« ForrigeFortsett »
Theindemnity which he proposed from which they had hitherto been to accord, was, at first, confined to rigorously excluded. Accordingly, the sufferers by losses from the on the 24th of May, Mr. Cressinterception of their book-debts, well, one of the Members for who were allowed three months Liverpool, brought their case betime to come in, and substantiate fore the House, and moved an their claim. Afterwards, however, address to the Crown, praying, persons whose claims were founded that the commissioners, to whom on the seizure of merchandize on the former classes of claims were shore, were comprehended in this referred, should be directed to ex. scheme, and a like period of three tend their enquiries to the case of months was allowed them ; while those who had sustained losses on the time granted to the former account of the seizures of ships and class of applicants was extended to cargoes. six months.
Without discussing the legal In 1835, a sum of 112,000l. was distinctions before adverted to, as voted in respect of the book-debts; applicable to the different descripand in the following year 78,3271. tions of goods captured by an enewas granted under the other head. my, Mr. Cresswell endeavoured, by In this stage of the proceedings, an argumeut founded on a broader Mr. Warburton, early in the pre- and more intelligible principle, to sent session (Dec. 4th), made an establish the general liability of application to the House of Com- the Government to all the claims mons for an enlargement of the in question. It was not upon the period allowed to those who had irregularity of the Danish mode of sustained losses in respect of mer. reprisals, but upon the conduct of chandise on shore. The hon. our own Government in inducing Gentleman, contended, with great those reprisals, that he insisted. appearance of justice, that there No doubt, he said, the seizure of could be no valid pretence for ex- the Danish fleet might have been cluding the one class of claimants an act of state necessity, essential from the indulgence accorded to to the safety of the country. But the other.
it was, surely, an act of common The Chancellor of the Ex- justice to give compensation to chequer was, at first, disposed to such British subjects as had sufresist this proposition, but on find- fered by reason of that extraordiing that he was not seconded in nary and unexpected proceeding. his opposition by a single Member If the losses incurred upon that ocof the House, he gave way with casion were assignable to any fault great reluctance, and Mr. War. or negligence of the parties, the burton's motion was acceded to. case might stand on a different
Thus far, however, it will be footing, but the very reverse was observed that the relief was limited the fact. There was no ground, at to the two first classes of sufferers. the time for apprehending a war
But it would seem, that the with Denmark; no increase of remaining division of claimants, premium for insurance was required were encouraged by the apparent in respect of the ships and cargoes liberality of Parliament, to make in question ; the commander of the one more attempt to be admitted fleet proclaimed, as he advanced into a participation of the relief in the direction of Copenhagen,
that he came with no hostile de. Mr. Cresswell, in reply, posisigns, but as an ally and a protec- tively denied that there was any tor, and assured the masters of such distinction, as that contended British merchantmen, that they for, and asserted that the three might navigate the Baltic without classes of claimants must stand upon fear of molestation. But, con- a precisely similar footing. The tinued Mr. Cresswell, the matter cause of the petitioners was also did not rest there. The British espoused by Messrs. Hutt, Ingham, Government followed up their Clay, Warburton, and by Sir Wal. blow at Copenhagen by confisca- ter James. tion of Danish property to the Mr. Goulburn, on the other amount of 1,300,0001. Under hand, declared, that he was conwhat pretence ? What wrong vinced, that an acquiescence in the had Denmark committed? What claims advanced in the present inreprisals had we a right to make ? stance, would go far to shake the How could such a violent measure naval supremacy of this country. be justified, except that the pro
The House divided on the mo. perty was seized in anticipation of tion, which was carried by a mathe reprisals which the Danes jority of 115 to 81. would inevitably make, and by way The Chancellor of the Excheof providing a fund for the com- quer, apparently much disconcerted pensation of the British subjects by this result, gave the House to whose vessels and goods might be understand that he should not captured ?
“take upon himself any responsiThe law of nations was clear bility" in consequence of the vole upon the point. All the great which had just been come to. authorities who had treated of the It was, nevertheless, immedisubject, were agreed in holding ately acted upon. A “ 'treasury that a state occasioning reprisals, minute” of the 22nd of June was was bound to compensate those, issued, which contained directions who had suffered by them; that for carrying into effect the resoluthe sovereign, in such cases, must tion of the House of Commons, indemnify his subjects. Nothing and for instructing the commiscould be clearer than, that if the sioners of Danish claims to inform public good required a proceeding the public “ that they are authorwhich is attended with damage to ised to examine claims for losses blameless individuals, the public sustained on account of the seizure is bound to make up the loss. The of ships and cargoes by the Danish present case was one of that de- Government in 1807." scription. A great national danger Among the minor fiscal matters had been averted by extraordinary of the session, a motion of Mr. means, but it was at the expense of Gillon's for the repeal of the soap the petitioners, who were entitled tax may be mentioned. to compensation from the country. opposed by the Chancellor of the
The motion was opposed by the Exchequer, on the ground that the Law Officers of the Crown, and revenue would not bear so great a by the Chancellor of the Exche- reduction as the motion involved. quer, who contended that the Lord Sandon moved, as present class of claims was distin- amendment to it, that the duty be guishable from the two others. reduced one third--a proposal alVol. LXXX.
most equally unpalatable to Mr. clamorous for a division, drove Spring Rice.
