When British peers, their rights as land cease. who were denied a seat in the Parliament of Great Britain, should be entitled to representation by members of their own body, subject to the same political peers of Scot- conditions as themselves. The right of the Crown to admit Scottish peers to the peerage of Great Britain having at length been recognized, the king exercised the right in favor of the Earl of Abercorn and the Duke of Queensberry, both of whom were sitting, at that time, in the House of Lords, as representative peers of Scotland. That these noblemen, who now sat by hereditary right, should continue to be the representatives of the Scottish peerage, was a constitutional anomaly which could not easily be maintained. As well might it have been contended that a member of the Lower House continued to represent the constituents by whom he had been elected, notwithstanding his elevation to a seat in the House of Peers. In 1736, indeed, the Duke of Athol had inherited the Barony of Strange, and had continued to sit as a representative peer, without any decision of the House of Lords, or any question being raised concerning his legal position. But now Lord Stormont brought the matter before the House of Lords, in a clear and unanswerable argument; and though he was boldly opposed by Lord Thurlow, the House resolved that the Earl of Lauderdale and the Duke of Queensberry had ceased to sit as representatives of the peerage of Scotland.1 The two peers thus disqualified from sitting as representatives, immediately proceeded to vote as Scottish peers for their successors, in contravention of a resolution of the House of Lords in 1708. An attempt was made to defend their right to vote, and to cast doubts upon the former determination of the House; but the Lords were resolute in maintaining the independent rights of the Scottish peerage, according to the spirit of the Act of Union; and directed a copy of the resolution of the 21st of Jan. 1708-9 to be transmitted to the Lord Registrar of Scotland, with an “in 1 Lords' Journ. xxxvii. 594; Parl. Hist. xxvi. 596. Junction to him that he do conform thereto;" and since that time this decision has been invariably respected.1 Scottish peer Meanwhile, the admission of Scottish peers to hereditary seats in the House of Lords, is tending to a sin- Present posigular result. At no distant period, the Scottish tion of the peerage will probably become absorbed in that of age. 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 peer age of the United Kingdom has also been observ- Present pos1able, though, by the terms of the Act of Union, tion of the Irish peerage. the full number of one hundred Irish peers will continue to be maintained. In 1860 there were one hundred and ninety-three 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. 2 As peerages of the three kingdoms. By this fusion of the peerages of the three kingdoms, the House of Lords has grown at once more national, Fusion of the and more representative in its character. different classes of society have become represented there, so different nationalities have also acquired a wider representation. Nor ought it to be overlooked that 1 Parl. Hist. xxvi. 1158 (May 18th, 1787); Lords' Journ. xxxvii. 709. 2 There is also one peeress; and the King of Hanover is Earl of Armagh in the peerage of Ireland. Scotland and 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 character of by election, - have been ennobled in blood, and the peerage. 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. Hereditary In 1856, however, Her Majesty was advised to introduce Defects in the among the hereditary peers of the realm, a new appellate jucreated for life only. risdiction of the Lords. class of peers, 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 rilled 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 KeepWhen that distinguished lawyer was at length admitted to a seat in the House of Peers, he was the only lawlord. During the greater part of the reigns of George II. and George III., appeals had been heard by Lord Hard wicke, 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 whick er. reforms in the administration of justice had become an im portant 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 the House, without a permanent increase of its Life-peerages numbers, 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 Parliament: 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 Life-peerages many later instances, in which ladies had received life-peerages. Charles II. 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 niece; and George II. had made Madame Walmoden, Countess of Yarmouth for life. Between 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. 1 to women. 1 Or reputed daughter, the Countess of Walsingham. Peerages with over. There was, however, another class of peerages, whence a strong argument was derived in favor of the remainders 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. Authorities in But if these precedents and analogies were obsolete, or of doubtful application, the legality of life-peerages support of had been recognized by nearly all constitutional life-peerages. 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 it;1 and, lastly, Lord Redesdale's committee "On the dignity of a 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 for mer or future wife." Steph. Blackstone, ii. 589. |