House Of Commons, Thursda...
Imrnedi.Stelv Onl his taking the chair, the SPEAIER %;as sum- rMoned to the flouse of Lords, to hear tbeRoyal assentgiven by conm- missaon to several bills. On his return he read to the house the title of the bills (for which see the Lords' report.) On the motion of Sir E. NS ATCI5mULL, the Canterbury market bill was read a third timc and passed. Mr. H. DAVIS preqenzted a petition from the merchants, bank- ers, and others, of Bristol, containing 8,000 signatures, for the gra- dual abolition of slavery. 1mr. - SMITH presented a petition froi Drogheda, complainLng of the county assessment. After a few words from Sir Jo055 ZNE1WPOIiT, the petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. HIUM E presentetl a petition from Stokesley, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, complaining oft he restrictioeis imposed bv the ecistine lam upon the freedom of discussion, by nmeans of speaking and publishing. The hon. member alluded to recentprosecutions for the sale of books on religious topics, which lhe characterized as a species of diagtraceill inquisition, to which newv vigour seemed to have been given since the present Attorney-General came into office. dlrl. 31. A. TAYLOR did not intend to oppose thie bringing up the petition, but he would take leave to soy that if such opinions as those promulgated by llr. Carlile and others were disseminated with impunity, the uninformed and lower classes of society would be lef without protection against the basest and most mischiev- ous schemes. (Scar, hear.) He had himself seen a house in Fleet-street, in wlhich was an inscription, stating that it was the " Repository tbr the Deist and the Repa6blican." Hie had no bigotry: he had no objection to every man's worshipping God in h;is own way; but he denounced as highly dangerous such practices as these, which were disgraceful to the countyy and subversive of aU .religion. (Hear.) Mr. IJUME said the petitioners expressed no such sentiments as the bon. gent. supposed. They prayed only for freedom of discus- sion, and ofFereed no opinion which could provoke the cant and hy- POCr-isy a'ith which they were assailed. He wished th:Lt in future bis hou., friend would read a petition before he avoured the house vith a criticism on it. He mnoved that the petiti,i be read, which was done accordingly. 31r. M. A. LYLOR said, that although the petition was cau- tiouslv worded, yet that and similar petitions struck at tlbat prin- ciple of the law of England wvhich forbade those discussioms in which the Christian rligion was attacked and vilified. No individual had been punished buc for this offrence. He had never countenanced prosecutions: he was of Lord Mansfield's opinion, who said, " If the Devil comes into court, the Devil must have justice." But the object of theyenrions to whom he had alluded in terms of repre4en- sion was to destroy that faith and hope by which men's minds were comforted and sustained. He disclauned any thing like " cant and hypocrisy," of which iie never had an atom in his life. ;lr. . SAIITH gave his hon. friend full credit for his last as, sertion. He believed that the Chiistian religion needed no support from the law, and its interests could not be more efibetually served uand proteted than by free discussion. He once had believed that the promulgation of certain opinions ought to be repressed; but he was now convinced that this was a doctrine equally ,dangerous to truth and to the liberty of individuals. A pro secudtion was at this moment carrying on in the Pays de Vaud cinonsequence of which a person pro casingcertain opinions had been dra.ged tbrough the streets of Dausanne, and neatly stoned to death. All former experience terded to show that prosecutions for religion's sake were ineffectual. Sir R. WILSON supported the petition. I1 r. H-lOIB cxplained,that he had notmeant to apply the phrases " cant and hypocrisy" to his lion. friend (11r. Taylor). M{r. WARRE concurred with what had fallen from the hon. -nember for Durham. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. Hi UtIE presented a etition trom a Quakcer, named (we think) Iollne, praying for the rlease of Richard Carlile from prison. After a few words from MIr. TAYLO P.. Mr. W. SMITH, Sir T. :LETacBItIDoE, Sir R. WiLSOw, and Alderman BRIDGES, the pe- tition was read, and laid on the table. M1 r. PORTMIAN presented a petition from the inhabitants of Cbard, praying for an inquiry into trie circumstances attending the trial oftte late Mvr. Smith, miissionary, of Demerra. Sir H. PARNEILL presented a petition from the farmers of the Queen's County, praying for some better regulations with respect to the butter tradle. The LURD-ADVOCATE of Scotland presented a petition from the General Assemnbly of the Church of Scodeand, praying that the bhoase inight not sanction the bill which had been introduced for the ?egulation of paupersin Scotland. The learned lord observed, that Ibils petitioni came rather late,- as thet1ill was alrea4y -wit arawli19 but hie hopedl that, after a strong opinion expressed agtnst it by so numerouis and respectable a body as the petitioners, the honourable meembcr (M1r. Kennedy) would net again introduce the measure1 next session. Air. KENNEDY said he could not let slip thi3 opportuinity of stating, that on the only occasion on whiceh he had delivered his sen- timents folly on this subject, they had been mrisrepresented and garbledl in the accoants wbich went forth. to thie public. Thepetition was ordered to be printed. AMr. Al. FITZCaERALD) presented a petition from - Deve- reux, Esq., anes Enleas 11l'Donnell, Esq_, setting forth, that inmany parts of Irelandi thecre was a great want of Rom-an Catholic chapels.; they also stated (as we understood), thlat according to the aulthority of WVilliain of Mlalmsbury, Primiate Ushier, Lord Lyttleton, and other eminent men, England was very much assisted in her conver- sion te Christianity by the labourts of the Irish nation. Th7ay now prayed that thie samne protection might be extended to the Catholic religion in Irelaiid as was extended to the Protestantin some Catho- lic countries ; and. they gave a statemnent of the sums allowed in France for thle support *of the Protestalnt clergy. on the petitior being brought up. M4r. DE' NNI9 B3ROWNE said he could corroborate the state. ment of the petitioiners as to the wvant of Roman Catholic chapels ir, mnany places. In thze extensive diocess in which he resided, thert was awantof Rman atlrliccapes felt, anid most of those whicl wer buIt were principally by the subscriptions of Protestants.Witii respect to one of the petitioners (M)r. B. M',Donneli), he could sa) fromi his knowledge that he was a highlyv respectable individual. The petition was ordlered to be prinited. Air. PEEL presented a petition from the bleacbrers and linen-ma, nufacturers of Belfast, p-raying for protection to the ratrlufactun of Irisli linen Yarn. CAE OF MIR. SMITH, MIISSIONARY. Dr. LUSH1INGTON moved the order of the day for the ad. joairned dlebate on the catse of Mlr. Smith, for thf. pur pose of past. pfoning it. His reaso.' for uostponing, the discussioni was, that nmann membelhrs whlo wished to take part in it hiad made arrangements tI ieave town for the~ holyd,cys,fro.ot which it would be very inconytnii ent for them to depart. Sir R. VI; IL,,'ON took, that opportunity or asking the Secretarj for the Ctolonies, first, wlhethier thie minutes laid on the table of thr house were rthe only official copy of the trial wbich the Govern. Ment hiad lecrived;- and secondly whiethler the hen, gentlemnan wa~ prepared to adicitor deny tile authtenticity- of thle copv of evidencr publishedby the. Missionary Society? It was evident; that iftheni had been, any suppression of evidence, it would b- a great aggrava. .tion of te charge Vhich hant been ingde againGt the authenitie of Demerara. Mr.n WIL-MOT HORTON, in answer to the first qjuestion said that tie minutes received by Goverrnment had been printei withiout the omission or alteration' of' a single word. WVith respec to the!secondl question, he could neither affirm nor deny the autlrem tdeity of the copy of the trial published by the 11issioniary Society The're were discrepanicies Vretween that and the official copy, witl I respect to which he woutld leave other to draw their own conclu sions. i Mr. BUXTON ralil, chat as some dloubt existed as to whetlhe rlite Court had rejected hearsay evidence, he begged to state, thla Mr. BMWstt a missionary, who wvas present at the trial, was now it *London.. Air. LOCKHART asked tlie Colonial Secretary, whether th, auitiorieties in Demerara had issued a proclamation revoking mar Ai1r. VVILMOT- HIORTON replied, as we understood, tha i there coul bde no doubt that mnartial lav liad been repealetd- Alr. BROUG HAMl had at fiirst intenided to propose the resurlip tion of the debate to-muorrow; but for the reasons stated by, his learn