The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-02-22 00:00:00

1 jl 1 I .` PARLIAMENTART INTELLIGENCE. 11011 SE OF LORDS, TusinAY, FtsILAaT 21. JOINT—STOCK COMPANIES. Lord KING rose to present a petition from an individual 'who complained of the Mexican Mining Company. The petitioner's name vu Bernard Roca, and he prayed the House to order a Com luauce to inquire into the practical of Joint-stock Companies ge ncrailly. SLAVERY. Lord CARRINGTON presentad a Petition from Gsinehomagb agunst Slavery. The Bishop of BATH and W ELLS presented a petition from *lse easy of Bath, signed by three thousand rums. who, his Lord• allay observed, were very respectable. The petitintfers prayed for the extinction of slavery by an early and safe course. They also ruled that an equitable consideration might be given to such as fright staler by the change. 1111 SH BANK-NOTES. Mr. Tomlin", from the Treasury. presented an account of the number of Irish Country Bankers Notes stamped from 1919 to to 1823, distinguishing the quarters. alr. Johnson, from the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, re..tented an accouat of the Number of 11.4nk of Irelsr.tl Note. 4 in circulation from the 15th of February. 1819. to the I:ith February, 18'28. distinguishing the amount on the 1:oth of February, :Gay, r►ugust. and November of each yaw. Adjourned. Mares appott - innod to the Girectors4 Auditors, &e. ; and at this time very few of those shares were in the possession of those penons. The petitioner stated that five ll:revert sold their shares at ,181. premium, making a profit of 3,6001. to each pertain ; that circumstance was denied, and those gentlemen stated that the account was much saaggetated. It was impossible, however, to deny that those circumstances led to an en couragement of speculation and gambling. The Honourable Gentleman said he wished very much to bear from his Majesty's Attorney-General, whether it was his intention to subinik any meg,. sure to the House on the subject. It was true that last session ' that Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, if a fraud were corn. ' milted they were liable to indictment, but that observation would attach only to original shareholders, and not to those who became so at • subsequent period. The Bubble Act had been repealed last session, and what was the consequence? Why, that the mania for bubbles increased, sod was it not necessary therefore to inquire who had caused the evils ? He ( flr. llobhouse) would beg to refer to what had taken place in that (louse on the rabject of the South Sea Bubble, when an address wee inured to his Majesty, praying foe an inquiry. hoed Molesworth, who was a leader of the oppo sition of that day, moved that his Majesty would be pleastd to direct Parliament to inquire Into the causes of the evil, and that punishment might be Inflicted on the offenders; that motion was carried unanimously. The answer of his Msjeaty George I. was, that punishment should be inflicted on the individuals, and it was well known to the House that such had taken place. There was some difference in the description of persists in that case and the one now before the House, Inasmuch as then the principal parties were Member,' of that House; it was, however, quite clear that a great evil had beets done, and quite necessary that an inquiry should take piste. The Hon. Gentleman said he would not men tion the names of the parties char;;ed in the case before the House, that would appear invidious, and he should therefore couclude by wring that the petition be received. The petition was then brought up : it was from Bernard Ross, of Billiter.street, in the city of London, raying that the House would appoint • Committee to Inquire into the conduct of joint. stack companies, particularly that of the Mexican Company.— Ordered to be printed. COMMITTEE OP PRIVILEGES. Mr. C. W. WYNN brought up the report of the Committee of Prinleges,which was read. It stated that it appeared to theComrait. tee that no Sleuth& should be called to attend other questions during the sitting of Parliament. Several cases were then cited from the records of Parliament, whereby it appeared that the Sergeant at Arms had been sent to Courts of • Law on various occasions, to demand that certain Members of Parliament should be released from attendance, in order to enable them to fultil their Parliamen. tary functions. Among others, Sir John Ivey, in the year 1606, and Sir Thomas lliggs, in 1608, were thus summoned by the Sergeant at Arms from the Court of King's Bench, to go and discharge their duties in the House of Commons. Mr. 'W. WYNN said the principle of the proceeding was so evident from the Act of-Parliament, that he thought no Cmn mittee could in future experience any di ffi culty in acting on the pr;%::ege. At present it 'might be 'sufficient in expressibe eon• cum nee of the (louse in the existence of the principle. 3lr. CHOKER thought that a distinction might be taken on the subject ; for the House ((tight not be considered abstractedly as a High Court of Parliament, though it etas a particular branch of it. that amendment should he carried. With respect to the question which had been proposed two years .ago by the Hon. Gentleman as to the illegality of acting •ith cruelty towards a bull, he could only repeat the opinion he had then given, that a bull wc. pro tected by that law. The circumstance Mated by the Honourable Member for I)dver (Mr. Butterworth), relative to the pritc fight, was certainly of a most extraordinary character, and he hid no he. sitation in saylrg that it was an illegal assemblage, and ought to have been dispersed by the magistracy. 11u11•bairir,g he viewed in the same light, and an assemblage I - It:persona haring that object in view laugh; also to be dispersed. He would not oppose the bill in its present stage, though he would neither patrohise nor advocate it; and he wished to state also, that his reason for opposing the m e aaurenpo n a former occasion was, because he thought it by no means calculated 'a secure the object at which it aimed; an be believed it would have been the cause of many petty vexations. (pear, hear.) The difficulty that be telt in agreeing with the ho nourable Bentleman was, that be knew not where legislation was to stop in these matters. becalm he (Mr. Martin) laid down no Principle for his guidance. It would he impossible to draw the line if they were to legislate with reference to the animal and not to the property. Some general principle should be acted upon before they could discuss the propriety of anv particular or isolated mea sure. One thing, however, he could nut help remarking, which was, that the Honourable Member came down to the House with statements which, he doubted not, were fully believed in by him self; but which, notwithstanding, turned out upon examination to be totally unfounded. (Hear, hear.) It was unsafe, therefore, to make one or two individual instances the basis of great legislation. 11r. MARTIN replied. After which the motion was agreed to without a division. SMALL - - - Mr. SYKES, after a few observationv, which were Inaudible in the xallery. moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 7th and Bth of William 111., relative to the collection of 11111011 tithes. Leave given. !UR. KENRI(K. Mr. DENMAN moved the order of the day for the consideration of the Report upon the charge against Mr. Kenriek. Mr. BUrrEAWORTH said that he had no feeling one way or the other with regard to the charge against Mr. Kenrick ; but he wished to ask a question of the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo site (Mr. Peel). He had heard that Mr. Kenrick had been ap pointed Recorder of Dover. and he wished to know if it was true that he had bcco displaced from that situation by his Majcity's Ministers in consequence of the charge against him relative to Franks. Mr. Secretary PEEL rose, but spoke in so low a tone of voice that it was difficult to hear him ; we, however. understood him to say that he was not aware that Mr. Kenrick had been made Re corder of Dover, but that at all events he had not been displaced by his Msjesty'a Ministers. lie also expressed his surprise at the question corning from the quarter it did, as from the Honourable Gentleman's connexion with Dover he ought to be intiti.ately acquainted with the transactions of the Corporation. Mr. DENMAN said that Mr. Kenrick had not been appointed Recorder of Dover at all. He had only been created If!gh Steward. . _ Mr. Kenrick's Counsel were then called in, and %Ir. Gamey addressed the Hous.; ; 3lr. Holland declined doing so. Counsel were then ordered to withdraw. Mr. DENMAN rose, and said the period was now arrived when it wee permitted to him in detail to expose the grounds and prin ciples upon which these