Star.
London, England, 1822-07-18 00:00:00

DISPUTE WITH CHINA.

Mr. Lowman wished to know whether the dispute with the
Chinese had been amicably settled? and whether the Company's
ships would bring home as much tea this year m they were ac-
customed to do? in consequence of the dittintE it had been
rumoured, that the Company's ships would noticing home so
much tea as heretofore, and the tea-dealers .hatt. immediately
raised the price of that commodity.
The CnAnissArc said, the Hon. Proprietor most be aware
that it would not be prudent to answer one of his questions, and
with respect to the dispute with the Chinese u had bcon amicably
settled.—Tho Coutt then Adjourned.

The projected man iage between the CROWN PRINCE
Of Prussia and Princess AIAXIMILIANNE Of BAVARIA,
one of the twin-daughters of his Majesty the King
of 13AyARIA, will take place without the Princess
changing her religion, notwithstanding the remon-
strances of the Protestant Clergy of Deihl), who ale
apprehensive of the consequences that may come from
placing a Catholic Princess on the throne; but the
Pi iacc, it seems, was so taken with the charms of this
amiable young Princess, that the King his father
could not prevail on liiint.elt to tense his consent.

On the Order of the Day for committing the Scotch Juries Bill,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated his reasons fur sup-
porting it. He pointed out the many defects that now existed
with regard to the selection of Juries, who were always ap-
pointed by the Sheriffs ; and this was a practice that ought not
to prevail. This Bill went in a great degree to correct the evil
in question; and in order to render it more complete, he should
move an instruction to the Committee, to put the nomination
of Juries in Scotland, in criminal eases, on the same footing as
in civil cases.
The Duke of MONTROSE said he must differ from the
Noble Earl in what he had stated, and he would not consent
to give up a practice which had long existed, until it was shewn
that such practice ought to be altered. He would not support
the Bill ; but as it had been brought forward by wiser men than
himself he could not oppose it. • •
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed with the Noble Duke
that no alteration ought to be made without necessity in long
established usages, merely as principles of theoretical improve-
ment ; and he would not consent to do away a practice which
had long existed without any complaints being made against it.
.Lord MELVILLE said, if they were to judge Irons the
small number of criminals tried in Scotland, there would be no
great reason to regret that the Criminal Laws of that country
were such as they now were. The present usages had .grown
up from time immemorial, and were familiar with the habits of
the people. He did not see any reason why the practice should
be changed, and therefore be should oppose the motion.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, that as it was not in-
tended to oppose the Bill itself, he should not press his motion.
The Marquis of I3UTE said he should concur with the Noble
Viscount, as to the impolicy of altering the practices as they
now existed ; but he should support the. pill.
The House then went into the Committee, and Lord Lau-
derdale's motion was negatived without a division.