MONTHLY REGISTER, FOR JUNE, 1809. PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER. The Earl of Buckinghamshire rose to move for copies of the proclamation of Sir H. Dalrymple, and of the correspondence with the Portuguese minister, and the government of the Brazils, on the appointment of a regency. The Earl of Liverpool could not consent to the production of the correspondence which had passed between his Majesty's government and the prince regent, or his representative in this country. Lord Sidmouth supported the mo tion. Lord Grenville maintained that it was the duty of his Majesty's ministers to establish a form of government more agreeable to the wishes of the people, than a regency in which they had no confidence, but which, on the contrary, was universally suspected and distrusted The Earl of Buckinghamshire replied, and after a few observations from Lords Harrowby, Sidmouth, and Liverpool, the question was put, and the motion negatived without a division. Adjourned. Tuesday, May 2. Lord Auckland called the attention of the house to the order of the day for considering of the propriety of adding to the roll of standing orders, a resolution that no divorce bill should be entertained by their lordships, unless it conwined a clause prohibiting the of fending parties from intermarrying. VOL. V. Lord Radnor approved of the ob ject of the proposed regulation, but doubted whether it would be atten ded with great practical good, unless there was a disposition to enforce the standing order in the most rigid manner. Lord Mulgrave said, he would cordially concur in any bill for making adultery punishable as a misdemeanor, by fine, pillory, solitary confinement, and all the other modes of correction, applicable to that description of offence, but he could not approve of a regulation which, instead of giving the repentant semale an opportunity of retrieving her character, consigned her to perpetual prostitution, and bastardized her offspring. The Archbishop of Canterbury conceived, that where the vinculum matrimonii was dissolved by an act of the legislature, the offending party might legally marry again. If this had not been understood, he was certain the bishops would long ago have interposed. He was, however, of opinion that this temptation should be taken away, being persuaded that it exposed women to a species of courtship which was well understood, without any proposal being made in direct terms. He approved, therefore, of the motion. Lord Erskine supported the motion. From the circumstances that had come to his knowledge, in the various actions for criminal conversation, in which he had been employed, he was fully satisfied that adultery, actual or apparent, was 3 A in many cases, only had recourse the motion, it was put, and carried to, as the understood medium a- on a division, by 28 to 12. mong all the parties for transferring the woman from one husband to another. The Lord Chancellor argued, that it never could have been the intention of the legislature to authorise the offending party to have that privilege. It had been obtained from the silence of the legislature. Lord Grenville took the same side, and recommended some measure for the more effectual punishment of adultery. Earl Stanhope rose, he said, not to teach divinity to my lords the bishops, but chiefly to oppose the Lord Chancellor's law. He declared that he would lay his lordship flat upon his back, and make him unsay what he had said about the interinarriages of the criminal partres before he had done with him. Is lordship had questioned the vality of those marriages. Why, then, were all the children' bastards, and to lose their estates? As for the people at doctor's Commons, they were the absurdest fellows in the world. What did they mean by a bond to do that which they had no right to do? As to pecuniary penalties, if the lawyers did not like to learn some law from him, he should give them a little from Mr. Dunning, who was a very good lawyer. He was once speaking to Mr. Dunning about pecuniary penalties for offences, and Mr. D. gave him a sort of definition of a pecuniary penalty, He told him, that a pecuniary penalty was only the payment of a sum for doing that which was illegal. A man paid the penalty (say 20,0001.) and then he had done no more than he had a right to do in breaking the law. He should not speak at length, because there was so thin an attendance on an important subject. After some obseryations from Lord Liverpool and Darnley, in favour of Wednesday, May 3. The militia completion bill, and admiralty droits bill, were received from the Commons, and read a first time; and the other bills on the table were forwarded one stage. Thursday, May 4. Lord Selkirk made his promised motion respecting the affair which took place in 1807, between his Majesty's frigate the Leopard and the United States frigate Chesapeake; and concluded with moving an humble address to his Majesty, praying that in the negociations now pending, instructions be given that this affair be particularly attended to. Lord Liverpool urged the impropriety of agitating these points at a moment when negociations were in train, and was of opinion that the dictation of parliament would not only trench upon the prerogative of the crown, but release ministers from all responsibility.-The question was put and negatived without a division. Friday, May 5. The bill for more effectually preventing cruelty to animals was read a first time.