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

N.

they had any, to it._ He would oppose the'passing of the Bill

during the Present Session.
Mr. WILMOT regretted that the Hon. and Learned Gent.
had pledged himself to oppose the Bill before he had learnt
the peculiar circumstances which rendered it necessary. He
did not think it was necessary to apply to the people of the pro-
vinces for their consent to the measure, since their present con-
stitution was derived from an act of the British Legislature,
and was intended to be temporary. He trusted that when the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman came to hear the statement which

he (Mr. Wilmot) intended to submit to the House, he would
relax some of his objections to the passing of the Bill.
The Bill was read a first, and ordered to be read a second

time to-morrow.

Mr. S. RICE moved for, and obtained, leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate elections in cities and counties of Ireland.
THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
• Mr. RICARDO asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whe-
ther it was his intention to persevere in the determination which
he had expressed some time back of extending the charter of
the Bank of England for 10 years longer, and of giving power
to country Banks, a distance of 65 miles from the metropolis,
to increase the number of their partners.
The. CHANCELLOR•of the EXCHEQUER replied, as
was understood, that the carrying of his intention into effect
must depend upon the decision to which the Bank might come
upon the subject.
• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'firen moved
for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate certain contracts affected
by the conversion of 5 per cent. stock into 4 per cent. stock.
Mr. GRENFELL took this opportunity of declaring himself
dissatisfied with the answer which the Chancellor of the Exche-

quer had made to the question of the Member for Portarling-
ton. The Right Honourable Gentleman had replied, that it
depended upon the Bank whether the Charter would or would
not be extended for 10 years longer. Now, the object of the
question of his Hon. Friend was to discover what were the in-
tentions of the Government, and not of the Bank.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he could
give no further information on:ont the subject.
Mr. MABERLY observdt, that before the House resolv-
ed to continue to the Bank its present monopoly; it ought to ap-
point a Committee to inquire what was the amount of interest
paid by Government to the I tank.
Mr. ELLICE thought that the extension of the Bank Char-
ter was too important a qug stion to be moved at this late pe-
riod of the Session. He hoiped that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would petition the. Bank, for they appeared to be his
superiors, not to press the consideration of that important ques-
tion upon the House. The object of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, in proposing to e:ctend the charter of the Bank, was to
increase the circulation of the country ; but an event had this
day occurred, which would materially alter this view of the
question, if it came to be discussed : he alluded to the determi-
nation of the Bank to discount at 4 per cent.
CLOWN LANDS. _

Mr. HUSKISSON !moved for and obtained leave to bring
in a Bill to improve the Crown estate in Westminster.
HIGHGATE CHAPEL BILL. _ _

