The Sun. — London, England, 1839-01-16 00:00:00

)NERS. DAY•) its morning their scats a of the bar, b e nest week " otions and the Ls the Os- ,, d was alleife n Friday th e ! Saturday. [mid occuil husband t,be nt in leas t mo re on t he m return. o the writ sue if it is gice°' .nt, which ° , it Toronto 00, ley Robh? ° was in talent he 11., iat his pil e , .to Van ,b i t arrival 10 e lid ask° r at o f the o 0 e argt l m „.ity h that, " os let in • Lordsb P , and J ud fr Lea r ti P s d , eing h e ; ie hey st fr o° l it. S Ley bp. e bet how „ t o :he st at 's I son• he sectiv- make. These r I re c is 11 °, sth oi to the THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANITARt' Id, NV. Isportatioie according to the terms of the conditional par don, and that the law authorises all that is necessary to carry the sentence into execution ; and with respect to the three, that they are liable to conviction, and might lawfully be d eta i ned in the custody of the gaoler of Li verpool, if necessary ; and, if necessary, we shall ask the Court to amend the return. My Learned Friend says, as an enactment, the sth of George IV. is material to this question, and therefore the restriction of the sth of George IV, to the reception of convicts has nothing to do with this case. They say , h owever, t h at the sth of George IV. is very Material to their case ; because, if I understand my Learned Friend, his argument is certainly very ingenious, and he says that the recital in the preamble to the 17th section is a legisla tive recognition of the validity of the laws, which are thus de scribed :—" Whereas, by the laws in force in some parts of his Majesty's dominions, not within the United Kingdom, offen ders convicted of certain offences are liable to be punished by tr ansportation beyond the seas, and others convicted and ad judged to suffer death may receive a pardon on condition of be ing transported,and there being no means of transporting them to the place of banishment without being first brought to England, be it therefore enacted." My Friend's use of the statute begins and ends with this recital. Now, I will first observe, that there is nothing so weak as evidence of facts as the mere recital in an Act of Parliament. It is every day's knowledge that these facts are unfounded. A case was lately before Mr. Justice Coleridge, in which it was quite clear that the most im portant fact on which a large claim made by the. Baron de Bode depenied, was entirely forgotten in the recital. In that recital it was averred that all the claimants were registered, whereas the principal claimant was not registered at all. Therefore, when my Learned Friend says that this recital is to be evidence, nay more, proof of the fact that there Were such foreign laws, I say it is the worst of all means of Prov - in t ,. it. B ut my Leerned Friend's argum en t i s no t com plete there, because it might he that the colonies had the power to make these laws not proprie frigore, but by virtue of some Power conferred by the Imperial Parliament, but then he * 5 31 he has been examining the statute carefully, and to such power exists. Therefore, there being no such Power, and it being recognised by the sth of Geo. IV., it must be inherent in it. I believe I have stated the argument of my Learned Friend correctly and fairly. Now, my Lords, in the first place, my Learned Friends have assumed that the power which they say is recognised as a Power to transport from a colony is not ad fines, but mire fines of some other jurisdiction. That is their assumption. Not that it is a power to transport out of a colony so far as the prisoners may be taken without coming into another countre , over which the colony has no controul ; but they have assumed that the power which they say is recognised is a power to go into another country. Now, in the first place, what is there in the recital Which my Learned Friends rely upon to prove their proposi tion. The Act says that the offenders are liable to trans portation beyond the seas, and therefore the fact fails them. But not only the fact fails them, but the law also, as I think I shall be enabled to show your Lordships. They call upon Your Lordships to suppose what I submit is a legal absurdity, bow can there be a law in Lower Canada enabling that country to thrust its convicts upon any other colony__ Bermuda for instance, of which I shall have a word or two to say shortly, because that is a case that has been legislated upon . I s t h e colony of Lower Canada inflict its convicts on Bermuda, has it the right to bring persons to Bermuda, and hold them there in that species of restraint which is part of the punish men t o f t ransportat i on ? I apprehend i t to be a principle not only of our municipal law, a general p r i nc i p l e i n t h e law of all civilised nations, that no man can be held in restraint in any country ex cept by virtue of the laws of that country that have ordered him to be subject to that restraint. Do, my Learned Friends mean to say, that before the sth of Geo. IV. the colony of Upper Canada could have sent convicts to Eng land under a sentence of punishment which they were to re ceive there? Suppose, for instance, that some of the convicts Were sentenced to work in chains in the streets, will my Learned Friend contend that we are to be subject to that in fliction in England from a colonial sentence ? I should appre hend my Learn e d F r i en d wou ld contend for no such proposition. I soy that it requires a positive law of the countr into whh an Person comes that he should be kept there anddetained; that is not only the law of all countries, but especially so of Eng land. The case put by my Learned Friend Sir F. Pollock yes terday appears to me to have no bearing whatever upon the case. He asked whether it could be seriously argued that if a vessel laden with convicts put into our waters by stress of Weather those convicts would have a right to a writ of habeas corpus, to that I say they would ; and there is a case in point upon that subject. Some time since there was a ves sel laden with convicts wrecked off Boulogne, many of the convicts were saved, but I never heard that they went back to England, er were detained on the French shores. It would have been contrary to the law of nations if they had been. Is it contrary to the law of nations that one country is the recep tacle of the exiles of another ? Certainly not. Can the reception of the Huguenots here be said seriously to be a violation of the law of nations? My Lords, if it can, my only hope is that the law will be violated every day in the week, and every year in t hecentury. There is no pretence for saying any such thing; the Practice ofChristianity is against it, and has been so for centuries. Can it be contended for a moment that the Emperor of Russia e"su ever complained o f t h e P o l es b eing received in this ac ° d I ht rY, as contrary to th e l aws o f nat i ons ? Certainly not ; 1117 therefore say it is a legal absurdity to suppose there is , recognition o f any suc h l aw. T he proposition sub ,`ted to th e C ourt i s this,—it may be the law that a em on Y may have the power, by its Legislative Assem off'T.,to make a law sending out a convict to the shores t h e England, or to the shores of any other country, but Le e . moment the convict is in the country, that moment s infra fines, and then the power over his personal liberty therel'sffered a devolution from the authority that sent him e to the law of the country into which he has come. My Learned Friend thought they had cited an authority against Th_ a by citing the authority of the Imperial Parliament ; now, 5 Pposing they had been right in the use of th a t au thority, it a w ould have been open to this remark, that the power of imperial Must be lo o ked a t w ith great j ea l ousy , b ecause n I_ s ower over wch there is superidence. The .:preaiaPrl Parliament hi exercises every species nten of power, and the own sense of right and ha g• The Imperial Parliament never attempts, and never trio attempted, to hold per sons i n t ransportat i on i n e,oun „_s in which they ha ve no aut h or i ty . N ow, w i t h respect to rea t erm banishm en t, I b e li eve t h at term really to itse II this, that the banishing country sends forth übj of a eet, either setti ng hi m f ree at t h e con fi nes a n i s °WO territory, o r t a ki ng hi m t o t h e con fi nes o f be-9toer; that, I b e li eve, i s the banishment that at present exists, indeed i t would be nugatory if it were not so. It may a severe pu n i s h ment or it may not. It may be a severe punishmen t to banish an Englishman into Scotland, but it ; a a t ? not be a severe punishment to banish a Scotsman to gland.