Star.
London, England, 1821-05-19 00:00:00

PARLIA V ENTA R 1 PROCEEDINGS.

lIOUSE ifF I.OUDS, MAY 18.

Mr. laving, from the Custom-House, presented an Account
Of the quantities of Raw and Spun Silk imported into this coun-
try duel g the List twenty-one years, pursuant to an order of
the House.
The Irish B inkrupt Laws Amendment Bill, the Scotch Court
of Sessions Bill, and the Scotch Court of Admiralty Bill, were
torch read dr, third time add pas:AA. •
The Earl of DA RNLEY complained that certain Accounts
relating to the expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieute-
nant of Ireland, which were ordered some time since on his mo-
tion, had out yet li. en presented.
The Earl of LI VEll ['(JUL said, that orders had been given
to that effect, and the !Papers might be expected immediately.
Tue Earl of DA R N LEY gave notice that he would submit
a motion on the 4th of June, respecting the money paid for sta-
tioaery in Ireland ; and observed,-that on the same day it was
his.intortion to make a proposition relative to the expenditure of
the country, unless prevented by the interference of some other
Noble Lord. His first motion would probably not take up much
time, and therefore he would name the same day for both.
The Earl of LAUDER DALE, seeing the Noble Lord in his
place who was about to move the second reading of the TiMber
Duties bill, suggested that the debate should be taken on the
question lir going into Committee.
Earl BATHURST having acquiesced, the Bill was read the
second time, and the debate visa postponed upon that under-

•
standing.
The Irish Jail Fees Abolition Bill, the Irish Courts Regula-
tion Bill, and the Irish Privately Stealing in Shops Bill, went
through the Committees with seine verbal altetations.—Ad-
journed till Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. DEN ISON presented a Petition from twenty-six out of
the thirty-two Governors of the I'oor of the Parish of St. Mary,
Newington, against the Newington Select Vestry Bill.—Laid
on the table.
Lord A. HAMILTON presented a Petition from the Inha-
bitants of the Royal Burgh of Perth, comptainiug of the state
of the Representation of the Borough, and praying the House to
take the case into its scrams consideration.-Laid on the table,
and ordered to hr printed.
Sir E. HARVEY presented a variety of Petitions from the
Sliddls•sex and Eris Trust, Romford, East Ham, Chigwell,
Woodford, tice. and Sir W. CtiliTiS Petitions from Hampstead,
Islington, Ilolloway, Camden TOWN &c. against the Metropolis I
Road lial.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir R. W I LSON presented a Petition from Edward Jones,
one of the .106 Petitioners for the Newington Select Vestry
Bill, complaining that hv had been misinformed as to the object
of that Bill, and praying that it might not pass into a law. The
gallant Officer aho presented a Petition front the Inhabitants of
St. John's, Southwark, against the Bill.
Lord A. HAMILTON resented a second Petition against
the Burgh system.
After a few observations from Mr. MacKenzie, Mr. J. P.
GRANT, and the Loan Avvocrert, the Petition was ordered to
be printed.
On the motion of the Hon. G. Batmerr, a Return was or-
dered of the Members of the house cl Commons who hold
offices under the Cry,-ap.to the Ist instant.
SCOTCH JURY BILL.
•

Mr. MACKENZIE presented a Petition from the
County of Ross, against the Scotch Jury Bill.
Sir R. FERGUSON conceived that this opposition
to the Bill arose floor an intimation from the higher
powers. A more necessary law had never been
brought iuto Parliament.
Mr. MACKENZIE denied the justice of the gal-
lant General's observations.
Lord A. HAMILTON concurred with his gallant
Friend in believing that the opposition to this Bill
had originated in authority, as a circular letter had
been written by the Lord Advocate to the Scotch
Counties in hostility to the Bill, from which letter be
read several extracts, and contended that it unjustly
represented that the Gentlemen of the various Coun-
ties would be subjected by the Bill to increased bur-
dens. The Noble Lord concluded by warmly eulo-
gising the Bill in question, which was calculated to
further the ends of substantial justice.
The LORD ADVOCATE defended his conduct.
He contended that he should have been guilty of a
gross dereliction of his duty if he had not communi-
cated to the various Counties of Scotland the Bill in
question, and pointed out the probable inconveniences
which it threatened. The fact was, that the Counties
of Scotland were unanimous against the Bill.
Lord A. HAMILTON explained.
Mr. ABERCRO.MBIE, although he did not charge
the Learned Lord with having done wrong, yet
maintained, that if his object had been to obtain the
fair and impartial opinion of the persons most inte-
rested in the Bill, he would not have written that
letter. In proof of this position, the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman adverted particularly to a pas-
sage in the Learned Lord's letter, iu which he de-
clared that his own mind was made up on the sub-
ject. It was a joke to deny that the whole influence
of Government had, by that letter, been used against
the Bill; for the Sheriffs of the Counties, to whom it
had been addressed, were not, as in England, an-
nually chosen, but permanent, and looked for prefer-
ment to Government. The Emperor Alexander could
not have issued a more despotic act than the Lord 4d-
eocate had done. It was, however; his intention to pro-
pose that the further consideration of the Bill should
be postponed to next Session, by which time the pre-
judices which had been so artfully raised against it
would, he trusted, subside. Th../ Honourable and
Learned Gentleman then entered into a justification
of the principles of the Bill, and ridicule,{ the objec-
tions which the Lord Advocate had urged against it.
After a Bill had been passed giving to Scotland a
Jury in civil causes, nothing could be more futile
than the opposition to the extension of that Bill to
criminal causes.
Mr. %V. DUNDAS defended the conduct of his
Learned Friend, and maintained that there was but
one opinion in Scotland against the proposed mea-
sure—(Hear, hear).
Mr. J. P. GRANT expressed his disapprobation of
the course which had been pursued by the Learned
Lord. He did nor think so,ill of his countrymen as
to believe there would be any opposition to the Bill
when it was thoroughly understood. The more con-
sideration the measure received, the more correct its
principle would appear, and he therefore thoroughly
approved of the proposed delay. He was persuaded
also that the English Members of the Government
and the English Magistrates would eventually give
the Bill its support:—The Petition was then received,
and ordered to be printed.
Captain WEMYSS presented a Petition from Fife
against the Scotch Jury Courts Amendment Bill.
Sir RONALD FERGUSON repeated his former
observations on these Petitions, and their origin. He
regretted to see this Petition ; it came from the county
of which he was a native, and it gave him a lows,
opinion of the understanding of his countrymen than
he had before.
The LORD ADVOCATE again repeated his ob-
jections to the Bill; which, however, he should have
eased over with the silence, and almost with the