The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

LIST OP THE MINORITY

Of eight who voted on Mr. Ruthven's motion that the Chair-
man Report Progress of Committee on Sugar Duties.
Baldwin Dr. Cork City Hume J., Middlesex
Barry G. S., Cork County I O'Connor F., Cork County
Faithful G., Brighton Ruthven E., Kildare County
I
Fielden J.,Oldham Vigors N., Carlow.
THURSDAi.

The house was occupied till a quarter to 5 o'clock in ballot-
ing for committees to try the merits of the Hertford and Newry
borough election petitions.
The SPEAKER informed the house, that the recognizances of
the petitions against the returns for the boroughs of Harwich,
Barnstaple, and Warwick, had not been duly entered into and
perfected.
The orders of the day for considering those petitions were ac-
cordingly discharged.
Mr. BOLL ING presented five petitions in favour of the Factory
Regulation Bill, with the prayer of which he could only par-
tially concur ; from Bolton-le-moors for increased facilities for
the sale of beer and ale, to which he was wholly opposed; and
from Bolton, signed by 11,500 persons, praying for a reduction
of taxation, particularly the assessed taxes, and the taxes on
tea, coffee, sugar, and other necessaries (a laugh) for a repea
of the corn-laws, (continued laughter,) and for universal suf
frage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot. (Great laugh-
ter.) He should be neglectful of the interests of his consti-
tuents if he did not support the prayer for a reduction of taxa-
tion, particularly as it applied to the staple manufacture of Lan-
cashire—cotton ; and he should be wanting in duty to himself
and them if he did not express his dissent from other portions
of the petition..
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from an individual namedl
Fletcher, against the intended measures of coercion towards-
Ireland ; and a petition from the same person complaining of
the prevalence of bribery. and corruption during the late Nor-
wich election, and praying that a commission might be ap-
pointed, according to the precedent afforded by Mr. Wynn's
act of 1802, to inquire into and expose those corrupt practices.
Mr. O'CONNELL would take advantage of that opportunity to
state, that he had received very many petitions from all parts of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, against the Irish coercive
bill, which he was only prevented from presenting by the regu-
lations of the house touching the presenting of petitions.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the petition which the
member for London had presented relative to the Norwich
election was calculated to excite a prejudice against the sitting
members pending the consideration of the petition against their
return. _ _ _

Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the prayer of the 'petition for
the sending of commissions to collect evidence with respect to
corrupt practices was well worthy the consideration of the house.
if this practice were adopted a great saving of expense would
result from it. Whilst upon the subject of election petitions he
would express a wish that election committees would be less
scrupulous in declaring that petitions against returns were fri-
volous and vexatious. (Hear, hear.) Persons who could not
make out their case ought to be saddled with the costs.
Mr. C. WYNN expressed his entire concurrence in what had
fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin; particu-
larly on the latter point.
Mr. LENNARD supported the prayer of the petition.

JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND.)
Lord ALTI.IORP said that before the hon. and learned gentle•
man brought forward the motion of which he had given notice,
relative to juries in Ireland, he wished to inform him, that, in
order to redeem the pledge which he (Lord Althorp) had given
last session, it was the intention of government to introduce a

