This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com
A LETTER TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON ON

THE PROPRIETY AND LEGALITY OF CREATING PEERS

FOR LIFE

N. H. Nicolas

one one
N54.
 THE LIBRARY

CLASS S 4–2, OTS

Book N 0 |4
 º

º \ck cat |-}. | | | c.c. ſac | | |

A LETTER

'H'(x

THE buk E OF WELLINGTON

CREATING PEERS FOR LIFE.

 [The First Edition of this Pamphlet was confined to a private
circulation, bit the subject having excited some interest, a
limited and revised impression is tº published.]

-[The First Edition of this Pamphlet was confined to a private

circulation,but the subject having excited some interest, a
limited and revised impression is now published.]

i (; x i: N .

tº it is 1 - 1) ſº Y SA Ai U : I. tº N'i . . . ;
| 1 , , so t St. “ , i ,, , t >.. . . . .

LONDON :

tº i: INTED BY SAMUEL BENT LI.Y.,

i).5i set Street, Floet Stieet.
 A LETTER

TO

THE DUKE of w ELLINGTON,

ON THE

PROPRIETY AND LEGALITY

of

CREATING PEERS FOR LIFE :

WITH PRECEDENTS.

º N \cºs\n. Hss tº N 'ez Vaz,

second 33bition.

LONDON :

WILLIAM PICKERING, CHANCERY-LAN.E.

MidCCCXxx.
eA 2 &T 5
N = \ A.

ON CREATING PEERS FOR LIFE.

“In England no man is created a Baron, except he may dispend of

yearly revenue one thousand pounds, or a thousand marks at the least:
Viscounts, Earls, Marquisses, and Dukes, more, according to the pro
portion of the degree and honour; but though by chance he or his son
have less, he keepeth his degree; but if they decay by excess, and be
not able to maintain the honour (as Senatores Romani were amoti Se
natu), so sometimes they are not admitted the Upper House in the Par
liament, although they keep the name of Lord still.”
The Commonwealth of England, by Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary
of State to Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth.-Ed. 1640, p. 41.

MY LORD DUKE,

THE claims which from time to time are made

for the exercise of the Royal prerogative in the
creation of Peers, are perhaps not the least embar
• 3rassing among the many subjects that press upon
the attention of a Prime Minister.

KNIGHTHood having fallen into disrepute, from

the indiscriminate manner in which it has, for some
5 years, been conferred, the only dignities that are
now earnestly solicited are those of an hereditary na
*ture, namely, BARONETCIEs and PEERAGES.
 4.

Though the evils which ensue from conferring an

hereditary honour upon persons who cannot entail
an ample fortune on their successors, occur, to a
certain extent, as well in the case of Baronetcies
as in Peerages, I shall not again allude to the
rank of Baronet, because it has almost ceased to be
an object of ambition to persons whose merit or influ
ence in the state is such, as to render it inconvenient
to a Minister to meet their applications by a simple
but decided negative.” -

It is, however, very different with respect to the

PEERAGE. To that dignity, public services, poli
* It has been observed, that “the title of Baronet has become
so lessened in value, that it creates surprise when a man who
has really deserved a distinction condescends to accept it; and
as some individuals who have inherited the title are reduced to a
state of pitiable poverty, the next generation may probably see
them engaged in occupations wholly unsuited to their rank. He
reditary dignities ought, therefore, to be bestowed with the utmost
caution, and never but upon persons who can entail sufficient
property on their descendants to preserve their respectability.
In the present state of society in England, men are ambitious in
an unprecedented degree of honours, and nothing less than
an hereditary title is deemed worthy of acceptance : hence the
increase of Peers and of Baronets, and hence a corresponding
decrease of the respect of the world for both these dignities. It
is perhaps worthy of consideration, whether, if a new object of
ambition was formed by the institution of an order of Knight
hood for civil services, or by appropriating to this purpose a few
crosses of the respective classes of the extended Order of the
Bath, and a most rigid system of refusal of hereditary titles
was adopted, the result would not be preferable.” This, too,
would have the desirable effect of restoring to the title of
KNIGHT much of its ancient honour.
 5

tical connexions, and the favour of the Sovereign,

form grounds for claims which it is often diffi
cult to resist ; and yet no one can have noticed the
great increase which was made to the Peerage in
the last two reigns,” nor reflect on the limited in
comes of some inheritors of the honours, without
being struck with the impolicy of many of those cre
ations, and without apprehending that the condition of
their successors may be still more lamentable. Some
of those individuals are already pensioners or place
men ; and instead of being independent Peers of
Parliament, they are bound to submit their votes to
the disposal of the Minister for the time being. Liv
ing upon a scanty income derived from the Royal
bounty, they are, in fact, objects of public sympathy,
for they are altogether incapable of fulfilling the
duties, or commanding the respect belonging to their
own station; while they are prevented, by the cus

* His Majesty George the Fourth added sirty-four members

to the Upper House. In this number, are included, individuals
who have been raised to the Peerage, or in whose favour an
abeyance has been terminated, as well as Peers of Scotland and
Ireland, who have obtained English Baronies. No notice, how
ever, is taken of the Scotch Peerages which were recently restored,
nor of the creations of Peers of Ireland, of claims to English
Peerages which have been admitted, nor of elevations of English
Peers to higher honours. George the Third is said to have
created two hundred and thirty-nine English Peers in about
fifty-three years, i. e. from 1760 to 1814, or on the average,
something more than four per annum. The average number
since 1814, the year in which the Prince Regent first created an
English Peer, has been as nearly as possible the same,
 6

toms of society, from entering into professions by

which private gentlemen obtain a competence, if not
a fortune. -

In proportion as hereditary Peers are multiplied,

will be the increase of danger to the Constitution, of
burthens on the Public Purse, and of importunities
to Ministers. The existence of a body of pensioned
Peers, sufficiently large to ensure to an Administra
tion a majority in the Upper House, though possibly
in some cases convenient, must nevertheless be at
tended by annoyances to Government which coun
terbalance the advantage. Ten or twelve might
perhaps be provided for by official appointments or
pensions, but if the Peerage continue to be aug
mented at the same rate as in the last seventy years,
during which time upwards of THREE HUNDRED
members have been added to the House of Lords,
the time must be near, when it will be absolutely
impossible for the Crown to satisfy all the claim
ants, and the many who remain ungratified will, from
their necessities, become discontented and factious.
The inconvenience to the Government which must
attend an indigent House of Lords, and the dangers
with which it threatens the Constitution, seem im
peratively to call for a change in the existing system
of entailing the Peerage on the issue of every indi
vidual, whose peculiar talents or influence may raise
him to that dignity.
Before submitting proofs that such a change would
be strictly in conformity with law and precedent, the
 7

various classes of persons on whom Peerages are

usually conferred will be briefly noticed.
I. Country Gentlemen of ancient families and
extensive landed property, possessed of
Parliamentary or other influence.
II. Favourites of the Sovereign, and relations
and supporters of Ministers.
III. Persons who have rendered eminent Civil,
Naval, or Military Services.
IV. Lawyers, comprehending those elevated to
the office of Lord Chancellor; and Judges,
so rewarded for services, or because their
assistance is required in the House of
Lords.

I. Country Gentlemen of ancient families, and

extensive landed property, form almost the only class
of persons in whose case there is no objection to the
creation of an hereditary dignity, because their lands
are generally entailed on their heirs male, who are
thereby enabled to support their rank. Hence it
need only be suggested, whether it might not be ad
visable that no hereditary peerage should be cre
ated, unless the grantee be possessed of an unen
cumbered estate of a value proportionate to his new
rank, which he would strictly entail on such of his
descendants as should succeed to the title. The
Legislature might with advantage lend its sanction,
by one general provision, to the formation of en
tails of this nature, and the value of the property
 8

so annexed should be commensurate with the rank

of the dignity conferred. It may also be observed,
that as a landed estate is indispensable for a tempo
rary seat in the House of Commons, there seems a
still stronger reason, since the honour is greater,
why a similar, but higher qualification, should be ne
cessary for an hereditary Peerage. To render a re
gulation of this nature useful, it ought on no account
to be dispensed with, excepting in the instance of pre
eminently distinguished public services; and as no
hereditary Peerage would thenceforward be sought,
unless the candidate knew himself to be possessed
of the requisite qualification, the Government would
be relieved from many applications which might
otherwise be pressed upon it.

II. The individuals whom the Sovereign might be

pleased to select from personal esteem, or those whom,
from other motives, it might be desirable to elevate
to the Peerage, may properly be subjected to the re
gulation just stated; and if they were not able or
willing to entail the necessary property on their
heirs, the dignity should terminate with their lives.

III. In cases of eminent Civil, Naval, or Military

Services, the same regulation should be observed.
The individual might either be created a Peer for
life, or if the services rendered were of so extraordi
mary a description as to call for an extraordinary
reward, an hereditary Peerage might be created, to
 9

which an adequate estate, purchased by the country,

should be inseparably united ; and as the public
money could not be so appropriated without the
sanction of Parliament, it is probable that only splen
did services of the most important nature would
be thus rewarded.

