The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

There was no Set of the kingdom with which he had not Care-
-1 on this subject; and he could assure the House that
=iel was scarcely a town in England not prepared to petition
in favour of his Bill. With respect to bull-batting, no man
could now assert that it was not a crime, and subject to the
provisions of the Bill fur preventing cruelty to animals. Bear_
baiting too was an oWence in certain parts of this coun-
try'. There was a law called the " Mary-la-bonne Act,"
which prohibited, under certain penalties, all besr-baiting and
monkey-tighting within that parish. Now he asked his Right
Hon. Friend, the Secretary, if he meant to move for the repeal of
that law, and if not, what became of his argument as to incon-
sistency ? In one parish in London bear-baiting was declared an
olfenve—in the next parish, considered& manly sport or a becoming
pastime. Let my Right Hon. Friend relieve himself from this di-
lemma before be Imputes inconsistency to me in my attempt to re-
peal part, when I cannot achieve the abolition of all cruelty. -
Mr. LOCKHART observed, that according to the argument of
the Honour Me Member foe Galway, there was no necessity for
this bill. .is forma bill clearly contemplated the punishment
of those who practised auelty to animals—" to cattle and other
animals" were the words of the bill. It was clear, therefore. that
bear-baiting and bull-baiting were both prohibited.
Mr. MARTIN—I am obliged to my Honourable Friend
for the suggestion. I think with him. and I shall withdraw my
motion.

LEGACY DUTIES.
Mr. HUME rose to move . several returns, and, in the first
place, he had a on to throw out to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer who already, by his more liberal policy, mani.
feared a wish to get rid of several impositions. Proceeding upon the
same principle with the legacy tax, in the course of last year he
had moved for an account of the probate and administration duty
paid since the passing of the Act; but from the state of the office,
his information went so far back only as the year 1797. From that
period up
to the rear 1808, the account was given in the gross
amount; from 184.11), in annual divisions; and the House would be
surprised to find. that the gross amount, up to the year 1822,
amounted to 22,124,0001., raised upon the public from legacies.
This most impolitic Act took this capital tram the State. The
amount of that duty for the year 1818, amounted to 1,723,0001.
This fallacious tax had been rendered most vexatious to the
public; arrears were called for after as expiration of 12 14, or 16
years; and recently, within hip own knowledge, after the lapse of 14
years, an individual personelle known so him had been called upon
is pay 881. of such arrears. Till books connected with these trans.
actions were most loosely msd imperfectly kept, and though mis.
takes were ;perpetually escumbrig redraw was never stfortled. Now
he contended, that if Maas win thus culpably allowed to accu-
mulate in this offia, some peiticiple Similar to the Statute of Limi-
salon, should be adapted fee the preattioo of the subject. It was
inexcusable that the neglect of public officers—well-paid officers,
should be chargeable upon the public. He had the num-
ber of probates and administrations taken out each year, and
also the administrations—called by another name—taken out
in Scotland as reported to the proper officer. There was
no excuse for neglecting so make a return at once to the
legacy duty office, as, within seven days of taking out
their administrations, it was necessary they should be registered in
Doctors' Commons. Yet he had known an instance in which trump
weeks hail elapsed and no such return made, and of coutsa when
the person who wished to pay the duty appeared at the le
Office, the answer was, that they mold not receive the money until
they were furnished with the reportfrom Doctors' Commons. The'
Comptrollers of Legacy Duties had done much towards the acct.
Icraung these returns. fle anticipated Pram the Chancellor of the
Exchequer no opposition to the m.= which he had then to make
for a return of the amount of the lamp duty and legacy duty for
the year ending the 6th of Janney, 1821, distinguishing the
amount for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he
would not object to the motion of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Hume), but observed, that the legacy duty was a source of consi-
derable wealth to the Government, andsbould not be easily given
up. With respect to .the grievance complained of by the Hon.
Member, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was ready to ad-
mit that, great hardships had arisen in consequence of several per-
sons having originally avoided the law, the consequence of which
was necessarily visited on their executors. It did appear that se-
veral legacy duties which were fairly due (because never paid), had
been demanded, and it was certainly attended with considerable in.
convenience, that, when they could not find the legatees, the execu-
tors, who had received no beoefit from the legacies, were obliged to
pay the sum. But those CHCIIRPKIACCS had been long under his
consideration, and he flattered himself that care would in future be
taken to prevent similar occurrences.
Motion agreed to.
POLICE—agELAND).
Mr. GRATTAN, in mowing fora any of the proceedings on
a Coroner's inquest,- held in the Queen's county, Ireland, on the
body of Michael 31'Caa, observed, that the unfortunate sufferer,
who had been an under.agent of his (Mr. Guittan's), happened to
go into a public-house. because the day was veiny. He there met
with two of the tenants; soon after some of the police entered,
who called for some spirits and cards. A quarrel took place, and
the under.agent was killed. A Coronet's Inquest was held on the
body, and a verdict returned, that the man died in consequence of
inflammation in the bowels. The man, however, had stated, on
his death.Md, that he had met his death in consequence of a
wound which he had received 'from one of the police. He (Mr.
Grauer) did not know where the policeman now was; he feared be
=knot but. he thought it eery necessary that the Subject
be inquired into.
Mr. GOULBURN thought that the Honourable 0-ntlentan
(Mr. Grattan) would, on consideration, be himself of opinion that
he ought not to permit 'in prosecuting the inquiry. Ile (Mr. Goul.
burn) had received no intelligence from Ireland on the subject. It
appeared that the unfortunate individual had met with his death at
a public-house • that a Cormer's inquest had been called ; and that
they had delivered a verdict that the deceased came naturally by his
death. Bin, supposing that he had actually been murdered by the
police, be (Mr. Goulbum) would ask, whether it would even then
be wise to call for the proceedings taken before the Coroner's Jury ?
The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Grattan) must be well aware
that the Coroner's verdict did not prevent the trial of the accused.
He might still be prosecuted and tried, and the prosecution might
be Insututed either by the government or the family . f the deceas-
ed. And he(slr. Goulburn) would ask the Honourable Member
if he did not think justice would be in this manner much better
obtained. He could have no objection that the proceedings should
i be laid before the House, and that the police should be punished
if they had acted improperly, ; but he conceived it would do much
to prevent the attainment of justice.,
Mr. GRATTAN said. that his only end was, the attainment of
justice• and that he should be perfectly satisfied if the Right Ho.
namable Gentleman would himself take up the case, and effect the
object in view.
Mr. GOULBURN could not pledge himself to the prosecu.
don of any individual fur a crime of which he as yet knew no-
thing.
Mr. GRATTAN obaerved, that the prosecution would be a
great expense to the family; he only wished the Right Honourable
Gentleman to inquire into the case, and, if it merited his loader-
terence, that he would interfere.
The notion was withdrawn.
The House, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex.
CHEOC ER, resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
He first moved for 33,663,2001. to pay off Exchequer Bills.
Mr. HUM*: asked. what was the purpose of the Bills ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EX('HEQUER replied, that
he could not at present answer the question of the Honourable
Menthe?. _ . .

