The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-31 00:00:00

Lard CLAUDE HAMILTON presented petitions
from some Wesleyan congregations in Tyrone to 'the
same effect.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from a
Wesleyan congregation in Cheshire to the same effect
also a petition from the board of guardians of some
union in Cheshire against the bastardy clauses of the
new Poor-law Act.

Mr. NEVILLE presented a petition from Windsor,
against the. Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Baptists
of Lowestoff, against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill.
MANCHESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY BILL.
- The Manchester Royal Infirmary Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed his motion, which
stood for Tuesday next, till Tuesday, the 25th of June.
BANK CHARTER.
Mr. HAWES gave notice that, on the second reading
of the Bank Charter Bill, he should move that no suffi-
cient evidence bad been given to justify the House in
interfering with banks of issue.
Sir WILLIAM CLAY gave notice that on the Bank
Charter Bill being read, he should move to omit
clause 5, and other clauses which directed the substitu-
-titirrof Bank-of England notes for country notes.
BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.
Mr. W. O. STANLEY gave notice, that on the 22d of
June he should move for a Select Committee on the Gth
.and 7th William IV., chap. 27, with a view to repeal so
Much of the Bill as related to the union of the sees of
Bangor and St. Asaph.
Mr. HUME gave notice that, on the 25th of June, he
should move for returns with respect to the Royal
Academy. ,

DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. CFIRISTIE postponed his motion with respect to
the Danish Claims from Tuesday next to Tuesday the
,18th of June.
COURTS MARTIAL (EAST INDIA) BILL. 1
On the motion of Dr. NICHOLL the report on the
Courts-martial (East India) Bill was brought up and
received.

CASE OF J. 'IL R. CHICHESTER.
Mr. JERYIS said he rose to bring forward the mo-
tion of which he had given notice, " That this HoUse
will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee:to
consider of the following address to her Majesty, that !is
to say, that an humble address be presented to her Ma-
jesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased
to take into consideration the claim made by. John-
Hopton Russell Chichester, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn,
as,_ sole executor of Robert _William Powell,
an uncompensated American loyalist, deceased, and that
her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to
such claimant the amount of the balance due to the
estate of the said Robert William Powell, for losses in-
curred in consequence of his adherence to his allegiance,
as ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for
that purpose, and to assure her Majesty that
the House will make good the same." He had
hoped that it would not be necessary for him to
make any lengthened observations to the House, but as
he understood that those who were interested in matters
of this kind thought that a sufficient case had not been
made out to warrant an acquiescence in the motion, he
would proceed to satisfy the House that the gentleman for
whom he appeared had a good case. It involved no political
question. Mr. Powell, the grandfather of the gent -
man whose case he advocated, was a man of considerable
property and influence before the breaking out of the
American war, and he had embarked forty thousand
pounds in mercantile speculations. At that time
it was of importance to secure the good feeling
of those who were inclined to British connexion.
In several of the speeches from the throne com.pensa-
tion was promised to those who might sustain injury in
consequence of their allegiance to the Crown. Mr.
Powell was one of those who remained faithful ; he
raised a regiment of militia, and as colonel of it, ren-
dered the greatest services to the Crown. Of the
whole claim that he had to compensation he only
was enabled to establish a claim to 19,0001. ; in
1823; -he -out- of- that amount, received 10,1751
A large portion of the money belonging
_to the lcey alists
had been expended in royal excursions to Hanover, to
Dublin, and to Edinburgh, leaving ,only a balance of
1,000/. for the despoiled loyalists, -.The principle was
recognised by several votes of the House of Commons ir
1766, and in the following year, that the colonists who.
suffered, by their. allegiance should be indemnified.
In 1775 Lord Cornwallis issued, a proclamation assur-
ing the loyalists that they should be indemnified.
