The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-14 00:00:00

ported to these settlements. The Lord Chief Baron's
opinion was worthy of their Lordship's -consideration,
and was embodied in the statement of the petitioners.
The Court said the prisoners were liable to be indicted
for treason committed against her Majesty in Canad a,
and to be tried for that treason in this country. Not
to be transported to Botany Bay.--( Hear, hear.)
And the court -rooeriy ;‘:.d e.,,,enhied by
saying, that if the prisoners could not be le-
gally transported from this country to Van Die-
men's Land, the Government would, upon its being
so certified, take proper measures for prosecuting
them upon the charge of high treason. The
petitioners said that the conditions of the pardon could
not be enforced unless they had been accepted, and that
so far from having accepted the conditions, they were
ignorant of them till afterwards, and had been led to
believe the pardon unconditional. Notwithstand-
ing all this, they believed, that they were forth-
with to be sent to Van Diemen's Land. They
stated that this was the first case in Which
a British subject had been attempted' to be trans-
ported from this country, without his being included—
as they alleged they were not—in the pro%isions of the
Transportation Act. And they prayed for such inquiry
and relief as their Lordships might think fit ; and also
that an amendment of the law, as to the Habeas Corpus
Act might be effected so as to require a verification
of the returns made under that Act. He (Lord
Brougham) had all the documents in his possession, and
would pledge himself to the accuracy of the petitioners'
statement as far as appeared on the face of those docu-
ments. As to the allegations of the confessions having
been obtained by duresse, he could not of course answer.
The Noble and Learned Lord then went on to charac-
terize in strong terms the attempt which he said had
been made by the Crown Counsel in this case for the
first time since the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act,
to put such a gloss upon it as would have torn up by the
routs the liberties of England, had not the attempt
been defeated by the decision of the Court. The
Court never was guilty of the gross absurdity of
making itself accomplice to this new-fangled, despotic
doctrine, by calling on the prisoners to answer
that argument. The Court, without a moment's
Jelay, unanimously rejected the gloss of the Crown
lawyer upon the law of Habeas Corpus, decreed
that it should stand as hitherto, and that there was not
the shadow of foundation for this tyrannical and mon-
strous interpellation. Here was a case well deserving the
consideration of the Hous,-. Upon the opinion of the
Attorney-General, the discomfited inventor of that
novel construction of the Habeas Corpus Act—upon
that authority it was that they were about to say, that
by law they were entitled to tratisport these nine pri-
soners. He would have them to think many times be-
fore they adopted that construction of the law. They
had no judicial authority for it. He had reason to
think they would get an opinion to the contrary if they
had any means of asking it. He suspected if the Court
of Exchequer had been' pressed to decide this point,
which they could not decide voluntarily, they would not
have got an opinion which would have legalized that
transportation. He had still more reason to suspect
they would not have got the opinions of any large
portion of the Judges. But these were conjectures of
the grounds of which he should not give any account
at present, farther than to state, that so far as he had
examined the case, and it was also the opinion- of many
of his Learned• Friends, that they had no right totransport
these men ; and if they did, an act utterly illegal in the teeth
of the law, would be perpetrated by them. He
thought this appeal could not fail in this the highest
court of judicature, and with the Government, in whose
hands the fate .of those persons now rested.
The Marquis of NORMANBY did not intend to
make any comments on the petition, because many of
the allegations were under the consideration of the
Government. Many of the allegations in the petition
had come for the first time under the notice of her Ma-
jesty's Government since the decision of the case in the
Courts of law. They required much consideration and
much reference ; and, in the state of the matter at that
moment, it would not become him to say a word more.
CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Lord PORTMAN, thinking the Bill unnecessary,
would move as an amendment that it should be read a
second time that day three moths.
Lord BROUGHAM objected to legislate on an in-
cidental case, such as this was. Such a case had not
occurred for the last 300 years, and probably would not
occur again for another 300 years. He objected to the
Bill likewise as taking the patronage out of the hands
of Lords Lieutenant, and giving too much of it to
Magistrates.
Lord HARDWICKE agreed with the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite. This was a Bill whick struck
a severe blow against the little patronage that had been
left to Lords Lieutenant. He could not, therefore,
support his Noble Friend upon the second reading of
this Bill.
The Earl of H AREWOOD objected to the Bill,
lerefore could not vote in, favour of its second

