APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. (Hansard, 18 February 1887)

LORD DENMAN

, in rising to move as an Amendment to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months" said, that with the permission of their Lordships he wished to read a letter received by him in 1874 from a Member of the House of Commons. It was to the following effect:— I have to thank you for several valuable and interesting communications. I take with me the remarks which you copied respecting the Appeal to the Lords in the case of Mr. O'Connell. The stopping of the Bill took everyone by surprise; and it is possible—but, I fear, only possible—that better counsels may prevail as regards the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords—at all events there is breathing time. I had some conversation with the (then) present Attorney General and with the Lord Advocate, both of whom are most anxious to check and retrace the step of doing away with one of the chief raisons d'être for a House of Peers; and as Mr. Disraeli is personally opposed to the change, it is certainly on the cards that the Government may next Session surprise us as much by its wisdom as it has done this Session by its folly. What a reproach it is to the constructive ability of the Government that with a fair field it cannot constitute an Appeal Court which shall also proceed on the ancient lines of the Constitution. People seem to have got into a sort of maelstrom about law reform which they cannot check, or guide their course, however conscious they are that they are being wiled on to destruction. There is hardly one person on either side of the House of Commons—who is in favour of the House of Lords at all—who really and heartily thinks it a good thing to abolish their judicial functions. He would not detain their Lordships with any remarks of his own, but would conclude by submitting the Motion which stood in his name.

Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)