The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-29 00:00:00

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
ROUSE OF LORDS.

(Prom the Times of this day.)

Lord Derby has. done good service to the cause of
legal reform by the speech which he delivered last night
when proposing the appointment of a committee to in•
vestigate the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords. He has not, indeed, thrown much new light
on the subject, but he has gathered together what we
knew, and stated it with much clearness and perspicuity.
On one point, howeVer, Lord Derby's ideas are most
eccentric. He thinks that there is no hardship for the
suitor in obliging him to wait for six months between
the termination of one session and the beginning of
another. Hot blood has time to cool, revengeful
thoughts to give place to calmer considerations, and
prudence to gain her empire over the mind of the irri-
tated litigant. Such an, argument would be as effica-
cious in favour of a delay of twelve months as six, of
two years as of twelve months, and would, indeed, if
carried to its legitimate inference, be conclusive against
any appeal at all. Lord Derby is more happy in his
criticisms on the different plans that may be suggested
for constituting the new tribunal of appeal. The peer-
age for life would seem to be of itself scarcely sufficient
kir the purpose. If the appellate tribunal is to be
adapted to the different subjects with which it would
hare to deal, it' should be both numerous and capable
of selection. The authority, whoever he may be,
on whom the task devolves should be able to Choose
• the judges most suitable to the subject to be tried,
and no others should be permitted to attend. Neither
of these results could be obtained by the mere
creation of peers for life. They could not be made
to attend, and still worse could not he • forced
to stay away ; so that the House of Lords would be
saddled with the mush-dreaded presence of some two
dozen lawyers at all its debates, without deriving from
them the special assistance which it requires. The next
expedient is to annex to certain high judicial offices cffi-
cial peerages, like the titles borne by the Scotch Lords
of Session, to be laid down when the office is vacated.
This plan must also be objected to on the ground of in-
adequacy. The holder of such a peerage is generally a
busy and even an over-worked man, having little time
from his own court to bestow on the management of the
highest court of the empire. To such a body we could
not commit the conduct of the judicial proceedings in
the House of Lords without the risk of finding that its
highest duties would be those which occupied the least
of its care and attention. Then there is the notion of
summoning the judges and vice chancellors to assist the
Lords in their deliberation, to allow them the faculty of
speech, and even to permit them to vote on an equality
with the Lords. This proceeding would be virtually to
swamp the law lords by the votes of the judges, and to
take away from the House of Peers that judicial pre-
eminence which, it justly considers as not the least
brilliant of its ornaments. There remains the proposi-
tion, originally, we believe,. first made in these columns,
to form a Judicial Committee of the House of Lords,
just as there is a Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, this committee to consist of a large num-
ber of judges and learned persons, from whom the
particular tribunal in each case is to be selected.
Tile objection to this seems rather technical, but is
still not without its weight. The Judicial Com-
mittee, it is intended, shall be composed of per-
sons not members of the -Upper House ; so that,
as the proposition now stands, we should have a com-
mittee of a body consisting of persons some of whom
are not members of the body at all. This, however, is
the plan which meets with, and seems to deserve, most
favour. It is established on the basis of precedent, aed
of a precedent that has been eminently successful ; it
gives the amplest opportunity for the selection of its
members and the adequacy of its numbers ; and has the
advantage, thoroughly appreciated by Englishmen, of
preserving the ancient formality of judgment by the
House of Peers while introducing new life into the court
where that judgment is virtually to be given. The dif-
ficulties do not appear to be insuperable, and, being
eusceptible of removal in several ways, leave a fair and
useful field of inquiry to the committee. All this as
surely far better than wrangling about the prerogative
of the Crown, and threatiening.with condign punishment
the nobleman who has received the writ, should he think
it necessary to obey its exigency by presenting himself
to be sworn at the table of the House of Lords.
It is no slight triumph of public opinion that the
Lords, who but a little while ago rejected with so much
scorn any attempt to improve their house, and demon-
strated so entirely to their own satisfaction that they
had nothing to do but to get rid of the importunate at-
tempt of the Government to meddle with its hereditary
privileges, should have been induced to enter so reso-
lutely on the duty of self reform. We rejoice that the I
idea of maintaining their juiisdiction with all its abuses
intact is now abandoned, and that the Peers are about
manfully to do battle with the difficulty, which never
seems to have presented itself to them in its true light
until it stood before the door of their house in the per-
son of Lord Wensleydale. There are in the principles
enunciated by Lord Derby the materials for ad excellent
measure, which may excuse, if it cannot vindicate, the
violent course adopted by ,the Peers, and show Oat
their objection is not to a salutary reform, but only to
what appears to them a dangerous and obnoxious me-
thod of working it out.