Star. — London, England, 1818-02-07 00:00:00

(Sir M. W. Ridley), bad to tem**, that Committee hid been chosen by ballot it had been the practice of the House to alter the list Honoitrabk Member rising and saying for that he -Ives not there. For•more reasons than name of the Noble Lord (Lord G. Caven- Ls a naree that, it appeared to . him' , most de- co have on the Comm — ittee ; but if he should lately be absent, he did not know that after :et it was for them to nominate another Ho- Member in his place. As to the objection been urged against him (Lord Castlereagh) the Committee, because he was one of his 's Ministers, the disqualification was so broad, tdmitted at all, he did not know that he could •ed to take any further part in the proceed- the present Session. - 111OUGHAM contended, that if the course he Noble Lord judged to be the proper one npred, it might very well so happen that 20 should be balloted, and not one of the 20 per . capable of attending to the business of a me. They might be beyond seas, or, from ircu mstances, physically incapable of doing Ity. In such a case would the House be tied the ballot from naming an efficient Commit- The House, in such a case, would help itself ,uld. To get out of the difficulty it would !course to nomination ; or if this were forbid- their orders, they would determine upon second ballot. The present case went not extent of that which he had imagined, but be ris Noble Friend, the Member for Derby, who _ _ be a most valuable Member of the Committee, lot be present, ought they to have nobody in im ? Sir Arthur Piggot, it was known, had to attend the Committee last year, and no he would decline doing so this. Here then two Members lost to the Committee, and he of know but he might name an Honourable of his near him as a third. If such were the to business of the Committee would be almost the parties themselves who wanted the pretec a Bill of Indemnity. It would be left to the Ley and Solicitor-General, and to the Noble and two other Cabinet Ministers and their who, for aught he knew, might be about to Cabinet Ministers. But the Noble Lord had he were disqualified from sitting on the Com. because be was a Member of the Government, lit, with equal reason, be held to be disquali- din taking a part in the proceedings of that It was not so. In that House his statements )e answered—might be contradicted and re- Very different was the case when he went Secret Committee, and got, as it were, behind nits, and behind the backs of the Evanses and ifs, who were now bringing their actions to whether they should do so, or whether the , shoulp be torn to pieces, and the expenses of ,roceedings, as far as they had yet gone, thrown complaining party? He must therefore re nd that the vacancies which had been pointed inuld be filled up by nomination, which he ,the preferable course, or by ballot. SPEAKER.—May I be pardoned if I ask luestion is at present before the House ? . CASTLEREAGH said his motion was, that =mime should meet to-marrow morning in poker's Chamber. _ _ • WILBERPORCE defended the mode of chaos ;ommittee by ballot. Lists, it was true, were M on the one side, as they had formerly been other. Those, however, who had these lists, :hange the names of any Members they ob o, for those whom they 'considered more eli- He had done this on various occasions. This with the mutual understanding which existed subject, rave the Member an opportunity of any individual he might be pleased toname, the knowledge of any other human being. . it had always appeared necessary that a mu iderstanding was necessary. Without this he make out a list of names, which though very might not occur to any one else, andrin that he should be left unsupported, his power of might be lost. On this occasion he thought able that the Committee should be in a great re fonve,i of persons whose opinions did not y coincide with those of Ministers, and for persons, he for one had been desirous of giving te. SPEAKER stated the practice of erasing one from a Commitsec that had been ballotted for ike room for another, did not appear, from the tals of the House, to have been customary. To is they must jump over a variety of their orders, louse having decided that the Committee should nen by ballot. He had not been able to trace stance of one Member being substituted for where some disqualification had not been In no case had it been done where a Mem ibsented himself from a ballotted Committee ~ h disinclination to attend. CALCRAFT thought, that without contra ig the orders of the House, it might be regular up the places of the persons who it was suppo ntld not attend. He wished to say a word or ith regard to the appointment of a Committee dot. On that method he could safely say, that .luence of Ministers by means of it was g rea s er by any other mode. H e h a d himself a neer upon the appointment of Committees by method. He did not suppose there was any secret in what he was saying, but if there was xld not proceed. (Criesif no, no.) He had been sworn when he was a scrutineer, (hear, hear, a laugh.l There were, upon that occasion, 103 ins Tito had put lists into the glass, and amongst ' there were 97 written in the same hand. Whose it was, or whence the lists came, he would not :me to offer a conjecture, nor would he say any farther on that point, though he had some in tion on the