The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY INTeLLthENCE. HOUsE OF IA)RDB, TuzsmaT, Aram I. Al EWAUE FROM THE COMMONS. Si Jas. Wuhan, Ueneral Oaseoyae, and ethers. from the Carc inoma, brought up the Irish Four per Cent. Reduction Bill. and the lid-Treatment of Cattle Bill. — COLONIAL SLAVERY. Lord GOSPORD presented a petition from Tandem's, in the county of LunesW.k, peaytag for the abolition of @Way in the West ladies, which am laid on the table. RIGHTS OF SEPULTURE BILL. Lord HOLLAND said, that he held in his hand • petition that bad been entrusted to hien, and which he thought it his duty to premed to their Lordships it related to a Bill that had come hum itie other House, ef which at present he knew nothing; and he was ouaciptainted with the Aims stated in the petition, so as to be enabied to faun all *pinion of their accuracy. He should have malted to have waited before he had presented this petition, until be had ores into the facts that were alleged, and looked into the movieiros of the Bill; but feadhlg it to be the intention of the Noble Bad opposite to go Mite ehe Committee this day, with such unusual beak, he bed anellitinetive left but in presenting it. He begged their lordship N oisherstand, that in presenting the peti tion soder the areumetanom that he had stated, lie did not mean so pledge himself to the anewtacy of the assertions contained in it. He must any that it was other estrange proceeding that a Bill, the object of which was to alley angry feelings, should be thus hurried thstingh the House, and no time given to people to express their opinions open it. There were some words in this i gnition, had these been more time given, that be should have proposed to comm. The pl obit Lord then himself reed the petition, which complained thee the Bill introduced new enactments more intolerant than the present practice, the operation of which would tend to produce collision between the clergy and the different communities, which ought meet sedulously to be avoided. The petition also stated, that to internryttion had been given to the butial of Catholics before the appointment of the present Archbishop to the Diocese of Dublin. 1 hr Noble Lord, in coatutuation, mid that he had taken that us. usual cowrie, became he did not wish their Lordships to imagine that he enteraitied the opinions contained in the petition. He bad ne eppoetteMtt of fanning soy opinion et pianist, and /hombre had reed the Octangle* in the petition to stew that elmy mom net his oddments, but those of the pennants. The Eat? of LIVERPOOL did not rise to oppose the reception of the petition but merely to state the causes that had led to the introdwetion a the Bill. The other House of Parlimmet had hod ite attention called to this subject early in the present Seance, le comequesce of which a Bill had been introduced by a Headman commend with the law department of that country which required the measure. He wan not aware of any undue haste in P rots RA, or any unusual count adopted with regard to i r t c . "l 4! stated yesterday that he was anxious that the Bill should be pre. credal with as speedily as possible, and be then popeyed that it should be committed to.dsy. With regard to the petition, there were many allegationt contained in it founded in emir, which must have arisen from a misunderstanding of the question altogether -Earl DARNLEY nee, not to throw unnecaser delay epee a measure that lie hoped would have beneficial effects ; but dub Lordships uni4 know what a melancholy violence of party at present woe existing, which he apprehended would not be saftemed ny the constant recurrence dapplications from the Roman Cadre& priests to the rectors of wisher for the interment of their So& He would suggest, in order to obviate that inconvenience, that the Catholic priest should give notice only to the Protestant minister; and if the latter did not object in a certain time that It might be considered he had no objection, and the funer al follow in come. queer,. This would operate as a veto given to the Protestant clergyman, and would, he apprehended, answer every purpose. The Earl of CA RNARVON was sure that the object of the Noble Earl was to tranquillize Ireland, and not to entrap their Lutdships into the adoption of any hasty measure. He wished to call the Noble Earl's attention to the case of a perish having no re. sidmt minister. Such cases were not provided for by the BilL He should wish, where there was no minister residing within forty mho of the parish, that a notice stuck on the church door should be sufficient. The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that no legislative pro vision could operate favourably if there was not a good disposition tetween the parties, and if there were, he was satisded that the measure would answer ( 'Hear," from Lord Holland). The church yard was within the junliliction of the Rector or Vicar, subject to the right of the parishioners to bury there. The Protestant cler gyman was bound to bury Roman Catholics, but the object of the present Bill was to allow the Roman Catholic service to be per forated over those of that permeation. lie could not sutler the as persion thrown out in the petition respecting that excellent Prelate, the Archbishop of Dublin. The fact was, he had nothing to do with the transactions for which he was censured. He was at that time residing at lasmington, in IVarwickshire, and returned to town in a - few day*. after he heard of than, and did him ((Lard 11.!carpool) the boom of calling immediately after his ar csal, and that Right Rev. Prelate then diewed him all the papers on the subject. With regard to the attendance of Italian Catholic prints at funerals, it sometimes, but very rarely, occurred that trey were suffered to be present : but the general practice was to have the service performed in the house of the deceased, and some consecrated earth thrown over it, and then the body was removed to :he church-yard for interment. Discretion must be left sane where their Lordships could not legislate for every circumstance that might arise as7 l ul therefore It was thought best to leave it with d.e Protestant an, and there was a provision in the Bill to I protect the Cade) rap for if the clergy abused the discretion re posed in them, they must submit the grounds of their conduct to the diocesan, and he was bound to submit such report to the Lord Lieutenant. The preamble of the Bill was of itself asstrong as it could be made, not for it to be a positive enactment. It stated that ' all classes of his Majesty's sulnects be allowed the same enjoy ment of the right of burial. 'rite Earl of LIMERICK said, that the Catholics' great desire was to bury in ground that formerly belonged to catmints, and he thought some arrangement might be made with the present pro pressure of such ground. or at least with many of them, for that purpose. Lord HOLLAND thought that the measure ought to undergo deliberation, and time should be afforded to persons interested in this question in Ireland, to address the House on the subject. Lord KING proposal that a clause, compulsory on the clergy, should exist instead of the present one, that made it optional with thew es to the interment of Roman Catholics. Ile believed the prognostication of a certain divine would be shortly verified, if this 13011 or some other measure did not change the practice, which was, the church-yards must be left to the Catholta, if it should be wished that the churches should be left with the Protestants. Earl H ARROWItY slid that the Bill was not confined to the Catholics only, but to Prominent Dissenters of all descriptions. he had heard of an instance where a Presbyterian Clergyman had asked to attend a funeral of one of that persuasion in his gown, and had been refused ; and on inquiry he found that the request could hot be granted. In the instance of the presort Bill, the ob ject of th-Lrgmlature was sodeined, that permission on the part of the Clergy was synonimous with oltligstion on their part to permit of the interment of Catholics. Ile should be sorry to see their lordships going into discussion upon this question, as it would cause delay ; and the Bill, he could assure them, was in die full spirit of concludes); and by waiting he was convicted that opposi non to the Bill would be excited. Lord HOLLAND said, that if the Bill was as stated by the Noble Earl who had just sat down, it should have his cordial and warm support. 