bill similar in principle -(though he would not answer for it
being precisely the same in all its details) to the bill which was
brought forward by them last session, and lost in the other
house. The bill in the present instance would be introduced
in the other house, and if when it came down to this house it
should not give "satisfaction, it could be-altered. Perhaps, after
this statement, the hon. and learnedmember would not think it
necessary to bring in his bill; if, however, he should' do so, he
(Lord Althorp) would not object to its introduction, but would
reserve to himself the right of opposing it at a future stage.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he placed unlimited confidence-in
the good faith of the noble lord on this point; and he knew
that it was owing to no default on his part that the bill
which was introduced last session was not carried. The bill
which he was now about to introduce differed in some respects
from that of the last session, and therefore he thought that
he had better explain its objects to the house, and then, if the
noble lord would adopt it, he would most gladley see it placed
in the hands of the government. He would not long detain the
house in explaining the nature of the bill which he proposed to
introduce. By the llth of George IV.. the law with respect to
special juries in England was altered, and substantially amend-
ed. Up to that period the power of selecting special juries was
vested in the Master of the Crown-office, in the King's Bench,
and other officers connected with the courts ofjustice. Under
this system frequent complaints were made of juries being
packed. At length one of the judges said in court that if by
the allegation, of juries being packed it was meant that they
were selected by the officer, they certainly were :packed. The
subject was shortly after brought under the • consideration of
Parliament, and the practice of selecting them was abolished.
He would now put the house in possession of the mode of
selecting special juries in Ireland. Notwithstanding the statute
of 12 George 1., c. 4, which enacted that at every Michaelmas
term the sheriff should inquire by inquest what was the num-
ber of freeholders in each barony, and return them as a grand
panel from which to select juries; the practice was for the sub
sheriff to return from 100 to 700 names according to the-extent
of the barony. The result was, that the Crown had the abso-
lute choice 'of the jury, by means of 'an unliinited right of
challenge in criminal cases. One of his objects was to make
the law with respect to the right of challenge the same in Ire-
land as- in England. In the former country the Crown pos-
sessed an unlimited privilege to *set 'aside jurymen; without
assigning any reasonable cause. So long back. as Edward 1.
it was enacted that the Crown should not exercise the right of
peremptory challenge; but the judges had contrived to repeal
the law, for they allowed the Crown to 'set aside jurymen with-
out limit, who were to stand by until the panel was exhausted,
and that never was the case, because the Judges had the power
to make the sheriff enlarge the, panel. He knew that at one
particular trial the Crown had set aside no less than 132
jurors. In cases of misdemeanors private prosecutors had
the same advantage, and the effect of the practice was
most pernicious. A most respectable 'solicitor, practising
in the Court of Chancery, was tried for conspiring to.evade
the bankrupt laws, and the party prosecuting him took pains
to set aside almost every one of the jurors who did not'belong
to a society called the " Friendly Brothers." There were
eleven of these friendly brothers on the jury, and that respect-
able 'solicitor, in the teeth of the clearest evidence of his
innocence, was convicted. Lord Manners looked over the
whole of the evidence produced on the trial, and so convinced
was he that that gentleman had been wrongly condemned, that
he at once restored his name on the roll, and the other judges
followed his lordship's example. This was a very strong
instance of the bad effects resulting from the'existing practice;
and he insisted that it was a state of law that ought not to be
continued. The mode in which he proposed to alter it was
by introducing a principle familiar to the'law. Since the time
of Edward 111. the system of balloting for juries had existed.
It had been adopted in some cases in Ireland, and that house
had sanctioned it by establishing it as the means of selecting
special juries in England. He proposed, therefore, that the.
same principle should be acted upon in criminal cases as in
civil, and that out of the grand panel returned by the
he would leave the Crown prisoner the right of .peremp-
tory challenge, and allow the the privilege of vhallenging on
showing a reasonable cause; but he would review the statute
of Edward 1., and deprive the Crown of the power of setting
aside jurors without limit. These were the provisions of the
bill he intended to submit to the house, but if the noble lord
opposite informed him that government would, before the
Introduction of their bill into the other house, take the latter
part of the subject into their consideration,—he meant that
relating to the choice of juries by ballot,—he would willingly
withdraw his measure. The hon. and learned member then
moved for leave to bring in " a bill to amend the laws relative
to special juries and juries in criminal cases in Ireland."
Lord Ai-Auntie said that, though the hon, and learned mem-
ber had stated his object to be the assimilation of the law in
England and Ireland, the bill proposed appeared 'to him to go
further than was necessary for that purpose. (Hear.) Be
did not mean to oppose the introduction of the bill, but be
should reserve to himself the right of objecting to such parts of
the measure as, upon consultation with' his colleagues, might
appear objectionable.
LEFROY thought the most mischievous consequences
would result from the change in the jury system proposed by
the lion. and learned member. He denied that the Crown had
the power of packing juries in Ireland; and in proof of this
assertion he instanced a case which lately occurred in Kilkenny,
where the Crown prosecutor found it impossible to obtain a
verdict against a prisoner to whom the commission of a most
outrageous murder was by the clearest evidence brought home.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it most desirable that the
law in England and Ireland be assimilated. (Hear, hear.) This
he would say, that, juries selected by the officers of the court
neve: could command the confidence of the people. (Hear,
hear.) But he begged to suggest to the hon. and learned
gentleman whether it would not be better for his purpose not to
ask too much ? Let him make the law in Ireland as it existed
in England. (Hear.)
Mr. SilAw thought it desirable to assimilate the law in
England and Ireland, but reference should be. had to the differ-
ence of circumstances uI the two countries.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON considered the right exercised by the
Crown of setting aside jurors without limit a direct evasion of
the law.