ed frienid, lie consented to the postponeinent. The order of' ttie day for resuming the debate was tbea fixed1 fo: to-morrow week (Friday.) At the request of Mlr. CANNING, the LORD ADVOCATE wvith drew hiis notice of iiotion ". to refer to a seclect committee the ninti report of commissioners of courts of justice in Scotland, relativ, to the office of Justice of the Pec, vwhich stood for this evening withi rite intention POf reniewing it early in the next session. NEW ClHURCHES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUfER moved that tin house should resolve itself into a committee on the new churche! bill. Mlr. JAMES objected to the public money being applied in thr way which wvas proposecd by the present bill. He was surprised thal the richi dignitaries of the chuirch of England were niot ashiamed ts: see the esta~blishment brouglht before Parliament in the characeter of t mendicant. Ifuew pace.sof worshIip w.ere wanted,tlcltyought tobhr efected by voluntary subscriptions : aiid so, he believed, they wouild. were 0 ceisiait n', for certain oppressive, eclIasia rultiOns, by whirl' in the. cn.tr5e of a ifew years they would become th rpryof sorn" rich vicar. -He would relate t'o the house a reakbe instaner of the haad effeet- resulting from tor regulations to wv'hich he had al. I udtle. Many years ago a clergyman of the establishbed chiurch. namied Brttgg, built a chaelI in Liverpool, in which he preached. arid deriveed 'a hand'some inicomne front letting cthe seats, Hie conti. nirrd in ithe undisturbed exerci8e of his vocation for 20 years, wvhet tVi- then Bishiop of' Chester wvrote to informi him, that as he under. stood hit ecpl waxo oscated, he would fecel great PI lesure. tn perfor-ming the ceremony of consecration. The clergyman, knowinp th1at if he suffered his chapel to be consecrated, hie would be divest. -d of his right of freeltold, wrrnte to declin-e tite bishop's offer. The bishop thereuponi suspended Air. Bragg from the exercise of his functions, for preaching in an unconsecrated place. Mlr. Bragg wvas not, however, dlauntedI by this proceeding. He p-ro. cured a dissenting preacher's licence, andl continued for somne time to read the service of tire chuirch of England in his chapel. Alt Iiris de-ath, the chaLpel was sold, and convert ed 1into asugarmanufacto- rv, and a large boiler now occupied trie Vlace whiere tire altar formner- 13' stood. After repeating his objections to the bill, the hon. memi- ber movedl as an arireudment, that the houise should resolve itself into a committee on thre bill that day six nionths. Air. FlIUM1E seconded the atenduer,c. lIe wouudtrirtt consenatto vote any ftrrtlrer sum for tire building of churches until he saw lhow the million which litad formerly been vo-ed for the same purpose had been applied. l.e. had seen a'lawyer's bill for bringing into Parlia- mient aL bill to autirorize the building of a church at Newington, which amounted to l..5871. *1 is Mlajesty's (Jominissioners for bu:ild- ing churches. appoitnted by the act oh' 1816, had paid a part of that bill, amounting to 4891. He begged to ask tlte Chanceller of the Exchequer whether a clause wa's to be introduced into the bill before the hencse to empower the cormmissiotrcrs to increase thtC churchr-rate of Newington ? The CHANCELLOR of Llie EXCHEQUER said, that the itonourable gentleinan hiad been making a wonderful confusion be. t-wert the commissioners appointed under the act of 1816, and certain other commissioners appointed under a private bill, relating to tIre buildin-g of a cliurcis in Newington parish. (Hear, hear.) li e really knew nothing about the church in Newington, except that four or five years ago there was much sq'aabbliag ini that house as to whe- ther it shoulid be built. -i1r. BRIGHT as~ked the Chtscellor of the Exchequer what thet amount was of the drawback allowed on thie materials employed is the brItiding of churchies ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHfEQUER replied, that lire could net state off hiand the anmouro'.tof the drawbackcs, but it could not be considerable now that the duty on stoat had terrminated. Mlr. J. WILLIAMS suggested titat his hon. friend should not press tlhe house to a division, because many, liton. memnbers had left the house on the uniderztanding tirat ithe discussion would take place on the net tage of the bill.