The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-19 00:00:00

right. lie agreed, that the Privy Council waa the proper place of
appeal, and he trusted they would apply to that tribunal, for there
could be no doubt that the act done was a great and important in-
, notation.

The ATTOR MEV-GENERAL said, that every document had
been laid before him and his Learned Colleague, and it was rerfect•
ly clear that at no period of the history of the island had the !louse
of Keys ever formed part of the Court of tient lhlivery ; there
was no instance of their having acted as a part of that tribunal.
The juries had always found the verdicts. About a hundred years
ago the House of Keys usurped the right of pronouncing upon and
arraigning the conduct of juries, some cat whom they had sum-
moned before them and fined. They attended the Court, but
formed no part of it. They were neither judges nor members of it
in any capacity. Their power was a clear usurpation, and that
power was not fully exercised till within the last forty or fifty years.
If it had existed legally, there could be no doubt it ought not to
be continued. But the House of Keys never were members of the
Court, though they hail assumed the right of pronouncing upon
the administration of justice. The Attorney ()moat for the
inland had given his decision on a careful review of the documents.
Afterwards the opinion of the law-otlicenr of the Crown was taken,
and transmitted to the Governor. Every opportunity had been
given for argument. The opinion of the law-olficers of the('town
was taken upwards of twelve months ago. There was therctimre
ample time for appealing against it. But the lion. phoebes ( Mr.
('urwen) preferred that this tribunal should decide the question of
law and fact, though he knew there was a liibunal appointed by
Act of Parliament. He (the Attotney.(ienera/) had no objection
the question should be inquired into. He was convinced that no
instance could be found in which the House of Keys had acted as
member of the Court of Gaol Delivery.
Sir J. MACK INTOSiI said he had but a few words to nay on
the question, but his Learned Friend who had spoken last had re-
duced him to the necessity of saying, that he had not received a
satisfactory explanation on the subject before the House. He
should lay out of the question all the arguments respecting the
inconvenience of the institution : it was enough for them at pre-
sent to know that it had been in existence for centuries back ; be.
cause his Hon. Friend (Mr. Curwen) did not object to an alteration
or reform of the institution, but only to the manner in which the
change had been effected. His otjeetion in principle was, that the
Right Hon. Secretary had not shown sufficient consideration to the
claims of this respectable provincial legislature; subordinate, in.
deed, to Parliament, but theretirre ontitied rto the protection of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) His lion. Friend was entitled to the
gratitude of the House and the country for bringing the subject for.
ward ; nor could he be charged with departing from his notice, for
surely a change in the Supreme and only Criminal Court of a
country is a change in its criminal law (hear, hear.) and a notice
respecting the criminal law of this island must have related
to the Supreme Criminal Court of the island. Hut his Learned
Friend (the Attorney-General) said that the Howie of Keys had
had ample time allowed them, as he had given Ida opinion twelve
months ago. The question was, when was it notified to them:
When was time act done by the Government? The notification was
given only on the 9th of last month. The time of appeal was not
to be reckoned from the date when the opinion was privately
given, but when the acts were performed, by which they knew that
th,at opinion had been given. The question was this lion.
' Friend (Mr. Curwen), who had told the House that he was a
member of the House of Keys, in the laic of Man, anti therefore ,
peculiarly. bound to contend tits the claims and privileges of that
assembly in this ilouse, had stated in his place, that a usage
had prevailed fur a considerable duration—that of the concurrence
of the House of Keys with the juries, or at least that a certificate
to that effect, signed by thirteen members of the House of Keys,
was an essential condition to the execution of a sentence of the
Supreme Criminal Court. lie (Sir James Mackintosh) had no
knowledge of his own on the 'abject, but the assertions of his
Honourable Friend had not been contradicted. All that his
Learned Friend (the Attorney-Gen/wal) had said was, that the
power of fining juries exercised by the House of Keys, was
a usurpation ; not that their concurrence in some man-
ner, by certificate or otherwise, was not essential. The
question was, whether the concurrence of thirteen members
was necessary to give validity to the sentence upon, or the fining
the jur. An Honourable 31ember, well acquainted with the
usage of the House of Keys, had given an opinion which was not
contradicted. The usage of a century should not be lightly treated,
nor treated as a usurpation. At all events, it would have been
proper to have allowed them time to meet the views of those who
wished to alter the constitiwion ot' their criminal law. The right of
fining was said to be an tieurpation ; but even if he admitted it were,
they had not as yet attilirient information'to decide upon the contem-
plated alteration. The privileges of a branch of the legislation of
the Isle of Man should not be hurries! over. The subject demand-
ed delay for the purpose of inquiry, and therefore he thought that
the papers called for should be laid upon the table. If his lion.
Fricod persisted in his motion, he should certainly divide the House
with him.

---
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he forthed his opinion
upon the documents before him, sod from these he found that the
House of Xcys had neva ffinned a part of the gaol delivery.
Mr. COURTENA Y defended the opinion given by the Attor-
ney-General, as one founded upop the various documents which
v ere laid before him. One thing was certain, that a decision must
take place; and what was the Uovemment to do while an appeal
was pending before the Privy Council, if such appeal had been al-
lowed ? .Looking at the alteration which had taken place, the
question, he thought, wasp whether the Secretary of State had
acted with sufficient discretion in the conduct which he pursued ?
For himself he had not the alightesr doubt upon the question.
There was onime for delay. His Right Hon. Friend first forti-
fied hiuuelf with the opinion of the Law Officers of the ClOllll,
and then, and only then, had acted, as be (Mr. Courtenay) believed,
with all the caution and propriety which usually marked his official
earner.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a division tcok
place.
For the motion, 28.—Against it. 2&—Majority for the motion, 2.
On our return to the tiallery, we found the Irish Law Courts
Compensation Bill was read a second time.