Star.
London, England, 1821-02-15 00:00:00

SCOTTISH JURIES.

Mr. KENNEDY, in bringing forward his motion,
said riat it was of the utmost importance to remove
any blot that might carnally appear on the adminis •
tra:ion of justice ; he did not mean to cast the slight-
.est imputation on the conduct of the Learned Judges
in Scotland, for whom he entertained the highest pos-
sible respect, and he felt he was only attempting to
relieve them when endeavouring to remove defects
in the administration of justice. In the year 1701,
an Act was pa.sed in Scotland which might be pro-
perly called the Habeas Corpus Act of that country;
at was an Act to secure the liberty of the subject, by
virtue of which, any .individual charged with an uf-
fence, might compel the prosecutor to bring him to
trial within a limited time. Unfortunately, many
persons were denied the benefit of that Statute, be-
cause the expense of seeking for redress under it was
too heavy for those individuals to meet. Again, per-
sons were.only entitled to the benefit of the Act of
1701, who previously qualified themselves by going
to jail, per.ons out on bail could not obtain the bene-
fit of the provisions of that Act. Another defect to
which he felt it necessary to allude, was the arbi-
trary judgments pronounced in Scotland, no matter
what the punishment, from the smallest fine, up to
transportation for five years, and for life; Judges
pronounced arbitrary judgments—political offences
also came under the cognizance of those Courts. By
a late Act, which naturally excited alarm in this
country, a man convicted of the second offence in the
case of libel, was made subject to the punishment of
banishment ; but in Scotland it is the law to trans-
port a man for the first offence—(Hear, hear). In
the course of the last year, an individual in that
country, convicted of a seditious libel, was trans-
ported for five -years—(Hear, hear). That indivi- ,
dual was now undergoing that punishment—a pu-
nishment which he understood was considered rather
lenient—(hear, hear). Another point to which he
would allude was, the power assumed and exercised
by the Lord Advocate, in filing ex-olcio informa-
tions, by which means he took away from the ac-
cused the benefit of a Jury, in the first instance. An-
other grievance on the accused party was, that he
was denied the benefit of any informality that might
appear. Where such informality appears, the prose-
cutor 44 deserts the diet," pro loco et tempore, and the
party is sent back to prison, and brought up for trial
a second time for the same offence. Another crying
evil was, the mode of selecting Jurors for criminal
trials. The practice was, that forty-five persons
were presented by the Sheriff, out of which fifteen
persons were selected as a Jury to try the case.—
In Scotland, there were four Counties within the Cir-
cuit ; the Sheriff returns at Edinburgh 45 persons for
each of those Counties, making 180 persons in the'
whole. Those names are delivered to the Judge, and
out of them he selects 15 persons at his wilt and
pleasure. lle was far from supposing that the Judges
acted improperly or partially, but he submitted that
those were preliminary arrangements which ought
not to exist. It should be recollected, that in all
cases—in cases of murder or of robbery—eight Jurors
out of fifteen were sufficient to convict the accused.
In a country. where one man might lose his life by
the decision.of another, the greatest caution ought to
be observed its the selection of Jurors—(Hear, hear).
The Hon. Gentleman next observed, that though Sir

GeorgeM4Cenaie stated that the right of peremptory
challenge existed in Scotland, such right did not exist,
anil was pot sanctioned by authority. The remedy•
he proposed was, that the Jury, instead of being no-
minated as they are, should be. selected by ballot.—
He would also give to each party the right, to a
small amount, of peremptory challenge. He would
give the prosecutor the right to challenge three Ju-
rors, and the right to the accused of challenging three
also. He did not with to go farther, though he
thought that the right of peremptory challenge might
with safety be extended farther ; in a country where
the life and fame of an individual might depend on
'the voice of a single man, no party feeling should be
allowed to exist. In England, the right of peremp-
tory challenge, in cases of capital felon), was always
exercised, and was generally permitted in other cases,
as long as Jurors could be found. He understood
that the Learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) intended
to introduce some measure of Irnelioration with re-
spect to the Law of Scotland; he would be glad to
find that the the selection of

question concet ning
Juries was intended to be embraced in that measure,

but he was not aware that such was the intention of
the Learned Lord. The Honourable Gentleman con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate the Appointment of Jurors in criminal cases
in Scotland. _

