The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-27 00:00:00

land. But he (Lord Melville) thought that Noble Lord had
carried his argument to a greater extent than he was warranted
in doing. The law of that Country, down to 1690, enacted,
that in cases.of treason there should-be a forfeiture of property
and of lionouts. He Mated this on the authority of Mr.• Baron
Ilume. - The Act of-1'690 certainly annulled this. He (Lord
Mel Ville) thOught the law of forfeiture a salutary provision.
As to that relative to the corruption of blood, it appearectto -
him not to be founded on principle. And if the Bill, or the
former Bill brought into Parliament by Sir S. Romilly in 1814,
had gone no farther than to do away with this law, he should
not have opposed it, but lieCaulii not go to the extent desired
by the Noble Baron.
Lord REDESDA LE said, that the object of the Bill was to
do away with that which was the law of Scotland down to 1690,
and' was then Only modified. It was to prevent the.commission
of crime that this law continued to.be the law of this country,
and until the year 1690 that of Scotland. It was denied that
'the law had any such effect, but if it had not been so under-
stood it wash.] not have been So continued. Hilted heard an
anecdote in point: Miring the year 1745, a Noble Lady forged
a warrant from the Secretary of state,,and arrested her husband.
—She afterwards cennnunicated the circumstance to the Secre-
tary, and had her husband released ; ever afterwards boasting
that she had saved.the property and the honour of her children.
He considered this law, therefore, as one of perfect policy, and
as one which unquestionably did tend to the prevention of
crime. There-were other provision's in the Bill to which per-
haps he should not object, but there had been a practice of late
of mixing up prepositions to which there would be decided o 1:.
jectinns, with others to which there would be none. To such a .
practice he would object, and would wish every proposition to
stand upon its own basis. He would therefore support the
amendment of the Noble Lord (Colchester.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that from the import-
ance of the subject, and his respect for the Noble Lord who
brought 'it before the House, :he felt it necessary to say a few
words. •If the Bill.hatl only applied to the laws that related to
Murder, or to petty treason, he should not have objected to it ;
hut with respect to the crime of high treason he thought the-law
ought not to be altered. Ile should have more objection to do
away with the laws relative to forfeiture than to those relative
to the cOrruption.of blood ; as he thought that, in the former
there was a great security fOr the public good; welfare,and tran-
quillity: In the Bill of the Noble Lord there were many in-
accuracies,
anti if it wereitigo through a Committee, he should
propose many amendments and alterations. He would repeat,
that he did not think there' was the same necessity for the laws
respecting the corruption of blood as there was for those of for-
feiture, awl that they should not so much apply to murder and
to petty treason as to high' treason. He thought the Noble Lord
had better bring in another Bill differently formed. If the Bill
were to go into a Committee, he (the Lord Chancellor) would
move to leave out the words " high treason," and to allow the
words" murder" and" petty treason to remain.
Lord HOLLAND; in reply, contended that the Bill did not
repeal the Act of 'William - I I 1., and he had drawn up a clause
to that effect.
StrangerS. were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, :when the numbers appeared—
-..

appeared, on,- the petafioner s• own showing, that none of the
transactions to which he referred occurred later than-,17 yeara
ago, arid that some of them took place at so distant a period as
thirty years since. The severities alleged to have taken place
in the year 1796, of which he Complained, admitted .pf.legal
remedy, and-the law was open to him, but what does he do ?
lie postpones moving in the matter until every one capable of
giving- testimony already sleeps in the, grave. The petitioner
had been .taken up.during • the disturbances of the year .1803,
and-yet accuses, Dr. Trevor of relentless hostility, as if he had
been the cause of his imprisonment. it was in vain', to say
that inquiry should be instituted. There did not then exist the
power of inquiry, for the witnesses of these transactions were
dead. Under Mr. Coyle's own hand there was evidence that Dr_
Trevor could not likiw been guilty of the offence% charged against •
him by the petitioner, for it appears that he advised his removal
from the gaol ofNewgate in Dublin, to that of Kilmainham,
a proceeding confessedly of great humanity and indulgence. .
