The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-08 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 7.
Mr. Tomtrigs, from the Treasury, presented an account of
the average price _of' Barley, pursuant to the orderi of the
House.—Laid on the table. '
Mr. BROADEN, accompanied by several Members of the
House of Commons, brought up the Exchequer Bills, East
India Half-pay and Pensions, Court .of Exchequer (Ireland),
Church Rates (Ireland), Passage Vessels Regulation (Ire-
land), Duties and Drawbacks (Ireland) and Customs' Dudes'
Regulation Bills, which were read the first time.
The Larcenies Bill wits read the third time, and pawed.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Bill for relieving doubts ai
to. Marriages of "British Subjects solemnized in foreign parts,
Which was read a first time.
The Irish Court of Chancery Bill went through a Commit:
tie. Report to be received to-morrow.

SCOTCH ENTAILS.
Yhe Eatl of IipS§LYN moved .that the Hotise do iesolve

itself into a Committee on the Scotch entails Bill. His Lord.
ship expressed his apkobation of the Bill,, which was merely
intended to remedy an' Omission in an Act of Parliament -
passed some time since, .for the purpose of exempting from tl
Stamp Duty MOrtgage Deeds ; that Act was certainly inten -
ed to apply to Scotland, but dotibts having arisen, the present
measure was brought in, that proprietors of land id Scotland
might be placed on the same footing it the Landowner in this
part of the island.
The Earl of ABERDEEN opposed the Bill as destructive
of the ancient principle of Scotch Law relatiie to heritable Ilro.
party, and at the same time nugatory as regarded its ostensi-
ble operation ; for not being imperative, there could be no
doubt that creditors having an option would prefer taking un-
der the old method. He therefore moved that the Bill be coin
mitred this day three months. _ _

The Earl of LAUDERDALE supported the Bill. He
contended that the Bill would not have the effect of destroying
the law of Scotland as to heritable rights, and in this ()Pinion
he was seconded by every lawyer of any note at the Scotch bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was desirable that the
exemption from stamp-duties should be extended ro scotland,
and he was sincerely of opinion that it was intended the Act of
Parliament for repealing the stamp-duties should have had that
operation. If there were any doubts, therefore, they ought to
be removed; but was it possible for any man to read this Bill
and say that it supplied the defects of the Act of Parliament to
which he had alluded, when 'there was not a single word in the
Bill which applied to stamps at all ? He thought the best
mode of proceeding would be to have a little more time to con—
sider the subject ; and he was persuaded that his Noble Friend
(Lord Rosslyn) must see that considerable additions must be
made to the present Bill, in order to make it effectual to its
object, against which he was not to be considered as saying
one word.
Alter some further discussion, in which the Earl of LAU-
DERDALE, the Earl of ABERDEEN, and the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR participated, the question was put on the original mo-
tion, and negatived without a division.
IRISH INSURRECTION ACT.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL then moved the Order of the
Day for the committal of the Irish Insurrection Act.
The Earl of DARNLEY wished to know if the Noble Earl
meant to give no explanation of the grounds on which this
measure was re-enacted.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he had not intended to have
troubled their Lordships with any observations: he had on a
former discussion on the subject of Ireland understood, that,
with very few exceptions indeed, all persons were agreed on
the indispensablenecessity of re-enacting the law, for the pro-
tection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's peaceable
subjects. Under that view, he should not think it necessary to
enter at any length into the principle or detail of the measure.
He considered it impossible for any Noble Lord who had
perused the papers on the table to doubt that it was the first
duty of the House to pass a Bill on the principle of that before
their Lordships. That they might regret the necessity, and
might differ as to the best means of preventing having recourse,
to it hereafter, he could well conceive ; but he could not imagine
there could be any doubt of the absolute necessity of passing
some such Bill as the one now under consideration.

