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

_. .
-Lords. There was, therefore, nothing unconstitutional in
regulating the prerogative of the Crown in the matter of
peerages. He regarded this bill as a means of supplying a
judicial want. It would be a consistent course to uphold
the prerogative within the limits of this act, and at the
same time to limit it in the direction from which danger
was apprehended. His right hon. friend had drawn such
a picture of those who would obtain this questionable
power, that he (Ir. R. Palmer) could not help suspecting
the reasoning which supposed that, under such& bill, they
would go qn overleaping the barrier till every man would
have the finger of scorn pointed at him who accepted those
honours, and yet the army, the navy, and all the profes-
sions, till they came to that to which his right hon. friend
himself belonged, would go on demanding to have these
honours, such as they were, conferred upon them. Really,
no one wouldjaccept life peerages unless on the ground that
they were more acceptable to themselves than hereditary
Peerages. The descendauts of a man who had accepted an.
hereditary peerage without the means of supporting ite
would not look back with gratitude on the founder of this
peerage, and would wish that he had eonteuted himself
with a life peerage. As to the Court of Appeal, it must
be chiefly composed of lawyers. Now, all experience
showed that you cannot always command a sufficient
number of lawyers ready to accept hereditary peerages.
*One reason why lawyers made large fertunes in former
times was that there were means incidental and irregular
of g 'Wag money, all of which were cut off now. All that
was done now must be by the legitimate means of honest
labour, and the consequence was that very few of those
large fortunes of old were now built up. Once they were,
there could be no reason for not allowing the Crown to
create an hereditary peerage in that instance. No one
who should go through the fortunes of a lawyer for the
last seventy years could fail to see that it would have
been far better if, in most instances, hereditary peerages
had not been taken. Only one colossal fortune had been
raised—thst of Lord Eldon. If this was so, it would be
better even for those who should rise to be the ornament
of their, profession not to accept hereditary peerages. The
result ha I been, that for many years very few hereditary
jieerag et hart been conferred upon lawyers. The remedy,
even if Lord Wensl-ydale's creation had been ac •epted,
must have been imperfect, because there would still have
been no compulsory attendance, while practical, regular,
ordinary attendance of persons willing to give their con-
stant attendance to business, could not be secured with-
out the payment of salaries. Still, he thought that many
of the details of the bill were defective. The number of
judges under it was too small, ao that they would hereby
have to apply again to Parliament for a larger measure.
It likewise only gave the judges the salaries, of puisne
judges,, 5,00/. a-year. These were points which they
might con-ider and amend in committee. The principal
was that they should msintain and improve the judicial
constitdtion of the House of Lords, and on that principle
he should vote for the second reading of the bill.
Mr. COLLIER admitted that the measure, as it stood;
was imperfect ; but its opponents had none of them agreed
as to what ought to be done, or suggested 'a remedy for the
existing state of things. That being the State of the oppo-
sition,to the measure, he looked at the bal and found it a
practical measure, which went some weer! to meet the evil
with which it proposed to deal. The main grievance in
the preient system of the House of Lords was, that there
was no regular attendance of those who were the judges.