IV. One of the most fertile sources from which the

Peerage has been augmented is the Bar; and it is
more especially with reference to the profession of
the Law that creations for life only seem extremely
desirable.
As the House of Lords is the highest judicial tri
bunal in the empire, as, occasionally, it is also a
court of criminal justice, as it is the only court
where Claims to Peerages are decided, and as it is a
component branch of the Legislature, the necessity
of having lawyers among its members is obvious.
From the earliest period, the Judges and other per
sons of great erudition and wisdom, have been sum
moned to assist in its judgments; but the propriety of
having, besides English Common-law and Chancery
lawyers, a few of the most eminent Scotch lawyers,
Civilians, and others, whose legal attainments may
qualify them to decide on the various cases brought
before the House of Lords, not as advisers, but as
judges, is daily becoming more and more evident.
It does not appear very consistent with common
sense to appeal from the judgment of a Chancellor
in one place, to the same Chancellor in another,
 10

without affording him the assistance of well inform

ed lawyers as his colleagues: nor, however profound
or extensive his acquirements may be, does the ex
perience of human nature justify the opinion that he
must be competent to judge on all the cases sub
mitted to the decision of the House, since the law
by which they ought severally to be decided, may be
as different from that which he has habitually stu
died or administered, as the laws of any two distinct
nations. -

It is not enough that the talents of all the Judges

are de jure at the command of the House of Lords.
Those learned persons are too much occupied in their
respective Courts to attend in Parliament, even when
called upon, without a partial interruption to other
public business; and, excepting when specially ques
tioned, they have no right to give an opinion. It
is not, however, as assistants to the House, but as
constituent members, that the presence of persons of
high legal attainments, of various descriptions, is con
stantly requisite; and perhaps in no instance is this
more felt than at the present moment, with respect
to Scotch Appeals. These are decided by English
lawyers alone; and, with all possible veneration for
the talents of a Chancellor, and for those of two or
three ex-Judges, by whom he may be occasionally
assisted, it is not to be expected that they should
possess a sufficient acquaintance with the peculiarities
of the laws of Scotland to decide causes which de
pend solely upon a proper construction of those laws.
 I1

But there are other cases in which legal acquire

ments of a very different nature from those possess
ed by Chancery and Common-law lawyers, however
profound, are essentially necessary in the House
of Lords, and in the just decision of which not
merely individual rights, but the constitution and
dignity of the Peerage itself are involved. The
House of Lords is the only tribunal before which
Claims to Peerages are prosecuted when the Attor
ney-General does not consider the case sufficiently
clear to advise the issue of a Writ to the Claimant,
and its resolutions on those Claims are, in effect,
final. Every one who is acquainted with the sub
ject is aware that the law respecting Peerages still
remains in great obscurity, and that, though the
House appointed a Committee to investigate the
origin and nature of the Dignity of a Peer of the
Realm, which made four Reports, characterized by
much research and erudition, its labours have been
recently interrupted by the death of Lord Redesdale.
The question is thus left in nearly the same state, as
to any practical result, as when the Committee com
menced its inquiries. To ascribe to any Chancellor,
or other Judge, whose life has been passed in studies
of a very different kind, that intimate and profound
knowledge of a subject on which a special Com
mittee of the House, after many years devoted to
the purpose, has been unable to form any decided
conclusions, would be ridiculous. But to whom can
he look for assistance, excepting to those two or
 12

three law Lords, whose other duties, age, or infirmi

ties may render their aid uncertain, even if their pre
vious studies had been specifically devoted to in
vestigations of that description ?
To show the importance, in every point of view,
of Claims to Dignities, it may be remarked, that
there is at this moment a Claim before the House,
the admission of which will give to the possessors of
all lands which five centuries ago were held of the
Crown by a certain tenure, a right to the Peerage,
with precedency over three-fourths of the Barons of
the country. Many hundred instances exist of lands
being once held by this tenure, the owners of which
have the same right as the present Claimant: and,
as each of them can, like himself, transfer those
lands to any other person at his pleasure, Peerages,
unless the Legislature interpose, may be sold to the
best bidder. This case is sufficient to show the
important nature of some Claims to a Peerage; but
in almost all of them, knowledge of a peculiar cha
racter is requisite, for the law which regulates the
descent of Honours is sui generis, and is totally
distinct from that which governs the descent of any
other species of inheritance.
Cases are also every day occurring—divorces for
example,_in which the assistance of Civilians is de
sirable; but the only noble Lord who is eminent for
his knowledge of the civil law, has attained an age
which precludes the possibility of more than occa
sional attendance in Parliament.
 13

The chief difficulty of concentrating in the House

of Lords the various talents and acquirements which
would enable it to act with uniform wisdom and jus
tice, arises from the danger and impolicy of increas
ing the list of hereditary Peers.
Though the presence in the House of men of con
fined fortunes, but of indisputable abilities, may be
beneficial to the country, the advantage is more than
counterbalanced by the evil of hazarding at the same
time the creation of a race of necessitous nobles,
who may hereafter disgrace their rank by their
poverty, because poverty in a Peer can scarcely fail
to produce degradation in political, if not in moral
conduct. In a recent instance, however, the expe
diency of placing a learned Judge in the House
to assist in its decisions, was so great as to sur
mount the obstacle; but he died before it had
benefited by his services, leaving his successor
without a sufficient income to maintain a private
gentleman, and who has already become a pensioner
of the Crown.
Another method of increasing the legal strength
of the House of Lords is to raise a Judge to the
Peerage when his infirmities oblige him to retire
from his own Court, as if by transplanting him to an
aristocratic soil, health would necessarily be restored
to his body, and vigour to his mind. But Nature is
indifferent to honours, and infirmities will seize their
victim, without considering that it was intended he
should hear Appeals in the House of Lords. Thus
 14

the evils attendant on the present practice are unre

deemed by the slightest beneficial effect; and here
ditary Peers continue to be made without the ob
ject being attained which alone would justify their
creation.

The conclusions to be drawn from the preceding

statements appear to be,

First. That the creation of hereditary Peers with

out a sufficient estate being annexed to the title to
support the dignity, is attended with positive in
convenience to the Government, probable danger to
the Constitution, and almost certain degradation to
the Peerage.
Secondly. That it is desirable that the country
should have the benefit of every description of ta
lent in the House of Lords, calculated to ensure the
administration of justice in all the various cases
brought before it.
Thirdly. That the impolicy of multiplying here
ditary Peerages tends to prevent the Crown from
placing in the House persons whose peculiar talents
and acquirements would be extremely beneficial to
the country.
Fourthly. That any measure which would lessen
the number of creations of hereditary Peerages,
would be as satisfactory to the nation at large, as
to the House of Lords generally.
 15

It will now be proved that it is consistent with

law and precedent to create Peers For LIFE ONLY.

From the time of Henry the Third to the eleventh

of Richard the Second, 1387, Barons were created
by Writs of Summons, and Earls and Dukes by
Patents or Charters. A Writ of Summons and a
Sitting in Parliament in consequence of such writ,
are held to create an hereditary Peerage to the heirs
of the body, male and female, of the person so sum
moned. Though there are grounds for believing
that it was the general practice to summon the
heirs of the individuals so created by writs, it is
beyond a doubt that until the reign of Richard the
Second, the Crown was accustomed to summon a
person to one, two, or more Parliaments, or during
his life, only. Few Baronies by Writ have been
created for some centuries, though many ancient dig
nities of that nature have been allowed to one
of several coheirs. This is an exercise of the Pre
rogative which requires the utmost caution, since an
ancient Peerage is thereby revived which descends to
the heirs male and female of the body of the in
dividual so restored, whilst a new creation by patent
would become extinct when the heirs male fail.
In cases, however, where a person is the sole heir
of a Barony by Writ, he has a legal right to the
title; but such instances are very rare, and it may
be confidently said that the difficulty of establishing
a claim of this nature is so great, that if it be pro
 I6

perly watched in the House of Lords, not one in

ten would be successful. The same observation may
be applied to all Claims to Honours; but, to use
the words of the Lords' Committee in their Report
on the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, the House
has in many instances acted without sufficient in
formation, or adequate caution, in deciding on them.
The limitations in the earliest Patents of Earl
doms were generally to the heirs of the body of the
grantee, and it was the custom to allow to the hus
bands of the females who inherited under those pa
tents, the titles for their lives. A restraint on such
extensive limitations was soon found to be requisite,
and subsequent creations were generally limited to
the heirs male of the body of the person created.
As early as the reign of Richard the Second, how
ever, instances occurred of creating Peerages Fort
LIFE ONLY, and it has been held by Chief-Justice
Coke, that those creations are strictly legal, and that
if a man be created a Peer by Patent, without any
remainder being mentioned, he has only a life estate
in the dignity.

