The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-08 00:00:00

THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY.

Lord J. RITSgELL said it was desirable that the
house On an early day should be infornied of what bad
been done by foreign Governments with regard to Ita-
lian affairs. (Cheers.) He should therefore move on Fri-
day or Monday,next for copies of the correspondence
between foreign Governments on this question, be-
cause it was desirable the house should know
if any fruits might be expected from the declaration
made at the late Conference at Paris.
, MEDICAL PROFESSION BILL.
Mr. COWPER stated that he intended to abandon
this bill for the present session.
THE VACCINATION BILL.
- -

Mr. COWPER said it was his intention to pro-
ceed with this bill at whatever hour it might come on in
order.

WAYS AND MEANS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
up the report on Ways and Means.
Sir H. TILLOUGHBY took objections to it, but it
was ultimately agreed to. .
THE TIPPERARY BANK.

Cal. F. FRENCH wished t correct a matter which
appeared to him to reflect on the character 'olone of the
most talented and honourable men on the judicial beech
either in England or Ireland. The Attorney-General for
Ireland had *stated that it would he owing to the irregu-
lar conduct of the bilaster of the Rolls if any failure of
justice took place.in Mr. J. Sadleir's case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND quite:
agreed in the high character awarded to the Master of
.the Rolls, brit must repe,;t that the observations which
fell from the Master of the Rills were irregular.
- Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he did not want to
go back to the old sys.tern. All that he had said w.ts, that
the statesmen, of George 111 's reign were wiser moo
than they were; because when they
.wanted to get ac•
cuunts they got them. :Ile:still tatairtta,ned that they
ought not to stultify themselves by passing a resolution
about what-they had no inferna,tion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. baronet was wrong in asiufnieg that the Govern-
d entdesired to withhold any informations from the house.
They wished to lay all information connected with tho.e
aceount4 before tho honse, and they only delayed doing
so bepaust3 it was absolutely necessary to wait. till the
acvnut-: were conipleted.
Mr. WILLIA.MS said that there wexe several clauses
is the Appropriation Bill to ,w,hich he Chad objections,
art he hoped it would be printed.
Mr. WILSON Said that be held the bill in his hand;
and that he would introduce it that bight and" have
printed.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION ( IiOUSE OF
LORDS) BILL.

On the order of the day for the second; reading of this
bill, „

Mr...E. DENISON said he had a pet ition to present,
the substance of which he would,shortly s tate, from James
Baron Wensleydale, on the report of this bill. • The
"petitioner stated that he had by letters patent under the
Great Seal, of date 24th January, 1856,, been created'a
peer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire-
.land for the term of his natural life ; t hat her Majesty
had beeh pleased to direct the usual such aeons to be issued
for him to take his teat in Parliament ; that he had been
prevented from doing so by-illness; and; that before he
could take his seat the question' had be en referred to a
committee of privileges to consider the 1 etters patent and
to report. The petitioner stated that t lie committee re-
ported that neither by the letters patent nor by the letters
patent with the writ of summons was he entitled to take
his seat, and that the helms afterwards e weed to that re-
port. The petitioner further stated that -when he received
his letters patent he had no doubt of her Majesty's right
by prerogative to summon to the Hous e- of Lords any of
her subjects not disqualified by law—to ennoble by grant-
ing a peerage for life one on whom she l tad conferred the
honour of knighthood ; and that he , therefore, con-
fidently expected that the decision o E the
house of
Lords would have been in favour of his . right to sit arid
vote in that house. The petitioner th, in stated that a:
bill had been introduced, the la,t clans te of which pro.
vided that nothing contained in the bill should affect the
right of her Majesty to appoint Depot y Speakers in th,.
House of Lords, but that it did not sa ye her Majesty's
prerogative.for creating life peers to s it in Parliament,
and that it limited the number of life pe etre to be created
to four. The petitioner represented tl. tut he ought not
in any way to be prejudiced or affect ed by any ques-
tions raised as to his title or right t o take his seat ;
that he had an undoubted right to peti it ion the House
of L,irds to rescind its resolution, v r Bich was not
final, and might be altered at any tim e ; that he felt
satisfied that the house would con ii der his case
that -be belieied the question of 1 A to creation ef
life peers bad beensomtihxaoti
it
tp
waswi, 1.;,1 i
imthpeo,sqsui
beisetiot
on
of appellatejurisdictionsay that' they had decided the ohaelryi\ tualessttiyonhaadffetchte.
lug the petitioner—viz., whether
writ of
.
powerpe
peer
e ennobled
b iprerogative
for
life
otoniiysf issue a
as
and vote in Parliament. The petitione r then prayer
'too err' z
tltMleinhlloll 8 tt : ail
that such amendments might be intreduci el into the b 11
as should leave the Royal prerogative and ' the pea-
tionerVright unaffected by it, more esp ecially as the
question of her Majesty's prerogative and. the petitionted
right was in no wise neces ary to be coy .s idered wi b the
view of rendering efficient-a, bill relating I ,;(.) the appellate
jurisdiction of the other house. (Hear hear.) He be-
lieved he should not be out of order if 1 ie were to state

in tbe agreed with the petitioner. (Loud
" Ord ," and "No.")

