear precedent can be quoted for the admission of a commoner into this House by a grant of a peerage for life. The noble and learned Lord has convinced me that there is more doubt upon this point than I had supposed, but I do not consider it one which is necessary for us to decide. I will also abstain from touching the question whether Her Majesty has been rightly advised to grant this patent, or whether danger would arise from establishing practically the custom of granting life peerages. The noble and learned Lord at the end of his speech forcibly warned your Lordships against the danger of allowing the hereditary principle to be broken in upon. To a certain extent I agree with the noble and learned

1171
Lord; but if I went to the full extent—if I agreed with him that the prerogative had been improperly exercised, and that there was extreme danger in allowing the practice of granting peerages for life to be established—this would afford no ground for adopting the present Resolution, unless the noble and learned Lord can satisfy the House that it is not merely improper and inexpedient that this patent should issue, but that it is in excess of the power of the Crown. That is the only question. The two questions of whether it was right to exercise the prerogative and as to the existence of the prerogative are totally distinct. The noble and learned Lord himself well illustrated that difference but the other night, when he told us that if the Crown were advised to create a hundred Peers simultaneously it would not be illegal, but certainly would be unconstitutional. That distinction was a sound one. Any such exercise of the prerogative would afford ample ground for passing a vote of censure on the Government, it would even justify the other House of Parliament in impeaching, and your Lordships in finding guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, the Ministry which had advised such an abuse of the power of the Crown. Still, the act would not be illegal, and those hundred Peers so improperly created would have a right to take their seats in this House, and your Lordships could not refuse them admission. So, in this case, the argument used in order to show that it is wrong to revive an obsolete prerogative of the Crown, and to prove the great danger of granting peerages for life, would be strong if it were brought forward in support of a Motion to the effect that this House ought to censure the Ministers for the advice they had given to the Crown, or of a proposal that the House should adopt some measure to prevent such an abuse for the future. If this had been the course which the noble and learned Lord proposed to pursue, I should admit the validity of his argument. But that argument goes for nothing in support of the present Resolution, unless he can also show, not merely that it has been wrong thus to revive the exercise of an obsolete prerogative of the Crown, but that the prerogative so claimed does not legally exist, and that the act which has been done is in excess of the legal powers of the Crown. Has even the noble and learned Lord, with all his extreme ability, his great knowledge, and long experience,
1172
succeeded in showing this? or has he even ventured unequivocally to declare his opinion against the legality of the creation of a life peerage? Let me remind your Lordships that this point is one which ought not to be lost sight of, and the speech of my noble Friend below me (Lord Glenelg) has shown admirably how very grave a step it would be for this House to take upon itself to contest the Royal prerogative, unless it can clearly prove its illegality. I repeat that the attempt to establish this proposition has entirely failed. Notwithstanding the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite, there is a consistent stream of legal authority from the time of Lord Coke to the time of Lord Redesdale, all affirming that the power belongs to the Crown. I will not go over ground which has been so fully occupied by my noble and learned Friend below me (the Lord Chancellor), but I cannot help saying that I think it a most extraordinary mode of attempting to destroy the value of these authorities by telling your Lordships that they have all blindly followed Lord Coke. Now, I cannot believe that such men as Blackstone, Selden, Sir Matthew Hale, and Lord Redesdale would blindly follow Lord Coke—the authority of such men is not thus to be got rid of. The noble and learned Lord has himself told you how very high is the authority of Lord Redesdale upon questions of this kind, and that upon questions of Parliamentary law there is no authority higher. Now, can your Lordships believe that, when there was referred to a Committee, presided over by Lord Redesdale, the question relating to the dignity of a Peer, his Lordship, entering, as he did, into this most important investigation with great learning and extraordinary patience, is to be regarded as having merely followed the authority of Lord Coke? I really think this is a position, which cannot for a moment be established; yet, in his most able report upon the Dignity of a Peer, Lord Redesdale assumes, as a matter undoubted and clear, that the opinion of Lord Coke was correct. I cannot help thinking that, after an opinion of this kind, given by a Committee of your Lordships' House, printed by your Lordships' authority, remaining for thirty years unquestioned, if the law was doubtful before, this amounts to something very like a final adjudication in the matter. Then I come to the question of analogy and inference. Now, surely, if we look into this

1173
subject, and consider it in that light, there are very strong grounds for believing that the Crown possesses this prerogative. In the first place, by common acknowledgment, the Crown possesses the right of creating peerages limited either to heirs general or to heirs male; and it possesses still further the right of limiting it more closely, and of saying that it shall descend only to the sons of the grantee by a particular marriage. The Crown has repeatedly exercised the right of granting a peerage in remainder; and when it does that, unless my information is altogether incorrect, the Crown makes two grants—a grant to the person who immediately holds that peerage of a peerage for life, and at the same time a grant to some other person as a matter of reversion and to his heirs after him. Now, I want to know, does the fact of a separate and distinct grant to another person make any difference to the law upon this subject? If I may give to a certain person a certain thing, and another thing at the same time to another person, is it not an extraordinary conclusion to say that I must give both? Is not the less included in the greater? And if I may give a life peerage, and, at the same time, give to a totally distinct person the same peerage in reversion, with the power of transmitting it to his heirs, I am surely entitled to grant it without that. I can easily imagine that if a grant in reversion had never been attempted it might have been held to be illegal, but I cannot understand how you can argue that this grant of a reversion can make a difference in the grant of a patent for life. Both authority and analogy, then, are in favour of the possession of this power on the part of the Crown, and I maintain that you have precedent also for the exercise of the power, because the Crown has granted peerages for life in a very considerable number of cases, and even up to a comparatively recent period, is admitted. No doubt these peerages, especially the later ones, have generally been granted to women; and as women are excluded from this House, of course their right to sit here never came in question. But is it not a somewhat arbitrary assumption to say that, because these peerages were granted to women, they are no precedents for peerages for life? I must wholly dissent from that doctrine. Remember, I am not now considering the expediency of using this power, because then the fact that these peerages have been latterly confined to women would be of some importance; but when I am
1174
considering the dry law as to whether the Crown possesses this power or not, then the question of whether these persons were enabled by patents of this kind to take their seats here becomes of very much less importance. How does the case stand? Peerages have been granted to women so lately as the reign of George II. Now, these peerages, I believe, were never contested. If one of these ladies had been guilty of an offence, she would have been tried by the House of Lords, and not by a jury; and my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) reminds me that two of them were actually summoned to George III.'s coronation. These were, therefore, peerages to all intents and purposes. Now, if these same patents of peerage had been issued in the very same words to a man, have you any proof that the Peer thus created would not have been entitled to a seat in Parliament? That is what you have not yet proved, but that is what you must prove before you are entitled to reject these cases as precedents in settling the law of the question. I cannot believe that merely filling up the blank with the name of a man instead of a woman would make the document illegal; and if not—if you admit that the document would be legal, and that a peerage could be so created—then, I say, we have it on the authority of Lord Redesdale's Committee that it is incidental to the character of a Peer of the United Kingdom that he should be a Member of this House. My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council quoted from Lord Redesdale's Report a passage to this effect, and I had selected (though I will not now trouble your Lordships with it) a similar passage from the earlier Report of 1817. But then you attempt to destroy the value of this testimony by saying that commoners were never admitted to sit in this House upon grants of peerages for life. Even, however, upon that point I cannot help saying, that the noble and learned Lord, in his very able speech, failed to make out his case. I admit that the majority of life peerages at an earlier time cannot be quoted, inasmuch as they were made by the authority of Parliament; but I do not think he made out that the case of Sir John Cornewall did take place with the authority of Parliament. He made use of a most ingenious argument to show that the Cornewall peerage was not a peerage by patent, but that it was equivalent to a writ of summons, and therefore that it created a peerage with remainder to his heirs. The argument

1175
was highly ingenious, but at the same time I do not think it can take away the effect of the written words before us. Here we have the actual patent printed from our rolls, and with that patent before my eyes I must regard this as a creation by patent; and being so, with no remainder, it furnishes a precedent for the present creation. [Lord LYNDHURST said, there was no entry of a patent on the rolls, but simply of the appearance in Parliament.] I cannot verify my statement from memory, in the face of the noble and learned Lord's assertion; but, leaving this, I will now return to the argument I was before pursuing. I have endeavoured to show to your Lordships that, even setting aside this case, the power possessed by the Crown rests, in the first place, upon authority, next upon analogy, and then upon the actual exercise of the power of creating peerages for life. I believe that the only authority against this prerogative is an obscure and anonymous note in Hargrave and Butler's Notes on Coke upon Littleton. With regard to the question of authority, the noble and learned Lord opposite has not ventured to deny the legality of this exercise of the prerogative by the Crown; and several Members of your Lordships' House, themselves great authorities, have expressed their opinions upon the subject, and I will remind your Lordships that only one noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) has ventured to declare in so many words that this creation is an excess of power on the part of the Crown. I have listened, my Lords, to the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, and have heard, I believe, every word which has fallen from his mouth; but in the whole of his able argument I perceived that he endeavoured very ingenionsly to show that this exercise of the prerogative cannot be supported by precedent; but he did not even attempt to show that there was any positive authority in support of the opinion that it is illegal. The noble and learned Lord has carefully avoided that point, and knowing as I do his great ability, I consider that the fact of his carefully avoiding pledging his opinion upon that part of the question, does, in fact, amount to an admission that he feels that he is unable to contend with the difficulties of the case, and to show that there has been an excess of power on the part of the Crown. I would wish to recall to the attention of your Lordships that, upon the first night when we debated this question, the noble and learned Lord not only carefully
1176
abstained from denying the legality of this patent of creation, but in reality he implied the reverse, for in the able speech which he made upon that occasion, he mixed up together the questions of expediency and legality, and endeavoured to create an impression against the patent as being an improper exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, but at the same time he implied that his opinion was in favour of its being strictly legal. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, on that occasion, only went so far as to say that he believed, when the question came to be argued, the legality of this creation would not be established. Another noble and learned Friend of mine (Lord Brougham), who formerly held the Great Seal, went still further, for he frankly acknowledged that such creations, in his opinion, were strictly legal.
LORD BROUGHAM: I only said that I was inclined to consider them legal.
EARL GREY: Very well; my noble and learned Friend was inclined to believe their legality. Now, against all this authority we have one noble and learned Lord opposite, who states that it is his distinct opinion that the Crown has not the power of making these creations. This being the case, let us consider the arguments upon which those rely who deny the validity of this patent. Now, my Lords, I think, when we come to consider the subject carefully, those arguments resolve themselves into two heads—disuse or non-exercise of the power of the Crown, and the assumption which we heard the other evening, but which has not been repeated to-night, that the power of transmitting the dignity to his heirs is essential to the character of a Peer. With regard to the non-exercise of the power of the Crown, I concur with the noble and learned Lord, and I agree, with the majority of your Lordships, in thinking that the Crown should not be advised to exercise powers which have been long in abeyance; but I do not believe that, when such a power has been maintained by the Crown to so late a period as the reign of George II., when all the authorities go to show that those powers may legally be exercised by the Crown, the circumstance of non-exercise alone can be sufficient to deprive the Crown of powers which it at one time enjoyed. To do so, something more, such as an express Act of the Legislature, or some formal declaration that the power of the Crown in this respect had ceased to exist, would, I think, be necessary. With

