ment, to add to that load of oppression, and to inscribe deliberately in its statute-book a tyranny which has hitherto been found only in the dagger of the assassin, or the madness of the people?"

89. Striking speech of M.

de Martignac,

er branch of the Bourbons is banished forever from France."

These incidental discussions, however, were all preliminary merely to the grand 90. question of the session, which was Question of Notwithstanding the historic truth and gen- the ABOLITION OF THE HEREDITARY the abolition erous eloquence of these words, PEERAGE. This was so emphatical- of the heredisuch was the terror inspired by ly the question of the day, that it tary peerage. the prospect of a civil war in La might be said without exaggeration that the Vendée, lighted up by the threat- mission of the new Chamber was to destroy the which causes the rejection ened descent of the Duchess de peerage, as that of the House of Commons in of the clause. Berri, that it is more than doubt- England, elected in the same year, was to deful whether the sanguinary clause would not stroy the nomination boroughs. So strongly have been replaced by a vote of the Chamber was hatred of the hereditary aristocracy rootin the law, had it not been for a noble and mosted in France, in consequence of the extravagant moving appeal of M. de Martignac. This able pretensions it had asserted, and the exclusive and estimable statesman, who had tried in vain privileges it had acquired, that the first Revoto check the perilous career of Charles X., im-lution may be said to have been mainly directmediately before the accession of the Polignac ed to its overthrow. It was this which was administration, had risen from the bed of sick-meant by its watch-word, "Liberté et Egalité." ness to oppose the motion, and spoke now, in a Its abolition, accordingly, was one of the first feeble and faltering voice, for the last time in acts of the Constituent Assembly in 1791. Nathe Assembly. "Gentlemen," said he, ban-poleon, however, who saw clearly that a heredishment is in our law a punishment for infa- itary monarchy could never exist without a hemous offenses, pronounced by the judge after a reditary aristocracy to support it, restored titles mature examination of the evidence; and it is of honor, and declared them hereditary; and it now proposed to declare it in advance against was one leading object of his policy to effect a entire generations, without a trial, without ev- "fusion," as he called it, of the ancient and idence, without knowing even whom you are modern nobility. Louis XVIII. on his accescondemning! One of your orators has lately sion wisely followed the same conciliatory syssaid from the tribune, In France proscription tem, and pronounced several sonorous periods absolves.' That profound and just sentiment on the noblesse on one side of the throne recallcondemns the amendment. Should a pretendering the ancient honors of the monarchy, and on arrive in France, the Government will immedi- the other the new-born glories of the empire. ately be warned of the danger which the public In secret, however, he was by no means favorsecurity will run, and the risk will be prevent-ably inclined to a hereditary nobility. A House ed. But if a proscribed person, condemned be- of Peers named by himself was much more to his forehand, arrives on your shores, where will you find a man who will clap the executioner on the shoulder, and say to him, 'Look at that royal head; get it identified, and cause it to fall? When I had the misfortune to be minister, a proscribed regicide appeared on the territory of France. The minister, informed of his appearance, so far from causing him to be arrested, hastened to provide for his retreat. He was an old man, and he was nursed, for he was sick; he received succor, for he had need of it; he was conducted, with the respect due to his age and misfortunes, to the frontier. I rendered an account of what I had done, and it was approved of, as I know I should be by The question first came on for consideration you to-day." "Yes! yes!" broke from all parts on the 27th August, when the Govof the Assembly. What, then," he added, ernment proposed a simple decree Argument for "would have been the case if the penalty had "that the hereditary peerage should the abolition. been death? I believe, in truth, I would not be abolished." M. Casimir Périer was known have spoken of it. Let one of the proscribed, to be a decided supporter of the hereditary whom the amendment submitted to the Cham- peerage, but, aware of the strong feeling which ber proposes to punish with death, return to existed on the subject in the country, and the France, to seek an asylum there; let him knock decided majority in the Chamber, he yielded to at the door even of the mover of the amend- necessity, and concurred in the measure. ment; let him give his name and come in, and though all knew that the fate of the peerage I will engage beforehand for his security." The was sealed, the arguments used on both sides effect of this appeal was irresistible among a were not the less worthy of attention, and, as people so accessible to the generous sentiments not unfrequently happens, the more weighty as the French. Profoundly moved, the whole were adduced on the side which proved unsucAssembly rose as one man; and, cessful. On the part of the abolition it was aramidst universal acclamations, the gued by M. Odillon Barrot, M. Bignon, and An. Hist. xiv. amendment, proposing the capital General Lafayette, and M. Remusat: "In what345, 346: Lou- sanction, was withdrawn, and the ever way you consider the hereditary peerage, is Blanc, iii. law passed as proposed by the it appears equally useless, dangerous, and fatal. 45, 46, 47. committee,' which bore, “The eld- | If we regard it as the hereditary branch of the

