The Sun. — London, England, 1856-07-08 00:00:00

IMPER,IAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his heat on tho woolsack st 5 o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given by Commission to the following bills Industrial and Provident Societies ; Sea Men's Savings Bank Annuities Redemption ; Stock in Trade Exemption:; Luton,. Dunstable, and Welwyn Junction Railway ; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway (Extension and Branches) ; Middlesborough Improvement; Tormohant Water; Yarmouth and Haddiscoe Railway ; Scottish Drainage and Improve ment Co. ; Lymington Railway ; Borough and Eamont Bridge Road, Douington Turnpike Trust, Claycross Water, Sittingbourne and Sheerrioss Railway, Leeds Water, Eastern Union Railway, Bawtry and Tinsley Road, Godley Lane Road, and Shipton's Disabilities Removal. The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Breadalbane, and the Duke of Argyll. PRIVATE BUSINESS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following bills were read a second time :—lsle of Wight Steam Bridge and Approaches ; Metropolitan Railway ; Wave bey Valley Railway ; East Indian Railway Company ; Severn Navigation Improvement Commission ; Cleobury North, &c , District Roads ; Dorset Central Railway ; Wt.nbledon and Croydon Railway ; Stirling and Dun fetinline Railway ; Dunblane-, Doune; and Callandar Ytailway ; Rhosydd Railway ; Conway and Llancludne Road. On the motion of the same noble lord the following bills were severally read a third time and passed : West Loudon and Crystal Palace Railway, Bagenalstown end Wexford Railway, London Printing and Publishing Company (Amendments.) NAWAB OF SURAT BILL. Lord LYNDHURST asked whether the law officers of the Crown had been consulted as to their opinion of the construction of the treaty entered into with the East India Company and the late Nawab of Surat, and if so, whether the Government would have any objection to lay a copy of the opinion on the table ? The Duke of ARGYLL said he was not aware of any formal question having been put to the law officers of the Crown by her Majesty's Government as to thb construction of that treaty. He was therefore unable to say what their opinion , was on the subject. On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH asked whether the Government were prepared to give the assent of the Crown to the second reading of this bill, which would affect the revenues of the Crown, inasmuch as the com pany were only the trustees for the Crown in the man agement of the affairs of India. The Duke of ARGYLL said he was not prepared to give the assent of the Crown to this bill. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE then rose, and moved the second reading of the bill. He contended that it was founded on justice, and that the heirs of the 4awab were clearly entitled to a continuance of the payment of the money which the treaty secured to them. There could be no question that in this case wrong had been done. The President of the Board of Trade had admitted it, and the Solicitor-General bad spoken and voted in favour of the claim. Every legal authority in the House of Commons, with the exception of one (a gentleman who was one of the leading counsel to the East India Company), had taken the same view, and that view he trusted their lordships would confirm by passing the second reading of the bill. (Hear.) The Duke of ARGYLL believed that his noble friend the chairman of committees had moved that the bill' be _read a third time that day three months. Undoubtedly that amendment was proposed upon a point of form ; but he believed he could convince the house that in rejecting the measure upon the point of form they would do no injustice upon the merits. The fact of his noble friend (Lord Redesdale) refusing to under take the conduct of the bill, as he would do, as a matter • of course, in the case of an ordinary private bill, was 'a strong presumptive proof that there was some thing objectionable in it. The standing orders com mittee had examined the bill and reported that none of the standing orders which the house had passed for the protection of public and private interests in private bill legislation were applicable to it, the natural inference being that it ought to be treated as a public bill, if en tertained at all. That it affected the public interests was beyond question, for it dealt with the revenues of the Crown to the extent in capital of half a million of Money. And with regard to private interests it affected injuriously the private rights of a number of poor indi viduals in India, who, as far as he knew, had no know ledge that any such measure was in contemplation. He denied that the claimant had suffered any substantial in justice to warrant his appealing to Parliament. There were two questions involved—first, the disposal of the public annuity granted by the East India Company tinder the! treaty to the Nawab of Surat and his strh. ceseor ; and, secondly, the distribution of the' private estate. With regard to the first he con tended, by a reference to the treaty itself, the diary" of Governor Duncan, the report of Sir G. Arthur, and the decision of the governor-general in council uleon that report, that the intention was that the annuity should attach to the Nawabship, and that such was the interpretation put upon it by the Nawab himself when the treaty was first concluded. The next point to which he alluded was the attempt of his noble friend to vast odium on the Caurt of Directors. To show how unjust was this, he would refer the house to the general instruc tions of the Caurt of Directors, which were, that the Nawab'e'family should be liberally dealt with ; in fact. in the end they granted pensions to every one of them. They chid the Bombay Government for their niggardli ness in the first instance, and at the present moment no leafs than 11,0001. out of the 15,0001. claimed was hjr their order distributed amongst the family. He main. Wiled, then, that on the whole the Company had be haved fairly and liberally to the Nawab of Surat and his fatally. He did not mean to say that questions might not arise out of this appeal for the judicial committee of the Privy Council ; but was it fair under the facts which he had related, to take ad vantage of the passing unpopularity of the company to force a private hill through Parliament. Supposing the judicial committee to decide in favour of the claim, what were they to do with the annuities which had beep granted ? They must still he paid, and this necessity would place the Government in a difficult position. He should mention also, that when the private property of the late Nawab was to be divided, Sir R. Arbuthnot decided that the present claimant was not entitled t 5 any part of it. Nay, more, this very man was a consent ' ing party to that arrangement. A special act was passed, authorisipgan agent to act in the distribution of the pro perty, and in it was a clause suggested by the present elaiinaus, going directly against the present application, Only 'two years since he appealed to the Privy-Council, and-the decision was given by Sir Knight Bruce, to the effect tiaal no appeal lay in the case. Havieig cautioned the horse against the inmelicy of reopening the ease, and thus disturbing the annuities which bad been so long en joyed by a number of poor people, the noble duke con cluded,by declaring his intention to oppose the bill. The arl of ALBEIVIA.RLE . denied - The right of the Indian Company to be heard as, against the Govern, meat, of which they were merely a subordinate depart ment. The garl of ELLENBOTIOUG a said the noble duke hasi so elearly.explained the case that it would be none- Cessary for him to trouble the house at any length He was not generally so fortunate as to be able to praise the conduct of the India Company, but in. this case he . thought they had acted as became commissioners between the people of England and the People of India. They had no personal interest in it, and bad merely acted ac cording to law and custom. It wa s perfectly ridiculous' to talk o f the female h e i rs o f a N a w ab, and therefore the case set np in this claim was perfectly untenable. Having given the cas e his careful considerati on , h e was determin e d to oppose t ' he Let him imagi ne a parallel case. Suppose Moldavial and Wallachia to be released from theeiezerainty of the Porte, and to grant in return- a n annuity to the Sultan and hi heirs, Did any one ima g i ne that it the Sultan's auth o r i ty w re de stroyed,. the P r i nc i palities would continue t o pay the e an nuity amo ngs t th e S ultan ' s daughters, the wives of ail the Paellas ? Anildcet this was precisely the case na i e t which h e wis h e d to geord,their lordships, and he warned them that there were more to cone, which w ere on l y waiting the d ec i s i on to which thei r la ips might come that evening. lfe trusted that the questi n d , wh the treaty o f 1800 the annuity was e to ether th e hby eirs male of the N awa b, would be submitted to the Judicial Committee. (Hear.) The Marquis e of CLANRICARDE repli e d. H e also hoped that thi s matter would be judicially inquired into , Hut when that w as done he t ruste d that steps would be, taken to carry the decision of the Judicial Committee into effect, even although a special act should he required to enforce the decision to which the Judicial Committee might come. After a few words from Lord DENuAIf, The second reacting was negatived without a divigiDn. COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL. The report of amendments was received. • DRAINAGE (IRELAND), BILL. This bill 4va3 read a second time. DISTrLLATION FROM RICE BILL. This hill was read a second time. EVIDENCE IN FOREIGN SUITS BILL. This bill pK}lGed through committee. DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill pased through committee. EXCHEQUER BILLS (4,000,0001.) BILL. This bill passed through committee. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL. The report of amendments was received. SMALL DEBTS I MPROVEMENT ACT AMEND MENT (SCO'PLAND) BI This bill was rea d a trir, time and BI LL. COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND) BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in movipg the second reading of this bill; briefly explained that the object of the measure was the abolition of the Court of Exchequer of Scotland, and the merger of the jurisdiction of that court in the Court of Session. Their lordships adjourned at 8 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMON 3.—(7.EsTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the following bills were an B idered and agreed to : —Edinburgh Water ; Epsom .„d Leatherhead Railway; Salisbury Market Branch and Market 119 use ; Stockton and Darlingtoic and Newcastle and Carlisle Union Railway ; Swansea Vale Railway. Bell'e Estate Bill was read a seord time and,passed. t- BEDFORD CFISRITY.