........- ..—..............._ _.._ .._.. _____ ___
The Earl of LIMERICK said, that connected as he was
with Ireland, and from residing in it as he did, he must say,
that, their Lordships owed it to that country to pass the present
measure; for he could state it on his own knowledge, that it
would be impossible to remain there for a single fortnight if
this or some similar measure were not pasted into a law ; and
he would therefore entreat their Lordships, in justice to the
loyal and peaceable inhabitants of that country, to sufferihis
Bill to pass.
The Duke of LEINSTER objected strongly to the passing
of this Bill without previous Inquiry to ascertain the nature and
extent of the distresses in Ireland.
The Earl of DARNLEY asked whether, year after year, this
sort of Irish Mutiny Bill was to be passed without any ade-
quate information being laid before Parliament ? The object
of the late motion of a Noble Duke (Devonshire) had been to
obtain that information ; and it was a matter of regret that it
had been brought forward at so late a period, that a reply WAS
thus furnished to it. lie pledged himself, in the next Session.
to bring forward a proposition for a thorough investigation of
the causes and nature of the evils by which Ireland *as afflict.
ed. On the occasion of the King's visit last year, the most flat-
tering promises of amelioration were held out ; but two years '
of the Government of Lord Wellesley had since elapsed, and
the result was the disappointment of every hope. Under the
present system, ha was persuaded that Ireland could not be
much longer governed, and a change ought to be made by be-
ginning with arredress of grievances, instead of proceeding with
measures of coercion. Under present circumstances, he was
not prepared to oppose the further progress of the Bill, as it
might be,neeessary ; but he protested against the passing of it
as a mere matterof course. .-
Lord CALTHORPE deeply deplored the necessity of again
adopting a measure of this kind. He feared that it was neces
sary, but it ought to be limited to the necessity., which in fact
showed the depth and malignity of the disorder requiring a
sPeeily and an effectual remedy. What were deemed in Eng-
land valuable civil institutions and privileges-..such-aa Grand
t Juries and the elective franchise—by some fatal perversion in

Content - - I# I Not content - 6
On our re-admissidn, wq found the House in a Committee, I
and Lord ELLF.NIIOItOUOit on his legs, declining that the
effect of this Bill would be further to irritate the people of Ire-
land. He argued that there wtta notiutlic.iortt. force in Ireland
id carry it into operation.
The Duke of WELLINGTON contended the contrary, and
Insisted that the advantage of the Bill was this—that as the
outrages were committed at night, it prevented people from
being opt of their houses after certain hours. He protested
against throwing the odium of the execution of the Bill upon
the military, if the civil authorities were competent to the duty.'
After a single remark' from Lord ELI:ENDOW:IiIa a,
Earl FITZWILLIAIII said, that he had never given a
vote with more satisfaction than that just recorded against the
further proceeding of this oppressive measure.
On bringing up the report,
The Earl of ROSSLYN objected to the vague manner in
which some of the clauses were worded.

Lord HOLLAND observed, that this Bill; which deprived
the people of Ireland of the benefit of equal laws, had been
sent into the House in a shape which precluded the possibility
of amendment.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that in Ireland all parties
were well acquainted with the nature of its provisions.
Lord BEXLEY spoke a sentence which was wholly inau.
dible, after which the Report was agreed to.
• APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved that the Resolutions re-
garding the Appellate Jurisdiction be entered on the Journals.
The Earl of DARLINGTON wished the Peers of the
Royal Family to be excepted from the operation of the fourth
re solution.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL believed that they would be
Much better satisfied not to be exempted from the attendance
required of other Peers.

he Earl of DARLINGTON objected to the fine of 501.
for non:attendance; and. prciposed •that it should be raised to
lOU If a Nobleman were in Scotland or Ireland, he would
willingly pay MM. rather than incur the greater expence of

- .
iourneyix; 1;ondon.
Lord HOLLAND asked if the attention of the Committee
_

had been drtttiiitci7 the inequality which would be introduced
by the reSolutions atnong the Peers of Parliament.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL Olouslit that the House had the
power to comiuel_the attendance of individual Peers as well, as
of the whole bedy.
Lord HO/ iLAND expliined, that the equality of Peers was
assailed in this way by the resolutions—one attended volun-
taril/ on an appeal, and an6ther, perhaps, only under the com-
pulsion of the fine.
After some further conversation between Lords ROSSINIT,
ELLENBOROUOII, HOLLAND, LIVERPCiOL, DARLINGTON,
and BEXI.Y, 106 understand the the resolUtion fOr the fine of
604 was agreed to.
It was ordered that the resolutidni abound be entered on the
journals.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GAS-LIGHT. •
hi. DAWSON moted the Order of the Day for the second
reading of the Gas-Light Regulation Bill.
The Bill was read a second time ; to be read a third time
this day three uu
MARRIAGE ACT:
Dr. PHILIJIMORE moved the'Order of the hey for the
Second reading of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill.
The Bill wait read a second time, and the third reading Was
postponed, as we underate_ed, until next eession.
RELATION'S WITH SPAIN.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH withdrew his mthion for the pro-
duction of the Copies of the Instructions tramOnitted by his
Majesty's Ministers to Sir W. A'Caut`t, for the regulation of
his conduct in the case of changes made by the (Jorte3 ku the
internal government of Spain. The Learned Member said,
that after consideration he did not wish to press his motion OR
the House.
The Irish Church Rates' Bill, the Irish Malicious Injury
Bill, the Irish Exchequer Court Bill, and Hilternan Union
Parish Bill, were read a third time and passed.
The Cork General Session Bill was committed ; the report
to be received to-morrow.
The report of the Exchequer (Ireland) Court Stamps Bill
was brought up.
The Passage Vessel Regulation Bill (Irebnd) was rend a
third time and passed.
The East India Half-Pay Bill was read si third time and
Viscount St. Vincent's Annuity BilDwas read
passed.
The report of
a second tune, was ordered to be engrossed)
and to be read a
third time to-morrow.

