Part 26
The present is the first instance in which a title of nobility, without remainder, has been conferred by patent, and the mere title, as a personal honour, may be unimpeachable. But it is a very different thing when it is attempted to give the holder of that title a seat in the House of Lords, which, we humbly venture to think, is beyond the power of the Crown, because it is contrary to the acknowledged constitution and hereditary character of the House of Lords. That there must be some limit to the exercise of the prerogative is certain; and we shall put a case for the solution of those who take the opposite view. It is this: Would the Crown be entitled to issue a writ of summons to any peer of the United Kingdom, who is such in virtue of his representing an old Scottish or Irish peerage; and would such peer be entitled, in respect of that writ, to take his seat in the House of Lords? We apprehend that there can be but one answer to that. Such an attempt would be directly contrary to and in violation of the terms of the Acts of Union. No man surely will maintain that Queen Anne could have evaded the express conditions of the Treaty of Union, by creating all the former peers of Scotland who became peers of Great Britain (with the exception of the sixteen representatives), peers for life, without remainder, and so have effected an absolute revolution in the character of the then existing House of Lords. It was not until the year 1782, seventy years after the Union, that a writ of summons was allowed to be issued to Douglas Duke of Hamilton, in the character of Duke of Brandon, a dignity which had been given to his ancestor in 1711. Previous to that decision, it seems to have been maintained that no subsequent patent to a peer, who originally was a peer of Scotland, could entitle him to a writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords; and the point was twice adjudicated upon in the House of Lords: first in the case of the Duke of Hamilton, already mentioned; and, secondly, in that of the Duke of Queensberry, who, 1719, asserted his right to a writ of summons in his character of Duke of Dover. In both instances the decision was hostile to the claim; but the point was finally set at rest by the admission of the Duke of Hamilton to sit as Duke of Brandon under that patent.
If the Crown can now create a peer for life, so as to entitle him to a seat in Parliament, it must necessarily have possessed that power 150 years ago; and, if so, every one of the Scottish peers might have been called to the Upper House by the simple expedient of giving them new patents for life. Such an attempt would undoubtedly have been considered illegal, unconstitutional, and utterly subversive of the Union; and yet we cannot see wherein such an attempt would have differed in principle from that which is now made to introduce Lord Wensleydale to the House of Lords. It is only by the consent of Queen, Lords, and Commons, that the fundamental character of any of the three great Estates of the realm can be altered; and the attempt to destroy or impair the independence of one of them is ominous for the stability of the others.
_Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh._
-----
Footnote 1:
_A History of Rome from the Earliest Times to the Establishment of the Empire._ By HENRY G. LIDDELL, D.D., Dean of Christchurch, Oxford, late Head Master of Westminster School.
Footnote 2:
This was a law, passed after the battle of Cannæ, at the instance of the tribune Oppius, “by which it was forbidden that any woman should wear a gay-coloured dress, or have more than half an ounce of gold to ornament her person, and that none should approach within a mile of any city or town in a car drawn by horses.”—Vol. i. p. 363.
Footnote 3:
He had caused a fugitive and suppliant Gaul to be assassinated in his own tent, where he was feasting with a favourite youth, in order that the dying agonies of the man might afford an amusement to his unworthy minion.—Vol. ii. p. 61.
Footnote 4:
_Histoire des Français des Divers Etats._ Victor Lecou, Libraire. Paris, 1853.
Footnote 5:
One curious example of this kind of thing we remember to have seen in the preface to the new edition of a work of some reputation. The devout author, alluding to the success of his performance, offers his grateful thanks to Providence and the Periodical Press.
Footnote 6:
Like some people nearer home, each of them (and many another besides them) avers that his paper has the largest circulation of any journal not only in America, but _in the world_. Of all statistics, the least credible are those of newspaper proprietors.
Footnote 7:
We are fully prepared to find Mr Bennett attributing our unfavourable remarks to a great “conspiracy” among the “aristocratic cliques” of England against American institutions in general, and the _New York Herald_ in particular. This is an old trick, but the American public is too sensible any longer to be taken in by such nonsense. Mr Bennett’s pretensions to represent the general sentiments of the United States, have nowhere been more indignantly repudiated than in New York. If we imagined that any American whose opinion is worth considering, would interpret our criticism as implying any unkindly feeling to his country, these pages should never have seen the light. The objects of our criticism are individual men.
