The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-15 00:00:00

THE NEW SOLICITOR-GENERAL.

(From the Morning Herald.)
Late on Saturday evening Sir Frederick Pollock received
an official intimation of his appointment to the office of Lord
Chief Baron of the Exchequer; Sir William Follett of Lis
appointment to be Attorney-General; and Mr. Thesiger of
his appointment to be Solicitor. General.
The first two of the above announcements have long been
anticipated as almost matters of course, but the last has oc-
casioned very anxious consideration to the Government.
While fully recognising the eminent qualifications of Mr.
Fitzroy Kelly for the important office of Solicitor-General,
it was found impossible to overlook the seniority, both at the
bar, and as one of her Majesty's counsel, of Mr. Thesiger,
who had, moreover, been already twice passed over in the
elevation of Sir William Follett to the post which he
has just quitted, and of Mr. Justice Cresswell to a seat
on the bench of the Common Pleas. Mr. Thesiger
was called to the bar in the year 1818, and Mr. Kelly
not till the year 1824, and Mr. Thesiger obtained a silk gown
so long before Mr. Kelly that no fewer than 17 gentlemen
'obtained that distinction between Mr. Thesiger and Mr.
Kelly. Under these circumstances the Government were no-
turaily anxious to avoid so signal a slight upon Mr. Thesiger
as would have been inflicted upon him by the appointment
of Mr. Kelly. This, we believe, is the consideration which
determined the choice of the Government. It is not, more •
over, difficult to imagine that, knowing that Mr. Kelly had
been retained on behalf of Mr. O'Connell and his fellow tra-
versers to conduct the proceedings about to take place in the
House of Lords as their leading counsel, Ministers would feel
a great delicacy in depriving them of such invaluable assis-
tance as that of Mr. Kelly. This must inevitably have been
the case had Mr. Kelly been promoted to. the Solicitor-Ge-
neralship.

(From the Morning Chronicle.)
The Solicitor-Generalship has been conferred upon Mr.
Thesiger. We cannot flatter him, or those who have ap-
pointed him, by saying that, in our opinion, he is likely to
make an efficient law officer. As a lawyer no one can com-
pare him with Mr. Kelly. It does Sir Robert Peel, there-
fore, more honour that he has refused to consent to the ap-
pointment of the latter. We have stated our unequivocal
objections to the appointment of Mr. Kelly; and we feel a
pleasure, therefore, in acknowledging the merit of overlook-
ing all inducements of expediency, in comparison with the
higher considerations that rendered that appointment inad-
missible. We understand that Sir Frederick Pollock will be
sworn in as Chief Baron to-day. The new writs for Hun-
tingdon, Exeter, and Woodstock will, we presume, be moved
to-night.

(From the Times.)
The elevation of Sir Frederick Pollock to the Chief Barony
of the Exchequer may now be spoken of as a fait accompli,
and the consequent appointment of Sir William Follett and
Mr. Thesiger to the respective offices of Attorney and Soli-
citor-General as equally certain. In this distribution of
legal patronage—as far at least as regards the two first-
mentioned gentlemen—there is hardly anything to astonish,
certainly nothing whatever to offend, the public mind.
The long, laborious, and successful career of Sir F. Pollock
at the bar, his affable demeanour, his popularity with the
profession, and, above all, the judicial character of his mind,
have for some time past confirmed those claims to high pro-
motion which the usual routine of succession might justify
any Attorney-General in preferring. Nor do we suppose
that any man, of whatever party, will express other senti-
ments than those of satisfaction at seeing the office which
was filled by Sir Frederick Pollock bestowed on one
whose erudition and varied attainments were early re-
warded with a celebrity which has often been denied to the
incessant labours of a long life. If any emotion of a different
nature mingles itself with the feelings, not only of lawyers,
but of the public, it can only be one of regret, sincere and
general, for the ill-health which must for some little time
prevent the most distinguished advocate and most accom-
plished lawyer of his day from entering on the active per-
formance of his new duties, and perhaps render his prolonged
tenure of office uncertain. We cannot dismiss this subject
without expressing a wish, apparently more personal than
political in its bearings, but from which we are anxious to
separate every personal consideration. It has become, we
believe, of late years, pretty much a matter of course to offer
the dignity of the Peerage to the chiefs of the three Courts
at Westminster. Nor have there been many instances of
such a dignity being refused. The present venerable Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas has exhibited a peculiar and
exceptional prudence in declining to accept the questionable
and unprofitable honour. We hope that his example, at once
so rare and so sensible, will be imitated by the new Chief
Baron. We are not making objections—nor do we think that
there exist solidreasons for objecting—to the tenure of seats
in the House of Lords by the superior Judges of the land.
On the contrary, we are ready to admit that, on some
occasions, the Upper House might derive considerable
benefit, both in its legislative and its judicial capacity, from
the assistance of the judges • and that, so far, it is a salu-
tary and proper exercise of the prerogative to raise the chiefs
of the Queen's Bench, Exchequer, or Common Pleas to the
rank of Peers. But when it is borne in mind that the Peer.
ages thus conferred are not for life only, but hereditary ; that
the Legislature in this way not only receives the benefit of a
learned judge's permanent assistance during his lifetime, but
is also illumined by a succession of sons and sons' sons after
him • the propriety of conferring such an honour, and the
prudence of accepting it, appear equally ambiguous. We
hold it to be a sound constitutional principle, that at least
the majority of the Peerage should consist f men secured
by the competency of their fortunes from the temptations of
Ministerial dependence—men with ample estates, unembar-
rassed means, and independent principles. When a Peerage
is poor, it must become servile; where servile, contemptible;
and from contempt there is but one step to annihilation.
For this reason we should feel disposed to restrict—except on
some very peculiar occasions—the dignity of the Upper House
to those whose fortunes would enable them to transmit it
without compromise or qualification to their posterity. Ex-
ceptions in favour of high desert and brilliant services will,
of course, occur; but such exceptions are by their very na-
ture too rare to justify the present universalfasbion of making
law Lords. Besides this, in the case of extraordinary diplo-
matic or military services, the Legislature always anticipates
the miseries of a poor peerage by conferring a pension for
two or three lives. Even this indeed is rather an acknow-
ledgment than a remedy of a great evil. It serves only to
stave off for a generation or two that most wretched of com-
plications—the union of reek and indigence, pride and po-
verty, pretension and starvation. It keeps two Peers on short
commons, and then starves the third outright. However, in-
sufficient as this system is towards supporting in decency these
whom it elevates to dignities, it is better, or at any rate less
objectionable primci fade, than the universal creation of law
Peers. The latter transmit no pensions with their titles.
All that they can leave their successors is what they have
saved themselves from their professional earnings, often
during the last years of their lives ' • sufficient, for the most
part, to maintain the respectable station of a private gentle-
man, but wholly inadequate to meet the expenses of an in-
dependent and hereditary senator. We have already enough
of law Lords ; more than enough of law Lords' sons. If
judges go on accepting peerages at the rate they have done
for the last fourteen or fifteen years, we shall have a respect-
able proportion of " new peers" (as Lord Brougham, with
patrician superciliousness styles them) running about in a
vain attempt to establish a settlement in St. Clement's Danes,
by proving an ancestral connexion with Old-square or King's
Bench-walk. We therefore trust that Sir Frederick Pollock's
fatherly care for the welfare of the profession will induce him
to set the profitable example of declining a dignity which in
some cases has been ruinous, and in all is barren.