-The amendment was then negatived. The bill then went throughi a commnittee. On the aiotion of M1r. Huasrassoar, the wareitoused wheat bill was read a thirdl timne, and passed. VAGRANT BILL. On tite motion of Mr. ESTCOuawT, the hiouse resolved itself into a commatrec on tris bill. Several clauses were agreed to wvithout discrission. On the CHAIR- MAxL.%'s arriving a t inse clause in thre bill which drains every person a rogue and a vagabond, "1wilfully, openily, lewdly, and obscenely, exeposirg his persan in any street, road, or public highway, or in ttie view thereof, uit/i inrtent to inrsult tani feozele," and whichi gives to a sinigle msgistratte tiie power of cromrmrtting suchi offender (being con- victed thereof before him by the eviderce on. oath of one or more cre- dible witness or witnesEes) to the House of Correction, there to be kept to hrardl labour forany time not exceeding threecaleiidarinonths, Mr. J. SM ITH' said, that assa conviction for this offence ruined the person convicted in the opiniou of the public, it was fitting that the conviction should niot depend upon the oath of a single witness takers before a single magistrate, but upon the verdict of a ju'ry. There vwas no off-ence whbich, whten it was fully made out, deservedi more severe punishmenat than the offenice contemilated by thjis clause, but it was rather too muchi to place every man's character at tire con- trol of any abandoned mnan who thought prope tswaagist him. A:s the law stood at present, l that any man, cliarged on oath witlr an offence ofl this nature coufld do, wias to protest his innocence; but, notwithstandin, such protests. tions-..notwithstandling his own respectability and tYse respectability of his friends-he must submnit to the conviction of the miagistr'ate, unless he could show some discrepancy, or inconsisitency in the story of the witness deposing against him. Now, if the intervenition of a jur~y were rendered neecessary, the person accused would have an opportunity of' repelling, by counter evidence, ttile evidence brought against him ; and, what was more ntaterial, wouldi have an opportu- nity of esctablishing his own respectability, and the infamy of iris acc cuter. If the commwittee shiould not thirk st expedient to adopt tire sugges4tion he liad now thrown out, lte would submift another to it- namely, that the conviction should depend up on tht decision of more than one justice of' peace. He -said, advisealy, that one justice of peace was not enough. He hadl the greatest respect for marn of tire individuals wito filled such offices; but when lie recoT- lected the rank in lif'e which imany, persona occuipied who acted as magistrates in small corporate towns, with no other qualification than their corporate situations, he must say that he should be loth to intrust inito their liancis the enormo'us POwers of this bill. As to the ofieoee itself, he mnsist again repeat that no punishment could be too severe; and lie truisted that another session would not he allow- ed to expire withiout our havinig some specific lawv whereby to pu'. aishl it. Sir J. NEWPORT agreed in every observation vhich had fallen from his honourable frienid (the member for AMidhprst). His ob. jection against this measure was, however, an objectton against the principle of it. He objectedtoall summary convictions betore single magistrates, on the finding of single witnesses. As the present was an offence which consignea a person convicted of it to eternal infamy, it was only right that the party accusedof it should be surrounded by all the safeguards or the law, instead of bein& deprived of any of them. The dreadfil consequences of conviction, in cases like the present, rerrdered it absolutely necessary that the party accused should have the full benefit of the trial by jury. Mr. ESTCOURlT said, at it had orig,nally been the wish of the committee to expunge from this clause of the bill the paragraph now under discussion. The committee, however, thought it right, before they came to such a determination, to call the police ma- gistrates before them, and to obtain from them all the information which they had to give upon the subject, On hearing their evi- dence, the comnmittee became convinced of the necessity of insertitpg a clause in the bill guarded in the manner it now was-he s nant li- miting the oftence to the iirtenit of insulting any female. The ma. gistrates stated to the comiittee, in the strongest terms, the fre- quency of this offence, and the necessity of their having some sum. mary punishment to check itsprogress. They