-i N " - Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition fiom the trustees of the Belford Charity, under their common seal, complaining of the y o 9Ey, heavy charges entailed upon their charity funds, owing to the unnecessary pro moting of two bills in Parliament which were never pas-ed into 13w by the Attorney-General. The petition was read at length at the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in explanation that the bills alluded to were not actually brought in by himself, but by the trustees of the charity, and were read a second time. On the recommendation of Sir Page Wood the bills were withdrawn, in consequence of a compromise. All he had done in the matter was to carry out the orders of the Court of Chancery. Sir J. DUKE, in the absence of the Hon. Stuart Wortley, begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government would as sist the Corporation of the City of London in passing a bill, during the present session, to extend the right of voting in the election of aldermen and members of the Common Council to all occupiers within the city who were op the Parliamentary register ? Sir G. GREY said be had received a copy of the bill, but as it was limited in its operation it would have to be introduced and proceeded with as a private bill. The standing orders of the house would prevent such a course at this late period of the session, but if the difficulty with respect to these orders were surmounted he should have no objection to the laying the bill on the table, but he should object to proceeding with the measure at this late period of the session. MR. JAMES SIDLEIR. Mr. MOORE asked the Attorney-General fOr Ireland whether it was true that Mr. James Sadleir had been permitted to leave Ireland without having been arrested ; and whether any steps had been taken for the arrest and prosecution of the said James Sadleir by her Majesty's Government ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said he had spoken fully upon this subject on a previous occasion. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to allude to the observations made by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland respecting steps not being taken against certain parties as participators in the frauds committed by Mr. John Sadleir. In consequence of those obser vations he bad been to Ireland, and there he could find nothing to assist him in his endeavours to carry out a prosecution. The most active steps had been taken both ill this country and in Ireland for the apprehension of Mr. James Sadleir. With respect to the latter part of the question he begged to say that if it was intended to convey an idea that the Government had permitted Jas. Sadleir to escape, that he would simply say Was nota fact. ►Yarrants had been issued for the apprehension of Sad leir, and most active steps were at the present moment being taken to prevent his eluding justice. CLOCK TOWER DEVICE-HOUSES OF PAR LIAMENT. Lord R. GROSVENOR, amidst much laughter, asked the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether it was too late to substitute a weathercock for the device now placed . on the summit of the Clock Tower, and complained that the only weathercock in the neighbour hood was that at St. James:s Palace? Sir B. HALL said that in coming down to the house he saw plenty of weathercocks—(laaghter)—and he bad no doubt the noble lord, could find many weathercocks en both sides of the house. (Renew e d l aug h ter. ) Arr. PULM AN. the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod. summoned the Speaker and the members of the house to the House of Lords, to bear the Royal assent given by, commission to various bills (for which see Lords ' report). MILITIA COLONELS. Col. FRENCH moved for an address for a return of the names of colonels of militia in Great Britain and Ireland, appointed since the 30th day of March, 1853, who had received pay during the time their regiments had been embodied.—A2reed to. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND, The CHANCELLOR of the.EXCHEQUER brought up the report of the select committee in reference to the Civil Service Superannuation Fund, which was received and ordered to be laid on the table. THE TERMAGANT. In answer to a question from Admiral WALCOTT, Sir CHAS. WOOD said that the yellow fever had broken out on board the Termagant, on the West Indian Station, but not in a malign ant form. The vessel had been sent to the northward , which Wag considered a spe cific against the further spread of the-fever. THE RETURN OF THE GUARDS. In reply to a question from Major BARING, Lord PALMERSTON said the Guards, on their en try on Wednesday into London on their return from the Crimea, would march from the railway station to Char ing-cross, along Pall-mall, in at the gate near the Ger man chapel, and inaugurate, as it were, the opening of the road through the park to the public ; pass in front Of Btickingham Palace and up Constitutioh- Hill to Hyde Park. He was unable to say at what hour the Guards would enter London, but it would be early.in the day. The details were arranged by the Quarter rnastn-General, but the Government was answerable for them. ing to themepsid-rerviing of the bill, to provide the only practical remily fir an admitted evil which,lay in their Mr. BOWYER then rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the bill be read a second time that day three months, -end proceeded to comment at some length upon the unsa tisfactory characterof the House of Lords as at present - constituted, as a court of appeal, adducing in support of his argument the well-known fact that the Lord Chancellor often sat alone to pronounce a judgment upon cases in • which the appeal lay against a decision which be himself had previously proeouneed. The hon. and learned gentle man then referred to the provisions of the bill, the'operatien of which he contended would , be to create a great constitu tional change in the character of the Upper House, by dividing its members into two classes—hereditary peers and peers for life. That he conceived to be an alteration so important that be did not think it ought to obtain the sanction of the - house under cover of a measure which pro posed simply to deal with the appellate jurisdiction of the other breech of the Legislature. Another objection which he entertained to the bill was, that whereas that jurisdiction_ woe regarded as being , exercised by the " Queeu and her Parliament," it p rov id e d th a t th e L ar d Chancellor and the new deputy speakers might hear ap peals out of Session—thus interfering with a constitu tional principle which stated that Parliament could not be divided in point of time. He might also ob serve, that he looked with no inconsiderable degree of apprehension 4t the probable operation of the words at the end of the sth clause, to the effect that the proposed tribunal might not only deal with appeals and . writs of error, but with "all matters connected therewith," duriog a'period when Parliament might not happen to be eittieg. Those words opened the way to encroachments open the privileges of the House of Com mons which he di4 not think it at all desirable should exist. (Llean) Wkile dealing. with that point he might be permitted to ask whether the new tribunal would bee en 'abled to sit during the period which must elapse between the dissolution of ens and the assembling of another Par-, !lament? If such were riot the case great inconvenience might be the restlt —an inconvenience for which he thought some remedy should, if poesible,be provided. The learned gentleman then referred to' the various function aries whom it w§kpioposed should be eligible to be/selected as deputy sped re, stating his objection to the inclusion among the number of the judges of the Admiralty and Pre rogative Courts, upon the ground that the eases with which the new tribunal would be called upon to deal were not such as usually came under the consideration - of those judges. He also, assuming that one of the new function aries was' to be a Scotch and one a common law judge : — pointed out the absurdity which in his opinion would result from submitting appeals from the ‘Lords JuStiees to' a tribunal upon which there would be only 1 equity judge ; • from 10 common laeS judges, ein cases of writs of error, to a tribunal upon which only, L common law judge - would preside; and from the 15 judges of Scotland to a tribunal upon which there wonld he only one yerson conversant with Scotch law. He would next point out' what he considered the great constitutional ,defect in the bill. It would continue the existence of two courts of appeal in this country—the House of Lords and the Judilal Committee of the Privy Council. He believed that any measure which would leave that state of things undisturbed would necessarily be unsatisfactory. The existence of two co-ordinate courts of appeal was more objectionable in this than in any other country, be cause we had no comprehensive code to guide our judges in teeir decisions. A considerable portion of our law was made up of decisions of the judges, and of late years they beeline ined —and iocli:,ed very properly, as he thought —to the practice of looking more to substantial justice than ,to technical forms. But that very practice had ren• dered our jurisprudence less fixed than ever, and he believed that people in general had no idea how arbi trary the power of our judges had become. Our law we., ve. present in a transitory state ; the boundaries between law and equity were not so distinct as they had been ; and the tendency of our judges was to unite the two sys• teens as much as possible. In such a state of things the ettahlisliment of a single appellate tribunal, which would give fixity to the law, was peculiarly desirable ; and • without it he feared that it would be vain to attempt to . make any comprehensive consolidation of our system o 1 jurisprudence. He felt persuaded that, without the Court of Caseation in France, the Code Napoleon could never have been successfully administered. The hon. and — learned gentleman (the Attorney-General) had asked what course they could adopt fur improving our appellate system if they were to throw out that measure. Now, in reply to that question, he (Mr. Bowyer) had to state that au obvious remedy could, iu his ',pinion, be devised for the evil which they then wished to remove. He would propose that a supreme court of appeal should be appointed, consisting of five of the best men to be fount on the bench and at the bar, and that to that court should be transferred the appellate jurisdiction at present exercised by the House of Lords, as well as that exer cised by the Judic;al Committ• of the Privy Council. He could conceive only one objection t, that scheme, and that was, that it would lead to a considerable outlay. But he did not think the House of Commons woull grudge any sum which might be fairly expended in eda blishing a thoroughy efficient appellate system is this country. He would further suggest that the expendi ture to be thus created should be partially met by re moving a judge from the Court of Exchequer and' an other from the Court of Common Pleas. There could be no doubt thatehe county c 'tate had of la , ,e years con siderably lessmed, and might be expected hereafter fur ther to lessen the amount of business transacted in - the courts of Westminster Fall; and he did not think that airy inconvenience could arise froin diminishing to the extent h e bad stated the judicial strength Court-of Common Real and of the Court of Ex chequer. He would further