The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-03-27 00:00:00

STA'r -- _ who told them that religion was part and parcel of the law of England. He would call upon legislators to define explicitly what blasphemy was, in order that it might be understood by the community at large.—(Hear, hear.) The proceedings now carried on against persons who questioned the divine origin of the Chris tian religion, were in the same spirit which they had for wily been carried.on by Roman Catholics against per stins who denied the real presence in the Eucharist. — But those who instituted such prosecutions ought to eset tend a charitable interpretation to the conduct of their fellow-creatures. He would desire them to look into the New Testament, and say in what part of it did the great Founder of the Christian religion warrant the least per secution towards these who held different opinions upon religious subjects? When our Savtoua was called upon to bring down fire from Heaven to destroy unbelievers, he rebuked the persons who urged his wrath, saying, " you know not what you do." The prosecutors, in the present case, englat.to fullow this Divine example„ and show themselves guided by his p rece p ts. The petitioner had been found guilty of p u blishing the mere transcript, of a work, which had originally made its appearance in America. (Here some of the Members on the Ministe rial Benches smiled.) Gentlemen might smile, but he assured them they would do well to follow some laws that were now in force in America, s little as th ey might be disposed to think of any thing in that country. The lion. Member then referred to an Act of the Legislature of Virginia, protecting persons from molestation in per , son or property in consequence of their religious opi nions and creeds. He contended that we were depart-, init., and had departed from those sound principles la which, as Christians, we ought to act. %Ve ourselves had claimed and vindicated the right of asserting our reli gious opinions in opposition to the See of Rome; surely. then, we ought to extend the same indugence to others in similar cases. If he bad been one of the Jury to try the petitioner, he would have never taken the ipse dizit of a Jude upon such a question. Sir 'Matthew Hale seas the on':. authority noon which that ipse di.ri't was founded ; an authority of no great weight, when it was considered that that was the foamed Judge who had sentenced so many to the stake for the crime of witch craft —(llear, hear.) He would say that people ou ght _ to receive, with great cautio n, an y o p inion founded on the opinion of such a man. The interpretation of blas phemy varied in every age, according to power and in tim nee. The petitioner on the 15th Sept. IS2I, was sen tenced to one year's imprisonment in Dorchester gaol, Ruda fine of:Alet. After the expiration of such a sentence, she was to give security, herself in 1,0001. and two others in 100/. each. Site's a sentence was obviously at variance with the law of the land, which laid down that the subjects of the realm were not to be called upon for excessive tines and securities, as was the case in the reign of James 41. The petitioner had made an atillavit before M. Moreton Pitt, an Honoureble Member of that !loose, stating that she was possessed of noihing hut a small quantity of wearing apparel, and a little furniture for one room, with a few hooks. That affidavit be (Mr. Wine). now held in his hand. He would ask then, if this sentence was not such a one as James 11. bad been accused of sanctioning, and which William 1 11. did away with, by the first act of his reign. which provided that the people of England should not be required to give bail beyond their meant , . The House would recollect that the Bishop of Cloglier bad only been required to give bail to the amount of 1.0001., and the Magistrate jus *tried himself for demanding so small a sum, upon the ground that the law did not a.tberise him to call for ex cessive buil. Why then was such enormous bail required from Mary Anne Carlile ? The sentence upon her a mounted to perpetual imp risonment. On the Ist of November 1132•2, she presented a petition to his Majesty's Government, stating that the term of her imprisonment had expired, and praying that her case might be taken it-to torsi leration, as she was unable to pay the fine.