While stirring events were in progress on the Continent, public attention was naturally distracted from home politics; nor were these in themselves of a nature to command enthusiasm. The Russell Government was weak, but the Opposition7 was weaker. Sir Robert Peel with his little band gave, on the whole, his support to the Ministry8, and Mr. Disraeli, on the retirement9 of Lord George Bentinck, had only just begun to rally the Conservatives, who had been utterly10 dispirited and crushed by the carrying of Free Trade. Finance was always a weak point with the Whigs, and that of 1848 was no exception to the rule. Urged by the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne on the state of the defences, the Chancellor11 of the Exchequer determined12 on increasing the naval13 and military establishments. The result was a deficit14 of three millions, and no less than three withdrawals15 and alterations16 of the Budget had to be made before his proposals could be so shaped as to be acceptable to the House. The next Session was mainly devoted17 to Irish affairs, the Rate in Aid producing a collision between the two Houses, which was decided18 in favour of the Lords. In the same year, however, the most important measure of the Russell Ministry became law; the repeal, namely, of the Navigation Act, by which the carrying monopoly was abolished after the retaliation19 of foreign nations had reduced the principle of reciprocity, upon which Mr. Huskisson's Act had been framed, to a dead letter. Supported by the Canadian demand for liberation from the restrictions20 of the Navigation Act, Ministers courageously22 faced the clamour raised by the Protectionists, and carried their Bill through the Commons by large majorities. In the Upper House, however, they snatched a bare majority of ten through the circumstance that they had more proxies23 than their opponents.
An effort was made to decide the long-agitated question of the emancipation24 of the Jews in the Session of 1849. On the 19th of February Lord John Russell moved that the House of Commons should go into committee for the purpose of considering the oaths taken by members of Parliament, excepting the Roman Catholic oath, settled in 1829. The oath of allegiance, he said, became a mockery when Cardinal25 York died, there being no descendants of James II. in existence; he therefore proposed to abolish it. The oath of abjuration26, which was aimed against Papal aggression27, had now no practical effect but to exclude the Jews from Parliament, which it did by the words "on the true faith of a Christian28," which were never meant to exclude Jews, but only to give greater solemnity to the oath. He proposed, therefore, to omit these words when the oath was tendered to a Jew, and this he thought would complete the measure of religious liberty. The House resolved by a large majority—214 to 111—to go into committee on the subject. He then moved a resolution that it was expedient29 to alter the Parliamentary oaths so as "to make provision in respect of the said oaths for the relief of her Majesty30's subjects professing31 the Jewish religion." A Bill founded on this resolution was brought in by Lord John Russell. The second reading was carried by a majority of 278 to 185. The third reading, after an important debate, was carried by a majority of 66. In the House of Lords the second reading was moved on the 26th of July, by the Earl of Carlisle, in an able speech, in which he observed that the Jews, though admitted to municipal privileges, were the only religious community debarred from political rights; but there was not, as far as he could see, a single valid32 objection upon which they could be refused. The Earl of Eglinton objected to their admission on religious grounds; so also did the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop33 of Exeter. The former argued that our national Christianity, to which we owed our greatness, would be grievously disparaged34 by the measure. The latter condemned35 it as a violation36 of the distinct contract between the Sovereign and the nation—that the Crown should maintain "to the utmost the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel." The Archbishop of Dublin (Whately), always the powerful champion of religious freedom,[603] contended on the other hand that it was inconsistent with the principles and repugnant to the genius of Christianity that civil disqualifications and penalties should be imposed on those who did not conform to it. Their lordships must either retrace37 their steps, and exclude from office all who did not belong to the Established Church, or they must, in consistency38, consent to the abrogation39 of this last restriction21. The Bill was rejected by a majority of 25—the numbers being, for the second reading, 70; against it, 95.
