« AnteriorContinuar »
sion ; for whatever advantages, either im- , to that science. Attempts have been mediate or eventual, and of how great lately made to turn titles and honours into importance soever, might appear likely to ridicule; but nothing will make them so arise from opening the commerce with ridiculous as following such a precedent as India, if a revenue of 500,0001. should not this. The constitution, and every part of be immediately derived to the public, they it, is secure, if we do not betray ourwould be stopped by the postulatum which selves. The fact is, that the Crown hav. had been now laid down : for his part, ing granted the title of Bath to a noble he could never think it right or prudent family, to be holden with the rank of mar. to go into the consideration of a commer- quis, has since been advised to grant the cial question of such immense magnitude same title of Bath, to be holden with the cramped in the outset by a sine quâ non rank of baron. The circumstance is novel of this sort. To him the whole business —novel (as he believed) in a course of bore much the appearance of ministers some hundred years, and after the grant having taken upon them to pledge that of some thousand titles. He ventured to House and the public to a renewal of the say it was novel, from conviction of the company's charter, in a manner disgrace- principle, and attention to the subject. ful to the country; and since the publica- He thought it absurd, indecorous, incon. tion of the speech of another right hon. venient, unjust, illegal, and null. At gentleman (Mr. Dundas) the opinion present, he should only move for a com. universally entertained was, that a renewal mittee to consider, and report whether of the charter was absolutely determined the same specific title can be conferred on. He did not say that he had made up on any person, during the subsistence of his mind as to the propriety or impro- the limitations of a former grant to anopriety of renewing that charter ; but it ther person. was a matter which ought certainly to be The Lord Chancellor said, he had not decided
upon with the greatest delibera- had time to investigate the question with tion, and gentlemen ought to have their that care which a matter of great imporjudgments and opinions totally unfettered tance, ought to have received; but that and unbiassed.
he had, as by accident, lately seen some The several resolutions were put and ancient records belonging to the parish agreed to.
where his house was, by which he knew,
that in Charles the Ist's time there was a Patent of Creation of the Baroness of duchess of Dudley, on whom that title Bath.] March 14. On the order of the was conferred, the title of Leicester, day for the production of the Patents of which was her father's, being given away ; Creation of the Marquis and Baroness of that therefore the barony of Dudley beBath, the patents being read,
ing an ancient barony and still subsisting, The Earl of Rad nor disclaimed, in agi- there were two peers who took their titles tating the point which he was going to from the town of Dudley. That besides move, any personal motive against the 'this, there is actually now a viscount person who was the immediate subject of Dudley, though the said barony still subhis motion; any attack upon the royal sisted; that there were three lords Dougprerogative; any suspicion that the minis las in this House, and two lords Ferrers; ters, who advised the conferring on Miss that there were, in former times, lords Pulteney the title of Bath, were actuated Grey, lords Percy, lords Howard, withby those motives which the precedent out end. That the noble lord might be would authorize future ministers to in- at ease; no confusion arose-no trouble ; dulge. The situation of the parties would that the Herald's college was still in safety, effectually obviate such suspicions ; but and all the learning it afforded might be he thought the grant was obtained by i useful, and advantageous in the matters strong solicitation of a powerful interest to which it was properly applied ; that the on the part of the grantee, and yielded crown had not only a clear right to grant from inadvertence, and ignorance of the this title in the way complained of, but impropriety, on the part of the minister. that it had done it in a very common and This ignorance was only of a science, usual way. However, if the noble lord which it was fashionable to be ignorant of; was not satisfied, there was one obvious but while the country was monarchical, way of allaying his fears upon the subject, there must be nobility, and while there which would, he doubted not, be satisfacwas nobility, there must be some attention tory to all parties: the heir apparent of the marquis of Bath was a bachelor; he tice due from this House to the individual might marry the lady in question, and then member whose title has been disposed of Bath would be merged in Bath.
in this unprecedented manner. If it be The Earl of Leicester said, he could set true, as asserted in the debate, that the the learned lord right about the title of practice of duplicating titles is exceedDudley. The lady was not made duchess ingly usual, such practice could at least of Dudley, but duchess Dudley, not from have been shown. The challenge was the town of Dudley, but from the sur. fairly and roundly given, and instead of name of Dudley.