Chief-Justice Coke says,

“As an estate for life may be gained by mar

riage, so may the King create either man or woman
noble For LIFE, but not for years, because then
it might go to executors or administrators.” Co.
Inst. 16 b.
 17

“If he be created by Letters Patent, the state of

inheritance must be limited by apt words, or else the
grant is void.” Ibid.
“If a man be created by Patent, he must of ne
cessity have these words, his heirs, or the heirs male
of his body, or the heirs of his body, &c. otherwise
he hath no inheritance.” Co. Inst. 9 b.

Blackstone observes :-

“In letters patent there must be words to direct

the inheritance, else the dignity enures only to the
grantee for life. For a man or woman may be cre
ated noble for their own lives, and the dignity not de
scend to their heirs at all, or descend only to some
particular heirs.”—Commentaries, i. 401.

It would, however, be useless to multiply autho

rities, because no lawyer has ventured to deny the
right of the Crown to create a Peerage for the term
of life only; and the Precedents given in the Ap
pendix to this Letter, * prove that it has very often
been acted upon.
Those precedents establish, first, that from the
reign of Richard the Second to that of George the
Second, (1385 to 1740,) the Crown frequently created
Peerages for life; and secondly, that so far from
those creations being deemed derogatory to the gran
tees, even members of the Royal Family, and other
* No. I. page 35,
B * -
 I8

distinguished persons, were created with no other

than a life estate in the dignity. The list might be
enlarged, but a sufficient number of examples has
been adduced to show that the prerogative of the
Crown to grant a Peerage for life only, has been
exercised for some centuries, though the only cre
ations of that description since the reign of Henry
the Eighth, have been in favour of females. The
principle is, however, the same; for if it were legal
and proper to create Peeresses without extending
the dignity to their issue, it must be equally so in
cases of Peers. -

Every creation in which there is a remainder to

any other person than the heir or heirs male of the
body of the grantee, also confirms the opinion that
the grant of a Peerage to an individual, does not
necessarily ennoble his blood, so that his honour must
be transmitted to his posterity. The prerogative of
granting a Peerage either for life, or to the heirs,
or to the heirs male of the body of the grantee,
or with remainder to any particular person, either
in the event of the failure of the issue of the
grantee, or immediately after his decease, whether
he leave male issue or not, has been frequently ex
ercised. Some of the numerous creations of this
description will be found in the Appendix."
It having been contended, and, it is hoped, conclu
sively established, that law, precedent, and con
venience, are in favour of creating Peers for life,
* No. II. page 39.
 19

it may be desirable to notice the objections which are

likely to be made to reviving the practice.
These may be presumed to be,
1st. That the dignity of a Peer of the Realm is
in its nature hereditary, and that, if deprived of that
quality, the constitution of the House of Lords will
be changed.
2nd. That creating Peers for life will tend to
form two classes of Peers.
3rd. That an important consequence of here
ditary honours is, that the living representative of a
man ennobled for his services becomes a memorial
of his virtues, and stimulates others to similar ex
ertions; and that one of the chief incentives to serve
our country is, not only the hope of acquiring for
ourselves, but also of transmitting to our posterity,
the dignity of a Peer of the Realm.
4th. That if it were usual to create Peers for life
only, great facility would be afforded to a Minister in
obtaining a majority in the House of Lords, by add
ing as many Peers of that description as he might
find necessary, inasmuch as the jealousy which the
creation of hereditary Peerages excites would not be
felt towards those which would expire with the lives
of the grantees.
5th. That Peers who may sit in Parliament under
a creation for life, are likely to sacrifice their politi
cal independence with the hope of obtaining a crea
tion to them and the heirs male of their bodies; and
consequently that the votes of such Peers would
B 2
 20

always be at the command of the Minister for the

time being.
Other arguments may be urged, but the foregoing
are probably the most important; and in the
event of a change in the present system being
objected to, it may be material to ascertain whe
ther the difficulties will not be raised by a few
learned persons only, who, standing as it were on the
very threshold of the House of Lords, expect, accord
ing to modern precedents, that the day cannot be
distant, when they and their male descendants will
become Peers of the Realm.
These objections will be considered seriatim :

First. “That the Peerage is in its nature heredi

tary and that if deprived of that character, it will
change the constitution of the House of Lords.”
The hereditary nature of the Peerage is nothing
but an assumption arising from its having been the
general practice to create Peers with remainder to
the heirs or heirs male of their bodies, and from
the decision, that a writ and sitting, in cases where
no patent has been issued, create a Barony to the
person summoned, and the heirs of his body for
ever. It has been already said, that doubts have
been entertained whether such was held to be the ef
fect of a writ and sitting before the time of Richard
the Second: but, assuming that it was, the Crown
has always possessed the right of limiting a dignity,
either by patent or by writ; and the power and
 21

practice of creating a Peer for life by patent, either

in express terms, or by simply omitting words of
inheritance, are sufficient to negative the idea that
Peerages are necessarily hereditary.
But this is not all. Many Temporal Peers, who
now sit in the House, will not transmit to their de
scendants a right to do so; namely, the Lords who
are elected by the Peers of Ireland and Scotland,
the former of whom sit in the House for life, and
the latter only so long as the Parliament to which
they are returned endures. To place a new Peer
in the same condition as, perhaps, an ancient Peer
of Ireland, and in a better situation than an un
doubtedly ancient Peer of Scotland, cannot be a hard
ship to the individual, nor effect any change in the
constitution of the House of Lords.
In the instance of Spiritual Lords, the case is still
stronger. All the Bishops are, in fact, Lords of
Parliament for life; for, notwithstanding that they
are not summoned before they receive their tem
poralities, the common opinion that the temporalities
alone confer the right to sit in Parliament, though
supported by high authority, is denied by Chief-Jus
tice Hale,” an authority of at least equal weight.
Until a Bishop be possessed of his temporalities,

* See a note to Thomas's edition of Coke's First Institutes,

vol. i. p. 56. Bishop Gibson in his Coder Juris Ecclesiastici
Anglicani, and Bishop Warburton in his Alliance between Church
and State, also deny that the right of Bishops to a seat in Par
liament depends on the temporalities of Bishopricks.
 22

he is not recognized by the Crown as being fully

possessed of his dignity. Neither his election nor his
consecration is the act of the Sovereign; and until he
has the lands of his Bishoprick granted to him, and
has performed homage, the Crown is not supposed
to acknowledge his episcopal character. It was an
ciently presumed that Bishops sat in Parliament by
the same right as the temporal Barons, namely, be
cause their lands were held of the Crown by the
tenure termed “per Baroniam.” That this could not
be strictly true, is evident from a simple fact which
has escaped the numerous writers on the subject.
On the demise or translation of each Prelate, all his
temporalities were seized into the King's hands, and
were not re-granted until the appointment of a suc
cessor. If the right to a summons to Parliament
was (as has been contended) attached to the tempo
ralities alone, no one could be summoned with refe
rence to the Bishoprick to which the temporalities
were attached, so long as they remained in the King's
hands. But this was not the case. Whenever
a See was vacant, from the reign of Edward the
First to that of Henry the Eighth, if not later, the
Custodes of the Spiritualities were regularly sum
moned to, and sat in Parliament, until the Sees were
again filled.* If, therefore, the right to sit in Par
* See the Writs of Summons to Parliament in the Appendix
to the First Report of the Lords' Committees on the Dignity
of a Peer of the Realm ; and the Rolls of Parliament, Vol. III.
pp. 582, 583.
 23

liament be derived from any other source than cus

tom, such right appears to belong to the Spirituali
ties, and not to the Temporalities; but it may be con
fidently presumed that it belongs to neither, and is
solely derived from prescription and immemorial
usage.
Enough has perhaps been stated to show, that
there is nothing essentially hereditary in the dig
nity of the Peerage; that many Peers even now en
joy the right of sitting in the House for their lives
only ; and that, by limiting many future creations
to a similar term, no change whatever will be pro
duced in the constitution of the House of Lords.

The second objection is, “That the creation of

Peers for life will form two distinct classes of Peers.”
This difficulty is met by the answer to the pre
ceding one, since it is evident that Peerages giving
a right to their possessors to sit in the House of
Lords for life only, do, at this very moment, exist.
The individual ennobled for life would stand in
nearly the same situation as a person who is en
nobled with a remainder, which never takes effect
for want of issue male. In both cases the titles will
become extinct at the decease of the possessors; and
Peers, who have daughters only, are often as de
sirous to obtain a creation, limiting their honours to
them and the heirs male of their bodies, as a newly
created Peer having sons, may be to obtain a patent
with the usual remainder. Special limitations, how
 24

ever, are now very rarely granted; but any re

mainder whatever should be refused, except in cases
where the grantee, or the country, in instances of
very distinguished services, shall entail a sufficient
fortune on his successors to maintain their rank.