IRISH LINEN.
The Order of the Day tors Moved for reading the report of
the Irish Linen 'Manufacture Bill.
Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, that the abore.
mentioned Order of the Day be read, this day three months.
A division took place, and the numbers were—
F 33 For the amendment, 7 Maj. 26
ogrli the e
reportginwa lamotion,
sthe nr
read a second time, and was ordered to
be reada third time to-morrow.
EXETER 0 lt4 MMAR SCHOOL.
Mr. WILBERFORCE presented a Petition from the ICev.
John Lemprierey late Master of the Free Grammar School et
Exeter, complaining of the arbitrary conduct of the trustees
of the said school, in displacing hinuwidtinat cause, and pray-
ing that the House. would be graciously pleased to refer his case
to the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the abuses of
charitable institutions.
Mr. COURTEN.AY disclaimed any intention of saying one
word against the talents or reapectainlity of Dr. Lempriere ;
but these facts were unquestionable—that during that gentle-
man's remaining in the office of Master, the school had ma-
terially diminished ; since his removal, it had very much in-
creased, and was now one of the most flourishing grammar
schools in England,
After a few words from Buoirott„,3t and Mr. Wu.•
nERFORCE, the Petition was ordered to be primed.
DISCOVERY.
Mr. itoltunTsoN presented a petition from Wm. Smith,
—The petitioner was a niastet-mariner I and prayed compensa-
tion for having discovered New Britain and New South
Shetland. Ile had been employed in the South American trade.
On discovering these hinds he had been offered a large sum of
money for pointing out their precise situation, by the .American
(lovernment. He way anxious to reserve these newly-discovered
lands for his own country, anti therefore refused the offer. On
application, however, to the Admiralty, he was refused, on the
ground of their having no funds to be applied to such purixeses.
The petitioner, tberefbre, prayed the House wom:d take his
ease into their favourable consideration.—Ordered t be printed
and laid on the table.
CATO-STREET CONSPIRACY.
ATABER.I.A presented a petition from Thomas Harard„
who had been taken up on etnTtelen, of being concerned, in
tho Cato-street conspiracy, praying tne House to take his case
into consideration. -
31r. PEEL said the petitioner's case differed in no respect
from that of any other person who should be taken lip on sus-
picion. So far from f" suspicion bei»g entertained with regard
to the petitioner, he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
there was nite enough to joy hie committal for high treason.
Spine of the persons -arrel°eil on the ecca,don allutle-a to, were
proceeded against capital; others had been transported, and
some others (of whom the petitioner was one) were discharged
in consequence of no prosecution being instituted against them.
—This was done by order of the PrtvY-Council, but it by no
means followed that there was no charge against the petitioner.
Mr. HUME said, he had made sonic inquiries of certain of
the petitioner's neighbours as to his respectability, and he

