The Sun. — 1839-01-16 (London, England)

HILL—I think, my Lord, I can throw light upon it by reading an extract from " Keeling's Report of Cases on Pleas of the Crown." Speaking of a Session at the Old Bailey, h 3 says— '• At the same Session, one Edward Parrot was in the place where the pri-oners used to stand, at gaol delivery, for murder, for which he had afterwards judgment, and while there, one Copeland, a Scotsman, being in very good clothes—( Laughter)—being in very good clothes, went in under colour to see him, and after staying some time, came out, and the prisoner followed him." They were afterwards retaken. Copeland was indicted for the felony, for rescuing Parrott. Copeland said, "He had done nothing but what he ought to do, to help his friend to save his life ;" and on the evidence he was found guilty. " And on his request he being to have clergy it was allowed to be put into the King's pardon among those prisoners of that nature, who were to be sent beyond the sea, it having been lately issued that for felonies within Clergy, if the prisoner desire it, not to give his book, but to procure a conditional pardon from the King, and send them beyond the sea, to serve five years in some of the King's plantations, and then to have land assigned them according to the size of those plantations, with a condition in the pardon to be void if they do not go"--of course, my Lords, if they do not go—" or if they return into England within seven years, or after, without the King's license." What did that come to? Why, that there was a provision made, transportation being more in the nature of service for hire and reward to be afterwards paid to them in the shape of an assignment of lands to their benefit ; but if they would not accept of this, or if they repented of what they had done, they were under the peril of a judgment, arid so far as it depended on contract having no legal force, but as, as is perfectly clear  from the extractss-I have read, they being at liberty to put an end to that contract whenever they pleased, it only being in force by their fear of the peril of the judgment which might thereupon ensue. My Lords, it is that practice, I apprehend, that the section referred to yesterday by my Learned Friend, this 14th section of the Habeas Corpus Act, applies; and, my Lords, what is the true construction of that section ? First of all, the 13th section should be referred to. What does that section mean ? It means the subject shall not use the remedy given by the Habeas Corpus Act to do a wrongful act as regards his own contract; that is to say, to obtain the earnest, under pretence that he was willing to serve in a foreign land, and then to say " a contract to serve beyond the sea is not a valid contract, to be enforced  against my will, I will sue out my writ of habeas corpus." " No (says the Legislature), you must depend on the old remedies for that. This Act is intended for different purposes, and shall not be abused for such a purpose as that." See, my Lords, the next section—" Provided always and be it enacted, that if any person lawfully convicted of any felony." Your Lordships will mark the safeguards to the liberty of the subject that were thought necessary in the reign of Charles 11., but which, in the reign of Victoria, are begin ing to be thought too great a license for the subjects of this realm. Your Lordships will observe that it applies to persons " lawfully convicted under any felony ; and if they shall afterwards pray to be transported beyond the sea," &c. &c." That leaves it as it was before. The transportation is to be enforced by the peril of the judgment, of which care is taken here that there shall be the judgment, in order that that judgment may be the compelling power to the prisoner to go abroad, and being abroad, there to remain. My Lord, this is the second great point,—that the provincial statute of the Colony does not justify compulsory transportation. I speak upon this point under some disadvantage, for we have not been able to procure a copy of the Act. We were told there was but one copy iu England, which was in the possession of the Attorney- General. The