The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-21 00:00:00

tion of the House to the distinction betwixt the decision of the

ScOtch Jury and the English Jury, the latter delivering an
unanitnous verdict, and the former giving their decision by
majority.—(Hear !)--L.By this regulation, that extent of sliscus.,
sion which was so salutary in the case of a jury consulting on
their verdict was in all cases' abridged, by as much as the ma•
jority fell short of the whole number. Besides which, the

verdict frequently being determined by a casting vote, it was
plain that the life of aman might be voted away by his known
and avowed enemy.—(Heir.!)—lt was also too much matter
of notoriety how and by whom every individual jury was to
be constituted. He was satisfied. of the imperfect manner in
which he had explained this matter ; but he hoped' he might
look forward to this measure laying the foundation of a com..
plete revision of the Criminal Law of Scotland. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Scotch
Juries Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE o,bserved, that it was a good
maxim in jurisprudence to .make no alteration in established
systems not pointed out by defects in practice. That House
had acted upon the maxim on a.late motion to allow Counsel
to prisoners tried for their lives ;- and he,hoped the Members
of this country would allow the Scotch people to have the be-
nefit of the same practice. That the provisions of the Hon.
Member's Bill were not called for by the people of Scotland,

. . .
he was convinced, and the House had seen nothing, to induce
it to think otherwise. He certainly had requested the Hon.

Member to wait till such time as the votes of the people could

be collected, and for that purpose he had written the circular
quoted by the Hon. Member. He was the more persuaded to
take that course from complaints having been made that mea-
sures passed that House relative to Scotland, of which that
country heard nothing till passed ; and in sending the Bill to
them he certainly was bound to communicate his opinion, al-
though he had no desire of influencing them. The Gentlemen
of Scotland were averse from this charge, both on its own ac-
count and from its connection with the Criminal Law of the

country. He maintained that the system of Criminal Law in.
Scotland was as faultless as that of any country. The spirit of
it was to check the progress of crime, and deal mercifully with
criminals under trial ; and the difference in the amount of
crime, under that system, betwixt England and Scotland, wa&
as 235 to 18 in favour of the latter. He had listened with great-
attention to the instances of abuse in the nomination of juries-
detailed by the Honourable Gentleman ; but he did not think
any thing he had stated would warrant the alteration proposed
by this measure. With respect to the case of misconduct al-
luded to by the Hon. Gentleman in a certain Sheriff, all that
he could say was, that if he would inform him of the indivi-
dual; he should be dealt with by the law. With regard to the
allusion of the Hon. Gentleman to the conduct of an individual
Judge in a late trial, he must observe, that not being able to
see what connection it could have with the question of nomi-
nating juries, he did not think it was in very good taste to in-
traduce the mention of it. That Hon. Individual was closely
allied to the object of the trial, and.there was nothing extraor-
dinary in his having given the advice it appeared he had given,
and there was no reason to suppose that he would have acted
with less delicacy had the trial occurred in his own district.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to take a review
of the mode of selecting juries ,in Scotland. He did not see
there was any necessity for giving the prisoner the rights of
peremptory challenge, since there never was a case in which
the suggestion of counsel relative to any juror was not attended
to by the eudges. Ile did not think it necessary further to de-
tain the House in stating his objections to this measure. - He
rested his opposition principally on the absence of any alleged
evils in practice, and the wishes of the people otk Scotland
being against any such change. Thus no evil could be shewn
in favour of the measure, and general opinion was against it