The House then divided upon the motion for printing the pe-
tition, when the numbers were*
Ayes, DI I Noes, fitt I Majority against the motion, 49.
MR. BARON APCLELLAND:
Mr. BROUGHAM said he held in his hand a petition
from a person of the name of Robert Quinn, a surgeon of
Belfast, to which he wished to call the attention of the House,
as it complained of a very great Ouse in the administration
of justice. He knew nettling personally of the petitioner,
or of the facts which the petition related. The Member for
the County in which' the transaction was said to have oc-
curred, had, he believed, left this. part of the kingdom, and
therefore lie could not make any inquiry from him with re.
spect to the petitioner or his statement. The language of the
petition was, however, perfectly respectful towards the House ;
and on that ground he felt it to be his duty to present it.—
Ile would again repeat, that he was in no degree account..
able for the assertions contained in the petition, which he
would present without pledging himself in any way what-
heaver, and without indulging in any comment that could
tend to prejudge the case. If, however; the whole or any par.
Ocular poruon of the petition were founded on fact, istsdid ap-
pear to hint to disclose a case Which called for the interfer-
ence of Parliament as decidedly as any complaint that bad ever
been laid before them. The petitioner Stated, that five !years
ago he brought an action against a person with whom he hap-
pened to have an affray (of which he would speak presently),
which action was tried before Dlr. Baron 1114Clelland and a
Special Jury. A verdict was given against him, and he wait
taken in execution r for the payment of costs. The con-
sequence was, that he was ultimately ruined, and he wag
obliged to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor's Act; his
prospects which before were very fair; having been corn.
pletely blasted. 'rhe clu!ge now made by. the petitioner was
dividedinto two parts. Tie first was against the Sheriff and
those connected with the Sheriff's Office, for packing a jury ;
the next against the Learned Judge, for misconduct in his
direction to the Jury. IVith respect to the first pOint, the 'peti-
tion set forth that an application had been made for a special jury,
which was refused as being too late, the distringas having been
delivered before the application was made. The petitioner
stated that the application came from the defendant, and not
front him. Ile then complained that the common jury panel
which was returned to try the cause, was not the panel
of that year; but of the year preceding. He next stated, that
though it had been decided, in the first instance, that the cause
should not be tried by a special jury, yet, a second application
being made, not by the defendant or his attorney, nor by the
plaintiff or his attorney, but by the returning 'officer of the
Sheriff, fair daYi prior to the Assizes, it watt agreed that a spe-
cial jury should be empanelled. lie (AIL Broughani) did not
understand this. ft was contrary to practice thus to procure a
sipedo jury ; and theiefore, perha.ps, there might he some
take in the statement ; although, in other respects, the Petition
seemed to have been drawn up by a persdn cenversant with the
How a returning efficer to the Sheriff could apply for it
special jury, and have his application complied with, he could
not imagine. This was four days befbre the Assizes and, al-
though it had been ruled that the cause should bo tried by a
common jury, it was nose, as the petitioner stated, granted to
the returning officer of the Sheriff, who had no right to
meddle in the affair, and set down as a special jury cause.
The petitioner farther complained, that the said special Jury
consisted of the defendant's own friends and acquaintances,
selected by him, all of whom were reputed and rt+owed
Orangemen. lie then stated, that he was a Catholic, and the
defendant a Clergyman of the established elnirch.-I.that the She-
riff was the cousin-german of the defendant, and that the re-
turning officer in question was the law-agent of the Sheriff.—
The cause was called on, at the first cause, on the first morn-
ing of the Asslies. This proceeding (observed Mr. Brougham)
might be common In Ireland, but the case was very different in
England, where it would be almost impossible to bring,on a
special jury cause the first day of the Assizes. The Petitioner
procieded to state, that the cause was brought before 11r.
13arcai APClelland, who presided in the Crown Court, while the
other Judge decided causes in the Record Court. Civil causes,
he supposed, were heard in both ; on One side con non juries,
and special juries at the Other. An objection was taken by the
Counsel for Dlr. Quinn against proceeding to trial with a spe-
cial jtrry which had been iniproperly obtained ; but it seas over.
ruled by the Learned Judge, and the cause was peremptorily,
called on to proceed. This was the first part of the charge, and
was }perfectly distinct front the main point, which related to the
conduct of the Learned Judge. It was an action for an assault
of a very aggravated nature, as appeared by the petition. The
Petitioner was a Catholics and happened to he in the pit of the
theatre Of Armagh, while " God Save the King" wag played.
The defetulnnt, who was also present, came up to him, and
chided hint in harsh terms, " for remaining covered in contempt
of the music." The Petitioner said, " he did not remain
covered in contempt of the music." Thettlefe,adant, whom lie
(Mr. Brougham) declined to name, wet) told by several by;
stimders that it was not in contempt of the music they re-
mained covered. He, however, continued to use abusiVe lan-
guage, and at length con
m the assault for which the action
was brought. llis expression to the Petitionex was, ", By the
immortal God, if you don't take off your hat, I'll knock your
head oft"---(A laugh.)—There were sonic parts of the first
charge which he (Mr. Brougham) could not reconcile to the
legal practice of this outlay ; hut such langnage as this was
still less reconcileable to • that notion of decency and pro-
priety which might be expected from the Reverend De-
fendant, as a Clergyman of the Church of England. When_
the music had ceased he. called for a repetition .of it, anti'
tcontinueder ardswhent oe o nstol umc
e
t other 'himself
tunes with
o a
thep samepular
character
violence.
wereA f.
Af-
terwards,
played, and ariteng the rest " Patrick's Day," the Defendant
stood over the Petitioner with his hat on, and in a menacing
attitude, endeavouring to provoke the Petitioner to commit
an assault on the Defendant similar to that which had been
made on himself, but this the Petitioner declined. He made
out the case which Was here tutted by evidence at the trial, and
he charged the Lerned Judge with having, when he addressed
the Jury, used the following words, which were marked by
inverted commas—" The strict letter of the law is decidedly
against the defendant; notwithstandin , ou can find a verdict
for the defendant, in honour of our , old King, who may'
well be called the father of his peep laughter.)—
" All which (continued the petitioner) ,I shall be able to prove
at the bar of quilt. Ilohourabhi House." The petitioner stated.
the two facts distinctly--firstly, the improper manner in which
the Jury was empanelled ; secondly, the misconduct of the'
Judge; and be called on the 'House to direct a new trial'
may be. had,..--(ti laugh)—for which proceeding, however,'
the House certainly had no authority. As he was on his legs,
he begged leave to say, that his not having alluded to a cer-
tain statement which he had on a former occasion made use
of, with reference to another Irish Judge, the, Lord Chief.
Justice of the Court of Common Plots. was not an
dental Omission ; for he had purposely declined' 'making any
retraetation of, or alteration in, the statement in question ;
because, notwubstentling its denial in the public newspepers„
where it first found a place,
.he had received private letters
front respectable persons, warning him not to-retract that' which
he had brought under the observation of the House, since it was
substantially correct. Besides, the letter of the editor or re,
porter .was not couched in such unqualified terms of denial, as
his letters were in those of affirmation. It was also equally
certain, that when the- Chief Justice called the primer before
hint, he did not give the same reason fbr his displeasure. liis
observation wits—" It is 'very hard that I cannot have my own
jokes." The Learnetlljentleman then moved, that tot
don be read. ,
Mr. SetreutrY CANNING observed, that as the complaint

