LORD WENSLEYDALE'S LIFE-PEERAGE.
TILE manner of elevating Sir James Parke to the Peerage as Baron Wensleydale may be discussed equally as rather a strong interference with the institution, or as a minimum of interfer- ence with the House of Lords. Sir James Parke is elevated to the Peerage " for the term of his natural life "; and a' contempo- rary finds it difficult to understand the reasons which actuated him in accepting a peerage thus limited, " although it is not difficult to account for the reasons which ha.* induced the Lord Chancellor to establish a principle altogether so novel, so violent and extraordinary." Nov, perhaps the difficulty is as great in one ease as in the other. e Lord Chancellor is not a subver- sive man ; we are not to presume that Sir James Parke is actuated by only common ambition ; both are lawyers, and we-believe that among lawyers the possibility of this very step has been discussed for some time past, on various grounds. Lord Brougham was not elevated to the Peerage " for the term of his natural life," but in effect the limitation of the title in his case was the same ; and at the time of his creation the subject was discussed. Again, when the Liberal party entered office in the face of a House of Lords packed. by the undisturbed Tory creations of the Georges, we took the occasion of showing both the expediency and the possibility of mitigating that party predominance by the creation of peerages for life. In one form, the life-peerage has frequently been used : that is, the eldest sons of Peers have been called to the House of Lords, with the knowledge, of course, that the new peerage would merge in their own inheritance, the creation not entailing any new heritage.
There is at present no great political exigency which requires: a modification of the House of Lords by creation for voting pur- poses. Nothing is more remarkable than the gradual effect of public discussion in correcting extreme views, and so superseding all necessity for redeeming the Lords from their Georgian taint by
"fresh blood." The ereations, no doubt, have been considerable ; - but the very personnel ofthe House is new so moderated, nail:mak. views are now so predominant, that no There danger can be ap- prehended from constituted bigotry. There are, however _other reasons why it is desirable to modify the personneLof the Upper Chamber, irrespectively of considerations which might dictate an increase in the number of hereditary peerages. The House.ut Lords is the highest court of appellate jurisdiction—the supreme. tribunal in the last resort. The importance of its fimetionstin. that character increases with the wealth of the parties that come_ before it, the intelligence of the whole country-, and the magni- tude of the questions to be settled. The Law Lords can only be. recruited from the judicial bench. The position of a Law Lord is nothereditary ; a Denman in one 4eneration..is- not. the Law Lord. of a previous generation. There is a constant necessity for ne- exulting the judicial bench in the- House of Lords ; but them may- be many objections to increasing the number of hereditary fame- lies. In many instances it entails an expense upon the country., Even a. pension to support the title for three generations, is. not always sufficient : so that a poor peerage becomes a. burden on. the. charitable distribution of official patronagei, hampering the,pelfie service as well as pressing upon the officiaLexeheeuer. Some of the very instances advanced as objections are collateral corrobora,. lions of the argument that personal promotion does not alWays justify hereditary honours. We rewai-d. a Nelson. and a Welling- ton. for immortal services; but we cannot secure a succession.of immortal Nelsons or Wellingtons. The recruitment of the Law- Lords is a clear necessity; the multiplication of titled heirs. to. Law Lords is not so evidently needed ; and from the fact. it is fair to presume that Sir James Parke has seen the expediency of instituting a practice which will permit the creation. of Law Lords without entailing-upon. the country Law Lords' heirs. Although the creation:of a peerage for-the term of natural life- is an interference in the personnel of the Peerage, with the mi.,- nimum of a permanent change, it is in somea direct in- novation. The general character of the Houseresor let,sords is here= dithry ;wit is the hereditary quality that renders: it indepencrent of n the Cro . The first created Peer may be so rewarded- as the- price of servility; but the second Peer holds his title independ- ently, the third is born- to consider it his own, and each- genera- tion adds to the sense of substantive sufficiency-. Perhaps it might be made a reproach- to our present Peerage, that instead of inter- fering too much to influence the