1177
regard to the other argument, I confess that I do not think that any weight can be attached to it. This being the case, I think that I am justified in calling upon your Lordships to reject the Resolution which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, but to agree to the Amendment which I shall presently propose. I will just remark that in that Amendment I do not ask your Lordships to confirm the validity of patents of this nature, and still less to affirm the expediency of granting them; but, on the contrary, if your Lordships agree to my Amendment, I have given notice of my intention to move further Resolutions expressing opinions as to the expediency of the grant which has been made, not very dissimilar from those entertained by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and, I believe, by the majority of your Lordships. All that I ask your Lordships to do is to come to the determination that it is not right, upon doubtful and uncertain grounds, to refuse to admit the prerogative of the Crown; I call upon your Lordships to abstain from deciding upon such very doubtful grounds as have alone been adduced in favour of that conclusion, that the Crown has exceeded the authority which belongs to it, and from taking, upon that assumption, the strong step of refusing to permit Lord Wensleydale to take his seat in your Lordships' House in obedience to the writ of summons which he has received from Her Majesty. This, my Lords, is all that I venture to ask you to do; and I call upon you, before acceding to the Resolution which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, to consider how serious are the objections to such a course, and how great are the danger and inconvenience likely to arise from it. Let us beware that in resisting this exercise of the prerogative of the Crown we do not go beyond our functions, and incur the imputation of having stretched our own power to an illegal extent. I can conceive nothing more dangerous for this House than for it to go one hair's breadth beyond its legitimate power. Your Lordships, as the hereditary branch of the Legislature, are especially interested in maintaining the prerogative of the Crown; and I would caution your Lordships to take care that in denying the power of the Crown to make this creation you do not strike a blow at those foundations upon which your own privileges rest. There is one other point to which I would invite your Lordships'
1178
attention. Your Lordships should remember that the prerogatives and privileges of the Crown are held by it for the benefit of the people, who are interested, therefore, in maintaining those privileges and prerogatives, especially as they regard this House of Parliament. The representatives of the people may, therefore, deem it their duty to question the course pursued by your Lordships, if it should be carried further. The House of Commons has always shown a great jealousy of encroachment on the part of the House of Lords, and, if that House should arrive at the conclusion that you are overstepping your legitimate authority in refusing to allow Lord Wensleydale to take his seat, it is impossible to foresee what may take place; but I can see that there are many ways in which a most dangerous collision might be brought on between this and the other House of Parliament. Many who may admit the inexpediency of the exercise of this prerogative, may nevertheless assert its existence, and maintain that only Parliamentary enactment can destroy it. If we admit it to be necessary to restrict the prerogative of the Crown on the ground that it has been abused, still we have no right to proceed alone to take any steps for that purpose. No new restrictions can be put on the powers of the Crown except by legislation, and we are not entitled either to legislate by our own authority, or to establish by it new regulations which can only be legally imposed by an act of the whole Legislature. Look, then, what a dangerous precedent will be established if we take upon ourselves to refuse to allow Lord Wensleydale to take his seat on the grounds now before us. If your Lordships could put it as a clear matter of law, as in the case of a writ of summons to some person clearly disqualified by law, then I admit that the noble and learned Lord would be justified in asking your assent to this Resolution; but for your Lordships on doubtful grounds to assume this large authority to yourselves is, in my opinion, very dangerous. A noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) who spoke in a preliminary debate said, if I correctly understood what fell from him, he believed that the Crown possessed the power of creating a life peerage, but that he objected to its exercise, and that he should vote for the noble and learned Lord's Resolution; not because he thought that what has been done is illegal, but because he considers

1179
the prerogative of the Crown to have been improperly exercised. That, in my opinion, would be a dangerous precedent. Another majority in this House may say, at some future time, that hereditary Peers have been created in too great numbers, and that the peerage has been given to improper persons, and, on these grounds, may take upon themselves to refuse to admit persons who come to this House with those patents in their hands. That is precisely the abuse, great though it may seem, that the noble Earl tells us he is going to commit in this matter—and to commit, too, with his eyes open. I can easily conceive a most improper grant of an hereditary peerage, which would justify the impeachment of those who advised it; but does not every man see that if you refuse to admit a Peer for life on the ground of its being an improper exercise of the prerogative, you may refuse to admit those whom you might consider to have been created Peers improperly, although they might have hereditary grants, and thus virtually establish in this House an absolute, irresponsible, and uncontrollable authority in the State. When the House of Commons commits an abuse, there is a remedy in an appeal to the people; but if a majority of the House of Lords, on such grounds as those I have mentioned, refuses to admit a person summoned by the Sovereign to his place among you, from that moment a majority of this House will become utterly irresponsible, and the whole balance of the constitution will be destroyed. Such are the serious consequences which will result from adopting the Resolution of the noble and learned Lord, unless it can be shown, beyond doubt or controversy, that the issue of a patent of life peerage is beyond the strict legal power of the Crown. My Lords, upon these grounds I move as an Amendment—
"To leave out all the Words after the Word 'Opinion,' for the purpose of inserting the following Words; namely—'That the highest Legal Authorities having concurred in declaring the Crown to possess the Power of creating Peerages for Life, and this Power having, in some Cases, been exercised in former Times, the House of Lords would not be justified in assuming the Illegality of the Patent creating the Right Honourable Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale for Life, and in refusing upon that Assumption to permit him to take his Seat as a Peer."
[The noble Earl had also given the following notice.
[If the above Amendment should be agreed to
1180
by the Committee, then to move the additional Resolutions:—
["1st. That although several Grants of Peerages for Life are recorded to have been made in favour of Females up to a comparatively recent Period, no Precedent has been found within the last Four Hundred Years for the Admission of a Commoner to the House of Lords by the Grant of a Peerage for Life:
["2nd. That the Grant of a Peerage for Life to Lord Wensleydale being thus unsupported by any recent Precedent, it is expedient that the House should declare its Opinion, that, as a genera I rule, Her Majesty ought not to be advised to make use, without the Consent of Parliament, of any of the Prerogatives which may still in strict Law belong to the Crown but which cannot be shown to have been exercised except in remote Periods of our History, when the Constitution was in many respects unsettled; but that, having regard to all the Circumstances of the Case, the House, in declaring this Opinion, may properly abstain from expressing Disapprobation of the Conduct of Her Majesty's confidential Servants in advising the Grant of a Peerage to Lord Wensleydale for Life:
["3rd. That the Grant of Peerages for Life might in some Cases be of Advantage both to the House 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:
["4th. It will require further and mature Consideration to determine what Step it will be proper for the House to adopt in order to prevent the Patent granted to Lord Wensleydale from being 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."]
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that if this were a merely legal question, implying great knowledge and study of the law, he certainly should not have presumed to speak. But now a new scene was opened; the Amendment moved by his noble Friend opposite had brought the constitutional bearings of the question fairly before them, and their Lordships would therefore, he hoped, forgive him if he desired to address to them a few remarks. He must say, in the first place, that he had viewed with very great regret the precipitation with which Her Majesty's Ministers had acted upon this question. He gave them the fullest credit for good intentions, and he entirely acquitted them of having any sinister designs against that House; but at this critical period of our foreign affairs, when all parties in that and the other House of Parliament had acted with so much praiseworthy moderation and forbearance towards the Government, what necessity was there for their flinging this apple of discord among their Lordships? Was it wise, without having ascertained the opinion of the law

1181
officers of the Crown, to revive a prerogative of such doubtful legality—and certainly, at least, so long disused? With respect to the question of legality, he must say that he was much impressed with the argument against this prerogative on the ground of desuetude. We must all feel that, after such manifold changes in the constitution of the country, the exercise of the prerogative, after so many years' disuse, in the creation of a life peerage, was, in its practical effect and bearing, though it might not be in its legal effect, the creation of a new prerogative. Compare this to another branch of the prerogative, far more recently exerted, the right of withholding the Royal Assent to a Bill which had passed in Parliament. This, at least, was an undoubted prerogative of the Crown. Mr. Macaulay gave several instances of its exercise in the reign of William III.; but it had never once been used during the milder rule of the Princes of the House of Hanover. But, clear and certain as it was that this prerogative belonged to the Crown, would any measure arouse more general astonishment and indignation than that the Minister of the Crown should now, under almost any circumstances, advise the Sovereign to refuse the Royal Assent to any Bill that had passed both Houses? If that were the case with regard to an undoubted prerogative, what could be said to the revival of such a questionable prerogative as the one now under discussion after the lapse of 400 years? The noble Earl, in one of his additional Resolutions, to be moved if his Amendment should be agreed to by the Committee, has frankly admitted—"That, although several grants of peerages for life are recorded to have been made in favour of females up to a comparatively recent period, no precedent has been found within the last 400 years for the admission of a commoner to the House of Lords by the grant of a peerage for life." Now he (Earl Stanhope) could not but think that after so long a disuse of this prerogative it was no longer part of the legal prerogative of the Crown. He did think that, if their Lordships looked to the changes of policy which had taken place in all our institutions, civil and religious, it was impossible on constitutional grounds to allow that a precedent derived from such remote and turbulent times as those in which this prerogative had been exercised was just and admissible. Undoubtedly it might be
1182
a fair question to discuss whether another course might not be taken—whether their Lordships might not allow this patent to pass, and then take securities against the abuse of the prerogative for the future. He could so far go along with some noble Lords opposite as to admit frankly that, if life peerages were guarded against abuse and limited in number, very considerable advantages might accrue to that House by their introduction. They would thus avoid the evil of the present practice; a great Judge or legal functionary with a large life income being called up to the House, with no hereditary patent, and being succeeded by his son as an indigent Peer. Now, independence should always remain an essential element of the constitution of the House; it was difficult, in a station of high rank, to retain independence without competency of fortune; and he feared that if indigent peerages should be created in large numbers, their successors would no longer maintain that independence which had hitherto, taken as a whole, characterised the Members of their Lordships' House. These indigent Peers would be found too frequently crowding the antechambers of the Sovereign or the Ministers in quest of places in the Court or State, not as steps in any noble career of ambition, but only to eke out the means of maintenance. Moreover, their Lordships must remember that high judicial functionaries formerly possessed the power of making provision for their families which they no longer enjoyed. A strong instance of that kind was afforded in a Peer held in high respect by all their Lordships—he meant the Earl of Roden—who was descended from a Chancellor of Ireland, who died exactly a century ago, namely, 1756, and yet, even after that lapse of time, Lord Roden was still in possession of a salary or pension of large amount, to cease only with his own life, in connection with the official services of his ancestor. Now, whether for good or evil, it was plain that no such opportunities of providing for a Judge's family would be in future found. Admitting it, then, to be his opinion, that under proper limitations considerable advantage might be derived from the creation of life peerages, he might be asked why he opposed the patent of Lord Wensleydale? His reply would be that it seemed to him that without some limitation the dangers of abuse and the facility given to the Minister to increase his power by such, creations

