The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

Lord DUNGANNON gave notice of his intention
to ask the noble lord at the head of the Board of Trade
on Monday next whether the Government had any mea-
sure in contemplation to compel vessels sailing along
the coast in the British Channel during the night to ex-
hibit lights, and whether the Board of Trade had before
them any plan in reference to this subject ?
Lord DENMAN presented a petition in favour of the
Oath of Abjuration Bill.

SECOND READINGS.
The following bills were severally read a second time,
Lowestoft and Beccles Railway, Leeds Improvement
Act Amendment, Leeds Water, Crowland and Eyre
Road, Eastern Counties Railway, Tcrmoham Water,
Walmesley's Estate, Ingham's Estate, Talbot's Divorce,
and Edinburgh Municipality.
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion that the house go into committee on
this bill,
The Earl of DONOUGH4ORE stated the many and
great objections he had to this bill. In 1847 a. measure
had been passed for the prevention of crime in Ireland,
which expired in 1852, and from tune to time there were
continuous acts introduced ; but all these bills were
founded upon special circumstances, which were said to
justify such coercive proceedings. It was, however, re-
served for'a Liberal Administration to declare that the
people of Ireland should be subjected for ever to a
system of legislation outside the spirit of the constitu-
tion. It was sought by the present bill to render
the power perpetual. The Lord-Lieutenant was to have
the power of proclaiming certain districts whenever he
deemed it necessary, and within those proclaimed districts
no person would be able to possess or carry arms without
a licence. In the proclaimed districts the Lard-Lieu-
tenant was also to have the power of sending any addi-
tiOnal police force he thought proper, and to compel
the ratepayers within the district to liquidate the ex-
penses. He highly objected to such a measure becom;
ing a permanent enactment.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH supported the measure.
Lord REDESDA.LE thought that such power as
was conferred by this bill ought to be merely temporary.
The Earl of WICKLOW said Governments for seve-
ral successive years had always found it necessary to
enact a law of the present nature, and it lito invariably
been found to work well. He did-not think there could
be any objections to the enactments of the present mea-
sure becoming permanent. It would unquestionably be
easier to repeal such a measure as the present than to
renew it from time to time.
Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to the bill. He
thought the present state of Ireland rendered the passing
of such an act as the measure now before their lordships
quite unnecessary. . .

The Earl of EdLINTON thought a new bill ought to
be introduced that it might be rightly understood what
the enactments were. .

Earl GRANVLLLE said that it was not necessary to
withdraw the bill, as alterations might be made in com-
mittee.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE referred to some
experience of his own, as to the advisability of introduc-
ing new bills, instead of that of altering old ones.
Lord BESSBOROUGH seeing the feeling of the
house, would consent to limit the bill to five years.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the house went
into committee on the bill.
On clause 1,

Earl POWfS moved its rejection.
After a slight discussion the motion was withdrawn.
The four clauses of the bill, after some verbal amend•
ments, were agreed to, and the bill passed through coal
mittee.

