The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-11 00:00:00

to be that the appeal should be to the collective wisdom of
the judicial bench. Now, just consider the state of the
legal tribunals as they would be should this bill pass.
What could now happen in a court of equity ? 'A matter
'night be decided in chambers, and there might then be
an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor.
Mr. MALINS—I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon.
There is no such thing as an appeal from chambers to the
Vice-Chancellor. Matters are simply adjourned from chain-
hers to before the judge in court.
Mr. CARDWELL--Well, then, adjournment 'might be
he proper technical term for him to have used. From the
Vice-Chancellor there was an appeal to the Lords Justices
sitting with the Lord Chancellor. And then there was the
appeal to the House of Lords. So that a cause might have
to pass through four stages before its final determination ;
and behold what a mass of vexation and expense to suitors !
And how was it in matters relating to the common law?
First, there was the decision of a single judge—then au ap-
peal to the full court, thence to the Exchequer clamber,
end lastly, in this case, also, to the House of Lords. Now,
was it not worthy of the fullest deliberation on the part of
the House of Commons to determine whether such a vast
multiplication of tribunals was necessary for the true dis-
tribution of justice? And observe the constitution of the
new court of final appeal. The appeal wss to be from the
Lord Chancellor, sitting with the Lords Justices, to the
Lord Chancellor sitting with two deputy speakers. Now,
was that a satisfactory arraugemeut? Again, in common
law appeals. The Court of Queen's Bench might have bean
unanimous—the Exchequer Chamber, where ten judges
might sit to hear the case, might have confirmed the de-
cision ; and from them—that is to say, the whole body of
the common law judges of the land, the appeal lay to the
Lord Chancellor and two deputy speakers, not one of whom
might be versed in the study of the common law. Surely
it was obvious that this was not a wise or practical
arrangement. And there were several other considerations
indirectly connected with the bill which deserved the most
careful inquiry. There was the question of Scotland. They
had the Dean of Faculty and the Lord Justice General, the
chief judge of Scotland, representing to the select commit-
tee that provision ought to be made for Scotland in matters
of final appeal. Yet no such provision was made. Again,
take the case of India and the colonies. He would submit
it was a very great question whether something might not
be done to alter the law regulating appeals, with advantage
to them. Then there had been a petition presented to the
house—a petition of the greatest wisdom and authority—
he meant the petition of Lord Wensleydale. It was the habit
of the House of Commons not to deal lightly with the
interests of private individuals. When affected by legisla-
tion, Lord Wensleydale prayed that his petition might be
taken into consideration. Well, they were going to reject
that petition ; for what tribunal could so easily determine
the case as a select committee? But the hon. and learned
gentleman opposite told the house that it was the House of
Lords that had to determine as to this bill, for it affected
their constitution. Now, he contended that the question
was one for the House of Commons to decide, for it affected
the property and well-being of all her Majesty's subjects.
(Hear.) And when be was told by the same hon. gentleman
that they ought to pass the bill because the House of Lords
would not consent to pass any other, he would say at once
that he did not believe the House of Lords would offer any
impregnable resistance to a wise and well-considered mea-
sere of reform. (Hear.) But he would ask, was the exigency
such that the House of Commons was called upon to accept
a mere stop-gap measure ?If they did then they would
furnish a pretext for the accusation that, by their own act,
they had brought about all the mischief which the hon.
and learned gentleman had predicted. It would be remem-
bered that a strong demand had been made upon the
House of Commons for deliberation and inquiry, but that,
through the voice of a majority, the demand had been re-
jected, and the result was the precipitate adoption of a
crude and ill-considered measure. (Hear.)
Mr. L. WIGRAM would observe that two impressions
had been brought home to his mind during the progress of
the debate. The first was that he did not believe in the ne-
cessity of referring the bill to a select committee, and for
the reason that ha could not rernembar a subject to have
been discussed in that house upon which gentlemen on both
sides possessed so much information. Almost every one
that had spoken upon the subject seemed intimately ac-
qu dnted with the details of his subject, sad quite compe-
teat to ad visa the house respectingit. Hissecond impression
was suggested by some remarks of the right hon. gentleman
the member fur Oxford (Hr. Cardwell) which tended to
the conclusion that they ought not to legislate for the im-
provement of the House of Lords until they had surveyed
the whole field of the jurisdiction of the country, and
adapted it to the ultimate court of appeal. His • ight hon.
friend had referred to the relative positions of the House of
Lords and the Court of Chancery. Now if they were to
embark upon so many collateral questions before they came
to support and continue the House of Lords as a court of
final appeal, he must say be looked forward with the greatest
apprehension to the jurisdiction of the final appeal remain-
ing unsettled for years to come, and to the subject of sp-
pellete jurisdiction reform getting into the same position
as that most unfortunate question of the improvement of
the ecclesiastical courts. As to the question of life peer-
ages. That was not a principle of the bill. They might
create two deputy speakers in the House of Lor s, and her
Majesty might confer upon them, and she would be wise if
she did so, hereditary peerages; but whether the bill
should or should not contain a clause giving power to con-
ferlife peerages, was, after all, only a matter of detail, to
be considered in committee. He was not in favour of the
House of Lords sitting to hear appeals during the proroga-
tion • and in this respect the clauses of the hill might no
doubt be modified, by giving their lordships power to ap-
point a committee for the purpose, and so avoid the objec-
tion urged against the measure in its present shape. So far
as his vote went, then, he s soul I give it decidedly in sup-
port of maintaining the appellate jurisdiction in the House
of Lords. In conclusion, the hon. and learned ,entlemau
said that ho was prepared to go into committee at once,
and there to deal with the details of the measure.
On the hon. and learned gentleman resuming his seat
there were vociferous calls for a division. For some mo-
ments it appeared doubtful if the debate were not brought
to a premature close, when Lord Palmerston rose with evi-
dent reluctance to address the house. A err of "G 1 el-
stone," however, proceeded from the bench immediately-
behind the noble lord, who instantly with surprising ala-
crity resumed his hat and his seat, on finding that the
right hon and versatile member for the University was
" on his legs."
Mr. GLADSTONE.—I hope the house will excuse me
if I attempt to detain them for a very few moments on a
question of an interest and importance so extraordinary as
that now before us. I have to regret—although this may
be a pledge to the house that I shall not long occupy their
attention—that, owing to indisposition, I have been pre-
vented from hearing many of the most effective speeches
which have been delivered by persons intending to ob-
ject by their votes to the bill now under consideration

