tal. He could not see any inconsistency | cient to control a lawful authority which in the conduct of the hon. member for Bramber, who voted to restore her majesty's name to the Liturgy, on the ground that it would restore the peace and tranquillity of the country, and not upon the ground of the Queen's guilt or innocence. He condemned, in common with the whole country, the entanglement of political prejudices with the forms of the established religion, and recommended the House to adopt the motion as a mean of securing the tranquillity of the country, which would never be established until the point in dispute should be conceded.

Mr. Davenport thought the original omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy a most ill-advised measure; but, from what had appeared in evidence elsewhere, and from her conduct, particularly in her letter to the King, and her an swers to addresses since she returned to this country, he could not consistently vote for the motion.

Mr. Lamb said, that considering the importance of this subject, and the political consequences likely to follow from the decision of the House, he thought it ne cessary to offer a few words. With respect to the legal question, he must say, that he was not convinced that the clause in the act of parliament referred to, did not give the power to the Crown to judge of the names to be inserted in the Liturgy. The learned gentleman in his argument upon that point, had recounted all the various privileges which belonged to a Queen Consort; but he thought the learned gentleman would agree with him, that they were given to the Queen in aid and assistance, not in opposition and contradiction to the Crown. That was the general rule of law on which all the privileges of a Queen Consort were to be construed. The clause in the Act of Uniformity, on which the learned gentleman had placed so much reliance, was put in ex abundanti and for explanation of a former clause; and even if it were not so, still every act of parliament was to be construed consistently with reason and itself: therefore, if there had been no proviso like the one now relied upon in the act, there must have been a power vested somewhere to make such alterations as were rendered necessary by the course of nature and the hand of God. A clause, therefore, which was loosely worded, which settled no remedy, and consequently gave no right, was insuffi

was recognised in another part of the same act; and if such were the case generally, it was peculiarly inefficient to control it in the present case of the Queen, after all the circumstances of a legal conviction-after all the circumstances short of actual degradation which had transpired against her. Upon the principle, therefore, of law, he did not think that her majesty had any right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy, though he could not help at the same time observing, that it would not be wise for that House to decide upon the construction of a dubious legal authority. On a former occasion he had stated that her majesty, as her innocence appeared to many to have been satisfactorily established, might with safety and propriety have conceded the point of the Liturgy. He was then blamed for having argued that her majesty was right, and therefore ought to concede; and the argument was even treated as highly ridiculous and absurd. Now, he saw nothing absurd in it; on the contrary, it still appeared to him that the concession of the Liturgy would have been the most prudent and patriotic measure that her majesty could have adopted. Her majesty was represented as a person of most exalted character; she had been described by one of her legal advisers as of a sagacity inferior to none that he had ever known, and of a propriety of mind, notwithstanding all that had been imputed to her discredit, rarely excelled. In his opinion, that sagacity of mind for which she was distinguished ought to have rendered her anxious to allay the present animosities existing in the country; and that propriety of mind for which she was so much eulogised, should have taught her that the best method of doing so was the giving up the long-contested point of the Liturgy. The hon. member after stating, that it appeared to him that the Crown, the Queen, and the House, ought each to concede something to the other, concluded by saying, that he should give his vote in favour of the original motion, in deference to the opinion of a large majority of the people; which, although it ought not to be servilely acquiesced in on all occasions, still should always meet with some attention from a wise and prudent government.

Mr. Bright supported the motion, and contended that in point of law, as well as

as to require consideration. They ought to ascertain if that right had been restricted, and, if so, to adopt such measures as would prevent a recurrence of the evil. He concluded by moving, "That the petition of certain inhabitants of the county of Chester, presented to this House on the 9th instant, and complaining of the conduct of the sheriff at the last county meeting, be referred to a select committee, to examine the matter thereof, and report their observations thereupon to the House."

Mr. Davenport requested to know what was the difference between the present motion and a motion of which notice had been given by the member for Appleby.

Mr. Beaumont said, that the present motion was directed towards a general legislative measure, while that of his hon. friend referred to some particular in

stance.

Mr. Creevey said, he thought that the motion of his hon. friend would have been for a general inquiry into the conduct of sheriffs as to the exercise of their discretion in refusing to call county meetings. His object, in giving the notice of last night, was to bring the conduct of the sheriff of Chester before the House, with a view, in case it should appear that he had acted improperly, of having him censured.

Lord Castlereagh said, it appeared to him that both motions were of the same tendency, and went to affect, in the first instance, the conduct of an individual. Both were, in his view of them, anomalous; for they called upon an individual-and without, at the outset, showing the fullest necessity to encounter the expense of defending himself at the bar of that House from an imputation. serious thing to put a gentleman under It was a the reprehension of that House, without previously affording him the opportunity of showing whether or no he could justify his conduct. Although his majesty's government had no desire to obstruct any inquiry which had for its object the removal of any supposed impediment to the right of petition, yet he thought it too much to call upon that House, at the outset, to erect itself into a tribunal over the exercise of the discretion of a high sheriff, whose deliberate powers were recognised by the control vested in him over the arrangements of the county courts. Let the House be put in possession of the particular acts on which the charge of de

FEB. 14, 1821.