- - The answer, howeyer, she received was, that the Govern ment did not deem it expedient to recommend her case to his Majesty. It was quite clear that she was now de tained imprison contrary to the Statute of William and Mary, and was the victim of oppression for the publish ing what was mere l y matter of opinion. He called upon his Majesty's Ministers, as administrators of Christian justice, to recollect that their anceetors.bad to struggle with persecution, and to act with clemency to wards the petitioner. The Hon. Member concluded, by moving for leave to bring up the petition. the Petition was read through by the Clerk, and on the motion that it do lie on the table, Sir T. ACLAND rose, and observed that he knew of no situation more painful than to feel himself called upon to maintain severity of punishment, even in any stion case however aggravated. But that was not the que w hi c h he had to consider ; for if a petition to the Crown were agreed to in the present instance, he . should take, no part in it as being a Member of that Society, which bad been visited with the reprehension of the lion. Gentle man who had brought forward this subject. He should therefore hold himself of all others the least competent to interfere in the case of an individual who had been brought to punishment by his agency, either directly or indirectly. Yet he would be one of the first to hail with pleasure the first hope of returning peuitenceon the part of one who bad already suffered so much, and was likely to suffer more, from her inadequacy to pay the fine im posed upon her. If he could see any such hope he would gladly blether the object of the petition. He would not now advert to many of the topics which the Hon. Mem ber had introduced to his speech, because he deprecated the principle of mixing up with the matter of a petition, topics that were reserved for discussion at another pe riod. This was an ti c ipating the debate which of the Hon. must come an in consequence of a previous motion Member, relating to the law of blasphemy. lie (Sir T. Acland) would consider that lie did not properly die. charge his duty, if be were to take that debate on the present occasion. The business of the Society, of which he was a Member, was to denounce to the laws, offences which outrht not to be neglected with impunity—( ll ear , hear.) harther than this, the Society were not respuo sible, and if it could be shown that there /rum° error, injustice, or oppression on their part, they ought not to be visited with blame or reprehension. .111 e would con fine himself to this particular case, bat not, s in the way mem 1111 l ended by the Hon. Gentlemen. This was not a single case, nor was the House to look on it as relating to the insulated culpability of Mary Anne Oarlile. He might say that the prosecution had not been instituted with the mere view of punishing that individual, whose brother, the original blasphemer, was still more severely punished; therefore she had no right to assert, that she was treated with peculiar rigour. The House would al low bier to advert to that systematic course of blasphemy of which this act formed the link of connection. A de luge of blasphemy had been poured over the country by a set of wretches, for what purpose he knew not ; hut this, be dill know, that blasphemy had latterly bevels, the , precursor of crimes ate I outra es., In all the 5,141 1 .rna - I ors publicatious that were put ortb,ltichaed Carlil 9 e was', i m pli c ated. Some of the worst and most infamoue lihelsd that bad ever c o m e from wan, had been *at forth jowl the world by that individual. The Hew would, see ' w h e ther, instead of blame, greet praise ought not to at tach to the person or persons who should endeavour to suppress them. lie twilit not select the worst . p4ssagps in those libels • for he verily believed that not, one nian could be found ' molt them, who would stand up in his place sod read them. He would first mad:Carlisle's art Dolmen:lent to the public after his own couvictien and . that of his wife. It stated that " s in consequence of the . verdict • silt which pronounced rig:oust Mrs. Ca,re lilt, foe p e, ~• , , , , s i s .r..:(j's Life o f Paine, and \a,'>' of the Rep • te" 4 """t " 4 -11 1 C• • in prison, and the basin's VA . would be carried on by Mary Anne Carlile, on behalf of the infant children and the whole family." 'the concluding part which the Hon. Bart. read, expressed Carlile's into. tion to defeat " the legit thieve's, by having another' place for the sale of hie publications as near as possible to the house Nit. 55, Fleet-street, which was taken from him. It also said, that "if one web Was destroyed,A few hours. would ,bet sufficient to spin another." . He (Sir T. Acland) would ask, if this was not bidding open de fiance to the laws ? Did it not show Carlile's - firm deter urination to continue his wicked career of blasphemy? !He would now refer to No. 9, of the,first volume of The Republican. These papers had issued from the very :gaol in which the prisoner was now confined, and the ;only security which the author of them had, was his he lug a prisoner, else if he were at large be might, under the existing law, be banished for ever from the country. ißut it appeared, that while in confinement he