1 Moniteur, Nov. 20, 1831;

taste, and he was only prevailed on to permit its restoration upon condition that the Crown was to retain the form at least of calling the eldest sons of peers to the Upper House. During the tumult, however, of the Revolution of 1830, the prejudice against the aristocracy greatly increased, and the number of deputies pledged to effect its overthrow was so much increased by the lowering of the suffrage, and the vast increase of republican mem- 1 Cap. v. 349, ||bers whom this introduced into 351; Louis the Legislature, that its abolition Blanc, iii. 20, in the next session became a mat- 25; An. Hist. ter of certainty.1

xiv. 297, 300.

91.

Al

Legislature, what security have we that it will not introduce into the possession of power persons without elevation of character, without patriotism, without talent? No function is more important than that of making laws-none more difficult. What folly, then, can be so great a solecism as to deliver ourselves over to chance for the choice of legislators? Can there be such madness as to cast aside those who might be recommended to such high functions by their probity or their merit, and to select from the first-comers the rulers of the State? Yet is not the folly of a hereditary Legislature still greater, because a greater number of persons are there admitted entrance to power, and the chances therefore of an overwhelming majority of fools is increased?

92.

really independent, how are we to succeed in bending its will when, braving alike the throne and the elective Legislature, it sets itself to oppose the reforms which are deemed necessary? Are we to have recourse to a creation of peers? If so, adieu to all consideration or respect for the hereditary body. It has ceased to moderate it has come only to obey.

"If we consider the peerage as in reality a representative assembly, what interest does it represent With what Continued.

94.

order is it allied in the state to which revolution has now brought the country? Have not the fiefs been abolished? Is not feudality dead and buried? Where shall we find in France the superior class which in England is united with the people against the oppression "It is possible to conceive the advantages of the throne, and has acquired a sort of heredof a hereditary monarchy, because itary title to the respect of generations to come! Continued. it is obviously expedient to prevent Where shall we find in France any trace of contests for the crown, and a respons- the relations of patron and client, of proprietor ible ministry will always watch over an im- and tenant? In this country, therefore, whatbecile king. But who is to watch over an im- ever may be the case elsewhere, a hereditary becile body of hereditary peers? Where is the aristocracy is liable to the objection of being cabinet of young aristocratic fools? England linked to no existing interest in the State, and was never governed with more energy and yet recalling the remembrance of the odious wisdom than by Pitt, the minister at one time privileges, against which, in 1789, the nation of an insane king; but what similar remedy rose en masse. At this moment, what is it could be applied to a numerous assembly? But but the immense middle class which is striking the peerage, it is said, is a moderating power. down the aristocracy? What more is needed If so, can there be so strong an argument for to prove it is adverse to the intelligence, the the instant abolition of its hereditary rights? spirit, the light of the age? If the hereditary for what can be figured so dangerous as to peerage had had its roots in the nation, would give to the steadying power a special and sep-it of late years have given proofs only of its arate interest which may awaken the most impotence? What has it done for Napoleon, dangerous passions? The pride of man feels a vanquished at Waterloo? What has it done greater pleasure in exciting a movement than for Louis XVIII., when himself exiled by the in arresting it: the reason is, that action sup-exile of the island of Elba? What did it do poses liberty, that is, force; while resistance implies necessity, that is, weakness. What is true of an individual is much more true of a numerous assembly, for it is the nature of all power to emerge from its limits, and to employ, for action and its own purposes, the arms which it has received for resistance and the common good.

93.

on the 29th of July for Charles X. What did it then do for liberty and on the day following, the 9th August, 1830, what did it do for its own credit or reputation? Impotent to save, it is powerful only to destroy; bereft of respect, it exists only to degrade.

95.

Concluded.