Mr. BROUGHAM said, this was precisely one of those
cases which it would be unfit for him to accompany with any
statement. He had refrained from doing_so, and the whole
responsibility rested with the petitioner. This was precisely
the course he had adopted on a former night, when presenting.
a petition, of the statements in which he personally knew
nothing. Ile was not hi such a case bound to make any state.,
meet;, but as the petition was respectful towards the House,
he thought it right to present it. The present was also just
one of those cases in which he thought the petition should not
be printed—( Bear l)—not on account of its containing a charge,
because every petition did contain a charge, but because a wet
an accusation of the, conduct of a Judge in adtninistering the
duties of his oftice.--4/lotr, hear!)—Yo undue impression had
been attempted to be created against the Learned lodge. .The
statement rested entirely on the individual who petitioned thef
noirge_andi consequently, it would go forth without thepos-
sibility of doing any mischief; while, on the other hand, it
afforded the accused party a full opportunity for contradict-
ing it.
Mr. GOULBURN said, this was a charge preferred against
a Judge for wilfully misdirecting a jury; and before the House
received it, they ought to be put in possession of the fact which
Was contained in the petition itself—that application was made
for a new trial before the whole Court, and all the Judges eon•
curred in thinking there was rio ground Mr granting it.-.-
(Hear 1)—It should also be recollected Mettle trial complained
of took place five years ago.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that was one reason which induced
him to believe that next Session Mr. Baron IVP.Clelland Would
show that there was either mistake or misstatement in the case,
because, if the facts stated in the petition were true, and had
been laid before the Court, a new trial must have been granted.
' The petition was then read, and laid on the table.
. EAST INDIA TRADE BILL.

On the motion oflll7.ll;ixx,---titei.astitidia Trade Bill
was read a third time, after a few words from Messrs. Hu ME,
FORHES, and MozaY, who complained of the Injustice
which one of the clauses of the Bill inflicted on the Lascars,
native seamen of India.

On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HUME expressed a wish to know how far the Right
Hon. President of Board of Controul was prepared to con-
sider this as a temporary measure. It was the first Bill by
which the rights of British subjects, the rights of the whole of
the native seamen of India were taken away from them, with-
out a Word having been said in their defence.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said there was nothing novel in the
clause complained of, which was exactly copied from the Bill
of 1815. The concessions which the lion. tientlernat wished
to have extended to the Laicars, that of beingplaced on a foot-
ing with British seamen, would not be beneficial, but injurious
to them. On that ground, and in conformity with the opinion
of the Directors, the clause had been introduced.
The BiU, after a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, was then
pasted.

PRISON BILL
Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the taking into consideratioa
the Lords' Amendment% to the above Bill.

Mr. G. BEN NET expreised his detestation of the barbarous
punishment of flogging, which was recognized by one of the
amendments in the Bill, end moved that thetollowing words
be left out, " or personal correction, in case prisoners are con-
victed of felony, or sentenced to bard labour."
Mr. W. COURTENAY wished, before the Home divided
on this ainentirnent, to move certain verbal ementiments,*bich
would not be oppas,W. The Learned Genticman's etnend•
merits, were *greed to.
The llouselhen divided on Mr.,l3EsvnET's amendment,
" That the words, ' 'or by personal correction, In case prisoners
are convicted of felony, or sentenced to hard labour,' be omitted.'
[DUring our exclusion from the gallery, some discussion, the
nature of which we could not ]earn, hut which occupied nearly
a quarter of an hour, wok place.] The division was—
... For the amendment, P.:1I Against it, 36 / Majority U.
On our return, we found Alt. V. COUIITENA Y on his
lege, proposing some of the verbal anienclments of die Upper
Ilouse, which were agreed to without opposition.
Mr. GREY BENNET strongly pressed upon the House the
necessity of making, at an - early period of the ensuing Session
of Parliament, some disposition for the future removal and
management of such hawks (as we understoodi as at present
were confined tinder the same circumstances and regulations es
other prisoners.
After a few words from Mr. W. COURTkNAY and • Dr.

