NEWS OF THE WEEK.
-THE Local Courts Bill has been demolished by a shot from the Conservative battery : during the previous week, Lord LYNDHURST had loaded and primed the cannon, and on Tuesday night Lord WHARNCLIFFE fired it off. In other and more Parliamentary language, the bill was rejected in the House of Lords, on the motion for the third reading, by -a majority of 12 proxies ; the Peers present at the debate being 81 on each side, but the holding only 41 proxies, the Conservatives 53. The first consideration which this event. suggests, is—why was the bill rejected ? On account of its own denaerits, or for some other cause? The answer is, and no one seriously pretends to give any other, that the vote was, in the strictest sense of the word, a partg. vote, with which the real merits of the question had nothing what- ever to do. Our lords and masters had decreed to show their strength upon this occasion, and were not to be moved from the settled purpose of their souls by any paltry consideration of the natioi .1 good. A single glance at the main arguments urged for and against the measure, will prove the truth of this statement. In the first place, it was argued that it gave too large an in- crease of patronage to the Lord Chancellor. But this objection applies not so much to the bill, as to the constitution of the coun- try. The King has the appointment to all executive offices, the Chancellor is only his constitutional adviser on the subject : are we prepared to curtail this branch of the prerogative, or are we to reject a most salutary if not necessary measure, because it in- volves an extension of Royal power in that direction ? Let the matter, then, be fairly stated—" We will not countenance a re- ferm in the administration of justice, from a dread of the influence of the Crown." Stated in this way, the objection might deserve some notice for its boldness, if not for its soundness; but it was not put in this light by the Tory Opposition, and in no other will it bear inspection. As an argument against the particular mea- sure then debated, it is valueless. The heavy cost of the plan was next insisted upon. Here Lord LYNDHURST, who urged this argument, betrayed conscious weak- ness; for he did not hesitate, in order to serve his purpose, grossly to exaggerate the expense, and misstate the matter. He said that "at a very low estimate indeed," the plan would cost the country at least 150,0001. per annum,—one half more than was paid for the administration of justice in Westminster Hall; whereas it was most distinctly shown by Lord BROUGHAM, from data well known to Lord LYNDHURST, who had been furnished with the items, that 70,0001. would cover the whole of the expense. But the main objection propounded by the spokesman of the Tories was a more specious one. It would be quite impossible, it was said, that resident Local Judges could be impartial : their likings-and dislikings, partialities and animosities, would assuredly interfere with their administration of justice. This objection came with a bad grace from those who have persisted for the last thirty or forty years in selecting Tory Justices of the Peace to administer the laws among their neighbours, and who have indignantly bristled up at the least insinuation that they were not the most impartial and disinterested of mankind. Lord BROUGHAM'S re- ference to the high character which Lord WHARNCLIFFE sustains as a Local Magistrate told well in the House; but he derived a much more potent argument in defence of this part of the plan, from the fact, that no judge, no public man, can escape for an hour from the "glaring, nay absolutely frowning eyes" of the public, and the jealous scrutiny of the press. The man who would dare to barter justice for favour or profit, at the present day, must not only be one of shameless profligacy, but of uncommon courage also. The position of these Local Judges would be such, that the apprehension of their being bribed or flattered into the giving of false judgment between man and man, is so slight, as not to be weighed against the manifest advantages to be derived from the easy and cheap access afforded to suitors by their residence on the spot.
These were the principal points of objection on which the oppo- sition to the bill was ostensibly founded. To those of a minor and moie technical character, the report of the Commissioners, of whom the Tory Mr. PoeLocx. was the chief, furnished Lord BROUGHAM with unanswerable replies.
It is needless then to repeat, that the bill was thrown out on some other ground than that of its own demerits. Even to the Con- servatives, there could have been nothing peculiarly distasteful in the bill itself; but the opportunity of triumphing over the imbeci- lity of Ministers, and of proving to the House °Mormons and the country, that notwithstanding the Reform Act, they were still the dominant party in the state, was too fair to be let slip. The policy of the Conservatives it is easy to see through. They have . fathomed the depths or shallows of Whig courage ana -discern- ment : whatever Lord BROUGHAM may assert, they hive not mis- taken their men. As soon as the Ministry threw away the ad- vantage gained for them by the Duke of WELLINGTON'S blunder in the Miguelite business, and the consequent vote of the Commons in their favour, it became evident to all, who had not been thoroughly convinced Of the fact before, that they were past saving. We observe that Mr. O'CoNsieee's intended motion for a similar vote on Thursday fell to the ground : but if it had been carried, it would have done no service. Sir JOHN Weorreseev, too, last - night gave notice of a motion for a call of the House on Thursday next, in order to bolster up the Ministry against the consequences of their anticipated defeat on the second reading of the Irish Church Reform Bill on Wednesday. But what avails it to put men upon -a vantage-ground from which they voluntarily back-out? The triumphant vote of corifidence by the House of Commons which followed the Ministerial defeat upon the Portuguese question, was' only the forerunner of the miserable proposition to withdraw the 147th clause of the Irish Church Bill,—whereby Ministers Fe-,71untarily took upon themselves the odium of mutilating their own progeny, instead of leaving the operation to be performed by the Peers. Yet emasculated as it is, the Peers will not suffer it to pass. Truckling has met with its .usual reward; and next week will probably witness the final rejection of that measure, the solemn promise of which induced so many well-meaning and too-confiding members of the Commons to vote for the famous Suppression Bill. Never before was any body of men so miserably duped. They disposed of their consciences on credit to Earl Garr, but he has no means of paying them in return the stipulated price.
What, then, is to become of the Ministry ? Nobody knows, and now, alas not many care. Will the Kingc stand by them? We have some reason to believe that they would receive support from his Majesty, even to a copious creation of Peers, had they the spirit, even at this eleventh hour, to demand it of him. But what would it avail? A creation of Peers might help them through the ses- sion; but their course is drawing to a close—their downfal is in- evitable. They have lost the confidence of the country; and have neither the power, nor, as it would appear, the will to regain it.
A circumstance which, among others, places the imbecility of Ministers in strong contrast with the vigorous Cabinet discipline of their Tory piedecesso-rwriS-tb-e continuance of Lord HILL at the Horse Guards after his defection from the division on Tuesday last. Would Lord CASTLEREA.GH or Mr. CANNING have winked at such a delinquency ? Would Lord HILL have presumed to absent himself on such an occasion, if he did not feel the most perfect independence of his nominal superiors in office ? On all sides, Ministers get kicks and contempt. And who is the chief, the most prominent sufferer, from this vile usage? Who but that once high-spirited nobleman, who three-and-twenty years ago scouted the very idea of becoming Minister, unless- every member of the Household, from the Lord Steward to the King's Carver, were subjected to his absolute control! What can have produced so mighty a change in the haughty soul of CHARLES GREY? Has he been mortifying the spirit by frequent penance, and thus tamed himself down into the subservient tool of his adversaries? Or is "the most fine gold changedis it a mere vulgar love of place for its own sake? Or is that which • seems meanness to an ordinary observer, only the result of a most bitterest insults, rather than abandon the mea ,peif ng exalted patriotism, which prompts him to endure the the slightest service to his poor country? • Considerable opposition was raised to the Irilk;Churekilefer Bill in its last stages through the House of Cnmons.Jt 44kis • - length; however, read a third time, by a majo for271:to carried up to the I:louse Lords; on the very hi-puthic
received a blow from the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, who termed it a measure of spoliation, and vowed the fiercest hostility to it. The
Lords it seems, with the Duke of WELLINGTON at their head— the "juke, of all men, who forced the Roman Catholic Bill on the reluctant conscience of GEORGE the Fourth have discovered that
the provisions of the bill militate with his Majesty's Coronation Oath, and in dutiful regard to the safety of his Royal soul, have determined to adopt this sanctimonious excuse for protecting si- necure Bishops and perpetuating the pillage of Catholic peasants. The bill for the renewal of the East India Charter was read a second time on Wednesday last, in a very thin House. Mr. MAC AUL AY observed, that a broken head in Coldbathfields excited
more interest in the House than three pitched battles in India; and referred to the not very creditable fact of there being fewer
members present, when Mr. GRANT brought forward his plan for the future government of that country, than usually attend the passage of a turnpike-bill.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSOWS motion for an address, praying the King to withhold his recognition of the present state of Poland, was brought forward on Tuesday, in a speech which seems to have
excited universal admiration, for the good sense and moderation of its tone, and the deep feeling of the subject, which it evinced. On this occasion, men of all parties joined in expressing their detestation of Russian despotism. Even Sir ROBERT 'Nerds, albeit unused to express sympathy with rebels or indignation at legitimate tyranny, denounced the conduct of the "enthroned brute," as Mr. O'CONNELL termed the Czar, in good set phrase. The motion was opposed by Lord ALTHORP, on the tenable ground of our not being prepared to follow it up with a demand of repara- tion for Polish wrongs. We certainly doubt the good policy of showing our teeth when we are not ready to bite. The motion was got rid of by a vote of 177 to 95 in favour of the previous question. The power and ambition of Russia were again brought under the notice of the House, by Mr. HENRY BULWER, on Thursday, in a motion for papers relative to her late interference in the quarrel between the Sultan and the Viceroy of Egypt. The motion was re- sisted by Lord PALMERSTON, on the ground that the affairs in that quarter were not yet settled, and that by the last accounts the Russian forces had not left Constantinople. We fear that if Mr. BULWER is to wait for the information he seeks till peace and security again reign in Turkey—till Russia and the Porte have settled their concerns together—he will be no wiser than at present for a long time to come.
The bill to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, which was to have been discussed in Committee on Wednesday, is postponed till that day week, in consequence of the rejection of the Local Courts Bill by the Lords. The Judges appointed under that bill were to have been intrusted with the execution of this supplementary one; but Sir JOHN CAMPBELL is now forced to look for substitutes for them, whom he hopes to find in the Bankrupt Commissioners.
Several other measures of legal reform, which were postponed until the fate of the Local Courts Bill was ascertained, were last night brought forward by Lord BROUGHAM. They will be more expensive, and less useful in their operation, in consequence of the rejection of that measure. It is proposed to abolish the ex- isting Ecclesiastical Courts, three hundred and forty in number, and transfer their jurisdiction to the Diocesan Courts; to increase the number of Judges in the Insolvent Debtors Court, by giving two Judges of the Court of Review a concurrent jurisdiction with them ; to establish a Court of Appeal from the decisions in the Court of Chancery ; to appoint a new Equity Judge, with a salary of 7000/. per annum, who is to relieve the Lord Chancellor from the greater part of his judicial functions; and to reduce the salaries of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. In the present state of public affairs, and at this late period, there can be but small ex- pectation of these measures being carried during the present session.
The Committee to investigate the conduct of the Police at the Calthorpe Street meeting, was appointed on Thursday, on the mo- tion of Lord ALTHORP. His Lordship, somewhat unnecessarily, declared, that the populace were the aggressors, and that the Police did not proceed to the use of their staves until pelted and attacked by the mob. This we suppose to be a very essential point into which the Committee is appointed to inquire ; and we are not disposed to take the fact as Lord ALTHORP stated it, merely on his ipse diceit—let us hear the report of the Committee upon it.
Previous page
