The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-22 00:00:00

FOR TILE SUN.

TO DR. MACLEAN.
Ma. EDlTOR—Observing ii► The Sun of the
16th instant, -a letter of yours, as a non-conta-
geonist, allow me throngh the same medium, to
express my opinions on that subject, which are.
decidedly at variance with your sentiments. ID.
a letter to the Morning Herald of the nth of last;'
month, and to The Sun of the 21st, I exposed, or,
at least endeavoured to expose, the erroneousness
of the theory of non-contagion; nevertheless, 1'
am again tempted to say a few words, on the
• same subject, in answer to your letter.above-
mentioned.

You state, " that diseases which are capable of
" affeCting the same .person repeatedly, if 'they-
-44 'were also contagious would never cease until
communities were extinguished ; communities,
" continue to exist—these diseases cannot, there-
" fore, depend 'on a speeific contagion." The
plague, I think, scarcely comes under this deno-
mination " a disease which repeatedly affects
" the same persem," for gone attack is generally
the first and lasi. But I should be glad to know;
why, if the plague is contagious, the disease would
never cease until -"communities were extinguish-
ed ? Now, permit me. to give a reason why it
would cease. 1 sheaved, in a letter to The Sun
of the 21st of last month, that the plague was
propagated by means:of emission of ef-
fluvia from infected bodfes ---- that, passing
into the • atmosphere, and by such conduc-
tor, conveyed into any .other. body capable
Of receiving the effluvia ; thud it Seems the air
becomes tainted, and can therefore corrimilnicate
the disease ; but if the wind which is unimpreg-
nated With contagintis corpuscles, blovrsa Sufficient
length- of time, and in the same 'dtrection,:it will'
supplant theitifeeted air, and thedisease will .dis- ,
appear,'lprovidect, that at the same timeoleasures
are taken for destroying the. infection that lurks
in clothes-,- &c.
Again,•you say, " that the only practical test.
" of ',the .value Of.teitimonial evidence upon the
44 subject, with •whatever good- faith, and with
" however hottest intentions it may be brought
" forward, is the :result of absolute contact
" of the sick with persons in health upon an ex-
" tended scale." Here, again, We are at issue ;
for as the effluvia emitted from the sick (which is
brought about by means of an insensible transpi-
ration) must necessarily pass through the atmos-
phere,. they will attach themselves to any body
that they can enter, and at a considerable dis-'
tance from the body whence they, proceed ; hence
there is no occasion for immediate contact with.
the sick, in order.to get the plague ; and hmice
too, it is, that cotton and other goods become
impregnated with infection.
• 'You must be aware, Sir, that to us, it is of no
consequence, how the air originally becomes pesti-
lential ; it is sufficient to know that we could
not exist, unless we were constantly emitting
exhalations from our bodies : when in a state of
health, those exhalations are. of course healthy ;
when not in such state, the exhalations, conse-
quently, are pestilential, when-the diiease is such.
Now, I should be happy if you can inform me,
how it happens that people are attacked by the
plague, without coming in contact with the sick
If you can shew this to be the case, the
quarantine laws are'of, none effect ; bit if you
cannot—they, of course, protect us from the
dreadful scourge.
Until you can satisfactorily answer this ques-
tion, by proving that nothing but actual contact
with the sick can communicate the disease, every
prechtition should be adopted, -and rigorMisly
enforced, which human wisdom and foresight cati
suggest, for guarding our country against such a
dreadful calamity.l remain, Sir, ,
Your obedient- servant,
aiskate,•June 18, 1825. • p. v. H.

FIRE ARMS AS A W --„ALKING STICK. ne anCJ-
field 31trcury states, that a patent has been granted to Mr,
James Cook, of Birmingham, -for certain improveinents,in
making locks for guns, pistols, &c. Thi object of this inven-
tion is.the construction of gun and pistol locks upon a more
simple principle than those hitherto made. Instead of the
;usual,Main spring, formed as a lever, the patentee proposes that
the hammer should he projected forward in a right line, by
'means of a helical or worm-spring, by :which contrivance all
the operative parts of the gun-lock are contained in a•cylinder
within the head of a walking-stick. The lock, with all the
mechanism for discharging the gun, being placed- within the
diameter of the barrel, its appearance is simply' that of an or-
dinary cane, with a buck-horn head, and a plug ferrule in the
bottom or muzzle. The sight is taken along the side of the
barrel.