1183
would be so enormous as much more than to counterbalance and outweigh all the advantages that could be derived from the practice. They must consider that in any attempt to overrule the decisions of their Lordships' House the greatest facility for doing so would be afforded by the expedient of life peerages. The creation of life peerages would therefore not only put that power into the hands of the Minister, but it would probably be not unfrequently exercised, because the reply to any objections raised would be that the injury, if injury there existed at all, would not be permanent, but only temporary. Not only so; but, when one Minister had been in office, and had created some ten or twelve of those life peerages, his successor might very naturally say he was not to be overruled by the life Peers of his predecessor, and would create a batch of ten or twelve more Peers to restore his majority, while a third batch might be created by another Minister to overrule the decisions of the other two. So that there would be no end to the progressive increase; and great inconveniences and even danger might therefore evidently attend the practice. It was difficult to refer to this part of the subject without remembering the precedent of 1832, on the occasion of the Reform Bill, when the King consented and the Prime Minister resolved to create a large number of Peers. He thought this precedent suggested some useful lessons which ought to be borne in mind on the present occasion. It was well known that Earl Grey, when he resolved to adopt that measure in 1832, did so with the utmost repugnance and regret, and only under the pressure of what he believed to be an overruling sense of duty. Now, could it be doubted that the expedient of life peerages presented itself to his mind as the easiest mode of settling the question? Then, if Earl Grey did not upon that occasion adopt the creation of life Peers, but threatened to resort to a different measure, to what other cause could they ascribe this, but to his conviction that it would be not only unconstitutional but even illegal? From Earl Grey's own views on that occasion we might also deduce the thought that only the most extreme exigency could justify the creation of Peers in large numbers to overrule the decisions of the House; and, if so, their Lordships ought, not to grant to Ministers any new or greater facilities for a power so liable
1184
to be abused. The question to consider was, whether there was anything either in the propositions of the Ministry, or the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), which gave any security against abuse if they were allowed to advise the exercise of a prerogative so long disused. He confessed he could see none, and he advised the House to be cautious before they allowed such a power to be in the possession of Ministers, with the simple pledge that it would be used with moderation. The patent of Lord Wensleydale was a simple natural exercise of the prerogative, unguarded by any limitations for the future. The weapon so long ready and disused was here again sharpened up for use and drawn from the scabbard—it was unsheathed—it was brandished in their Lordships' faces, and there was no necessity beyond the moderation of the holder when or how that scabbard should be resumed. Then, did the Amendment of the noble Earl afford them any greater security against abuse? In that Amendment he found no security whatever, his noble Friend having contented himself with the statement that the further exercise of the prerogative was not to be recommended. It might perhaps be beneficial to sec peerages for life introduced if they were strictly guarded by provisions limiting the total number and likewise the number that could be made in any one year, and also the qualifications on which they should be founded. It might also be possible to strengthen the judicial tribunal of their Lordships by adopting a suggestion, which he thought worthy of consideration, for attaching peerages to great official positions, such as that of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, the Master of the Rolls, and other great legal functionaries—so that there was a possibility of obtaining the required addition, of legal strength without resorting to the creation of Peers for life. If, however, a system of life peerages, without stint or limitation, were once fully established, they might consider it as the beginning of a fundamental change in the constitution of their Lordships' House. Now, before they consented to any such fundamental change in the constitution of that House, he entreated them to look at what had occurred in all other monarchies where attempts had been made to establish constitutional Government. It would be found that in all these cases the Second Chamber had always been the main difficulty. There had been no difficulty

1185
with respect to the establishment of the Royal authority, investing it with the great prerogative of mercy and justice, peace and war. The elective Chamber, who would be framed with case, whether on a most restricted franchise, as was the case in France ten years ago, or whether, even on universal suffrage, as was also the case in France at a more recent period. All this was no hard task. But to make a Second Chamber, standing between the Crown and the elected body, was a problem which had baffled and bewildered the ablest statesmen on the Continent. If they gave the nomination to the Crown, they doubled the Royal authority. If they lodged it with an elective body, the popular principle was too predominant, and there was a further force given to those hidden democratic impulses which it was desired to restrain and to control. In almost every case the Second Chamber was a failure, and the wisest statesmen on the Continent had come to the conclusion that a House of Peers could not be created at once any more than an old oak can be created; that, in fact, it could not be created, and could only grow. If he were to give testimony of peculiar weight on this subject, he would quote an opinion on the English House of Lords, pronounced by a man as eminent for his genius, whether in peace or war—the great Emperor Napoleon. The following was an extract from a work published by a Member of their Lordships' House (Earl Fortescue), then known as Lord Ebrington. The noble Earl relates some remarkable conversations which, in December, 1814, he had with Napoleon in the Island of Elba:—
"Napoleon said that he considered the House of Peers as the great bulwark of the English constitution, which he thought would be overturned if there were in the country materials for making another such assembly equal in all respects to the present, But in France, he added, 'I could make you forty senates quite as good as the one which I did make.' And Napoleon then went on to point out the great additional strength obtained by combining in the House of Commons the heads of the commercial as well as of the landed interest, forming together what might be termed, in the widest as well as truest sense, the aristocracy of the country.'
The experiment of making another House of Lords failed even when attempted by the great genius of Cromwell, and most certainly it would not succeed in meaner hands. He did not know how long their Lordships' House might be able to resist
1186
the perils which, like all human institutions, it must occasionally encounter; but of this he was certain, that if it were once overthrown it could never be reconstructed in this country with the least share of real influence and power, or with the least prospect of permanent stability. And when he heard some persons out of doors talk of ours as only a territorial constitution, and inveigh against that House as representing nothing beyond the landed interest, he would venture to remind its censors that under our constitution, territorial though it might be, the authority of that House had been found consistent with the widest development of trade and commerce the world had ever yet seen, and that while it had continued to flourish the merchant fleets of England had traversed every sea, her colonies had been raised on almost every coast, and her gigantic manufactures had ministered to the wants of nearly every quarter of the globe. Seeing, then, the importance of maintaining the constitution of that House, and seeing that the power of creating life peerages was not checked or controlled by any securities, he thought he was fully justified in supporting the Resolution of his noble and learned Friend. He did not, however, think he should have been justified in supporting it if his noble and learned Friend had failed to prove that the patent was not valid. But it appeared to him (Earl Stanhope) his noble and learned Friend had made out his case; and, having established that the patent was not legally valid, it was open to the House to consider whether they should pass the patent, and take securities against the abuse of the prerogative. For the reasons he had stated he did not think that course safe, and, therefore, without doubt or hesitation, he should give his vote for the Resolution.
He would stop there if it were not that he thought himself bound in justice not to conclude without one observation upon another subject. He desired to speak with perfect courtesy; but, at the same time, he thought himself bound to speak with perfect frankness. He could not say he was persuaded that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was altogether in a satisfactory condition. He said that with the most perfect respect to the noble and learned Lords who administered that jurisdiction. He admired the ability and integrity of those noble and learned Lords; but he regarded the system itself to be in some degree defective. There was one part

1187
in particular of the appellate jurisdiction so utterly repugnant to anything like sound reason that he did not think it could long exist after it had been fairly exposed—he meant the part required to be taken in it by the lay Members of the House. When they considered that lay Peers were summoned day by day—one Peer to hear the evidence, another to hear the argument, and a third to assist in the judgment, and that those Peers had no share whatever in the decision to be given, and could not possibly form any opinion upon purely legal questions, he thought they would see how necessary it was that the system should be changed. It might be that no wrong was inflicted; but that part of the system was in reality a mockery and farce, and nothing more—they could not desire to retain it. Other faults—other defects—might, perhaps, in other parts also, be pointed out, but while he thought the system ought to be changed, he thought there were means—and some had been indicated that very night—of putting the appellate jurisdiction in a more satisfactory state without resorting to the perilous remedy proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He repeated, he should vote for the Resolution of his noble and learned Friend; and he thought the House owed his noble and learned Friend gratitude for having on two occasions called attention to the subject, and for the manner in which he had conducted the discussions on the question. There were two things in the House at present which wore without parallel in ancient or modern times. His noble and learned Friend was the only instance of a statesman past fourscore able to take a leading part, as he had done, with eloquence and effect, in the discussion of a great public question, affording them the promise of many more years of active usefulness. Nor was there an instance, beyond that on the Treasury bench, of a statesman who had sat in the Councils of his Sovereign at the distance of half a century. He alluded to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who was a colleague of Mr. Fox in the Cabinet of 1806, and who now occupied a seat in the Cabinet of 1856. He was sure he gave utterance I down not merely to his own feeling, but to the feeling of every Member of their Lordships' House, when he expressed his earnest hope that both those eminent and venerable Peers might continue for many years to come, in any difficult emergency, to assist the deliberations of the House with
1188
their public spirit, their wisdom, and their eloquence.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, as many of their Lordships might be disposed to concur in the mild and courteous censure cast by the noble Earl who spoke last upon the Government for having at such a time and in such a conjuncture of public affairs thrown an apple of discord into the House, he felt that a word of explanation was due from the Government upon that point. It was because the Government concurred, to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent, in one of the concluding observations of the noble Earl with respect to the present unsatisfactory condition of the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House that they advised Her Majesty to create a life peerage in favour of Lord Wensleydale. Her Majesty's Ministers, however, did not concur in the language held out of doors as to the inadequate manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the House had been of late administered; but they were of opinion that that jurisdiction should immediately be strengthened to a certain degree, and a precedent revived, not set, by which, from time to time, future Governments might be enabled to maintain it undisturbed. On those grounds, without entertaining any doubt as to the legality or constitutional character of the step, they determined on giving a life peerage to a Member of the bench who, it had been admitted on both sides, would add greatly to the judicial strength of the House. He wished it to be distinctly understood on the part of the Government that they had no conception whatever they were raising a question of constitutional law. [Cheers.] Noble Lords opposite seemed to think it a great triumph to have gained that admission from the Government; but, he would ask, how could the Government entertain any doubt on the subject when they found every great judicial writer from Coke downwards declaring, as a matter beyond dispute, the power of the Crown to create life peerages? But that was not all; for they found the most eminent legal Members of that House, now their opponents, laying the down the same doctrine. It had been made a charge against the Government that they did not consult the law officers of the Crown. Did that accusation come well from men who, a few hours ago, refused to consult the Judges? He would admit to the noble Lord opposite that, if the Government had entertained the least