being answered, was with round assertions The Earl of Radnor said, that he really parried. The titles of Douglas, borne by did not know whether the learned lord three noble members of this House, was attempting to make a joke of the bu- though discriminated as they are in a siness, knowing he could not answer it manner the most proper, most regular, gravely, or whether he was completely and most distinct, were assimilated to the ignorant of the subject. The learned lord instance in question. It could hardly be says there are three lords Douglas in this believed, without our assertion, that the House. This be denied. There is a lord House could have been induced to negaDouglas of Lochleven, a lord Douglas of tive the motion, by arguments founded on Douglas, and a lord Douglas of Ames such real or pretended ignorance. bury; three titles as distinct as titles can “ Because the novelty of such practice be. As to the title of viscount Dudley, appeared to us to be proved, as far as a he denied that there was such a one ; the negative is capable of proof, by the foltitle is Dudley and Ward; though im- lowing, among various other, consideraproperly assumed, perhaps, yet assumed tions : 1. That though poble families, in so, to avoid the very case which the the earlier periods of our history, were learned lord states as the fact. But the frequently dcprived of the rank of Peertruth slipped out. The title of Dudley age, by attainders or otherwise, and afterwas given to the lady he mentioned, “be- wards restored, not a single instance ap, cause the title of Leicester was given pears in which titles, conferred on other away.” If this was the case, it is the families in the interval, had been rewhole contended for. As to the instance granted, or re-claimed; and, on the conof Ferrers, it was very wrong in lord Fer- trary, several instances were pointed ont. rers to take the title of Ferrers as an in which different titles had been assumed earldom; but still there was no identity of upon such occasions, their ancient titles title. The earl is earl Ferrers, the baron not being at the time of such restoration is lord Ferrers of Chartley. But is there vacant. 2. When the duke of Buccleugh no confusion? How are they to be ado obtained from the crown in 1743, the hodressed here? How are they to sign the nour of its recommendation to be restored roll? In fact there is an instance of con- to the hereditary seat in this House, fusion. The marquis of Buckingham was forfeited by the attainder of his ancestor supporting, to his honour, the measures the duke of Monmouth, that favour was of loyalty and fidelity which distinguished confined to such titles as were not vested the winter of 1788-9'in Ireland, and there in other families, and consequently the is a protest against these very measures, title of Monmouth was omitted. 3. When signed “ Buckingham," now standing on Thomas earl of Arundel and Surrey could the journals, which is really the signature not obtain from king Charles 1st his conof lord Buckinghamshire.
sent to a general reversal of his ancestor's Lord Rawr!on thought it very improper attainder, and his own consequent restoto confer titles in this manner, but he ration to the dukedom of Norfolk, he yet could not vote for the motion, as Miss secured a possibility of his future restoPulteney had much better pretensions to ration, (which afterwards took place) by the title of Bath than lord Weymouth had; soliciting, and obtaining, the earkiom of and though wrong, the crown had the Norfolk, which could hardly, on any other power to grant titles in this way. principle, be an object. And, 4. When
The House divided : Contents, 2; king Edward 4th wanted to give his son Not-contents, 21:
the earldom of Pembroke, he first ob“ Dissentient,
tained a resignation of that title from the “ Because we conceive the real dignity then earl. of the peerage was not less concerned in “ Because we conceive the practice to the adoption of this motion, than the jus- be unjust, and the consequences of it inconvenient, farcical, and ridiculous; and assumed. Though this grant is not, in think it necessary to be resisted in the first fact, now made, yet, upon feudal princiinstance. And,
ples, the consequences must be the same. " Because, upon the doctrine of the hour But chiefly, he asserted it to be novel. (for of the houronly we trust it is), the mi- | It is the constant observation on any grant, nister stands complimented by the House that such a family, or such a person, with a more powerful instrument of mor- (having some distant pretensions) will be tifying individuals, than any known pre disappointed. Peers have found frerogative of the crown, or even, in our quently difficulties in avoiding such preopinion, the court of wards and liveries tensions. Malevolence against the preitself ever furnished. The grievances of sent minister said, when lord Leicester the latter were heavy, but temporary; took that title, it was to deprive of it a the injury occasioned by this modern in- particular gentleman. It was an absolute vention is perpetual, and claimed by its falsehood; but the very assertion showed patrons as irremediable.