(Cheers.) •
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, that, it appeared that
.the Learned Lord had three objections to the measure er,biti
Honourable Friend. The first was, that the measure was
theoretic ; the second, that no evils had been shewn to exit: to
call for it ; and' the third, that the people of Scotland were not
favourable to the change; at the same time that be went-on.to
say, that they were actually averse from it. It was ratherex-
traordinary that these. very objections were urged in former
times against the measure for abolishing heritable jurisdictions,
a Bill of Lord Hardwicke's, and one of the wisest and most
salutary measures ever passed. Lord Hardwicke, in his me-
morable speech on that occasion, said, that there had been no
fault in the persons exercising the power ; but that men were
mortal, and good men might be followed by bad, and that
though men were mortal, the Government ought to. be frasoett
to be immortal. These were the great conceptions, and the
majestic and dignified language of that great man; and he
begged the Learned Lord to observe, that he there specifi-
cally admitted a theoretic evil as sufficient to legislate upon.
But' the very opposition made to that Bill by the Jacobites of
1747, was, that the people of Scotland did not want it.—
Lord Hardwicke passed this by in silent contempt, not deign-
ing it the compliment of an answer; but it was strange that the
Lord Advocate of the Tory Government of 1822 should steal-
his argument from such a source. Now, he called upon the
House to consider whether a Bill, the only objections to which
went to stamp Lord Hardwicke as a visionary and a theorist,
might not have something in it worthy of their attention
and support. The first Law Officer Of the Crown in Scotland had
raised the standard of revolt against this amendment of law.
and the Scotch counties rallied round it. But the wishes of the
people had been treated as undue prejudices in 1747 they were
treated in the same way in 1819: but in 1822 the feelings and
opinions of the people were to he regarded with paramount re-
verence, because, forsooth, a Lord Advocate had advertisethfor
dissent, and Government opposed the amendment.—(Hear!.}—
Could any thing be more important than the possession by a
nation of a perfect theoretic system of jury trial ? The Learned
Lord's opposition to peremptory challenges would never,- he
hoped; be allowed to stand against the reasons of Blackstone in
favour of it. It was neither visionary nor theoretic that a man
whose tilmparttality as a judge was impeached would become,
though' not so before, the enemy of him who so impeached hint.
, It was a maxim of common sense and experience ; and he ap-
pealed to the humanity, the conscience, and sense of justite.of
his audience, not to permit the possibility pf a man being-sent
into a jttey box, the mortal enemy of him he was going,
to try.—(Hear, hear ! )—His Honourable Friend's measure
demanded no more than four peremptory challenges,- to
be divided betwixt • the prosecutor and the prisoner:--
A right of challenge for cause was known to be a right
Of little or no value, whilst peremptory challenge was
known to be an inevitable privilege.' What was the use of de-
tecting a false witness---what was the use of producing testi-
mony to innocence, if it were addressed to the deaf ears of
corrupt and inimical Jury ?--( Hear !)--Unanimity in a Jury
was the most merciful principle of jurisprudence admitted into
the Criminal Code of any country, and one which particularly
protected. prisoners in England. Ile was surprised that the
Learned Lord could not see the connection betwixt the, ease
alluded to by his Honourable Friend, and the question before
them relative to the-nomination of Juries. The letter had been
detected in the case in question, but was it not plain that it
might happen in many cases undetected ;_ and could they per
mit the possibility of a connection such as this betwixt the
brother of a person connected with a duel, and the individual
to take his trial for the unfortunate result 'of it ? This Judge
they would understand, had the trial taken place at a particu-
lar
part of the country; would have had to summon the Jury.
He could not pass without remark the fantastic phrase used
by the Learned Lord in that allusion. He meant the exprese
sion " good taste," which, however applicable and excellent
_when used in reference 'to the lighter ornament cf the arts and
literature, appeared to him to be out of place, and looked like
treating such grave, subjects with a want of proper dignity anti
respect,. which a judicial question, involving the lives and liber-
ties of their fellow-creatures, demanded. He considered those
who composed Scotch Juries to boast, in many respects, the
highest character of any set of men in Europe; but if he
wanted them to try a question between a • Lord Advocate and
an OppoeitiOn Member of Parliament, he must desire to have
A right of peremptory challenge.—(A laugh.)—This great -in-
stitution formed ;a school of justice in which the people were
taught a :veneration for the laws, at the same time that they
acquired a spirit of freedom and independence. It was this
which had exalted the character of the people of England above
all the nations of the earth, and he saw no reason why it was
not to become more extended among the brave, moral, and
pious people of Scotland.---(Cheers.)
[A Message from the Lords was here announced—their
Lordships were stated to have agreed to the Colonial Trade
and other Bills.]],
Lord BINNING felt that he was rising under considerable
difficulties, as well from the view-which he took of the ques-
tion, as from his following the eloquent address to which the
House had just listened. He thought the encomiums which
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had passed upon the
Gentry of Scotland partook of such a sneering character, that
he protested against it, and hc-wasluite sure that they would