likewise stated that they had very great diliculcyn inducingfemales to give evidence of this offence in their private rooms; and added, that the dificulty would beverymuchi aggravated, if it were necessary to submit them to the examination of a julry. Mnr. MlONCOK corroborated the statement of Dlr. Estcourt, as to what had occurred in the committee upon this bill. He con. tended that as the liberty of appeal was given by a subsequent clause, it could not be sald that a conviction under this biU depend. ed on the decisiona of a single tnagistrate. If any party were dis. contented with the decision of a single magistrate on his caie, he had full power to obtain upon it the decision of a bench of magis- trates, before whom he woud be able to have the assistance of coun. sel, and to derive all the benefit which he ought front the reapecta- bility of his cbardtr %,e h Ild act -f ' enWho ap.; pealed was oblie toranId D1t-n till the arrival of tinE sessibns ; 'out wlsthpren IShe 1tra5 entitled to give bail irimediately for i ipaaca the sessnons. In Copocluqion,hc observed, that nO esnhdgn n the Commfittee 'withi a greate, objection to thrb r oftecs hnhe hail, and th-at no person ,hadcomen t o tmo refil cnicd O., jtes necessity. Mr.PEE liewie s~pbtedthenecessity of the clause; and observd that as it was no worded, there -was a check against any chae ariing solely 1fromsmalignity. The comrnieteeihadaheardofthe difficulty of getting females to give evidence of this offence; inideed the difficulty was so great, that hic might almnoat assume it as nn un-1 deniable fact, that no charges would he matte' by them wh.ich were not founded in reality. If the chargearose fiom thenmalignityof a man, there must be two witnemses to support it-the man whlo broughtr it, and the woman who was insulted by the offence complained of. if the man apueared and the woman did not,a strong objection would arise an thei mind oi every magistra~te agaitnst convicting tinder this act. He called upon the committee to agree to this chituse, anid not to leave thec Executive Government during the summner without any means of bchcidnga-n evil which hie was sorry to say was onlv too frequenit. At the commencemient of the next session, let the fiouise call. for the -most extensive returns of commitmen.ts unider this act ; and then from those returns let it determline whether there had been any such abuse, or suspicion of abuse, of its powers, as called upon the hiouse to remtedy it by some new legislative enactmesit. After is few words, trom, Sir J1. NjRropiT, DI1r. PEEL, na-d Alderman BsrsUDGS, the clause was agreed to. on the clause relative to "4the power of sessions to detain and keep to hard labovur and punish by whipping rogues and vagabonds and incorrigible rogues," bging read, Air. )MONCK rose, and, at some length, argued against tlhatpart of it which empowered thie magistrates to cause individuals conri'1j ed as "1incorrigible rogues" to be whipped. In his r-inion, 12 mionths' imprisonnineiit, and the labouirof theeeI.ohe,~which the magistratesisight subject suchi per?9pg. Was a surfficient pnishmennt. He never would consent tw axi-'"ieasu're that savoured of' torture, whlich Jig gQfltiv~ __ e practice of whipping did. Formerly, sturdy vagrants wece punlished by whipping, brandingonthie forehead, boring the cars, aad slittingthe noge. Al I heseirnflictions, exceptthatof whip. ping, were now done aw" ; and that reminant of a system of torture ought also to he removed-I It degraded the individual ; and insteadl of reforming hi3i evil propensities, rendered him miore hardened and determined in the pursuit of vice. Another great objection which he had to the infliction of this punishm'ent was, that nothing was said as to the mode of'apportioning the quantity. On this point, if the punishment were persevered in, somec rule ought to be laid dowrn- isome criterion, such as the breaklin~ the skino the drawing of blood, should be laid dw for the irection o? those who adminis- tereAd the puihment. He concluded by moving-" that that Ipart of tehe clauise which related to tthe punishment of whipping be L omitted." Mlr. LOCKHART said, there was somethiing abeurd in the idea of sending to the house of " correction" persons wrho were convitctd of being "1 incorrigible" bogites. He stre-nuously objected to the practice of whipping which w as recognized by this, clauise. WVhere It was resorted to, it mustlead to consequences diametrically opposite rto thnose