The petitiim then orde'red to lie on the table.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to move the
Second reading of the bill, which, as they were well
aware, had been introdUeed in the other house 'on the
report of a committee appointed to inquire into the state
of the appellate jurisdiction of that bowie, with the view
of seeing whether it could not be amended. That
committee, after receiving a great deal of evidence, might
be said to hairein substance -reported that the 'appellate.
jurisdiction was not in a satisfactory State ; that it was
capable of improvement ; and they adopted certain- re-
commendations which would be found embodied in the
present bill. There could be no doubt. of the great im-
portance of this question. In all ate both at common
law and equity the House of Lords was a court of appeal
in the last resort, and by its decision the law of the land
was finally settled. It was notorious, and could not be
contradicted, that for some time very great dissatisfac-
tion had been felt by suitors and the public generally with
the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the
other house had been exercised. Hon. members were
a hare that though by the theory of the constitution the
appellate jurisdiction centred in the House of Lords,
practically it was not exercised by the whole body, but was
left to those members of the house who held judicial
offices, and were also members of -that house. With the
exception of the Lord Chancellor for the time being and
the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the judges
of the appellate court consisted generally of members of
that house who bad held the office of Lord Chancellor.
It was quite evident that this body of judges,' consist-
ing of the persons he had referred to, must fluctuate ;
but; even supposing a sufficient -number could be secured
to act as a court of appeal, there was nothing which
made it obligatory on them—the law lords holding office
excepted—to attend. The result bad been that "the
number of law lords attending to hear appeals had beet,
reduced below the number thought necessary for the dis-
charge of the business with satisfaction to suitors and the
public. It bad frequently happened that the number
of judges had been reduced to two, and sometimes to
one. When it was recollected that these appeals often`
came from inferior courts of appeal with several judges,
it would at once be admitted that it could not be satis-
factory to the public -or the suitors, that such appeals
should, in the last resort, be decided, perhaps, by only
one judge. He had heard Scotch appeals decided by
one judge in the House of Lords, though these ap-
peals were from the judgment of a court composed of
several judges, necessarily conversant with Scotch law.
Often when only two judges were present they had dif
fered be opinion, and the result was that the judgment
of the interior court: remained unaltered. One case -had
been alluded to by his hon. and learned friend the Soli-
citor-General in his valuable evidence before the com-
mittee, in which there had been conflicting decisions
between the Court of Exchequer and the Master of the
Bolls. There were only two judges present in the other
house when the case came on, and as the Lord Chancel-
lor differed from Lord St. Leonards, the judgment of
the Master of the Rolls stood confirmed against a con-
trary judgment of the judge of the Court of Exchequer.
It might even happen that the Lord *Chancellor on
appeal might, under such circumstances, confirm his
own judgment in the court below. There was another
great inconvenience which nothing but legislation
could remedy. At present the sitting of the House of
Lords as a court of appeal could only be. coexten-
sive with the sitting of Parliament. The result was
that all its business was suspended, from the
prorogation of -Parliament until it met for actual busi-
ness. In many cases this produced great inconvenience
to the parties, and also led to considerable arrears and
delay. He believed that the shortest period in which an
appeal could be brought in for hearing was two years.
(Hear.) The number of judges was not sufficient—that
number fluctuated—their attendance was voluntary, and
for ene-half the year all the proceedings were suspended.
These were the points for consideration. There were
other topics referred to in the evidence, relating to the
dress of the j udges, the want, of combination and
arrangement, which required to be considered, but which
del net require the interposition of the Legislature.
But. the matters to which he had referred 'comet not be
rectified except by the Legislature, and therefore an
act of Parliament was necessary. He was aware of
the strong objections that might be urged to the mea-
sure ; hut the question to consider- was, whether, when
the defects of the House of Lords as a court of appellate
jurisdiction, as at present constituted, were so glaring,
it was not necessary to do something to remedy those
defects ? And whether, under all-the circumstances,
the present measure was not the best that could be pro-
posed ? Tnat was the question which he had to invite
them dispassionately to consider. He knew that some
thought that the simplest course would be to withdraw
the appellate jurisdiction from the House of Lords. (Hear.
He recognised that cheer, but desired to know whether
there were not serious, if? not insuperable, difficulties to.
such a course? Would-it not lead to delay, and leave
the unhappy suitors in the same ifosition in which they
now were? Many people thought that to 'deprive the
House of Lords of' its judicial functions would be to strip
it of one element of its import mce and dignity. He did
not look at the matter in that light, and did not, con-
stitutionally speaking, see any:necessary connection be-
t veen the functions of the House:of Lords and its judi•
cial duties, which, as he had, observed, weee eaercieeti-
only by tne-taw lords, the lay lords being present only
formally, the remaining mute on such occasions. Ha
could not help thinking that the dignity-of the Hohse of
