The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-22 00:00:00

en the snhjert of the present Bill, that they prayed to be entirely exempt from its operation. Me. F. BUXTON raid that the Standing Orders of the House re mired that the petitioners might be heard before the Bill proceeded. He had the anthority of Mc. Hely, a respectable manufacturer, to state, that within his time there were not two instances of an appeal to the Mp_gistratea. HUSKISSON contended that the Standing Or ders of the Honse did wrap* to the preSent cage. The .prereritHill instead of regulating how trade was to be carried on, had for its object to set it entirely free. Mr. ST UA RT WORTLEY explained. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did not mish to pronounce on the merits :if the Bill t but as to the Standing Orders of the, House, they, he believed, were resolved in imitation of a resolution by' the House of Lords, that no Bill should be introduced there, making any regulations in trade without first in quiring by a Committee. The Orders in both Houses were made with a view that no new restraints should be impaled on trade or manufacture, without bearing the parties interested, and giving them time for consider ation. Lord MILTON was of opinion that the petitioner should he beard at the Bar. The Standing Order should be enforced in the present instance, and the inquiry be gone into before a Coinmi 'tee. Mr. ELLICE recommended the propriety of post poning the consideration of the subject. The Standing Order arose from a former circumstance which was not In any way aisslogons to the present case. al r. D..BROWNE was of opinion that the Bill should be deferred. The petition was then brought up and laid on the table. ►lr. presented a petition t 3 the same effect from the tradesmen in the neighbourhood of Spital &hi s. Mr. G. PHILLIPS spoke in support of the Standing Order twin/ enforced. Mr WALLACE was perfectly satisfied that the object of the Standing Order when it was first made, was to p t any restrictions on trade being carried without sufficient notice. He hnp-d it would not be acted upon in the present ease', as it would ha-e the effect of pre venting the Rill Ac ing pass.d in the present Session.— Every necessary information hid been already obtained, and there could be nothing further bad by going into a Committee. Mr. MA XIV F:LLliesit ited to approve of the principle of the Bill, and also declared hianself friendly to a mini mum of wages throughout the country. Mr. HUSKISSON repeated his objections to the en forrement of the Standing Order. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex plained. Sir J. MACINTOSH said that the wordsof the Stand ing Order were so conclusive, that they could not admit of any delih. ration ; lie said that with regret, as he was most friendly to the Bill going through the House.— lie could n..t agree with the proposition for a mini mum of wares, which an Hon. Member (Mr. Maxwell) had broached. Why nut propose a minimum of labour, or a minimotn of rent as well as a 11l i l dooms of wages —either woul I, in his opinion, be equally absurd and im practicable. Mr. BARING was in favour of the Committee, though lie wished the Standing Order of the House to be re pealed. With gr.-at resrct to the Hon. Uent. who moved v, he must say, it was not the standing order of absolute wisdom.—(A laueh.) Mr. HUSKISSON was ansioos to put an end to the conversation. the Standing Order was passed on the 231 of June 1320, and up to the present hour was never • nfur. ed ; though the Hononrahle Author of it was con stantly in his place in the House. Ile wished that the order should he referred to a Special Committee to eon- Oder the propriety of its being enforced, and he would out press the second reading of the Bill that night. The petition was then brought up, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. BYNO presented a petition from the Governors of the Poor of the Parish of Bethnal-green, against the Spitalfielda Wearers Bill. Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition to the same effect from the Overseers of the Poor of Mile End New Town. After a few words from Mr. D. BROWNE and Mr. HUSKISSON th• petitions were laid on th- table. RUSSIAN MARITIME CLAIMS. Sir JAMES NIACIN FOSlton seeing the Right Hon. Secretary fur Foreign Affairs in his place, ruse to ask a question from him on the subject in which the hononr, he dignity, and the interests of the British nation were concemed. In the la , t Session be had pnt a question to the Noble Marquess, then at the heal of Foreign affairs, respecting the pretensions which Russia was stated to /avd made to maritime rights over a tract of ocean from the north west roast of America to the north east coast of Asia. The Noble Nlarqness then told the House that Majesty's Government hid protested against the recornition of any such principle or claim. Since