The Sun. — London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

. . _ . •el, f ti 4 chow to. do so. Depend upon it, as Dr. Johnson says, when a man is going to be hanged, his faculties are wonder fully concentrated. If it be really true, as the defenders of Mump simus observe, that the Judge is the best counsel for the prisoner, the prisoner will soon learn to e mploy him, especially as his Lord ship works without fees. All that we want is an option given to the prisoner—that a man, left to adopt his own means of defence in every trifling civil right, may have the same power of selecting his own auxiliaries for higher interests. It is impossible to put so gross an insult upon Judges, Jurymen, Grand Jurymen, or any person connected with the administration of justice, as to suppose that the longer time to be taken up by the speeches of counsel, constitutes the grand bait.° the proposed alteration. If three hours would acquit a man, and he is hanged because he is only allowed two hours for his defence, the poor man is as much murdered as if his throat had been cut before be came into Court. If twelve Judges cannot do the most perfect justice, other twelve must be appointed. Strange administration of criminal law, to adhere obstinately to an inadequate number of Judges, and to refuse any improvement which is incompatible with this arbitrary and capricious enactment. Neither is it quite cer tain that the proposed alteration would create a greater demand upon the time of the Court. At present the counsel makes a de fence by long cross-examinations, and examinations in chief of the witnesses, and the Judge allows a greater latitude than he would do, if the counsel of the prisoner were permitted to speak. The counsel by these oblique methods, and by stating false points oflaw for the express purpose of introducing facts, endeavours to obviate the injustice of the law, and takes up more time by this oblique, than he would do by a direct defence. But the best answer to this objection of time (which, if true, is no objection at all) is, that as many misdemeanors as felonies are tried in a given time, though Counsel are allewed in the former, and not in the lat ter case. One excuse for the absence of counsel is, that the evidence upon which the prisoner is convicted is always so clear, that the counsel cannot gainsay it. This is mere absurdity. There is not, and cannot be, any such rule. Many a man has been hung upon a string of circumstantial evidence, which not only very ingenious men, but very candid and judicious men, might criticize and call in question. If no one were found guilty but upon such evidence as would not admit of a doubt, half the crimes in the world would be unpunished. This dictum, by which the present practice has often been defended, was adopted by Lord Chancellor Nottingham. To the lot of this Chancellor, however, it fell to pass sentence of death upon Lord Stafford, whom (as Mr. Denman justly observes), no court of justice, not even the House of Lords (constituted as it was in those days), could have put to death, if he had had counsel to defend him. To iraprove the criminal law of England, and to make it really deserving of the incessant euloginm which is lavished upon it, we would assimilate trials for felony to trials for high treason. The prisoner should not only have Counsel, but a copy of the indict ment Ind a list of the witnesses, many days antecedent to the trial. It is in the highest degree unjust that I should not see and study the description of the crime with which I am charged, if the most scrupulous exactness be required in that instrument which charges me with crime. If the place where, the time when, and the manner how, and the persons by whom, must all be specified with the most perfect accuracy, if any deviation from this accuracy is fatal, the prisoner, or his legal advisers, should have a full oppor tunity of judging whether the scruples of the law have been at tended to in the formation of the indictment ; and they ought not to be confined , to the hasty and imperfect consideration which can be given to an indictment exhibited for the first time in Court.— Neither is it possible for the prisoner to repel accusation till he wows who is to be brought against him. lie may see suddenly, *tuck 9P in the witness's box, a man who has been writing him let ters, to extoit money from the threat of evidence he could produce. The character of such a witness would be destroyed in a moment, lithe letters were produced ; and the letters would have been pro -diced, of course, if the prisoner had imagined such a person would been brought forward by the prosecutor. It utterly impossible for a prisoner to know in what way he be assailed, and against what species of attacks he is to guard. Conversations may be brought against him which he has forgotten, and to which he could (upon notice) have given another colour and com plexion. Actions are made to bear upon his case, which, (if he had known they would hare been referred to), might have been explained in the mast satisfactory manner. All these modes of attack are pointed out by the list of witnesses transmitted to the prisoner, and he has time to prepare his answer, as it is perfectly just he should have. This is justice, when a prisoner has ample means of compelling the attendance of his witnesses ; when his written accusation is put into his hand, and he has time to study it—when he knows in what manner his guilt is to be proved, and when he has a man of practised understanding to state his facts, and prefer his arguments. Then criminal justice may march on boldly. The Judge has no stain of blood on his ermine; and the phrases which English people are so fond of l av i ii hi n g upon the humanity of their laws, will have a real foun dation. At pm sent this part of the law is a mere relic of the bar barous injustice by which accusation in the early part of our juris • prudence was always confounded with guilt. The greater part of these abuses have been 4rushed away, as this cannot fail soon to be. In the mean time it is defended, (as every other abuse has been defended), by men who think it their duty to defend every thing which is, and to dread every thing which is not. We are told that the Judge does what he does not do, and ought not to do. The most pernicious effects are anticipated in trials of felony, from that whichis found to produce the most perfect justice in civil causes, and in cases of treason and misdemeanour: we are called upon to con tinue a practice without example in apy other country, and are required by lawyers to consider that eustote as humane, which every one who is not a lawyer pronounces to be most cruel and unjust—and which has not been brought forward to general notice, only because its bad ef f ects are confined to the last and lowest of mankind. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—FEa. 14. APPEALS. The LORD CFLANCELLOR thought it right to state to their Lordships, befo.re the Call of the House, that it was not his intention to proceed to Pi selection till next week, but in the mean time, measures had beil? tlken to carry on the busi ness of Appeals. CORN LAWS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented u peti tion from th e Owners and Occupiers of Land in the Lower Divi sion of Caldicott, Monmouthshire, against any aiteration in the Corn Laws. The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a Sitililar petition from the parish of Kinnoul, Forfarshire; and a similar petition from certain Farmers in the county of Ross. The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a petition from two places in Fife, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. The Noble Earl stated, that he presented the petition in comp liance with the wishes of th e p etitioners, but he wished i t to be under. stood that his opinions on the subject did not coincide with theirs. Marquess CAMDEN presented a petition from the Land Owners, Clergy, and Land Occupiers of fifty Parishes in the Western Division of the County of Kent, praying that no alteration might be made in the Corn Laws. The Noble Mar quess briefly supported, as we understood, the prayer of the peti tion, but he was nearly inaudible below the bar. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from the Owners and Occupiers of 50,900 acres of land in York ,ah:irs. His Lordship then moved for certain Returns, the nature of which was not stated, which, he said, would elucidate the con dition oldie agriculturist. There was no opposition to the mo tion, and the Returns were ordered. Lord TEYNEAM. presented a petition against arg alteration in the Corn Laws, from a Hundred in Kent. His Lewhip made. some observations which were not audible below the Bar ; but The Earl of LIVERPOOL replied that it was not hts ietestioa to make known what propositi9us he was to submit 4 , 0 their ifr"l46 a the subject of the Corn Law s till he orought them, ow t h e day he had appointed, distinctly acid fully More them. Lord AUCKLAND Laud Owners, Cl ergy, ~, presented a p eti t i on f rom the i x a e; i ttemen, and other Inhabitants of Chorley, in Lancashire 1 7,mvs. The Noble Lord said:l/ I :or the abolition of the Corn u t t this petition was to have been from by the Earl of Derby, b that Noble Earl was prevented from attending by illness. Air, Hutchinson, from the Bank of England, A C COIIII4 of the Rate of the For eign Eicha presented an ges from Jan. 1826 to Jan. 1627 ; an Account of all the Eseha Bills purchased tpi the F,ianit 41t England, or on which they h a d a I ..g eb n e t y: Within the same period ; also an Account of th e advane o ed f , m , oney reeeired and expended by the Commissioners of thSeuNnlastio-n. CATHOLICS. Petitions against of E XETER presented tw o The Bishop against any further concessiims to the Catholic s • Plympton St. Mary's ; the other from a parish;fleOnneamfrrn name of which we could not hear. Lord KENYON presented a similar Petition from some parish in Denbigh. His Lordship said, that tis Petition, which spoke Ancient liiritish sentiments, w , or. i igr nally drawn up in the Ancient British language, but it had been carefully translated, to be presented to their Lordships. The Marquess of LANSDOWN, in rising to pre sent the petitions of which he had on a former evening given notice, said he bad thought it right, from the respect due to their Lordships, as well as from the respect due to the petitioners, whose petitions he was then to have the honour to present to their Lordships, to give notice of his intention to present them this day; but he did not, therefore, mean to go into any discussion of the general question relative to the Catholics. He felt it, however, to be his duty towards the petitioners to state, with respect to the first petition—similar petitions to which had frequently been under their Lordships' consideration, and which was the Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland—as well as with re spect to the second petition, which was then, for the first time, presented to their Lordships, and was from the Roman Catho lic Bishops of Ireland—that he had read them both very care fully, and he could assure their Lordships that there was not one expression, in both the petitions, disrespectful to their Lord ships; he would say, not only not one disrespectful expression, but not one expression which any Noble Lord, the most hostile to the petitioners' claims, could construe into disrespect to their Lordships. He was sure that their Lordships would never find it disrespectful in any class or description of his Majesty's sub jects to come forward, and state explicitly and plainly the claims they might have on account of services already rendered, or of services they were disposed to render—claims which, he thought, were not only the privileges of every subject of this realm, but which it was their duty to make—that, for these services, they might receive that proper reward, which was to be found in a full participation of all the honours and blessings to be enjoyed under the constitution of this country. The petitioners first stated plainly and clearly, the privations to which they were exposed by the law; after which, they proceeded to point out the indi rect privations which the privations imposed by the laws brought on them, and to which the laws did not