~:-~ _ ,

The Marquis of HASTINGS referred, to- the paper which
had been presented, from the . India llbUse, and'obserred that
that paper being now before their Lordships, .there was no
reason for the farther postponement of:the,bill .he had intro-
duced. He therefore gave notice that :he would Move the
second reading to-mOrrow, and now moved• that the': judges be
summoned for theday.---,Ordered accordingly.
QUARANTINE LAWS. •
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved .the Order of the Day.
on the'Quarantine Regulation
The Earl of DARNLEY did not rise to offer-any opposition
to this Bill, but merely to make a feiv observations. on the sub-
ject, whiCh was one that well inerlted 'their Lordships' 'atten-:
tion. Some regulations respecting quarantine he believed to
be necessary for the eonvepience Of eolinnerce, bu't he 'conceived
'that great caution was necesSarr,--and that it was a very proper
•rule that all deacriptions'of-goods liable.tii infection should be
unloaded and-well aired for i certain period previous to their
being-delivered. - A--diScretionary power was now Vested in the
Privy COuncil, in consequence of whichthe regulation respect.'
ing airing might be altered or omitted. :He thoughtfit right
to call their Lordships' attention to • this point of discretion,
because a power of that kind- -had always a tendency to be
very much abused. As he lived in a"_ part of the country
which was not far from the place where the ships ar-
rived which came to the' port., of London • •fitn suspected
quarters—such asEgypt,:the very focus of ':the,plmigue,—his at-
tention had naturally been called to this subject. An altera-
tion in the quarantine: regirliiiiOns had- been proposed' a few
years ago. In the year 1810, Cor'runitte& Of-the' House of
Commoos was engaged in:theinquiry whether or not the plague
was contagious. The opinion that that terrible disorder was
not contagious had been :first broached by a learned gentleman
(Dr. M`Lean), to whose
-opinion his Noble Friend.. near' him
in appeared to have hecoea-coaVert. -All he.-should say on this
point Was, that be understood that the weight of experience,
both of-medical. 'men and Others, was. in-- ContradictiOn. to the.
opinion of the plague being only epidemic. Last year another
report was-preiented by 4 COMmittee of the Hope of
on the subject of 'the (1114r:41164e , That report recom-
mended an alteration of-the lire Sent -systea)„, and in consequence
of that recommendation, the preseot M ep+o re- had beeh intro-
-deiced, Some relaxation, a he had 10)tfeOrhs9tted, appeared
'to be necesiary to afford greater facility tii the,etaiomerce of the
country ; but care should be taco to. preVent 'any evasion of
the regulations which might lie considered necessary: He
-stated this, as he understood that it 'was •no very difficult
matter to obtain at any time- cleari 'tills of health .at the ports
from which the ships geperally liable to quarantine came- In,
agitating the question and exciting alarm, while the intention
was Only to obtain a relaxation of the quarantine laws, Parlia-
-meat had shown itself penny-wise anti pound-foolish: it had
ecelsioned great Ineonveoience.for a slight benefit.' His Lord--
ship then went on to state, that the best authorities gave their
opilion, in favour.of the _contagious nature-of the plague;. and
{said that it had been imported at different times in cotton goods
or 'other merchandise ..into.Cephalonia,
_Corfu, and Silesia.—
He hoped and trusted; therefore, that, these facts would be
taken into consideration, and that -an extinguisher would be
placed'on the Bill.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that the subject of the
Quarantine Laws had lieen under time consideration of Parlia-
ment before this year; that a report upon them had been made
by a Committee of the House of Commons so late as 1819 ; that
changes were then recommended which had since bn adopted,
but that neither then nor at.present were those Changes recom-i
mended on the principlethat the plague wits not contagious.
The question respecting contagion had been agitated in both
cases, and he was wilding-to agree with the Noble Earl (Darn-
ley) that its non-contagion had not been established. The
Committee, therefore, -never 'differed on the-subject, whether
all precautions ought to be neglected, and all regulations abo-
lished ; but what were thd best precautions, and the least op-
pressive and most effectivts regulating. He (bora Liverpool),
for one, would -rather err on the side of caution than that of
rashness in soimportant a, matter. He willingly allowed that
neither in Engla,rid nor the nortli of-Europe had this'seourge
for a long time appeared-; but still he would not expose this
country to its visitation,' by rashly adopting the principle of
its noncontagions effects.. The object of the present Bill was
two-fold-Ist, shift the - expence-of quarantine from the'
owners'Of ',the Ships :exposed to it, to the country whose health
it was necessary to. protect ; and secondly, to abolish penalties
which were unnecessary; or to mitigate those which were too
severe. He (Lord Liverpool) allowed-that an unfounded alarm
had been spread among foreign States, and that decrees- had
been made, grounded on a mistake-of what had been done or
was intended to be done here ; but those alarms would sub-
side, and those decrees be altered, as soon as the real object of
'Parliament came to be known. .-

Lord KING supported the Bill,ancl contended that he saw
no satisfactory evidence of the plague being contagious. The
laws of quarantine at some future period would be classed in
the same category with the laws against witchcraft:
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be re-
ported to-morrow.

PRIVATE CAUSES.

