The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-01 00:00:00

CITY MARKETS.-FEB. 29.

The dealings in SALTPETRE have been to some amount
this week, at a further advance; the sales on Tuesday
went oft at prices from Is. tid. to 2s. per cwt. above the
previous low prices.
The speculations in RUSSIA TALLOW have received a
shock, Owing to the failure which has just occurred. The
defaulter's engagements are under 5,000/. The price of
Tallow has not risen beyond what it was in the early part
of the week : the quotation this morning is ls. per cwt.
higher for delivery; the deliveries are small, in fact the
trade are not purchasing at present, preferring rather to use
up their old stock than submit to the late advance, espe-
cially as the price must fall as rapidly as it has risen, on
the arrival of the Spring ships. The supply for the pre-
sent year according to the St. Petersburgh accounts, re-
ceived to-day, will be fully 200,000 casks, or from 30 to
40,000 casks beyond the exports of last season.
sits.—Business haR not been brisk since the conclusion
f the East India Sale, h,it the advance then given is main-
tained. Inquiry is made after /3rutin, at a further eleva-
tion. The stock of East India Silks in the Company's
warehouses is extremely
small, and if a demand arises oo
part of the manufacturers a further improvement must
the
take place-
In the COTTON and WooL markets business continues
slack. The insporte of German Wools have been large lately.
In TEAs there is not much doing, owing to the near
,approach of the quarterly sale at the India House.

Ferrybridge Canal.
Mr. SYKES presented .a similar petition from Hull.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from some
places in Yorkshire, against the Wakefield and Ferrybridge
Canal.
LICENSING SYSTEM.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said he had a petition to present
from an individual named Clarke, who certainly in ad-
dressing that House hid made out a prima facie case of
hardship. The individual kept a hotel at Bognor, which was
destroyed by fire. He built on the site of tint house a new
hotel, to be called the Royal Clarence lintel, the building of
which cost him about 12,000/. 'which, however, the Ma-
gistrates refused to license. lie then. got a petition signed
by the Nobility and Gentry of the town, recommending
him as a proper person to. have a license, which, however,
the Magistrates still thought St to refuse. Having been
put to such a ruinous expense he found it absolutely
necessary to persevere, and he accordingly required
a reason, but they told him that no reason would be as-
hear.)—There had been no cause to com-
plain of his conduct, and conscious of being ill-treated, he
applied to a solicitor to know whether he could not ob.
tan' a mandamus to compel them to grant him a licence.
The solicitor of course told him, that unless he could prove
malice, or a strong presumption 'of corrupt motives, the
Court of King's Bench could not interfere. Un-
der these circumstances, he hail no other resource
than 'that of an application to that House ; and this
application was made, not with a view to any thing being
done'in his own case, but in order that the House might
make some alteration in the present method of licensing.
He felt it unnecessary to enter at large into the subject ;
but he had spoken to the Hon. Member opposite, and he
would then tell him; that unless they could show that he
was a bad character. or that his house had been disorderly,
unless they could make good such a charge as that, he would
not hesitate to say that towards this individual they had
committed a grois and base act of injustice. Some alle-
gations hid been made of certain jealousies being enter-
tained against Mein by individuals in the neighbourhood ;
but ,these he would not for the preSent allude to. He
would only observe, that the subject was a most mo-
mentous one, not only for the sake of those applying
for licences, but also for the sake of the Magistrates them-
selves. He hoped some alteration would be made in the
licensing system, which at present must press very heavily
on the Magistrates.

Mr. CURTEIS said he knew nothing of the allegations
of the Committee, and could not therefore deny or main-
tain its allegationSo• lie thought it his duty however to
state, that helineW the Magistrates who were alluded to in
the petition, and that they were men of the highest honor
and integrity. The statement contained in the petition
was the statement of one party, and might possibly be
without the slightest foundation. At all events, it
was the dnty of Honourable Members to refrain
from coming to any decision on this important subject,
as the case was now before the Court of King's Bench,
where Clarke the petitioner had obtained a rule for a man-
damus, which had not yet been disposed of.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged to set the Hon.
Member right. The party complaining had not moved
the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus, but for a cri-
minal information. A rule to show cause why a criminal
information should not issue had been granted by the King's
Bench, and was not yet disposed of'.
The petitio❑ was then brought up ; on the notion that
it shonld he printed,

• Mr. HOI3IIOUSE begged to explain. He had said no-
thing against the Magistrates, who were all ex-officio ho-
nourable men.—(A laugh.)—He had not cast any imputa-
tion on the Magistrates, but really the petitioner's case
seemed to be a very hard one. He had a license before,
and therefore, it was to be presumed, that he was a proper
person. `The Hon. Member for Sussex, said that many of
the statements of the petition were false; but if the state-
ment was true, it was a case of great hardship.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought a more equitable prin-
ciple should be acted on, in bestowing publican's licenses.
Why should any body of men, who were irresponsible, have
the power of dealing with the property Of his Majesty's
subjects in this way. Why should not property of
this kind be as free as any other kind of property. (Hear.)
