The Sun. — London, England, 1839-01-23 00:00:00

THE NAVY. TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD JOHN RUSSELL. MY LORD,—As one of the members of the Royal Coin mission now assembled to consider the state of the Army and Navy, I take the liberty of calling your Lordship's attention to the comparative situation of England's two great arms of defence, and to the erroneous system which has been pursued up to the present day. Without meaning to impute blame either to the Board of Admiralty or the Government, I cannot but feel, in common with my brother officers, that from time immemorial the Navy has been un justly treated, and never has been the favoured service either of the Crown or Aristocracy, notwithstanding it is the most powerful and natural bulwark of the nation. The comparisons I am about to make will not, I trust, my Lord, be considered in an invidious light, being alone anxious for the glory and prosperity of the Crown, and feeling the Army have no more than that to which they are fully entitled by their loyalty, talent, and valour. The united service of the present day forms the closest union of friendship. Fathers, sons, and brothers are employed in each branch of both services. Jealousies are completely extinguished ; and it now rests with such members of the Royal Commission, as "Wellington, Richmond, Minto, Rus sell, and Peel, to cement that union, by placing the whole force of the country on a just and equal footing. My Lord, this is a great - national question, and one on which must depend the future safety of the kingdom. My Lord, under the Crown are about 140 regiments of infantry, cavalry, artillery, and engineers. Your Lordship is aware that each regiment has its Colonel, being a General Officer, who, besides his half-pay, quite equal to an Admiral's, receires from 8001. to 1,800/. per annum as Regimental Colonel, and probably may be a Governor of some garrison town, at home or abroad, with an additional allowance for that government, and great patronage, when on the Staff, by the appointment of Staff Officers ; whilst Admirals holding comparative rank, have not one-third of their income, and no patronage whatever. The number of Generals and Admirals employed on full pay being about ten to one. Again, Colonels, independent of the command of regiments, have a great variety of Star employments, viz., Inspecting Field Officers, Adjutant and Quartermaster-Generals, Lieutenant-Governors of garrisons, each receiving a salary besides his half-pay ; whilst Captains in the Navy, holding a comparative rank, have scarcely any employment beyond the command of ships, and it is needless to state to your Lordship how few these are in time of peace. Perhaps your Lordship is not aware that Colonels of regiments live with their regimental mess, precisely at the same expense a 3 the youngest Ensign ; whilst Captains in the Navy are compelled to furnish their cabins at an expense of 2001. to 5001., are obliged to keep a table of their own, and in the event of ship Wreck, under any circumstance, are not al lowed the least indemnification, though, if a Colonel be a passenger, he would receive a fair remuneration for his losses. Agein Captains in the Army, ranking with Lieutenants in the Navy, are employed on the Staff, as Brigade Majors, Aides-de-Camp, Assistant Quartermas ter and Adjutant Generals, while Lieutenants in the Navy are only employed on ship and coast-guard duty ; and even Lieutenants and Ensigns in the Army can hold Staff situations, while Midshipmen have nothing in prospect but hard ship duty, and little chance of promotion after serving their six years, and may probably be discharged after 15 or 16 years' service, without any provision. Independent, my Lord, of this immense disparity of advantages, the Army possess one other, which, to my mind, surpasses them all—they can obtain leave to visit their families for a period of two or three years, without any diminution of their full pay, while officers of the Navy, even under the present im proved system, can never obtain more than two or three weeks' leave. Could your Lordship credit that an officer in valided from the East Indies, whose health had suffered from climate and hard service, after paying his passage to the Cape of Good Hope, where he was obliged to continue many months under medical care, at a cost of nearly 3001., was absolutely refused his hqfpay by the Admiralty Board, and received letters from Mr. Croker, then Secretary ,stating it to be contrary to the rules of the service to allow either full or half-pay, under any circumstances whatever, from the day the officer quitted his ship to the day he reported himself at the Admiralty. Such, my Lord, was my own case ; and it was not until after persevering for five or six years that, at last, through the influence of my old friend, Sir George Hope, then a Lord of the Admiralty, I ob tained my just rights. In comparing the promotion of the two services, your Lordship will observe, that the Brevet in the Army will carry an officer forward to the General's rank, without ever serving actively as Field Officer ; whilst promotion in the Navy is so retarded, and the sys tem so unjust, that should even a Captain have held that rank for five-and-twenty years, without sufficient .interest to obtain active employment, he will be placed on the Re tired List of Rear Admirals, without any prospect of further advancement'; and to prove the injustice and ab surdity of naval regulations, Captain Devonshire being in command of an eighty-gun ship two years since, of course considered by the Admiralty efficient for such a command, was actually, on the coronation promotion, put on the Re tired List of Admirals, because he wanted six weeks of the time allowed for obtaining his effective Flag. Also Captain Carden, whose services were worthy of receiving, in ad dition to his half-pay, 1801. per annum of what is now called good service money (a sum formerly paid to two or three Admirals and Captains who held the sinecures of Generals and Colonels of Marines, an incubus from which that gallant corps has happily been relieved), was also placed on the Retired List of Admirals, after being long and actively employed. I trust, my Lord, these gentlemen will excuse my naming them, to support the statement I have made. My Lord, are you aware that however early in life an officer may obtain the rank of Cap tain, with the low average of thirty years ere he reach the Rear-Admiral's flag, he must necessarily have passed his 70th year before he is eligible to command the grand fleet. Compare this fact, my Lord, with promotion in times past, when our Nelsons and De Saumarezes were commanding fleets at 45, and allow me to ask your Lordship, if this continues, what is to become of the country ? In the state ment which I had the honour of la) ing before your Lord ship last December, I endeavoured, among other points, to draw your Lordship's attention to the system of impress ment, being convinced that, by a judicious arrangement, it may in time be safely abolished, end the Navy of Eng land become a beloved and favourite service. Impress ment, my Lord, was first known in the reign of Richard the Second. By Elizabeth it was provided that two Magis trates were to back any warrant for the impressment of seamen. Statutes of William and Mary, and Anne, at tempted to man the fleet by registration. Mr. Justice Fos ter states impressment to be contrary to the Great Char ter and Bill of Rights, and that nothing but necessity could justify the Crown in thus violating the liberty of the sub ject ; but in case of no proper plan being formed for man ning her Majesty's fleet, and seamen's wages kept lower than are to be obtained in the merchant service, how can necessity be demoostrated ? Necessity was pleaded at the trial of the patriot Hampden ; but happily for England four of his Judges declared the common law knew nothing of necessity. In the reign of George the Second, Govern ment brought a Bill to Parliament to subject Naval Of ficers - on. half-pay to martial law, on which they exercised their undoubted right of petition in a spirited memorial, withelee tendee of„altescommissionvf. many, is the event of the Bill passing : thus an act of unconstitutional fyranny was defeated, and the Bill withdrawn. The mutiny of the fleet, in the reign of George the Third, was engendered by injustice to the seamen. They were still los.al to their King and country, and even while ctuising off an enemy's port, in sight of a superior fleet, would cheerfully have , beved their officers in battle. Their dispute was with Go vernment, from proper concessions not having been made ; all England was in alarm ; the country appeared lest ; but on their grievances being redressed, the men returned to their duty. Se, my Lord, it really would appear that in justice to the Navy is an heir-loom. I never was more delighted than to hear, from one of the Lords of the Admiralty some days since, at a great public meeting, that an entire new system is to be adopted. I