Before another attempt was made to open the portals of the Legislature the question was brought to a practical issue by an event similar to the Clare election, by which O'Connell forced on the decision with regard to Catholic Emancipation. The City of London had returned Baron Rothschild as one of its members; and at the morning sitting on the 26th of July, 1850, he presented himself at the table to take the oaths. When the clerk presented the New Testament40, he said, "I desire to be sworn on the Old Testament." Sir Robert Inglis, in a voice tremulous with emotion, exclaimed—"I protest against that." The Speaker then ordered Baron Rothschild to withdraw. An animated41 debate followed as to whether the Baron could be sworn in that way, although he declared that that was the form of oath most binding42 upon his conscience. He presented himself a second time, when there was another long debate. Ultimately, on the 6th of August, to which the matter was adjourned43, the Attorney-General moved two resolutions—first, that Baron Rothschild was not entitled to vote in the House till he took the oath in the form prescribed by law; and, second, that the House would take the earliest opportunity in the next Session to consider the oath of abjuration, with a view to the relief of the Jews. These resolutions were carried—the first, by a majority of 92 to 66; the second, by 142 to 106.
In pursuance of this resolution, Lord John Russell, soon after the meeting of Parliament in 1851, introduced his Jewish Emancipation Bill once more. The usual arguments were reiterated45 on both sides, and the second reading was carried by the reduced majority of 25. In the House of Lords the second reading was moved by the Lord Chancellor, on the 17th of July, when it was thrown out by a majority of 36. In the meantime Alderman Salomons had been returned as member for Greenwich, and, following the example of Baron Rothschild, he appeared at the bar, and offered to take the oath on the Old Testament, omitting the phrase, "on the true faith of a Christian." The Speaker then desired him to withdraw; but he took a seat, notwithstanding. The order of the Speaker was repeated in a more peremptory46 tone, and the honourable47 member retired48 to a bench behind the bar. The question of his right to sit was then debated. Sir Benjamin Hall asked the Ministers whether they were disposed to prosecute49 Mr. Salomons, if he persisted in taking his seat, in order to test his legal right. Lord John Russell having answered in the negative, Mr. Salomons entered the House, amidst loud cries of "Order!" "Chair!" the Speaker's imperative50 command, "Withdraw!" ringing above all. The Speaker then appealed to the House to enforce his order. Lord John Russell then moved a resolution that Mr. Salomons should withdraw. Mr. Bernal Osborne moved an amendment51. The House became a scene of confusion; and in the midst of a storm of angry cries and counter-cries, Mr. Anstey moved the adjournment52 of the debate. The House divided and Mr. Salomons voted with the minority. The House again divided on Mr. Bernal Osborne's amendment, that the honourable gentleman was entitled to take his seat, which was negatived by 229 against 81. In defiance53 of this decision, Mr. Salomons again entered and took his seat. He then addressed the House, stating that it was far from his desire to do anything that might appear contumacious54 or presumptuous55. Returned by a large constituency, he appeared in defence of their rights and privileges as well as his own; but whatever might be the decision of the House, he would not abide56 by it, unless there was just sufficient force used to make him feel that he was acting57 under coercion58. Lord John Russell called upon the House to support the authority of the Speaker and its own dignity. Two divisions followed—one on a motion for adjourning59 the debate, and another on the right of Mr. Salomons to sit, in both of which he voted. The latter was carried by a large majority; when the Speaker renewed his order to withdraw, and the honourable gentleman not complying, the Serjeant-at-Arms touched him lightly on the shoulder, and led him below the bar. Another long debate ensued on the legal question; and the House divided on two motions, which had no result. The discussion of the question was adjourned to the 28th of July, when petitions from London and Greenwich, demanding the admission of their excluded representatives, came under consideration. The Speaker announced that he had received a letter from Alderman Salomons, stating that several notices of actions for penalties had been served upon him in consequence of his having[604] sat and voted in the House. A motion that the petitioners60 should be heard at the bar of the House was rejected; and Lord John Russell's resolution, denying the right of Mr. Salomons to sit without taking the oath in the usual form, was carried by a majority of 55. And so the vexed61 question was placed in abeyance62 for another year so far as Parliament was concerned. But an action was brought in the Court of Exchequer, against Alderman Salomons, to recover the penalty of ￡500, for sitting and voting without taking the oath. The question was elaborately argued by the ablest counsel. Judgment63 was given for the plaintiff. There was an appeal from this judgment, by a writ64 of error, when the Lord Chief Justice Campbell, with Justices Coleridge, Cresswell, Wightman, Williams, and Crompton, heard the case again argued at great length. The Court unanimously decided that the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," formed an essential part of the oath; and that, according to the existing law, the Jews were excluded from sitting in either House of Parliament. This judgment was given in the sittings after Hilary Term, in 1852.
