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

\g~{~s

mrnemoriaL (No ! and hear.) These opinions may be
disagreeable to some hon. gentlemen ; but even those fe
whom they may be disagreeable, will admit that it is mil?
fair and just that those persons who entertain them shim'',
freely and frankly express them ; and, for my own part, 1
am only giving utterance to my candid co viction upon the
subject. lam jealous for the independence and dignity of
the House of Lords, and I firmly believe that the appoint.
ment of salaried officers to perform those judicial functions
which that house has always discharged will have, I will
not say an immediate effect, but it will have a tendency
dangerous to the dignity and independence of that body.
Then, sir, I object to this bill must strongly as assailing
the independence and purity of the bench. (Loud cries of
" Hear.") We have been told, indeed, that that part of the
bill may be modified, and that it will not do to confine the
choice of the officers to be elected to the judicial bench ;
and I conceive that whatever vote we may come to to-
night, it is impossible for the house to pass a bill contain.
ing the provisions which this bill contains with regard to
that part of the subject. If you agree to those provisions
you introduce a principle with regard to the judicial staff
which the practice of many years has excluded, by holding
out in a most unwise manner a prospect of advancement to
judges in connection not only with their judicial but also
with their political services. (Hear, hear.) You will place
them in a position in which they have legislative
functions to perform, and you will say to them, " make
yourself agreeable to the Ministry of the day, not by your
judicial, but by your legislative services, in order that you
may hope for the farther advancement to the hereditary
peerage." (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, let us review the circum-
stances which have transpired in the course of this debate,
and the speeches of those who have supported the
measure. It must have been obvious to the house that ell
the good which those hon. gentlemen have said of the mea-
sure has been much more than counterbalanced by the
censure of it contained in their own speeches. For my
own part, I believe that if all the opponents of the
bill had been content to become a self - denying
audience and to take no part in the discussion, but
to listen to what was said of it by its supporters, they
would have had no reason to complain of it being
treated with too much favour. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be
denied that the question is one of the greatest difficulty and
delicacy, and one which involves a vast number of consi-
derations. It ought to be considered, among other matters,
whether it would be desirable to have one or more courts
of appeal, and whether means may not be adopted
to avoid the multiplication of appeals. As regards the
great question of life peerages, you are called upon to
legislate in the dark as regards the prerogative of the
Crown, because, although in that respect the meaning of
this bill is not subject to much serious argument, yet
it is not too much to say that it is in diametrical con-
tradiction of the declaration of the Government of the
1-,?gieen upon the subject. Under these circumstances,
it is not too much to ask that we may have accorded
to us as much time for the consideration of this
asabject as is ordinarily afforded to the House of Commons
for the consideration of subjects of not one-twentieth part
of its importance and magnitude? It is vain to say that the
present state of things is intolerable. It is true that there
May be five or six months' defy, but that delay has always
existed, and yet the persons who use that argument tell us
that even 30 years ago the appellate jurisdiction of
the House of Lords was most satisfactory, when at that
time the very same delay took place. I trust that the
house will not consent to agree to a piece of legislation so
ill-consdered on a subject which involves principles of the
greatest difficulty and delicacy, and which most nearly
bears upon the foundation of the constitution. Under
these circumstances it is hardly too much, I think, to ask
the noble lord at the head of the Got'ernment to consent to
the motion of the hon. gentleman—(bear, hear)—and to
consent to refer this bill to a select committee, to weigh
well not only the difficulties by which the subject is sur-
rounded, and which this bill will tend to indefinitely com-
plicate, so that we may not discredit ourselves and the
British Legislature ; but by the exercise of prudence and
by refraining from pressing extreme opinions, we may be
able at some future period, and I venture to hope at no
distant period, to present the country with a measure
worthy of a great country. (Cheers.)
No one rising to address the house, there were loud calls
of " Palmerston," in the midst of which
Lord PALMERSTON rose and said—lt must be ad-
mitted, sir, that what has been stated by the hon. and
learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Malins), that the mean-
ing of this motion is not so much to obtain an inquiry by
a select committee as te get rid of the bill for the present
session, is a correct view of the case, and upon that issue
every hon. member must be prepared to give his vote to-
night. I very much regret the circumstances under which
my hon. friend has made this motion, and also the manner
in which he has adverted to the measure. There is, lam
sorry to ray, a strong difference of opinion upon this sub-
ject, and I am sorry to be obliged to differ from those who
in general afford me their support. We have, however,
felt it to be our duty to recommend this measure for the
acceptance of the house, and, however painful it may be to
find that in the performance of our public duty we stand
at variance with those who generally give us their support,
*till, having felt it to be our duty to propose the bill, we
were bound to discharge that duty, whatever the conse-
quences might be. Now, sir, this measure has been occa-
sioned by the conviction which we have entertained that
the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was in a
condition in which it would not be for the public good that it
should continue. Let it not be understood that I agree with
those who think there is something inherent in the appel-
late jurisdiction of the House of Lords which is in itself
objectionable ; on the contrary, I should be sorry to see
that jurisdiction transferred to any other quarter. I think
that the proposal to transfer that jurisdiction to the Judi-
cial Committee of the Privy Council is founded upon very
imperfect considerations both as regards the tribunal from
which it is proposed to take that jurisdiction, and also of
the court to which it is proposed to transfer it. I think
that to transfer the appellate jurisdiction, which has so
long been exercised by the House of Lords, to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, which is a body of very