The LORD. CH A NC.::LLO 47 gave,noace, that he viould
on a future day. fix the. time , Wyond which no private. causes
should be heard, in order that judgment might be given on those
which-had alreadybeeti
COUNTY COURTS BILL. .
The House wentinto Committee on this when, after
a conversation, in which Lord Rldesdale, Lord Ellenborough,
Lord Darnley, and the Lord Chancellor, took Part, the House
resumed, and the Chairnian (Lord ShafteSbury } moved that
the report be received this day three months. The motion was
agreed t 0.,. and:the Bill consequently lost. .The chief ground
of opposition stated by the Lord Chancellor to the measure was
the want of a clause for. Compensating the,officers in the exist-
ing t'9urts whose income would. be affected by the passing of
the His Lordship recoil-mendeda Conimisniori to:inquire
into the subject before any Measure should be.subrnitted to Par-
liament.—Adjourned at.II.II.I",PAST SEVEN O'c4.4)CE.

rn..._

MMthOeN:ol.yilead'Roacis
. • 110 (LSE OF CO
On the motilnlnoTrlYSilrlPPDA. RII°Nti)LIS,, TULL.'
Bill was read a third time and passed.
th
e;riss:h
1:1.
atik
Tokens
On the Inotionloift.til:Strt.ri-liitilcirs, K El\7B-
' ' .:.
Bill was read ,a third time and 'passed. '
. . FRIVOLOUS WRITS Or ERROR. •
D:. Pnii,LimOßE br'nuz.;lit ut) the Report upon the Fri-
volous Writs of Error Bill. 4
Several verbal amendments were agreed to;, the itepoit was
then rec2ived, and the Bill_ordered to he read a third time to-
.
morrow. .
' UNIVERSITY. r &MACE BUJ,
On'the motion of Mr. Secretary PEEL', the University Po-
lice Bill-was'read a third time and pasetl.
AI IL KE NRIC K.
Mr. DENMAN said he had presented a petition on a former
occasion frOm dpersOn mimed Canifcr7- complaitiing of the con.'

duct of a Mr. Kenrick' a Magistrate of Surety', and on the
same evening moved for the production Of :certain affidavits'
which had been printed and laid before 'the House.. .On sa
turday last,: he had also nimed• for the production of a- letter
written! by, Mr. Kenrick, which had'. been since laid on the
table, and which he now begged leave to move should 'be
printed likewise. ' His object was, that these papers should be
in the bands of Honourable Members, preparatory 'to the ex-
aniination of four or five :witnesses; for -whose attendance at -
.the Bar of the Houie on Friday next he meant now -to'submit
.a Motion :Irani the testimony of' -those witnesses, he believed
he would be able to prove; that the letter written by Mr. Ken,
rick .to a gentleman in Linctfin, purporting lo explain the teen.- -
sacfiona with Franks, was totally inconsistent with the affidavits'
already produeed, and as totally inconsistent with the real truth.,
Frain the interrogation of two or 'three of- these witnesses, he
thought indeed it would beloutid, that the account' of certain
magieteritd transactions relating to Franks *ere totelly.dettitute
of truth. It had been suggested to -him, that instead of pltr.
suing that course, he should first -have prefetretleioine written
charge against Mr. Kenrick. lie, for his own part, was quite
,indifferent about the Course which might be prescribed to him,
but he would just take the liberty to obseree; that although the
-letter upon which he founded his accusation against Mr. Ken-
rick was grossly libellous, it did not constitute any legal of-
fence. fi is view was, that although the results of the inquiry .
might show clear malversation in office, partiality, and a de,
Dial of justice in lfis capacity of a Magistrate, on the part of
31r. Kenrick, followed up by a letter reflecting on the charac-
ter of the object of his prosecution; still'that there was nothing
1 beyond the libel of real offence. There was quite Sufficientt
however, in the petition thus substantiated and supported to
enable the Crown to take measures for depriving -Mr. Kenrick
Of his situation as a' Magistrate, and he thought that after the
admission of a person being unfit to exercise the magisterial
-duties, it would be very.diffictilt to contend that he should con-
tinue to administer justice as a Judge. He did not- mean to
.say that it was a consequent which 'must 'follow ; but that there
would be good grounds for an Address of the Howse to the
Crown, inconsequence of the information it would be' in poi.
session of with regard to the want of those qualities in a Magis-
trate which were indispeneablein a judge. The-Hon. Mere.
-bee then moved that the persons whose names were mentioned
in the motion be summoned to attend at the bar of that House
on Fridayllext. • If the House' thought he should state any
thing in writing,' he was in their hands, and content to follow
their suggestions ; for he had no feeling upon the case either one
way or the other. The individual accused, he was fully aware,
'had not yet been heard in his defence, and they were as yet
proceeding on one side of the question.
Mr. Secretary PEEL apprehended there was some difficulty
in the course about to be pursued by the Learned Gentleman.
They 'were 'going to' establish a bad -precedent of making in.
quirt' by witnesses at the bar upon mere implication. The
House was not in possession of the charge. The letter had
, not been 'read, and he thought it would be much more con-
. sistent with Parliamentary proceedings, and much snore just to
the individual, if the Learned Gentleman would put his accu-
' sations in writing, and give the person accused an opportunity
of knowing'what was the charge preferred against him. • The
Hon. Gentle Man might only put down what he had just stated
to the Meuse, or any of the grounds upon which he condemned
Mr: Kenrick; or at all 'events postpone his' motion -for the
-production Of witnesses until the letter was printed and-read
by the Members-of 'the House.
Mr. S. BOURNE agreed with the Right Hon. Secretary
(Mr. -Peel) that -the 'charge should be Anown by the 'House ;
the lowest offenders in -the lowest Court in the kingdom was
fully acquainted with the crime of which he stood acused, by
a specific charge ,being brought against them, yet here they
would put the individual on hie trial, leaving him to conjec-
ture his offence. '