make the proposed new court a court of criminal appeal. At present a man might appeal from a judgment in which a small sum of money was involved, but he hal no right of appeal in a case in which his life was at stake. The only remedy left to him was a writ of error, and that could only be applied in case the error was apparent on the record. But there might be error apparent, and.yet a man might be substantially guilty, and ou the other hand, there might be no such error, and yet a man might be really innocent. Appeals on the merits of a capital case could only be addressed to the Home Secretary, who had thus irnpoeed•upon him a racet invidious office, aud one which it was impossible that he could be the person best quali fied to discharge. It appeared to him (Ur. Bowyer) that a great improvemeet would be effected in our judi cial system by the establishment of a court of appeal which. would have the power of granting a new trial on cause: shown in criminal cases. He trusted he Lad shoWn that the bill would be inarlequate for the purpose -a hick it was intended it should accomplish ; that it was replete with ab urdities on the face of it ; and that the working of it would be scarcely, f at all, more satisfactory than the working of the system it was to supersede. .He might be asked whether the measure ought not to be accepted as an experiment and as an instalment of right. BUt to that question he should reply in the negative. If an abuse were left undisturbed it constituted at least a good ground for working on with a view to obtain a complete and comprehensive remedy. But if it were par tially dealt with it would only impede the further pro gress of legidation. He bad to move, in conclusion, that the bill be read a second time that day six tneuths. Mr. IL PHILLIMORE seconded the amendment. Ho did not think they could properly consider, at. that period of the session, a bill which, for novelty and importance, was almost unprecedented in the history of our legislation. It was universally admitted that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords' required amendment. His hon, and learned friend the Attorney-General had asked whf.t could be worse than the present state of that jurisdiction, but he (Hr. Phillimore) believed that it would b 3 still worse to pass a hasty and ilt-considered measure, which would ren , der perinanent evils of which everybody complained. One of the objects of the bill was to sanction the appointment of life peerages of a very peculiar character, and limited to one - profession. The members of the House of Commons I ought not to conceal from themselves that the effect of, the measure as regarded life peerages would be practically to limit the peerage in favour of thejexisting House,of Lords, and he could not help looking upon, such an innovation with groat jealousy. Many of them had perhaps road the remarkable debates of the year 1719, in the course of which Sir 11. Walpole had succeeded, aft e r an a d m i ra bl e display, of eloquence and reasoning, in inducing the House of Com mons to throw out a bill which had passed the Honse of Lords, having for its object to limit the number of mem bersnf that house. It was true that the present measure was of a different chardcter, but he believed it would lead practiCally to the same result. He would ask the supportais of the bill whether they thought it would be wise to rest the right to the peerage upon the possession of wealth alone. For his part, he believe that if_the principle had, always been adopted the British House of Lords would not be what it was—the oldest legislative body in the world. In considering that measure they were bound to inquire :into: the foundation of the 'appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. His first objection to the bill was, that it left untouched the great anomaly a the existence of two supreme tribunals of appeal in this country. How came it, ha would ask, that one of those tribunals had gra dually won, while the otherhad gradually lost, the respect and confidence of the public ? That was the first question they had to answer. The next question to which they ha l to direct their attention was, whether it would be possible to amalganSate those two jurisdictions, or whe ther they would be obliged to vote 'O,OOOl. a-year for two deputy speakers; in order that the House of Lords might be able to continue to eiercise that jurisdiction which had been described in language so depreciatory by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General ? Let it be remembered that the House of Lords bad only obtained their jurisdiction in matters of equity in the year 1675, after a long struggle, and he would venture to add without the shadow of right. He had further to observe that up to the year 1769 that jurisdiction had been exercised with the concurrence of the judges as assistants. It was true that the jtidge's had not, voted, although it was the opinion of no less, 'an authority than Lord Somers, that Privy Coun cilhirrhail a right to vote with the Lords, and that he con sidered the judges as ancillary to the House' of ,:Peers, and that the two subsisted together. The bill did not carry out the doctrine of Blackstone, that the members of the other house were entitled to vote byilie right of peerage. It did not state in terms, it was true, that lay peers were motto tote on judicial cases, bat it stated that in effect and it therefore abandoned altogether the principle of an hereditary jurisdicton is the House of Lords, while it set up' another and au infeiior 'court instead of that house. He fouud that at as late a period as the year 1786 the lay peers hid divided ou a judicial question of the greatest importance, in whi c h th e l ate Bi s h o p o f London had been plaintiff, and in which Lord Thurlow had carried his opi• nion by 18 votes against Lord Mansfield, who had been supported by 17. His hon, and learned friend the Attor ney-General had told them that lawyers did not at present make large fortunes, and that they could not wish on ac count of their poverty, to receive hereditary pe'bragEs. Now his hon. and learned friend must be well abld to de cide whether lawyers did nor did not at present recgite very largo incomes'; but he confessed he had heard with some surprise the statement of his hon. and learned friend upon 'that poict. It was perfectly well known, at all events, that Lord Wensleydale, who had received the re cent appointment to a life peerage, was a rich man, and I that he had no son. But how had the Judicial Committee THE SUN, tiONDON. TUESO/ 3 1_1( EVENING, JULY 's IR5e: of the Privy Council engrossed the confidence of the pubw lis ? That tribunal was of modern growth ; for, although the jurisdiction of the Privy Council itself was ! of great antiquity, the present tribunal had been re-mo delled at the suggestion of Lord Brougham, when he had been filling the office of Lord Chancellor. That noble and learned lord had laid the foundation of the court so wisely —he had made it so flexible, and at the eanie s tinee com posed it of eminent judges, that it had since gone on gain ing more and more of the public confidence. How coal the house expect that a similar success would crown the adoption of fhe present miserable measure ? That measure would sanction the appointment of two deputy speakers, with salaries of 5,0001. a year each—the amount of the salaries of puisne judges—who were to assist the Lord Chancellor in deciding appeals which might be made from decisions of ten of the most eminent judges in Westmin ster Hall sitting in ceror in Exchequer Chamber. He said that the house ought not to be forced into passing a hill of that kind at the end of the session. He had great compas sion for the suitors, but thought that the House of Com mons ought not to pass a law affecting the liberties of the subject and the constitution of the ultimate court of appeal simply because certain unfortunate suitors would coffer a year or two. longer than they would otherwise have done. He admitted it was doubtful what course ought to be adopted by Parliament ; but there were certain landmarks by which they ought to_be guided, such as the necessity of having one supreme court, and the necessity of procuring as much talent, ability, and learning in that court as could be obtained. With respect to the question of money, he apprehended that neither the house nor the country would grudge any sum that was necessary to secure such a court of final appeal as would obtain the confidence of the nation. But if it was doubtful what course Parliament ought to pursue, it was not at all doubtful what ought to be done with this bill—a bill which did not remedy one-third of the evils complained of, and (lid nothing more than skin over the diseases undo' which it was-alleged they suffered. In his opinion, the proper course would be to send it to a committee up stairs, for he had no hesitation in affirm ing that the inquiry which took place in the House of Lords did not exhaust the subject, for many eminent persons existed who could throw light upon it who were not examined at all. The house must consider the position in which it was for the first time placed. The Peers had presented a bill to supply certain defects which they ac knowledged existed in that house as an appellate court ; they desired the assistance of the House of Commons in framing a measure which would enable theta to discharge the most solemn trust confided to them by the constitu tion. How were they to answer to their constituents or' to posterity if they did not take the advantage of an opportu nity which might never e oecur again ; if they neglected tip confer the greatest boon which an enlightened country could receive, viz., a court of final appeal based upon the soundest principles of justice to which none would raise an objection, and which would be received with gratitude and joy by the whole country? How would they excuse them selves hereafter if, in consequence oe a party combination in the House of Lords, they consented to perpetuate a de - fective system, or, because some suitors would suffer in convenience a year or two longer, they inflicted upon the country that greatest of curses—a court of judiceture in the last resort which would bealien to the sympathies and feelings of the people, and would neither inspire confi- , dence nor create respect ? Mr. WHITESIDE-Sir, the' two hon. and learned gentlemen who spoke last have contented themselves with urging all manner of objections to the bill from the first word in the preamble to the last iu the clauses. Surely, if the subject is full of difficulty, a gentleman so eminent for his legal ability as the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. R. Phillimore) might have suggested some mode of removing those difficulties ; and if it is the duty of the House of Commons to strike out some practical mode of redressing the grievances admitted, who more fit to do so than the hon. and learned member for Dundalk ? Mr. BOWYER --I did so, Mr. WHITESEDE—The hon. and learned member amused, and perhaps instructed, the house by a reference to the French laws, and the practice of the French courts; but with all respect to him, I should not wish to see either those laws or that practice