On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
the sum now paid into the Consolidated Fund ) was agreed to . ¦ REPEAL OF THE SKPTENNIAL ACT . Mr Cox moved for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the act of the 1 st George I ., ch . 38 , commonly called the Septennial Act , and to limit the duration of Parliament to three years . According to the ancient constitution of the country , Parliaments were annual . In the rei <* n of William and Mary , they were made triennial ; but in 1715 , the Whigs , who had attained to power by the shedding of blood and by bribery , took every precaution to keep it . They therefore passed a Septennial Act with the most indecent haste , ostensibly to allay heats and animosities , and save expense , but really to secure their own places . A shorter term of Parliamentary existence he conceived to be necessary to the honesty of the House ; and he beseeched Lord John Russell — ¦ who , it was whispered outside , was looking for the Premiership ( laughter )—to bid for popular support by giving his powerful aid in furtherance of the repeal of the Septennial Act . , _ ...,, Mr . Walpole said that the first statute to which Mr . Cox had referred did not allude to the frequency of election of members of Parliament , but to the frequency of the sessions . The real question , however , was as to whether the law which had been observed for nearly a century and a half was or was not the best for regulating the duration of Parliaments . If the Parliament of George I . simply repealed the Triennial Act , there is nothing in the Common Law , the Constitutional Law , ot the Statute Law , which prevents the sitting of Parliaments during the whole reign of a king . He believed all men agree , that that would be far too long -a term , while most men think annual Parliaments too « hort . Every part of our legislation has gone on improving since the Septennial Act was passed . He did not attribute all the improvement that had taken place in that respect to the Septennial Act ( a laugh ); but he attributed a great deal of the ability and the authority which that House had exercised for the good ' of the country to that act . Since they found that their legislation had improved under the act—since it had been instrumental in keeping that House in conformity with the other House of Parliament—since it had added dignity and stability to the Executive Government—he hoped they would pause long and anxiously before they would resort to a measure which had failed , as a substitute for a measure which had been attended with such remarkable success . ( Cheers . ) Mr . Hadjield made some observations in reply to Mr . Walpole ; but he was imperfectly heard , owing to the loud and repeated cries of " Divide ! " The House accordingly divided , when there appeared—For the motion , 57 ; against , 254 : majority , 197 .
EAST INDIA RAILWAYS . Mr . Liddell called attention to the delay that has occurred in the construction of railways in India . The obstructions he attributed to the manner in which the Government supervision is exercised . The railway companies are not at liberty to make their own contracts ; and the inspectors are selected by Government . . He concluded by moving for a select committea to inquire into the subject . —The motion was seconded by Mr . Crawford , who attributed the whole blame of the delay in the introduction of railways into India to the Board of Control , and who pointed out the multiplied impediments occasioned by the vicious system enforced to a ridiculous extent by the ruling authorities in India . —Mr . Baillie denied that there was any just ground of complaint against the Government . The delays arose from the vicious principle of the Indian railway system : the guarantee given by the Government renders its supervision and control indispensable . No great advantage could be gained from an inquiry , and he must therefore oppose the motion . —Mr . Ayrton , while agreeing that there ; had been much delay on the part of the Government , did not think the motion would be of any use . —Mr . Man-GLBs defended the Indian Government ; and , Mr . Liddbll having replied , the motion was agreed to without a division .
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS IN IRKLAND . Mr . Serjeant Deasy , in moving for leave to bring in a bill to promote and regulate reformatory schools for juvenile offenders in Ireland , said that there is a general desire that Ireland should have the benefit of auch an institution as well as England and Scotland ; but , without a legislative measure , it would be inoperative . The motion was seconded by Mr . G riser . —Lord Naas said it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the introduction of the bill ; on the contrary , ho thought the subject required careful consideration . —After a few remarks by Mr . Palk ( who advised Jbe .. ppfl . t ; po . nom ^ of reformatories in England ) , leave waa given to introduce the bill . Sir Edward Golbhrooich obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law for the registration of county voters in Scotland . OALWAY IfBKKMBN DIBVRANOHISI&MHNT DIM ,, On the order for going into committee on this bill , Mr . Walpole drew the attention of the Houbo to tho difficulties which surrounded the case . Tho bill did not deal equal justice to all j It confounded tho Innocent freemen with the guilty , And , while It disfranchised tho bribed , It did not meddle with tho briber . In order to
enable the committee to deal -with the whole case , it would be necessary to give the committee an instruction , of which he read the terms . There were only two courses which the House could take—either to refuse to go into committee altogether , or to adopt the instruction he proposed , and then postpone the further consideration of the case . He concluded by moving the instruction , empowering the committee to include the purchasers of votes . — Mr . French denied that a case had been made out which called for the action of the House , and protested against the injustice of the measure as violating the statutory indemnity . —Mr . Cute , who had charge of the bill , dissented from the views of Mr . Walpole . He defended the bill , and declined to have anything to do with the instruction . —Lord Lovaine , Mr . Serjeant Deasy , and Mr . Maguire , opposed the bill , which Mr . J . D . Fitzgerald supported . —Upon the instruction being put from the Chair , Lord Palmerston said he could not concur in it , but would simply support the bill for disfranchising the voters among whom corrupt practices had prevailed . — -Mr . Whiteside observed that the passing of the bill as it stood would exempt from punishment the bribers who were not voters . —Mr . Roebuck denounced the measure , which , in its then state , was partial and unfair , and , under the pretence of purity , would do an act of signal injustice . —Upon a division , the instruction was carried by 152 to 121 . —Colonel French then moved to defer the committee for six months . —Lord Palmekston , though he had voted against the instruction , said he could not consent to get rid of the bill . —The House having again divided , the amendment was negatived by 22 l > to 51 , and the House went into committee upon the bill , when the Chairman was ordered to report progress , after a short conversation as to the mode of proceeding . Some routine business having been disposed of , the House adjourned at half-past one o ' clock .