am aware, my Lord, that trif/iag improvements have been going on under every Government, but it remains for the Royal Commission to recommend to the Commons an ex tensive measure of judicious reform, which is far beyond the power of the Admiralty to effect. My Lord, there is another subject which is deeply felt by the officers of the Royal Navy—the meagre distribution of honorary rewards; for, whilst in the Army, the most trifling skirmish will en • sure to th e o ffi c ers some mark of distinction, naval officers, wh° may have fought in many general actions, seldom have the satisfaction of being noticed. My Lord, it is in trifles that we trace the spirit pervading the whole, and I cannot refrain from stating a circumstance which pained me a few days since, when one of the most distinguished officers in the service, a gallant Admiral, by the naval regulations, was under the necessity of applying to me, as a county Magistrate, to make a deelaretion for the receipt of his h:tlf-pay, while Generals are exempt from this degradation—merely testifyin g , on their honour, their being entitled to receive it. My Lord, lam in communi cation with flag officers and officers of every rank, and I take upon myself to say that the sentiment s I have expressed in both my statements to your Lordship, are tliose of the great majority of the Navy. Well may we exclaim—for which of our deeds have we been thus rewarded? Was it for the glorious victory of the First of June—the battle of the Nele—Camperdow a—the Straits of Gibralta r —c ns penbagen—St. Vincent's—Trafalgar—Algiers? —or f or sweepieg the combined fleets of the world from the face of the ocean? We trust to you, my Lord, riot only as a member of the Royal Commission and the leader oi7 House of Counons, but as a patriot, to plead our cause, and thus secure the honour of the Crown, and the safety an.' 7osperity of the country. I have the honour to rcrilain, ray L3rd, • Your Lordship's obedient servant, D. L. ST. CLAIR, R.N. Staverton Court, Jan. 17, 1839. COURT CHI CUL AR. Viscount Melbourne and the Judge Advocate General had audiences yesterday of the Queen. M:jesty had a dinnor party last evening at tie New Palace. Among the company were—Her Royal. Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Marquis Conyngharn, the Earl and Coun tess of Minto, Lady Fanny Elliot, the Earl of Surrey, Lady Georgiana Bathurst (in waiting on the Duchess of Glouces ter), Sir Henry Wheatley, the Hon. Frederick Grey, and Co:onel Armstrong. The band of the Coldstream Guards was in attendance at the Palace in the evening. Lady Barham has succeeded the Countess of Charlcmont as the Lady in Waiting on the Queen, and Lady Harriet Clive has replaced the Hon. Mrs. George Campbell as Woman of the Bedchamber in Waiting. Sir Robert Otway has suc ceeded Colonel Armstrong as the Groom in Waiting on her M aj , sty. The Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge, attended by Miss Kerr, Baroness Ahlefeldt and Baron Knesebeck, honoured Baroness Blome (the Lady of the Danish Minister) with her company on Monday evening, at her residence in Portland-place. The Duke of Cambridge honoured the Catch Club with his company at dinner last evening. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon at the re sidence of Viscount Melbourne, in Downing-street, which was attended by all the Ministers. The Council sat an hour and a half. The Ministers of the Conference, consisting of the Russian and French Ambassadors, and the Prussian and Austrian Mi nisters assembled at live o'clock yesterday afternoon at the Foreign Office. Viscount Palmerston also came from at tending the Cabinet Council. The Earl of Lovelace and Mr. Roebuck had interviews with Viscount Melbourne yesterday in Downing-street. The Right Hon. T. Frankland Lewis bad an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday at the Home Office. The Belgian, Lpanigh, and Brazilian Ministers transacted business yesterday at the Foreign Office. The Hanoverian, French, Prussian, and Austrian Ambas sadors transacted business yesterday at the Foreign Department. Despatches from Sir John Colborne, Governor of the Ca nadas, were received yesterday at the Colonial Office. Despatches were received yesterday at the Foreign Depart ment from Lord Ponsonby, the British Ambassador at Con stantinople. Despatches. dated the Isth of November, were received yesterday at the Colonial Department from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. Her Majesty will give a grand banquet this evening at the New Palace. This will be the first grand dinner given since the arrival of the Court from Brighton. The Duke of Lucca is to be of the party, as also several members of the di plomatic corps. Lady Maryborough has returned to town from a visit to the Countess of Clarendon, at the Grove, Watford. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P., and Lady Peel, are expected in town early in the ensuing week, from Drayton Manor, Staffordshire. _ _ Mr. and Mrs. Rowland Errington will leave town this day, on a visit to Sir Thomas Stanley, Bart., and the Lady Maria Stanley, at their seat, Alderley Park, Knuts ford, in Cheshire. We are happy to state that the Duchess-Countess of Sutherland, who has been slightly indisposed, was much better yesterday. His Excellency the Russian Ambassador issued cards yesterday for a grand entertainment on Saturday next to his Royal Highness the Duke of Lucca. Baron Bulovr, and a numerous and distinguished party have been invited to join the dinner party. A letter from a Correspondent at Malta, dated Jan. 5, states that a slight earthquake had been experienced there, which, however, did no injury. On New Year's day the Queen Dowager gave a splendid party. We regret to state that a change for the worse has manifested itself in the health of Ralph Lambton, Esq., and that he is at present in a very precarious state. Hedworth Lambton, Esq., M.P., intended .departing for the south on Monday, but the sudden and nuexpeeted alteration in his uncle's health has induced him to remain, and he and his lady are now at Morton-house.—Gateshead Observer. The Marquis of Northampton, the new Noble Pre sident of the Royal Society in the room of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, has taken the splendid mansion on the Terrace, Piccadilly, so many years the abode of the late Dow ager Countess Poulett. The Officers of the Royal Marines will give a grand ball and supper at Chatham, on Friday, to the Nobility and Gentry of that neighbourhood. Lord Fife, who is residing at his seat, Macduff' Castle, has within the last few days ordered a plentiful supply of coal and brush-wood to be distributed amongst the necessi tous poor of the town of Banff; and also a liberal supply of fuel to the prisoners in the gaol. His Grace the Duke of Rutland and Earl Howe have respectively subscribed 1001. towards establishing a Dis trict Church Building Society in Leicestershire; the Society to be supported by voluntary subscriptions. The Rev, J. W. Minton, the esteemed and much respected minister of Darlington, and his brother, have given the very munificent sum of 2,0001. towards the endowment of the church at present in course of erection at that place. By a letter from Dresden of the 10th of January, we lean that Madame Schroeder Devrient, whose loss of voice would, it was said, occasion her retirement from the stage, had again appeared in the part of Agatha, in the opera of Robin des Bois. Her appearance was hailed by the audience with loud and well-deserved applause. She appeared to have en tirely recovered from her illness—an Inflammation of the throat. The Earl and Countess of Nonnanton, on the 10th instant, entertained upwards of 100 of the Nobility and Gentry resident in the neighbourhood, with a ball and supper at Somerly House, in the New Forest. We hear that the Earl and Countess of Durham will not leave town until Easter, when it is thought they will go to Lambton Castle, Durham. Baron Ostini arrived at Mivart's Hotel, last even ing, from a visit to Mr. and Lady Caroline Maxse, at their seat near Midhurst, for the purpose of attending his Royal Highness the Duke of Lucca this evening to dine with her Majesty at Buckingham Mac.% s Baron and Baroness Dimsdale have arrived at Mivart's Hotel from Camfield Place, Herts ; but take their departure to-morrJw, accompanied by the Hon. Miss Dims dale, for Stonelands, Devon, for the benefit of that young lady's health. Mr. Macready has, unsolicited, increased the sala ries of the entire band of the Theatre Royal Covent-garden; an instance of managerial liberality, in the middle of a season, we believe, wholly without precedent. .Mr. Thomas Wilsen, Governor of the Bank of Ire land is to be High Sheriff fur the county of Armagh fur the next year. It has been rumoured that the vacant Garter has been pressed upon the Noble Premier himself, from a quarter and in a manner extremely difficult to resi.t. —Morning Paper. Sir Henry Fanner, Bart., last week distributed 40 bushels of wheat among such poor families of Rotherfield, Sussex, as have not received parochial relief. The Earl and Countess Albemarle gives a sumptu ous entertainment on Wednesday next to their Royal High nesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. His Excel lency the Russian Ambassador, Count and Countess Charles Pozzo do Bongo, and a distinguished party are invited to meet their Royal Highnesses. The Duke of Beaufort, the Eall'orScaitioroulf,rh; Count D'Orsay, and a party arrived at Bath on Monday, from Badminton Park. The Marquis of Anglesey arrived at Uxbridge House, last evening, from Beaudesert, Staffordshire. The fa mily plate, &c., arrived yesterday. The Marchioness intends staying at Leamington fur the present. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., I\LP., and Lady Peel are expected in town early in the ensuing week from Drayton Manor, Staffordshire. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S HEALTH.- Ever since the Duke declined his annual visit to Belvoir, much anxiety bas been felt upon the subject cf his Grace's health; which anxiety no authentic steps have yet been tali c.n;to relic re. Need we add, that there aro few subjects hi which people of all ranks and opinions take a more lively interestthan in the health of the Duke of Wellington? Lord Clements lies seriously ill at Charlemont House, Dublin. it is stated that he had an inflammation of the lungs, and was bled to an imprudent degree. CLARENCE HOUSE, ST. JAMESS.—The improve ments have been completed here by a new flag pavement, ex tending from St. James's Palace to the porter's lodge at the entrance to the stable-yard. An entrance has also been made from the mansion to the gardens of the palace. The Princess Augusta is expected to resume the occupancy of the edifice, the middle of the ensuing month, when her R o y a l Hi g hness Will return to town for the season. POOR-LAWS AND THE POOR. —W e have often wondered and felt ashamed at our species, that, in the admi nistration of the Poor-laws, such callous and unfeeling conduct should be displayed. Men seem to consider that in relieving the poor, they are conferring a favour, and not performing the most imperative of Christian duties. They seem to think it o t infinitely more consequence that the publ c should not have to support or relieve one idle or improvident person, than that hundreds of miserable brings should be saved from the sharp pangs of want, or spared tae cruel humiliation of reproaches and grumbling distrust. The ordeal which, in thin highly pro- Cpssing country, the miserable victims of want have to undergo —the ordeal of distrust, harshness and disgust—before they can be relieved, is so gruel to any one possessed of the least sus ceptibility of feeling, that we iioreet}mes almost wonder that death from starvation is not preferred to 4pplying to the parish fpr relief. In speaking thus of the administration of the Poor-laws, we must not be understood as referring to those laws themselves, but merely to the manner in which we are sorry to perceive it seems generally thought proper to carry then: . 'nte egest t —Presion Observer. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA Y, JANUARY 23, r 39. THE CA NACANADIAN PRISONERS. • - CiUt:EN'S BLNCH%-(THIS DAY.) The Court was again crowded in the expectation that the Canadian prisoners would be brought up, but they were disap. pointed as only one, Leonard Watson, whose case is at pre sent the only one before the Court, was brought up in a private manner. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had to show cause against a rule'obtained 6y •Fs I earr ed Friend Mr. Hill, who had la boured at great length to show that the return to the writ of habeas corpus might be contradicted, but he offered no affi davit in order to contradict any one single part of any one of the twelve returns. With respect to those who had been pardoned on conditions, he did not for a moment attempt to deny that they bad been indicted for high treason; that they had petitioned, confessing their guilt and pleading penitence. He did not attempt to deny that they had prayed ' for pardon, and that they were now in England, necessarily, on their way to transportation in pursuance of that pardon. With respect to the three who had been sentenced to death be made no attempt to show that they had not been regularly tried and sentenced, and that they were not now in this coun . try on their way in the execution of the conditions attached to the pardon which had -been granted to them. But a grave complaint is made that there is an allegation in the return, which is untrue. He (the Attorney-General) would nyt for one moment question the jurisdiction of their Lordships—he concurred most heartily in what had fallen from his Learned Friend on that point, and he prayed most earnestly that that jurisdiction would be most rigorously and jealously exercised. He would go further and say that for the remedy for the li. berty of the subject, their Lordships not only had the power to inquire into the truth of a return, in which it was suggested there was fraud, but he would say that the Court bad a clear jurisdiction to quash a return on the ground of fraud. That was the safeguard which the law allowed for the liberty of the subject. A return made knowingly fraudulent was a contempt of Court, and their Lordships had a right to quash it. But according to all the cases even down to that of Swallows, their might be a confession and avoidance, but still the return 'emained . " conclusive. His Learned Friend had supposed that L. - • - • Watson might have obtained a free pardon, and he asked tri umphantly why, then, should he be sent for life to a penal colony ? Had there been an affidavit setting forth that Leo nard Watson had obtained a free pardon, their Lordships would of course have discharged him. There was no such affidavit, and notwithstanding Leonard Watson was still in custody, the liberty of the subject was not in that deplorable condition which his Learned Friend represented it to be. The rule called upon Mr. Batchelor to show cause why a writ of attachment should not issue against him, for making a false return to a writ of habeas corpus issued by a Judge of that Court. It was obtained upon the single affidavit of a Mr. Waller, a clerk to the solicitors for the prisoners. It set forth that on the 2911 of December he had received from Mr. Bat chelor a copy of Sir John Colborne's warrant, which he said was the only document under which he held the prisoners in custody—that Mr. Batchelor told him that be purposed to make a return to the writ setting forth the warrant—that he saw the original return, which merely set out the warrant, which warrant contained the name of Leonard Watson in one place only, and that it was not referred to subsequently. That was the ground, the only ground from which his Learned Friend drew the inference that Mr. Batchelor well knew that the name of Leonard Watson was not in the warrant—that the warrant had been wilfully kept from the view of the Court, in order to conceal that fraud—that he knew he had no au- thority to detain him in custody, and that be made the return with a full knowledge that he was committing a fraud. His Learned Friend had ii..iauated that Leona:d Watson was an innocent man—that he was now in England under the most grossly tyrannical orders, and therefore he craved the interference of the Court. He (the Attorney-General) would be able to show that Leonard Watson bad been in no possible degree prejudiced—that he was not in the slightest degree ag grieved ; be would show that not the slightest degree o f bl ame attached to Mr. Batchelor; be would show that the omission of Leonard Watson's name was a mere clerical error, and that it was not known until after the return was put upon the file of the Court. For that purpose be would begin with the affi davit of Samuel Jasper Blunt, of the Colonial-office, Downing street. That affidavit set forth the pardon granted to Leonard Watson and others, which was then in the Colonial-office— that the seal affixed to that pardon was the Great Seal of Upper Canada, and that the writing attached to it was the handwriting of the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir George Arthur. . . It first recited that Leonard Watson, of the Home District of York, had been legally indicted before the Chief Justice of the Province for high treason, that before his arraignment he had humbly petitioned, con fessing his guilt, pleading his penitence, and praying for pardon. It also set forth, the conditions under which the Governor had granted her Majesty's pardon, according to the powers vested in him, which were transportation for life to the penal settlement of Van Diemen's Land, and that they were now in England on their way to such penal colony. He ap prehended that was abundant evidence of the proceeding enu merated. The next statement was that with respect to the execution of the sentence, or conditional pardon with respect to Leonard Watson ; and with respect to that Mr. Blount