The Sun. — London, England, 1819-03-20 00:00:00

inie• o I,"' end' 3 the tiAd , 0 0ld laws 111 0 0 in - ( "I ig 3a" ills at' t he t he een or" es ti , " , e who Purchase stol en G ,, ne , to the wcti as the Purchaser : he had no objection to tl,'tf as 41_1:Ike this part of the law tremendously severe•— " (bought the present system of qoalifications e:l:'(fiNclire.n s anti r ) t c pe7r7i ' i l t e ' a mi l e i license n t s o e fora re lt l i t oi an-. ification• 'through M the mediton of sonte clause. not r. Catres assured th e H ouse that he shou l d claim their attention long.. He was one of those who were not sorry to see retained those Provisions which the Honourable Gentleman ", 6 "°l , (Mr. 13 an k es ) had objected to. h" °eel) stated that th e numb er o f criminals under the nil at e 13" were fewer thi s year t h an usua l ; b ut was °wing to th e very provisions which had „L• • —l lected to, There were, however, enact -Itliiiiel,n,t,s•a;iiinentlrt.e law as it now iO,I which required " Every perso n p urc h as i ng , game was hjeci to a penalty of 51., to be levied on his rcHis and chattels ; but if no chattels were found, e`caped without any punishmcnt.—(Quyst 'l"estion,) Alr Bitawn replied —He coold not recollect any 144 argonneot ag.4inst the principle of the Bill, except one argument urged by the Hon. Gentle titan tinder. the g allery (Colonel Wood.) His ,-gtrittent was, that stol 41 "l e en game must supply the 11 ' 41. Itet as long as stolen turnips supply it ; if , 4 n turnips could ,not b e driven front the mar et, 14'd neith er could stolen by another Hon. Mem game. An argument ber might he stated in Pe PIY to this argument, That Hon. Member had it'btended that no severity could succeed in pro tecting warrens, when all the property in Eng la".(lvvas engag e d in resisting the law. Na legts -I,t've severity could prevent the selling of game ! tier e f,„ Iv! el( S the part of wisdom to regulate ti4at.could not he prevented. He had a • founded f 8 1 - 11 11 for that purpose upon the Resolution of 'antler Parliament, " that girlie belonged to the nett of the soil." He had stated that the small proprietors were excluded from their just and na lltat t II it Gentleman (Jr. t, t o gam e , .1- I) 0 t : h r l eS ) had misunderstood him, as by the law ;,, atn re he had meant the natural, or savagu state I, 14 ". His emb . irrasstovot, whenever he vet- Ott e to speak in that house, might make him (.; " dinicolt to be understood. Rot the Hon. I,:iisittletttan must have been aware that there still ed a natural law, as well as conventional and 1,„ vs. Against this natural naturallaw, tf i l Pl lainipae(' that sma ll propr i etors were deprived IN, l l 4 ; i r right t o game. Th e same Hon. Gont• :IPn-3180 stated , that he had called the present laws ". 5 Now hi s very words were, that the pre laws wer e inadeqtrate, and in many ca se s op tle at it SiVe ty ` and unjust. n A Hon. Member had said, as no hard s hip u p on men of personal pro -111%.1Y,,,1" '" at they cou ld h ave no game, for they boy la n d ; b ut b uy i ng of land would not eer .eY must buy m anors . A men d ments might , fs e ,"" i n lY be required ; the variety of i n l et e s t s i 4 1c e c ` i t w ould require various amendments. His El°" IVas gained if' the moral f ee li ng o f the ke", t ,` were ~,,-,keoetl to the system (if Game was oppose:l by the concurrent in- Ti o f the lo wer - or d ers . 4i ' vid:. ( Lillety was then cleared, and the House r'or th e second reading 11(1 - 'or the Amendment B3 111 . Majority for the act ed t n 'n '" was then read a seemed time, and or beln- committed for Wednesday next. Tit '4l -TARTER SESSIONS REVISION BILL. Itc e ite I ttet. Port on this Bill went through a Com e,. - of tt as ordered to the whole House, and w " ex L , i nto further consideration on Friday Th e P,RESENTS TO FOREIGN MINISTERS, 1:4 1i t4 ki ne Cr o f t h e D ay hav i ng been read for ti; 4lll. ° consideration the Report ol! Civil l 'atiti n get 'eie3, and th e adjourned Resolution for tet lei es -g ,1 541. Ss. 9id, for Arrears of Contin- A. ti natnie, t ka . s UTCHINS said, he hoped the Ri g ht tßly Gen t ! u`NI elna n opposite /I •. A 1 thnoi) had ' ti e th e COMe to the opinion that the part of fits • . Lurnouuting to 22,5101. Gs. 7d. intended (-'-uoxes to Foreign M Touters, was one of 11;:s(ti "extraordinary and extrav a gant prop osals ,om- 1 n". 1 vet com e before the House of k -Itiet 11 , at 'tas' the duty of that House to keep a i g(4 l l ‘ t -ati l over the expenditure of the public 4114e' i n doing . so - they strengthened the tit 3 Of M• •d enabled ek ft) misters themselves, a" • t 't811%,, tea lize their professed ithentions of Igti•eh h LY. items of lt"re ket!re my of the , ;aieh Proposed grant - was composed, to -/I ptud ed e , "bjected, besides *hat had been 'n Presents. He thought it wls 1,14,11i5h-htravagant to have spent 3,1951. I 2s. in : 1 1 0 , 1 . 1 - g , not the whole of the Royal Yacht, but ilets ‘ 1.1)0 111 in it, as would be•seeti 'by the i s : s2 l,•'°re the House. He also conceived that o hir the expellees of the Noble Viscount 'Vellifiebt,lce..