intend to sub ject them. They then proceeded to state that these privations, existing only for one class of the King's subjects, exposed them to be marked by their fellow-subjects, and thereby placed a bar between them which ought not to exist. Having stated thus much, he would not enter further into the merits of the question; but he could not avoid calling the attention of their Lordships to two circumstances connected with-the petitioners— he meant their numbers and their property. Their numbers must have been known to their Lordships on former occasions; and though he would not take on himself to assert that they were now much more numerous, yet he was sure, if their numbers had not increased, they had not diminished ; and if their Lord ships now compared them with their numbers when they first came before their Lordships, they would find, he thought, a great difference. But, if they had not increased in numbers, he had no difficulty in stating, that, in respect to property, there had been a very material alteration since they first petitioned their Lordships. They had acquired much more wealth, and possessed now much more property than formerly. Nobody knew better than he (the Noble Marquess) did, the fallacy of all statistical statements, which were not verified by exact and official docu ments ; but lie could state—and he believed every Noble Lord who knew any thing of Ireland would confirm the statement—that the property of the Catholics, both moveable and immoveable, was in creasing in amount, in almost every part of,lreland. It was at pre sent greater than at any former period, and was rapidly increasing. With that property their power increased, both directly, and from that influence which property always gave. The power thus ac quired could not he allowed to occupy a neutral space in the poli tical course of the country. If properly brought into harmony with the settled current of our social system, we should derive from it, inevitably, all that increase of national power and wealth it was calculated to give ; and if not, instead of finding it a source of happiness and strength, it would bring on mischief and destruction. He had mentioned these changes, as lie thought them worthy of their Lordships' consideration, when the measure relative to the Catholics should come s before them at a future time. He had only said thus much ; be cause, in presenting these Petitions, he felt it due to himself and to the petitioners, and he should enter fully into the general question when he submitted a substantive proposition to their Lordships, which it was his intention hereafter to do. He should then be able to argue the question fully, and with refe rence, not to a part of the King's subjects, but on grounds of public national interest, closely connected with the welfare of the Protestant interest, of the Protestant establishment, the Protest ant church, and Protestant throne of this country. The motion he should submit to their Lordships would be supported by a con sideration that had a reference to the good of the whole country, which could only be promoted.. he thought, by admitting all our Catholic fellow-subjects te the full participations of all the bles sings of our Constitution. When he brought forward his motion, lie should point out plainly what cons-se he thought ought to be pursued, and he should put it to those Noble Lords who might differ from him, to point out as plainly—if they refused to listen to his proposition—what course they proposed to pursue for the political improvement of Ireland, because lie believed there was not one Noble Lord in that House who would say that Ireland ought or could remain in its present political situation. The Noble Marquis concluded by moving, that the first petition—the general petition of the Catholics of Ireland—should be read at length. After the petition had been read, The Noble MARQUESS rose to present the se cond petition, from the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. Their Lordships would, he hoped, bear the petition read at length, I as it would make them acquainted on the authority of these gen tlemen, and in an authentic form, with the opinions entertained by the Irish Catholic Church, with respect to some controverted points of importance. They expressed to their Lordships, that they were not disposed to disturb the loyalty and obedience of their countrymen ; that, on the contrary, they had always endea voured to promote the peace of the country. He would not enter into the religious part of the petition, hut he believed that none of their Lordships would deny that, but for their useful, their un wearied endeavours to preserve the peace of Ireland, tranquillity could not exist in any part of it.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—The Noble Marquess then moved, that the petition be recd.—During the reading of it, the Earl of Liverpool removed to the table, and seemed to pay particular attention to it. After the petition had been read, it was discovered to he informal, in not having, we believe, any signatures attached to the first sheet of the Petition ; and on The Earl of LIVERPOOL'S suggesting that the ipformality might be remedied if the petition were withdrawn, which, hg observed, would not be of much consequence, as the petition had been reed, The Marquis of LANSDQWN consented to with draw it. The Noble Marquis then gave notice, that he should submit a proposition to their Lordships relative to the Catholics, founded on the petitions just read, on Thursday, March Bth. He was not ignorant that before that time it was probable the sub ject would be agitated in another place ; but he gave the notice, because, whatever might be the result of the discussion elsewhere, it was his intention to submit a preposition to their Lordships• He was most anxious to do so, because the responsibility of not having brought the question before their Lordships last Session belonged to him, and feeling anxious to do hie duty to the pe titioners, -it ',was his intention, whatever might be the course adopted by the other House, to submit a motion to their Lordships. The Earl of WINeYIELSEA (in what was, we believe, his