The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from certain persons
styling themselves Governors and Guardians-of the Poor in.the
parish of St. Mary, Newington, praying that the Newington
Select Vestry Bill might not be allowed to, pass into a law.—
Laid on the table.

Mr. MAXWELL presented a Petitionfroni the Commis-
sioners of Supply, in the county of Renfrev#4,N. B. against the
Jury Courts Bill.—Laid on the table.
Lord A. HAMILTON presented a Petition from the-Burr
gesses, Merchants, &c. of the Royal Burgh of Perth, prayinm
that they might be allowed to elect their Dean of Guild.—Lain
on the table.

Sir E. HARVEY presented Petitions from certain parishes
in Essex against the 3letropolitan Road Bill.—Laid on the
table.

Sir W. CURTIS presented several similar Petitions from
the inhabitants of Hampstead, Camden-town, and, other places
in the vicinity of the Metropolis.—Laid on the table.
Sir R. WILSON presented Petitions from Edward Jones,
and the inhabitants of St. John's, Southwark, against the New-
inon Vestry Bill.—Laid on the table.
Lord A. HAMILTON presented a Petition from the town
of Inverness, praying for a remedy to certain abuses existing
in the Police regulations of that town.
After a few words from Mr. MAcxExzzE, Mr. J. P.
GRANT, and the LORD ADVOCATE, the petition was ordered
to be printed.

SCOTCH JURIES.

Mr. MACKENZIE presented a Petition from the Gentry,
Clergy,' Freeholders, and Justices of the Peace of Ross-shire,
assembled in County Meeting, against the Scotch Jury
Sir R. FERGUSON said he was convinced that the free-
holders of Scotland had received a hint from head-quarters
which induced them to come 'forward op the present occasion
against the measure, withouthaving canvassed the matter at all.
Mr.- MACKENZIE defended the parties to the Petition,
from the imputation of the Hon. Member.
Lord A. HAMILTON supported the sentiments of his Gal-
lant Friend (Sir R. Ferguson) and stated as a proof that the.
Learned Lord opposite (the Lord Advocate), had sent a circu-
lar letter to all'the Scotch Counties in disapprobation of the Bill
in question. The Noble Lord then read the letter to which he
alluded, which stated the inconveniencies likely to be attendant
on the Bill, but declined any wish to exercise undue influence
over the minds of the Scotch Gentlemen.
The LORD ADVOCATE maintained that he had done no-
thing but gave a fair statement on the subject of the Bill, in
the letter he had thought it his duty to send, with a copy of the
Bill itself, to the Sheriffs of the Counties. He had never made
any secret of his objection to this Bill,. having declared it from
the beginning, and having stipulated with the Hon. Member
who brought it in, that he should not bring on the second read-
ing till after the 13th of April, when the County Gentlemen of
Scotland would have had an opportunity of expressing their
sentiments. It was his opinion that this Bill would affect the
interests of the Scotch people, and he was bound to call their
attention to the subject.
Lord A. HAM UTON explained.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said it waaa joke to say, after hear-
ing thatletter read, that the Learned Lord had not exerted all
the influence hig office gave him to defeat the Scotch Jury Bill.
These Petitions were the Petitions of the Lord Advocate ; for
no despotic Prince could issue a more absolute fiat, than the
Lord Advocate's sentiment issued in this shape. The Honour-
able Member stated his intention in the absence-of his Honour-
able Friend to postpone the consideration of the .13il1 till next
Sessions.
Mr. W. DUNDAS defended the conduct of his Noble Friend
(the Lord Advocate) and declared- his conviction, that when the
nature of the law came to be known, all the independent Gen-
tlemen of Scotland would be opposed to it.
Mr. J. P. GRANT could not agree with-the Right Honour-
able Gentleman who had just s3l;en in thinking that there
would be any great opposition to the Bill. , The more it became
known the better it would be thought of.—The Petition was
then read and ordered to lie on the table.
NEWINGTON VESTRY BILL.
Mr. HOLME SUMNER moved the Order of the Day for
the adjourned debate on the Newington Vestry Bill.
Mr. BANKES rose _and moved, as an amendment to the
motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Sumner) for discharging the
Committee from proceeding further, that the Committee should
be revived.
Mr. H. SUMNER observed, that he had on a former even-
ing suggested the course which he had thought it most Proper
for the House to purSue • with respect to the present subject.
He believed there was no precedent for the revival of a Com-
mittee a third time. If Hon. Members on the other side would
consent to go freely into the investigation, he would cheerfully
•agree to the amendment proposed by his Hon. Friend, and he
hoped his Hon. Colleague would say so in his place.
Mr. DENISON said 'lie had no objection to go back to the
Committee, and felt obliged to the lion. Member(lllr.Bankes)•
for his conciliatory proposition. The wish of Gentlemen on his
side was, he could assure the House, to have the question fairly
discussed, and he, considered that where the mistal..e was made ,