Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

to that science. Attempts have been lately made to turn titles and honours into ridicule; but nothing will make them so ridiculous as following such a precedent as this. The constitution, and every part of it, is secure, if we do not betray ourselves. The fact is, that the Crown having granted the title of Bath to a noble family, to be holden with the rank of marquis, has since been advised to grant the same title of Bath, to be holden with the rank of baron. The circumstance is novel

sion; for whatever advantages, either immediate or eventual, and of how great importance soever, might appear likely to arise from opening the commerce with India, if a revenue of 500,000l. should not be immediately derived to the public, they would be stopped by the postulatum which had been now laid down: for his part, he could never think it right or prudent to go into the consideration of a commercial question of such immense magnitude cramped in the outset by a sine quâ non of this sort. To him the whole business bore much the appearance of ministers having taken upon them to pledge that House and the public to a renewal of the company's charter, in a manner disgraceful to the country; and since the publication of the speech of another right hon. gentleman (Mr. Dundas) the opinion universally entertained was, that a renewal of the charter was absolutely determined on. He did not say that he had made up his mind as to the propriety or impropriety of renewing that charter; but it was a matter which ought certainly to be decided upon with the greatest deliberation, and gentlemen ought to have their judgments and opinions totally unfettered and unbiassed.

The several resolutions were put and agreed to.

Patent of Creation of the Baroness of Bath.] March 14. On the order of the day for the production of the Patents of Creation of the Marquis and Baroness of Bath, the patents being read,

The Earl of Radnor disclaimed, in agitating the point which he was going to move, any personal motive against the person who was the immediate subject of his motion; any attack upon the royal prerogative; any suspicion that the ministers, who advised the conferring on Miss Pulteney the title of Bath, were actuated by those motives which the precedent would authorize future ministers to indulge. The situation of the parties would effectually obviate such suspicions; but he thought the grant was obtained by strong solicitation of a powerful interest on the part of the grantee, and yielded from inadvertence, and ignorance of the impropriety, on the part of the minister. This ignorance was only of a science, which it was fashionable to be ignorant of; but while the country was monarchical, there must be nobility, and while there was nobility, there must be some attention

!

novel (as he believed) in a course of some hundred years, and after the grant of some thousand titles. He ventured to say it was novel, from conviction of the principle, and attention to the subject. He thought it absurd, indecorous, inconvenient, unjust, illegal, and null. At present, he should only move for a com mittee to consider, and report whether the same specific title can be conferred on any person, during the subsistence of the limitations of a former grant to another person.

The Lord Chancellor said, he had not had time to investigate the question with that care which a matter of great importance, ought to have received; but that he had, as by accident, lately seen some ancient records belonging to the parish where his house was, by which he knew, that in Charles the 1st's time there was a duchess of Dudley, on whom that title was conferred, the title of Leicester, which was her father's, being given away; that therefore the barony of Dudley being an ancient barony and still subsisting, there were two peers who took their titles from the town of Dudley. That besides this, there is actually now a viscount Dudley, though the said barony still subsisted; that there were three lords Douglas in this House, and two lords Ferrers; that there were, in former times, lords Grey, lords Percy, lords Howard, without end. That the noble lord might be at ease; no confusion arose-no trouble; that the Herald's college was still in safety, and all the learning it afforded might be useful, and advantageous in the matters to which it was properly applied; that the crown had not only a clear right to grant this title in the way complained of, but that it had done it in a very common and usual way. However, if the noble lord was not satisfied, there was one obvious way of allaying his fears upon the subject, which would, he doubted not, be satisfactory to all parties: the heir apparent of

the marquis of Bath was a bachelor; he might marry the lady in question, and then Bath would be merged in Bath.

The Earl of Leicester said, he could set the learned lord right about the title of Dudley. The lady was not made duchess of Dudley, but duchess Dudley, not from the town of Dudley, but from the surname of Dudley.