'the Earls of LINTIIICI and DAR XLItY explained. The petitions which came from certain Catholics in Ireland were than bed en the Ode. _ Their Lordships then went into a Committee on the Roman Catholic Sepulture Rill, which was reported without aunandinents, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow. SILK BILL. The Sift Duties Reguistion Bill was read a third time and paced. SCOTCH MAGISTRATES. Lord A. HAMILTON presented a petition tram an individual of the name of Alexander 31•fbnald, complaining of the conduct of the Magistrates of Inverness. The LORI) ADVOt :ATE defended the conduct of those Ma gistrates, and stated that he knew then to be persons of honour anti Integrity. He observed, that it was no light affair for the charac ters of public officers to be arraigned before that House, on the complaints of individuals ; and he regretted that the Noble Lord had not given him an opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the statement contained in the petition before he presented it, as he had no hesitation in saylig. that if the allegations were correct, the Town Clerk had been guilty of mast illegal acts, but for hich the Magistrates were not to blame. Lord A. HAMILTON remaiked, that a similar complaint had been lodged against those very Magistrates by himself last year; ' and the only amendment testified by then, was in the repetiuon of their opprediive conduct. The Loan ADVOCATE explained. Mr. KENNEDY said a few words; and the petition was ordered to lie on the table. • ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK. Mr. Alderman WOOD premwtod a petition from the owners of houses at St. Bowlph's. praying to be heard by Counsel against the St. Catherine's Dock Bill.—Laid on the table. HIDES AND SKINS. Sir F. BLAKE presented a petition from the tanners, &c. of Ber wick, against the duties on hides and skins.—Laid on the table. REPEAL OF ASSES.SED TAXES. Sir R. COLBORNE presented a petition front Ely, praying for a repeal of the house and window Lut. A sunder petition was presented by Mr. SYKES, front Kingston. upon-II ull—Laid on the table. SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS. Mr. HASKETH mo►ed that there be laid before that House are. turn of the amount paid cur the conveyance of Scotch and Irish vagrants to their respective settletnents.—Ordered. PRIVATE BREWING BILL. I Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the common brewers of , against the Private Brewing Bill.—Laid on the table. UNION OF PARISHES IN IRELAND. Mr. BUTTERWORTH presented spetition from the Reverend Junes Hamilton, of Rosen*, in the county of Tipperary, against the un i on of par i ahs in Ireland. . . . Mr. ROULBURN feared that his silence might be tnisinta preted into an acquiescence of the statements contained in the ped-' Mon, for a great many of which he knew that there was no founua tion : he alluded more particularly to the charge against the Bishop ofelogber (Lord Robert Ponsoa.by Tottenham), whom the ped don averred to have been guided by improper 1711:41VC14 in the eccle siastical prefernients in his diocese, when Bishop of Killaloe; but every body who knew anything of the Rev. James Hamilton, of Rosetta, knew that he was very much inclined to form hasty and intemperate judgments. Mr. C. H UICH I NSON made a few observations. ear J. NEWPORT said, that the mischiefs connected with the church establishment in Ireland arose principally from the union of parishes, and the plurality of livings. Alt. BUTTERWORTH suggested that a Royal Commission should go to Ireland to inquire into the state of the church esta blishment. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. GM:LIU:RN expressed a wish that the petition 'night not be printed. Mr. CALCRA FT said, that there was one important allegation in the petition stated by the Honourable Member that had not been contradicted ; it was an alleged abuse in the church admini stration of Ireland, and that was an administration so pregnant with abuses that any allegation of that nature might easily be believed. (Hear, and a laugh.) Of twelve hundred clergymen who ought to be resident, eight hundred, he would go nearer the mark by saying seven hundred, did not reside in the country. This was, in itself, a great abuse. There were many considera tions which should entitle any complaint of this nature to particu lar attention. The inhabitants of many of the parishes in Ireland was altogether Catholics ; there was not, in some of them, even • Protestant competent to till the situation of clerk, nor a glebe house nor church, yet Protestant clergymen drew very ample reve nues front them. 'nder such circumstances it was necessary, that where clergymen had duty to perform they should discharge it. lie did not say this in accusation of the Bishop whose conduct was in Irian, but merely that the House might be put in possession of prayer of the petition and the objects of it. The petition was ordered to be printed. gislature to make this offence a misdemeanor, ratbet than punish able, as at present, by tine. Such a change was one which they at least would hesitate to adopt. After a few weeds from Mr. Rl] MIOLD and Mr. OORDON, the' petition was ordered to be printed. The IA /RI) A D VOC A T E presented a petition front the attorneys of Rerwiek-upon-Tweed, against the duty on qualification for attorneys. EDUCATION. Mr. HUME presented a petition front the assistant school mastersof Great Britain, requiring some test of qualification far persons who undertook the discharge of those duties. They corn-' plain that many incompetent persons, ill-qualified for instruction, ! had imposed on the schoolmasters throughout the country. to their iniury anti prejudice. He (Mr. H.) felt bound to present the pe tition, but at the same time -wished to express his total dissent' from it, as, in his opinion, it would dessoy that fair compritioll which ought to exist in this as in various other matters in this country. lie told the petitioners that be dissented from them. They were, however, persons,!in their walk of life, highly respect able ; and he therefore presented their petition, that the House might be put in possession of their sentunents.--Oniered to be printed. TRADE WITH PRUSSIA. Mr. PHILLIPS raid, that he had been instructed to put a qua tion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the trade of this country with Prussia. At present all foreign ships importing goods into this country, were liable to a charge of 5 per cent more on such goods than English vessels. Heunderstood that it was proposed and arranged between the two countries, to equalize the duties imposed on goods imported respectively into this country and into Prussia. By this means the five per cent. additional duty now imposed, as regarded th e trade of this country with Prussia, would cease. He was surprised, if such an arrangement had been made, that an Order of Council had not been issued to that effect. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he could, he thought, give a satisfactory answer to the inquiry of the Honourable Member. Such arrangement had been for some time in contemplation • it yet awaited, however, the signature of his Right lion. Friend to give It a solemn and complete ratification. This was the raison that an Order in Council had not issued on the subject. - - - - • • 3lr. PEEL presented a petition from the notaries of Dumblane against the duty on qualification of attorneys. Mr. C. ELLIS moved for certain returns connected with the ',pi* trade. COUNSEL IN CASES OF FELONY. Mr. G. LAMB, previous to the motion which stood on the paper that night. presented a petition which had been sent to him, and signed by certain pemsegna, who had often officiated as jurors at the Old Dailey. The petitioners complained that they had wit. tweed many cues where it was deeply to be regretted that prisoners bed not the benefit of Counsel in reply in capital cases. The pri. stmem dieloselves, from the unrolls' and incompleteness of self- pollution, natural to the situation in which they were placed, were usable to make any &walla& defence themselves, and were there.. fore left in a manner undefended. After the petition was read and ordered to be printed, the Hon. Member proceeded to state, that he would have to apologise for introducing the present Bill, as • similar one, on a forum occasion, had been introduced by his lion. Friend, the Member for Galway (Mr. Martin), but be had under taken it not only with the consent, but at the request of his lion. Friend. Indeed, he had another reason to apologize for the intro. duction of it, for mending ata he did in the shoes of his Honourable Friend, as his Honourable Friend, by the dexterity with which he conducted bills through the House—sometime' in r arition to the opinions of th e majority of its Members, would pa be better qualified than he was to carry this Billthrougli Parliament. (A laugh) There was this difference in the Bill of his Hon. Friend and that which he intended to introduce; namely, that in the former Bill it was provided that Counsel should be assigned by the Court for pri soners in capital cases. Now it was the Intention of this Bill that prisoners, in such cases, should be as free as those in cases of mis demeanour, to select their own CotumeL In bringing forward this Bill lie was aware that he was running counter to the opinions of the Attorney-General, and of the majority of that profession ef which he had been formerly a Member. He would ask any ef theas, Learned Gentlemen, however, if they ever attended ow wassiwai person in Court at the trial of • prisoner in a case of fehmsy, if the first comment on such • trial was not the injustice of withhold*, the benefit and advantage of Counsel to speak for him? Itched the opinion of the most eminent authorities, inclusive of that of Mr. Justice Blackstone, in support of the principle of the Bill, and he had moreover the p ractice in our Courts at the more ancient period of our Constitution. 3lr. Justice Blackstone had very properly said that he was at a Inas to know by what right, or by force of what reason, counsel were denied to perilous in capital cases, whilst they were allowed them in cases even of petty trespass. If, in civil suits, counsel were permitted to plead, how much stronger was the reason for permitting them to plead In cases affecting the lives of part inasmuch as life wan more valuable, and to Le more highly than any species of property ? Refer ri ng to the time of Edward I. it would be found that not only the principle but the practice of the Constitution was in support of the Bill he now asked leave to intro. duet. The lion. Gent. then went into a legal argument, with a view of showing that such was the practice of law in the reign of Edward I. and was consistent with the earliest principles of the Constitution. The reason adopted by Lord Coke, and repeated by hoed Notting. ham, was, that the evidence against a criminal should he so clear, that it should be out of the power of counsel to controvert it. There was no other paid reason easaigned for the non-employment of counsel in criminal cases. Lord Nottingham further said, that the facts ought to be so evident that no counsel should be enabled to , answer ; but that was no reason why counsel should not be allowed to reply, because it would be iatisfaetory to the prisoner and hie friends, and could not, in cues of evidence so strong as those laid down b y Lord Coke, shake them in any degree, or prevent justice being done. Coke the regicide put this point still stronger, and said, that the evidence against a telon ought to be so clear and plain, and the principles on which he was convicted so evident, that the mouths both of hearers and jurors should be stopped. In the second place, it hail been said by Coke that there was a great a dvantage in felons being allowed counsel, in order that they might see that nothing was urged against trbefll improperly, or not In ac cordance with strict right; and that if they had no counsel foe thee so important was the principle that be had laid down 01111. l eT s d=in English law, that it had decided than the Cant is that ease should be of Counsel for the prisoner. But what Lord Coke said was erroneous. The Court could not be of counsel for the sour, and the practice was not so In every cause that came it. M'hitelock, who bad wished that no lawyer should sit in Par. liament, had said, " 1 confess that I cannot answer the question upon any sound principle, why • man on being tried for a tres. pia of tiel. value should be allowed a counsel to plead his cause but the man must have no lawyer for that purpose whose life mad prosperity are at stake." With regard to the Court being of Counsel tor the prisoner, it led to inconveniencies both ways ; fee it might bear too strongly in favour of a prisoner, or not take a sufficiently active part in his favour • and the exertions of a Counsel under the guidance of the Bench could never run into either of these extremes. In the one case he would be corrected by the Judge if he &hewed excessive and undue zeal ; and fur the sake of his own character he would never shew professional lukewarm. nese. There was an instance of a Judge in a case of child murder not suffering the sex of the child to be ascertained, and the pri. toner was acquitted, because it had been omitted to be asked during the trial whether the child was male or female. In another instance a Judge asked a question, which the prisoner thought was un. favourable to hint, and he replied, " Alt! my Lord, you would never have asked that question if you had been really my counseL" But it had been said that the Judge would prevent any thing from being done that was contrary . to law, and that was all the advantage that aprisoner could look for in an advocate. But it should be recol lected, that a Judge could not out of Court receive any communica tion from a prisoner, which was most important for the accused, and particularly with reference to his cross-examination. lie would allow that a discreet and candid Judge would do much to serve a primmer, and might fairly lead the minds of a Jury to the fair side of the accused's case, and really wish to give every facility to his deliverance; but how often were there cases virtually in point like that of Udall, in the reign of Elizabeth, who said that he sat as a Judge and not as an Advocate, when lie was asked advice by a felon. Sir John Perrou's conduct, in the same reign, showed the danger to which criminals were exposed by this practice; who, on being asked by a prisoner how many of the Juty he might chal lenge, said that he sat as a Judge and nut as an Advocate. In ad dition to the instances that he bad adduced, which chewed that the Court was 110 t in all casts counsel for the prisoner, it should be re. collected that such men as Lord Chief Justice Jeffries and Judge Page had sat upon the Beach. lie hail hitherto only con fined himself to what had been in defence of the prat. Mee. His lionourable.and Loured Friends said, what practical evil could result from the continuance of the s)stem which had been so long adopted? Ile thought that lie had partly, at least, alluded to the inconvenience that existed in consequence of that system, and sheered that it really was not ideal ; but he con ceived that it was not enough bar the criminal iustiee of the counny to be carried on fairly ; it ought to appear in the eyes of the people be fairly and justly conducted. It might Weill as if he were throwing site slur on the criminal justice of the king dom ; but he could assure the House that was not his motive, but it was nuerely to point out the evils of the system that he had taken the liberty of bringing the question before the louse. What was the reason that pesetas were allowed to be defended by ('ohm. gel? It was, thut they should 00t depend on their own abilities, but that they should avail theineelves of the learning of an Advo cate. Lord Levan, on being called upon toe his defence, staid.