sovereign, or the Duchy of Cornwall, which may be granted at any stage of the bill. In 1844 the St. Asaph and Bangor Diocese Bill was withdrawn in the upper house on the Duke of Wellington intimating that it required the royal assent, which would not be granted. In addition to the acceptance of bills, and the opening and closing of parliament, a communication frequently takes place between the crown and parliament. Public events, state ceremonies, occurrences in the royal family, and a demand for supplementary money, are "communicated" to parliament by a "royal message," under the queen's sign-manual, such messages are specially addressed to either house, and are presented by the ministers who have a seat in parliament, or by a member of the royal household. In the lords the message is read by the lord chancellor, and subsequently by the clerk; in the commons, by the speaker. If the message relate to application for money, it is addressed, without detriment to the privilege of the commons, to both houses simultaneously. Formal messages are ordinarily answered by way of address; occasionally both houses concur in a common form. Public documents are laid on the table in the original, either directly by order of the queen, or after either house, by way of address, has applied for them. By resolution of the house they are printed. Other official documents printed in the form of collections are laid before parliament. "Blue-books" often contain invaluable materials, so far as the internal administration of the kingdom is concerned, such as are not, indeed, to be met with in any other country; but, in regard to foreign politics, can only be made use of with great precaution and judgment. A recent startling example has brought to light the manner in which they are at times "got up.”* * An "Affghanistan" Blue-book might serve to show that the publicity and wondrous penetration of the English foreign policy are not, as a matter of course, to be depended on. These Blue-books have been pointed out as a valuable source of information in regard to foreign politics. It is, however, incontestable, that the Blue-book laid before parliament in 1839, in relation to the Affghan War was grossly tampered with, as after evidence has irrefragably proved. The correspondence published in the Blue-book referred to, alleged that the occupation of Cabul had been undertaken to protect England against the harmful influence of Russia in Cabul, and was as necessary as expedient. The ruler of Cabul, Dost Mohamed, was made to appear as the enemy of England and the friend of Russia. What more natural than that the minister then at the head of foreign affairs in England should be anxious to withstand Russia? The Blue On the 21st of February, 1860, Sir M. Seymour asked for the publication of additional despatches about China, although the Blue-book, previously published, was said to contain all the de book showed, however, that even had Dost Mohamed succumbed to the influence of the Russian agent, the Emperor Nicolas himself was innocent of instigating such Russian agents. Nowhere was mention made of the emperor, but only of "Russia," and of the "Russian government." The czar had, consequently, given no grounds for complaint. People were all the more satisfied when the Russian government disavowed the course of action both of its ambassador in Teheran and of his agent, Vickovitch. The latter, in consequence thereof, shot himself. Mr. Kaye, the secretary of the East India Company, to whom the veritable despatches of Alexander Burnes, British resident at the court of Dost Mohamed, were made accessible, denounced, in his history of the Affghan War, the Blue-book as an arrant forgery. He says, vol. ii., p. 13: "People are deceived if they believe that such collections supply the best documents for history; they are oftentimes merely one-sided compilations and forgeries, put in circulation under the ministerial seal; they deceive contemporaries, and are calculated to carry down to posterity a troop of perilous lies." Lord Palmerston, who was the secretary for foreign affairs, has frequently been attacked on the score of the forgeries perpetrated. In the outset he maintained that no actual forgeries had taken place, but that there were only mere omissions. On the 1st of March, 1843, he replied to Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Hume: "These gentlemen who have now, for the first time, found out that official despatches have been given by extracts, and who imagine that they have made a mighty discovery, only show their ignorance of the course of public business." When Anstey, in 1848, attacked Lord Palmerston on account of the same circumstance, he merely admitted, "that the documents had not been fully published, but the house had so often taken it amiss when they were bored with useless material, that it would be grateful to the government for having left out all that was superfluous and unimportant." When, in 1859, the Tory ministry allowed the publication of the veritable documents, it became at once apparent how little these grave discrepancies were to be treated as simple omissions. On the Affghan papers being laid before the public in 1859, in all their completeness, they were found to contain despatches which had been either entirely suppressed or partly mutilated, together with a letter of the Emperor Nicolas addressed to Dost Mohamed in 1839, which had not been published at all. The words "The Emperor of Russia" were carefully omitted throughout, and in lieu thereof, "The Russian Government" or "Russia"-two indeterminate expressions were substituted. In the new Affghan Blue-book the omitted passages are indicated by parentheses. This clever kind of arguing ad hominem, is attributable chiefly to Mr. Kaye, who superintended the editing of the new edition. Certain despatches to be met with in the revised edition serve to illustrate this art of Blue-book making. The parenthetic passages were suppressed by the Blue-book of 1839. (1.) Translation of a letter from Molla Reshid, the councillor of Kohin Dil Khan Sirdar, to the address of Ameer Dost Mohamed Khan, received at Cabul on the 19th of December, 1837: A. C. "An ambassador on the part of (the) Russia (n Emperor) came from Moscow to Teheran, and has been appointed to wait on the sirdars at Candahar, and thence to proceed to the presence of the Ameer. He paid his respects to Mohamed Shah at Nishapoor, and passing through Kayanat, Lash, and Jawer, Seistan, and Gnour Sail, arrived at Ahmed Thahee (Candahar). He is the bearer of (confidential messages from the Emperor, and of the) letters from the Russian ambassador at Teheran. "The Russian ambassador recommends this man to be a most trusty individual, and to possess full authority to make any negotiation (on the part of Captain the Emperor and himself). Burnes will undoubtedly comprehend the real motives of this Elchee," etc. (2.) Translation of a letter from Count Simonitch, the Russian ambassador at I I spatches written between the 27th of April, 1857, and the 19th of May, 1859. It oozed out that the despatches of the 23rd of April, 1858, and the 23rd of November, 1858, were wanting. The house, while ordering the printing of the despatches, resolved that the original Blue-book was not complete, and did not furnish all the correspondence which it should have contained after the primary vote of the house.* Even the recently published Chinese correspondence relating to the Taeping rebellion, has been tampered with, Teheran, to the address of Ameer Dost Mohamed Khan, of Cabul, received the 20th of December, 1837 : A. C. "The respectable P. Vickovitch will wait upon you with this letter (and deliver to you an epistle from his imperial Majesty in reply to the petition which you had addressed through your agent Hajie Husan Alee.") "I have (received) some Russian rarities (from the imperial store) to forward to you," etc.-Papers, East India (Cabul and Affghanistan), ordered by the house of commons to be printed, 8th of June, 1859, p. 86, 87. (3.) Extract from a despatch to the Right Hon. Lord Auckland, G.C.B., Governor-General of India, &c., &c., &c.: "CABUL, Dec. 23, 1837. "The communications which passed on this second occasion have also been made known to me, and are of a startling nature. Mr. Vickovitch informed Dost Mohamed Khan that the (Emperor) [for Emperor there formerly stood, in No. 3, the Russian Government] had desired him to state his sincere sympathy with the difficulties under which he laboured, and that it would afford (his Majesty) great pleasure to assist him in repelling the attacks of Runjeet Sing on his dominions; that (his Majesty) was ready to furnish him with a sum of money for the purpose, and to continue the supply annually, expecting in return the Ameer's good offices; that it was in (the Emperor's) power to forward the pecuniary assistance as far as Bokhara, with which state (he) had friendly and commercial relations, but that the Ameer must arrange for its being forwarded on to Cabul," etc. Last year Mr. Dunlop referred anew, in parliament, to the affair of the Affghan Blue-book; Mr. Horsman, Mr. Bright, Mr. Walpole, and Colonel Sykes, vehemently attacked the premier on this occasion, who mainly relied upon the fact, "that it was an old story, and people might just as well go back to the war of 1839, as to the bombardment of Copenhagen." The independent press, however, was unanimous in the condemnation of his conduct. The Dial of 22nd of March, affirmed that, "A British Bluebook enjoys, for the future, as much credit and reliance as Pullinger's ledger." The Times had, on a previous occasion, uttered its condemnation of the forgery, and in no measured terms. The same paper, which is now on the best understanding with the premier, has previously reproached him with something of the same cast. In its number 20th April, 1838, it blamed him for having falsified the Blue-book relating to the American boundary-line. In the Parlia mentary Remembrancer (vol. iv., p. 45,) he is likewise denounced as the author of this monstrous falsification. A Berlin printer, who was for many years occupied in England upon Blue-books, once explained to the author the manner in which they are occasionally prepared. The original documents are sent to the printers unfalsified, there they are set up and sent to the Foreign-Office for correction. After a time they are returned revised and improved; in the proof-sheets entire passages, or notes, being left out, or additions introduced. After the first "revise" the matter is set up anew and transmitted for further correction to the Foreign-Office. Here it is again prepared for use in parliament, and once more returned to the printers, with fresh corrections. In this form it is ultimately laid before parliament as a reliable historical document. * Parl. Rem., iii. 96. 1 according to Colonel Sykes, who is a man of acknowledged moderate views, and whose statement is eminently trustworthy. The instruction afforded by such manoeuvres and artifices should be kept ever in view by the earnest observer of party opinions and their upholders.* "We must not fail to point out how things have been managed behind the scenes, and are still being managed, even though no conversions should follow amongst our rabid politicians."-Schlosser, iii. 351. CHAPTER VII. LEGISLATIVE POWER OF PARLIAMENT. The Legislative Supremacy of Parliament Doubtful.-Blackstone.-Paley.—American Constitution.-Magna Charta of the Colonies.-Coke.-Holt and Hobart against the Absolute Legislative Power of Parliament.-Immoderate Number of Statutes. -36 Quarto Volumes of Criminal Laws.-Lord Cranworth's Opinion.-Clumsy Form of the Statutes.-Division of Acts of Parliament. THE legislative power of parliament is thus defined by Blacktone: *"Parliament hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal; this being the place where that absolute despotic power which must, in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. The parliament can change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom, and of parliaments themselves; it can, in short, do everything that is not naturally impossible, and therefore, what the parliament doth, no authority upon earth can undo." Paley says:†-"An act of parliament in England can never be unconstitutional, in the strict and proper acceptation of the term; in a lower sense it may, viz., when it militates with the spirit, contradicts the analogy of, or defeats the provision of other laws made to regulate the form of government. Even that flagi *Bl. i. 161. + Book vi. c. 7. "An act of the British parliament vesting the sovereignty in the king, or vesting the sovereignty in the king and the upper or lower house, would essentially alter the structure of our present supreme government, and might, therefore be styled, with propriety, an unconstitutional law; in case the imagined statute were also generally pernicious, and in case it offended, moreover, the generality or bulk of the nation, it might be styled irreligious and immoral as well as unconstitutional, but to call it illegal were absurd; for if the parliament, for the time being, be sovereign in the United Kingdom, it is the author, directly or circuitously, of all our positive law, and exclusively sets us the measure of legal justice and injustice."- John Austin, Province of Jurisprudence Determined, 230. |