On this page
-
Text (1)
-
«5 8 g ^_____ THE LEADER. [No. 422, Apri...
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.
Imperial Parliameintt ^^ Monday, April 1...
the sum now paid into the Consolidated Fund ) was agreed to .
REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL 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 reign 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 simply repealed the Triennial Act , there is nothing in the Common Law , the Constitutional Law , or the Statute Law , which prevents the sitting of Parliaments during the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 short .
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 . Hadfield 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 . Liddelx . called attention to the delay that has occurred in the construction of railways in India . The obstructions heattributed 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 committee 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 . Aybton , 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 . Mangles defended tho Indian Government ; and , Mr . Liddell haying replied , the motion was agreed to without a division .
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS IN IRELAND . Mr . Serjeant Deasy , in moving for leave to bring in a bill to promote and regulate reformatory schools for juvenile offenders in Ireland , aaid that there is a general desire that Ireland should have the benefit of such an institution as well as England and Scotland ; but , without a legislative measure , it would be inoperative . The motion was seconded by Mr . Greek . —Lord Naas said it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the introduction of the bill ; on the contrary , he thought tho subject required careful consideration . —After a few remarks by M * . Palk ( who adviaed the postponement of the measure till they saw the results ^ fYeformfttoHoTifr ^ Bglaffll )^ duce the bill . Sir Edward Colbdrookd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend tho law for the registration of county voters in Scotland .
GALWAY FREBMIDN PISfc'KANOHISEMlflNT BILL . On ' the order for going into committee on thia bill , Mr . Walpolm drew tho attention of tho House to tho difficulties which surrounded the caso . Tho bill did not deal equal juatioo to all j it confounded the innocent frteinen with the guilty , and , while it dlsfranohisod tho bribed . It did not meddle with tho briber . In ordor 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 . Clive , 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 den ounced 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 Palmerston , 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 226 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 KATES 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 Seymer ( on the ground that it was but the inauguration of an attempt to separate Church and State ) , Lord John Manners , and Mr . Newdegate ; 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 . Steuart to obtain a hearing , the Speaker put the question in the ordinary form , " that the words of the original motion proposed to be left out by the amendment should stand part of the question ; " and , no negative being uttered , apparently through lapse of attention or misapprehension by the dissentients , he declared that the " 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 the bill for three years . After a long discussion ; this was negatived . —Lord Robert Cecil moved an amendment of the same clause , confining the operation of the bill to cities and boroughs . —Sir G . C Lrcwis 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 he suggested that the propositions of Sir George Grey for amending Sir William Clay ' s bill embodied tho 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 84 G to 104 . —It being now past a quarter to six o ' clock , the further proceedings of the Committee were , by rule , adjourned . The remaining orders were then disposed of , and tho House adjourned at six o ' clock . Thursday , Ajpril 22 nd . THE OATHS BILL . „ In tho House of Lokjds , Lord Lyndhubst moved tho second reading of this bill , to which Lord Derby said he should not offer any objection . Still , he added , his opposition to the admission of Jews to Parliament was as strong as ever ; and therefore , if the omission of the fifth clause ( which seeks to effect that object ) wore moved in committee , ho should support the motion . — Earl Grb y reminded _ thoir Lordships of the frequentl y " elcpresaodlleWminatic ^^^ largo and steadily increasing majorities , to admit Jews into their body ; and it would not bo dignified on tho part of tho Lords to continue their opposition to what is plainly tho wish of tho nation . He recommended tho Earl of Darby to follow , with regard to this question , tho example of tho Duko of Wellington on tho repeal of tho Tost and Corporation Acts . —The Earl of "VTioklow protested against tho assertion that the projected alteration of the oaths would moot with universal acceptance . - —The bill was then road a second time , and their Lordshipa adjourned . ¦
DR . BERNARD . - ~ In the House of Commons , in repl y to inquiries k Mr . Roebuck and Sir Richard Bethell the A torney-General reminded the House that Dr B * nard had been brought before the Bow-street magistral during the time of the late Government , on a claree conspiracy ; and that , the evidence widening as the LI proceeded , it was determined ^ -also during the time nl the late Government—to extend the charge to on murder . " In considering the charge upon which D Bernard had already been tried and acquitted , and th charge upon which he had yet to be tried under thi bill of indictment found by the grand jury for co spiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French it h ^ become his duty to review with minute attention tht 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 bis 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 jyro eddem causa It appeared to him that the two charges , though different in name , were substantially and identically the same . Under these circumstances , lie 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 Bethell 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 begged to ask the Attorney-General—as it had been asserted in the public papers that , after the accession of the hon . 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 Attoknky-General said he believed it was a mistake to say that Mr . Bodkin ever intimated that it was not the intention of the Crown to proceed with the prosecution for conspiracy . It was the opinion of the counsel for the Crown , aud of the magistrate who committed the prisoner , that they would not have discharged their duty if the counsel bad not prosecuted and the magistrate committed Dr . Bernard on the capital charge of murder . Even 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 Ihe Judges the nature of the objections which might afterwards be made in point of law . The Judges reserved these points for the opinion of the fifteen Judges without discussion , and without the suggestion of any other course ; and for six entire days the trial proceeded upon the capital charge . He thought , therefore , that the ( iovcrnment bad only done its duty in pressing the capital charge . to have
Sir Richard Butiiki . l said he claimed a plain answer to u plain question—was the alteration in tho charge from conspiracy to tho being ucccssory to murder made under the direction of her Majesty ' s Attornoy-General ? { Hear , hear . ' ) The Attorn ky-Gunkkal said he had no answer to give but tho answer which ho hud already given ; but his respect to the House called upon him to add tl » at , for all that was done , cither before the police magistrate or at tho Old Boilcy since tho present Government camu into office , ho stood there personally responsible , ana should bo ready , upon every fitting occasion , to vindicate tho lino of conduct which ho had pursued . ( Cheers . ) . , ., Mr
Subsequently , in answer to a question put by . Serjeant Kinolakk upon tho same subject , Mr . waip olk said that no step had been taken without t «« assistance and advico of tho Attorney-General , and tnot , before tho present Government came into ofllcc , tho iiuc Government had , most properly , issued a notice of a reward for tho apprehension of Mr . Allsop , not for a misdemeanor , but for folony . Two questions would anso under the act of Parliament : first , whether Dr . JJeriwro waa a subject of her Majesty within tho act ; scconai > , whether any person , subject or not , could bo trieu > w murder committed abroad , either as principal or ¦ nw * sary . The only difference botweon Dr . Uoronrt » »• and that of Mr . Allaop waa that tho latter is » « "ll !"
ubjoct . - ¦¦ " ¦ " — "OOURX-OK-DX-VOROW —; , ___ .- ' - . tf ™ Mr . Ayrton askod whether it was tho nitontum " hor Majesty ' s Government to introduce any w » facilitate tho taking of affidavits in tho Court oi u » y « and Matrimonial Causes . — Tho Attohnkx-Gwjjb * intimated that ho would , tuko an curly ojiporiluniiy communicating with the Judge of tho Court ol viv upon tho subject referred to , and , if n 0 C ™ >! T t bo dovlao moans to romody any dofoot whioli inig »» found to oxiHt . PBOUAVIW AND LKTTKKS OP A IMUMIBTl UTION . Tho Lokd-Advogatk , in answer to Mr . CowWN ,
«5 8 G ^_____ The Leader. [No. 422, Apri...
« 5 8 g ^_____ THE LEADER . [ No . 422 , April 24 ^ 1853 .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 24, 1858, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_24041858/page/4/
-