In the present instance a man had expended 14,000/. on
buildin a house, and when it was erected he could not get a
license, though he had one for an inferior establishment
previously. He thought it would be question
for the Honourable Member, who had given so
much of his attention to the licensing system (Mr.
Estcourt) whether 'every man ought not be allowed to
retail beer as well as any other article--(Hear, hear.)—
upon paying a proper sum to Government for a license,
and giving reasonable security for good conduct. He thought
it would be a question well worthy of the Hon. Gentle-.
man to whom he before alluded.

Mr. ESTCOURT said that the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for Colchester had been mooted in the Committee;
and, indeed, was a most anxious subject of consideration
with every Member of that Committee. It was a remedy
which some of that Committee could not make up their minds
to apply. As to the petition now before the House, it had
been put into his (Mr. Estcourt's) hand yesterday, but he
had advised the petitioner to confide it to some one else,
and was glad he had chosen the Hon. Member for West-
minster. Looking at the case upon the ex-parte statement
now before the House, it certainly appeared to be a very
hard case. It was possible, however, that that cx-parte
statement might be satisfactorily explained.
Mr. CURTEIS wished to say one word in explana-
tion.. He did not say all the statements contained in
the petition were false. Ue said on the contrary, that he
could neither maintain nor deny their falsehood ; but that
many of the allegations might be unfounded.
Mr. ASHURST moved fur certain returns relative to
the average prices of Corn for the last six months.
A message was brought from the Lords, requesting that
the House would permit Mr. Henry Home Drummond to
attend and be examined before a select committee of their
Lordships upon the Game Laws.
Mr. MONCK presented a petition from the Maltsters of
Reading, for a repeal of the Malt Act.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. O. BANKES gave notice that on Monday next he
would move that Counsel be beard at the Bar of the
House upon the East rietford Disfranchisement Bill.
Air. KEITH DOUGLAS presented a petition from
Dumfries, praying for a repeal of the Stamp Receipt Tax.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS presented also a petition from the
Maltsters of Dumfries, praying for a repeal of the Malt Act.
Mr. S. RICE presented:a petition from the Roman Catho-
lics of St. John's, Dublin, in favour of the Catholic Claims.
In 'presenting this petition, he wished to observe, that it
had been said, and he regretted to have heard it from such
high authority—that, if the Protestant Dissenters succeeded
in getting the Test and Corporation Acts repealed, it would
injure the claims of the Catholics. He could not bring
himself to believe that that would be the case. Even could lie
conceive it, he would not withhold his assistance from the
Protestant Dissenters.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had
every reason to believe that the great success obtained
by the Dissenters was in consequence of the assistance
they received from the Irish Members, and he did not
think out of the thirty-we Irish IVembers who voted in

Mr. BROUGHAM moved the Order of the Day for the
resumption of the adjourned debate on the State and Ad-
ministration of the Law. In doing this, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman said he hoped be might be permitted
to say one word, with a view to render more useful the dis-
cussion on which they were about to enter, and also with a
view to render it more easy and more agreeable to the
House. He took it for granted, that his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the Solicitor-Geueral, would present to the House
a general view of his opinions upon the subject, which he
(Mr. B.) had brought under their consideration upon a
former night, while other Hon. Gentlemen might touch
upon particular topics, and even dwell upon them a con-
siderable length. Now it would be obviously the most
convenient course to confine their attention to one subject
at a time. Thus, for example, one Gentleman might get
up and occupy the attention of the House for a considerable
time upon the subject of the Welch Judges, another might
apply himself to the subject of the Magistracy, a third to
our system of pleading, and a fourth, to the Courts of
Equity and the modes of procedure therein. Ilere,
then, were four great subjects, any one of which would
be quite enough for the House at a time; and not
only on that account, but for the sake of avoiding con-
fusion, did he desire that Honourable Gentlemen should
confine themselves, if possible, to one subject. Thus,
when his Hon. Friend should have sat, some Gentleman
would, of course, commence with one or other of these several
subjects. Whichever might happen then to be broached,
he would suggest that that should form the exclusive topic
of the evening--at least until it was disposed of. Thus, he
conceived, a vast deal of confusion would be avoided, and
facility and expedition obtained. Under the influence of
these considerations, he thought it his duty to snake the
present suggestion to the House. He thought it would not
only have the effect of shortening the debate, but also of
materially increasing the quantity of information likely to
be obtained by the House and the country.
The order of the Day for resuming the debate on Mr.