Lords would bemore likely to be impaired if the exercise.
of its judicial functions was not satisfactory, but a cause
of complaint to • suitors and the oeublic. On the other
hand he knew many who objected to divest the House of
Lords of its judicial functions. The question had to be
answered to what tribtinal, if these duties were to be
transferred, would they transfer them ? He did not think
they could proceed to constitute a tribunal of-the last re-
'sort, independent of the House of Lordie without re-
constituting the whole judicature of the country. He
knew it had beep said that all the appellate business
might ne transferred to .‘the Judicial C .mmittee of the
Privy Couecil. He admitted that it was impossible to
conceive-a court, the functions of which could be dihr
charged in a nitre admirable manner"; bat they must
not overlook the great difficulties of transferring, the
-whole appellate business of the House of Lords tia the
Judieite Committee of the Privy Connell. That court,
with one or two exceptions, consisted of members of the
legal prole-sion who had held office or who hold judicial
office. One of these exceptions was a right honouiabie
.gentleman- a shining light of justice, who must aria
dignity, Were, and efficiency to any court of which he
was a member, and whose n)tepreinotion to a Igher
judicial office bad ever been a s mrce of regret to him
(the Attorney-Gentral). It would not be fair to call on
those members who bad discharged their term of office,
and with regard to those who actually held office it
aught to be kept in view that they - only 'attended the
Council occasionally, that their time was not largely
drawn upon ; but if the whole appellate jurisdiction wee
to be confined to the Council it would be impassible for
the superior judges to devote that time to the Council
which was due to the administration of justice' in their
own courts. Moreover, they cou ti not divest the House
of Lords of its appellate jurisdiction without the consent
of that house, and as far as becoutdiearn their appella,:e
jurisdiction was the last thing which the House of Lords
would give up. That being the case thejriumst take the
best means in their power of making' the House of
Lords efficient as a court of the list resorts A-
tempts had been made to amend the court without
resorting to legislative interterenee. The house was
aware that Lord Wensleydale, -whose petition they
had heard presented that night—a distinguished man
and meeting the honour mote than any one—had been '
selected for a judicial member of the other house. The
attempt to introduce the noble lord had failed, because,
though many persons were of opinion. that her Majesty
-had done no more than exercise her undoubted preroga-
tive, the constitution put it in the powehof the House of
Lords to determine on the validity of the patent. Under
'these circumstances Lord Wensleydale had not been
atee to take his seat; -To secure a sufficient number of
judges it was pecessary:to elevate distinguished mem-
bers of the legal profession to sit 'arid vote ill the other
house. lie believed that if. the House of Lords could
prevent her Majesty calling eminent judicial men to the
Hogse of Lords as life peers,- the effect would be to ex-
' elude-some of the ablest and fittest lawyers from -that
house, because few of them could afford, with a clue
,regard to their families, to take on 'themselves the dig-
nity of An hereditary peerage. Courts hart been inulte
kliedeebtainess had been diminished and divided—
much to the advantage of the administration of justice
—but large fortunes, sufficient to support the onus
of the peerage, were not now made at the bar. Tne house
of Lords had closed the door, with some few exceptions,
to life peers. The jurisdiction as at present existing was
condemned by the house itself ; 'the matter was one of
great importance, one in- which no interest but that of
the public ought to be allowed to prevail. It ought not
to be made a party question. They could not create life.
peers. Some persons were averse to accept an hereditary
pweeerraeget,heay preparedndthejuristodicetniotner cionetiod 'not
contest otb
with thee transferred.
House of Lords on -the question ? The result to the
suitors would be ruinous, and on the whole'he thought
the better course to take was that proposed by the bill.
Even if the difficulty of life peerages was got over there
rethained another difficulty, that of making the sittings
of the' appellate tribunal co-existent with the sitting of
Parliatnent. By the plan phoposed her Majesty would
obfu'tehneabSiceodtctho ji
dt riec
tuucteeti nwt
ho
itchhewootuhlear
was felt' to be at present' a grievous, almost a scanda.;
supplyh‘ous tahamt eveaticerl:
loos preceeding. At present appeals from the Court of ,
Session were decided by one oe two lords, who, what-
' ever mieht be their knowledge-of English law, had not
that knowledge of the Scotch law which the judges, of
the Court appealed from had. lie believed that the
Scotch people would be, glad to see in the appellate court
of the ether house at least one member of the Scottish
courts, who would give his assistance in appeal cases.
The present plan would enable the Government to :pro-
vide for that want. It was contended, also, by the op-.
ponents of the bill that it would operate as a surrender
of the prerogative of the Crowe. (Hear.) All he could
ray in answer to that objectioh was, that although he
should be prepared to support that prerogative wheuever
the fitting opportunity presented itself—(a laugh)—yet
he did not consider it expedient that the House of Com-
mons should stand tip iu its defence to' the rejection of.
a measure which tended to effect that improvement
in the appellate jurisdiction of the House -of Lords
which members of every party deemed to be albBo-
lutely necessary.' He could only present that measure
to the notice of the house as the best mode of gelting
out of a difficulty, and he must Maintain that unless hon.
members could show that any more satisfactory way of
overcoming the obstacles by which the question watt bet
set was open to them, it would be their dutye by assent