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

THE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1856'

fically what instructions would be issued to the commis-
sion, but perhaps the noble lord would be so good as to
say whether the commission would have full power to
propose such a site as they miglat consider the best
adapted to the purpose.
Lord PALMERSTON—I cannot tell my hon. friend
what the instructions will be, because the commission
has not yet been appointed, but of course it will be open
to them to make such suggestions as may appear to them
to be the best to make with regard to the site. I can
only repeat, however, what I stated in the discussion of
this question, that there are places, such al the Royal
Palaces at Sc. James's, and Kensington gore, and Marl-
borough House, which no Government would agree to
have converted into the National Gallery, even though
they should be recommended by the commission, and f
this obvious reason, that such places are the private pro-
perty of the Crown. (Hear.)
MILITIA MUTINY IN IRELAND.
Mr. F. FRENCH wished to put a question to the hon.
Under-Secretary for War, relative to a statement which
had been published with regard to the disbanding of the
Tipperary Militia. It was stated that the men had re-
fused to deliver up their arms on certain conditions, and
that they had taken possession of the town of Nenagh,
where they used their bayonets and fire-arms, arid the
troops of the line had to be called in to quell them. By
a telegraphic message since received, it was stated that
the mutiny had been quelled, and the question he wished
to put to the ;hon. Under-Secretary was, whether it
really was the fact that the mutiny had been suppressed,
but only with severe losses on both &des?
Mr. F. PEEL—I have seen a telegraphic despatch from
General Chatterton, which states that everything was
quiet i❑ the quarters where the mutiny had taken place.
It added that one man had been killed and some 10 or 12
wounded belonging to the line, but it does not allude to
the losses on the side of the militia.
Colonel DUNNE—Does the hon. gentleman intend
to go on with the Militia Pay Bill to night I—because,
if he does, I shall call attention to the important cause
of this unfortunate occurrence.
Mr. F. PEEL—I hope to pass it through committee
to-night.

was carried. (Hear.) That furnished a clue to show
that the 1%-?al intention of those who conceived the bill
was to limit the prerogative of the Crown. Let him go
to the antecedents of the measure. No doubt the Go-
vernment had thrintention of strengthening the appel-
late juri,dietion- of the House of Lords when they ad_
vised her Majesty to create his noble friend Lord Wens-
leydale a peer fur life. But 'as soon as the hare -was
started in the other Mouse, the ball was opened by a
noble lord, to ',horn he would apply these lines of Gray,
with only a isiight alteration .
Full oft within the gilded halls,
When he had seventy winters o'er him,
The Lord. Chief Justice led the brawls,
While Law and Justice danced before him.

(Laughter.) The Government made a good fight, but they
were defeated by a majority of 33. His right hon. friend
(sir J. Graham) said the other night that there was no-
thing really new in the world—that the same thing was
being acted ov,r and over again. He thought it was
in Captain Alarrya,tt's " Peter Simple that a
character was drawn who held that in the year 2222
they would be hammering nails in the same ship with
the same people around as now ; and there was an illus-
tration of that in the third vo!urne of the " Lives of the
Chancellors," page 398, where in the life of Lord Chan-
neer Nottingham the following scene was described :
—" The Chancellor had the sagacity to see the trap laid
fur the Government, but he had not the address to avoid
it. He could not control the fervour of those friends of
The Government who, mad on the question of privilege,
disregarded all party predilections and stood up for
their own notion of the rights of their older. During
these debates the ex-chancellor and the reigning Lord
Chancellor being pitted against each other, the latter
suffered severely." His noble friend at the head of the
Government said the other night, in answer to him, that
whatever had been done in this matter bad been acted
before the foot-lights. Adopting that image, and the
curiosafe/icitas of the noble lord, he would consider the
whol' of this affair in a theatrical point of view, and in
an "Imaginary Conversation," not by W. S. Lander,
but by an author whoca he would not name, he should
thu- describe the scene