said that on the 6th of November, 1838, a despatch was re ceived by Lord Glenelg from Sir J. Colborne, dated October 1838, acquainting his Lordship that some of the traitors con cerned in the rebellion would be forthwith removed to Eng land for the purpose of transportation, together with the convicts tried and convicted for the insurrection in Niagara and the Western Districts. In another despatch of the same date was transmitted a list of certain convicts who had been par doned upon condition, and such list contained the name of Leonard Watson, together with 24 others, whose names were mentioned in the warrant of Sir J. Colborne, addressed to Digby Morton, the master of the barque Captain Ross, and that Leonard Watson was one of the prisoners, described as trans ported under the Provincial Act for life. There could, there fore, be no doubt of Watson being transported on condition ; and that lie was sent to Quebec, and from thence to England, in order to carry that sentence into execution. There was, then, the affidavit of Win. Batchelor, the keeper or the gaol of Liverpool, and he said that, on the 17th of December, he received from Digby Morton, the commander of the barque Captain Ross, the bodies of thirty-four persons, whom he stated were state prisoners, brought by him to England from Canada, with a view to be transported. That he received them into his custody by the direction of the Mayor of Liver pool, and the other Magistrates of that town ; that the names of the prisoners were called over by Captain Morton ; and that among them was Leonard Watson. Mr. Batchelor had, therefore, no reason to doubt that Watson had been regularly sent there, or that there was any distinction between his case and that of the other thirty-three prisoners. That he bad no warrant or other document delivered to him at the time, but that in the course of the day be received a war rant from the Town-clerk, purporting to be under the seal of Sir John Colborne, and the seal of the province of Lower Canada. He left that warrant with the Town-clerk, but had occasionally possession of it, and that he finally received it from the Town-clerk the night before he came to London with the prisoners ; and that he brought the warrant, the writ of habeas corpus, and the other documents, with the prisoners to London on the 9th of January, with directions to keep the prisoners in safe custody, and to deliver the documents to the agents of the Town-clerk of Liverpool on his arrival in Lon don; that he lodged the prisoners in Newgate, and delivered the papers according to his instructions; that on the 14th of January he signed certain returns, which he understood had been prepared by Counsel, and that he was not aware until such returns had been made and filed, that the name of Leo nard Watson did not occur in each of the places among the other prisoners in the warrant of Sir John Colborne, or that his case differed from those of the other prisoners ; that he was fully aware that the solicitors for the prisoners were in possession of a copy of the warrant, and that• he had no intention whatever of stating that anything was in the warrant that was not. Mr. Batchelor further stated that he believed all the matters stated by him were true, with the exception of that part with respect to L. Wataon's case, which stated that the warrant of Sir John Colborne directed the captain of the ship to bring him into England. Mr. Betel elm- further stated that the return was not withdrawn, end another substituted, with the view of deceiving the Court ; so that, at the time Mr. Batchelor signed the return, contrary to the inference of Mr. Hill, he ware-whole, ignoraet that the name of L. Watson had not occurred in every part of, the warrant. The reason why the return was withdrawn was, that it was false in fact, arid bad in point of law. Mr. Batchelor stated that he Leld the prisoners by vir tue of Sir John Colborne's warrant. That was not the case, because its virtue was exhausted upon the arrival of the priso ners in England ; and if lie had made a return that he held them by that warrant, it would have been discharged. There was then the affidavit of Mr. Radcliffe, the clerk to Messrs. Adlington and Gregory, the ao-ents for the Town-clerk of Liverpool, who steed the receipts of the draft returns, toge ther with the writs of habeas corpus, with directions to show them to Mr. Maule, and to consent to any alterations that he might desire, which should be approved of by Mr. Wightman on behalf of the Governor. Mr. Radcliffe went on to say, that those returns were laid before Mr. Maule, and that a re turn to the writ for bringi ng up th e body of Leonard Watson was prepared from a d raft applicable to hi s case an d those of the other prisoners, which, it was presumed , were alike, and Mr. Batchelor signed those returns. Mr. Blunt also stated that he veril y believed that the name of Leonard Watson was om i tted in the mandatory part b y a clerical mistake, and Mr. Maule, in his affidavit made a simi lar statement. Mr. Ma u l e stated that he was not at fi rst aware that the name of Leonard Watson was only mentioned in the reciting part. A draft return was prepared by counsel fur the Crown in the case of Finlay Malcolm and Robert Grant, and they were used as precedents for the rest ; the drafts of the other returns were copied from them, and the names of the other prisoners inserted in them, they being varied only by stating the Courts in which the indictments were prepared and the conditions of the respective pardons, where there was any difference. The affidavit further stated that such drafts were submit te d to the counsel for the Crown; that it did not occur to th em that the case o f L eonar d Watson differed from those of the other prisoners, and that it did not appear to them necessary to alter the tem of the return in Watson's ca se i n that part where re f erence made to the warrant; and that there wasno intention of stating anything es being in the w arran t w hi c h w as no t there. That the draft return of Ilateheler was submitted to Counsel for the Crown, who considered it incorrect, and suggested another return, setting forth the circumstances under which the prisoners, including Watson, were brought to England ; that it seemed to them unnecessary to state all the documents at length, anel that there wits np intention of concealing any thing, or at 411 iirP.ii4cliPg the prisong. The AttoTney - General said, upon the affidavits Which he had thus read, he submitted the explanation was fully satisfactory. He ask' d had the slightest injury been done to Leonard Watson? Had h not been indicted for high treason ? Had not a bill of in dictment been found against him? Had he not petitioned for mercy, cGilf, , :sinq his crime ? Was he nit pardoned ? Was it not the intention of t-e.: Governor, that he should be sent to Vae Die. men's Land ? Did not the warrant of Sir J. Colborne, as well as the despatches of Sir J. Arthur, show that it was the intention of Government that this sentence should be carried into execution ? Was Watson at all aggrieved by the clerical error? According to the solemn decision of the Court, pro nounced after long and anxious deliberation, the return would have been sufficient, stating the ordinance, the indictment, the petition, the pardon—on condition of transportatiin—and that the prisoner was delivered to Captain Morton, to be brought to England in execution cf the sentence. Had not Mr. Batchelor been completely cleared? Had not he acted throughout with the most perfect good faith? The writ of habeas corpus having been served upon him, he communi cated with the Town-clerk of Liverpool, his legal adviser, who prepared the return which he brought to London, and sub mitted to the agent of the Town-clerk. That return was fJund by the Crown Counsel to be incorrect, and another was, by their advice, prepared, which Mr. Batchelor rlow swore he believed to be in all respects true, except in the particular regarding the name of Watson being omitted in the mandatory part of Sir J. Colborne's warrant, which warrant the Court had bid to be quite unnecessary. Was any blame to be imputed to Mr. Nlaule ? None. He had sent all do cuments to Mr. Wightman, who for ten years had been Counsel for the Treasury, and was not aware, or he would have called to that Learned Counsel': attention that the name of L. Watson was omitted in part of the warrant. Was it necessary, he (the Attorney-General) should vindicate his Learned Friend Mr. Wightman; and could it be said that it was his duty, every time the names of.the six and twenty prisoners occurred, to see that every one was included? Was it not enough that he drew two correct drafts for two "different classes of returns? He (the Attorney 7 General).quite acceded to the doctrine of his Learned Friend Mr. Hill, that if any person advised a gaoler to make an erroneous return, be his station however high—whether at the bar or in the state—be he the Prime Minister himself, it would be the jurisdiction and the