--" It is impossible for me to maks any defence, if I am not allowed an Advocate, by raison of my infi 'esi. I cannot see, I cannot hear; I am so weak, that I can scarcely walk; I was up at tour o'clock in the morning, and if I am not allowed • Counsel to plead for no you may condemn ate at once." In cases of insanity the employment of Counsel was of vital importance to a prisoner. Ile did not mean those cases of positive insanity which were evi. dent; but it was important in those doubtful cases where it was probably so much concealed as to require all the ingenuity of a Counsel to elicit its existence. Piers Williams, in the case of tile unfortunate Earl of Wilton, hoc said, that he was not in. sane enough to be under the protection of the law, and at the same time not sane enough to do himself service. The ruffian who lately was executed in the county of Herta had been extolled by the stupid admiration that had been thrown around him, in consequence of the address he made at the conclu. aloes of his trial. Ile would ask any person if they did not believe that that criminal was buoyed up with the idea that the silly tirade he pronounced would set him up in the eyes of the world, ' would Pope that preceded the one so well known and so often quoted, I found an application in these circumstances— " Hungry Judges soon the sentence sign, " And wretches hang, that Jurymen may dine." He did not say that the speech of an eloquent counsel would alter , the verdict of a jury, but it would make that verdict more sat s. factory in many instances. In ones of circumstantial evidence in particular, there was always • chance of escape on the part of a prisoner, and a counsel for a prosecution would not pros those cir. cumstances so closely when the prisoner was without a counsel to p'.ead fur him, and it was most important tor the criminal in these ' cases to have a counsel to make a speech for him. Much might be ' said as to stirring up the passions of the jury ; but *as that forted to die case in misdemeanors ? And same of than did as much ' ! to rds blasting the hopes of those accused of these as felonies ' d• and . yet counsel have that proper . restraint over themselves, th t no inconvenience arose from their being allowed to make a hes for persons charged with misdemeanors. As he couMsee sel n evil in this measure, and saw the greatest benefits likely to arise . from it, he would move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow counsel to persons tried for felony, in the same manner se they were allowed to persons accused of misdemeanors. Mr. NORTH rose and said, that the very . ingenious arguments of the lion . Member who proposed the motion had not produced ' any thing like conviction to his mind. He had always believed that the administration of justice in this country was the admi ration of the world ; and if he had been called upon be an enlightened foreigner to point out any department of our code of justice, be should have selected this very department, about which the Honourable Member had been complaining.' Ile (Mr. North) should have recommended the inquirer to ob.' serve the anxious care and caution with which every species of evidence was received, in order that nothing improper might go to the jury-box to the prisoner's prejudice, and, above all, he should tell the inquirer that the Bench, ilium time to time, continued to rebuke the seventy of justice. lie should have told him that the prisoner was entitled to have counsel in all matters of law, and by long usage the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of counsel to examine and cross-examine witnesses, but that the Judge was in effect the prisoner's counsel, that be was to take care that no observation was made to prejudice the prisoner's case, that no improper evidence was to be received, that the Judge took down all that passed, to treasure it up for observe tion, and that when all had been done, the Judea was further bound to tell the Jury, if they entertained any doubt they mast give the benefit of it to the pneoner. He should further tell the inquirer that there was another role in British jurisprudent., that the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. The Honour. able Member thought that there was something more ought to be granted to the prisoner, and that something was a speech front the counsel to the jury. He begged leave to ask whether the Hon. Member had considered die effects likely to result thin: such a measure? The counsel for the prosecution felt himself bound to state the naked facts of the case; he was bound to do so by an obligation of honour—he was bound by an obligation of mercy, by the respect he entertained for the Bench, by the regard be had for his brother Barristers, and having thus confined himself to the most cold and colourless detail of facts, it was contended that this simple statement should be met by a speech of another Conn. sel, whose duty it would be to struggle with the evidence, to address his arguments to the minds of the Jury. and to strain every point to convince them of the prisoner's innocence. What would be the consequence of this mode of procedure ? It would not be ulti. mately in the prisoner's favour • but th e contrary would be the re sult. If a Counsel were to be called on one side to exercise all his in. genuity, it was too much to suppose that he would not be replied to with equal ardour on the other. It was not to be supposed that where two men were engaged in opposition to each other, that one would confine himself to the most simple And uncoloured statement, whilst the other exercised all his ingenuity and skill to carry • case in favour of his client. It was not in human nature to act thus. And what would be the consequence 1 That instead of the dig nified appearance which a Court of Justice preserved, it would become an arena, and the stake about which of the parties wew to dispute was the lite of • man. (Hear.) But there was a further consequence, and that was, the vigilance of the Judge would net have to be called into question so much as formerly: and if the Judge found that what he used to do had devolved upon another, it might be injurious to the prisoner. There was no doubt but the advocate would be anxious to do justice to the full extent of his power ; but what he said would not have the weight which the sante sentiments would have if corning from the /tench; for be the sentiments what they might, they still were those of a retained advocate. But this was not all, foe there was another result, and that was the following. In nine cases out of ten, a Judge would feel himself called upqn to be. come the prisoner's advocate. He would feel himself tasked to remove the force of the arguments which had been addressed to the Jury by the prisoner's Counsel. As it was not in the nature of man to argue strongly without being warm, the prisoner might be prejudiced in the ntinds of the Jury from the Judge's remarks to remove the impression of the speech delivered by the prison. er's Counsel. 