ABERCROMBY contended thauthe objeetions'of The
Right Hon. Gentleman would not hold good. When the peti-
tion was presented by his Learned Friend on a former occasion,
more than one Hon, Member rose and stated that Mr. Kenriek
.desired nothing more than to hear the subject matter of the
complaint against him fairly stated. On that petition., there-
fore, he (Mr. Abercromby) said the House had the charge.
His lion. Friend presented a petition praying inquiry, and
there it was stated that the only question upon Mr. Kenrick's
part was how soon that inquiry should take place-4-and that it
could not for his.wishes take place too soon. The petition and
the documents connected with it only showed, therefore, what
the evidence would be when produced. Any thing his Learned
Friend (Mr. Denman)- had said, was only in anticipation of
• what -he thought would-be- proved ; but did, not contain any
now. charge; that charge was contained in the petition, and was
-in point of fact one of the clearest eases he ever recollected.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said; in'explanation, that he had not
defended Mr. Kenrick, -but wished to support Parliamentary
usage—that usage was, that the House should rug take any,
determination or enter into any inquiry at all; until it was,
in possession of the papers•upon which the inquiry was: to be
founded.

Mr. S. BOURNE explained. •
Mr. C. W. WYNN thought the House should be in'posses-
sionof the papers, that they might he 'able to decide whether•
there was a prima facie case oz not, before they took any other
proceedings. -It was said, the individual complained of was
unfit to'be& Judge.. They ought to be very cautious in their
measures upon such &serious case.
Mr. TIERNEY said, if he rightly understood the case, there
was no charge against Mr. Kenrick as a Judge, but as a Ma-
gistrate. If the complaint was against his conduct as a Judge,
that would -be another matter, and might be very differently
dealt with ; but he would like to know whether that House had
not upon petition, and complaint of an individual, a full right
to inquire. into the` conduct of a. Justice of the Peace,,and
whether in that capatity he was not open to their censure.
Nothing, however, could be more absurd than to say that his
Learned Friend (Mr. Denman) who was, as he distinctly said,
no party in the charge, should bring forward--some distinct
ground of accusation. His Learned Friend in his situation
could not do so, unleas he was prepared to take' the informa-
don of Candor as his own, and rely wholly 'On' its truth ; that
was aline of conduct which it would be fopntlimpossible, lie
rather thought, for 'Members of that House to-adopt with re-
gard to petitions. His Learned Friend took 'the usual course
In
_presenting a petition complaining, of an act of injustice and
oppression ' • that petition he now offers to subStantiate by evi-
dence, and there could be no just ground, according to the
usual practice, as far as he had known, for rejecting it upon
the ground of want of information,- If the charge was sub-
stantiated, the next question would be, could it stiffer a person
convicted of such conduct to remain in the Magistracy'? •• The
House therefore at present had nothing to do but-with the peti-
tion against a Magistrate ; whether it would recommend any
further proceedings, was a matter for consideration hereafter.
Mr. C. WYNN explained. It was necessary, he thought,
the criminal matter of the proceeding should be stated in some
way or other, so that the House should be in possession of the
charge.
,

The SOLICITOR-OENtRAL contended that the going
into evidence without being in possession of the matter, to which
the evidence applied, was at yariance with all the forms of pro.;
ceeding in every Court lie was acquainted. with Proceeding
against an hidiyiddal in that flouse withont telling him of his
crime was a had precedent, and pregnant with
.Mr. A liEl/CROIIIB Y said the motion. was for_the purpose
of sub,tatitiating the facts of the petition. ;;If those facts were
:proved, there was ground of censure upOn Mr. lienrick—if they
were not proved, there wasati end of the matter. ".
Mr. TIERNEY recommended the I-fon, and Learned Frierq it
to leave oat the consideration of the letter; and confine hini§elf
to an examination of the affidavit` and matter of petition.

111 r. BROUG' HAM never tindeistood that the ,Ilouse harn-
..
pered itself by the formalities ,of written charge:Yin any thing..
leSs than cases of impeachment. The. general practice was
exactly as his flea. and Learned Friend had .proceeded in this '
case.. It was very remarkable, indeed, that there had been two
cases'Very lately, during the present Session, perfectly similar
to the preSent. One, the petition presented respecting the con-.
duct. of • the Duke of Manchester,.. by an ,Ilon.,and Learned
Friend 'of his (Dr. Lush ington) and the other a petition 'present-
ed lir hiniSelf from mr. Bishop fitirnett,:coniplainin'g.of cer-
tain ,oppressive acts Of. Lord. Charles Somerset,,whieh he in-
tended. to move to be referred.to a Select Committee to-morrow
evening. Nnw,,it was very odd that in :neither of these cases had
they heard one-word of the necessity of; written, charge, or of
deciding Without
,information; urged. as it reason, for .the refusal
of the consideration demanded
,hy the petitioners. .They were
in faet, iupon petitions, a mere court‘ of ,lnquiry--not judi-
cionsiy,' but inquisitorially engaged., Fie 'did not, however,
rise to do more than protest against' the assertion that, 'Mem-
bers were compelled. to bring forward a written accusation.—
He knew and had knoio the individual COmplained of (Mr.
filenriek).for sometime at the bar; he had always understood
}Mil to be an honourable and .humane man, and he.had very
great' hopes that he 'would be able to free himself from- all im.