first speech in the !louse of Peers) said he did not in tend to enter into the whole question any more than the Noble Marquis, as he should avail himself of the opportunity that would speedily offer to explain his own opinion of the propriety of grant ing further concessions to the Catholics ; but lie sincerely trusted, before their Lordships consented to admit the Papists to the full enjoyment of political power—before they were allowed to fill high stations of trust and honour—before their Lordships consented to repeal the Test Act—before they conceded any thing more to the Catholics—that they would carefully examine the grounds on which the wisdom of our ancestor* had found it proper and expe dient to exclude the Catholics from the enjoyment of political power. He felt it very gratifying to be able to state, as one of the changes that was going on, that a peculiar and striking one was the reformation which was undoubtedly taking place, and might at no distant period include the great majority of the Ca tholics of Ireland. He was not also without hope of seeing their Lordships' attention c 4lll O to an examination of that political power which the Roman Catholic Priesthood had exercised over their flocks for the last 12 months: He trusted their Lordships would not abandon the course they had hitherto pursued, from any subserviency to public clamour or views of political expediency. - - Lord CLIFDEN coinmded that the Roman Ca tholics were not Papists, and he expressed 16 5 doubts if the refor mation in Ireland were so extensive as the Noble Earl imagined. He was convinced that the best way to promote such a reformar tion would be to put an end to the penal laws against the Catho lics. At least, he felt for himself, and be believed it was in hu man nature, that as long as any restrictions on them existed, as long as their peculiar faith er.posek them to peculiar hardships, so long would a feeling of honour prevent numbers from deserting their ranks.—(Hear, hear. )—I will not desert my peopl e w hil e they are under a cloud, was an old, and, he believed a Scripture saying. H e f u lly agreed with his Noble Friend, that the Catholics never were stronger than at present; and he wished the Noble Earl, who was strongly opposed to them, would tell how the question could be settled, and the peace of Ireland secured. The dangers that threatened this country were not a few ; and if M. de Villele had been turned out by the Apostolicals, he believed we should have had a war with France and Spain. But a war with these Powers would compel them to have recourse to neutral bottoms to carry on their trade, and then the right of search would come into operation, which would certainly involve us in a war with America. If we went to war with France and Spain, we should be sure to have war also with the United States. The Noble Viscount concluded by presenting petitions from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Freshford and some united parishes, from two other places in Ireland, praying for the repeal of the laws which are in force against the Catholics. The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented similar petitions from the Roman Catholics of Bandon, Youghall, and three other places, all, we believe, in the county of Cork. The Duke of LEINSTER presented petitions froth the Roman Catholics of the County of Dublin, and of two other places in Ireland.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 14. Mr. Abbot presented at the Bar a Return of the number of Causes in the King's Bench Court for the last seven years. Similar Returns were presented from the Courts of Exchequer and Common Pleas. Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from the Ro man Catholics of Mallow, in favour of Emancipation. Mr. BLACKBURN presented a petition from Rochdale, for an alteration in the Corn Laws. Also, a petition from the Owners of Land near Bolton, for a protection to the landed interest. Sir C. MORGAN laid upon the table a petition from the Hundred of Caldicot, Monmouthshire, for protection to the landed interest. NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Shipbuilders, &c. of Burlington, Yorkshire, complaining of the present Navigation Laws. Mr. HUME said, that the present distress did not arise from therecent alteratio❑ of the navigation laws, but from other causes. Mr. DUNCOIVIBE added, that the petitioners were anxious that the subject should be investigated. Mr. F. WILSON presented two petitions, from Pontefract and Sherborne, for protection to the landed interest. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from the Carpenters and Joiners, praying an alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. CAULFIELD presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of a. Parish in the County of Mayo, praying Emancipation. _ a . Mr: A. ELLIS presented petitions with the same prayer, from Dungarvan and Grague, County of Kilkenny. A petition was presented from Linlithgow, for an alteration in the Corn Laws. _ _ --- Mr. HUME presented a petition from 9,000 inha bitants of Dundee, for a revision of the Corn Laws. They pray ed the free import of wheat, oats, and different other kinds of grain. Lord CLIFTON presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Kildally, for a removal of disabilities. WESTMEATH ELECTION. Mr. S. RICE presented a written declaration from Mr. W. W. Tute, that he did not mean to defend his return for the county of Westmeath, which return had been petitioned against. The Order of the Day for taking the petition into considera tion was therefore discharged. . . Mr. S. RICE presented two petitions; one from the Roman Catholics of Limerick, and the other from the Pro testants of Limerick, praying the concession of the Roman Ca tholic claims; also a similar petition from the parish of Cove, in Cork. NORTHAMPTON ELECTION. Major MABERLY presented a petition from cer tain persons of the town of Northamrton, complaining that part of the Corporation funds had been improperly applied to the ex penses of the election of a favourite candidate of the Corporation, and praying that the case might be taken into consideration by the House.