'Diu' it would appear, that the proposed thcr. ation would not bring with it all the advantages which lad' been anticipated. There were, perhaps, other objections still stronger. He had already alluded to that part of the Criminal Law which required unanimity in the Jury. Ile was not called up . on . to defend that ; he should argue it as though it was • fixed principle of law. As he had before remarked, the Judge's duty required. him to direct the Jury to give the prisoner the benefit of a doubt if any existed in their minds. Ile (31r. North) thought he never saw a Jury in which there was not some one of stronger ' feelings, and a more scrupulous conscience than the rest, or ' one of weaker mind. It would be much better that the one with • feeble understanding should be left with the compare other jury men, to notes with them, than that he should be acted upon by die speech of C ounseL There was an other argument of still greater moment, on which the Ho. nourable Member who had proposed the motion had been en tirely silent. It was this, that the alteration was not called for by the voice of the people. The lion. Member had quoted the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. He (Mr. N.) did not think the sentence which had been quoted was to be taken Is the sense which had teen represented. (Hear.) But even uu t r= as that the passage of Blackstone w of the tenor and import been stated, it still did not prove that it was the wish of the park of England that such a scheme was agreeable to them. The work bad been sixty years in circulation ; it had not been confined to the shelves of the lawyers, but had been in the hands of gentlemen, awe gymen, merchants, and others, all of whom had an opportunity of examining it, and many did examine it, but never discovered an anxious wish on the part of that great lawyer for prisoners to enjoy the privilege of having • speech made for them by counsel. The pro. posed measure had not the sanction of the people of England; and he contended that it was uncalled foe. He begged the Hon. Member's pardon, he had brought forward a petition, one solitary petition, is favour of his plan. But were the people of England represented by a single petition ? The House recollected how many petitions had been presented on the subject of West Indian slavery. If the proposed scheme had been sanctioned by the nation, instead of one solitary petition the table would have been loaded with petitiaos. If the slightest alteration in the criminal law had been wished, it would have been signified in numerous ways. The silence of the people on the subject was the greatest proof that it was not coo. sidered necesary. It was not enough that • few dilettanti lawyer and a few dilettanti philosophers, complaining of the abuse of a law, that theretore it ought to be altered. If any grievance really existed he should be as ready AS any man to ac cede to an improvement of it ; but until it was .hewn that an abuse existed he could not agree to the alteration. He would just say nue word upon the cases to which the Hon. Member had alluded. It was somewhat remarkable that these cases were principally impeachments for high treason, and not a single case of capital felony had been adduced in which the coin plaints could be fairly made. It was said that there might be cases in which the balance might be so perfect that the Jury would' find it difficult to make up their minds on what side the prepon derance lay, and the case of Patch was instanced as an illus. tmtion. It was certainly true that there were many cases which puzzled the most acute understanding to determine ; but in such cases the law threw over the prisoner a shield more powetful than the ingenuity of counsel, for where there existed a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner an acquittal was the consequence. In the other ease to which the Honourable Member had refer. red, the case of Thurtell, counsel would have been of no use It was fresh in the recollection of the !louse how the prisoner had acquitted himself at the trial, the talent which lie had displayed, and the effect which that speech had produced. The assistance of counsel would have been of no advantage to the unfortunate man. On the general inexpediency of the measure he had but a few re-! marks to offer. The fact was, that the code of criminal justice was admirable as a system—as a real and positive institution. If that system were placid before hint in the closet, and if he were required to say whether it was not capable of improvement, he was not pre pared to answer that it was the best mode of administering justice. But this hypothetical immovement fonned no ground for changing an institution which had existed so long, and which had acconnuo. dated itself to the habits and the feelings of the people. If the Hon. Gentleman went the long length of his argument, lie (Mr. North) would willingly go along with him, and meet him on the ' plea of assimilating the administration of criminal justice with that which dealt with the civil rights. If the Honourable Mem ber consented to this assimilation, and that the trial of a prisoner should, like the suits in the Court of Chancery, depend for fifteen or twenty years; and that after a decision there, they should be transplanted to a higher Court, or perhaps be sent to a Jury, in order to determine a matter of fist; there could be but small compensation for the privileges which would thereby be conferred on a prisoner. There was a very obvious difference between a civil case, which reqiured a long and painful limeades tion, and a criminal prosecution, which was simple, and addressed itself immediately to the understanding. lie again repeated, that if any legal grievance were proved to exist, he should be as for. ward as any Member in that House to propose a remedy for that grievance. But as the grievance had only been found out a year ago-111 only one petition hail been presented, which could be said to represent the sentiments of the people, and as the remedy which bad been proposed tended to introduce groat evils, both to the in. terests of the prisoner, and to those of the public, he would give it his decided opposition. (Hear. hear.) Sir J. MACKINTOSH began by observing that the Ilis. nouraSle and Learned Gent. alto had preceded him, had taken a wide and discursive range in his arguments motion the Bill. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had even gone into the pro. nee of Chancery in illustration of his view of the question. aVith the detects or excellencies of that system, the present question had no connection. In all criminal cases but felony, counsel were b y aid of such abilities as he might be able to procure when he ro t gnat his own were unequal to tine task, and if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had undertaken to defend the practice, he would tine that the foreigner would have thrown upon him a burden of proof which it would be difficult to remove. 11 he (Sir J. 31.) wer e to argue the subject, he would not attempt to vindicate, but to es tenuate the law. lie would represent that the prohibition was neither an invention of modem nines nor a part of the accient and venerable fabric of the law. Ile would State that the spirit of that code was not tainted by that abuse. He would say what was said by Sir John Halls, the Solicitor-General of William 111., that he believed the practice had originated in the poverty of th e parties wooed. until the disuse of counsel, at last, put on the co lour of law. But if this authority was not held to be sufficient, if Sir John Halls were treated as a weak nolicitoe-General, h e would fortify it with the authority of a Chief Justice, who certainly could not be accused of possessing the vices of a dilrtfareti lawye or philosopher t he alluded to Lord Chief Justice Jeffries. Ga oler hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not mu him, down es one who was vitiated with false philanthropy. pet, on the trial of Rosier, the nonconformist. Jeffries confessed that it was a hard case that a prisoner on trial for felony or creation should be refused the privileges enjoyed by those who were tried for mis demeanor. The privileges to which Jefferies alluded were those of employing counsel and having mummies sworn for the defence, both of which, by the practice of the Courts, were then d e ni e d ; and surely he was high authority, where he argued far ind u l gence to Owners. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted - by his personal enemies, that he possessed a very superior undemanding, which, when be was not intoxicated, nor suffering bum the acuteness of his bodily diseases, nor inflamed by the violence of his political reefing:, enabled him so to discharge his judicial duty, that it was confessed, even by those who most disliked him, that no person, infamous and abandoned as he was, better became the heneh. (Hear.) The ept. thets and description were not his (Sir J. M.'s). Nun 01 (la hie Krieg. They were old Roger North's, who well understood the character be was pourtraying. Jeffries was a pecan not disposed unduly to favour the seem ( 'n a trial for high treason he was nut apt Da sprinkle the prisoner with rose-water. But even he bad discovered the grievance which the lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. North i had that evening represented as the discovery of a few dikttaied lawyers and philosophers ; and Jeffries, whatever other faults he might have—however be might at other sessont be disinclined to listen to the elaims of humanity, had joined, while discharging Ins judicial duty on the bench, in reprobating a practice by which the prisoner was subjected to so severe a grievance. When he (Sir J. Mackintosh) had occasion to advert to the state of the criminal law he had never concurred in any penegyri con the penal law, though he might have praised the present crone of criminal pro emdings. Whatever excellence that course might new poetess, it should be borne in mind that it was not always es at present. Though, in its origin, it surpassed the liberality of all contampo ✓ary codes, it had many stains which bad been gradually removed by Parliament ; and on each of those occasions arguments as apt. sous as those used by the Hoc. and Learned Gentleman aught have been, and actually were, opposed to the removal. .I . Oemerly„ witnesses for the defence, in eases of felony, could not be sworn, and, consequently, were not liable to punishment for perjury. Tore were therefore not believed, because n was manifestly absurd to re ly on testimony which was giver under such circumstances as slag used the witnesses from all responsibility. It was, besides, • mockery to say that the prisoner should be allowed witnesses at all, when he was furnished with no compulsory process to compel their attendance in Court. There was now scarcely any great blot re maining but that single one, which his lion. k riend ( air.O.Lanib) had attacked in his very ingenious, temperate, and candid sperm that evening. It was almost wonderful, and he would say, miracu lous, that so little remained to be amended ; but that consideration afforded no argument why that little should be left untouched. Formerly juries were punishable by writs of attaint if they found false verdicts against the King, but not if they fount false verdicts against the prisoner. Would the Hon. and Learned Geotlentaa (Mr. North) contend that that practice, now happily abolished, coeval with the refusal of counsel, gave any sanctity to the re. mining judicial institutions of the country P When, in lfeel, the full means of defence were granted to prisoners charge.; with treason, he (Sir J. Mackintosh) would appeal to the House whin thee every material objection made that evening by the Hen. and Learned Gentleman was not to be found in the rude outlive of the imperfect reports of- those days ? lie (Sir J. Mackintosh) would refer to the words of the preamble of the Act for re soaring the privilege of counsel to persons triel for higli treason. " hereas It is just and reasonable that persons tried for high treason should have a full and sufficient defence.' By this test he would try the arguments of the Honouraola and Learned Gentlemen. If the same preamble were affixed to tile Bill for allowing Counsel in cases of felony, would it not be appro. miate ? Was there not as good a reason as in Walt for treason? Neither was that measure extorted by the voice of the people. Though the Bill was warmly agitate d during lire or six succes sive sessions, yet no petition was presented in its favour from Berwick to the Land's-end. What in principle was the diffrreace between treason and felony ? It was true, that it was necessary to deal with the former with more caution, on account of the power of the accuser (lieu, hear.) But that was only a question of degrtv. The argument of the o n and Learned Gentleman (Mr. North) was, that the allowance of Counsel would be injurious altogether ; but if it would be injutious in cases of felony, why was it not in easel of high treason ? There was even a greater need foe Counsel generally in cases of felony. In dints past, and generally now, persons accused of high treason were men of some education and ability, capable of making some defence fur themselves. But those who were charged with felony were for the most part, of all others, the leset capable of seif.de. fence, and the most certain to expose themselves to ruin and destruction by the attempt. His honourable Friend (Mr. G. Lamb) had argued the case of the late trial In Hertfordshire, and by way of parenthesis, he (Sir James Mackintosh) would state his entire coocurrence in the censures of his Honourable Friend as to the attempts to excite sympathy towards the atrocious criminal coavicted of that perfidious and berLanius inurdes. No application of pity or benevolence could have been more wretchedly misplaced than towards that most ex. arable of all the ruffians that had disgraced human nature. His Honourable Friend (Mr. G. Lamb) had not quoted the case to shew that the criudual had suffered by the denial of counsel. But if any doubt had existed as to the advisableness of altering the practice, that very defence alone should have removed it ; for ne ver bad one been delivered so hollow, SO theatrical, so strongly pose seining the appearance of being the effort of a mere rhetorician, speaking in a cause in which he was not personally concerned, and calculated only to produce a false effect. It was a striking part of the theatrical character the man's mind had assumed, and which governed him to the last so powerfully as to have overcome the common solicitude of mankind for hfe and character. The object of the Bill was to make something like a balance of the means of defence between the prisoner and the prosecutor, and to render the question of the prisoner's guilt as little dependent as possible on the accidental superiority or inte riority of the talents of individuals. In civil cases the parties gar rally obtained as near an approximation to that balance as human affairs would admit. IVhen felons were conipclled to make their own defence, their chance of escape depended in great measure 05 the degree of talent they happened to losses. An innocent but stu pid man might be convicted, while a guilty man of talent escaped. The House had lately seen the mere prospect of his dying game had supported, under a burden of remorse which would, perhaps, other wise have weighed him down, a man of that desperately wicked cast of mind, which induced him to shrink from no act, however criminal or dangerous. To return, bowmen to the Act passed in the reign of King aVilliam, fur allowing counsel in cases of high treason, the principles of that measure were applicable to cases of felony. Ifin general the