BENJAMIN DISRAELI.
(After the Portrait by A. E. Challon, R.A.)
[See larger version]
The history of this question of Jewish Emancipation gives proof, as striking as any upon record, of the obstinacy65 and tenacity66 of prejudice established by law, although no possible danger could arise to the British Constitution from the admission of the Jews; although Mr. Salomons had been elected Sheriff of London in 1835, and a Bill was passed to enable him to act; although the year after, Mr. Moses Montefiore was likewise elected Sheriff of London, and knighted by the Queen; although in 1846 Jews elected to municipal offices were relieved by Parliament from taking the oaths;[605] although Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons had been repeatedly elected by immense majorities; although Bills for emancipating67 the Jews, the only class of her Majesty's subjects still labouring under political disabilities on account of their religion, were passed year after year by the House of Commons, but were indignantly rejected by the House of Lords. At length, in 1858, the Commons were obliged to admit the Jews by a resolution of their own House, but it was not till 1860 that an Act was passed permitting Jewish members of Parliament to omit from the oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian."
ARREST OF BRITISH SAILORS BY GREEK SOLDIERS. (See p. 606.)
[See larger version]
The Session of 1850 was creditably distinguished68 by the establishment of a policy of self-government for our colonies. They had become so numerous and so large as to be utterly unmanageable by the centralised system of the Colonial Office; while the liberal spirit that pervaded69 the Home Government, leading to the abolition70 of great monopolies, naturally reacted upon our fellow-subjects settled abroad, and made them discontented without constitutional rights. It was now felt that the time was come for a comprehensive measure of constitutional government for our American and Australian Colonies; and on the 8th of February, Lord John Russell, then Prime Minister, brought the subject before the House of Commons. It was very fully71 discussed, Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Labouchere, and others who had taken an active part in colonial affairs, being the principal speakers. With regard to Canada, great progress had already been made in constitutional government. The same might be said of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in which the practice of administration approximated to that observed in Great Britain. It was determined to introduce representative institutions of a similar kind in Cape72 Colony. In Australia it was proposed that there should be but one Council, two-thirds elected by the people and one-third nominated by the Governor. Mr. Roebuck objected strongly to the Government measure, because it left the colonists73 free, to a great extent, to gratify the strong desire almost universally felt among them to have power to choose a Constitution for themselves, instead of[606] having a Constitution sent out to them, cut and dry. He wanted the House to plant at once liberal institutions there, which would spare the colonists the agony of working out a scheme of government for themselves. He declared that "of all the abortions74 of an incompetent75 Administration, this was the greatest." A ready-made Constitution had been sent out by the Government to South Africa; why, then, could not Parliament send out a ready-made Constitution to Australia? Lord John Russell replied to Mr. Roebuck's arguments, and after a lengthened76 debate the Bill was read a second time. There was a strong division of opinion in committee as to whether there should be two Chambers77 or one. Sir William Molesworth moved an amendment to the effect that there should be two, which was rejected by a majority of 218 against 150. The Bill passed the House of Commons on the 18th of May, and on the 31st was brought into the Lords, where also it was subjected to lengthened discussions and various amendments78, which caused it to be sent back to the Commons for consideration on the 1st of August. On the motion of Lord John Russell the amendments were agreed to, and the Bill was passed. This was the principal legislative79 work of the Session and possessed80 undoubted merits.
The most interesting of all the debates that occurred in the House of Commons during the Session of 1850 was that which took place on the foreign policy of Great Britain, particularly with reference to Greece. The House of Lords had passed a vote of censure5 upon the Government, by a majority of thirty-seven, on a motion brought forward by Lord Stanley, and folk were anxious to see how the House of Commons would deal with that fact. On the 20th of June Lord John Russell read the resolution, and said, "We are not going in any respect to alter the course of conduct we have thought it right to pursue in respect of foreign Powers, in consequence of that resolution." He concluded his speech with the following bold defiance, which elicited81 general and protracted82 cheering:—"So long as we continue the Government of this country, I can answer for my noble friend [Lord Palmerston] that he will act not as a Minister of Austria, or of Russia, or of France, or of any other country, but as the Minister of England. The honour of England and the interests of England—such are the matters that are within our keeping; and it is to that honour and to those interests that our conduct will in future be, as it has hitherto been, directed."
