The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-05-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDND3DAY.

Mr. Butt, in moving the second reading of the New
Trials in Criminal Cases Bill, the principle of which,
he observed, had been attire ad by, the House is 1858,
explained,the present state of the law upon the subject,
and the grounds upon which the alteration he pro-
ffoced should be adopted,—naluely, to abolish the
distinction, as regards new trials, between felony and
misdemeanour, and to enable the Court of Queen's
Bench to send the writ of certiorari to any court of
of criminal jurisdiction in the kingdom, in order that
the verdict may be reviewed. He referred to cases
which showed the necessity of this change of the law
for the correction of errors, anticipating yid replying to
objections.
Sir. G. C. Lewis observed that • Bill, substantially
tho same as the present, underwent a very full dis-
cussion last Session, and the result was that the Bill
was rejected without • division. The object was to
give a one-sided appeal in i•-ses of trooooa.to.l felony,
In favour of the prisoner, the effect of which, in his
opinion, would be to diminish the feeling of forbearance
towards prisoners which distinguished our criminal
administration. No real ereviauco caistetl, anti, unless
a very strong as.. could be made out for departing from
a rule which prevailed in almost all civilised countries,
It seemed to him that it was most inexpedient to give
the Bill a second reading. lie puinteti out evils likely
to follow the change proposed, which would cause, he
said, • complete revolution in our system of criminal
procedure, and moved to defer the second reading for
six months.

--After -;:use remarks by Mr. 111111.alion, and a short
reply by Mr. Butt, the ainendment was agreed to; an
the Bill is lost.

The House then wont into Committee on the
innoyancie Jurors (Westminster) Bill, the clauses of
which were agreed to, with amendments.
Mr. Paull moved the second reading if the Piers and
Harbours Bill. It had been framed, he said, in accor-
dance with the opinion of • select Ctianni:tee, and with
the evidence of witnesses examined by them, and the
principle of the Bill, as well as most of the details, hod
been already sanctioned by the House He gave an out.
line of the object and provisions of the measure, which,
instead of being obligatory, as former Bills, was per-
missive only.
Mr. M. Gibson, on the part of the Government, did
not object to the around reading of the Bill, reserving
his opinion as to matters of detail. The Bill imposed
aew duties open the Board of Trade, and it was for the
House to consider whether it was prepared to grant the
the necessary powers. The details required to be con-
sidered with great care.
Mr. Henley and Sir. L. Palk supported the second
reading, which after some objections by Mr. Buchanan,
was agreed to.
The Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.

Other Balls were forwarded, ani after some further
business the House adjourned at 5 minutes put
3 o'clock.

THUltallAY2

Mr. McEvoy male a complaint that p had been called
to order by the Chairman of a Conunißee for being in
the room, he not being member of the Committee,
contending that, by the rules of the House, he was
entitled to be pnment.
Mr. Bagwell. the Chairman of the Committee, en•
pleated thin cireumstanoes, and his reasons for believing
that the hon, member was not entitled to be present
when the Committee were in deliberation.

A short conversation ensued, in which a doubt was
su whether the Committee were at the time in
deliberation
ion or examining a wittier.

THE- BUDGET.

Mr. Du Cane resumed the debate, and said he should
not confine himself to the constitutional question,
which was still an open one, but be should discuss the
the principal issue raised by dm Bill,—uainely, the
main scope and policy of the Budget itself. He would
cot dispute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
In possession of • surplus, and that the Estimates had
been trained upon a sound basis; the question than
was how the surplus should be disposed of. The real
Issue was, not whether direct &nil indirect taxation
should be placed upon the same footing, but whether
taxes imposed tor exceptional imposes of war should be
retained, or, in the iuteresta of one class alone, an estab-
lished and increasing source of revenue should be
abolished.
W. Hentheote observed that most of the
objections to the second rending of the Bill involved
the relations of that House and the House of Lords,
and be was of opinion—in which Mr. Walpole coincided
—that there was nothing unconstitutional in the form
of the Bill, and that it did not interfere with the
privileges of the Lords.
The Chancellor .of the Exchequer furnished the
desired explanations, and, passing by matters of personal
controversy, proceeded to discuss the constitutional
question and the subject of "tacking/' replying to the
argument of Mr. Macdonough, who, he said, had been
misled by an old CM in 1576, overlooking modern cases
establishing the practice of Parliament. He referred
to • great variety of precedents, showing the power of
combination of different provisions in the same financial
measure exercised by the Howe of Commons to a wider
extent than in the present Bill. The practice, lie
observed, was not only justified by precedent, but by
reason and convenience, the several matters in the Bill,
essentially homogeneous, bang items of one and the
same account. .

Mr. Herman Wil he was not prepared to blame the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the course he had
adopted; but in his argument ho had narrowed the
issue to one of precedent. It was not, however, so
much • question of precedent as of principle and policy.
There was a motive in the proceeding, a predetermined
necessity to limit the pretensions of the other House;
the form adopted was chossen in order to correct some-
thing that was amiss. But while correcting the past
and providing for the future, they were indirectly re-
versing the judgment of the House of Peers, and in
reality passing a censure upon its proceedings.
Mr. Puller dissented from the sentiments expressed
by Mr. Horatian, who, he said, lied endeavoured to
stir up the embers of discord, and claimed for the House
of Lords larger privileges than they contended for.
That House had, in his opinion, last year, encroached
upon the privileges of the Commons; but this was the
fault of the Commons in sending up the measure repeal-
ing the Paper Duty as • aspirate Bill ; and, now, when
Lb. question again arose, the Government had pro-
perly intluded the whole financial scheme in one
BM.

Mr. Mellor protested against the doctrines laid down
by Mr. Norman as to the functions of the House of
Lords aad its relation to the House of Commons, and
particularly that the former was entitled to sit as •
court to. review over the latter.

propounded by the
Chancellor ot the Exchequer was correct. that Use
House of Lords had no right to have any voice in
matters ot taxation, the sooner they came to the con-
clusion not to send money Hills to that Hoeft the
better. The power of tha Upper Home to reject
• ntsmay All was conended ; then what waa justil -Wien

for departing from the course taker. last year, when the
Paper Duty lb. peal Bill was ct up as a separate
measure, especillY when there was no reason to
aoticipate Ps rejection ? lie did not, however, oppose
the second reading of the Mil.
Mr. Whalley spoke shortly in support of the Bill.
Mr. Locke considered that the whole country was
agreed upon the question of the Paper: Duty. His con-
stituents had told him they were in favour of the
Budget. The constitntional question, he thought. had
Len settled by the siicedi of Sir J. Graham, and that
the right course was to send up the Bill as it was.
Mr. W. E. Duneombe, upon financial and constitu-
tional grounds, condemned the proposal of the Govern-
ment, the object of which was. he mid, to obtain the.
sismilittinhoerm.tto.mnbecorn!on.rvililliarining
ted tlirlioulte upon the
MICK:CFR which had attended discussion of the different
questions raised in this debate. Thera was no dispute
now RS to the existence of a surplus; the House had
acluiesced in the expediency of abolishing the Paper
Duty, and also in the arrangement of the matters to be
sent up to the House of Lords. Some new questions
had been started by Sr 8. Northvale and Mr. Herman,
and upon these questions he bestowed a few playful
remarks.

.-...-._
Mr. Disraeli arraigned the financial policy of the Go-
vernment, who, he said, had created an artifieial anodes
in order that Oicy might perpetrate a financial caprice.
On the part of the Opposition, he said, they hail not
11.ented to the policy of the Gimrninent, and would
hold theisisolves at liberty to take any -.ammo with refer-
ence to the Bill whit', they should deem beneficial to
the country.
Th.: Bill was then read a sceond time.
After some further business the House adjourned r.t
20 minute, to 1 o'clock.