The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-26 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr, S. WORTLEY presentid a Petition from the Cutlers
of Sheffield and vicinlty, prayingfor the removal of all restric-
tions from the West India. Trade, for ad valoreni duties on
colonial produce, and that East and West India sugars might
be allowed to be imported on the same terms.
The Scotch Distilleries Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Stamp Duties Bill went through a Committee, and the
Report was ordered to be received on Wednesday next.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Mr. HOBHOUSE rose to present a Petition, which he de-
scribed as being of a very singular nature. It was from the
brothers of a person named William Sidney Smith, who had
been apprehended in 1820, charged with robbing Mr. Middle.
ton of a watch and seals, wtio had been found guilty and trans-
ported to Botany Bay for life, and yet after all there appeared
the strongest probability that the robbery, had ,been committed
by another person. The evidence had been wholly circum-
stantial, and it had been that of Police Officers. Mr. Sheriff
Parkins, who had seen the robbery,
,had at the same time
doubts of the identity of the robber. The police officers had sub-
sequently declared thatthey had never heard any thing amiss of
Smith ; they bad not seen him take the watch and seals ; they
had merely seen him jammed in the crowd, and they had ap-
plied to the prosecutor to save his life. Mr. Sheriff Parkins and
others had applied to Lord Sidmouth, the then Home Secretary,
who took no notice of the matter. Smith had been transported for
life, and at the opening of Parliament. another person had been
apprehended, tried on the 22d-of February, and found guilty of
the very offence for which. Smith had bben transported. Ap-
plication had again been made to the Right Hon. Secretary, but
with no greater success than .before. The Hon. Gentleman
hoped the House would do something for an unfortunate man.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, the Petition no doubt involved a
case of considerable importance, but from a sense of duty
he must decline entering into details. He must state; how-
ever, that the case had been tried before the Recorder, that
the Jury were satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner, am tkAt
the Counsel acquiesced in their decision. The case was xib-
sequently referred to the consideration of his predecessor,
Lord Sidmouth, and, after the most mature consideration,
his Noble Friend was of opinion that the law should take its
course. Similar application had been made to him (Mr.
Peel), but he concurred in the opinion of his Noble Friend.—
There was one fallacy ran through the whole of the state-
ment of the Hon. Member who presented the Petition ; for
the prisoner was indicted, not for stealing the watch, but for
having been amongst the gang; and although he might not
have actually. committed the robbery,. yet there was no evi-
dence to prove that he was not an abettor. He could only
further add, that the case had undergone the consideration

of two Seretaries of- State, and with that observation Le
should leave the matter to the decision of the House. •

Mr. CR BEYEY thought the case stated in the Petition ex-
ceedingly strong. •
Mr. IL BENNET complained of the conduct of the Officers,
alleged that they trafficked in oaths, and expressed a wish tha
the four ruffians implicated in this trial should be brought be-t
fore the -11 ou Se.

'Mr. W. SMITH supported the Petition, and observed, that
persons as solicitous to form an impartial opinion as the Right
Hon. Gentleman the'Secretary for the Home Department, were
fully convinced of the innocence of the Petitioner.
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. He did not wish, by en-
tering ihto the case, to establish a precedent, which, every man
wouldurise.e admit; would be most injurious to the principles of.
j

- Mr. HOBHOUSE brought up the Petition. The present
-ease was not' the establishment of a precedent, it was so.pecu-
liarlymarked from the very fact, that the four witnesses on the
trial had Made an affidavit of the innocence of the Petitioner.—
From something that had fallen froM the Right Honourable
Secretary, he perceived that he had not fully investigated the
subject. His object in presenting the Petition was not to. in-
stitute any proceeding on it ixl Parliament, but to induce the
Right Honourable Secretary for the Home Department to renew
his inquiry into the facts—(Hear, hear !)—The Petition was
laid on the table,. and ordered to be printed.