introduced into this country. What the hon. and learned gentleman did was to suggest a number of difficulties and objections to the bill, but be sat down without having applied his abilities to solve in any way the difficulties which he raised. Now, lam not here to discuss the question of criminal law, or appeals from criminal law-1 am not here to offer an opinion as to whether the Attorney-General for Ireland ought to be empowered to grant a writ of error or not, but with an en tirely different question—a question which is quite enough to engross the whole attention of this house, and one to which the hon, and learned gentleman would have done well to have applied his mind. The hon, and learned gen tleman' among other things, spoke o f th e l ow sca l e o f sale rses to be given under this bill,- but that seemed to me no argument against the principle of the measure. If the hon. and learned gentleman was seized with a fit of liberality he might have proposed to increase those salaries in com mittee ; and perhaps he would have prevailed upon the ' Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so, if he could persuade him that by so doing he could procure a greater amount of ability in the persons to be appointed.. But the salaries pro s posed in the House of Lords had been already reduced, be cause it was thought they would not meet the views of some of the political economists in the House of Com• mons, so there was little chance of success in that direc: tion. The honourable and learned gentleman also spoke in high terms of the eligibility of the Judical Committee of Privy Council as an appellate court. I fully admit that this is an excellent court, that it has discharged its duties faithfully, and is worthy of the coatilence which the public place in it ; while at the same time its members are cautious enough to suppress any difference of opinion which may arise between them, so that its decisions appear to have the stamp of unanimity when that is not always the case. But the hon. and learned gentleman who so ,highly eulogised that court did not condescend to inform the house that the judges of the Committee of Privy Council are entirely dependent upon the pleasure of the Sovereign ; he did. not tell us that ovary eae of those judges might be struck out of the list to-morrow. If such a court as that is to be made an ultimate court of appeal, it would indeed be the most unconstitutional tribunal that could well be imagined. It does not follow that because a number of gentlemen, emi nent indeed for their great abilities - and extensive learning, are acquainted with Dutch law, with Spanish law, with Indian law—if there be any such—they should be called upon to discuss and decide questions of criminal law- political cases—great cases of equity. The hon. and learned gentleman assumed, but-he did not prove, that the two courts of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of Privy Council were co-ordinate tribunals. When was that, fact discovered? It is true that they both take cog nisance of cases in which personal property is the subject of dispute, but it is a strong assumption that, because they both decide a certain class of cases, their jurisdiction is co-ordinate. Nor is it the fact that there is any danger of the Committee of Privy Council conflicting in opinion with the House ofsfeorde ' for that very question was inquired into in the House of Lords, and I find itsteted by a very eminent authority that when there was the least danger or the least chance of their coming into conflict in consequence of Simi lar cases being before the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, the latter court stayed all proceedings until the House of Lords had pronounced an opinion on the case, and they then took the law as affirmed by that tribunal. It is therefore entirely an assumption that the committee o we a great deal to the circumstance of some of its members being judges of other courts, because I have shown that they decide in conformity with the opi nion of the House of Lords. I now come to the practical question, and I give the douse of Commons credit for not indulging in abstractions, but at all times attempting to solve difficulties in a practical manner—what are we to do in the present instance? Now, I must say, it seems to me that there has been a want of generosity in the way in which my hon. and learnedfriends have spoken of the House of Lords. They have represented the jurisdiction of that house as failing for many years. What is the fact ? All the 17 witnesses examined before the Lords' committee, and among them ware the foremost men in this country, de clared that never was there a tribunal • which commanded more perfectly the respect of the bar and the confidence of the country. It has given laws to half the civilised worl I ; American lawyers and writers have passed the highest et - deviates upon it, and it was p rove d by a ll th e w it nesses 'that at the time when Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Lord L7ndhurst sat together under the Chancellorship of the lastmamed noble and learned lord, no tribunal was more distinguished for despatch of business, for ability, or for learning. They discharged their duty to the country with a grasp of intellect, a power of language, and a display of legal acumen, which it was wondrous to behold. (Hear.) Is it just, then, that because one of those learned men can no longer attend, and an other is obliged to absent himself in consequenceof illness, you are to say "this tribunal is no longer what it was; it is unworthy therefore to exist?" Every gentleman who was examined before the committee has stated that until the last two or three years that tribunal was one of un - equalled excellence. An inconvenience has arisen. How has it been met? -A question arose respecting the confer ring of a life peerage, out that is a question with which we cannot deal, however eminent mey be the person, and we all admit his ability, whoit was intended should have been the recipient ; but with what justice can the hon. and learned gehtletnau say that it is proposed to appoint two miserable persons to preside in a miserable court, sled dis pose of c iIISOS in a miserable manner, at a miserable rate of remuneration. If I held that opinion I certainly would vote, not for referring this measure to a select committee, bet for relinquishing it altogether. The' principal argu ment made use of by the hon. and lear n ed g e n tlemen who have opposed this measure is, that the cases will be de cided by three persons. But what becomes of that argu ment when we find that during the period of which all the witnesses spoke as being a period when the House of Lords was considered a tribunal of unexampled excellence seldom more than three attended ; and no one will deny that when Lord Campbell attended, before he was Chief Justice, Scotch appeals were admirably disposed of. Still but three persons attended. Well, an Act of Parlia ment passed to regulate the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. What did that act do ?" Made three judges a quorum. If then the oases in the popular court of the Ju dicial Committee of Privy Council were decided by three. judges, and if the cases in the House of Lords, when that tribunal was one of acknowledged excellence, were decided by three judges, where is the objection to the cases brought before the new court contemplated by this bill being decided by three judges? (Hear.) Some -of the wit nesses have pronounced au opinion in favour of five in-. stead of three being the quorum. I have no objection to that. The great point should be to have an unequal num ber, so that there- shall he a casting vote ; and if such a gentleman as Mr. Pemberton Leigh could be induced to enter the other house for that purpose, he would doubtless be a great addition to the learning and ability of that tri bunal. But the bill, which is one of the strictest modera tion, has only proposed. two, and to the principle of that bill I see no objection. Indeed, I can speak from my own experience, with reference to cases which have come from Ireland, as to the feeling in that quarter in favour of the House of Lords being the court of final appeal. Those cases have been political, equitable, and criminal—they have involved the highest interests and questions of the deepest importance, but the fruit of my experience is that nothing should induce me to give up the right of appeal to that house. It would ill become me to speak of O'Connell's case, because in that I was counsel, but I appeal to the great case of the Presbyterian' ministers, which affected the interests or the feelings of thousands of persons, and I ask whether in that and similar cases the greatest confidence was not felt by the public in the House of Lords as a court of appellate jurisdiction? (Hear.) The House of Lords has always had a right to call in the as sistance of thejudges of the land, and th e bill d o es nod de prive them of that right. The assumption of hon. land learned members is that the noble lord at the 'head of the Government, instead of searching for men of the first ability and greatest eminence to place in high &Zees *rested by this bill, will look out for men of inferior" ability, and be influenced by other considerations. Ido not believe in that' assuuaption. (Hear.) I would ids° mention that the Court of the Lords Justices really Con t `asief three, because although only l two justices are ap eOinted, in ease of difference of opinion the Lord' chan cellor is called in and a , sists them. Now on this point I will just refer to the evidence given by the hon. member ,for Wallingford before the Lords' committee. He says : " An appeal to the Lord Chancellor sitting alone is, not satisfactory ; an appeal to the Lords Justices is not quite satisfactory. It is not because I think the decision is not :erred, but because I study the way in which the public look at the matter. I Oink there ought to be four 'or five judges; five would be a convenient number, but four ', would do ;" and in another place my hon, and learned friend - stated his opinion that three would be satisfactory. The hon. and „learned gentleman the member for Dundalk :ex pressed an opinion that there ought to be, at least; outs 'ketch judge among the number, but I confess I was sur prised at the candour of, the Scotch witnesses who expressed an opinion that the decisions on Scotch questions were very ouch better withoutthem ' and gentlemen of such eminence is Mr. Hope and Mr. Bellenden Ker expressed an opinion in favour of leaving the appellate jurisdiction with the Flouse of Lords. The writers to the signet have themselves ecknowle.iged that very great advantages to Scotch law have risen by the intervention of distinguished English lawyers in the House of Lords. In fact, not to multiply cases, al nest all the witnesses examined on the subject were anal sus to retain that jurisdiction. I also am anxious to re tain it in the House of Lords for the very best pOssible reason, because it possesses it, and that is a good Conser vative argutsient. The House of Lords has had an appel la`e jut/ diction for a long period of time, and if there are my defects it is our duty to improve but not to destroy it. If at