which it shouild be the object of all criminal legislation to I produce. Suppose a iran were sentenced to twelve mnonths' iinpri. isonment, anct, in addition, to a whipping. At what time wvas that wihipping to be inflicted? Should it be inflicted before the im-. prisenmaent commenced? In that case, tbeindividval would go into a gaol, exasperated against society, and more anxious for revenge than for reformation. WVas the punishment to be- administered at tthe end of six months ? Whby, duiring that period the spomrals of the man might have beens improving-he might have repented of the evil of his wmays- and therefore it was unjust to punish him. It was also unwise; for that punishment would, perhaps, drive himi back to his old courses. Or, was the whipping to take place at the expira- tion of the 12 months? There, -also, the danger existed of commit- ting an act of injustice, by punishing an individual whose mioral character lied been jinproved, It' whipping were at all resorted to, Iit ought to' be as a summoary punishmnent. The offender should be set at liberty the moment he was s.o punished. DIr. J. SMITH objected to s'hipping altogether. It was, under any circumstances, a punishment that could do no good. It was absurd to suppos, that by tormenting the bodly, they could reformn and render mnore virtuous the mind. Severe punishments always had thle effect of exciting our sympathies on behalf' of the sufflning intdividlual. Half the horror which his crime shouldi elicit was lost in the recollec. tion of the psotracted misery which he endured. Ntoone could reflect without3shuddering on the torments which Damien and Ravillacwtere compelled te endure. HIorever atrocious the conduct of acri-minal might be, the refinement of cruelty in punishing him alway-s excited somecdegree of symnpathy for hitr. He looked upon solitavy confine- ment as a much more etfectual'punishment than whipping. On this- point they mnight take a useful lesson from their French neighbours. Thlere 30,000,000 or' people were s-itiled without any- corporal pu- niishment, with the exception of marking on the shou'lder-, and thiat, he believied, was done with some s~ort of liquid. He hiad seen it per. formed in Paris and the individual did not appesr to feel any pain. Dir. ESTCOYIRT said the present was an improvement on the! old l-aw. Formerly, vagrants, before they could be pasated to thrir parishes, were obliged tCe und-rgo a whipping, and an imprinon- myenit of seven days. By this act, however, whipping Was con- fined to incorrigible rogues and vagrants only. That Punishment was atwarded, not in the liope of efficting refoiination, but as a terror to others who were likely to transgress. Mr. PEEL said, it appeared to him that gentlemen hati argued this question wvith reference to the geneal subject of whipping, in- stead of confining themtelves to its immediat.- connexion withi this clause. Hlecould not coincide with those who were ofopinion that corpralutiisbentshould be entirely abolished. The knowledge othfattat it might be inflicted for particular offences, produced a salutary terror, whiichi checkeel the growth of such ofFeuices. It was not introduced for the purpose of effecting reforma, but as ani example to others. A learned gentleman had made a remark on the word " correction" as inapplicable to "inicorrigi- ble" offenders, The word had, however, two meanings. If it Iwere taken to mean "1reformn," it would certainily be absurd to ap- 1pi)y it to those who were adjudged to be " incorrigible." But here the wvord "1correction" simiply mieant "- punishment." To show the necessity of having recourse to corporal punishment, hie would state a fatct wvhich had occurred some timie ago. The convicts in the Peni'teistiary had been removed on board the hulks, and were there stLbject to the same regulations as they had been. governed by, while witt,in the walls of the prision. Those regulations, however, which answered v-ery well in the Penitentiary, were found insuffic'ient on beard the hiulks. The convicts became turbulent and refractory ; they combined together, insuilted those who were placed ov,r theml, and behaved badly in every respect. A bill was in consequence pass- ed, transferring the care ot' them- to those by whom the ordinary conivicts were governied, and pilacing them under the usual regulations that were observedI on board the liulkts. Those regulations autho- rized corporal punishment for refrectory behaviour. Tlhe