might publish whatever be pleased with impunity, as being un der punishment. The Hon. Member then mad so ex iract from The Republican, which st ated, that before the Public could be blessed with a pure Government and perfect code of laws, they must reject the Bible, as being the word of the true God, and totally disbe lieve the divinity of Christ. It also went on to say, that the writer had, in his youth, been taught' to read the Bible, and had learned to reverence it foe, twenty years; nor did he entertain any dont* with respectto it, except. at intervals, till he bid react tl held and Paine's Age of Reason. The Hon: Bart.foinr, mented on this and some other passages; which, frointliete, impious nature, we forbear to report. Those blasphemer;' denied that there was any such place as Heaven or Hell. If Miss Carlile persisted in that course 'of deluging the country with the most dangerous publication!, relying on the difficulty of detection or defying the laws, he would ask time Hoo. Gentleman whether in his opinion those who had the safety of the country at heart, had dealt too severely with her by effectually putting a stop to those diabolical sentiments, such as he had read to the House. The principal object lie had in reading, was to justify the proceedings of that Society of which he was ii mete ter, from the attacks of the Hon. Member who presented the petition. He was sorry that in the performance of that duty he had to detain the House so much longer than he wished. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that it was. not his intention to enter into any defence of that SoCiery of which the lion. Gentleman complained in presenting the petition. After the observations made, and the extracts read by the lion. Member for Devonshire , i t was itu p os sible, he thoeght,,that there could be a single person in that House who cotild concur in, the charges agains t the prosecution of those persons. The Hon. tientleman who presented the petition had gone out of his way in order to attack the Judge Who tried the petitioner and the other individuals who were officially engaged on that tri -1 al. Against a charge of that nature, without n otice to I those inditiduals and in their absence, be most earnestly protested. He did not believe that there was any thing illegal or unconstitutional in . those prosecutions. to his opinion the thanks of the country were rather due to those gentlemen who stepped forward and conducted them. That Society had been instituted about 30 years, and he believed that instead of bring injurious, it pro duced very good effects.requested of the House not to confine themselves to the solitary case of Mary Anne Cathie, Wash to be said that too niuch severity was used against those persons, who, in defiance of the laws, per severed in the course that was adapted by them. 'the of fence of which the petitioner was found guilty, was not' the first offence of that individual. The brother Richard Carlile, and his wife, were before prosecated by the same Society for blasphemy, and not with the view of putting , down fair discussion, as the Hon. Member said, but to pre vent the spreading of such noxious opinions. The tiro pagation and diffusion of those opinions in such pubitca twits, were any thing but fair discussion. After thecon viction of this man and his wife, one after another, this woman, whose petition was before the House, was then set up to carry on time same odious business. That sys tem called for unusual severity of punishment, inasmuch as that woman, warned as she was by the conviction and consequent punishment of her brother and his wife, pursued the same course. In her petition site complained that she was not heard in her defence. Certainly she was not heard, because her object was not to defend herself, but to reiterate the same blasphemy for which she was under pro secutionitwas the uniform rule on which all Judges acted,- when indecency or blasphemy was attempted to be intro duced under the pretext of a defence. She complained that she moved fur a new trial and that her motion was re fused. It was refused on the same grounds as those set forth in the petition. The imprisonment to which she was sentenced was not so much a punishment on her as to deter others from committing the same offence. The Hon. Gentleinan had complained that excessive bail was required of the petitioner after the expiration of her term of imprisonment. The bail required was two sureties in 1001. each for her good conduct id future. That cer tainly ougle not to be considered too much, viewing . the greatness of her offence. Besides that, she was required herself to sign a bond for 1000/. This latter could not be any impediment to her discharge. As to the charge of time lion. Member on the laying down of the law by the Jude, Mr. Fox often