-Adjourned to Monday. Monday, May 8. The Earl of Liverpool presented a message from his Majesty, stating that his Majesty had consented to the application of the Prince Regent of Portugal to negociate a loan in this country of 600,0001. a part of which sum was intended to repay the advances made to the Prince Regent by his Majesty; that the revenues of the Island of Maderia and other funds were to be assigned for the payment of the interest of the loan and the liquidation of the principal, and that for this purpose a convention had been concluded between his Majesty and the Prince Regent, which would shortly be laid before the house. Tuesday, May 9. The Earl of Liverpool moved, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, thanking him for his gracious communication respecting the Portuguese loan, and imparting to his Majesty the uniform concurrence of their lordships to the measure proposed. On the motion of the Earl of justly exercise over the lower orders Liverpool, his Majesty's message of the creation, for his sustenance was ordered to be taken into consi- and convenience, and the duty, deration to-morrow, and the Lords though one of imperfect obligation, to be summoned. which he lay under of not abusing that power so as to put the animals under his protection to unnecessary pain. His lordship regretted that the bill for preventing bull-baiting had miscarried in its progress in the other house; and much more so the opposition which it met with from a man (Mr. Windham) of the most brilliant genius, the most accomplished mind, and the most refined humanity; but whose understanding was, nevertheless, a little awry upon this point. In the present bill he had introduced no specific provision as to that practice. If bull-baiting did not, in the esti The Duke of Norfolk wished to assist the government of Portugal, and hoped it would assert its independence in the Brazils, and never think of returning to Europe. He deprecated any further effort in behalf of Spain and Portugal, which were now entirely at the mercy of Bonamation of magistrates and juries, parte, and wished all the power of this country to be concentrated at home for self-preservation. The motion was then agreed to. Wednesday, May 10. In a committee of the house upon the militia completion bill, some conversation took place between the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Liverpool respecting a clause rela tive to the recruiting on the confines of different counties. The result was, that the clause was expunged. -Adj. to Friday. Friday, May 12. The royal assent was given by commission to the local militia, the admiralty droits, the Scotch records, and the sugar bills, with many others.-Adj. to Monday. Monday, May 15. The six million exchequer bills bill, the militia completion bill, and newspaper discount bill, were passed. Lord Erskine then moved the order of the day for the second reading of a bill to prevent wanton and malicious cruelty to animals. His lordship distinguished between the dominion which man might come under the description of wan-' ton, malicious, and unnecessary cruelty, then it would remain untouched by the bill; but if it did, in any case, then of course it would be punished. The noble lord severely reprobated the practice of running horses to great distances, against time, where the very formation of the bet was something beyond what was to be expected from the ordinary powers of the swiftest animal. The Lord Chancellor approved of the principle of the bill, but thought the application of it would be attended with some difficulty.-The bill was read a 2d time. Tuesday, May 16. The house was, for a considerable time, occupied by hearing counsel, in the case of Mr. WHITE, which was brought under their lordship's consideration, by a writ of error from the King's bench. Mr. Clifford, in behalf of the plaintiff in error, contended, that the judgment under which he now suffers imprisonment in Dorchester jail, was illegal on two grounds :1. That the court of King's bench had no authority; at common law, to confine offenders except in its own prison, or the jails of the county or the place where the offence was committed. 2. That the part of the sentence which related to finding the securities for the preservation of the peace, was so vaguely expressed that it might operate to the indefinite or perpetual imprisonment of Mr. White -3 mode of punishment equally unknown to the law of England. The learned counsel, in support of his first position, quoted a number of authorities and cases, from the beginning of the reign of Charles I. to the year 1723. The power assumed by the court of Starchamber, of imprisoning the victims of their cruelties in remote parts of the kingdom, at a distance from the aid and consolation which they might derive from the visits of their rela⚫tives and friends, was one of the chief grievances alledged against that court, and a principal cause of its abolition. Even in the arbitrary period of James II. there were judges in the King's bench who refused to gratify the court, by assuming the power of carrying sentences into execution at a distance from where the offence was committed. With regard to the second point, he objected to the sentence, because it did not state whether the libel was true or false, nor what was to become of the prisoner, if he should not be able, at the expiration of his three years imprisonment, to find sureties to keep the peace for five years. If the libel had been declared to be true, then the difficulty of finding security would be insuperable, and he apprehended that Mr. White must totally abandon his concern and forfeit his means of livelihood