changes hail been trade. in fact it was absolutely necessary to do so, because it was impossible to conceive greater misconceptions than had been entertained by several Gen tlemen in that House on the subject. He thought in bringing these charges he stood there upon the best grounds of the Cotten. tution. it was the duty of the two !louses of Parliament , o over. look the conduct of the Judges of the land, and in case it appeared that any of them had acted unjustly, Or in any manner derogatory ! to the high station they held, it became imperative on Parliament strictly to inquire into the nature of such conduct, and if the facts were established against the party, it became them to exercise the privilege that belonged to them, and to address his Majesty, that the Judge thus implicated might be removed from an office lie had proved himself no longer worthy to hold. It was well known that in former times the commissions of the Judges were held for different periods. It sometimes happened to be during the good pleasure of the Crown alone, durante bent placilo, and sometimes during good be. haviour, gunmdim belle se gesserint. Previous to and during the reign of James the First, the former tenor prevailed. The Judges were not only removable from office for misconduct, but at :he will of the Crown, let their integrity be ever so great. The conse quence was, that o fterulmea by that very conduct which would en title them to the dignity of their station, they incurred the dis pleasure of the Crown, and were removed from office. After the Revolution that practice was put an end to; and by the Act of Settlement, 13 William 111, c. 2, the commissions f Judges were no longer durance bens piaci:o. but guaradiu lute sit gesserint ; but it was provided that on an address from both Housed of Par liament it should be lawful for his Majesty to remove any Judge from office. In the first year of his late Majesty it was enacted, by the earnest recommendation of the King himself from the throne, that the Judges should continue in their offices during their good behaviour, notwithstanding any demise of the Crown, which was formerly held immediately to vacate their seats ; and when a pro vision was made for this object, there was also a clause particularly added in that Act, declaring that it should be lawful for big Ma. kitty to remove enyJudge from office upon an address for that pur pose from both Housesel Parliament. Therefore it appeared that those preliminary attacks,which had been made against the charges now brought forward, had been at best but thrown away ; because It was quite clear that it was one of the great privilege' of the House to inquire into any misconduct on the part of the Judges, and whenever it was proved that any of them hod been guilty of conduct that tended to disgrace the important office they filled, to address his Majesty that they might be removed. That was the tenor of the twelve Judges! of England. With regard to the eight Judges of the Principality of Wales, their tenor was precisely the same. They held their office by virtue of the 34th and 35th Henry VIII, which settled the polity of the Principality on its total re. duction by England. By that Statute the Judges to be appointed by the Crown for Wales were invested with as full powers to hold places of the Crown, and also the same powers in all actions real, personal, or mixed. as the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, or any other Justices of' the kingdom then possessed by law. It was perfectly well known that they exercised also the equitable jar's. diction of Chancellor in Wales. The grounds of this authority he could not ascertain, and he believed it was considered to be founded in custom. Therefore it appeared that every Judge of Wales was delegated with as extensive powers as all the Judges of the Courts of %Westminster ; in addition to which he exer cised that enlarged and over-ruling equitable jurisdiction in Wales in as full and unlimited a manner as wits exercised by the Lord Chancellor in England. Surely these powers furnished sonic grounds for the eye of Parliament to be watchful, and afforded seine degree of right fur the conduct of those who possessed them o be looked at wish jealousy ; there could be no reason for the liouee to observe their proceedings with leas vigilance than the conduct of those Judges who preside in Westmlnster.hall. Such being the case, Mr. Kenrick came before the House as a Judge of the Great Sessions of Wales ; he filled indeed, two characters, being a ma gistrate for the county of Surrey, besides another office, which he represented himself, though as he (Mr. I).) had formerly shown somewhat erroneously, to be holding, namely, tile Recordership of the town of Dover. This, however, was not quite correct, for his appointment, supposing it to have taken place, had not received the approbation of his Majesty, which it was essential it should do before the office could be considered to be filled. Coming, then, as Mr. Kenrick did before the House, its these characters, cape. cially that of Judge of the Great Sessions of %Valets, It was clear that he came within the jurisdiction of Parliament. The meaning of the Acts to which he had referred was clearly this, that the ap. pointment of no Judge should be revoked. quatridiss brae se ges. scriut, but that at the same time, that discretion which formerly belonged to the Crown for the removal of the Judges, was to be vested In the two Houses of Parliament, upon proof of the unfitness of the Judge to continue in office. He therefore apprehended that any circumstance that would formerly have enabled his Majesty to revoke the patent of a Judge, would, upon an Inquiry instituted upon facts established, and improper conduct ascertained by the two Houses of Parliament, in whom that power was vested, form the same grounds for removal now. That being the me, he quite agreed with the observation of those who had said that this must be a question o% degree. It was en. tirely for the House to consider whether the charges partook so much of crime, so much of scandal and disgrace, as to make the person guilty of it no longer fit to hold his office. It was true the House had not hitherto been called upon to exercise this power, be. cause conduct of the kind now in evidence before them was not fee. quent of occurrence. Its frequency, indeed, was rendered in the highest degree improbable by the high moral characters of those who so worthily filled the seats of justice. If the House, however, were to refuse to go into an inquiry now, it would be to give up the most valuable portion of the duty they had .o discharge. Now, the question was, whether the facie In this case were of such a na. Lure as to bring disgrace upon the office of a Judge, and whether therefore Mr. Kenrick was a fit person to continue in the exercise of its duties? In eerier to prove that Mr. Kenrick had forfeited all right to the good opinion - of the House, and that he was a person most unfit to hold the office of a Judge, he would proceed to ani madvert on the evidence that had been produced, and so eloquently commented on by the Learned Counsel at the bar. It was trite that the animadversions in the newspaper (the Morning Chronicle) were strong, and were perhaps, as the Learned Counsel had styled them, atrocious libels. But these animadversions were published in the month of August 1824. Between August and November, therefore, in that year, Mr. Kenrick had to consider the propriety of melting an application to the Court of King's Bench for a cri. minal information against this paper. Most undoubtedly it was the duty of any man who bad the slightest regard for his character to bring such an application forward. It would be a little singular to be told of any Judge having made an application to the Court of King's Bench for a criminal information against a person who had grossly libelled him, in imputing improper conduct to his character as Judge, and that that criminal information was refused by the Court. Such Intelligence would certainly sound rather strangely to our ears. But that was the fact in the case of Mr. Kennck, and upon this some observations might be made. Perhaps he might be allowed to revert to another fact, namely, that this same person had prosecuted a poor labouring man for stealing a worthless slab of wood not worth a shilling, and that he was acquitted of the charge, and the cost of the prosecution refused to the Judge who had prosecuted hint. (Ilea; ' heir.) These were t h e two s i ngu l ar positions in which a Judge had been placed in a Court of Justice. ((fear, hear.) In order to obtain a criminal information for a libel, it was necessary that the party applying shoultedistinctly deny upon oath every fact that was charged as libellous. The more atrucions the libel the greater was the ease of contradiction ; the more atm eious the libel the more desirous was the Court to grant the appli. cation ; the more eirocions the libel the weaker must be the lrle i n t eat ted ti th e : i t tist imputation o IleOtrY caseub,i7,Kwould trei wiur O dicoet f uh:a the e h bi dl e u.etirth p a:ti :: : :: gttha n hl hton w ittunle h vi tibie o pie could le w it r ua y c i tar n r il e mto t i aso h noi e n,: n jl a , I ffi t;: nr n df d n iaol i i ver nE i g Ta t iC tp h d : ou a i in ;lt n: been printed and laid before the House, and he h 1,, d en application for a (Mr. Denman) looked with an eyes for the eenteao fiajnat ul puled. The first ard the last of it was thie—tt y o , -- h ;" °edit. that poor man because you granted to get his isaa r-n..etl uil but at the end of It he in general terms denied ot den .