Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the assistance of a judge, as the House of Lords now has in cases of impeachment. I propose that the result of the inquiries instituted by this Commission should be merely this, that the House should have a report laid before it, and should then legislate according to circumstances, and according to the population and importance of the city or borough with which it might have to deal."

Another principal provision of the Bill was directed against the practice of treating, declaring within what bounds it should be considered illegal, and subjected to the same penalties as bribery. The

Bill met with a favourable reception in the House; and the leading Members of both parties declared their anxious desire to cooperate in carrying a remedy into execution for the prevailing evil.

When it came before the Committee, however, several Members took exception to the nature of the mixed Commission proposed by it for the disfranchisement of boroughs; and, at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, that part of the measure was abandoned.

Thus modified, the Bill passed with little discussion in the House of Lords, and received the Royal Assent.

CHAPTER VIII.

Law Reforms-The Lord Chancellor gives notice of Bills relating to Bankruptcy, Lunacy, and County Courts-His Speech on the Second Reading-They pass the House of Lords-County Courts' Bill is postponed till the following Session-The other two Bills carried-Lord Campbell proposes Bills to alter the constitution of Courts of Appeal They are rejected in the House of LordsMarriage Law-Motion of Lord F. Egerton, for leave to bring in a Bill to legalise Marriages contracted with deceased Wife's SisterSpeech of Sir R. Inglis against the Motion-It is supported by Mr. Milnes, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. C. Buller, and Mr. C. Wood; and opposed by Mr. Goulburn, Lord Ashley, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. O'Connell-On a Division it is negatived by 123 to 100-Bill for the better Protection of the Royal Person, introduced by Sir Robert Peel, in consequence of the outrages of Bean and FrancisIt is carried immediately in both Houses-Church Rates; Sir John Easthope's Bill for their Abolition-It is opposed by Sir R. Inglis and Mr. Goulburn, and rejected by 162 to 82-Grant to Maynooth College-Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Bateson, Sir H. Smith, Colonel Verner, and other Members speak against it—Speech of Lord Eliot -It is affirmed by a Majority of 47-Poor Law Amendment Bill, introduced by Sir James Graham-Principal Objects and Provisions of the Measure-A few of the Clauses are carried, and the rest postponed-Mr. Escott makes a Motion against the principle of excluding Out-door Relief-Sir James Graham opposes it, and it is rejected after a Discussion, by 90 to 55-Review of the SessionLord Palmerston moves for Returns to show the number of Bills brought into the House of Commons, and the Result as to each-He reviews the Domestic and Foreign Policy of the Government at great length, and with much sarcasm-He is ably answered by Sir Robert Peel, who retorts severely on the Whig party-Prorogation of Parliament by the Queen, on the 12th of August-Her Majesty's Speech-Concluding Remarks.

In the early part of the session.

N the early part of the session,

nounced to the House of Lords three important measures of legal reform, which he proposed to introduce and discuss together. They

related respectively to the administration of the Law of Bankruptcy, to proceedings in cases of lunacy, and to the establishment of a system of Local Courts through. out the country.

Difficulties, however, arose, as he afterwards stated, which retarded the introduction of the last of these measures, and other subjects of more exciting interest meanwhile pressed upon the attention of Parliament, insomuch that it was not till the 18th of July, when the session was almost expiring, that any discussion on these measures took place.

The Lord Chancellor then stated to the House the details of the alterations which he proposed. Adverting first to the subject of bankruptcy, he commenced by paying a compliment to Lord Brougham upon the improvements in that department of the law which he had introduced: "That system, however, excellent as it was, comprised within its jurisdiction only a circuit of forty miles round London. He proposed to extend the Metropolitan district to a hundred miles round London; which would add a fifth to the business of the Commissioners, without inconvenience to them. For the country it was proposed to appoint Commissioners at five central points, in five great towns beyond the London district, invested with the same power which was at present reposed in the London Commissioners. They would perform the same quantity of duty now performed by the London Commissioners having, a similar range and a similar jurisdiction."

The course with the Law of Lunacy was somewhat similar: "The Law of Lunacy was administered like that of Bankruptcy, the London Commissioners having jurisdiction for twenty miles round the Metropolis; and the country Commissions being, like those of Bankruptcy, directed to persons of little or no experience, though the

inquiries were of the nicest and most delicate character. He proposed that two Commissioners should be appointed, for the purpose of executing all those Commissions, not only in the Metropolitan districts, but throughout the country. From an examination into details, to which he need not advert, he was satisfied that those two Commissioners would be amply sufficient for discharging those and other important duties connected with lunacy. The payment of Commissioners by fees would be abolished; it tended to prolong the inquiry, and inerease the expense; in one case, for instance, the expense of examining into the lunacy of a peron whose income was 197. 10s., had amounted to 2,1047.; and in another case, the committee died, and it was necessary to appoint another. The Commissioners would be added to the visitors at present appointed to inspect the condition of lunatics. They would be taken from among the highest members of the Bar."