---Ordered, that the petition be taken into considera tion on Wednesday, the 28th inst. CATHOLICS. Mr. FITZGERALD presented several Petitions from Roman Catholics of the county of Kerry, praying for• a re moval of the Catholic disabilities.—Laid on the table. Sir RONALD FERGUSSON presented a peti tion from the town of Dysart, in Fife, praying for an alteration in the Corn Laws.—Laid on the table. Mr. MAXWELL presented several petitions from the Catholics of the county of Cavan, praying for Emancipation. —Laid on the table. Mr. MABERLY moved for Returns of the net Income of the United Kingdom for the years 1825, 6, and 7. Also an account of the Funded and Unfunded Debt, and the amount of deficiencies of the Bank during the same periods.— Ordered accordingly. COLONEL BRADLEY. Mr. HUMS had on a former occasion presented a petition from Colonel Bradley, complaining of his dismissal from the army, without having been allowed to make any defence, and other matters, and had moved for certain papers to substantiate the allegations of the petition, which the Noble Lord (Palmer ston) had thought proper to refuse ; but on the following day he had brought down the commission from General Fuller, under which Major Arthur had acted in the steps which he had taken against Colonel Bradley at Honduras, for the purpose of justifying the conduct of the Government in its proceedings against Colonel Bradley. But something more was wanted to bring the matter clearly to light ; and he therefore wished now to call for additional docutnents. As he thought that in common fairness these papers ought to be gratated, he was not then desir ous o f go i ng i nto t h e merits of the question; he would merely move for the documents requisite fully to elucidate the subject. Lord PALMERSTON' stated, that he believed some of them were not now in existence. He had stated that Col. Bradley had committed an act of disobedience of orders, which, if allowed to pass unpunished, would be subversive of all military discipline ; and the Government had come to that con clusion, not merely on the representation of Major Arthur, but on the mistatements of Colonel Bradley. Phis point did not proper lye a cause ebeitt e nde e r n t h t e h n e o t partiesice o f t 1 , 1 l e ,aB Court o i f . K t i h n a g t ' s Court.e ch , when Tb e thenl only a l s o e b s e tio b n ad th d e n r n e e w l a y s it , b w r h es e p th ee e t r t A o I a c jo o r l Arthur y h . ad l n a u o t r h d o e r r i t t y o to pro a l c .e t this, the Commission from Ga n. Fuller, Commander of theF orcee 4.t Jamaica, to Major A rthur, was produced, and the Court wtt then, ast of a opinion o t ntehle Bradley Commission b ,4 been was a kept sufficient unde r authority; arrestfo r b some time longer than he ought to have been, the Court thought that he was entitled to some damages, and 100/. or 200/. had been awarded him on account of the excess of imprisonment. The Honourable Gentleman, on a former occasion, had as• serted, that there was no such Commission in existence. On that Account he had laid the Military Commission before the House, together with a Civil Commission, granted to Major Arthur. He had further produced 'an extract of a letter from Major Arthur, proving clearly that Major Arthur, at the time of the transaction, was perfectly aware of the authority under which he acted ; so that it was clear that the Commission was panted at the time it bore date, and not subsequently made out, as had been insinuated. The Hon. Gentleman appeared to be confound ing in his own mind questions altogether distinct. Mr. HUME stated that this was a case of the utmost importance in a general point of view, and was, therefore, of much more consequence than if it had applied to Colonel Bradley alone, although one could not but be extremely sorry that a deserving individual had been so used. Colonel Bradley had been for twenty years in the army, and, during eighteen of these, had served in the West Indies ; and whatever acts he committed, which had the appearance of insubordination, were owing to Major Arthur himself, who had not published his Commission. It was extremely hard, then, that Colonel Bradley should be thus condemned merely on the assertion of Ministers. When Colonel Bradley came home, he commenced his action in the Court of King's Bench, against Major Arthur, who was defended by the Crown lawyers, at the expense of the Crown. It had been there held, tht the Commission was sufficient ; but he could not help conaidering that a 4 a *stake of the Learned Judge. Still, how ever, Colonel Bradl ey h a d a:verdict in his favour ; but Major Arthur had been hurried off by the Ministers to Van Dieman's Land, as Governer, so that Colonel Bradley had not even an op portunity of procuring his damages or expenses.. Mr. Secretary PEEL sa id, that it had at last become necessary that this question should be brought to some termination. Originally, it was represented by the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume), that the Whole question was, whether any Commission existed that justified Colonel Arthur in assuming the military command of Honduras. The Noble Lord (Palmer- Stun) asserted in the most positive m anner, that there was a Com mission of that nature in existence. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) expressed a strong suspicion, that the Commission, if any existed, must have been a fabrication. This statement was certainly one of those which approached the extreme limit of de bate. The fact? however, was soon placed beyond all doubt.