The original motion:Was Was then put, and, together with thf•
amendments, ngreed to ; tlrst,that die facts orthe.petitio4-or
Mr. Camfor be taken into consideration On Friday next ; 2dly,
that the petition of Mr. Camfor, together with the above tioae,
be communicated to. Mr. lienrick ; and, :icily, that Mr: Ken.-
rick hare permission to attend by himself or Counsel, to reply
-
to the charges to be preferred against him.
, Mr. 13ROLlt; H M suggested that an earlier hour. than
usual ought to be fixed for going into the inquiry, in ordec that.
the investigatiin might be more speedily disposed of, lie,
would suggest that the inquiry should cominence at four o'eloat,
at the sitting of the. House.
•

. .
Mr. ?BEL agreed in .. the expediency of
,commencing at a
still earlier hour, he would say three orhalf-put three. ... I
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that in that event his Hon: Fiien'ci
would not be able to attend. •- . ' ' - • . . -

Mr. DENMAN disclaimed any desire of interposing his
private convenience with a public duty, but he thought the in-
quiry would be of such short duration, that it' Would not.
necessary for the House to meet earlier 'than the usual hous if,
however, there was a prospect of its continuance, he would-be
satisfied to agree to any arrangement that might suit the -a; -
commodation of the House.

It was finally agreed upon that the iuquiry should connneactr
at four o'clock on Friday. •
COMBINATION LAWS.

Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition trora jO,OOO Weavers.
of GlatgOW and its vicinity' respectMg the COmbination Laws.
The Hon. Member bore testimony to the industry anti . pence-
able habits of the petitioners :. they had at all tunes refrained
from Unions and Associations, having for their object thttraisiry;
of wages by acts of personal intimidation. Neither had ;tb;s..
like the Members of other trades, made any allusiOn tti .the
state of the Corn Laws.

Mr. Secretary. .PE EL 'would entreat of the Hon. 111 ember
not to enter into any discussion upon the subject of the Corn-
Laws, until he had read the Report of the Coininittee upon.the
subject. He' would then perceive that the rights of 'no.elas3
had been overlooked. He himself would postpone all comment
upon the subject, until the discussion was
.properly before the.
House. With respect to the actual situation of marmfaetutcrs.
it would be found, from a referenceto the Report of'die Select
Committee upon the Poor Rates, that the diminution' of their
rates was greater in the years 1823 and 1824, than in the years
1816 and 1818; and the diminution .was greater in the manu-
facturing than in the agricultural districts. The reduction of
the rates, through England generally, was 27 per cent: ; in
Lancashire it was 45, and in Stafferdshire 26.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
COUNTY RATES.
-The Report of the Select Copimitteeiipon the County.RaLls.
Bill. was brought up, and orderitiro be taken intofUrtheieor-
sideration to-morrow. • ,