duty of the Court to sentence him to punishment. He declared upon his honour, and was ready to make affidavit of the fact, that befor.: Mr. Hill made his motion, he was ignorant that the name of Leonard Watson did not occur in the mandatory part of the warrant. He avowed that he superintended these returns ; that he saw the drafts. which were used and approved of them ; and, whatever censure might be justly at tached to those returns might strictly be pronounced against him; but could it be said that, when there were prisoners who had either been found guilty or confessed themselves guilty of high treason, whose lives had been spared, and who bad been sentenced to transportation, and were in custody of one of her Majesty's gaolers, that it shall depend upon the return which such gaoler himself may make to the writ of habeas corpus whether those prisoners should be discharged or suffer the sentence of the law ? Yet here were many prisoners in that position • some of them, as in the case of L. Watson, having been taken in arms against her Majesty—to whom the mercy of the Crown had been extended, on condition of a certain term of transportation ; and it was now asked that they should be discharged and suffered to return to Canada again to excite rebellion against the Queen, merely because a gaoler made an insufficient return. Laws are made for the protection of the innocent ; but they were not less made for the punishment of the guilty; and it would be a mockery to say that per sons were to escape entirely from punishment be cause_ a gaoler was incompetent to make a suffi cient return. A return, in fact, which was not prepared by the gaoleriliimself, but by the Town-clerk of Liverpool, and which was found to be incorrect in point of fact and invalid in point of law. Was it not then the duty of the Counsel for the Crown to see that such a return was nut made, and that a proper return was presented. He (the Attorney-General) would again say that it was the duty of the Court jealously to watch such return, and if any material fact was omitted in one of them to quash that return. There was abundant remedy for any person who was lawfully imprisoned, for if the return to the writ of habeas corpus was incorrect. he might upon affidavit show that was incorrect, and the return would be Quashed, and he would thus recover his liberty. This course was open to the meanest of the Queen's subjects ; but it was the duty of her Majesty's Counsel to see that the law was not invaded and destroyed. Ha would now state that when this question was disposed of he should move that the return be amended, for he did not wish it to remain a single moment on the files of the Court, with even an immaterial error in point of fact, and without referring to the warrant, would merely frame the return, so as to state that Leonard Watson having been transported from Upper Canada to Van Diemen's Land, was, in execution of that sentence, brought to England, and placed .in custody of the gaoler of Liverpool. The return would then be strictly and literally true and correct ; if any advantage could be taken of it in its amended form, it would be open - to the person to except to it when it was made, according to the very letter, conformable to the truth. He hoped that this explanation, which he thought due to their Lordships and the public, would be per fectly satisfactory, and that nothing had been done which they ought not to have done in the discharge of their public duty. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had a very few words to add to the statement of his Learned Friend the Attorney- General, for the statement in the affidavits went far to exhaust the subject. The only question really material was, whether or not Leonard Watson had been in any respect injured by what had been done. How had he been injured ? Suppose the return, in stead of stating the warrant from Sir John Colborne had stated nothing of the sort, but had stated simply the quasi conviction in Upper Canada, the transfer of the prisoners to Lower Canada, and the subsequent removal of them from Lower Canada, had omitted the warrant altogether, did it not neces sarily follow that the gaoler held him by lawful authority ? If Leonard Watson had not been injurei, then the question was, whether Mr. Batchelor had duly discharged his duty. He stated that he bad received the prisoner by direction of the Mayor and Magistrates of Liverpool—that the names were called over, and that amongst them was the name of Leonard Watson. In the course of the same day he received a warrant under the hands of Sir John Colborne, which was placed in the possession generally of the Town-clerk for the purpose of communicating with the Government. Having thus put him self in communication with the Counsel for the Crown, the re sult of the affidavits was that he produced that which he in tended to have made his return, simply that he had received the prisoners by virtue of in warrant of which he annexed a copy, and detained them by virtue of that warrant.' If the legal authorities of the Crown had permitted him to make such return they would have justly incurred censure for the course which they took ; for to permit him to say that he held the prison ers by virtue of that warrant would not only have been incor rect in point of law, but false in fact. He received them be cause they were necessarily in transitu from Upper Canada to New South Wales, and because of necessity they should be confined somewhere, and the gaol of Liverpool happened to be the most convenient place. The returns were framed stating the facts, according to their very truth in every particular as it was supposed, and according to the very truth in every partigilar ex• cept the error of the omission of the name of Leonard Watson, which arose from the circumstances already stated. He would not occupy the time of the Court by any further observati tns, except that he felt himself bound in conformity with what had been said by the Attorney-General, to state that in concur re oi with him, he 0 - aye his full sanction to the course pursued, and tcok his full share' of the responsibility ; and he would also state, that not only until Mr. Hill made his motion on Monday, but until he was near his close, he had not the most distant conception that any error existed. He trusted their Lordships would ne of opinion, not merely that there was no error on the part of Mr. Batchelor, but none on the part of any one else. Sir F. Poatocx would trouble their Lordships very shortly. He apprehended, as far as the mere ques tion of attachment was concerned, the moment it turned cut that on the part of Mr. Batchelor there was no possible intention of misleading the Court, that as a ministerial officer he had placed himself in commu nication with those whose duty it was to make the return, and his to adopt it—the moment that appeared there was end r f this rule. He certainly concurred in the view which his Learned Friend the Attorney-General had taken, not merely that it became the Court by every possible form to exercise the most vigilant jealousy with regard to .any return that might be made to the writ of habeas corpus, but further to express his coneurrenceat a member of the bar. He was ccr taietly not quite of so many years' standing as his Learned Friend, but nearly so. The ATTORNEY GENERAL--We were called the same day. —( Laughter.) Sir F. Pueeoce felt bound to express his concurrence pub licly that there was no foundation for any imputation on the law or the practice with respect to writs of habeas corpus; that the subject had no remedy, and that any person of no credit might make a return, and carry away a person out of the juris diction of the Court, and that there are no means known to the law by which flagrant falsehood may be instantly detected and punished. That it might be detected and punished the present proceeding abundantly showed. Any person who was injured by the fraud or falsehood of a return might imme diately have redress by calling on your Lordships to quash the return and discharge the prisoners. He should have expected his Learned Friend, after the able and eloquent appeal which he had made on the unhappy condition of these persons, that there would have been some affida'it from some one or all of them, showing that there was no toundationeitherfor the fact of their crime as alleged, or the granting of the pardon upon con dition, or of the fact of having been convicted and sentenced. Mr. Roebuck had suggested that one of them did not know he was pardoned. If there were any foundation for that sug gestion, he (Sir F. Pollock) marvelled that there had been no intimation of it in any affidavit. But the application was confined to this single point, that the name of L. Watson, which occurred in the first instance, which occurred again by implication, but which was omitted by mistake in the rest of the warrant, and therefore their Lordships ought to grant an at tachment against the gaoler who made the return. It was impossible not to admit