(Lard Castlereagh and the Duke bec t ,..g t ° l l), at Aix - fa,•Chapelle, was more than vi `kt ot -qaty. That expense, he was.convinced, elsealtributed one iota to the furtherance of 4t Q lli• th ti„."l),ject then in. view. He had no doubt ha t : 4N °ble Neroci • • •rl t have remained , 6 a•ots vti e ,l , 41 1 have su ff ered a k e business to be 0, 04 " by the usual , Messengers of the State, tts. Le any detritnent to the public service.— believed. 'that no point had, been dis i°t44 n at Aix-la-Chapelle, and that all had lablo,,rla.:erleaioi:eif,y),:grtetieetyl upon between . the . Allied Y Teet ed' to 1. , I 'l %l ?,0091. having had their meeting. tie been- spent w en ittid_t, • Carand Duke Nicholas, and con provision for such Royal Visitors th o gi k. not to 'come out of the Public Purse. He t x _t Ott the chai -, re of 20 0001 01,; : etssi, c, as " • for law expenses t ee t , of a s. that (4 ' 10 ,3971. for fees, and tnor'in▪ "%s"eserltion. But when he came xes, I , e 'um o f 22,5101, 6s. 7d. for snuff • could not p„)..an,,_g.nt conceive on what grounds o i tie 0,0ne7d.. and ext raordinary waste of the tt woubYluiribi be d . ustified. Ile trusted the , L oe Sa tisfied a mere refer tite. - a nish vd .. ated ostorn. Lle bad heard of an tll‘i»g• SO fur att :ai l the Grand Duke Nicholas, ), n .. nl Ple of the to custom and followed the the couch,. "le Lord, as to bestow a snuff -1,01,11;g 01:at) who had bad the honour of Nohl e us c""try•—(Laughter.)—lie tould itll siaeh p l c e : 1 (1 would not cloak himself gri tnto T t 'erlt• If no effectual relief () Lite suffering porjou of ka the people, to show a wish to economize would tend greatly to tranquillize them. — After such votes as had lately beets passed—at ter refusing to reduce the number of the Lords of the Admiralty, the House could nor be too strict in looking closely at the Estimates laid on its ta ble. It was but a tcw days since a salary of 5001. a year, as Royal Equerries, had beets refused to two Officers most highly distinguished for their services, whilst such a sum as that wasted in snuff boxes wool() probably have been more than suf ficient to pay those salaries during; the whole of their lives, considering the age which they had, attained. He was convinced that, by watching attentively over the public expenditure, thousands might be saved to the Country. lie then moved th e following Resolution :—'' That the sum of 22,5101. 15s. Id., which, in the Papers before the House, was stated to have been expended its snuff boxes, was a roost profuse and improvident ex peoditure of the public money." The SPEAK CIL stated, that as the Resolution be fore the House was one 'for 79,1;541., the beat mode of Amendment would be to propose to de duct the 22,5101. out of it. Mr. HUTCHINSON was understood to say, that he did not wish to refuse that sure since it had been expended, but, to express the sense of the House as to the manner in which the money had been applied. The SPEAKER then suggested the propriety of first agreeing to the sum proposed, and then bringing forward the Hon. Member's resolution. Lord CASTLEREAGH then rose and Said, that the observations of the Hon. Member were rather of a political than of a financial nature; that the busi ness had been done at Aix-h-Chapelle before him self and the Noble Duke (Wellington) had arrived there; and that what was left for them to effect, might have been intrusted to the King's Messen gers. Upon these points the Noble Lord did not think it necessary for him, at that time, to enter into any ex plantations, which might involve an investigation of all the proceedings of the Con gress, as stated in the Protocols; but with refer ence to the expenditure caused to the country hy the mission, he should state, that the expellees of the Noble Duke and of himself did not exceed 4,0001. each. The charge now appearing in the resolutions out the table, under the head of pre sents to Foreign Ministers, was not to be consi dered as the expense of one hot of two years, and comparing it with the expellees for the seven years preceding 1811, it would be found n o t t o exceed the usual average. It would ap pear from Mr. Pitt's arrangement of the Civil List, that he estimated the charge of presents to foreign Ministers at 10,0001. a-year, which skewed that even at that t hoe this charge was not considered extravagant or unesoal. He was aware that any thing in the shape of presents was open to objections, and that it might be said they ought not to he given. Ile trusted that the House would do him the justice to believe that whatever opinion he might express on this point he was altogether unitifitsenced by any conside rations regarding. himselt.