Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

that Bill, only really asked for powers to , importance that it should pass without confiscate the ships of Brazilian subjects delay. He argued that the subject required employed in the Slave Trade.

the most serious consideration, and it cerCaptain Pechell said, that under this Bill tainly should receive it; but he trusted that they proposed to deal with captured Bra- the hon. Member would not then press his zilian slave ships in a different manner opposition. before the Admiralty Courts than before the Mr. Muntz said, that under the circumCourt of Mixed Commission. He doubted stances, he would not press his objection whether they could do this under the at the present stage of the Bill, although Treaty. In this Bill they took the power he still objected to its being hurried through of destroying ships so taken, whereas under the House. He felt after what had been the old Treaty they were sold entire, which stated by the hon. and learned Member made a great difference to the captors. He for Worcester, that the attempt to act in believed that they had not legal authority such a manner would lead us into such a to break up these ships. This country never contest with one nation that it would prohad a power under the Convention to de- duce a general war. tain a Brazilian ship equipped for the Clause agreed to, as were the remaining Slave Trade. He wished to know whether clauses. House resumed. it was now intended to detain Brazilian vessels equipped for the Slave Trade in the TURNPIKE Roads (SCOTLAND).) On same way as they did ships under the the Motion that the House go into ComSpanish Treaty ?

mittee on the Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Sir R. Peel replied, that the equipment Bill, was admitted as a proof of a ship being Mr. Scott moved that the House resolve engaged in the Slave Trade.

itself into a Committee this day three Clause agreed to.

months. On the 4th Clause being put,

Mr. P. M. Stewart defended the Bill. Mr. Muntz suggested that they should It had been fully discussed in the other report progress after the statement of the House, and it had received the sanction learned and hon. Member for Worcester, and support of the principal Scotch authoin which he so ably showed the difficulties rities. which would attend this measure.

Mr. Forbes Mackenzie was of opinion Sir Robert Peel would assure the hon. that toll-houses ought to have the privilege Member that he would take no unfair ad- of supplying refreshments, as had hitherto vantage, if they went on with the Bill been the custom, otherwise great injury then. If it was necessary, he would in- would be inflicted on the toll trusts. troduce the proposed alterations in the third The House divided on the Question, reading

that the words proposed to be left out Mr. M. Gibson did not believe that they stand part of the Question :- Ayes 16; would carry out the objects of the Bill by Noes 42: Majority 26. means of it; he therefore trusted that his Main Question, as amended, agreed to. hon. Friend would persist in his opposition Bill put off for three months. to its progress then.. The whole

power
of

List of the Axes.
the Bill was involved in the 3rd Clause, and
this was open to the most serious objections. Bowring, Dr. Pringle, A.
Because they were then in July or August,

Brotherton, J.

Tower, C. he did not see why they should not do their | Corry, rt, hon. H.

Warburton, H.

Wawn, J. T. business properly. If they could not do Ferguson, Sir R. A. so, let the right hon. Gentleman prorogue Hindley, C.

Hawes, B.

Wilde, Sir T.

Williams, W.
Parliament, but do not force measures Manners, Lord J
through the House in July, without that Muntz, G. F.
consideration which they would have re- Norreys, Sir D. J. Stewart, P. M.
ceived in March.

O'Connell, M.J. Duncan, G.
Sir R. Peel was willing to recommit the
Bill if necessary, provided it was allowed to

List of the Noes.

Bruce, Lord E, go through its present state. The Bill could Acland, T. D. not have been brought in at an earlier pe- Austen, Col.

Arkwright, G.j Bruges, W. H. L.

Buller, Sir J. Y. riod of the Session, in consequence of the

Barkley, H.

Cardwell, E. requisite information not having been ob- Borthwick, P. tained from the Brazils, and it was of Broadley, H.

Darby, G.

[ocr errors]

:

TELLERS.

Cripps, W.

TELLERS.

Denison, E. B. Packe, C, W. paid them, of paying certain officers of cer-
Escott, E.
Palmer, R.

tain courts. He trusted that after the large Flower, Sir J. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

majority by which the Bill passed its second Gardner, J. D. Rashleigh, W.

reading, it would be allowed to proceed in Goulburn, rt, hon. H. Rolleston, Col.

Committee, when, if any suggestions were Graham, rt. hon. Sird. Sibthorp, Col. Greene, T.