Lord Lyndhurst objected to any sweeping change of the existing County Courts; his measure went merely to extend their jurisdiction. County Courts were a part of our ancient system of judicature. They were presided over by the county clerk, whose jurisdiction extended to 40s. They might be held in any part of the county. If he appointed a particular place, and gave them a jurisdiction to the extent of 5%, and appointed persons of respectability and learning to preside over them, as he proposed to do by this Bill, he thought he did not innovate upon this ancient institution. He proposed further, that for the recovery of debts to the amount of 201., persons should be appointed judges of these courts,

who should not reside in the provinces where they administered the law, but that they should make circuits, like the judges of the land, into the provinces with which they were not acquainted, and where they had no local connexions or prejudices. He proposed that there should be six or eight circuits a year, to be made by barristers of a certain standing, to be appointed by the Crown; who should return to the Metropolis after the circuits, where they could mix with their colleagues in the profession, and thus there would be a security for the uniformity of the law they administered. Her Majesty in Council would appoint the times and the places for holding these courts.

Lord Cottenham expressed his approval of the Bills as far as they went; but complained of some omissions in them, especially the omission of any amendment of the law relating to Insolvency.

Lord Brougham admitted that the measures were useful, though they fell short of the exigency.

Lord Campbell, approving of parts of the Bills, regarded the omissions as so important, that he could not support the Bills as a whole.

The Bills were then read a second time, and afterwards passed through the other stages unopposed, and went down to the House of Commons.

Some attempts were there made. to induce the Government to postpone the consideration of them, owing to the late period of the session at which they were introduced, and the press of business then existing. The Government, however, declined to defer the Bills, with the exception of that relating to the establishment of

County Courts, which, owing to the want of adequate time for the discussion of a measure so important and comprehensive, was put off till the following year.

Another Bill, introduced by Sir James Graham, for the amendment of the law relating to the Registration of Voters in England, was, from the same necessity, delayed.

An attempt was made by Lord Campbell earlier in the session, by three Bills which he proposed, to alter the administration of the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal, to alter the system of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and to amend the administration of the Court of Chancery. He advocated change, on the ground that two co-ordinate appellate jurisdictions, that of the Privy Council and of the House of Lords, did not work well in practice. If then one were to be retained instead of two, he would prefer the House of Lords; that jurisdiction practically worked well. He would, therefore, make it the Court of Appeal from all other courts, abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. Its sittings should, however, be permanent, and not only during the session of Parliament. It should be presided over by the Chancellor, whose place in the Court of Chancery should be supplied by another judge, who might be selected from among the Vice-Chancellors. This plan would remove the absurdity of appeals from the Lord Chancellor at Lincoln's-Inn to the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords.

The Lord Chancellor strongly objected to abolishing the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council.

He thought it admirably adapted for the consideration of

was raised in the early part of the session by Lord F. Egerton, who moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the laws relating to marriage within certain degrees of affinity. He stated that he did so not without expectation of encountering some serious opposition. Until 1835, a large class of marriages within the prohibited degrees were not void ab initio, but were voidable by a sentence obtained from the Ecclesiastical Court, In 1835, an Act was passed which rendered valid all marriages of that class previously solemnized; but in the progress of the measure another enactment was grafted on it, how, he knew not-which de

the subjects that came before it. Questions were brought before it, involving almost every kind of law on the face of the earth. There was the Colonial law, every kind of European law, every kind of Eastern law, Spanish law, French law, both according to the new code and the old, Dutch law, English law, both Common Law and Equity, the Colonial statutes, and in addition to these, the Oriental law, the Indian law, and the Mahomedan law: there was also the Ecclesiastical law. The constitution of the tribunal was admirably adapted to the purpose of dealing with questions embracing so vast a range of judicial knowledge. There were judges of Eng-clared all such marriages thereafter land to decide on questions of Common Law, and the equity judges to decide upon matters of Equity. There were the judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts to decide upon questions arising out of the Ecclesiastical law; and with regard to Eastern law, there were among the Judicial Committee two honourable and learned individuals, who had filled the highest judicial situations in the East, and who were able to give advice to the Committee on questions connected with Oriental law. As to the alleged inconvenience of the co-ordinate jurisdiction, there had not been a single instance of conflicting decisions in 200 years.

Lord Brougham thought that the evils complained of by Lord Campbell existed rather in theory than in practice.

Lord Cottenham expressed a hesitating approval of the proposed measures.

The Bills were brought in, but did not pass the second reading.

A question of much general interest respecting the Marriage Law

contracted, void ab initio. The in-
consistency of annulling prospec-
tively marriages which were affirm-
ed retrospectively, was felt at the
time; and there was reason to be-
lieve, that, owing to the lateness of
the session, consent was given to
this part of the Act, without the de-
liberation due to the ultimate bear-
ings of the new law. Thus the
matter had rested from that time.
It might be asked, whether it was
discreet thus quieta movere? but
whether the House agreed to this
particular measure or not, circum-
stances had occurred which ren-
dered it absolutely necessary that
the attentive consideration of the
Legislature should be given to the
subject in all its bearings.
would make bold to say, that the
law of 1835 did not go forth to
the country with the sanction of
the Legislature, after having been
fully and fairly considered; neither
was the law consistent with the
practice of the British community,
or with the Christian Protestant
communities of Europe. He would
further assert, that the law did

He

« AnteriorContinuar »