MASTER OF TUE. REPORTS OFFICE.

Mr. Hunt would avail himself of the. present opportunity to
ask the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer what had been
done with respect to the office of the Master of Reports in
Chancery ?
Lord ALTIIORP made a reply which was very indistinctly
heard in the gallery. We understood him to say that as soak
as the Master of the Reports died, the Senior Registrar of 'the
Court of Chancery put in a claim to be appointed, as a matter
of course, to the vacant office. The Lord Chancellor, not
choosing to admit his claim as a matter of right, told the
Senior Registrar that it belonged to him to appoint a proper
person to the office, but informed him, at the same time, that he
had no objection to give him the appointment, provided he con-
sented to take it atter a specific notice that he (the Lord
Chancellor) intended to bring in a bill to abolish the office
altogether, and to transfer the business belonging. to it tx
another department of the court. The Senior Registrar had
agreed to accept the office under this arrangement.

REDUCTION OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.

Mr. Huns°l4, after a short speech, of which not a syllable
was audible in the gallery, moved a resolution for a graduated
reduction in the pay and salaries of all persons employed in the
public service, and in all superannuation allowances, half-pay,
and pensions, paid out of the public money.
Mr. 'l'. ATTwoon felt. it to be his painful duty to second the
motion which had just been made by the hon. member; whose
name he did not know, and of whose constituents he was equally
ignorant. He was well aware that the noble lords and hon.
gentlemen who were in possession of pensions and sinecure
could ill afford to submit to any reduction, but he was well as-
sured that all the productive classes of society had for many
years past been conipelled to submit to a much greater reduc-
tion iu their annual incomes.

Mr. liumk: thought that nothing could be of greater impor-
tance than that the house should adopt a rule for the adequate
payment of the public service. To enable the house to lay
down such a rule, he would state, that on two different occa-
sions, once in 1822 upon his motion, •and again at a more .re-
cent period, upon the motion of the right hon. baronet opposite
(Sir J. Graham, we believe,) the house had resolved that all
official salaries be reduced so as to approximise to what they
were in 1792. In consequence of those motions being seconded
and carried by the aid of the noble lord opposite, the lists'
of the civil establishments of the country were revised. The
hon. gentleman then made some reMark's on the report upon
this subject, and said that the scale of remuneration adopted in
the public, exceeded that of private establishments, wheie
equal responsibilitywas required, and concluded by requesting
his hon. friend to withdraw his..motion.for the present.
Mr. litcrin,ans,• after stating his conviction that the country
had not possessed a better ministry for half a century than that
which it possessed at the present moment, proceeded to observe,
that if they were determined to go upon the level of low prices,
they must make not only the reductions proposed by his hon.
friend, but also many reductions much more considerable. Ile
knew the state of the labouring classes intimately, and, speak-
ing generally, he would say that though there might be some
exceptions, the whole head was sick, and the whole heart was
faint. There was no trade at present in which there was any
(ewainued an page 2a2.)