-- The Commission itself was produced, and it them further appeared that it was signed by Gen. Fuller in 1814, and had the effect of devolving the military command of the colony upon Col. Arthur. The Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume), on the pro duction of this document, shifted his ground. He no longer de nied its existence , but he contended that the Commission was not properly worded, and therefore that it did not entitle Col. Arthur to take the command upon himself. [On the delivery of this passage in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, we believe Mr. Hume was in the act of rising to address the House]. The Right Honour able Secretary continued. He assured the Honourable Gentleman that he would not misrepresent his arguments, which he per fectly well remembered. The Hon. Gentleman denied that the Commission gave Colonel Arthur authority to assume the military command ; yet what were the words of the Commission ? It empowered Colonel Arthur to take the command of all the armed persons in the settlement. But the Hon. Gentleman insisted that this was not explicit enough to warrant Colonel Arthur in taking the command of the King's troops. They, he maintained, were not included in the general terms used in the appointment. The Commission should have stated distinctly that Colonel Arthur was to have the chief military command in the colony. That was the question at issue between the parties, and it was upon that ques tion the Court of King's Bench had to decide when the case was under consideration before that tribunal. The whole inquiry turned upon these points : " Was it a legal Commission ? Did it entitle Colonel Arthur to take the command, not only of the local militia, but also of the King's troops ?" The question was clearly settled in the lengthened argument of Lord Chief Justice Abbott. If the House, then, were satisfied that the Commission was in existence, and had confidence in the judgment of the four Judges of the King's Bench, they must be satisfied, that, as to every question of law and fact, Colonel Arthur was fully justified. The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded by saying, that such being the state of the case, he hoped the House would concur with him in resisting the production of any more papers re specting it. Mr. BERNAL stated that, in his opinion, the principal point was one which the Right Hon. Gentleman had overlooked, namely, whether General Fuller had legal authority to grant the Commission in question to any officer. In the deci sion pronounced by the Court of King's Bench, Mr. Justice Lit tledale had taken no part, because he had been originally engaged as counsel in the cause. But it would be seen by reference to the report of the trial, that the other Judges did not sufficiently advert to the point to which he (Mr. Bernal) was calling the attention of the House. The case of Col. Bradley was one altogether of great hardship, and he would take the liberty of advising the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) to represent it in the highest quarter, is one well deserving of redress. • Sir H. HARDINGE raid, that the only thing lie regretted in this case was the misfortunes of the individual. The motion was then negatived without a division. Mr. HUME, on moving the next resolution, re marked, that if the Gallant Officer who had last addressed the House had taken time enough to investigate the facts of the case, he would have found that Colonel Arthur was not considered to hold a Staff appointment, when he exercised the command at Honduras. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for Copies of any Official Notification of the appointment of Colonel Arthur, under the Commission granted to him by General Fuller. Mr. WOOD thought the production of these do cuments would tend to save the time of the House, and secure the approbation of the country. The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. HUME next moved for a copy of the letter from Colonel Torrens to General Fuller, relative to the ap pointment of Colonel Smith.—The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. HUME next moved for a copy of the Duke of Manchester's commission, dated 7th July, 1824, appointing Major Arthur Commandant of all his Majesty's subjects, armed, and to be armed, at Honduras. In moving for this document, Mr. HUME made some observations, which were not distinctly audible in the Gal lery, in the course of which he was interrupted by Lord PALMERSTON, who rose for the purpose of asking the Hon. Member whether, in stating that assertions had been made in that House not founded in fact, he meant to apply the observations personally to him (Lord P.) ? Mr. HUME said, that what he meant to convey was, that assertions not founded in fact, had been made in that House, and that he therefore chose rather to rely on the evidence of authenticated documents. Lord PALMERSTON felt himself called upon again tb inquire of the Hon. Member, whether he meant to apply the observation personally to him (Lord P.) ? Mr. HUME did not think the Noble Lord en- titled to any courtesy from him (Mr. H.) The Noble Lord had stated on a former occasion, that although he was ready to satisfy the House, he did not think himself bound to answer any question which he (Mr. H.) might put to him. He had no right at pre sent, therefore, to expect any courtesy from him (Mr. H.), hav ing on that occasion so notedly declined acting as a gentleman.— (Cries of " order, order.") The SPEAKER said, that it was the duty of every person who had the honour to sit in that House, to take care that the Orders of the House were complied with ; and that, lf_a. any irregularity escaped an H onoura bl e M em b er i n the warmt h the of de bate, he was bound, if th e i rregu l ar ity were n oticed, to sa tis fy House that the ex p ress i on was no t mea nt to c on as ve i y t might thing which would b e as di srespec tf u l to that House , ht be If he understood painful to the feelings of Honourable Mau he aid before the House were was, that authenticated instruments :bat could be made in that better evidence than any are n rt i n t, be was sure, be perfectly House. Such an explanatio and to every body in that House. the Honourable Member's explanation, all intended to convey satisfactory to the Noble Lord, With respect to the Honourable Member must himself feel lie was quite sure that dniv . and he was satisfied that the Hon. disorder]. e . 