The Sun. — 1819-06-19 (London, England)

APPEAL OF MURDER-WAGER OF BATTLE.  The Lotto CHANCELLOR,OIIIIIOVing the second reading of the Appeal of Al order, Wager of Battle Abolition Bill, went at some length into the consideration of the question, first, as to the Wager of Battle, in a Writ of Right, relative to real property, respecting the last case of which, in 1578, he read from Mr. Kendall's Book, lately published, a narrative of the proceedings in a suit in which Wager of Bsttle was claimed ; and observed, that no doubt either could or did exist in the mind of any one that Wager of Battle, for the purpose of determining a right to- property, ought to be abolished. With regard to Wager of Battle, in Appeals of Treason, Murder, &c. some men of great eminence, amongst whom were Chief Justice Holt, and, at a Liter period,' Lord Ashburton, had been of opinion that the appeal of murder ought not to be abolished, and that having been the case, it was undoubtedly due to their Lordships to enter more fully into the consideration of the question. Two petitions had been presented against this Bill, in one of which, from the City of London, the petitioners appeared to he of opinion that the appeal of murder might be retaioed without the wager of battle. He (the. Lord Chancellor) was however, decidedly of opinion, that without the wager of battle the appeal of murder could not remain. His Lordship then, after describing the natura of the suit in an appeal of murder, proceeded to quote a Report of the well known case of the appeal of murder by William Ashford against Abraham Thornton.—His Lordship then proceeded to state, that in the event of conviction upon such proceeding, the King could not pardon, while even, atter an acquittal tinder indictment, the widow, or next heir, might appeal, so that the appellor was more favoured than the Crown itself. To take away the right of proceeding by wager of battle must produce a great but a necessary change in the Constitution in this respect. As the law now stood, a person proved tinder indictment to be perfectly innocent, might be proceeded against in tie form of wager of battle. From every view of it, therefore, the law ought out to remain, unless they were prepared to say that their tel ought riot to have the protection of Magistrates, the protection of proceedings before Grand Juries, or the protection which they generally had front that maxim of the law which says, that a matt ought not to be tried twice for the same offence. He dwelt on the absurdity of leaving the power of pardon to the prosecutor in the appeal, while it was denied to the Crown, though surrounded with responsible advisers. Those advisers might, it was true, give wrong advice in some instances, but the chances were a thousand to one in their favour as compared with the probable consequences of leaving such a power to the other party. They had the authority of Mr. Pox for saying, that there could be no just trial without a power of pardon lodged somewhere. The power of pardon in the Crown  was in fact a right of the sub et, fur it was necessary to the distribution of justice, and could no where he lodged with so much benefit to the subject as in the Crown. his LorAship concluded with observing, that he was not only satisfied at to the course which (heir Lordships would take on that occasion, but could not help expressing his astonishment how the 'law could have been permitted to exist so long. Thi Bill then .went through a Committee, and was reported. The Cotton Factories Bill went through a Com. mittee, and was ordered to he reported on Wednesday next.—Adjourned till Monday.