House Of Lords, Wednesday...
The Times, 1824-06-17T00:00:00

,?2LIAMENTARr_INVTELLIGE NCE. Mr. M rn.IES aend attlers trom the Commons, brought up the Irish inagistrzAtes' indemnity bill, and the Dublin police biL, and re. turned the IrizLt tithe comipositlon bill, with the amendments made by the Lords agiTed to. The LORD CELAINCELLORstated, that hehadreceived a pe- titioR froam the Dean and. Faculty of Advocates of Scotland against the Scotchnjudicature bill; but as the biU had already passed, it was now unnecessary to present it. The Earl of LA U DERDALE presented a petitien, signed by cer:ain individual underwriters agairnst the marine insurance bill. Thc same noble earl, after describing the Dabln steam-packet binll as a rank job, moved that itbe read a third time this day six months. The 3a-l of DERBY presented a petition frox Mlanchester and Salford in favour af the equitable loan bil for those places, which bill was aft&w-ards, on the motion ef the noble earl, read a second On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY, the standing order for referrin& joint.stock company bills to a 8elect committee was suspended, in order to acilitate the progress of a bill for working 6erEain mines in Ireland. The bi7l was thcn a second time on the motion of the Earl of KrNGSTON. DUBLIN EQUITABLE LOAN BILL. The Esrlof KIiNGSTON moved the second reading of the Dub- lin equitable loan bilL The Earlof LAUDERDALE saidhe did not mean to oppose this bill. There were but few pawnbrokers in Dublin, and the eoperationof sucha measure there would not, as in London, deprivea great number of persons of employment. The Earl of KINGSTON said that the present Wil was very dif. fefent from that which anplied to London. The LORD CHANUELLOR would. not oppose the present bill; but he dild not think the word " equitable" applicable to either of the bills which had been mentdoned. Lord SUFFIEL,D presented a petition from a place in Glocester. shire, praYiOt for tLh emancipationt of slaves. The LOR1) CHANCELLOR had received a petition to present on thes subject of the statfird peerage, the bill respectisg which had already vassed both houseg. We understood the petition to be from .Mr. Stafibrd Cooke. His Lordihbip said that the circumstance of the ptition being too late was not jnaterial, as the act of Parliament osly reversed the attainder, and left the question of the peerage open to the claimants. SCOTS JURY-BJ3L. .-The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to moveY that this bill be now committEd, in order that it mightreceive such amendments as would remove anv objectios to which it might be thought liable. An act liad alreygpassed, giving the, right of peremptory challenge in Sotland, and that being the case, it was quite impossible that the '1&v by which the Judge had the discretioni of selection could be per- =itted to continue in its present state. Lord MEiYVILLE could not agree to go into a committce on the bill, and intended to move that it be cemmitted tbis day two months. He alIowed that the selection by the Judges, of the 15 conipoxing the Jut from the45 nafLes retumed to the ourt, was a practice wi ch. 'ad better not cxist. -Iaving made that admission, it was quite a different thing to say ti.qt thce present bill was the best mode of getting =.d of the evil. There were many objectionable to- -isions in the present bill, such na thbtofsummoning the jury &rom theparishes in alphabetic order. Hfe did notconceive thatanyalterae. tion was necessary in the mode of summoning thc jury. Persons tried for felony in Scotland had great advazt#agcs-sul as being fur. mis'sed with the lists of the jurors and witnesses, and at copy of the indictment, fifteen days before their trial, which fully counterba. 3anced any inconveniences which might be pointed out in the mode of emtpanelling the jury. There would, bowever, be no difficulty in .fhsmitning aill to put an end to the discretion of thejudges in se. Irating else jurY from the returned list; and he would engage to bring int a bill tor that purpose at an early perIod, of the ensuing ses;. on. EtHe concluded- by moving that the bllbc committed this day two months.- - T'heDukeof ATHOLL ieconded the motion. Clauses which were Inpreaticable had been introduced into the bill, because those who framed it were not sufildently acquainted with Scotland. He in par. ffcubar objected to. the claute relative to the alphabetical order of wriahes, which, ilt the countv wilh which lhe was more particularly eonnssected, wrosld render it difficult fora sumimoning oicer to return af iury in less thaD'six wes. The ]5arl of ROSSLY' could. not siuerstand whv the noble ount ha I poeed out the advaneageoafforded by the raw ofScot- Iand to a pemonaccesged unless he meint to argue that the security for his receivingluztlce vas already too great, and that therefore enore power OUght to be given to the judges, or to the Crown, in re. SrarDnDgIbC0inaiist of 3Urors. flc was treadto admit that in gse6-wereto ttic1L IB? lee"^ E CXSteil, m2 WhiCh WO politicl quef. on was involved, indt ed all 51 icli as usually occurred in the courts, was in general a maet ter of i ndiaference how the jux mivght be hocen. It w3. crtaiu, howee rer, that casexdid oecur in which any ,nproper selectaloh of tb LeJuy shojur begarded'against, as weU in h~e first cttt R5 h the i seco nd ' Whether the mode to'be Idlopted. should be biellO jug or aniy, other, he would not at present J5Cd ss. ' When the siob 'le' -viscount -said that he thought no alteri- Lion in thc. mode of sum.monieig the jury neccesary, he per. haps was not aware that the 'Couth-f Jutciary nad given a different opi4rnon.. Te Coturt, in consequence of the same faces always appearing onm *juris, had passed acts of se- derunt,directig an alte atit3ii in the mode of summoning; but these acts were not execute, anait equired the force ot law to pro. duce a change. He was, hawuiver, glad that the noble viscount had vledgedhinself to brine iu a bill to remove from the juiges tie sas- picion of partiality, andhc was also tadffor thecourt that they were willing to abandon thatpower. yhe.E:acr of ABERDEEN was against the bill in its present s .t bu would villingly support a measure for doing away the ob- jtatiln - which the presenttmode of selecting the jury was liable. He had foma. melbeenahegabnstballotting, but upon xeflection he - Ibe Itge~s mode. thought that wou-n Ove4to between Lords LmADeR.DALE After some furthr --cAi 1 radas dtmehs and MIELVILLE,the,bill a5 { e be r a second time this day two months. 'he Earl aF I4YIIRPOOL, inconsequen6 br thenew churches' bili b.Ixig hot yet printed, puotponed the seconrd r'DZ Yt4 to- morrow. - COUNTY GAOtg BTb. Lord SUFFIELbD objected to the clause in thls biU by which pnisoncrs were divided iito three classes. He thought it would be mue better to maRe four classes, as itwould be ektremelyimproper to, shut up persons found guilty pe-haps merely of sonie disorderly c:!nduct, with felons. The c3.ases, according to the bilW were debMirsn convicted prisoners, and unconvicted prisoners. H pro- osedt that the cl?assification should be debtors, convicted felons, peisons convicted ofmn isdemeanours, and untprnvicted prisoners. ilie Earl of LIVER>POOL observed, that the bill was franmed by ptc,svn,5 whose attention had been partiularly direcred to the tstae of comtY prisons. The number three was merely inserted as the milnimunm f the classes and the magistrates in every county would have the po er of moixing as many more classes as might ag. pear necessarv. It would be impossible to legislate for the classi " cation of all the shades of crimes which might arise; and there were cases of misdemeanour in which assOciation would be worse than in many cases of felony. The farther classUicaton had there- fore better be left to the county magistrates. Earl (tROSVENOR and Lord CALTHorPE supportet theamena- ment.-The house divideOl on the amendments- | Content, 5 1 Not content, 25 1 Alajority. 20. The bill was read a second tune, and ordered to be committed.- Adiourned. }ROUSE OF LORDS, WEtDESnAY. JuxE 16.