it wish to have any one who spoke of them in such a manner
for their advocate. He believed the Gentry of Scotland to
be as capable of forming an impartial and enlightened judg-
ment upon any question relating to their country as any
set of men in the world. He did not wish to pledge him-
self for or against the introduction of peremptory chal-
lenge, if it could be introduced with the assent of the Judges.
With respect to the use of ballot, he bad strong objections to
In the present disposition to abuse the Judges of England,
:aid still more grossly to calumniate the Judges of Scotland,
the introduction of ballot would be construed into a censure
upon them. The allowance of peremptory challenge 'would
Pear po such construction. He defended the conduct of 'Lord
,?fle:idowbank in the unhappy affair which had been alluded to,
os be thought, without having any application to the present
sitiestion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had accused
them of using opprobrious expressions, and these appeared to
be tke expressions " theory and philosophy." He thought it
a fair line of argument to describe propositions as being
theoretical, when they were not even said by their pro-
;sneers to he called for by any practical grievance. But how
eid his` Hari. and Learned Friend follow up his deprecation
of these opprobrious expressions ? Why, by telling thou that
they were enemies to reason and common sense. Now this ap-
peared to him to be much more opprobrious than the language
of which his Hon. and Learned Friend had complained. He
certainly felt it to be opprobrious, because he held that they
were the Mends of reason and common sense. The proposal
for introducing ballotting for juries were theoretical, and if
it would be a al good, why was it not to be given to
practical
England also ? These innovations upon the system of juris-
prudence in Scotland were not wished for by the Scotch
-people, but they were to be forced down' their throats as
a boon. And there was no saying where they were to stop.
—A new champion in the same cause had now sprung up
in the Honourable Member for the City of Durham.._.
(Hear ! from Mr. M. A. Taylor.)—That Hon. Member meant
to abolish the Public Prosecutor in. Scotland, and substitute
the system of English Grand juries. If these alterations were
desired by the Scotch people, let them petition and declare their
wishes before the House proceeded in the course recommended.
The Noble Lord continued to argue at some length in support
of the objections of the Lord Advocate, and expressed his re-
gret that the benches of the House were not better attended
upon a subject of so much importance. He contended that a
prisoner, by the law of Scotland, possessed many advantages
which were denied to him by the English laws ; and that there
were no practical grievances in the one which demanded the
substitution' of the other.
Mr. H. TWISS addressed the House in favour of granting
the right of peremptory challenge in Scotland. He contended
that without that nght all the advantages which a prisoner was
supposed to have, were of no advantage to him at all. It was
of no service to him that he should have Counsel to plead his
'cause, if those to whom he pleaded should be prejudiced against
him. It '
was nothing to his benefit to know the names of his,
Jurors beforehand, if he had not the power to challenge any
whom he considered to be his enemies. On the contrary, it
was the greatest disservice to his defence, that he should have
such information ; forit would only serve to make him despair
of obtaining a fair trial or an impartial verdict. The fact was,
therefore, that it could only be by the interposition of this
part of the Bill that such indulgences would be really advan-
tageous to the prisoner. With regard to that part. which re-
lated to the balloting for Juries, he confessed he had not made
up his mind upon the point, and the arguments which he had
heard against it were undoubtedly strong, and had made con-
siderable impression upon his mind. The spirit of our laws
recognized two operattve powers in the administration of jus-
tice. That of the Judge, and also that of the Jury. But
where the Jury was appointed by the Judge, without thenght
of-challenge being allowed to the prisoner, he was in point of
fact tried by the Judge alone. With this view he should vote for
the second reading of the Bill, although by doing so he must
differ from those whose opinions he generally considered to be
authority, and which he always respected.
Mr. Secretary PEEL wished to say a few words as to the
ftature of the question before the House. The Bill appeared
to contemplate two objects; one to change the method of se-
lecting Juries in Scotland, the other to give the prisoner a
right of peremptory challenge. He had considerable doubts
ac to the expediency of the first, but those doubts confirmed
him in giving his support to the second proposition. lie
thought if the power were left with the Judge, there would
be no objection to it, and upon that principle he did not feel
warranted in resisting the second reading of the Bill. In the
Committee it would be competent for those who thought with
him that the system of selecting juries ought to remain, to op-
pose the proposition for altering it, and to grant the right of
peremptory challenge. His objections to an alteration of the
