New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-04-27
RRITISH LIE PEER4GES.

The temperate debate which preceded the hrst
reading of Earl Russelrs bill for the creation OF
Life PeeIages in Great Britain presents
curious contrast to the violent discussion Of
thirteen years ago, when the proposition to admit
Lord Wensleydale to the Upper House was so
peremptorly rejected. 1t is evident, as dis
tngushed member of the Government suggest
ed. that tho hasty decision then arrived at has
become matter of regret, and it now appears
probable that no vehement opposition to the
measure will be offered No hostility to the
principle of the bill was exhibited on the hrst
night by the Tory members, and the rev
amendments limited at were matters OF detail
and were apparently thrown out merely 10
show that the right to offer objections
still existed, even--though 1T might not De
severely exercised Earl RusselTs plan Is
certainly of more moderate character than
that brought forward in 1856. He dspels all
apprehension of an undue use OF the new power
by proposing to limit the number OF Lille Peer
ages to twenty-eight, of which not more than
four shall be created annually, and, in order
that the social prejndiees of the lords may not
he disturbed. he recommends that the selec-
tons be made only from among the well-de-
serving of six limited classes ;-Scotch and Irish
peers members of the House of Commons of
ten years standing distinguished officers of the
army and navy, eminent lawyers, men of liter
airy, scientific, and artistic renOwn, and officials
who have passed five years in the service of the
crown. A broader ground is thus covered than IN
the Wensleydale case, when the sole argu-
ment in favor of the measure was based upon
the legal weakness of the House of Peers,
which rendered it incompetent TO the proper
discharge of its appellate functions. Fan
Russcll's plan was, as whole, warmly sup
ported by the Marquis of Salisbury, Tory
peer. although he questioned the expediency
of admitting the lights of science, literature,
and art to legislative councils, and was oil
opinion that the two services were already
sufficiently represented among the Lords. And,
for the reason no doubt that he is himself a
man of large business connections he favored
an extension of the limitation so rs TO IN
clude the wealthy commercial class. Lord
Cairns, tho Conservative leader, made gentle
show of opposition, his chief point being that
ten or twelve life peeIages would be sufficient
for all useful purposes, and that of these only
one each year should be nominated; but he
submitted no arguments to prove the adj
vantages of his amendment. Lord Granville,
the Colonial Secretary, explained that the BILL
although not proceeding directly from the
Government, was heartily approved, IN sub
stance, by every member, and would perhaps
have been even mere welcome if its scope had
been broader. Lord Stanhope, one OF the aris-
tocratic forlorn hopes Of the nobility, and one
of the most earnest opponents of the admission
of Lord Wensleydale, expressed his conviction
of the perils of scheme like that
under which it had been intended
to introduce that nobleman, q scheme,
"fatal to the honor and independence of the
blouse of Lords" but failed to discover any
cause of alarm in Earl Russelps measure, or to
suggest any point of improvement, excepting
that the number of annual creations should be
three instead of four The whole question will
be more fully discussed this evening, upon the
second reading.
TIE London journals are almost unanimous
in their commentator of the proposed reform,
as indeed they were in 1856. The Times OBJ
serves that if the Lords contest it at all, it
must be in the fear that the life peers, notwith-
standing their limited number, may prove in
tellectually too strong for the hundreds Of
existing hereditary peers, and declares that, If
with all their advantages the latter are unable
TO hold their own, at will be time for the
nation to dispense with them altogether"