Star.
London, England, 1822-06-21 00:00:00

_ pain—he ..
Scotland—(!Wear, hear)--conducted, he admitted,
with great honour and impartiality. In the course
of that trial, however, circumstances were .elicited,
which he thought it necessary to state to the Hotise.
It appeared, from a letter which was produCeJ, that
a Judge of the Court in which the trio ) took place,
had been consulted on the subject leadirig to the un-
happy affair which was the subject of the trial—
(Hear, hear).—With great propriety this Judge kept
away from the trial, a circumstance which shewed
that lie considered he was disqualified by his own
conduct to sit as Judge on that occasion. Yet, bad
the trial taken place at one of the Circuits, it.might
have been before that very Judge, who on that occa-
sion would have had the nomination of the Jury to
try the accused—(Cheers from the Opposition).—He
alluded to this trial with considerable reluctance ;

but he stated this, among other circumstances, in
answer to the triumphant vauntings which had been
thrown out, to state any abuses under the present sys-
tem. The measure which he proposed to remedy the
law on- this subject gave the prisoner an equal right
to peremptory challenge with the prosecutor, to the
extent of two each. He must beg the attention ofl
the House to the distinction between the decision of
the Scotch Jury and the English Jury—the latter
delivering an unanimous verdict, and the former
Bgiving their decision by majority—(Hear, hear).—
y this regulation, that extent of discussion which
was so salutary in the case of a Jury consulting on
their verdict was in all cases abridged, by as much
as the majority fell short of the whole number. Be-
sides whi ( -,the verdict being frequently determined
by a ca ing vote, it was plain that the life of a man
might e voted away by his known and avowed
enemy-A-Wear, hear).--It was also too much matter
of notoriety hotv and by whom every individual Jury
was to be constituted. He was satisfied of the im-
perfect manner in which he had explained this matter;
but he hoped he might look forward to this measure
as laying the foundation of a complete revision of the
Criminal Law of Scotland. The Honourable Mem-
ber concluded by moving the second reading of the
Scotch Juries Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE observed, that it was a
good maxim in jurisprudence to make no alteration
in established systems not pointed out by defects in
practice. That House had acted upon the maxim on
a late motion, to allow Counsel to prisoners tried for,
their lives; and he hoped the Members of this coun-
try would allow the Scots people to have the benefit
of the same practice. That the provisions of the Ho-
nourable Member's Bill were not called for by the
people of Scotland, he was convinced, and the House
had seen nothing to induce it to think otherwise.—
He certainly had requested the Hon. Member to wait
till such time as the votes of the people could be col-
lected, and for that purpose he had written the cir-
cular quoted by the Hon. Member. He was thesmore
persuaded to take that course from complaints having
been made, that measures passed that House relative
to Scotland, of which that country had heard nothing
till passed; and in sending the Bill to them, he cer-
tainly was bound to communicate his opinion, al-
though he had no desire of influencing them. The
Gentlemen of Scotland were averse from this charge,
both on its own account and from its connection with
the criminal law of the country. He maintained 1114
the system of criminal law in Scotland was as fault-
less as that of any country. The spirit of it was to
check the progress of clime, and deal mercifully
with criminals under trial ; and the difference in the
amount of crime, under that system, between Eng-
land and Scotland, were as 235 to 18 in favour of
the latter. He had listened with great attention to
the instances of abuse in the nomination of Juries de.
tailed by the Hon. Gentleman; but he did not think,
anything he had stated would warrant the alteration
proposed by this measure. With respect to the case
of misconduct alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, in
a certain Sheriff, all that he could say was, that if
he would inform him of the individual, he should be
dealt with by the law. With regard to the allusion
of the Hon. Gentleman to the conduct of an indivi-
dual Judge in a late trial, he must observe, that not
being able to see what connection it could have with
the question of nominating Juries, he did not think it
was in very good taste to introduce the mention of it.
That honourable individual was closely allied to the
object of the trial, and there was nothing extraordinary
in his having given the advice it appeared he had given,
and there was no reason to suppose that he would
have acted with less delicacy had the trial occurred
in his own district. The Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man proceeded to take a review of the mode of select-
ing Juries in Scotland. He did not see there was any
necessity for giving the prisoner the right of peremp-
tory challenge, since there never was a case in which
the suggestion of Counsel, relative to any Juror, was
not attended to by the Judges. He did not think it
necessary further to detain the House in stating his
objections to this measure. He rested his opposition
principally on the absence of any alleged evils in
practice, and the wishes of the people of Scotland
being against any such change. Thus nn evil could
be shewn in favour of the measure, and the general
opinion was against it—(Cheers).
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, that it appeared
that the Learned Lord had three objections to the
measure of his Hon. Friend. The first was, that the
measure was theoretic; the second, that no evils had
been shewn to exist to call for it ; and the third, that
the people of Scotland were not favourable to the
change ; at the same time that he went nn to say that
they were actually averse from it. It was rather tit..
traordinary that these very objections were urged its
former times against the measute for abolishing herit-
,able jurisdictions, a Bill of Lord Hardwicke s, and
one of the wisest and most salutary measures ever
passed. Lord Hardwicke, in his memorable speech
on that occasion, said that there had been no fault
in the persons exercising the power; but that. men
were mortal, and good men might be followed by
bad, and that though men were mortal, the Govern-
ment ought to be framed to be immortal. These
were the great conceptions, and the majestic and dig-
nified language of that great man; and he begged
the Learned Lord to observe, that he there specifically
admitted a theoretic evil as sufficient to legislate

