HA

AVING now brought to the close of the year our summary of the most important public occurrences on the European continent, we turn our view upon Great Britain, and to those domestic transactions which, if affording less splendid matter for narration, can never want interest for the English reader.

Parliament having met on March 1st, after the adjournment, a message was received by both Houses from the Prince Regent, recom*mending a further adjournment to the 21st of the month. In the House of Lords, a motion for adjournment being in consequence made, the Marquis of Lansdowne rose to say, that he had no intention to oppose the motion, though he felt some reluctance at concurring in it, since he could not hold it as a doctrine, that because one important branch of public business could not be proceeded with (alluding to the pending negociations), the prosecution of all other business should be suspended. A great quantity of private and other business stood for discussion

which parliament was pledged to take into its most serious consideration during this session, and why might it not in the meantime be proceeded with? The hearing of appeal causes was another matter of such great interest, that their Lordships had thought it requisite to alter the whole scheme of the courts of justice in order to give it greater facilities; surely with the resolution of proceeding in them with promptitude and dispatch. Though he would not throw any obstacles in the way of the motion, he had thought it his duty to call their lordships' attention to the sacrifices they were making in giving their concurrence.

The Earl of Liverpool found it necessary to say but a few words with reference to what had been observed by the noble marquis. He would throw himself upon the indulgence of their lordships, on the question of the propriety of an adjournment. The Prince Regent's ministers had taken into their consideration the possible or probable inconveniences that might arise from the measure, and the

result

result was, that no inconvenience was likely to arise from it, equal to that which might accrue from the parliament's continuing to sit. This was all that he conceived it proper at present to say on the subject.

After a few remarks from other members, which it is not material to notice, the motion for adjournment was put and carried without opposition.

In the House of Commons, on March 1st, after an unprecedented number of private bills had been read for the first time, upon a motion for a new writ for the borough of Eye in the room of Sir W. Garrow, who had accepted the office of Chief Justice of Chester, Sir Samuel Romilly rose, and observed that the gentleman in respect of whom the motion had been made, being his Majesty's Attorney General, had not resigned, nor did mean to resign, that office on his acceptance of the high judicial office described in the motion. To him it appeared that the two offices were incompatible. The one being a lucrative office held at the sole pleasure of the crown, its tenure was inconsistent with that independence of the judges which it was so important to preserve invialate. Besides, to place as a judge over the subject an attorney-general, whose duty it was to maintain the rights of the crown against the subject, was not the way to insure the equal administration of justice. These two offic s had indeed at former periods been held by the same person, as in the instances of lord Kenyon and lord Alvanley; but it was a misfortune that these cases had been allowed to pass without

comment. He trusted that he should not be understood as meaning any thing disrespectful to the learned gentleman in question, who had merely done as others had done before him; but he had felt it his duty to throw out these observations, on which, however, he did not mean to found any motion. No other remarks were made on the subject, and the motion for the writ passed of course.

The adjournment to March 21st, was moved in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the same manner as in the other, by way of communication from the Prince Regent, and as its being "his pleasure." Mr. Whitbread, after observing that he had no hesitation in voting for an adjourn. ment, and for an acquiescence in the pleasure of his Royal High ness, owned that he entertained some apprehensions, lest the present proceedings should be drawn to a pernicious precedent. He wished therefore to have some records on the journals of the house, of the grounds on which parliament had been induced to take such a step. In consequence, he moved an amendment to the right hon. gentleman's motion, which, after expressing a cheerful compliance with the pleasure of his Royal Highness, notwithstanding the recent adjournment of the House, at a season when so many matters of the greatest importance pressed themselves upon its consideration, concluded with "trusting that the unexampled state of public affairs upon the continent of Europe will afford a justification of their conduct to their constituents, and to posterity, prevent its being drawn into pernicious precedent,

and

and preclude the possibility of its being attributed to inattention to the great concerns, which call for the increased vigilance and activity of the House of Commons, or any dereliction of its sacred duties."

This amendment was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not being persisted in, the motion for adjournment was put and agreed to.

On March 22d, Mr. Golbourn, rose in the House of Commons to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act of the 22d of the king which went to provide that no office in any of the colonies of the united kingdom should be entrusted to any person who had not resided for a specified time in the settlement. He said, that certain abuses had crept in which rendered these salutary provisions altogether nugatory. One of the One of the chief defects was, that the governors and councils of colonies were empowered to grant leave of absence to persons without limitation of time or other restriction. It was his intention to propose certain restrictions on governors in granting such licences, and also to limit the time to which the leave which could be granted should extend. He also meant that it should be enacted that annual lists should be laid on the table of the House, containing the names of those officers of colonies who were absent from the places to which their offices were attached. Leave was then given to bring in a bill intituled, "An Act to prevent the granting in future any patent office to be exercised in any colony or plantation now or at any time hereafter belonging to the crown of Great Britain for any longer

term than during such time as the grantee thereof, or person appointed thereto, shall discharge the duty thereof in person, and behave well therein."