LUSItI).4.GTONi on the same subject, the Lords amendments
were finally agreed to.
NEW SOUT f l WA VES.
On the Order of the Day being moved for the further con-
sideration of the report of the New South Wale* Jurisdiction
Bill,

Mr. WILMOT 1101ITON said, that in rising to call the
attention of the house to this Bill it was necessary to state
that it originated entirely from tie Retort of the Commis-
sinners who had been appointed to inquire into the state of
that Colony. This Bill related to New South Wales, espe-
cially as a Colony, while all the previous measures related to it
only as a receptacle for convicts. One of its objects was to in-
stitute unequivocal punishment against all offenders, but unat-
tended with any unreasonable severity, for the purpose of re-
formation. There were three places recommended by the Com-
missioners, as proper places by way of experiment, for convict
settlements; one of which was Norfolk Island, which, onfic-
count of its fertility and the means of employment it offered,
appeared the host calculated for that object. This islen,i
was intended as the receptacle for convicts of the worst class,
and indeed might be better described as a penitentiary upon an
extended scale, where the convicts Would be properly classed,
and from which it was impossible to escape. It was alio pro-
posed, as a means of reformation, to diminish corporal punish-
ment, and spread the convicts over agricultural districts, rather
than keep them in towns as hitherto. The less they were in
contact with each other, the greater was the thence of improve-
ment in their habits. The great olOect of the 13111 was to recon-
, ei le New Soutit Wales as an improving and growing colony, with
its being the receptacle of offenders, an object which it was in
every way calculated to effect. As a step towards this end, it was
necessary to devise tome means of employment .for the higher
classes of convicts, and after every consideration It was deter-
mined that they should be employed as school Masters. The
principle of trial by Jury,however desirable in itself, was not.
suited to the peculiar circumstances of the colony. ln deli
cases, where trial by Jury was desired by both patties, it would
not be denied ; but it was not consonant with the system of
jurisprudence, which the interests of the colony' equired, that
it should be granted on the demand of one Of the parties only.
He was willing to admit that the colony of New South Walks
was entitled to the full benefits of the British Constitution, ex-
cept as. *,t was precluded from enjoying them by its being a re-
ceptacle for convicts. It appeared to him that the measure
now propesed.was imperiously called for by the necessities of
the case. The population of New South N% ales was every day
increasing, 'and he thought that the restrictions proposed by
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side were decided) y at variance
with the true interests of that colony. The Bon. Member eon-
eluded by Moving that the Bill be recommitted,
111. BRIGHT contended that this Dill would by no mearss
realize all the objects of, Trial by Jury, according to the in-
tentions of the Legislature. In his opinion there was no
analogy whatever between the principle it involved arid the
principle of Trial by JOry, as established' in England. ilia
great objection to the measure WAS, shit the perions who
warts
to serve as jurors were not to be appointed in the regttlar_ way!
The opinion of Mr. justict Bent watt that cruninals shotrid
Etille maintained that tho
twl'atiteeatinano t4O'ltendePobenntier:endt
'here was in the colony
nithnhea
rattther
:et ettleir bran:
le,-etrowiurtsen,viienli
neohuricuir_rue:etit.2.Eitirt:,?rßilzia:t.fic.bjecl:l
had
taken
place
in
the
members of such
lization anti improvement, bad right to expect all the *avail,
conduct of tuau Orotateteyo,navilevtalt•lcint
as
they
wire to cavi,
tages•of the British Constitution,, to 41:prat an extent as wits
compatible with their relative mutation. It was apes the#o
grounds thatlw !dittcd, to press upon the House the' reiessity
a, well eatheritnind policy of extending trial by JOY! so New
South wale*. The lion. Member then aoitimen►ed on this
viteignot provildrivis of theta); and insisted that adffielentiime
had not betel allowed fel considering them puiterely. Ile tar,

