The House of Commons, 1604-1610. Wallace Notestein

1972 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-406
Author(s):  
James E. Farnell
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons

The Arthur Crawford Scandal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Metelits
Keyword(s):  
Retirement Age ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Government Service ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Modus Operandi ◽  
High Court ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Government ◽  
To Receive

The Arthur Crawford Scandal explores how nineteenth century Bombay tried a British official for corruption. The presidency government persuaded Indians, government officials, to testify against the very person who controlled their career by offering immunity from legal action and career punishment. A criminal conviction of Crawford’s henchman established the modus operandi of a bribery network. Subsequent efforts to intimidate Indian witnesses led to litigation at the high court level, resulting in a political pressure campaign in London based on biased press reports from India. These reports evoked questions in the House of Commons; questions became demands that Indians witnesses against Crawford be fired from government service. The secretary of state for India and the Bombay government negotiated about the fate of the Indian witnesses. At first, the secretary of state accepted the Bombay government’s proposals. But the press campaign against the Indian witnesses eventually led him to order the Government of India, in consultation with the Government of Bombay, to pass a law ordering those officials who paid Crawford willingly, to be fired. Those whom the Bombay government determined to be extorted were not to be fired. Both groups retained immunity from further actions at law. Thus, Bombay won a victory that almost saved its original guarantee of immunity: those who were fired were to receive their salary (along with periodic step increases) until they reached retirement age, at which time they would receive a pension. However, this ‘solution’ did little to overcome the stigma and suffering of the fired officials.

Who Were the Rebels? Dissent in the House of Commons, 1970-1974

1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Franklin ◽  
Alison Baxter ◽  
Margaret Jordan
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons

scholarly journals Canada’s history of failing to provide medical care for Indigenous children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakhshan Kamran
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Current Status ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Canadian Government ◽  
Indigenous Children ◽  
History Of ◽  
Services And Supports

Abstract In December 2007, the House of Commons unanimously supported Jordan’s Principle, a commitment that all First Nations children would receive the health care products, social services, and supports, and education they need, in memory of Jordan River Anderson. However, the process of applying for Jordan’s Principle was convoluted and not transparent, leaving several cases not being responded to. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the definition and implementation of Jordan’s Principle to be racist and discriminatory in 2016, ordering the Canadian government to make immediate changes. Failing to make changes to Jordan’s Principle, the Canadian government was found to be noncompliant with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders in 2018. This article provides one case example of Jordan’s Principle that was not responded to, details on the current status of Jordan’s Principle, and information on the recent implementation of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document