The house then resumed,
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (LORDS) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said it would scarcely be necessary
for him to recall to their lordships' attention the circum-
stances under which the select committee in reference to
this sulsject was appointed, and upon whose report the
bill was introduced. Their lordships would recall that
in the yearly part of the year her Majesty was pleased to
confer a life peerage on Mr. Baron Parke, but their
lordships after a protracted discussion came to a resolu-
tion that the learned baron could not take his se; t in •
their lordships' house as such, and thereupon the Earl of
Derby moved, and the house consented to the motion,
that a select committee should be appointed to inquire
into the appellate jurisdiction of their lordships' house.
The committee, consisting of between twenty and thirty
members, met, and examined a number of persons con-
nected with the administration of justice in their lord-
ships' house, embracing - eminent practitioners at the
bar, two distinguished judges of Scotland and others,
with a view of ascertaining how far the adminis-
tration of justice by their lordship as an ulti-
mate court of appeal was or was not satisfactory to the
suitors and the great bulk of her Majesty's subjects, and
the result of that investigation was—he might say the
universal feeling of the committee was that, although there
were matters that required remedy, the administration of
justice by their lordships was an administration of justice
by a tribunal for which it was believed no substitute could
be formed. Whether that was an opinion rightly or
wrongly formed, it was for their lordships and the public
to decide, but such was the universal opinion of the com-
mittee, as well as those who gave evidence before them.
The question to which the committee first directed its at-
tention was to ascertain how far the complaints that had
been expressed as to the mode in which their lordships ad-
ministered justice in that house were well grounded in
facts ; and the result of that inquiry might be represented
as this, that though no substantial grounds of com-
plaint existed, there were certain matters of detail
which required amendment, .and the moat prominent
amongst them was that of the business being practically
conducted, as necessarily must be the case, by those dis-
tinguished members of their lordships' house who were
ex-Lord Chancellors, and were known as law lords. It,
Was also felt that there was no security for the attend-
ance of any number of these learned gentlemen, and the
result was that though sometimes the causes of great
importance were investigated by four of these law lords,
it sometimes happened there were but three, and in
many instances but two, and occasionally but one, which
no doubt gave rise to much dissatisfaction. It had been
urged by persons conversant with jurisprudence, that an
undivided responsibility compensated for the absence of
members, and consequently more than one mind in con-
ducting judicial inquiries, and from that opinion he had
always felt great inclination to defend it, and was
inclined to believe in the force of the opinion. The
committee, however, to which he had referred were
universally of opinion that the ultimate court of ap-
peal ought to be a court at which the attend-
ance of more than one judge should be secured,
and the committee as unanimously came to the con-
clusion that it was a point which they ought 'to re-
commend to the attention of their lordships. Then, as
to the number there was a diversity of opinion, some
witnessses recommending five, others three ; and then,
again, many recommended that the number should
he four, in accordance with the number in the
common law courts at Westminster-hall. Ultimately,
however, the committee decided on recommending to
their lordships that the number should he three, and that
they should be peers for life, taken from the judicial
bench, of five years' standing, and in which he entirely
concurred, believing it to be the best and most satisfac-
tory way of recruiting from time to time the judicial
strength of their lordships' house. The next question for
the committee's consideration was what status these per-
sonages should have in their lordships' house, and they
ultimately decided that, as the Lard Chancellor was one
the other two in addition, being pee/0 for life, should be
apppointed Deputy Speakers, so as to assist the Lord
Chancellor in the various duties he had to discharge
in their lordships' house. The salary proposed was
5,000/. or 6,0001. per annum, as their lordships might
decide, and they were to he subject to removal the same
as the judges, by petition from both Houses of Parlia-
ment, on proof of misconduct. This arrangement was not
intended to deprive the law lords of attending and as-
sisting as now in the discharge of the appellate jeriedic-
tion of their lordships' house. It was also proposed to
take powers for this tribunal to sit after prorogation of
Parliament, and get rid of any arrears of business there
might be on the paper. These were the main principles of
the bill ; but there were other matters for their lordships'
consideration, which, however, were more those of de-
tail—such as whether those learned personages should
or should not Wear a costume during the time they were
attending to the appellate jurisdiction of that house.
Ile was, however, of opinion that it would be more satis-
factory to the people if they were to do so, and assume
more the appearance of a judicial court than was now
nte r
me The noble lord also alluded to other matters
of detail, that of altering the present mode of sub-
mitting "a clue" by the suitors for their lordships'
guidance, which, if not abolished, might be presented in
a printed form, which might have the effect of reducing
expenses. After Borne further remarks,thenoble
and
learned
learned lord moved the second reading of this bill.
The Earl of MALMESL inty Wished to know if
these life peerages should be appointed, and either of
them was afterwards removed for judicial misconduct,
whether he would retain his privileges as a life peer ?
(Hear, hear.) It was a matter well worth their lord-
ships' attention. He also suggested that, as five
years'
service on the bench before their appointment was to be
considered a part of the fifteen years' service, that the
cause with reference to their appointment should be
fixed at ten instead of fifteen.
Lord REDESDALE hoped, if their lordships decided
onigranting those life peerages, they would place them
in the same position as to privileges with hereditary
peers, so as not to constitute two classes of peers in
their lordships' house.
Earl Gl'vEYdid not object to the creating of two legal
officers to assist in discharging the duties of the highest
court of appeal in the country; but he objected to their
being appointed peers for life, because it might be used
as a precedent far granting life peerages to high officers
of State, who at present had not a seat in their lord-
ships' house.
Lord CAMPBELL expressed his entire approbation
of the provisions of this bill, and denied that any pre-
viols message from the Crown was necessary before it
amid be introduced. For, according to the authorita-
tive decision of that house, the Crown had no right to
make a peer of Parliament for life, and therefore this
bill enlarged instead of diminished the power of the
Crown. Consequently, the previous assent of the Crown
to its provisions was not necessary. As he ran: the re-
port of the committee of the house, it was stated theta
was expedient that there should be peers for Hie in
order to assist the admini tration of justice. He be-
lieved that the app oiale jurisdiction of the house
had been most beneficially exercised, that the nation
was fully satisfied wish it, and tbat the appellate
jurisdiction could not be vested elsewhere without
onsiderable inconvcnieaco, He believed that with the