„--,e'Rt; motives. Had he made any denial that he pr • % d rier to get the freehold ? He made no such denial. DT A k 4 ^ l i. of that poor manohe?trwialifle;eonbfluedFt Franks en k t , i is o m s u i c o h n limit he did rot then or at any time expect to et - i 'T e e_.- d t e h n e ia oc l. c 2 i ife or th ree:o° th .: being r t:r d ou w g i h h t on r huossa not send the poor rob,. son for four months ? Did he not deprive him of his em oTo - tn '; have him committed arroeg the worst of characters to L e l -7 ' 1 % contaniinated, deluded. and ruined, for thin p u ; c w9ted, newspaper said, for the purpose of extorting the freehold And all this he never denied. Nay, in another place he a 5000,,, -T,' fur if the House looked to the letter he sent to the Vlonifie' was there mated that he had offer e d Franks another c l ose t t mitten he owned, but that he (F ra nk s ) d ec li ne d tn tuban 'o °Tr; that from that time to his corning out of gaol, he (Mr.g ol i l never made any application to him. He bought anoth er pit a land, and had no de s ire then to have possession tio; j; ‘ ,"; " otherwise than to get rid of a bad neighbour." Here, ti de Kenrick admitted that he wanted to get aid of a bad and by this miserable dirty &lab, not worth a coul i r f =s on Franks's premise., which, in the minds of ch . ery mss not excite any suspicion against him, it wa s th at the effen:-,- cotnplish this object was male. lie was happy that the deo; lions had been read upon which the warrant ma granted, a r .s m : entreated that the House would read th em , f or sure lie sal e s - - ally one. afer perusing those depo s iti o n s , ir u iy ! cence of Franks. he most be a man of wonder. Th e Learned Gendennut then read parts of the deposition ot the servant of Mr. Kenrick, who deposal to his having used rte slab of wood on the day preceding its bring lost, and tlot iie sfLet wards found it on the premises of F r a n k s; b ut which the Ho.. pourable and Learned Gentleman stated dal n o ; an ,„„,, t to ttto slightest evidence, that be hi.d either seen the slab or knew of es being on his premises. But if' he had seen it, what proof would itthr e Unwanted to, but that sonic one or oth e r un k nown to hint the bah. log a family of seven of eight childrer.), had put it there, with* his knowledge or direetion ? Was it possible that such evidete could have prevailed even against the moot infamous and diabetes' charade" io the world ? both of which qualities, however, Mr. Kern. rick had imputed to Franks OthoffOod veils it possible to suppe s that the liberty of all the subjects of this country was lobe at state, if a piece of timber was found on his, premises of no value whom alihough not found at all in his possession ? Ile ventured tow, that not only the sligheet knowledge of the law, but the least tier, rise of common sense proved that there was no case aping Franks, lie did not believe there was any undue means lied ones the mind of Me. Burgess, the committing magistrate: hot it vu remarkable that Mr. Burgess made no affidavit in the Court of King'. Bench, and had not been called to the bar of that Row. It was stated in the Morning Chronicle, that Mr. Burgess cam, mitted Franks with regret, but that he felt bound to do au, hewn, the fact had been sworn to. Nothing but the infittewe of a judo, that was the influence of authority and opinion, lie (31r. Denim, did not mean to say that it was any improper lams, could have induced a magistrate to have committed ape, son upon such depositions as those before the lima In all ills statements he (Mr. Denman) confined himself to thee. formation lie had gleaned from the affidavits of Mr. Kenriek self, filed by him when he applied to the Courts below for a nisi. nal information. With respect therefore to the nature of theen. dente brought against him, Mr. Kenrick had nothing to vampish, and this evidence plainly convicted him of most inconsistent ex. duct. Among the bad motives assigned to Mr. Kenrick byte Morning Chroaiek was the wish to dispossess Franks of his fir, hold. Now this Mr. Kenrick in some degree admitted. Iliad. nutted that he wished to possess the freehold arid to get ride(' troublesome neighbour. To prove Franks a bad neighbour was tbs object of many of his subsequent proceedings. There was a sisb or piece of timber found on Franks's premises. and this eireurc. stance was converted into a strong Imputation on his character. All these little details were published in the Stamford News, and the letter in which they were recounted was sent by 3lre.Kenrick. In defence of the character of Franks, it deserved to be noticed tit; the statements which appeared in the Morning Chroniek, in Am vindication, were accompanied by small sums of money, the con tributions of charity for one who was deemed a deserving object; and during this time Mr. Kenriek was inserting his libel in the StanYbrd News ; at least he never attempted to disprove or deny it; and the neglect of a gentleman to vindicate himself from a chirp may be taken as an admission that he cannot. When commencing his prosecution of Franks, Mr. Kenrick drew up what he called a sketch of an affidavit, containing charges not one of which was at. terwards inserted in his affidavits. He stated that ho had received hints respecting the misconduct of Franks, and finding those tom. plaints well founded, he consequently discharged hint from his an ployment. He also cruelly stated and amplified the offence of a child of Franks, a little girl only ten years old. This offence was the concealment of some trifles, fragments of silk and a pair of scissors, which the child had hidden in her father's bed-room. Of this incident Air. Kenrick remarked that the offence had been coat witted before the Act was passed for the punishment of abettor. Was not this rousing the supposition that Franks himself was an abettor of this childish theft ?—a sup posh ion at once cruel and an. founded. But all these circumstances injurious to Franks's cha. tamer had been already before the Court of King's Bench, and were neither proved nor attempted to be proved ; aha this was demonstration, accotding to the ordinary principles of rca. seeing, that they were not true. Mr. Kenrick also stated that Frank stole two fat Sher?, but that the gentleman who lost them, al.t though he had aoundant evidence, was unwilling to prosecute. How extraordinary that any one who could find evidence to con vict would decline prosecuting a sheep-stealer; it was indeed too extraordinary to be believed. Time fact was, Mr. Peters had lost 38 sheep. but the suspicion that attached to Franks was of se 1113 k and fallible a nature, dial time magistrate before whom he ess brought rejected the evidence altogether, as unfit to raise a aims. nal accusation ; it might indeed have availed two months {men sonment to the accused if he had been brought before Mr. Burgess, but it Could nut have procured his conviction before a jury of his country. However, the fact was that Mr. Peters afterwards found and convicted the teal culprit, while ip the mean tire Mr. Kenrick was diffusing the imputation by means of the Stamford News. Sow it was a matter of great importance that gentlentea "hookt not level accusations without endeavouring to ascertain their truth; but in this case they were launched forth unceasingly, without the slightest attempt to corroborate them. Again, Mr. Kenrick said that he had no doubt that Franks had been in the habit of com mitting daily and nightly depredations on his property for the lipase of ten years ; but where was the proof of this There was abundant testimony from all sides of Franks's good character, and Mr. Kenrick never produced a witness to prove the contrary. But he would reduce Mr. Kenrick to a dilemnta. lie would ask filet, if Franks had a bad character why withdraw the prosecution if a good one, why publish a libel on him in the Stamford New! Wily did he keep back the witnesses, after