In the House of Lords the Earl of Carlisle had pro-
tested against the abandonment of those deserving men
to their enemies ; and the Government of that day had
admitted that it would be base in the extreme to aban-
don the. American loyalists. At the expense of one
year's campaign, these loyulists could have been
restored to happiness and prosperity ; and yet they
had been abandoned. Surely those who had .sacrificed
their property in the service of their country were en-
titled to compensation. The article in the treaty re-
specting the American loyalists had been designated
by. Lord Mulgrave _as a national disgrace. The House
should blush for shame if it did not make good
the solemn engagements entered into with these men.
Let them recollect that this was a matter which might
again occur. It might again become of importance .tb
retain men thus situated in their allegiance. Could the'
trust again to solemn engagements to hold them harm-
less ? No ; for in this instance they had not only the
promise of the Crown, but an Act of Parliament, and
the solemn engagement of the House to make good
to, the uttermost farthing every loss they bad sustained.
'lf they were prepared to violate the solemn engagements
they.had _entered into,_and, in -the teeth of them, refuse
those claims, they might depend upon it that, whenever
they made promises in future, they would be judged of
by their foriner actions, and the integrity of this country
would be questioned in every part of the world.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER having put the question, -
Sir GEORGE CLERK rose to oppose the motion.
In doing-so he was not at all disposed to underrate the
merits of the American loyalists during the American
war ; but it must be remembered, that those claims
arose some 60 or 70 years ago. He was surprised that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should have selected one
particular case to bring before the House. On the treaty
of peace, ample and full compensation had been given,
and it was stipulated that no impediment should- be
thrown in the way of any just claims. Certain Coins
missioners bad been appointed by Lord Grenville to ads
judicate upon the claims. Two of the Commissioners were
Americans and two were English, and. they had power, in
case of difference, to choose a fifth Commissioner. When
however, •cases were nearly ripe for decision, it was in-
variably found that the two American Commissioners
receded, and the result was, that it became imposiible tO
come to any decision. In 1802, Lord Liverpool put it
to the claimants whether they would have a renewed
Commission or accept a fixed sum ' in satisfaction of the
whole of their claims. After some consideration, the
whole of the claimants. acceded to the latter' alternative.
They agreed to accept a specified sum which was to be paid
by America in full of all demands-600;0002 was acs
cepted by this Government, and paid by the American
Government in full satisfaction of those claims. The
claimants felt dissatisfied with this sum, as being inad&-
quate to liquidate their just demands. A Commission
was however appointed • in the year 1804,
to adjudicate on, the claims, and to divide the 600,000/.
It was very remarkable that in the only stipulation
which was made by the parties in answer to the propos
sition, of Lord Liverpool, in 1802, 50 per cent. was re-
quired on the amount of -the claims. In 1811 the
Commission made its award and distributed the money. In
1812 some American claimants presented a petition to
that House, praying for further compensation. A Seg.
lect Committee was appointed in that year, who went
into a minute ineestigation of all the matters to
which the Honourable and Learned Member re-
ferred. A resolution was proposed in that House
declaring that these American claimants had made oat a
case for compensation, but that, motion was negatived
on the ground that the parties had elected to take the
alternative of making the best terms they could with the
American Government. Now, a year or two afterwards,
a certain class of claimants, of .whom Mr. Powell
was one, put in a. claim for further compensation,
stating that although the sum of 600,0001. had been
equally divided, yet there were a number of native
Americans who had not been engaged in commercial
speculations, and whose circumstances entitled them to
make a peculiar claim. That petition was brought un-
der the consideration of the House by Lord Devon, who proposed 'iv motion somewhat similar 'to that of thb Hon. Gentleman. On the division there were seventy-
seven for the motion, and seventy against it, Very

APPEAL IN CRIMINAL. CASES.
