Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

sible that it might be misapplied. On these grounds he thought the motion unnecessary, and should oppose it.

Mr. Davies Giddy agreed that the right to these droits, from the Conquest to the present time, was vested entirely in the King; but when any revenue was so vested, there were vested with it co-relative duties. These were no longer required from the crown, as the revenue was now separated and granted for particular purposes. As to meeting the excess of the civil list expenditure out of this fund, he thought any other source better than one so uncertain and precarious. On the whole, he was for carrying the amount of this fund to the public stock, or, at any rate, leaving it with parliament, to dispose of it.

Mr. Stephen, though convinced that the droits in question belonged to the crown, would not go so far as to contend that the house had no controul over them. He entered into some calculations to shew that his honourable and learned friend had over stated the amount at eight millions, and pointed out several considerable deductions; and also argued in favour of the application of the fund that had been made in several instances, which could not without much inconvenience have been effected by a specific vote in parliament.

After some other remarks on each side, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, and spoke with some severity of the "declamatory attack" made by the honourable and learned mover. He thought it very extraordinary that any lawyer should call in question the legality of these droits as exist

ing in the crown. He said that the gentlemen who had adopted the mover's side of the question, had disclaimed any intention of stating instances of abuse, and merely contended that there was liability to abuse; whereas a material part of the speech of the mover went to make the impression that the government had been guilty of successive acts of abuse. He made some particular observations on this head; and concluded with saying, that conceiving that the proposed resolutions stated that to be law which was not law, and that to be expedient which was not expedient, he should give them his decided opposition.

Sir F. Burdett spoke strongly in favour of the motion, on the general ground, that the crown could not hold property on any other tenure than for the benefit of the public; and contended that it was now become the duty of parliament to controul the fund in question,

Mr. Tierney, though differing from his honourable and learned friend in the mode of his motion, yet agreed with it in substance; and he proposed the following amendment: "That this house having taken into its sericus consideration the unprecedented sums, at different and uncertain periods, within the last 20 years, received and disposed of by the crown as droits, is deeply impressed with the necessity of inquiring into and ascertaining the extent and application of the same." If this motion should be carried, he would follow it up by moving for an address to the Prince Regent, that there be laid before the house an account of the amount and payments from the droits from Jan. 1810 toJan. 1812;

and

and also that a similar account be laid before the house at the beginning of every session of parlia

ment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection to the production of a paper similar to that which brought down the account to May 1810, continued to the present time.

Mr. Brougham, in reply, maintained that the bargain between the sovereign and the parliament had been abrogated, and that the crown could not, with safety to the constitution, retain such sums at its disposal.

The house divided upon Mr. Brougham's motion, when there appeared for it 38, against it 93 the resolutions moved by Mr. B. were negatived without a division. Mr. Tierney's amendment was then put to the vote, and rejected by exactly the same numbers as in the preceding division. Mr. Brougham then moved for the appointment of a committee on the subject, when another division took place, for the committee 36, against it 94.

It may be mentioned, as a sequel of this subject, without entering into the particulars of a debate consisting of statements of individual facts and their explanation or contradiction, that on February 25th, Mr. Brougham moved in the house, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the application of the various sums received as droits of the crown and of admiralty," and that the motion was negatived.

Lord Folkstone, having presented to the House of Commons a petition from a young woman who bad been thrown into gaol at Bristol on a writ de excommunicato

capiendo above two years before, where she was detained from the inability of paying costs and fees, caused the same to be read on January 23, as the foundation of a motion. He introduced it with saying, that having found upon inquiry that no legal remedy existed for the hardships under which the petitioner laboured, he had been induced to examine into the nature, origin, and history of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, the result of which was a conviction of the necessity of parliamentary interposition to rescue the subject from their exorbitant and unconstitutional power. His lordship then gave an historical account of the progress of these jurisdictions in this country from the time immediately preceding the conquest, from which he shewed that they originated in usurpations, and that, notwithstanding repeated complaints against them, nothing had been done in remedying their abuses since the Reformation. He then adverted to the present state of the spiritual courts, and took a review of the case of the petitioner, Mary-Ann Dix, as well as of several other persons, who had suffered under the process of excommunication. He concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the jurisdiction of the inferior ecclesiastical courts, and to consider whether any reformation is necessary to be made therein, and to report their opinion to the house."

The Hon. W. Herbert agreed that it would not be desirable that the law should remain as it was in many respects, but said that an inquiry into the proceedings of the inferior ecclesiastical courts would

not

not remedy the evil. The hardships complained of in a great measure arose from the jealousy of the courts of common law in regard to the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts, which compelled them to a circuitous mode of giving effeet to their decisions, thereby enhancing the costs. The appointment of a committee could not give relief in any one of the points to which his noble friend had alluded he thought, however, there was one subject to which he had referred, which was of great importance, namely, the appointment of persons to exercise ecclesiastical authority in the inferior courts, who did not possess the requisite qualifications.

