The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

A motion brought forward by Mr. Jervis, with-a view
of obtaining for the executor compensation for therloeses
sustained by Robert William Powell, an uncompensated
American loyalist, in consequence of his adherence to his
allegiance. was negatived without a division.
Mr. F. KELLY then moved for leave to bring in-a bill
to provide an appeal in criminal cases.. The hon. and
learned gentleman dwelt strongly upon the anomaly that
in civil cases an appeal was allowed, while in criminal
cases, which involved loss of life itself, there was no ap-
peal whatever from the decision of a singlejudgeandjury.
`The plan he suggested was to assimilate the practice in
civil cases by giving the prisoner on his conviction power
to move for a rule to show cause why the verdict should
mot be aside and a new trial had, or why a verdict of " not
guilty" should not be entered in the room of the verdict
of " guilty." He would also give power to move to arrest
sentence by bill of exceptions or writ of error; but, as a
guard against frivolous objections, he would leave it in

•
the discretion of the judge to pass and execute sentence
where he thought proper to do so, taking it for granted
that where the grounds of such arrest were not frivolous
the;judge would respite the sentence.
Mr. GODSON seconded the motion.

Sir.J. GRAHAM would not resist the motion for bring-
ing in the bill, but its policy was so far doubtful es to call
upon the house to be very cautious in deciding upon its
adoption.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
In reply to a question from Sir W. JAMES, Sir J. GRA-
HAM said that Government had not the slightest intention
of not proceeding with the Poor-law Amendment Bill
during •the present session.
On the motion of Sir J. Graham a select committee was
appointed to consider the report of the commission for in-
quiring into the execution of the contracts for certain
union workhouses in Ireland.
On the motion for bringing up the report of the com-
mittee of supply,
Mr. RoEstic.K proceeded to bring under the considera-
tion of the house the state of the government of Canada,
and charged Lord Sydenham and his council with seek-
ing, by a fraudulent division of the counties in that colo-
ny, to obtain a representation favourable to their own
views and wishes, rather than a fair representation of the
people. The hon. and learned gentleman contended that
there had been for some time no responsible Government
in Canada, and that one could not be formed upon the
principle acted upon by the present Governor and his
predecessor.
Lord STANLEY defended Sir Charles Metcalfe, who
could act no otherwise than reject a proposition that he
should resign the whole patronage of the Crown into the
hands of the Executive Council. The responsible go7ern-
ment sought for in Canada was that the whole functions
of the Government should be vested in the representative
body, which was so utterly incompatible with the monarchy
that it could not be entertained. What he understood by
a responsible colonial government was a government
through a representative assembly by the heads of depart-
ments, responsible to the Governor-General, who was
responsible to the Government at home. He could not
understand by the term " responsible government," that
the Governor should be merely the instrument of the ex-
ecutive acting for the dominant party in the province.
Sir C. Metcalfe refused to be such an instrument, and
also refused to sacrifice the prerogatives of the Crown at
the mere demand of the Executive Council, and the only
error he had committed was in privately discussing the
matter with the parties—thus affording them an opportu-
nity for misrepresentation, which ultimately compelled
him to reply publicly to them in self-defence. The noble
lord concluded an able speech byan intimation that Canada
must not expect at one and the same time to erect herself
into an independent republic, and retain all the advantages
she at present derived from her connection with the mo-
ther country.
Mr. HOME vouched for the correctness of the state-
ments made by Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. C. BULLER vindicated at considerable length, the
conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe.

Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that the subject was

prematurely brought under the consideration of the house,
and defended the course pursued by Lord Sydenham and
Sir C. Metcalfe.
After a few observations from Mr. TRELAWNEY,
Sir R. PEEL said that he felt it unnecessary to say any-
thing on the question before the house, after the able
speech of Lord Stanley, in every word of which he con-

curred ; but he could not reconcile it to his feelings to
allow the debate to close without bearing his testimony to
the character and conduct of that distinguished man Sir
C. Metcalfe, who was entitled to the entire confidence
and fullest support of the Government, although he was
personally unknown to any one of its members.
The report of supply was then brought up, and the
house adjourned soon after.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY.

In the discussion in committee on the Factories Bill,
the Earl of WINCIIELSEA regretted that the labour of
children was not limited to ten hours ; while, on the other
band, Lord BROUGHAM condemned the bill altogether,
and after commenting in a tone of sarcastic ridicule on
some of its provisions, declared he had not patience to
discuss them, and flung the bill on the table, and resumed
his seat in a manner which elicited much laughter from all
parts of the house.
Lord KINNAIRD moved the omission of the 32 clause,
limiting the hours of labour of young persons to twelve.
Their lordships, after some discussion, divided, and
the motion was rejected by a majority of 48 to 21.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the house
resumed, the report was brought up, and the bill was or-
dered to be read a third time on Monday next.
The Customs Duties Bill went through committee.
Some other bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

On the order of the day for the committal of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts Bill, _

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in a very amusing speech, moved
—" That it be an instruction to the committee to abolish
all ecclesiastical courts. and to transfer the jurisdiction
of those courts to civil tribunals."
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Dr. NICHOLL advocated the retention of the courts in
the modified shape proposed by the bill, and denied that
he had any personal interest in the passing of the bill.
Sir G. GREY said that, seeing those courts were to be
not reformed but re-constructed and perpetuated, he
would support the amendment of Mr. Duncombe.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it requisite that the
testamentary and other jurisdictions of the ecclesiastical
courts should be retained, and if there were any defects
in the bill they might be remedied in committee.
The house divided, and Mr. Duncombe's amendment
was negatived by a majority of 135 to 70.
Mr. BORTH WICK contended that they ought to have
obtained the sanction of the church to a well-digested
reform of the ecclesiastical courts, and, not having done
so, he opposed the motion that the Speaker should leave
the chair. On a division, however, he was defeated by a
majority of 62 to 25, and the house went into committee.
On the first cause, Sir G. GREY proposed an amend-
ment, to the effect of abolishing the criminal jurisdiction
of the ecclesiastical courts. _ _ .

Dr. NicuoLL had no objection to abolish all that was
vexatious in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but thought it ad-
visable to retain the power of restraining brawling in
churches, and also that of ecclesiastical admonition.
The committee divided, and the amendment of Sir G.
Grey was negatived by a majority of 62 to 44.
Sir G. GREY then moved an amendment to the effect
that cases of brawling in churches should be decided by a
civil tribunal.

This led to a second discussion, in which it was con-
tended by Mr. WATsoN, Mr. ROEBUCK, and other hon.
members, that there was no case of offence or disturbance
to a congregation which might not be punished by the
common as well as by the ecclesiastical law.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought this at least ques-
tionable. After a desultory discussion of some length,
Sir R. PEEL said he could conceive many cases in which
the courts of law could not interfere, and instanced the
case of a Quaker who rose to speak in the House of Com-
mons with his hat on. The Speaker interfered and com-
pelled him to remove it. He did not know that in such
a case as that any court of common law could interfere to
punish the party so offending.
The committee, after a few words from Sir G. GREY,
divided, and his amendment was negatived by a majority
of 109 to 61.

Sir G. GREY then moved, as en amendment, that the
jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts in church rates shall be
abolished.
Dr. NIcUoLL opposed the amendment.
The committee again divided, and the amendment was
defeated by a majority of 107 to 66.
Another division took place upon an amendment of Mr.
C. BULLER, to transfer the testamentary jurisdiction to
the common law courts, the amendment was negatived by
a majority of 121 to 58.
The Cues RAI A N reported progress, and the other orders
of the day were then disposed of.