subject ; but the fact was, that there ail the same names in those lists, and all written 'same hand. And if his Hon. Friend had con id for a moment, he was persuaded he would inferred, that the quarter whence they came was ery doubtful He thought some steps might :nly be tak en to supp l y t h e places of those .r; who would not attend, though he should be ist man to propose any Member in place of his • Friend ; for he thought he was one of the best 'ls in that House to become a Member of such a WILBERFORCE explained. If any Mein. l ber, who had a list given him, thought any one was not a s fit person for such a Committee, he might have scratched out the names, without its being even sus pected who made the alteration. Mr. CANNING should not say any thing about the propriety of substituting names in a particular way, after what had fallen from the chair; bet if it were necessary to make any alteration it all in the Committee, there was one thing which he would re commend. He apprehended that the House pos sessed a power of compelling the attendance of its own Members, and he should object to any other proceeding till that had been attempted. Sir W. BURROUGHS said a few words upon the substitution of one Member for another, in connec tion with the opinion given from the Chair. The SPEAKER stated, that in the case to which he had more particularly alluded, where a Member had been declared to be disqualified, the question, came to a vote, and it was finally determined that he was qualified. He would not have been allowed to sit in the Committee had he been declared dis qualified ; but it was the final decision of the House that he was qualified.. Sir WILLIAM BURROUGHS believed that the real object of the Committee was to lay the founda tion for a Bill of Indemnity, and he could not doubt that it would be the sense of the House that there was a personal disqualification against the Noble Lord, being a person supposed incapable of judging of his own personal acts, or against his own personal conduct. The House was, in his opinion, competent to review their ballot, and to settle any thing of a Idoubtful or inconvenient nature that might arise upon it. He did not know whether some of the Orders of the House might be passed over, of jumped over, he believed that WAS the phrase ; but hi hoped he might be allowed to remind them, that the Ordef was— " that this Committee shall consist of 21 Members." tie put the case, if some of the 21 could not attend, would not the vote of the House be defeated? When Sir Arthur Piggott could not attend, on account of the state of his health and of his professional avoca tions, would not the vote of the House be defeated ? The House would -have, of necessity, to supply the place of such Members ; and what had been done by the House last Session upon a similar Committee? Why, a member was added to the original number. —He had it before him, among the vot'es of the House, that the present Solicitor-General had been added to a Committee appointed by ballot. With respect to the power of the House, he would only say, that he believed they could review their own Orders ; and if some Members were to be absent from the Committee, it would not be a Committee of 21, as ordered. He wondered whether Gentle men on the other side happened to know that the Noble Lord, who had been stated to be at a distance from home, was in Lancashire when the ballot was proceeding. He thought that it would be as well if the Committee would postpone their meeting till the attendance of Lord George Cavendish could be pro cured. But if they did not wait till he could be pre sent, he trusted that the House would remedy so very great an abuse of the mode of election by ballot. Sir M. W. RIDLEY begged to assure the House that the absence of Lord George Cavendish was by no means voluntary. It was certainly not his own wish, but a real necessity that compelled his absence on that very important occasion. The question, that the Committee should meet-to morrow, was then carried, as were several others re lative to the business of the Committee : among which were, that seven should be a quorum, and that all secret papers should be referred to the Committee, containing information relative to the State of the Country. Mr. BROGDEN moved, that there should be laid before the House, an account of the number of sur charges on account of the Assessed Taxes, from the sth of February, 1817, to the sth .of February, 1818, inclusive ; and also for the numbers of appeals for the same period.—Ordered. Mr. CURWEN moved for various Accounts of outstanding Exchequer Bills, from the 6th of January, 1817, to the same period in the present year, with the amount of those paid within the said year, Ste.—Ordered. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the Conunitsee of Supply be postponed till Monday.--Agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the House do adjourn till Monday.—Agreed to. -net I.