The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

JULY 12, 1856, House of Peers to differ from the House of Commons on the treatment of religious ques tions. Its course on such subjects has always been more guarded than that of the popular branch of the Legislature. Even on the " Catholic Question" the House of Peers was far more wary and circumspect than the House of Commons. It has never been prone to give in to " cries." Thus when, about the year 1780, there was a most outrageous " No Popery " feeling excited by Lord GEORGE GOR DON and his followers, the House of Lords acted a far more dignified part than the House of Commons. In the Lower House at that time Sir GEORGE SAVILLE brought in a bill for preventing Roman Catholics from e d uca ting the children of Protestants. The bill passed the Commons by a large majority, but it was rejected by the House of Lords. So, after the Union with Ireland, the Peers seem to have argued that the concession of the Catholic claims was merely a question of time, and must be yielded eventually. On the motion of the Marquis WELLESLEY, in 1812, a majority of two in the House of Lords decided in favour of the Catholic claims, which did not pass the House of Commons until many years after wards. Then let us mark the contrast after the Reform Bill between the Houses of Peers and the Commons. The Dissenting interest had been vastly in creased by the Reform Bill. The Whigs used " Appropriation " as an electioneering cry, and were for secularising the property of the Irish Church. With the House of Commons, as it existed in 1833, 1834, and 1835, these measures found favour, but the Peers rejected " Appropriation," the Houses came into colli sion, the country was appealed to, and it de cided finally with the Lords. The Dissenters' Chapel Bill of 1845 encountered far more opposition in the Commons than in the Lords; and on the right of Jews to sit in the Legisla ture, the two Houses have decidedly differed. It is, indeed, on religious questions that the House of Peers shows its strength against the House of Commons. On SACHEVEREL'S trial it nobly contrasted with the vulgar fanaticism of the Commons. "Itis on occasions such as " these," says a recent ecclesiastical historian, " that the House of Lords has so often com " mended itself to the deep respect of the " English people, and shown that if the " House of Commons gives full expression to " their will, the House of Peers is no less " necessary to interpose between democracy " and its excesses." Now, Maynooth is exactly the sort of ques tion upon which the House of Lords would be likely to encounter the House of Commons with unyielding spirit. The Whigs and waverers in that assembly would join upon it, and their votes would be aided by a most powerful section of the Conservative Peers, who con scientiously believe, as we do ourselves, that a cry against Maynooth is not only impracti cable, but most dangerous. We put it to any intelligent politician whether there is the least likelihood of the House of Lords con senting to repeal the grant to Maynooth? And to what purpose would be a struggle be tween the two Houses on such a subject? Of the dangerous character of such an agitation, political discretion forbids us to state all the particulars. We trust, therefore, that those who take a practical view of politics will reflect on the certainty of the House of Peers refusing to endorse the anti-Maynooth " cry." Let them recollect also that there is only one Roman Catholic in the representation of England and Scotland ; and that, if the Maynooth Act be repealed, there will certainly be a sort of " Long Parliament " shout against the Church of Ireland, and that the whole of our Protes tant system will be disorganised. Such thoughts might deter them from lending their voices to an agitation more sincerely under taken than O'CoNNELes "Repeal," but just as certain to end in nothing, after having excited mischievous discord throughout the land. APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. IT is of no great consequence that the Appel late Jurisdiction of the House of Lords is to remain unsettled for another year ; but it is of THE PRESS. some consequence that the House of Com- coons should show itself so uncertain in its judgment. The second reading of the Bill passed by the Lords was carried by the Com mons on Monday, in a House of 333 members, by a majority of 49. On the following Thurs day a motion for referring the Bill to a select committee was carried, in a House of 288 members, by a majority of 22, the latter deci sion completely reversing the former. During the present session the House has given more than one instance of the same instability of purpose, but never, we think, with so little rational explanation as during the past week. A reference to a select committee merely amounts to an assertion that sufficient time has not yet been allowed for discussion. Why could not the opposers of the Bill perceive this on the Monday as well as on the Thurs day ? It being accepted as a principle that a sove reign Court of Appeal should form, as it were, the apex of our legal system, it follows as a natural consequence that a tribunal exercising such paramount influence over the rights and property of her Majesty's subjects should be invested with all possible dignity and gravity. Doubtless some such consideration has all along weighed with those who cling to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords as at present constituted, in spite of the anomaly by which it is pervaded and the ad mitted defect of its machinery ; and the same feeling would probably induce them, in the case of any change, to prefer eateris paribus that these supreme functions should still con tinue attached to their Lordships' House. Owing to the vote of Thursday night the question is still in abeyance, and in the mean time it may not be amiss to consider what are the indispensable conditions on which the new Court should be constituted, and the nature of the alternatives presented to us, if the prin ciple of Lord DERBY'S plan should be finally