Star.
London, England, 1820-03-29 00:00:00

observed, that so many points remained to be inve?
tigated at the proper time and place, that he felt per-
suaded the decision of an ulterior tribunal would
rescue him from the effects of the verdict which had
been given against him. For this and other reasons,
we have abstained from all observations upon the re-
sult of that trial. The verdict of a Jury upon a charge
of so vague and indefinite a natt;re as that of politi-
cal libel, is less calculated to carry with it. the con-
viction of the country than upon any other occasion;
yet we assent to the general principle, that unless
manifestly tainted or irregular, it ocght not to
become the subject of public animadversion.
In the following lematks, therefore, we have no
intention to question the correctness of the verdict—
that will be tiied in the proper Court—but we wish
to call the attention of the New Parliament to the
question of the • policy or impolicy of allowing a
certain Act that was passed last Session, to remain
unrepealed. Let the Members look at the conse-
quences which may be entailed on themselves, as
well as on Sir FRANCIS and others, by the operation
of that Act.

Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to'
the Honourable Baronet's views of Parliamentary
Reform, and the Readers of this Journal will not
suspect us of advocating some of his peculiar notions
on that subject—his high rank and character, his
splendid talents, the enthusiastic affection with which
he is regarded by a large portion of the people, are
acknowledged on all hands. Yet the next ungoorded•
or intemperate exercise of his zeal in the popular
cause will subject him, by one of the !ix Acts Which
the late Parliament bequeathed to the country, to be
banished to the dominions of such Sovereign as his
Majesty's Privy Council may, in the exercise of a
merclul or vindictive discretion, be pleased to select;
and further, if the manifold ties which attach such a
Man to ..`le country should induce him to linger on
his native soil for forty days, he will be liable to be
transported for fourteen yens.
By the common law of the hind, explained and con-
firmed by Magna Charter, no man could be expa-
triated. The KING might exercise a paternal re-
straint upon his subjects, by issuing his writ of Ne
carat regno—but though he could retain, if he thought
fa, the proudest of his subjects within his dominions,
he had no power to banish the htimblest of them
from the country of his bia-th. It will not easily be
forgotten that even this punishment of exile was con-
ceded as a boon by the Ministers of the Crown, and
that in proposing another of the Bills, Lord CASTLE-.
ttiokoit took credit to himself for not making it " fe-
lony of death !" as he phrased it, to continue for half
an hour at a Meeting, which circumstances might'
render it physically impossible to quit.

-The Paris Papers of Sunday arrived this forenoon.
The Chamber of Peers were occupied on Saturday
with the final disctssion of the Project of Law re-
specting Individual Liberty. Several Aniendments,
all calculated to mollify the operation of the law,
were proposed, but each of them was got rid of by
the previous question. The five Articles of which
the Law is composed, were separately adopted in the'.
terms of the Project; and the whole Law being put
to the nominal appeal, was passed by a majority of
35, the number of voters being—For the Project, 121
—Against it, 86.
In the Chamber of Deputies, on the same day, the
Project of Law respecting the Journals, commenced
running its second course of flagellation—that
Article by Article. The first Article of the Law pro-
posed to enact the. Suspension of the free publication
of Periodical Journals and Writings, devoted in whole
or in part to news and political matters, " until Me
time hereinafterAred:"l'lle time " hereinafter fixed"
(by Article IC) was " the end cf the Session of 18200'1
M. TERNAUX, to guard against the possible extension'
of this period when the Chamber should come to
rote on Article 10, submittal, that the enactment of
the suspension, and the term of its duration, should
be decided on together ; he accordingly moved, that
Article 10 should be merged in Article 1, by substi-
tuting for the words " until the time hereinafter Axed,"
the following, " until the end of this Session of 1820."
A long debate ensued on this Amendment, which, as
usual, was not confined to the simple letter of the
question, but branched out into the whole field of
discussion embraced by the Project. The Amend-
ment was finally put to the vote by nominal appeal.
The numbers were—For the Amendment, 113—
Against it, 121--Majority for its rejection, 14.