Wednesday , April 2 \ st . CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL . Sir John Trelawny having moved that the House go into committee on this bill , Mr . Packe moved to defer the committee for six months . The measure was further opposed by Mr . Ker Sevmer ( on the ground that it was but the inauguration of an attempt to separate Church and State ) , Lord John Manners , and Mr . Newdeoate ; and was supported by Mr . Hugessen , Mr . Pugh , Sir George Grey , and Lord Harry Vane . —The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be better to discuss the bill in committee , and therefore recommended Mr . Packe to withdraw his amendment—a suggestion in which he was joined by Lord John Russell . —Mr . Packe consented ; but Mr . Bright objected . He thought it was the duty of Sir John Trelawny and those in favour of the measure to pass the bill , as it was proposed to the House . —After an unsuccessful attempt by Mr . Steuakt to obtain a hearing , the Speaker put the question in the ordinary form , " that the words of the origitial motion proposed to be left out by the amendment should stand part of the question ; " , no negative being uttered , apparently through lapse of attention or misapprehension by the dissentients , he declared that tho " Ayes " had it , and the House went into committee on the bill , Mr . Puller being thereby precluded from moving an amendment of which he had given notice . Upon the first clause of the bill , Sir A . H . Elton moved an amendment , the effect of which was to suspend the operation of tho bill for three years . After a long discussion , this was negatived . —Lord Robert Cecil moved an amendment of the same clause , confining tho operation of the bill to cities and boroughs . —Sir G . C . Lewis objected that this amendment did not carry out the principle in view , it being too wide in one respect and too narrow in another ; and ho suggested that the propositions of Sir George Grey for amending Sir William Clay ' s bill embodied the principle in a more practical form .- —The amendment was ultimately withdrawn , and Mr . Lygon moved that the Chairman report progress ; but the motion was negatived by 346 to 104 . —It being now past a quarter to six o ' clock , the further proceedings of tho Committee were , by rule , adjourned . The remaining orders were then disposed of , and tho House adjourned at six o ' clock .
Thursday , April 22 nd . TUB OATHS HILL . In the House ojt Louds , Lord Lyndiiurst moved the second reading of this bill , to -which Lord Disroy said he should not offer any objection . Still , ho added , his opposition to the admission of Jews to Parliament was as strong as over ; and therefore , if tho omission of tho fifth clause ( which seeks to effect that object ) wore moved in committee , ho should support the motion . — Earl .. GREY . rominded . thejr _ Lordahipa ..,. of _ thcJreq \ ion . ay oppressed determination of tho House of Commons , by largo and steadily increasing majorities , to admit Jews into their body ; and it would not bo dignified on tho part of the Lords to continue their opposition to what in plainly tho wish of ( ho nation . Ho recommended tho Earl of Derby to follow , with regard to this question , tho oxamplo of tho Duko of Wellington on tho repeal of tho Teat and Corporation Acts . —The Earl of "Wicklow protested against tho assertion that tho projected alteration of tho oatha would moot with universal uoooptanco . —Tho bill waa then road u accond tlino , and tholr JLordshlpa adjourned .