any time, in consequence of infirmity or length of roars, three judges are not able to attend in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it will be our duty to re place them. The hon. and learned member says that his objection to the House of Lords being a permanent tribu nal of appeal in the last resort is, because it depends en ,irely on the volition of individual lords whether they will attend or not. That is to be cured by the appoint ment of two learned. persons as assistants to the Lord Chancellor, to attend constantly to hear and determine cases. But it is alleged that in public opinion, such a , eibunal will not carry the weight and naithotity of the House of Lords. I believe it will, for I believe that the members composing the House of Peers will always have •uch an influence over the judges constituting that court es to impart to their decisions the dignity of the whole house, while they will always be able to check any ap proach to irregglatity. It is of the greattet consequence Lhat, the appellate jurisdiction of the house should be vested in, and discharge by, the whole .body, which it will be in the persons of these judges. Surely the hon. gentleman lid not expect to get more perfect, more brilliant,. more 'ominous judgments than had been delivered in that house during the last half century, when Lord Redesdale and Lord Eliot sat there. Is thd house of opinion it will get better men ? I think not. Nor will they be miser able judges because they are moderately remunerated for devoting their talents to their country. Sod far from objecting to the bill I think that the hone and learned gentleman should vote for its second reading and stow us in committee how it can be improved. (Hear.) It is said that life peerages would be cleated. That is true ; but yon hear the opinion of eminent authorities, that if limited in number the adoption of that principle. may be beneficial; there is no likelihood that the House of Lords will be deluged with life peerages. Yqu must give way to the exigencies of the lime. You have reformed the Court of Ch inceiv--you have created the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—you have established the Court of the Lords Justices ; and I think there is no ground either for surprise or alarm in this proposition. By adopting it you will get eminent men, who will not only increase the judicial strength of the House of Lords, but who will suggest good laws, and snore, correct those laws, sent up to them by this house. Considering that almost all the amendments of the law which we have had of late years originated in the House of Lords, I am the more con firmed in my opinion that I am right in giving my support to this measure. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM—Sir, I have listened to gentlemen of the long robe with great respect, but, inasmuch as you have been addressed by four legal gentlemen in succession, conscious as I am of my own incompetency to deal with questions of so much gravity and importance, I still up hold that the House of Commons will always allow gentle men not learned in the law to give their opinion upon a question of great gravity, and T would add of the highest . constitutional importance. The hon. and learned gentle man who has just sat down has passed a swelling eulogium upon the House of Lords. I imagine that that eulogium 'is meant to apply to its jurisdiction as an ultimate, court of appeal. He has referred to great names, and hils car ried his eulogium back to the time when there were giants in the law. I shall not differ from him with respect to the earlier times, but I ask him if, indeed, the Huse of Lords be so strong in its legal power and legal efficiency, will he tell me whence seises this hill itself ? Is the House •of Lords of the same opinion as the hon. and learned gen tleman, that its present constitution is satisfactory or such as to inspire. the public with confidence ? What said the Attorney-General when he proposed the second reading of the bill? He said the defects in that tribunal were glaring, and that it was in consequence of those defects that her Majesty's Government proposed this bill. Certainly' lam bound to add that several of the observations made by the Attorney-General filled me with amazement and fear. He said, if I mistook not, that although these defects were glaring, a better course might have been possibly pursued, and he added as a reason for passing this' mea sure that the House of Lords would not surrender its ap pellate jurisdiction. I said some of the hon. and learned gentleman's observations filled me with fear and amaze ment. Have we arrived at 'a period when the Commons of England, not being satisfied, with the inefficient exercise of the judicial functions of the House of Lords, is called ort se apply a remedy?' Have we arrived at a polio(' when the house, a corordinata portion Of I.lse Legislature, is not to exercise an independent judgment, but is to be coerced by the assertion of her Majesty's Attorney-General that because the House of Lords will not surrender its appel , late jurisdiction the representatives of the people ;must consent that a new tribunal shall be erected which, it is admitted, is not one that will fulfil all the requirements of such a court? Have we, indeed, arrived at that period? (Cheers.) What is the meaning of the assertion that this is not the best measure that can be brought before us ? It brings to my, mind the observation of the late Lord Mel bourne; who said he could very well understand a great change proposed, but there was one thing which bile him with apprehension, which was, that it was said, "Something must be done," an indefinite change, a change not supported by reason, but pressed as cogent from necessity, without a distinct idea of what it should he. Yet I have heard from the lips of the At torney-General this evening that the defects are glaring —that the best remedy is not the proposed remedy—that the House of Lords'will not surrender its jurisdiction— and yet that something must be done. The hon. and learned gentleman says it is our duty, if we reject this bill, to propose a better measure. It may be possible for us to do so • but before we do s o , a s th e H ouse o f L o rd s ha s in quired, is it too unreasonable that-the House of Gammons should ask to inquire also? But I turn from what has been said by lion: gentlemen about the measure to the measure itself, and will state the view I am disposed to take of this matter. The bill presents; itself to our consideration in a double aspect. It seeks to dispose of the controversy as to peers for life, and it seeks to uphold the.fiction of the juris diction of the House of Lords. A compromise on this sub ject has been a matter of necessity, and her Majesty's Go vernment found themselves unexpectedly in a difficulty with respect to the creation of peerages for life, which they sought to effect, while their, opponents in the House of Lords also found themselves in a great difficulty, inasmuch as having . come to a vote against peerages for life, they were involved in and embarrassed by a struggle with the Crown on a question of prenegative. Compromise iu such circumstances, between the two contending parties, was both natural and inevitable, and the compromise which was eutered into in this case is, as has been admitted by the noble lord at the head of the Government, in the nature of a com promise to relieve the Government of their difficulty in re spect to the creation of life peerages, and to release the Op position from their difficulty in relation to their struggle with the Crown on the question of prerogative. Is there any thing extraordinary in this state of affairs? The unanimity with which, in the House of Lords, this bill was sent down to us, in my opinion ought to excite the jealousy of the House of Commons. It is no common-place expression that insidious alliances are oftentimes more dangerous than the array of hostile parties. I think that the House of Commons ought to view with jealousy a compromise based upon mutual difficulties. But there is nothing new in this matter. The hon. gentleman behind me referred to the last 00-aasion upon which the question of peerages was discussed in this house. Then also a bill came' down from the House of Lords in the year 1.719 to the Commons. It received a very general support, in the house in which it was moved, from the government and many of their opponents. Ib was met by Sir R. Walpole in the House of Commons with, signal success ; and not only in this house, but out of it. , Upon that occasion he published a memorable pamphlet, which is remarkable as illustrative of the present state of affairs. He found himself, he says, united with the oldest of his opponents, and opposed to the warmest of his Par tisans—(laughter)—and he thus expresses himself : -"I am free to own that there is one thing in it which has deserved commendation, for it has produced the most ,convenient unanimity among our great men that I have ever known. It has yoked the lion with the lamb." I don't know whe ther the learned Attorney-General and the hoe. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr.. Whiteside) will recognise the parallel":—" It has associated men in power with thuso they have turned out." The hon. and learned Attorney General will still see bow the past resew oles the present. : —(renewed laughter) : " Ministers of state are become patriots, and professed friends of the prerogative the strongest friends for lessening it." lam almost ashamed to read a passage from another pamphlet, written about the same time, by Sir Richard Steele, who also took part in that political struggle. He says, "It was • suspected that, there was great influence afloat to carry in the Com mons a bill which h'ad come down as a compromise from the House , of Lords." He describes some member under the name of Esau, and he says, " He is the greatest traitor to civil society that ever yet appeared who will contend for such a bill in the House of Commons, with the assur ance in his pocket of being a peer as soon as the bill passes." (Laughter and cheers.) Ido not know whether that is ap plicable to the present state of circumstances, but it is cer tainly suspicious to see such unnatural unanimity. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I only ,put it as an instance of there being nothing new under the sun. (Renewed laugh ter.) Every line of the bill which we are now dis cussing is marked by the feebleness, obscurity, and impo tent indecision which is inherent in middle measures. The principle upon which the bill is framed is clear. Lord Derby gave us the clue to it when he said, "Can we frame a bill in such a manner as not to call upon the Government to pronounce a condemnation of the policy they have up held, and on the other hand not to commit the body of the peers to any proceeding inconsistent -with the stand made by them in defence of the hereditary ch erecter of the peer age ?" (Hear, hear.) Now, that is a frank avowal or the principle ou which the bill is framed, and leaves no doubt of the compromise it effects. The prerogative of the Crown is either limited by it, or, if there be no such limi tation, the precedent of a peel ago not of ieheritauce is es tablished by it. (Hear, hear.) And what is most remark: able. is, that such is its ambiguity and obscurity that 'on consent J a i n ° is itt.i. that Lohh the if its third reading it was iseceie ed in opp os it e senses by two classes of its supporters. The Lord Ch ance ll or declared with the Lotrod tP f e President a wo v u e l , d a u h , a v have Lo given his rd never Chief would Justice haveand t consented Lord s ehtca p7reevroagr ti r i c t l s recognisedavowed t thathe p they nerer would have consented to it if it reco"nisod the pie rogative to create peers for life. (Hear, hear.). Either the majority of the lords were deceived with respect to the measure, or her Majesty'aMinisters have betrayed the pre rogative. (Hear, hear.) / It is adilemma from which there is no Ole ipe—(hear, hear) -except this—to reject the bill— (hear, hear)--and thus te, give time for the framing of a measure, not doubtful an d ambiguous, but clear, patent, and intelligible . ( H ea r ) Th e pill i s s t u diously obscure. Let the house look, for T Instance, at the 4th clause, which I have read repeatedly, and to the uninitiated it seems to concede to the Crown the absolute power of creating peerages for life. It commences by granting the power to appoint for life two deputy speakers, but then it goes farther to provide that there shall not be more than four persons holding peerages for life at the same time, The pl a i n moan i ng i s th a t Crown would have power to create two deputy speakers, and keep uP two life peerages, chosen eitherfrom the Lords or elSewhere. Bat I believe the true construction is that it is limited to two deputy speakers in the first instance; and That the gross number shall not exceed' four. Then what is the po sition of Lord Wens'eydale ? (Hear.) Either he must be de signated as one of the deputy speakers, remainink, a peer for life, or his position will be most anomalous. - (hear.) He has presented-a petition complaining that the bill will materially affect a right which he Claims ; and his position is one which has a claim upon our consideiation. (Hear.) It is a strange inconsistency that the champions of the peerage by inheritance should now propose peerages far life. (Hear.) This is so ; if it is contrary to the duty of the advisers of the Crown that any peers for life ihould be created without consent of Parliament, and if it be mall mited, then it is open to abuse fir party purposes, and dan gerous to the House of Lords. (Hear.) The bill - tee this re markable characteristic, that there ought to be a general concurrence of those who are in favour of peerages for life and those who are opposed to them in rejecting it, for it leaves in uncertainty that great question of prerogative. (Hear.) .1 - have the gravest doubts as to the policy 'of peer' ages for life. • (Hear.) Look to colonial assemblies, and see there the effect of nominees of the Crown holding in es upper chamber what are analogous to peerages fir life. Nothing can be more injurious. Now, an hereditary of independent peerage (I 'use tho terms as synonymous) are characteristic of our mixed form of government. There is nothing else in principle but that second elective chamber , which is characteristic of republicanism. (Hear.) It is alleged as an evil that there is too mu s eh of the law element iu the House•of Loris; that the sons of great lawyers interitiu% peerages, perhaps, may be without adequate means of sup' parting the dignity.. The case suggested is extraordinary' It is to introduce the law peens themselves into the house • before they have earned in their profession sufficient 10 sustain the dignity and 'independence of their position . , (Hear.) Poverty is, for the first time, avowed as one °' the ingredients of qualification for ;the peer age. (Hear, and * laugh.) What will be the effect of it ? It will brand tbs t life peers with the mark of depend.mce and inferiority. I will engender the constant hope in the peer for life, urb ° feels himself thus degraded, to work out his independenc e, and obtain from the Minister of the Crown the more 1 1 °; nourable station of the hereditary peerage. (H ear .) It wil have also another effect. The very title of peer implief equality. But here will be a degraded class, unequal is their position, and looked upon by the hereditary peers s i not their equals, on the ground eg their poverty all well s' their inequality. And what have the law lords done t' a deserve this indignity ? I cannot conceive any position to be worse than one in which " favo , ur is to follow fawning , and when they will have to hang upon the skirts; of the minister of the day to obtain a more honourable situation' and to be made equal in dignity to their companions in tb e , peerage. No Lord Chanc e llor, if this bill passes, will es' obtain that hereditary peerage which was won by here don, by Hardwicke, and by Camden, whose descendell: are among the most revered members of th e H ouse o f Pee"' The only chance the Lord Chancellor will have of oh! , ing the hereditary peer ge will be that he is ri c h or dal less—not that he is pre-eminent in his profession. Lei Somers has been mentioned ; he was a poor man when be had become a most eminent one and such was his noble spirit that he sat as Chancellor, deciding cases by his learn: ing, influence, and virtue, while he was content not to he ° , a voice, because he had not then acquired that indepea d ence which wculd, entitle him to an hereditary peereg: But he never dreamt of a peerage for life. He afterwar d earned that independence, and was raised to the .peersgl which his descendant still adorns. (Hear.) It is said tho this measure, though it may not be the best that can formed,is yet at least efficient. But it is said, you lid the power of creating peers for life to four peeragep. Fr e u the very nature of the choice, the deputy speakers:must ' aged men, who have long occupied a prominent stetted Age and infirmity will rapidly come upon them ; and it!, possible that they may cease to be able to perform the judicial tunutions, and yet remain peers for life. Tha i f your difficulty will occur, and you must l eg i s l a t e aga in' ° t else what becomes of your remedy? You cannot ow ; here. You will find it necessary, if thi s p rece d en t is O i l; bushed, to go on, and extend the creation of peers for'', to the army and navy. Poverty is not confined to tb law; on the contrary, I believe the law to be a far lu°4 lucrative profession than that of arms, for admirals generals do not make their tea thousand a year. 1-do leaders of the - bar never made Larger incomes than. they now. I need only glance reunerthe s house to show tu they never were more distinguislieda , Possessing as sau c e talent, and as large incomes as th.ty ever did, they are ' 1 " 0 in need of this paltry measure, litniting the enjoyment 1 fame to the short period of a life. But if-the measure, o , necessary for the law, then; a :fortiori, itialliecessarY i s t the army or the navy; ajid if, you establish the preceds4, you cannot atop here. But th en ou will t o u c h the no'e mainspring of human action: All the highest aspiratt e .o of noble natures--eferything that really is part of, ge D. —is connected with the l ong in g f o r immortality, the d to make and to perpetuete a name. " Ergo ipsas quamvis angetsti terminus zest ' Excipiat (neque onim plus septima ducitnr msltas) At genusitiemortale manet, multosque per annos Stat fortune cloinus, et avienunterantur avorum." That is / the principle which actuates the noblest; s pirits,l:, it all professions.. (Hear, hear.) ' Then as to politicis,nsen House of Lords, though it may be regarded as a relli from the storm, is a, miserable arena to men who 1 1 0 , occupied prominent stations in the House of Covell:04 (Hear.) History has taught us this by examples. Hiete f f has taught it to us in that very period to which I b:a been retorting—the age of Walpole and Pulteney. know that Pulteney had the opportunity (having 0 7;1 thrown Sir R. Walpole) of forming an administratiort ,e ; shrank from the responsibility and. asked for an earld% The King was unwilling to grant it, and. Sir R. Wahl ) whom he had displaced, used his influence out of 40/1 -0 , 1 obtain the earldom for hi m , an d h av i ng succeededelloP: Walpole records that wh e n he went hom e he use d the e'; pression "I have turned tho key of the closet upon Wit s (A laugh.) Lord Chesterfield, commenting upon the trs' e l isetion, says that Pulteney "shrank into insignificance s', an earldom." And Walpole himself, having, after 20 y ea r s ortriumphal power, been raised to the peerage by the ti k , of Orford, we are told that Lord Orford went. up to P i &id of Bath and said, "Now, here w e are , th e t wo lo °9 o insignificant fellows in England." (Laughter:) y e t tlit 4 were hereditary peerages. Think of the effect of this i f ot , treat, for decrepid statsmen when it becomes a peeragoi. life. Row miserable, h ow d egra di ng w ill b e th e i r. P °9 l tion ! J tell you that if you pass this bill many years vi i j not elapse before you mast extend it to politicians; the days will come when your statesmen—peers for li Ne will stand like the labourers in the parable, s a ying e , man bath hired us." (Laughter.) Their political deg, aeration will be ext r e m e, At present the p e er ag e is ;,"; pidly diminishing, but if you grant peerages for life to considerahle extent the independence of the House Of will be swamped in the easiest way. Since the year 29 peerages have become extinct, and only 16 have D v ", created, sho wing that the number of new peerages bs,,, been less than those which have expired. Thus the in'', pendence of the body will be sustained (unless you t 1 3 30 per with it by such amendments as this), both byt d course of nature and by the constitutional forbearance, the Ministers of the Crown to augment unduly the 13 0 ,%! hers ef new creastions. But if you break ground in t,up direction, you will, for a paltry object (so far as the ob.i v o is avowed), inflict the , greatese injury, and • cause tb greatest evil to the co-or :Elate branch of the L eg islate; (Hear.) I now turn to the appellate jurisdiction of ~t , h e House of Lords. There is a fiction and a reality. n i lie fiction is, the appellate jurisdiction of the house. reality is, the juris•iiction of the Lord Chuncellor-achos% amid the fluctuations of party chiefly for his activity g s . t b politician ; and he constitutes the appellate tribunal, W„,l he three or four ex-Chancellors chesen in a Similar way. Attorney-General says the rest of the lords are " mutes t)°, ciphers." The fiction is, that these mutes and ciphers ele . 