--(Great lau g ht er .) T rans p or t a ti on t o a country a laprels e ee . to ee to mean this—not only a power to send a p erson ir:a particular place, but a power to hold him in 8 a t t ra int, and deal with him for penal purposes when he e2Psuch place. I, therefore, say that it is against all prin. c l t e of t e n suppose that this loose recital in the preamble of eon , 'ornament, can show the existence of a power chiwhs nis irar to all principle, and which, however much recog thee"' C an never be exerted. As I said, nay Lords, before, the recital does not make out my Friend's proposition, that convictre i any such power as will enable one country to send a into another. What my Friends contend for is the aexistence of an inherent power in the Legislature in the sh i n v e Acts of Parliament. Now, my Lords, I deny p a . ; th of e present instance there is an absence of Acts of t parliament ; there are Acts called the Canada Acts, by which h - nt e law of thi s country, as I contend, was imported wholesale t h e Canada. It may happen that some of the laws may g i ve _ powe r o f transportation for a particular offence, and it may be 7 a that th e recital has reference to that state of things ; 'nay be so, but don't let my Friends fall in which inhere the fallacy of supposing that that shows an !alierent power to make laws. I negative the in co ppower, by showing you an Act of Parliament er the law ready made. It is exceedingly strange, n'Y Lords, to my mind that when my Friend was arguing this que stion he forgot a great controversy on this oint which Wa s agitated in Parliament during the last Sessio p n, in which, that Learned Friend took a prominent part. Now, how to trans uestion differs from whether a certain ordinance port to Bermuda is correct or not, I can no t te ll. I arilat a loss to know the difference. My Learned Friend i s of opi n i on that that transportat i on to B ermuda was h i . lie gal; that w as my L earne d F r i en d' s opinion. Oth ers o f toger authority ( an d I sa y, w ith ou t any want of defer ence I,.my Lear ne d F r i en d , " o f hi g h er a uthority," b ecause hi lily in station) were of a different opinion. But what ! ar as the op i n i on of the Parliament of England? Th at op i n i on 's to be collected from the Indemnity Act. My Lords, the In demnity Act of last year recites that an Act was made this Presen t session entitled " An Act to make temporary provision ef o i r the Government' of Lower Canada, and that whereas "yr or ordinance hath been made and published by the Go e vernor of th e sa i d province, by and w i th t h e consentofth sai d Special C ounc il , wh i ch ord i nance canno t b e justified by 4 w, but w hi ch was intended for the security o f t h e sa id pro to , e, it is expedient that all persons acting in obedience the same, should be indemnified by Parliament in the manner ered to the extent hereafter provided for." My Lords, I Marvel that my Learned Friend did not at the time of t•lthaet sthdebate,of stand up on th e p ream bl e t o hi s 17th section of George th e F ourt h. I s t hi s an a f ter thought? Is this a discovery made under the exigencies of the present duifefirceu, my Lords, or is it a well-known and established authority ? Lords, however, we have something more than a r ecital. W e have an enactment founded upon that view of the law by the whole Legislature - of the country—the highest authority —the Imperial Parliament, deciding and going to the itngth of this great proposition, that one Colony cannot transport into another Colony. I wish that my Learned Friend, I trust that my Learned Friend when he comes to ansvrer me, will b 1 kind enough to .tell the Court plainly what could have b een done with transported persons in England before the sth of Oeorg e IV. My quest i on i s, h ow cou l d they h ave been held in restraint before the sth of George IV.—any convicted perso n of any kind ? That is my question, because if they Could not be held in restraint, then their case is exactly the same as that on which I am putting the case of the present Prisoner. What your Lordships want is en English authority to hold that man in restraint in England—that is th e quest i on . I say there is no pretence for saying he could be held in re straint, except by the sth Geo. IV., the enacting part of it; and he is not within the enacting part of it. as is now practi cally conceded, because he is not convicted by any Court or : j udge, nor adj u d ge d to transportat i on. My Lords, that then 18 my reply 'o my L earne d F r i en d' s answer to my pr i nc i pal objections Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Have you considered, Mr. Hill, under what authority it is the Crown grants a pardon for the co fission of high treason ? tram Mr. have not considered it, my Lord, but the Crown has for many years assumed the power of granting a pardon upon conditions, but it has not assumed the power of enforcing those, except by the natural and obvious mode of saying, if the conditions are not fulfilled, then the sen tence remains in force. Perhaps your Lordships are aware that my Lord Chief Justice, keeping in his reports, gives a sort of history of the rise of this power. I am not speaking of the ease of treason, but of commutation. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—The Habeas Corpus Act extends to felony. Mr. HILL—I think, my Lord, I can throw light upon it by reading an extract from " Keeling's Report of Cases on Pleas of the Crown." Speaking of a Session at the Old Bailey, h 3 says— '• At the same Session, one Edward Parrot was in the place where the pri-oners used to stand, at gaol de livery, for murder, for which he had afterwards judgment, and while there, one Copeland, a Scotsman, being in very good clothes—( Laughter)—being in very good clothes, went in under colour to see him, and after staying some time, came out, and the prisoner followed him." They were afterwards retaken. Copeland was indicted for the felony, for rescuing Parrott. Copeland said, "He had done nothing but what he ought to do, to help his friend to save his life ;" and on the evidence he was found guilty. " And on his request he being to have clergy it was allowed to be put into the King's pardon among those prisoners of that nature, who were to be sent beyond the sea, it having been lately issued that for felonies within Clergy, if the prisoner desire it, not to give his book, but to procure a conditional pardon from the King, and send them beyond the sea, to serve five years in some of the King's plantations, and then to have land assigned them according to the size of those plan tations, with a condition in the pardon to be void if they do not go"--of course, my Lords, if they do not go—" or if they return into England within seven years, or after, without the King's license." What did that come to? Why, that there was a provision made, tran sportation being more in the nature of service for hire and reward to be afterwards paid to them in the shape of an assignment of lands to their benefit ; but if they would not ac cept of this, or if they repented of what they had done, they were under the peril of a judgment, arid so far as it depended on contract having no legal force, but as, as is perfectly clear from the extractss - I have read, they being at liberty to put an end to that contract whenever they pleased, it only being in force by their fear of the peril of the judgment which might thereupon ensue. My Lords, it is that practice, I apprehend, that the section referred to yesterday by my Learned Friend, this 14th section of the Habeas Corpus Act, applies; and, my Lords, what is the true construction of that section ? First of all, the 13th section should be referred to. What does that section mean ? It means the subject shall not use the remedy given by the Habeas Corpus Act to do a wrongful act as regards his own contract; that is to say, to obtain the earnest, under pretence that he was willing to serve in a foreign land, and then to say " a contract to serve beyond the sea is not a valid contract, to be enforced against my will, I will sue out my writ of habeas corpus." " No (says the Legislature), you must depend on the old remedies for that. This Act is intended for different pur poses, and shall not be abused for such a purpose as that." See, my Lords, the next section—" Provided always and be it enacted, that if any person lawfully convicted of any felony." Your Lordships will mark the safeguards to the liberty of the subject that were thought necessary in the reign of Charles 11., but which, in the reign of Victoria, are begin ing to be thought too great a license for the subjects of this realm. Your Lordships will observe that it applies to persons " law fully convicted under any felony ; and if they shall afterwards pray to be transported beyond the sea," &c. &c." That leaves it as it was before. The transportation is to be en forced by the peril of the judgment, of which care is taken here that there shall be the judgment, in order that that judgment may be the compellin g power to the prisoner to go abr oa d, an d b e i ng ab roa d, there to remain. My Lord, this is the second great point,—that the provincial statute of the Colony does not justify compulsory transporta tion. I speak upon this point under some disadvantage, for we have not been able to procure a copy of the Act. We were told there was but one copy iu England, which was in the pos session of the Attorney- General. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-There are five hundred copies to be had within a yard or two of this Court. Mr. HlLL—Then we have been misinformed, my Lords, for we applied at the Colonial-office and we were told there was but one copy in England. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Act was returned to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. ROEBUCK-Not that one. Mr. HILL—WeII, my Lords, in this case, as in every other, I must do the best I can. The objections to the Statute, with respect to which this question arises, I am now submitting to your Lordships, is this,—the Statute gives to the Governor, under certain circumstances, the power of granting conditional pardons. Suppose the Statute, as it is set out in the return, I would ask this question, does it create a power in the Go verrirr to invent a new punishment, or must not the condition be that the party shall do something to which be legally bound himself by contract ? Your Lordships see that one very heavy punishment is imperative—the forfeiture of all the pri soner's property, real and personal. My Learned Friends rely on another clause, " that in case any person pardoned under this Act, on condition of being transported, or banish ing himself from this province, shall afterwards voluntarily return to the said province without lawful excuse, before the expira tion of the term of his transportation, he shall suffer death, as in case of felony." Now, my Lords, first let us consider that statute without this second clause. And then, upon the mere recital of that, it amounts to no more than a mere general enact ment that the Governor shall be empowered to institute con ditions. But will the Court push it further, and say that be is empowered to create new punishments to any extent ? I think the Court will not. I will consider the effect of the other clause presently. My Learned Friends felt that the words of the statute were quite too large. They said that the statute must receive a more limited construction. They say that though the punishment be unlimited in words, it must be limited by law, as I understood—that is to say, that the Governor must not impose punishments unknown to the law. My Learned Friends give no authority for that being the test. But I will suppose it so. In the present case, however, my Lords, the Governor has gone beyond those limitations—he has invented a punishment. And lam bound to say, a punishment more unjust never was invented by the perverted sagacity of man, than has been imposed in the case of the prisoner on whose case I am now addressing your Lord ships. What is that punishment? It is fourteen years' trans portation—not from the time of granting the conditional par don, not from any definite or certain period, but from an un certain period, a period in futuro—from the time of their landing in Van Diemen's Land. Is there any connection be tween such a punishment and the offence ? No. It is a punish ment dependant on the accidents of the winds and waves, un influenced by the necessity or non-necessity of coming to Eng lend. For it does not appear by this return, that when the prosoner set out from Canada there was any intention of coming to Eng land. There may have been a vessel ready at Quebec to take the prisoners to Van Diemen's Land. Considering the mild manner in which, according to the Attorney- General, the laws are administered in Upper Canada, a vessel might have been chartered for the purpose, that the length of the punish ment might not be increased by the duration of the voyage. I say, my Lords, this is a punishment unknown to the law of England ; and unrecognized by any principle of law, of justice, or equity. But, my Lords, I repudiate such a test as twat. My Learned Friends say that there must not be a pu nishment unknown to the law. The law remains the same, whether the punishment inflicted be severe or merciful. lam not at this stage of the proceedings objecting to the extent of the punishment, or the particular nature of it ; lam con tending that your Lordships will not so construe those loose words in a highly penal act, as to give the Governor of Upper Canada the power of doing (what the Imperial Sovereign cannot), creating new punishments. Let us now consider the next claim. My Learned Friends say that as this clause by implication mentions a punishment from transportation, transportation may be the condition imposed by the governor. Is not that monstrous?—that any punishment short of death —perhaps death itself—may, " by implication," be inflicted by the Governor? My Lords, the doctrine of "implication" does not (if it arises in the criminal law), apply here. The L( gislature says not—" You shall be transported against your will ;" bur, " your sentence is transportation, and ifyou choose to come back you shall suffer the punishment which would otherwise have been inflicted." Therefore, my Lords, I say there is no power in the provincial Act to compel persons to be transported against their will. Now, my Lords, my Learned Friends on the other side say that if the condition is void, the pardon is necessarily gone, also. My Lords, I apprehend not. The statute gives the power of granting pardon ; and on some condition. It may be, how ever, that the pardon is good, and the condition void ; that the pardon may act, but the condition inoperative. Suppose, my Lords, in this country a pardon to be granted on some condition inconsistent Ri.h good morals, on a stipulation that the party pardoned, for instance, should go to some foreign country, and assassinate its Prince. I apprehend the pardon would be good, though the condition would be void. My Lords, for certain offences the Legislature of Upper Canada have inflicted the punishment of transportation. But it is curious to observe how little their opinions agree with the statements of my Learned Friend. The Legislature of Upper Canada did not claim any power before the sth George IV. ; but they say that since the sth of George IV. was passed they may transport through England to the penal colonies, and then they make laws for suet trans portation. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE_[Iow does the A c t run , after direct'ng the criminal law to be administered as in England, subject to conditions ? Suppose a person indicted for an offence which according to the law of England would be subject to transportation. Mr. HILL—Your Lordship means convicted. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Yes. Mr. HILL—Not for this offence? Mr. Justice LITTLEDALZ—No : for felony, for stealing or for receiving stolen goods. Mr. HlLL—This would be the consequence, my Lord : Upper Canada being a country having no communication with the sea, the prisoner could not be transported directly from that province ; but under 5 Geo. IV. the means of trans. portation were given through England. Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE-Then a law of Canada has passed since the Act of Geo. 111., commuting to transportation as a punishment ? Mr. HILL—Yes, my Lord ; but my friend Mr. Roebuck will call your attention to these points, being more versed in them than I am. Mr. Justice CoLeinue—How would the ability to transport through England vary the case as regards Upper Canada, which was still an inland country? Mr. HILL_I cons id er t h e o bj ect o f your L or d s hip' s ques tion to be this, that if the Act of Parliament gave the power of transporting through England, perhaps ex oteceasitate, it may give the power of another mode of transit—it may, or it may not, I cannot tell. Mr. Justice COLERIDOE—It gives the power to transmit the prisoners to Van Diemen's Land, through one country; perhaps ex necessitate, it may give it through another—why nut two steps as well as one ? Mr. HILL—Your Lordship is talking of sth George IV. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—No, I speak of Ist Victoria, chap. 10. Mr. firm—That is the Provincial Act. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—YeS. Mr. HILL—My Lord, this is not within the sth Geo. IV. If the Ist Victoria dealt with the same persons as arc men tioned in the sth Geo. IV., then the difficulty which you Lord ship is pointing out might arise. But at present the Ist Vic toria deals with another class of persons—the persons who are transpOrted by virtue of the Ist Victoria, if they are to be trans } orted at all, are not convicted. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE —I am assuming that the Ist Vic toria empowers those persons who come within it to be tran sported to Van Diemen's Land. Then does:it not authorise ex necessitate the transporting through L0....er Canada and through England, if it be necessary? Mr. HILL.