The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-29 00:00:00

•• Private Dom, roiled the Corner.

just published (Sikteenth Edition), I, Tot /Bata or Wt,
a familiar commentary on the a save Diseases.—sid. I- vast-
ANA. 4.ldressed exclusively to the Female Sex.—May be had
at 20, Paternnster-retv ; Mt, Pall Mall' IC Prinees-street,
'cob° ;
174. Fleet-street I Porta% ?2$ Grafton•streef, Dub-
lin; Jones. 117,4rongate, Glasgow; and of all Booksel-
lers, Price 6s.

HOUSE oft tOßDS—Rnennsikaw.
SirJobn Newport brought up frosts tie Hoare of Com-
mons the Irish Comity Treasurer's, BBL wit► a saes•
sage that the "loom bad concurred in Ilse amendment,
which their Lordships bad made in the same. Also the
Irish Grand Jury Presentments' Bill.
The Glasgow Police Bill was read a third time and
passed.
On the motion for reading the Irish Grand Jury Pre-
sentments' Bill a first time,
The Earl of DONOUGHMOBE objected to it on the
ground that It proposed to give a very inadequate remu-
neration to the Clerk of the Peace, compared with that
granted to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland. To the
latter officer the Bill proposed to give a salary double
that which was proposed by the Bill of last year, and thus
his emoluments would be much too great, although his
duties were not so severe as those performed by the Clerk
of the Peace. His Lordship therefore hoped that this
Bill would not be allowed to piss without due inquiry,
end be should now give notice of his intention to move
that the Bill be r►ferred to a Committee.
The Bill was then read a first time.
The Ite of RUTLAND presented a petition from
the of Leicester against the Duties on
Poritfto imported into this conatry.
Adjourned to Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WIDXSIDAY.
Lord GRENVILLE SOMERSET presented a peti- I
don from some Magistrate; of Monmouthshire, com-
plaining of the practice of manufacturers paying their
workmen in goods instead of money.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. HONY WOOD presented a petition from the
Brewers of Camberwell, praying for permission to brew
middle neer —l.aid on the table.
Mr. LOW THER presented a petition from some parishes
in the County of Cumberland against Negro SLtvery.—
Ordered to be printed.
Lord ALTHORPE moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to regulatelhe County Courts.—Leave was granted.
Lord EBRINOTON presented a petition from Milton
Abbot, in Devonshire, praying fora repeal of the Duty on
Coals carried Coastwise.—Laid on the table.
On the motion of Mr. LIUME, papers relating to Cases
tried in the Exchequer Courts of Scotland, under Excise
Laws, during the last five years, were ordered.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from certain
Bleachers in Yorkshire, praying that the Bill of last year
relating to the duty on Sulphuric Acid be made perms-
nent.—Laid oe the table.
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from the
Table-Beer Brewers of London and Middlesex, praying
the House to delay the passing of the Beer Bill.—Laid
on the table.
TRIAL BY SPECIAL JURIES.
Mr. HUME said be held in his hand a petition from
John Hunt, the Editor of the Rowtosiner newspaper, com-
plaining of the abuie to which the.present system of
striking Special Ivies is subject. He expressed his re-
gret, both for the sake of the petitioner, and of the cause
outof which the complaint had grown, that the petition
had not fallen into abler bands. The point to which be
particularly wished to call the attention of the House was
this—namely, whether the Trial by Jury was to he any
longer maintained in England ? Ile meant, whether they
were any longer to enjoy the benefits of trial by impartial
Juries, or whether the Master of the Crown Odic/ was
to select whom he pleased to sit is judgment between
the Crown and the Public, from a list so long in his pos-
session, that be could not lie ignorant of the political
bias of the persons whose names formed that list. The.
practice of late years was nut to have an impartial Jury