Sir William Scott said, that he could hardly believe that the noble mover was himself aware of the nature and effect of his motion, and he trusted the house would pause before they agreed to the proposed inquiry. Let them consider the number of persons who must be brought up to be examined from different parts of the country at an expense they were ill able to discharge. Let them also reflect that every court, however inferior in its jurisdiction, was entitled to be held in a decent state of respect til it was proved to have done something to forfeit its character. The points which ecclesiastical courts were called upon to decide were not so limited as the noble lord supposed. They included matrimonial and testamentary law, tythes, and many cases affecting the civil rights of mankind. He should not say that such jurisdiction ought to be conferred on the consistorial courts, but such they had enjoyed for centuries. Our

ecclesiastical law had been improved, and under the guidance of the courts of common law, had approximated to the changes in the situation of the country. The noble lord had been able to select only seven cases of what he called abuse and oppression, and he had erred in terming those causes, which were in fact merely suits, the ordinary process of all who claimed legal redress for an illegal wrong. Sir W. then proceeded to comment upon some of these cases, and particularly on that which was the subject of the petition before the house. After various observations in defence of the ecclesiastical courts, he said, that he did not pretend to assert that their constitution might not be improved, and in his opinion, a diminution of their number would be beneficial. As to the particular punishment by excommunication, he wished some other were substituted in its place. It appeared to him an abuse of a religious ceremony, and that it would not be difficult to find a substitute for it which would be more efficacious, less expensive, oppres sive, and unseemly.

Sir S. Romilly spoke in favour of the proposed inquiry, as not of the extensive nature which had been represented, but only in the first instance requiring an investigation. of the cases particularly before them, and of the state of the courts out of which they had issued. He thought much good might arise from it, especially if the right honourable gentleman, who had distinctly expressed himself in favour of an alteration in the existing law, and whose known admiration of established institutions would preclude the danger of a cry

of

of innovation, would lend his aid in carrying the requisite improvements into effect. Sir S. then dwelt upon the particular circumstances of hardship and cruelty in the case of the petitioner, whose only crime had been the application of a coarse expression to another woman in the same low class of life.

Sir John Nicholl defended the conduct of the ecclesiastical court in which the case in question arose, and also the ecclesiastical jurisdictions in general, at the same time acknowledging that the mode of excommunication was objectionable, and that a remedy for its inconveniences was desirable.

Mr. W. Smith spoke in favour of the motion, and referred to a case of a seven year's imprisonment of two females at Nottingham for a contempt in an ecclesiastical court. As to the objection that the proposed inquiry would cast a slur on

the courts in question, he said, was there not a standing order of the house that a grand committee of inquiry into courts of justice should sit every Saturday? He concluded with expressing his opinion that all other modes of rectifying these abuses would fail, and therefore be would vote for the motion.

The Attorney-General said, that a challenge had been given to his right honourable friend to bring in a bill on this subject, which he did not doubt would be accepted.

Lord Folkstone begged to be informed by Sir W. Scott if such was his intention. Sir William re plied, amidst cheers from all sides, that if it was the sense of the house that such a measure was expedient, he should certainly comply.

Lord F. said, that with this understanding he should with pleasure withdraw his motion, which, after leave obtained from the house, was accordingly done.

CHAPTER

CHAPTER IV.

Motion on the State of Ireland-New Bill to prohibit the granting of Offices in Reversion-Bills for the Punishment of Frame-breaking, and for the Preservation of Peace in the County of Nottingham.

THE

THE state of Ireland, in which country the proceedings of the catholics in furtherance of their plan of petitioning by delegation on one hand, and the opposition of the government to their measures on the other, had occasioned a considerable ferment at the close of the past year, early engaged the attention of parliament; and debates arose in both houses on that topic, the great length of which will permit us only to give a slight sketch of the arguments employed by the principal speakers-a circumstance, indeed, the less to be regretted, as the subject of the catholic claims has already been rendered familiar to the public.

On January 31, Earl Fitzwilliam rose in the House of Lords, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of their lordships to the situation of a very important part of the British empire. He little thought, when he gave notice of his motion, that he should have to lament the existence of cireumstances which must add to the discontents already subsisting in that country. Yet, from the account which had reached London by the last mail, he found that the jury impanneled to try one of the catholic delegates had been tampered with, and that the crown

solicitor had been marking and altering the list in a manner that proved the exercise of the undue influence of government. After some observations on this point, he said, that independently of this circumstance, there were sufficient grounds for his motion in the discontents arising from the denial to the catholic body of the enjoyment of the rights possessed by their fellow citizens; the injustice and impolicy of which denial he proceeded to shew; and he concluded with moving, "That the house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the present situation of affairs in Ireland."

The motion was seconded by the Duke of Devonshire; after which the Earl of Rosse rose, and first remarked on the uncertain grounds upon which the noble earl had made his attack on the Irish government. He then made a number of observations on the tone of hostility assumed by the catholics in their conventional measures, which necessarily required the vigour of government to resist it.

The Earl of Aberdeen argued on the same side. After all the concessions made to the catholics, of what (said he) did they now complain? Their complaint was re

duced

« ForrigeFortsett »