The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-03-20 00:00:00

TIM grA'rit.SMAN

that the som of 21.,5311. for snelralsoles was a pro.
fele moil estraa•e•at espenditere of public money.
The SPEAKER, .used. that as the sem of
79.titail. WI been voted to cover the whole of the
&Wesley, the comm. so he permed oas, either to
move that the mein in question should be struck off
truss the 90111 total, or, after the rueful Moolotion
had beep artied, to Mote that the particular sum
was s waste of the public motory..

Lind C AST LF.III:AG II Raid, that there were some
of the items which he did not attempt to explain, as
they did eat belong i• his department. and would
be better explained by his colleagues. With respect
In the importer.* trimmed at Aisle-Chapelle, the 1,
sum bed been 40001. for the Noble Doke, and the
issme for himself, and he could assure the House
there had berm no inattention to economy on their
Marls. A spirit of courtesy mast artist betwixt dif.
(met Governments, and et the Congress of Yieorix
the whole of the cape". bad been sepperted by
the Emperor of Austria. It should be kept in
mind, that she charge for the. snolf.boxes was for
top years, from Jely 1815 le July 1818, and that
the diploirescy was net then is its natural slate. Bet
the question bad beets canvassed before in 1811, and
the average expose, for seven years bad been found
to amount to 10,0001. per ame. In the year
1802, Mr. Pitt had estimated the upstage at the same
sem of 10,0001. socially. Ile should contend, that
she abolition of such an 'nieces would be against
the public service. Such an interchange of presents.
was es old es any Monarchy in Europe. The case of
the Amerieen Government was different. Oat of 24
of these protests, he had received Ere in the court.*
of two years. No profession was so expensive as
the Diplomatist, and none so injurious tattle privet.
fortune of the individeal. Such presents were never
intended to be sold. He had always kept those he
bad received as memorials of the transactions is which
be bed beers engaged ; and he trusted they would al.
ways be to kept by his family.—(ilear!)
Mr. FORBES alluded to the hardships that Ni.
cal Officers esperiesced from the state of the ex-
change. by which they at times sestained a loss of
from 25 to 40 per eent.
Lord CASTLEREAGH begged to stale, that, In
consequence of an arrangement that had been made
on that subject, the espeoce of Foreign Embassies
bad beets mach less for the three lest years than for
the three years immediately preceding.
Sir M. RIDLEY understood, that the amount of
the presents at Aix.la.Chopelle, in which the Noble
Lord would ht., largely participated, bad been
-much diminished by means of the Noble Lord himself.
Mr. CANNING said, that at Ais.la.Chapelle
there bed been only ono exchange of Treaties, end
of conseqeeece stoic one Dresses; • , but that had the
tassel coarse been adopted at the Congress of Vienne.
his Noble Friend would have been entitled to 45
presents. brewed of the moo which be received.—
[near, hear I]
The general Revelation for greeting 79.0001. to
make good 800 debeienoy en dm Civil List Coedit-
gencies, was thee agreed to,
Mr. HUTCHINSON, after disclaiming every
thing in the oaten of a personal charge, moved that
the grant of the sum of 25,5311. for sneff.hoxes to
Foreign &Bolsters, was a profuse and sacrament
napenditere of the public meoey. Tb motion was
negatived without a division.
TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL
The AtrottNEY-GENERAL moved the Order
of the Day for the farther consideration of tile Re.