rejected. There are two points to be considered touching the practical efficiency of such a court, which are, the eharacter and number of the judges to be created, and the dignity of the position they should occupy. In the first place, it is most necessary that they should not be taken from the class of worn-out judges, but should consist of men able to give the whole weight of a vigorous intellect to the in vestigation of the extremely subtle and diffi cult questions brought before them—men not passed beyond that period of life when the mind is capable of dealing satisfactorily with ques tions which demand an original solution. For one of the leading functions of a sovereign Court of Appeal is obviously that of laying down principles of law, and establishing pre cedents where no precedents before existed, for which duty persons in whom experience and energy have both reached the highest point at which they can ever coexist are im peratively required. In regard to number, we are disposed to think that not, less than three or four, besides the LORD CHANCELLOR, would be sufficient ; while, in point of salary, we can not allow that it should be less than that of a Lord Chief Justice, even if it should not be more. The proposed sum of 5,0001. a year would, in our opinion, be decidedly too small. Supposing this plan to be thrown over, what remains? There is the old expedient of un limited life peerages, which a certain party in the State is still most zealous to accomplish, but which has received such condemnation from the leading lawyers and statesmen of the country, and is pregnant with such grave constitutional dangers, that we cannot antici pate the possibility of its revival. In addi tion to which we may observe that the class of men called up to the House of Lords by the operation of this measure would be exactly not the class which the exigencies of the case demand. They would have had no fixed position and no determined duties; they would be past the exercise of their functions, or they would have had duties to engage them inconsistent with the labours required from them in the House of Lords. Tho new 651 judges should certainly, as a rule, be men of a higher :alibre than even our puisne judges in their prime. Men do not necessarily become wiser through elevation of station. If Vice- Chancellor STUART were removed to the Wool sack to-morrow, wo do not suppose that any greater confidence would be felt in his de• cisions. The very institution of courts of appeal supposes that those courts are com posed of the highest ability in the realm, and that they have leisure for maturely considering their judgments. Of the other alternatives which have been proposed, one and all involve the separation of the Appellate Jurisdiction from the House of Lords. What necessity for such separation exists? There is not one of the proposed schemes which does not involve greater diffi culties than the adoption of the principle of Lord DERBY'S proposed committee. We find ourselves a little at a loss to understand the objections to it. It is said to be a " sham," because the Peers will not in reality be the judges ; but does that constitute it one whit more of a sham than the present state of things? Would it not be fairer to say that it is a measure which provides at once a distinct and efficient court of appeal, without depriving it of such weight in the eyes of the country as its connection with the House of Lords is un questionably calculated to produce? It is said that it would be dangerous for their Lordships to have a permanent court sitting while the other branches of the Legislature are dispersed. This is an argument fitter for the times of High Prerogative than our own day. Dangerous to whom and to what? We cannot comprehend in what the mysterious peril consists, as the legal committee would sit for the specific purpose only of hearing legal appeals. Till the oracles who announce it can speak less ambiguously, we shall ven ture to doubt of its existence. INDIAN EXPENDITURE. ONE of the greatest anomalies in the Govern ment for India as at present constituted is the subordinate position held by the President of the India Board in relation to Indian expendi ture. While he is unable to order the outlay of a single farthing, even where the question is simply one of justice and restitution, the Directors may waste any amount they like, though the object they waste it on be such as he may wholly disapprove of. They may spend thousands, for instance, in litigation, and that even in contesting the authority of the Minister himself. They may give away what sums they please in pensions or do nations, so long as the amount in each case does not exceed a certain fixed limit. If the total amount that they can thus dis pose of were limited to any stated sum annually, the thing might be less objection able, and so be tolerated. But the limit, as we understand it, is not a limit as to totals, but simply a limit as to the sum to be expended in any particular instance Thus the Direc tors are not empowered to give away more than six hundred pounds in any one dona tion, or dispose of more than six hundred pounds' worth of turtle, champagne, early peaches, &c., at any single sitting; but there is nothing, we believe, to prevent their repeat ing such gifts whenever they feel inclined to do so, or renewing such feasts as often as they think proper. A very little reflection must show that this is putting the Minister of the Crown in a very false position For can there he anything more monstrous than that he should have no power of checking the wastefulness of those who only hold possession of the revenues of India as trustees for his Royal Mistress? Nor is it possible for anything to be more absurd and degrading than that he should be made responsible to Parliament for an expenditure, the most objectionable items of which have been contracted without reference to him, and very probably in opposition to his wishes? How, for instance, will he be able to give even a decent account of his stewardship to the House when next he lays before it the Indian A