(Scene, Venice. A Gothic library looking out on the Grand
' Canal. Two Senators seated at a table.)
FIRST SENATOR--You're in a fix, and there's but one in
Venice
Can help you out of 't, and that I am he
Full well thou know'st. When rogues on the Rialto
Are growing seedy, they've an ancient custom :
Each draws a little bill, and each accepts it,
And then they spout their paper, and the house
That takes it is done brown (a house we wot of).
Nobles may learn from knaves, say dost thou twig me ?
SEcoath SENATOR—AIas ! too well.
FIRST SENATOR—Then mark me " Villegrande."
I, too, have run my head against a wall
Right at the Doge's power, of which I boasted
To be the best, if not the sole, defender;
Yet I will curb this enrst prerogative, •
• But hide the hand that does so. " Campobello"
(Bellow he's rizhtly named) cloth roar and bluster
About his " Res decreta," but we know
'Tis worth the ink that writes it, and no more.
I want a statute with all forms of law ;
We'll wrap my 4lig at the prerogative
In some sham semblance of a law reform,
The very cry you've started,—and the Commons
Will toss their noses to the wind, and open
Full on the false scent and o'errun the true one.
Old Campobello is the man to do it
For well he knows so to embalm a rat,
That none shall nose him. Ah ! you hesitate,
But I have mare to offer ; and, besides,
Will find some plaister for your broken pate;
Two golden rings and twice six thou, and ducats
To oil the legal wheels and set them whirring;
And they shall whirr and whizz on this suggestion,
Down there below, until the wretch who hears them
Shall stop his ears, and, bothered by their pother,
surrender at discretion. Here's a plan
In which I think you trace a master's hand.
SECOND SENATOR —But then the Doge, my lord ?
FIRST SENATOR...-The Doge be d—d !
Sweet " Villegrande," if you sign this paper
And do my high behests, I'll bear you harmless
Out of this ugly scrape ; but if, by Heaven,
You pause or falter—era the chimes of six
Strike on St. Mark's —I open on the Senate
And thunder o'er it till " the stones of Venice"
Turn on their sides to mock thee with their grinning.
Sign, then !
SECOND SENATOR (with great expression).—l sign
FIRST SENATOR —Why there's a clever fellow.
[Exit FIRST SENATOR with the paper in his
pocket, whistling " the Ratcatcher's
Daughter."' (Laughter.)
SECOND SENATOR—The Doge I the Doge ! I fear I have
betrayed him.

[Opens the window, gazes on the Grand
Canal, shuts the window, and rushes fran-
tically out of the apartment.] (Laughter.)
Now, that was a curious fragment, and be should be
happy t-) furni.h any gentleman with the references to it
in private. He thought that, in courtesy to the house,
the assent of the Crown to the introduction of the bili
should be notified to it That was done in the House of
Lords, but only on the third reading, and after some
observations made by Rid Grey. Although the power of
the Crown in respect to life peerages had been dormant, it
was one which nobody should wish to repeal. They were
accustomed to look on their ancestors as benighted brings
in many respects, and their descendants might entertain
the sqrne opinion in respect to`the present generation. The
time was when the possession of many acres, and being
descended from an ancient family, were put forward as
grounds of recommendetion for the .office of Speaker,
which showed bor., much public opinion bad change4i

since that time. A noble lord who had been well known
to many of them, used to say that there were two great
objects of ambition to the peerage of this country, a
garter or a lord-lieutenantcy, and that because they were
never given to merit. It was quite natural that such
should be the case. The low-born or the outcast might
possess them. But those distinctions were the test of po-
litical power, rank, and position. Submission to wealth
and rank was the besetting sin of this uountr• It would

' perpetual influx of lawyers into the house. Nor was this
all. In the debates on the Peerage Bill, life peers were
decried, wore called "second-chop peers;" and yet now it
was proposed to place the appellate jurisdiction in the power
of life peers. If a life peer deserved the derogatory desig-
nation which had been applied to him, even when created
by the Crown, what would be thought of him when called
into existence with the aid of the rude bands of the Com-
mons. These inconsistencies showed that passion rather
than discretion had provoked the contest with the Crown.
The question of prerogative had been abundantly discussed.
and the power of the Crown to create life peers amply
established. Indeed the position taken by the House of
Lords had hardly been defended in that house. Now what
did the measure propose ? To create two life peers from the
body of the puisne judges. The salary was to be the same,
and no great inducement was held out in point of honour,
seeing that the language held out in the House of Peers
was derogatory to the dignity of life Peers. Men of spirit,
in the vigour of health, would hardly accept such peer-
ages, and these two new life peers would have the power of
reversing j udgreenta agreed to by the entire bench of judge.,
now in the flower of their health and the full force of their
mental vigour. (Hear.) Would that be a satisfactory system
of appellate jurisdiction? (Hear.) The Government were
now coming to the close of the session. He hoped his
noble friend at the head of the Government would not
allow this miserable bill to come between him and his
great body of supporters. Had he considered the division
upon this question, when 140 of his supportors voted o
.against him? (Hear, hear.) They could not without great
regret enter into a contest with him at the end of a session
in which their conduct must have been satisfactory to him.
(A laugh.) He would not speak of what they might be
driven to in extremity ; but when no one would venture
to say a word publicly in favour of the bill—(hear, hear)—
although members spoke of it privately without reserve—
(hear)—some of them charaiitmising it as the worst bill
that had been brought into the house for 20 years—(hear)
o r ter s
wishedeve even inquiry t
uponb e
able—let his noble friend attempt to force it upon the house
without i
return ear.)
A t
o their hom
es
with thathissup
p
with satisfaction and contentment—(a laugh)—and he en-
treated the noble lord not further to force the bill upon
them. (Hear, hear.) •
Mr. MALINS said this was a measure of most vital im-
portance as affecting the administration of justice. (Hear.)
He had already in that house drawn attention to the un-
satisfactory state of our appellate jurisdiction. (Hear.)
And his views had been adopted and confirmed even by
the House of Lords. (Hear.) The delay and expense
amounted almost to a denial of justice. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the nature of the tribunal, although the

