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

-,t ----
....: -7.,
~ - -
,--,,..-4,
.
,
, 0

before was in not having discussed the preamble first. Ile hoped
that by Monday (as was understood) some compromise would
be agreed to by the parties.
After a few words from Mr. H. SUMNER, which did not
reach the gallery, the amendment was' ut and agreed to, and
the Committee was ordered to sit on Monday, and to report on
or before that day fortnight. It was then ordered that the seve-
ral-petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee.
METROPOLIS ROADS BILL.
- - - - -

Mr. CALCRAFT presented a Petition from the inhabitants
of Somers. Town against the Metropolis Roads Bill.
Mr. BARRETT presented a similar Petition from the inha-
bitants of Pentonville.

Mr. WING presented several Petitions against the Bill from
the inhabitants of the following places :—Eageware-road, Stoke
Newington-Edmonton, Tottenham, Highgate, Stepney, Isle-
worth, and Whitechapel. Also Petitions from the stage and
hackney-coach masters of the metropolis—from certain coal-
merchants, flour-factors, and market-gardeners of the metropo-
lis, and from the postmasters on,the Hertford-road.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a similar petition from the
inhabitants of Kentish-town.

Mr. WESTERN presented a petition to the same effect
from Southfield and Brentwood. These petitions were Seve-
rally read and ordered to lie on the table.
The Essex County Gaol Bill was rea' a third time and
p aks ed. - -
Mr. AcTLEIT presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Melksham4 in the County of Wilts, praying for a revision of
'the Criminal Code.—Ordered to lie on.the table.

Captain WEIVIYSS presented a petition from- the Free-
holders and. Commissioners of Supply of the County of Fife,
against the Scotch Juries Bill.
Sir R. FERGUSSON said a few words in favour of the Bill,
and expressed his suprize how the Freeholders of that County
could be such gudgeons as to be induced to petition against it.
The LORD ADVOCATE again expressed himself as yp-
posed to the Birl. There was, he contended, no necessity for
such a measure. The Learned Lord then entered into a short
detail of his objections to it ; in which he contended that it
would be an unjust and unnecessary innovation .in the Scotch
Law.

Mr. DENM.IN said that the argument of the Learned
Lord went to show that the English Jury. Law ought to be al-
tered ; for, according to him, its, principles were bad. The
Learned Gentleman then maintained that the present mode of
appointing Juries in Scotland was a bad one. It was throwing
an invidious and unpleasant duty on the Judge to oblige him
to select 15 persons who, were to determine upon the life and li-
berty of their fellow-subjects. He hoped that the Bill would be
withdrawn this Scfsion, but not altogether, for he was anxious
that it should be brought in at an early period in the next
Session.

Lord BINNING defended the present Jury system in Scot-
land, which he contended was a most fair one for the prisoner,
and he trusted the House would not sanction such an innova-
tion in Scottish law as this Bill would lead to.

Mr. ABERCROMBY said that nothing which he had heard
from the Learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) seemed to him at
all conclusive against the Bill. It was in his .mind a most im-
portant measure, and he hoped it would eventually receive the
sanction of the House.

The Petition was then brought up, and read, and ordered to
be printed.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented Petitions against the
Scotch Juries Bill, from' the Counties of Stirling, Argyle, Rox-
burgh, Berwick, and Kincardine.7:Thex were laid on the table.