—(Hear I)—Uudoubt edly Otis Government should ever practise a se vere and rigid economy, but be should ever ob ject to abolish this species of expence as injurious to the public service. Presents to Foreign Ministers were not so much open as others to obloquy or jealousy, because they were not arbitrary in their anfount, nor in their appropria tion. The custom of giving and receiving pre sents on great diplomatic occasions was as old as the Monarchy, and was practised by every State in Europe. The Government of the United States of America had indeed established a rule of conduct for themselves, whereby their di plomatic agents never gate, nor were permitted to receive presents. The East India Company had also established a rule of the same effect, because the receiving of presents was, in the case of their officers,liable to very great abuses. This objection, however, could not be made to the practice among European nations, where presents, which custom had in some degree defined, were given, not to the Secretaries of State; but to the diplomatic agents who actually concluded the Treaty. With respect to himself, he stated, that although very much engaged in diplomatic transactions, he never received more than five of these customary pre sents.—(Hear, hear !)—The value of these pre sents, which generally consisted` of a Sovereign's portrait„ ornamented in such a manner as to ren der the gift more worthy of his offering, could never be computed by the suns of money it might produce if set up to auction. A value was at tachedetce them as memorials of service . greater than could be derivetlfrom mere money.—( Hear!) He stated that the diplomatic profession was the most expensive of any, and that none of the usual advantages could he taken from those en gaged art it without making some compensation for the loss : he should submit to the House that the amount now appearing on the table Was not greater than was usual,. and that it would be very unwise in Parliament to discountenance a practice uniforin in Europe, and 'from which this country could not, consistently with its present relations with other .States, be singular in departing.— (Hear, hear !) Mr. FORBES asked, why Navy Officers on fo reign stations, in drawing their pay, should suffer a loss of 10, 20, 30, nay evil) 40 per cent. while the Diplomatic Officers of the Crown were usually compensated for the loss ? Lord CASTLEREAGH replied, that this compen sation was granted to Diplomatic Officers in con sequence of a particular arrangement, and was granted by a strict reference to the suitable amount of t heir salaries. Sir M. IV. RIDLEY trusted the practice of gin ing presents would be put an end to,. though he weis willing to do justice to tl4e conduct of the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) 4 who had not done justice to himself. lie understood that they were indebted to the Noble Lord for a great diminu tion in this'expence ; for when it was proposed, at a meeting of the Ambassadors, that presents should be exchanged on the signature of each Treaty, the Noble Lord had successfully opposed it ; and it had been determined that only one pre sent should be exchanged. He alluded to the grant for the entertainment of the Archdukes ; if those visitors were to be provided with the means of travelling through the country for theif own amusement, at least those who attended thew should pay some attention to economy, nor allow them to be charged,. as in the hotel in &lin bnrgh, at the rate of above 1001. a day. The souls lavished on the yacht seemed entirely use less. There was also a sum of 40001. a year for the Alien Olfice—ao establishment disgraceful to the Country, and which, in a tew months, he hoped ‘eonld cease to exist. Mr. CANNING corrected Sir M. W. Ridley as to the facts of his statement, which did so much ho noor to the Noble Lord. It was at the Congress of Vienna that the transaction had taken place, the result of which was, that one present WaS ex changed instead of 45.—(Flear !) 'dr. It CLIVE said, that the Alien Office'had been considerably reduced, much of , the charge being for pensions. The resolution was agreed to ; and Mr. Hut chinson's tesolotion being put, was negatived. TRIAL BY BATTLE. On the bringing op of the Report of the Bill for abolishing the Trial by Battle, and the Right of Appeal, Sir F. BURDETT contended, that 'Dial by Battle had no more to do with the Right of Appeal, than with a common indictment. He apprehended that in common law, T r i a l by B a r t l e was obsolete.— He bad no objection to its being entirely abolished, but he wished to retain the Right of Appeal. It was a most important tight to the subject, espe daily in cases of murder, because it served as a bar to the assumed prerogative of the Crown.— If it were removed it would create not only inconvenience, but injustice, by exposing per sons twice to danger for the saute offence.