.g
upon tht louse to consit
objections- to which went to stamp Lord Hardwicke
as a visionary and a theorist, might not have some-
thing in it worthy of their attention and support?—
The first Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland had
raised the standard of revolt against this amendment
of law, and the Scotch Counties rallied round it.—
Bat the wishes of the people had been treated as
undue prejudices in 1747—they were treated in the
same way in 1-819; but, in 1822, the feelings and
opinions of the people were to be regarded with
paramount reverence ; because, forsooth, a Lord
Advocate had advertised for dissent, and Govern-
ment opposed the amendment—(Hear, hear, hear).—
Could anything be more important than the posses-
sion by a nation of a perfect theoretic system of jury
trial ? The Learned Lord's opposition to peremp-
tory challenges would never he hoped be allowed to
stand against the reasons of Blackstone in favour of
it. It was neither visionary nor theoretic that a man
whose impartiality as a•Judge was impeached would
become, though not so before, the enemy of him who
so impeached him. It Was a maxim of common
sense and experience ; and he appealed to the hu-
manity, the conscience, and sense of justice of his
audience, nat to permit the possibility of a man be-
ing sent into a jury box, the mortal enemy df him
he was going to try--(Hear, hear).—His Ron.
Friend's measure demanded no more than four pe-
remptory challenges to be divided between the pro.
secutor and the prisoner. A right of challenge for
cause was known to be a right of little or no value,
whilst peremptory challenge was known to be an
invaluable privilege. What was the use of detecting
a false witness—what was the use of producing testi-
mony to innocence, if it were addressed to the deaf'
ears of a corrupt and inimical Jury ?—(Hear, hear).—
Unanimity in a Jury was the most merciful principle
of jurisprudence admitted into the Criminal Code of
any country, and one which particularly protected
prisoners in Engljnd. He was surprised that the
Learned Lord could not see the connection between
the case alluded to by his Hon. Friend and the question
before them relative to the nomination of Juries. The II
letter had been detected in the case in question, but
was it not plain that it might happen in many cases
undetected ; and could they permit the possibility of
a connection such as this between the brother of a
person connecte.l with a duel, and the individual
to take his trial for the unfortunate result of it?—