(n a ( ...cr be( n arty H ether tl ;e. the ; s i i ) was :r.blc to artum bal:o; ( gable • had In on ajestY's ,at if a( allowe zs of ti Mr. BI •ere ado les a as be 'omenit; • or cir eir Jut p by th e? T s it COu .ave re 'en by saving o the e ause hi odd b nc .is roan used Jul): h ere tv :id not riend lie, the to tl nt of ; ttorne rd a :ends, •-zome lid, if 1 ittee b e migh ed iron ouse. .uld be ted. to a S. eir bac ':e Cliff • ide ords prod • the ommen t, she ght The S ha qu Lord I , Corn Spea Mr.W a Cc pared the of ght cl .ed to lie 1 gem, the s mg . thou J hint and • .ight n :oiler, , as oting a desira easur. „titel y ••• ch lx h you The •ame o mai ourna .o this e Ho • e choi :h ay ins ;other :Jved. cr ab ' ougl Mr. till g t d wot wit ball - 't inflt b: /11 " og s %rot of be ad a On I ;xle t • nd it rerun , ang f ”matat • Icrre al 7 v the . d:red (cc in ver airl en 'e hsi 1 ;;shle ' Persons 1. I k, PROPOSED INCREASE OF CHURCHES. A Meeting was yesterday held at the . Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen-street, for the purpose of rais ing a Fund to assist in the building of additional Churches and Chapels in the various parishes of the City of London, its vicinity, and throughout the king dom generally. The assembly was composed of a numerous body of the higher classes of society, but particularly of the most distinguished Members of the Church and State. His Grace the Archbishop of Catmints= took the Chair, and explained the ob ject of the Meeting. Among those who took an active part in the pro ceedings of the day, were, the BISHOPS of LONDON , GLOVICAMTBR, CHESTER, and Luau:oar ; his Grace the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND ; Lords SIDMOUTH and SHAFTILSBURY ; Messrs. LONG, WILBERFORCE, GRANT, &c. &c. Nearly the whole Bench of Bishops, and at least 25 Lay Peers were present. It was remarked, that the institution of the So ciety seemed to interfere with the intended bounty of Parliament, which in obedience to the gracious re commendation of the Rzosnr, would, no doubt, do all that was necessary. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, in explanation, said, that while the fullest confidence was placed in the liberality.of Parliament, and its patronage of the object the present Assembly was met to promote, it was certain that in many, if not in every case, the Parliamentary grant, as appropriated to each parish, would be found inefficient for the intended purpose. In many very populous parishes, the inhabitants ge nerally were too needy to afford contribution, while, at the same time, their Churches were incapable of accommodating them at Divine Worship. To supply' ,, this deficiency, the present Society was about to be formed. The Bishop of Loanot, _in recommending the views of the Society, related the fact of a Parish Churchesitnate in the vicinity of the Metropolis, where the population had become so great, that the majo rity of the parishioners had coned to visit the Church, from an absolute want room To add to this in convenience, a sort of *applied beam moldy esta blished within the same parish, but four nags frog► thdhutth, and the inhabitants in consequence, might be.said to have no place of worship whatever. For the assistance of parishes, it was further urged, that in same cases Churches had actually been built, but could not be endowed, from circumstances of poverty. A number of Resolutions, for the purpose of car rying the object of the Meeting into effect, were then passed, and the assembly separated. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 6. WILLIAM AsHroaD O. ABRAHAM THORNTON. APPEAL OF MURDER. (IN CONTINUATION FROM FHB STAR OF YSSTERDAY.) Mr. CIIITTF, as Counsel for the Appellant pro ceeded....-The authority which I shall now cite to your Lordships is Bracion, lib. 3, cap. 18, plat. 136. This work was written in the reign of Henry 111. and the title of the chapter, among other things, contains, " How the prisoner should be brought into the presence of the Justices, and whether the Justices ought to make examination on Wager of Battle or Trial r and fol. 187, after stating how the party is to be taken, the following is laid - down;—" When a person thus taken is to be brought before the Justices, he is not to be biought up with his hands bound, though his legs may be fettered to prevent his es cape ; and if, when brought up, and accused, he con fess the crime, the judgment is manifest; but if he deay and defend the imputed crime, any person ap peals him in lawful words of appeal, he shall have his election, whether he will pits himself on trial, or defend himself by his body." It then goes on to state, my Lord, that it is the duty of the Judges to. see that there is all proper care and caution in the waging of battle, even though the appellee should have neglected to do so for himself ; and to take care that there be no variance in the evidence ; for in stance, that the ,appellant say one thing before the Coroner, and another before the Judges ; but when he is permitted to defend his plea by his body, it is " unless some violent presumption make against him, which does not admit of a proof to the contrary, by means of which he can deny or defend the death, or felony. As it may be, where a man is taken over the dead body with a boody knife ; her it would not be in his power to clear himself. . _ _ LorClELLENsonoucw—How can that be ? If a man were found with the knife in his hand over a body recently dead : if the fact were so, might he not prove that somebody put the knife into his hand, and com manded him to stand there, and that he was dbliged to do so ? Mr. Cntvry.—But by the old law, my Lord, he would be hanged upon the proof of that fact. Mr. Justice Annovr.