§ Die Veneris, 6° Junii, 1856.
§ Third Reading of The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill.
§
DISSENTIENT—"1. Because pecuniary payment to Members of this House, nominated by the Crown, for deliberating and voting in Parliament is, in my opinion, an innovation calculated to impair the independence, dignity, and character of the House of Lords.
The services for which the Speaker of the House may be paid are not voting upon or discussing Questions submitted to Parliament; as Speaker only, he can do neither, and is not necessarily a Peer. The Chairman of Committees is not nominated by the Crown, but elected by the House, and the duties imposed upon him are of a special nature, such as could not be performed by Members of the House indiscriminately. But it is now proposed to pay certain Peers named by the Crown for executing those duties which, so long as the Appellate Jurisdiction is retained, devolve upon all Lords of Parliament. The Bill thus proclaims that the Hereditary Peers are incompetent or unwilling to perform functions which they nevertheless desire to retain, and for the execution of which they seek to provide at the cost of the public revenue.
2. Because whether by this Bill a Prerogative long disused be revived, or a new power be accorded to the Crown—(a question upon which high authorities in debate were divided)—to enact the admission to Parliament of Peers for life, and to confine that admission to the sole case of remedying the inefficiency or consulting the ease of Hereditary Peers, appears to me unjust, impolitic, and impossible. If a certain number of Judges are by reason of their professional eminence to sit in this House with life-peerages, upon what ground can we exclude Admirals and Generals, and it may be others, who may have proved their capacity, and risen to high distinction in the public service, and whose presence and counsel might add wisdom and authority to our proceedings? If life-peerages are to be created by Act of Parliament, they cannot be restricted to Judges of Appeals.
3. Because the Bill wholly fails to establish such a Supreme Court of Appeal as the opinion and the requirements of the country demand. It does not even secure the permanent existence of the Court it is designed to create. For it is obvious that, under the provisions of the Bill, four Peers for life may enjoy pensions, and sit and vote in Parliament, after they have ceased to act as Judges of Appeals. The occurrence of such a contingency is not very improbable, as the new Deputy Speakers, who must be Judges of experience, may be persons also of advanced age.
A suitor must still be in uncertainty regarding the composition of the appellate tribunal. An appeal may still be tried by several, or virtually by one learned Judge, according to the varying capabilities, convenience, or caprice of the Lords.
1085
4. Because a Bill thus faulty in principle and short-sighted in its enactments cannot, in my opinion, secure a satisfactory administration of the law, or uphold the dignity and authority of this House.
SOMERHILL.
For the 3rd and 4th Reason,
DUNGANNON.
§
DISSENTIENT.—"Because the creation of any Peers with a patent for life only, though limited to the number of four, and introduced for a special object and for special reasons to sit and vote in the House of Lords, is an innovation of a dangerous character, and an invasion of those Hereditary Principles and Privileges which have hitherto distinguished that branch of the Legislature, thereby establishing a Precedent which may, at no very distant period of time, be acted upon and extended, to the serious Prejudice of the Hereditary Peerage and the Peril of the Stability of the Throne.
DUNGANNON,
CLANCARTY.
§
DISSENTIENT—"1. Because it recognises the creation of Peerages for life only, which by a recent Resolution of the House have been declared illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Because the conferring of Life Peerages would be subversive of the prescriptive title by which Peers of the Realm now sit as Hereditary Counsellors of the Crown; and though limited by the Bill to four, would be dangerous as a precedent for further innovations upon the constitution of the House, and is uncalled for by any necessity.
3. Because the object of the Bill being to obtain 'for the hearing of Appeals an increased number of Peers who have filled high judicial offices,' it appears an anomaly that for the admission to the House of persons whose learning and abilities have been thus tested, and whose qualifications for the Peerage are therefore of the highest order, dignities should be proposed, inferior in point of estate to those held by other Peers.
4. Because the strict maintenance of the principle of hereditary succession in the Peerage is essential to the independence, and therefore to the due influence, of the House of Lords in the Great Council of the Nation.
5. Because the abandonment of the hereditary principle in the Peerage may imperil its continuance in the Crown.
CLANCARTY,
DUNGANNON.
§ House adjourned to Monday next.