UNITARIANS. -
Mr. W. SMITH held in his hand, a"petition from the, Pre-
testant Dissenters of the 'Unitarian Pe.rsuaSion, com'plaireng or
the situation in which they were piaced,,and with. which It was
impossible the House should.not be acquainted. It was in tba,
half of these individuals he had carried a Bill through. the
House with scarcely any qudstien;'iliatighUnforttinatelit'
was not equally successful elsewhere. Petitioners., 410, weft
complain that they have not received the approbation Al.*,
body to which he alluded, but the subject of their petition is,
that, from what they have heard in the discussion beforaithe
House of Lords, they are in a worse and more Precarlann
situation than before. They pray that .a full and inirnaa
.diate inquiry may be made into the circumstances of the pre.-
sent law; and that a remedy, irrequisite, may be applied to the
grievances of which they complain.' , In presenting this petition
it was absolutely necessary for him to bring himself. before. the.
House, in consequence of what had fallen from a high qtturto
elSewhere: It was said by high authority, that befbre the',Unith-
rians were placed in any othersttuation,it would be well to reinove
those disabilities under which they laboured by the Corom on La ty,
for by the Con-orlon Law they appeared in the liglit,a.erinitoals
to the House and to the country. This assertion was reade.b.Y.
and repeated in a certain quarter; and he (;11r.5.) wes described
as assenting to the idea. that notwithatahitio; ,cerfain statntea,
the Unitarians *ere still liable to the Penalties :4 the Corotioo
. Law, for impugning the Trinity. He-had Uttered no much Septi-
merit, he had expressed rio , was directly .at
issue with such declarations and such sentiments.. in bja,apia
nion, these Dissenters were riflieved by the Al of the late King,
from the statutable penalties incurred by those who iletii"e:fi-vr
impugned the Trinity, and, to which, befbreithe,,paaai,pg e.ctbe
Act, they were liable by the common taw. -He held a canner-
ration upon-the subject with the ArehbishOl'of,Canterblify, of
which he kept a record, to which be would appeal hearastf-
ed, a satisfactory proof of what lie had asserted„,-.The Airelta
biahop of Canterbury told him, in explanation .of theinestire
for the relief the Unitarians, that Upon the supposition, that
his object was the removal of all obstacles to fair argument
and discussion, lie (the Archbishop) would he willivg 1q Tee
move statutable disabilities from those who . hit eugrçd the
Trinity in writing and advisedly speaking but it could.. not
be the intention of him (Mr. W. Smith) any, mere :than .it
would be his own, to open the door to all kinita.or ro4Dene,”
and -impiety with which sacred subjects might he. treated,
and that therefore blasphemy should be left open to the ptinishr
ment of. the. Common Law. Ilere, therefere, in his, epinion,
we had the idea of blaspheiny applied to these wliu treated so,
lemn and sacred subjects in a certain niode, and iset tcrihost
who impugned the Trinity.. It may be said thatobis.. Olt;
Smith's) opinion upon this subject was of small impartater ;
bathe would bring forward as good an authority as could be
produced, to show that it WOK blasphemy alone,was puri,ishtd
by the Common Law ; and that by the ,tifty-third of 45:5 late
Majesty, the Unitarians were placed upon the Name footrpg
the other Dissenters were by. the Toleration/lei. In the year
1778, a case was argued before the Court of,lielegates, which
referred to the design and object of the Toleration Acta In
the course of his speech upon that occasion toial,Alansfield
dared, that down to the' time in which he waa.Spealting,ere
was not an instance to be found of a man being punished for
erroneous opinions except by some positive law.; that prasectir
Lions for mere opiniona wad unknown to the Cotimion law., The
penalties to-Which Disaenters were liable fOr their oPinionli.vere
Tepealedby.the,Toleration.Aet, ,and they are exempted trout
ecclesiastic censure. By this Act,the impogners of. the I.(' rinity
were placed' in the, same aitfuitten with the Other..DiSseniera.
The fifty-third of the late..Xing.was paised for the further
relief of Protestant Dissenters,..,,includiog Schoolinaagra",.wilo
were Nonconformists,. and elm heal frogs fro a sub-
' scription to the doctrineS of pie Church of England, sUli:
stituting the declaratiO that. he, A. 13. was a *Protestant
'and. Christian, belieVing in. the Old and New Testament,
-considering them as the revealed will 'of God, and receiving
'them 'as the rules of his Ohdoct, and. his practice. '..liwas
the denial of _Christianity generalry"tiaat Was punishable by
.the
common lair. Statutable ,penalties were removed from Annie
holding:particular doctrines, hy,the Act that pat certain-de-
elarations into the. Mouths of tit-6Se NOM .autiscribed them.—
Whep Was his cipinion, how could he niak'e the assertion
dtei him, that the Unitarians were still .subjcetato penal-
ties at the common la***?' ..These
.Petialtica, were ' fine and ini-
pritionmeal.e attite discretion of the JUildlta. ,Unitarians might
;be. imprisoned 'for life; if midi. a Tower. exhtacf, Which lie mia4
atienuotisly-deuia' Suelf piiffi of Eli argiikaaria

tog nnexplaineAl would be found mere cle•arly expressed
us the petition ; and he did not think it inconsistent with
the nature of the petition to remark the doubt that was
thrown out upon this important subject, and the want of
any pains taken to clear it up. Upon that occasion it was
a:everted by the Nobleman at the head of his Majesty's Go-
vevoment, that if a doubt were entertained upon the subject of
tue -Unitarians being liable to Minieinnent at common law (and
he felt assured they were not), it was high time this doubt
- retoold be removed, and proper steps should be taken upon the
euGject No such steps had been taken to quiet the minds of
Cave most interested; and it was for this reason they sent that
petitioa which he now presented. They all knew the sinister
fate:-aT the Bill which was submitted to them more than once.
kiss at first thrown out, in that House, without considers-
-404 Upon the second time it passed, and was thrown out in
' itie other House by the exercise of a certain degree of influence,
although it received the support of the leading and responsible
Ministers of .his Majesty's Government, of the two Archbi-
shops, end sit other dignitaries. The doubt thrown out upon
• that important occasion, as to the necessity.of certain prepara-
eery eaeasures before any Bill should pass, fully justified the
rattle* most 'interested in coming before the House ; and the
*way was, by a petition, which will amply supply any thing
*at he left unexplained. The Hon. Member contended that
eihe lihh of George 111. settled any doubts which had pre
viOitely existed, and which was considered to be settled by the
Ceorge 111. Having said so much as to the nature and
.ajects of the petitioners, he would only now move for leave to
Ihriog the petition up.
Mr. ROBERTSON apprehended serious evils from a sys-
tem of inoration. He regretted to observe, that great efforts
Were making to diminish the influence of the Church both in
;*Enklerid aifd Ireland.'
..Before the House sanctioned such ef-
forts, they should consider the state of this country before the
Church-etas established by Ip.w. The doctrines of the Unita-
rians should reotlee allowed itibeptopitgated, for if they were,
then indeed would the Church of England be in danger. He
geed fully with-Bishop Burnet, who considered that laws were
Getter to regulate cheieches than subscriptions.
The petition was then read by the Clerk, and it prayed for
at: inquiry into the state of the laws relative to Unitarians.
After a few words from Me.AV„SMITH in explanation,
the petition was laid on the table. • .
NEWSPAPERS BILL. •- • -
Upon the motion of the CH ANCELOR of the EXCHE-
UER, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the
Newspapers Bill.
The several clauses were agreed to, and the Report ordered
to be received to-morrow.
WEST INDIA CLERGY BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
Order of the Day for the third reading of the West India
Clergy Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER introduced a
clause. providing that the salaries of the Clergy holding under
this Bill should be paid out of the 4i per cents.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
PILOTAGE BILL.
Mr. C. GRANT moved the Order of the Day for the third
reading of the Pilotage Bill, which was read a third time and
passed.