REvlstNo BAnntsxstis.—lt appears by two returns laid be-
Rare the House of Commons, that the sun required to pay the
ot.o of revise
tike allowances and expenses of the barristers'
employed
Ow list of voters, us under the Reform Act, is i 2 sit
this
.bout f.19,01)0 may be put down to the score of salary, and the
test as expenses.
The triumphant election of Mr. Lyall for the city of London
is a striking proof that the people are returning to their senses
on the subject of Reform and Reformers. The numbers at the
*lose of the poll, were, for major Lyaii 5,571; for the Alderman
f
Veuables 4,487 ; making a ity, in favour of Mr. Lyall,
Above one thousand votes. The constituency of the country
'has learned a good deal by experience, since last December.
The conduct of the Electors of the City of London shews how
.ley have profited by their experience ;—ancl can any body
',appose that they are tie only Electors who have done so?—
. 4infaa Guardiam,

By order of the Trustees jor Sale.
By Messrs. 'l'. of
& SONS,
On Thursday, the 4th April, 18.33, at Twelve o'clock at noon,
at the Clarendon-rooms, South John-street, in the following
or such other lots as may be agreed upon at the time of sale,
and subject to such conditions as will he.tireii produced,
Lot 1. A LL that one undivided ' ' • art or Share of and
in TRINITY CHU , situate in St. Anne's-
street,ro
in Liverpool, with the ews, Vaults, Privileges, and
Appurtenances thereunto belonging.
£he Pews attached to this Share are, No:. 4, 12, 15, 16, 17,
18, 21, '26, 29, 3j, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 65, 66, 92, on the Ground-
floor.-Nos. 6,8, 11, 12, 18, 19. 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 45, 60, 61, 64, ($5, 66, 92, 95, 99, in the Gallery.-
Each Pew is subject to a small annual Ground-rent.
There are also belonging to this Share Forty unopened
Vaultl'under the Church.

2.—A1l those Two ME SSUA GES or DWELLING
HOUSES situate on the east side of Highfield-street, in Liver-
pool, containing in front thereto ten yards, or thereabouts, and
running in depth to the Premises next hereinafter described
fourteen yards and a quarter, or thereabouts, now in the occu-
pation of Messrs. James Hovles and Handles, as tenants
thereof.—Also all that SHIPPON, situate on the west side of
Smithfield-street, in Liverpool, containing in front thereto five
yards and a quarter, or thereabouts, and in depth to the said
Dwelling-houses fourteen yards one foot, or thereabouts, now
in the occupation of the said James Boyles. •
3.—A1l those Two MESS VA GE S or DWELLING-
HOUSES situate on the north side of Denison-street, in Li-
verpool, containing in front thereto eleven yards or thereabouts,
and running' in depth twenty yards and a half, or thereabouts,
now in the occupation of Mrs. Catherine Wilkinson and Mr.
Spencer, as tenants thereof.
4.—A1l that MESSUAGE or DWELLING-HOUSE si-
tuate on the west-side of Soho-street, in Liverpool, containing
in front thereto seven yards, or thereabouts, and running in
depth forty-five yards two feet, and being in breadth at the back
five yards, or thereabouts, now in the occupation of Mrs. Tarl-
ton, as tenant thereof.
5.—A1l that MESSUAGE or DWELLING-HOUSE si-
tuate on the south-west side of Ilunter-street, in Liverpool,
containing in front thereto five yards,_ or thereabouts, and run-
ning in depth thirty yards, or thereabouts, now in the occupa-
tion of Mr. Gibson, as tenant thereof.
6.—A PEW in St. Ann's Church, in Liverpool, being No. 4
on the Ground-floor, and subject to a small annual Ground-
rent.
_ _ _

the tenure of the above lots is Freehold of Inheritance. •
7.—A1l that MESSUAGE or DWELLING-HOUSE si-
tuate on the south side of Bridgewater-street, in Liverpool,
containing in front thereto four yards and a half, or there-
abouts, and running in depth eighteen yards, or thereabouts,
now in the occupation of Mr. John Jones, as tenant thereof.
The tenure of this lot is Leasehold under the Corporation of
Liverpool, for three lives and twenty-one years, one of which
lives only is in being.
For further particulars apply to Messrs. FOSTER and LLorn,
solicitors, No. 8, Exchange-alley, Liverpool.