This Judge, they would understand, had the trial
taken place at a particular part of the country, would I
have had to summon the Jury. He could not pass
without remark the fantastic phrase used by the
Learned Lord in that allusion. He meant the ex-
pression " good taste," which, however applicable
and excellent when used in . reference to the lighter
ornaments of the arts and literature, appeared to him
to be out of place, and looked like treating such grave
subjects with a want of that proper dignity and re-
spect, which judicial questions, involving the lives and
liberties of their fellow-creatures demanded. He con-
sidered those who composed Scotch Juries to boast,
in many respects, the highest character of any set of
men in Europe ; but if he wanted them to try a ques-
tion between a Lord Advocate and an Opposition
Member of Parliament, he must desire to have a right
of peremptory challenge—(A laugh). To this Insti-
tution, which taught obedience at the same time it
inculcated independence, be traced that great sense
of justice, and that perception of law, which rendered
the English the most honourable among the nations
of the globe (Hear)--which taught the meanest sub•
ject to know generally the nature and extent of his
duties and his rights—
" While e'en the peasant boasts these rights to scan,
" And learns to venerate himself as man!"
(Hear). If he was right in this estimation of the ad-
vantages which Trial by Jury conferred on the people
of England, he could not but believe that the moral,
brave, and pious peoplenf:Scotland were equally en-
titled to participate at least in thole advantages—
(Hear). The sentiments of humanity and honour,
which this Institution was found to diffuse among
men, were conspicuous even in times when civil com-
motions had unhappily broken out among them ; for
the horrors and evils of intestine discord were least
experienced in countries where Trial by Jury was re-
tained. It was upon these grounds, and in the belief
that some small extension of the principle of selecting
Juries must prove highly advantageous to. the na-
tional character and happiness of Scotland, that he
would support the second reading of the Bill.
Lord BINNING felt that he was rising under con-
siderable difficulties, as wells from the view which he
took of the question, as from his following the eloquent
' address to which the House had just listened. He
thought the encomiums which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had passed upon the,Gentry of Scotland
partook of such a sneering character, that he protested
against it, and he *was quite sure that they would not
wish to have any one who spoke of them in such a
manner for their advocate. He believed_ the Gentry
of-Scotland to be as capable of forming an impartial
ar.d enlightened judgment upon any question relating
to their country, as any set of men in the world—
(Hear, hear, hear).—A Gentleman cried' Hear, hear !'
who knew nothing whatever about Scotland—(A
laugh).—The imputation cast upon them, and upon
his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Lord Advocate,
were without cause. It had been insinuated that a
Learned Judge (Lord Meadowbank) had mixed him-
self up with a late unfortunate transaction, and inca-
pacitated himself thereby from sitting on the Bench.
What was the fact ? The late Sir Alexander Bos-
well, wishing to settle his worYdly affairs, in the
agitation of the moment, applied to his Lordship, as
an old friend ; his Lordship, however, put as speedy
an end to the conversation as possible, and remindeJ
Sir Alexander Boswell of his situation as -a Judge.—
With respect to his not appearing' n the trial, his in-
timate ftiend had fallen by the hand of his relation,
and in such an unhappy case the feelings of his
Lordship would not allow him to. be. present. The
Noble Lord next adverted to the Bill: he could not
approve of it, particularly.at the present time. He
' knew mot where innovations were to stop. He under-
stood the Hon. Member for the City of Durham was
another champion who was anxious to enter the field

3-0 laugh )-
1 of Grand Juries
, for one, would
Judge to the syt.
the fair and irn.
was one of tho.e
who thought that if they did not deserve the power
of selecting Juries, they could 'not with safety be en.
trusted with any power or disCretion whatever. He
thought the measure, howevtt it might be conceiled,
was an indi,ect attack upon the. Judges. This was a
question deeply interesting to the people of Scotland,
and he was sorry to end such completely empty
benches, ana that the English Members had paid so
little attention to their duties in that 'House—(Near
hear).—There wits no end to theories of this kind,
and innovations on the law of Scotland were 'out pre-
ludes to innovations on the law of England—(Crica
of Question, Question I)
Mr. HORACE' TWISS approved of the clause for
giving peiemptoiy Challenges, and he was in.favour
of the Bill, not because it was calculated .to lead to
other changes, but because it had no clause, no co.
riAlary, which could contemplate or lead to any other

change—(llear, hear).—The list of witnesses and
the, aid of Counsel, which were stated by the Noble
Lord to be granted to prisoners in Scotland, would
be more useful if the prisoner had, by means of chal-
lenge, such a Jury as would be cadable of receiving
an impression from them—(Hear, Ilear).—ln. Eng-
land prosecutions were generally carried on by. pri-
vate individuals, although in the name of the Kiug ;
but in Scotland they were always conducted not only
in the King's name, but also by the King's officers.
The whole weight of the prosecution so carried on
by the Crown was apt to discourage and intimidate
a person ; and it was most material for the ends of
justice, as the Honourable Mover of the Bill cited
from Mr. Justice Blackstone, that a prisoner should
not be discouraged froin making his defence—Wear).
It was natural to suppose the Judges would appoint
Juries as conformable as possible to their own hill,
and in that case the trial was solely by the Judge,
without any check by a Jury—( Hear,hear).—What
would be the opinion in England of a trial by the
Jury free from any controul by the Judge? In Scot-
land the trial was by the Judge, without any check
by the Jury. That was apt to influence the public
opinion in Scotland as to the fairness of the trials in
many cases. The public opinion ought to be con-
sulted. He (Mr. Horace Twiss) would maintain,
that it were better that ten unjust acquittai-
take place than one unjust ccnviction—(Hear, hear).
The Hon. Member concluded by stating his intention
to vote for the Bill.

Mr. PEEL said that, upon one of the objects of
the Bill, namely, a change in the mode of selecting
the Juries, he entertained a doubt; and thinking that
benefit might be derived from the second object, he
should not oppose the second reading of the. Bill—
(Hear). In the Committee, it would be in power
to propose some alterations in the details of the Bill.
The Bill was then read the second time, and ordered
to be committed on Monday next.