he had brought against him so many charges ? Atter he had called his daughter a thief, himself the abetter, a sheep-stealer and habitual depredator, yet in time same page lie says, " for the above reasons I wished him to get off" Now he (Mr. Denman) put it to the House weethes it was not evident that 3lr. Kenrick only wished to get rid of his neigh. hour. With this view he strove to induce him to plead guilty of felony; knowing that Brier such a plea the poor man could never return to the parish. Mr. Kenrick, In his letter to the gaoler, begged to be informed " how Franks conducted him self," and added, " that the facet against him were so clear eft .t ho could not hope for an acquittal," and to this threatening, polo he subjoined a promise, that if Franks pleaded guilty he wcull prevail with the Court to mum a lenient sentence. Now ha (Mr. Denman) could not conceive an instance of more flagrant injustice than when a Magistrate endeavoured to make a man plead guilty. knowing at the same time that the accused was beyond the danger of conviction. But the answer of Franks to Mr. hentiek woe also worthy of attention. Ile said, "He was sorry for the loss of the property, and for the offeuce of hie children. With respect in the timber, he knew nothing of it till he heard the accusation." It was evident that Mr. Kenrick sought to obtain Franks's freehold from his gratitude, since he could not have it by his conviction. Nor did Mr. Kenrick deny this distinctly ? Among the self. laudatory motives he assigned for his conduct, it would have been f well If he haul given a clear disavowal of this one. 'With all those acts In view, it was for the House to consider whether This gentle. man ought to retain the power of life wet death. The admi. nistratiun of justice ought to be not only fair but satisfactory, act free from all leaning to rank and fortune. It appeared to him that whatever misconduct would suttice to exclude a man from an office ought also to deprive hint of it ; and no one would say, if Mt. Kenrick were now about to be advanced in a judicial capacity, that the country would not cry out against his promotion. It was strange to hear this styled a private investigation ; as if a Judge could not incapacitate himself by tnisconduct unless he disgraced the Bench openly, and before the eyes of the public. The feelings of the public in this case were well known. Wherever he (Mr. Denman) went he was generally accosted with the exclamatiee " Good God! is Mr. Kenrick still to retain his situation 9" He had heard it objected to him, that a lawyer and a person in a ju dicial capacity uuglat nut to have brought forward that modem. With respect to the first objection, it appeared to him that no one but a lawyer, who had the habit of collecting and simpering the details of evidence, could have brought it forward; and with respect to the second, he found that the administration or jusfce had the effect of equally extending his sympathies to all station! of society, and rendering him impatient of judicial tytatiny art oppression. He would therefore conclude by moving," That It appears to the House that the charges against Wm. Kenrick , one of the Judges of the Great Session in Wales, have been fully established by evidence, except so far as they impute to hint an attempt to withdraw his prosecution of Franks on ru• tence of his good character ; and that 51 r. Kenrick halt shown him self an improper person to fill his sintation ; and that an humhte address be therefore prevented to his Majesty, playing that he will remove time said Wm. Kenriek from his judicial situation." The ATTORNEr.GENERAL said he did not stand there to advocate Mr. Kenrick, but merely to state the impression on his intuit with reference to the charge'. • He did not know how his lion, and Learned Friend was justified In preferring one charg e and establishing another. He did not charge Mr. Kenrick with malice in his conduct towards Franks, or at least his observations were inapplicable. To prosecute with insufficient evident% we. no proof of malice; it could not be the ground of a civil action, much lee' of &criminal proceeding. But the evidence which weigh's' with IW or_ al e omi t tt • tom 'se; r° P ll Mk, ' say 4 0a1 It be band I ID% 'lnd I ted, ? ed 1.. t: Pre. apd of • 31f. and ele'd 0 ee. rd ke thu iron. 's• std dote stet. r Ho. to om !Huse e hat. 'Mom( ider.4 Kn. UPPOIe Meet, latent 10 My, t tine meting I sd Otte • it WO hot of II Me. s beeaoit tud,cr, maw, flume, a Pa. ) the it. ek h st. a attest. 'heat. CDPlsiala nit cot- t by the his fret. lit ed. rid ots was the a slah et rem:. ter. AU and the ck. la red Hat r, in Am in the deny it: l theiwa c h arg e t l eas sr.g c a o object; . t i received ce com. his ern. Ica of a - nee was Pair of HOUSE OF COMMONS, TVICIDAY, FM 2i. Mr. Henry Bankey, and "bother Member who's name did not teach the gallery, appeared at the tal,:c and took the oath'. An Officer from the Commission appointed for regulating the InEces of the House of Commons, appeased at the bar, and pre se-• ted the Annual Certificate, which wee ordered to neon the table. lir. Tootling, from the Treuury, presented certain Customs' Returns, and an Account of Prommory Notre of Country Barks circulation, agreeably to an order of the House. lIIRIIINOHAM AND LIVEKPOOL CANAL. Petitions in favour of the measure were presented, by Mr. Dave nport, from Nantwich ; by Sir T. Winnington. from Dudley & by Mr. Littleton, from Eetieshall ; by Mr. Mansfield- from Ashby.de to Larch; also from Weichpool, Shrewsbury, Elmer., %Penn, Whitchurch, and by Lord Delmore,. from Chester. NEW CORN-EXCH A NOE. Mr. S. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the farmers and growers of corn in the county of filiddiesex, in favour of the Bill for erecting a new Corn }:schange ; also from the seed mer- C4ilets and corn dealers of the Borough of Southwark, by Mr. IL bunlner, to the some effect ; and from the farmers and corn growers of the county of Kent. by Sir Edward Knatelibull. On the motion of Sir E. KNATCHIICLL, the Bill was read a second time. anti committed. BASINGSTOKE JUNCTION CANAL. Mr. 11. it.73INLIi presented a petition from Bagshot in favour of •he measure. _ - . Petitions were also presented to the same effect from Farnham, by Mr. H. Sumner ; from Newport. by Lord Oranville Somerset; from Trowbridge, Bradford, and Warminster, by Mr. Bent;; from Martbomugh, by lard Brudenell ; from Bandon, by. Mr. Hutchinscn ; from Bedwin, by Sir John Nielioll; and from the Uriatol Dock Company, by Mr. Hart Davia.—Ordere4 to lie on the table. BERES AND HANTS CANAL. Petitions in (I:sourof the Bill were presented from Devizes, by )Ir. Pearce; from Caine, by Mr. M'Honald ; from Ehippenliam, by Mr. Grosset. On the motion of Mr. C. DCSDAS the Bill was read a second tune and committed. HAMMERSMITH BRIDGF.. 11r. BYNO brought up the report on the petition for leave to bring in a Bill for erecting a Bridge across the Thames from Ham mersmith to Danes.—Leave given. SILK TRADE . Mr. BY NG presented - I:PeJacinit'TunThe Churchwardens, Orer. seem, and Inhabitants of Mile•end Newtown, in the county of Nttid km'', against the importation of foreign silks. Petitions to the same effect were also presented by Sir John :sebright, from the 110. rough of St. Alban's • from the Silk.throwsters in the neighbour. h?o,1 of Winchester, by Sir Edward H. East, who stated that, of &A persons usually employed there, 400 of that number were now out of work: and trom Reading, by Mr..Monck.—Tho same were ordered to he on the table. HIBERNI.%N BANK. . . ........... Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON brought up the report on the peti. ton for leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act regulating the HLbernian Joint-Renck Banking Company.—Leave given. BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK _ Mr. C. CALVERT brought up the report on a petition for a ISMS to improve the Pavements of the Borough of Southwark.- 1.20ve given. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. Mr. LEICESTER presented a petition front Poole, in favour of this mature. _ Petitions mere also presented to the same effect from Kiddermin. titer. by My. Lygon ; from Lynn. by Mr. W. Lewis ; from Car. cliff; by the same;. from Wolverhampton, by Sir J. Wrottesley ; f• on Kingston, by Mr. Denison; from Sudbury, by Mr. Alder. n.ao Illeygats; and from Penny Stratford.—They sere ordered w be printed. CORN LAWS. Mr. 31ANSPIELD presented a petition. praying for the repeal of the Corn Laws, from Leicester: from Kidderminster, by Mr. Lygan ; and from Bream. by Mr. Hume, who said it expressed Ott! thanks of the petitioners to his Majesty's Government for their annduet in regard to free trade, and hoped that they would not est, ntneeedings without extending the same principle to the laws regufating Corn.