The bill proposed to -bespoint three permanent judges, who
were alWeys to attend the sittings of the house, and who
were :to form a tribunal, the Sittings of Which would be
co-exte.nsivein duration with those of the courts from which
the causes before it came. If the suggestions made by the
Solicitor-General before the committee of the House of
Lorarf had been attended to, he believed they would have
met all the exigencies of the case, and if no one else did so he
(Mr. Collier) should in committee endeavour to adapt the
bill td those suggestions. He should support the second
reading.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE objected to an argument
which had been used in favour of continuing the appellate
jurisdiction of the House of Lords, that it combined legis-
lative and judicial functions, which he declared to be an
anomaly and opposed to every principle of a free constitu-
tion. He urged that, the judicial functions of the House
of. Lords were a usurpation. In the time 'of Charles 11. an
attempt was made by the House of Lords 'k/ get an original
juriedietion, which they had ro a certain .extent acquired
during the Long Parliament; but it was strenuously op-
posed by Lord Hale. After Hale died, the Hohse of Com-
mons, rather than see causes decided by such persons as
Charles 11. would have appointed, acceded to the usurpa-
tion. of those functions by the House of Lords, which were
-now talked of as if it Would be sacrilege to touch them. It
was the duty of the House of Commons to gat a competent
tribunal of appeal by the payment of any sum of money,
but it was bound not to continue to support an inefficient
and inadequate system.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I confess I could have wished to
hear from the Solicitor-General some other reasons in sup-
port of this bill than those which I have as yet heard. In-
deed, it appears to me that two very great authorities who
have spoken in favour of the bill have, by their speeches,
rather tended to increase the doubts of those who are unfa-
vourable to the measure than to confirm those who are anxi-
ous to hear reasons in favour of it. The Attorney-General
almost made an apology for introducing the bill. He said
it was not what it ought to be, and that what he desired
was a bill which would erect a tribunal of appeal quite in-
dependent of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman pointed out how much better such
a tribunal would be than that created by the present bill,
and he did not state to the house any reason against such
a measure, except that the House of Lords were deter-
mined to go against reason, to overbear, all the motives of
justice and expediency, and to stand by their -appellate
jurisdiction, however mischievously it might work to the
country. (Cheers.) I must confess that would give one a
very bad notion of the House of Lords, and I cannot but
think it weuld give the country a bad notian of the House
of Commons if, acknowledging the measure to be bad—
knowing that it has been recommended to us as a bad
measure—we were, nevertheless, to accept 'and adopt
it in its present shape. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Then
we were told by the honourable. and learned mem-
ber for Plymouth—and I was glad to hear his remarks,
biseoteplrec: ati
auh.
formed—that
nes
eeoj,
stu
:itheyhgnoel
ysue
ltowdoionb-uci
eitli
fddaiepnsdp,
theo 0
otowith
z appointers,
theepda
oo: suyebse deua but more
ot tribunal opinioniebennr atwi
hla which
were
inadequate cl
aehtnrwedl
ethhopeabedaspeadumlc:treryyedy---
tutamt
members
sess
were
added salary .
to w wore larger,
tribun .17 and
eue
bill
twob more
etheerebnill
would be a miserable failure. Bat we must Lice
as we find it ; and, however much the hon. and learned
gentleman may wish to amend it, I know net that the Go-
vernment would be prepared to adopt the alterations which
he proposes. (Hear.) lam told, however, that the bill is
the result of a bargain between the two sides of the House
of Lords, and that we have nothing to do but to assent to
it. Now, instead of inclining me to acquiesce humbly in
such a bill, it does give me some suspicion of the measure
to be told that it is a compromise between two opposite
parties. (Cheers.) In the first place, in spite of the learned
authorities which have been quoted, I have considerable
doubt whether the pr posed remedy is absolutely required.
I am told that the House of Lords is unfit to exercise the
functions of a court of appeal, because very frequently the
Lord Chancellor sits alone; because at all times the attend-
ance is uncertain • because there may be present two ex-
Chancellors .or only ode, or none at all ; and, because the
members of? the court ,do not appear in judicial costume:
Why, Sir, the -greater part of these allegations refer to a
state of things which has always existed, even when the
country was most 'satisfied with the constitution of the
House of Lords as an appellate tribunal. We have heard
the names of Lords Hardwicke, Mansfield, and Eldon, more
recently of Lord Cottenham, as well as of Lords Lyndhurst
and Brougham, who are still alive; and I think no one can
say that there has, not been from Lord Hardwicke down-
Iwards almost a perpetual succession of periods in which
men of great intelleet, of very powerful understanding, and
with vast treasures of acquired legal knowledge have pre-
sided in the House of Lords. If that has been the case, I
am disposed to think, when you are told by competent wit-
nesses, men, too, who complain of the exist ing system—that
when Lord Lyndhurst presided in the House of Lords and
Loids Cottenham, Campbell, and Brougham attended, it was
a most powerful tribunal, and one satisfactory to the country,
You are endeavouring to provide a permanent remedy for a
temporary evil ; that those disadvantages which you are
informed exist in 1856 may in two or three years hence
utterly disappear - and that the tribunal may then be as
much an object Of veneration and confidence as it has
hitherto been. I agree with the hon. and learned gentle-
man who spoke last, that in the days of Charles IL the
House of Lords in its judicial capacity was a new tribunal,
and that Lord Hale was opposed to its appellate jurisdiction ;
tbillie,rewignheaof atohamtume ho
monarch
ai mrceh
,11
Ia smpu
sa sts ebde scionneteetnhte btotaceekineriitnhgingosf
as they are now; and unless that appellate tribunel is quite
unsatisfactory - unless I am forbed to look for a remedy—l
[ must endeavour to be satisfied with its constitution as it exists
at the' present moment. (Hear.) At the same time, it ap-
pears to me that there is great force in what is stated by
several of the witnesses with regard to the Lord Chancellor
sitt ng alone ; but I . think, with the Lord Justice Clerk of
Scotland and the Master, of the Rolls in England, that an ac-
camplished and able man giving his full attention to a case,
even though it may not relate to the particular law with
which be has been most; conversant is likely to come to 0.