The Earl of Radnor said, that he really did not know whether the learned lord was attempting to make a joke of the business, knowing he could not answer it gravely, or whether he was completely ignorant of the subject. The learned lord says there are three lords Douglas in this House. This he denied. There is a lord Douglas of Lochleven, a lord Douglas of Douglas, and a lord Douglas of Amesbury; three titles as distinct as titles can be. As to the title of viscount Dudley, he denied that there was such a one; the title is Dudley and Ward; though improperly assumed, perhaps, yet assumed so, to avoid the very case which the learned lord states as the fact. But the truth slipped out. The title of Dudley was given to the lady he mentioned, "because the title of Leicester was given away." If this was the case, it is the whole contended for. As to the instance of Ferrers, it was very wrong in lord Ferrers to take the title of Ferrers as an earldom; but still there was no identity of title. The earl is earl Ferrers, the baron is lord Ferrers of Chartley. But is there no confusion? How are they to be addressed here? How are they to sign the roll? In fact there is an instance of confusion. The marquis of Buckingham was supporting, to his honour, the measures of loyalty and fidelity which distinguished the winter of 1788-9 in Ireland, and there is a protest against these very measures, signed" Buckingham," now standing on the journals, which is really the signature of lord Buckinghamshire.

Lord Rawdon thought it very improper to confer titles in this manner, but he could not vote for the motion, as Miss Pulteney had much better pretensions to the title of Bath than lord Weymouth had; and though wrong, the crown had the power to grant titles in this way.

The House divided: Contents, 2; Not-contents, 21:

"Dissentient,

"Because we conceive the real dignity of the peerage was not less concerned in the adoption of this motion, than the jus

tice due from this House to the individual member whose title has been disposed of in this unprecedented manner. If it be true, as asserted in the debate, that the practice of duplicating titles is exceed ingly usual, such practice could at least have been shown. The challenge was fairly and roundly given, and instead of being answered, was with round assertions parried. The titles of Douglas, borne by three noble members of this House, though discriminated as they are in a manner the most proper, most regular, and most distinct, were assimilated to the instance in question. It could hardly be believed, without our assertion, that the House could have been induced to negative the motion, by arguments founded on such real or pretended ignorance.

"Because the novelty of such practice appeared to us to be proved, as far as a negative is capable of proof, by the following, among various other, considerations: 1. That though noble families, in the earlier periods of our history, were frequently deprived of the rank of Peerage, by attainders or otherwise, and afterwards restored, not a single instance ap pears in which titles, conferred on other families in the interval, had been regranted, or re-claimed; and, on the contrary, several instances were pointed out, in which different titles had been assumed upon such occasions, their ancient titles not being at the time of such restoration vacant. 2. When the duke of Buccleugh obtained from the crown in 1743, the honour of its recommendation to be restored to the hereditary seat in this House, forfeited by the attainder of his ancestor the duke of Monmouth, that favour was confined to such titles as were not vested in other families, and consequently the title of Monmouth was omitted. 3. When Thomas earl of Arundel and Surrey could not obtain from king Charles 1st his consent to a general reversal of his ancestor's attainder, and his own consequent restoration to the dukedom of Norfolk, he yet secured a possibility of his future restoration, (which afterwards took place) by soliciting, and obtaining, the earldom of Norfolk, which could hardly, on any other principle, be an object. And, 4. When king Edward 4th wanted to give his son the earldom of Pembroke, he first obtained a resignation of that title from the then earl.

"Because we conceive the practice to be unjust, and the consequences of it in

convenient, farcical, and ridiculous; and think it necessary to be resisted in the first instance. And,

"Because, upon the doctrine of the hour (for of the hour only we trust it is), the minister stands complimented by the House with a more powerful instrument of mortifying individuals, than any known prerogative of the crown, or even, in our opinion, the court of wards and liveries itself ever furnished. The grievances of the latter were heavy, but temporary; the injury occasioned by this modern invention is perpetual, and claimed by its patrons as irremediable.