that tinfe,"howerer, it appeared from the information he had receive I, that these principles were not only put forth but absoiotely acted upon on the ocean extending from Noutka Sound to Japan. It appeared that American vessels hal not only been warned but driven off, and the next' step he supposed would be that British vessels nould receive similar treatment. The questions he wished to put were whether the British Cabinet had re ceived any information of American or other vessels be ing warned off in consequence of the enforcement of those principles ? and, secondly, whether any answer was re. ceivel to the protest made by the late Marcrtess of Lon. donderry to the Russian Government ? or it any negoci• aticins were at present depending between both Cabinets cm the subject Mr. CANNING (as we understood .him) said that Go vernment had received no official information on the sub pa of the 6:st question. With regard to the second, the sxme protest which was alluded to was renewed at the Congress of Verona, and since, in the course of conset. rieations with the Russian Government. •At present ne gotiations were depending at St. Petersburg in conse quence of instructions sent to the British Minister by the s. ahinet of this country. Mr. BROUGHAM inquired from the Honourable ikronet of the Admiralty (Sir George Cockburn) why there. was an expeuse for two houses kept up in Ne 4 Street, Spring Gardens for the service of the Ad usiraity ? Sir EO. COCKBURN sail that one of Admits.' was retained as an ',thee, and the other was occupied by the Paymaster of the Marines. Mr. DIV./UGC/AM still complained of the expense. Sir GEO. COCKBURN sail that a saving of rent to the extent of SOW. should be riftcted when the new houses now in progress would he built. . The expense of the buildigns would not exceed 5 001)1. Mr. ELLICE said that the House projected so much in New-street, that it was **twills:see. Sir GEORGE COCKRURN said the fact was epic. the Winsi3 was built p•rpetodicalar, and all the other houses had given way.—(Loud Laughiog.) 14PRINO RICE presented a petition from the to-n of itsgaiit complaining of certain charges on the Irish Coasting Trade. He was anxious, if it was quite consistent with the ar:lze—tt•L rt..":“.....;:iat the petition should be referred to the Committee on Vertigo Trade. Mr. II USKISSON said the attention of the Cotnmittte on Fg a nfirn Trade vas given 0 'Wet subject. Me. ELLICE said before the petition was brought up, he *lidied to put a question with regard to the charges on ship ping is the Colonies. In all Colonies belonging to other coboteles, the charges did not exceed one shilling a ton.— Ilitewas maxim to asostutio if his Majesty's ljorirnment THE STATESMAN. had any intention of lowering the rates of shipping charges in the Colonies, on British vessels. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the subject was one of great importance, but there were so many difficulties in the way, that he could not at the moment make any declaration of the intentions of Government. The fact was, that most of those charges were imposed by local colonial regulations, with which the Government had great difficulty in interfering.— With regard to the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Rice), he was anxious that every justice should he rendered the petitioners, and that a perfect equa lity should subsistas to the harbour charges on British and Irish coasting vessels. Sir JOHN NEWPORT supported the petition. Mr. ELLICE said that in the Colonies where the charges were highest, there were no Colonial Governments, particu larly in Demerara, Trinidad, and St. Lucia. The petition was then brought up, and referred to the Com mittee on Foreign Trade. DUTY ON CANDLES. Mr. SYKES rose, pursuant to a notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the duty oil Candles. He had last Session given !settee of a motion on this subject ; but his notice dropped lo consequence of there being no House on the day he had fixed. He made no complaint of this circumstance ; indeed he seemly regretted it, far he felt convinced that he should now introduce the motion, with which it was his intention to conclude, under circumstances more favourable to his case than he should have done, had he succeeded in bringing it on last Session. It was then as serted that the country would no: be relieved by the reduc tion of taxes : and this assertion was directed particularly against the complaints of the landed interest. Now, he was happy to say, this assertion had been admitted to be errone ous ; for his Majesty's Speech, at the opening of the Session ha I pointed to the reduction of taxes as the on'y mode of relieving the country, and particularly the Agriculturist.