before he could procure his release. Viewing the subject either with regard to this alternative, or that of indefinite or perpetual imprisonment, he conceived the sentence to be incompatible with the spirit of that provision of the bill of rights, which says, that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The learned counsel concluded with expressing his conviction that the house would not recognise, under the sway of the house of Brunswick, the validity of sentences which would have been deemed illegal, in the time of the Stuarts. The The Attorney-General argued in support of the legality of the judg ment. Whatever impression it might make elsewhere, he was certain that it could have little weight with their lordships. The power of the King's Bench extended to every part of the kingdom. With respect to the practice, innumerable instances might be produced, from the time of Justice Holt, downwards, to prove that the court never confined itself within the limits assigned to its jurisdiction by the learned gentleman. Attorney-General here mentioned a variety of instances where convictions having taken place, or offences committed, in distinct counties, the offenders were punished in Middlesex, Surrey, and London, and vice versa. In the majority of the early cases quoted, it appeared, that the sentences were pronounced in Westminster-Hall; and wholly, or partially, executed in London; but this, he contended, was equally decisive against Mr. Clifford's argument, as if they had been executed in the remotest part of the kingdom.-The further proceedings were then postponed to Thursday. Wednesday, May 17. Several bills were brought up from the house of Commons, and read a first time, others before the house were read a second time. Thursday, May 18. Counsel were called to the bar in the case of Messrs. WHITE and HART. The Solicitor-General spoke at considerable length in support of the sentence of the Court of King's men Bench, pursuing the same line of argument as the Attorney-General. Mr. Clifford, in reply, briefly restated the doctrines he had laid down in his opening, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench, and contended, that nothing had fallen from the learned gentleon the other side of the bar which in the least shook them. He then alluded to a number of the precedents they had quoted, and argued that when fairly and circumstantially stated, they were generally in his favour, and that the few more recent instances of a contrary description were not conformative proofs of what the law was, but as much violation of it as that which he now impeached. He retorted, with much point, upon certain remarks and insinua tions which he considered as personalities. The Lord Chancellor quoted various cases, in which similar punishments had been inflicted, from the Revolution downwards. He concluded with proposing a question to the judges, upon the point of law. After a short consultation among the judges present, who, according to the customs in such cases, were those only of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas stated for himself and his learned brethren, their complete conviction of the legality of the sentence. As to himself, though he had been upwards of 50 years a professional man, he had never heard a doubt raised with respect to the competence of the Court of King's Bench to commit persons to any of his Majesty's jails in every part of the kingdom. Lord Erskine concurred in opinion with the learned judges. The Lord Chancellor briefly expres sed himself to the same effect; and the judgment of the court below was affirmed. Friday, May 19. The committal of Lord Erskine's bill for preventing cruelty towards the brute creation, was farther postponed to Wednesday se'nnight. Saturday, May 20. The Royal assent was given by commission to 60 public and private bills among the former were the six millions Exchequer Bills' bill, newspaper discount bill, &c.---Adjourned till Thursday, Thursday, May 25. The Earl of Liverpool presented the following message froin his Majesty. "GEORGE R. "The King thinks it proper to ac quaint the house of lords, that the ancient relations of good understanding and friendship between his Majesty and the Emperor of Austria have been happily restored; and have been confirmed by a treaty, of which, when the ratifi cations shall have been exchanged, his Majesty will direct a copy to be com municated to the house of commons. "Although the provisions of this treaty do not include any stipulations for pecuniary assistance, his Majesty is nevertheless desirous of being enabled to afford to his Imperial Majesty such assistance of that description as may be called for by the circumstances of the Contest, in which his Imperial Majesty is engaged against the common enemy, and as can be furnished by his Majesty, consistently with the other extended demands upon the resources of bis Majesty's dominions. His Majesty is equally desirous of continuing to the Spanish cause such ing, and assisting the efforts of that succours as may be requisite for sustainnation against the tyranny and usurpation of France; as well as of giving consistency and effect to the exertions of the people of Portugal, for the defence of their lawful government and national independence. and public spirit of his faithful subjects "His Majesty relies upon the zeal to enable his Majesty to provide for these great objects; and to take such other measures as the exigency of affairs may require. G. R." This message was ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow. |