"The supporters of the hereditary peerage are consistent only in error. They say "To what does this restraining power, of that there are always in the world which so much is said, in reality two opposite principles-movement Continued. amount? Nothing. If an aristocra- and rest; that the elective chamber represents cy is strong, it takes possession of the the first, the hereditary the second. But if it movement; if weak, it follows it. It is a dan- be really true that the coexistence of the antag ger the more in every situation to the perils onistic principles is not an accidental or transiof the state; not a danger the less. Did the tory circumstance, but an essential and permaHouse of Lords oppose any barrier to the en-nent condition of human society, what conclucroachments of the Long Parliament? It wished to save Strafford-it condemned him; it wished to preserve the bishops in itself-it voted their exclusion; it desired peace-it voted civil war. It is mere delusion to suppose you can moderate a movement which has got possession of society, by opposing to it a body of hereditary legislators. It is the same thing as to attempt to keep up an aristocracy in the middle of a republic. Reflect on the old contests between the patricians and plebeians, which so long kept on fire the Roman Republic. Do not suppose you lessen the chances of a similar disaster by simply calling the aristocracy a mediating power. At best it will only be a war of two against one; an increase rather than a diminution of difficulties. And if we suppose our peerage hereditary and

sion are we to draw from it? What but this, that society contains in its bosom the seeds of a permanent and lasting contest; that war without truce is the law of the world; that, condemned to undergo alternately the triumph of one or other of these opposing powers, the people must always be either swept up in the whirl of a devouring flame, or struck with stupor in a stagnation fatal to all improvement? Do you really suppose it is possible, by interposing a third party between these mighty antagonists, to prevent them from coming into collision? The Crown, which is supposed to be this intermediate power, must inevitably soon become a mere weapon in the hands of one or other of them. The truth is, the supposed existence of these antagonistic powers is a vain illusion, arising from their having been found, from acci

1831; Ann. Hist. xiv. 296, 307;

iii. 26, 37.

96.

98.

Continued.

dental circumstances, in the states of modern | from popular election? All these classes will Europe. There is but one lasting and eternal remain unrepresented; and elevate the elective condition of society, and that is durability in franchise as much as you please, it will always progress. To doubt this is to deny progress, to represent material interests-it can never beblaspheme God, to deliver the world in advance come that citadel of superiorities which a heredto the government of chance. The existence of itary chamber, placed beside the Government, these opposite principles in modern kingdoms of necessity does. Would you form the Peers is a fact, but it is an evil. It should be the ob- out of persons chosen by the sovereign out of a ject of the legislator to eradicate, not perpetu- certain number of categories prescribed by law? ate it. Unity in power is the great principle of Then the peerage would represent nothing but good government. England is no example to the will of the monarch, and become an instruthe contrary. Its three separate powers are in ment the more for ministerial corruption or 1 Moniteur, reality but so many emanations of tyrannic power. By the first system, you will Nov. 17-29, one supreme authority: tria juncta merely have two chambers elected by the same in uno should be its motto. To at-persons, and devoted to the same interests, and tempt to frame consistency out of alike hostile to the superiorities, now defenseLouis Blanc, opposition is to organize anarchy, less, and the Crown. By the second system, to perpetuate chaos." the Chamber of Peers is struck at the heartTo these able arguments, which carried with its respectability, its independence are gone; it them four-fifths of the Assembly, can serve only to vail the despotism of the sovAnswer of the it was answered by a small but en-ereign. Take away its name, you will have a defenders of lightened minority, headed by M. falsehood the less in the structure of society. the peerage. Guizot, M. Thiers, M. Royer Col- "It is in vain to oppose to these eternal truths lard, and M. Berryer. "We are all agreed," the common argument that merit is said they," that the great object in framing the not hereditary, that the talents of the constitution of a Legislature is to adopt that father do not pass to the son, and that which is likely to secure the greatest number a hereditary chamber may become a mere of able and competent legislators. The only chamber of fools. Be it so. Talents do not question is, which system is most likely to at- always pass; but traditions pass, feelings are tain that object? But experience has proved communicated by descent, and that suffices for that nothing but a hereditary peerage can effect our argument. But is it true that talents are this. It alone can create, on the side of Gov- not hereditary? There are many examples to ernment, a number of fixed situations, the hold- the contrary, especially in descent by the mothers of which are identified in interest with the er's side. The peerage is composed of two or Crown, and yet have permanent possessions three hundred families: if talent is awanting in which may render them independent, and ex- some of them, it will not be awanting in others; empt from the passions or ambition which must and allow me to say, if men of talent sometimes animate the Government in its struggle with are the fathers of fools, fools are as often the the democracy. What we have need of is to fathers of men of talent. find in society a class of men who make of politics and the science of government their fixed and habitual study, their business, their profession, as others do of law, arms, merchandise, or physic. We need a class of men essentially and by caste politicians. By a hereditary peerage you attain that object; by no other means is it possible to do so. You rear up a class of men for whom situations are ready made, and who are in a manner born politicians. Placed at the summit, however, they will never fail to receive, at the proper time, the impulse of that democracy which is always the most extensive and powerful element in society, and from the most eminent members of which it will always draw its recruits. Madame de Staël says, A hereditary magistracy, of which the recollections of birth form a part, is an indispensable element in a limited monarchy.' The destruction of the hereditary peerage was an idea of 1789; but how many ideas of that year have now been found by experience to have been erroneous? The charter itself is based upon the rejection of the greater part of them. Shall we then adopt this one erroneous idea from them, and in so doing destroy the constitutional throne which we profess a desire to establish?