—It may be so, my Lord. I am not pre pared at the present moment to say whether it is so or not. I should apprehend, however, that it is not so. I should apprehend, that the principles of law to which I have called your Lordships' attention, as to the impossibility of one State interfering with another, would rather show that there may be some want of power to trans port from Upper Canada, because see what the consequence would be. It might be to hold persons in restraint in this country in opposition to the laws of this country. Sup pose there should be a law' there to transport for a corpmon assault, would it not be monstrous that in this country persons should be restrained from their liberty and treated as convicts (for they are to be so by the sth George IV.) put among the class of convicts for mat ters which the law of England does not think worthy of such treatment. I have not felt bound to argue that there is any power in Upper or Lower Canada to transport—not because I concede it, but because it was not necessary to my argument to controvert it. But I see many difficulties in the way of those who are to make out the affirmative of their proposition, that there is sufficient authority. The decision in respect to Bermuda was since the sth Geo. IV. That was the very last year. My Lord, the next great point was this. Suppose the transportation to have been well awarded—that is to say, sup pose in its inception it was good, and good till it came to the extent of the warrant of Governor Arthur, was it good beyond ? My Lord, this is a point of immense importance to the liberty of the subject. Gover nor Arthur seems to have given a warrant, which expired on the party coming into Lower Canada. Your Lordships will find by the return that Governor Arthur does not affect to do anything with the prisoner after be leaves the confines of Up. per Canada. It is averred that by the authority and warrant of the Governor of Upper Canada the prisoner was sent into Lower Canada. I believe I have stated the averment cor rectly. " After the said pardon the prisoner shall be con veyed, by the authority and warrant of the said Lieute nar t-Governor of Upper Canada unto' the province," and not " into." So that your Lordships will see that I have stated the case more strongly against myself, " and was there in Lower Canada by virtue of the warrant in that behalf delivered into the custody of the Sheriff of Quebec." My Lords, my Learned Friends have not dealt at all with the arguments arising from the transfer of authority ; nay, transfer it is not, for it is the expiration or fulfilment of the authority of Governor Arthur ; it is the fulfilment of an authority given by Governor Arthur, and the assumption of an authority over the prisoner by Governor Colborne—an assump which it does not appear is legalised by any authority averred to be inGovernorColborne. If he had that authority it is not se: forth, nor is it even simply averred to exist. YourLordsbips are therefore to collect it,and from what ? Is necessity to be resorted to again. Why, even that necessity is not averred, and it is quite clear there could have been no necessity. I should like, my Lords, an answer to this proposition by my Learned Friends, that if there was the power to transport from Upper Canada via England to Van Diemen's Land, ought there not to be an authority given to Governor Arthur which would not be expired until the prisoner was landed in Van Diemen's Land. If, as your Lordships supposed, there might be the power ex necessitate, to carry the prisoner through Lower Canada, to whom was th a t p ower en t rus t e d? Is it not a p ower i n the Governor of Upper Canada to carry his prisoner through Lower Canada. Is that not distinct front the power to turn him up in Lower Canada, to be caught by any persons who might choose to catch him and deal with him as they might think proper, if they make a bold return to the habeas corpus when he comes to England. Now, I want to know how it stands upon this return, that Governor Col borne had any power. I called your Lordships' at tention yesterday to the nature of a Governor's fice, and not one word of it was confronted by my Learned Friends. A Governor, I said, was merely an Attorney for the King. I don't know, therefore, what Go vernor Colborne is, except that he is a person who has some patent from the King to exercise some power which usually appertains to the Governor of Lower Canada. But is there anything in the patent empowering him to exercise any autho rity over this person when he comes into Lower Canada. Then, my Lords, his course of transit is changed imme diately. Governor Colborne sends him to England upon an alleged necessity, but alleged by whom? Not by Go vernor Colborne. He never pretends that is necessary. No part of the warrant sets out that he thought it necessary. It is the gaoler of Liverpool only who says it is necessary. A most important principle arises on this. The law is so strict with regard to the dealing of one man with another, that it is a principle that a person guilty of murder, condemned for murder, ordered for execution, if executed by any person but the Sheriff, is a murdered man, and the person so executing him may be hanged himself for murder. Can I give a stronger instance to show that it is not because a man is criminal, though it may be right to transport him, that any body, therefore, has that power ? Could any body who found this man in Lower Canada, presume to judge of the necessity of sending him to Van Diemen's land by way of England,and put him into a v e s se l an d carr y hi m o ff that way?. Could lie assume any dominion over him at ? My Lords, to these points my Friends have given no answer. They have not thought them worthy of attention, but I submit they are points of very grave importance. But, my Lords, I doubt whether Governor Colborne's authority was to do more than to take the man on board the vessel, because it merely says he is to be taken to such part of England as to the Queen may seem fit ; from which it might be inferred that he was to wait for some further authority as to what was to be the destination of the voyage. And it does not appear that her Majesty ever signified her pleasure in the matter. My Lords, then he comes to England. Mr. Morton, the pri vate master of this private vessel, objects to go to Liverpool and put the prisoner into the custody of a person who happens to be the Governor of the gaol. Suppose that Mr. M or t on h a d kept the prisoner in the vessel or taken him into his own house, so that the writ of habeas corpus would have been di rected to him, what would his answer have been ? Why, that they were in transitu towards Van Diemen's Land. Would that have been good ? If Captain Morton could have de tained them, could he have handed them over to any other private person ? How does the gaolor of Liverpool for this pur pose differ from any private person ? What authority has he simply by being the gaolor, to take these persons ? How does he differ from any person whom Captain Merton might hive met and transferred them ? Never let it be forgotten that the terminus is not England. My Learned Friends, if there was any irregularity in bringing the man here, was it not cured by his coming here ? No. England for that pnrpose is no more than a colony. Suppose these men had gone through Nova Scotia, and had overpowered the master, and put him to death, would they have been guilty of murder? I boldly ask my Learned Friends that question ; and if they answer n the affirmative, I would ask them to show on what authority they make the assertion ? I assert they were perfectly justified in obtaining their liberty, if they could do so by the use of physical force; and I say that England, for that purpose, is Nova Scotia. They are here, therefore, held by a person who has committed an act of violence in obtaining them at all— who has no authority to place them before the Court at all— who is a person unknown to your Lordships—a self-elected keeper of those persons upon whose statements your Lordships are asked to:send these men into exile for life. My Lords, the fourth point is this. Even supposing all these difficulties to be overcome, is the return made according to the requisitions of the law of the land ? It is not enough for Mr. Batchelor to say that there are such and such documents in existence, which contain matter which I will put into a nut-shell, and call so and so, putting my construction upon the facts, and drawing my inferences, and calling npon your Lordships to transport these men by virtue of my inferences. My Lords, the case of the King and Saddis has been referred to, and one of your Lordships asked my Learned Friends, when commenting on this ease, whether the want of a warrant was submitted to the Court as an objection ? It was not. I know it may be said that the case was argued by Mr. Erskine, for whom no man has a greater reverence than :myself. But still doctrines of law are doctrines of law, and the point which is not made by Counsel, nor adjudged upon, can receive no weight from that omission, however great the name of the Counsel who omitted to argue it. But there is a broad distinction between the case of the King and Saddis and the present case. Gibraltar is averred to be a military station of the English army. Saddis was a soldier in the English army. Fe was a person under the controul of his officer—a person who had not the perfect controul of his own actions. Saddis might have been sent from Gibraltar to the Governor of Portsmouth, who was also a military man, by the Lieutenant who brought him, without his having been a criminal at all. But, my Lords, is a principle vital to the liberty of the subject to be considered as decided in a case where the point was never adverted to ? I apprehend not. I apprehend, if the King and Saddis be good law, it is only with reference to the par ticular circumstance on which it was decided. The case of the King and Saddis was founded, say the Judges, upon a judgment. They found words in the return which they found tantamount to a consideratum est. Mr. Justice Wieeisms—There was no charge against them. Mr. HILL—Yes, my Lord. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS--It is not stated in the return. Mr. HtLL—There was a judgment. Every thing which is precedentao a judgment, may for some purposes be consi dered as disposed of and got rid of by the judgment, and they were not to look any further. Lord Kenyon says the pri soner in this instance had been tried before a court of compe tent jurisdiction at Gibraltar, and sentenced to transportation for fourteen years. It is not denied but that for the same corpus debete, the same judgment might have been given in the Courts here—treating it, therefore, as a judgment by which it is distinguished from the present case in that respect also. I humbly submit, my Lords, that it is necessary the warrant should be set cut from begir. ning o end, and that your Lordships will give no credit to t 1 • statement of persons, where either there ought to be a warrat t and there is none—it is bad for that reason —or, there is, and the warrant is not set forth. Now, is it possible, according to the laws of any country, that this man could be brought from Upper Canada, and delivered to a gaoler here, with out a warrant to justify not only his detention, but all the previous steps which led to that detention ; and it ought to be set out. I called your Lordship's attention yesterday to the King and Clarke, in which it was said there must be a warrant, unless the com mitment were to an officer of the Court, in the face of the Court ; arid if there was a warrant it must be set out. Now, my Lords, is Mr. Batchelor an officer of any Court in Upper Canada ? Is this man on his way to Van Diemen's Land, according to the judgment of any Court ? No. He, there fore, is a private person, mentioned in the Act. He cannot be detained without a warrant; and if he he should have one, it must be set out. Now, my Lords, I come to the last point—the parole aver ment in this return. It is averred by parole that the prisoner confessed his guilt. Mark, my Lords, the violation of all la w end all principle which is involved in making such en averment as this. Suppose Mr. Batchelor were upon his oath —suppose he had read that document —suppose he web e present at the signing of the petition by the prisoner —suppose he knew it all as perfectly as possible, and were placed in the witness-box upon his oath, and subjected to c ross - examination, would your Lordships allow the question to be put, " Did the prisoner confess his guilt ?" Your Lordships could not. Is not that one mode of trying if the matter is set out with sufficient particularity ? If such a question as that could not be allowed, how are you to take his unsupported dictum—he who does not pretend he ever saw this document, or, if he does pretend it, is a party to the erossest injustice —a party to the cruellest injustice, by not nutting it, of his own accord, upon the return. So, my Lords, it is stated that he assented to the petition—that he assented io the pardon. My Lords, what act did he do ? How can your Lordships judge that he assented to the pardon ? Is it possible your Lordships have the power of judging merely upon the gaoler using the phrase " assented ?" Should not the gaoler have told you what it was he did? So of the aver ment respecting (" it seemed fit to the Queen,") should it not have been told how it seemed fit to the Queen, what her Majesty did, what was said ? All this my Learned Friends have passed over. They called them minor points. Minor points I Why, they affect deeply the liberty of the subject. Your Lordships are called upon here to form a most solemn precedent —a precedent which may be used by and by to make the writ of habeas corpus useless to the subject—al though your Lordships have protected it from the attack of my Learned Friend, who wished that the subject might not have it. But what will your Lordships have done for liberty :f you allow the writ to run, and then make it thus mockery that any man taking any other man, who is bold enough to put upon a return to a writ of habeas corpus that be was con victed somewhere, and that he is on the way to Van Diemen's Land, and that he has taken him to hold him safely until a ship can be prepared to convey him to his destination ? Any erson so dealing with any other person, may, according to the doctrine of my Learned Friends, insure him transportation for life. My Learned Friends say that is no hardship at all. It is true, you may be shipped off to Van Diemen ' s Land, but you will have the pleasure of bringing your action against the man who has so shipped you, and who, in order to get out of the way, may ship himself off to America in the next vessel. With these observations I shall conclude with moving that your Lordships discharge the prisoner Randal Nixon. There is one point which I have net adverted to, and it is this—what shall be done with the prisoners if your Lordships quash this return ? I am prepared to offer observations on that point now, but it ap pears to me premature. The main question is, is the return to be quashed ? and, therefore, with your Lordships' per mission, I shall reserve any observations on that part of the case until another opportunity shall arise. Mr. FAULKNER followed on the same side. The question was, whether foreign criminal law could without any aid of an Act of the Legislature of this country, be carried into execution by this Court. Upon this point the Learned Gentleman cited the case of Folliot against Ogden , and read se vera l p assages f rom t h e th i rd insti tute, p. 108. These were an sewer to the objections of Sir F. Pollock, that this country would carry into execution foreign criminal law. He presumed, that if persons were thrown upon the shores of this country by stress of weather, they might be detained here ; but it was impossible they could under foreign criminal law. There might be cases of aliens who had been delivered up to foreign countries—aliens criminal ; but there were special Acts of Parliament applying to aliens, and under these Acts they might be seized by the Secretary of State, and he might place them under the authority of a foreign country, where they might be subject to punishment for any offence. The question then came to this, how far these cases differed from the case of colonies. Under the 31st George 111 , c. 2, sec. 2, it was specially set out that laws which should be passed by the local Legislatures of Up per and Lower Canada, shall be valid to all intents and pur poses within the province in which the same have been passed. The law of Upper Canada has no authority out of Up ptr Canada. The law of Lower Canada is to have no au thority out of Lower Canada. There is a limitation put upon the authority of the local Legislature, In order to carry out such a sentence there must be first an Act of the Colonial Legislature imposing the penalty of transportation, and when the parties have to be sent to a foreign country there must also be a concurring jurisdiction in such foreign country. No doubt the Legislature of Upper Canada might make laws imposing transportation —no doubt they might make laws imposing even the penalty of death—but the sentence under such a law was of no avail out of the country in which the laws were made. Even in Lower Canada the sentence under an Act of the Legislature of Upper Canada could not be carried into effect, unless there was a law in Lower Canada concurring with that of Upper Canada. So it must be in England, and so also in Van Diemen's Land. Supposing that they were to carry the argument further—supposing that a higher penalty than transportation had been imposed —sup pose they had been sentenced to be hanged, could they be hanged in Liverpool in place of Upper Canada? That could not be done, unless the laws of England concurred with those of Upper Canada. The case of Saddis had been much relied upon by the other side, but in his opinion it was much in favour of the prisoner. In the return, in that case, it was set forth that Saddis was tried on the 19th of May, 1800, at Gibraltar, by a Court-martial regu larly constituted by the Governor O'Hara; the return stated that they were tried, not by the laws of Gibraltar, but under those of England. In that case the laws of Gibraltar and those of England concurred, but it is not so in this case. It had been said, that if their Lordships should set aside the sentence upon the prisoners then before the Court, they would, in fact, be annulling all the sentences passed in all our colonies, in Jamaica, or any other; But their Lordships had only to look to the law, and not at the consequence. He said that the case under their Lordships' consideration did not come under the provisions of the general Transportation Act. These were a totally new class of cases. The prisoners had received a sentence which