The third objection is, “That an important con

sequence of hereditary honours is, that the living re
presentative of a man ennobled for his services be
comes a memorial of his virtues, and stimulates
others to similar exertions; and that one of the
chief incentives to serve our country is, not only the
hope of acquiring for ourselves, but of transmitting
to our posterity, the dignity of a Peer of the Realm.”
It is not pretended that a Peerage ought in no
case to be conferred with a remainder to the de
scendants of the grantee. The point contended
for, is simply, that it should be made a sine
qua non to annex an adequate estate to the title
for its support, which estate, in the case of pre
eminent services, should be provided by the coun
try. But it cannot be seriously asserted, that
because a man is distinguished for his legal know
ledge, and is, therefore, a valuable acquisition to the
House of Lords, his merits and his fame are, ea eo,
sufficiently great to justify the perpetuation of his
title, at the risk of that title devolving upon a person
who may require the benevolence of the Crown to
clothe and feed him.

That the possibility of a man ennobling himself

 25

and his posterity by his exertions is a strong sti

mulus to labour is not denied ; but though the hope
of becoming “the progenitor of Lords” would be
lessened if it were customary to create Peerages for
life, yet the chance of an individual becoming him
self a Peer would be increased, and the prospect of
ennobling his descendants would be only so far re
moved, that the gratification must be purchased by
services of greater importance than have sometimes
sufficed to procure it. Nor must it be forgotten, in
considering the claims of Judges to be created Peers,
with remainder to the heirs male of their bodies, that
the most renowned sages of the law, Lyttelton, Coke,
Hale, Blackstone, and many others, never attained
that honour, even for their lives, and that Chancellors
themselves were not raised to the Peerage until a
comparatively recent period.

The fourth objection, is “That if it were usual to

create Peers for life only, great facility would be
afforded to a Minister in obtaining a majority in the
House of Lords, by adding as many Peers of that
description as he might find necessary, inasmuch as
the jealousy which the creation of hereditary Peer
ages excites would not be felt towards those which
would expire with the lives of the grantees.”
This may be answered by the truism, that the
possible abuse of any right or custom is no argument
against its general utility, since there is no institu
tion which may not be perverted to base purposes.
(iv.
 26

A minister who should create a number of Peers

for life, merely to obtain a corrupt object, would be as
amenable to an impeachment for an improper exer
cise of the royal prerogative as if he had made the
same number of Peers with the usual limitation.
There have fortunately always been, and it is hoped
that there always will be, Members of both Houses
of Parliament who regard a Minister's actions with
rigorous suspicion, and who would be as likely to
detect and expose an injudicious creation of Peers
for life as of Peers with remainders of their honours.
If any other security for a possible abuse of power
in the creation of Peers for life be thought expe
dient, it could be found in fixing a limitation to
the number of such Peerages as should exist at one ,
time; but there is no better reason for this re
striction than there would be in the case of Peerages
with remainders, and the same arguments might be
urged against such a restraint on the royal preroga
tive as were used in the memorable debate on the
proposed Peerage Bill in the reign of George the
First.”

The fifth objection is, “That Peers who may sit

in Parliament under a creation for life, are likely to
sacrifice their political independence with the hope
of obtaining a creation to them and the heirs male
of their bodies, and consequently that the votes of
such Peers would always be at the command of the
Minister for the time being.” -

* See Appendix, No. IV. Page 50.

 27 .

To this the answer seems clear and decisive. The

sole object of creating Peers for life is to prevent Peer
ages being inherited by persons who do not possess
a sufficient fortune to enable them to preserve their
political independence and to maintain their rank;
and it has been suggested that no hereditary Peer
should be created in future, unless the grantee, or, in
very rare cases, the country, entailed an income on his
successors for the support of the title. If a Peer for
life did not possess the necessary fortune, he would
know that he was ineligible, and would not think of
seeking an hereditary Peerage. If he did possess a
sufficient estate for the purpose, and became venal
and corrupt with the view of obtaining a new patent
with the usual limitation, he would be equally venal
under any other circumstances; and had he, in the
first instance, been created with limitation to the
heirs male of his body, it is equally likely that his
ambition would be directed to a Viscountcy or an
Earldom, or to some important or lucrative office. It
is not possible, however, to provide against the base
motives by which a base man may be actuated; and
if all improvements are to be rejected because they
may, by a remote possibility, open new objects of cu
pidity, or afford another field for the display of mean
and sordid feelings, every thing must remain in its
present state, no matter how injurious the conse
quences may be to the public; and the absurd prin
ciple must be acted upon, of refusing to do that
which will positively be productive of great and im
portant advantages to the country, because the
 28

change may be attended with, comparatively speak

ing, very trifling mischief.
Though it be almost a sufficient reason for not ex
tending the number of hereditary Peerages that every
new creation decreases the respect of the world for the
order itself, since that which is common is little es
teemed, yet the chief inconvenience is the want of a
competent fortune to support the dignity. In earlier
periods of our history, when the prerogative of the
Crown was less limited than at present, instances oc
curred of Peers either losing their rank altogether,”
or for some generations,t on account of poverty;
and it would seem, from the opinion of the Judges
in the reign of Elizabeth, on a claim to the Barony of
Abergavenny, as well as from the Sovereign not
summoning some Lords to Parliament when they
alienated their patrimony, that the want of means to
support the honour induced the Crown to withhold
Writs of Summons; a precedent which could not in
this age be followed. If a Peer should be in the
utmost extremity of distress, if he have not a shilling
in the world, he can neither lay down his title, nor can
* In the case of George Neville, Duke of Bedford, who was
degraded by Parliament, in the 17th Edward IV. for the mis
behaviour of his father, and because he had not a sufficient
estate to maintain the dignity. Rot. Parl, vol. VI. p. 173.
+ Case of Henry Grey, Earl of Kent in the reigns of Henry the
Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Mary. See the ex
tract from Smith's Commonwealth, in p. 3.
f See the instance of the Earl of Bristol, in the reign of
Charles the First.
 29

the King now omit to summon him to Parliament,

since he is an integral part of one branch of the legis
lature. To provide against the evils which may at
tend Peerages already created is impossible; but it
appears highly necessary to prevent, as far as is
practicable, any new peerage being unsupported by a
sufficient fortune to maintain the independence of
those who may inherit it.
The mode of effecting this important object is
obvious, and would be both legal and in confor
mity with ancient and modern precedents. Patents
of creation should either expressly state that the dig
nities were to endure only for the natural lives of the
grantees, or be without words of limitation, though
the former would be the safest plan ; but the
persons so ennobled should possess the same privi
leges and precedency, and their children should en
joy the same distinctions as those of other Peers of
the same rank. The acceptance of such a patent
would not, of course, preclude the grant of an here
ditary peerage at any future period, should their sub
sequent services justify it;* but the creation of such
hereditary title should, to all intents and purposes, be
a new grant, the precedency being that of the date of
the patent conferring it. This has been the case in

* See the Cases of the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester,

cited in the APPENDIx No. I. Both these royal personages
were created to their Dukedoms for life only, in the 2nd Henry
V., but Henry the Sixth granted them their honours to hold to
them and the heirs male of their bodies.
 30

many instances; as some Peers have been created

with the usual remainder to their issue male, but
not having sons, they have obtained other Peerages,
with remainders to their daughters or some colla
teral relations : on their deaths, the first honours be
come extinct, and the second grant alone continues.

Having respectfully submitted to your Grace that

the Crown not only may create, but that it fre
quently has created Peerages FOR LIFE, and having
noticed such objections as are likely to be raised
against the revival of that usage, I shall forbear to
urge any other reasons than those which have been
stated to prove its manifold advantages.
Hereditary titles in most other countries are held
in slight consideration, because they are extremely
common, and are often united to poverty and dis
tress, and, as a natural consequence, too often to
meanness and crime. An English Baron was more
esteemed in his own country, than a Russian or a
Neapolitan Prince in theirs; but unless ample estates
be inseparably annexed to such hereditary Peerages
as may hereafter be conferred, and unless creations
be much less frequent, our nobility will soon exceed
the number, and sink to the level, of those of Conti
mental nations.
Your Grace has rendered great and eminent ser
vices to your country; but perhaps none of them
exceed in real utility that which you would render
it by preventing the future degradation of the Peer
 31

age, while, at the same time, you would enable the

Government to avail itself, without inconvenience, of
whatever talents may be considered desirable in the
House of Lords, by CREATING PEERs FOR LIFE
ONLY.

A despised and impoverished Peerage is as de

grading to the Crown, as it is dangerous to the
country, and could not long exist without destroying
the whole frame of the Constitution.
No period is so favourable as the commencement
of a new reign, for changing a system pregnant
with so many evils—a system which, sooner or later,
must, ea necessitate rei, be amended, and the act
would be one of the most useful and popular of
your Grace's administration.
I have the honour to be, &c.

August 15th, 1830.