I have, however, been fortunate in hearing' several
speeches delivered by men of great eminence in favour of
the bill ; and as an opponent of the bill, I am bound to say
that I have every reason to be satisfied with those
speeches, and that if any doubt had remained on my mind
with respect to the inexpediency of proceeding with a mea-
sure of this character under present circumstances and at
this time, the speeches which I have heard from eminent
members of the legal profession, who thought they were
speaking on behalf of the bill and who intend to support it
with their votes, would have sufficed to remove the very
shadow of such a doubt. (Hear, and laughter.) I take
the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He
ran over the scale from top to bottom, reciting all the ob-
jections which might be urged against the bill. He did
not attempt to extenuate the force of one of them ; he
did not enter into any reasoning or statement of facts
to show that any one of them was unfounded or ex-
aggerated ; but to one and all he replied by declaring
that the present evil was vast, intolerable, and insuffer-
able ; that he had nothing else to offer but this bill,
and that the house had no option but to pass it. I
am bound to say that I do not think the House
of Commons is reduced to such a pass as that when a
question of this kind is presented to it, touching most
nearly the very foundations of one House of Parliament—
touching most delicate matters with respect to the prero-
gative of the Crown, and also involving most important
topics with respect to the administration of justice—l say,
when such a question is presented to the House at a time
when the Appropriation Bill has begun to run its rapid
course, I do not think the House is reduced to such a pass
that every reason is to be confuted, every tongue to be
silenced, every argument to be set aside, and every objec-
tion to be met by a statement that the present condition
of things is intolerable, and that the House has no choice
but to pass this bill. (Hear, hear.) This, indeed, is
paying but a very bad compliment to the House of Lords.
(" Hear," and a laugh.) What says the honourable and
learned member for Wallingford ? I hope every gentleman
in this house has beard his speech, which was worthy of
the eminent position which that hon. gentleman held in his
profession. The hon. and learned gentleman thought it
beneath him to mike an uncandid statement of his views,
and I thank him for his candour, but at the same time I
hope he will not think it unfair on the part of those who
are friendly to further inquiry to take what they consider
a just advantage of his statement of the grounds on which
he intends to vote for the bill. In the first place, the hon.
and learned gentleman said that he never had so much

difficulty in Making up his mind, and Veifescribeatheoi-
pression on his breast with respect to the vote he should
give. (Laughter.) Really, that part of his speech sounded
like an appeal to our sympathy and compassion ; and I
assure him that if he will simply alter his intention with

respect to his vote—as he may in perfect consistency, with
all the substantial arguments he urged in favour of the
bill—(laughter) —he will find all those disagreeable feel-
ings he has referred to immediately disappear, and he will
pass at once from a state of trouble to a condition of ease
and tranquillity, with the' perfect consciousness th st he
has done a real service to the country. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) 'The hon, and learned gentleman says he
entirely objects to the retention of the appellate jurisdic-
tion by the Hawse of Lords, and be thinks that there is
not the slightest doubt that, when three gentleman are
found sitting in some corner of the House of Lords dur-
ing the prorogation, the public will begin to perceive that
the appellate jurisdiction is reduced to a fiction. (Hear,
hear.) Therefore he says, as a practical man, that, inas
much as he perceives that his bill destroys the substance of
the appellate jurisdiction, though it does not profess.
edly go the whole length of his opinion, which is in
favour of destroying the shadow as well as the
substance—yet, because it leaves only the shadow,
he accepts .-sthe bill. After that it was with some
surprise that I heard the hon. and learned member for
Cambridge University get up and say that he entertained
some suspicions that the opponents of this bill—that is to
say, those who are against proceeding with it at present•—
harboured ideas unfavourable to the retention of the ap-
pellate jurisdiction by the House of Lords. (Hear.) I
know not whether there is any great disloyalty to the pre-
rogative of the House of Lords with respect to the appellate
jurisdiction on the part of those who recommended further
time for consideration ; but lam quite sure that no one
can entertain more dangerous views in reference to that
matter than the hon. and learned member for Wallingford.
(Hear, and laughter.) Now I know not in what sense the
noble lord at the head of the Government was about to
address the house on this question when he rose ; but I
never was more strongly convinced of the reasonableness
and moderation of any proposition than I am of the rea-
sonableness and moderation of the reqiiest contained in
the amendment before the house. (Hear, hear.) It is not
pretended that this is anything else but an amendment,
which, if carried, must for the present session put an end
to the bill—(hear, hear)—and I seriously ask whether, in
the present period of the session, we are fit to open all the
great questions which this bill involves ? (Hear, hear.)
Does not even decency require—l will not say duty to
our constituents—but does not even that decorum whieh
our constituents have a right to demand that we should
observe, require that for some short weeks we should delibe-
rate on a question of this kind before finally committing
ourselves to an arrangement over which our control ceases