In those cases • but the Master of the Crown Office se-
lectedforty-eigt names out of the thousands of names
in his office, and the party was obliged to be content with
a Jary out of those. The fact was, that whatever bias or
influence the Master of the Crown Office was under,—no
master on which side they were, the present system
enabled him to give them full scope; and it was almost
impossible but he must, in most cases, feel some bias
The Hon. Member then read and forcibly commented o
the statements in the petition, of which the following ip
a copy :
Toth, Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom o
Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled :—f
The bumble Petition of John Hunt, of Old-Pond-street,
Publisher—
SHOWETH,
That your Petitioner was in IS2I proseated on an Ex-
officio Information by his Majesty's Attorney General, for a
libel in the weekly newspaper called the '' Examiner," of
which he is Proprietor, and that previously to the trial to be
attended on summons, when the Master of the Crown-office
nominated the 48 Jurors, out of which the panel to try the
case was to be formed. That your petitioner has also re-
cently been the self-styled " Constitutional Association,"
for publishing an alleged libel on the late King, in a Poem
entitled the " Vision of Judgment;" and that he attended a
similar nomination at the Crown-office, c•ti the lath day of
the present month. That on both these occasions the Mas-
ter had insisted on selecting out of a book containing the
names of many thousand freeholders and leaseholders of the
county of Middlesex, such names only as he chose, proceed-
ing on no understood plan, 11tit picking out or passing over
the names entirely at his own will and pleasure.
That the Master declared it was the constant practice of
his office to nominate from among those persons alone to
whole names the designation of " Esquire" was affixed in
the Freeholders' Book by the petty constables who make the
returns to the Sheriff. Your petitioner conceive this prac-
tice to be In the highest degree unjust and illegal ; because
all the freeholders and leaseholders are by law equally eli-
gible to serve on Special Juries, yet by this arbitrary and
absurd distinction the immense majority are excluded from the
exerciseof a great constitutional right, and the discharge of
an important civil duty. Your petitioner could enlarge-on
the unauthorised, uncertain, and ignorant manner in which
the title of " Esquire" is lavished by the district officer, and
could state numerous instances; within his own immediate
knowledge wherein the persons so styled have been retail
tradesmen at tually carrying on business • but he forbears to
fatigue your llonourahle House with a detail which he trusts
is not required in order to convince your Honourable House
that nothing can be more unjust and ridiculous, than :hat
the designation of "Esquire," arbitr-rily tired by a subor-
dinate district officer to the names of a small minority of the
freeholders, should be held to give them an exclusive privi-
lege to discharge the duty of Special Jurors, to the practical
disfranchisement of the great majority of those whom the
law Ms declared eligible.
Your petitioner has further to complain, that the mode of
nonimation practised by the Master is still more objection-
able thsh this unjust eficlusion. and in effect totally deprives
the subject of all security for obtait Ing an impartial J ary.—
A person bolding the situation of Master will naturally have
a bias towards the Crown, and is obvioesly a proper pet•
soli to have the absolute selection of the Jurors in any cause
between the Croup and the subject. The law, has, however,
intended; as it appears to your petitioner, that though the
Master should be the Instrument of nomination, the Jurors
should be taken Its such a manner as to get rid of the
exercise of any discretion on the part of the Master, and con-
sequently to remove from him both the temptation and the
power to be partial or corrupt. There are various ways by
which this object could be secured, as by a ballot (a plan