could not be carried into execution under that Act. The returns which had been made to the Court did not show that the sentence had been imposed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The detention of the prisoners was clearly illegal, unless the law of England concurred with the laws under which the prisoners had been sentenced. The Court might just as well be called upon to give effect to the laws of confiscation against the refugees of France as those of the colony of Upper Canada, which was to all intents and purposes a foreign country. It was impossible to conceive that these persons, if they had imagined that the highest penalty next to death would have t theit i o n e e ff d e , c they tof that course, not be p ard been aw ar d e d, wou l d not have rather taken the i r chance o f an acquittal, in s t ea d o f as ki ng f or p ar d on , an d rece i v i ng suc h a punishment. Th ey h a d no means o f k now i ng th a t ; if they pe t o h n a e t d t — he th l e a y w k h n ad ew be n c o n only thing o-f passed up t wo d a y s before they were called upon to petition the Gov e r nor ; an d further, it was not to be supposed that the Go vernment o f t h a t coun ry would have had any i n t eres t and th at in the s u p press i on o f f a cts, it would have b een anx i ous wouldseeing their case. Mr. Rosesucx—With your Lordship's permi ss i on I w ill to get th em out o f t he country without any investigation o f offer a few remarks on the present case. Before Ido so, however, l e t me , if possible, remove from your Lordships' I have heard f a ll f rom my Learned minds th e i m p ress ion which may have been made by the ob servations which Friend, Mr. Wightinan, respecting the mercifulness and inten tion of this Act. In all the books of authority in which I have looked, I have not been able to find any description of Court, or any description of judgment, like unto this, except ing one, and that is in the 2d Institute of my Lord Coke, who uses three remarkab'e words—" The philosophical poets de scribe the dramatic and damned proceedings of the judges of hell. " Gnossius heec Rhadamanthus habet durissima regna; Castigatque auditque d o les , subigitque fatcri, bit leges pretio atque refixit." first he punisheth, then he heareth, and lastly he compelleth to confess—making and marring laws at his pleasure, which good Judges and Justices abhor." This is the only law autho rity which I can find at all applicable to the present case. So much of to punish.f e t c h t e ion c s a : first obje c ti on h e re i s , th a t "— The much for getting rid of all forms Passing from that topic I sha l for look to of lair in order the the return sets out an illegal Act of C ana d a, an d on t h e f ace of the return it is illegal. flow do I p rove t h at ? Th e return the sets forth an Act which gives the Governor of the province the power of a conditional pardon, and then it says with out trial, or further proceeding, this party is trans ported. L uc kily, my Lords, we have before us some more of the laws of Upper Canada than we had yesterday. By certain of the Acts now before your Lordships it appears—l mean 7th Wm. IV., cap. 7, called the Upper Canada Act, it is enacted, that whereas it is expedient to facilitate the transportation of offenders to certain parts of his Majesty's do minions—appropriated for the reception of convicts, he it enacted, by the authority, and so on, as is usually rec'ted in these Provincial Acts, notwithstanding any thing contained in a certain Act of Parliament o f this Province, the 14th of George the Third, entitled for the further execution of the criminal law in these provinces," it shall be lawful, from and after the passing of this Act, to sentence the offenders to transportation, provided always that such offen ders be persons convicted and liable to be banished from these provinces. Now, the law of Geo. IV, substituted banishment for transportation, and this Act brings transportation back into the law of Upper Canada, and it is dated in 1837—the Im perial Act,the general Transportation Act being passed in 1324. It then goes on to state what the form of transportation shall be. The third return provides that the period of transporta tion is to be mentioned in the sentence, and that the prisoner shall be sent to such place as the Governor shall approve. The Act then sets forth that a Judge's warrant shall be neces sary, authorizing the conveyance of the prisoner from place to place, to the sea-port from whence he is to be transported. Then there is another Act of the same year, chap. 6, which 'en. and the contemplates the case of a conditional pa re ._ t% ) third section says (the Act is the 7th o f Will. s„' that it shall be lawful for the Governor to commute the sentence of death passed upon the prisoner, for any capital crime " other than high treason or murder;" and I beg your Lordships to remark that curious exception. The Governor cannot pardon for high treason or murder in any case. Under no Act can he do it. He cannot pardon for treason, and I should be glad to hear the Attorney-General say he could—" other than high treason or murder, and with the authority of his Majesty any person convicted of high treason." Now, what does the other Act, the Ist Victoria? It does not pardon persons convicted of murder ' • but the lawyers of that country, being somewhat astute—like ours, having a one-eyed astuteness—knowing they could not pardon persons convicted of treason, think they can get rid of the objection by stating that the Governor may pardon persons " charged" with high treason ; and then, my Lords, what takes place ? The Gover. nor not being able to pardon persons guilty of treason, is en abled, they say, by this Act— Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Is there any difficulty in pleading pro tanto so much of the former Act ? Mr. lioseuee—My Lord, the Governor has no power of himself. He cannot give his assent to an Act passed by the Provincial Legislature until he receives orders. By the 30th section of the 31st George 111., he is to give his assent sub ject to these instructions, and his instructions are letters patent, and in this case Sir Francis Head's letters patent are held under Lord Gosford. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Whether these instructions are letters patent or not they are not called for. Mr. ROEBUCK-The 'Court called upon me for the expla nation. It appears, however by the statute—it appears by it that only certain powers—limited powers—were given to him, and therefore it should be shown that the Governor had au thority. Lord DENMAN-What section is that? Mr. ROEBUCK-The 30th section which enacts, that when ever any Bill shall be passed by the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, such Governor, or the person admi nistering the Government of the Colony, shall, subject to the provisions contained in the Act, and such instructions as may be given him from time to time, give his Majesty's assent to it, in his Majesty's name, and this, my Lords, gets rid of the proposition so confidently asserted yesterday, that this is a supreme Legislature. Here is one of the limbs of this Legislature actually truncated of its power, and therefore I humbly submit that it can hardly be called a Supreme Legislature ; and further, there are in the Act certain restrictions of the power by which the Gover nor can give his Majesty's assent; and there are further re strictions to the power of his Majesty, who cannot order unless the two Houses of Parliament assent. How then can they pretend to call it a Supreme Legislature ? By giving a person power to pardon before a party is tried are we to deduce as a necessary consequence, that the trial is to be done away with when it is never said in the Act. Suppose the Act had run thus—upon any petition being pre sented to a Lieutenant-Governor by a person confessing his guilt, lie shall he sentenced, as the Lieutenant- Governor shall think fit, and if that should have the effect of a conviction, that would have got arid of the :difficulty, because that would be saying in so many words that the Governor had the power of sentencing; but who do your Lordships think would have petitioned under such circumstances. Here is the mercy of the Act, it holds forth one thing to one party and another to another. There is nothing in the Act that says the trial shall be dispensed with ; now, which is the case here ? why, that the party is pardoned, he is arraigned before the open Court, and he pleads his pardon. Now, supposing there had been a general Act of Parliament, when he was arraigned he would have pleaded a pardon, and then he would receive the sentence. Laws were made to protect the community at large, and the consequence of the Act would have been that when the party came before the Court he would clearly show his assenting to the pardon. Is is not, therefore, my Lords, of great importance that we should have evidence of that ? We say we have none here ; and we fur ther assert, that we never assented to it. If such a course was open, why was it not, I must ask, adopted by the an.horities on behalf of the Crown ? The Solicitor- General