position of Meanwhile, the admission of Scottish peers to here- Present ditary seats in the House of Lords, is tending to a the Scottish singular result. At no distant period, the Scottish peerage. peerage will probably become absorbed in that of the United Kingdom. One half their number have already been absorbed more may hereafter be admitted to the House of Lords; and, as no new creations can be made, we may foresee the ultimate extinction of all but sixteen Scottish peers, not embraced in the British peerage. These sixteen peers, instead of continuing a system of self-election, will then probably be created hereditary peers of Parliament. The Act of Union will have worked itself out; and a Parliamentary incorporation of the two countries will be consummated,-more complete than any which the most sanguine promoters of the Union could, in their visions of the future, have foreshadowed. A similar absorption of the Irish peerage into the Present peerage of the United Kingdom has also been observ- the Irish able, though, by the terms of the Act of Union, the full peerage. number of one hundred Irish peers will continue to be maintained. In 1860 there were one hundred and ninetythree Irish peers', of whom seventy-one had seats in Parliament, as peers of the United Kingdom. Thus, the peers of Ireland sitting in Parliament,-including the representative peers,- amounted to ninety-nine. the peer doms. By this fusion of the peerages of the three kingdoms, Fusion of the House of Lords has grown at once more national, ages of the and more representative in its character. As different three kingclasses of society have become represented there, so different nationalities have also acquired a wider representation. Nor ought it to be overlooked that Scotland and 1 There is also one peeress; and Armagh in the peerage of Ireland. the King of Hanover is Earl of Hereditary character of the peerage. Defects in the appel late jurisdiction of the Lords. Ireland are further represented in the House of Lords by the numerous commoners, of Scottish and Irish birth, who have been raised to the dignity of the peerage for distinguished services, or other eminent qualifications. But all temporal peers,-whether English, Scottish, or Irish, and whether sitting by hereditary right or by election, have been ennobled in blood, and transmit their dignities to their heirs. Hereditary descent has been the characteristic of the peerage, and-with the exception of the bishops-of the constitution of the House of Lords. In 1856, however, Her Majesty was advised to introduce among the hereditary peers of the realm, a new class of peers, created for life only. Well-founded complaints had been made of the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords had been exercised. The highest court of appeal was often without judges, their place being filled by peers unlearned in the law, who sat as members of the court, without affecting to participate in its judgments. This had been an evil of long standing; though it had not, until lately, aroused the vigilance of suitors and the public. For some years after the Revolution, there had not been a single law-lord in the House, Lord Somers having heard appeals as Lord Keeper. When that distinguished lawyer was at length admitted to a seat in the House of Peers, he was the only law-lord. During the greater part of the reigns of George II. and George III., appeals had been heard by Lord Hardwicke, Lord Mansfield, Lord Thurlow, and Lord Eldon, sitting in judicial solitude, while two mute, unlearned lords were to be seen in the background, representing the collective wisdom of the court. In later times a more decorous performance of judicial duties had been exacted by public opinion ; and frequent changes of administration having multiplied ex-chancellors, the number of law-lords was greater than at former periods. But in an age in which reforms in the administration of justice had become an important department of legislation, and a subject of popular interest, theoretical improvements, at least, were demanded in the constitution of the first court of appeal. As an expedient for adding to the judicial strength of Life-peerthe House, without a permanent increase of its numbers, ages. it was suggested that the most eminent judges might be admitted to the privilege of sitting there, for life only. The practice of granting peerages for life was not a constitutional novelty, but had long fallen into desuetude. Between the reigns of Richard II. and Henry VI., several precedents were to be found of the creation of life-peerages. Some of these, however, had been made,— like many other peerages of that period,-in full Parlia ment: some had been granted to peers already entitled to sit in Parliament by hereditary right: some peers so created had never sat in the House of Peers: one had been a foreigner, who could not claim a seat by virtue of his title: and, for upwards of four hundred years, there was no instance on record, in which any man had been admitted to a seat in the House of Lords, as a peer for life. But there were many later instances, Life-peerin which ladies had received life-peerages. Charles II. ages to had created the beautiful Louise de Querouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth for life; James II. had created Catherine Sedley a baroness, by the same tenure; George I. had raised Madame de Schulemberg to the rank of Duchess of Kendal for life, and had conferred a life-peerage upon her niece1; and George II. had made Madame Walmoden Countess of Yarmouth for life. Between 1 Or reputed daughter, the Countess of Walsingham. women. Peerages with remainders over. Authorities in support ages. the reign of James I. and that of George II., peerages for life had been granted to no less than eighteen ladies. But as the fair sex are unable to sit in Parliament, this class of peerages could not be relied upon, in support of the right of the Crown to introduce life-peers into the House of Lords. There was, however, another class of peerages, whence a strong argument was derived in favour of the royal prerogative. Though peerages in their general character have been hereditary,-descending like estates to the elder son,—yet peerages have been continually granted to persons, with remainder to collateral relatives, or to the elder son of the peer by a second wife, or to the son of a younger brother, or other relative not in the direct line of succession, as heir at law. All grants of this class -being governed, not by the general law of descent, but by the special limitations in the patent — were exceptions from the principle of hereditary succession. The first grantee was, in effect, created a peer for life, though the second grantee became entitled to the peerage, subject to the ordinary rights of succession. But the grant of a peerage of this class was plainly distinguishable from a peerage for life, as it provided-though in an exceptional manner-for the duration of the dignity beyond the life of the first grantee. It was indeed maintained that such peerages afforded further evidence against the legality of life-peerages, as they had been constantly granted, without objection, while none of the latter had been created for centuries. But if these precedents and analogies were obof life-peer- solete, or of doubtful application, the legality of life-peerages had been recognised by nearly all constitutional authorities. Lord Coke had repeatedly affirmed the doctrine, that the Crown may create peerages "for life, in tail, or in fee;" the learned Selden had referred to the ancient custom without comment; Chief Baron Comyns and Cruise had accepted the authority of Coke as unquestioned law; the popular Blackstone had repeated and enforced it1; and, lastly, Lord Redesdale's committee "On the dignity of a Peer," in 1822, had acknowledged it without reserve.2 Butler was the only eminent writer who had expressed any doubt upon the subject.3 The doctrine had also been generally received among statesmen as well as lawyers. Lord Liverpool's administration, impressed with the necessity of improving the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords, had, at one time, unanimously resolved to create life-peers. In 1851, the government of Lord John Russell had offered a lifepeerage to Dr. Lushington, the distinguished judge of the Admiralty Court, who, by a late statute, had been denied the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons. In the Devon peerage case, Lord Brougham had stated from the woolsack, as Chancellor, that the Crown had not only the power of creating a peerage for the life of the grantee himself, but for the life of another person; and upon a more recent occasion, Lord Campbell had laid it down in debate, that the "Crown might create, by its prerogative, a peerage for life, but not a peerage during a man's continuance in office: that would require an enactment of the three branches of the legislature."4 1 "For a man or woman may be created noble for their own lives, and the dignity not descend to their heirs at all, or descend only to some particular heirs, as where a peerage is limited to a man and the heirs male of his body, by Elizabeth, his present lady, and not to such heirs by any former or future wife." 3 Coke's Inst., 19th edit., by Hargrave and Butler. 4 Hansard's Debates, June 27th, 1851, 3rd Series, cxvii. 1312. |