Brougham's motion—" That an humble Address be pre-
sented to his Majesty, praying that he will be pleased to
direct a Commission to be issued, to inquire into the de-
fects, occasioned by time and otherwise, in the Laws of the
Realm of England, and in the Courts of Common Law,
and into the remedies which may be expedient for the
same "—was then read, upon which
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL spoke as follows—l
shall without further preface, enter on the consideration—
first, of those parts of my Learned Friend's address, where-
in my opinion differs from his, and though I find it im-
possible to concur with him in much that he has advanced,
yet he will accept my sincere assurance that I am most de-
sirous that his motion should he att4nded with a success-
ful result. It is only right, before I proceed further, that
I should state to the House that I have had commuuications
on the subject of my Learned Friend's motion, with a
Noble Lord who presides over our highest judicial tribunal,
and with the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, and by them I am au-
thorised to state, that there exists no objection on the part
of his Majesty's Government, that a commission should
issue for an inquiry into the progress of all suits of law in
the superior Courts of Law at Westminster, from their
commencement to their termination. I am also authorised
to state, that there likewise exists no objection to the ap-
pointment of a similar Commission for the purpose of in-
stituting an inquiry into the state of the laws affecting real
property. It requires little consideration to perceive, that
the individuals composing those Commissions should not
be the same ; for those who have devoted their lives to the
study and practice of the common law, are necessarily un-
acquainted with the laws affecting real property, and the
mode of preserving and transmitting the same. For this
reason then, it is presumed that different persons for the
two separate Commissions ought to be named—(Hear,
hear. )_Haring stated these circumstances merely as mat-
ters of information. I shall proceed to set the House right
on some of the various points so very ingeniously put by
my Learned Friend. Throughout his very long and power-
ful address, we find him assuming that the laws of this
country are now as they were in ages long past, and that for
a series of centuries no material change had been made in them.
I run exceedingly surprised to find my Hon. and Learned
Friend proceeding as if not one of these volumes (the. Solici-
tor-General laid his hand on the volumes on the table) were
in existence—as if we went on year after year without making
the slightest alteration in our legal system ; whereas the
fact is notorious, that year after year-, and Session after
Session, the voluminous records of this House evince the
increase of our legislation. With great humour, and in-
finite wit, he indulged himself at the expense of our ancient
form of writ, as if there were not always attached to such
writ a short printed farm explanatory of the whole. To
have ridiculed these writs was an occupation so much
within the range of inferior intellect, that I regretted, to
see my Learned Friend wasting his powers upon it. My
Hon. and Learned Friend gave a promise, that he would
abstain from any observations on the subject of real pro-
perty. In what manner he adhered to that declaration I
leave those to judge who heard and recollect his address.
That too, became the object of his most unsparing ridicule
—upon that also his humour and his wit were exercised
without mercy. I shall not follow him through the whole
of his observations on this part of his subject--I shall only
trouble the House with one or two remarks. The first of
these shall relate to the subject of fines and recoveries. I
do hope, that whatever change may appear necessary in the
forms of it, the substance and principle of that part of our
law may be allowed to remain unaltered. In saying this
the House will not understand me as pronouncing an un-
qualified approval of strict entails, the law being that no
entail can be made so strict as not to be broken at the end of
21 years. It is well known to all who hear me, that a
father and son, by their mutual concurrence, can dispose of
an estate in any manner they may deem expedient. And
though apparently the system may be complex, it is never-
theless found very easy in its operation. But surely no one
would desire to see a power rested in a son of disposing of
an entailed estate during his father's lifetime. It is quite
sufficient for all the useful purposes of society, that when
he comes of age ire may, by and with the consent of his
I
father, obtain for both of themjointly, absolute power
over the estate, for the purpose of settling it anew or other-
wise disposing of it. My. Learned Friend next adverted
to the nature of copyhold tenure, and though I beg to
dissent from most of the positions laid down by him, yet I
trust I shall be excused from entering into any detailed
reply. When on another branch of his subject, he com-
plained loudly of the differences which prevailed between
some districts of this country and others, in regard to the
descent of real property, and seemed to think that our
legal system had thus assimilated itself to the old law of
France, where a man passing from one province tqenother
found his person and his .property subjected to legal systems,
not only at variance with each other, but in very many
cases diametrically opposite. The differences between the
several districts of England are infinitely less, and the in-
conveniences arising from those differences proportionably.

insignificant. If in one district of England one system
prevails, and in another a different system, what inconve-
nience can thenCe arise? Every man knows in what
manor he was born, and in what manor his property is
situated, and can accommodate himself to whatever cir-
cumstances he may have been placed in. Thute. for in-
stance, in the tenure " Borough English," the eldest son
takes—
Mr. BROUGHAM—The younger son. '
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I should have said the
younger son. • This is always known before-hand 'by the
parties, and it is well understood and as easily acted on as
the law of primogeniture. When the object is merely some
definitive settlement of the estate, it matters very little
whether the eldest or the youngest son takes. There is
nothing in the abstract to recommend primogeniture; the
one system is as good as the other; there is nothing con-
trary to common sense in either. I see no reason tor esta-
blishing an universal system, which would be attended at
least with the inconvenience of change, without substitut-
ing, where the alteration is made, a practice at all supe-
rior to that whose place it is to take. I therefore see no
reason for making any change in this branch of our legal
system. -Of the Court of Chancery I shall say at
present nothing, but proceed to some other parts of
my Honourable and Learned Friend's address. The
next subject to which I shall wish to direct the atten-
tion of the House is that of the Courts of Civil Law, and
I am persuaded that most Honourable Members will, upon
reflection, concur with me that it is highly expedient that,
inasmuch as the civil law is eubordinate to the common
law, some who have practised the latter should be blended
with the professors of the former in the appointments to
judicial situations in these Courts, and that it is infinitely
better that persons, whose habits of life embrace a wider
range, should participate in the administration of justice in
those Courts, than that the younger Doctors should be
elevated to the Bench. Of this at least lam assured,
that those in whom these appointments are vested have
ever exercised them with a view to placing in those
Courts Judges whose habits eminently qualified them for
the discharge of the functions of their office, and accord-
ingly they have never failed to carry with them on their
elevation to the Bench the suffrages of the profession,
and on no occasion have these been more warm and univer-
sal than on the recent appointments in the Consistory Court.