admitted yesterday that there were some conditions that were illegal, and which ought not to be carried into effect. I assert that this condition is illegal. If I assent to receive pnnishment by contract and without sen tence, that I say is an illegal condition ; it is illegal by the law of England and by the law of Canada, and therefore, according to the admission of the Attorney-General, on the face of the return, I show there was an illegal condition. How then can it be said that you are carrying into effect a valid condition ? Although the condition is illegal, the pardon is good, therefore from both these reasons what has been done in Canada is a violation of the Law of Canada, and it is a violent and illegal act on the part of the Gover nor. Now I pass from the argument that the Act was illegal in Canada to another objection which is this— that for transportation, extra fines, there must be two concur rent jurisdictions. This applies to the Imperial Parliament, just as much as to the Provincial Parliament : suppose the Parliament of Great Britain chooses to say it will transport offenders to Calais, there is nothing to prevent it from so say ing, but there is a great deal to prevent its being carried into effect because it cannot be done without the concurrent juris diction of France. If France was to say it would aid and assist in it, then it ought to be done, and so with respect to Canada. Why do I say the power of the Parliament in Canada is corifin 4:1 to its own territories ? I say it, because the Imperial Parliament says it. Now supposing that Upper C anada had said there is an island in the St Lawrence, but situated in the province of Lower Canada, to which we will transport offenders, could they, I would ask, do that without the con currence of the Legislature of Lower Canada ? Certainly not. The Legislature of that province would have said, " We know nothing of the Legislature of Upper Canada, and we have no notion of criminals being sent from there to our pro vince.'' Suppose America had said, 44 We will send our con victs to Upprr Canada." Could they do so? Certainly not without the concurrence of tl e Legis'ature of Upper Canada. Sup posing that Upper Cansd had said, " We will transport our offenders to England'—would that be lawful ? Certainly not— because there was no concurrent jurisdiction of the English Parliament. What right, therefore, is there to say they shall be at liberty to send them to Van Diemen's Land without the concur rence of the liggislature of England? None at all. Now having established that point. I come to the next inquiry, how has the Canadian Parliament been 1, aiding the Imperial Par liament ? The Attorney-General laboured yesterday ex tremely hard to show that he did not rest upon the sth of George IV., and yet throughout the whole of his argument, that Statute was the authority upon which he relied to transport these parties. How is it that the power of transportation exists ? Not by the power of the Legislature of Lower Canada, but by the power of the Impe rial Parliament. The laws of this country are sent in a lump to Canada—that is the improper and unjustifiable way in which the laws of this country are introduced there. So long as it was simply under the Imperial Parliament, and in that portion of the territory, without any law at all but the law of Great Britain, there probably wi I be the power of transportation ; but it is extremely diffe rent, where you bring in aid the power of the Legislature of that country. Here the party is punished under a Pro vincial Act, and how is that aided by the Imperial Par liament ? The Imperial Parliament never intended that parties should be punished without trial, but the Act of the Canadian Legislature says they shall be. This is a strange exercise of prudence and mercy ; but strange as it is, it is true ; and the Imperial Parliament says it will not aid the Provincial Legislature in punishing a person without he is convicted. Recollect, the place is assigned for convicts to be received, and it is said convicts under Act of Parliament ; that her Majesty will assign certain places to receive the convicts ; and before that power was given to the Crown I am not sure the Crown had it. That Act particularly gave it, and Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales is assigned for the reception of convicts. They can send them to no other place than where her Majesty has assigned them. There are two things required—first, the place to be assigned by her Majesty, that is, New South Wales or Van Diemen's Land ; secondly, there is power to send them through the territories of Great Britain, and beyond the territories of Upper Canada, and no person is allowed to be sent but a convict. But now, then, let us see what happens, or might happen, if your Lordships do not require further evidence than what appears on the face of this return. The law of Canada has wisely provided that a person convicted before a Judge shall be attended with a Judge's warrant—a very neces sary piece of evidence to show the world at large that he is a convict. Why was that required? Because they saw clearly that under the British Act they could not be carried to Van Diemen's Land without some evidence of their being con vict ; and the law wisely provides that—for this pur pose—not one person, but a large number of persons, shall be responsible, for we know that Governors have done illegal acts, and have been punished ; and we may live to see other Governors punished for illegal acts, and some for murder, as has been the case already. England has already been disgraced by her Governors in that way, and it may, ere long, appear that she has been disgraced in that way again. The law says it shall not depend on the Governor's will, but they shall be protected by all those forms which civilized life has discovered, viz„ by the formal production of documents by judicial officers. This I complain of ; and I beg of your Lordships attention to this, if I may ask your attention to any thing, that this is an Executive proceeding entirely. It is not judicial. I want, my Lords, some evidence of its being a judicial proceeding. It is exactly as if the Secretary of State had chosen to to take me up, and to baaish me, and send me off to Van Diemen's Land through Jamaica. When I had ar. rived, if by chance I should arrive at Jamaica, and not at Van Diemen's Land (for God knows who I might find there—some very curious people arc to be found there) —if I had gone to Jamaica, they might have given me redress. I should have said where is the judicial proceeding not being an alien, but being a British born subject (as all the prisoners are, my Lords). I demand to know by what judi cial authority I have been turned out of the country. Now, I want your Lordships to ask that question also in this case. I want your Lordships to ask what judicial authority has sanc tioned the proceedings against these prisoners. Remember, my Lords, there can be no conviction without judicial authority, and that without conviction they cannot legally he transported. These, my Lords, are the reasons for which I should ask your Lordship to discharge the prisoners. I will not go, however, as perhaps I might do, and as ulterior proceedings would compel us to do, to the exceedingly imperfect nature of the whole evidence. I will not state in this case, my Lords, that we have not petitioned however true it may be. That is the fact,but I don't state it now, I will state it in ulterior proceedings. I press it on your Lordships again. You have not sufficient evidence of the facts on which these prisoners arc to be deprived of their liberty for life ; for recollect what the Solicitor-General said yesterday about our having an action against Mr. Batchelor. Is not that a mockery of justice? Is not that under form denying it in substance 7 Is it not something worse than trifling with the law? Is it • ,„: cruel ? An action against Mr. Batchelor, who perhaps is keeping :beep in New South Wales, and who may keep sheep there for the long term of his natural life 1 Now we have no other remedy; and I would read one passage from what Mr. Justice Foster says. He remarks there is no other remedy, and gives reasons which have never been controverted, why we should inquire into the facts of such a matter. It was the case of parties who were pressed in 1758 ; and he says, writ ing to Lord Chief Baron Parker, " I agree with your Lord ship in the truth of the general doctrine, that a return to a writ of habeas corpus is conclusive in point of fact. It is very curious that it should be determined that in a matter respecting the trifling sum of 201. I may question the truth of Habeas Corpus, but that when life is con cerned I may not." Now, my Lords, that is the doctrine, that if the return had been in a case only relating to a tailor's bill I might have controverted it, but as it does not, and only relates to the trifling circumstance of my life, I may not controvert it. Then he goes on, " this, I admit, is the general rule, but I think it is not universally true." There are exceptions, and exceptions do not, as your Lordships know, destroy, but rather establish a general rule. The case of a man being pressed is one of them, that if the party cannot controvert the truth of the re turn,he is without a remedy. An ineffectual remedyis no remedy. It is the offering of a bauble to our children when they are " crying for bread I" We, my Lords, are crying for bread— we are crying for life. "He is taken from the Exchange, hence to the Savoy, or on board the tender," as these men have been done. Butit is said he is not without remedy. Whatreraedy? TO BE CONCLUDED IN A SECOND EDITION. „ AMY YIAGISTRATES.