— He was happy, too, to find that the delusion which was held out for some time, of obtaining relief by forcing up prices, had been now dispelled. and that a diminution of ex penditure was admitted to he the only true mode of obtaining any relief at all. He believed he might consider that point as conceded tq him i and if so, the only question would be the measure of diminution, and the mode by which It was to be effected. He was mach gratified at the repeal which had taken place of a large portion of the Assessed Taxes ; but the taking off of taxes on WiDdoWg, hunters, and the rest, could not, he imagined, he said to assist the farmer. nut, be that as it might, he contended that relief had not Lees granted either in the mode or t 3 the degree, which was abso. lutely necessary. He thought MIA ,tern were perfectly right in endeavouring to preserve our neutrality in the course of the struggle which now affected a part of Europe ; but if we preserved peace we ought to have the advantages of price. TLe principal mischief of war was alleged to be, that it would prevent any reduction of the public burthene. Again, he said, the question was, whether reduction had gone to the full and proper extent. So decidedly was he of opinion it had not, that he could not think of going down into the country and facing his con stituents. had he not done his best to obisiu a farther reduc tion. Having thus disposed of such general preliminary observations as he considered necessary, he should proceed to explain why he thought the tax upon tallow candles a tit tax for repeal, in preference to any other. It certainly was not of any great amount; but lee did not expect that this eir cumstanee would be thrown in his teeth by those who op posed him ; for if the repeal was little to ask, it was also little to grant. The gross amount produced by the tax was 3'75,0001. in England, of which 3110001. was nett, and a suns in Scotland which yielded only 10,00:11. nett. The whole amount was shout 329,0001. nett.—ln Ireland there was no candle-tax at all ; bat tic hoped that this circumstance would not deprive him of the support of the Ir,sh Members, who, he had no doubt, would consider the general interests of the country. as they had so often called upon others to d s. The first of his objections to this lex was, that the difference be tween the gross and the net amount was extraordinarily great ; and he believed he might advance it as a principle in political economy, that this was a serious objection to any tax. The average ainonnt of the expeece of collecting the whole revenue, was 31. 16s. Id. per cent., but the expence of collecting this tax was not less than 17 per cent. on the gross, and 20 per cent. on the net amount. Indeed, it was the most expensive in the collection of all the taxes. Another objection was, that it pressed particularly on the poor. Tree rich consumed wax, spermaceti. gas, and other articles of consumption, invented by philosophy or luxury, but the poor man had nothing beyond the stick in Ids fire to afford him light, except the tallow candle. Indeed it almost ap peared as if human ingenuity had been exerted to make this tax fall particularly ou the poor. Perhaps few of the Hon. Members around bim knew any thing of tallow candles ex cept by the smell of a tallow-chandler's shop. However there were such things as tallow candles ; and were piaci, Folly divided into what were called moulds and dips. Tao former he might take as being sold at 9.1. a pound ; the lat ter at ?d.; and it so happened that the tax fell heavier upon the dips, which particularly and especially were consumed by the poorer classes. Tee disproportion in this instance was as much as 12 per cent. Another ob jection to the tax was, that it operated as a tax upon Is. hour. Many poor persons worked, particularly in win ter, by candle light; and a man who earned but eighteen or twenty pence a day, was not unfreqttently obliged to pay three-pence for candles. Thus the tax fell, not only upon the poor, bat upon the laborious poor. His next objec tion was, that this, of all taxes, was the most vexatious in its collection. If Hun. Gentlemen would look through the different Acts passed respecting this 'fax, they would be surprised at the complication of penalties which were imposed by them. He had received a letter from a, Tallow Chandler, complaining of these penalties, and of the visitations to which he was exposed; and adding, that be and his man were obliged to take no less than 33 oaths in one month,reapecting this Tax. This latter circum stance was one, be was sure, which would gain him the support of some of the Hon. Members of that House, in his motion for the Repeal. In short, all the regulations were paltry, and Vet offensive. He trusted that lie had now made out the fonr propositions which he considered necessary to support his case. First, that it was an ex pensive Tax in the collection; 2d, that it fell principally, if not exclusively, on the poor ; 31, that of the poorer, it pressed most heavy on the laouring classes; and fourth ly, that