The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-01 00:00:00

LIFE LORDS AND LAW LORDS.

Tilts question has now reached a stage at
uhich it may not be inconvenient to remind
our readers of its original starting-point.
When, some six or seven weeks ago, it was an-
nounced to the public that Sir JAMES PARKE was
to be created a peer for life, there was little
difference of opinion about the real meaning
of the measure. Some thought the innova-
tion expedient, some dangerous, some useless,
but few doubted that it was part of a much
more extensive scheme than was allowed to
appear. Certain of our Liberal contemporaries
honestly, though we think indiscreetly, ad
witted as much, and rejoiced in the prospect
of the coming time when men like FARADAY,
PLAYFAIR, and LANDSEER should take their seats
in the House of Peers. We have dwelt upon
this aspect of the question because we felt that
the plea of strengthening the legal element in
the House of Lords was a mere pretext, and that
the Wensleydale Peerage was meant as a pre-
cedent for a succession of peerages resembling
those of France, and created without doubt
for a similar purpose.
Government and its instigators, becoming
slowly aware of the state of public feeling, en-
deavoured to back out of the undertaking,
with as little loss to their reputation as pos-
sible. But they were not permitted to escape
with impunity from their discreditable manceu-
Tres Two damaging defeats in quick succes-
sion taught them a lesson which we trust they
will not forget. Had they openly come for-
ward with such a measure as that introduced
by Lord DERBY on Thursday night, they would
have had the country with them. But their
underhand way of proceeding, while it
afforded incontestable evidence that their real
object was something quite different from his,
undoubtedly added much to the feeling of
indignation with which their Lordships re-
jected it. A standing army of life peers would
be bad enough, however established ; but an
attempt to smuggle them in under cover of the
judge's robe, is a piece of dishonesty which
its authors must by this time be heartily
ashamed of.

The Government organs now declare that
the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords has been the real question from the be-
ginning. If SO, Government took singular pains
to disguise their intention. They must have a
partiality for crooked dealings in the abstract,
and a dislike to a straight road when it is open
before them. But, in reality, such assertions
are but so many attempts to throw dust in the
eyes of the public. Had they wished only to
strengthen and renovate the judicial powers of
the House, the way was simple enough. The
satisfaction with which all parties have received
Lord DERBY'S suggestions shows very
clearly that the Lords entertain no objec-
tion to the reform of their appellate jurisdic-
tion. Two long and energetic debates, there-
fore, and two divisions, were required to dis-
pose of a point for which nobody cared, while
the important principle at issue has been
agreed upon without any division, and after
only one short evening's conversation !
Lord DERBY'S speech of Thursday last re-
quires little comment. It was a lucid and
succinct statement of the condition in which
the supreme court of appeal now found itself,
and of the various methods which had been
proposed to amend it. His Lordship com-
pletely exhausted the question, and investi-
gated every alternative. He stated that there
were no less than seven objections to the court
as at present constituted, but judiciously re-
frained from the proposal of any definite re-
medy, merely holding out the example of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the
consideration of their Lordships. It is un-
necessary at present to say more than that the
House seems fully to have concurred in the
views of the Noble Earl, which will proba b