reading.
The Duke of RICHMOND hoped the Noble Lord
would withdraw the Bill, and allow it to be read a
second time this day six months.
Lord REDESDALE hoped the House would allow
a second reading, that the measure might be more
,fully'
considered in Committee.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw for a divi-
sion, but upon our re-admission into the gallery we
were informed that the Bill had been withdrae.n.'
Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from Auch-
terarder, signed by .579 persons, praying for a repeal of
the. Corn-laws.
BOROUGH COURTS BILL.
Lord DENNIAN v%islied to draw the attention of
the House to an Act which he had brought in some
time ago, for the purpose of regulating proceedings in
the Borough Courts in England and Wales. This Act
had passed their Lordships' House, gone to the House
of Commons, where several of its clauses had been
struck out, and others introduced altering the Act very
materially, and in that shape it had been returned
to their Lordships' House. From a considera-
tion of the Bill as it now stood, he was induced
to move for leave to withdraw it altogether, that he
might introduce another in another shape upon the same
subject.
The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.
ADMIRALTY COURT.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to know from his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack whether any steps
had been taken agreeably to what he (Lord B.) had
suggested three or four months ago, with a view to
place the Judge of the Admiralty Court in a different
position to that. in which he now was, he being the
only Judge who was paid not by salary but by annual
grants from Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was quite inaudible
in the gallery in the single sentence he uttered, in reply
to the Noble and. Learned Lord.
Lord BROUGHAM then said that should something
not speedily be done, he should feel it to be his duty to
give notice of a motion on the subject.
The Duke of HANIILTON presented a petition
from Hamilton, complaining of spiritual destitution in
Scotland.

POOR-LAWS.
The Earl of STAN HOPE presented a petition from
the clergymen of five different parishes, in three adjoin-
ing Unions in the county of Kent, complaining of the
working of the present Poor-law system, and the arbi-
trary mcnner in which its proslsions had been exercised,
and praying that they might be carefully examined, for
the purpose of altering them, especially the bastardy
clauses, which tended to the increase of seduction, and
the crime of child murder. The Noble Lord had also
a petition to present, to a f,itnilar effect, from a person
of the name of Thomas Coombes. As that petition
had been printed, it would he unnecessary for him to
enter at any length into its details.
Lord BROUGHAM trusted that the Noble Earl
would not present the latter petition to-night, as he had
not had an opportunity of reading it. He thought the
presentation of one petition a night, attacking the Poor-
.
law Com misiioner felt bound to persist in s, Was quite sufticient.—(Hear.)
EarISTANHOPE
present-
ing the petition. The Noble Earl then presented the
petition
upon
e of RICHMOND felt bound to say a few
wthe
petition, in consequence of the Noble
Earl having given its contents too great a circulation
oTr dhse. D
through the medium of the public press. The new
law had given the poor a boon. Under the old law
no man could get relief if he lived out of his parish
—but now if he lived in a Union he was relieved by
the Union. The Guardians of Westbourne were as
humane as any men in the land—aye as humane as
the Noble Lord himself. The man and woman in
question on their arrival were put in the probationary
room, and the man being ill was at once waited on
by the Surgeon and was removed to the Infirmary.
Soon after, his wife expressed a wish to see him
and was at once taken to see him, and also,
again on the following morning, when the man
expressed himself as uite satised and comfortable.
The statements had noqt been taken from the lips of the
man, but from the woman, who was dissatisfied, and
forced her sick husband out of the house. She had
told some of the paupers in the house that she had no
fault to find with the house, but her object was to get
the Guardians to allow her some money out of the
house. It would have been as well had the Reverend
Gentleman made some inquiry into the truth of the in-
formation given him. He (the Duke of Richmond)
was quite sure that the Guardians would have been
pleased to have given him every facility for inquiry into
the case.
Lord WYNFORD said it was perfectly impossible
that eleven persons could be properly fed on twelve
shillings a week—that was starvation. The Poor-law
Bill must be inquired into, even by this do-nothing
Parliament. He hoped to hear no more of these state-
ments and counter-statements—their Lordships could
make nothing of them. He would suggest that if there
were truth in any of the allegations contained in the
petition, the Guardians should be indicted for a misde-
Lueanor—iu that case the truth would be found out and