Mr. HLT3IE said, he did not wish taproot the matter.
Mr. BERRIES observed, that there would be a Committee of
Ways and Means, when it would be a better time to put the
question.—Agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved for
f 41,0081. to pay Exchequer Rills for carrying on public works in
1323 and 1824, and also foe building additional churches. •
Agreed to.
He then moved for 158,0031. for the purpose of paying the inte.
rest on Exchequer Bills in 1824.
Agreed to.
Two millions were then granted for services of 1823.
IRISH CHURCH LANDS.

Mr. GOULBURN movrdtthat there be laid berme the Nouse
a statement of the number or acres belonta/s,to the ('hutch in
Ireland, distinguishing such as were glebe and such as were
held by charter.
IRISH CLEROY.

Mr. GOIILBURN gave notice, that on Monday he should
bring forward a motion to cetera the ttside•ce of the Irish Eltrgy
in their respective parishes.
Mr. HERRIEb moved for • new writ for the county of West.
meath, in Ireland, in the room of Gustavus Rochfort, Esq., de.
ceased.
The House then adjourned.

PRICES OF BRITISH
Bank Stock 2381
3 per Cent. Reduced, 4
3 per Cent. Cons. 911 Set 9
34 per Cent.
4 per Cent. 1024
New 4 per Cents. 1064 1 4
Long Annuities.
Imperial 3 per Cents. BSI
Bank for Account
Cons. fur Act. V 141901111 13

TOCKS YESTERDA
India Stock, 2764
India Bend*, 79 81 80 pr.
India for Account,
South Sea Stock,
South Sea Old Annuities
South Sea New Annuities
Ex. Bills, 1,0001. 49 47 SO 48 pr.
Ditto, KM. 81 48 pr.
Ditto, Small, 82 48 pr.
Lotter, Tickets, 191. 19s.