1189
doubt upon the strict legality of their proceedings, it would have been natural on their part to consult the law officers of the Crown; but they had no doubt whatever as to the prerogative, and it would have been unusual to consult the law officers upon the expediency of the measure. Upon the policy of a measure he never heard that any Government ever consulted the law officers of the Crown, and in this instance it never occurred to them that any legal point was involved. He cordially concurred in many of the observations in the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down; but he was sure their Lordships must see that the whole drift of it was in reference to the expediency of this course, and would never justify voting for such a Report as was recommended to the Committee by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst). Let them see the position of the House. They were not disputing about the policy, or debating upon the possible dangers which might arise out of this measure. It was admitted that nothing could justify the Report unless it could be proved that the course adopted by the Government was illegal—not illegal in the sense of being opposed to the statute law, but illegal in the sense of being at variance with the constitutional law of the country. To-night they had refused to consult the Judges of the land—unwisely as he thought, because, if they could not have put the direct question to the Judges, they might have obtained their opinion on questions surrounding it. They had been long accustomed, and he hoped the custom would long continue, to defer to the legal Members of the House on all questions of pure law; and it was true that on the present question the legal Members of the House were opposed to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government. But this was not merely a legal question—it was a great constitutional question; and there was one privilege they possessed, not as Peers of Parliament, but as Englishmen, which they would never delegate to any man or set of men—namely, the right of judging whether a measure were constitutional or not. Every Englishman was able, or ought to be able, to judge upon that question. The constitution of England was not written in law like the constitution of the United States; it was the air they breathed—the very atmosphere in which they lived from childhood. Every one, therefore, on a constitutional question
1190
might exercise a free discretion and a free opinion, untrammeled by the opinions of the legal Members of the House, though treating them with deference and respect. He would further say that circumstances had taken place in the course of the debate which should make their Lordships regard the advice of the legal Members with peculiar distrust. The very question which, on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, the House had referred to the Committee of Privileges was a question avowedly expressing a doubt of the legality of the patent. They were to examine and consider the copy of the letters patent "purporting" to create the right hon. Sir James Parke, Baron Wensleydale. What was meant by inserting the word "purporting?" It was meant to indicate that Lord Wensleydale had no right to sit except by his right to the barony, and to express a doubt as to the legality of the patent creating him Lord Wensleydale. That argument was supported by the language of the noble and learned Lords, who, during the debate, invariably spoke of Lord Wensleydale as their "right hon. Friend;" and it was not until the admission was wrung from them by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that they admitted, what nobody at present denied, that he was Baron Wensleydale, and that it was not a patent purporting to create, but actually creating him a Baron. He thought that was a circumstance which must somewhat contribute to diminish the authority of these noble and learned Lords upon the point then at issue. There was another point which he would mention, and he trusted he should not be misunderstood; he trusted, above all things, he should not be supposed to mean the slightest degree of disrespect to the profession of the law, with one exception the noblest profession to which men could devote their powers; but a question of policy had throughout been interwoven with a question of law. It had been mentioned in the previous debate that one consideration of policy was the position in which this precedent would place the legal profession for the future. He should sympathise fully with the objection to this measure if he believed, as the Chief Justice believed, that it was intended that no more lawyers would be raised to that House with hereditary peerages; and a feeling had thus been naturally created among them unfavourable to the present exercise of the prerogative of the

1191
Crown. But he believed that that impression was utterly unfounded, and for his own part he should regard it as a great public calamity that no more lawyers were to take their places in that House with hereditary peerages. It could not, however, be concealed that there was a very strong professional feeling bearing on the expediency of the measure; but however justifiable that feeling might be, it ought not to influence their judgment. They ought to come to the consideration of the matter free from all considerations of policy or professional pride, and simply as regarded law and precedent. His noble Friend who spoke last said that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) appeared to him to have made out a strong case against the validity of this patent. He ventured to say that, not only had the noble and learned Lord not made out the invalidity of the patent, but he did not profess to have made it out. The validity of the patent, as far as regarded conferring the dignity of Baron, was admitted; and they had this further admission, that a writ by itself was valid to give a seat in that House descendible to heirs. But it was said the writ in this particular case did not give a seat because the patent conferred the barony for life; so that, in fact, the invalidity of the writ rested upon the validity of the patent. If Lord Wensleydale's grandson claimed a seat on the ground of the writ, the patent would be quoted to prove it prevented inheritance. The Government was said to have no precedents except those of hundreds of years ago; but the noble and learned Lords had no precedent at all for the course they asked the House to adopt. He asserted, on the authority of others, that there was no instance on record of their Lordships having refused to allow a man to come in by virtue of a writ of summons from the Crown except upon the ground of personal and legal incapacity. The precedents did not form the whole case or the strength of the case for the Government. They proceeded on the authority of analogous instances of peerages being limited in every possible way, and they contended that the limitation for life was in perfect consistency with all documents and authorities on the subject. It had been contended that the prerogative of the Crown with reference to the creation of life peerages, not having been exercised for several hundred years, had fallen into desuetude and had lost its validity—that the Crown had, in this respect,
1192
lost its prerogative. He opposed in answer to that argument the well-known maxim that the power of the Crown is not lost by prescription—nullum tempus occurrit regi. Without admitting that the power had not been exercised within a comparatively recent period, they had a right to assume that, even if the power had not been exercised, it had not ceased to exist. It was one of the great sources of pride to this nation that, even in times of revolution and excitement, precedent was looked to as a guide. It had also been argued that the constitution of this country had been so greatly altered by the Revolution of 1688, that any precedent drawn from times anterior to that date could not be held conclusive with reference to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown—that all right not sanctioned at the Revolution had practically ceased to exist. He was astonished at the doctrine. He maintained the exact contrary, and would quote the authority of the greatest living historian, Mr. Hallam, who wrote respecting the Revolution of 1688—
"Except in the article dispensing prerogative we cannot say, on comparing the Bill of Rights with what was proved to be law by statute, or generally assumed to be law on the authority of the best writers, that the Revolution did not take away any legal power of the Crown, or enlarge the limits of popular or Parliamentary privilege."
Many quotations had been made from the last two volumes of Macaulay, but he would quote from one of the finest passages in a volume published some years ago, regarding the effects of the Revolution:—
"The change seemed small—not a flower of the Crown was touched—not a single new right was given to the people. The whole of the English law, in the opinion of the highest authorities—Holt, Maynard, and Somers—remained exactly the same after the Revolution as before it."
That utterly contradicted the doctrine that what was not expressly sanctioned at the Revolution had ceased to be lawful. He maintained the exact converse, and contended that what had not been expressly condemned at the Revolution was still in full force. He regarded as of the highest value the principle that we should be permitted to go back to past times in our history, and to draw thence precedents intrinsically good, although they might have been forgotten. He believed that in the most ancient precedents might be found from time to time materials for renovation, and he could not help thinking that the course advocated by those who supported the Resolution of the noble and learned

1193
Lord was one which struck a fatal blow at the principles of our constitution.
LORD BROUGHAM:* I can truly say that I exceedingly lament the necessity of addressing your Lordships at some length upon the present occasion; and if it affords you any satisfaction under the fatigue of entering into a legal argument at this very late hour of the night, that I suffer under it with you, that the misfortune is common to both parties, this comfort you assuredly may have. But great as may be my reluctance, the task imposed on me—it may be said on us—is unavoidable. Independent of the reference so often made to the events of 1832, and my share in them, it becomes necessary to explain the grounds upon which my opinion has undergone some change since I was first called upon to consider the question of constitutional law, the only question now before us; and I owe it not more to myself than to your Lordships, to the Government, to the great subject itself, to state these reasons without reserve, amply sufficient as I deem them to justify me in asking from you an entire concurrence in my noble Friend's Motion (Lord Lyndhurst) now before you. With much of the noble Earl's statement (Earl Grey) who moved the Amendment, I entirely agree; with his wonted acuteness, and with the fairness and distinctness, which as much as his great ingenuity, ever distinguishes my noble Friend's speeches, making it easy to perceive how far we can concur and where our difference begins, he has most correctly asserted that this House can never assume to decide upon the exercise of the Royal prerogative in granting peerages while these grants are within the power of the Crown, according to the constitution that is sanctioned by the law of the land. For us to sit in judgment upon the manner in which the prerogative has been exercised would be the greatest violation of the constitution, would be a manifest usurpation upon the Crown, an unlawful interference with the Royal prerogative, an interference as much beyond our rights and privileges, as would be the Sovereign's assuming to sit in judgment upon our exercise of any function, or use of any privilege which is ours by law, the right for example to decide in this case. The only question then which can now arise relates to the existence of the prerogative claimed. If the Crown has the right by the constitution, that is by the constitutional law of England, to create life Peers, we have no title whatever
1194
to deny the validity of the peerages conferred in the exercise of that right, any more than we should have to deny the validity of the most extravagant, nay preposterous use of the unquestioned privilege of bestowing hereditary peerages. We might complain of such an abuse—we might visit with censure the advisers of it; but the validity of the grants, how lavish, how culpable soever, we should not have the shadow of a title to contest. I therefore entirely agree with my noble Friend that the question is narrowed to that of constitutional law. It is whether or not the prerogative extends to the granting life peerages as well as hereditary—with the right of sitting in Parliament? Are such peerages legal or not by the constitution of this country? Are they allowed by the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti? Upon this question, when first it was proprounded to me, I admit that my opinion inclined, and even strongly inclined, towards the view taken by some, perhaps by most lawyers in favour of the prerogative. At a great distance from all the authorities, whether of records, or text writers, and especially excluded by that distance from all communication with my learned brethren whom this unfortunate circumstance made it as impossible for me to consult, as it was easy for my noble Friends opposite, among others, the noble Lord on the woolsack; deprived by necessity of the benefit of their opinions, as my noble Friend (Lord Chancellor) was deprived by his own choice, voluntarily abstaining as he did, even from the ordinary course of hearing the law officers of the Crown—I had inclined towards the legality of the act done, though I felt, and even expressed to certain of the Ministers, the utmost possible reprobation of it upon grounds of expediency, upon constitutional grounds. But when I came to examine the question closely, with full access to all the records, and decisions, and dicta of judges, and opinions of text writers; when I scrutinised the reasons given for these opinions; when I examined all that had ever been done in exercise or supposed exercise of the alleged prerogative; when I examined the historical as well as legal questions, and surveyed the circumstances of the country, and the frame of the constitution at the periods of the supposed use of the power in question—the doubts I at first felt were multiplied and strengthened until I found that the prerogative had been assumed to exist