—Suppose a person found a man dying, with a dagger in his boily, and he took it out with a humane motive to save his life, and that while he was standing over the body the man died, and he was found in that position, surely he might prove his innocence. Mr. Career .-- My Lord, this is certainly altered by Stamford. Mr. Justice Bsvmcv.--He would be bound to ex plain how he came in that situation ; but I apple - bend be could not give that explanation by way of replication to a counter-plea, but he must do it upon AisAl -•-• • Mr. CHITTY then made the hallowing citations il lustrative of the positions he had taken Likewise if a person'shall enter any house at night, and he might have been murdered, or if there hadbmn two or mere there, and they might not have raised a hue and cry, nor received a word from the robbers or others who committed the murder in endeavouring to defend themselves, be shall be allowed to deny the death." The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read ex tracts from Fleta up to the time of Edward I. and 11. cap. 1, p. 47, in which it was set forth, ‘, when such person shall have been taken, he shall not be brought in armour, and if there be any cause for the defence, it shall be in the power of the defendant to put him self upon trial and defend himself by his body, un less there shall be some violent presumption against him, which does not admit proot to the contrary." Lord ELLEKBOROUGIL•DOeS it not mention any instance where proof was shewn to the contrary ? Mr. CHITTY.—Yes, there are instances, my Lord. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Then these, in fut., are co- pies of Bracton ? Mr. CHITTY then went on in support of his argu ments to Briton, cap. 22, in which it was set forth, that many things might destroy the right of battle in every Barony, " for if the appellant be mayhem, or be within the age of 14, or beyond the age of 70, or ordained in holy orders, or a woman, or a man can aid himself by matter of record, then he shall say, • and this I am ready to prove, in any way the Court shall award,' he or she shall not wage battle." Horn's Mirror, page 158, was then cited, and it set forth—" and in case where battle could not be join ed, and there was no witness, the people in personal action used to help themselves by a miracle of GOD in this way."—lf the defendant were a woman, or of 'such a condition that she could not join battle, and the plaintiff had no witnes to prove his suit, then the defendant might clear her credit by the miracle of GoD, or leave the proof to the plaintiff, and in the contrary case, the proof only belonged to the plain tiff'; and there are divers causes to oust the defendant in an appeal of battle ; for it is said, that if an infant in age bringeth an appeal, and the defendant shew eth that he is within age, and— Lord ELLENBOROUGH.--DOeS it not state what age? Mr. CHITTY—No, my Lord ; but it goes on to say, " That the Justices are of opinion that he should be brought to answer the appeal of the appellant, and that the defendant hath lost the advantage to wage battle ; and if a party be indicted for a felony or mar der, he shall not wage battle." Lord Ettsaisoaomu,—llave you the original lan guage? Mr. CHITTY.—.-NO, my Lord, I have not. The next authority to which the Learned Counsel, referred, was Strainsforth's Pleas of the Crown, pub lished in the year 1567, which, in 3d b, c. 13, set forth, " Trial by battle is another trial, which the de fendant, in an appeal of felony, may elect—that is, to tight with the appellant, if he choose." Mr. CHITTY observed, that this was when there was nothing to support the counter-plea of the other party ; for, in the. same author, page 178, it was stated :•••••••" The reason why a man has right of ap peal is thls—Ahat there is no evident or probable mat ter appearing against hini•to proTe him guilty that t hat l felony, but only bare accusation of the plaintiff or pl tintiffs, who are not credible witnesses in their own cause." In the s a me wor k it wa s st a ted, if there be any thing that can serve the plaintiff's presumption, that the testimony and cause he true, he shall oust the defendant of his trial by battle."— Confirmatory of which, observed the Learned Coun sel, Blackstone said in his second Book, That some times presumptions are so strong as not to admit a proof of the contrary." The Learned Counsel, in support of his a ents, cited a variety of qu o t a ti ons from severa l= au thorities, down to the time when the waging of battle ceased to be practised. He then, as we stated, went over the principal points contained in the counter plea, and contended, that from the print of feet, cor responding with those of the Appellee and the de ceased, in the harrowed field, it was to be inferred , that he pursued her. From other marks it was to be supposed that. he had overtaken her—and after hav ing effected his purpose, had taken he r i n hi s arms and thrown her into the pit—for, within several yards of the pit, the print of the feet of only one person was observable,--and blood appeared on the new clover. Mr. Justice BAYLEY...." Yon have stated nothing in the counter-plea from which it is to be inferred that the deceased was thrown into the pit. Nothing appears to shew, that she did not throw herself in, or that she did not tumble in. With respect to the blood, it was not stated