This observation answers the objection made by my
Learned and Honourable Friend, as well to the Courts
of Civil Law as to the Courts of Common Law; for I think
I may assert, without incurring the slightest hazard of con-
tradiction, that the judicial appointments in the one class of
Courts are considered on precisely the same principles as
those in the other. And that, notwithstanding all my
Hon. and Learned Friend has said, or may say to the
contrary, those appointments are made without the slightest
reference to political feeling or connection.—(Hear, hear,
hear. )—The question never has been, at least for a very
long period indeed, what are a man's politics, but whether
or not he is qualified to fill the situation. And that quali-
fication is generally ascertained by reference to those alone,
who are competent to judge the members of the profession.
If I may be permitted again to recur to the department of
Civil Law, I would say, as respects the Court of Delegates,
that it does admit of improvement. I shall not now enter
into any minute investigation of the constitution of that
Court, or the mode in which its proceedings act; but I do
concur with my Honourable and Learned Friend, that it is
by no means perfect. My Hon. and Learned Friend, after
passing from these subjects, took a sudden flight to Courts
in India, whither it is satisfactory for me to think that 1
need not follow him. This much, however, I may be permit-
ted to say, that I should be extremely sorry, indeed, if any
observation of mine could have the effect of retaining for a
single moment, the introduction into India of the Trial by
Jury. Indeed, my Learned Friend himself supplied me
with an instance infinitely more powerful against his views
than any which I could produce. It was that of a murder
case, in which eleven of the Jury were disposed to convict,
and only one contended for acquittal. That one happened to
be a young Brahmin, of clear understanding, great quickness,
skill, and remarkable ability in disputation. By the mere
force of his reasoning, the remaining eleven were brought
' over to his opinion—of that opinion time fully proved the
justice. Then we have only one man in twelve fit to be a
Juror ; the remaining eleven must be held as represent-
ing a fair average sample of the population of the country.
I am extremely sorry thus to press upon the attention of
the House any considerations adverse to a system so justly
valued in this country. But in proportion as its use may
be valuable here, its abuse may be obnoxious elsewhere.
The next of my Learned Friend's objections to which I
shall advert is, the complaint he makes against the tribunal
for the hearing of Colonial Appeals, which the Privy Council
constitutes. I should be extremely sorry to press my own
opinion on this subject with undue confidence, but I
think if there he one point more than another in which my
Learned Friend has fallen into error, it is his complaint
against that tribunal. In what respect, I would gladly
learn, is it imperfect as a tribunal? It is composed of
persons, generally speaking, possessed of those habits of
life which would qualify then' to decide the questions sub-
mitted to their consideration in a manner quite as advan-
tageous and satisfactory as any other tribunal with which
lam acquainted. A Judge of the Court of Chancery,
too, is generally, I might say, uniformly present on those
occasions. If it be not the duty of the Master of the
Rolls always to be present, it has at least become a prac-
tice so rarely departed from, that the Privy Council is
not considered as completely formed without the advan-
tage of his presence. Besides, Sir, the subjects brought
under the consideration of the Privy Council are not
then broached fur the first time ; they have been pre-
viously discussed--the whole cases, including those dis-
cussions, are printed—a copy is lodged with the Judge,
and one with each of the Privy Councillors. They have
then this previous advantage before they come to the con-
sideration of the case, and when they sit to hear the
appeal, they have the assistance of Counsel, eminent in
their profession, and, more too, they generally avail them-
selves of the aid of such persons, being Members of the
Privy Council, as have had judicial experience in the Cobo-
-1 flies whence the appeal may have come. Thus, for instance,
if an appeal came from the East Indies, they send for the
retired East India Judges, being Privy Councillors, and
they enjoy the advantage of their assistance, and that of
the Master of the Rolls, and so, similarly, in appeals from
the other Colonies. It has been alleged that time Counsel
by whom eases of this kind are generally argued, have had
no peculiar experience in Colonial lew. But I really am
unable to discover how this evil can be remedied. The
business before the Privy Council is altogether insufficient
to raise an exclusive bar. 1 hus, I am so far from thinking
that this tribunal is by any means so imperfect as has
been represented, ,_;e that such imperfections as do affect it
admit of remedy The next subject to which, in the
course of his address, he alluded, was the Justices of the
peace is the country, than whom there does not exist a
more meritorious class of men. They are four thousand in
number, exclusive of those belonging to cities and towns
corporate. And it is by them, as I have said, that the do-
mestic administration of the country, time disputes between
man and man throughout the year, are decided. I would
entreat any who lightly values the duties which those indi-
viduals have to discharge I would entreat such a person to
look into the five volumes of Burn's Justice; he will there

sec some indications of the vast mass of business which

country justices have to discharge. When, also, we con-
sider the number and variety of cases that they are called
on to decide, it will appear no wonder that so many cases
are brought before the King's Bench, but the marvel will
be that there are so few.