1195
without any proof whatever, one writer following another blindly and without the least inquiry; that the pretended right rested upon no foundation at all; that it never was really exercised; that if it could be said even to have been enjoyed, it had long since ceased to exist; that the only instances of its exercise were brought forward on gross misstatements of the fact, and that even if truly represented, they belonged to an age when the constitution and its laws were wholly different in every respect from those under which we now have the happiness to live.
It is fit that we keep in view while arguing such questions, the difference between legal and constitutional. They are entirely mistaken who, with a great authority upon subjects of law amendment, of Mr. Bentham, maintain that unconstitutional has no definite sense—that it means whatever anybody for any reason has any dislike of. Now what is illegal cannot be constitutional; but things may be quite legal and yet unconstitutional—that is, inconsistent with the principles, and as it were the spirit of the constitution, tending to an infraction of its laws; or raising an obstruction in the way of their execution; or leading to the making of new laws inconsistent with its nature and fabric. Thus a lavish and needless creation of hereditary Peers for an improper purpose would, though quite lawful, be utterly unconstitutional. A creation of life Peers with seats in this House, would, as we maintain and are ready to prove, be contrary to law, however limited in number, and however unobjectionable as to the persons thus ennobled. There is but one way of determining whether any prerogative belongs to the Crown, or any privilege to either Houses of Parliament. We must recur to the exercise of the alleged right in past times, and more especially in good times, when the constitution was settled—the law fixed and known. Nothing can be conceived more useless than to cite instances of what the Sovereigns did under the Heptarchy, in the Saxon times, or in the Anglo-Norman reign—aye, or somewhat later, in the times of the Plantagenets, when the bounds were so ill traced between the different powers in the constitution. We cannot, indeed, safely rely on instances in the reigns of the Tudors. But it turns out upon full inquiry that even the Plantagenets and the Tudors never exercised the right in question. There is not one solitary instance of a
1196
commoner created a Peer for life, and owing his seat in Parliament to that life grant, without the assent of the other two estates as well as the Crown—that is without an Act of Parliament. Even admitting the instances given, the last is four centuries ago, in the reign of Henry VI. But when examined, it proves to be no instance at all.
To that alleged case of life peerage I will come at once. It was relied on by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Grey), and it forms the chief, indeed the only ground of the argument urged in favour of the prerogative from its exercise. But we find upon examination that it unites in itself every objection which can be urged to such precedents of the prerogative. First of all, it is assumed that the patent to Sir John Cornewall was for life, but there are no words of limitation whatever in the grant; so that, instead of giving a peerage for life, it is altogether void for want of any apt words. Such, at least, is Lord Coke's statement of the law in the very passage on which so much reliance has been placed. Co. Litt. 16 b. Indeed, as this was the second creation by patent, there is every reason to suppose that the grant was, as in the first, Beauchamp of Holt, which was in the eleventh of Richard II. really given as that was to the heirs male of the body. Again, suppose it to have been intended as a life creation—Sir John never was summoned to Parliament by his title, but only as John Cornewall, Chevalier; and as he died soon after without issue, the nature of the grant never could be brought in question. But suppose this objection removed, and that there had been an express grant of peerage for life, and a sitting in Parliament under that grant—my noble Friend will not require more lavish concessions—what does the case prove? Absolutely nothing; for it was a dignity conferred—not by the Grown, but by Parliament. This is beyond all doubt clear. The grant purports to be in the presence of, and by the assent of, the great men in Parliament assembled. I hear it said, that the Commons are not named; but no more are they in some of the statutes, best known as such. It has been held by all the authorities, that merely setting forth a grant to have been made in Parliament is sufficient to prove it a statute. Nay, the omission of all mention of the Commons does not prevent it being a statute, as we know in sufficiently notable instances. The Statute

1197
of Westminter, the third, for instance, commonly called the Statute of Quia Emptores, and on which the whole system of copyhold tenure rests, by the prevention of subinfeudation—that Act, 18 Edw. 1 (Statute of Quia Emptores), purports to have been made at the instance of the Magnates—the greater Barons. Yet whoever doubts it being a statute? This gift, if of a life peerage, therefore, was by Act of Parliament, not of the Sovereign, and no one dreams of denying that Parliament could make such a creation.
Last of all, suppose this instance, admitted to be the single one, of a commoner ennobled for life with power to sit in Parliament—suppose, for argument sake, this solitary instance was by the prerogative, and not by Parliament—I ask what possible weight such an act of Royal power can have when done in such au age? The constitution had not early in the fifteenth century, nor for long after, been moulded into its regular form. In those days there was no exact distribution of the powers among its different branches. But especially the Sovereign was constantly exceeding the supposed limits of his prerogative. For examples of such excesses, as we should now call them, in that day they excited little discontent, perhaps caused no surprise; we need not go back to the century immediately succeeding the Norman conquest. A century and a half later we find King John, just before the great charter was extorted by the Barons, not the Commons, the hereditary Peers not occupants of seats for life, summoning a kind of Parliament, composed of four knights from each shire, to meet and confer with him at Oxford, probably in order to check the Barons by a little Parliament of his own. His son made equal stretches of authority during his long and troubled reign. But after the great charter had been once and again confirmed, and when the Government might be supposed to have settled into somewhat of a more regular form, we find no less a Sovereign and law giver than Edward I., our English Justinian, as he has been so generally termed, sending a Commissioner by his own mere authority, one John de Kirby, round to all the cities and towns of the realm to explain to the people the Royal wishes. What he was sent for appears next year, when more money was wanted; for a Parliament was then holden at Shrewsbury, and grants obtained, and all the moneys which Kirby had collected were deducted from the levies
1198
now legally imposed. This levying of the money by the King's mere authority was in 1283, only two years before the famous statute of Westminster 2nd (Stat. de Donis). No doubt the Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo, made a few years afterwards, prohibited all such levies; but they had been forbidden long before, nay, long before Edward's time, and the Statute de Tallagio was only declaratory of the old and common law. Nor do I expect to hear it contended that all prerogatives exist which have ever been exercised, and never put down by statute. I have mentioned the stretch of Royal power in levying taxes. But there were other usurpations in those days, since the date of Cornewall's peerage as well as before, and which are admitted to have been usurpations, though they never have been declared such by Parliamentary authority. Observe how little the Crown regarded the rights, the uncontested rights, of Parliament itself. We have all heard of the Lack-learning Parliament, the Parliamentum indoctum, as it was more learnedly called, just as we may have heard of a Parliamentum supradoctum, or perdoctum, in later times, from the great copia peritorum, which it has exhibited. That of Henry IV., in 1404, was summoned by writ, which the King issued without any authority whatever, commanding that no man of the law should be chosen Knight of the Shire. This illegal command was obeyed, and the consequence was that no lawyer sat, the boroughs having apparently taken the hint from the counties; and Lord Coke, as we all know, observes on this Parliament that "never a good law was made thereat." But though no one can show any statute depriving the Crown of the right thus to control elections, yet no one will now maintain that such a prerogative is vested in it, or ever was by law. A prerogative just as illegal, but much more frequently exercised, was that of enfranchising and disfranchising boroughs, to which my noble Friend (Lord Campbell) in his learned and constitutional speech adverted, a prerogative not only claimed but exercised in comparatively recent times. For I find that Queen Elizabeth, of her own mere will, issued writs to many boroughs which never before had returned members; that she added no less than sixty-two to the Commons, and at a time when the ordinary attendance was not above 250. The boroughs thus made Parliamentary by the prerogative, were small places under the