system of selecting juries were briefly these. Where the number
of persons eligible to serve as jurors was to be limited, it was
better not to trust to the operation of chance, as by ballot, in
order to avoid the possibility, of allowing party to interfere
with the administration of justice. The .Jude would be the
most likely person to select an impartial jury, and it was
therefore much better to leave the selection in his hands, unless
the body from which it was made should be very considerably
extended.
After a few words from Mr. H. DRUMMOND, the second
reading was carried without a division.
The Bill was accordingly read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
PROTECTING DUTIES ON BUTTER.
Sir N. COLTHURST rose to move that the House should
go into a Committee upon the Butter Trade Acts. His object
'was to increase the existing duties on foreign butter. In 1816
an import duty of twenty shillings per hundred had 'been laid
on upon all foreign butter imported in British vessels, and of
twenty-five shillings per hundred upon such as should be im-
ported in foreign vessels. The employment of British vessels
hod reduced the protecting duty to twenty shillings, and the
Dutch had made it still lower, by since taking off certain ex-
port duties, which previously existed. In fact, the quantity of
Dutch butter imported last year had increased about double,
while the value of the Irish imports had decreased in a cor-
responding proportion. The price which used to be 80 or 90s.
was now no more than 40 or, 50s. ; and that for a mere nominal
price, for there was no longer any demand in the market. He
did not mean to try this as an Irish question, but as one which
affected English agriculture as well as that of Ireland. It had
likewise an equally bad effect upon the manufacturing interest
by reducing the means of consumption. He meant to propose
-en the Committee an increase of the duty upon foreign butter
of 10s. per hundred. He concluded by moving " That the
. House do resolve itself into a Committee upon the 56th of
George 111. for regulating the importations upon foreign
lunch"'
Mr. H. GURNEY said that Ireland had been always fa-
voured in the remission of taxes, and he saw no reason why the
people of England should have to pay a tax upon Dutch butter,
In order to keep up the exorbitant rents in Ireland.
Mr. ROBINSON said, although he meant to oppose the
-motion, et would not be upon the ground stated by the last
'Speaker. It was only because he did not think that circum-
stances warranted them in carrying the protection to the butter-
trade of Ireland farther than it went at present. The fact was,
that when the existing duties were laid on, they formed only
a proportion of 25 per cent. upon the value of the article. But
now, in consequence of the great fall in prices, the duties ope-
rated a protection of 50 per cent. If the Irish , butter-trade.
would not stand with such protections, he did not know to what
-extent they must go to protect it. The importations would
eliew, that in the last year there had been a greater consumption
of Irish butter than in any preceding one. He had said upon
a former occasion, that if we prohibited foreign countries from
'bringing their most plentiful produce to us, they could not be
expected to take any thing from us. Upon these grounds he
should oppose the motion.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT denied that Ireland had experi-
-encecl so much advantage as England in the remission of taxes.
lie :supported the motion.
Mr. RICARDO said, that instead of the proposition for in-
.creasing these duties, he had hoped to see one for getting rid
. of them altogether. It was the fashion for all sorts of producers
coming there day after day—the
_ producer of tallow asking
for protecting duties;
.the West India trader, the producer of
sugar, asking for protection, and high prices, when we could
get sugar for low prices; and then the Shipping interest came
for piotection ; but amidst all this, they never heard a word
about the poor consumer, who was indeed the only proper ob-
ject of their attention. He then read a passage from Adam
Smith, enforcing the point which he had laid down. The mo-
tion was founded on a Petition from Dublin, -which was full of
false allegations. It stated that the importations of Irish but-
ter had decreased. Now, he would shew the House how this
fact was borne out by the Return of the quantity of hundreds
weight imported in the separate years :
In 1816 - - 320,796
1817 - - 280,000
1818 - - - 305,000
1819 353,000
182 D 430,000
1821 - - 457,000
1822 - 413,000.
-'lle thought the proposition ought to be rejected by the House.
Mr. S. RICK staid, that the principles of- his Hon. Friend
could not be applied to the country under its load of taxation
act!. debt. Although such a quantity of butter had been im-
ported, it was a well known fact that it remained in the mer-
chants' hands and was now unsaleable. All that they asked
was a just and adequate protection.
Mr. WILSON was glad the question was not confined to
Ireland. In respect to the views of Adam Smith, the argu-
ment might he good, but it did not apply to the country suf-
fering under taxation. The importation of Irish butter this
year would have been greater had it not-been understood that a
;fleecy duty was to be laid on foreign butter. The Dutch had.