Footnote 8:
The _North American Review_ thanks Mr Parton warmly for his brave—his noble book. Was the orthodox Grannie dozing when she read it?
Footnote 9:
The meaning of the words “Whig,” “Democrat,” &c., and the combination in the same individuals of Whig and Protectionist, Conservative and Democrat, are somewhat puzzling to those who have not studied the complicated subject of American politics.
Footnote 10:
Of the printing-office and editorial rooms Mr Parton gives a minute account, not failing to give us the names and describe the personal attractions of all the leading officials, including the distinguished foreman, Mr T. Rooker, who warns “_gentlemen_ desiring to wash and soak their distributing matter,” to use the “metal galleys” he has cast for that purpose! “It took the world,” says Mr P., “an unknown number of thousand years to arrive at that word GENTLEMEN.” What a pity that some smart man does not write a little book on “The Flunkeyism of Democracy.”
Footnote 11:
On this subject the biography maintains, with one or two exceptions, a prudent reserve. One pathetic description is attempted of the old sinner, “as he stood in his editorial rooms in Nassau Street, _while from his head was washed the blood that incarnadined the snows of fifty winters_.” After the washing of his headpiece, the invincible editor coolly sat down to narrate the “assassination” in his own choice style for the benefit of his readers. The following may pass as a specimen of his manner. “James Watson Webb,” editor of the _Courier and Enquirer_, was an old comrade of the writer’s.
“As I was leisurely pursuing my business yesterday, in Wall Street, collecting the information which is daily disseminated in the _Herald_, James Watson Webb came up to me on the northern side of the street—said something which I could not hear distinctly, then pushed me down the stone steps leading to one of the broker’s offices, and commenced fighting with a species of brutal and demoniac desperation characteristic of a fury.
“My damage is a scratch, about three-quarters of an inch in length, on the third finger of the left hand, which I received from the iron railing I was forced against, and three buttons torn from my vest, which any tailor will reinstate for a sixpence. His loss is a rent from top to bottom of a very beautiful black coat, which cost the ruffian 40 dollars, and a blow in the face, which may have knocked down his throat some of his infernal teeth for anything I know. Balance in my favour, 39 dollars, 94 cents.”
Footnote 12:
Mr Bennett, it would appear, is not indeed utterly free from the human feeling of “love of approbation”—the approbation, however, of “peculiar” characters. Mr O’Connell insulted him at a great Repeal gathering in Dublin, by saying, when his card was presented, “We don’t want him here. He is one of the conductors of one of the vilest Gazettes ever published by infamous publishers.” Poor Bennett was “ill for some days in Scotland”—probably, thinks the tender biographer, in consequence of this unexpected repulse from a brother demagogue.
Footnote 13:
Gibbon.
Footnote 14:
_Report by the Commissioners for the British Fisheries of their Proceedings in the Year ended 31st December 1854; being Fishing 1854._ Edinburgh, 1855.
Article “FISHERIES” in the current edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, vol. ix. Edinburgh, 1855.
Footnote 15:
This fearful loss, it may be borne in mind, fell not upon fishermen and merchants, but upon the poor fishermen alone—most of the survivors being thereby rendered destitute. “Of those who perished at Wick, 17 left widows and 60 children; at Helmsdale, the 13 drowned have left 9 widows and 25 children; of the 26 men belonging to Port Gordon and Buckie, who perished at Peterhead, 8 have left widows and 22 children; and, including the 13 widows and 54 children of the 19 men lost belonging to Stonehaven and Johnshaven, there will be left 47 widows and 161 children totally unprovided for—a calamity without precedent in the annals of the British fisheries.”—CAPTAIN WASHINGTON’S _Report_, p. xvii.
Footnote 16:
_Report—Fishing Boats_ (Scotland). Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 28th July 1849.
Footnote 17:
The year above referred to was that of 1848. Still larger captures and comparative increase in the quantity cured have since occurred. Thus, in 1849, there were cured at Wick 140,505 barrels.
Footnote 18:
_Essays on the Trade, Commerce, Manufactures, and Fisheries of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 197. Edinburgh, 1778.
Footnote 19:
_Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor in Scotland._ Edinburgh, 1853.
Footnote 20:
Value of boats employed in the fisheries, £225,830 Do. of nets „ „ 303,666 Do. of lines „ „ 57,924 ———— Total (for 1854), £587,420
Footnote 21:
The above numbers are exclusive of between _four and five thousand men_ engaged in the _export_ fishing trade.
