Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

He believed it would not be necessary to insert the word brothers in the bill, as the brother of a peer must be also the son of a peer. (Lord Melville signified his dissent from this.)-As Scotch Peers could not be created, it followed that the brother would be the son of a peer. It could not be otherwise, unless the deceased peer had succeeded collaterally. He was fully of opinion that peers should make out their daim before they assumed the right of voting; but there was another class of claimants beside those to which the bill applied. Against two claimants of this description (he alluded to the cases of Rutherford and another) the House had passed a resolution, directing the clerk register not to receive their votes until they made out their claims. He should, perhaps, on a future occasion, take upon himself to propose a resolution that no person should vote until they made good their titles. Lord MELVILLE, in explanation, observed, that the clause in the bill excepted the sons and grandsons of peers: but he still thought that brothers ought also to be excepted, because it might happen, from col. lateral succession, that the brother of a deceased peer was not the son of a peer. The LORD CHANCELLOR approved of the bill. The provision in the law respecting Irish Peers was extremely salutary, and he thought it might be extended to the Scotch. An English Peer must have a writ before he appears to take his seat in that House. It was also necessary to prove that he was the legitimate son of his father, to whom he succeeded; and, in cases in which there could not be the slightest doubt, this proof often required some time. -It might be worth their Lordships' while to consider whether a similar proof ought not to be required of persons claiming to vote at the elections of Scotch Peers. The Earl of LAUDERDALE remarked, that such proof was not necessary in Scotland, from the nature of the law respecting marriage. The Noble and Learned Lord, he believed, knew very well by what simple proceeding marriage was conducted in Scot

land.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was aware that there were many modes of contracting marriage in Scotland. He had heard, he believed, three or four hundred ways pointed out by Counsel at their Lordships' bar, who descanted on subjects as learnedly as if they had three or four hundred wives themselves. The bill was then read a second time. Lord HOLLAND ruse to bring in a bill to repeal an act of Parliament which passed in the 12th year of his late Majesty's reign, commonly call ed the Royal Marriage Act. According to the courtesy of the House, a bill was always allowed to be brought in, and to be read a first time as a matter of course, re

serving the period for observation or debate until the second reading. On this occasion, however, he wished to say a few words. The Noble Lord then briefly alluded to the several clauses of the act in question, arguing that it was calculated not only to create war abroad, but dissensions at home. If he was able to shew that the marriages of the descendants of George II. had been unhappy, it would then become a question, whether some measure ought not to be adopted by which the incon veniences of the Royal Marriage Act might be obviated. The Earl of LIVERPOOL had not any objection to the bill being brought in, but expressed his decided intention to oppose it in its subsequent stages. The bill was then brought in and read a first time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-June 1.—Lord CASTLEREAGH moved for leave to bring in a bill to continue the provisions of the Alien Act. The motion was strongly opposed by Sir R. Wilson, Mr Baring Wall, and Sir J. Mackintosh; and defended by the Solicitor General. The motion was agreed to by a majority of 86. His Lordship then moved for, and obtained leave to bring in, a bill to continue the Act for preventing Naturalization by purchasing Stock in the Bank of Scotland. He stated that it was not intended that the bill should possess retrospective powers, but merely to prevent similar rights being so acquired in future.

June 2.-The LORD ADVOCATE ob. tained leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Court of Admiralty in Scotland, and certain proceedings in the Court of Session.

June 14.-The Budget. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought forward his plan for providing for the public service of the year. The sum required is L. 20,723,000, of which the sinking fund supplies 12 millions-a loan five millions, and the remainder is furnished by annual taxes, and a grant on the produce of the temporary Excise duties, continued since the war. The interest on the funded and unfunded debt amounts to nearly fifty millions per annum, which, with the current expences of the Government, amounting to above 20 millions, makes a sum of 70 millions. Deduct the money annually paid to the Commissioners for the sinking fund, amounting to 17 millions, and the remainder, 53 millions, is nearly about the sum which must be annually raised in order that our revenue shall meet our expenditure-whatever we have above is the real sinking fund which we have to trust to for the redemption of our debt.

The following recapitulation will perhaps more fully display the financial plan of the Right Hon. Gentleman :

Granted for 1819.

SUPPLIES.

L. 8,782,470 Army 6,436,781 Navy 1,191,000 Ordnance 2,078,197 Miscellaneous

Estimate for
1820.

annual expence at L. 100,000. After some complimentary observations from Lord CASTLEREAGH, Sir J. MACKINTOSH, Mr L. 9,422,000 WILBERFORCE, and other leading Mem6,586,700 bers, leave was given to bring in a bill in 1,204,600 fartherance of the Learned Gentleman's 2,100,000 benevolent views; with an understanding, however, that it should be printed, and stand over till next session.

18,488,448 Total Supplies 10,313,300 1,570,000 Int. on Exch. Bills 1,000,000 430,000 Sink. Fund on do. 410,000

20,488,448

20,723,300 10,500,000 Red. of Unf, Debt 9,000,000 L. 30,988,448 L.29,723,300

WAYS AND MEANS.

Granted for
1819.
L. 3,000,000 Annual Malt
3,500,000 Ex. Duties con.
240,000 Lottery
334,000 Old Stores

7,074,000

Estimates for
1820.

L. 3,000,000
2,500,000
240,000
260,000

6,000,000 12,000,000 Loan 5,000,000 12,000,000 Sink. Fund Loan 12,000,000 Fund. Exch. Bills 7,000,000

L. 31,074,000

L. 30,000,000

UNFUNDED DEBT-1819.
Exch. Bills, 59 Geo. III. c. 4 L. 20,000,000
-Do,~59 Geo. III. c. 131 16,500,000
Irish Treasury Bills
2,000,000

Bills issued for Aid to Manu-
facturers, Fisheries, &c. 57
Geo. III. c. 34

1,000,000

June 30-Lord CASTLEREAGH then appeared at the bar, and delivered a message from his Majesty to the following ef fect :-"G. R.-The King acquaints the House of Commons, that part of the provisions formerly made for the different branches of the Royal Family ceased on the death of his late Majesty; the King, therefore, now recommends to the House of Commons to adopt such measures as will enable him to make such provision for his royal brothers and sisters as would make their incomes equal to what they were during the lifetime of his late Majesty." On the motion of Lord CASTLEREAGH, it was ordered that his Majesty's message should be taken into consideration on Monday.

July 5.-Lord A. HAMILTON moved the reduction of the present tax on malt in Scotland, and to regulate the duty on the principle of the act of 1789, which provid ed, that only half the duty should be levied on Scots malt as was paid upon that article in England. The motion was supported by Sir G. Clerk, Sir J. Marjoribanks, Mr Kennedy, Mr Boswell, and Mr K. Douglas. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion, but proposed a reduction of 6d. per bushel on bigg, which he thought would be of the greatest advantage to small distillers. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of 10—there being 43 for, and 53 against it.-On Friday evening the CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER proposed a duty of 2s. a bushel 30,500,000 on malt intended to be brewed into beer in Scotland, and made from a particular species of grain; also a duty of 2s. 6d. a bushel on malt made from barley and certain other kinds of grain: both resolutions were agreed to.

L. 39,500,000

UNFUNDED DEBT-1820.

Exchequer Bills
Irish Treasury Bills

L. 29,000,000
1,500,000

By Reduct. of Unfunded Debt 9,000,000

L. 39,500,000

June 17.-A discussion took place upon the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, when Lord NUGENT moved that the army should be reduced from 92,586 to 77,224 effective officers and men. To this amendment Colonel DAVIES moved another, that, instead of 92,586 officers and men, 80,479 be inserted. The first amendment was negatived by a large majority, and the second was disposed of in silence.

June 28. Mr BROUGHAM brought for ward his promised motion on the education of the poor, and detailed his plan at considerable length. He stated the expence of building schools and houses for the teachers at about half a million, and the

The House, in a Committee on the Scots Fisheries Act, agreed to a resolution for taking off the existing bounties on cod fish imported into Scotland, and granting others in lieu thereof.

July 7.—Lord CASTLEREAGH stated, in answer to a motion of Mr Beaumont respecting the Coronation, that it had been determined to postpone that ceremony for the present. The period to which it is postponed, or the motive for the postponement, his Lordship did not explain; but he declared, that the delay was not in any respect connected with the prosecution of the charges against the Queen.

JUNE.

BRITISH CHRONICLE.

19-High Court of Justiciary. The Court met this day, and proceeded to the trial of James M Coul, alias Moffat, alias Martin, alias Wilson, accused of theft, in so far as he, along with other persons, his accomplices, did, on the night of Saturday the 13th, or early in the morning of Sunday the 14th of July, 1811, forcibly enter the office occupied by the Paisley Banking Company in Glasgow, and break open the safe, and steal therefrom a number of bank astes of different banks, amounting to the value of L-19,753, 4s. and about L.100 in gold and silver. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty. A great body of evidence of a circumstantial nature was produced. Most of the witnesses brought forward in the civil action (see Vol. VI. p. 571) were again adduced to give evidence in this remarkable trial, particularly the smith that made the key, who was brought to Edinburgh in custody of two Bow Street officers. The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict, finding the libel proven, with the exception of the aggravation of habit and repute a thief not proven. The Lord Justice Clerk then passed the awful sentence of the law upon the unhappy man, which was, that he should be executed at the usual place of execution on the 26th of July. The prisoner was very attentive to the protracted proceedings, and preserved his fortitude after the verdict had left no doubt of his melancholy fate. Public interest had been strongly excited by this trial, and the avenues to the Court were crowded at an early hour. The trial was not over till past one o'clock next morning.

JULY.

3. The High Court of Justiciary met for the trial of John M'Callum, Daniel Cameron, and Alex. Robertson, accused of stealing a pocket-book, containing eighteen one pound or guinea notes, in the house of Robert Halliday, innkeeper at Queensferry, on the 22d of September. Only Cameron appeared, M'Callum and Robertson having absconded from their bail. Cameron pleaded Not Guilty, and sentence of outlawry was pronounced against the others. After an examination of witnesses, the Jury, without leaving the Court, found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to be transported for fourteen years.

Daniel Morrison, John Alexander, and Alex. M Bean, all young lads, were next placed at the bar, accused of breaking in to the house of Mr Wm. Smith, Gayfield Square, and stealing several hats and great. coats, on the 1st of April; of stealing a coat and waistcoat from the house of John

Sutherland, Moray Street, on the same night; and being habit and repute thieves. The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. The witnesses were then examined, when the Jury retired, and after a short consultation, returned with a verdict, finding the house. breaking in Gayfield Square proven against all the prisoners; the second charge, of the robbery in Moray Street, proven against M'Bean, and not proven against Morrison; and the aggravation of habit and repute thieves proven against the whole of the prisoners. They were then sentenced to be transported for life.

13. HIGH TREASON.-A special commission of Oyer and Terminer having been appointed for the trial of all treasons, and misprisions of treason, committed in Scotland, the commission was opened at Stirling on the 23d June, by the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, and Lords Hermand and Gillies, attended by Mr Knapp, the Clerk of Arraigns, the Lord Advocate, Mr Home Drummond, Serjeant Hullock, and a crowd of young Coun sel. The commission having been read, and some minor forms gone through, a Grand Jury was sworn in. The Lord President addressed them in a speech replete with ability and eloquence, in the course of which he gave a comprehensive view of the law of treason as established at the Union, and enlarged on the advantages which the subject in Scotland has now acquired in questions with the Crown by the institution of the Grand Jury, and other forms formerly unknown to us. His Lordship carefully avoided all allusion to the cases at issue, and to the particular circumstances of the country, and warned the Jury to retire unprejudiced by what they might have seen or heard out of doors, and find their bills solely according to the evidence. The Grand Jury then retired into an adjoining room, followed by Lieutenants Hodgson and Davidson, and a number of other wit nesses and after sitting in deliberation for nearly three hours, returned into Court with true bills for High Treason against the following persons, being the Radicals who were apprehended on Bonnymuir immediately after the action on the 5th of April, with a detachment of the 10th Hussars and Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry :J. Baird, weaver in Condorrat; T. M'Culloch, stocking-weaver in Glasgow; A. Hardie, weaver there; J. Barr, weaver in Condorrat; W. Smith, weaver there; B. Moir, labourer in Glasgow; A. Mur

--

chie, blacksmith there; A. Latimer, otherwise Lettimer, weaver there; A. Johnston, weaver there; A. White, bookbinder there; D. Thomson, weaver there; J. Wright, tailor there; W. Clackson, alias Clarkson, shoemaker there; T. Pike, otherwise Pink, muslin-singer there; R. Gray, weaver there; J. Clelland, smith there; A. Hart, cabinet-maker there; T. M'Farlane, weaver at Condorrat.

Next day true bills were found against nine other persons, from different parts of the county of Stirling The prisoners on a subsequent day were brought up, and arraigned, when they all pleaded Not Guilty, and their trials were appointed to take place on the 13th July, (this day.)

The Commission afterwards proceeded to Glasgow, Dumbarton, Paisley, and Ayr. At Glasgow true bills were found against James Wilson, Peter M'Intyre, William Campbell, and George Allan-at Dumbarton, against Patrick M'Devitt, William Blair, Robert Munro, George Munro, Richard Thomson, and William M'Phie at Paisley against James Spiers and John Lang-at Ayr against Andrew Wyllie, Thomas Mackay, John Dickie, and Hugh Wallace. Besides these, true bills were found against a number of other individuals who have absconded. Those in custody were subsequently brought up, and all of them pleaded Not Guilty, and particular days appointed for their trials,

CHARGES AGAINST THE QUEEN.

Our last Number contained an account of the arrival of her Majesty the Queen from the Continent, and the proceedings which had been suggested in Parliament, in consequence of certain charges brought against her by his Majesty's Ministers; stating also the wishes that had been expressed by certain members of the House of Commons, that the investigation of these charges should not be persisted in while any hope remained of effecting a compromise between the royal parties by negotiation. The feelings excited by the consequent proceedings have been such as to render every other subject of national policy uninteresting.

The Queen having, as stated in our last, agreed to receive proposals from ministers, a correspondence took place between her Majesty and the Earl of Liverpool, the result of which was, that two individuals on the part of ministers, namely the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh, were appointed to meet with Mr Brougham and Mr Denman on the part of the Queen. The parties accordingly held several conferences. It was demanded on the part of her Majesty, that her name should be restored to the Liturgy, or that, as an equivalent, she should be recognized as Queen at foreign courts. This was refused on the part of Ministers; and here the conferences broke off,

The failure of this negotiation was announced to both Houses of Parliament on Monday the 19th June, and the correspond. ence laid before it. In this situation, after some further delays, with the view of still leaving matters open for private arrangement, Mr Wilberforce brought forward amotion on the subject on Thursday night in one of the fullest houses ever known, there being above 500 members present. Mr W. after adverting to the difficulties, which, from the papers on the table, appeared to have frustrated the object of the recent ne gotiation, said, he was happy to observe that in those papers no angry feeling was to be found; and in the same spirit he entreated the house not to consider itself as divided into two parties, but as called on to act in concert, if possible, in order to bring about an accommodation, of which the difficulties, although great, did not appear to him insuperable. The obstacle with regard to her Majesty's reception at Foreign Courts might, he conceived, be got over, by agreeing to give her an introduction as Queen at the Court of such country as she might choose for her residence. If this ar rangement should prove satisfactory, he trusted that the difficulty resulting from the omission of her name in the Liturgy would not prove an insuperable bar to an accommodation. He concluded with mov. ing a resolution for an address to her Ma jesty, in the following terms:

"Resolved, That this House has learned, with unfeigned and deep regret, that the late endeavours to frame an arrangement which might avert the necessity of a publie inquiry into the information laid before the two Houses of Parliament, have not led to that amicable adjustment of the existing differences in the Royal Family, which was so anxiously desired by Parlia ment and the nation.

"That this House, fully sensible of the objections which the Queen might justly feel to taking upon herself the relinquish ment of any points in which she might have conceived her own dignity and honour to be involved; yet, feeling the inestimable importance of an amicable and final adjustment of the present unhappy differen ces, cannot forbear declaring its opinion, that when such large advances have been made towards that object, her Majesty, by yielding to the earnest solicitude of the House of Commons, and forbearing to press further the adoption of those propositions on which any material difference of opipion is yet remaining, would by no means be understood to indicate any wish to shrink from inquiry, but would only be deemed to afford a renewed proof of the desire which her Majesty has been graciously pleased to express, to submit her own wishes to the authority of Farliament; thereby entitling herself to the grateful ac

knowledgments of the House of Commons, and sparing this House the painful necessity of those public discussions, which, whatever might be their ultimate result, could not but be distressing to her Majes ty's feelings, disappointing to the hopes of Parliament, derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the empire."

The motion was seconded by Mr S. Wortley. Mr Brougham opposed the motion, and declared that the insertion of her Majesty's name in the Liturgy would make every difficulty vanish. Lord Castlereagh had no objection to the address; and contended that the omission or insertion of the names of any of the Royal Family was purely at the discretion of the King. Lord A. Hamilton then moved, as an amendment, a resolution, that the insertion of her Majesty's name in the Liturgy was due to her as a matter of right, and was per fectly consistent with the honour and dignity of the Crown. The original motion was carried by a great majority. The numbers were, for the original motion, 391, against it, 124; majority 267. The following Members were then nominated to lay the resolution before her Majesty, Mr Wilberforce, Mr Stuart Wortley, Sir T. Ackland, and Mr Bankes.

The address was accordingly presented by these gentlemen on Saturday; and the House having met the same evening, principally for the purpose of receiving her Majesty's answer, it was brought up by Mr Wilberforce and read, in substance as fol

lows:

"I am bound to receive with gratitude, every attempt on the part of the House of Commons, to interpose its high media. tion, for the purpose of healing those unhappy differences in the Royal Family, which no person has so much reason to deplore as myfelf; and with perfect truth I can declare, that an entire reconcilement of those differences, effected by the authority of Parliament, on principles consistent with the honour and dignity of all parties, is still still the object dearest to my

breast.

[blocks in formation]

But however strongly. I may feel the necessity of submitting to its authority, the question whether I will make myself a party to any measure proposed, must be de cided by my own feelings and conscience, and by them alone.

"As a subject of the state, I will bow with deference, and, if possible, without a murmur, to every act of the sovereign authority: But, as an accused and injured Queen, I owe to the King, to myself, and to all my fellow subjects, not to consent to the sacrifice of my essential privilege, or withdraw my appeal to those principles of public justice, which are alike the safeguard of the highest and humblest indivi dual."

While these proceedings were going on in the Commons, the sitting of the Secret Committee, appointed by the House of Lords, had been postponed from day to day; but it was now proposed that the Committee should meet on Tuesday the 27th, when, on the preceding evening, Lord Dacre presented the following petition from the Queen :→→

"The Queen having been informed that proceedings are about to be instituted against her by the House of Lords; feels it necessary to approach their Lordships in the character of a petitioner, being advised, that, according to the forms of the House," no other mode of communication is permitted.

4

"The Queen is ready to meet any charge brought against her affecting her, character and honour, and challenges a complete investigation into her conduct, but protests against any secret inquiry, and against that proceeding which their, Lordships adopted, contrary to all the principles of the constitution; but even of such an inquiry she solemnly declares she, has nothing to apprehend, unless such investigation took place before the arrival of her witnesses, by whom she pledges her self to expose the whole business.

"She anxiously desires that no delay whatever may take place of instituting the inquiry, and, as far as her Majesty is concerned, she wishes that it may be carried, on immcliately; but the Queen cannot suppose that their Lordships will admit so gross an act of injustice, as an inquiry into her conduct in the absence of herself and her witnesses, who, for some weeks, would be unable to reach this country.

"Her Majesty therefore prays, that before their Lordships institute farther proceedings, she may have the honour of being heard by counsel this day at the bar of their Lordships' House."

On the motion of Lord Dacre, Messrs Brougham and Denman, her Majesty's counsel, were then heard at the bar in support of the petition. Mr Brougham asked, in her Majesty's name, a delay of two

« ElőzőTovább »