 APPENDIX

OF

P. R. E. C E D E N T S.
No. 1, Precedents of Peerages for Life.
II. Precedents of Peerages being limited to other persons
than the heirs or heirs male of the bodies of the
Grantees.

III. Extracts from “Observations upon the Inconveniencies

that have attended the frequent Promotions to Titles
of Honor and Dignity since King James came to
the Crown of England,” by Sir Edward Walker,
Garter King of Arms in the reigns of Charles I. and
II. Written in 1653-4.

IV. An Account of the proceedings relative to the proposed

limitation of the Peerage in 1718-19.
 A PP E N DIX.

No. I.

PRECEDENts of PEERAGES for LIFE.

[Referred to in Page 17.]

IN the 1st Richard II. 1377, Guichard D'Angle was

created Earl of Huntingdon for “his whole life.” Rot.
Cart. 1 Ric. II. No. 29.
In the 9th Richard II. 1385, the King's favourite,
Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was created Marquess of
Dublin “ for his whole life.” Rot. Parl. 9 Ric. II.
No. 17.
In the 18th Richard II. 1394, John Duke of Lancaster,
the King's uncle, was created Duke of Acquitaine “for
his whole life.” Rot. Parl. 13 Ric. No. 21.
In the 21st Richard II. 1397, on the creation, in Parlia
ment, of numerous Earls and Marquesses to be Dukes, as
well as of Barons to be Earls, with remainders to the heirs
male of their bodies, Margaret Countess of Norfolk was
created Duchess of Norfolk “ for her whole life.” Rot.
Cart. 21 Ric, No. 22.
On the 16th May, 2nd Henry V. 1414, John of Lan
caster the King's brother, was created Earl of Kendal and
C 2
 36

Duke of Bedford, to have and enjoy the said honours “du

ring his natural life.” Pat. 2 Hen. V. p. 1. m. 36.
In the 2nd Hen. W. 1414, Henry the Fifth created his
other brother, Humphrey of Lancaster, Earl of Pembroke
and Duke of Gloucester, for his natural life. Pat. 2
Hen. V. p. 1. No. 36.
In the 2nd Hen. V. 1414, Richard of York, (younger
son of Edmund of Langley Duke of York, son of King
Edward the Third) was created Earl of Cambridge, with
out any limitation, and which, therefore, was a Peerage
for life only. Rot. Parl. 2 Hen. V. p. 1. m. 8.
On the 18th of November, 4th Hen. V. 1416, the
King's uncle Thomas Earl of Dorset, was created Duke
of Exeter for his natural life. Rot. Pat. 4 Hen. V. m. 11.
In 1417, Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick was
made Earl of Albemarle for life.
In the 10th Henry VI. 1431, Sir John Cornwall, K. G.
who had married the Countess of Huntingdon, the King's
aunt, and had no issue, was created Baron Faunhope, and
in the 20th Henry VI. 1441, Baron Milbroke; but as no
limitation occurs in either of those patents, though he was
to enjoy the dignity with all the privileges, &c. possessed
by any other Baron of the realm, the Peerage was only for
his life. Rot. Parl. 10 Hen. VI. and 20 Hen. VI.

* In July, 11th Hen. VI. 1433, the Duke of Bedford surrendered the
patent of those honours, and obtained a new grant of them to him and
the heirs male of his body. Rot. Patent, 11 Hen. VI. p. 2. m. 2.
+ In the Parliament of the 11th Hen. VI, the Duke of Gloucester ob
tained a new grant of that dignity, and of the Earldom of Pembroke, to
hold to him and the heirs male of his body. Rot. Parl. 11 Hen. VI. He
did not die until 1446, and it is worthy of observation, that on the 27th
February, 21 Hen. VI. 1443, William de la Pole and Alice his wife,
obtained a patent, granting that if Humphrey Duke of Gloucester
died without heirs of his body, then that after his decease, the said Earl of
Suffolk and Alice, should have the title of Earl of Pembroke, to hold to him
and the heirs male of his body. Rot. Patent 21 Hen. VI. p. 2. m. 1.
 37

In the 35th Henry VIII. 1543, Maurice O'Brien was

created Earl of Thomond in Ireland for life, with re
mainder to Conan O'Brien for life; and by the same
patent the said Maurice was created Baron of Insykwyne,
with remainder to the heirs male of his body. By another
patent, dated on the same day, the above-mentioned Conan
O’Brien was made Baron of Ibrackayn, with remainder
to his issue male. Rot. Patent 35 Hen. VIII. p. 6. m. 33.
On the 1st July, 16 Jac. I. 1618, Mary, daughter of
Anthony Beaumont, widow of Sir George Williers, and mo
ther of George Williers, afterwards Duke of Buckingham,
was created Countess of Buckingham for life.
On the 31st of August 1627, Lady Mary Williers, only
daughter of George Duke of Buckingham, was created
Duchess of Buckingham for life, in the event of the death
of her said father without heirs male of his body.—Faedera,
Tome xviii. p. 243.
On the 21st of April, 17 Car. I. 1641, Elizabeth, the
daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Lord D'Arcy Earl
Rivers, and mother of Thomas second Earl Rivers, was
created Countess Rivers for life.
In 1644, Alice, wife of Sir Robert Dudley, putative
son of Robert Earl of Leicester, was created Duchess
Dudley for life.
In 1660, Elizabeth, daughter of William first Earl of
Denbigh, and widow of Lewis Viscount Kinalmeaky, in
Ireland, was created Countess of Guilford for life.
In 1660, Katharine, widow of Sir Henry Stanhope, the
eldest son of the Earl of Chesterfield, was created Countess
of Chesterfield for life.
On the 19th August 1673, Louise Renee de Puencourt
de Querouaille was created Baroness Petersfield, Countess
of Fareham, and Duchess of Portsmouth for life.
In March 1674, Susan, the widow of Sir Henry Bela
syse, was created Baroness Belasyse, of Osgodby, for life
 38

In 1674, Anne Murray, second daughter of Paul first

Wiscount, and sister and co-heir of Paul second Wiscount
Bayning, was created Viscountess Bayning, of Foxley,
in the county of Wilts, for life; and
In September 1680, Elizabeth Baroness Dacre, sister of
the abovementioned Viscountess Bayning, was created
Countess of Shepey for life.
In 1679, Sarah, the widow of Sir Vincent Corbett, Bart.
was created Viscountess Corbett, of Linchlade, in Shrop
shire, for life.
In 1686, King James the Second created Katharine
Sedley Baroness of Darlington and Countess of Dorches
ter for life.
In July 1716, Melosine Schulenberg was created Baron
ess of Dundalk, Countess and Marchioness of Dungan
non, and Duchess of Munster, in Ireland, for life, and
in April 1719, she was created Baroness of Glastonbury,
in the county of Somerset, Countess of Feversham, and
Duchess of Kendal, for life.
In 1721, Sophia Charlotte de Platen was created Coun
tess of Leinster, in Ireland, for life; and in April 1722
Baroness of Brentford, in Middlesex, and Countess of
Darlington, in the county Palatine of Durham, for her
natural life.
In April 1722, Melesina de Schulenbourgh, niece of the
Duchess of Kendal, was created Baroness of Aldborough,
in the county of Suffolk, and Countess of Walsingham, in
the county of Norfolk, for her natural life. -

On the 24th March 1739-40, George the Second ele

vated Amelia Sophia de Walmoden to the Peerage, by the
titles of Baroness and Countess of Yarmouth, in the
county of Norfolk, for her natural life, which dignities
became, of course, extinct on her decease in 1775. This
was the last instance of a creation for life.
 39

No. II.

[Referred to in Page 18.]

PRECEDENTS OF PEERAGES BEING LIMITED TO OTHER

PERSONS THAN THE HEIRS OR HEIRS MALE OF THE

BODIES OF THE GRANTEES.