Mr. Roebuck, the next day, moved a counter-resolution in the following terms:—"That the principles which have hitherto regulated the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government are such as were required to preserve untarnished the honour and dignity of this country, and, in times of unexampled difficulty, the best calculated to maintain peace between England and the various nations of the world." He supported this position in an able and lengthened speech. The chief ground of dispute was the demand of Palmerston for compensation to a person named Don Pacifico, a Jew, and by birth a British subject, who resided at Athens, and whose house had been attacked on a Sunday, his property destroyed, and his family beaten by a mob headed by young noblemen. The Greek Government refused him reparation, and he sought protection from England. There was also the case of Mr. Finlay, whose land was seized in order that it might be converted into a garden for the King of Greece, the owner being refused payment; Lord Aberdeen, when Foreign Secretary, having applied83 in vain for redress84. There was also the case of H.M.S. Fant?me, whose boat's crew had been arrested by Greek soldiers; also other outrages85 equally serious. Lord Palmerston defended his policy with his wonted spirit and ability, and with triumphant86 success in a speech which, said Mr. Gladstone, lasted "from the dusk of one day to the dawn of another." Mr. Gladstone arraigned87 the conduct of the first Minister in sitting down contentedly88 under the censure of the House of Lords, by sheltering himself under precedents89 which were in fact no precedents at all. He charged Lord Palmerston with violating international law, by making reprisals90 upon Greek property to the extent of ￡80,000 to satisfy the exorbitant91 demands of Don Pacifico; the fruit of this policy being humiliation92, in regard to France, and a lesson received without reply from the autocrat93 of all the Russia's. Mr. Cobden also assailed94 the policy of Lord Palmerston, and asked if there was no other way of settling such trifling95 matters than by sending fifteen ships of war into Greek waters, which had seized several gunboats, and more than forty merchantmen. Lord John Russell defended the policy of the Government, and concluded by declaring that by the verdict of that House and the people of England he was prepared to abide, fully convinced that the Government had preserved at the same time the honour of the country and the blessings96 of peace. Mr. Disraeli, on the other hand, maintained that the House of Lords had exercised a solemn duty in pronouncing a censure upon the policy which had led to such terrible results. This debate will[607] be rendered for ever memorable97 in our annals by the speech of Sir Robert Peel. It was one of the best speeches he ever delivered in that House, and it was his last. He argued strongly against intermeddling with the affairs of foreign nations in order to procure98 for them free institutions, and concluded with the expression of his belief that the cause of constitutional liberty would only be encumbered99 by our help; whilst by intruding100 it we should involve Great Britain in incalculable difficulties. When the hour for the division came the House was very full—Ayes—310; Noes, 264; giving the Government a majority of 46.
On the day after this division a deputation of nearly ninety members of the House of Commons, headed by Lord James Stuart, waited upon Lady Palmerston, and presented her with a full-length portrait of her husband, representing him in evening dress and wearing the ribbon of the Order of the Bath. They requested her Ladyship to accept of that testimony of their high sense of Viscount Palmerston's public and private character, and of the independent policy by which he maintained the honour and interests of the country. What made this presentation singularly opportune101 was the fact that on the same day a telegraphic despatch102 had been received from Paris, announcing the settlement of the Greek question. The Government was undoubtedly103 strengthened by Lord Palmerston's display, at a moment when its fall seemed inevitable104.