Mr. KELLY rose pursuant to notice to ask for leave
to bring in a Bill to provide an appeal in criminal
cases. It was almost incredible that while in
every case-of a civil character, no matter whether the
question involved a large or a small amount of
money, the law as it stood at present gave an
appeal. A person who felt himself aggrieved
either by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge,
could appeal from that verdict or that decision, and
carry the case even before the highest tribunal
of the land. But in a criminal case, which
must involve a questien of character, property, or
even life, there. was no appeal, according to the law of
England, against the verdict of the jury, however erro-
neous, or the decision of the judge, however mistaken.
In every country. in. Europe, and throughout every,
civilized country in the world, an appeal was given as
well in criminal cases.as in_civil, and the error of a jury
or a judge
.must be rectified by appeal ; but in this
country the state of the law was such, that no matter
howglaring and palpable might be the error into which
the jury might have been led, or however mistaken the
judge. might have been in point of law, there was no
remedy for the, party injured, though his liberty, his
character, his property, or even his life might be in
jeopardy. To remedy such a,. state of things he now
asked for leave to bring in a Bill—the guiding principle
of which .was that it endeavonred to assimilate as far as
was, practically possible the law and practice in criminal
cases, to the law and practice in civil cases. The Ho-
.nourable and• Learned Gentlemen then went on to show
what the practice was with regard to civil cases.
In all civil ,cases any pers.= who thought himself ag-
grieved, either by an error in the verdict of the jury or
-by an error in the statement of the law as made by the
judge, had an opportunity of appealing, first of all to a,
court composed..of four or five judges, next to a court
composed of double that number of judges, and ulti-
mately_ to--the House of LOrds. The consequence was
that, in the administration of the law in civil cases, any
errors which' were committed were remediable, were cor-
rected most frequently, and ultimately, justice was done.
The result was, that in all civil cases ,there was the ut-
most poefidence throtighout all classes of the com-
munity that justice was done in courts in civil cases. It
was, gluiest without an example that any attempt had
ever been made either in Parliament or by the press to
impeach the judgments of courts of law in civil cases,
because all were agreed that if a party acquiesced in
an unjust decision it was his own fault, because he pos-
sessed the power of appealing, if he chose to exercise it.
In criminal eases, however, the state of the law was
-directly the reverse, and it was inconceivable, looking at
the constant improvement which had taken place in our
laws, and to the anxiety which the. -Legislature had
manifested to amend the defects, it was inconceivable
that century after century such a state of things should
have been suffered to exist, when the remedy was so
plain, so easy, and so certain. In civil cases, in which
property alone was affected, an appeal was allowed, but
there was no appeal in criminal rases, in which life itself
was sometimes at stake.- He proposed to remedy this
evil ; but before he drew the attention of the House to
the remedy which he proposed, he must take the liberty
of observig that he did not believe that such a state of
the law would have been sufferedio exist if the Members
of either House of Parliament had been as liable to be
indicted for • crimes as all were to be -parties in civil
actions.—(Hear, hear.) It- happened that the criminal
law applied more frequently against the humbler classes
of society; but if the Members of the Legislature had
been as liable to have their characters, their liberties,
their property, and their lives placed in jeopardy by the
criminal law,.as their property, was in civil cases, he felt
assured that the .same _remedy would have been provided
in criminal cases that was at present provided in aihcivil
cases. It was impossible to conceive any state of the
law more opposed to the due administration of justice
than was the state of our criminal law. A man was in-
dicted—he Was tried, evidence was adduced, as in other
cases, on the one side and on the other. By a modern
improvement, which, strange to say, had been much op-
posed, counsel might now be heard for the defence in
criminal as well as in civil eases, which he acknowledged
was a great improvement ; the judge summed up the
case, and the jury returned their verdict. The verdict
was returned ; there was only 'one of three courses
which- could be taken, whatever doubts might exist as
to' the propriety of that verdict, or as to the correctness
of the learned judge in stating the case to the jury. After
