The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 14, 1857. in recommending a continuance of transportation, as far as practicable. To carry this proposal into effect without a breach of the engagements entered into with the colonies, which the Government had not the remotest intention to violate, was, however, the great difficulty. Western Australia was at present the only colony which would receive convicts. Its capabilities were said to be great, and the colonists bad been represented to be desirous of convict labourers. After full consideration, the Government had determined to propose to give effect to the re commendation of the committee of the House of Commons, and to select Western Australia for the reception of our convicts. Sir George Grey then explained the changes which he proposed to intro duce in the present bill :—First, to lengthen the term of sentences of penal servitude to an equal duration with that of the periods of transportation for which they were substituted; secondly, giving judges a discretionary power to pass sentences of intermediate severity between those of ordinary im prisonment and the minimum of transportation; thirdly, allowing prisoners sentenced to penal servi tude to be removed to certain colonies, a power which, he observed, would be exercised with great &caution, but might, lie considered, enable the Go weinment to serve the colonies, and especially West Australia, and to benefit the convicts who might be !selected for removal to another sphere ; fourthly, he proposed to continuo the practice of mitigating sen tences as a reward for good conduct in prison, but to restrict the range of their remission within much narrower limits than were now observed, while ren dering the discharges, generally speaking, uncon ditional. A few minor points were touched upon by Sir George, one of which related to the hulk system, which was, he said, in process of abandonment. Sir J. P.tKLNGTON thought that with respect to any discussion on the general proposals of Sir G. Grey it 'world be better to wait until the bill was before the &ease. The question involved two points—first, avbat was to be the state of the law as to secondary ipaqishments ; second, the manner in which the law was Co be administered and carried out. An impres sion existed that there had been an indiscreet exer cise of the prerogative of mercy by the advisers of the Crown, which he believed was exaggerated, but not without foundation ; and that the punishment under sentences of penal servitude was not made suffi ciently penal. Sir John then referred to a case in point : Some months ago a very respectable woman, who lived in his neighbourhood, and whose son had been sentenced in January, P.M, to four years' penal servitude, called upon him ( Sir J. Pakington) and placed in his hands several letters which she had received from her son, and which showed that he expected to be released in the approaching spring if some respectable gentleman would give a testi. monial in his favour. Writing from Preston Gaol, in which he was subjected to separate confinement, he said that lie was quite well, and was better than he had been for years, that he had as much good warm food as he liked and a good bed to lie on ; that he had no taskwork to do, and that he did just as much as lie liked ; that he had nice clean walks to walk upon, and that, in short, he was enjoy ing life as much as any man could possibly desire. And this, be it remembered, was the most severell penal part of his sentence. [Sir G. GREY.—" No part of these sin tences is undergone in the prison at, Preston. There must be some error. Perhaps it is all a myth."] He begged the right bun. gentleman's pardon. The whose of the fifteen letters which had been placed in his hands were written upon the printed forms of the gaol. [Sir G. GREY admitted that he was mistaken when he interrupted the right hon. baronet.' The writer of those letters said that the chaplain of the gaol had Old him that if he would only desire his friends to endeaviur to obtain a testimonial in his (the prisoner's) favour, he might be released in the course of this year. In March, 18.56, the priioner was re moved from Preston Gaol to Portland, and. he wrote a letter to his mother in September last, in which he stated that he was well and happy ; that he had plenty cf food, and was getting stout ; that he had been placed in the shoemakers' shop, in which there were thirty men, and that they had the privilege of conversing with each other. Now, as the right hon. Ii tronet had undertaken the revision of the system of secondary punishments, and there was to be no outlet in the colonies fur our criminals as heretofore, it was surely ot• the utmost importance that the public should be dig. tinctly inform td that the penal sentences passed in lieu of those of transportation should be rigidly enforced. In conclusion, Sir J. Pakington thought the in• ference which the public would draw from the com parison between the crime of 1855 and 1850 was that there had been a decrease to the extent stated by Sir G. Grey in the graver crimes. This would not be correct, for by a change in the law during the in terval a large class of offences, formerly left fur trial, were now dealt with summarily. Mr. COLLIEE contended that with respect to our worst criminals it would be far better to imprison them for life at home than to incur the expense of imprisoning them abroad. The next class might be dealt with as proposed by the Government, either by transportation or penal servitude at home. Sir J. RAMSDEN doubted whether the advantages attending transportation, as a secondary punishment and as a reformatory process, were not overrated, though it was difficalt to exaggerate its importance A THE PRESS. to the mother country. The proposals of the Go vernment, he thought, deserved the approbation of the house, but he hoped their attention would he directed to a change in the condition and treatment of prisoners. • Mr. ADDERLEY cordially concurred with everything that had fallen from Sir G. Grey, suggesting, how ever, whether it would not be better to abolish alto. gether the ticket-of-leave provision, the few ad vantages attending which were overbalanced by its evils. Mr. LABOUCHEEE observed that, although it might ho doubted whether transportation had in all cases a deterring effect, there was no question that, as a means of disposing of a part of our criminal popula tion, for home purposes, it was a most valuable secondary punishment. He would not say that besides Western Australia other places might not be fitted to receive convicts; but he objected to Van couver's Island, the Gulf of Carpentaria, and the Falkland Islands, on the ground that the first was too close to California, the second . within 000 miles of the Moreton Bay sheep stations, and to the third one fatal objection existed, that whenever the local Government ceased to employ convict labour, work for the convicts would not be found upon the islands. Western Australia posttessed many advantages as a colony where the labour of convicts could be em• ployed ; at the same time he should not be justified, he said, in holding out an expectation that it would be available, except to a certain extent and for a certain time, the measure requiring the utmost caution and the most judicious management. Mr. BENTINCK and Mr. PHILLIMORE having briefly spoken against returning to transportation, and Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. LIDDELL in favour of the same, leave was given to bring in the bill. 'NIIIIiim...-__ REFORUATORY SCHOOLS. Sir G. GREY then moved for leave to introduce a bill to facilitate the establishment of reformatory schools in England. It was not, he said, the design of the bill to interfere with voluntary institutions, but to enable counties and boroughs to establish such schools out of the county and borough rates. Leave was given to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF LORDS.-T t'ESD tr. AGRICULTI 12 U. STATISTICS. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, in reply to Lord NVynford, said the Government were not prepared to reintroduce last session's bill upon the subject of agricultural statistics. The Government, however, would be ready to carry any more modified measure. JURISDICTION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The LORD CHANCELLOR called the attention of the house to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and stated his intentions as to the testamentary jurisdiction of the existing Prerogative Courts, the law of .divorce, and the law for the correction of clerks. •With regard to the Prerogative Courts, the principal changes which he proposed to make were to constitute a new court, to be called the Queen's Court of Probate, which, except in certain cases, was not to have jurisdiction over real ,state, and over which a judge should preside, who would direct issues on matters of fact to be tried by a jury. In this court the proctors—of whom lie !declared that he should have no objection to be rid after having felt his way—Would at first have the common form business, while the contentious business would be thrown open to solicitors and barristers, who, toge ther with the proctors and advocates, would have the right of practising in the new court. With regard to wills bequeathing property up to 1,5001., he proposed that, if uncontested, they should be proved in a dis trict court, but if contested, they should be disposed of in the Court of Probate in London, the office of judge being dislltarged by one of the Vice-Chan cellors. Wills which disposed of property below 2001. he proposed should be decided on by the county courts. With regard to divorce, he proposed, in the bill which lie was about to introduce, to allow a woman to obtain a decree of separation from her husband if he should desert her for three years, and, under certain circumstances, to give her the right of a postnuptial as well as an antenuptial settlement these were the new features of the bill, the whole provisions of which, based on the measure rejected last year, would be more clearly, seen when the mea sure was laid on the table. With regard to ecclesi astical discipline, the offences of clerks might be divided into the two heads of moral and doctrinal offences, and, the proceedings in each of those cases being exceedingly cumbrous and expensive, he pro posed to simplify them. In the case of doctrinal offences, it was not intended to allow a suit to be promoted voluntarily by any one person, but that proceedings should only be taken atter a certificate had been obtained, signed by a certain number of persons of station in the Church. The Lord Chan cellor then laid these bills on the table, with the exiepifon of the Clergy