4. visa the appellate jurisdiction ; and at the present monse'„,l the tribunal which has thus avowed its incompetence e°" l sists of the Lord Chancellor alone. There have been tiu ls o when "there were giants," and the house might have hes e , the best tribunal. But we have passed from an age of gias', to an age of pigmies. Now. I cannot say that one ju4 o sitting alone to reverse decisions of the highest tribunal , 1 the re-dm is satisfactory. (Hear.) A great complaint of tt,, present system is the uncertainty. The client neverkne, how the tribunal will be constituted. But what is the r e medy ? Two deputy speakers are to be appointed ; but tll! , bill contains no ouster of the jurisdiction of the ex.C ll ", O callers, three or four of whotn are always floating about tP., house. (A. laugh.) Then there is the Lord Chief Jay' tice, and there was Lord Devon, who, having been ole r ; of the house, was re:..koneti a hew lord. There is no oti',l ter of the jurisdiction of these law lords ; and the fictio P o l which confines the appellatejurisdiction to the house is transparent that it escapes through all disguise even this very measure, for it provides that the appellate jur i ss r diction she 1 continue during prorogation ; and it vir almost carried that it should continue after a dissolutio °4 (Rear.) Again, pay is said to have become necessary : exercise the due discharge of. the judicial functions of the house. While the house maintained its jurisdiction with out salary, that jurisdiction might strengthen its positive; but when the law lords are to be hired like journeymen to do their work, there is 'neither dignity nor honour in i t " and the strength of the position of the house will not the same as it was when they discharged their ancient her e ; diary duties in the ancient hereditary way, with seperio, ability, and to the s a tisfacti on o f the c ountry, withoa' salary. There is the Judicial Committee of the Dill Council, who it is agreed by all parties perform thei r functions most satisfactorily; and they are unpaid judges' (Hear, hear.) Let me remark that the second clause limit' the selection of the life peers, so that in 18i0 it would have excluded Lord Campbell, Lord St:Leonards, Lord Rather' furd, and Dr. Lusbington ; and it would now excludel o Pemberton Leigh, Vice-Chancellor Sir P. Wcod, and on e of the Lords Justices. Added to which it would exclud e • the Attorney-Geneeal and Solicitor-General, as well as 1 136 law officers of Lbrd Derby's Government—men equal ie learning, indepenience, and character to any whO eve t filled those offices. (Hear, hear.) Again, consider the near ber of the life peers. It is to be three ; although all the leading witnesses—S , r F Kelly, Mr. Malins, the Solicitor' General, &c.—agreed that three was the worst possible num her, and that the number should be at least (Hear.) If you desire to secure that the three judges show be men of high standing, you must give . itdequate induce' went to attract such men ; insteal of which, the salary if only to be 5000/., that o f a p u i sne j u d ge . (H ear , h e i r .) must touch upon another topic, which may be painful to the legal profession, but my love of truth compels nee t ° mention it. (A. laugh.) Thietill will, if it passes, debauch both the bench and the bar. It is very rarely that the Puieneiudges are promoted to the chief judgeships. But now the Crown will have the power of selecting from the bench two judges to be deputy speakers and peers for life, with the prospect of hereditary peerages in reversion' (Hear, hear.) Quctnydin bene se gesserint will be Wel l construed at the Treasury—(a laugh)—and complaisan t peers for life who always vote with Ministers will o btain the hereditary peerage. (Herr, hear.) The effect of suc h patronage will no to debauch the bench, and though th e effect upon the bar will be less direct, it will not be th e less powerful, and the result will be unduly• to trench on the honour and independence of the bar: I valu e highly that honour and independence, believing the bat to be the champions of freedom ; and I should be Berri to hold out temptations tending to destroy their indeperW erica. With regard to the appellate business of the }DUO of Lords, there are only 70 oases on an average in a yeeq which cannot occupy m ore th an f our mon th s o f lege' labour; and, before you re-constitute the tribunals Y 0 must consider whether additional business should not b e sent to it, eitherfrom the Judicial Committee or the Lorcl4 Justices. All these are questions not to be decided basal , ' in the middle of July, under pressure of a threat that if ! do not pass this particular measure the House of Lor a .; will agree to none. If there is the least spirit in til l a house they will reject the measure and secure dwelt, opportunity to consider the subject. (Hear, hear.), the appellate business of the House of Lords been P . factorily conducted of late years? We WINO the outlay*" THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY. Lord J. RITSgELL said it was desirable that the house On an early day should be infornied of what bad been done by foreign Governments with regard to Ita lian affairs. (Cheers.) He should therefore move on Fri day or Monday,next for copies of the correspondence between foreign Governments on this question, be- cause it was desirable the house should know if any fruits might be expected from the declaration made at the late Conference at Paris. , MEDICAL PROFESSION BILL. Mr. COWPER stated that he intended to abandon this bill for the present session. THE VACCINATION BILL. - - Mr. COWPER said it was his intention to pro- ceed with this bill at whatever hour it might come on in order. WAYS AND MEANS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up the report on Ways and Means. Sir H. TILLOUGHBY took objections to it, but it was ultimately agreed to. . THE TIPPERARY BANK. Cal. F. FRENCH wished t correct a matter which appeared to him to reflect on the character 'olone of the most talented and honourable men on the judicial beech either in England or Ireland. The Attorney-General for Ireland had *stated that it would he owing to the irregu lar conduct of the bilaster of the Rolls if any failure of justice took place.in Mr. J. Sadleir's case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND quite: agreed in the high character awarded to the Master of .the Rolls, brit must repe , ;t that the observations which fell from the Master of the Rills were irregular. - Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he did not want to go back to the old sys . tern. All that he had said w.ts, that the statesmen, of George 111 's reign were wiser moo than they were; because when they . wanted to get ac• cuunts they got them. :Ile : still tatairtta , ned that they ought not to stultify themselves by passing a resolution about what - they had no inferna,tion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the hon. baronet was wrong in asiufnieg that the Govern d entdesired to withhold any informations from the house. They wished to lay all information connected with tho.e aceount4 before tho honse, and they only delayed doing so bepaust3 it was absolutely necessary to wait. till the acvnut-: were conipleted. Mr. WILLIA.MS said that there wexe several clauses is the Appropriation Bill to ,w,hich he Chad objections, art he hoped it would be printed. Mr. WILSON Said that be held the bill in his hand; and that he would introduce it that bight and" have printed. APPELLATE JURISDICTION ( IiOUSE OF LORDS) BILL. On the order of the day for the second; reading of this bill, „ Mr...E. DENISON said he had a pet ition to present, the substance of which he would,shortly s tate, from James Baron Wensleydale, on the report of this bill. • The "petitioner stated that he had by letters patent under the Great Seal, of date 24th January, 1856,, been created'a peer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire .land for the term of his natural life ; t hat her Majesty had beeh pleased to direct the usual such aeons to be issued for him to take his teat in Parliament ; that he had been prevented from doing so by - illness; and; that before he could take his seat the question' had be en referred to a committee of privileges to consider the 1 etters patent and to report. The petitioner stated that t lie committee re ported that neither by the letters patent nor by the letters patent with the writ of summons was he entitled to take his seat, and that the helms afterwards e weed to that re port. The petitioner further stated that - when he received his letters patent he had no doubt of her Majesty's right by prerogative to summon to the Hous e- of Lords any of her subjects not disqualified by law —to ennoble by grant ing a peerage for life o ne on whom she l tad conferred the honour of knighthood ; and that he , therefore, con fidently expe c t e d t h at the decision o E the house of Lords would have been in favour of his . right to sit arid vote in that house. The petitioner th, in stated that a: bill had been introduced, the la,t clans te of which pro. vided that nothing contained in the bill should affect the right of her Majesty to appoint Depot y Speakers in th , . House of Lords, but that it did not sa ye her Majesty's prerogative.for creating life peers to s it in Parliament, and that it limited the number of life pe etre to be created to four. The petitioner represented tl. tut he ought not in any way to be prejudiced or affect ed by any ques tions raised as to his title or right t o take his seat ; that he had an undoubted right to peti it ion the House of L , irds to rescind its resolution, v r Bich was not final, and might be altered at any tim e ; that he felt satisfied that the house would con ii der his case that -be belieied the question of 1 A to creation ef life peers bad beensomtihxaoti it tp waswi, 1 .; , 1 i im th p e o , s q s u i b e i s e tio t o n of appellatejurisdictionsay that' they had decided the o h a e l r y i\ tu a l es st t i y on ha a d ffe t c h t e . lu g the petitioner—viz., whether writ of . powerpe peer e ennobled b iprerogative for life o to ni i y sf issue a as and vote in Parliament. The petitione r then prayer ' to o err' z tlt M le in hl l ol l 8 t t : ail that such amendments might be intreduci el into the b 11 as should leave the Royal prerogative and ' the pea tionerVright unaff e c te d by it, more esp ecially as the question of her Majesty's prerogative and . the petitionted right was in no wise neces ary to be coy .s idered wi b the view of rendering efficient-a, bill relating I ,;(.) the appellate jurisdiction of the other house. (Hear hear.) He be lieved he should not be out of order if 1 ie were to state in tbe agreed with the petitioner. (Loud " Ord ," and "No.") The petitiim then orde'red to lie on the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to move the Second reading of the bill, which, as they were well aware, had been introdUeed in the other house 'on the report of a committee appointed to inquire into the state of the appellate jurisdiction of that bowie, with the view of seeing whether it could not be amended. That committee, after receiving a great deal of evidence, might be said to hairein substance -reported that the 'appellate. jurisdiction was not in a satisfactory State ; that it was capable of improvement ; and they adopted certain- re commendations which would be found embodied in the present bill. There could be no doubt. of the great im portance of this question. In all ate both at common law and equity the House of Lords was a court of appeal in the last resort, and by its decision the law of the land was finally settled. It was notorious, and could not be contradicted, that for some time very great dissatisfac tion had been felt by suitors and the public generally with