— To repeal Trial by Battle, without injuring the other, nothing more was - required than to rescind pal t of an Act of Henry Vii. relating to individuak marefuis acquitte,t, Hod to let the corn moo law stand, taking away all the statutes which had been imprinted upon it. Trial by Bat:le was so little connected with the night of Appeal, that it never was to be resorted to, save when, from want of witnesses, or other causes, all other means had tailed. He then quoted several cases to establish that position. He f e lt the highest respect for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought in the present Bill. None, he thought, had filled the office of Atforney• General, in itself an infringement on the Constioition, oith less ground of disapprobation on the part of the public, and less exertion of unconstitutional power. It he (si r F.) "id, t h at h e looked with jealousy to any thing corning from such a quarter, it must there fore be understood of the office, and not of its holder. But he must contend that such jealousy could not fail to arise when a measure like the present was seen to proceed from his Majesty's Attorney-General, and joined together two ob jects which ought to be kept entirely separate. Lord Holt held that Right of Apneal which it was now proposed to abolish in such high estrem, that lie had called it " a (toe' badge of English liberty," and Mr. Dunning had described it as " one of the pillars of the Constitution." He then entered into several cases, end particularly that of Kennedy, who, thong?) found guilty of having murdered an old man to) Westmins:er bridge, had been pardoned because his sister was mistress to Lord Saud wich. There was also the case of a gardener, a few years boa, who had murdered his master, and yet bad obtained his pardon for no reason that be could con ceive. showed the importance of preserv ing a right which must operate as a check on the assumed prerogative of the Crown to grant such pardons. He called it assumed, because he denied its constitotional existence. Besides the 3d of Edward 11. there were statutes upon sta tutes, which declared that the King should not pardon for murder, except when done by misfor- 1 tune or in self-defence ; in other %writs, when it was manslaughter, and not assassination. It was still more important to keep this- right, when the Country assumed a Military Government, and soldiers were introduced every where. It would serve as some protection against military execu tion. Its repeal could, at least, do no good, and Wright, certainly, produce much possible evil. In the case of Thornton and Ashford, lie almost wished the latter had gone the extreme length of pushing .the plea as far as it could have been pushed, that it might be seen if the Judges of England would have attended in Tothill-fields* (for as the parties were not Knights they must have foil& with sand-bags), to see which of those fellows could bear most beating. Consi-7 doing it a constitutional question of some im portance, he intended, at a proper time, to move that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that he might have an opportunity of moving. ' those Amendments which he wished to propose. The Amendments made to the Bill in the Com mittee having been. read ; on the motion that they should be read a second time, Sir F. BuRDETT moved that the Bill should be re-committed. Mr. Serjeant CorLEy would rather the Bill should be lost;'lllari that it should pass with such amendments as - the Honourable Baronet seemed inclined to propose. The Right of Appeal was that which ought not to continue. He was sur prised to hear the Honourable I3aronet say the law of Trial by Battle was obsolete. That it was so, hail escaped the Judges eogaged in the late proceedings in Thornton's case, as well as all the Counsel er ployed on that occasion. The only question had been, whether st suffi cient plea had been set up to give the Appellee a claim to Trial by Battle, to which, if his plea were good,. he was entitled by the law of the land. If the Court bad been placed in a ridi cidOus situation by the recent proceedings, he would avail bimselt of that tact to contend that on that account the present Bill ought to pass. The Hon. Baronet had quoted Lord Holt's words in favour of the Right of Appeal. In fairness, he ought also to have quoted the words of Lord Chief Justice Treby against it, and other autho rities equally high might be opposed to that which the Hon. Baronet quoted. Mr. Fox, on one occasion, had contended that the Cight of Appeal ought not to be continued. By the com mon law of the land, the Hon.sliaronet appeared to think the Crown was denied the power of showing mercy in cases of murder, and that an appeal deprived the Crown of the right to pardon. On these points he differed from the Honourable Baronet. He strongly awned this right of the Crown to pardon in cases of nn-. der. If not in the Crown, where should• this power lie ? In what conntry on the face of the globe: was it found that such a power to ar rest punishment did not exist ? In every com munity a power to pardon, in particulat; cases, must exist somewhere. Suppose, for instance, ,a person - convicted of murder should afterwards be proved to be innocent, was it fitting that no power should exist to prevent the sentrico of the Court from being carried into execution ? The right of interfering in such a case must be lodged somewhere; and if not with the Crown, where could it be vested' wi!ir safety ? Would he confide it to a private indiVidual—to the relatives of the murdered person ? In such a case, the probability was, that the power would be abused, for revengeful or