taken advantage of the market, and also had brought better but-
ter for sale than the Irish butter. He opposed the motion.
Mr. WESTERN considered the opinion of. Adam Smith in-
applicable to the present time. It was owing to taxation that
England was not able to enter into competition with foreigners.
Nothing was so desirable as a free trade whereverffigre was a
commercial interest ; but the British produce w44hliged to
compete with the subjects of countries who were -not pressed
down by taxation. Ile expressed his astonishment at seeing
Gentlemen carried away by principles which led them to prefer
the, interests of foreign countries. --
Mr. HUSKISSON said, he was quite surprised at the
speech of the Hon. Member for Essex, who had stated what
the-import of butter was, when the country was struggling un-
der the blockade system, and the Milan Decrees. He wished the
Hon. Member would look at the taxation of Holland and Ire-
land; Holland was the most taxed country in Europe—there
was a tax on mulch cows. He was satisfied there was much
distress in Ireland, - and he should be disposed to support the
motion if he thought it would do good for Ireland, but he was
convinced it would not. The effect would be, not to increase
the consumption, but raise the price of a bad article, and com-
pel the public to find a substitute. All the restrictive laws
applicable to manufactures had done no good. It had been
said, if butter were not protected, Ireland would grow corn
instead of butter, and overwhelm the markets of England. He
wished the Irish Gentlemen to grow that which was most ad-
vantageous. If they were to adopt the proposal before the
House, other countries would increase those restraints under
which they had already placed the commerce of this country.
Mr. WESTERN explained.
Mr. HUTCHINSON said, the principles the Right Hon.
Gentleman stated that night differed from the prin\cipl,s upon
which the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Government of the
country had long acted. He did not wish to force the English
consumer to pay more for Irish butter than foreign butter, but
he did think the present was not the time to change systems
and principles which had hitherto been useful to Ireland. Some
change would be injurious to Ireland. That country had been
ruined by the, union, and they required relief.
Mr. MONCK considered taxation in this country the cause
of agricultural distress. Land in the North of France would
not let for 10s. per acre. In England they paid 125., and were
so taxed that the occupier could not raise produce to pay the
expende of cultivation. He could not consent to sacrifice the
consumer to the interest of the grower.
Mr. GRIFFITHS opposed the motion.
Sir T. ACLAND said he should not have spoken on this
subject;
.hack he not considered himself bound to make a few
observations in behalf of a number of persons from whom he
had presented Petitions. He alluded to the Dairy Farmers.
If foreign butter were allowed to come into the market without
paying duty, the Dairy Farmers would be ruined.,
Mr. DAVENPORT supported the motion.
Mr. FITZGERALD did not wish to treat this as an Irish
question. Concurring as he did in the statement of his Right
Hon. Friend, the President 'of the Board of Controul, he was
obliged to consider the motion at that time inexpedient.
Sir N. COLTHURST left the motion to be disposed of by
the House.
The question was then put, and negatived without a division.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be
received to-morrow.
THE SMALL BANKS' NOTES BILL.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the above
Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed a
resolution, for extending the power of the Bank of England to
issue small notes, beyond the time allowed by the existing laws.
Mr. RICARDO asked, whether the Bank of England would
be empowered to issue one-poUnd notes, and whether the coun-
try banks would be compelled to pay in specie?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that
the Bank of England might issue one-pound notes, if the Di-
rectors should think fit, and that the country banks would be
compelled to pay in Bank of England one-pound notes, con-
vertible on demand into specie.
Mr. H. GURNEY wished to know to what period the ope-
ration of the Bill, upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
intended to found his resolution, would extend ?
The.CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the Bill
would expire with the Bank Charter. ,
The House resumed, the report was brought up, and a Bill
to be founded upon it was ordered to be brought in.
The Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at HALF-PAST ONE o'CLocr.
•

