The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

the right at their use. whom-rm"! stance.' "new ' one no such 4 I hold them by worme- of 600 or of " to con for, smut exceptional rem- _ 8 4 one Tithe hon. gentleman hosed foul- edy is n Question which must in each til-easing a. jury oompooed- of such men case involve matter ot policy and dis- . as the Ctteterervat1vesi who opposed him oration fit for debate and decision in (Mr. Rose) in. West Mlddlesex. and he the Parliament which would have Jur- venttu-ed to assert that nowhere would is-diction to deal with the matter by 'he obtain a verdict upon the case he preliminary Jurisdiction, and as MS Presented. to which a court of ordinary T _ municipal law is not commissioned Not ex Post 1Pacto. to inquire or adiudieate." ffitJ,"i'itl V I There is an instance of retroaet ve ew- ,gih'ift"tgt2egatttgpttt,tttt, te, 3 islation or a vindication of reasonable ' l e t i at the biil 1 retrospective legislation. According to I IU/S, f,ht,"l aoto egislatlon ' it tte l the reports, the tlrtst time a case of de- re new ve n a. certain sense, but I claratory legislation at all correspond- Wily partially m. . It it, not a. bill for I ing to the legislation now proposed was settim aside the law as " Wtut, but It introduced in the House of Commons " a. bill for appealing from a. technical in England in 1788, during the govern- tSecitriott to the 1reaple. who were the ment of the flrst Pitt. A bill relating court of Appeal in the ttrot place; that to the East India Company was intro- ls what the bill proposes For instance. duced by Mr. Scott. afterwards Lord it by a. technicality a candidate is un- f Eldon. declaratory of the intention of sea-ted he is not deprived of an oppor l the East India act, passed four years turnity of ccnttesting the election min. l, before. The Government claimed the it is not retrospective EO for as depriv- l right under the act to Send troops to lug him at his rights as to being a. can- I India at the expense of the East India , didnte. but as to the claim that is not Company. This the company refused. , well founded. from what is well known i and legal opinion differed as to the lia- NY? assumed to be the law of the land I nility of the company. The act was in-. "'dtd the practice of the electors of this troduced to remove doubts, Lord El- country for the last 50 years. don in answering ob.fect'rns said _ Chief Justice Chase of . the 1 "Among other observations it had been Supreme Court of the United States said that the House. when desired to held that a law "is not obnoxious to the pass a. declaratory law were called "ill- l-aws against ex post tucto legislation on to exercise a Judicial function. The which changes the punishment by mlti- fact wiu, so undoubtedly. When par- gating it, or which changes the prac- liament pronounced and declared the uce in criminal cases, still preserving meaning and construction of 1.aws al- to the defendant his substantial rights. ready m existence it acted in a Judir. or which takes from him the privilege ial capacity a capacity in which. as it of mere technical objections." There has been "In", contended, Parliament is a case on all forms with the present ought not to act except only when the instance: the bill merely took away necessity of the case was unquestioned Itechnical objections. (Cheers.) I 'and of sumcient magnitude to justify ' Mr. Whitney-And his seat. 3 so extraordinary an interposition or Hon. Mr. Itorn--And his seat. which. faaiiitiilt It had also been urged he seeks to obtain by technical ohjec- I that nothing short of an obvious am- . "tions. (Cheers) That is not ex post blguiiy of phrase in an act of Pavlla- 1m to legislation. In the case of Phillips I ment or somc'clashing Judicial decisions v. Eyre before seven Judges of the Ex- of the courts did form a at ground for Thequer Court of England Justice Wills parlid'nent to pass a declaratory law. delivered Judgment, and in speaking ot Ty at an obvious ambiguity ot phrase in tetroatetive legislation said :__..It was the wording of an act of Parliament further objected that the colonial law might call for and "any a declaratory was contrary to natural Justice as be- law was certain but he saw no (ca- ing retrospective in its character and Bon where doubts led to serious incorr. tturing away a right of action once venienccs and inconveniences mater- vested, and that for this reason, like a tall "diru'rtiiii"r' the public had existed, foreign law against natural Justice, it that Parliament should wait till two could have no extra territorial force. ciashin judicial decisions should hare Retrospective laws are no doubt prime taken u"fl'f', tCheers.) That was rule of questionable policy. and cou- what the Government had done in this trary to the general principle that leg- tmse--they did not wait for clashing i lslatinn by which the conduct of msn- iiiiiisioifsi (Renewed cheers.) Mr. kind is to be regulated ought. when l Ros; continued. quoting from Lord El- I troduced for the first time. to deal with I (don :-"rn that case one of the men I future tu'ttr, and ought not to change (upon whom one of the coItst,y:ilo,y'l, the character of past tmtions car- Ihad operated must ff, down _s1t.t,) if" 7 tried on upon the faith of then existing Jury, and with the a ditional moi-um:- ', law. . . . Accordingly the court will tion ot afterwards knowing that l 'r not ascribe retrospective forte to new I law was with him at the'time ', tor, lr, laws affecting rights. unless by express i deed, great injury might arise lwcftim: words or necessary implication it ap- two Judicial decisions could be obit? n. Deam that such was the intention if the I ed." If Lord Eldon had irive',1 Il (e i" Leelslature. But to amrm that it is _ once to those words in 1898 2't1?syVl.r.i naturally or necessarily unjust to take 1798 he could not more accurate" liter 1 away a. vested right of action by act I scribe the condition of affairs. said t s' subsequent in inconsistent both with' Ross, and the Government supper er the common law of En land and the cheered the remark. d rn constant practice of legislation. After one of the (wontestants is tfl'; (CheersJ . . . Indeed, it would nu a continued Mr. Ross, he {I long chapter in history to enumerate that the law' that put I'.' all the instances on retroactive logisla- down Was not the law at 'Ill; tion. . . . . Whether the circum- He must wait for the decision of t e court, the decision of the higher court. Ir----------------------------,