port on this Bill.
Sir F. BURDETT said the Bill was milled a Bill
for the Abolition of Trial by Battle, but it went also
to take away the Right of Appeal, with which, he
conceived, it bad nothing whatever to do, any more
titan with an indictment at gammon or statute law.
In fact the Trial by Battle might be considered as
completely obsolete. The principle was—" meanie
redoes testa, leg;' sad he conceived that here, as
well as in the cues of Trial by Ordeal, by Fire and
Water. and by receiving the Sacrament, and other
caws where the jedicia Dei were resorted to in the
absence of ether means of proof, the law had com-
pletely ceased, end might be considered as quite ob.
sole,. These were, in fact, all done away, and why
should not the Trial by Battle be considered as done
away also? Ile was aware of the objection which
would he merle to the Appeal, which, he contended,
ought to be allowed in cases of murder—that it im-
posed persons in • wood trial for the same °Bence.
lie was as much an enemy to • second trial generally
et
any man; hut he eroicrised, that in the cased mar- I
der. the appeal motht to be allowed. becaese it went
tncheck the iliryst rrrrr is. of,he power of the Crown
In pardoning criminals. The Trial by Battle was only
reeortort to in C 11.14 where it was supposed all other
mode of prnrf failed. and then the parties looked to
the itsdiril Vet, nr judgment of God. This nes in a
groat Mr4.lllff the rase in the instance of Cal. Ramsey
end Rev. The corer, to which the matter was
referred, at which the Earl•Nlarshel presided, came
to the determination of allowing the Wager by Ket-
tle, but it was only on the soppositinn that on
ether mode of proof reallitted. This was in itself an
argument to show that the Wager of Battle was only
■ snit of ultimates ',median. lie confessed that,
looking to the present attempt at 'belittling the Right
of Appeal, and considering the gender in which it
originated, he coeld not (though be meant nothing
personal whatever to the lion. and Learned Moyer,
the Attorney-General) view it without strong feelings
of coestitational jealousy. It was, he conceived. a
mestere which went to Increase Ilia power of the
Crown. inasmech as it went to deprive the tube
jest of an Appeal against what might be en
illegal and ablest extension of the power of the
Crown in pardoning criminals In cases of warder.
De was net objecting to the abolition of the second
trial in most cases, or to the Wager of Battle; bet
he contended, that this right of the subject shoeld
trot be done away with. In support of it he bad
some of the highest legal aetnorities. Lord Holt
and Mr. Denning hod said, that it was one of the
main pillars of the Consoitetion ; end the Peers of
the Resolution, when they objected to the practice'
of trying any one of their body by Commissions ap-
pointed by the King, soon afterwards passed a rms.
lotion, that this should not at all trench epon the
right of Appeal. Ile was also analogs that this right
shook, be preserved from the instances which had oc-
carved hs the present reign, in which the meet scan•
dalogi dere Intl been made et the power et the

Crown.in Oho portioning of rniortotors. An Meta.
Momirot for Kustrobotoogh (Sir 1. Moeistosit) hod

said, ad No &moor on this subject had •risen fro,'
the writings of Joni•s on the este of rho Kennedys.
Hero eertsi•l) was • e.•e where the power of the
Crown bad hero abased. These awn hod bere found

guilt) of warder, end bad boon pardoned. The cir-
cumatenee a hsch led to their pardon to es e proof allay
force of his Ligament—that the power of the Crown
was often 'hosed in the pardon of criminals. The
Oster of diet.e wen was the 'mistress of the then Lord

Strul e;ch. II she herl !wen honest, her brothers

woald have been banged ; bet because she was the
mistress of a person w he had some polities' infloence,
they were pinioned. after harlog been found guilty
of a foul louder. The Honnerable Berenet nett s'•
laded to the use of the men for the murder at Brent.

NM, et the time 'when Wilkes wee Candidate; sod
also In the nee of a young men, a gsrdener, vibe
hod morclered bia master, en old wise of eighty

year', in both of which firer the criminals were
pardoned. Here he conceited was en undue @sort
cite of the assumed powe► of the Crown. Hu
said on rimmed power, because by Statute *I of
Edward 111. the pardon of murderers was espressly
prohibited, incept in cases of self-defence. If it
wet obsoletely necessary, ■t that time, to have this
Law of Appeal, it was more se in the present day,
when a snrt of Military Government was resorted to;

when soldiers were inirothieed e• almost 'eery °en-

able isateed of the civil power; or h. 'd of it when
sects aid we. vinnecessaty. He could net here omit to
notice an anecdote of the opinion of the Noble I.ntd to
whom he bad alluded :—A crowd of persons had eel.