97.

"The peerage is essentially representative, and what it represents in society is Continued. superiorities-superiorities of every kind of birth, of fortune, of services, of genius, of learning. Would you cause the peerage to spring, like the Chamber of Deputies,

99.

"Nothing but hereditary succession can render the peerage independent of the influence of the Crown on the one Continued. hand, and the favor of the people on the other. If experience has proved that an upper chamber is indispensable to form a check upon the precipitance of the lower, is it not expedient that it should be respected? But how can it ever be so, if it is either the instrument of a sovereign's pleasure or a people's caprice? As now constituted, the peerage is not a privilege; it is a political right, like royalty or the elective franchise, accorded to particular persons or families, not for their own, but for the general good. Hereditary right, in forming the basis of a new aristocracy, can never now revive the abuses of the ancient régime; they have forever been rendered impossible by civil equality, and the eligibility of all to all offices. Aristocracy, as an exclusive caste, has been destroyed, without return; but it is otherwise with a generic assemblage of great families, modern glories, scientific celebrities, senatorial services. Their preservation and progressive increase is an essential part of the social system as it exists in our day. By a universal and indelible instinct of our nature, so long as the transmission of fortunes is permitted will mankind look in the son for the illustration of the father.

"Families already founded exist in society; more are every day added to them. What is to become of their descendants? If you do not identify them

100. Continued.

House pass

with the Government, they will become hostile | the hereditary peerage. Casimir Périer and to it. By making the aristocracy hereditary, the orator of the Commission con- 102. you do for it what you have already done for fessed with a sigh that the heredi- The Lower the throne by declaring its descent fixed; you tary peerage was on principle the the bill by will neutralize all the tyrannies which might most advisable, but that circumstan- a great maaim at elevating themselves to supreme power. ces, which were irresistible, compel- jority. In the hereditary peerage they will be blended led its abandonment. The vote was taken, together, and actuated by an interest conserva- amidst great anxiety, on the 18th of Oc- Oct. 18. tive of society; standing separate, they might, tober, and the result was a majority of from individual ambition, tear it in pieces. The 346 against the hereditary Chamber-the nummost effective way to render an aristocracy bers being 386 to 40. The nomination of peers, harmless is to declare it hereditary; for then who were to hold their seats for life only, was its members, for their families' sake, are re- committed to the Crown; but it was restricted in strained from doing evil; and every one, seek- the choice to certain "categories," as they were ing to preserve and transmit what he has ac- called-that is, certain classes of persons emiquired, becomes a check upon his neighbor. nent in civil or military affairs-from whom Should the system of an elective aristocracy alone the selection could be made. These cattriumph, it is easy to foresee what will be the egories, however, were so numerous and capaconsequence. The sons of the great families cious as to admit nearly every person who could will no longer submit to be nullified in the elect- by possibility be dignified by the peerage, and ive peerage. They will aspire to seats in the thus gave the sovereign, practically speaking, Chamber of Deputies; and what barrier will be the choice of the whole nation to 1 Ann. Hist. adequate to restrain their ambition, if to the lus- form a senate for the purpose of put- xiv. 319, 320. tre of ancient descent and the influence of pres- ting the last seal upon the laws.1 ent fortune, they add the prestige of popular There remained, however, the existing Chamfavor, the sway of ready eloquence in a popu- ber of Peers for the bill to pass belarly elected assembly? It was thus that Cæsar fore it could become law; and seroverturned the liberties of ancient Rome. The vile as the Senate on many occaelective chamber is, and ever will be, in a free sions had shown itself to be, it country, the chamber of ambition. Thence it was doubtful whether it would put was that Chatham said to his son Pitt, "Never the final seal to its degradation enter the House of Peers." If you deprive the by voting its own abolition. A peers of their hereditary right, the great families month elapsed before the question was brought will throw themselves into the elective cham- before the Upper House, during which the point ber, as formerly they did into the ante-chambers was anxiously deliberated in the Cabinet what of the Emperor. means should be adopted to overcome the op