it was vexations in its operation. If these were not reasons for repealing a Tax, he really did not know on what grounds it could fairly be proposed to repeal any tax. it might be said, in support of the preset one, that it was a very old tax, and hail been imposed in the reign of William and Mary, he believed ; but he submit ted that that was not the era of our history in which the wise principles of taxation were best understood. If be were to be told that he ought not to propose the repeal of this tax without being ready to propose another as a sub stitute, he would answer, that " he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer." and that it was not his business to find a substitute. He was however ready to waive 'his right to make tbicanswer,and would refer the Chancellor of the Ex. chequer to a substitute for this and many other taxes; to a storehouse for substitutes—he meant Economy in the Public Expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) An economy to be derived from the reduction of large salari s, and a saving in the expense of collecting of our Revenue. Much could be saved from our large Establishments, our Civil List, and our heavy Salaries. Front such sources as these it would not be difficult to raise the three hundred ttionsas,l pounds saved by the reduction of this tax. He knew very well that a practice bad prevailed of meeting proposals to cut down salaries, by extolling the u erita of the individuals who received them. This had been done on occasion of the Duke of York's 10,0001. a veer fir attending on his Late Father. It was then urged that he was a good son. (In etr.rth,te orcasion, when it was propoied to reduce the salary of an Hun. Gentlemen, the Secretary to the Board of Controul, his merits were spoken of by time Hight lion. Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They were iudeed merits of another description ; for the Right tn. Secretary stated th at the Hon. Gentleman had just had a tenth child. (A langh.) So that the filial merit of one, and the parental merit of another, were equally goo I memo% fur an allowance of large salaries, au t for outweighing the just claims o: the country. His H in. Friend the Member for Cumberland had proposed to take off this tax, and find a substitute fait io a tax upon the importation of fortis is tallow. He (31r. S.) did .nut admire this proposal. His object was to take away the burthen altogether, and no• merely shift it about. If, however, he could not obtain the total repeal of the tax, he would fall in with the pro posal of his Hon. Friend. He had now discharged his duty; and it we, for the House to discharge theirs. It was no treat boon that he asked; hut as for as it went, it would afford a very seasonable relief. In every point of view he thought the subject worthy the serious consi deration of Ministers, and was of opinion that thn repel of this tsx was most adviseable. Before he sat down, he would shortly anticipate an argument which he believed would be urged against his motion. lie knew the House had resolved that a Sinking Fund should be mein a'ned to the amonnt of five millions t hut this resolution did nut. he apprehend, bind the Hansa to shut itself out Against discussion. For his own part he confesse I that he wes no great admirer of the Sinking Fund. He liked to ree a Surplus Revenue over expenditure; but he had witnessed much of the delusion which had been worked by a Sinking Fund from its first suggestion by Sir Robt. Walpole to its completion by Mr. Pitt, and from that np to the present time, and the result of his ob4ervation was, that the Sinking Fund was an engine in the hands of Government fur raising taxes and spending the public money. The Honourable Member concluded by mov ing fur leave to bring in a Bill for repealing the duty on Tallow Candles. The CHANCELLOR of tl.e EXCHEQUER said, that in the reply, which it was his duty to make to this motion, he sit mold be as brief as possible, A con siderable portion of his simecir did not mvut to require an answer, and he should, therefore, limit himself to very few of his points. Two wor.ls would explain the views which Government took of this Ttestion. In the first place, it was quite impossible that 350,0001. more could, with any safety, be taken from the revenue.— (Hear.) Secondly, if a reduction of taxes to that amount could be made, this certainly was not the quar ter in which such a reduction could be made most bene ficially. This was not a tax which pressed with any peculiar severity: for notwithstanding sonic partial in stsn:tes of hardship which were common to all taxes, it did not se-rn to have excited any general or loud complaints. There were, therefore, many other taxes litter objects For remission than this if remission was practicable.