--Ordered to be primed. BANKING SYSTEM. _ _ _ . _ _ Air. W. DUNDAS said the petition be had to present referred ts subject which had created considerable alarm in the country. The petttioners stated strongly that the Banks of Scotland had con. tribt ted much to the prosperity of that country, and that the state el the circulating medium there was in s most healthy state. The pemiciaen called upon his Alajesty's Government to pause, and be (Air. Hondas) called upon the House to pause, before it proceeded auy further in a system so pregnant with danger and difficulty. Atter a few words from 11r. ROBERTSON the petition was brought up. and w.us from the Lord Provost and Altigistrates of hitimburgh ' against any alteration In the Bankiug System 01 Scot. land.—Ordered to be printed. PRIVILEGE. A MEMBER rose to say that he had that morning been sum moned to attend a Jar In the Court of Exchequer ; and as he con. a tiered that his amending his duty in Parliament a s. a duty he sad to the country before all others, wished to know Rom the sfesker what he ought to do ? The SPEAKER said the House would be aware that the sub ject was then under the consideration of the Committee of Privi. INes, but who had not as yet made their report. Put as the Ho nourable Member had asked him the question, he should say that Le bad no doubt of what he should do were he so circumstanced, and of course it was known that he was not further protected than any other Honourable Member. He should conceive that his duty in attending his Parliamentary duties was paramount to all others, sad that every other must give place of whatever nature they might 1.. Here the nutter dropped. TOLLS IN IRELAND. • _ _ Mr. SPRING RICE moved for • Special Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the manner in which Tolls were collected sn the sea ports and markertowns in Ireland, and to consider of the propriety of consolidang the nine..—Agreed to, and Committee appointed. SHIPPING. ?Jr. fIEATIICOTE moved for a return of the number and tole of ships that entered British ports during the year 1112.1, awei ing the different ports, and number of men, distinguishing B from foreign, and 'lunacies of the country to winch they beluaged.—Ordered. DUTIES ON TOBACCO. Lord BELGRAVEplesented apen . 4oitfrom the merchants, traders. and others, of the city of Chester, praying fur a :eduction of the duties on tobacco.—Ordered uo been the taSle. NEW WRIT. . Alf. PRA RSE moved ii.;;3lllitiritlne Devises, in the room of Air. T. G. Estcourt. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES Mr. HORDOUSE said that he had s petition to present from an indinrinal, praying that the House would Institute an inquiry Ja;nt.stock companies. The Honourable Member said that lie thought it it to offer a few observations, for in his opi. ,i pint those companies been the cause of the late distress and misfortune. :Sufficient weight had not been paid to that particular subject, which must be apparent. when it was recollected that the shares of those companies were so much base currency in cheats. non. In the Mining Companies alone the capital consisted of imirtcen millions, the payments on which were lost ; he said lost, be - ause he considered they were not worth soy thing. The Dm PnureWe Gentleman regretted to think how much the character of the British merchant had suffered, and how much it would he loon , thy the connexion witli those annipanies; indeed, he feared It rook: he much sunk in the scale of respect with other nations. e did sr! consider it necessary to go so fully into sthe subject as h. otherwise rhoold, inasmuch As a petition would soon be pre. sented from the city of London on the same subject, when, no triebt,:t would be fully gone into. It was therefore sufficient to my that the petition came from a merchant of the city of London, and complained in particular of the conduct of the Mesicsn Mih. ing Company. The Honourable Gentleman said he had consulted the opinion of many persons on the subject of the petition, and they said every allegation contained in it was true ; at the same time, in paint of fitirness, he must say that he had cotninuniested the sub. stance of the petition to the Gentlemen against whom the cow. plernt was made, and that they said a very fair excuse could be made for their conduct. The petitioner alleged that he had in. -vested a considerable sum of money in the Mexican Mining Com pany in the year 1825; that some time since the Directors pre. seated to the petitioner a deed of settlement for hint to sign ; he re. usedto do so, because he cons idered the deed war en improper one ; they then said he was no longer a shareholder, he having, accord. jog to their opinion, forfeited his shares by that tertian!. The fact was, that the deed contained an indemnity clause for all acts com. twitted by the Directors up to the period of the date of the deed, and was well known that was an illegal clause, and upon thug ground the petitioner considered they had no right to call upon him to laps The original shareholders having parted with their shares, and other persons having takes; their places, they had no appeal to • CIP•il of law, not brine original shareholders. Anether ground yea, each edam had Sie shares, sad therefore there were PAW 13t1. ,bissisfini '""'"7 .—... ..... --- ....."... him that co , aqacit„ , t woo l@ De tow gone into. st was inererore sunittent ta /Ir. ball Vtl would not be deterred by ridicule from expressing different aspect. (Hear t hear, hear.) The fact was, that after th ' e therefore, in that year, Mr. Kenrick had to consider the propriety With respect to the first objection, it app e ar e d to._ . say th at the petition came from a merchant of the city of London, hls approbation of the Bill. lie thought that the Hon. Mover bull had been baited, a ferocious dog which had been constantly of making an application to the Court of king's Bench for a ail. one but a lawyer, who had the habit of collecting and woluPar t .'7 l r'• ' . end complained in particular of the conduct o r t h e lexicon allh. was entitled to great eisdit for kit conduct. There were thn—i kept tied up. in order to prevent him doing mischief, suddenly bunt minal informa t ion against this paper. Most undoubtedly it was the details of evidence, could have brought it forward; iFid us ti t , , ,,, i . . jog (,amnany. The Honourable Gentleman said he had consulted grounds on which gentlemen dissented front the measure. They from his confine:neut, and attacking the bull seized it by the tongue, the duty of any man who bad tile slightest regard f o r hi s c h a r a cter resp ect to the second, he found that the administration or j tbe opinion of many persons on the subject of the petition, and they did hot belies, th e statements of crue l t i es , b ut h e saw no r e a so n part of which it bit off. Ile could not find a single individual who to bring such an application forward. It would be a little singular ha d the effect of equally extending his sympathies to allsstati o ns o said every allegation contained in it was true ;at the same time, in to doubt their truth. fur the public papers which gave them were could assert that they taw it cut off, nor could he even rind one who to be told of any Judge having made an application to the Court of of society, and rendering him impatient of judicial ty.' s a . rMy a t .. , t : po i nt of f Amen, he must my that lie had conuntiniested the sub. not contradicted. The next cause of objection was that the law at could state_ that he had seen It exhibited on a plate, as described by King's Bench for a criminal information against a per so n who had oppression. He would therefor e . i 1 . 