titularly objected to the monstrous powers whlch the bill gavet
to creditors to cases of insolvency. The whole of the bill went
w
vest in the Crown a power which was not claimed nor cone,
-ceded in any other of our Colonies. He thought it too late in.
the Session to proceed with a bill of such importance, and he
moved as an Amendment, that it be re-committed that day.
three months.
Mr. G. BENNET said that there were not .suffieient.
materials in New South Wales for the formation of a-
Jury of probor et legales haniines. He believed there never
was, and never would again be, such -a Calory. He
-wee convinced from the reports he had read, -as well althorn
the conversation lie had with several individuals, that Rome
premature to attempt the introduction of the trial by Jury into,
the Colony. Out of the number of 4,369 emancipated convicts
in the Colony, there was but a small proportion living on their
owrproperty. The trial by Jury was excellent as applied• to
time state of society in this country; but the circumstances of
the population of New South Wake did not admit of its appli-
satione The greatest corruption of morals prevailed through
the ,whole Colony, particularly among• the females. He gave
his consent to:the principleof the Bill, and gave it his support.
Sir JAMES 11IACKINTOSH said he took the question ,to
be whether they were to communicate the benefits of the Bri-
tish Constitution to the inhabitants of New South Wales, or
-whether they would condone that system of martial law, for
so he would call it, and arbitrary power, that had hitherto ex-
isted. The present Bill conferred on the colony not one of the
institutions of England* except Indeed the advantages of an
economical and expeditious Court of Chancery.—(A laugh.)
—Much of the Bill seemed to be copied from the famous
• Canada Bill, which produced such unfortonate results in the
-other American Colonies at that time, and which was the first
.-exception to the good old policy of our ancestors, who, when.
serer they sent Englishmen, always sentwith them the glorious
institutions of England. His charge against the Bill was; that
it introduced nothing, but left despotism and arbitrary power
in all their strength. Ile did not mean to say much of the
Corrucil. Ile would wish to see' the germ and seed of the
British Constitutionplanted' in it, so that it may be hereafter
broken into two legislative chambers. The great point for
which he contended was the justice, the policy, and pro-
priety of establishing in the colony the 'Trial by Jury. It
• was a mistake to suppose that there were not -fit materials,
in "the colony for that institution, the birth-right of Bri-
tish subjects. He contended that there was a fair propor.
• tion of freeholders to form a Jury. In support of that post-
. „ ton he referred the House to the recorded opinions of the
several Governors and Chief Justices of the Colony. Among
the former were Governors Bligh' Hunter, sued Mac-
quarrie ; and among the latter were Mr. Justice Bent. To
those authorities he added the present Judge Advocate.Wylde.
lle complained of the inconvenience which would arise from
delaying until next Session the confirmation of pardons granted
by the Governor of New South IVales. To make' the pardon
of what were called "Emancipistm," good in law, it was neces-
sary that they should be confirmed by a pardon under the Great
•Seal. Now, no such general pardon had been issued for sixty
years, and consequently all persons who had been pardoned by
.-the Governor and held property were in a state of alarm. As
they were situated at present they could-not be WitileßSeti in a
Court of Justice. On these grounds be was of opinien that
these clauses should be passed without delay.
Mr. HORTON was for postponing the clauses respecting
the pardons to next Session, when a general measure in trans-
portation would be introduced. As tlu measure would have a
retrospective effect, it would get rid of the objections as toohe
inconvenience stated by the Hon. ,and Learned Member. .
AlroPEEl4econeurred in the propriety of postponing these
aeclaure far the present. The Session was too far advanced to
iradmit of the attention, which so important a subject required.
He had no objection, however, -to confirm the pardons granted
by the Governor, in far as those who resided in the colony were
concerned. But those who had returned to this country, after
receiving their pardon abroad, might have that pardon confirmed
-,at any time by an application to the Crown, fora pardon under
.the Great Seal, which alone could give it effect in law. ein all
the cases of those of this country the Crown exercised adiscre-
-elan which it would not be wise to take from it. Time greatest
inconvenience might arise if this was taken away.. Some time
ago a man was claiming an estate in Scotland, but in time pro-
gress of the cause he forged a material instntment. He was
tried, convicted, abtl sentenced to transportation for life. An
application was made to the Crown for pardon, but sonic ob-
stacles arising from-Scotch law, it was refused. The man was
4e:steely - year in New Smith' Wales -when he received a par-
don from the Governor, and was now actually clainiing the
same estate, though he could not be pardoned by Scotch law.
-.So much for the indiscriminate confirmations of all pardons
granted by the Gevarnor. Least, however, any disappoint
.anent should be felt by those pardoned abroad, it was in con-
,terhplation to confirm their potions.
Mr. DENMAN contended that Patliament had pledged/it.
-self to confiner all pardons of. the ,Governor, and that if they
failed to do so, it was a' fraud upon the parties coact:need.
Mr. BRIGHT withdrew his amendment. •
The House then went. into a ['Own-Mace on the Bill. On the
clause. making a Jury of seven officers of the Army and Navy
Judges in all cases,
"84 JAMKS MACKINTOSH proposed an Amendment,
e substituting a Jury of twelve of the inhabitants duly qualified. ,
Mr. °MILBURN contended, that in the situation of the
'colony, a Court-of Military Officers was more calculated to
render justice then a Jury .of twelve settlers could do.
.;elr. 11. GURNEY supported the Amendment.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said a few words in favour of the
eAmendment.
Mr. 11R,EGAT Supported the Amendment.
After a fel words from Mr. D. GrenEnT and Mr.
. the House divided upon the Amendment.
Ft* the Amendenceit - -30
Agsiinst it - . . 41,
Majority .
.fo tediscussion on one of the clauses, Mr. CANNING said .
that might cure all the objections againet the Bill, if it
,vytra limited to a period of. five years. They would then have
'time to itee its operation, and at the end of that period it might,
he reconsidered, and whatever modifications were found neces.
sary, made. To this attend ion he would consent. •
The Reuse rammed. The Chairman reported progress, tied
'asked leave to sit again to-day.
LAVV- RCIIAN TS ill Ll'.
The Order of the Day being moved for the third reading of
,the Law of Merchitute Bill,
rlllr. CREEVEY objected' to it, in consequence of the late-
`nets of the hour, and said that he 'supposed the appropriation
clause met have been ilisp?sed of at hour. Ile could
* ',not characterize the muds: in which it was disposed of in other
terms than a fraud. instead of
.having public attention drawn
.to it, by introducing it in theamaial way, as the Appropriation
Act, it was tacked erasa Resolution to. the Bill for raising
14,700,0001. by Exchequer Bills. As he did not wish to Kee
the_public business transacted in this way, he would move, as'
.an amendment, that the. House do DOW adjourn
.-
The Citanc Ent. o a of, the EXC 11 tit and Mr. II us-
Rissole contended the cowrie adopted in passing this ehmEe:l
was quite consistent with the usual practiee of the House.
Mr-JIG'S! E, on the other bend, maintained that it was ti
violation of the practice of the Muse, and nothing -less than a
fraud, in order to prevent those who were anxious to do so fruits
making any observation on the Appropriation Bill. ' lie there-
fore, wee notice that to-morrow he. would move for a. COM-
mittee, to see if :Ma were, the usual practice of time House. .i
Mr. J. SMITH opposed the adjournment. Ile said that if
the present Bill were not passed 110 W, it would lead to the cons-
, miseton of many frauds; Pin otherwise it Would not be in time
for the other House, and would therefore be postponed till ticxt.
Session.
Mr. HUME recommuended his lion. -Friend to withdraw
his amendment. 4 •
After a few words fro,pi Mr. M. A. TA VLOR, the original
question was put and ciwried,' Mr, Crei,vey nut pressing the
mrientiment.—fins' liif i was then 'malty third time and passed.
:Kr, (AMEN, Start, that hu woul4 nut Callartit to any fur-
ttrox buitireo, ir.eoit. gone into till di House deterudned
upon the 'motion or ills lion. Friend (Mr. Homo.) ,
CIIIEW BARON O'GRADY.
The receking tlui Report of the -Committee on the conduct
. tai Chief Baron Wtirady wimpostponed to this day.
The otter Oriirrli of the Day were then disposed of, and the
I OUSC • adjourned at jaQuarttr peat Two o'c eoc