community, it is gradually inter- fering too little. The sons of the Peerage appear to know- the piece assigned to them ; they are gradually trained to take their positions, passing through the apprenticeship in some public of: flee, or in the Army or Navy; and they constitute awing class of private gentlemen, the heirs of legislative rights,, but. certainly with a decline of political influence. The reform of the House of Commons, abolishing great abuses, cut off territorial' powers which Peers had misemployed, and relieved the country from many mischievous trammels. But it incidentally- had' an effect which is not so very happy : it took away an oppo i which the Peer had of increasing his influence ; it uproote much of his territorial power; and in preventing him from- lording it over a section_ of the community almost as a sovereign,. it removed the motive for obtaining personal influence. Thus it has to a certain extent extinguished that personal feeling iwpolitice- which united the individual to the state, and kept up a warmer kind of national attachment than prevails in our calculating,. utilitarian, rationalizing age. The increase of life-peerages is capable of augmenting that simply official assessorial formation. of the House of Lords, rendering the Upper Chamber so far a pro- fessional asylum. If we saw any fire of political ambition, any redundancy of vigour on the part of the sons of the P threatening encroachment, we might demand a counterpoise,. y introducing into the body a number of non-hereditary Peers at- tached to the great professions of the country : but the innovation must be justified on other grounds. Possibly, if we are doomed- to have an Upper Chamber materially altered, the change may not be for the worse. If distinguished lawyers are to acquire the right of looking to a life-peerage as a natural sequel to a seat ow the judicial bench, we should Obtain in the Upper Chamber some- thing- more like a Senate, and a very valuable institution for its own sake.
Thus constituted, the House of Lords would not differ very- greatly from the High Court of Parliament or " Great Council of the Nation.," in the time of the early Norman.rings, which essen= fially included the ordinary, lesser, or Privy Council of the. Ciewn ; the members of the Privy Council being chiefly the ad, ministrative officers and judges of the realm. This original eon= stitntion of Parliament is the subject of a recently-published. "Letter to the Lord Lyndhurst," by Mr. John Fraser Macqueen' explaining the manner in which the judicial officers have been gradually separated from the House of Lords, leaving the highest judicial authority- to the lay body. In the reign of Edward.. the Second, says Lord Hale, the judicial members of the King's Coun- cil began to be a sort of assistants or advisers only, seated on woolsacks while the Peers sat on benches. But, in the opinion of Lord Somers, who, as Mr. Macqueen naively says, " Imew the constitution," the Judges constituted an essential part of the Lords sitting in their judicial capacity ; and in February. 1693 they were ordered by the House to attend daily from the rising of the Courts until the rising of the House. Their attendance was slack, and two reprimands from Lord Somers on the woolsack failed to enforce their attendance. On the Union with Scotland, the Eng- fish Law Lords contrived to decide upon Scotch appeals with a doubtful jurisdiction, and without the attendance of any Scotch Law Lords. Before that, the Lay Lords had voted at large, against the decision of the Judges in the well-known case of Reeve versus Long, against the constitution, and, says Lord St. Leonards, "wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the House." Upon the whole, however, the Lay Lords have studiously abstained from practi- cally interfering, although nominally the judgment is theirs. They now sit according to a "rota," two at a time ; and when the presiding judge is not a member of the House, and cannot therefore speak, he whispers the decision to the Lay Lord nearest to him; who rises, and parrot-like delivers the judgment of the House. Practically, therefore, the judicial authority has lapsed to the Lay Lords ; although, properly speaking, it resided in the " King's Council," sitting as an essential part of " the Grand Council." The elevation of Sir James Parke for his lifetime sug- gests a modern mode in which the judicial character of the House of Lords might be restored with the least violence to existing forms. Were the Judges generally to be elevated for the term of their natural lives, the judicial elements would be renewed in the Grand Council of the Nation ; and the House of Lords would still be, in fact as well as in form and dogma, the highest judicial court in the country.
Previous page