Lord BINNING said, that he regretted, with his
Hon. Friend, the absence of the Learned Lord (the
Lord Advocate). It was not to be Supposed, that he
(Lord Binningycould be able to reply to the state-
ments that had been made; indeed, it was not neces
sary, for his Hon. Friend had gone into matters
which were quite extraneous to the object of his Bill
—(Hear, hear).—His Hon. Friend had alluded to
what he called arbitrary punishments ; he would
state the nature of those arbitrary punishments.—
Where an individual stood accused of an offence
which was death by the law, the Lord Advocate had
the right of restricting the libel, which was, pro lento,
restricting the power of the Judges in favour of the
accused. He was not prepared to assume or deny
the propriety of. the change proposed ; but in the
absence of the Lord Advocate, and in the utter ig-
norance of the House, with the exception of two or
three Members, he hoped his Honourable Friend
would content himself with having the Bill read a
first time, and letting it lie over.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, it was rather unparlia-
mentary that his Hon. Friend should be assailed be-
cause he brought forward the motion in the absence
of the Noble Lord, whose duty it was to be present.
He did not.see why, if the Lord Advocate was ab-
sent, their tongues were to he tied ; theliroble Lot d
should rather have apologised for the Learned Lord
than have inculpated his Hon. Friend. His Hon.
Friend had brought to view the arbitrary power
exercised by the Court r.f Justiciary, to instances of
which .he (Mr. Taylor) had happened to be witness in
a case, the details of which Were printed, and which
was also to be found in the debates of that House; he
meant the case of Mr.Nloir. and Mr. Palmer—(Hear).
He (Mr. Taylor) had been in the House at the time
of the debate, as well as in Edinburgh at the time of
the trial, and certainly, in common with many others,
he slid not think the verdict was that which would
have been given by an English Jury,—(Hear, hear).,
He had on this point the testimony of a man of no 7
mean authority, who was present the whole time,
he meant tine late Sir S. Romilly. Mr. Erskine, a
lawyer of the very first eminence, declared, that on
that occasion the Court of Justiciary had rnisunder.
stood the law, when they sentenced the prisoners to
transportation. The law said, that persons convicted
of sedition should be " bani.hed from their pleasant
fields and native homes." But this never had been
understood, or could be honestly interpreted, as giving
a power to transport the prisoner to a particular
.)lace, as they did those prisoners to Botany Bay.—
The case was brought before the House of Corn awns
by the present Commissioner of the Jury curt t.sli.
Adam)'; the Judges escaped censure with very great
difficulty, and no one who heard the debate, could
suppose that the law gave the power assumed of ba-
nishing beyond the seas for sedition and :ibel. But,
forsooth, they were not to speak of Scats law, unless
the Lord Advocate was present. In the House of
Lords, the Chancellor decided on Scots law, though
tin Scots lawyer, and in that House, even if the Lord
Advocate had been present, he should take on him-
self to decide according to his own judgment.
Mr. J. P. GRANT said, the principles of the Bill
had been laid by his Honourable Friends on grounds
which required no amplification; but he should rec
tify a mistake of the Noble Lord (Lord Binning),
who supposed that it was only when a libel was re-
stricted by the Lord Advocate that an arbitrary power
was exercised by the Court of Justiciary. Within not
a great many years, in those cases in which by the
law of Scotland they were enabled to inflict a punish,
merit; of which the utmost extent was banishment
from Scotland, the Judges had assumed the power
.to transport the prisoner to a particular place, as un-
der the Transportation Acts in England ; and in a re-
cent case, for one of these offences, in which banish-
meet was the utmost legal punishment, the prisoner
was recommended by an unanimous Jury to the le-
nity of the Court, and that Court, in lenity, trans-
ported him for five years.
Lord BINNING explained, that be never meant to
state that the arbitrary power in question was only
exercised in cases of death. He merely said, that
when it was exercised, it was for lenient purposes.
Mr. J. P. GRANT considered the country, and
particularly Scotland, greatly indebted to his Learned
Friend for having brought forward this motion.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
BRITISH CORN.

persons abroad, that the American Our, and corn was
alone cured so as to keep in the Colonies, an order
was given to supply the Colonial stores with Ameri-
can flour. However, now an experiment had, been
tried, which, if it succeeded, would enable' us to
supply the Colonies.
Mr. CURWEN denied that, there was any supe•
riority in American, or any other foreign corn over
our's ; which, if kiln dried, would keep as well as
any American flour in hot countries.
Mr. HUME hoped his Majesty's Government
would not send a quarter of grain from England,
when it could be obtained for the Colonies so much
more cheaply in our North American Colonies.
The motion was then agreed to.
lONIAN ISLANDS.
Colonel DAVIES had moved for Returns of Mi-
litia in the lonian Islands ; those had not been made;
and he had now to state, that for four or five years
there had been no Militia embodied there, and this
country was paying £4OOO or £5OOO for Officers to
this Militia