conse- quence was, that the terror of' that punishmient reduced the cconvict:% from ,he Penitentiary to a state of perfect subordlination a-nd obe- dience. Dir. R. SIMITH had no objection to visiting "1 incorrigible rogues" with this species of' punishment, if' those wrho ought to comie under the denomination of ",incorrigible" were proper-ly pointed out. The bill now before the com'mittee see forth thiree elasses of persons, as comaing within the denomination of " incorri- gible roguies." First, those who break prison, bethre the term of their imprisonment under this bill had terminated. These wvere certainly fit subjects for additional punishment. Secondly, those who were a second time convicted, as vagrants, under the provisions of the bill. He had no objection to the infliction of the punaishment in eases of that nature. Thirdly, persons assaulting and resist- ing officers, while endeavouring to apprehend them as rogues and va- gabonds. To this lie could not agree, because officers miglit endlea- v'our to arrest an innocent usan. Such an individual, in a mnoment of passion and irritation, might resist and asault the officers. In thlat case, under this third portion of the clause, he must be consi- derd a "icorigbleroge ad vgaotid," thiouoh, on inqiy I him he as noro~uor vaabon atal. When brougit bfr h Magisrate he ightbe acuittd ofbein a. rogue and v'aga.. bond;" nd yt, ede thi pat o theclase,his resistance to the offiers ixedon im awors chractr thn tat of mere roguie anid vagabond-he wasimeatl converted into an "1incorrigible rogue and vagabond. (A la .) He therefore proposed that the words "and bein teafrcovicted ats a roguie anid vagabond" should be intoircd Dir. W. sMIiTH said, it was very true that this punishsmenst might not reformn the mnind of an oflfender ; but it would i'orcibly im- pres on his memory the inconvenience which must result from his adherence to those peasuce which occasioned sueh a painfal and disgraceful visitation. Air. J. SMIITHI was happy so learn from the right hon. gent. (~1 r._ Peel) that his miind was still occupiedi with the revision of the criminal code. They had gone on, exercising a great sevlerity of' punishiment, for many years, with very little eff'ect ; and he was convinced that if a m-ilder course were adopted, much good would result fromn it. Mlr. Ii.AMAR-TIN'supported the clause. Ilie considered solitarv confinemient as an-infinitelyasevererpuinishmenttlhan whixpping. Mr. DEO NOK thought thattliere ouglit to be sufficient proor given (independent of the resistance) that theparty in question ivas a rogue and a vaga1hond. Mlr. JaSTCOURT thought that the puniishment ought only to attach where the party apprcebeided was convictedI of the offencee im- puted to him, The amendmientitproposed by M%r. R.S-att'rt was then agreedato; after whiich the house resuimed, and the report was orderedi to be re- ceivedI to-morrow. COMBINATION LAWVS. The CHANCELLOR of the'BXCHEQUER moved the fuir- ther consitleration of the report. Mlr. HUMEB wished that the bill might be rerommtitted for tQ- morrow, to give tiime for some alterations. Alr. J. W ILLIAM1S expressed his cadire concurrnene in the spi- rit f te bll;thestaute' wichit wep awy led een, to his Dir.G. jIIIPSdidnotmea teppoe te bll,but hoped it wold b full undrstoo obrad tht th hous meat to disrcog. rag cobintio. Cmbiatins becouki entre o sy,Were in men, and did more misclief to the journeyuwen at large than they did to the masters. Alr. C. S.UI 'l was afraid that the repeal of the combination lawswoulddo morelharmthan good to tra(le generally. Besides the injnry wvhich masters suffered from a " strike" when they had immnediate orders to execute, it consEantly happened that the men who would work were prevented from domg so by those who would not. lr. HSUIE said that the evidenceof the masters themselves was an answerto the honourable gentleman's apprehension. The masters almost universally ascribed the keeping up of the men's combinae uons to the gross inequality and unaiurness of the' ,tatutes against them. 4s tegarded compulsion, it would be remembered that the bill gave a summary power of punishing violence on either side- either by the masterr. or the jourmeymen, The bill wvas then committed.