Star.
London, England, 1825-02-25 00:00:00

go fifty miles to give evidence, which, it was probable.
they would often omit, and many an innocent man aeon to mose-
cren9e be convicted.
Mr. BA RING said; the objection made by the Hon.
Gentleman who sliokk last, would apply to- every
county in the kingdomewhefe the gaol was at a dis-
tioce frrim the AssizekTown. which. was the case in se-
veral counties; and if a regulation was made to prevent it, its
operation should not be.loca), but general. . ....
Mr. Secretary. PEEL said. the House hid elready
determined that the Chancellor and Judges should de-
cide where the King's- Courts should be held. This
particular question had already been decided twice by
the Judges, who had in each case determined that the
Assizes should not be removed from Thetford, and he
saw no reason why-Parliament should interfere to re-
verse the decision of the Judges. There was an in-
stance in which Parliament interfered, but it was on
strong grounds. The Chief Justice had, of his own
authority, removed the Assizes from Buckingham to,
Ayles' u y, for which place his son was then a Candi-1
date, and was soon after returned to Parliament. The',
qussion of the removal of the- Assiaes was brought
before Parliament, on the ground that the Judge had
acted from improper motives; and Parliament in con
sequence restored the Assizes to Buckingham. He did
not conceive that justice was always best administeted
in the most populous towns of counties; in Lancashire,
for instance, he thought criminal justice was better ad-
ministered in L rncaster than it would be at Manchester
or Liverp. 01. On the eshole. he would object to the
interference of the House with the decision of the Judges on a point
which they were at present empowered by law to decide.
Dr. LUSHINGTON s4rd, the. e was no just reason
whatever for holding the Assizes at Thetford The pre-
sent plan etas calculated to promote the rote. ests of the.
few to the disadvan•age of the many. The Assizes
were ori,inally held at Thetford, because it was :he
I
most convenient 'lace; but now, alien-avowedly that
reason on longer existed, why should they not be re-
moved ? The most set ions inconvenience existed from
the practice of trying prisoners fifty miles from all the points at
which the offences were likely to be committed.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the House of Commons
was not the place for appeals of this description ; the
law had vested the eecessary power in the hands of the
Lord Chancellor and the Judges. As for the distance
of Thetford, as an Assize Town, complained of, almost
every county in England stood in the same situation.
Prisoners were brought much larch. to York, and to Lancaster,
than they could be from any part of Norfolk to Thetford.
Sir E. HARVEY supported the motion.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that if the inconvenience existed every
where, the best flans would be a general alseration. •
The House then divided, whets the numbers were—
For the motion, 11l 1 Against it, 'fit 1 Majority against it, St.
FRIENDLY SoCIISTIES.
Mr. T. P. COURTENAY moved for the appointment of a,
Committee to inquire into the state of the laws relative to Benefit
Societies throughout the kingdom.—Agreatto.
EXPORT ON MACHINERY.
Mr. HUME said, last Session a Committee had sat
on the subject of the Export of Machinery, who had
made a Report, in wbich they recommended that a
Committee should be appointed in the present Session
for the further consideration of the subject. He was
convinced by the evidence, that the laws against the
exportation were ineffectual, and that during the last
year a large quantiteof prohibited -articles were exported.
He thought he would be able to shew in the Committee
that it was the interest of this country to extend its ex-
ports as much as possible.—There never was such a de-
mand for machinery in England as at present. He was
well-intormed that there was as malt machinery now
ordered for home consumption as could be supplied in
eighteen months, and large orders from abroad were
refused. If the free export was allowed, it would afford
the means of training up additional workmen, which
:Ala ays gave a power of a speedy supply for home con-
sumption. He was informed, that if Mr. Bramah had
been allowed to export iris hydraulic presses. he could
by this time have realised 100,0001. by that breach of
liminess. We are now allowing artisans to leave the
country ; if we did not permit the export of machinery,
the consequence would be, that we should establish ma.
nutactories of machinery with British capital and Bri-
tish skill, in foreign countries. He was sorry. for the
differences which had lately taken place between jour-
neymen and their masters, which he hoped would be
amicably adjusted between themselves, as in no period
of our history did there exist a greater demand for la.
boar. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for
the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the laws
.pro-
hibiting the export of machinery, and to report their proceedings to
the House.
Mr. HUSKISSON concurred in the proposed mea-
sure for two reasons: first, if the laws were either un-
just or impracticeble they ought to be abrogated. and
if certain individuals believed they were injured by
their operation, a Committee would be likely to come
to a just conclusion upon the policy of repealing tie
making the necessary alterations in them.- He al*
thought the Honourable Member for Aberdeett had
acted perfectly right in not forcing any measure through
the House, until the fullest inquiry had been entered
into by a Committee, as the prejudices against the re.
moval of the restrictions might thus be done away...l.-
As to the manufactures being thus injured, he believed'
the idea was fallacious, as there were now in the
country more orders than could be executed for eigh-
teen months. Upon these grounds, without committing himself to
any line of coadact upon the presentment of the Report, he should
most cordially move for the appointment of a Committee.
Alderman Bawons said a few words, after which
the motion was agreed to, and a Committee was appointed.
BANISHMENT PROM INDIA.
Mr. HUME, in moving for a return of the Number
of Persons banished from India, said, that it was well
known that the India Company were empowered to
send away from their Indian possessions such persons as
they chose; thus exclusively holding in their possession
one of the finest portions of the globe. According to
the Preamble of the Act which conferred that exclusive
power upon the Company, it would appear that indivi-
duals might remain in that country, provided their
conduct was not at variance with the regulations of the
Hon. East India Company, as expressed in previous
Acts of Parliament. He should ere long move for the
number of those who had applied for permission to
reside in India, and also for the number of those who
had been refused ; but what he had then to complain of
was, the abiase of the law which empowered the Com-
pany to send individuals, supposed to be dangerous
to their Government, away from the country. He
alluded to those individuals who had lately been sent
away from that country by Mr. Adams and, Lord
Amherst, under the Alien Act. He was aware that
'the Act of Parliament might bear the East India Com-
pany out in many of their acts ; but, if so, he thouglu
the spirit of such Acts erroneous, and deserving the
atten:ion of Pailianient. Some of the Governors of
India were more liberal than others, and the Marquis of
Hastings had thought the European society there wor-
thy of being informed of the motives whichled him into