101.

103. Creation of peers to force it through the Upper House,

where it passes. Nov. 20.

"It is from want of this element that all gov-position of the peers. During this period of ernments hitherto constructed have anxious suspense, it was ascertained that the Concluded. been incomplete. Republicanism is majority against the proposed measure would but a sketch; it leaves the princi- be at least thirty. In these circumstances, the pal figure unfilled up, which is that of royalty. Cabinet, deeming a crisis as having arrived, Democracy is but a sketch; it also leaves a which must terminate either in a creation of question unresolved, that of an aristocracy. A peers, a popular insurrection, or a coup d'etat, representative monarchy leaves none; it is preferred the former alternative. On the 20th complete in all its parts. As a government, it November there appeared in the Moniteur a has the unity of monarchy; as a republic, it royal ordinance creating thirty-six personshas the perseverance of aristocracy, the energy all, of course, of the liberal party-peers for of democracy. That is the government which life. This step was decisive of the fate of the the country requires. The most liberal writers measure. Toward the end of the next month on government-M. Manuel, the President of the it was introduced into the now swamped and Commission on Government during the Hun- degraded Chamber of Peers; but so strongly dred Days; M. Benjamin Constant, in his pub-rooted was the opposition to the measure, that, lished work on Political Constitutions-admit this. It is now permitted to us, probably for the last time, to arrest the course of our innovations, I dare not say of our destruction. We have had enough of ruin, of changes introduced against the lessons of experience. We are now invited to repose. Maintain then, consecrate anew, the hereditary peerage, and you will not only have preserved an institution, the protector alike of liberty and order, but you will have 32; Moniteur, repelled the invasion of anarchy, October 20- and restored the social edifice tottering to its fall.”

1 Ann. Hist.

xiv. 299, 311;

Cap. v. 356, 361 Louis Blanc, iii, 30,

29, 1831.

Such is a summary of the arguments on both sides on this great question, the stirring of which was the first lasting result of the Revolution of July. But it was known throughout what the result would be; the Chamber was bound, by imperious mandates from the electors, to destroy

even after the creation of 36 peers to carry it through, the majority was only 33, the numbers being 103 to 70. But for the creation, the measure would have been lost by a majority of 3. Next day thirteen of the peers, a Moniteur, embracing the representatives of Nov 20, and some of the oldest families in Dec. 28, 1831; France, resigned their seats in the Ann. Hist. Upper Chamber.2

xiv. 319, 333.

104.

Thus was finally effected, after its restoration by Napoleon and Louis XVIII., the destruction of the hereditary Reflections on peerage in France. The unani- this event.

mous concentration of the efforts of the liberal party in France upon this object, to the entire neglect of others of far greater moment in the interest of freedom, is one of the most curious circumstances in the history of the Revolution, and most characteristic of the disposition of men, even the most enlightened, to look all day

1 Ante, c.

69.