Offences Lord LYNDIIURST thought that the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill would not satisfy the public. In the first place, it transferred the testamentary 151 jurisdiction to Chancery in sub stance, though not, perhaps, in terms. Now, this was the main objec tion to the bill brought in last year by the present Attorney-Geoeral, when it had been said that no sane person would increase the jurisdiction of that court. So far from being a bill to establish a Court of Probate, it was, on the contrary, one to abolish the Court of Probate, and to adjoin its jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery. The chief feature of the procedure of this new court was one which had always been held to be a main objection against the Court of Chancery itself, he meant its inability to try matters of fact. These, he thought, were ade quate objections to the bill. The noble lord concluded by regretting that the Lord Chancellor had not incorporated in the Divor ce Bill a clause to abolish the action for criminal conversation, which was a disgrace to the nation. Lord CAMPBELL expressed his dismay at hearir g that any married couple, after a temporary dis agreement or after improper collusion, might obtain a divorce for all practical purposes except marry ig again. With regard to the testamentary juris diction, he hoped that the new court would not be made an adjunct to Chancery, to be thrown into which he knew many persons in the other House of Parliament considered the greatest calamity that could befall a man. With the best intention to support these measures, he felt that the Lord Chancellor " was not exactly in the right course at present." _ Lord BROUGHAM objected to the proposed Testa mentary Bill, bcc.tuse it constituted "a new court under an Equity judge exercising a common-law jurisdiction.' What possible pretext could there be for depriving Sir John Dodson of his functions and giving them to a Vice Chancellor? The LORD CIIANCELLOR explained that he had selected a Vice Chancellor to preside in the New Court, instead of a common-law judge, because one of the Vice-Chancellors was almost always in London, and the common-law judges were absent on circuit. The bills were then read a first time. IMPROVEMENT OF LEGISLATION. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the second report of the Statute-law Commission should be re ferred to a select committee, for the purpose of con• sidering the propositions in that report as to the best means of improving the manner and language of current legislation. His lordship then explained that, with a view to carry into effect the objects con templated, it was proposed to appoint an officer, with a sufficient staff, to attend to all bills referred to him, and report upon the existing state of the law. He would also have to state what the effect of such bills would be on the existing law. Lord CAMPBELL gave the proposal his unqualified approval. The motion was agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS.---TUESDAY. MR. DISRAELI AND LORD PALMERSTON, Mr. DlSRAELl—premising that when, eight years ago, lie had occasion to refer to a guarantee in the Treaty of Vienna by Great Britain to Prussia of her Saxon provinces, Lord Palmerston, then and for se ventee❑ years Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had, in a discussion upon the proceedings that had then taken place at Cracow, contradicted him, affirming that there was no such guarantee ; but which, when the noble lord referred to the treaty, he nevertheless found in that treaty—proceeded to remind the house that on the first night of this session he had referred to a guarantee by France to Austria of her Italian possessions, stating that that guarantee was mentioned in a treaty, and that Lord Palmerston had in the same manner contradicted him. The treaty in question was not in print, but he (Mr. Disraeli) had a moral conviction that he was correct, having had the information from a quarter that could not be mistaken. Assuming the informa tion to be correct, or that he was convinced that it was so, it was impossible, he observed, that in the course which the debate took, touching upon Italian affairs, he could have been silent upon the point. It had not been his intention to impugn the policy which dictated that treaty ; he believed it was con ceived in a wise, temperate, and conservative spirit, which had gained for the Emperor of the French the respect and confidence of Europe : What I did complain of that night, and what I do coin- plain of now—and it is most germane to the question before us—is that if it be a fact that this treaty exists, if the statement I made was a correct statement, then the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers at the same time was conveying to this house, to the country, and to Europe, the impression that they were pursuing a policy quite con trary, and that the course of their general policy was ono entirely adverse, to that which this alleged treaty was in tended to accomplish. (Hear, hear.) That I think is ii?eak;ng to the question, and it concerns the honour of tie house that on this subject there should be a clear understanding. (Hear, hear.) If it be true that while this alleged treaty was in existence we were negotiating treaties with Sardinia, and making representations of a contrary character—that is a question which ought to be