7 that it was highly could not have deliberately intended to make it. the last observation of the Honourable Member, never felt any inclination to offend U of M th E e House, and had uniformly endeavoured, in the adAnii;yeclaihAabliteeginrebi-oeLfr his public duties, to give as little personal offence as Po ssible. It might be inferred therefore, from the general tenour of his conduct, that it was not his intention to insult any one. He had no hesitation in saying that he did, on the present occasion, mean to tell the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Hume) would return the same conduct which the Noble Lord had shown towards him on a former occasion. If he had done wrong, he begged pardon of the House; but he certainly thought the Noble Lord had no right"to expect any reply from him, as a matter of courtesy, hav ing shown so little courtesy to him on a former occasion. The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. HUME subsequently moved for several papers connected with the case of Colonel Bradley, and the motions were ' severally negatived without a division. WRITS OF RIGHT. Mr. SHADWELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the period within which Writs of Right for the re covery of real property might be brought, and also to amend the law relating to dower. The Honourable and Learned Member stated that, by a statute passed in the 20th of Henry 111. it was enacted, that the period within which Writs of Right might be brought, should not exceed forty-five years. By the Statute of Westminster, 3d Edward 1., in the year 1275, it was enacted, that a Writ of Right might be brought from the time of Richard 1., 1199, making a limitation of 76 years. The law remained un altered till the 32(1 of Henry VIII. 1540, it was enacted, that no Writ of Right should he brought against a tenant who had had possession for more than sixty years. This was the law at the present day, and the practical effect of it was, not only that persons in the lower classe s of life mi g ht, in man y cases, inconvenience and injury. S u ch under the erroneous supposit i o n of their havin g a title to landed property, involve themse lves in g reat and useless expellee, but i personsa t n h d a , t wereeoipersonsildn not whoe exposeds l to x o vr 1 greater imortgage n e ,or tinc undoubtedly Nen the lawful po s se s s ors of l their property, unless they were capable of making out a title to it for a period of sixty years. His object, therefore, in the first place, was to limit this period. The measure which he proposed to introduce was not a new one. In the year 1'783 a bill had been introduced for the same purpose by Lord Kenyon, and this bill, as framed by the Committee in 1783, he (Mr. S.) intended, with a very few alterations to adopt. He should propose to limit the period within which the legal title to land might be disputed to 30 years. He proposed, also, to correct a gross abuse which resulted from the present state of the law. As the law now stood, a person having no title whatever, might, for the mere purpose of vexation, bring a Writ of Right against the person known to have the title. He might put him to great expence to prove his title, and after all he was not even compelled to pay costs to the person whom he had wantonly harassed, This abuse he proposed to remedy. There was another injustice which it was his intention to remedy..:-. At present the party bringing the Writ of Right was not bound to make out his claim, but the tenant in possession was compelled to make out his title to property, of which he might have been in possession for fifty years. He proposed to snake possession prima facie evidence of the right, and to throw upon the party disputing the right,the onus of proving a: better title to the land, The measure would also embrace an amend mint of the laic, relatlng to dotter. As the law stood at present every married woman was entitled to dower of any freehold land or inheritance of which her husband might be seized during the marriage ; and it was necessary that a purchaser of the estate should have it conveyed to him, so as to prevent the wife from being dowable of the land. This could only be done in a circuitous form, which created a great deal of expence—an inconvenience which it was a part of the objects of the present Bill to remove. The Honourable and Learned Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill. Mr. LOCKHART thought the Landed Interest were mush indebted to the Honourable and Learned Member, for the measure which he proposed to introduce. Mr. D. W. HARVEY expressed his surprise and regret that the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Shadwell) had not moved for the appointment of a Committee, to investigate the state of the laws with respect to the state of real property, rather than by proposing a partial remedy, such as that contained in his bill, to disappoint the expectations formed by the public upon any thing which might emanate from a man of the Learned Gen tleman's character, and legal reputation. If, however, the Learned Gentleman did not move that Committee, he would himself, at an early period, propose that the whole of the laws relating to real property be subjected to the revision of a Commit tee of the House. Mr. HUME expressed his conviction of the neces sity of such a Committee, and condemned any measure which did not put some bar to the claims of the Clergy for Tithes. Mr. SHADWELL, in reply, - declared himself willing to lend the benefit of any little experience he might possess, to any measure which the House might adopt towards a reforma tion of the Law of Real Property ; but he thought they ought not to reject the remedy of one grievance, because they could not obtain their wishes with regard to all. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. PRIVATE COMMITTEES. Mr. SYNGE COOPER gave notice of his inten- tion, in the discussion upon the Bill fir regulating Private Com mittees, to move that all Members be not alloNVed a voice in these Committees. Lord PALMERSTON brought up a Return of the number of Officers dismissed during the last year without Trial by Court Martial. Mr. HUME begged to ask the Noble Lord at what time the Return of the Sales of Commissions might be ex pected ? Lord PALMERSTON said he did not know, as the Papers were in the office of the Commander-in-Chief, but he would inquire.