After a second reading of the bill, the question for going into a committee upon it came on April 18th, when Mr Creevey rose to oppose any farther progress. He said, it had been miscalled a bill of reform, and would in effect sanctify all abuses against a bill of reform which had passed in the 22d of the King. He produced several instances of violation of the law of residence established in that bill; and there being a clause in the present bill, "that nothing in the act should be construed to extend to any existing appointment or leave of absence granted before," he contended that the purpose was merely to support those absences which were too rotten to support themselves. He said, if the bill was pressed he would divide the House upon it, and propose what he thought would be a much better measure-a resolution that the law had been violated in the letter, in the case of the holders of colonial offices by patent, and in spirit and effect by the holders of them by commission3.

Mr. Golbourn had not expected, after the general concurrence with which his bill had first been received, to hear it stigmatized with the purpose of perpetuating and sanctioning abuse. He thought the measure proposed as a substitute was one of the greatest cruelty and injustice, being no less than to deprive those who had received such offices upon the express understanding of non-resi

dence,

dence, of the only reward which they had received for meritorious public services.

Mr. Creevey thought that attention to this subject was particularly called for at this time, when from the near prospect of peace it was probable that a number of very deserving persons would be reduced to scanty half-pay, on whom such honourable rewards would be probably conferred, and not disposed of to increase ministerial patronage. He then moved a resolution conformable to his intention above stated, as an amendment of the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, which was seconded.

A debate ensued, a considerable part of which referred to the expression of vested rights used by Mr. Stephen with regard to the interest of colonial offices in the places which they held during pleasure. In conclusion, Mr. Creevey's amendment was negatived without a division, and the House went into a committee. On the reading of a clause of the bill relative to the power of granting leave of absence to offices in the colonies, Mr. Browne opposed it, and moved "that leave of absence should not be granted for more than 12 months, nor should be renewed for more than the like period, and that absence for more than two years should incur forfeiture of the office." This was objected to as too short an allowance in several cases, and the motion was withdrawn. The last clause being read, by which it was declared, that the provisions of the bill did not extend to persons now holding situations in the colonies, Mr. Browne moved, "that

the clause be rejected." A dirision ensued, for the clause 32, against it 9.

On the motion for a third reading of the bill, May 6th, various observations on it were made as being futile and unnecessary; and Mr. Creevey in particular said it ought to be entitled, An Act to dispense with the Act of the 22d of his present Majesty, in favour of certain persons (whom he named) and who were in possession of colonial offices by patent or commission. On the other side, the bill, as far as it went, was represented as a great improvement on the colonial system. The House dividing on the motion, it was carried by 48 against 8. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

The failure of a motion made in the House of Commons during the last year by Sir Samuel Romilly, for a bill to take away the corruption of blood in cases of attainder for high treason and felony, did not discourage that persevering friend of humanity from renewing his attempt in the present session. On March 23d, he made a motion for leave to bring in a bill, which he stated to be precisely similar to that presented to the House in the last year. He repeated his explanation of its purpose and objects, saying, that it did not propose to make any alteration in the forfeitures of property, imposed by the existing laws on persons convicted of high treason or felony, but merely to do away what was termed corruption of blood, by virtue of which such a person could not form a link by which a pedigree could be traced, whereby his descendants,

scendants, however far removed, would be deprived of the means of establishing their right to lands, to which he, if alive, would have a prior right, and such land would escheat to the lord of the manor. This law rested upon feudal principles, which were by no means conformable to modern ideas of justice, and was in fact a relic of barbarism. It had been said in the discussions on the bill in the Jast session, that instances of the evil which he was desirous of guarding against were not likely to happen; but at this very time, he was professionally concerned in a case precisely in point. A woman had been convicted of a murder in Oxfordshire 50 years ago; and the estate she would have been entitled to, had she lived, had passed from one possessor to another, and a valuable considera tion had been given for it; yet, information having been given, that the property, by reason of corruption of blood, had escheated to the crown, and it being found by an inquisition, that this was really the case, claim had been laid to the property as belonging to the crown.

The question being put, Mr. Yorke rose to declare, that he must object even to the introduction of such a bill into parliament. His reasons were a repetition of the arguments he had formerly employed against any alteration of the laws of England, on the ground of a trifling inconvenience, and particularly against any relaxation of the punishment for treason. Leave was however given to bring in the bill; and Sir S. Romilly afterwards moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter the punish

ment of high treason; which was granted.

On the motion for committing the bill for abolishing corruption of blood, Mr. Yorke enforced his former objections, and said that he should propose leaving out of the bill the words " or treason," and that it should run thus: "that no attainder of felony, not extending to treason, petty treason, or murder, do lead to corruption of blood."

Sir James Mackintosh in a learned and eloquent speech supported the bill. He gave an account of the introduction of blood for treason into Scotland, where, as in all other countries of Europe, it was unknown, in the reign of queen Anne, and contended that it was by the best authorities regarded as a temporary expedient; and that the making it general and unconditional in 1799, was the real innovation. He ridiculed the idea, that a law through which a person unborn might at a remote time miss an estate, which would otherwise have come to him, could have any effect in deterring a man from the commission of a crime; and he thought there could not be a inore favourable time than the present, for abrogating the rigour of ancient laws.

The Solicitor General (Serjeant Shepherd) in reply denied, that the proceeding of the legislature in 1799, with respect to the corruption of blood, was an innovation, and asserted that it was rather a restoration of the law as it existed prior to 1708. He was decidedly of opinion, that this punishment ought not to be taken away in cases of treason. After a speech from Sir S. Romilly, in