for factious purposes. In the case that had been referred to by the Honour able 13aronet, the widow, excited by the popular feeling, moved for a writ of appeal. A compro mise was offered, and Lord Ashburnham, who was then at the Bar, and - Counsel for the ac cased, bad directed them to pay down time mo ney tendered, and this being done, the widow swept the guineas into her lap, and signed the release of the parties. Was this, he would ask, a system that merited the eulogium prisied on it by the Han.. Baronet ? As the lay.noW stood, if a man had been murdered, his widow could only appeal ; and if. she (lied, or married again, no appeal could be made No appeal could be made where a man was murdered, who had‘no son. The daughter could nut make an appeal, as this must be done by time next heir. He net. tioned these things to show how that right was which '.!:c Honourable 13aro , :t.t had thought of s o much hnportance. Where a tuna was charged with an otience in a common way, the M3gistrates could not claltnit hint to ptkon but on information received on oath, When there be could not be put on his trial unless a 13111 were found' against him by the Grand Jury. This was a system which he should have expected a hiend to public liberty would arprove. lltit what was the course in 'cases of Appeal ? There the party was committed to prison on an affidavit, deckling it to be the beliet (it the deponent that the party accused was gui;;y of the crime charged against him, and lie was put on his trial without any bill being found by the Graol Joy against him. He should not have expected such a course of proceeding would have met with the approbation of a liiend to the peo ple. By the kw of the hod, it was provided that Peers should only be tried by Peers. A writ of Appeal affecting a Peer would deprive him ot the benefit of that just arrangement which gave him the protection, of a trial by Lis equals, and sent him to be tried by a common Jury. These facts stated, which to him appeared unanswerable ob jections to the existing law, he thought it minters eessary to say more to show the amendments to the present Bill which the Hon. Baronet svithed to Wove ought not to be received. Sir F. BURDETT at some length explainzd, and defended bis former statements. Mr. C. TENNysoN obicord to that clause of the present 11111 which gave it the effect of an ex past facto law, and therefore wished the Bill to be recommitted. . Thv ATTORNEY•GEZZERAL said, if the case lare!y before the Judges had gone on so far that they, in the di s charge of their duty, had been to order a trial ,by batt!c, in his opinion, it would then have become the duty of Parliament to in• terfere, and pass an e,pogt facto law in that par. Ocular ease: It was ►vith that feeling Thar be had introduced the last clause of the present Bill, lest some writ of appeal should now be fortlicom. log, The Crown had the power to pardon mur derers. The only Statute that seemed to make against it was, one passed in the shoe of Ed ward 1., b►!t this he shelved did not prevent the Crown frotri granting pardon in cases of murder. Sir F. BURDETT said, the Statute he had re ferred to %vas the one of the third of Edward IL, which provided that pardon should be granted in. cases of homicide only where the King could do so 9n his oath ; that is where the party convict ed had slain a man in self-defence, or through misfortune. Mr. Seijeant CopLEY thought, as the power of granting pardon in eases of murder had been ex ercised by the Crown during a period of 300 years, it was fak to presume that the Statute referred to had soon been repealed. The House divided, when tl►e numbers were—. For the Motion 46 For the Amendment 4 • Majority against the recommitment —S2 The Report was then agreed to, and the Bill ordered to he read a third time on Monday. CONSOLIDATED FUND. Mr. LUSIIINGTON brought up the Report of the Consolidated Fund Produce Bill ; several amend ments to which were read and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed, and to be read a third time on Monday. HUSBANDRY HORSES BILL. The Husbandry Horses Bill was, with some ammendments, proposed in the Committee, read 4 third time and passed: NETHERLANDS SLAVE TRADE. The, Order of the Day for the third reading of the Netherlands Slave Bill was then read. Mr. MARRYAT spoke st. some length respec• ing the insalubrity of the settlement at Sierre Leone, and the ditlienities attended upon its being conti nued as a place for the Commission mentioned in the Bill. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the Admiralty, after a strict investigation, had found that Sierra Leone was in fact the place best suited for the accommodation of the Commission. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Portugal Slave Trade Bill, and the Duke of Wellington's Estate Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Report of the Exchequer Bills on Aids Bill was brought up, read, and ordered 4o be read a third time on Monday. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed ot, and the House adjourned at a Quarter pest Twelve o'clock. .