64 . signee o f the petition to the Gentlemen against whom the coin- present Was sufficient to put ell down down ; but it' this were the case, the II 3 lember forGalray. (Ileac, hear.) ► With respect to his grossly libelled him, in imputing improper conduct it; hi s character appears to the House that t he chargesag ainst have b en u s a , nt was made, and that they sind a very fair excuse could be why did the instances occur ? The last reason assigned was that opinion as to the legality of bull.baiting, he must declare that he am Judge, and that that criminal information waa r e f use d by the one of the Judgcs of the Great Session in Wales. ---e . , . ; ti m e f or their conduct. The petitioner alleged that he had in- these spores were fur the public good. On this point he thought knew of no law which made it criminal, in which opinion lie was Court, such Intelligence would certainly sound rather str a ngely fully established by evidence, except so far as they imput e , ' conclude fiy moving, • K T en tia Tici l L t . n w t a i s aa n i o n t g p t r h o e . b h e ad al - seate d a considerable sum of money in the Mexican Mining Com- great misunderstanding prevailed, for gentlemen who thought borne out by the fact that property was held in right of bull-baiting to Our ears. But that was the fact in the case of M r , K e nnck, him an attenipt to withdraw his prosecution of Franks on 2" . patty in t h e year 1825; that some time since the Directors pre . they were performing the parts of philosophers by not interfering St Windsor. at Oakhampton, and in various other parts of the and upon this sonic observations might be m a d e , p er h aps h e mi g ht t e nce of his good character ; and that Mr. Kenrick has oho" ° I ,":" . , re d a ve p r , t ad to i a a n ha ot , h ir e i r a f g ac m t, au nai l i a ie r l s y t , ea tl i i i a n t g t this t w h i e t: the d a p c u t bl s i t c r ict a l m r u t s h e at m e t h n etr t s, n fa i r i g h e h a t rad d et isfo d v i e d r, na b( rol cannoning c te o c u t n ed tr yh.y theW i ‘ kh r o t u i t a d g is a p ea u t t i a n al g ,. w a h n e d th i l i o ro w s ed ecu to ie I I address be therefore presented to his Majesty, peayingr ~ liensedtedtotodtOrbesOp.‘helitclaounseer h a e d c ee m d isi o tl f e s re et d de tir d n e t er wahsinalitiomspigronp;erhoenree: a er id t i h a e at bu a l t l was all (l o u r I slab is w s o r th e les p s erson self an improper person to fill his sitttation ; and that aa t h h u a to w . , A i t h ey t h en sa id he was no longer a shareholder, he having. accord- Philosophy or philanthropy, but was rather produced by the opinion of the Attorney -General, he would say that there had been of am i d not w o rth a shilling, and that h e was acqu i tte d o f t h e remore the said Wm. Kenriek from kis judicial situation. , 1 O i 1 ' i tog to their ()Pinions forfeited his shares by that refusal. Th e f ac t contempt with which they regarded the lower classes. Thai no cue in which the nuttier had been decided, and he believed that charge, anti the cost of the prosecution refused to the Judge who The ATTORNEr-GENERAL said he did not stand there h t f, t h at t h e d ee d contained an indemnity clause for all sets corn- bind of talk resembled very much the language which used there were as many persona or his opinion as there were those en- had prosecuted him. (Ilea; hear.) These were t h e two s i ng ul a r advocate 31r. Kenrick, but merely to state the inipreaston on ,"%, was. witted by t h e Directors up to the period of the date of the deed, and tO be applied to the Colonic'', of the people be singing to them ta ke keening the opimotis of the lion. Gentleman, and at all events positions in which a Judge ' had been placed h i a C ourt o f Justice. ;Mud with reference to the ehargeta. • lie did not know " h r '_"; i t int. wail ; mown t h a t was an illegal clause , and upon dug ground Iva s sulk if they wool( that is all that is requisite . II et mem take no person could say that he gave any sort of encouragement to such (;tear, hear,) In order to obtain II cr i minal information for a libel, Ilan . and Learned Friend watt Justified In prefertiOg o n liF 3 _`.. ; ,. AA ' the petitioner considered they had no ri g ht to call upon him to their own way. The same kind of feeling prevailed with respect to practices. it was necessary that the party applying should distinctly deny upon and establishing another. Its did not char e Mr. Kennet ;I n n! age. The original shareholders h av i n g p ar t e d with th e w s h ares . the public aniusementi; of the lower classes of this country. There The ATTORNEY -GENERAL said that It seemed to be the oath e ver y fact that was charged 84 libellous. The more atrocious malice in his conduct towards Franks, or his °bureau •• and other persons having taken their plums, they had no appeal to were two °pink:ins entertained on the subject of conferring educe. opinion of the Hon. Member for Galway that the Act which had the libel the greater was the ease of contradiction ; t evident% lea ro t 1 a coon of law , not bo„ oeiginal abaralmillme. Anether ground den on the lower classes; sense approved of I's d if fusion ; but how already been passed to prevent cruelty to animals required amend. cious the libel the more desirous wart the Court to grant the appli.action, touch proof of malice; it could not be itw rounsk , a civil . . with the more atro. were inapplicable. To prosecute with ' wa tt ita A r oa m b e d so. ihmeop tad therefore time were .0,003 could they reconcile it to tonciaelyeit to instruct children for one hour went, but he Mu not appear to be aware of the extent to which cation ; the loots atrocioas the libel the weaker sang be Os leo of acriminal procettliag. Y which weighail . . , ~ . . _ mt s ,l . .g •V• . 0 . :, '•, -,, s•••'''. '• i t . '7 6 ,..t• 'le •- ' 0 -tit /SW wale • t , • ' * rr,il vortp.r, ' , toes I, .c . • . 1 ; .. -,: .. .:: i.airsisys i t aw .t ' 0 e . . . . ~...: 4 . ~.. ,as rr IC ,' • *VW • . . . • . , 1 : I tlt .iii THE BRI . TISII PRESS. anti to allow them in the text to witness such demoralizing exlji bitlons ? Those who wished the populace to be merely " hewers of wood and drawersof water," might think such things right, but he Mitered oo the subject, and approved of the Bill. Colonel WOOD visited to state that he was favourable to the Bill. Ile had been of opinion that there had been legislation enough on the subject, but lie altered his opinion in col,scipence of the lion tight Which had taken place in Warwick during the last summer. Such exhibitions were a disgrace to the nation. (Hear.) Sir IL WILSON adverted to the state of the law on the subject, and wished to know from the Attorney-General whether it wit in its present form competent to afford a redrew of tbe practices which the motion was intended to suppress. Mr. COLBORNE concurred in the opposition which the At torney. General gave to the Bill, for he did not like the mod., of repeatedly introducing a measure to the House. (Hear.) Ai the same time he thought the lion. Member (Mr. Martin) was en titled to praise for his other Rill. (Wear.) But that would have been inoperative if the lion. Membet had not remained in town to watch over its violations, on wine of which he had paid the penal ties for those who bad been convicted. Such Bills, however, as were likely to be dead letters were wore than negative, for they cause the animals intended to be protected to be worse treated than before. Sir J. BRIDGES did not like to hear the question treated with levity. It bad been said that this was an encroachment on the pleasures of the poor, but they did nut exclude the higher classes. The House should not only legislate for brutes, but to prevent men from becoming brutes, or worse. Ile should be suprised if the Universities did not agree with the Bill. Mr. MARTIN explained. Mr. PEEL agreed with the Attorney-General in imagining that the Lill was introduced under mistaken views. Ile was entitled to say so, because he did not altogether di.spprove of the Bill ; but it was not a new one, and therefore dill not claim any additional discussion. He also did not wish to treat it with levity. But be. fore be could yield to its admission, lie wished to have the general principle distinctly defined on which the law was to be framed. Without such a principle there would be no end to legislation on the matter. One Gentleman would partially legislate fora dog, and another for a lion. Ile did not think a lion a nobler animal ; the dog was more domestic, and ought to have the preference. But one Act would by analogy give rise to innumerable others, be cause there was no general principle which should Include all the eases. He thought that shooting at pigeons in a teapot twenty-one yards distance, when there was no pretence of the game principle * excuse, evinced as much cruelty as the cases included in the Bill. Tithe Hon. Mover (Mr. Martin) would give • general prin . clple lie would agree. There was another reason against the tom. sure. There is some cause to apprehend that the effect would be Dot to protect the brutes, but to implicate td: men in charges of ! atrocity. He could not therefore agree to the measure, unless it I wan founded no some distinct principle of general applicability. 1 The House then divided, when there appeared -17 or the motion . - - - 3 7 Against it - . 76 Majority -37 CRUELLY To carnu. Upon cur return to the gallery, we found Mr. MARTIN upon his legs. Owing to the nnive In the gal lery it was a considerable time before we could catch the Honour able Member's voice, but when It subsided he proceeded sa . . 