He then read to the House a letter from Mr. .CoYle to Doctor
Trevor, thanking . him for his humanity and kindnest on the
occasion referred to. Not only had Mr. Coyle written that
letter, but he had, in conjunction with some of his fellow-pri-
soners, .published their thanks to the,person then so much vili-
fied by the petitioner.- If there had been the slightest founda-
tion for the allegations thert brought, why was not proof of them
offered before the Commission which sat in 1803 ? That Com--
mission was composed of the then Lord Chief Justice of Ire-
land, Mr. Justice Daly, Dean Verschoyle, Mr. Disney, and
others of eminent integrity, humanity, and wisdom. The parties
were then free—years after their confinement, and possessing
every facility.for obtainingjustice, yet Mr. Coyle declined coining
before that Commission, because, forsooth, it did not follow the
practice of Courts of Justice by being open-to the public. As to
the general character and conduct of Dr. Trevor, he could, from
the knowledge which he had of him, bear ample testimony to
his merit. Ile concluded by protesting against such an applica-
tion as this on several grounds, and chiefly on the manifest in-
justice of calling upon people in office to answer chatges after
letting them sleep during- a period of 17 years.
- Mr. AIIEHCItOIIISY eoncurred with the Right Hon.
Gentleman in thinking that, after such a lapse of time, it was
difficult, if not impossible, to institute an inquiry
_with any ra-
tional prospect of being able to do substantial justice. The im-
pression on his mind certainly was, that there never had-been any
individeal in the history of any country more severely treated
than the petitioner had been. This was a conclusion to which be
did not rashly come' :for he had lcbked in most of the books
from which be Couldhave derived information, and weighing the
evidence on both -sides, he hesitated not to say that Mr. Coyle
had been made an object of extremely rigorous prosecution.
There was one strikingfact to which no contradiction had ever
been given, which was, that when the petit otter had come for-
ward and successfully prosecuted a public delinquent, the tio-
Vemment of that day interposed to shield him from the just re-
tribution of the law.
Mr. Secretary: PEEL had no personal knowledge, nor could
any Member of the present Government have any personal
knowledge, of those transactions. The Magistrate alluded to
had been deprived of his commission, and.theadlegations against
Dr. Trevor had been disproved on the inquiry. Of the character
of Dr. Trevor he spoke in the highest terms, and observed, that
it was obviously unjust to raise an inquiry at this late period, and
after a lapse of seventeen years.
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON wished to know what objection
there existed to institute an inquiry. The militate details act
forth by the petitioner, had not been contradicted, and that
Were still soma witnesses alive who could corroborate his state,.
ments. Ile yetrontinued' to labour under the effects. of-the
wounds lie received from the falling on him,- from the /.7-aeleiN
hnnds, -while in a narrow cell, the heavy irons which usitulti-
confined his limbs.
The petition was then brought up and read. • -
-After which ITH made a few observations. in re-
ply, when the petition was ordered to be printed. ••• , •
THE- STATUTES.

•- - Content -
- - - 12
- -,-: - Not Content -, - - 15
Majority against the 'Bill - -3
' The ()chef Orders of the Day were then gone through, and
the "HOtts#iidjeurnett at lIALF-PAST EIGHT O'CLOCK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
At
p
Four o'clocktheHouse from Friday t.
theSpeakertook thelas ad,
after an 1(,
journment
- _ ED INII ti it 011 AND LEITH WATERWORKS.
The Report of the Edinburgh and Leith WiterSiorks Bill
was brought up by Mr. B. -Drummond.
Upon the Motion that the Report be received—
Mr. SYKES moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should
be recommitted, on the ground that he (Mr: Sykes) had voted
in the Committee from missaPpreliensioa, and in contradiction
to his present opinions. fie bad attended the. Committee up
stairs, and, after inquiring into the merits of the Bill, reeolved
to oppoied it. From the confused and irregular• manner in
which the business of the Committee was executed, however,
he found that his vote had been taken in favour of the Bill,
whilst he intended .to vote against it. Ile had immediately ap-
pealed to the Chairman, but was informed, that as the vote
was taken it could not be recalled or altered. Under these cir-
cumstances he thought it his duty to appeal to the Hotise, and
moved the recommittal of the Bill.
After a short conversation between Alderman Smith, Mr.
Marjoribanks, Sir Re Ferguson, Mr. Gordon, Sir fileik; Mr. LAW COURTS.