—(hear.)lfonourab ' le Member did but justice to the economical intentions of the present Go vernment, but they were not to be lauded at the ex pense of their predecessors. When reductions were call ed for hitherto, they were met by the declaration, that the state of the revenue would nut prruit them. It was his (Mr. Robinson's good fortuue to come in at a time that the state of the revenue permitted him to comply with the wishes of the people, hut he could not take credit to himself for that which was the effect of a c.rmhivatiun of circumstances. No less than 2,300,0001. had been reduced this Session, and he had reason to think that in selecting the taxes a hich were to he reduced, he had secured the sanction of the thinking part of the community. Further and impor tant reductions were in contemplation, particularly in the duties on Scotch and Irish Spirits. These redac tions would affect the revenue for a time, although they risieltt be eventually beneficial to it. With such actual losing% then, an I in the prospect of more, it would not be wise to give up this 350,0001. The Honourable Member had ridiculed the argument of supporting this ' tax by its antiquity. He (Mr. Robinson) would not con tinue any tax, because it was a century old; but it should not he forgotten that within that time the impost had not been increased, though its amount had been greatly enlarged. It was said that the tax was oppressive and expensive ; its increase in value yearly, and the silence of the people on the subject would seem to prove the contrary.—(Hear.) In fact it was not so expensive ire its collection as the Hon. Mem ber stated: for he was mistaken in supp , sing that the differ ence between the gross and the net produce was the exact expense of .effecting, a considerable portion of that sum being given In drawbacks on exportations and premiums. But even If It cost mere in collecting than any other tax, it still was not that which ought to be first repealed. The people were the best judges of the pressure of any particu lar tax; and tits silence open this subject, whilst the table was covered with petitions for repeals of the Coal, Beer, Tobacco, and Tea Duties, formed a strong presumption in Its favour. Every one of these taxes then had a prior claim to this tax on candies. But the Honourable Member seem ed to forget that a tax which now produced 330,000 f. would cease altogether on the 3th of January, 1823. This was the remaining two shillings on salt. Its place must be supplied in some other way; but if this tax was now remitten, the House would, at the time stated, have to make good 703,00 d., instead of 330,000/. Besides, its re peal would cramp the efforts of Government in reducing other taxes which were universally objectionable. For in stance, they Gould not carry their intentions into effect re specting the lottery—(Hear), which they meant to propose this year for the last lime.—(Hear, hear, hear.) As to the savings which might be made la the collection of the re venue, much bad been already done, and more was in con templation. Whatever, however, was saved in that way, would be applied to the remission of some other tax be sides that on candies. For all these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose this motion. Notwitstanding the happy il lustrations of the Honourable Member, he did not feel am bitious of imitating the example of the Duke of Beaufort ; for he believed that, even if his candles were made at home, they would not be much cheaper than at the manufacturers. Mr. CURWEN contended that his Hon. Friend had made out a strong case for the repeal of this tax. It was a tax upon labour—upoa a calculation, every cottager paid ten shillings tax for light. He contended that, if the tax upon foreign tallow was doubled, the revenue might well spare this tax. Mr. MONCK spoke in support of the motion. The Gallery was then cleared, but Mr. SYKEi said he would not press the motion to a division. The motion was negatived without a division. CRIMINAL CODE. Sir J. MACINTOSH said that, in rising to bring un der the attentions of the House the state of the Criminal Law, he should hardly expect that they would willingly listen to the repetition of arguments so often urged in that place. In the course of - the few observations which be should offer to the House, he would endeavour to aim at some variation in the ()tweeter of the discussions. He remembered very well, on his return to this country, the first public debate which he witnessed was in another House on a measure of his late lamented friend Sir S. ltomilly. He heard, on that occasion, a speech delivered by a person of the greatest authority ; and it ivas there said that if a foreigner were to form an estimate of the character of this country by the letter of its Penal Laws, he would conclude that we were a race of feroci ous barbarians. The expression was strong, and it required all the weight of such a person as toe author of it, to carry it through, without severe animad versions. But