lected round a house (ha Holborn, we believe), where
it was supposed a number of impressed men were,
who had been kideapped to he sent to America.—
Application was made for the aid of the military, and
the matter was communicated to Lord Heti. He
asked the Officer who was sent to him, what he would
do in cue the crowd did not disperse. The answer
was " that hajwoold give orders in fire upon them,
for such were the instructions be had received."—
" Theo, Si., (replied Lord Holt), if yo• dn, and that
either you ur any of your soldiers shall afterwards
come hero,e me, depend upon it yor shall be all
banged." 'Pm consequence of this admonition was,
that the soldiers were out ordered oat, bet a party
of the Police were found sufficient to quell the riot.
If Lord llolt, continued the Hon. Baronet, was In
that day, with such opinions as he held upon the
lA. of Appeal, an jealous fifth* military power, bow
much weight ought not those opinions to have at the
present moment, when the military system seemed,
in many instances, to have superseded the civil—
when barracks wets erected in every part of the
country. The Law of Appeal would, be conceived,
be some protection, thoegh perhaps a week one,
against the abase of such a system. As to the ar-
gument that the low of Appeal was inconsistent with
that principle which went against two trials for the
same offence. and that its abolition was essoweeted
with that of the Wager of Battle, hesboold 'sly say,
that en two objections could be more easily
obviated. It would be only necessary to Wag le a
small Bill to do away the Wager of Battle. and to
repeal so muck of the statute of /leery VII. as
allowed ens trial for • particular offence, In be•
plea in bar of a Second trial for the same offence,
leaving the appeal open in we' of murder. In
order to have this matter folly discussed, he should
move that the 801 l be re.rommitted. and lie would of.
lemur& move the Amendments which were neces-
sary. The lion. Baronet then alluded to the case
of " Ashford b. Thornton." which was se folly before
the Public • short time ago, end regretted that the
Appellant in that case had net common sense enough
to pursue his appeal to the last ; because then it
would be seen whether the law was really considered
one which ought to be acted open or not—whether
the Chief Jostice of the Court of King's Bench would
have gone into Tothill.fields to see two rove beet
each other first with cudgels, and afterwards with
sand-bags for • whole day. Ile was sorry the law
had not been brought to each a test, as he was con.
vinced the result would be en argument in f of
what he had asserted, that it was one which eight
not to be acted upon.
The Report was then ordered to betaken into fur.
Cher consideration, and oat the molten that the
Amendments be agreed to,
Sir F. BURDETT moved. as an Amendment,
that lb. Report be taken into farther consideration.
Mr. Srsjeant COPLEY said, as he understood
the intention of the Hon. Baronet, it was, that the
Law of Appeal should continue +lithos( the Trial by
Battle. let his feeling of the subject be should pre.
for that the Bill of his lion. and Learned Friend, the
Attorney-Genets!, should be lost altogether, than
that it should be passed with such an accompaniment ;
for he wished, that if the law of Appeal were to
continue, it should be continued with as massy objec-
tions as possible. The lion. Baronet had objected to
the Wager of Battle as an obsolete law. Ile was
surprised to hear such an assertion, after the recent
decision in the Court of King's Bench. If it were
so, was it not astonishing that such an objection
should have occurred to the Learned Counsel,
who hail conducted the case for the Appellant or to
the i.esrned Judges who presided ? That such • de-
cision as they had come to was (if the law was ob-
solete) 'efficient to reader the Court of King's Bench
ridiculous, could not be denied ; and that very cis-
stance would lo itself be a sufficient ground for the
Legislatuse to interfere.—[Neer!]--The Hon. Bart.
had cited the authority of Lord Holt in support of
that law, and certainly • more enlightened man mild
not be mentioned., a lawyer; bet the lion. Baronet
bad omitted to meatiest, that this opinion of Lord
Holes was one on • party question. The Hon. Ba-
ronet should have recollected that the whole of the
authority in this respect did not equally bear him
not. There were ether authorities which the Hon.
ilirenet might hare found in the same place where
be had discovered this opinion of Lord Holt's, and
which in Muses. ha should not have omitted; one
was of Lord Chief Justice Treby, • matt es on.
lightened en the subjoin as any Giber who could he
named. Yet this lawyer had gtve,t his epioion quite
in opposition to that whirls tkg v to. Baronet
had nutationed. Asetbet authority was that of as
eminent a Statesman es any "high he weld ususe—a
man who bad bore am of the briAlttfri ernameats
of that Hasats-4, moat Mr. Fes. 14kt emiaaat
SWOONS bed sltngly ebiected to ;IA Lim Ap

peel ; bet he supposed his (M r. Foe) vas en au-
thority i• which the lion. Barsinot wield nit be
reedy to bow. Ile hid espressod himself in heeler
of the ;tower of the Crown to pardon; he bad %boon
that it was a power bald for the benefit of the People,
sad that they bad a claim apron it; bet perhaps the
lion. Baronet had nn resrsect for such sothotit).—

Pawling that subject, however, be should cone to
another part of the lion. Baronet's speech. The
lion. Baronet had denied that the Crown kid the
right to pardon in cases of warder. lie would ask,
why should tide power be taken from the Crown ?
It was ezereised fir the benefit of the People, and sc-
.

.. --- ........__
cording to the practice of every civilised nation, this
poser Ives vested in some part of the Govern r 111.111.-
Woold she Honourable Baronet. who was the prn.

fisted friend.! Civil Liberty, deny that the power
of pardoning so offence should exist in some branch
of the Government; and if it did exist, in what
breech could it better be placed than in that which,
by so analogy of prerogative might to bold it—the
Crown ? It would not be maintained, that it should
be vested in • private individual, who might
be induced to exercise it from petty or factious
One great objection to the appeal of
murder was, that it might be used fur per-
poses of vengeance, to stopper' • faction. or to answer
private views, by being employed as the means of
extorting money. The last hail happened in the case
of the Kenererlys ; for the widows there bad been
bribed by 600 Ones', which, to increase the tempta-
tion, were counted over before her, at the suggestion
of Lord Ashborton. It was also attended by many
absurdities ; for instance, a widow could bring an
appeal If she did marry again, bat a daughter could
not. The Ham. Bart., so assaioes for the rights of
the subject, ought to be the last man to insist upon '
the continuance of she Appeal ; for all the ordinary
guards in cases of indictment, and instead of informa-
tion open oath, sad a bill found, an affidavit by the
appellant was only necessary, which staled, that it
was believed that the party charged was guilty. In
the same way, it did away with the sacred claim of a
Peer to be tried by his Peers, but be might be com-
pelled to throw himself upon the mercy el a Common
Jary. These objections to its continuance were so
I glaring, that argument seemed almost thrown away.
Sir F. BuRDErr, in reply, emistaieed, that the
power of the Crown to pardon bad been expressly
taken away by statute le certain cows, on account
of some abases In the exercise of that prerogative.—
He denied that the Crown ought to have the power
of pardoning in all cases of murdec, sad admitted
that there might he objections to the existing mode of
appeal. He should be glad if the Bill on the table
were mitered so as to remove them without trenching
open the right, which he considered most important,
and could not he abandoned without a strug.lrr.
Mr. TENNYSON swelled • slight amendment.
in order that the Bill might not have an ex post fedo
operation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, thought, that es
some cases of the kird were now actually pending,
It was fit that the Bill should be ex pest Jade: bed
the Court of King's Bench, is the case of Abraham
Thornton, been obliged to order Bittle, it would
have been the duty of the Legislators to interpose to
prevent its being waged. Ile thought it right to cor-
rect a gross error into which the lion. Baronet bad
fallen, when be Inserted that there was a statute
which controlled the King's power to pardon in cues
of warder : he probably referred to the statute of
Gloucester (6 Edw. I.), bat that Act bad a totally
Idifferent meaning; It was singular that the lion.
Baronet should have been so meth mistaken upon a
'statute so well known.
Sir F. BURDETT observed, that he had not re-
I (erred to the statute of Gloucester.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL added, that if
the lion. Baronet had not alluded to that, he must
confess his total ignorance of any other taking away
the power of the Crown to pardon: he believed—he
WWI WO it did not *silt.
Sir F. BURDETT read the words of the Statute,
12 Edo. 111., r. 2. which espirssly provided that the
I King shall only grant pardons " is cases where the
King may do it by his oath." He hoped that the
Learned Gentleman would be a little more cautious
in his contradictions in Wore.
Mr. Serjeaot COPLEY apprehended, that the
2 FAIT. HI. c. '2. must have been subsequently re-
pealed.
The question was then put, that the Bill be recom-
mitted, and a division took place: the following were
the numbers :
Fer the re•eoseasitmeat, 4 I Apiase it. 86 1 Majority, 82.
It was then ordered that the Bill should he read a
third lime on Monday.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON brought up the Report of
the Consolidated Food Produce Bill.
Tits Husbandry Horses Bill was read a third time
and passed.

SIERRA. I.ItONE.
On the question that the Netherlands Slave Trade
Bill be read a third time,
Mr. MARRYAT made some remarks upon the
greet sehealthinms of the climate of Sierra Leone,
and on the ether inconveniences attendiog it as en
establishment, whether for keeping up our coneec•
lion with the interior of Africa, or for bringing is
end condemning slave ships: he referred to various
facts and documents, and impressed upon the House
the superior advantsges of a settlement upon the
Gold Coast. Ile did not think that 'efficient consi-
deration had been given to the subject, sod thought
a settlement more to the southward would have
been infinitely preferable, for which be assigned seve-
ral reasons.
Lord CASTLEREAGH, in answer to what had
fallen from the Honourable Gentlemen, begged to
inform hiss that the sehject bad been very maturely
deliberated ; and, os enquiry it was head that Sierra
Leone was the best station in which to establish the
Commission. It was found that we most have Sierra
Leone or none, there heing sio other point en the
enlist of equal safety. With respect to Cape Corm
Castle, the el;tnete was undoubtedly much more heal-
'by; and btu g to leeward, was, its a nautical point
of view. more. eligible : yet these advantages were not
equal to what •Ise other "titian possessed, es to the
isms objects of the Commissloo. With respect to
the ease which trod bees pet by the Honourable Gen-
' Hosea of a cargo of slaves arriving, and the possi-
t bilky that the fever might sweep off the Judge, so
that the parties coeld not peened to adjediotiov,

that ease lad hero foreseen awl resi.!.l for. The
death of one Judie 'livid not drily the puneedittesa
as there was another ready In !alto hia place ; and if
mos he ahoold b. taken dt, the cause might be :T.
9.a1.d to the Controiasione.‘. sod they would prorred
to a.!pdiettion. He assured the Honour•ble Mem.
her. that the ehnl• beating% of this matter bed boon
diligently e,nsidered and disees.ed by bit Majesty's
Goserontent. _ _