Mr. BROUGHAM—It is hardly possible to bring cases
of complaints against Magistrates before the Court of King's
Bench, and the extreme difficulty of bringing them forward
renders them proportionably rare.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I deny the difficulty
in making applications in the cases referred to, and I con-
tend, that as most of them that are made are confined to
ex-parte statements, in their commencements at least, they
are calculated to create in the public mind a most imfa-
vourable impression as respects the magistracy of the coun-
try. The complaints of my lion. Friend have been long
and loud in regard to the power possessed by Magistrates
in licensing alehouses. Now, sure I am, that the Magis-
trates would he very much gratified indeed in being per-
mitted to relinquish that power.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps
the most simple and convenient alteration would he, to
vest it in the Court of Quarter Sessions. Then, Sir, as
to the appointment of Magistrates, I really cannot compre-
hend the force of the objections made to their being ap-
pointed by the Lords Lieutenants of counties. Who
could be more fit—who better qualifier) by local knOwledge
and by personal acquaintance with the Gentlemen of the
County ? It must either be vested in him or in some
other known officer of the Government. If the Judges,

who go follitlanacaresr ..eile-npfitairtied to such a
they' must derive their information from third persons,
having local and personal knowledge—if the Secretary of
State' for the Home Department, he too must derive his
information from third persons. Now, is it not infinitely
butter to rest those appointments in persons who, by their
own personal knowledge, ate qualified at once to make
them? But my Learned Friend is ektes.ai-aaly fastidious
on this subject, he will not, forsooth allow Clergy Men, to
exercise the functions of the Magistracy—their views are
not sufficiently large and liberal for him—they are not
worldly enough. Neither would he have Esquires, for
they are boo worldly. Now I would gladly team what
Class of persons be would s Acct. The fact is, Sir, that if
' lie gets rid of these two classes, he disposes at one fell
swoop of every man lit to hold the office of Magistrate.
But perhaps he would like a paid Magistracy—perhaps
he would prefer 500 stipendiaries. I do not think
that a Bill introduced into this House for the purposes
-of such an appointment would pass very quietly. When
Cromwell represented—not the University, but the town of
Camhridge, in this House—he is reporte:l to have said in re-
lation to some meditated changes in the affairs of the State,
that " what lie did not like he could tell, but what he
would have instead thereof he could not tell." (Hear, and
a laugh.) Thus my Learned Friend appears less diffident
of suggesting what is displeasing to him in the principles
and operation of the law, than he is ready at proposing
improvements. (Hear.) I cannot agree with my Learned
Friend in the observations he appears to have thought it
necessary to make in regard to the mode of conducting
cases on the part of the Crown. I am prepared to contend
that in suits instituted by the Crown, the prerogative on
which nay Learned Friend looks with so much disfavour, is
not exercised against the interest of the people, as lie ap-
pears to supposar, but is generally, I might almost say in-
variably, employed in their favour. By the earnestness of
this assertion I am ready to stand or fall—by its correctness
I inn content my whole case shall be determined. The first
point of which my Learned Friend complains iu the exer-
cise of the prerogative of the Crown, is the proceeding un-
der a petition of right. He complains that the Attorney--
General, the responsible officer of the Crown, is em-
powered to refuse to grant a petition of right when called
upon to do so, notwithstanding a proper case has been
made out for granting it. My Learned Friend, in refer-
ence to this topic, has cited the case of Sir Anthony Brown,
who was Master of the Horse to Henry the Eighth, by
whom a considerable estate was granted to him and the
heirs male of his body.
Mr. BROUGHAM--I mentioned na names in citing
the case-I cautiously abstained front doing so, lest I
should prejudice any existing right.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—WeII, I shall follow
the example of my Learned Friend, and, omitting all men-
tion of names, state the case in general terms. An estate
was granted by the Crown in the reign of Henry VIII. to
an individual and his heirs male ; the heirs male failing,
the estate reverted to the Crown, as a matter of course.
What slid the Crown do ? That which it always had done
when land has become escheated to it. It gave it to the
next claimant. So liberal is the Crown in this respect,
that when property has become forfeited through failure
of legitimate heirs, nothing is more common than to give
it to the illegitimate children of the late possessor. But,
to return to the case in question—ln 1797, the property
granted in the way described fell to the Crown through
the failure of heirs male ; however, it seems there was a
daughter, and though it was impossible she should claim
as an heir male, the Crown made a lease of the forfeited
lands to her and her husband, under the Statute of Anne.