BUTTER TRADE.
The Order of the Day for the House resolving into
a Committee on the Butter Trade Acts, being mad,
Sir, N. C.•COLTHUILST moved, that the House
should go into a Committee on the Irish Butter Trade
Acts; and in doing so, he regretted that Ministers
had not attended, among others; to this distressed
branch of agricultural produce. He did not look at
this as an Irish question, but as one affecting Eng-
land, because it would throw large tracks of pasturage
ground into cultivation,.and so increase the importa-
tion of Irish grain into this country. To prevent this,
he should propose a duty of 10 per cent. on the im-
portation of Dutch and other foreign butters.
Mr. GURNEY would concur in any measure for
the relief of the peasants y of Ireland, but he would
submit to no tax imposed for the purpose of allowing
the Irish landlords to keep up their exorbitant rents.
Mr. ROBINSON was not inclined to acquiesce in
the motion of the Hon. Baronet. If we did not take
some of the productions from foreign nations, we
could not expect them to take from us any of our
articles of manufacture.
Sir J. NEWPORT denied that Ireland had received
any boo'ns from this country. If they did not protect
Irish products how could they expect that Ireland
could contribute to the exigencies of the State'
Mr. RICARDO said, they were daily assailed by
producers, that they had not protection enough. This
was the case with Irish butter, tallow, the West India
and Shipping Interests, while the poor consumer was
left out of the question. He opposed the motion.
Mr. S. RICE said, that though Irish butter was
imported into this country in large quantities, yet it
was lying to spoil in the warehouses in Ireland; and
when Dutch butter was making its way into all the
inland markets of England, he would ask if they had
protection enough for the butter trade?
Mr. T. WILSON considered the protecting duties
as high enough ; and he must also say, that Ireland
hid been negligent of her own interest, inasmuch as
they had neglected to study the palates Of their cus-
tomers, the Dutch butter being so far superior to Irish.
These reasons induced him to oppose the motion.
Mr. WESTERN supported the motion. He was
convinced, if we took this butter from Ireland, whichi
we were so anxious to have from foreigners, we should
experience great advantage from it, as they would End
the consumption ofour manufactures'greatlyincreasc,t.
Mr. HUSKISSON opposed the Bill. He was satis-
fied there was great distress in Ireland, and should b,t
disposed to support the motion if he thought it would
do good for Ireland, but he was convinced it wod!.l
not. The effect would be, not to increase the con-
sumption, but raise the price of a bad article, and :orn-
pel the Public to find a substitute.
Mr. HUTCHINSON was decidedly in fayout or
the motion.
Mr. isIONCK could not consent to sacrifice the
constmer to the interest of the grower.
Mr. GRIFFITHS was in favour of protecting du-
' ties. The Irish butters, he contended, were in gene-
' ral of the best quality.
Sir T. ACL AND claimed, on the part of the sm
dairy farmers in England, some consideration.'
Mr.V. FITZGERALD opposed the motion; which
• was put, and negatived without a division. •
The Alehouse Licensing Bill was recommitted.
Mr. hIONCK wished the Bill to pass, as it would put an er
to monopoly.
After wine observations front Mr. F. PALSIZR CA others, thJ

. -: ,- •#; 0. • ?IF •, 17,7177•7711F1'11"1-7211110riuker
• •
• . . .
. .. .
. -
. •
, .
eiLm.lof—eraineldafgJhu)ries
. •.
. . .
I'L...— suggestion of °lle of the officers of his Court. in cot- tiPti• • But the very opposition Ode ttothgetill by to revise tlf of Scotland...Dlr. M. A.
e_Hilititakett
IT:twain.: ap.—ropoled" Thetypcienrtagraftinlyth:*:ynstt
sequence of whips the accused was cdnfiictest...The .the Jacobites of 1747, was, tbat the pePplarif It;
on .the Institutions -of-Scotland ; he, for one, would
Big latter case he was ready to prove at the Bar of the 'land did not %tot it;, Lord Hardwick* goisiek'
House, if necessity, though at -present het would not by in silent contempt, not deigning it thanmilliesent
ji.
g'ot mention the names of the !individuals connected with of an answer; but it was strange that the Lord Ad- prefer the selection of Jurors by a Judge to the sI s.
•th Ar 'it. He now came to a *case to which h* alluded with vocate of the Tory Government of 1822 should steal
tern by ballot. He could not fear the fair and n
f
—or- considerable pain—he meant that of a late trial in his argument from such a,so,trce. Now, he called partial conduct o the Judges.: He was one of the.e
#2..,..1.,..t___# r.t.nr_ APari—conducted. he admitted, upon the House to consider whether a Bill, the only . who thought that if they did, not deserve the power