ON the 11th of February, 11th Henry III. 1227, Hu

bert de Burgh was created Earl of Kent, with remainder
to his heirs by Margaret his wife, sister of Alexander,
King of Scots. Rot. Cart. 11 Hen. III, p. 1. m. 24.
In the 17th Henry III. 1232, the King, at the request
of Hawise de Quincy, granted to John de Lascy, Constable
of Chester, the 20l. which Ralph, late Earl of Chester and
Lincoln, received as Earl of Lincoln, for the third penny
of the County of Lincoln, and which the said Earl in his
life-time gave to the said Hawise, his sister, to hold to the
said John as Earl of Lincoln, and to the heirs whom he
shall have by Margaret his wife, daughter of the said
Hawise for ever. Rot. Pat. 17 Hen. III. m. 9. No. 35.
In the 15th Edward II. 1321, Hugh le Despenser the
elder was created Earl of Winchester for his whole life,
with remainder to Hugh le Despencer the younger and his
heirs. Rot. Cart. 15 Edw. II. m. 11.
On the 2nd July, 11th Richard II. 1388, John Holand,
the King's half-brother, was created Earl of Huntingdon,
to him and the heirs male of his body, and of the body of
Elizabeth his wife. Rot. Cart. 11 Ric. II. No. 23. -

On the 25th February, 13th Richard II. 1390, an extra

 40

ordinary creation took place, which tends still farther to

establish the right of the Crown to limit a Peerage as it
may think proper. Edward, eldest son of Edmund of
Langley Duke of York, was then made Earl of Rutland,
to hold and enjoy that dignity “during the life-time of the
Duke his father.”* Rot. Cart. 13 Rich. II. n. 5.
In the 28th Henry VI. 1449, Richard Neville, who
married Ann de Beauchamp, heiress of the Earls of War
wick, was created Earl of Warwick for his life, and his
wife was created Countess of Warwick, with remainder of
the dignity of Earl of Warwick to the heirs of her body,
failing which, to several of her collateral heirs. Thus,
though Neville was Earl of Warwick, none of his blood,
excepting his issue by his said wife, could inherit the dig
nity, and if he had had issue by another wife, they would
not have succeeded. Rot. Pat. 28 Hen. VI. p. 2. m. 23.
In the 15th Edward IV. 1475, Sir Edward Grey was
created Lord L'Isle, to him and the heirs of his body
by Elizabeth his wife, Lords of the Manor of Kingston
L'Isle. Rot. Cart. 15th Edw. IV. No. 18.
On the 8th July, 19th Edward IV. 1479, the Prince of
Wales was created Earl of March, to hold to him and his
heirs during the King's pleasure. Rot. Cart. 19 Edw. No. 9.
In the 5th Henry VIII. 1513, Sir Charles Brandon
having contracted to marry Elizabeth, the daughter and
heiress of John Grey, Viscount L'Isle, was created Vis
count L'Isle to him and the heirs male of his body by the
said Elizabeth, but that marriage not taking effect, the
* On a question of misnomer in the 22nd Hen. VI. argued in Banco,
a case was presumed by Serjeant Danby, of a man being created an Farl
for the term of the life of another, a terme d'auter vie, and as the Judges
discussed the effect of such a limitation, in reference to the Case before
them, it may be inferred that such an estate in a dignity, was held to be
perfectly legal. Y. B. 22 H. 6. 29, 30.
 41

patent was cancelled; and in the 15th Henry VIII. 1523,

Sir Arthur Plantagenet was created Viscount L'Isle, to
him and the heirs male of his body by Elizabeth his
wife, which Elizabeth was the daughter, and at that time
heiress of Edward Grey, Wiscount L'Isle. Rot. Pat. 15
Hen. VIII.
In 1536, Edward Seymour, the Protector, was created
Earl of Hertford and Wiscount Beauchamp, with remain
der to his issue male thereafter to be begotten; thus ex
cluding his son and heir-apparent, and his issue. The
Earl was created Baron Seymour and Duke of Somerset,
in 1547, with remainder to his issue male, by Ann, his
second wife; failing which, to his issue male by his first
wife. His issue male by his second wife failed in 1750,
when the Wiscountcy of Beauchamp and Earldom of Hert
ford became extinct; but the Dukedom of Somerset and
Barony of Seymour devolved on Sir Edward Seymour, as
his heir male by his first wife.
In the reign of James the First, one of the most extra
ordinary creations on record took place, and which esta
blishes the power of the Crown to annex any conditions to a
dignity it pleases. On the 1st June 1606, that monarch
granted to Sir James Hay the name and title of Lord
Hay, with precedence next to the Barons of England, but
he was not to enjoy any place or voice in Parliament.*
Pat. 4 Jac. p. 1. Lord Hay was, however, subsequently
created Baron Hay of Sauley, Wiscount Doncaster, and
Earl of Carlisle.

* Charles the First is said to have created Sir John de Reede, the Am
bassador from the States General, Baron Reede, to hold to him and the
heirs male of his body, but without a voice or seat in Parliament, by pa
tent dated at Oxford on the 24th November 1644. As Dugdale does
not notice this creation, it is not introduced into the text. The reason for
hese conditions may have been that the grantees were aliens.
 42

In 1621, Thomas Lord Darcy of Chiche, by a Patent

reciting that he was then old, and had no issue male, was
created Viscount Colchester for life, with remainder to Sir
Thomas Savage, Bart. and the heirs male of his body by
Elizabeth his wife, eldest daughter of the said Lord Darcy.
Pat. 19 Jac. I. No. 14.
In 1644, Francis Leigh was created Earl of Chichester,
with remainder, failing his issue male, to Thomas Earl of
Southampton, and his heirs male, by Elizabeth his wife,
the daughter of the said Earl of Chichester.
In 1670, Barbara Williers was created Baroness Non
such, Countess of Northampton, and Duchess of Cleveland
for life, with remainder to Charles and George FitzRoy,
her natural sons by King Charles the Second, and the
heirs male of their bodies respectively.
In April 1676, Sir George Sondes was created Baron
Throwley, Viscount Sondes, and Earl of Feversham during
his life, with remainder after his decease to Lewis, Baron
Duras, (who had married Mary, his eldest daughter and
co-heiress,) and the heirs male of his body.
In 1689, Frederick de Schomberg was made Baron
Teyes, Earl of Brentford, Marquis of Harwich, and Duke
of Schomberg, with remainder to his second son and his
issue male, failing which, to his eldest son and his issue
male; both of whom succeeded to his honours.
On the 26th May 1708, James Douglas, Duke of Queens
bury in Scotland, was created Baron of Rippon, and Mar
quis of Beverley, both in the county of York, and Duke of
Dover, during his natural life, with remainder to Charles,
Earl of Salloway in Scotland, his second son, and the heirs
male of his body, in default of which to George Douglas,
commonly called Lord George Douglas his third son, and
the heirs male of his body, with remainder to his fourth,
fifth, and every other son and sons successively, and the
heirs male of their bodies respectively.
 43

On the 18th June 1716, Thomas Lord Coningsby in

Ireland, was created Baron Coningsby, of Coningsby, in
Lincolnshire, to hold to him and the heirs male of his
body by any wife he might afterwards marry. He was
created Earl Coningsby on the 9th May 1719, to hold to
him and his issue male by any wife he might afterwards
marry; in default of which the dignity of Countess Co
ningsby to his daughter Margaret, Wiscountess Coningsby,
(who was his eldest daughter by his second wife, and was
created a Wiscountess in 1716,) and the dignity of Earl
Coningsby to the heirs male of her body. By these re
mainders his son by his first wife was passed over, and
though the son and heir of his son became Lord Coningsby
in Ireland, he never succeeded to the English honours, of
which the Earldom devolved on his half-sister Margaret.
In 1716, Sir Henry St. John was created Wiscount and
Baron St. John of Battersea, with remainder to his issue
male by his second wife.
On the 2nd October 1749, Algernon, Duke of Somerset,
was created Baron Warkworth and Earl of Northum
berland, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, in
default of which to his son-in-law Sir Hugh Smithson,
Bart. and his heirs male begotten on the body of Elizabeth
his wife, (daughter and heiress of the said Duke;) in
default of such issue, the dignities of Baroness Wark
worth and Countess of Northumberland to the said Lady
Elizabeth Smithson, and of Baron Warkworth and Earl
of Northumberland to the heirs male of her body. Thus,
on the death of the Duke of Somerset without issue male,
the Barony and Earldom devolved on Sir Hugh Smithson;
but if he had died without issue male by Lady Elizabeth
Seymour, and left sons by any other wife, neither of those
Sons would have been Peers. The Duke of Somerset,
on the 3rd October following, was created Baron of Cock
ermouth and Earl of Egremont, with remainder, failing
 44

his issue male, to his nephew, Sir Charles Wyndham,

Bart. and to his nephew, Percy Wyndham O'Brien, and
to the heirs male of their bodies successively and respect
ively.
In 1756, Thomas Williers was created Baron Hyde, of *

Hindon, with remainder to the heirs male of his body

by his then wife Lady Charlotte, daughter of the Earl
of Essex, and granddaughter of Henry, last Earl of Cla
rendon; failing which, the dignity of Baroness Hyde to
his said wife, with remainder of the dignity of Baron Hyde
to the heirs male of her body.
On the 3rd April 1760, Mary, wife of John Earl of Bute,
in Scotland, was created Baroness Mount Stuart of Wort
ley in Yorkshire, with remainder to her issue male by
her said husband.
On the 21st May 1760, Mary; daughter and heiress of
Edward Lord Stawell, and wife of the Right Honourable
Henry Bilson Legge, was created Baroness Stawell of
Somerton, with remainder to her issue male by her said
husband.