Mr. BYNG stated., that as many persons objected to the
above Bill in its present form, he would not attempt to pro-
ceed farther with, it during the present Session : he therefore
moved, that it be read a second time this day six months.—The
motion was agreed to.
The Marquis of TITCHFIELD presented a petition from
the Tradesmen of Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, against the
Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act.
Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Hampton, in Devonshire, praying for protecting duties upon
the importation of foreign butter.
The Irish Taxes Act %Tent through a Committee.—Report
to-morrow.
The third reading of the ,Irish Hearth and 'Window-tax Bill
was postponed till Monday next.
- s SCOTCH JURIES.
Mr. KENNEDY rose to move the second reading of the
Scotch Juries Regulation Bill. The measure he said, had
been characterized yes uncalled for, unwarrantable, and ill-
advised, and he tru.sted therefore that the Learned Lord who
opposed it would prove that the. Bill deserved to be thus de-
scribed. For his own part he thought it would be found de-
serving the grave consideration and the sanction of the House.
The opposition to it would, be thought, be founded upon an
attachment to an cient institutions, but he trusted nothing would
be fouhd in the principle of the Bill which very materially in-
terfered with this laudable feeling. He ought to state to the
House that the principal Criminal Court of Scotland was called
the Court of J usticiary, which was divided into nine Cireuits,
and they, were held twice a year. They tried all cases by
Jury. But there were other Courts of subordinate jurisdiction,
called the Sheriff? Courts. The Sheriffs in Scotland had a ju-
dicial as well as a Ministerial power. In the Supreme Court
proceedings were instituted, cx officio' by a Lord Advocate,
without the intervention of a Grand Jury. The Petty Jury
was composed of fifteen, and questions were decided by the
majority, so that a man might be condemned by eight of his
Jury, though seven of them considered him innocent. The
'Juries were taken from Edinburgh and the adjoining.counties,
and were, he believed, selected most conscientiously by the pre-
sent officer. The Sheriff of each county sent a list of forty-
fiveJurors to the officer, and from these forty-five were selected,
from whom the Judge nominated; the Jury. When this no-
mination took place in the Sheriff's Court he was•the Returning
Officer, Solicitor, Nominator, and Judge. The prisoner had
no right of challenge in either of the Courts, unless he shewed
special cause to be decided upon by,. the Judge. There was no
provision against the effect of prejudice, infamy of character,
or political rancour. The measure, however, which he proposed,
went only to deprive the Judge of the power of nomination,
and to substitute a ballot ; and also to give the prisoner a li-
mited power of peremptory challenge. lie had abstained from
pressing this measure on the consideration of Parliament, while
Scotland was agitated; and be had hoped that his conduct on this
occasion would have been considered free from blame. He had
in the first instance, stated to the Learned Lord the heads of
the Bill, and understood that there would be no objection to
introduce them into a general measure. He did not mean to
say, that the Learned Lord had not a right to oppose the Bill,
even notwithstanding this circumstance ; but the Learned Lord
had issued a manifesto to the Scotch counties, in contemplation
of a Meeting of those counties, which took place every April.—
(The Hon. Member here referred to the manifesto disapprov-
ing of the Bill, and submitting it for the consideration of the
'counties.)--This letter was addressed to each sheriff, who was
himself a judicial officer, and a party to the question. The
consequence was, that many petitions were presented to the
House against the Bill. These petitions, in general, echoed
the tone of the Learned Lord's manifesto. The burthen of
each petition was, the excellence of the criminal law of Scot-
land. He respected that law ; but because he wished to
correct a slight blemish in it, he did not think it was fair to ac-
cuse him of a desire to undermine it. The same sort of ar-
gument was offered against the Bill for extending the treason
law to Scotland. It was contended that this Bill was in con-
travention of the Articles of Union ; but he would not waste
the time of the House in opposing such an argument. The
Hon. Member, after some other observations in support of the
Bill, proceeded to state several instances of abuse under the pre-
sent system of allowing Judges to name the Jury. In parti-
cular, he referred to a conviction obtained against one of the
Earls of Argyll, which was afterwards declared void by the 1
Scottish Parliament, and to another case which occurred about
five or six years ago, wherein a Sheriff, newly entered into
' office, had named a Jury in exact compliance with the sugges-
tion of one of the officers of his court, in consequence of which
the accused was convicted. The latter case he was ready to
prove at the Bar of the House, if necessary, though at pre-
sent he would not mention the names of the individuals con-
nected with it. He now came to a case to which he alluded
with considerable pain—he meant that of a late trial in Scot-
land--(Hear, hear, hear !)—conducted, he admitted, with great
honour and impartiality. In the course of that trial, however,
circumstances were elicited which he thought it necessary to
state to the House. It appeared from a letter which was
produced, that a Judge of the Court in which the trial took
place had been consulted .on the subject leading to the un-
happy, affair which was the subject of the trial.—(Hear !)--
With great propriety this Judge kept away from the trial, a
circumstance which shewed that he considered he was disqua-
lified by his own conduct to sit as Judge on that occasion. -Yet
had the trial taken place at one of the Circuits, it might have
been before this very Judge who on that occasion would have
had the nomination of the Jury to try the accused.—(Cheers
from the Opposition.)—He alluded to this trial with consider-
able reluctance; bitt he stated this among other circumstances,
in answer to the triumphant call which had been made upon
him, to state any abuses under the present system. The mea-
sure which he proposed to remedy the law on this subject gave
the prisoner an equal right to peremptory challenge with the
prosecutor to the extent of two each. He must beg the atten-