Erroneous convictions. Of Mr. W. H. Barber. (Ireland) Act, has been unnecessarily severe and unconstitutional; In the administration of justice it is unavoidable but that erroneous convictions will sometimes occur, and that circumstances afterwards brought to light will 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. A 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 3,7001., 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 "Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxiv. p. 494. consideration of the government. But the Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) opposed the motion, on the ground that Parliament was not bound 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." of Mr. Bewicke. On April 28, 1863, a petition was presented to the House of Erroneous Commons by Mr. W. Bewicke, representing the loss and injury he conviction had sustained in consequence of having been tried and convicted of 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 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, of Hans. Deb. vol. clxiii. pp. 944952. P Ibid. vol. clxxii. p. 1175; and see Smith's Parl. Rem. 1863, p. 166. Preroga tive in 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 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.a The next branch of the royal prerogative to which our granting attention will be directed is that which regards the sovereign as the fountain of honour. honours. Advice of Parliament thereon. 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 employed, the law has entrusted to the king the sole power of conferring dignities and honours, or otherwise rewarding his faithful servants; 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. 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 Parliament was the road to honorary distinction, there would be an end to all true responsibility; and the favour of private members would be sought after instead of the approbation of the crown." Nevertheless, exceptional cases may arise, and have arisen, to justify the Houses of Parliament in approaching the sovereign with their advice and recommendations in regard to the exercise of this prerogative, and on behalf of meritorious public servants, whose claim to the favour of the crown had been either overlooked or disregarded. Thus, on June 3, 1845, Mr. Hume moved an address to the queen, Precedents that she would be pleased to grant such a pension as she should think proper to the right hon. Sir Henry Pottinger, as a reward for his eminent public services, especially in China. The premier (Sir Robert Peel) deprecated the interference of the House in this matter, and said it was a question whether the House should make a precedent of a special grant, usurping the prerogative of the crown to reward public servants.' Considering, however, the peculiarly exceptional circumstances of the case, he stated that he would not oppose the motion, but would take upon himself to advise her Majesty to make a suitable provision for this distinguished man. Whereupon the resolution was agreed to, nem. con.t And, in 1857, the government having been tardy in recognising the value of the public services of Sir John M'Neil and Colonel Tulloch, upon a commission of enquiry into the state of the army in the Crimea, and having tendered to them an inadequate reward, the House of Commons passed an address, 'praying that some especial mark of approbation might be conferred upon them' by the crown, in consideration of their able services on that occasion. The ministry yielded to the general wish of the House, did not oppose the address, and advised a favourable reply to it." On June 16, 1865, Mr. Hanbury Tracy called the attention of the House to the dissatisfaction prevailing in military circles, in regard to recent appointments to and promotions in the Order of the Bath, upon a motion for a copy of any regulations altering the constitution of the order. After a short debate, and explanations from the prime minister on the subject, the motion was withdrawn.▾ By constitutional usage, it is customary, in the case of Speakers Speakers of the House of Commons, on their final retire- of House ment from the chair, to address the crown to confer upon mons. them some signal mark of royal favour.' This is responded to, on the part of the sovereign, by their elevation to the peerage, and by a message to the House of Commons recommending that pecuniary provision may be made for the support of the dignity." The creation Hans. Deb. vol. lxxx. pp. 1380, 1391, 1394. See also the case of the officers, &c. engaged in the battle of Navarino; where the government were induced to allow them headmoney, at the urgent appeal of the House of Commons. Mirror of Parl. 1834, pp. 2258, 2858. And the case of those engaged in the Chinese war, W which was successfully resisted by u Ibid. vol. cxliv. pp. 2246, 2396. ▾ Rt, hon. C. M. Sutton, Mirror of Peerages. of Peers is a peculiar and incommunicable privilege of the Sovereign, over which Parliament has no control; saving that it must be exercised upon the advice of responsible ministers.* Life Votes of Parlia ment. In 1855, the question of the creation by the crown of peerages for life was elaborately discussed in the House of Lords. It was not contended that the sovereign was debarred from conferring this description of honour upon any of her subjects, but merely that, in conformity to the usage and practice of the constitution, since it has been defined and settled in its best days-namely, from the revolution of 1688 downwards-the patent creating a life peerage did not entitle the recipient thereof to sit and vote in Parliament." This point having been decided by the House of Lords, after an examination of precedents, Lord Wensleydale, who had been created a baron 'for and during the term of his natural life,' did not attempt to take a seat in that House; until shortly afterwards when he was created an hereditary peer. The usage of Parliament also permits of the adoption, Thanks by by either House," of resolutions of thanks to officers of the army or navy and others, who have rendered military service, for meritorious conduct in their official capacity. Various rules have been prescribed by precedent in respect to votes of this description. In the first place, it has been customary that all such motions should emanate from a member of the administration, acting on behalf of the crown, as the source and fountain of honour. This rule has not been without exception, though it is worthy of notice that motions for votes of thanks which have proceeded from private members have rarely been successful. • Votes of thanks should be proposed in both Houses, and with such a concurrence of opinion that there could be no doubt of their being unanimously passed.' Rt. hon. B. Disraeli, Hans. Deb. vol. cxlix. p. 252. Parl. Hist. vol. xxxiii. p. 3. Hans. Deb. vol. cxlix. p. 255. |