the general opinion. Till now, not only (Signed) RADNOR the principal titles, but the subordinate
LEICESTER.” ones, have been protected.lord Radnor The Earl of Radnor immediately said, then showed a list of titles, being third or that as the House had thought fit not to fourth titles, all of which were untouched, deliberate upon his motion, he was ready and yet several of them evidently desirato state his own opinion decidedly on the able to some peers, within a very few subject, and would do it by a motion, years. Was Wiltshire no object to the which he must be some little time in ar- Wiltshire gentlemen who have been raised guing. He stated the point as absurd; to, or promoted in, the peerage? Lord for the crown had given this title away, Spencer wished to have, but could not and it had not reverted, “ & nemo dat, have, because another had, the title of quod non habet.” He said it was incon- Sunderland. Was Warwick no object to venient. The appellation in the House, lord Brooke? The late duke of Newcasthe address of letters, must make this tle wished to secure to his nephew the title practice evidently so; but on the signa- of Newcastle; he took notoriously a difture of the roll, it is obviously beyond ferent Newcastle, because he could not contradiction. It was also indecorous. take the same over again in the same rank, In 1690 there was an earl of Oxford, the The good luck of the Seymour family is twentieth of his family, in possession du- mentioned by writers, in having the title ring 600 years. Would the House have of Somerset vacant when they had interest borne another lord Oxford to come, and enough to be restored. The same observausurp his title? Yet lord Bath has as tion is made of the Percys, that the title much the right in himself as lord Oxford was become vacant by the extinction of ever had. But the title may become desir- the Fitzroys. King William forced upon able, because it had been borne by others. lord Mordaunt the title of Monmouth, to Would the House suffer another lord prevent solicitation for the reversal of the Marlborough, lord Chatham, lord Hard- duke of Monmouth's attainder ; but an wicke? The claim on the score of rela- act of parliament in this case confirms the tionship has been already stated; but if it observation ; for the restoration of the weighs at all, it must be before the grant. duke of Buccleugh was only to titles unIt might have been a reason against grant occupied. When families have been raised ing the title to lord Weymouth; it could to titles, about the existence of which not be an honest reason for re-granting it there was some doubt, under fornier grants, to Miss Pulteney. It is also unjust. Sei- they have taken some other title with them, sin by one party, is to the very idea ex- or taken them with some difference, clusion of the other party. Exclusion of Harley was made earl of Oxford, and earl others is an essential quality of posses- Mortimer. Sheffield was made duke of sion-the most gratifying ingredient of Buckinghamshire. When families restored possession. Henry 8th consented to the to the peerage have found their ancient act for settling the rank of peers; but the titles occupied, they have taken others. loss of priority of rank could be nothing Lord Worcester took Beaufort, Somerset to this, though it had been perpetual. It being in other hands. Lord Grey of Grois also illegal. Ancient grants of titles by took Stamford, as Suffolk, Dorset, were attended with grants of revenue from and Huntingdon were engaged. The earl the same places from which the title was of Arundel, when lie could not get the [VOL. XXX. ]
attainder of his ancestor the duke of Nor- The Lord Chancellor earnestly requested folk, reversed, got himself created earl of of the noble lord not to press this question. Norfolk to secure that title; and when It was impossible for the House to adopt Edward 4th, wanted to dispose of the it. The title was vested, or it was not; earldom of Pembroke, he first got a resig- its validity could be legally decided elsenation of it from the then earl. If it were where, which validity could not be affected contended, that this could always have by this resolution, if it were adopted. It been done, but never has, in what light would be perfectly unconstitutional, as will the present instance stand, in point well as dangerous, for the king to attempt of delicacy, towards the former grantee, to resume a grant once made. whose rights ought to have been protected, The question passed in the negative. by motives of forbearance, as much as
“ Dissentient, LEICESTER, RADNOR." any grantee of former times? Upon these
The Earl of Radnor then moved an ad. grounds, his lordship insisted that the dress similar to the last, substituting for grant was null ; and to show that the king the last paragraph the following: “ That, could revoke it, read from the journals of
under these circumstances, the House, the House of Commons, 23 Jan. 1695; forbearing to question the validity of the an instance of revocation of a grant, under the great seal, by king William. He grant made to the said Henrietta Laura
Pulteney, but greatly concerned that his therefore moved " That an humble ad. to represent to his majesty, that his royal of his majesty, that the same may not be dress be presented to his majesty, humbly majesty
has been advised to make the
same, does humbly and earnestly request letters patent, by which his majesty was drawn into example ; but that the memgraciously pleased to create Thomas viscount Weymouth, marquis of Bath, and bers of this House, honoured by the fahis heirs male marquisses of Bath, were, future, enjoy unmolested and exclusively
vour of the crown, may severally, for the on the 21st day of January, in the 30th year of his Majesty's reign, produced in their several and respective honours.” It this House, and the said marquis was then passed in the negative. and there received accordingly, and is « Dissentient, now a member of this House; that letters “ Because though we adhere to the mopatent, whereby Henrietta Laura Pulteney tion last negatived, and trust that our is created baroness of Bath, and her heirs opinion will prevail, in case a seat in this male barons of Bath, being lately in House shall be ever claimed by virtue of spected by this House, this House feels this patent, believing the grant to be un. it incumbent on itself, in respect as well authorized by custom and precedent, and of the several individuals members thereof, void in law, as it is upon every principle as particularly of the said marquis of of justice and decorum, yet as the House Bath, humbly to represent to his majesty had refused to question the power of the that the title of Bath being so vested in crown to confer the title, we waved our the said marquis, the said late grant is, own opinion so far, as to endeavour to inand can be, of no effect ; that the grant duce the House to mediate with the to a second grantee of the same title, ex- crown, graciously to remit the exercise clusive of the obvious inconveniences at. of such power, being (as we conceive). tending it, is an actual disinherison of the incompatible with the honour of the House first grantee, tending to produce private and the vested right of the individual memanimosities, liable to produce public re- bers, and we lament extremely our ill sentments, and the example capable of success. The act for regulating the prebeing used as an exasperating and morti- cedency of the peers, obviated those griefying instrument of personal pique. And vances which partial or temporary favour that, for these reasons, it be humbly re: might occasion ; but the grievance arising quested of his majesty to recall and annul from precedency given arbitrarily, though the said letters patent to Henrietta Laura it had also been given in perpetuity, could Pulteney as aforesaid, and to compensate, not in any degree be compared to this. in such manner as to his royal wisdom shall An instance, infinitely short of this, in seem meet, the grant, which this House our opinion, is pronounced by the lord humbly conceives his majesty has been chancellor Clarendon, in his history, to advised to make, without sufficient atten- be the most unnecessary provocation he tion to the rights previously vested in the had known, and, in his belief, the chief said marquis of Bath."