Smith, rt. hon. T.B.C. made which would facilitate ils practical Hamilton, C. J. B. Spooner, R.

working, he would be happy to give them Henley, J. W. Thesiger, Sir F. every consideration. The course of criminal Ilerbert, rt. hov. S. Vesey, hon. T. justice should be free from so foul a stain Lincolo, Earl of Wellesley, Lord C. as that which now disgraced it; and until Mackenzie, W. F. Yorke, I. R.

it were free from such stain, neither would McNeill, D. Young, J.

the laws nor their administrators be, as they Masterman, J.

should be, respected. Moffatt, G.

Sir J. Graham said, that his hon. and Mundy, E. M.

Scott, F. Nichoil, rt. hov. J. Campbell, H.

learned Friend referred to the majority by which the second reading of the Bill was

carried. He had voted with that majority; FEES (Criminal Corrts) Bill. On but so voted in order that the Bill might the Order of the day being read that the

go into Committee, without pledging himHouse go into Committee on this Bill,

self to its support in its present shape. His Mr. B. Escoll said, that all that was hon. and learned Friend went into Comsought by this Bill was to prevent an ac- mittee, resolved to maintain the Bill in its cused party from being put to the necessity present form, including exemption from of buying the right of pleading, and the fees on conviction as well as on acquittal. right of trial, by the payment of exorbi. He was opposed to all useless legislation, tant fees. He believed that the law, as it and his hon. and learned Friend had stated at present stood, was sufficient to protect that the exaction of the fees was at present parties accused, if they were only aware of illegal. He doubted the soundness of this their right. But it was the practice in law, especially as regarded persons charged many quarters to refuse the plea of not with misdemeanors out on bail; these guilty to an individual charged with a mis- were obliged to pay fees, and, so far, he demeanor, unless he paid the fee demanded, was willing to amend the law. To that and to send him back again and bring him limited extent he was prepared to go, but up at a subsequent Sessions, until at last not as far as the Bill went. In his view, the fee was extorted, or the individual was every person convicted ought to be comallowed to take his trial because he was pelled to pay at least part of the expenses. utterly unable to pay. In thirty-two coun- Lord J. Munners was in favour of goties of England and Wales this practice ing into the Committee, in order to make had already been abolished, and it appeared the Bill as unobjectionable and useful as that it was only in twenty counties that it possible. was still permitted to exist. He wanted Mr. Palmer expressed his concurrence that to be declared by the House to be the with the hon. Member for Winchester, as law, and that, throughout the whole coun- regarded fees on acquittal, but several try, the same practice should be carried charges ought not to be looked upon as into operation, as was already carried out fees. in the majority of the counties. They Dr. Bowring agreed with the hon. Mem. never could get justice done in this matter ber for Winchester, inasmuch as no fees until they decided that no payment was ought to be charged either upon conviction to be demanded from any person charged or acquittal. with a crime, but the penalty which the Mr. Darby was disposed to get rid of court which tried him had a right to im- the Bill altogether, rather than include in pose as a punishment for the offence, or as it all the provisions it now contained. All damages to the party aggrieved. Why, he the costs allowed by 7 and 8 George IV. would ask, should this Bill be opposed ? were injudiciously abolished by this meaIt was simply a measure of conimon justice sure. He moved that the House should to a person charged with crime. Money resolve itself into a Committee on this day was at the root of much of the opposition three months. which this Bill met with in the country. Sir J. Graham gave notice that he Under the present system, the fees formed would to morrow (this day) move for leave a convenient mode, except to the party that to bring in a Bill to abolish fees on plead

ing and acquittal in criminal cases, if this measure were rejected.

Mr. B. Escolt agreed to the proposition of the Home Secretary.

Amendment withdrawn.

Order for Committee discharged. Bill withdrawn.

tics; Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Highways; Masters and Workmen.

Reported.— Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Spirits (Ireland); Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands).

3. and passed:-Recognizances for Costs in Bills; Geolo-
gical Survey; Waste Lands (Australia).

Private.-1 South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension);
Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North
Union, Liverpool and Manchester, and Grand Junction
Railways Amalgamation.

2. Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; Manchester
and Leeds Railway.

Reported.-South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge
Wells); Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Stoke
Branch); London and South Western Railway; Epping
Railway; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Has-
tings, Rye, and Ashford Extension); Gravesend and Ro-
chester Railway; South Eastern Railway (Greenwich
Extension); Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton
Railway; Oxford and Rugby Railway; Rothwell

Prison.

3a and passed: -Londonderry and Coleraine Railway; Yolker Road (No. 2); Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Rai way; Severne's Estate.

for the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into the past and present Condition and Treatment of Lunatics in England and Wales, whether Pauper or otherwise.From South and North Leith, against the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.-From Inhabitants of Port Phillip (New South Wales), for the Adoption of Measures to obtain for the District of Port Phillip, an entire Separation from the Government of the Colony.-By Lord Cottenham, from W. H. Miller, Esq., of Britwell House, Bucks, praying to be heard by Counsel against parts of the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.-From Presbytery of Dunoon, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).-From Stockholders, and others, of District of Maitland, for Alteration of Law relating to Territorial Revenue, and Disposal of Lands, etc. (New South Wales).