PUBLIC ROAD BILL, (IRELAND.)
GOULBURN brought up the report of the Public Road
Bill (Ireland).
The Report was ordered to be recommitted to a Committee
of the whole House.
The House thereupon resolved itself into a Committee, and
the several clauses having been read, the House resumed, and
the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
GLASS DUTIES BILL.
Upon the motion of Mr. BERRIES, the Glass Duties Bill
was read a third time and passed.
PLATE DUTIES TRANSFER BILL.
Dr. PIIILLI3IORE brought up the Report of the Plate
Duties Transfer Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time
-1110M47.
TEM PO RA RY CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
Dr. Pll ILLIMOR E brought up the Report of the Tempo-
rary Customs Duties Bill, which was ordered to be read a third
:nee on Friday.
DUBLIN WIDE STREETS BILL.
Mr. C7OULBURN moved the Order of the Day for the House
resolving itself into a Committee on the Dublin Wide Streets
Bill, which went through a Committee, and the Report was
ordered to be received on Friday.
CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Upon the motion of Mr. BERRIES the Customs Consoli-
detien Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be recom-
enitted on Thursday.
GOODS WAREHOUSING BILL.
The third reading of the Goods Warehousing Bill was post-
poned to Thursday next.
PILOTS AND PILOTAGE.
Mr. C. GB NT brought up a Bill, for better regulating the
Law respecting Pilots and Pilotage, which was read a first
time, and ordered to be read a second time to.morrow.
CRUEL TREATMENT OF CATILE BILL.
Mr. R. MARTIN moved the Order,of the Day for the second
-reading of the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Bill.
The A TTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the second read-
ieg of this Bill. because an Act had been introduced the Ses-
-sion before the last, by the Honourable Member for Knares..
berotigh (Sir J. Mackintosh), which enacts, that cruelly maim-
ing animals shall be a transportable offence. The Honourable
Member (Mr. Martin) did not mean to repeal the Hon. Mem-
ber for Knaresborough's Bill, or to mitigate the punishment
affixed to it, and yet his Bill provided, that cruelty to animals
snould be punished as a misdemeanour. The Hon. Member
for Galway would therefore substitute a milder punishment,
which clearly was not his intention, though such was the con-
struction of his Bill. This involved a manifest inconsistency,
arid therefore in his (the A ttorney-Genetars) opinion, the Bill,
in its present form, should not pass the House.
Mr. MARTIN said, the Bill before the House was in fact
the Bill of the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-
-General had consulted with him (Mr. Martin) in drawing it up.
laegh.)-elt was at the suggestion of the Attorney General
be had introduced the words " cutting and maiming," which
Iris Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home De-
partment (Mr. Peel) objected to, because, in his opinion, the
word cutting made it a misdemeanour to cut off the ears of a
puppy dog. The clause to :which the Attorney-General now
objected was only an emendation of his own absurdity.. The
Attorney-General's Bill was declared to be an absurdity in the
Lords; but as the clause which he (Mr. Martin) proposed to
remedy that absurdity was now objected to, lie was willing, and
wuuTd he satisfied to produce the Bill which was rejected by
the Lords, to compare it with the present Bill, and to strike out
every thing in the present Bill which varied from the Bill sent
to the herds. The only material addition in the present Bill
was the clause to protect those uselal and necessary animals,
dogs. Ile did not know why the Attorney -General now differed
(loin a Bill which was in principle precisely the same as that
which he had before mentioned. He might have altered his
opinion upon the former Bill it was true, but why did he within
thirty-six hours, offer to support the present Bill, if he (Mr.
Martin) agreed to withdraw his Bill for giving felons the be-
nefit of Counsel ? If Government, and individuals connected
with it, continue to act in this manner, the public would soon
begin to perceive, that the House f Commons was a bad
suboeil for the education of a Judge.
The ATTOR.NEV.OENEitAL said the bill formerly in-
troduced by the lion. Member for Galway, was thrown out in
the Lords, because the Hon. Member neglected to suit it to the
existing law. Cruelty to animals, by the Act of Charles 11.,
WAS not a felony, unless there was a malicious intention to the
owner: By the Hon. Member for Knaresborough's Act, maim-
ing of animals was made a felony, although no malicious inten-
tion was proved. The Hon. Member for Galway was not aware
of this enactment, but had followed the words of the Act of
Charles. 'The Hon. Member's present bill says nothing of the
repeal of Sir J. Mackintosh's Act, but yet it makes that offence
ouly a misdemeanour, which Sir Mackintosh's Act had made
felony.—Mr. MARTIN explained.
Mr. S. WOR T I,El' said it was quite clear that a remedy
existed against the offence complained of. He was therefore of
opinion, that any new provision to meet that offence was alto..
gether unnecessary.
Sir J. SH ELLEY said the House was evidently debating on
sar offence for which an adequate remedy already existed.
-Mr. T. WILSON thought a mode may be devised for re-
- conciling the humane intentions of the Hon. Member for Gal-
way with the legal objections of the Attorney-General. He
'suggested that the offences specified in the Hon. Gentleman's
hilt should be punished as felonies, and not as misdemeanours.
—Wit was worded according to this suggestion, he saw no ob-
jection to the Hon. Member's Bill.
Mr. °WILBURN said the question was, whether the
offences specified in the Hon. Member's Bill, and the Act of
the Hon. Member Mr_ Knarmborough, should be in future
punished as felonies or as misdemeanours. In his opinion the
-.more advisable course was to leave the law as it at present stood.
If the present law was not sufficient, the proper course would
be to move the repeal of the IlOn. Member for Knaresb.orough's
Act, and when that was repealed, to introduce the present
ill.
To. pass the present Bill' whilst Sir J. Mackintosh's Act re--
'named in the Statute Book unrepealed, would be inconsistent
, -with every principle of sound legislation.
After a few words from Mr. Moarcx and Mr. S. Rtez,
,The House divided, when there appeared—
A gainsi the second reading
For it