a verdict of guilty was once pronounced against a pri-
soner, however convinced the counsel might be that
that verdict had been- procured by means of false evi-
dence—although the prisoner might know it was wrong,
—although all present might be convinced that the pri-
.soner-was-innoeent---although all lawyers might feel as-
sured that the judge, in his charge to the jury, was mis-
taken, there was no appeal allowed by which this mis-
take could, be 'remedied. There was no means of ob-
_Wining a reviewal of that decision but in two- ways,
which he would state to the House. But before doing
so, he would observe that, upon a verdict of guilty, even
if the evidence was ever so untrue or misrepresented,
if the Learned Judge was satisfied with the verdict
there was no remedy. ; he passed -sentence, and it was
carried into effect even to death ' itself.—(Hear,
hear.) No one familiar- with the practice of the
criminal courts of this country could entertain a doubt
upon the fact that there had been a great many
cases where the verdict had-been wrong or the charge of
the judge wrong, inasmuch as there was no power of
correcting if injustice was doneand the innocent suffered
death. He could mention many cases to prove what he
had stated, but as he'did not wish to trouble the House
at length he would only advert to one. Nine years ago
a man named Chalker was indicted with another man at
Suffolk, for the murder of a gamekeeper in a wood. The
trial came on before an eminent judge now no more ;
evidence was given that Chalker was in the wood at the
time of the murder, blood was found upon his clothes,
and there was circumstantial evidence more or less strong
of his guilt. The Learned Judge had early in the trial
taken an impression against the prisoner; he summed the
case up most clearly and impartially, but most ingeniously.
Chalker was convicted, and his fellow prisoner acquitted.
He declared that his fellow prisoner was as innocent as him-
self,and the counsel- for Chalker being convinced of his
innocence, took the greatest trouble to establish that
fact, and having collected a mass of evidence on the sub-
ject, he laid it -before the judge, in hopes, at least, of
obtaining a respite for some time of the sentence of
death that had been prononeced on Chalker, but the
Learned Judge adhered to the opinion he had formed,
declared himself perfectly satisfied of the prisoner's
guilt, and refused to interfere. Chalker-suffered death ;
but it had since transpired that the man who had actually
committed the murder, who had seen the miserable vie-
tim executed, had• come forward and confessed his guilt,
declared he was the murderer, that the man who was
executed was innocent, and gave himself up .to jus-
tice. This was, one among, many instances
which time brought forth, of persons being convicted of
crimes, and suffering punishment,- because there was no
appeal from the sentence passed upon them. There
was no-remission of the penalty, because thqe was no
appeal by law. It might be said that whenever the cit.-
cunistances warranted doubt of the prisoner's guilt,
whenever there was any serious objection raised, that no
judge would refuse an inquiry, which might be had by
applying to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment ; and whenever a legal objection of weight was put
forward in the prisoner's favour, it could be argued in
error, before twelve or -fifteen of the judges. In answer
to these arguments, he replied that thero was nothing to
compel the judge to reserve these objections ; and most
learned and eminent judges had, over and owl' again,
refused to reserve objections which subsequently appeared
to have been well founded. Ho remembered a casein point
among his •own 'extremely: limited practice in criminal
law. A man was indicted in the county of Huntingdon
some years ego, and tried before a Learned Judge now
no more. Evidence was given ; the case had closed ;
he (Mr. F. Kelly) was counsel for the prisoner, and sub-
mitted with great confidence to the Learned' Judge cer-
tain very strong points in -the prisoner's favour. He
submitted that although the man might have been guilty
of a very gross offence, which would have amounted to
a misdemeanour, and perhaps rendered -him liable to
transportation, still, according to the,terms of the indict-
ment, he was not guilty ; he should have been tried on
an indictment differently framed. His offence, he sub-
mitted, was not a capital one, and -he should not be
punished for it as such. He urged these points on the
Learned Judge in Court with all the force and earnest-
ness he was capable of, but the Learned Judge decided
in a most' peremptory manner • against reserving the ob •
jection. He again pressed upon the Learned7Jedge. in
Court the propriety of suspending the execution of the
prisoner, but was again refused in the same peremptory
manner. Feeling the strength of his objection,