HEALTH OF TOWNS.] The Earl of Lincoln said, he had had a Notice on the Books of the House for some weeks past, to move for leave to introduce a measure with reference to the health of towns, founded on the Report of the Commission appointed two years ago, which Report was laid on the Table in February last. He had been most anxious to give a general outline of the measure; but at this late hour of the night, and at this advanced period of the Session, he thought it would PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Inhabitants of Finsbury, be better to ask leave to introduce the Bill without any comment. Had time allowed, he would have taken the opportunity, on introducing the Bill, of giving an ample statement of its details. Such a statement would, however, occupy considerable time; and if he were to postpone the Bill to a future day he could not expect, at this period of the Session, to gain the attention of the House to the dry details of a measure of this description. He would, therefore, merely move that the Bill be read a first time and printed, in order that it might be considered during the recess, and brought PRIVILEGE.] Lord Brougham preforward at an early period of the next Ses-sented a petition from James Thomas sion. He hoped the public would examine Russell, of No. 37, Percy-street, Bedfordthe provisions of the Bill, and that its de- square, solicitor, complaining that two wittails would be fully canvassed. He trusted nesses who had been examined before the also that hon. Members of that House who Committee of their Lordships' House on represented large constituencies would de- Gaming, had given false and slanderous vote some attention to the measure, and evidence against him, to the great detrimake such suggestions to the Government ment of his character, and of the characters as they might deem advisable. The noble of all those connected with him; and Lord then moved for leave to bring in a praying that, as he found it would be a Bill" for the improvement of the sewerage breach of the privileges of their Lordships' and drainage of towns and populous dis-House to bring an action at law against tricts, and for making provision for an ample supply of water, and for otherwise promoting the health and convenience of the inhabitants."

[blocks in formation]

those parties, some opportunity might be afforded him of vindicating his character. As the Session was now so near its close, he would move that the petition do lie on the Table, with the intention of moving early in the ensuing Session that it be referred to a Select Committee.

The Lord Chancellor said, he should be very ready to assist his noble and learned Friend in investigating this subject; but he wished to remind their Lordships that the Committee alluded to in the petition had sat last Session, and the petitioner had allowed the matter to lie over without

taking any notice of it for a whole year, and until after this House had decided that it would not allow him to go to law. He thought their Lordships could draw a natural and almost necessary conclusion from that circumstance.

Lord Brougham said, the petition stated that it was only on Saturday last that the petitioner first saw a copy of the evidence of which he complained.

The Lord Chancellor: But he does not state that he did not previously know of the evidence having been given.

Lord Brougham said, the law allowed a party four years to bring his action, and he would humbly submit that their Lordships were not justified in not merely shutting out an aggrieved party from redress in a court of law, but also in refusing him any other relief.

induced to purchase in consequence of the Report of the Board of Trade being in its favour, and praying to be heard at the bar of their Lordships' House on his own behalf, and on behalf of other shareholders.

Lord Brougham said, the petitioner was a member of his own profession, and a most respectable gentleman, and he (Lord Brougham) was exceedingly sorry that he had not invested his money in some other funds. But perhaps the Board of Trade would think it their duty to grant him some relief.

The Earl of Dalhousie said, the Report of the Board of Trade in favour of the line was a perfectly good Report. With respect to the funds under the control of the Board, he regretted to say they were very limited indeed, but he should be happy to have the advice of the noble and learned Lord as to their disposal.

Lord Campbell said, he was inclined to think that Russell was the name of a person who had been subjected to a very rigThe Earl of Besborough said, in moving orous cross-examination at the bar of their on a former occasion the second reading Lordships' House by his noble and learned of this Bill, he did so for the purpose of Friend (Lord Brougham) on the very sub-giving an opportunity of having it referred ject alluded to in the petition. He would, to a Select Committee, who would report however, strongly support the Motion of on all the remaining allegations against his noble and learned Friend for inquiry. it. Before making the Motion, of which After a few words from Lords Brougham and Stradbroke,

The Earl of Wicklow said, he thought, no matter what the character of an individual might be, the House had a right to give him an opportunity of clearing his character. In reply to what had fallen from his noble Friend on the Woolsack he wished to remark, that any delay to which the petitioner might have been a party should be calculated, not from the time that the Committee had made their Report, but from the period when, their Lordships having consented to give a copy of the Report to the Commons, the latter House had thought proper to sell and promulgate the libel which it contained.