(Signed) RADNOR

LEICESTER." The Earl of Radnor immediately said, that as the House had thought fit not to deliberate upon his motion, he was ready to state his own opinion decidedly on the subject, and would do it by a motion, which he must be some little time in arguing. He stated the point as absurd; for the crown had given this title away, and it had not reverted, " & nemo dat, quod non habet." He said it was inconvenient. The appellation in the House, the address of letters, must make this practice evidently so; but on the signature of the roll, it is obviously beyond contradiction. It was also indecorous. In 1690 there was an earl of Oxford, the twentieth of his family, in possession during 600 years. Would the House have borne another lord Oxford to come, and usurp his title? Yet lord Bath has as much the right in himself as lord Oxford ever had. But the title may become desirable, because it had been borne by others. Would the House suffer another lord Marlborough, lord Chatham, lord Hardwicke? The claim on the score of relationship has been already stated; but if it weighs at all, it must be before the grant. It might have been a reason against granting the title to lord Weymouth; it could not be an honest reason for re-granting it to Miss Pulteney. It is also unjust. Seisin by one party, is to the very idea exclusion of the other party. Exclusion of others is an essential quality of possession-the most gratifying ingredient of possession. Henry 8th consented to the act for settling the rank of peers; but the loss of priority of rank could be nothing to this, though it had been perpetual. It is also illegal. Ancient grants of titles were attended with grants of revenue from the same places from which the title was [VOL. XXX.]

assumed. Though this grant is not, in fact, now made, yet, upon feudal principles, the consequences must be the same. But chiefly, he asserted it to be novel. It is the constant observation on any grant, that such a family, or such a person, (having some distant pretensions) will be disappointed. Peers have found frequently difficulties in avoiding such pretensions. Malevolence against the present minister said, when lord Leicester took that title, it was to deprive of it a particular gentleman. It was an absolute falsehood; but the very assertion showed the general opinion. Till now, not only the principal titles, but the subordinate ones, have been protected.-lord Radnor then showed a list of titles, being third or fourth titles, all of which were untouched, and yet several of them evidently desiraable to some peers, within a very few years. Was Wiltshire no object to the Wiltshire gentlemen who have been raised to, or promoted in, the peerage? Lord Spencer wished to have, but could not have, because another had, the title of Sunderland. Was Warwick no object to lord Brooke? The late duke of Newcastle wished to secure to his nephew the title of Newcastle; he took notoriously a different Newcastle, because he could not take the same over again in the same rank. The good luck of the Seymour family is mentioned by writers, in having the title of Somerset vacant when they had interest enough to be restored. The same observation is made of the Percys, that the title was become vacant by the extinction of the Fitzroys. King William forced upon lord Mordaunt the title of Monmouth, to prevent solicitation for the reversal of the duke of Monmouth's attainder; but an act of parliament in this case confirms the observation; for the restoration of the duke of Buccleugh was only to titles unoccupied. When families have been raised to titles, about the existence of which there was some doubt, under former grants, they have taken some other title with them, or taken them with some difference, Harley was made earl of Oxford, and earl Mortimer. Sheffield was made duke of Buckinghamshire. When families restored to the peerage have found their ancient titles occupied, they have taken others. Lord Worcester took Beaufort, Somerset being in other hands. Lord Grey of Groby took Stamford, as Suffolk, Dorset, and Huntingdon were engaged. The earl of Arundel, when he could not get the [2 P]

The Lord Chancellor earnestly requested of the noble lord not to press this question. It was impossible for the House to adopt it. The title was vested, or it was not; its validity could be legally decided elsewhere, which validity could not be affected by this resolution, if it were adopted. It would be perfectly unconstitutional, as well as dangerous, for the king to attempt to resume a grant once made.

The question passed in the negative.