lauded and praised the prac tice which left the Jury the whole of the law and the fact; but at the same time he acknowledged that it was the right of the Judge to explain the law of the case to the Jury, and it was for them to apply the law to time fact. Time law in this, as in all other cases, was in the breast of the Judge, who would state it to time Jury, leaving them to apply it to the facts as they appeared in evidence. There was no criminal case in which the Judges did not lay down the law. The Hon. Gentleman advanced another proposition more dangerous than any to which lie had yet adverted. It was in effect that the Jury, before they pronounced on the guilt or innocence of a prisoner, were to consider what would be the punish ment which would be inflicted.—(No, no.) He appealed to the recollection of the House, whether the Hon. Mem ber did not say that Cause Jury wore to know the punish- Ment, they would p before they would pronounce the sentence of guilty. No proposition could be more dangerous to the pure administration of justice.—(Hear , hear.) It was no matter what the punishment was to be. lie would contend, that it was the duty of the . Jory to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the parties on the facts in evidence before them, without the exercise of any discrt Lion as to the punishment to be 'inflicted. He therefore protested against the dangerous proposition of the Hon ; Member. If the petition had set forth the re formation and coptrition of that woman, be should know on what grounds he would receive it, but it contained no expression to that effect. lie deprecated time interference of the House with every sentence pronounced by the Judges. If the Hon. Member had any charge aialost the Judge, letltiat cbaege be brought forward in a spe c* form. He Would maintain that no min, Consider ing the cline of the p e titioner, .could lay his hand on his h ea rt and that the ptiniehinent inflicted on her was t o o severe. Notbiig else could prevent those permitis from Continuing . those scandsions publications. . He hoped the Home joined him in the !pillion that the* I was noshing in the conduct of thiLearnid'Jddge lOW presided at the trial of the petitioner, to Merit the epi• diets that were so liberally bestowed on him. . 11. c. RICARDO wished to notice the sttinge piopool.. 00 of the Ifeo. and.Lenined 6entienir, that this WV4ll i would he-entitled to the iolfsitleieion meat HOW if A had.eaprepted contrition fur the yclenc wap'tq'sa-; o f it'l4 Filenitilt declared to be wron . (Witt 'opinions i'vlitil ilse WilatelY held tos be 4 fi t. Hear, be - ar,) $4Ol-.lfaffltire made a derYive, . 114 r uptuton.,, lOW Was the Heim now in Mini m of her s2 . Cliaige them .. . . Her adherence to those opinions was a proof of her ho .nesty.. If tbi petitioner was not allowed in her defence to read, for the sake of justification, „passages from the publication, lest they uld go forth to the public, for the same reason the l Ai . Member for Devonshi re ou g ht not have cited them as e did. He maintained that pro ... Options of that nature, instead of doing good, produced i_ireet deal of mischief. Besides, it was impossible to say what blasphemy was, in strictness. There was no definition of the crime. It was one thing here, and ano .ther thing in other countries.—(Hear, hear.) The peti (theme, continuing still to believe those doctrines which Ate professed on her defence, acted honestly in not stat ipg in her petition that she r e p eated, when she really felt, so contrition. The Hon. Attorn e y -General had said, that no doctrine could be more dangerous than that proposition, that if the Jury knew the punishment, they would pause before they would fiiathe party guns tv. Did' out Juries daily exercite that discretion? — (Hear, hear.) In cases of robbery, did they not usually find the value of the thing stolen less tinutit really was, with a view to change the punithment '?—e(Hear, hear.) He contended; that nb presecution shield' be instituted' fur religious opinions.—(lleac, hear.) He should like te: know why one man should set up a doctrine to which all others should confeconform?—(llear, hear.) It was no le thin the scandalous doctrine of the Spanish I nernsition, to °bike all pervede to conform to the same religious Opiiiion. Why were not those who sent forth new doc trines, met and • put down by the force of ar g ument ? No good effect followed from prosecittions, and only for 'them he ventured to assert, that the doctrines of the Car tiles' would never have been so extemively known. Mr. Secretary PEEL said that nothing could be more dangerous thari to suffer those new doctrines to be spresti among those classes of the people whO bad neither !eisure nor capacity to discover their fallacy. It was part of the law of the country to repress blasphemy, and while it continued part of that law he would support it. If blame was to be imputed to' any one fut the continuance of this wo,nan's imprisonment, that blame was a•tachable to hetelf. His Hon. and Learned Friend did not desire a change of opinion in the petitioner. The judgment of the Court was, that, at the expiration of her term of ini pris.mment, she should pay a tine of 5001. and give secu rity for further good behaviour, which she might easily olnain if abe expressed contrition for the offence. His Hon. and Learned Friend was, therefore, justified in no ticing the absence of that *motile petition. There might be cases in whiCh the flour* !bight interfere fur the ex tending of niercy ; but it would not be wise to advis - e a remission of punishment to those who triumph over the laws of the country. . The EiMile of the petitioner had run a long career in defiance cf the laws. (Here the Right Hon. Gentleman went into a history of the differ ent prosecutions against R. Cathie and his wife in the Michaelmas Terms of IM9 and 162.0, for blatphelny, and of the punishment to which they were sentenced.) These punishments had not deterred Mary Anne Carlile from following the same course. She was accordingly prosecuted and found in 1531, and sentenced tootle year's imprisonment, to the payment of 4001. fine to the King, and to be further confined till that suns was paid ; and fur ther, to give security for her good behitivioor, herself in , 1,0001, and two sureties in MU/. each: But Arat did' not amount to perpetual imprisonment, as the lion. Member supposed. When she completed the term of her imprisonment, it would be then competent to the Crown to ettehd . mercy ; and when that time arrived, when she ex piated her offence by suffering imprisonment proportion ed to the fine, be would take care, if he should then fill the office which lie now held, to recommend her to the Royal mercy.—(llear.) Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said %lest it would have been better to keep Out of view of the House some of the topics adverted to by the Hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir T. `Ached.) Ile thought it would have been more advisable to discharge this woman irons prlion, because no good could result froth the continuance of her confinement. The case was one of most gross and monstrous oppression. He agreed with the opinion of the Itpn. Member for Port arlingtoo, and his other friends, that n 4 prosecutions should be intituted n those subjects. Opinions should not and could s not be s u p p r essed by . acts of v iolence. No true be liever in the Christian religion could sanction prosecutions for religious opinions. The Christian religion itself WAS once called blasphemy—(Hear, hear)—aud CHRIST was put to death for the propagation of his opinions. Many ab surd opinions were held in the name of religion ; and many perseotions were set on iii r e q uired ,and it was of them. But only the it was only the grand inquisition that Court of the Spanish inquisition that heard of the necessity of contrition in order to extend mercy. Such doctrines would always find supporters among those like the Ifon. and Learned Geut. whose motto would seem to be as desire an rirtus. Those legal Gentlemen always endeavoured to make up by voice and action the deficiencies of their argumeut.— punishment on this wo m(levilearm, l as iea o r, u a t n o d f a alialupghrojporittioen to her crime. No one could justify the impoaltlon of the scandalous fine of 5001. on a person not worth 500 pence. He never knew that it was the object of prosecutions of that to produce the contrition of the parties. But this difference of religion was entirely a matter of opinion, and no hu man legislature could coutroal it. Our actions and not our opinions were the objects of legislative coercion. But it was impossible to get hold of the definition of 1 blasphemy. He would defy the Attorney-Geoeral to tell 1 the House what blasphemy was. He could not define rwhat was a libel. lie stood in the same situat i on with' 'the petiti o ner as to any future p rosecution for libel, if he 'were imprudent enough to write any thing that could . be eo construed, and if the Attorney-tleneral could find a Jury to convict him. The Right Hon. Secretary of State said, that this was not an imprisonment for hie; for, if she found security for future good behaviour, Which was difficult, the Crown would then be advised to extend mercy. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that when, by his computation, she expiated her offence by 5001. worth of iumnsonnient, he would then recommend her to mercy. No racks, no inventions, were more tee tering than undefined imprisonment. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman a tenure of his official situation that he could be able to compute the term of imprisonment into which the flue was to be commuted ? The Hon. Baronet tben expressed his disapprobation of prosecutions Wild . tuted by a ny society of m en, suit said nothing could be ('more dangerous. 1 Mr. WILBERFORCE contended that the societies in question had rendered very impoetant moral tervices to atglniievdectoohufeunititiroyn.ouHra deliberation i, f ie e are e Member ttbhiirtftootrhtletoHreotonansrioituintragtutbololnen, had o n f a r t ° h notn e e s these semiotics or to their own opinions on the subject, It *as to be remarked, that this was the only country which ever existed in which a religious tribunal was .not re iognised by the State. Not only in modern days, but is Athens, Sparta, and in Route, .establishments were founded to protect the religion of the people from ea-. croachnient. Some institution was necessary in this country to watch the progress and correct public Offences ; against religion or morality ; as it is now seen that in • the class of public offences, no one individual was 'Mil ciently excited to indpce him to become a prosecute!.-- It was asked how opinions, whether false or not, could he put down by t he force of persecution? If, howeogress ver, they gould not instantly be put down, their•pr Might be arrested. He would riot be an ima to attacks upon opin ions which M erely appe to rs. He would' Id 41 be saidlitat liliratean eter said w , if the reason of the people an d nit their "pinions wax orked opuo. He contended, on theintboiity of Paley, that blasphemous publicatiess,ehiald be .proieenti.d. 'With regard to one of the Societies, which - had been . particu larly Added to--that for the suppression of vice, it bail rendered iMportatit benefits. It had brooght thlity-two prosecutient, in not one of which hid it Mild. The 91). 11 Tit jects of the Society had received the eulogy of many distinguished characters. The late Lord Ellenborougla in particular, had expressed his conviction of its utility. There watt not in his opinion, any undue severity exer cised in the case immediately before the Howe. If the parties will go on, determined to repeat their offences, strong means were necessary to restrain them. It wag not to be expected, that when one party refused to con cede that the Government should give way. Cartile boasted that he was stronger than the law. Re said'eo, because he relied on the clemency of British law. He (Ur. W.) entreated the House to protect the blessing* which religion gave to society, and which, he as the ta. ther of a family, so we 1 hoew the value. The House wodld'aevir, in'his opinion, discharge its duty better to the country and to itself, than by preserving the religiod of the State. The petition Wal then laid upon the table. Mr. HUME then moved that the petition he printed, and'thok that occasion to ohserve some snrprise at the ; speech of the Honourable Gentleman who hat just vat down. How he could derlare his hatred of religions ,persecution, and an approtation of pro s ecution fur reli; litmus opinions at the same moment, was to hint astoni.h. ling. if lie appealed to the House as the fatherof a fa mily, lie should have considered that the peace of his ;family was to be endangered by the spreading of those opinions which prosecution was certain to effect. These opinions were elevated into importance by prosecution' r alone; they should be treated, as a celebrated writer re commended, with neglect. and he allowed to sink into ObsCurity. Blackstone said that all prosecufous for re. o ttl I s t ) t ea r ft a ut r ih y ie t n o Society gd for the Sluipep‘resn-vas some instancee, but it Honourable Gentleman here read the charge of the Bi shop of London, in January, IS2'2, and took the liberty lin t 13gotii:uuonsfw opinions Nil Ililcnehtaod were contrary barn u s eful was against the principle generally lie contended. The of recommending it strongly to the attention of the Hon. Gentleman who bad last spoken, and to the House genet ally. m e . W. W. WYNN supported tho necessity of mea- I mes to restrict the circulation of immoral or irreligious Iprt &tenons. The petition was then ordered to be printed. FOREIGN POLICY. 1 Mr. CANNING said, with reln-enee to the meets:- tien of the previons staring, that lie wished to state, that on Monday, the 1-Ith of Ap•il. he would lay the papers alluded to on the table, and call the attention of the House to the . g e neral policy of the country, with respect to foreign af fairs. He took that opportunity of repeating the assertion which he made on the previoas evening.— Upon an exdruina , ion of all the treaties by which this co untry was bound to any stave in cowinental policy, he found, that there was no treaty of that nature which had; not been already laid l-fore the House. One of those treaties contained a stipulation, by which this country' was bound to swim in preventing It ranee from again fall -1 ing into the hands of the Bonaparte family ; this should Ihe considered rather as a negative than a podtive stiles: I team). The other treaty contained a stipulation, by which the Allies were bound to consult upon measures of expediency in cage of another revolution in France. Mf r . BbANET inquired to what mattes the Bight lion. Gentleman allotted. Mr, CANNING replied, the treaty signed in November, 1515, at Paris. 51r. WARRE wished to ask if any treaty took place in 1813, at Aix la Chapelle, further than a confirm awl of the treaty of 1615. The papers laid on the table were .merely confirmatory of that treaty. Mr. CANNING had n o hesitation in saving, that the treaty of ISIS, at Aix la Chapelle, was exacily conforms -I,ble to that of Paris in MIS. The only reason why lie bad made any statement at present was, that he ; express ed himself on the day befare with come reserve, which every man had a right to do who to as obliged to tax his 4ecoMection on the instant. Lord A. HAMILTON said that he understool it was the intention of the Right Hon. Secretary to move the adjournntent of the Rouse from to-morrow (this day) to that day fortnight. As he considered that so long a recess at the present moment objectionable, he would oppose it if such were the Right Hun. Secretary's in tention. Mr. CANNING said that he would certainly propose an adjournment to Thursday fortnight. A MEMBER, whose came we could not learn, asked the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) -if any steps were taken to correct the abuses existing in cotton factories ? If nothing had been done, it was his intention to subunit a motion on the subject. Mr. PEEL replied that he could not say any thing at present for the purpose of dissuading the Honourable Gentleman from submitting toy motion be thought proper. COMMISSARS COURTS OP SCOTLAND. Lord A. HAMILTON moved, after a few remarks, for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the inferior Commis sary Courts in Scotland. The LORD ADVOCATE said that he had been engaged fur months past in preparing a Bill on the subject, and the Bill was at that moment in the hands of the Clerks. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. Lord A. HAMILTON wished to have the Lord Advo cate joined with him in preparing the Bill. The LORI) ADVOCATE refused to lend his name to it, upon the ground that he might possibly oppose some of its enactments daring its progress. The SPEAKER said it was the invariable custom of the House not to i n trust the Bill to one Member. The name of Mr. J. Macdonald was then added to that of Lord Archibald Hamilton for bringing in the Bill. BURGH OF INVERNESS. Lord A. HABILLTON regretted the thin state of the the House on the present occasion, when, pursuant to notice he had given, he had to bring forward a !po llen which lie considered of great importance, both on account of the number of individuals it affected and the 'principles which it involved. He proceeded to call the attention of the House to the ca'e of the Rural Burgh of Inverness. An election of hlagistrates had talutt place in that Burgh in the year 1817. Three of the per sons elected were ineligible to 'sit as Counsellors. In consequence of this legal proceedings were instituted, and the election was set aside by legal process. As soon as the election had been declared void, managers were appointed, as was the custom, and subsequently a Crown warrant was issued, by which the same persons were re turned to the Magistracy who had previously boos turn ed out. He did not **tin to say that under this warrant precisely the same individuals were nerminsted who hail been improperly elected before, bait the bulk of them were the same. The principle thus acted upon he thought most injurious, and one that ought nut to be countenanced. What he complained of wits, that no sooner did the inhabitants of the Burgh gain a legal triumph, then the Crown warrant undid all .diet had been &Me, and reinstated the parties objetted to iu the situations from which they had hems removed. He coo. plumed 6f the 'hardship of the case that the Royal Burghs of Scotland, when they gained legal redresfro had to pay first their own law espenses, then those of their opponents, and after tit& paying for befit aides. the Crown warrent came to make a 1 they had done use He supported his view of the-Object by:retetriet to the authorities of Mr. Witite,LOYd Callender (*dodge) and Lord ArOittbn (a J edge also), and proved for `Tutu that the. practice of which he complained wat MVO, or, if not illegal, uneonstitutioaal. lie thought heltid net, to eek Why the Actof the 16:h kleorge tie Second wbwit had been famed to .e.liord the •Rnak DIN O* kris • mi • • • afl of to