Year: 1861

The British Constitution.


We often read of the British Constitution
The accurate Blackstone uses this phrase
many times. But what does it mean, and
what does it include? No man can certain
ly say, and probably no Two men would an
swer this question in precisely the same way.
1t may mean the whole mass of the princi-
Piles and rules which the Parliament and
people of Great Britain regard as of the
greatest Importance More than this it can
not mean. Let US suppose that at the next
session of the British Parliament a rigorous
censorship of the press is established, the
Queen authorized to lay what taxes she will
on whom she WILL and collect them as she
will. the Habeas Corpus Act repealed, and
all the ministers supplied with blank war;
rants under the privy seal, which they may
fill with any name, and by these means i'm
prison any persons at their pleasure. And
let US suppose that these laws pass through
Parliament with precisely the same forms as
those necessary for a statute to regulate the
days of grace on bills of exchange, or 10 pro-
vide any other common mercantile or NUM-
cipal measure. 1t is certain that no man in
England would have legal right to resist
any one of those laws and no court or mag
istrate in England would have legal right
to obstruct, or defeat, or annul them, or do
any other thing than carry them at once into
full force and effect. OF course, if the popu-
lar sentiment were not greatly changed,
there would be opposition and effectual re-
sistance somewhere. But it would be the
opposition of rebellion or revolution, and
not of legal right. But let any such law be
passed by Congress and the President of the
United States, or by the Legislature and
Governor of any State, and it is only nothing.
1t is dead at its birth The judicial body of
the nation or the State is ready to declare it
to be nothing. And the reason for all this
is that the law opposes the Constitution, and
by the force of that fact, is nothing


Two hundred and fifty years ago Lord
Coke declared, that "when an act of Parlia
ment is against common law, right and
reason \ the common law will con-
troll it and adjudge it to be void" After
wards, Lord Holt and Lord Hobart used
similar or commendatory language. These
great men were English Chief Justices and
it may seem strange thing for me to say,
that this doctrine of theirs was wholly false,
and they knew it. Chancellor Kent, indeed,
although he praises the intrepidity and
powerful sense of justice of these great
judges" admits that there was no foundation
whatever for their doctrine. He says, what
every one acquainted with the English law
must know, that the will of Parliament is the
supreme law of England. 'Dwarris, in his
Treaties on Statutes, says: :: "Of Parliament,
the power and jurisdiction are so
transcendant that it cannot be confined,
either for causes or persons, within any
bounds. 1t has sovereign and uncomfortable





ters of all possible denominations"


If, in England, the word Constitution may
mean the whole complex of all their political
and legal institutions, here it means some
thing distinct from them ALL something SOW
them that live, and denying life and power
to whatever oppose it.-Prof Parsons.





TRAINING HORSES AND BoYs-An interview
between the venerable Eliphalet Mott, Presi-
dent of tbs Union College, and Mr.. Rarey the
celebrated horse tanner, developed, according
to the Philadelphia North American the curl
Gus fact that both gentlemen have acted on
exactly the same theory in their widely
different spheres Of effort, the one a trainer
of youth, the other of horses. This fact
was brought out in the following conversa-
tion


~ have been twice to see you perform,
Mr.. Rarey," said the Doctor, ''and this has
begotten in me desire to see you and COM
pare notes. / have been a trainer of boys
for more that half century, and boys that
have proved ungovernable in other hands
have yielded readily to mine. Now, do you
know that think your bearing towards the
horse is guided by much the same spirit
that educators manifest towards refractory
boys?"


81 am much pleased to think sir" was the
rejoinder, "that such is the case In training
the horse use no other punishment than re-
straint. AS soon as you know the horses
mind, and the horse comprehends you, the
instinct of obedience leads him to do your
bidding"


"That's just my view of boys" said the
Doctor.


"And," resumed Mr.. Rarey, am "satisfed
that in even the worst horse, the instinct of
obedience is stronger than the reverse The
nober the disposition of the horse, the
fereer and briefer is his resistance. The
worst subjects are those in whom resistance
is dogged and stubborn"


sBut even in such horses you find the eff
cacy of your system more marked than the
present mode of horse breaking"


eyes, sir. With such dispositioned horses
there is no safety by the usual mode of sub
lection"


'Then your ideas and mine" said the Doc
tor, "are precisely the same. / have been
accustomed to horses from boyhood and so
trained them that at the sonnd of my voice
with loose rein, they would stop, even when
going down the steepest declivity."


''That is a cardinal point in my SYSTEM"
said Mr.. Rarey, "to accustom the horse to
my voice as much as to my person


The result of the interview was confrma-
tory of the opinion already entertained by
both that neither in the subjugation of un-
ruly boys or rebellious horses, is cruelty or
the infliction of physical pain productive of
any good result.


'sIn short, ladies and gentlemen" said an
overpowered orator, 81 can only say-beg
leave to add desire to assure you that