—The following thirty gen tlemen will, it is understood, be recommended to the Secre tary of State as Magistrates for the borough of Manches ter .—Alexander Bannerman, J. Brotherton, M.P. ; D. Broadhurst, T. Cook, W. R. Callendar, R. Cobden, J. Hyde, A. Henry, T. Hilton, J. H. Heron, J. Kershaw, I. Heywood, J. Murray, H. M'Connell, J. M'Viccar, T. parkland, W. Neild, H. Newberry, D. Price, T. Potter, Mayor ; R. Roberts, 'F. Sharp, H. Tootal, J. C. Smith, J. A. Turner, G. W. Wood, M.P. ; C. J. S. Walker, and A. Watkin, Esqrs. This list comprises ten Church men, nine Unitarians, seven Independents, one Quaker, one Swedenborgian, one Scotch Kirk, and one doubtful. CITY BOUNTY.—The foreman, Mr. Henry Levy, assisted by his colleagues, the Inquest Jury of Billingsgate Ward, distributed on Monday last, at the Vestry-room of St. George's, Botolph-lane, upwards of 701. in bread and coals to the needy of the ward, atnot.l.rst whom were se veral of the recently discharged city watchmen, to whom, being without employment, and having families, the relief proved highly acceptable. This praiseworthy example of benevolence ought to be extensively followed by other bodies. DAMASCUS, Nov. 23, 1838.—There has been another insurrection in the mountains of Gioue Dagh, in the north of Syria. The rebel chieftain has only '20,000 men under his command, but being alarmed at the move ments of Ibrahim Pacha, he feigned submission, but a fess days after he decamped. This naturally exciting the sus picions of the Pacha, the Egyptian troops received orders to march, and some of the secondary chiefs have been seized, and held as hostages for the preservation of the public tran quillity. But that tranquillity is not likely to continue while the misunderstandings exist between the Suitan and the Pacha ; each is constantly exciting the subjects of the. other to revolt. 'We are again menaced with a movement among the Druses, reports being spread that the European Powers nre taking part with the Sultan against Mehemet Ali. In this way the stamina of Syria, Turkey, and Egypt are exhausted ; and the armed truce, which is called " Dearo," is almost as ruinous as open war would be.— (From a Correspondent.) DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—After the extremely attractive ballet of The Devil on Two Sticks, in which the grotesque humour, whimsical capers, and eccentric comi calities of Mr. Wieland are as fresh and as laughter-stir ring as ever, a new one-act afterpicce, from the pen of Mr. G. Dance, was last night produced with perfect success. It is entitled Now or Never, and turns on the stratagems resorted to by Herman Waldrick (Mr. Balls), a gay young student, for the purpose of carrying off Rose Blum velt (Miss Poole), the wealthy and accomplished ward of Von Puffenheim (Mr. Compton), the commandant of the , guards in an imaginary German city ; and, at the same time, of assisting his friend and fellow-student, Lothaire Von Blenberg, a sighing shilly-shally lover, without a par ticle of enterprising spirit to secure his mistress, Laurine (Miss Fitzwalter,) the daughter of Mr. Burgomaster Wig gendorf. This trifle is very well wrought up. The dia logue is neat, the equivoque, in the early part of the drama, is quaintly amusing, and many of the situations arc plea santly comic, especially that at the conclusion of the piece_ The piece was well acted. Mr. Compton was very felici tous in his delineation of the pompous ♦anity of the com mandant ; and Mr. Hughes hit off the blustering humour of the burgomaster with commensurate inflation. The lively Herman was sustained with easy confidence by Mr. Balls, and his fair idol was represented in a pretty pouting manner by Miss Poole. Her part, which is very trifling, would be improved by the introduction of a song. The piece was announced forrepetition without a dssenting voice. TAX ON BREAD.—The Manchester Times truly says, that the movement against the Corn-law proceeds in a manner which must be highly gratifying to every man who, taking a wide view of the effects of legislation upon the happiness of mankind, and, unconfined by the tramme s of class interests, wishes to see the whole human race freely interchanging the products of their industry, and thus con tributing to individual and collective comfort. To ourselves the movement is a matter of high exultation. In the Sheriffs' Court yesterday, Mr. King, boat builder, of the Commercial-road, obtained the sum of 4001. from the Blackwell and Commercial Railway Company for loss of trade and expense of removal, &c., to which he would be put in consequence of the Company requiring part of his premises for the purposes of their railway. The case lasted the greater part of Satdrday and yesterday. Yesterday afternoon an illicit still was discovered in full work at a house in Blackman -street, Borough, from the circumstance that a portion of the spirit had caught fire and caused an explosion, which attracted the notice of a policeman. It had evidently been in very extensive use for some time. The parties on the premises were secured. SNOW STORM IN THE NORTH.—Taro London mails are now due at Inverness—a proof of the severity of the snow storm in the south. Communication with Edin burgh is still open, though the snow lies about two-feet deep in the neighbourhood of Pitmain, and other places betwixt this town and Perth. In the counties of Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, there has also been a heavy fall of snow.—lnverness Courier. TO FIND TIIE VALUE OF A DIAMOND.— Ascertain the weight in carats, double that weight and multiply the square of this product by V. Thus a dia mond of four carats, 8 by 8 is 64, multiplied by 2, gives 1281. Ure's Dictionary. NEW MAIL BETWEEN LEEDS AND MANCIIES TER.—The deputation from Leeds and Huddersfield have at length surmounted the difficulties they have had for some time to contend with, and have succeeded in their efforts to get a mail-coach established between Leeds and Manchester, through Huddersfield. By the proposed mail, the London letters will arrive in Leeds about half past twelve o'clock, instead of twenty minutes past two, as at.present. At Marlborough-street office yesterday, a barrister, aged 25, was held to bail for causing a disturbance at the house of a widow lady, aged 55, and possessing property to the amount of 30,0001., because the lady refused to convert friendship into love, and accept him as a husband. The repulsed swain threw out some insinuations on the lady's fair fame, which the latter most positively declared to be without the slightest foundation in truth. Within the last few weeks a large quantity of coun terfeit coin has got into circulation, principally among the small shopkeepers in the suburbs. The coins are for the most part counterfeits of the new shillings and fourpenny pieces, and are tolerably well executed. A large number of French franc pieces have also got into circulation as shillings. In a case which came before the Lambeth-street Magistrates yesterday, it was stated that complainant, in the course of a drunken fit, which lasted three weeks without the slightest intermission, had been supplied with as many as 38 glasses of rum-and water a day. His " score" for the period referred to was 25/. Ever since the fatal morning of Monday last, the North shore, strewed as it is with wrecked vessels, has been the scene of great attraction. Yesterday, however, the whole shore, from the Clarence dock to Crosby-point, literally swarmed with visitors. Thousands upon thousands on foot, on horseback, is gigs and coaches, visited it, and the beach presented a most animated appearance. The business of discharging the stranded vessels wag carried on, particularly at low water, wll,ll the tide left the: t dry, with great activity, and the spectators around them, espe cially around the Oxford, were as thick as flies on a lump of sugar. The weather was rather tempestuous, and about four o'clock a heavy fall of rain came on, which drenched and dispersed the multitude. The sands were cleared by the operation of the rain in an incredibly short space of time. The visitors to the Cheshire :bore were numerous, . 1 4 KT but few compared with the number that visited the Lanea shire sands.—Liverpool dlbion. At the Insolvent Court yesterday Mr. James C 4 ). cott, commonly known as James Pr e s co tt Warde4;-''. - ..,/s . pad actor, of Covent-Garden Theatre, appeared to be admilted.:i to bail until his hearing, which was granted. The applies. tion was not resisted by the detaining creditors. The pro- ?t,'* - 41. posed sureties were Mr. John Wilmot and Mr. Henry Robinson, \4-10' when An ction• That same 'liana