The property remains in her possession or that of her
descendants; but in 1815 up starts a person, who says
he has a right to claim through the heirs male of the ori-
ginal grantee. Now, supposing him to possess a well-
founded claim to the property, it is only for him to
proceed by ejectment, in order to turn out the pre-
sent possessor ; but no, says the Learned Gentleman,
who was Counsel for the claimant--" We will not
avail ourselves of this mode of proceeding we
will lay a case before the Attorney-General, and claim
the benefit of a writ of right." The party pursued
this course, but the Attorney-General, perceiving that the
claimant had another remedy, decided that it was not a
case for the interposition of the authority vested in him by
the Crown. If the party had a good title—and my I.earn-
ed Friend asserts there never was a better—then it was
extremely imprudent on his part to stand upon punctilio,
and because a petition of right was refused, to decline pro-
ceeding by the ordinary mode of ejectment. I say that
the Attorney-General of the day was perfectly right in
the determination he came to, for if he had interfered he
would have been liable to a charge of wasting the public
money. My Learned Friend next objects that the Crown,
on demurrer, is not hound in the same manner as a sub-
ject; and that this is a hardship on the suitor. Now, this
observation is at variance with another observation made
by my Learned Friend, when he claims a;free right to de-
mur for the suitor. I come now to " trial at bar," and
my Learned Friend's complaint is--that the Crown can
demand a trial at bar as a matter of right, whereas a sub-
ject has no right to demand it. I admit that this is the
case, but I also add, that whenever a subject can make
out a case for a trial at bar, it is not refused. There is a
late case of trial at bar, in which no one can say that the
Attorney-General acted wrong in using his privilege.--
I now come to the case of withdrawing the record.
My Learned Friend will see that there is no disparity
between the Crown and the subject in this particular.
I do not know whether it may be necessary to explain to the
house the meaning of the term " Nonsuit." 1 hope
the Honourable Gentleman has had experience of it.—
(A laugh.) In consenting to a nonsuit, the suitor is sup-
posed to withdraw himself from the Court, and not ap-
pearing when called on, the proceeding which he may
have instituted falls to the ground. But the King is sup-
posed to be never absent from what is in fact his own
Court—he is always there by his legal representatives--
and, consequently, cannot withdraw from it. Withdraw-
ing the record, then; on the part of the Crown, is equiva-
lent to consenting to a nonsuit on that of a subject. By
the one mode the subject can have a new trial—by the
other, the King possesses the same advantage. On the
subject of costs, I admit that, in point of law, as my
Learned Friend has stated, the King neither pays nor re-
ceives costs, and this, I contend, is purely and entirely a mat-
ter of fiscal regulation. The only question is, shall thepublic
purse bear the expense—shall the public pay, or receive
costs ?—for it is invidious to put it in the name of the
King. Of this I am sure, that there is no part of its pre-
rogative which the Crown can be less anxious to maintain
than this. The Learned Gentleman next complains of
the power which the Crown has to refuse praying a tales.
tinder this head he branched out into a variety of matter
through the whole of which I shall not attempt to follow
hiin, but I rely upon the patience of the house, while I
enter into a few of the details connected with the subject.
First, then, for the general principle, before I attempt to apply
it to the case to which my Learned Friend has alluded. We all
know that public prosecutions are the prosecutions of the
Crown, and that the Crown retains over them a certain power
to the last. If a party has been unjustly accused, and the pub-
lic prosecutor be convinced of the fact, a nolle prosequi may
be entered; and, if a verdict has unjustly passed against
an individual, the Crown may grant him a pardon. These
are some of the brightest prerogatives of the Crown. Now,
Sir, as to the prior stage of proceedings—take the case of
a smuggler who is to be tried for carrying on sin illicit
traffic. The Crown may demand a special jury. What
is the object of this? To obtain men, as jurors, of greater
independence, more weight in society, and greater intelli-
gence, than ordinary jurors—to get persons who, from their
rank and situation in life, may be less liable to be misled
by popular clamour, and more likely to pronounce a just
verdict. The laws allow this course to be adopted, not only
by the Crown, but by the subject. Suppose the day Of
trial to have arrived, and that it is a rainy day, and that,
in consequence of that accidental circumstance, eleven
special jurors only are in attendance—is that a reason why
the case should be hurried on to trial ? Certainly not—
and a power is accordingly vested in the bands of the At-
torney-General to prevent the ease from proceeding in the
absence of the proper number of special jurors. Now,
Sir, let us put the case of a defendant—he is to be tried
by a special jury—suppose the Crown Lauver to have
ascertained that the prosecution is an „Ottawa: One, and
that if further time be afforded, a corfiplete defence can
lie established, the consequence of which may he a dif-
ferent verdict from what is likely to be pronounced
if the trial is pressed-4 ask, under such circum-
stances, is it not a sound exercise of discretion in
the Attorney-General to refuse to press the prosecu-
tion? Is not- the exercise of this prerogative bene-
ficial to the subject? Sir, you cannot make a body of
lan's so perfect that they will, in all cases, proceed equably,

~./.....11.•..,-,-":.,:77.,,.-...5.:1::t,,:, .