-Report to.morrow. HlORSES' SLAUGHTERIING BILL. This bil was reada second time, after a few words from lIr. P. INIATri; and MIr. Alderman B3ni)Gs. dlAARNE INSURANCE BILL, The order of the day being mnoved for the house going into a com- mittee upon this bill, 1D1r.Alderman THOMPSON rose to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. The hon. gentleman, after obs;erving upon the urass of interests which the bill aff@ected, stated tha,t it was the desire of par- ties conervned tO give evidence, and to be heard by counsel against it. As it was certainly inconvenient to the house to hear counsel at the bar, he would more (as an amendment) that the bill should be re. ferred-to a committee above stairs. Sir F. O DLANNEY opposed the bill: after which The house divided- - - For committing the bill, 291 Against the motion, 251 Majority, 4 The gallery continued closed for some time. On our return to it, Mx.rROBERTSON was opposingtbe motion " thattheSpeaker do row ltve the chairh,' iHe obserVed, that there should be more cau. tion exerciised in inMfbing upo. vestedrigler,s, and more especialIly in regard to the presenr case. Here w~asacomnpany (meaning tha, ofElEoyc's-Room) oflo stblislinient,wlichhad conducted marine insurances in the most advantageous manner for the whole country as well as with profit and honour to theimelres. They had extendeA and improved their establishment until the advantages of it were felt by Britisl navigators and, merchants in every corner of telm globe, to wherever the mercantile llags of any of the European nations could fly; they had bytheir en1arg. ed intelligence and active agency. become the centre of all infonnation respectirn maritimne affairs; from them must be lrawn aU thebestana 'rnost accurate knowledge which alonecould enable any company to conduct insurances w-ith safety: they were in possession of all particulars by which the hazar~slofdilfrereit po- licies were ditinguishea. Thedangersofparticularsea., newdisco- veries eriCh esj,ectto ledgesatnd-and-banks, byw'hich nautical charts were mnproved, were deliveecd to them first. Their resour'ees were such, that the two other conipanies, which were allowed bv the act of George 1. to clfect narine insurances, were obliged to apply to this cornpanyforinformation .I guide them in effectin policies. So far from breaking down monopoly by the present bill, it would more than ever promote it, by condensing the power of mioney capital, and placing the public interest at the entire disposal of the wealthy. Mr. T. lILSON opposed the bill; and suggested to the ho- nourable member wvho brought it in, that all measures which were intended for the benefit of the country sbould emainate fromi the mai- nisters of Government. 311r. PLUIlZ1IER opposed the bill. After a few words from Mr. GOuErEzxL and Sir C. FORBES, the house divided, Ayes, 33 N Noes, 22 I Majority, 11. On Oar return to the gallery we found the house in committee, discussing the clauses of the bill. Sir F. OMAMANNEY nroposed as an amendment of the first clause, instead of the woreds " From and after the passing of this act," to subs1itute *' From and after the year of our Lord, 2000." (A lagnh.' rhe lion. member declared his intention of dividing the committee upon it, even if he stood alone. The gailery wasaccordingly cleared, and the committee divided-l. For tihe amendment, 12-Against it, 33-Alajority, 21. The committee then divided on the clause for saving the rights of the two chartered comPanies- Ayes. 37 1 Noes,I2Majority in favour of the clause, 25. Alr. AldermranTHOMPSON proposed a clause for rengiering each partner ofany insurance jo.nt stock cosnpany liable to the in- sured, notwithsta dinganyclause inthe policy or agreement to the contrarly. M5r. 1i USKTSSON objected to the clause as art interference witb private contracts. If a party chose to teake tic more limited respon. sibility of a joint stock rather than have his remedy against each in- dividual, be was averse from interposing against the exercise of such discretion. After some firther discussion, in which Mr. T. WILSON and Mr. HUisE took part, the clause was withdrawn. The cornsnittee then divided on the clause for compelling any joint stock company to entregiter the names of the paitners in the Yourt of (hancery. On our return to the gallery, we found the numbers to be, for rise clause- Ayes, 71 Noes, 30 i Itlajority against it, 23. Thc house resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Thursday next. The sik-trade wages bill was read a third time and passed. The other orders of the pay were then disposed of; and the house adjoured at a-QUARTE R PAST TWELVE O'CLOCl. -JOUSE OF CO513IONS, TIIURSDAY, ,UN,E 3.