country had tolerated the long period in which the appel-
late jurisdiction was really exercised by the Lord Chan-
cellor, at the present time such a system, even under an
Eldon, would not be endured. (Hear, bear.) Since 1835
there had been for some years a body of ex-chancellors of
singular ability, and the jurisdiction was tolerated by the
country. But lately these noble lords, from age and other
reasons had thought fit to withhold their assistance, and
consequently during last session there were only two peers
in attendance. And now the court of appeal really con-
sisted of a single peer—the Lord. Chancellor—a state of
things certainly intolerable. (Hear hear.) The question
was, what was to be done ? He should have rejoiced if
the House of Lords would have relinquished their juris-
diction. Still that house had declared that they wore de-
termined to retain it. If the House of Lords, however,
as a house, did not really exercise it, and it was exercised
only by the law lords, what necessary connection had it
with the house? (Hear.) Something must he done; and
although that was .not the best reason for legislation, it
was at least an unanswerable one. It was necessary to do
something. The Lord Chancellor was virtually the court
of appeal. Could anything be more ridiculous than to call
that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords ? (Hear.) The
450 peers were actually excluded, and the decision of a
single peer was termed that of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Something, he repeated, must be done. He declared again
that he wished the House of Lords had consented to
give up their jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.) That would have
afforded the opportunity for c mstituting an appellate
jurisdiction analogous to that of the .lu.licial Committee of
the Privy Council. And if he could have seen his way by
rejecting the bill to secure that object, he would have voted
for its rejection. But he had with great pain and regret
and doubt arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing
else to be done but to support the bill. (Laughter.) The
evil was so pressing that it would not admit of delay. If
the bill were sent to a select committee that would shelve
the bill for the year. Next year the evil would exist; and
what would be the consequence:? Was there any reason-
able prospect that the. House of Lords would part with
their appellate jurisdiction ? Why very distinguished peers
had declared that if they gave it up they would lose their
legislative power in ten years. There was no chance then
of their giving up their appellate jurisdiction. That being
so—true wisdom required that Parliament should do the
best that could be done for remedying the evil. The pre-
sent bill provided at all events a partial remedy. It pro-
vided for the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction during
the recess.' It also provided that there should be three
judges at least instead of one. It was said, indeed, that it
was a blow to the prerogative. But that was a delusion.
It was admitted that the Crown could create life peers; but
though the Government had acted very unwisely in mooting
the question, the House of Lords was the proper tribunal
to determine their own privileges, anti had determined that
a life peer was not a lord of Parliament. (Hear.) The pre-
sent bill only provided that a certain number of life peers
should be peers of Parliament; and wherein did that in-
terfere with the prerogative? This bill did not limit the
prerogative of the Crown ; but the Crown could not create
peers to sit in Parliament. The Crown could still create
200 peers if it thought fit, and it was a delusion, therefore,
to say that the measure interfered with the prerogative.
The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, and the
noble lord the member for Lon on contended thatthepeers
created ought,to be peers with inheritance ; bat he (Hr.
Malins) maintained that if this bill passed, there would be
no greater difference between the new peers and the peers
by inheritance than between Scottish and It ish represen-
tative peers and those sitting in their own right. If the
appellate jurisdiction was to be maintained, it was for the '
interest of the public and the profession that the new peer-
ages should to some extent be for life, and not an inherit-
ance, inasmuch as in the progressoflasw reform professional
incomes had been much lowered, and there were but few
persons eligible to undertake the responsibility of the peer-
age. But he certainly should regard it as a public calamity
if the legal tribunal of the House of Lords, which sat upon
legal and constitutional questions, should be reduced to
only one or two noble and learned lords. Admitting that
there might be too meny lawyers in the House of Commons
—(" hear" from LOrd Palmerston)—it was better to have
too many than too few. (Hear.) He should regard it us a
great misfortune if the mercantile and banking interest
were unrepresented, and if the retention of the legal ele-
ment in this house were essential, it was much more so in
the other. (Hear.) Considering the great age of the noble
and learned lords who now consituted the appellate j uris-
diction, he thought it right that Parliament should con-
cede the power to the Crown to create a limited number
of peers for life, who should be competent, by their learn-
ing and experience, to aid the House of Lords in the busi-
ness of legislation. Although, therefore, he did not fancy
the present measure, and could have wished one of a diffe-
rent complexion, he should, in the absence of a better one,
give'it his support. He admitted That by this bill the appel-
late jurisdiction of the House of Lords would substantially,
although not nominally, be taken away—(ironical cries of
" hear, hear")—and that when the public found the court
of appeal sitting in November and December, they would
not recognise in it the present ordinary appellate jurisdic-
tion. But he thought that in the course Of years the House
of Lords, feeling that the jurisdiction had gone substan-
tially, might be induced to part with it in reality. (Hear.)
If the bill passed, he felt sure that the noble lord the First
Minister of the Crown would only consider the efficiency
of the administration of justice, and not lend himself to
anything in the shape of jobbery. To that part of the bill
which limited the appointments to those who had filled
judicial offices he objected—(hear)—and in committee it
was his intention to change that part of the measure. He
objected to the present provision in this respect, as it li-
mited the ' choice of the Crown. This measure vets not
what he should prefer ; but, seeing that it was the best
that could be framed under the circumstances, he should
object to its being referred to a select committee. Reject
the bill, and the appellate jurisdiction would be left in the
wildest state of confusion.