he could venture to state, that due re flection would satisfy any man of the justice of the statement. What would a foreigner say, it' he were told we had 209 capital crimes in oor Statute Book ; and that we earned only twenty of them into execution—that our Criminal Code was founded on principles, which in theory were odious, and in practice were impoteot : what would he say, when told that innocent children are punished with the father, in ca:,...sof forfeiture; and in c a se s o f cor ruptions of blo od, puniiheit without the father, and to a greater event. And, finally, what would the foreigner say to the Legislature, which carried imaginary punish ment to such a degree, a 3 to wreak vengeance even on the inanimate rem iins of the dead. If then the foreigner were informed, that in :hie country, where these abuses flou rished,, that great principle 01 sin; ve-sal safety, the Trial by dery—so defective in theory, hut in practice found to he the wisest and most useful of institutions—was pre ierveit: that we had devised that simple, plain, and admi rable suitable engine, for the secarEty of but liberties, the Habeas Corpus Act; and that to vs the world were in. debted, so to speak, fot the - disown of the Auble pand a pie of popular representation. I f he were told of ail thi , he could only wonder at human nature, and hesitate upon the character of the people, that combined, in oae plan, materials so irreconeileablr. But it might be hinted to this foreigner, that these darker parts of our system were the remnant of a barbarous age, which waited only a rea sonable moment to remove. The foreigner might relent at this explanation, and begin toentertain milder feelings towards those,of a h )9) such things were asserted. But were he told, that though the offspring of a barbarous dme,these abuses were upli - eld by a great combination of teami ng , ingenuity, and even humanity—that men of great natu cal, great artificial endowments, were I iagned tozether to vindicate them; an I that, grossly repitznant as they were to our coinnion feelings, these cruel punishments these n measured sacrifices of human life, were the buil' wicks of the Constitution, and the landmarks of the law. If the foreigner were told all this, his original feeling of indignation would revive, and be transferred from the barbart its practice itself to its civilized au I ingrnioue advocates. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman then read an extract from the publication of Mr. Crag. atonal. of B linhnrgh, which, he said, described the Cr:- minal Law of England with witch brevi!y, bait, at the same time, with as much comprehensiveness and fidelity as it was possible to observe in the same spare. The writer described the Criminal Code of England to be, in general, admirable ' and adapted to the people ; that i t . was administered by pare and upright Ju fees, who act ed by the intervention of Juries; and they administerel the taw under the rontroul of public opinion, through a free press. But still the system was defaced by mans anoaialies, which were handed down by a bar liarntis axe, and retained by modern misgui led legislation.— That, in those CuSeS, the punishment bore no proportion to the offence—that some offences were raised to the same level wits respect to punishment as those to which, they bore no comparison in the degree of guilt—that it ars flounced 'leach equally against him %silo destroyed a tree as against the base in and the pArrieitle. The writer traced the effects of this confit•iini in themoral feelings of the community. The geutleirialt who:e wori:s he had lost read was one who was too distant fraat tie theatre of those laws to have been a partial comment ator, but who was sufficiently near to observe their piae deal operation. He should perhaps have, at the outset, mo-od that the Resolutions on the subject of the triad. 1141 Laws of the 4th June last be entered as read. INt he would take it for granted that it was now hefute the House, and would remind them of the positio a in which the subject was placed at present. In 13.9 he had moved fur, and sueceeded, after ranch opposition, in obtaining, the appointment of a Co.Lenittee to inquire in . ° the state of the Criminal Law in the allegation of certain defects which were to be found in that code. The motion was carried in defiance of the statement which was warmly urged against him, that the measure would be construe:l into an undietinguishing censure of tbe whole body of the Criminal Law. In the year 162 i/ several laws were proposed in purulence of the tecommendation of the Committee, which, indeed, were lint little calculated to twisty bim. However limited and imperfect as were these beginnings, yet the /louse would learn with surprise that they were the only inetaneeg of reform in the• Code since the accession of E :ward VI. Fer2so a capital felony succeeded to capital felony. The