.:
~..,..
~, ..:„..,
.
~..
.;__.., 1„.„,•..?
without into; , -teen •,V hs ranetr-iyoeAsetot ha.' a a
system of laws •hat sh-affii4 with; the. eietisidia aid effect
Of a ,eteatn-engini—allelde.; Otik ''llelovittp'togethers--ea.i.h
without interruption tie oli.in. - - This I willingle-
admit ; • the . defect is :inOparable, from the existing state
and constitution of the country. I now come to tie parti
cular case in qitestion, alluded to by my Hon. au.l Learned
Friend. He designated it a ease of great injustice, and
endeavoured to throw the blame of the transaction- upon
the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by the Law Officers
of the Crown, who, on the occasion in question, refused to
pray a tales. The ease cited by my Learned Friend is thatt
' of a petson named Mead, who, with four (Alleles,- wasprose-
euted in the Coat of
,EXchequer, for having been engage 4
in
aka smuggling.Bßotj GtruanAsal\cit.ion.
action li'as, leaw.
The :SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I beg pardon; the
witness's name 'Was ]lead, and the defendant's name (as me,
Learned Friend says) was Law. But to proceed—Lam:
and his four co-defendants, who were Yorkshire farmee:,
were tried in the Eechelti; there were two pee-
-The defensixtlteaat:in,a,ttue'sssiaden,aief,eantaeppo,;..
secutisens; under. the first, Eaw was found guilty, tee'
undet the second, the other defendants escaPed. One o!
the witneeso against Law and the others was a person at
the name of Mead. After the case bad been deter:nil-0
in the ExChequer, . piocetedings 'sere instituted in tlee
King's Bench against the witnesses Who gave evidence on
the part of the Crown on the former trial. Mead anti se-
venteen other individuals who gave their testitnisey oil that •
occasion were indicted for perjury; so' that, in all, eabe.t,
indictments were preferred, The cases were' brought en
i" the Cann of King's Bench fur trial. The indietmet.r
first set down was proceeded with, end wader it Mead Was
convicted. The second indictment was called on for trial,
and then arose the exercise,: of that privilege of which the
Learned Gentleman complains. 1, Sir, am quite ready,
for - one, to defend the principle on Which the Attorney
General of that day acted in this particular instance. tr,
refused to pray a tales, because he was satisfied that all the
parties included in the indictments had been taken fe7 on;
prise—that a fresh and unexpected case was Illa:;!.' by
,ii(.againstt
already:
pronounced tii at if t imei n
t, s weret
be
the power of the defendants clearly to di.sp'icoietvisetsavtiozhjultd.o.tc-ebti,lti.ii!:
lions made against them—and that 6
tion were made. The then Attorney-General exercised a.
-otind discretion,. when he refused to allow the seventeen
other defendants to he put upon their trials, and sacriiiete;
to the fury of popular clamour. Under these circum-
stances the Attorney-General refused to fiat a tales-,
.the trials on the seventeen indictments, go off—the Cour:
meets, and the verdict pronounced against Mcad is sat asidt
on payment of costs. And what costs ? Not, the Horse mil
observe, the ordinary costs as between party and part;'; hie
large and liberal costs. 1 now hold in my hand, and ..a.e.
Learned Gentleman is at liberty to inspect it, the
,note
handed up to the officer of the Court by the Learned Ser-
geant who was engaged in the cause, asking for large
costs, which are offered, provided the parties are willing
to go before the Master. My Learned Friend talks bi
10,0001. having been lost, and the Watt (Law) having
been ruined by the proceedings. To this leanswer, that
every witness in the first case would also have been a tares,
mess in the second—and when the party received Isis firet
costs largely and liberally taxed, he had, under all tfie‘&--
eumstances of the case, but little right to complain. 'AP.
bill of costs, in the first instance, amounted to upwards Ts•
2,000/.—it was reduced, on taxation by the Master, to
350/. Subsequently, on fuggier investigation before the
Master, 250/. was added to that amount, makitrz a total
of 6001., and the parties, who were at liberty to return if
they had been dissatisfied, never came back. Under ad thy
circumstances, then, so far from pronouncing this a ease
of cruelty and oppression on the part of the Crown, I hase
no hesitation in declaring, that, the Attorney-General of
the day exercised a sound discretion in protecting the wit-
nesses, and refusing to sacrifice these I'7 men to popular
indignation and a scandalous conspiracy. My Learned
Friend went on to state, that after the conviction of Tileade
a song or some sort of verses were composed on Ile
subject—this • song was sung—a collision took pia be-
tween the parties—when Mead fired a shot at Law, the
prosecutor in the trial for perjury, and killed him iiii the
It was added, that the unfortunate man in this
• manner was deprived of his life as well as his property.