The Lord Chancellor said, he had no desire to oppose the Motion for inquiry, but he had merely wished to draw their Lordships' attention to a point of date.

Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.] The Earl of Hardwicke presented a petition from John Frederick Stanford, of Langham-place, esquire, stating that he was a holder of shares in the Dublin and Galway Railway, which he had been |

he had given notice on the preceding day, it was necessary that he should call their Lordships' attention to the further Report which had been presented from the Committee by the noble Lord opposite (Earl Bathurst). After reading some passages from the Report, describing the course of systematic fraud that in the opinion of the Committee had been practised in getting up the subscription contract deed, the noble Earl proceeded to say that he knew it would be maintained that the same system had been adopted in respect to many other railways, indeed in most other railways. He did not, however, think, that that should induce their Lordships to pass over a case of this kind, which had been substantiated by two Committees of their Lordships' House, even if all the railway projects which had passed through Parliament had been got up in the same manner. It was true that the promoters of this railway now state their readiness to put in so many solvent names in their deed as would make up the number required by Parliament. But even that circumstance could not, he thought, alter the decision to which their Lordships should come, as, if the Standing Order respecting the contract deed was of

any value, it ought to be adhered to regu- | stead of by totally distinct individuals. If larly and in all cases. He was quite it turned out that he had been misinaware that there were many upright per- formed, he would at once give up the Bill sons who were ready to take shares in this and the Company; but he thought so Company, under the idea that they would serious an allegation was one that should be promoting a Bill which was calculated not be allowed to pass without inquiry. to forward a great public work in Ireland, He would say nothing more at present, and open a line of railway through a part except to move that the debate be adof the country where it would prove most journed, with a view to have the evidence beneficial; and it was also an important taken before the Committee printed. He consideration that it would be the means might be permitted to add, that with this of giving employment to a vast number Company he had no personal connexion of persons, who, at this season of the whatever. He did not hold one shilling's year, would be otherwise unable to pro-worth of shares, he was sorry to say, in cure work. He was aware that much evil would arise from a rejection of the Bill, on these grounds; but still he believed that a much greater evil would result considering the circumstances of Ireland, now just commencing great public works of this kind, if the Parliament were to depart in their favour from the rules which it had laid down, and which were necessary to be followed in the proper construction of all railways. Under these circumstances, he felt obliged to move that the further consideration of the Bill of the Irish Great Western Railway Company for the construction of a railway from Dublin to Galway be put off to this day three months.

The Marquess of Clan ricarde said, he had to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend; and if he had no other ground for doing so, he felt that a paragraph in the last Report of the Committee would justify him in requiring an adjournment of this debate. He was informed that the sentence to which he alluded was written by a noble Lord, under a total misapprehension of the facts; and that there was no evidence whatever to support it, because no such could have been given, as nothing of the kind had, he was given to understand, ever taken place. The sentence of the Report to which he alluded was in these words:" That systematic fraud has been used for the purpose of obtaining the necessary number of signatures to the subscription contract." He could state, without hesitation, that that was a total misapprehension of the facts. There was no doubt but that gross frauds had been exercised for the purpose of obtaining scrip and allotments of shares in the Company; but as the sentence in the Report read, it would appear that these frauds had been perpetrated by the promoters and directors of the Company, in

that or any other railway company; he had no railway shares whatever, though he wished he had; but, as a person having property in the west of Ireland, he felt extremely interested in the Dublin and Galway Railway. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned, in order that an opportunity might be afforded of having the evidence taken before the Committee printed.

Lord Brougham said, that instead of there being no evidence yet before the House, there were upwards of a hundred pages of evidence already printed and before the House upon this very subject. Having been a member of the Committee, he would state exactly how the matter stood. There was no doubt but that there were two different kinds of fraud in these cases. In one, the fraud might be committed against the Company, namely, by persons forging names, and writing fictitious and fabricated letters, in order to get allotments of scrip; and, in the other, the fraud would be on the House; namely, by persons connected with the Company-he did not mean respectable Gentlemen, like some of those at the head of this Company; but agents or persons employed under them, getting up contract lists for the purpose of complying nominally and fictitiously and fraudulently with the Standing Orders of Parliament. But he would show their Lordships in what way these two classes of fraud became one fraud on the House. He now spoke from the evidence. It was needless to say, that the persons promoting these companies were not those whose names appeared at the head of them, very likely for patriotic and public purposes; but they were a set of harpies who wished to gamble in the share market, and a set of persons whom he would not otherwise designate but as professional men-such

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »