Star. — London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

P fqb Ig Ile ob.! 4 ::'t~ lakr / 11 0 . 0 r croachment upon the principles on which it had always i been maintained by our ancestors. Mr. Secretary PEEL said he rose not at all to oppose. the motion, 'fo'r he fully concurred with the Honourable Member in thinking it a subject worthy of considera tion, whether some alteration, such as that now pro posed, migh: not advantageously be introduced. But ; he could not but agree with his Honourable Friend be. hind him (Mr. Lockhart) in regarding it as an alteration not to be made without the gravest consideration. The main object of the Bill proposed by the Honourable Member, was to qualify persons who were in the pos session of personal property to a certain amount, to serve on Juries for counties. In cities and large towns, and other corporate jurisdictions, it was stated by the Honourable Member that already the possession of a certain portion of personal property qualified. the holder to serve as a juror; the principle therefore had already been admitted, and upon that he had no objection to offer. He must, however, submit it to the considera tion of the Honourable Member, whether it might not be difficult to fir the amount of personal property to be considered as a qsalification, without admitting too large a class of persons who might not be in other re spects well fitted for the office? It was also necessary to be considered how far the officer whose duty it would be to make the return of persons qualified to serve on Ju ries would have it in his power to ascertain with suffi cient accuracy the amount of personal property pos sessed by the individuals residing in his district, to enanable him to make a pi oper return; and whether, in the event of a challenge or objection being made to the q valification of any person returned as qualified by the officer, it would ;lot be extremely difficult; if not im possible, to decide upon the validity of the objection, without subjecting the individual to an examination touching his possession of personal property to the re quited amount of 4001. anu instituting an inquisition into the state of the property of individuals, to which theyteuld not be subjected ..vithout great inconvenience. lle would silts fll it 0110 as a subject for consideration, whe ther it might not he better to take the qualification on account of personal property iron) some more certain and known test than the report of the returning officer, such as the payment of taxes or assessment to the county rates to a certain amount, which could at once be ascertained by referring to the books?— There were many other points also that would require very serious consideration, but which he should not then advert to particulArly, as he was unwilling to de tain the house by going into the details of the Bill, which could not conveniently be gone into until they came regularly before the House; and which he was the less 1. repared to discuss at that moment in the ab sence of his Honourable and Learned Friends the At torney and Salicitor-General. In answer to the obsei. , station of the Honourable Member on the hinder bench (Captain Moberly) as to the inconvenience of the course which be (Mr. Peel) had adopted, he should suggest that the Bill of the Honourable Member should be allowed to go into a Committee, for the purpose of hav ing the particular provisions discussed ; and when the House had agreed upon the details which it should think proper to adopt, instead of being carried on through the ulterior stages as a separate Bill, it might be worked into the Consolidating Bill, which he had given notice of his intention to move the leave of the House to bring in. After a few words from Mr.WEsTERN in explanation, leave was gis en to bring in the Bill. Mr. WESTERN then moved for a Return of the persons tried at the Home Circuit at the General Jail Delivery in December 1822 and 1823, distinguishing those convicted, acquitted, and discharged.—Ordered. ~rrr~ CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) said, before he proceeded to make the Motion of which he had given notice he begged leave to offer a few words in explanation of the object of the amendment he was about to propose in the law which he had brought in two years ago. That law enacted a punishment for the ill-treatment of cat tle; and the object of his amendment would be to pre vent cruelty to other animals which were not included in that law ; for he knew no reason why other animals, dogs for instance,which were must u-eful animals, should not have the same protection and privileges as cattle. — They were all aware of the atrocious cruelties that were often practised upon dogs and other animals, daily in stances cf which were recorded in all the Newspapers. It was but the other day that he saw in the public pa pers an account of a fishmonger pouring a cauldron of boiling water over a dog that belonged to him, and leaving him to expire in the most cruel tortures; and he had read and heard of frequent instances of vitriol being thrown upon dogs, by which they were dread fully scalded, and suffered the most horrid pain. It was to prevent such atrocities as these that he proposed to amend the Act now in force, leaving to the Committee the settling of what animals should be added. Another alteration he had to propose, to which he did not sup. pose there could be any objection, was, to make the wanton ill-treatment of animals a misdemeanour, for which the party should be liable to be sent for trial be fore a Jur y. This he proposed to do without taking away the summary jurisdiction by which, under the present law, an offender might at once be convicted before a Magistrate and fined five pounds. This he considered a very proper mode of dealing with an or dinary case of ill-treatment of a horse or other animal, such as were commonly to be witnessed in the streets. But there were cases of cruelty which no one would deny were deserving of a much heavier punishment, and for which it would, therefore, be extremely proper to send the offender before a Jury for trial. Such was the case. which he had lately read of the deliberately driving a number of horses one after another into a fire, and burning them to death, which he believed to have ac tually taken place ; and such also were cases which he bad frequently heard of, where a horse's tongue had been torn out by the roots, and many others which he could mention. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of last Session respecting the cruel treatment of cattle. The Honourable Member having made his motion ' but not being prepared with a seconder, a pause of a few minutes occurred, during which he addressed him self to several Members near him, apparently to request some of them to second his motion,which they appeared to decline, at length, Lord STANLEY seconded the motion, which was then put and carried. BEAMIAITING. Mr. MARTIN then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent Bear-baiting and other cruel practices. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he was prepared to do the most ample justice to the humanity of the Honourable Member's motives for bringing forward the measure which he had just propOsed. The object war one of a very praiseworthy description; but at the same time so important in its nature, that he thought the Honourable Member ought not to ask leave to bring in his Bill with out entering more at large into an exposition of his views, and of the extent to s hich it was his intention to carry them. He thought, if his Honourable Friend pro posed that all pain inflicted on animals, except for the purpose of destroying them, should be made punish able, that was a fair statement of a geckeral principle, upon which he could have no objection= to enter into discussion. But if it was meant to limit tte application of the law, as from the terms of the motion it seemed to be, to the practice of worrying bears and other ani mals, for the amusement of a particular description of persons, it should not be forgotten, that while they were punishiag those persons for cruelty to animals, they were themselves guilty of the same things. He could not forget that among the foremostof the grounds urged for the refusal to amend the Game Laws was— that the amusement derived from shooting and hunting was one of the principal inducements to country gentle men to reside on then estates. It was impossible to deny that there was as much cruelty in wounding a bird by shooting for sport, as in the infliction of pain on any other description of animal for amusement in any other way. lf, therefore, the object of the Honourable Gen tleman was to prevent or punish wanton cruelty or the infliction of pain on animals for the amusement of hu man beings, let him go further. Let him introduce a Bill to abolish shooting ai.d fox-hunting, which were the amusements of the higher orders, as well as bear baiting -and dog-fighting, which were the sports of per sons in mote humble circumstances. There was no reason why - even hawking and fi , hing should not also be included in the prohibition; for each of these unques tionably was accompan i ed with much pain to the victims of the sport. If the principle of the honourable Mem ber was to punish the infliction of pain on animals for human amusement; it ought to be carried to that extent ; for if they selected particular instances, it would be opening a door to injustice and oppressinn, and on those grounds he should oppose the introduction of the Bill. Air. MARTIN begged leave to offer a few words in defence of his Bill, against the observations of the Hight Honourable Gentleman. With regard to shooting and hunting he placed them on a vet y different footing from bull-baiting, bear-baiting, dog-lighting, monlrey-fight• ing, and badger•baiting, which it was the object el his Bill to prevent. He was ready to admit, with .his ho nourable Friend, that inasmuch as they all inflicted pain on the animals, they were all cruel, and he should be willing to abolish them all, if die general opini-n would go along with him. But shooting and hunting were generally viewed in a very different light from' those other practices which be had mentioned, and therefore he proposed to abolish all those which the public opinion would go along with him in thinkiny ought to be abolished. Ile bad received a variety of letters on this subject from a great number of persons with whom he had a correspondence in all parts of the Kingdom ; and ( ye could assure the Right Honourable Gentleman that there was hardly a town or a place in England which was not ready to Petition in favour of the two Bills which he had moved for leave to bring in. But if, as the Right Honourable Gentleman had stated, he (Mr. Martin) had one step further to go be fore he could bring in his Bill, the Right Honourable Gentleman ought, on the same principle, to go one step further before be opposed the motion. Bull-baiting was already prohibited by the Act for punishing cruelty arid ill-treatment of cattle. The other practices to which his measure applied were also prohibited in a particular district, by a local Act of Pariiament. The Act called the Mary-la-bonne Act prohibited bull-baiting, bear baiting, dog-fighting, and monkey-fighting, within the parish of Mary-la-bonne, and made them punishable., The Right Honourable Gentleman must, therefore, on his own argument, move for the iepeal of that Act, un less he would consent to extend its operation. Mr. LOCKHART said, he thought he could relieve the Honourable Membet from the n ecessity of pre s sing his motion to a division. He had stated that bull-bait ing was already punishable by the Act for punishing ill-treatment and ci uelty to cattle, and he had already obtained leave to amend that Act by a Bill for punish ing wanton cruelty to other animals, which would of course in like manner include those practices which it was the object of his present motion to prevent. Mr.MARTIN then said, he would withdraw his mo tion on the suggestion of his Honourable Ft lend. LEGACY DUTY. Mr. HUME moved for Returns of various descrip tions connected with the annual amount of the Legacy Duty in Great Britain and Ireland, and the manner of its collection. The very principle of the Legacy Duty, it being a tax upon capital, was open, as it struck him, to decided objection ; and from its amount, which for die year 1823 was £1,793,000, and between the years 1797 and 18(23 no less than 1:22,124,000, it would be seen that it formed no light question for the considera tion of the House. There were other circumstances, however, beyond the amount of the Legacy Tat, and connected with the mode of its collection, which tended to make it a grievous and vexatious imposition. Owing to the mismanagement of the persons to whom the bu siness of collection had been intrusted, there were cases in which duties had been left unclaimed for fourteen or fifteen years, which executors were now called upon to pay, where legatees had died or disappeared. He (Mr. Hume) really was of opinion, that the officers of Go vernment were bound to take the consequences of their own neglect and omission ; and that the Statute of Li mitations, which barred any claim after six years' si lence by an individual, ought to extend to debts due, or claimed by the servants of the Crown. Another ob jection which he should take to the present form of col lection, was the unnecessary delay which occurred be tween the grant of probate, frequently, and the report of the same to the Stamp-office. There was nothing, as far as he could discover, that should prevent pro. bates or letters of administration in England, or " inven tories," as they were called, in Scotland, from being re ported within 48 hours of the time of their being granted. By the present practice, people were detained in town, very often to serious inconvenience; and the Public fur ther lost the advantage which resulted generally from the early collection of a tax. Mr. Hume concluded by moving for papers calculated to spew—first, the annual amount of Revenue derived to the country from the Legacy Duty ; and secondly, the number of probates, inventories, and letters of administration, granted (with notice of unsettled cases) from the date of the Act '2oth Geo. 111. up to this time; and further, for certain papers connected with arrangements in the collecting office. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not trouble the House at present upon the policy of the Legacy Duty ; the question, however, was one of some importance, because it paid more than a million a year to the Revenue. With respect to the claims for arrears. he Vas prepared to admit that there might have been cases of hardship, and that the fault had lain in an im petfect asrangernent (at the beginning) of the law. Since the year 1812, however, such measures had been adopted as would prevent the future occurrence of similar irre gularities ; and, with respect to the cases already in question, the Treasury had taken such steps as he hoped would remove all further occasion of complaint. Mr. WARRE mentioned the eipedition of proceed ings (as regarded report of probate, &c.) which bad been suggested by Mr. Hume. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he would look into the practice. CONDUCT OF POLICE MEN IN IRELAND. Mr. GRATTAN rose, pursuant to his notice, to move for copies of the proceedings before a Coroner's Jury, on an inquest held on the body of one M'Can. It ap peared from the information which the Honourable Gentleman had received, that the unfortunate sufferer was an agent employed in the collection of lents, in the barony of Strathbane. He was returning to his borne, when he entered a public-house, where he met several of the tenants from whom he was to receive rent. The Police-officers came afterwards into the same house, and caused a riot and affray, in the course of which the agent was killed. The Honourable Gentleman said his information went on to state, that an inquest had been held on the body, at which two surgeons attended, who swore that the death of the deceased was occasioned by an inflammation of the bowels; and that upon this evi dence the Jury acquitted the Police-officer, notwith standing the dying declaration of the victim, who said that he had been killed by the Police-man. The Ho nourable Gentleman did not know whether the Police man was still at large, or whether any proceedings had been taken again•t him. He was, however, induced to make the present motion in the hope of calling the at tention of the Magistrates to the conduct of this descrip tion of men, who, in the county where this transaction occurred, were notorious for the commission of violent and illegal acts. They were often taken up, sometimes removed ; but never, that he had been able to learn, discharged. The consequence was, that the Publk had no confidence in the administration of justice, as reH garded them ; and it was with a view to remedy the existing abuses, by the adoption of some ulterior mea sures, that he now moved for copies of the proceedings on the Coroner's inquest on the body of Michael M'Can. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Mr. GOULBURN thought, that without going into the facts of the case, the Honourable Gentleman would agree that it was not at present advisable to adopt such a measure as he had proposed. He had received no infor• mation from Ireland respecting this case; but even sup posing the statement of the Honourable Gentleman to be, as it probably was, quite correct, still he thought that upon general principles his motion ought not to be acceded to. An individual came by his death in A public-house, and the Coroner's Jury were of opinion that he died in the course of nature. Suppose the police officer had actually murdered this man, he (Mr. Goul burn) would ask the Honourable Gentleman, whether he thought by the publication of the evidence on the Inquest, he was more likely to obtain justice on the criminal, or whether he would not rather enable him to shape ;:is defence so as to evade it? The Honourable Gentleman knew very well, that the verdict of the Jury not preclude the ti ial of the police-officer, and even at this moment he might have been indicted by the family of the deceased, or the local Government might have niterlored, if they saw any necessity for doing so. He would ask the Honourable Gentleman, knowing, as he did, the state of the part of Ireland now alluded to, whether he did not think that the publication of the evidence which he now sought might not be highly injurious, by giving the accused an op, ortnnity of getting out of the way, or adopting some of the other expedients which were too frequent in that part of the country for eluding tt e pursuit of justice ? He was as anxious as the flolioui Aisle Gentleman could be to see the police-officers puni•hed whenever they acted impro• perly, and no kss desirous that they should be protected the faithful di-charge of their duty. Mr. GRATTAN was only desirous to excite a proper attention to this subject, and if the Right Honour:tide Gentleman would pro mise to take the case under his own care, and adopt such proceed ings as might be necessary, he would gladly leave it in his hands, and withdraw his 'alocion. Mr. GOULBURN would not pledge himself to commence a prosecution in a crse of which he knew nothing, but he wou:d make inquiries into it, and what justice required should be done. Mr. GRATTAN said he was satislied, and withdrew his motion, SUPPLY. On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the F.xenEctuen, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, when, after a few words from Mr. limn:, the following sums were agreed to : For defraying the 'lnvest upon Exchequer 11411 s for the year 1813 - "55,632 Fur defraying the Expenses of Public Works and Fisheries, and building additional Churches - - 568,100 For defraying the Interest of Exchequer Bills for the year 1834 - - _ _ - - - - - 1,050,000 .. . . . . For discharging the Amount of Supplies granted to hi; Majesty for the service of the year 1823 - - 2,000,000 The House resumed.—The Report was ordered to be received to-morrow, and the Committee to sit again on Friday. Sir CHARLES LONG presented certain P.tpers relative to the Army Estimates and the Board of Works. A new writ was ordered fur the election of a Nlember to serve in Parliament for the County of Westmeath, in the room of Gus tavus Hunte Itochfort, Esq. deceased. Adjourned at a quarter to Seven. EAST INDIA HOUSE. A Special General Court of Proprietors of East India Stock was yesterday held at the Company's House, in Leadenhall-street, for the purpose of calling on the Court of Directors to petition Parliament for the Re peal of that clause of the 53d of Geo. 111. which pro vides that no person shall be sent out to India as a Civil Servant to the Company, who shall not have completed four Terms in the Company's College at Haileybury. CHARGE AGAINST THE MARQUIS OF MASTINGS._-. Sir JOHN DOYLE rose to ask a question of the Ho nourable Chairman prior to their proceeding with the business of the day. The Chairman (W. WIGRAM, Esq.) observed that the ,Court was specially summoned to consider a particular subject, and it was, therefore, irregular to enter on any other business. Mr. D. KINNAIRD defended the right of any Proprie tor to put such questions to the Chairman as appeared to him to be necessary. It was impossible for the Chair man to know, until he heard the question, whether it might not be intimately connected with the proceed ings of the day. Mr. Holz believed the statement of the Chairman was strictly correct as the law of that Court. But they all knew that it was the constant practice to put ques tions under similar circumstances. The Court would always pay attention to the interests of their servants, especially if they had been honoured with their thanks and approbation. And if it was in their power to rescue a servant from a most malicious and infamous insinl tion which had gone abroad, they were bound to do ,„. He would ask whether, as had been insinuated in a pul,. lic paper, the Marquis of Hastings was about to he on. peached by the Court of Directors? isr whether, throo e j i his means a deficit of three or four hundred thousand pounds had taken place in an Establishment, of whiZt the Court of Directors were the responsible Governor,? (Hear.) He appealed to the Chairman, not in his ofli_ cial capacity, but as a man of honour, to answer thi s question. lithe imputation were countenanced by the Court of Directors, then let the Public know the fact ; if discountenanced, let the denial be equally explicit — (Hear, hear!) If the imputation were altogether fahe, then let the consequences fall upon the head of the ca. lumniator—(Hear, hear!) That Court were the master; of their own proceedings, and had the power of pol. poning any business which they had previously ma d e special, if they pleased. It was cruel to the high in;:;- vidual against whom the charge had been insitittatee, to let it pass in silence ; it was illiberal to thetuselve , and, if persevered in, the only act of tha : he (Mr. Hume) could charge them with, since he knew their affairs s their errors, whatever they had been, welt always of an opposite character—(Hear, hear!) Mr. SAMUEL DIXON was quite satisfied that the Chair. man was right on the point of order, and he submitted whether the gallant officer had not better postpone his question until the special business was disposed of, upio 'the understanding that he should then have an opiniitu. nity of putting it? Sir Join.; DOYLE said, that if the Honourable Ctai;. man had permitted him to proceed when he first ad. dressed him, and heard the little which he hal to say, he felt confident that the known sense of honour justice which he knew the Chairman possessed, would not have refused an answer to the plain question winch he was about to put. Indeed, he felt confident that an appeal to the honour and jutice of such a man amid never be made in vain. Had his question arisen out ~F the mere suggestion of any anonymous writer, stating his own opinion of any public man, or of any politic act, he should have then left the opinion to feel its Aw n way, or treated it, if he knew it to be false and calum- nious, with proper contempt ; but the opinion exptessel in the manner he alluded to was of no such character; it imported to he an account of what had actually pa,,s , f.l in the Court of Directors, and what was further co:,• templated by that honourable and tesj:ectable body,— He felt himself. therefote, justified in calling - for a n e x. planation from the Chairman, as the be,t ant. ilEht conclusive authority to which lie could resort on the matter of fact, inasmuch as no proceeding of the Cowt could take place without his knowledge. The clue,. tions, then, which he had to put resoled themsAves substantively into these :—1 st, Whether any embezzle ment or deficit by the Nlarquis of Hastings, of 300,00 U or any other sum, had been discovered by the Court of Directors ? 2d, Whether the Court of Directors, in col, sequence of such discovety, had already negatived a grant to him of 50001. per annum ? and 3d, Whetho7 the Court of Directors, in consequence of such di,co• very, had any purpose of procuring the impeachment of the Marquis of Hastings ?" Sir John Doyle coz• chided by saying, " In the presence of this Court, ad in the face ot our common country, to which we are responsible, I call upon the Honourable Chairman to give a plash and distinct answer to these questions. I know . I am addressing a man of honour and a friend of justice, and I feel that I cannot make this appeal in vain."—( Loud cries of " Mar." ) Mr. LOWN DE i rose amid loud cries of" Cluzir," and said that he also wanted an explanation about this 300,000:. The CHAIRMAN.—With every disposition to give as answer to any question propounded by any member of the Court of Proprietors, I am under the necessity ri reminding you that I sit here in an official capacity, sari am placed under the impossibility of giving any answer to such questions as have been put, without the autl:(- lity of the Court of Directors, whose organ I am. I have no instructions from the Court of Directors on the subject, and cannot, therefore, give any answer. Mr. D. KINN.SIRD said, it would be a disgrace to them, as Englishmen, it they pi oceeded to the reguiar business of the day, without taking into further con sideration this atrocious libel on II ie Marquis of Hastings. Mr. ELPHINSTONE here rose to order, and said, that as the Chair man had thought proper to decline answer. ing the question, he (Mr. Elphinstiii,e) felt it his dui!. although an individual Director, and of course only eni• powered to express his own opinion, to give an explicit answer—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Director then read the questions, ab put by Sir John Doyle (for which see Sir John's speech), aad answered them in the negative he said such a thing was never thought of by the Court of Directors—never suspected by them ; and the im putation against the Marquis of Hastings was horn be ginning to end unfounded and untrue. (Cries of" Hear.") Sir Jon?' DOYLE thanked the Hon. Director for his candid and manly statement; but why the organ of the Coma of Directors could not give a plain answer to a plain question he could not conceive. He re gretted the silence of the Chairman, for his own stike. The ettataNtAm begged to explain.—The gallant Officer, iii first putting his question, had addressed him personally, forgetting that he was not there acting in his individual capacity, and governed by his own per sonal opinion, but as Chairman of the Court of Direc tors—( Hear, hear). He had not sheltered himself under any point of form, but merely stated, that uninstructed he could deliver no opinion upon the subject. When he spoke there, he must be understood as delivering the collective opinion of the body to which he belonged. In that view he had said he was without instruction , : and he must be permitted to add, that the answers of his Honourable Friend (Mr. Elphinstone) were not •spe cifically given to the same questions as had been-put to the Chair. Sir J. DOYLE said, that so far from meaning to put the question to the Chairman in his official capacity, be thought lie had expressly guarded himself against em ploying the term cx officio in any way. It was in his individual capacity he put the question, and in fact accompanied it with the reason that he put it to him, because he, as Chairman, must know the fact from his situation at the meetings of the Directors. The CHAIRMAN denied the right of any Propriztor to select him individually, more than any other Di rector, to answer particular questions. He repeated, that attending there as the organ of the Court of Ai ec tors, he could only speak from their instructions. Mr. LOWNDES again reiterated his desire for furthci exp!anation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Astell, M.P.) justine.. the conduct of the Chairman, who could not, without areach of duty, adopt any other course than he had done. Mr. PATTISON :aid, that as a Director he could not rollow the example set by their Chairman, but, as 431 i maia