whether it was on the clover while the dew was pn the ground. You have nut positively alleged that it displaced the dew." Mr. CHITTY submitted, that in a counterplea they were not bound to attend to those technicalities which were necessary in an indictment. He was proceed ing to comment on the circumstances stated in the counterplea, when Mr. Justice B.k . YLEY said—" You omit a materiil fact. The parties left a house together at twelve o'clock at night, and about three in the morning, were seen at a stile, near Bell-lane, in the direction of the harrowed field." Mr. Cmirtv then proceeded to remark on the cir cumstance of the print of a shoe for the left foot being observable on the sidle of the pit—the Appellee being in the habit of wearing shoes made for the right and left foot. He then argued that the fact of the priso. ner having blood on his clothes when taken, and his admissiqn that he had criminal intercourse with the deceased, afforded nd for a presumption of guilt. As strong a grounct l re said, as was acted on, in the cases he had stated, when wager of battle was refused. It now remained for him to spew, that the replica tion of the Appellee could not be admitted. No case was found on the books where fresh facts were suf. feted to be introduced for the purpose of proving in nocence, after trial had. It was only allowed to an swer the facts on which the presumption of guilt was founded. The replication clearly admitted the cir cumstances on which the presumption of guilt was founded. All the Appellee further said way that these facts bore out his assertion of his innocence, more than they did ours of his guilt. He then stated some circumstances, from which he wished it to be inferred that he could prove an alibi s -and finally in sisted, that his acquittal had completely discharged him from all suspicion. Now, admitting that all the facts stated, relative to the alibi, were perfectly they eo on be brought forward as a de fence on his trial. The counter-plea established a primafocie case, which ought to got° a Jury, before whom the circumstances connected with an might be stated with propriety. We have established a case of strong suspicion, and that is all, that is ne. cessary to avoid the trial by battle. Lord ELLEssonouon.—Do you contend that the mere suspicion is sufficient? Mr. Churn.-1 do, my Lord. Lord ELLIENBOROUGH—You have fallen very much from your former high position, that it ought only to be refused in cases that did not aemit of proof to the contrary. Mr. CHITTY said, he was only bound to maintain that the facts stated in the counterplea afforded strong presumption of guilt.' He begged now to submit, that the very allegation of the appellee, that he was prepared to prove an alibi, by many witnesses,. was sufficient to chew, that in this case trial by battle ought not to be admitted. If he had such witnesses, he should trust to a Jury, and not call for the adop. tion of a mode of trial that ought to be reprobated by every one. With respect to the effect of the aequata, the Act of Henry VII. gave to the Appellant the like advantages as if an acquittal had not taken place.—. —The Act said, that the acquittal should not aka ' the Appellant in any way whatever. And they had seen that the Courts, as in the case of Slaughterford, had admitted appeal, after a verdict of acquittal had been found. In Carstairs and Bailey, 2d Strange, p. 853—in Wilson and Kennedy—a second trial was also granted. The Learned Gentleman then proceed. ed to remark on the account which the Appellee gave, in his replication, of the different hours at which, and the different places, in which he had been seen, from 25 minutes before five on the morn ing of the 27th of 'May, down to half-past five—. and contended, that it was by no means satisfac. tory, when all the circumstances were considered.-- In conclusion, the Learned Gentleman submitted, that the statement contained in the replication was not sufficient to entitle the Appellee to wage battle, and, therefore, he prayed the Court to set the plea aside, and to grant a new trial. Lord ELLaseostouoir, after consulting with the other Judges, intimated that the Court would hear Mr. Tiriom.L, in support of the replication, the first thing to-morrow (this) morning. Thornton, on retiring from the Court, was assailed by the groans and hisses of a great multitude, whom the proceedings had collected together. •The Army of Occupation is a subject of much in terest in all circles. The Three field-marshals, the 97 generals, and the 3,550 commissioned officers, to be dr a wn, not in companies, but each separately and dis tinctly by lot, as is explained by the Scheme of the ' present Lottery, having Three grand Prizes of „mom, with 97 other Capitals, and 3,550 Prizes of varied values, of £lOO, 1:50, &c. &c. which is so ar rgoged, by the desire of adventurers themselves, that nearly 5,000 Tickets, with about 40 Capitals, being's!, the usual numbers of other Prizes, will be all drawn on the 4th March. In addition. Three Blanks will receive 12 Pipes of Port Wiae, and in proportion for Shares. . . $ il t . . 1 il I 1 I I I) 4 A il l 4 11 ft 1 , 1 1 ; I 1 I 1 • i ' t t t • I % 1 i il i 1 , , I ! 1 A , i 1 4, 1 1i . t , 1 1 1 t . ) 1 1 ; I I 1 ; fir 41 . ) 1 1 11 , s . it 1 ' 1 1! 4 , 1 ' It t i LI , „; , II ill i, . 0 1 t v ? i / , ti ill i \ 1 il 0 1,