J. Smith, Mr. M. A. Taylor, and the Speaker, 31r. Sykes
Mr. 110BHOUSE moved for returns of the number of Re-
consented to withdraw his motion, and the Report was received.
cordsin his Majesty's Courts of King's Bench, Com Mon Mete.,
The Bill was then reaclas third time, and passed. and Exchequer, in this country, during the years 1820,-1821,
MESSAGE FROM THE KING. .-- • 1 1822, 1823, and 1824. Also returns of the 'number of ceases
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought down tried .during the same period, and. the nature of the verdicts;
a Messave from his alajesty, whichewris read by the Speaker, and whether for plaintiff or
defendant.---Ordered.
- •
~
and was to the following elect : . : RIESSAGE- FROM - THE LORDS. ' •-
A Messenger appeared at the Bar from the House of horde
as tier Royal Highness Alexaralrina Vittoria (daughter of .
and. the SPEAKER informed the House that their Lordship;
her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent), and his Royal High- had-agreed to several private Bills without any amendment.'
ness George Frederick Aleiander Ernest Augustus (son of his • - BREACH. OF FitIVELEGE.
.
e - -- • - - - •
Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland), having nos- arrived Robert le Poer French Pilkington should be brought to the
at an age when suitable provision is necessary for their honour- Bar.
able support, maintenance and education ; and his .Majesty . The Serjeant at Arms having appeared at the Bar with Mr.-
Pilkington in custody..
being desirous'that an annuity should be granted to her Royal I ' The SPEAKER said, si Robert le Poer Trench Pilkington;
Highness the Duchess of Kent, and to hie .Royal Highness the ybu have be examined before a Select Committee of this
ho
use, which has reported that you have confessed yourself the
Duke of Cumberland, for that purpose, his majesty recoils- author, of ..a Petition purporting to come from the Protestants
'that have been guilty of high breach
quence adjudged you
otnhethcieoneliabdeeraralittiyonofoifiisthfeaistthtbfujelcctotmomPoanrlsiatmo
make
aandsuriet__ of Balinasloe, in Ireland, aria the Committee have in constr.
of the Privileges of this House. You are now called to the
Bar that you may offer any explanation of your conduct *haat
- you shall deem calculated to mitigate the future resolutiaweif
the House respecting you."
'on
his Majesty's' gracious Message be taken into Considerate ,by
Mr..
PILKINuTON addressed the Chair in reply, but in so
a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.--Ordered.
.11flaibeelsTnet(htippemCvlisli-e7N'C' ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Moved that
faint a voice as to be only occasionally audible. We understood
COMBINATION LAWS. . : , ' him to say that he confessed himself guilty of a very foolish and
rash act—but although he now knew he had done wtong, he
never contemplated the least breach of privilege or disrespect
(..7-
oltaierh.TrilalkUer3slEof ppreasbeininte,d a
gaa i pn es
against
ittii
ioenref.vroiymai
of thetiJi
eoucronmeybmi
men. .
lion Laws.---Referred to the Committee. -.
prietors of Mills in the County of Renfrew, against the Bill
Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from Certain Pro- .by
thereforepep ta
bi negggoeir
i having;
to
subCre istelihtiemdstthl
fe
epnettiri ttilbyn
tion
tqhuee sat ioouns. e
an
de
abide their decision. He had left Ireland, and came fOrward'to.
for regulating the Salmon Fisheries.—Laid on the table. i state that he was the sole author of the petition, and with that
Lord STA'NLEY preiented a petition from certain Cotton
Confession he threw himself on the mercy of the House. life,
Spinners of Brackford, against the Bill before the House for re- should only trespass further to mention, that he had been for a
guletioseethe hours of labonr.—Laid on the table. long time in an ill state of health, and even since his confines.
-Mr. DAWSON brought up the report of the Commissioners menahad suffered so much that he was obliged to call in medi-
appointed to inquire into Irish Charities.—Ordered to lie on the
table. cal aid--a fact which he hoped would induce the House to eon-
rider his case with some leniency. •
Mr. J. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the thegeant
opera-
He
tip e Sawyers of Manchester, against the revival of the Conibi- a wasrms then
ordered to withdraw in custody of' Ser
t A.
nation laws.—Laid on the table. . .