"Dissentient, LEICESTER, RADNOR." The Earl of Radnor then moved an ad.

dress similar to the last, substituting for the last paragraph the following: "That, under these circumstances, the House, forbearing to question the validity of the grant made to the said Henrietta Laura Pulteney, but greatly concerned that his majesty has been advised to make the of his majesty, that the same may not be same, does humbly and earnestly request drawn into example; but that the memvour of the crown, may severally, for the bers of this House, honoured by the fafuture, enjoy unmolested and exclusively their several and respective honours." It passed in the negative.

attainder of his ancestor the duke of Norfolk, reversed, got himself created earl of Norfolk to secure that title; and when Edward 4th, wanted to dispose of the earldom of Pembroke, he first got a resignation of it from the then earl. If it were contended, that this could always have been done, but never has, in what light will the present instance stand, in point of delicacy, towards the former grantee, whose rights ought to have been protected, by motives of forbearance, as much as any grantee of former times? Upon these grounds, his lordship insisted that the grant was null; and to show that the king could revoke it, read from the journals of the House of Commons, 23d Jan. 1695, an instance of revocation of a grant, under the great seal, by king William. He therefore moved "That an humble ad. dress be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty, that his royal letters patent, by which his majesty was graciously pleased to create Thomas viscount Weymouth, marquis of Bath, and his heirs male marquisses of Bath, were, on the 21st day of January, in the 30th year of his Majesty's reign, produced in this House, and the said marquis was then and there received accordingly, and is 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 unit 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 being used as an exasperating and mortifying instrument of personal pique. And that, for these reasons, it be humbly requested of his majesty to recall and annul the said letters patent to Henrietta Laura Pulteney as aforesaid, and to compensate, in such manner as to his royal wisdom shall seem meet, the grant, which this House humbly conceives his majesty has been advised to make, without sufficient attention to the rights previously vested in the said marquis of Bath."

"Dissentient,

success. The act for regulating the precedency of the peers, obviated those grievances which partial or temporary favour might occasion; but the grievance arising from precedency given arbitrarily, though it had also been given in perpetuity, could not in any degree be compared to this. An instance, infinitely short of this, in our opinion, is pronounced by the lord chancellor Clarendon, in his history, to be the most unnecessary provocation he had known, and, in his belief, the chief cause of lord Strafford's execution.

[blocks in formation]

by lord Hale, whom he had taken for his guide upon this occasion. An act had passed in the reign of queen Anne, to prevent all traitorous correspondence, which prohibited any persons from supplying the enemies with arms, naval, or military stores, or from going out of the kingdom to the enemy's country without licence. A similar act, which had passed in the reign of William and Mary carried the regulation farther: it not only prohi bited all supplies of arms, &c. but of goods and merchandize of every sort.

Debate in the Commons on the Traitorous Correspondence Bill.] March 15. The Attorney General rose to move for leave to bring in the bill, of which he had 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 provent 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 ar mercial 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. 2d. It was declared treasonable, tion would easily be perceived. 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 arose, 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 laid in their power, to a degree of certainty, but had left it expressed in these general terms, as they could not foresee the circumstances which might arise in after times, to which the description of treason might apply. Accordingly the legislature had found it requisite, at different periods, to declare what particular circumstances constituted overt acts of treason. From the time that this statute passed, down to the reign of queen Mary, different explanatory acts had from time to time been made. During her reign, all these acts were repealed, and the law restored to the original footing upon which it stood by the statute of Edward. In this detail, he had only followed the account given

The

thus acquired, while we furnished the French with the means of carrying on war against ourselves.-His third object was, that no persons should be allowed to go from this country into France, without a licence under his majesty's great seal, and that their neglecting to obtain this licence should be deemed a misdemeanor. But what he deemed a regulation of material consequence was, that no persons, though subjects of this country, coming from France, should be allowed to enter this kingdom, without either a passport or a licence. If they should not be furnished with a passport or licence, that they should be obliged to deliver in a declaration to the master of the vessel with whom they had come into the country,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »