CLOSE CF SESSION OF 1832-STONY MIDDLETON-DENMAN'S POLITICAL CONFESSIONS TO MERIVALE.

ON

NE of the questions which imposed on Denman, as the principal legal member of Government in the Commons, a good deal of harassing labor during the sessions of 1831 and 1832, was that of the Russian-Dutch Loan, a question which, notwithstanding the embittered discussions and floods of Parliamentary talk to which it then gave rise, has long since ceased to have any interest, and may be stated in very few words. In 1815 England contracted with the Emperor of Russia and the King of the Netherlands to pay interest on one third of a loan of 2,000,000l., subject to the promise "that all such payments should cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the Belgian provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominion of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands."

The Belgian provinces, as everybody knows, did in fact become severed from the dominions of the King of the Netherlands by the successful issue of the revolution of 1830, and Belgium became a separate and independent kingdom. On June 21, 1831, the King's speech had admitted the definite separation of Holland and Belgium.

Notwithstanding this, the British Government, unwilling, probably, by refusing to pay further interest, to offend the Government of Russia, directed the Treasury to continue the payments, alleging that the event contemplated and provided for by the Treaty was a sever

ance of Belgium from Holland by external force, not by internal revolution.

The Opposition impeached the legality of the payments, contending that the construction put by Government on the language of the Treaty was forced and erroneous, and that the event contemplated by the framers of the Treaty as that on which all such payments should cease had actually arisen.

When the matter was first brought before the House, on December 16, 1831, Denman, with probably imprudent frankness, had admitted his first impression to have been (according to what undoubtedly seems the natural construction of the clause) that the moment the possession and sovereignty of the Belgian provinces passed from the kingdom of the Netherlands, by whatever event, the obligation for payment of interest under the Treaty was at an end; but, he added, "on further consideration he and his learned friends had come to the unanimous conclusion that what was meant by both parties was the passing away of the possession and sovereignty of Belgium from Holland by some external force, that a separation by any internal cause or mutual agreement was never contemplated, and that, consequently, the obligations of the Treaty continued in full force."

It may readily be imagined what use an indignant Opposition would make of such a vexed question as this. In one shape or another it was repeatedly brought before the House throughout the whole session of 1832, and though the views of the Government ultimately prevailed, this result was only obtained at the cost of several damaging discussions.

Another question, of a wholly different nature, which caused Denman a great deal of anxiety, was the case of the well-known Daniel Whittle Harvey, a man of singular ability, and, within his own range, one of the very best and most effective speakers in the House.

On June 14, 1832, Harvey, in a speech of consummate tact and ability, moved for leave to bring in a bill “empowering the Court of King's Bench to compel by mandamus the Benches of the Inns of Court to admit, or show cause why they should not admit, parties to become members of their societies, and subsequently, having

passed their state of pupillage as students, to call them to the degree of Barrister of Law."

Harvey, before coming to his own case, stated that of Wooler, who, in 1825, was refused admission as student, by the Society of Lincoln's Inn, on the real but unavowed ground (for no ground was ever stated, though often requested), that he was the writer or editor of an objectionable publication called "The Black Dwarf." Wooler applied for a mandamus to the Court of King's Bench, and failed, the court declaring that they had no power to direct the writ, or to require the Benchers to state their reasons for refusing him admission.

Harvey's own case, shortly stated, was as follows. After having been admitted as a member of the Inner Temple, having kept terms, and, for the then required period of three years, discontinued his practice as an attorney, he was refused his call by the Benchers in consequence of two circumstances in his previous history. The first was that, having sued another attorney for libel in charging him with having purloined a document from his office, and the defendant having put in, and, in the opinion of the jury, proved a plea of justification, the jury found for the defendant, thereby, as far as their verdict went, affirming that Harvey had purloined the document in question. The other circumstance was a charge of having purchased for less than its value an estate from one Frost, for whom he was at the time acting as an attorney.'

1

After considering these two cases the Benchers of the Inner Temple refused to call Harvey to the Bar.