30.1 V. WYNN said at , perenn who was attending in It was his intention to move for leave to bring in • Bill to amend that House was in the situation of a person aimed to attend the the Act of the 3d of Oeo. IV. e. 71, intituled an Act to prevent the Hi g h Court of Parliament. cruel and improper treatment of cattle. it was his wish that do- Mr. HUME did not know how the Judges of the lower Courts ismatie animals might experience the same protection as cattle, for were to be made acquainted with the existence of the privilege. he could see no reason why the exercise of cruelty should be per. How was Baron (farrow to derive such information mined towardi a dog more than towards a hotse. Although he The SPEA leEft said that the entries were sufficient evidence of might risk exciting a laugh against himself, yet he would declare the fact. In these record. it was competent fir any person to dis. that in his opinion even a cat ought to be saved from being filed cover that the privilege exieteil. The votes of that House were alive. He had been asked, and he had no doubt but the question regularly printed and sold. The same facility for ascertaining the would upon that occasion be repeated, and he therefore would reply orders of the House of Common, , by authorised publications, was to it—whether they were to legislate upon individual instances of given as for knowing Acts of Parliament. cruelty ? Before answering it, however, he would state one or two Mr. HOI.FOItD slated that, after the explanations which had instances calculated to awaken die attention of Parliament to the been afforded on the subject, he did not conceive 'lt necessary subject, and these upon most unquestionable authority. Mr. Halls, on his part to proceed further with the matter. He would there. one of the Magistrates of Buw.street, had informed him that lie had fore let at rest. seen some wretched people cut the skin off a living dog, and then BEAR-BAITING, AND OTHER CRUEL SPORTS. placing a collar round his neck, dragged him along the road for 31r. hIARTIN (of Galway) rose according to notice to move for the dietance of a mile, and then threw him into a river. hlr.Halls, leave to bring in a Bill for the prevention of Bear and Badger. burning with indignation at such atrocious cruelty, did that for baiting, and other cruel sports. He did not wish to abuse die which he should always honour him ; he threw them into the river time of the Home by any lengthened tirade of the nature of the after the dog. (Immense laughter.) He could show the House Bill. It would be sufficient to state its title; for he did not expect chapter end verse for what lie stated. Another instance of cruelty that much opposition would be given to so humane a measure. equally atrocious took place io Oxfordshire; lie had already related He could not better recommend this measure to the Member the circumstance to the Hon. Member for that county (Mr. Ash. of that House than by stating it to be the wish of all their urst) which he should state to the House. At a bull.baiting which constituents to suppress those cruel and demoralizing sports. wok place there, sonic horrid wretch caught hold of the tongue of There were 62 petitions in favour of his Bill, from Manchester, the bull, and getting a knife within its jaws, cut it out by the roots. Liverpool, Bristol, and all the great commercial and trading places (Hear, hear.) It was then placed upon a plate, and handed round in the kingdom, signed by all classes of people, who supplicated the company, for the purpose of collecting money. (Hear, hear.) the House that it would take into its consideration the removal of That lion. Gentleman entertained • doubt as to whether the bull these nuisances. Under these circumstances, and having the sane. was included in the statute relative to cattle, but he (Mr. Martin) tion (detach a great and respectable number of petitioners who were could inform him, upon the authority of the Attorney. Gener a ), their constituents, he did not think it fair to abuse the time of the that it was as illeg a l t o cu t th e t on g ue f r om a bull m e from a but- House by dwelling inure on the merits of the subject. He did not lock. lie hoped it would not be said that he was calling upon the apprehend that any opposition would be made to the introduction House to legislate upon a tingle instance, however atrocious that of a Bill for the purposes he had stated. and Oder the authority instance might be. It was not because the skin had been flayed of of so many petitions. He did not say that such opposition would one dog (and it should be remarked that the akin was the moat be unconetiuttional, but it certainly would be very unusual. Le sensitive portion of the human frame) that lie appealed to the should therefore feel confident that leave would be given to bring House to legislate, foe he would nut do so If he could be certain in this Bill to. put an end is those cruel exhibitions, and particu. that that animal would be the only immolated victim. But he lady to that which was called the Patrician eVestminster Pit. He would contend that that single instance was quite enough to awaken did not anticipate any opposition, but if any were offered he was the attention of the House, because the same might happen toa ready to reply. lie therefore proposed that leave he given to bring thousand dogs; it might happen to every clog (laughter), because in the BilL there was no law to prevent it. They were called upon to legislate The ATTORNEY - GENERAL, was of opinion that at the because the same might occur again, and not because it had already Bill was not a novel one, but had been repeatedly discussed before, occurred ; and in so doing he would venture to assert that they it would not be necessary to renew the subject. He should there. would be acting in consonance with the feelings of the British pub. we content himself with giving his simple dissent to the measure, lie. (Hear.) Ile was certain that if they traversed the metropolis (Cries of " Question," were then uttered by several Members.) they would find five hundred to one in favour of the measure be 31r. 3IA RTIN did not well know how to persuade himself that was about to introduce. In the Bill of last year which lie had In. a hill which came recommended by fifty.two petitions should be traduced there was a clause enabling a magistrate to convict sum. opposed, not by argument, but by cries of •• Question, question." nastily upon view of the commission of the offence. He believed He could assure the House that such a mime of proceeding WM not that that clause conferred a power to the .Magistracy which it ought agreeable to the feelings of their constituents, Mr. Atwmey.Ge. not to possess, and it ought therefore to be altered, He was of op) octal will be very far from recommending himself to that body to nion also that in all cases a compensation fur loss of time should be which he is anxious to recommend himself by his sneers and smiles, allowed to the prosecutor, as well as the amount of his expenses. The body to which he alluded contained religious and humane men Another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the who approved of his Biill, and who knew what to think of such House was the nature of the punishment awarded by that Act foe sneers. Ile should not be intimidated, however, from bringing fur. cruelty waited. animals. Perhaps if the Attorney-General were to ward the measure. sea a wretch so void of all feeling, so destitute of every attribute of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL disclaimed any intention of a man or a Christian as to tear the tongue from a bull, he might miming or laughing on the occasion. Ile merely meant to state think that one month's imprisonment, or a fine amounting to three that as the merits of the Bill had been so frequently debated al. or four pounds, was not a punishment quite adequate to the of. ready, it watt unnecessary to go over the same grounds again, fence. He was certain that he would deem the maiming of any Mr. MARTIN thought he perceived Mr. Attorney-General animal a crime deserving a severer punishment than that of over. laugh, but whether he sneered or laughed, the members of the Uni. driving a horse. His object was that, when a complaint was made ninny of Cambridge would not agree in the view which he took of to a magistrate, if the offence appeared to him to be marked by any the measure. A petition was now in progress in IVestminster in peculiar degree of atrocity, he alight have the power of sending tt its favour, and so popular wan the principle, that at 99 doors out of to the Quarter Sesalona. The Attorney. General, upon a former 100 the application for signatures was answered in the affirmative. occasion, opposed a measure which he (Mr. Martin) brought be. Clergymen and all the respectable men who lived there were most fore the [louse upon the same subject as the present one, upon the anxious to subscribe. Ile therefore asked Mr. Attorney-General ground that