if this statement had been correct, there could be no doubt
that a case of more gross and unprovoked murder could
scarcely suggest itself to the mind of any man. But the
feet is, my Learned friend's history of the transaction is
inaccurate in several particulars. The song was not the
sole nor the principal cause of the affray. 'The men were
of a humble class of life, and lived in a small village, in
the close vicinity of Scarborough. -.'}Mead and his fellow
witnesses had been treated with great and Unprovoked via,
knee ial indignity, by Law anti his friends. On the
day bee the death of Law, a mob of persons, acting is
concert with Lim, laid hold of one of the witnesses,- beat
hiM violently, ill-treated hint in various ways, atiel
threatened to drown him in the sea. Having ill-used thie
man in this shameful manner they let him go, telling
him to go back to his partner, Mead, and say to him
that they would serve him in the same way. At the hour
of two o'clock of the night following they went to Meath;
house, around which they assembled in a riotous and
violent manner: At this time Law was riding close to the!
curb-stone ; it was dark—so dark, that one colour could,
not be distinguished from another; great claret was
excited in the mind of Mead, who apprehended that
the parties had come for the purpose of carrying then
threat into execution, and wreakilig their vengeance
upon hint. tinder these circumstances, it was that e
shot was fired by Mead, which killed Lass, ; awl this is
the entire case. Shortly afterwards Mend was tried fee'
murder, and the Learned Judge (Holroyd), before whom
he was arraigned—and titan whom a more upright,
learned, and humane Judge had seldom sat upon tied
bench—said, when addressing the insrrle,tilisii.looeepnneseii:i.o,ntiloaft,
violence
being at his case, the Jury had been of opinion that a reasonable
doubt existed in regard to its nature—a doubt establiehed.
whole,o' e —."
then,tl t it tae.
prisoneribey
i ntghedi ri r
elverdict,c.tedd aage
against
ituchhnidssevpraesitslaos en7a tpcYp)
not too much to say that the case was one of very strong
provocation,—quite sufficient to convert the accteatien of
murder into the snore mitigated crime of manslaughter.--e-
Sir, I have nosy stated the principal topics on which any con-
siderable disagreement, if I may use the terns, subsists be-
tween me and my Learned Friend. The disagreement
is not a wide one, and the cases out of which it arises are
cases on which men may reasonably be allowed to hold dif-
ferent opinions. I wish to state my views generally of the
greater part of what remains of my Learned Friecd's
suggestions—and he will permit rue to add, that I shall
feel extrensely happy to avail myself as far as possible of his
extremely valuable hints—and in many of which I can
assure him we go hand in hand together. One word, Sir,
on the general principle of my Learned Friend—" That
we should cheapen the law as much as pessible." Ido
not object to that advice iu the abstract—and I admit that
it is extremely desirable to cut offevery thing unnecessarily
connected with the administration of our laws; hut i
would caution the Learned Gentleman and the House
against the disappointment that must inevitably ensue if we
expect too much ft om the labours of the proposed Commis-
sion, or indeed • from any commission, in a case like the
present. It is impossible legal business should be carried on
without a considerable proportion of expense. I admit,
Sir, it is extremely - probable that the law may lie made
much more accessible than it is at present; but if we
choose to administer the law in that respectable and reveled
manner hitherto practised at the expense of the Adminis 7
tration it cannot be brought downbelow a certain standard.
us to have law so cheap here as
I mean by the expression—the revered manna. in \Aid,.
our laws have been hitherto administered—the system of
~..„:.n'ar°:ini-lovsninctd,3l:inrriaaoeibdi disetnti tall cost to the
distributing justice through the intervention of the Judges
on the Bench in every part of the country. While this
to see departed froni,ispuesued,
rtit is in France, where many matters that came before out
rsawcti
IT e ,bwe- hi !nail)
olssnile,sl'eerfolriope
higher tribunals are decided by Justices of the Peace,
their
e distancetiiremtai
luitiloteeanfaop;rticular point in each county
(Juges de Fria)• One consequence of the mode of dis-
pensing justice adopted in this country is, that it becomes
necessary to bring witnesses and attornies perhaps from a
where the Assizes are held : in this place they have to be
tenderingciearatnieds theirwbos t:m d
in
travelling
eesxi,pleeilliccees hoes!
need of
their testimony. As long as this shall continue to be the
case, and I sincerely hope the system may never uudergo
alteration, the expences of the law must be very consider-
able. I repeat, Sir, Ido sincerely hope we may alwae a
have legal decisions given from the Bench of Judges going
the Circuits, iu every part of this country, as has been
hitherto the practice. Some reductions may be made in
the amount of legal expences : but the great hurtheil that
must still continue to be borne its the couutry—the
burthen imposed by the carriage and maintenance of
witnesses, and the expences of going to trial—cannot
he removed. So much on the head of expellee. To
came to another point included in the speech of my
lion. and Learned Friend—the comp:heated and intri-
cate nature of the law--1 confess it appears to me to 11;
quite impossible that in a country like England, possessing
slush a diversity of conflicting interests and relations, the
Loy should not be, to a considerable degree, intricate and
complicated. A simple state of law may be adapted to a simple
state of society; but in a country such as this, where the
state of society is so far front being eimple, it is impossible