DR . BERNARD . ~ In the House of Commons , in reply to inauirio . v Mr . Roebuck and Sir Richard Bethel " A 7 torney-General reminded the House that Dr K nard had been brought before the Bow-street magiat ™ during the time of the late Government , on a charee f conspiracy ; and that , the evidence widening as the Cfl » proceeded , it was determined—also during the t ime 7 t the late Government—to extend the charge to one f murder . " In considering the charge upon which Dr Bernard had already been tried and acquitted and th charge upon which he had yet to be tried u nder the bill of indictment found by the grand jury for spiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French it hoj become his duty to review with minute attention the whole body of the evidence adduced upon the late trial and to ascertain what evidence it would be necessary to adduce , and what would be the substantial nature of the entire case if Dr . Bernard should be put upon his trial for conspiracy . Now , almost at the outset of this inquiry , and upon the first view of the case he had felt it his duty thus minutely to consider a maxim of criminal law , which had ever been held sacred by all who had taken part in the administration of the law in this country—Nemo debet bis vexari pro eudem cauta It appeared to him that the two charges , though different in name , -were substantially and identically the same . Under these circumstances , he thought that to proceed further with the prosecution , and to put Dr . Bernard again on his trial , would be to violate the maxim to which he had adverted . Therefore the prosecution of Dr . Bernard would not be further proceeded with , and the prisoner might consider himself entirely discharged . "
Sir Richard Betiiell said that the proceeding with a view to prosecution for murder , or for being an accessary to the crime of murder , was not only not contemplated by the late Government , but they decided that there was no reasonable ground upon which such a charge could be maintained . He bogged to ask the Attorney-General—as it had been asserted in the public papers that , after the accession of the lion , and learned gentleman to office , Mr . Bodkin was instructed to state that it was no longer intended to proceed upon the charge of conspiracy , but on that of murder—whether Mr . Bodkin acted in this matter under his direction . The Attorney-General said he believed it was a mistake to say that Mr . Bodkin ever intimated that it was not the intention of the Crown tu proceed with the prosecution for conspiracy . It was the opinion of the counsel for the Crown , ami of the magistrate who committed the prisoner , that they would nut have discharged their duty if the counsel had not prosecuted and the magistrate committed Dr . Bernard on the capital charge of murder , liven Mr . Edwin James , who defended the prisoner with so much zeal , ability , learning , and eloquence , instead of claiming an acquittal as a matter of right , thought it expedient to state to the Judges tho nature of the objections which might afterwards be made in point of law . The Judges res ' . 'rved these points for the opinion of the fifteen Juilges without discussion , and without tho suggestion of any other course ; and for six entire days the trial proceeded upon the capital charge , lie thought , therefore , that the Government had only done its duty in pressing the capital charge . Sir Richard Betiiell tsaiit lie claimed to Imve a plain answer to a plain question—was the alteration in tho charge from conspiracy to the being accessory to murder made under the direction of her Wiijcsty ' s Attorney-General ? ( Hear , hear . ' ) The Attorney-General said ho had no answer to give but tho answer whiuh lie lnul already given ; but his respect to tho House called upon him to add that , for nil that was done , cither before tho police magistrate or at the Old Bailey since tho present Government camo into ofHco , ho stood there personally responsible , ami should bo ready , upon every fitting occasion , to vindicate the lino of conduct which ho had pursucu . ( Cheers . ) . ., Subsequently , in answer to n question put Dyau . Serjeant Kinolake upon tho same subject , Mr . vai > p olk said that no step had been taken without w « assistance and advice of the Attornoy-Uonorul , ana » i beforo tho present Government camo into office , tne iw Government had , most properly , issuod u notice oi » ward for tho apprehension of Mr . Allsop , not tor » «' demeanor , but for folpny . Two questions would « w » under tho act of Parliament , first , whether Dr . Bern ™ was a subject of hor Majesty within the act j se ™; whether any person , subject or not , could Do tm murder committed abroad , oithor as principal or »«• sary . Tho only cliflToronco between Dr . Honiara » e and that of Mr . Allsop was that tho lattor Is » » " " subject . " - — ' — ¦ -1 ~~ 6 Wft ¥ ~ o - i » - » IVOBCKr " ' * 77 ~ 77 f Mr . Ayrton nskod whether it was tho inten o » hor Majesty ' s Government to Introduce any '"' facilitate tho taking of affidavits in tho Court oiww and Matrimonial Causes . — The Attoiinhv-G ¦»«» intimated that ho would Uko ixn early "W ? n ' orco coinniunlontliiffvith tho Judge of tho ( Juiu-t ° « *™ M upon tho subject referred to , and , If » c 1 u I oa . " 2 l ) _ lt bo doviiio moans to romody any dofoot wl » w » m » H ' found to oxitit . rnoMAVics and lutti&rh on- administration . Tho Lord-Advooatk , in answer to Mr . Gowak ,
Untitled Article
388 THE LEADER . [ No . 422 , April 24 , 1858 .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 24, 1858, page 388, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2240/page/4/
-