Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

thanks.

tary service on that occasion, with courage and self- Votes of devotion. Thanks were also voted, on December 15, 1854, to General Canrobert and the French army, for their gallant and successful co-operation with her Majesty's land forces' in the Crimean campaign; and Field-Marshal Lord Raglan was desired to convey to them the resolution. Votes of thanks should be founded on official papers, announcing the completion of the service for which the thanks are to be given."

It is usual to await the conclusion of operations before voting thanks in Parliament; and not to propose them after a brilliant exploit, which has left the operations or the victory incomplete." And they are only voted for successes, and could not therefore be given to General Williams for his gallant defence of Kars, as that fortress was ultimately surrendered.”

It has not been customary to give the thanks of Parliament for victories, however brilliant, meritorious, or complete, unless they took place against a power with whom Great Britain was, at the time, in a state of formal recognised war. Of late years, however, and especially in the case of military operations in India, this has not been insisted upon. In proposing thanks for successes in India, it has been the uniform practice to confine the expression of the same to the military operations and arrangements, keeping out of view the question of the policy and origin of the war, for which the government are alone responsible.

Votes of thanks are always confined to the survivors; there is no precedent of resolutions of approval being adopted in regard to the conduct of deceased officers, of whatsoever rank or merit. In 1854, however, a general resolution of appreciation, sympathy, and condolence,

y Hans. D. v. 148, p. 827.

■ Ib. v. 192, p. 925.

Peel, Hans. D. v. 71, p. 553.
Hans. D. v. 141, pp. 1847, 1878.

• Mir. Parl. 1828, p. 189.

d Hans. D. v. 72, pp. 542, 571. Mir. Parl. 1840, p. 801. Hans. D. v. 66, p. 206.

f

Peel, in Hans. D. v. 84, p. 421.

Of Mr. W.

H. Barber.

prove that an innocent person has been unfortunately condemned. While the government are bound to afford every facility to enable one who has thus unjustly suffered to re-establish his innocence, the principle has never been acknowledged that such persons are entitled to claim pecuniary compensation, either from the government or from Parliament."

In 1858, however, a case occurred of extraordinary hardship. In the year 1843, Mr. W. H. Barber was convicted of forgery, and transported to Norfolk Island, where, it appears, he was subjected to peculiar indignities by the authorities. It was afterwards proved that he was wholly innocent of the charges brought against him, and he was released. He then petitioned the House of Commons, setting forth his sufferings, and soliciting redress. On June 15, 1858, with the consent of the crown, this petition was referred to a select committee, to consider and report whether any, and what steps should be taken in reference thereto.' The committee unanimously agreed that every allegation in the petition was true, and that Mr. Barber had endured incredible hardships and persecutions, which entitled him to the favourable consideration of the government. Whereupon a sum of 5,000l. was included in the estimates as a compensation to this gentleman. Shortly afterwards, a change of ministry ensued; but the new administration retained this item in the estimates, in deference to the judgment of their predecessors in office, and the money was voted by Parliament. This amount, however, did not satisfy Mr. Barber. He considered himself entitled to a further sum of 3,7007., to indemnify him for his personal expenses in proving his innocence before the courts of law, and in regaining his original position. Accordingly, on June 11, 1861, the member who formerly introduced the matter to the notice of the House of Commons submitted another motion, to declare that the strong claims of Mr. Barber to the favourable consideration of the crown, referred to in the aforesaid report of the committee in 1858, have not been satisfied; and that the circumstances set forth in a recent petition from himself to the House of Commons are entitled to the consideration of the government. But the home secretary (Sir George Grey) opposed the motion, on the ground that Parliament was not bound

P Case of J. Bell, Hans. D. v. 198,
p. 1294. But see
case of S. G.
Merrett, Ib. v. 234, p. 1308. And
in 1881, W. Galley, who forty years
before had been convicted and trans-
ported for murder, of which it was

afterwards proved that he was innocent, and in respect of which he had received the royal pardon, was granted 1,000l. as compensation. Lond. Guard. Sept. 21, 1881, p. 1315.

to award pecuniary compensation to persons who had been improperly convicted; and that it was only the exceptional circumstances of Mr. Barber's case which had induced the government to consent to the grant already made to him, and which was sufficient to cover every reasonable demand he had against the public. The question was accordingly negatived.¶

conviction

of Mr.