His protestations him to push his amendment to the on the subject seem to have shaken vote, when it was, however, lost, the resolution of Lord Sandon, by a majority of 166 to 78. The who was on the point of waving original motion was then put and his proposition, when the House, negatived.
Mr. Pryme's Bill for the Abolition of Grand Juries in EnglandDebate and division-Lord John Russell's Bill respecting the
Courts of Quarter SessionBill for the Abolition of Arrests for Debt on mesne Process – Introduced to the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor - Referred to a Select Committee-Lord Chancellor's exposition of the measure-The Bill passes both Houses--Bill for the Recovery of Tenements after the determination of the Tenancy -Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's Bill for giving Mothers a right of access to their Children-Severity of the existing Law defended by Sir E. Sugden-Arguments in its favour-Difficulties in the way of altering it-Sir E. Šugden's objections to Sergeant Talfourd's proposalThe Bill passes the Commons after several Divisions-Lord Lyndhurst introduces it to the House of Lords-Lords Brougham and Wynford oppose, and the Lord Chancellor advocates it – Rejected on the Second Reading-Division-Protest against the rejection, signed by Lords Holland and Lyndhurst, and the Duke of SutherlandMr. Sergeant Talfourd's Bill for extending Copy Right to Author's -Debate on the Second Reading – Analogy between Literary and Mechanical Invention- The Chancellor of the Exchequer supports the Bill-Mr. D’Israeli's Speech-Argument illustrated by cases of Gibbon
Southey — Sir Walter Scolt Substance of arguments against the Bil Division on Second Reading Lord John Russell speaks discouragingly of the Bill — Lord Brouge ham's project for empowering the Privy Council to extend Copy Right - International Copy Right Act passed during the Session - Registration of Electors Bill Lords Amendmenis, Lords Reasons-- Bill Lost Lord Harewood's Motion on appointments to the Magistracy in the West Riding- The Lord Chancellor defends himself-The Duke of Wellington condemns the Lord Chancellor's system of appointing Magistrates - Lord Wharncliffe's Motion on the same subject - Motion in the House of Lords on Appointments to the Edinburgh Magistracy---Earl of Haddington-Lord Chancellor's erplanation --Lord Lyndhurst - Argument in the House of Lords on
the Constitutional mode of appointing Sheriffs in Ireland, Lord Lyndhurst condemns the practice of the Government-Lord Mulgrave's defence -- Lord Brougham- Lord Plunkett – Lord Abinger - Marquess of Clanricarde's Amendment adopted - Lord Denman and Lord Brougham-Marquess of Londonderry's Motion on the Irish Magistracy. N the 28th of November, 1837, mented; while there existed no
introduce a bill for the abolition of their jurisdiction could be distingrand juries in England and Wales, guished from such as ought to be as being useless, and, in many tried at the assizes. He proposed, cases, an obstruction to justice. therefore, in the first place, to The proposal was seconded by classify offences with a view to reMessrs. "Warburton, Aglionby, move the present uncertainty on Maule, and Wakley. The Attore the subject. ney General said, that without Lord John then proceeded to say wishing it to be supposed, that he that, amongst the other changes considered grand juries to be one made in the law, was that which of the best institutions of our crimi- allowed the counsel for prisoners nal jurisprudence, he could not charged with felony to address the support the motion, since there court in their behalf. This renwas little chance of carrying such dered the situation of thechairman of a bill, as was proposed, through Quarter Sessions one of increased the House ; and, moreover, Mr. responsibility, since it exacted both Pryme had not suggested any sub- readiness of mind and knowledge stitute for the institution which of the law to enable them to apprehe desired to abolish.
ciate the arguments of council on Sir Robert Peel defended the either side, and where necessary, to present system, which operated as guard the jury against undue ima powerful check upon the com- pressions. A circumstance, which mittals of magistrates. And he stated taken together with a proposal, his belief, that its abrupt abolition which he should presently make, would be attended with the most for assembling the sessions every inconvenient results. He remarked six weeks, instead of quarterly, inthat most of the arguments which duced him to think that it would had been adduced against grand be for the public convenience to were equally applicable to petty secure the services of persons of juries.
legal education as salaried chairThe motion was decidedly nega- men of these courts; more espetived by a majority of 196 to 25. cially as he further proposed to
On the 1st of March, Lord John transfer to the jurisdiction of these Russell obtained leave to bring in tribunals the cognizance of suits a bill affecting the jurisdiction of for 10l. and under. the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The plan seemed to meet with The noble Lord stated that, in the concurrence of the House, and consequence of recent alterations the bill was read a first time. in the law, the number and impor- One of the greatest innovations tance of the offences now brought in the law, which signalized the before those courts were much aug- present session, consisted in the