[670

linquency was grounded, and then let it be seen what explanation or justification respect to the present motion he should could be applied to these facts. With wish to ask the hon. mover whether he thought it wise to press it, when on Tuesday. they were promised a fuller statement of the particular case?

farther from his wish than to take the Mr. Beaumont said, that nothing was interfere with the motion of his hon. House by surprise upon this subject, or to withdraw his motion for the present. friend. He was ready, therefore, to The motion was then withdrawn.

rose and apologised to his honourable SCOTCH JURIES BILL.] Mr. Kennedy friend, the member, for Northumberland, for his apparent inattention to the arrangement which had been made on a tice to take precedence-but he (Mr. K.) former evening-that of allowing his noabsence of the learned lord-advocate of was extremely unwilling to proceed in the Scotland. At the same time, having waited until the last moment, he was sure the House would feel with him, that, howThe subject to which he was about to ever reluctantly, he must now proceed.— call the attention of the House was one of which he had given notice nearly two last session from introducing it, owing to years ago. He had abstained during the peculiar circumstances in the condition of the country. But, having done this, he was the more anxious to propose the early in the present year-and particumeasure with which he should conclude, larly as he could not be aware how long it might be convenient to the learned lord to attend his duty in that House. He for the nature of the motion at a moment ought perhaps to apologise to the House when the temper of the House and of the country was scarcely tranquillized, or withdrawn from a subject which had so much occupied its attention-but it did appear to him that the time was come to proceed to other important matters. It was not so interesting as a measure affecting the financial, agricultural or commerjects to which he should be happy to see cial embarrassments of the country—subthe attention of the House directed and especially-by honourable members on auspices success and advantage were the other side of the House, under whose more probable-but he could not think the amelioration of the criminal law or

of the judicial system of its administration at any moment uninteresting or unimportant. To make such attempts on any extended principle he was himself incapable, but his present object was not beyond the capacity of any man.

It was most important to correct any imperfection in the administration of that law; to remove the possibility of imputation upon the sacred character of the judges. He begged to be understood as speaking of the supreme criminal court in Scotland with all respect he did not come there to attack the conduct of the learned persons who composed it.-His wishes were of a very opposite character, by removing all risk of misconstruction or imputation to place them above the possibility of suspicion, an object at any time laudable, but particularly so at a time when it was not unusual to say that a disposition to degrade the valuable and dignified institutions of the country was characteristic of the times in which we lived. If such was the case, each proposal of improvement was their best defence, and if defects did exist in them, their security consisted in a watchful observation which would lead to a welltimed remedy of such imperfections. He understood that some general measure was contemplated; but he well knew how little weight he could have in recommending particular points as parts of such measure. For this reason he had resolved to submit his present motion for the specific purpose he had in view.

dition of the party, were provided and which had been raised to larger sums in modern times, no proportional increase had been made in the amount of the penalties to which parties were entitled upon successful prosecution for wrongous imprisonment. Such disproportion was unfit. If the rates of bail were raised, so ought the penalties for wrongous imprisonment to be augmented.

It was also an evil, that "Letters of Intimation"-which were the instrument by which a prisoner forced on his trial, were more expensive than suited the means of most persons in that unhappy condition, such he was assured was the fact. The expense of such a proceeding ought to be so moderate as to present no impediment to the attaintment of the benevolent object of the law in behalf of the meanest criminal in the realm. Moreover the act of 1701, did not apply to persons not in prison, to those who were alleged to have committed crimes for which bail is received.-Persons could qualify themselves to receive the benefit of the act only by going to jail. There could scarcely be any propriety in denying to the offender of smaller magnitude the same privilege of expediting the determination of his own guilt or innocence as was given to the person accused of crimes of the greatest enormity. Each should have the like means of limiting the time within which the public prosecutor should be able to arraign him as guilty. To the public service no injury could arise from this extension of the enlightened spirit of the laws. [Hear.]

The hon. member proceeded to state that there were many points in the judicial system of the criminal law of Another subject was worthy of the atScotland and in the law itself, which he tention of the House, viz: the power of conceived to be defective, and referred in the court of justiciary to award punishthe first place to the stat. 1701, cap. ments for offences which were not pro6, which was to be considered as the vided for by statute, which are aptly Habeas Corpus act of Scotland. A con- termed arbitrary punishments: the power struction of that act, and a practice fol- possessed approached to a legislative lowing upon it had arisen which was un-authority; a power of forming a practice, doubtedly hostile to the intention and spirit of that salutary law. By that law, every criminal indicted for a crime of high degree, could compel the public prosecutor to bring him to trial within a limited time It seemed clear that the time had been unduly extended by the modern construction of the law, so that all the benefit intended was not enjoyed. The provisions of the act ought to be amended.

Another point was, that while certain amounts of bail proportioned to the con

where statute does not provide, varying from the most inconsiderable punishments to the highest penalties of the law, short of capital condemnation. He did not, indeed, mean to say, that severity was characteristic of the punishments so inflicted, but the system did produce a want of uniformity in punishment, an uncertainty of degree in punishment, varying with the character of persons, and the spirit of the times, which could not be considered beneficial. The state of the law respecting the punishment of