recent origin, and which from its nature and constitution
is dependent upon the act of the Crown, would be a mea-
n ire not in my opinion in harmony with the practice of the
constitution, nor would it tend to strengthen that which
all are so anxious to retain. What was it that, in our
opinion, rendered some change necessary with regard to
the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords ? It was,
that by the course of nature many of those eminent men
who had, in fact. constituted the court of appeal had
passed away ; and it became most essential, therefore, to
strengthen that tribunal by the admission of members of
the legal profession. My right hon. friend has stated that
the question has been inconsiderately moote4 by the Govern-
ment. Now, upon that point I beg leave to differ from him.
The question is one which has for a long period occupied the
attention of successive Governments, and which has been
most carefully considered. As regards the general principle
of life peerages, it is my opinion that the House of Lords
eted upon an erroneous judgment when they arrived at
'the conclusion at which they did arrive with regard to the
admission of Lord Wensleydale to that house. There is a
great distinction between the House of Lords and the House
of Commons with regard to the foundation upon which
their influence in the country is bawd. The great influ-
ence of this house arises from its being an elected body,
and thus being a representation of the feelings and opinions
of the great mass of the people of this conntry. The influ-
ence and power of the ffouse of Lords, on the other hand,
are founded upon the character of its members, upon their
local influence, their personal character, or the political
ability which they may display. There can be uo doubt
that the House of Lords would derive great influence and
consideration in the country if there were the means of
placing within its limits men who had distinenished them-
selves, either by their legal attainments or by great mili-
tary or naval achievements, but who, not having that for-
tune which would enable them totransmit to their descend-
ants the means adequately to maintain the dignity of the
peerage, would be placed in an improper situation by being
made hereditary peers. That being our opinion a life peer-
age was conferred upon Baron Wensleydale. The House of
Lords differed upon the point, and a majority decided
against the admission of Baron Wensleydale as a life peer
to a seat in the house. Then came the question what course
sho gild be pursued. We have been told by the right hon.
member for Oxford University, that the present hill is the
result of a compromise huddled up in a committee for the
convenience of parties. Itisno such thing. (Cries of " Hear,
hear," from the Opposition beaches.) It was not the conve-
nience of parties, but a compromise arising from a conflict
of opinions upon a question of great importance, which led to an arrangement that seemed tobe calculated in some de-
gree to accomplish the purpose we had in view. Thus, the
bill comes down to us from the House of Lords as an ar-
rangement, which, on the one hand,is consented to by those
who object to life peerages in the abstract, and, on the
other, furnishes such a reinforcement of strength to the
appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords as will in some
degree remedy the evils which now exist. (Hear, hear.)
Many hon. gentlemen think that a better arrangement
might be made. That is cot impossible; but the ques-
tion is not whether this is the best possible arrangement
for reinforcing the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords, but whether the bill which is now presented to
us, and which, if we agree to it, would no doubt
be carried into law, does give such an accession of strength
to the appellate jurisdiction as would render it satisfac-
tory to the country. My opinion undoubtedly is that it
does. I am of opinion that the appointment of two salaried
members of the court would strengthen it sufficiently to
enable it to perform its duties with more effect and with
more satisfaction to the public. The right hon. member
fori
Oxford University says, it is a new principle to pay
members of the Legislature for the performance of their ,legislative functions. But we do not mean to
Dop city Speakers for the performance of their
leglisalyattihve
functions. (Hear.) It is not a new principle to pay those
Vac) perform judicial duties ; on the contrary, it is an
ordinary and recognised principle of the constitution tHear.) My right hon. friend might as well object to pay
the Lord Chancellor, who presides in the House of Lords,
and exercises not only judicial but also legislative functions.
(Hear.) The objection founde 1 upon principle goes be-
yond the limits of the present bill ; but in my opinion there
is no constitutional objection whatever to giving to certain
legal members of the House of Lords that salary which
would enable distinguished lawyers to abandon either
their practice at the bar—if the proposition of the hon.and
learned member for Cambridge University were adopted;
or their judicial situations, according to the present
arrangement of the bill, for the purpose of undertaking
the important duties which the Deputy-Speakers will
have to perform in the House of Lords. (Hear.) I say,
then. that what is called a compromise is simply the result
of conflicting opinions entertained upon a subject of great
importance-.—the result of a contest ands discussion—not,
as my hon. friend who moved the amendment represented
by his theatrical allegory, acted as a farce upon the stage,
but carried on openly;inthe face of day, known to every-
body, and ending .
in mutual concessions on the part of
those who differed upon a question of consi lerable mag-
nitude. (Hear, hear.) But it is said that this is a matter
of such importance that we ought not to come to a decision
upon it without much more lengthened and deliberate con-
sideration. Why, seeing that it has been fpub-
lict a matter o discussion ever since March in the present year, I can-
not imagine what a further delay
have given their mind to it. When°ll h.l do for who
or tah
and
nadr thosein inquiry
nr
yt
of those who contend for further itiveatigeaat I am rerninaed of the dogg,rel lines about Dean Swift,
who was said to have

defended the ancients so well
That he perfectly proved the moderns excel."
(A laugh.) The hon. gentlemen who have asked for further
investigation have shown that they have so completely
sifted and mastered the question in all its bearings—so
thoroughly examined every part of the measure under dis-
cussion—that no more lengthened or deliberate considera-
tion is necessary to enable them at least to come to a deci-
sion. (Hear) It is admitted on all hands that a great evil
exists —that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords has been weakened, not by anything inherent in
the constitution of that body, but by the accidental cir-
cumstance of a diminution in the number of members com-
petent to take part in its judicial business. Here is a mea-