Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

I am glad to be able to release you from your attendance in Parliament; and I thank you for the diligence with which you have performed your laborious duties.

"I continue to maintain the most friendly relations with Foreign Powers.

66

I am happy to be able to congratulate you on the very consider able diminution which has taken place in the African and Brazilian slave trade. The exertions of my squadrons on the coasts of Africa and Brazil, assisted by the vigilance of the cruisers of France and of the United States, and aided by the co-operation of the Brazilian Government, have mainly contributed to this result.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons

"I thank you for the readiness with which you have granted the supplies necessary for the service of the year.

"My Lords and Gentlemen—

"It is satisfactory to observe that, notwithstanding very large reductions of taxes, the revenue for the past year considerably exceeded the public expenditure for the same period.

[ocr errors]

I am rejoiced to find that you have thereby been enabled to relieve my people from an impost which restricted the enjoyment of

light and air in their dwellings. I trust that this enactment, with others to which your attention has been and will be directed, will contribute to the health and comfort of my subjects.

"I thank you for the assiduity with which you have applied yourselves to the consideration of a measure framed for the purpose of checking the undue assumption of ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign power. It gives me the highest satisfaction to find that, while repelling unfounded claims, you have maintained inviolate the great principles of religious liberty, so happily established among us.

"The attention you have bestowed on the administration of justice in the Courts of Law and Equity will, I trust, prove beneficial, and lead to further improvements.

"I have willingly given my consent to a Bill relating to the administration of the land revenues of the Crown, which will, I hope, conduce to the better management of that department, and at the same time tend to the promotion of works of public utility.

"It has been very gratifying to me, on an occasion which has brought many foreigners to this country, to observe the spirit of kindness and good-will which so generally prevailed.. It is my anxious desire to promote among nations the cultivation of all those arts which are fostered by peace, and which in their turn contribute to maintain the peace of the world.

66

In closing the present session, it is with feelings of gratitude to Almighty God that I acknowledge the general spirit of loyalty and willing obedience to the law which animates my people. Such

a spirit is the best security at once for the progress and the stability of our free and happy institutions." Upon the whole, the session of 1851 cannot be described as one very fertile in legislative results or valuable accessions to the statute book. One subject, indeed, overshadowed all the rest, and absorbed the attention of the House of Commons almost from the commencement to the close. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was the great achievement of the session. Introduced in February, it occupied the Houses in a protracted warfare till the end of July. The opponents were, indeed, comparatively few in number, but they maintained the unequal contest with singular pertinacity. Whether the result, after all, was worthy of the time and labour expended on

it, may be still matter of controversy; but beyond all doubt, in devoting its attention so strenuously to this one subject, Parliament faithfully reflected the prevailing tone of public opinion. With this single exception, the Parliamentary transactions of 1851 will leave no signal trace on the records of history. But, if devoid of brilliancy on the one hand, they were unchequered by reverse or disaster on the other; and, though wanting in the interest which attaches to times of stirring change or political excitement, the period which they include may be described as signalized in no common degree by the blessings of successful industry, prosperity, and abundance; and by the virtues of loyalty, tranquillity, and content

ment.

favour of the motion, it was rejected, on a division, by 135

to 75.

Mr. R. Currie thereupon forebore to repeat the same motion in the case of Baron Rothschild, urging Lord John Russell at the same time to bring in a measure in the next session for securing to the electors of the kingdom their indefeasible right to return to that House the men they deemed best qualified to represent their interests. Mr. Anstey, however, moved that the petition from the electors of the City of London be taken into consideration, and that the petitioners be heard in support of its prayer by counsel at the bar. This motion was supported by Mr. Aglionby, Mr. B. Osborne, and Mr. T. Hobhouse; opposed by Mr. Newdegate and Sir John Tyrrell. On a division it was negatived by The adjourned debate on Lord John Russell's resolution was then resumed. Mr. Anstey proposed an amendment, pledging the House to make such alterations in the words of the oath as would enable Mr. Salomons to take it.

Mr. Headlam considered that, great as were the evils attending the exclusion of Mr. Salomons, the House would not be justified in taking upon itself to cure them by its own inherent power. Whether the words in question were of the substance of the oath or of an adjuratory character, he could find no authority for omitting them. In the case of Quakers there was a statutory authority. These words were by law made a part of the oath, and it was the duty of the House to enforce them. There was only one constitutional mode of remedying the evil-by legisla

tion, which would be a far more satisfactory method of settling the question.

Mr. John Evans again argued that on legal principles the words at the conclusion of the oath were capable of being varied according to circumstances. Mr. Anstey s amendment was then negatived, 50 members voting for, and 88 against it.