He then appealed to the Judges. The case was heard before them, sitting with closed doors. Brougham and Denman were Harvey's counsel, but the Judges refused to interfere with the decision of the Benchers.

Such, in outline, was the case which Harvey, with all the winning and persuasive graces of a consummate orator, laid before the House. After a fierce but effective denunciation by O'Connell of the system of closed tribu

1 Harvey, in the debate of June 14, gave, in his speech in reply, the amplest explanation and refutation of both these charges, more especially of the second. See Hansard, Parl. Deb., third series, vol. xiii. p. 673 seq.

nals and judgments delivered without statement of the grounds of decision, Denman rose to oppose the motion, which he did in a temperate and dignified, if not a convincing speech:

"It is admitted [he said] that some inquiry into the character and fitness of those who desire to enter the Inns of Court must take place, and I wish to confine the discussion as much as possible to the mere question whether the alteration proposed by the honorable member is advisable or not. The amendment he proposes is, that a mandamus shall issue to the treasurer of the Society compelling him to return facts that may be tried by a jury, in justification of the refusal to admit an applicant to the Society or to the Bar.

My answer is that there may be good reasons for the exclusion of an individual which do not consist of facts that can be tried by a jury; that there may be good reasons, which still are not tangible, which do not admit of proof; and I think this was fully shown in the case to which allusion has been made."

1

After a reply from Harvey of even greater ability than his opening speech, the motion was rejected, but on July 17, Government acceded to another motion of his, for appointing a Commission of inquiry into the law and practice prevailing in the Inns of Court on the application of persons seeking to become students thereof and to be called to the Bar.

Very few measures of Law Amendment were passed during this exciting and agitated session.

Denman, indeed, had the satisfaction of carrying through the Commons (on July 31, 1832) a bill for the abolition of death punishment in all cases of forgery. The Lords, however, alarmed at this excess of progress, insisted on retaining the power of passing capital sentences in the two cases of Wills and Bank powers of attorney. Denman, though reluctantly, was compelled on the last day of the session to accept these amendments, and the full and final abolition of the judicial power of

1 Hansard, Parl. Deb., third series, vol. xiii. Denman's speech is from PP. 659-672.

2 Hansard, Pal. Deb., third series, vol. xvi. pp. 969-983.

putting men to death for forgery did not pass the Legislature till after Denman's appointment as Chief Justice.

At an earlier period of the session he had warmly supported and assisted in passing a bill introduced by Mr. Ewart for abolishing capital punishment in cases of horsestealing, and stealing in a dwelling-house above the value of 57., remarking that in his uniform experience "the severity of the criminal law defeated itself."

He also supported and aided in carrying, by the influence of Government, a clause introduced (in the Coroners' Bill) by Mr. Warburton, providing (contrary to the opinion of the judges) that all coroners' inquests should be held in public. "His opinion," he said, "was that coroners' inquests should be perfectly open; that the witnesses should be examined publicly, and all the proceedings take place without any appearance of secrecy. He looked on coroners' inquests as a kind of advertisement, calling upon all who could give any information to come forward.’

2

One of the latest measures of which Denman took charge in the House of Commons was the bill prepared by Brougham for the abolition of Chancery sinecures.

Among the offices the abolition of which was provided for by this bill was the lucrative one of Register of Patents, then held by Scott, Lord Eldon's son. On Scott's death, Brougham, while the bill abolishing it was passing through Parliament, put his brother William into the office.

Sugden having, on July 25, 1832, asked in the House of Commons how Government explained this appointment, Brougham the next day, in the Lords, made his memorable and indecent attack on Sugden, sarcastically giving him credit for being actuated in putting his question by that heaven-born thirst for information which distinguished men "not only from the insect which flies and stings, but from that more powerful and offensive creature, the bug, which, powerful and offensive as it is, can, after all, only crawl."

The next day, the 27th, Sugden brought the matter

1 Hansard, Parl. Deb., third series, vol. xiii. p. 198. 2 Hansard, Parl. Deb., third series, vol. xiii. p. 937.