A lAST OF THE M 'NORM'
'Who voted'on Mr. Rennet's; Motion against the Lords' Athena
went to continue the Power of Flogging in Prisons,
Attwood,lV. Hutchinson, Hon. Tennyson, C.
Bright, Henry • C. 11. Titelqiel4, N./ :srq. o
'Colborne, N. Jones, John Western, C. t
Coffin, Sir I. M'intnsh, Sir J. Wilberforce W.
Damian, T. Monck, J. B. Williams,
J. W. Palmer, C. F.
Ilamilton, Lord A. Ricardo, David
klobliouse, J. C. Rice, T. S.
1111 mo, .1. Smith, J.
MINORITY
Who voted for introducing the English Trial by Jury into the
Colony of 'New South Wales,
, Atwood, M. Heber, R. Ricardo, D,
Boit ie, .1. Hobliouse, J. C. Rice, T. 8. .
Benett„ J. Hume., J. Robinson, Sir Geo.
'Bright, Henry Hutchinson, Hon. S,irlett, J.
0.)11in, Sir I. . , Smith, It.
Denman, Thos. Lester, B. L. S!iiith, John
Forrand, li,. Moberly, W. L. Taylor, N. A.
Forbes, C. . Wis.rjoribanks, S. Tremayne,. J. H.
When, D. Cr. Monek, J, E
B. 'Wilberforce, W.
flurney, Money, W. P. TLLER.
Rua, O. V. Palmer, C. F. 3lackintosh,SirJ.

DELLE as.
Bennet, lion. U U
Lushiligton, Dr,