On the 4th December 1761, Hester, wife of the Right

Honourable William Pitt, was created Baroness of Chat
ham, with remainder to her heirs male by her said husband.
In 1762, Lady Carolina, wife of Henry Fox, Esq. was
created Baroness Holland, of Holland, in the county of
Lincoln, with remainder to the heirs male of her body
by her said husband.
In 1762, George Lane, Esq. was created Baron Bingley,
with remainder to his issue male by Harriet his wife, daugh
ter of the late Robert Lord Bingley.
In May 1762, Sir Edward Montagu, K.B. was created .
Baron Beaulieu, to him and the heirs male of his body
by Isabella his then wife, Duchess Dowager of Manchester,
one of the daughters and coheirs of John Duke of Montagu.
 45

On the 19th August 1767, Lady Caroline Campbell,

commonly called Countess of Dalkeith, wife of the Right
Honourable Charles Townsend, and daughter and co
heiress of John Duke of Argyll, was created Baroness of
Greenwich, in Kent, with remainder to her heirs male by
her said husband. This limitation is the more remarkable,
because she had issue male by her first husband, Francis
Earl of Dalkeith, namely, Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch,
grandfather of the present Duke of Buccleuch, so that
though heirs male of her body still exist, the Barony is
extinct in consequence of the failure of heirs male by her
second husband, to whom it was specially limited.
On the 21st August 1786, George, Duke of Montagu,
was created Baron Montagu, of Boughton, for and during
his natural life, and after his decease to hold to Henry
James Montagu, (commonly called Lord Henry James
Montagu,) second son of Henry, Duke of Buccleuch, and
Elizabeth, Duchess of Buccleuch, his wife, daughter of
the said Duke of Montagu, and to the heirs male of his
body; and in default, to the third, fourth, fifth, and
every other son and sons of the body of the said Eliza
beth, Duchess of Buccleuch, begotten, or thereafter to be
born, and to the respective heirs male of their bodies, se
verally and successively.
In 1797, James first Earl of Lonsdale was created
Baron and Viscount Lowther of Whitehaven, during his
natural life, and from and immediately after his decease,
to the heirs male of the body of Sir William Lowther of
Swillington, deceased, a collateral relation.
In 1801, Mary Anne, widow of Sir Ralph Abercrombie,
K.B. was created Baroness Abercrombie, with remainder
after her decease, to the heirs male of her body by her late
husband, Sir Ralph Abercrombie.
 46

In 1802, Mary, Marchioness of Downshire, was created

Baroness Sandys, and the Barony entailed on her second,
third, and every other son, and their respective issue male ;
failing which, on Arthur her eldest son successively, the
present Marquis of Downshire, in Ireland, and Earl of
Hillsborough, in the Peerage of Great Britain.
On the 8th July 1823, Charles Marquess of London
derry, in Ireland, and Baron Stewart, of Stewart's Court,
in the Peerage of Great Britain, was created Viscount Sea
ham and Earl Vane, with remainder to his issue male by
Frances Anne his present wife, thus excluding his son by
his first wife, and his issue by any future wife.
In 1827, John Lord Norbury, in Ireland, was created
Earl Norbury, in Ireland, with remainder to his second
son and the heirs male of his body.
In 1828, Joan, widow of the Right Honourable George
Canning, was created Viscountess Canning of Kilbraham,
with remainder of the dignity of Viscount Canning to the
heirs male of her body by her late husband.
 47

No. III.

“OBSERVATIONS UPON THE IN con v ENIENCIES THAT

HAVE ATTENDED THE FREQUENT PROMOTIONS To
TITLES OF HONOR SINCE KING JAMES CAME TO THE
CROWN OF ENGLAND,” BY SIR EDw ARD w Alker,
GARTER KING OF ARMS IN THE REIGN OF CHARLES
THE SEcon D.

IN a work entitled Historical Discourses on Several

Occasions,” by Sir Edward Walker, Garter King of Arms,
and Secretary of War to Charles the First, is a tract bear
ing the above title, which was written at the Hague in Fe
bruary 1653-4, in consequence of the great additions made
to the Peerage, and the numerous creations of other honours
in the preceding fifty years. His arguments to prove the
impropriety of those creations, and especially of raising such
a number of persons to the Peerage, are supported by re
ferences to former reigns, when that dignity was rarely
granted.
If a limit was thought desirable to such creations in
the reign of Charles the Second, when the House of
Lords did not amount to a third of the present members,
its necessity now is proportionably greater; and Sir Ed
ward Walker's tract is therefore well deserving of attention.
So far, indeed, does he carry his views of the evils arising
from so many new Peerages and Baronetcies, that he con

* Folio, 1705.
 48

siders them to have been one chief cause of the civil wars,
and he supports his opinion by ingenious, if not conclusive
arguments.
The subjoined extracts corroborate some of the state
ments in the preceding pages of this pamphlet:—
After noticing the privileges of the Nobility, he says,
“These and some others are the privileges of the Major
Nobility, and by which, especially in the time of the Par
liament, they are in a capacity of advancing or opposing
the good of the King and kingdom. To add to this, all
those degrees of nobility are hereditary, and so a perpetual
power and interest in them and their posterities. As there
fore, were their numbers but few, it might be objected
they might be too considerable and dangerous, so on the
contrary they being numerous and not all to be satisfied,
have done more mischief by becoming factious and affect
ing popularity than could have been apprehended from
their ambition. However, a medium were desirable; for
as the kingdom may be resembled to a body whereof the
King is the head, the nobility the arms, and the people the
rest; so to have the arms so strong as by their motion to
tire or destroy both the head and the body, or so weak as
neither to be able to serve the head or help the body,
would be disproportionable and dangerous.”*
These creations of Peers “abated the King's revenues by
fees out of the Exchequer, but most of all by pensions and
gifts to enable many of them to support their dignities;
whereas, had they been left in private condition, they
would have had less confidence to demand, and smaller
gratification would have satisfied them. But that which
essentially was destructive was, that the King was not in
capacity to gratify them all, which had this ill effect, that
some of them grew envious, others factious, because they
* Pages 292, 293.
 49

were not employed ; others ungrateful, because denied

something they aimed at, how highly so ever obliged.”
“To speak a little of the many titles of honour given
by the late King [Charles the First] during the Rebellion.
Although much may be said for the doing of it, yet I fear,
considering the small fortunes many of them have for to
support their dignities, and the great pretensions they
have, his Majesty (when it shall please God to restore
him) will find trouble enough to content them. Whereas,
had his late Majesty been pleased to have made them Ban
nerets, or otherwise personally gratified them, their pos
terities had stood upon their own merits for the future;
whereas, now they will have place and voice in Parliament,
and (being but men,) may prove as discontented as others
that had as great obligations, and yet proved ingrateful.
“Besides, where honours are easily obtained, there is
never an end of suing for them, and every one is so
partial to himself as to conclude he is neglected, if an
other he conceives either his equal or below him in merit,
family, or estate, obtain it before him. So that the
advancement of one is the discontent of another.”-f
In future creations, Sir Edward Walker says, the King
“will no doubt govern himself in the dispensing of his
favours, so as to have an eye to such contingencies as may
happen by promotions of honour, wherein the accidents of
birth and estates, justly acquired, are equally as necessary
to be considered as particular merit; for dignity without
blood or fortune is both burthensome to the Crown and
inconvenient even to the posterity of such as have it, how
ambitious and vain soever their fathers were to obtain
it.”f
* Pages 292, 293, # Ibid. pp. 304, 305. Ibid. p. 305.

D
 50

No. IV.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE

PRoposed LIMITATION of the PEERAGE IN 1718

AND 1719.*

IN 1718, the Duke of Somerset called the attention of

the House of Lords to the great increase of the Peerage
since the union with Scotland, and insisted on the neces
sity of some measure to fix the same, both to preserve the
dignity of the Peerage, and to prevent the inconvenience
arising from the creation of a great number of Peers, an
expedient which had been resorted to in the preceding
reign, for the purpose of securing a majority in favour of
a treaty of peace then negotiating with the French court;
but the real motives were supposed to be the opposition of
the Prince of Wales to the administration, and that the
bill was intended to be a restraint upon him on his acces
sion to the throne.

On the 28th of February, 1718, it was moved, “that a

day be appointed for the House to be in a committee, to
take into consideration the present state of the Peerage of
Great Britain;” and a committee was accordingly appoint
ed, to meet on the 2nd of March following, and the Lords
to be summoned; when, upon the order of the day being
read, Earl Stanhope delivered the following message from
the King:
*This article is abridged from the Retrospective Review, new series,
Vol. II.
 51

“ GEORGE R.