allowance of counsel would be injurious to the prisoner, it must be so at present in cases of treason. So necessary and inevitable was that consequence, that he (Sir James Mackintosh) could nut bee how the lloeourable and Learned Gen tlemen (Mr. North) could avoid the dilenina of condemning the present practice, either in cases of high treason or felony. The Honourable and Learned Gantleman had contended, that it counsel were allowed to address the jury, they would deviate from that calm and neutral character in which they now appeared, and, be coming inflamed with die heat of dispute, the ardour of rivalsbip, and the moapect of success, the Court would be turned into an arena of contending champions, in which the prize of victory was the life of the prisoner. Supposing that some effect of this kind was produced. This was the first time he (Sir J. M.) had beard that a contest of talent was not the best mode of arriving at the truth. Surely it could not be contendtel that though fat a mo ment it might dazzle and confound, it inuet not terminate by in forming the jury, especially when they sat under the guidance of • grave and learned moderator. lie was not so fanatical as to assert that truth in all cases would instantly prevail. It was also argunl that the allowance of counsel would tend to lull the vigilance with which the Judge watched over the progress of the test ; but he was of opinion, on the contrary, that the contest of the counsel would arouse the Judge's attention, and call forth all the vigour of his understanding. It was impomibie that the arguments of the counsel should fail to make an impression on his mind before he addressed the jury. Why in all other oasts were counsel heard, but to assist anti enlighten the mind of tae Judge ? And would the h cas in es su of o l t i l t i 'e er an c. d wi dea . tlL, d ac ep k r n is o . e w t i l tdgmt e Jud t ge o b o e f i i n h:t ion aii a s t is a t ; a h i l iCe " S z li i i. n . As tithe objection that the Judge would sat engaged in contests with the prisoner's counsel, he expected no such comequance. It would then become theJudge'stluty impartially to repress the faults of the counsel on both aide.. The objection that the Bill would favour the escape of the guilty men, could be applied with more fore: to cases of high treason and political minkinear.ors, in which the feelings of mankind were more generally interested. In conclu sinn, the ilon. and Learned Gentleman again complimented his lion. Friend (Mr. Lamb), and remarked that of all kinds of re formation, the most difficult and thankless was legal reformation one halt of mankind were disqualified from judging on the subject by habit, acid the other by ignorance ; bu: when it could be elEeted, it was the payment of a debt which a ruin owed not only to his limit:ft:eon, but to his country. (l'heina.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he agreed perfectly with his lion. and beamed Friend, .hat this was no light or trivial ques tion, but a pave and important consideration in the administration of criminal Justus. In his opinion die alteration proposed would be in an extreme degree injurious; it would not tend to elucidate die truth or be productive of advantage to the parties for whore benetit it was professed to be designed. As he was apprehensive that his proteseional habits might have misled his judgment, he had taken some pains to consider every part of the subject. Formerly the law as to the trial of felons was in a very different state. Pervi ously to the rein of Queen Anne the on-- • could - call defence, IRISH HOARD OF WORKS. Tteir Lordships went into a Committee un the Irish Dowd of Work, Hilt, which was reported without amendments—A4Aurned. FIOUSE OF COMMONS. TuEsDAY, Aram G. The Sp:Deka took the Chair at four o'clock. THLAI'RE AT CHELTENHAM. Lord 0. S )M) prtmentetl a petition from a person of the name of Walker, against the Bill now before the house fur the erection of a Theatre at Cheltenham—Laid on the table. SLAVE TILIDE. Petitions against Negro Slavery were presented, by Mr. Legit Keck. from Letterset:l%h in Leicestershire; by Mr. flontyruod, from Tunbridge; by Mr. Halm, from %VeAt Uwe, and Callan, in ; by Lord A. Hamilton, trout 1.7,01111 tat the initabitanis of Otago'', and from New Lanark; by Mr. Robert Smith, front Penny Stratford ; by Lord William Lie:Mock, front Mansfield I and by Mr. Buttermwth, from St. Leonard's, Shoreditch.—All of which were ordered to lie on the table. RECOVERY OF S3IALL DEBTS. Sir W. LEMON presented a petition Iran Falmouth, in favour of the Bill tbr the Recovery of Small tiebts. Sir R I I/LEI' COLBORNE presemesi • similar petition from ny.—Ordereal to lie oat the table. TEST ACT. Mr. DAWSON prerienttrd a petition from against the repeal of the Test Ate. 7'he Iles. Member said, that, in con magnetite of the statements that had recently been made, as to the IMMIX? is which t ietitions to that lionise had beer gut up, he thought it but ri to observe, that the whole of the signatures to the petition whin he then held in his baud met in the hand writing of one person. (Lmgliter.) Some canrersation then took place between the Speaker and Mr. Dawson. after which he bee/ed panniesion to withdraw it, and it wee witlmlisun accositingl i e. EXLISE LICENCLS. Mr. HONEYWOOI) presented a pcn two hem the i nnh older& of tiravostod, against the Niche Licences.—Laid on the table. DUTY ON SALT. Mr. CIIRWEN moved for an account of the wet that was Incurred in the collection of the Duty on Salt_oedemi. T 1 I'HE COMPOSITH)N HILL. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from a parish in the county of Meath, and Ire petitions trots, as many parishes in the county of Tipperary, against the Tithe Composition 11111....4)edeeed up tx iu II to at Iga M de county of 11 ry, agatabt the Tithe uompusmosi 41111.---usamo Impose& ne woma Iv= mat smuggunA ana timer torracaana w a n y tinge nc . ? ma mmal' wawa se! , atm a p me e y es at ate no eon . necapn. _in an criminal eases but . loony, counsel were by misty to the reign of Queen Anne, the pruior.er could not call wit- a l to lie ou the table. these laws were treated as misdemeanors, and made punishable as world, and would wipe away the guilt of his murder ; and that law allowed. he lion. and Learned Gentleman had referred to i ncises in his defence, nor have tho se sworn who appeared. That COMBINATION LAWS. such - by that ill-tinted and indecent address he should on th e cre dit of that branch of the a d m i n i s t rat i on o f j ust i ce , t h e most remote I course of proceeding was vindicated from motives of tinder- _ s nit Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from the Journeymen Th e CllANcimunt o f the EXCHEQUER sa id, t h at fi nes en orator an d a m an o f talent ? Upon this ground it was moat de- from the law relating to trials tor felony, whil e h e h a d j u di c i ous l y nets and humanity to the pri soner . Wear, hear, bear). The In Weaver e at B o l ton , in L ancas hi r e, ag ainst any alteration in the were certainly imposed, and it these tine. were nit paid. either sirable the practice shoal be done away . of prisoners defending overlooked the law in its neighbourhood. that relating to trials for authorities a ll uded to did not bear upon th e question ; parties!- at law relative to the ea *ono( Machinery . — Rebored bathe Coln- front want of disposition or inability to do so, then the party was themselves ; for, instead of • defence being conduct e d u p on soun d treason and mi s demean our . if a foreign e r, tre at i ng o f th e law s o f ' tarty that of Judge Jellifies, which by no means bore upon this hi impewwwed. There was a pusta h o g eona id en , t i on o f t h e cases prin c iples, by which a well-regulated Advocate would act, it was England, on the principles of natural equity , to a=acc ui r t on ing t t h o e th .i li no nu t ea t t h ion en . miggesi Neither m. d u id er t of ha d t: p r u f bt Lo u :d la N w o tetx i ncti h nattihhe j t ud 'ou ge nsg eug eou h ld t se mittes on Artisans' Alachinery. Mr. MANSFIELD presented petition from die journeymen where unpriseement was infloted, and in most eases the imprison- subjected to all the wild incoherencies of such a man as he had sense nfj 'nuke common to all nations, were di cardinal:ten of Leicester, for the:TP* ll of the combination Uwe.