that there had been blame some where. Those who prepared the warrant ought to have taken care that the names were correctly repeated, but did any blame attach to any pe rson i n th i s co untry ? It could not be known here under what circumstancs the warrant issued, or how the party making it could exculpate himself, but he asked their Lordships, did any blame attach to any individual connected pith the discharge of a public duty in assisting to prepare this return ? Surely, when a document came under the Great Seal of the Colony, containiag the whole of the names in the earlier part of it, scarcely any one would be expected to anticipate that a name should be omitted in any other part of the warrant, but certainly it turned out to be so. He had then the writ before him, and it commanded the gaoler to bring up the body of Wotan. Jt was at once sup posed tlrae it could Mean only Leonard Watson, and therefore at once be was brought up. Was there anything like con cealment in that. They brought up Leonard Watson, when Weston was called for, because he was the only one to whom they thought it could apply. It would not for a motneet be contended that a gaoler was to make out a return himself, 1 without having communicatian with the-- ,se w _ he the praetice the gz,,,eler r.i , ld a return as would eter;re the ‘ll-,enterge of a prisoner at any time. The gaoler communicated with tee Town-clerk of Liverpool, who advised a certain return ; he came to London, and as was his duty, he laid the papers before the solicitors for the Crown, and a return was made, which he signed, at the time not one of them know ing that the name of Leonard Watson was omitted in any part of the warrant. There was a reason, and a good one, why that document was not set rut, it referred to many other documents which were important—it was not; the indict ment was an inii:ortant document to set forth, but there was not a copy of it in this country—the only thing known of it was contained in the pardon. All parties were perfectly un aware of the omission of the name of L. Watson in any part of the document, until the motion of his Learned Friend Mr. Hill ; the Counsel for the Crown, were puzzled to find out why it was that the case of L. Watson had been selected— they thought it was peculiar only from the writ calling for Weston, and his name was Watson. Such being the ease, could it be said that the gaoler was in fault. If the return was faulty, he prayed the Court to amend it and give Watson all the benefit he could derive from such an alteration, and let him have it instanter. Batchelor said that he had acted in good faith, and he proved it by his conduct. He kept back no document; he gave a copy of the only document upon which he acted, and he stated explicitly that it was the only document he had in his possession. That document, the warrant, could not in any sense be considered a legal document. It was a public document, sealed with the great seal of the province, and countersigned by a public officer. It gave directions, hut in no sense could it be con sidered a legal document. It gave directions, however, that were binding on all public officers to whom it was either directed, or into whose possession it came. It was the duty of the Commander of the barque, and of the gaoler of Liver pool, to receive the prisoners; and it would have placed either of them in a situation of great peril, had they, finding the name of L. Watson in the first part of the document, and, by mistake, omitted in the mandatory part—it would have placed them in extreme peril, had they taken it upon themselves to discharge him out of custody. He trusted that the rule would be discharged. It, at all events, would have one good, and a most important, effect. It would satisfy the country and the whole world• that the imputations upon the great bul wark of our liberties, which had been thrown out by his Learned Friends, were totally wishout foundation. It was proved that the Court not only possessed the power instantly to review a return, if thete was suffi cient reason to suppose that there was the slightest mala fides in the making of it ; that Court would instantly open the door of inquiry, and would not shut it until the minds of their Lordships were perfectly satisfied as to the truth of all its allee ' ations, if not the Court would instantly quash it. Mr. 1Y the length to which the arguments had gone be felt it incumbent upon him to address a few observations to the Court. If the gaoler had falsified the document he had committed one of the most stupid pieces of iniquity that he had ever heard of, because it was known from himself that was the only document which he had— the only document upon which he was acting, and of which he had given a copy to the other side. He thought it would have been mere candid if the other side had told them that there was a mistake in the returns, on ac count of the name of Leonard Watson not being contained in the mandatory part of it. Their attention would then have been drawn to the subject, and the mistake would have been remedied. Had the gaoler came up with a return prepared, he had no interest in the matter, for it was immaterial to him whether the prisoner was discharged or not; not so with the Crown— to it the matter was of the greatest moment. It ap peared, from the statement of the Attorney-General, that the return was not only insufficient, but false in fact, for the war rant was good for nothing the moment the prisoners landed at Liverpool. Now, as he had been greatly instrumental in draw ing up these returns, he was willing to take the full responsibility that would fall upon him. In drawing up the return the Crown bad gone to far greater length than it was hound to do, and he thought he should ba able clearly to show the Court that it was in one of the most immaterial parts where the mistake had been committed. It was clear that the error was merely clerical, arising probably from the disturbed state of Canada. Then came the question, was the mistake of any importance to the prisoner ? Certainly not. Was it necessary to set out the warrant clearly ? Not if the case of the King v. Caddis, and that of exparte Cain was law. Would the Court have discharged Leonard Watson, in con sequence of the omission ? Certainly not. And, therefore, that man had lost nothing by the omission. It was not necessary to state more than that the man was delivered to Morton to be conveyed to England in pur suance of the sentence, and that had been done in the present instance. If the slightest detriment had taken place with re spect to Watson, he ought to have the benefit of it, but he greatly mistook the judgment of the Court if such was their opinion. Unless it was made out that this was a malicious at tempt to keep Leonard Watson in custody, he trusted the Court would have no hesitation in discharging the rule. It was greatly to be regretted that any mistake had occurred, but it was clear it was not a wilful one, and had done no injury to the party with respect to whom it was made. Mr. HILL then rose to support the rule. His Learned Friend (the Attorney- General) had said that it would be sa tisfactory to the Court and the public that there should be a complete admission made by the Counsel for the Crown, that there was a remedy for a party in prison who was brought be fore the Court under a writ of Habeas Corpus, by means of affidavits, to smpeach the returns so made upon that writ. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—You go a little too far. Mr. HILL hoped that his Learned Friend was not going to narrow and cut down the admission. Because, Ist, it was an admission made broadly, openly, and in good faith, for if it was not the Counsel for the Crown could not congratulate themselves upon it as they had done. He joined in the con gratulation, because it would be some reparation to the public for the time the case had occupied, that such an admission had been drawn from his Learned Friends on the other side. In the first instance, they had referred him to a remedy by an ac tion for a false return, as the only mode that could be adopted, and he had wasted much time in endeavouring to show that the proposed remedy added injury to in sult, and mockery to injustice. He was, however, glad . to have the high authority of the law officers of the Crown that there was another remedy ; and he could not but congra tulate them on the discovery they had made in their legal voyage into the law of Habeas Corpus, as well as that relating to the liberty of the subject. Now, with respect to the rule before the Court he denied the doctrine of his Learned Friends that the first; and only question was, whether an error had been committed ; and if there had, whether that error affected the interests of Leonard Watson. He utterly denied that that was the only question before their Lordships. It was only one of the many that might be brought forward. It was laid down in all the law books that if a prisoner had been found guilty of a capital offence, sentenced