facility of the Legislature in in altiplymg capi climes knew no heends, and it was t:ot nc til the begienieg of the reign of his•pre sent Majesty, when ten of these felonies were erase'( front the Statute Hook, that the a tneuin try spirit was relaxed. He would first of all beg the House to bear in mind.thac the abolition of the capital panisliment in the cans of fraudulent hankrnptcy was founded upon the principle. which he had always advocated, namely, that the extent of the punighment hearing no propurion to the nature of the crime, gave impunity to the criminal. It was in vain to coil tend that, in this case, there was a slaw of that de. liberation, and that ext..nt of m'schief, which, in the eves of some, formed the reason for applying the extreme pu nishment. But it was necessary that, in order to suppress the cringe!, the law should be more lenient in its punish ment. yn tbe year 1821 a Bill pissed that House by the conenrrence of a great majority for removing the cepiesl part of the paniehmeet in the case of forgery. How ever, the Bill did not surcee I elsewhere, and lie should not say that its failure was effected by open hostility, but in conseeetence of an appeal to one of those Parliament. ary stratteema, which, perhaps, in cases whore party animosities are to be indulged in, might be treated with forhearance; but on a question that was conducted with out the least reference to such interests, deserved the strongest ani tnadversion. Hat to proceed. I n the course of the last year the House came to an unauinlo is resolu tion, that they would, in the next Session, take info con sideration the !trans of increasing the e ffi cacy of the cri minal laws by diminishing their vigour. And here be must beg to take advantage of a case which was the more va luable, as it came from those who never admitted the ne cessity of a reforming hand. It was one of the strongest engines which could be placed in his power. It teas sent out of the enemy's camp—the quarter from which thy I would least expect it— ---- Grace pandetur ab urbe. He saw in a publication, na matter what, that a Bill was under consideration, no matter where, to regulate Marriage LAWS. He rejoiced that this Bill repealed. the 26th George 11., that disgrace to the Statute Book ; that it took away the abominable principle of void mar riages, the fertile source of misery, s, acre. and lasting. It was remarkable that the five capital offences created by that precious Act, were amongst those which he (Sir J. M.) attempted to abolish witnont effect. He per ceived that the Bill to which he alluded accomplished that object. When he proposed the measure lie etas met by reproaches—he was sapping the foundation of the Constitution—he was putting the most useful of our institutions in jeopardy. But by his very accusers—hie most assiduous opponents did he now see his principle fully recognised, that the best way to increase the Oh. cacy of criminal laws was to abate their rigour. if after this event the proposition for a further mitigation of the Criminal Code should be assailed with the former impu tations, he should say to his adversaries," 1 appeal from you to the great patriarchs and elders of your principles —your selected organs—the leaders of your sect—they have decided against you; they have promulgated that by abating the rigour of a law to a certain extent you increase its efficacy." Year after year had s h o wn the unreasonableness of the objections which had be.m sr ged against his repeated attempts—year after year had shown the weakness of their argument. These instances authorised him to say that his principle was estab fished by Parliamentary decision, and on that footing he was prepared with confidence to ask the House to joint teitb Lim in recording the opinion that you increase tit r elb• cacy of the law by abating its undue rigour. Under these circumstances, he should propose certain R esola tions, which would in the first place embrace, al I that had been already done, and secondly, a declarati en sf an opinion on a series of measures which woo II be brought under their attention. And here he wish- led to observe that those measures were so few that he th IsoFbt he should rather be open to the charge of b waif proposed a deficient reform than oneof an mini rib's extent. However, It would be more grateful to I Cur to be arraigned as k lukewarm friend than deserve t' te . ar cusation of being a rash inn ov at or . Tho ug h he a stilt be well content with the adiuissidna of his former oppo• Dents in favour of his principle that undue rigour cow teracted the efficacy of a Criminal Law, yet he th it necessary to add some few further observati o n f wtbe purpose of still more clearly illustrating that pri se'P No greater error was committed in Criminal 101 l 4.00 than to assume that the were mischief of an acts tit tv‘i the reason for punishment. He admitted that sew°