BERNARD COYLE. Mr. Secretary PEEL thought, as Mr. Pilkington had.conre
In the absence of an Hon. Friend, Mr. J. S3IITH rose to fsiward to make what reparation was in his power for the
present a petition front Bernard Coyle, of the City of Dublin, breach of privilege he had committed, and as his health appesa,
complaining of being cruelly and unjustly treated; ,and im- ed to be impaired, the House would probably be induced with
piisotted, without trial by the Irish Government during the him '(Mr. Peel) to treat :dr. Pilkingtou with any indulgence.
years 1802 and 1.803. There were some circumstances towhich compatible with the preseryation of their own rights and (hag-
he would then advert, and which went in an extraordinary de- nit,, and the good of thepublic. He did notwish, however, that
gree to the confirmation -of the almost incredible statements of this indulgence shculel.be such as to be drawn. into a precedent
the petitioner. • He was a man who by several acts had render- hereafter in similar cases: He (Mr. Pilkington), however,
ell himself peculiarly odious to the Orange faction in Ireland, had confessed hiniself the sole author of the petition,_ and
and amongst these acts might be reckoned his having called thus very properly exonerated all others front any partiripatiori
out and wounded, in a duel, Mr. Ogle, the. grand master a the in the act, as well as expressed before the Committee, the
orangemen, as well es his haVing prosecuted to conviction, for utmost contrition for his conduct. No one at the same time,
acts of tyranny and oppression, a Magistrate resident in the .could be more sensible than he calt. Peel) of the danger of al-
north of Ireland. It might be asked , why he had not applied lowing such practices to pass with impunity, and particularly
sooner for redress for the injuries then so loudly complained of ? as regarded Ireland. Ii ere .any thing of the kind, front the
to . this his answer was—that from the period at which those comparative proximity °lathe quarter wherever it proceeded,
occurrences took place to the present moment, such was . would be immediately detected ;- hut a spurious petition Prow{
the temper of the Irish administration, and such the ge- Ireland might be absolutely under the discussion of Parliament
neral -feeling of the Government of the country, that he -before intimation was had of Its character. In this instance he
could have had' no welh•founded hope of success, until the wished, from all the circuinstances, that as much lenity should
present more favourable aspect of public affairs. In support be shewn as was consistent with the preservation of their pie
of these allegations, and in proof of his utility as a manufac- vileges ; and if the House concurred in that opinion, he should
turere his loyalty as a subject, and his sufferings as a note, he move, as e sufficient punishment, that Mr. Pilkington, be de.
would refer the House to two individuals, whose testimony, if' tained in the custody of the Serjeant at Arbor tillto-ntoerow,
given in his favour, could not be suspected of partiality,
he or' better time would be, Monday next.—( I)
meant Majors Sirr and Swan. lie attributed the cruelties in- Sir JOHN NEWPORT rose to secOnd.the motion,- and
.flirted on him to the inveterate hatred of Dr: Trevor—cruelties trusted'the House would accede to it. Nothing could be more
which reduced him to sickness and beggary, and which, in their explicit than Mr. Pilkington's acknowledgment of his error
aggregate. amounted to a degree of odious 'and almost ineuP- before the' Committee. It was also. most important that he
portable-tyranny. confessed himself to be the sole author of the Petition, as he
Mr. GOULBURN, after few preliminary observations, thus acquitted a large proportion of persoas who might have
stated to the House that he had made inquiries on the subject been suspected of getting it up to forward their own claims, at
of the petition then brought under their consideration; and so the time under the consideration of the flestsie.•• *Mr. Pilking-
far trout a case having been made out by thepetitioner sufficient ton, however, was himself a Protietant,. and allahie connece
to induce them to interfere on his behalf', there was nut the dons were Protestants, so that no imputation• now rested on
slightest grounds to warrant Parliamentary interference, It. the Roman Catholics. For himself, he should tes!ta. it as re

Mr. R. CO LW behalf of gir• M . W. Ridley, post-
poned to the .7th of June a motion of..that Hon. baronet'::,
which stood for this day, respecting the Revision and ConsQli-
dation of the Statutes. • .

CRUELTY TO-ANIMALS.
Lord BELORAVE preAnted a petition from Chester, in
favour of the Cruelty to Animals Bill.—Ordered to be printed.
WIST' INDIA SLAVERY. •
Mr. BENETT presented u petition from Pishbury, against
West India Slavery. . .
COMBINATION LAWS. •

Mr. GOULBURN presentetl a petition from the Manufac-
turers of the city of Dublin, against a•repeal of the Coirrhina:
Lion