the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the other house had been exercised. Hon. members were a hare that though by the theory of the constitution the appellate jurisdiction centred in the House of Lords, practically it was not exercised by the whole body, but was left to those members of the house who held judicial offices, and were also members of -that house. With the exception of the Lord Chancellor for the time being and the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the judges of the appellate court consisted generally of members of that house who bad held the office of Lord Chancellor. It was quite evident that this body of judges,' consist ing of the persons he had referred to, must fluctuate ; but; even supposing a sufficient - number could be secured to act as a court of appeal, there was nothing which made it obligatory on them—the law lords holding office excepted—to attend. The result bad been that "the number of law lords attending to hear appeals had beet, reduced below the number thought necessary for the dis charge of the business with satisfaction to suitors and the public. It bad frequently happened that the number of judges had been reduced to two, and sometimes to one. When it was recollected that these appeals often` came from inferior courts of appeal with several judges, it would at once be admitted that it could not be satis factory to the public -or the suitors, that such appeals should, in the last resort, be decided, perhaps, by only one judge. He had heard Scotch appeals decided by one judge in the House of Lords, though these ap peals were from the judgment of a court composed of several judges, necessarily conversant with Scotch law. Often when only two judges were present they had dif fered be opinion, and the result was that the judgment of the interior court: remained unaltered. One case -had been alluded to by his hon. and learned friend the Soli citor-General in his valuable evidence before the com mittee, in which there had been conflicting decisions between the Court of Exchequer and the Master of the Bolls. There were only two judges present in the other house when the case came on, and as the Lord Chancel lor differed from Lord St. Leonards, the judgment of the Master of the Rolls stood confirmed against a con trary judgment of the judge of the Court of Exchequer. It might even happen that the Lord *Chancellor on appeal might, under such circumstances, confirm his own judgment in the court below. There was another great inconvenience which nothing but legislation could remedy. At present the sitting of the House of Lords as a court of appeal could only be . coexten sive with the sitting of Parliament. The result was that all its business was suspended, from the prorogation of - Parliament until it met for actual busi ness. In many cases this produced great inconvenience to the parties, and also led to considerable arrears and delay. He believed that the shortest period in which an appeal could be brought in for hearing was two years. (Hear.) The number of judges was not sufficient—that number fluctuated—their attendance was voluntary, and for ene-half the year all the proceedings were suspended. These were the points for consideration. There were other topics referred to in the evidence, relating to the dress of the j udges, the want, of combination and arrangement, which required to be considered, but which del net require the interposition of the Legislature. But. the matters to which he had referred 'comet not be rectified except by the Legislature, and therefore an act of Parliament was necessary. He was aware of the strong objections that might be urged to the mea sure ; hut the question to consider- was, whether, when the defects of the House of Lords as a court of appellate jurisdiction, as at present constituted, were so glaring, it was not necessary to do something to remedy those defects ? And whether, under all - the circumstances, the present measure was not the best that could be pro posed ? Tnat was the question which he had to invite them dispassionately to consider. He knew that some thought that the simplest course would be to withdraw the appellate jurisdiction from the House of Lords. (Hear. He recognised that cheer, but desired to know whether there were not serious, if ? not insuperable, difficulties to. such a course? Would-it not lead to delay, and leave the unhappy suitors in the same ifosition in which they now were? Many people thought that to 'deprive the House of Lords of' its judicial functions would be to strip it of one element of its import mce and dignity. He did not look at the matter in that light, and did not, con stitutionally speaking, see any:necessary connection be t veen the functions of the House:of Lords and its judi• cial duties, which, as he had, observed, weee eaercieeti only by tne - taw lords, the lay lords being present only formally, the remaining mute on such occasions. Ha could not help thinking that the dignity - of the Hohse of Lords would bemore likely to be impaired if the exercise . of its judicial functi ons was no t satis f actory, b ut a cause of complaint to • suitors and the oeublic. On the other hand he knew many who objected to divest the House of Lords of its judicial functions. The question had to be answered to what tribtinal, if these duties were to be transferred, would they transfer them ? He did not think they could proceed to constitute a tribunal of-the last re- 'sort, independent of the House of Lordie without re constituting the whole judicature of the country. He knew it had beep said that all the appellate business might ne transferred to .‘the Judicial C .mmittee of the Privy Couecil. He admitted that it was impossible to conceive-a court, the functions of which could be dihr charged in a nitre admirable manner"; bat they must not overlook the great difficulties of transferring, the -whole appellate business of the House of Lords tia the Judieite Committee of the Privy Connell. That court, with one or two exceptions, consisted of members of the legal prole-sion who had held office or who hold judicial office. One of these exceptions was a right honouiabie .gentleman- a shining light of justice, who must aria dignity, Were, and efficiency to any court of which he was a member, and whose n)tepreinotion to a Igher judicial office bad ever been a s mrce of regret to him (the Attorney-Gentral). It would not be fair to call on those members who bad discharged their term of office, and with regard to those who actually held office it aught to be kept in view that they - only 'attended the Council occasionally, that their time was not largely drawn upon ; but if the whole appellate jurisdiction wee to be confined to the Council it would be impassible for the superior judges to devote that time to the Council which was due to the administration of justice' in their own courts. Moreover, they cou ti not divest the House of Lords of its appellate jurisdiction without the consent of that house, and as far as becoutdiearn their appella,:e jurisdiction was the last thing which the House of Lords would give up. That being the case thejriumst take the best means in their power of making' the House of Lords efficient as a court of the list resorts A- tempts had been made to amend the court without resorting to legislative interterenee. The house was aware that Lord Wensleydale, -whose petition they had heard presented that night—a distinguished man and meeting the honour mote than any one—had been ' selected for a judicial member of the other house. The attempt to introduce the noble lord had failed, because, though many persons were of opinion. that her Majesty - had done no more than exercise her undoubted preroga tive, the constitution put it in the powehof the House of Lords to determine on the validity of the patent. Under 'these circumstances Lord Wensleydale had not been atee to take his seat; -To secure a sufficient number of judges it was pecessary:to elevate distinguished mem bers of the legal profession to sit 'arid vote ill the other house. lie believed that if. the House of Lords could prevent her Majesty calling eminent judicial men to the Hogse of Lords as life peers,- the effect would be to ex ' elude-some of the ablest and fittest lawyers from -that house, because few of them could afford, with a clue ,regard to their families, to take on 'themselves the dig nity of An hereditary peerage. Courts hart been inulte kliedeebtainess had been diminished and divided— much to the advantage of the administration of justice —but large fortunes, sufficient to support the onus of the peerage, were not now made at the bar. Tne house of Lords had closed the door, with some few exceptions, to life peers. The jurisdiction as at present existing was condemned by the house itself ; 'the matter was one of great importance, one in - which no interest but that of the public ought to be allowed to prevail. It ought not to be made a party question. They could not create life . peers. Some persons were averse to accept an hereditary pweeerraeget,heay preparedndthejuris to dic e t n io t n er c i o n e t i o d 'not contest otb with thee transferred. House of Lords on - the question ? The result to the suitors would be ruinous, and on the whole'he thought the better course to take was that proposed by the bill. Even if the difficulty of life peerages was got over there rethained another difficulty, that of making the sittings of the' appellate tribunal co-existent with the sitting of Parliatnent. By the plan phoposed her Majesty would obfu'tehneabSiceodtctho j i d t r i e c t u u c t e et i n w t h o i t c h h e w o o t u h l e a r was felt' to be at pr ese nt' a grievous, almost a scanda .; supply h‘ous t a ha m t e ve a tic er l: loos preceeding. At present appeals from the Court of , Session were decided by one oe two lords, who, what ' ever mieht be their knowledge - of English law, had not that knowledge of the Scotch law which the judges, of the Court appealed from had. lie believed that the Scotch people would be, glad to see in the appellate court of the ether house at least one member of the Scottish courts, who would give his assistance in appeal cases. The present plan would enable the Government to :pro vide for that want. It was contended, also, by the op-. ponents of the bill that it would operate as a surrender of the prerogative of the Crowe. (Hear.) All he could ray in answer to that objectioh was, that although he should be prepared to support that prerogative wheuever the fitting opportunity presented itself—(a laugh)—yet he did not consider it expedient that the House of Com mons should stand tip iu its defence to' the rejection of . a measure which tended to effect that improvement in the appellate jurisdiction of the House - of Lords which members of every party deemed to be albBo lutely necessary.' He could only present that measure to the notice of the house as the best mode of gelting out of a difficulty, and he must Maintain that unless hon. members could show that any more satisfactory way of overcoming the obstacles by which the question watt bet set was open to them, it would be their duty e by assent , , , 4 '••• • !•":; tie; and ent pre Nro asu LOl ciBE 810 tw i Pr' the die dit ret 1 : - ;+^s