cause of lord Strafford's execution.
“ And lastly, we consider this repre- by lord Hale, whom he had taken for his sentation to the crown to be peculiarly guide upon this occasion. An act had proper at a time, when theoretical specu- passed in the reign of queen Anne, to lations, and attempts at ridiculing all es prevent all traitorous correspondence, tablished forms and privileges, are unfor- which prohibited any persons from suptunately so prevalent.
plying the enemies with arms, naval, or (Signed) RADNOR military stores, or from going out of the Leicester." kingdom to the enemy's country without
licence. A similar act, which had passed Debate in the Commons on the Traitorous in the reign of William and Mary carried Correspondence Bill.] March 16. The the regulation farther : it not only prohi. Attorney General rose to move for leave bited all supplies of arms, &c. but of to bring in the bill, of which he had goods and merchandize of every sort. given notice. But first, he should ex. The bill which he meant now to propose plain what he meant by the phrase cor. was founded nearly upon the principle of respondence; his bill was intended to pre- these acts. It was his intention to pro. vent all traitorous correspondence; but hibit any person from selling or delihere he did not mean correspondence vering, or causing to be delivered for the in the popular sense, as to prevent the use of the persons who compose the passing of letters would destroy all com. French government or of the French armercial communication, but in its legal mies, any of the articles specified, such sense, namely, all commerce and inter- as arms, military stores, provisions, bulcourse with his majesty's enemies. The lion, or woollen clothes, under penalty of law of treason was founded upon a sta- high treason. But in order to soften the tute of the 25th Edw. 3rd, which had been rigour of this penalty, he proposed that the subject of legislative exposition in it should be understood as in the case of different acts passed since that period. persons counterfeiting the king's money, He should mention what were the acts and should not convey any attaint in the made treasonable in that statute. These blood, or debar the next heirs from inhewere-1st, compassing or imagining the ritance. It was his intention, in the next death of the king; a phrase which, as place, to prevent any persons from conundoubtedly it was of great latitude, the tracting for the purchase of lands in judges had always been of opinion, that in France, or from purchasing in their funds, order to constitute this degree of treason, or advancing money upon the purchase of it was necessary that there should be some lands, &c. The motive of this prohibi. overt act. 23. It was declared treasonable, tion would easily be perceived. The if a man should levy war against the king: French proposed to themselves to carry or adhere to his majesty's enemies, and on the war against this country by the aid, comfort or abet them. The third sale of lands. Now a question arosé, act declared treasonable was counterfeit- whether, by allowing our subjects to puring the king's money. The authors of this chase lands, we should not give them an statute had undoubtedly deemed it neces. interest in the property which they had sary to reduce the law of treason, as far as thus acquired, while we furnished the Jaid in their power, to a degree of certainty, French with the means of carrying on but had left it expressed in these general war against ourselves.-His third object terms, as they could not foresee the cir- was, that no persons should be allowed to cumstances which might arise in after go from this country into France, withtimes, to which the description of treason out a licence under his majesty's great might apply. Accordingly the legislature seal, and that their neglecting to obtain had found it requisite, at different periods, this licence should be deemed a misdeto declare what particular circumstances meanor.
But what he deemed a reguconstituted overt acts of treason. From lation of material consequence was, that the time that this statute passed, down no persons, though subjects of this coun. to the reign of queen Mary, different ex- try, coming from France, should be alplanatory acts had from time to time been lowed to enter this kingdom, without either made. During her reign, all these acts a passport or a licence. If they should were repealed, and the law restored to not be furnished with a passport or licence, the original footing upon which it stood that they should be obliged to deliver in a by the statute of Edward. In this detail, declaration to the master of the vessel with he had only followed the account given whom they had come into the country,