it would have the effect of making that offence a mis. whether such support did not entitle the Bill to something more than demeanor oily which the law already contemplated as a felony. a mere negative opposition. lie did not supplicate the Attorney. He thought the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was mite. General to pause and change his conduct out of any respect or value taken In the opinion, fur even the Bill introduced by feir James which he might entertain for him (Mr. M.), but out of respect mid Macintesit could not be applied to an individual exercising cruelty value fur the dignity of his office. Mr. Attorney - General s h ou ld aga i nst an i ma l s , b e i ng his own property. According to the BM not confine himself to, a silent dissent. Numerous cases could be previously in existence, and to which Sir James Macintosh's wee adduced in support of the measure. Not many weeks ago there an amendment, malice towards the owner should be shown, to or. was a bull-bait near Oxford, and when the mouth and muscles of tier to wnrrant a conviction. Ile recollected a case in which a grad the animal had been dreadfully lacerated, the barbarian owner deal of difficulty arose, which was tried before Sir James 31stm. plucked the tongue out, and went about with it on a plate, soliciting field. It was a trial of a person or person, fur poisoning racehorses the spectators for money. Instances of this kind *ere innumerable, in order to gain large sums by the stakes, which would thereby be. and how could Mr. Attorney. General moist thew forcible appeals ? come forfeited. In that case he thought that celebrated Judge It was only the other day that a wretch matched his dog io fight was mistaken, and that the men were put to death illegally, if net against • larger dog, and won, but In a second contest with unjustly, for it was very clear that they had no malice against the another stronger one be was defeated, and was creeping fur owner. In consequence of the diffieulty which then arose, Sir Jas. protection near his master. This miscreant, however, as it was 31acintodt gut the Bill amended by the introduction of the words stated in an affidavit of the circumstances, caught the poor " malice or otherwise, " but still that Act could not be applied to is dog, and with a billhook cut of his legs. He then dug a hole, in person exercising cruelty towards hie own property. Before he sat which he buried the suffering animal alive. It Mr. Attorney. down he hoped die Hon. Member for Oxfordshire would state to General dissents and sesigne no reason; if he thinks It right that the House cause difliculdes which occurred to him relative to the such practices should continue, it was right that he should refuse construction of the law upon the subject—whether he thought it was leave to bring in the Bill ; and it was also well that the feelings legal to injure anti ill.treat a bull, or whether it was his opinion which dictated such a refusal should not be known. But there was that bull-baiting for pastime wag not a punishable offence. nor his not a Magistrate in London, nor a clergyman there or In the vl_ own part he thotight thm that which could be deemed cruel when cinity, that did not wish to have these cruel sports ended. The exercised towards one animal, must also be cruel when practised to Queen-equate Magistrates were eery desirous that the Westminster wattle any other. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving foe Patrician Pit should be closed by law. lie challenged any Gentle. v leave to bring in the Bill alluded to ie the commencement of Me man in that numerous assembly to deny that all England was in speeeli. femme of it. lie therefore thought that sante other opposition Mr. 13UTTERWONTII seconded the motion. In acidities le 'Mould be given than a mere negative or cries of " Question, quire- the cues which had been stated by the lion. Gentleman who had Lion." This was a favourable moment fur the Bill, when the lion. just sat down, he could mention another, which was absolutely Mae Members of the House were soon to go before their constituents, g'aceful to the character of the county. At Warwick, about two whose feelings it would not be prudent to offend. All the masters years ago, a prize-fight took place, which was so far sanctioned by of Westminster school had signed the petition, which would be the Magistracy of the county, that it was actually attended by Mee presented to-morrow. except Dr. Goodenough, whom he had not officers for the purpose of maintaining order. A more di:waned* an opportunity of seeing on the subject. The Dean had subscribed scene, he believed, had never been witnessed, nor one more calcu. to it. Now he asked Mr. Attorney.tieneral to give some answer, for lated to brutalize the character of Englishmen. the people of Cambridge, either by means of pigeons or some other nle. ASH UR ST said that it was very true that the lion. Gentle. way, very soon learned what occurred in that House. lie had let. man (Mr. R. Martin) had communicated to him the story relative tens front the Vice. Chancellors of Cambridge and of Oxford in ap- to the bull fmm which the tongue hail been torn, and in the same probation of the Bill. It was therefore incumbent on Mr. Attorney manner in which he had then told it to that House. The complaint General to vindicate his opposition. The lion. Member sat down was laid before him Cllr. Ashurst) as a Magistrate of the county, amid loud cries of " Question" and indications of risibility on the and when an examination took place Into the circumstances of the part of sonic Member*. case upon oath, he could assure the House that It assumed a very Mr. SMITH would not be deterred by ridicule from expensing different aspect. (Hear, hear, hear.) The fact was, that after the his approliation of the Bill. He thought that the lion. Mover bull lied been baited, a ferocious dog sencli had been constantly was entitled to great cr e dit for kis conduct. There were three kept tied up, in order to prevent his doing mischief, suddenly bend grounds on which gentlemen dissented from the measure. They from his confinement, and attacking the bull seized it by the tongue, did not believe the statements of cruelties, but he saw no reason part of which it bit off. Ile could not find • single individual who to doubt their truth• fur the public papers which gave them were could assert that they saw it cut of, nor could he even tied one who not contradicted. Tile next cause of objection was that the law at cculd state that lie had seen It exhibited nn a plate, as described by present was sufficient to put tlee,m down ; but it' this were the case, the lion. Member forGalway. (Hear, hear.) With respect to hi s why did the instanc es occur ? Ti le l ast reason ass i gne d was that opinion as to the legality of bull-baiting, lie must declare that lie these sport, were fur the public good. On this point he thought knew of no law which made it criminal, in which opinion he was great misunderstanding prevailed, for gentlemen who thought borne out by the fact that property was held in right of bull-baiting they were performing the p arts o f p hil oso ph ers by not interfering nt Windsor. at Oalcharmetor, and in various other parts of the with the public amusements, mieht discover, by examining country. Without disputing whether the bull was or was 110 t pro. their conduct str i ct l y , t h at their forbearance did not result from tested by the Act in question, and without at all questioning the philosophy or philanthropy, but was rather produced by the opinion of the Attorney-General, lie would say that there had been contempt with which th e y regar d e d th e l ower classes . That no case In which th e matter h a d b een d ec id e d , and lie believed that kind of talk resembl e d eery muc h t h e l amma ge which used there were as many persona of his opinion as there were those es. to be applied to the colonies, of the people beronging to whom it tenanting the opinions of the Hon. Gentleman, anti at all evoked was said, if they work that is all that is requisite. Let them take no person could say that he gave any sort of encouragement to such their own way. The same kind of feeling prevailed with respect to practices. • the public amusement,, of the lower dames of this country. There The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it seemed to be the were two opinions entertained on the subject of conferring educa. opinion of the Hon. Member fur Galway that the Act which had den on the lower classes; some approved of its diffusion ; but how already been passed to prevent cruelty to animals required amend. could they reconcile it to themselves to instruct children for one hour went, but he ditl not appear t o b e seen o f t h e extent to which