1199
complete influence of Peers and courtiers, and she thus introduced into the lower House about one-fourth of its attending Members. Then does this prerogative now exist? If it has ceased, is there any statute abolishing it? The refinement to which some have had recourse, of citing the Act of Union with Scotland, as forbidding by implication any enfranchisement when it fixes the number of the Commons, will not do; for then we must admit that the Crown could by law exercise this power at and after the Revolution. But nothing whatever being said against it in the Bill of Rights, is abundant proof that it had wholly fallen into disuse—or rather that it never existed, but was universally admitted to be an usurpation. I might fatigue your Lordships and myself with numberless other instances to show the folly of having recourse to ancient times for the proofs of prerogative. But I will confine myself to one, and it is a remarkable proof how little in these ages the limits of power of the different branches of the Government were fixed in practice. It shows that the Crown dealt with the acts of the Legislature as arbitrarily as with the proceedings for its formation—with the rights of Parliament as with those of its constituents. It was the constant practice after prorogation, actually to alter the statutes passed during the Session, by directions of the Sovereign, by Orders in Council, and without either the previous authority of the two Houses themselves, or their subsequent confirmation of the changes made. The alterations were usually by the Privy Council, at the time of proclaiming the Act. This extraordinary practice was forbidden by two ordinances, apparently of Parliament, in the reign of Edward II., one in 1311, the other in 1322. Let it be remembered that in those times of high prerogative, when the Royal power was stretched to the uttermost, and seemed to set all other powers at nought, not a single instance can be found of the prerogative now contended for. The notion of changing the nature of the peerage from hereditary to lifehold, seems never to have entered the mind of any of these all but absolute Princes. I then ask those who maintain this prerogative as legal to tell me if they are ready to assert that every right which was once or twice exercised in those days; nay, even every right which was almost habitually exercised, and which no statute has declared illegal, still exists in the Crown?
1200
Are they prepared to affirm that the Sovereign could now lawfully issue writs to boroughs or withhold those writs, or could recommend, nay, require certain persons to be elected to the other House, and a whole class of persons to be excluded from the returns? It is denied, and justly denied, that any exercise of the prerogative as to peerages is proved; but I put the question, supposing for argument's sake, that there were proofs of such an exercise.
I have been dealing with the case of Sir John Cornewall, because it is the one mainly, indeed almost solely, relied on by my noble Friends opposite. As to the others, they have been disposed of tonight unanswerably by my noble and learned Friend who moved the Resolution, and in the last debate, by the elaborate and conclusive examination of the pretended instances by my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord St. Leonards). Except that of D'Angoulesme (or D'Angle), who was made Earl of Huntingdon, I Richard II., who was an alien, and who never sat, or could sit, by virtue of the creation for life, all the cases cited were either those of persons who had other peerages, and therefore, did not sit by virtue of their creation for life, as De Vere Earl of Oxford, made Marquess of Dublin; or creations in Parliament, that is by statute, which, indeed, De Vere's also was; or Foreign Peerages like Acquitaine, which was also a creation in Parliament, and given to John of Gaunt, who was already Duke of Lancaster, with the usual remainder to the heirs of his body; or like that of Aumerle given to an Earl by hereditary right, and regarded in England as a foreign and merely honorary dignity. The Thomond case, which is the latest, must also be classed with the foreign Peerages, for it was Irish; and this House could have no power whatever to interfere. It was an Irish Peerage too, bestowed at a time when the English pale comprised but a small part of Ireland. You will find it stated by Dr. Henry in his elaborate and accurate history, that only a few districts on the east coast, opposite to England, were under the English dominion the rest of the country being in the hands of the rude natives. But further, this peerage was granted along with a Barony in the usual terms, and thus the right to sit, if we can speak of sitting in an Irish Parliament at that time, was given, not by the grant for life, but by the grant to the taker and the heirs male of his body. But if reliance is still placed upon that instance,

1201
I beg your Lordships to consider by whom, and in what times of the Constitution it was bestowed. It was by Henry VIII., and in the year 1543. Suppose it had been an English peerage, so as to give this House the undoubted right of objecting to the party sitting, what chance was there of the right being exercised against that cruel tyrant, the paroxysms of whose ferocious temper were even more unrestrained than the caprices of his unbridled lust? During the whole of his arbitrary reign, there is not one single instance of a protest against any of the measures which he forced through Parliament, recorded in your Journals. The grant referred to (Thomond) was made after such outrageous acts as his slavish Parliament had passed under the influence of habitual terror, that, for example, of 1529, releasing him from all debts contracted during the last six years, and declaring the securities void though in the hands of third parties; the law of the Six Articles, called by Protestants the bloody Act, condemning to death whoever denied the doctrine of transubstantiation and other tenets, which the tyrant happened then to hold; above all, the Act giving the force of a statute to whatever proclamation he might choose to issue, with any penalty annexed to the disobedience of its commands. This Act vesting absolute power to the Crown (which another of those statutes had given him the power of bequeathing by will) was passed in 1539, and the Thomond peerage was bestowed while it was in full force, in 1543. So that the Thomond case is the exercise of the prerogative, when the Crown was invested with unlimited power; and, after all, it is but an assumption of power to create a Peer for life with rights in Ireland, in England none whatever. It is true, the disgraceful statute of the Six Articles, and that giving the King's proclamations the force of law, were repealed by the Parliament of his successor as soon as the tyrant had ceased to oppress his people. But where is the Act restraining the Crown from dictating to the people in the choice of their representatives? Are the advocates of high prerogative prepared to assert that prerogative because the same Prince freely exercised it, and without opposition at the time, as without even a declaratory prohibition since? Not only did he, by withholding his writ, disfranchise ancient boroughs, and by issuing it, enfranchise new ones, but there remain his orders to the sheriff to elect a gentleman
1202
of his Privy Chamber "as Burgess of Parliament, with the fees and wages thereunto appertaining." Whosoever would assert such exercise of the prerogative as enables the Sovereign to pack this House with Life Peers, his dependants, under the name of Peers of Parliament, must be prepared to admit the similar prerogative to pack the other House with his dependants, under the name of the people's representatives.
Now as there is no instance of the prerogative being exercised, I mean the prerogative which alone is in question, of giving a Commoner the right to sit in Parliament by a peerage for life, and which leaves the precedents of peerages to women wholly out of the case, on what other grounds do the advocates of the right rely? On one authority only, that of Lord Coke; because all the writers who have followed have been ruled by that dictum of his alone, and have blindly followed one another without the least inquiry either into the soundness of his opinions, or the grounds on which it rests. For the authority of that great lawyer I entertain, in common with all my noble and learned friends, the most profound respect when he gives you his opinion upon any of those chapters of the law with which he was and which he had well studied. Upon the law of Parliament his authority is of very much less weight—upon that lex et consuetudo Parliamenti which he has himself described as ab omnibus quœrenda, à multis ignorata, à paucis cognita. It cannot be admitted that he has proved his belonging to the latter class.
First, let us look at the reasons on which the dictum is founded. Are they so sound and so consistent as to render the opinion itself a safe guide? There is no little doubt whether or not he really refers to peerage with all its incidents, or only to nobility, to the honour of the dignity without its privileges, especially its Parliamentary privileges; but assume that it does, and that it is an opinion in favour of the prerogative—observe his reasoning. There may be Peers for life but not for years: and why this distinction? Because he says it would go to executors and administrators. Would it indeed? Suppose a grant for five years to A. if he shall so long live. Surely this peerage for years could never pass to A.'s executors or administrators, because it must cease to exist on his death. So a peerage like that of March, granted by Edward IV. to his son,

1203
in 1479, to him and his heirs during the king's pleasure, would by the negative pregnant raised in Lord Coke's opinion be valid, because it never could go to executors; and accordingly they who rest their contention on that great lawyer's authority can have no answer to the pretension which may be set up for a further stretch of the prerogative, and must admit that the creation of a Peer to sit in this House during the pleasure of the Crown is valid. Indeed a man may, by this reasoning of Lord Coke, be sent here to take his seat and vote in one debate, because were he to die on the morrow nothing could pass to his personal representatives. It must further be remembered that there is a singular looseness and inaccuracy of expression in the other parts of the passage relied on. Lord Coke says distinctly that a writ calling any one to Parliament gives the party a fee-simple in the barony, which it assuredly does not. It is a common, but only an elliptical expression, that such a writ with sitting gives a barony in fee, instead of the more correct expression of fee-tail. But Lord Coke is by very far more incorrect; and not elliptically so, but by specification. He says fee-simple, whereby is intended a barony that would go to heirs general, and would be indeed alienable and devisable. It is true that he afterwards seems to qualify this, and restrict the generality to what he calls heirs lineal. But it cannot be denied that the whole passage indicates want of full consideration, and leads to doubt, if we have the deliberate and corrected opinion of the author.
If however, we go to the other instances of this great man's known and manifest errors upon matter connected with the law of Parliament, we shall find the most conclusive reasons for rating his authority much lower upon such questions than upon any of the ordinary ones of which he treats—I may even go so far as to say lower than that of any other celebrated lawyer, for none have fallen into more remarkable errors. Thus he lays it down as clear Parliamentary and constitutional law, that privilege is only ousted in case of treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Hence, according to him, no Peer or Commoner could be imprisoned under sentence of a competent court, for such offences as perjury or libel, without breach of the peace; and yet we know that privilege gives no such protection. Indeed Members of your Lordships' House have been imprisoned for the latter offence. So,
1204
according to the same authority, no Peer or Commoner could be committed for criminal contempt of court. Yet this has frequently been done, and, after full inquiry in Parliament, has been held perfectly lawful, against Lord Coke's authority, cited freely in support of the pretended privileges. Again, as if, whenever he touches on constitutional points, he were fated to go wrong and to mislead us, he affirms that William the Conqueror could not succeed to the Crown by inheritance, because he was a bastard, his father being married to his mother after his birth, and so the issue not legitimated, by the statute of Morton, which is only declaratory of the common law; whereas, every one knows that his legitimacy or illegitimacy was wholly immaterial, because he was not of the blood of the first purchaser, being, were he ever so legitimate, only related to the Confessor by the marriage of his aunt, and having no more title by inheritance than George IV.'s issue had to the Crown of Denmark, because his aunt Queen Matilda had married the Danish King. But a yet more remarkable error of Lord Coke is committed by him respecting the succession to the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince's case is one of his most celebrated Reports, and amongst the most elaborate. But he there lays it down as clear law that the first born son alone, being heir apparent, succeeds to the duchy, and that if the eldest die without issue and leave a brother surviving, he, though he be heir apparent, cannot take the duchy, because he is not the first born. This great lawyer was probably misled by a little of that pedantry, the vice of the age, and in which he somewhat amply shared, to hold primogenitus, in the Charter admitted to be an act creating the somewhat singular and anomalous succession of this estate as confining the inheritance exclusively to the first born. But it has since been always held clear that the eldest son, not born but living, if heir apparent, takes the duchy. Lord Hardwicke, who, in the case of Lomax v. Holmden (1 Ves. Sen.) apparently felt so much awe in declaring Lord Coke entirely mistaken, was so far influenced by the power of his name, like my noble and learned Friend opposite and others, not indeed like them so far as to follow blindly, but so far as to make full and searching inquiry, and to examine the acting under the statute, as I now require your Lordships to consider the precedents respecting life peerages. He found