Mr. Bethell then addressed the House at some length on Lord John Russell's resolution. The question, he said, was now fairly evolved, whether a citizen of this empire should be excluded from a seat in the House on the ground of his religious faith? This question never was raised in the case of the Roman Catholics; they were excluded, not on the ground of their religious faith, but because it was believed that they held a particular political tenet-namely, that subjects might be absolved from their allegiance. This question having arisen, and the principle being at stake for which it was the pride of the noble Lord that he had struggled, he might, the moment that technicality was introduced, have risen in his strength and crushed the attempt. He might have appealed to a great principle, if he had faith in it, and the House and the country would have abided by it; he might have declared that the Jew, not excluded by common law principle, or by statute, ought not to be excluded by a wretched attempt to convert formal language into substance, to pervert words to a pur pose utterly alien from their intent. But the noble Lord had played the game of his adversaries. If there were any difficulty in "another place," the Judges would

have been called in to deliver their opinion on the construction of the statute. But Lord John had refused to permit further discussion, and was now prepared to contend that the matter should not be put in a course of investigation and trial before the proper tribunals. Yet, do what he might, a trial in a court of law would be had, and the opinion of a court of law would be pronounced; and what would be the character attaching to the proceedings of the House, if, after preventing further discussion by this resolution, the law laid down by the House should be found to be at variance with the judicial, the rightful interpretation, of the Courts of Westminster Hall? He would ask Lord John Russell to leave the matter this session undetermined in that House, and in the meantime endeavour to obtain the interposition of the tribunal to which the constitution committed the proper interpretation of the

statute.

Lord John Russell observed that Mr. Bethell had dexterously eluded the legal difficulty in this case, which convinced him that he had misgivings upon that point. This was not an original resolution of his (Lord John's), or the first time it had been before the House, which was only asked to reassert the resolution of last year. He had no objection to taking the opinion of a court of law upon a question properly belonging to a court of law; but the question before the House, whether a member had properly taken the oaths required by law, was not within the province of a court of law. If the actions against Mr. Salomons should throw any new light upon the question, there was no reason why

[blocks in formation]

Little more remains to be added to our account of the Parlia mentary proceedings of this year. Some measures, indeed, deserve notice on account of their intrinsic importance, but the subjects were not of that kind which imparts a permanent interest to the debates. Among these was a Bill for the better regulation of Capitular and Episcopal Estates, which passed both Houses just before the close of the session. Another was a Bill for the better Administration of the Woods and Forests, and for the separation of that department from that of the Public Works and Buildings. A Bill for the removal of Smithfield Market, strenuously opposed by municipal and local interests, but supported on the grounds of humane and sanitary policy by impartial public opinion, was carried after a close struggle in both Houses. The cause of Law Reform was strengthened by some important accessions to the statute book. Two measures, indeed, after being successfully carried through their earlier stages, were ultimately abandoned in the pressure of business at the close of the session; viz., a Bill for the Registration of Titles intended to facilitate and simplify the conveyance of land; and a Bill for the Amendment of

the Patent Laws, on which the amendments made in the Commons were returned to the Lords too late for consideration. But some other measures were more successful. An Act was passed to carry more completely into effect that amendment of the Law of Evidence, the principle of which had been sanctioned by the Legislature a few years before, the admissibility of parties in terested as witnesses. The statute known as Lord Denman's Act had made all persons, except the actual parties to the suit, competent; the latter class, with some trifling exceptions, were now also made admissible. A very useful measure, of which the credit is principally due to Lord Campbell, was also enacted, to simplify the administration of the criminal law by abolishing certain formalities of proceeding, and diminishing the liability to a defeat of justice through technical objections. The principal law statute of the session, however, remains to be noticed, and it will deserve a more detailed account. The great inconvenience sustained by the public from the obstruction to business in the Court of Chancery, occasioned by the multifarious engagements of the Lord Chancellor, had for some time called loudly for a remedy. A measure to facilitate the proceedings in equity had been shadowed forth in the Queen's Speech, and Lord John Russell, in an early part of the session, propounded a plan for increasing the judicial strength of the Court of Chancery. This scheme was by no means favourably received by the House of Commons. It at tempted to mitigate the evil without imposing an additional burthen on the public by the creation of

new judicial offices; but the opinions of the most competent persons agreed in the conclusion, that without resorting to that expedient no effectual remedy for the existing grievance could be attained. Finding his first proposition unacceptable to the House, Lord John Russell deemed i the most prudent course to withdraw the Bill, and, upon further consideration of the subject, he submitted to the House, about the middle of June, another proposition more in accordance with the views expressed by the chief members of the profession in Parlia ment. The objects and character of this measure will be best explained by a short summary of the speech with which the Prime Minister introduced his motion for leave to bring in his Bill (No. 2) to improve the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery. He reminded the House that at an early period of the session he had proposed a scheme, some parts of which had met with the general consent of the House, though great objections had been offered to others. He had then said that, seeing the condition of the judicial business of the Lord Chancellor, and the great importance of his political functions, it was desirable that means should be taken to relieve him of part of his duties; and the House had concurred with him upon this point. The House had also agreed that the Lord Chancellor should retain his political functions in connection with the Executive Government, and that he should still preside in the House of Lords as Speaker and upon appeals. He had then proposed, in order to relieve the Lord Chancellor, that other judges--the Master of the Rolls and one of

« EdellinenJatka »