Only a week after Sir Robert Peel delivered his memorable speech on the foreign policy of the country, his career was suddenly terminated. On the 22nd of June her Majesty's third son, Arthur William Patrick Albert, had been baptised with the usual ceremonial pomp at Buckingham Palace, and on the 29th Sir Robert Peel had called there and entered his name in her Majesty's visiting-book. Proceeding105 thence up Constitution Hill, he had arrived nearly opposite the wicket gate leading into the Green Park, when he met Miss Ellis, one of Lady Dover's daughters, on horseback, attended by a groom106. Sir Robert had scarcely exchanged salutes107 with this young lady when his horse became restive108, swerved109 towards the railing of the Green Park, and threw him sideways on his left shoulder. He became unconscious, and remained so till he was placed in a carriage, when he revived and said, "I feel better." On being lifted out of the carriage at Whitehall Gardens, he walked with assistance into the house. The effect of meeting his family, however, caused a reaction. He swooned in the arms of Dr. Foucart, and was placed upon a sofa in the nearest apartment, the dining-room, from which he was never removed till his death. Sir Benjamin Brodie, Mr. C?sar Hawkins, Dr. Seymour, and Mr. Hodgson held a consultation110, and attempted to reduce the visible injury, but this caused such agony that, at the patient's earnest request, the attempt was abandoned. He passed a restless night on Saturday, and continued in a very precarious111 state on Sunday and Monday. On Tuesday morning he fell into a sound sleep, after which he felt easier, his mind being quite composed. But at two o'clock on that day symptoms appeared which caused the physicians to abandon all hope. The last rites112 of the Church were administered by the Bishop of Gibraltar, Dr. Tomlinson, a very old friend. Lady Peel and the members of the family joined in this melancholy113 communion, Sir Robert being scarcely able to recognise them. Lord Hardinge and Sir James Graham also joined the group of mourners; but the painfully excited feelings of Lady Peel rendered it absolutely necessary to remove her from the apartment. He ceased to breathe about midnight, his great spirit departing peacefully from the earthly tabernacle that had been so suddenly crushed (July 2, 1850). A post-mortem examination showed that the cause of death was a broken rib44 on the left side pressing upon the lung.
The death of no English statesman had ever produced a deeper feeling of grief throughout the nation, or more general expressions of lamentation114 at the irreparable loss which the country had sustained. Mr. Hume had a motion on the paper for the day following his death; but instead of proceeding with it, he moved the adjournment of the House, which was agreed to unanimously. Mr. Gladstone paid an eloquent115 and touching116 tribute to his memory, concluding with the lines—
"Now is the stately column broke,
The beacon117 light is quenched118 in smoke,
The trumpet's silvery sound is still,
The warder silent on the hill."
The House of Lords did not sit on that day; but on the following day the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, and the Duke of Wellington gave earnest expression to the feelings of their lordships upon the subject of this national bereavement119. The Duke of Wellington in particular, as might be expected, was deeply moved while expressing his great gratification at what had been said as to the character of Sir Robert Peel. He added his testimony as to what he believed to be its strongest feature—his truthfulness120. "In all the course of my acquaintance[608] with Sir Robert Peel," said the Duke, "I never knew a man in whose truth and justice I had a more lively confidence; or in whom I saw a more invariable desire to promote the public service. In the whole course of my communication with him, I never knew an instance in which he did not show the strongest attachment121 to truth; and I never saw in the whole course of my life the smallest reason for suspecting that he stated anything which he did not firmly believe to be the fact." Lord John Russell, who had been absent on the previous day, spoke122 in the warmest terms of admiration123 of the late statesman, and avowed124 his conviction that the harmony which had prevailed for the last two years, and the safety which Great Britain had enjoyed during a period when other nations were visited by the calamity125 of revolution, had been owing to the course which Sir Robert Peel had thought it his duty to adopt. He concluded by offering, in the name of the Crown, funeral honours similar to those accorded on the death of Pitt or Grattan. But Mr. Goulburn stated that Sir Robert had recorded his desire to be interred126 in a vault127 in the parish church of Drayton Bassett without funeral pomp. On the 12th of July, pursuant to a motion made by the Prime Minister, the House of Commons went into committee for the purpose of adopting an address to the Queen, praying her Majesty to order the erection of a monument in Westminster Abbey to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, which was unanimously voted. He stated that the Queen, anxious to show the sense which she entertained of the services rendered to the Crown, had directed him to inform Lady Peel that she desired to bestow128 upon her the same rank that was bestowed129 upon the widow of Mr. Canning. Lady Peel answered that her wish was to bear no other name than that by which her husband was known to the world.
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
retirement
|
|
| n.退休，退职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
deficit
|
|
| n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
withdrawals
|
|
| n.收回，取回，撤回( withdrawal的名词复数 )；撤退，撤走；收回[取回，撤回，撤退，撤走]的实例；推出（组织），提走（存款），戒除毒瘾，对说过的话收回，孤僻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
alterations
|
|
| n.改动( alteration的名词复数 )；更改；变化；改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
retaliation
|
|
| n.报复，反击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
courageously
|
|
| ad.勇敢地，无畏地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
proxies
|
|
| n.代表权( proxy的名词复数 )；（测算用的）代替物；（对代理人的）委托书；（英国国教教区献给主教等的）巡游费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
emancipation
|
|
| n.（从束缚、支配下）解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
abjuration
|
|
| n.发誓弃绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
professing
|
|
| 声称( profess的现在分词 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
disparaged
|
|
| v.轻视( disparage的过去式和过去分词 )；贬低；批评；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
retrace
|
|
| v.折回；追溯，探源 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
abrogation
|
|
| n.取消，废除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
adjourned
|
|
| （使）休会， （使）休庭( adjourn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
rib
|
|
| n.肋骨，肋状物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
reiterated
|
|
| 反复地说，重申( reiterate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
peremptory
|
|
| adj.紧急的，专横的，断然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
honourable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；荣誉的，光荣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
retired
|
|
| adj.隐退的，退休的，退役的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
adjournment
|
|
| 休会； 延期； 休会期； 休庭期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
contumacious
|
|
| adj.拒不服从的，违抗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
coercion
|
|
| n.强制，高压统治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
adjourning
|
|
| （使）休会， （使）休庭( adjourn的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
petitioners
|
|
| n.请求人，请愿人( petitioner的名词复数 )；离婚案原告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
vexed
|
|
| adj.争论不休的；（指问题等）棘手的；争论不休的问题；烦恼的v.使烦恼( vex的过去式和过去分词 )；使苦恼；使生气；详细讨论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
abeyance
|
|
| n.搁置，缓办，中止，产权未定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
tenacity
|
|
| n.坚韧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
emancipating
|
|
| v.解放某人（尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚）( emancipate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
pervaded
|
|
| v.遍及，弥漫( pervade的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
cape
|
|
| n.海角，岬；披肩，短披风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
colonists
|
|
| n.殖民地开拓者，移民，殖民地居民( colonist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
abortions
|
|
| n.小产( abortion的名词复数 )；小产胎儿；（计划）等中止或夭折；败育 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
lengthened
|
|
| （时间或空间）延长，伸长( lengthen的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
amendments
|
|
| （法律、文件的）改动( amendment的名词复数 )； 修正案； 修改； （美国宪法的）修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
elicited
|
|
| 引出，探出( elicit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
protracted
|
|
| adj.拖延的；延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
arraigned
|
|
| v.告发( arraign的过去式和过去分词 )；控告；传讯；指责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
contentedly
|
|
| adv.心满意足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
precedents
|
|
| 引用单元； 范例( precedent的名词复数 )； 先前出现的事例； 前例； 先例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
reprisals
|
|
| n.报复（行为）( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
exorbitant
|
|
| adj.过分的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
humiliation
|
|
| n.羞辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
autocrat
|
|
| n.独裁者；专横的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
blessings
|
|
| n.（上帝的）祝福( blessing的名词复数 )；好事；福分；因祸得福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
encumbered
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，拖累( encumber的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
intruding
|
|
| v.侵入，侵扰，打扰( intrude的现在分词)；把…强加于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
opportune
|
|
| adj.合适的，适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
despatch
|
|
| n./v.(dispatch)派遣；发送；n.急件；新闻报道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
groom
|
|
| vt.给（马、狗等）梳毛，照料，使...整洁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
salutes
|
|
| n.致敬，欢迎，敬礼( salute的名词复数 )v.欢迎，致敬( salute的第三人称单数 )；赞扬，赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
restive
|
|
| adj.不安宁的，不安静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
swerved
|
|
| v.（使）改变方向，改变目的( swerve的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
consultation
|
|
| n.咨询；商量；商议；会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
precarious
|
|
| adj.不安定的，靠不住的；根据不足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
lamentation
|
|
| n.悲叹，哀悼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
beacon
|
|
| n.烽火，（警告用的）闪火灯，灯塔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
quenched
|
|
| 解（渴）( quench的过去式和过去分词 )； 终止（某事物）； （用水）扑灭（火焰等）； 将（热物体）放入水中急速冷却 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
bereavement
|
|
| n.亲人丧亡，丧失亲人，丧亲之痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
truthfulness
|
|
| n. 符合实际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
calamity
|
|
| n.灾害，祸患，不幸事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
interred
|
|
| v.埋，葬( inter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
vault
|
|
| n.拱形圆顶，地窖，地下室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |