The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-08 00:00:00

Spirit ..of the Public Journals.

• (From the Time,t of this day.)
The House of Lords had last night the very great treat of a
splendid exercitation on a constitutional theme by our oldest
and ablest Conservative lawyer. It was impossible to listen
to Lord Lyndhurst's review of the precedents anticipated for
the creation of a peerage for life without following him to the
conclusion that the measure is at least a stretch of the prero-
gative. It may be granted that every single precedent is
faul y, either in respect of the times, or in some great speCia-
lity of circumstances, or in the manifestly objectionable cha-
racter of the persons ennobled, sr the more general cbjection
that in order to prove the power
.of the prerogative we must
go back to a period when its power was- almost indefinite, and
must therefore prove too much for our purpose. But., while the
attempt`te'establish the perfectly constitutional character of
the recent creation_ may thus end in proving too much, we
must aay. that Lord Lyndhurst's own line of argument proved
too much in another direction. He established most
satisfactorily that we had no alternative whatever but
to remain in a position not . merely difficult, incon-
venient, and scandalous, but practically intolerable, admitted
to bo so long ago, and becoming worse every year. That
position is, that while the ,House of Lords very naturally
clings to its appellate j arisdietion, and Lord Lyndhurst would
certainly denounce. as an outrage on the constitution any at-
tempt to .relieve it-of the burden; and while the law peers
very properly resent the intrusion of the lay peers on what
becomes, pro tempore, the seat of justice, the' highest legal
tribunal'of the country dwindles into the casual attendance
of one or two law peers, generally far advanced in years, who
may or may not know anything about the question or the
law upon which it turns. The House of Lords, as a court of
appeal,' no longer commands the respect of the country, and,
except in some very rare cases, its decisions are only the
mere soleinn affirmation of the judgment pronounced in the
court below.' Could the House of Lords be persuaded to
give up, this function. to a body really competent to dis-
charge it—the Judicial Committee of Privy Council—that
would give us, in exchange for a constitutional pageant, a
solid security for justice. But Lord Lyndhurst does not
advise this, and certainly the change would have much the
same unconstitutional look as that under consideration. In-
deed the peculiar difficulty of the question is thstt His a con-
stitutional one. The constitution must be stretched, or settled
by a " declaratory' measure, to use a Parliamentary phrase,
one way or another; and whatwe have to consider is whether
the creation of peerages for life be not the least objectionable
measure for the purpose.
No doubt an immediate remedy is found for the difficulty
by summoning lawyers to the House of Lords ; but the pro-
cess is not carried on far enough to answer its purpose, and,
as far as it does go, is productive of grave inconveniences.
The law is fast becoming the only channel to the peerage, to
the obstruction of other old channels. There is now a large
class of Commoners in the country, of such wealth and posi-
tion, such territorial power and social influence, that they
would rather strengthen the peerage than derive any
additional consequence from it. Certainly it is very expedient
that some of this native strength of the country, the spon-
taneous growth of her industry, her genius, and her domes-
tic virtues, shauld be infused into the peerage, and the Lords
would be all the stronger, the Commons rather more tolerant
.of their priority, for such an infusion. But the benches of
the Peers, or rather the roll of the peerage, is so full, that
no more Peerages can be made, and, in fact, there are very
few-ereations except the law Peers. We have no wish to
mention names. There is not a single lawyer in the house
that we are not glad to see there. But when we look from
the Peer to the peerage, from the man to the family now
founded, we must say that we could select many a family
from the rank of British Commoners which we would rather
see permanently added to the peerage than those forced upon
it under existing circumstances. The feeling is so general as
notoriously to produce a certain leaning of a not very agree-
able character in favour of lawyers without families; and
it is a matter of notoriety that a distinguished lawyer
who either is not married, or too old. to have
children, is more likely to have a peerage than
a man tolerably certain to transmit the honour. Such calcu-
lations are very ridiculous, but they are a natural consequence
of the constitutional scruple Lord Lyndhurst insists on.

- -
Granting, as we are ready to do, that the difficulty has
been met by a stretch of the prerogative, at least, by an ex-
traordinary revival of its original powers, we can only say that
these offences against the constitution are not so uncommon.
Lord Grey may have hesitated to create life peerages, but he
did quite as strong a thing in calling some twenty eldest sons
of Peers from the Commons to the Lords, and, indeed, in his
other large creation of Peers. Again, for about a thousand
years, much further back than Lord Lyndhurst went last
night, it has been unconstitutional for au English Bishop not
to have a seat in the House of Lords, yet we have come to see
a bishop without a seat ; indeed, as if iu order to disabuse
the bishops of their constitutional prejudices, they are all
made to pass through the most unconstitutional stage of exis-
tence. A representative peerage is a very unconstitutional
idea, certainly very foreign to English usages, yet we have con-
sented to see the Royal prerogative controlled by the
suffrages of subjects, so that when her Majesty has made a
peer, as in Ireland, he cannot sit in the House of Lords uules ,
his eilow-peers send him there, while in Scotland they have
even the power sif depriving him of his seat. Iu the case of
the Irish Bishops, the seat which constitutionally it is her
Majesty's to give outright is held in rotation. In these cases
it will be said that Parliament made itself responsible for the
alteration ; but that does not prevent the alteration being of
au unconstitutional character, as much so, indeed, as if Par-
liament were now to adopt a suggestion once thrown out by
Lord Brougham, and reduce the House of Lords itself to the
constituent of a select working chamber. Iu the present
instance it would not have been expedient to go to Parlia
ment for the change. To do so would have been an admission
that the Crown could not make the change out of the fuluess
of the prerogative, and that admission would have been more
unconstitutional than the course actually adopted. It is quite
possible, too, that the Lords would have objected to the mea-
sure, and dove so in a spirit and with expressions fatal to
any further proceedings on the subject. Lord Lyndhurst did
not expressly assert the creation to be illegal, fur the obvious
reason that the prerogative of the Crown is not so limited as
the powers derived from it, or created by Parliament. The
prerogative is wisely left undefined, at least only defined where
its abuses in former days compelled limitation. 'where it is
not so defined, the only limitation is common sense an't the
public weal. Whether the creation of life peers is likely to be
injurious to the. independence of the house, the purity of jus-
tice, and the general interests of the nation, is a question of
common sense, and will be decided, we think, against Lord
Lyndhurst. On his own showing, life peerages have been
created since the Restoration for private reasons, and the
creations were good. Then, why not for public reasons? The
very mention of the moral aspect of these peerages shows that
it is a question of public convenience ; and, if it be beneficial
to confer a life peerage upon a bad woman, much more is it
upon a.good man.

(From the Morning Herald of this day.)
For a man who declares that he is "done for," and has
nothing more to expect in this life but the smiles of an al!-
proving conscience and the happiness of haring done his
duty, the gallant member for Bath displayed, last night, re-
markable energy, and, we may add, considerable ability, in
his expose of the abuses in the present administration of the
navy. Captain Scobell has made out, it need not be delfed,
a clear case for inquiry, which neither Sir James Graham
nor Sir Charles Wood, with all the confidence and casuistry
peculiar to those right hon. baronets, are able to gainsay or
resist.

That the Royal navy—England's pride, her historic glory,
and the right arm of her power—should be abused to a
greater extent, not only than the other branch of the pro-
fession of arms, but than any other branch of the pub-
lic service, seems at first sight somewhat unaccountable ; yet
that it is so, is, we fear, capable of direct denioustration.
The number of gallant officers who have deserved well of
their country, but whose claims have, nevertheless, been
lighted in order to confer promotion on the scions of noble
houses and other fortunate individuals, is positively inere-
dil3lo. The partiality with which patronage has been dis-
tributed during a forty years' peace, and even since the out-
break of hostilities, would hardly be credited, but that the
proofs are at hand. We have reached a day when this state
of things cannot be suffered to exist--when the noble A 'a,
B.'s, and C.'s shall be taken for what they are worth in the
left a prey to disappointment and that deferred hope
service, and no more— when deserving officers shall no longer
be
which sickens the heart and sours the whole man—whon Eng-
land's peculiar service shall be every way worthy of her—
worthy of her, not only in its great Powers and achievements,
but in its internal economy and management—directed by
the sound practical sense of Englishmen, and having regard
to the fair play which pre-eminently distinguishes the cha-
racter of this free people.
We quite believe that the projected inquiry is grateful to,
and desired by, the service at large. Captain Scobellhas not,
we feel assured, overstated the feeling of the navy upon this
subject; but we are inclined to think that the member for
Bath iu developing and stigmatising abuses, referred to indi-
viduals in authority, rather than to the existence of an anti-
quated and injurious eystcrn. It is no part of our duty to
defend Sir James Graham or Sir Charles Wood—we know
the administrative abilities of the former are proved to
have been absurdly exaggerated, and we believe no one
ever expected much from the latter; it is but justice,
however, to say that no man, let his abilities be ever so
great, and his intentions ever so honest, could avoid
the effects of abuses created and fostered by a system
which must be thoroughly reformed. It is absurd and
unjust to charge h evils fairly complained of by Captain'
Sobel') t ; . Asbutrazty. That beard ariladmiui,`