— maw, ea peeper representation, was remitted. He was nut pee- alluded to. I t was not the measure a r thgu il t.t h et sow consi dered tuation which a person, stood charg e d . s ' with felry this coca., the objection made . sho uld . be argued ' . The law was not then as Ltid e , th e a bk pared at that moment ta say that It mould be wise in th e Lc- mow case* so much IS the 111)111(10 e puma and the line of try, condemned to a proh i bition f rom taking h is d efence with the now but Mr. Just i ce }enter came to g conclusion directly at " 14 • • , • V IK prl~w SALT DUTY. Mr. WODEHOUSE moved fora return of the Excise prosecu dons for the last six years, specifying the number ; and also the particular number which ha d been instituted for penalties on the Salt Duty Tax, &c. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that if the present duty were continued, it would be Ins object and endeavour, should the House conic to such a determination, to mitigate, as much as possible, the existing restrictions. Ile admitted the seve rity of several regulations act present connected with this duty, and Innutated his intention of softening them down. Ile was unwilling, however, to give any distinct pledge as to any particular niodilica don of those regulations. Mr. CALCRA ET did not wish to be guilty of a breach of the rules of the House, when the Honourable Member gave notice of a motion last evening for a continuance of the Salt Duty. He availed himself, however, of the present mention of the subject to animad vert upon it. The edict and tendency of the Honourable Gentle man's motion was, to tempt Parliament to break a solemn compact which it had formed with tie people. The Legislature had entered, r it were, into a bond with the people that this duty should cease at a certain fixed period, but the Honourable Member wished the House of Cumulous to abrogate that bond, and to continue the tax to some indefinite period that tuight suit his pleasure. (Hear, hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had heard this an nouncement, and Intimated his disposition to mitigate and arra down the restrictions under which the present duty was levied. The only object of its continuance would be, to extend patronage ie the appointmert of collectors, to the extreme vexation and oppression of those affected by the duty. The Honourable Member had, no doubt, brought thia motion thrward in accordance with the wishes and sentiments of those who sat on the same side of the Hour with him ; but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose liberal eomhhct he had observed on other occasions, would not be made an instrument in the hands of the Honourable Member for the con tinuance of the existing duty, in violation of a compact made be tween the Parthunent and the people. (Hear.) The people could not, in future, have any confidence in the assurances of that House, if such a compact were now to be violated - and he was the more anxious to throw out the observations he b ad made in order to ap prise the country of the proceedings which were about to take place in violation of the pronliar given by the legislature, of which the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. F. Robinson), though not Chancellor of the Exchequer, was then a Member and a Minister. (Hear, hear.) I(ir.M'ODEHOUSE brought forward the motion of which he gave notice hot night, after a communication with several Members on both sides of the House. The Honourable Member had saki, that he had brought it forward in accordance with the wishes of the Treasury :—lle denied the charge. It was after a consultation with Members on one side as well as the other, that lie was induced to give the notice which he last night gave. As to the allusion to public faith. it was a mere bugbear, as applied by the Honourable Member. The fulfilment of any engagement made by Parliament was always subject to, and circumscribed by, what was conducive to the public good. Wear.) If the continuance of this duty were proper and necessary, he did not think that fanner discussion should interfere to prevent it. 111 r. BRIGHT thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should inform the House what had been the effect of the alteration already made in the salt duty. A reduction of from 12s. to 2w per bushel had already taken place, and the effect of this reduction ought to be stated to the House. It was now proposed to take off the bounty from the fishermen, and to continue the tax, although it was not so much by the tux, as by the mode of levying it, that those affected by it were annoyed. Yet now the bounty was to be continued, whilst time tax and the vexations were to be perpe tuated. ( Hear, bear.) This was surely a most unfair mode of dealing with the fishermen. There was no tax, the repeal of which would be received with titmice general satisfaction than that of which he spoke, or of which the public really stood more in need. Ile looked forward from its repeal to the multiplication of fishermen, land to great advantages also to the agricultural interests. Mr. GORDON was eminected with Wiltshire, and from his observation he did tine think the agricultural interests would be materially affected by this duty. Sir J. M'ItOTTLSLEY thought it would be mainly conducive to the aviculture] interests so have the tax removed. Mr. W3I. SMITH said, this tax was calculated to produce 200,01101. yet it bad yielded 3titl,ntall. lie did rue kaow by what other rose s a duty to so 144;1 an amount could be raised. Lord M I I.TON, at proof of the liecessi:y of taking of the pee ! sent duty, referred to the increased consumption which had taken place alter the partial it:duct:on had been made. This sheaved, that it the present duty were taken off the consumption would be still greater, and that the duty therefore onerous': as an impedi ment to consumption in reticence to commerce, and other purposes in which this useful article was wed. (Hear, hear.) Sir M. W. R IDLES' had been consulted by the lion. Mentber who presented the present petition. His objection to the continu er: of the duty was a dere to simplify and dindoisth the number of articles subject to:taxation. The more commodities that were tree and unrestricted the greater would be the encouragement given to tree trade end commerce. Mr. HUME wished to take this opportuniay of putting aques tion in the Secretary of the Treasury t Heerlen). The lion. tlentleman had given notice last Session of his intention to cnnwli. date the excise laws. They had been oppressive to an extreme de. gee in their present shape and operation, anal be was desirous of knowing if he intended to fulfil the pledge he then gave. Mr. llkatHIES replied, that he hail not pledged himself to bring forward the subject early in the Session, neither did he ex. pect to reduce all the excise laws under the baud of one general law. It was his intention, however, to have die Laws classified j under separate statutes. This arrangement was at present in pm gems; but alien the extreme difficulty of the undertaking was ton sidetad, it was not to be wondered at out sonic delay was attendant on its complettom ( Hear, hear.) Mr. Tit EM A I'NE thought that the mode of punishment under the excise laws was extremely oppressive and severe. Fines were levied, and on the non-payment of these tines imprisonment was imposed. He would wish that amugglinj and other infractions of . (i (' to 1 i