On April 28, 1863, a petition was presented to the House of .Erroneous Commons by Mr. W. Bewicke, representing the loss and injury he had sustained in consequence of having been tried and convicted of Bewicke. firing a loaded pistol at four sheriff's officers, with intent to kill or do bodily harm, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. His accusers were afterwards found guilty of having conspired falsely to charge Mr. Bewicke with the crime; whereupon he received the Queen's pardon. But meanwhile his property had become forfeited, as that of a felon, and had been sold by auction. The net produce of the sale was afterwards paid over to him, but Mr. Bewicke's loss on the property had been very considerable, and he had also been at great expense in prosecuting and bringing to justice his false accusers. He therefore prayed the House to grant him relief and compensation. On July 21, Mr. H. Berkeley moved, that in the opinion of the House, the grievances suffered by Mr. Bewicke are such as entitle him to the consideration of government. The home secretary (Sir George Grey) opposed the motion. He admitted that it was a case deserving of commiseration, but the law provided no means of indemnity, and it would be an injurious precedent to vote compensation from the public purse. On division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two." On April 29, 1864, Mr. Berkeley moved for a committee to consider of an address to the Queen, praying her to direct adequate compensation to be made to Mr. Bewicke for his sufferings and losses, and declaring that the House would make good the same. The home secretary and attorney-general resisted the motion, but expressed the willingness of government to agree to the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the special circumstances of the case, and as to whether Mr. Bewicke sustained much loss by the sale of his property at auction. After a division, in favour of the main motion, a committee of enquiry into the allegations of the petition presented in 1863 was appointed. On June 17, the committee reported their opinion that Mr. Bewicke was not entitled to any compensation, having failed to prove that there had been a miscarriage of justice in his case, through the default of the persons charged with the administration of the law. They also declared their inability to accede to the proposition, that persons

Hans. D. v. 163, pp. 944–952. Law Mag. N. S. v. 13, p. 213.

Ib. v. 172, p. 1175; and see
Smith's Parl. Rem. 1863, p. 166.

who have been convicted in due course of law by evidence subsequently proved to be false are entitled to compensation out of the public purse. But in view of the loss sustained by the sale of his property, under forfeiture, they ventured to suggest, for the favourable consideration of the crown, whether the full value of such property at the time of forfeiture should not be restored to Mr. Bewicke, minus the net produce of the sale already paid over to him.s

Com. Pap. 1864, v. 5, p. 547.

CHAPTER XIII.

ROYAL PREROGATIVE IN GRANTING HONOURS AND

REWARDS.

tive in

THE next branch of the royal prerogative to which our Perogaattention will be directed is that which regards the granting sovereign as the fountain of honour.

Presuming that none can judge so well of the merits. and services of the subjects of the realm as the crown. itself, by whom they are governed or employed, the constitution has entrusted to the sovereign the sole power of conferring dignities, honours, and titular distinctions upon his people; in confidence that he will make use of the same in behalf of none but those who deserve distinction or reward." But this prerogative, like every other function of royalty, is exercised upon the advice of responsible ministers.

It is a constitutional principle of great importance that all honours should be bestowed by the spontaneous action of the crown, and not necessarily at the instigation of ministers; such advice, however, may be tendered by way of suggestion to the sovereign through the prime minister. No interference with this prerogative by either House of Parliament should ordinarily take place, for the obvious reason that, if it were understood that the goodwill and recommendation of Parlia

a Act 34 & 35 Vict. c. 53. Bowyer, Const. Law, p. 174. Petersdorff, New Abdt. v. 6, p. 535.

Earl Grey, Hans. D. v. 192, p. 1813. Mr. Gladstone, Ib. v. 193, p.

1835. Mr. Disraeli, Ib. v. 223, p.
975. Martin, Life of P. Consort, v.
3, p. 478. Torrens, Life of Ld. Mel-
bourne, v. 2, p. 169. Welln. Desp.
3rd S. v. 7, pp. 180, 366.

honours.

« AnteriorContinuar »