MAJORITY AND MINORITY

FOR AND AGAINST SIR JOHN NEWPORT'S MOT lON, ON THE

TITHE SYSTEM OF IRELAND. .
MAJORITY
Antrobus, G. C. . Dawkins, H. Ommaney, Sir F.
Apsley, Lord Doraville, Sir C. Plunkett, Rt. Hon.
Arbuthnot,Rt Hon. Fane, V. W.
C. ' Goulburn,FitHnH. Peel, Rt. Hon. R.
Alexander, J. Gifford,, Sir R. Phipps, Hon. E.
Brownlow, C. Hotham, Lord • PCnruddock, J. H.
Blake, Robert Huskisson,Rt.flon. Palmerston, Lord
Burgh, Sir U. W. - • Robinson,Rt II n.F.
Bentmck, Lord F. Hill, . Sir G. Somerset, Lord G.
Brogden, J. - Holmes, W. Sandon, Viscount
Berestord, Lord G. Holford G. P. Skeffington, Rt Hn.
Bernard, Lord Innes, John • T. 11.
Brecknock, Lord Irving, John Sneid, N.
Cholmley, Sir M. Jones, John Trench; Hon. F.W.
Cockburn, Sir G. King, Sir J. D. • Vansittart,RtHn.N
Campbell, Arch. Long, Rt. Hn. Sir C. Villiers, Rt. II n. .T.
Copley, Sir J. S. Lowther, Hon. C. Wallace,Rt. lin. T.
Cust, lion. Loraine, Lord Wynn, C. W.
Cooper, R. B. Lindsay, Hon. H. Wilmot, R.
Cheere, E. M. Martin, Sir T. B. Wilson, W. W. C.
Chichester, Sir A. Martin, R. Wemyss„ J.
Calvert, J. Maxwell, J. W. Warrender, Sir G.
Dawson, G. R. Mundy, G. Ward, R.
Drummond, H. IL 111'Naghten, E. A. Wyndham, W. W.
Douglas, J. Nolan, M. TELLERS.
Douglas, H. ' Nightingale, Sir M. Clarke, Sir G.
Dodson, John Osborne, , Sir G. LUshington, S.