adopted by the wisdom of your Honoarable House in regar.l
to your Election Comnsittres) or by some rule of chance tt,i
the principle of the ballot.. Your petitioner stratmoncli
urged the Master to adopt some plan of this deseripttioa ;
but though that Moser admitted that be had done so on
former occasiobs, and that his present mode enabled !dm,
wets he so disposed, to select unfairly, be persisted in this
arbitrary way stated, of choosing 48 names. Your peti-
, dotter protested against the proceeding as calculated to aft
fo►d scope to the greatest pertiality And corruption—as ma-
4•nifesti counteracting the Intention of the law—and as in-
evitably exciting the strongest suspicion in the mind of the
subject. without producing a single counterfeiting ads*• -
tags to the administration of justice. But your stetitioneCi
protest having proved ineffectual with the-Master, and pipe
petitioner having observed that the Gonna King's Ranch
refused letely even to htar a complaint against this mode
of selection, he has no resource but to appeal to your lion.

Home: •
Yourpetitioner also begs leave to assure your Honour!
able House, that he conscientiously believes, from the I.e •
enlist-description of the persona nominated io four Crow
class in which be was concerned as defendant, that he hi;.;
suffered grievous wrong end injury by the abase of the
power to select Juries, which this practice puts into the her.es
of the Master. ,
Your petitioner therefore prays your Honourable House to
institute an immediate inquiry into th.• a•:n ice he c)5.-
plains of, and to adopt some remedy for an evil wh'
whether considered as offering temptation and offdr.:-
!Ng sc,pe for theirossest correption, or as excii•ng a
vioient suspielon of the administration of justice in
minds of his Majesty's subjects. is one of deep r...J
pressing-importance both to the Government and the
People.
And your petitioner will ever pray, dc.
May 26, 1623.. JOHN HUNT.
The House would observe that the Master admitted that

be had the power to act unfairly if he were so di•posed.
It was of the power given to the Master the petitioner
complained, and not of the Master himself, and as far as
be (Mr. Hume) could learn, the Master was a ninst r .
spectable individual. Such power as he possessed it was
never iotendrd by that House nor by the Constitution t t
be given to any individual without check or controul.—
The present master of the Crown Office bad also another
appointment under the Crown. He had the office of Au!
ditor-General at the Colonial Board. Although the en.
joyment of the Mastership of the Crown Office was dar-
ing lite, yet the office of Auditorship of the Colonial
Board was to continue with him during pleasure. In the
latter situation he had an income of MN. a year, and if
be did any act in the Crown -Office displeasing to tit,'
Oovernment he was liable to a deprivation of that sum.—
He (Mr. Hume) would therefore conclude that the indi-
vidual, however respectable, could not be without some
bias in favour of the Crown. Here the Hon. Member ad-
verted to an inquiry by the Common Council of Londor,
which showed that in a case between the Crown and au

individual tried for libel in the city, the Crown Solicitor
insisted that the Master of the Crown Office should make
a choice of individuals of a certain political bias. Mr.
Justice Barley, even when the subject was before lhe
Court of King's Bench, admitted that the officer had the
power of parking a Jury. He was sure the House would
agree with him that this was a most iuiportant subject.—
Why ? It was the very subject on which they had ex-
pended so much time in the Irish inquiry, which was n.)-
thing else than a charge of parking a Jury. It was al:-
seed to say that the Master did not know the political
feelings of those whom he pot on the panel. Ile must
lave known the political bias of those persons, whose
games were so lung before him. He would rather deli
the trial by Jury altogether abolished than have an in,:i•
'ideal charged with a political offence committed to
twelve men chosen in such a manner. He could not
bring himself to believe that the House would tolerate,
such a system, if they knew the abase to which it was 5-
able; and in case nobody more competent took ep the
▪ abject, he feltbianself bound to give notice that he would .
propose an inquiry into it. He begged leave to bring up
toe petition
Mr. PHILLIPS said he was glad that be was in, the
Hoes, during the observations with which the Hon. Mem-
ber accompanied the presenting of the petition—obser-
vations conveying instnuations as inapplicable to Cae
Master of the Crosn Office, at they were unworthy uf
the Hon. Member himself. Instead of 1,500/. a-year ac
auditor of the accounts of the Colonial Board, as the
Hon. Member said, the Master of the Crown-office had
only 1,0001. a-year. Besides, a gentleman who sacrificed
a sum of five or 'ix thousand pounds, with a pension of
5001. a-year, could not be supposed capable of such prac-
tices as the petition implied. lie would venture to as-
sert, that the present Master of the Crown-office did never
select one individual from motives of corruption, and if
the House only considered the manner in which Special
Juries were struck, they would see that such a thing
was impossible. In the City of Lontkin, all that the
Master knew of the circumstances of the persons. on his
list was, that they had the word " Merchant" attached
to their names ; for such only could be Special Jurymen
in the city. In the county, the names of those to be se-
lected for Special Jurors, were distinguished by the word
" Esquire." In the case of the petitioner, the Master of
the Crown-office did not know one single person of those
selected. He would be as glad as any Man that some ar-
rangement could he adopted, to place this officer beyond
even suspicion. It was true that in striking the Special
Jury in this case, the Master of the Crown-office refused
one person because he bad " rag merchant" attached to
his name, not because he had political bias, brit because
hi did not think from the desigliation that he wa re-
spectable enough. There was mtieli less probability of
improper motives on the part of the Master of the
Crown-office, than that of the Sheriffs, as the latter lived
more among the people, and were liable to be influenced
A. TAYLOR thoioght that the present prac-
ticei by thew.
ik.
was very inconvenient. lie did riot consider that the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen imputed corrupt conduct or
motives to the officer in question. All that he stated was
the possibility of corruption ; who could say that it slid
not exist? Were they not many nighty engaged in in-
vestigating an alleged—he would out go the length of
saying ari actual corruption ? On the appointment of
a Jury another mode might be athyted, to attain which
he would be happy to assist any Iluti.Metnber in another
Session.
Mr. CREEVEY said he would say a few words in
support of the Honourable Member for Aberdeen. ..He
was also well acquainted with Mr. Lushington, the
Master of the Crown Office, and if to any person the
term chivalrous could be applied it was to that Honour.
able Gentleinan, so far as his private interesta were con•
tented. The Honourable Member slid nut attetneit t ►
cast any reproach on that Gentleman, he only argued in
farm of a public principle, In which be (Mr. C.) cordi-
ally joined.
Mt. PHILLIPS explained that his observationcwore
caused by the remark of an Hon. bianderloat Us • Master
of t',e Crown Office would be more toast wan if be could
retest influence in his situatios.
Mr. GREY BENNE sail' the question was not on
the character of the officer of the Crown, bnt on the pos-
sibility of car: tiotion taking place. Hower, r hononr-
a able the Maser of the Crown Office might beat present,

. -"eiros)

Tow could they he certain that his successor would be
equally correct and honourable? In fact, the who,*
system of appointing Juries throughout the kingdom
was one of great abuse. In support of his views he
would refer to the Report of the Committee V
the Cantinoo Council in 1817, which stated
that out of 455 returned to serve as Jurors, that
were not householders, and consequently, incompetent to
serve, and of the remainder a part were merchants and
warehonsemen, and 171 were tradesmen.. The Cie
the Secondaries Office, in a case of libel, admitted that
le received a letter from the Sulicitot of the Crinvu.—
After some other remarks the Honourable Gentle
concluded by strongly recommending a change is the
system.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, is there was 114
imputation thrown upon the character of the Mastet lit
the Crown Office, it would be time enough to discuss the
principle when any new measure was submitted to the
iii.use. He was certain that no alteration proposed by
the Hui. Gentleman could be more equitable than the
present mode of appointing Juries. He challenged soy
person to prose that the Crown ever interfered in dm'
appointment of Jori-s ; since he came into of
it, was never attempted, and he was certain, that,
front the character of the Muter of the Crown Offitio,l
that Gentleman would repulse it with indignation. He
was so convinced of the eligibility of the present system,
that he would oppose any attempt to alter the mode of
app inting Special Juries. With respect to the peti-
there, be did not ask for relief or complain of any per-
{ nal wrong.
Mr. BRIGHT thought an inquiry necessary into the
!object, but be considered that the power of Sheriffs was
properly exercised. A similar complaint to the present
was made in the year 1777 by Horne Tooke. The Hon.
Member, here read a Jong extract from a letter of Horne
Tooke's on the State Trial of 1777, which referred tO a,
conversation he had with the Master of the Crown Of.
fire en the nomination of a Special Jury in his case. He,
inquired in what way the eligibility of Jurors was de-
cided, and he was told that with respect to tradesmen,
such as woollenalrapers and silversmiths, if he knew them
to be respectable, he put them on the Jury, if not, byl
put them aside, and that when he looked at the list of
nllllO5. and observed who he knew were proper Jurors he
wak told this man was dead, though he well knew he was
allve ; that another was a bankrupt, and that another
would not attend. He complained that the returning of,
C•er should in that manner without remorse kill men who
were not dead, as was done in the case of a Mr. Shea.
field, who though actually appointed that same day Io
a place ender the Corporation, was returned as deceased.
Thus, said the Hon. Gentleman. the same complaiole,
that are made in these days, were made in Horne Tent 'b
and even previous to this time; so that its amigo*,
would be but a poor reason in favour of its corrector*
H • complaine.l then genially of the appointment of Ju-
ries. even at Guildhall, and then strongly animadverted
on the nomination of Exchequer Juries, where the same
raj es were to be found for tut greater part of the year.
He said that the public had long complained of these
Juries, and some attention should be paid. Let the sub-
ject at all events be inquired into; see if it be right or
a rong—*; wrong. =mid it, and if right let it routine.
The p . tion was then brought up, before it was laid
on the table, Mr. HOSHOUSE said he would offer one
or two observations. It appeared that no imputation
was attempted to be cast on the Officer of the Crown,
hat his objection was on priocipla only. It was in his
opinion extremely objectionable that the returning of-
ficer of Juries should boW a situation ander the Crown:
He was aware that no direct charge. could be made
a eainst his Majesty's Government of an interference with
a Jury. He did nut believe them capable of such base
conduct, but be was convinced that they sent indivi-
duals to be tried. by „lurks who they believed were tweet
likely to convict. And be would ask an Hon. Gentle►
man of hie Majesty's Government, on his honour to de-
char., if his Hon. Colleague (Sir F. Burdett) was net
sent to Leicester, there to be tried, because a Jury
there would be more likely to cons ict hitn-tban in Los-
don, As the question bad been mooted, something
erght to be done. It was ridiculous to say that Jury-
men were not selected—it was nothing el e than selec-
tion. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to argue
that a Jury should be taken by ballot instead of the'pre-
sent mode.
AIL WILLIAMS supported the petition. There was
a greater necessity that Juries should he free from sue
picion in trial. between the Crown and the people, than
disputed cases of property between individual and in-
dividual. For these reasons, therefore, he thought no
time w.s to be lost in in tkiag an inquiry into this
matter, and he gave notice, that if the matter was not
takertup by the A ttoroeytieneral, be would himself
bring in a bill to enact that the selection of Special Ju-
rors should in future be Made by ballot. •
Mr. HUME, in reply, maintained that the charges
which he had made were unanswered. The packing of
Juries in the Court of Exchequer was a notorious fact.
He had himself spoken to one of those Jurors, who
boasted of having earned twelve guineas is one day as
a Special Ju yman.—(Hear.) In that Court it was be-
con), a regular trade. In the City of London too, it
appeared by return., that of all the Special Jury lists,
there were 82 who were summoned only twice, whilst'
there were a few others who were summoned no less
than 52 times in the year. The practice was most mon-
strous, and should be put a stop to.
The petition was laid upon the table, and ordered to
be printed.
Dlr. HUME presented a similar petition from J. U.
Trust, a bookseller, in confinement is Newgate.—Order-
ed to be printed.
Mr. HU.'JI then gave notice, that early next Session
be would move for a Committee to inquire into the
yeactice of striking Special Juries.—(Hear.)
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Mr. Secretary CANNINO, it was
ordered that the House at its rising do adjourn over
to Friday.
CHIEF BARON OF IRELAND.
Mr. RICE postponed his motion on this subject to
Wednesday the 4th of June.
W.NOLISH ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Lori N (Alva rose to bring before the House his
proposition for placing the Roman Catholics of (heat Bri-
tain, as near as midis be, on the same tooting with those
of Ireland. The Noble Lord disclaimed all intention of
connecting this in any manner with the general question
of Catholic Emancipation, and he declared that it it inter-
fered with the success of that measure, by seeming to have
the effect of diminishing the claims of the Irish Catholics,
he would abandon it altogether.—(Bear.) Neither had he
brought it forward at the instance of the Roman Catholics
of Ell it land, for he respected their higlefeeliogs tuo much
to consult them npon it. All the responsibility, there-
for, rested with himself; and if au the resell. his
eppiiestion to the lions, slaJuld fail; the blame was to be
placed more to the ineMciency of the advocate than' the
weakness of the cause. Without more preface, he should
proceed to state the difference which existed i the condi-
tions of the English end Irish Catholics. It was Well
known, that in Mil, certain privilerres,•of which they had
long been deprived, went restored to the Roman Catholics of
Ireland. Toss concession was a little time after the last re
Taxation of the Penal Code—that code of pr. scription And
death which made it a espial become to celebrate the Co-
tt:one form of worship. Ole concesaities so rade consisted
lalhe restoration of the rights of inheriting and devising of.
reel andithattel proporty. Shortly after, the right of repre•
. sentatilos wastilded as a natural co isequence, for propeity
weenie; heals otrapresebtetiett,. end tnpresentation the in-
olignelgolettriutato of property. The ale which be meant
to awalm-of this ollastoo to the ease of Ireland was,