to be hanged and ordered by the judge for execu tion ; that if that man was executed by any other person and under any other authority than the sheriff appointed to carry the sentence into execution, that that man was murdered, and his executioner might be found guilty of murder, and punished as a murderer. Now, :according to his Learned Friend's mode of viewing the case, there could be no difference. He would say to the man who was to be executed, whether he would be hung by the regular executioner or by a volunteer, because he would say the man could only be hung, and that the 'volunteer executioner might be as great an adept in ' fixing the halter, or putting the knot under the left ear, as the man who was appointed to carry the sentence into execution. But the law declared the voluntary executioner to be a derer. The first question to be considered was wln . ' fler the officers of the Court had done their duty the course of public justice? Whether the error whit had been committed , might or might not by accider:r. have turned out to be harm less, was quite immaterial. It appeared from the affidavit of Batchelor that he received these prisoners first without any warrant at all, merely by their names being read over; that ho afterwards had the warrant, but that it was principally in the hands of the Town-clerk of Liverpool. the inference from which was, that he saw very little of it. Now, a word as to the relation subsisting b e t ween t b o T own clerk arid Mr. Batchelor. He (Mr. Hill) had called the at - tentiotnof the Attorney-General to the mistake.3ve hag's fallen into in stating that•the gaoler. was under the controul of the Town-clerk of Liverpool. On the affidavits that did not ap pear. But it did appear very clearly that th,e Town-clerk was the attorney for the gaoler—communicating with Messrs. Adliegton, Gregory, and Faulkner, his London agents; and he ( Mr. Hill) must complain that, whereas, whenever it was required that Mr. Batchelor should have authority to injure the prisoners, he was all potent then, but when it was asked that a corresponding responsibility should be cast upon him, then the blame was diluted by being separated among so many persons that the small portion attached to Mr. Batchelor was not to be sufficient to justify the Crown in making this rule absolute; but Mr. Batchelor was the person before the Court, and had consented to throw his shield over all who stood behind him. It might be that it would have been better that Mr. Batchelor should have thus been put in the front of the battle. It seemed to be reversing the classical precedent, and instead of Teucer standing behind the shield of Ajax, there was Ajax crouching and cowering behind the tiny buckler of Teucer. But, my Lords, very probably Mr. Batchelor has been indemnified, as it would be very easy to effect by the persons who really made this return. The Learned Counsel went on to say that these unfortunate prisoners had no vindictive feelings to indulge— that at least they had learnt by this misfortune, deserved or unmerited, how to forgive injuries, and he tendered their forgiveness to all parties concerned ; and if his Learned Friends on the other side would accept it he tendered it to them (The Attorney-General gravely bowed.) He tendered to them an unconditional pardon —(Laughter)_a pardon unclogged by such a tremendous condition as disgraced the English language, when applied to the instrument now before the Court. He did not ask that the Attorney -General should be sent to Van Diemen's Land, even for a single month.—( Renewed laughter.) He did not wish to visit with any censure the parties now be fore the Court for the error, which he now dismissed for ever; but there was a question which to these prisoners was of the utmost importance. Ho understood their Lordships to have decided that the return was to be accredited until im peached by the party complaining. He had argued against that doctrine until it was laid down by their Lordships, be cause he bad always understood it to be the law of England that no person was to be presumed guilty—that the presump tion was the other way—that no person was to be called on to prove his own innocence. He bad mistakingly fallen into that error. He now stood corrected. But the return was now impeached, and that impeachment ran throngtreat the whole, and the degree of credit which had been attached to it was utterly gone. It did not appear that Mr. Batchelor had ever read the returns I on the contrary, it appeared that they were . . I maki drakvn up by biA Cminsel, who were mnst plf , a , lcrr Lnt f~ ~~~~ I:'i'SF their Lerdships cbd not even know that shat was set cut upon . the return was his knowledge. He (Mr. Hill) could not but think that this case would be so far beneficial, as it would show that in those forms, which in mo dern times were so much slighted, was in reality substantial justice. If the warrant had been set out in the return, con silerable discussion would have been saved. He challenged his Learned Friends to point t ut a single case in which it had beta held, ihat where there was a warret2t 't eneie net to be set rut in. the return in Leo verlia. TheKis•g n. Saddis, which had het e ssfer, -, d to for ties pie pose, was net in point, for it appeared that there was no warrant ; and so in another case, which had been discovered at the eleventh hour. If it was not necessary to set out Sir John Colborne's warrant, why set out the others ? What was it necessary to set out? He wished his Learned Friends, in their great ardour for the liberty of the subject, would have been kind enough to give their Lordships some definition and test of what was sufficient or what was insufficient, in setting out documents or averments upon a return. The course of their argument went to this, that if the return had said Leonard Watson was in due course of law sentenced to transportation to Van Diemen's Land, that it was necessary to send hihn to Eng land, and that inc held him in pt icon in pursuance of such sentence, it would have been perfectly good. According to these arguments it might be reduced to a nutshell. Then, how were their Lordships to know the cause of this imprison ment, unless they saw with other men's eyes, heard with other men's ears, and adopt the judgment of the gaoler of Liver pool as their own ? The doctt ine of his Learned Friends was not only not affirmed, but it was disaffirmed, by the case of Rich and Doughty, 3 Salkeld, 149. Were the prisoners in a stete of legal restraint in crossing the Atlantic? If not, this came was a conclusive authority against the gaoler of Liver pool receiving them. His Learned Friend said the warrant was net necessary at all. Did he really mean to say that a verbal direction by somebody in Upper or Lower Canada, to take these men to Liverpool on their way to 'Van Diemen's Land, was a lets e' al execution of a sentence of tran s p ortat i on ? W ou ld they bind themselves to this—that if Leonard Watson had risen upon the captain in the high seas and put him to death, that such putting to death would have been murder, he having no warrant ? It was impossible to believe that could be the law of England. It was supposing a degree of looseness and irro gulan ity concerning the dearest interests of man, which was not permitted even in the course of trade or commerce. If this• had been a consignment of twelve beavers to the Zoological Gardens they would have come with a better bill of lading ; and he would venture to say that if in any well-conducted house of business in the City, errors had crept in such as had been found in these proceedings, every clerk would have been cashiered by his master before night. Mr. Wightman complained of not having been treated with a proper degree of candour. His Learned Friend would ex cuse him (Mr. Hill) if he replied to that statement, and he would do it in this way. He (slr. Hill) thought even upon the discussion of the sufficiency of the return, he had a right to use the warrant, seeing it had been delivered to the goaler as the warrant on which he had detained them. He had the warrant in his hand, and his object was to show the very blot upon it which he now pointed out, but the At torney-General interposed, and their Lordships agreed that he had no right to use it. After he had been prevented from doing that in the early part of the proceedings, which he had now done, it was:too much for Mr. Wightman to accuse biro of want of candour. Were they to struggle against letting its Ft single ray of light es long as they could, and when he was about to show the Court a little glimpse of the case were they to say it was uncandid, because it had not been done at first. It was not his (Mr. Hill's) fault that the whole of these do cuments were not before their Lordships. Only one docu ment was produced, and that was the pardon. But the f.oun dation of ail, the petition and the indictment, were net pro duced. Their Lordships were bound, even now, to take it upon the erring and fallacious statement of