—The House then Adjourned at Eight o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING'S. HOUSE OF COMMONS. NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THIS DAY. 1. Mr. Wilmot Horton—Appointment of Committee on Emigration. t Mr. Littleton—Resolution respecting payment of Costs on Appeals on Private Bills. 8. Mr. Bransby Cooper—Resolution against adding Voices" to Com. mitteee on Private Bills. 4. Mr. Hume—Returns of Officers and Commissioas is the Navy and Marines. ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THIS DAY. 1. Ilchester Election Petition—Ballot for Committee at half after thrg, 2. Mallow Election—Adjourned Debate on Motion for enlarging time for entering into Recognizancer. NOTICES GIVEN YESTERDAY. Monday, Feb. 19. Mr. Jonathan Peel—To move that the Committee on the Norwich and Lowestoft Canal Bill be an open Committee. Wednesday, Feb. 21. 1. Mr. Fowell Buxton—Appointment of the Mauritius Slave Trade Committee. 2. Mr. Leader Maberly—To consider the Petition from the Borough of Northampton, relating to the conduct of the Corporation of that Borough. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. FRENCH PAPERS. (From the Constitutionnel of Sunday.) CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.—FRENCH BUDGET. The Minister of Finance addressed the Chamber for the purpose of presenting three Projects of Laws concerning the definitive amount of the Supply of 1825, the Supplemental Credits appli cable to the Supply of 1826, and the Fixation of the Budget of 1828. The definitive amount of the Accounts of 1825 is fixed at 981,272,120 f. The excess beyond the estimated expences in 1826 amounts to 18,696,000 f., which makes. the total of the ex pences of this supply amount to 985,9130,350 f. The excess of the receipts has produced 51,351,977 f. ; the total of the receipts, 989,058,715 f. It is calculated that the receipts in 1828 will exceed, by more than twenty-two millions, the assessment directed in the budget of 1827. The Government proposes to employ this excess in granting to every Minister the maximum of the sums considered necessary for the services of each of them ; whence it would result that no one of them could, for the future, demand a supplement of credit. The expected excess is divided as follows: Financ;s, 2 , 4B 7, 4 s3E—Justice, 150,00.0f.—Foreign Affairs, 700,000 E—Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction, 4,ooo,ooof.—lnterior, 5,996,600 E—War, 4,000,000 f. The An nual credit of thisDepartroent is,consequently axed at 200,000,000 f. —Marine, 3,000,000 f. The Annual credit is raised to 60,000,000 f. These augmentations, joined to 3,500,000 f., applicable to tl e service of the posts, raise the budget of the expencea of 1828 to 939,343,700 f. The budget of the receipts is calculated at 939,591,361 f. The Minister terminated his Address by the most brilliant pie ture of the prosperity of France. A single fact, adds M. de Villele, is sufficient to prove how indifferent the nation remains to declamations : never have we been more deafened by them than during the last month ; well—in this month the produce of the taxes on consumptions and transactions has risen 2,000,870 f. above the same produce during the same month in the preceding year. The President proposed, that the meeting in the Bureaux, for the examination of the law relative to the Finances, should not take place till after the distribution of the project.—Adopted. M. de Villele promised the distribution of the project for Monday. (From the Etoile, dated Monday, Feb. 12.) " PARIS, FEB. I I.—Letters from Pontevedra, in Galicia, dated the 24th of January, say that the vanguard of the Portuguese re fugees has arrived at Celanova. General Monte-Alegre was ex pected. Other refugees were going to Alfarelo to join those who are under the orders of Tellez Jordao. Another band, com manded by Magessi, was marching towards Villa-Rondelo. It is known that 2,000 refugees have re-entered, in small de tachments, the province of Tras-os-14Iontes. The militia of Villa-Viciosa defend the passage of the bridge over the river Tuft. The head-quarters were at Pazas, four leagues from Chime. Letters from Orense, of the 26th of January, say that the day before, about 10 o'clock, there had been an action, in which the refugees were repulsed by the troops of the Regency, who were superior in number. " Letters from Castile of the 30th of January say, that Major- General Viscount de Barcea has presented himself with his fa mily, a brigadier, and some officers, and that they have been ordered to proceed to the province of Soria, 60 leagues from the frontiers. " A Portuguese officer has presented himself with 14 horsemen at Albuquerque, who, by orders of General San Juan, have been disarmed, and sent into the interior. LIES OF THE DAY. "1 he Quotidienne.—lt is known that in the affair of Co ruches, the advantage was on the side of the Portuguese refugees. just received ou r l e tt ers f rom " The Constitutionnet—There i u s going esda, F t e o be a numerous Feb. 13.) c r e ConstantinopleoAn s(P, (From nn s o — f ttlh 4 l2, ee o . , —El s l c ovi , iiel o ej r hadan fi avut O eea . dr j; "The Government redoubles its activity, and exerts all its efforts to extirpate among the people their habits of indolence.— A finnan has been issued relative to the police of the coffee-houses or galata ; (we shall give it to-morrow.) " Within this month 2,000 regular troops, with two beibaches, 20 topchis, and four cannon have been sent from Constantinople to Larissa. A great number has been sent to Negropont, and 1,000 topchis and eight cannon. " Three thousand men, 1,000 topchis, and eight cannon have been scat to Morrastier, under the orders of Count Ra moli Valossi. "It is .aid that Solirnan Aga, who is sent to Egypt to re establish a sy s t em f or the supply of the capital, and the army, is to go first to Candia. ' The steam-boat sent to the Greeks is in Canea with A schooner. " LIES OF THE DAY. " The Courier Francais. —The Swiss Brigade will not re turn to France : 1,000 men will go to St. Sebastian, and 1,000 men to Pampeluna. " The same.—A creation of new Peers is going to paralyze the e, Upper Chamb ers . " The same.—The demand of two millions by the Minister The Swiss Brigade re-entered Frae on the 11th o f F e b n