1205
that there was not a pretext for supposing Lord Coke right in his doctrine; and added, that he had been as entirely wrong in his statement of the facts as in his conclusion of law. For Lord Coke enumerates many instances of the descent of the duchy; and among others, the case of Henry VIII., who could not succeed, he says, because his brother Arthur was the first born; and therefore, he says, Henry, though heir apparent on Arthur's decease without issue, never took the duchy. But nothing can be more contrary to the known fact. Lord Bacon, in his History of Henry VII., well acquainted, officially well acquainted, as he was with the whole circumstances, states, that Henry did take the duchy as Prince of Wales and heir apparent; and it is certain that he exercised all the powers, and enjoyed all the rights of the Duke of Cornwall, though only second son of Henry VII. This was fully discussed and decided on the decease of Prince Henry, in the reign of James I., when Charles took the duchy in 1613. The Rolls of Parliament show similar instances in Henry IV.'s reign, soon after the erection of the duchy, and again in subsequent reigns. It is somewhat remarkable that Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his Commentaries, follows Lord Coke into this error, as he does on the subject of life peerage; at least, he cites the Eighth Report, and the Prince's case, without taking any notice whatever of the mistake committed by his authority—an example of the manner in which writers are apt to follow one another, and authorising a considerable deduction from the weight due to the learned commentator's statement respecting the subject now before us.
I think, then, we are fully entitled to conclude that these text writers following one another have been led into a manifest error by Lord Coke, who had very carelessly considered the subject. No one can doubt that his opinion would have been against the prerogative had he examined its history, and found no precedent whatever for its exercise. This must needs have been the conclusion of one who so habitually argued from precedents, and only went wrong when he decided without examination of the facts, or from haste or inadvertence mistook or misstated them.
But let me now ask your Lordships to cast your eye back upon the origin of all peerage in the tenure of land; for this will afford important light to guide us on
1206
the present question. The right to sit in both Houses of Parliament, that of the greater barons, your predecessors here, and of the lesser barons, the original of the Commons, was from the holding of land, and depended upon that holding; yet barony by tenure, though unquestionably not only existing in the most ancient times of our Constitution, but probably the only species of barony then known, has long ceased to exist. The question of its legal existence was raised in the Berkeley case, and as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) stated, had been then argued by me at your Lordships' bar, when, as he said, Lord Eldon expressed a very clear opinion that there was no longer such title to a seat in this House; and there was the same opinion given, but more solemnly, by Judges of the greatest eminence in the reign of Charles II., though not sitting in any court of law. All lawyers are, however, now agreed that there is no such thing as a barony by tenure. Then how has it ceased to be good in law? That which was the ordinary, probably the only kind of barony, has become obsolete, has fallen into entire desuetude, without any statutory declaration or enactment, without any judicial decision, without any judgment or resolution of your Lordships; for the Berkeley case never was decided, and the older opinion to which I have referred was not the determination of a court. But that opinion well deserves our attention, for it demonstrates the effects of disuse in extinguishing a prerogative allowed once to have existed; and puts to flight all the arguments of those who now contend that if life peerages ever were granted (which however we utterly deny, and have indeed disproved), the power of conferring them could not be lost by desuetude. I refer to the case of the Fitzwalter peerage before the King in Council. A writ of summons had been claimed by Mildmay as heir general by blood, and adversely by Cheke as entitled to his barony by tenure of land. The question was referred to the three Chiefs, Kelyng of the King's Bench, Vaughan of the Common Pleas, and Sir M. Hale, Chief Baron, with the Ancient Serjeant and the Attorney and Solicitor General. The case was fully argued before them, and they pronounced a clear opinion in these words: "Barony by tenure hath been for many ages discontinued, and is not in being, and so not fit to be revived,"—but those great Judges go further, and

1207
add—"nor to admit of any pretence of right of summons thereupon." And the writ of succession was accordingly issued, not to Cheke, who claimed by tenure, but to Mildmay, who claimed by blood. In truth, when the question of any alleged prerogative arises, the use of, or acting upon, the pretended right is of the very essence of the case. There is not, there cannot be, any other rule to go by, any other guide to follow. If the right is exercised by the Crown without dispute, in the face of the other Estates of the Realm, who have an interest and a power to resist it, and who yet submit to it, evidence is afforded of its supposed legality, at least in the times when the unrestricted exercise took place; and this evidence is the stronger, the greater the number of instances, and the longer the period during which the unopposed assertion of the right continued. But a prerogative that never was exercised, or if ever, yet in times where no power existed capable of opposing it, nay, even if exercised when it might have been resisted, but has for centuries been wholly abandoned (and I am putting the case as strongly against my own argument as possible) such a prerogative is gone for ever, and as entirely gone as if it were admitted never at any time, or in any circumstances to have been known. Our whole constitutional law is founded upon this principle; there is no other limit whatever to the prerogative, and but for this principle, the Crown possesses every prerogative which has not been put down by the positive enactments or express declarations of statute.
But barony by tenure is not the only peerage that has fallen into disuse, and is allowed on all hands no longer to exist. The husband of a baroness, in her own right, used formerly to be summoned by writ, and had a right to the summons, sometimes in her lifetime, sometime after her decease, as baron by the courtesy, if she had issue by him inheritable to the peerage. My learned friend Mr. Fleming, by whose industry my noble Friends and myself benefited so largely in our search for precedents, has furnished me with a list of on less than seventeen such peerages in the fifteenth century, between the reigns of Henry IV. and Richard III. But above two centuries ago it was settled, though without any decision of this House, that such peerages had, like those by tenure, no longer a legal existence. Nothing, then, but the lapse of time and
1208
entire disuse of the right prevented my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) from sitting in this House jure uxoris six years before his own elevation to the peerage; yet he never dreamt that he had any such title to a writ of summons, because peerages of that description had fallen into desuetude.
I hear in some quarters a perversion of the maxim omne majus continet in se minus; as if the power of granting peerages inheritable implied that of granting peerages for life, taken to be the lesser dignity. There cannot be a greater fallacy; the maxim has here no kind of application. The life peerage is not less than the hereditary; it is a wholly different thing; the two do not stand in the relation of greater and less; the hereditary and life peerage are, in contemplation of constitutional law, different things. They who argue that the Crown can make a life peerage because it is less than an hereditary, must hold that still more it can make peerages for years or at pleasure, because this holding at pleasure is the most feeble of all estates. But though less with respect to the enjoyment of the guarantee, it is in fact greater with respect to the power of the grantor, upon whom it makes the grantee more dependent. If the question of greater and less arises upon the dependence of the Peer, and not upon the extent of his enjoyment, undoubtedly the relation of greater and less is inverted, and the lesser enjoyment answers to the greater exercise of power.
The question now before your Lordships is merely one of constitutional law. After full and anxious consideration, we deny the prerogative to call Commoners to this House for life. This has nothing whatever to do with conferring the dignity, the honour for life, as a mere dignity without a seat in Parliament. That may be legal, or it may not; your Lordships here have nothing to do with it, any more than the Crown or the other House of Parliament can have to do with the decision of the point now before us. I have heard, and with no little astonishment, of an apprehension entertained that there may be some offence given elsewhere if we decide this point of law against the alleged prerogative. Offence to the Crown is of course utterly out of the question. But so, I think, is offence to the other House, which is accused (I can call it nothing less than an accusation) of a disposition to take up the subject. Wishing to avoid all expressions which might even by possibility

1209
wear the semblance of disrespect—I will not say I defy them, but only I foretell that they will not do anything so absurd. Prediction is oftentimes dangerous to the prophet's credit, because it leaves him at the mercy of events. Yet will I, from my great respect for that body, venture confidently to predict that if we only exercise our own privileges with combined temper and firmness, asserting them when imperatively called upon, but in no way going beyond them; so will that illustrious assembly, the other House, avoid exceeding the bounds of theirs. Nothing can be conceived, I was about to say, more monstrous, but rather let me say more truly ridiculous, than their coming to any resolution touching our determination of this question, which regards our own rights and privileges alone. As well might we think of interfering with their decisions upon the rights of election, or the title to seats in that House.
The question before your Lordships is of very great moment, and I rejoice that it has been so fully and so temperately discussed. That the constitution would receive an irreparable injury by the unrestrained practice of creating life peerages is admitted on all hands, even by those who support the Amendment. I therefore, as a friend of the constitution, and a supporter of this House's independence and just rights, as maintaining the rights of Parliament against the encroachments of the Crown, am well pleased that a strict investigation of the case has proved the prerogative to have no legal existence, because I bad far rather that the alleged right were shown not to exist, than only trust to it not being abused. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will now decide against the alleged prerogative, maintaining the peerage of England as in its essence hereditary, and resolving that our Government shall henceforth, as heretofore, consist of an Hereditary Sovereign, Elected Commons, and Hereditary Peers.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that important and interesting as this question in some respects was, he could not but feel that at that late hour of the night—past midnight—and on the second occasion of debate, he could not hope to command the attention of their Lordships for more than a short time; but at the same time he felt it his duty to state distinctly what he considered to be the law on the subject,
1210
and in what respects he considered their Lordships would act erroneously if they proceeded to exercise functions that did not belong to them, and the exercise of which be believed would be infinitely more dangerous than the creation of a peerage for life, even though there might be no precedent for such a creation for more than 400 years. His noble and learned Friend who introduced this question stated that he (the Lord Chancellor) had erroneously represented that there was no precedent for the course their Lordships were now taking; and he said that the Brandon case did not differ from that under discussion. Now, the two cases were not at all analogous. In the Brandon case the House came to the conclusion that in point of law a Scotch Peer was incapacitated from sitting as a British Peer, and consequently that he could not take his seat in the House in that character. Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) had never said it was not competent for the House to inquire whether a person presenting himself at their bar had any personal disqualification which prevented him taking his seat—for instance, if he were an alien, or if she were a woman. The question in the Brandon case was, that the Crown had conferred a British peerage on a person incapable of being a British Peer, not whether a person presenting himself with a writ of summons should or should not be admitted; for the Duke of Brandon was already sitting in that House as Duke of Hamilton, and that was a matter into which the House was fairly entitled to inquiry. If the question was at all analogous, and if it was a settled point in law that no Baron of the Exchequer, or no person who had been a Baron of the Exchequer, could be created a Peer, then the Committee would be acting right in declaring that Lord Wensleydale was incapacitated from taking his seat in the House, and in so doing they would act strictly in accordance with the precedent set them in the Brandon case. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) divided his address into several parts: first as to the jurisdiction of the House; then as to the legality of the patent; and lastly, as to the expediency of granting it. As to the jurisdiction, his noble and learned Friend had quoted cases from the Journals of the House to show the legality of the present proceeding; but in his opinion those cases proved just