Mr. Batchelor, that this man did petition and confess his guilt, and was indicted for high treason, notwithstanding proof had been given of the fallacy of his statement. How dared Mr. Batchelor to take upon himself to swear that he-believed all the statements to be true ? What evidence had been offered to him that he should pledge his oath that these matters taki ng pl ace in Canada were true ? It was an allegation that after the pardon these prisoners consented 'to the condition of it. He asked Mr. Batchelor, and those who had put the affidavit before him, how he colifd swear that these men did assent to these conditions. His (Mr. Hill's) belief was that they did not assent—hie belief was that when Mr. Dealtry read the official return, that was. the first time they heard the dreadful sentence, that they were transported for life. It was said, why not bring affidavits Of this? He had received a severe lesson during these proceed ings, of what was the duty of' an Advocate. He had found cases deciding important points, Where the Advocates did not raise those points—he had found that because Mr. Erskine did not raise that point in the case of " King I/. Saddis," therefore it must be taken to have decided by the assent of all men in a particular way. It became the duty of an advocate to take care that no precedent should be drawn from any proceedings of his. Mr. Erskine would have done his client no service by it, and that might be his reason for not taking up the time of the Court. But he trusted their Lordships would feel it a pernicious maxims to take a case for authority for anything that was not arguet). not decided in that particular case. He was addressing their Lordships with no want of that real respect which he, felt for the Court, when he said that all men—Judger, not ex cepted, were prone to error—that it should be a fair inference that anything that VMS not well considered could not be well decided. They found, too, many mistakes on all oc casions where the liberty of the subject—wtere his life, his happiness, all that was dear to him in the world, were at stake —and he trusted their Lordships would never consider that liberty as narrowed by the omission of any advocate. Let him now call their Lordships' attention to the state in which the proceedings were. He had made a motion for an attachment—a rule was granted—that rule had nosy' been discussed, and was ripe for their Lordships' judgment, but, as stated before, that was a subsidiary proceed ing. He was still on his original motion to discharge these prisoners. He could only discharge them by quash ing the return, and part of his motion was to quash the return. Suppose that a witness here had been contradicted els to facti which tcok place in Canada—facts which took place within his own knowledge —suppose that he was to be contradicted as to facts which took place in England, would the Court put the slightest confidence in any evidence given by such a wit ness. The warrant was a mass of absurdities. There was not the slightest connection between the recital and the; enacting part of it. It was neither grammar, English, nor common sense. It was totally contemptible. The Great Seal had been dis graced by being put to such a document. His Learned Friends on the other side had called this a ch rical error. Why the names of the prisoners were recited no less than six times in the warrant, and every time the name of Leonard Watson si studiously omitted. The Solicitor General coming from another Court had introduced' into that Court a new term, In speaking of criminal law b e t a lk e d o f a quasi con viction. It was th first time he had ever beard the term, and he trusted that it would be the last. if a man could, be trans ported .for life on a quasi conviction why might he not be hanged ? He (Mr. Hill) would advise the Solicitor-General to keep to ;his own Court, and if he must exercise his ingenuity, in finding out some equitable means in punishing criminals. There was much of quasi in this 'case, but ve,y little of conviction, and he trusted that the C o urt would ice' Lerpose its power between these poor prisone j rs and r "...'.nless power. Mr. FAULKENER followed on the same side. -fe said the only fact which the gaoler could lay . l Afore the Court, was the authority he had to keep 'those prisoners in custody, and that he had stated fte.Sely to their Lord ships. The prisoners were not convicts —there were only two modes of conviction known to the English law. The first was, when upon arraignment a prisoner pleaded guilty the second was, when upon verdict he was found guilty. Neither of those ordeals had the prisoners gone throrgh therefore, they were not convicts, according to the laws of .Engiand. The Learned Counsel for the Crown had endeavolared to show that the warrant was a document of no consequence; _ he would endeavour to show to the Court that that document was very material in the care. If, at Common law.pardon had been granted, upon condition Vast the party should transport himself, there was no law in England by Welch thoseconditions could be carried into effect. For-that proposition lie h• A d the authority of Coke, in his " Commentaries upon Littleton." 'de had also the authority of the case of Newsom agaiast Boyer, in 3 Pe re WO- P. 37, in which the Lord Chancellor decided that th ere was no transporl ation, the party having voluntarily exiled himself according to the condition of a pardon, which had been granted tr, him. For that proposition, also, he had the authority of Blackstor,.. Then came the transportation Act of 5 Geo. IV., but that only irepe,sed transportation on pardon, with conditions in certain cases. The words of the Act were specific ; they limited the power of transportation to persons who had been pardoned, on conditions, after conviction. That was not the case with the parties here, for they had never been convicted—they bad never been arraigned—t hey had not bean called upon to plead—no witnesses had been called against them—th ey had ne ver been asked what they had to say why sentence should no t be passed against tlnens—they had never been sentenced. Where, Linen, in the law of England was the power to carry into execution this pardon, as it was called ? Where the authority for tine detention of f.hese prison ers ? The party not being in execution under the authority of a Court of law, and not being detained under a warrant of committal, he was free. Could it therefore be said that ;to injury had been 'inflicted by the course pursued by the gaoler ? H 2 had stated circumstances in his re turns that were not true—while, at the sake time, he had boldly stated that all the assertions inn his a c .fidavits were true. Such being the case, he submitted that he had reredered himself liable to the severest punishraent tine law could inflict. Mr. ROBDUCK was on tine same side. His Friends and himself were placed in a novel position; they were the advocates in an English Court of Justice, who were endeavouring to shield a man not from convic tion, not from the process of law, gat from what the lay( coatemplated as a sentence, but from the determination of an execrn. tive officer, which has been determined for the first time in ;In Eniglish Court of justice to be equivalent to the sentence of a Court, e.nd to dispense with the necessity of trial. Such being the position in which they stood, he should offer a few arguments in addition to tr,sose already urged for the purpose of protecting Leonard Watson frora the array of power brought against him, and not from the strong arm of the law. It was not against law they were fighting but power. Now, Iv., would propound as lie understood it, the law as laid down by the', r Lord ships on Monday last. 'I heir Lordships had, as he une,,erstood in the first place, determined, that under the Upper T Janade Act, the Governor had the power upon petition, without tria:n, to pardons per sons guilty of treason upon their confession of the fae.t, and that upon that confession he could inflict any punishment Wort of death. Their Lordships had further determined that upon petition the Governor could transport for life, that the law ofEngland would recognize that semr tence, and that the English Courts would enforce it. Their Lordships had determined, 3dly, that the bare affirmations of a gaoler should have the effect of proving, to the exclusion of all supporting evidence, tine follow ing facts t—lst, That the prisoner was arrested upon the charge of high treason; 2dly, That an Act had passed in Upper Canada ; idly, "'hat under that Act the Governor had the power to pardon yson confession of guilt ; atUny, That he Could sentence to transports lion for life without trial. 5,1 4. That the prisoner had been brought to England .un4or Lho warrant , of Sir George Arthur; and 61h1y, and otrent,e their thus ex So On 1, -Lord As to tl] c usged, for e u , , the ti The tUic tc James , of Mr Park. :pose( by t h ing c 1 t the S come tours( lastly, biPty The state_ Lon the exi The Upon ei Lcr4 Mr. tui d jut() Irene char