Mr. CARDWELL had hoped that the moderate request
that, before they committed themselves to irrevocable legis-
lation on this great and important subject, inquiry should
be had, would have been conceded. The usual course, when
an evil was admitted, and the remedy proposed doubtful,
was to refer the matter to a committee. This bill cause
before the House of Commons concurrently with the Ap-
propriation Bill, and was a measure which dealt with the
constitution of the Rouse of Lords, with the prerogative
of the Crown, and with the dearest rights and most
important interests of the community. If, according to
the last speaker, the substance of the jurisdiction was gone
and yet the Lords thought they retained it, what could
furnish a stronger case for inquiry than the doubt here
suggested ? The hon. and learned gentleman (Air. Atalins)

declared himself opposed to one of the most important pro-
visions of the bill—namely, that which regulates all the
appointments of the persons that were to constitute the
new tribunal, and ho went so far as to announce his inten-
tion of moving the rejection of the clause when the bill was
in committee. But besides that there were other portions

of the bill, although ho did not specifically name them, to
which he should object in committee. Well, that being so
the advocates of the bill bad much reason to say, "Save
us from our friends." It was but natural, therefore, that
those who looked upon the bill with less favour should call
upon the house to take due time for consideration before
passing such a bill. Having regard to the circumstances of
the case, he should put a question which must be palpable
to every one, and that was, how had the bill been actually
received in debate ? On the opposite side of the house they
had but little more than silent votes in favour of the bill,
while on that of the ministerial side they had had the most
earnest observations and the most strenuous votes against
the second reading. Neither as yet had the guardians of
the Queen's prerogative taken any part iu the discussion,
though perhaps that might be considered a fortunate eft-
cun3stance, inasmuch as it might facilitate their yielding
to the demand for a more careful inquiry. What member
that had spoken in favour of the bill had failed to speak
of it in terms of condemnation ? The Attorney-General
presented it to them as a modeof getting outof adifliculty.
The hon. and learned member for. Plymouth considered
thodetails of the bill as weak and unsatisfactory. The
other learned member for Plymouth admitted the bill was
capable of improvement. While the Solicitor• General
wished that its phases had been larger, and would reserve
the bill forameniment in committee. (Hear, hear.) Well,
ought not such speeches, made 'ostensibly in favour of
the bill, seriously warn them to pause before acceptinc, it ?
Law reform had been justly termed the great demand of
the day, and though they did not obtain it as rapidly as
was desired, still a good deal of consideration was devoted
to the subject. Now, what ought to be the keys:one and
column of law reform ? Why, the amelioration of that
appellate tribunal before which, as a last resort, legal
questions were brought, and whose decisions constituted
the model of written law. How stood matters at present
with regard to the appellate jurisdiction of the country?
There were two courts of appeal—the Committee of Privy
Council and the House of Lords. In the first place, then,
was it wise to continue the two courts of appeal, and
might it not be well for the House of Commons to inquire
whether a single court of appeal might not be formed that
would comprehend all the wisdom of the law ? But how
did they propose to deal with the existing courts ? Why,
they were going to ignore the one that gave universal sa.
tisfaction, it being intended ultimately to absorb and an-
nihilate it ; while with respect to the other they were
going to pass a measune admitted to be imperfect. What
ought to be the general principle of a tribunal of first in-
stance ? Ought it not to be that the fullest responsibility
should rest with the presiding judges? while in the case
of the court of final appeal, the regulating principle ought