,
better decision than a tribunal of inferior men, though they
may be more numerous. (Hear, hear.) The instance which
has been quot d from the evidence of the right hon. member
for the University of Dublin is rather a proof than the reverse
of the truth of that observation. Examine it for a moment.
The right hon. gentleman says that Lord Truro, doming to
sit in the House of Lords, was so ignorant with respect to a
particular act of Parliament referring to Ireland—the Irish
Registry Act—that he asked for a common text book to tales
with him, in order that he might learn the A B C with
regird'to ' that law. But the right hon. gentleman does not
stop there, for he goes on to say that Lord Truro, having
mastered the case, having made himself perfectly acquainted
with that act of Parliament, came down to the House of Lords
and delicired a most luminous and elaborate judgment.
(Hear.) Therefore, Sir, it appears to me that your practice
of selecting the ablest man iu the legal profession who be-
longs to the party which happens to be in power, of placing
him at the head of the House of Lords, and of confiding to
him the appellate jurisdietion, is not so utterly a failure or so
entirely disgraceful an arrangement as some hon. and learned
gentlemen' at the present day seem to imagine (Hear, hear.)
I admit there are many I things with respect to which we
might Maine both the LinxleChareellor and sdmo Of the ex-
Chancellors who sit with ..laim, but they are matters of
arrangement ewhich, with more care and, attention, and
with a little more respect to - the publie, the noble and
leafued lords themselves can manage. Instead of two
neble-lordreffelivering -an egborate judgment, and a 'third
saying that he was not aware the case was coming on
that day, and was not prepared to give his decision, I think
it would have bees respectful to the public and decorous to
the parties whose interests were to be judged if the case had
been adjohrned to another day. Again, Sir, great fault is
found with respect to some defeats of manner, and a noble
and learned lord, whose qualifications as a judge no one will
question—Lord St. Leopards—is much blamed because he
has beerf liven to slap the table with his hand. (A laugh.) Now
really, Sir, are we going to alter the whole jurisdiction of the
court of last resort because one of the judges slaps with his
band upon the table I (A laugh.) These are matters which
should be remedied by the noble and learned lords themselves.
They should agree to sit together in judicial costume, if ne-
cessary ; they should do some things far more essential than
those to which I have adverted ; they should, above all, very
much diminish the expense of those printed copies and of all
those preparatory proceedings which are now necessary before
a case can 'ccue into the House of Lords. (Cheers.) Why,
Sir, these are vestiges of the time when lay lords gave their
opinions iu the house, and I have no doubt that three fourths
of the expense might be taken away. (Hear.) There is another
point to which the right hen. baronet the member for Carlisle
has adverted, and which I know engaged the attention of
Lord Cottenham. That noble and learned lord thought of re-
ets gesdurings
ithaten the
judicialhheey recesssh e il lcommittee
mr.aamake
leiaa m
report
eonpft
et;rhtet
uhpateHouseupon
of,
at
tht
hee severalLoporedn s-
esi
nh. mgo uoml
fd°
tnshdii n
cases they had heard ; and that then the House of Lords
should be moved to confirm their report and deliver judgment
accordingly. Why, Sir, that would remedy a great part of the
evil complained of It is complained that, during a period of
' two or three months, most useful for judicial purposes in other
, courts, the. House of Lords does not sit. I have shown how