“His Majesty, being informed that the House of Peers

have under consideration the state of the Peerage of Great
Britain, is graciously pleased to acquaint this House, that
he has so much at heart the settling the Peerage of the
whole kingdom upon such a foundation as may secure the
freedom and constitution of Parliament in all future ages,
that he is willing that his prerogative stand not in the way
of so great and necessary a work.”
For which message an address of thanks was returned.
The Earl of Nottingham, however, appears to have ex
pressed his opinion, that it was unusual for the King to
take notice of any thing depending in Parliament. The
message was referred to a committee of the whole House,
which met on the 3rd, and again on the 4th of March :
the Earl of Sunderland urged the necessity of limiting
the Peerage, and demonstrated the advantage which, in
his view, attended the proposition, which was opposed
by Earl Cowper as a violation of the treaty of union,
and unjust to the Peers of Scotland. The Dukes
of Buckingham, Newcastle, Roxburgh, and Montrose,
the Marquis of Annandale, the Earls Stanhope, Chol
mondeley, Powlett, and Ilay, and the Bishop of Glou
cester spoke in favour of the measure. On the latter day,
the committee came to certain resolutions by a majority of
83 against 30, which were, on the 5th, reported by the
Earl of Clarendon to the House; viz.
“1. That it is the opinion of this committee, that, in
lieu of the sixteen elective Peers to sit in this House on

the part of Scotland, twenty-five Peers, to be declared by

his Majesty, shall have hereditary seats in Parliament, and
be the Peers on the part of the Peerage of Scotland.
“2. That such twenty-five Peers shall be declared be
fore the next session of Parliament.
 52

“3. That nine of the said twenty-five may be appointed

by his Majesty, to have immediate right to such heredi
tary seat in Parliament, subject to the qualifications requi
site by the laws now in being.
“4. That none of the remaining sixteen to be declared
by his Majesty, or their heirs, shall become sitting Peers
of the Parliament of Great Britain, until after the deter
mination of this present Parliament, except such as are of
the number of the sixteen Peers now sitting in Parliament
on the part of the Peerage of Scotland, and their heirs.
“5. That as any of the twenty-five of the Peers of Scot
land to be declared by his Majesty, and their heirs, shall
fail, some one or other of the Peers of Scotland shall be
appointed by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, to suc
ceed to every such Peer so failing; and every Peer so ap
pointed shall have hereditary seat in Parliament, and shall
be one of the Peers on the part of the Peerage of Scotland
in the Parliament of Great Britain; and so, toties quoties,
as often as any such failure shall happen.
“6. That the hereditary right of sitting in Parliament,
which shall accrue to the twenty-five Peers of Scotland to
be declared by his Majesty, shall be so limited as not to
descend to females.
“7. That the number of Peers of Great Britain, on the
part of England, shall not be enlarged, without precedent
right, beyond six above what they are at present: but as
any of the said present Peers, or such six new Peers, in
case they be created, shall fail, their numbers may be sup
plied by new creations of commoners of Great Britain
[born within the kingdoms of Great Britain or Ireland, or
any of the dominions thereunto belonging, or born of Bri
tish parents]; and so, toties quoties, as often as such fail
ure shall happen.
“8. That no person be, at any time, created by writ,
 53

nor any Peerage granted by patent, for any larger estate

than for the grantee and the heirs male of his body.
“9. That there be not any restraint upon the Crown
from creating any of the Princes of the blood Peers of
Great Britain, with right to sit in Parliament; [nor from
promoting any Peer having seat in Parliament to any
higher rank or degree of dignity.]
“10. That whenever those Lords now sitting in Par
liament, whose sons have been called by writ, shall die;
then it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and succes
sors, to create a Peer, to supply the number so lessened.
“11. That every creation of a Peer hereafter to be
made, contrary to these resolutions, shall be null and void
to all intents and purposes.”
The said resolutions were read, and, with the amend
ments to the seventh and ninth of the said resolutions, were
agreed to by the House, and the judges were ordered to
prepare and bring in a bill pursuant to these resolutions.
On the 14th of March, the judges brought in a bill, in
tituled, “An Act for settling the Peerage of Great Bri
tain,” which was read a first time, a second time, and com
mitted, on the 16th ; on which day a petition of James
Earl of Abercorn, and other Peers of Scotland, praying to
be heard by their counsel against such part of the bill as
concerned the Peers of Scotland, and a motion, to refer
the same to the committee to whom the bill stood com
mitted, and that the petitioners might be heard by their
counsel, was negatived; the petition, however, was or
dered to lie on the table. The House sat in a committee
upon this bill on the 18th, 19th, 24th, and 26th. On the
6th of April, 1719, the Earl of Clarendon reported to the
House the amendments made by the committee, which
were severally agreed to, and an amendment being then
made to the bill by the House, it was ordered to be en
 54

grossed. Whilst the bill stood committed, petitions of

several Peers of Great Britain, who, at the time of the
Union, were Peers of Scotland, and others, were presented
to the House, praying to be heard by counsel against such
part of the bill as concerned the Peers of Scotland, which
were ordered to lie on the table. On the 9th of April, the
bill was ordered to be read a third time on the 14th, and
a petition was presented on the same day from Lord Cran
stoun, praying to be heard by counsel against the bill,
which was ordered to lie on the table.* On 14th April,
it was ordered to be read on that day fortnight; the effect
of which order was, that the bill dropped for that session.
Earl Stanhope observed upon the occasion, that the
bill having made a great noise, raised strange appre
hensions, and the design, so misunderstood, was likely
to meet with great opposition in the other House, he
therefore thought it advisable to let the matter lie still
till a more fit opportunity.
Three days afterwards the Parliament was prorogued
by the King in person, in whose speech upon the occasion
was the following passage in reference to the bill.
“I have always looked upon the glory of a Sovereign
and the liberty of the subject as inseparable, and think it
is the peculiar happiness of a British King to reign over a
free people. As the civil rights, therefore, and privileges
of all my subjects, and especially of my two houses of par
liament, do justly claim my most tender concern, if any
provision, designed to perpetuate these blessings to your
posterity, remains imperfect for want of time, during this
session, maturely to discuss and settle matters of so great
importance, I promise myself you will take the first oppor
tunity to render my wishes for your happiness complete
and effectual, and to strengthen the Union, which is of so
much consequence to the welfare of this kingdom.”
* Cobbett's Parl. Hist. vii. 494.
 55

This measure in its progress was warmly supported by

the ministry. The Earl of Oxford was prominent amongst
the opponents, viewing it as an attempt to deprive the
crown of the most valuable branch of its prerogative.
During the recess, the matter was discussed by the advo
cates and opponents of the ministry. Amongst the writers,
who resorted to the press in support of it, were the Earl
of Peterborough, Lord Molesworth, and Mr. Secretary
Addison; and, on the other side, Sir Richard Steele, Mr.
afterwards Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford, K. G.,
were the most distinguished.
The next session of parliament was opened by the King
in person, on the 23rd of November following, and in the
royal speech allusion was again made to the subject in the
following passage,
“If the necessities of my government have sometimes
engaged your duty and affections to trust me with powers,
of which you have always, with good reason, been jealous;
the whole world must acknowledge they have been so used,
as to justify the confidence you have reposed in me: and
as I can truly affirm, that no prince was ever more zealous
to increase his own authority, than I am to perpetuate the
liberty of my people, I hope you will think of all proper
methods to establish, and transmit to your posterity, the
freedom of our happy constitution, and particularly to se
cure that part which is most liable to abuse. I value my
self upon being the first who hath given you an opportu
mity to do it; and I must recommend it to you to complete
those measures which remained imperfect the last session.”
Thus sanctioned by the crown, the curtailment of the
royal prerogative became one of the first subjects brought
under consideration; for on the 25th, the Duke of Somer
set presented to the house a bill entitled “An Act for set
tling the Peerage of Great Britain,” which was read a first
 =

56

time, being opposed by Earl Cowper, and supported by

, the Duke of Buckingham and Earl of Sunderland. It was
read a second time on the 26th, and ordered to be com
mitted, after debate, to a committee of the whole house on
the next day, which accordingly met, and having made *

several amendments, the Earl of Clarendon was directed

to report the same to the house, which was done on the
28th : they were, with an amendment to one part, agreed
to, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed. The Judges
attended on the 30th, and the Lords were summoned; on
which day the Bill was read a third time, passed, and sent
to the Commons for their concurrence.
In the House of Commons the bill was read a first time
on the 1st of December, and on a motion for the second
reading on that day sevennight the house divided, when it
was carried by 203 to 158. On the 8th, the second read
ing took place, and upon the motion for its committal a
warm debate ensued. -

The address of Sir Richard Steele was long and power

ful in opposition to the measure against which he had be
fore so skilfully used his pen in “the Plebeian,” contending
that the effect of the bill would be to establish an aristo
cracy. He was strongly supported by Mr. Robert Wal
pole, whose animated opposition to the bill was enforced
by a brilliant display of eloquence, which had considerable
influence with the House, and tended materially to the
rejection of the scheme. The result being declared, there
appeared for the committal of the bill 177, against it 269,
so that it was NEGATIVED by a majority of 92. The bill
was then rejected.

LoNDoN :
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENT LEY,
Dorset Street, Fleet Street.
-
-
:
º
º
*
 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
wils
942.075 N514
Nicholas, Nicholas Harris, Sir, 1799-184
A letter to the Duke of Wellington, on t

3 1951 002 093 156 X

wilson
ANNEX
AISLE 69