Mr. *GOULBURN said, these Officers belonged

to the Staff.
Colonel DAVIES said, that previous to the occu-
pation of these Islands by Our troops, certain village
Officers used to embody and train the Militia without
any pay ; hut now these was a great deal of discon-

tent in these Llands.
Mr. GOULBURN would reserve himself till the
question should be fully before the House, when he
had no ddubt of being able to slew the contrary.
AFFAIRS OP IRELAND.
Mr. C. GRANT moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to regulate the Office of Chief Clerk of Assize in Ire-
lanJ.—Leave was then given.
Mr. C. GRANT moved, that to-morrow the House
should go into a Committee on Compensations to the
Clerks of Assize in Ireland.
Mr. CR EEVEY was not disposed to agree to grants
of public money, without any symptoms of economy.
Mr. GRANT said, that this was intended to be al
compensation for other sums, which were levied in
a manner which was found to be improper and in-
convenient. SUPPLY.
The CH A NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the. Committee of Supply should be postponed
till Friday.
Colonel DAVIES wished to know why these Com-
mittees were constantly postponed ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
they were always postponed when there was no busi-
ness to be brought before them.
PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING.
Mr. WARRE called the attention of the House to
the Right Hon. Gentleman's mode of protecting the
Revenue from smuggling, and'veished to know whe-
ther he meant to continue this system of protection
during peace? From Beachy Head to the Thames
there were armed seamen with pistols and cutlasses,
who patroled the coast. They were commanded by
Midshipmen ; and he would ask a Noble Lord of the
Admiralty, whether this was not the very worst ser-
vice in which a Midshipman could be employed, ex-
posed as he was to all temptations, without being
under:the "check and controul of his Captain? He
could not help calling their attention to an Act of
last Session, making it a penalty of 4:190 upon any
/man landing a pint of foreign spirits. A man landed
a pint of spirits in his pocket; this was discovered
by a Blockade Officer : he took the man before a
Magistrate, and sued for the penalty. The Magis-
trate knew.the man, and that his family would be
ruined if it was inflicted and he refused to inflict it,
aid told him to apply to another Magistrate.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, that the report of the
conduct of the Midshipmen on this service was most
itisfactory. They messed together, and conducted
themselves with the utmost propriety. They had all
passed for Lieutenants, and, therefore, were seamen.
The smugglers came down in armies of 100 men ;
regular battles ensued, and several were killed and
wounded on both sides, of which regular dispatches
and returns were made.
MALT DUTY BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER
moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. CREEVEY opposed the second reading. They
had now been for three weeks siting, almost con-
stantly, in a Committee of Supply, and yet they had
no tst mates—( flea r). He had been told that the
Seci eta' y of the Treasury, in communications ad-
dressed to those who were in political connection
with the Lords of the Treasury, had informed them
that it would be a very short Session ; that all the
business would be over .by Easter. In other words,
this was to say that the Queen was sacrificed ; that
Ministers were safe; and, as for money, that nobody
troubled himself about its disposal—(/car). Still
the House had no estimates. But they were to come.
They were at length to come ; and they would pre-
sent themselves, all at once, in the shape of huge
books, which, if Honourable Gentlemen did their duty
as Members of Parliament, it would take them three
weeks to examine ; but which, as usual, they would
be required to go through at one sitting, of two or
three nights at the furthest—(Hear). Now, he was
determined that he never would leave things in this
state of his own will. Those estimates they would
never have, unless they stopped the supplies which
the Constitution had put into their hands; and upon
this principle it was that he opposed, and meant to
oppose the second reading of this Bill.—(Hear, hear).
He spoke, however, With some hesitation on the sub-
ject, as he saw an Honourable Baronet on the second
bench opposite—he meant one of those Lay Lords,
as sonic persons called him, but as he (Mr. Creevey)
styled him, ore of those sham, mock Lords of the
Admiralty. He understood that that' Honourable

Mr. CURTEIS said, that within a week past a Baronet had said to that political connection and ac-
Notice was published in The London Gazette, to sup- quaintance of which he formed so distinguished an
ply the Colonies with British flour. It had, however, ornament--4 Hear, and laughter)—that he meant on
been stated? that British flour and corn was inferior this occasion to inflict a strong and signal punish-
to American ; but he had documents from Governors 'ment upon him (Mr. Creevey), for doing as he did
and others in our Colonies, that it was superior, if mean to do—persevering in his opposition, till the
properly harvested. He hoped, in the present state House got these reluctant Estimates—(A laugh,' and
of British Agriculture, that no contracts for foreign cheering). The Chancellor of the Exchequer, they
corn and flour would be made. He then moved for kne#, had thrown out that the House was to find that
a Return of all Foreign Corn and Flour contracted there would be effected a saving of £1,000,000 this
for by the Victualling Office for the last three years, year—(Hear, hear). The Estimates, however' were
distinguishing the prices of each. not forthcoming to prove that position; and he (Mr.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was Creevey) was resolute to oppose, as he had done be-
always. desirous of protecting British Agriculture, fore, everything which bore the slightest resemblance
and therefore would not oppose the motion. A quan- to a vote of Supply ; for, in persisting in this course of
city of British flour and corn bad perished in the Co. conduct, he humbly hoped that the Honourable Ba-
lonic's; and in consequence of representations from ronet, who had so obligingly invited his Honourable'