Footnote 22:
The following is the present constitution of the Board: _Commissioners_—Lord Murray; Earl of Caithness; George Traill, M.P.; James Wilson; Rear-Admiral Henry Dundas; Andrew Coventry; James T. Gibson-Craig; Professor Traill; William Mitchell Innes; Lord Elcho, M.P.; Sir James Matheson, M.P.; John Thomson Gordon; George Loch; with Lord Advocate Moncreiff, and Solicitor-General Maitland, _Ex officiis_.—Secretary, Hon. B. F. Primrose.
Footnote 23:
_Twentieth Report from the Board of Public Works, Ireland_, p. 236. London, 1852.
Footnote 24:
_Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Ireland, for 1853._ Dublin, 1854.
Footnote 25:
Ibid. 1854. Dublin, 1855.
Footnote 26:
_Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Ireland, for 1854_, p. 12. The above quotation refers to the herring fishery carried on at Howth. We think it right to state that the schedules appended to the report bear testimony “to the peaceable and orderly habits of the fishermen, and to the total absence of any conflicts or disturbance of any kind.” It is, unfortunately, added, that “it is much to be deplored that nearly all agree in describing an unexampled state of depression as extending to all parts of the coast.”—_Ibid._, p. 6.
Footnote 27:
_Ibid._, p. 6. As the law now stands, there is no regulation in respect to the size of the mesh of nets used in Ireland for the capture of fish other than of the salmon species.
Footnote 28:
Letter from Mr Methuen to the Lord Advocate; _Edinburgh Evening Courant_, February 6, 1856.
Footnote 29:
We have recently received the _Commercial Circular_ of Messrs Plüddeman and Kirstein of Stettin, of date the 20th January 1856. Referring to the increased consumption of our herrings in the Continental markets during the last season, they attributed it chiefly to the high prices of all descriptions of _meat_, as a consequence of the high value of rye, and all other grains, caused by the blockade of the Russian ports, and the failure of the Continental crops. The following is their summary of the importation of Scotch herrings, into their own and neighbouring districts, during the last four years:—
┌──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬───────────┐ │ Years. │ Stettin. │ Harburg. │ Hamburg. │ Dantzic. │Königsberg.│ ├──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼───────────┤ │ │ Barrels. │ Barrels. │ Barrels. │ Barrels. │ Barrels. │ │ 1852│ 121,290│ 10,000│ 44,000│ 22,146│ about 4000│ │ 1853│ 123,537│ 26,000│ 22,000│ 44,272│ about 5000│ │ 1854│ 118,800│ 52,400│ 25,550│ 28,009│ 2758│ │ 1855│ 154,961│ 59,769│ 26,500│ 66,122│ 15,070│ └──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴───────────┘
The above transmissions for 1855 give a total of 322,422 barrels of Scotch herrings, of which the price to our curers, for such as were full crown branded, varied from L.1, 1s. to L.1, 4s. each, producing, with such as were of a somewhat inferior quality and price, an enormous aggregate of income from the Prussian ports alone.
We may here add, that there is an immediate prospect of the duty on our herrings being greatly reduced in Belgium. It is at present 13 francs (or about 11s.) per barrel—a tax which quite prohibits importation. When the great cities of Brussels, Ghent, Liège, Louvain, Antwerp, Bruges, Mons, Namur, Malines, &c., are open to our produce, what may we not hope for from the appetites of a Catholic and therefore fish-eating population?
Footnote 30:
We have reason to believe that petitions to the Treasury for the maintenance of the Board of Fisheries and its official brand, have been presented or are in course of transmission from the following twenty-one ports in this country, viz.:—Wick Town-Council, Wick Chamber of Commerce, Helmsdale, Burghhead, Lossiemouth, Macduff, Banff, Gardenstown, Whitehills, Portsoy, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Montrose, Anstruther, Leith Chamber of Commerce, Eyemouth, Burnmouth, Coldingham, Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c., Glasgow, Greenock, Bute. The following places on the Continent have sent in corresponding petitions, viz.:—Stettin, Königsberg, Dantzic, Berlin, Breslau, Dresden, Magdeburg, Harburg, Hamburg.
Footnote 31:
_Memoir of the Rev. Sydney Smith._ By his Daughter, LADY HOLLAND.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.