to the east, expecting still to see the sun rise | Charles X. signalized his accession by a crethere. In 1789, when the first Revolution broke ation of seventy-six peers; and then followed, out, the aristocracy was with reason the object within a few years afterward, the Poof dread, because it was more powerful than lignac ministry, and Ordonnances of xvi. either the king or the people; and it was July. The seizure of the throne by against it, accordingly, that the fervor of pop- Louis Philippe was immediately succeeded by ular indignation was in the first instance chief- the expulsion of all these new members from the ly directed. But in 1831, circumstances were House of Peers; and within eighteen months entirely changed: the aristocracy had been, by after, the popular voice had become so strong the effects of the first convulsion, as much that thirty-six were created to destroy their weakened as the executive had been strength- own hereditary rights! It will appear in the ened, and the danger to the cause of freedom sequel whether the cause of balanced freedom was no longer from the privileges of the nobil- gained any thing by this step, and whether the ity, but from the power of the sovereign. The remainder of the reign of Louis Philippe was confiscations of the Convention had deprived any thing more than a continued struggle of most of them of their estates; the revolution- the people against the executive, now rendered ary law of succession had parceled out their well-nigh irresistible by the destruction of the fortunes; and the pitiable state of dependence last barrier against its influence. It is a singuof the majority of their number was revealed lar circumstance, indicative of the inability of by the fact that they each received a pension the lessons of experience to teach wisdom to a of £300 a year from the Crown. On the other heated generation, that, at the very moment hand, the centralizing system, and the immense that the creation of peers was the engine emincrease of government patronage, had aug-ployed to destroy the last barrier of constitumented the power of the chief magistrate, whether emperor or king, as much as it had thrown into the shade the influence of the no

iii. 333.

tional freedom in France, the same step was vehemently pressed upon the King of England to lay the foundation, as it was thought, of general liberty in this country.

Probably the wit of man, to the end of the

world, will add little to the argu- 106.

peerage.

bles; and the dispenser of £50,000,000 annual revenue might soon be able to despise the impotent resistance of the Legislature which was to record his decrees. Yet, while the Liberals ments, of which an abstract has Experience of destroyed the hereditary aristocracy, the last now been given, drawn from gen- Great Britain barrier against despotism, they concurred in all eral considerations, for and against in regard to a measures likely to increase the power of the the abolition of a hereditary peer- hereditary executive. "The triumph of the bourgeoisie," age. But, without being so presays the republican historian, "was sumptuous as to attempt what is obviously 1 Louis Blanc, complete, but its ruin was hidden in hopeless, the English historian may be permit its victory." ted to observe, that experience in his own counNot less remarkable was the mode by which try has added much to the strength of the arthis great democratic triumph was guments advanced against the abolition. What 105. Previous effected, or the lesson which it is very remarkable, it has done so, chiefly by degradation taught to the friends of freedom in adopting, and reducing to practice, the stronof the hered- future times less important. From gest reasons adduced for that measure. No one itary peerage. the first breaking out of the Rev- can doubt that the interest of society requires olution, in 1789, every era had been marked by that as able a body of legislators as possible successive blows to the power of the aristocra- should be secured for an independent branch cy, and every one had been followed by a vast of the Legislature; but experience has now increase of the power of the executive, but no proved, contrary to what was generally supaddition to the liberties of the people. By the posed, that this is not to be done by vesting its union of the Chambers, and the abolition of no- nomination for life either in the sovereign or bility, its power had been totally destroyed in the people. The House of Peers of England the commencement of the struggle, and then has not only exhibited for a century past, but ensued the tyranny of the Convention, the des- exhibits now, an amount of statesmanlike talent potism of Napoleon. With the restoration of and capacity which we will look for in vain the Upper House, and the rights of hereditary either in the nominees of the French Emperor, succession by the charter of Louis XVIII., a or in the popularly-elected Senate of America. mixed constitution was given to the country If any one doubts this, let him read the debates during fifteen years-the only period, accord- on any of the great questions which have been ing to the confession of all the liberal histori- agitated in the country, during the last half ans, when real liberty was enjoyed in France. century, in the Peers and the Commons: the But during this period successive coups d'etat superiority of the former is self-evident. The weakened the power of the Upper House, and proof of the reality of this superiority is decinumerous creations of peers at once destroyed sive. By the Reform Bill, the middle class in its independence and lessened its respectability. the towns have gained the entire command of The placing of Louis XVIII. on the throne was the country; they have enjoyed for twentyimmediately followed by the creation of eighty-five years the appointment of the Cabinet, and two peers, required to neutralize the influence by successive small creations of peers they have of the Napoleonists in the Senate. obtained the majority in the Upper, as, by the 2 Ante, e. The famous coup d'etat of 5th Sep-influence of the borough members, they have tember, 1816, which changed the con- of the Lower House. The prerogative of the stitution of the Lower House, was Crown, the votes of both branches of the Legcarried through the Upper Chamber islature, have been at their disposal; but they vi. § 96. by a creation of sixty-three peers. I have never yet been able to form a government VOL. IL-FF

iii. ◊ 20.

2 Ante, c.