1211
the contrary. His noble and learned Friend referred first to the Banbury case. In that case, it was moved, that there being a person sitting in that House as a Peer, who, it was imagined, had no real right to do so, it was ordered that this person be heard at the bar by counsel. Now, the terms of the notice taken of this matter in the Journals might lead them to suppose that the House instituted proceedings in it proprio motu, and that was the impression produced by the statement of his noble and learned Friend; but, in reality, this was not the case. The first entry in the Journals was dated July 13, 1660, when there was no Parliament properly so called, for the Long Parliament was dissolved in March, 1660, and then writs were issued summoning a Convention Parliament. The Peers, finding the doors of the House open, walked in and took their seats, and there were sons of Peers who claimed to be admitted. Letters were also sent to Peers to take their seats, and he supposed one might have been sent to the person claiming to be Earl of Banbury. About six weeks after the Restoration this person was found sitting in the House; and the Peers, believing he had no right to be there, instituted an inquiry into his case. He was not there by virtue of a writ of summons, but by virtue of claiming to be Earl of Banbury. Parliament was dissolved, and a new one summoned in 1661, but it was not till 1669 that they found the next inquiry taking place into the matter of the Earl of Banbury. The House then referred it to a Committee for Privileges to examine into the claim of the Earl of Banbury to have a writ of summons, as directed to the late Earl of Banbury. In this instance a petition was directed to His Majesty. It was by His Majesty's order that the inquiry took place, and afterwards all that occurred was in consequence of that petition. The only case which seemed to have any semblance of authority was that of the Earl of Lincoln. What were the facts? On Wednesday the Earl of Lincoln presented his writ. No notice was taken of it until it was too late, and consequently the House would not go into an inquiry that day. But he supposed they had some notion that it was not the real Earl of Lincoln, for a reference was made to his pedigree the next day, and on Friday he was admitted to take his seat, everything having been found to be right. That was no authority
1212
for what his noble and learned Friend opposite proposed—namely, that the House should come to a vote that a certain subject of Her Majesty could not sit there by virtue of a writ summoning him to Parliament. There had been great confusion in the argument on the law relating to the patent. It was supposed that the patent had. something to do with a seat in that House. Nothing of the kind. When a Peer was created by patent, he first presented his patent at the bar, and then his writ; but the presentation of the patent was made only because the House had a right to know what constituted its membership. If anybody upon the roll of Members was not summoned by writ, the House had a right to interfere, and to present a remonstrance to the Crown, praying that a writ should issue. So much the House might do proprio vigore, and in such a case the legitimate and only constitutional mode of proceeding which the House could adopt was, to resolve not to proceed to business till the House was full. But the patent, even after it was enrolled, was not that which entitled a Peer to sit in the House. He sat because he had received a writ from the Sovereign to attend in Parliament, and it was perfectly indifferent whether he had a patent or not—if he had received a writ he was bound to obey; and there were instances in troublous times where persons had been heavily fined for not doing so. Two cases of that kind occurred at the time of the Gunpowder Plot. Such being the case, even supposing the patent granted to Lord Wensleydale to be as illegal as be supposed it to be legal, would their Lordships, because they thought the patent illegal and that the Government had acted rashly and unconstitutionally, seek a remedy by doing that which he defied them to prove had ever been done since that House was established—by passing a Resolution not to admit one of Her Majesty's subjects who came there in obedience to Her writ, commanding him to give Her his assistance and advice in Parliament? Would they, because they thought the granting of this patent rash and unconstitutional, seek redress by doing that which he defied anybody to prove since the House was a House had ever yet been done? Till that was finally determined, he could not believe that their Lordships would be led into so disastrous a course. A person who possessed a good patent was

1213
entitled to a writ of summons; but if he had a writ of summons, he was entitled to a seat in that House whether his patent was good or bad. It was unfortunate that in the reference to the Committee of Privileges, there was no hint of that which they were now going to report. The reference was to examine the copy of letters patent purporting to create Baron Parke a Baron of the United Kingdom for life, and to report thereon to the House; but what his noble and learned Friend proposed was, to declare by a Resolution that neither the letters patent, nor the letters patent with the writ of summons issued in pursuance thereof, could entitle Baron Parke to a seat in Parliament. That was not a legitimate result of the reference. Suppose Her Majesty thought fit to supersede this writ and to issue another; would their Lordships, toties quoties, refuse to admit him—would they say that Lord Wensleydale should never sit in that House under a writ from the Crown? It was, indeed, the most extraordinary defiance of the prerogative he ever heard suggested. Their Lordships had no more right, if a person presented himself at the bar, not being a minor, an alien, or otherwise disqualified, with a writ issued by Her Majesty, to refuse to admit him, than the other House to refuse to admit a person presenting himself with a return from Yorkshire. It was precisely the same thing, save that in the House of Lords, every individual Member had a writ directed to him personally, while for the House of Commons writs went forth to different functionaries in the county, directing that Members should be returned. It was for the Crown alone to say, he repeated, to whom it should issue writs to sit in the House of Lords—save that it was bound to issue such writs to all who were, by patent or otherwise, Peers. There was no appeal from that. If the Crown should be so ill-advised as to refuse a writ improperly, there was one remedy, which the noble and learned Lord had accurately stated—the legitimate and only constitutional mode of proceeding was, for the House to resolve that it would not proceed to business until the House should be "full." But if their Lordships resolved that they would not receive Lord Wensleydale, if he should present himself with a writ, they would be usurping a function which did not belong to that House, and for such an usurpation, the House could only not be called to account,
1214
because there existed no means of punishing or calling in question the conduct of either branch of the Legislature. If he were asked, what remedy there would be against the House of Lords in such a case, he could only reply that it was a case which the constitution had not provided for, because the constitution had not supposed it possible that such a case could ever exist, for constitutionally it was not conceived that the King could do wrong, or that either branch of the Legislature could do wrong; but that this would be a wrong and a violation of all law he had not the slightest doubt. There was not even any case approaching to it, unless it were that in such an instance as that of the Earl of Lincoln, the House had, by its Committee of Privilege, taken upon itself to arrest or delay for a very short time the execution of the writ. He (the Lord Chancellor) felt that this was more important to the constitution than the question of life peerages itself. With regard to the legality of the peerage, the subject was exhausted, and he would therefore merely recapitulate the grounds upon which he contended that it was lawful. Lord Redesdale said the presumption was, that the fountain of honour could measure out that honour in any proportion it thought fit. Lord Coke's authority had been sneered at as if it were nothing. He understood that to Lord Coke was mainly to be attributed the formation of the Petition of Right, and he could hardly imagine that a man who had watched, like Lord Coke, the progress of the constitution was to be no authority on constitutional law. He maintained that Sir Matthew Hale supported Lord Coke, because, although Sir Matthew Hale had made comments on those parts which required comment, there was no note on this particular passage in Coke upon Lyttleton, as if he thought it beyond question. Comyn only took the dictum of Coke; but he stated it, because he considered it correct law, and all the lawyers who had ever written on the subject had taken the same view. With regard to the ancient patents of life peerages enumerated in Lord Redesdale's appendix, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) had said, that they were all conferred with the authority of Parliament; and he (the Lord Chancellor) said, about half of them. What he meant was, that the assensus of Parliament had no reference to the peerages for life; it was given to hereditary peerages as well

1215
as to peerages for life; in some cases the grants were stated to be made per ipsum regem, and in others per ipsum regem et totum concilium in Parliamento. He contended that the grants of peerages, though made in the presence of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, were not Acts of Parliament. In the last year of the reign of Richard II. a great number of grants were made, with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons; but in the first of Henry IV. an Act was passed repealing these Acts of the previous reign. The Duke of Norfolk, who had received one of the grants so repealed, supposed his peerage was gone, and he reverted to his minor title of Earl. About twenty or thirty years afterwards there was a dispute between that Earl and another Earl as to precedence. The question was referred to a tribunal to determine; and the tribunal, not feeling it very easy to decide, and finding that he had been created, in the last year of Richard II., Duke of Norfolk, submitted that such creation put him clearly over the head of his competitor. It was then said that the grant was done away, because all the Acts were repealed by the Act of Henry IV. The lawyers contended that Peers were not created by Act of Parliament, but by the King in Parliament; and that distinction was established to be good. He thought it necessary to revert to that point, though, in his view, it was a very small one. He relied for the legality of those peerages on the fact that all the greatest lawyers had invariably treated them as lawful, and that though there had been no creation of Peers for life such as that of Lord Wensleydale, there had been creations for life with remainder over to others and creations of women as peeresses for life, which clearly established the right. The only question was the propriety of exercising the prerogative. He thought the apprehension that it would be abused was the most extraordinary he had ever heard suggested. How, he would ask, was it more easy to swamp the House of Peers by the creation of life peerages than by the creation of hereditary peerages? If a Government wished only to adhere to the strict letter of law, it was the easiest thing possible to create Peers for life, with remainder to some other Peer or his heirs, so that the number of hereditary Peers would not necessarily be augmented. He did not mean to say that any Ministry would be
1216
bold enough to adopt such a course upon any large scale, but he mentioned the circumstance as proving that the prohibition of life peerages would not prevent the evil which it was supposed they were intended to produce. It was true the prerogative of creating life Peers might be abused, but so might every prerogative. The only check which existed applied to that as to every other step of a Government—the pressure of public opinion. He could not admit the argument which had been made use of—that use might be turned to possible abuse. That great convenience might ensue to the country from the occasional introduction of life Peers had not been disputed; but, because that useful exercise of the power of the Crown might by possibility be abused, it was argued that it ought never to be exercised. The question was whether, if such a course was, as he believed it to be, legal, was it advisable on the present occasion to exercise the legal prerogative for the purpose of adding to the judicial strength of the House? For the reasons he had mentioned he felt bound to oppose the Motion of his noble and learned Friend, who, he hoped, would, after what had taken place, at least strike out from his Resolution so much as related to Lord Wensleydale, and leave the terms general, and not personal, as they were at present.
On Question, Whether the Words proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Content 92; Not Content 57: Majority 35.
Resolved in the Affirmative; Then the original Motion was agreed to; and the said Report to be made to the House.

PROTEST.
"DISSENTIENT,—1. Because the order of reference not having directed any inquiry whether a writ of summons would entitle Lord Wensleydale to sit and vote in this House, the Report of the Committee for Privileges purports to decide a question not submitted to them.
"2. Because, according to the uniform opinions of the highest legal authorities for above two centuries and an half, the Crown has the prerogative of creating a Peer for life with all the privileges of the hereditary peerage, except that of transmitting his honours to his descendants.
"3. Because the creation of a peerage for life with a limitation in the patent to collateral relatives has been common even in modern times, and no such patent would have been valid if the prerogative contended for did not exist.
"4. Because any subject of the Crown who has received a writ of summons to this House is entitled to take his seat according to the exigency of his writ, and there is no principle or precedent warranting the House in refusing to admit him.

"CRANWORTH, C.

"HARROWBY,

"SUNDRIDGE,

"PANMURE,

"GRANVILLE,

"GLENELG,

"STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,

"BREADALBANE,

"LANSDOWNE,

"SYDNEY.

"Die Veneris, Feb. 22."

House adjourned to Monday next.