Majority_ - - - -4
CHURCH LANDS EXCHANGE BILL.
When strangers were re-admitted,
Jr. GREENE was addressing the House on the bringing
up of the -Report of the Church Lanes Exchange Bill, and

moving an amendment, which would go to annul the limit of
forty acres created by the Rill respecting exchanges effected by
certain classes of proprietors. Trustees of charities, he said,
were not limited in the exchanges which they might make, and
he thought it most unwise to restrain Dean► and Chapters.
Lord PALM ERSTON opposed the amendment, and
Mr. LOCKH ART supported it.
After a few words f Mr. MowcX,

..

:rom
Mr. C. WILSON made some observations in suppOit of tbe
amendment, as did Mr. JOHN BENETT (Wilts), when the
House dirided
Against the amendment
Fur it -

Majority -
SPRING GUNS.

- -26

After the division,
Mr. TENNYSON was found addressing the House on the
second reading of the Spring Guns Bill. He spoke in terms
of strong censure of the practice of setting spring guns in plan-
tations. He pressed upon the attention of the House, that it
was only cases of the last extremity that homicide was justi-
fiable—in easer of rape,
.burglary, or in such cases as the party
attacked had no other of escape. Ile objected to life being
taken away, or even risked, for the purpose of avenging a
civil injury, and one, for which the law provided a remedy of
a different nature. He read several letters and other docu-
ments, detailing instances of injuries inflicted by those destruc-
tive engines, and enumerated some judicial opinions on the
subject; amongst others, the judgments of Lord Chief Jus-
tice Abbott, the present Chief Justice of the Common leas
(then a Puisne Judge in the Court of King's Bench) as well
as that of Alr. Justice Holroyd. It only remained for him
to state to the House what were the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill enacted that where any person should be injured by
the going off of any of these spring guns, but not mortallv,that
then the person on whose premixes those guns were act, should
he:eeljudgetLguilty of a misdemeanour; and if any person
should die within a year-and a day after being shot by any
spring gun from: the effects of those murderous engines, the
Bill then made the person on whose premises the gun was set,
guilty of manslaughter. These homicies occasioned by spring
guns could not be considered justifiable; in his opinion they
were nothing less than murders, but it was not considered pro-
per to enact that they should be so considered as the thing had
been sanctioned by the practice of the country for so many
years. The Bill admitted of no exceptions in favour of nur-
series and gardens ; at the same time he thought the present
state of the law as it regarded those two species of property, was
very defective; and, perhaps, that was the reason why garden-
ers had adopted the system of setting spring guns. With these
observations he ventured to leave the Bt with the House,
trusting that It would approve of its provisions, and suffer it to
be read without opposition a second time.
Mr. S. WORTLEY felt himself called upon to oppose the
second reading of this Bill. It was not just to say that the set-
ting of spring guns was calculated to introduce a war between
the rich and the poor; as if none but persons of rank and
riches used them. The fact was well known, that individuals
of small property were as much in the habit of using these
guns on their premises as those of extensive estates. Ile begged
the House to consider first of all the grounds open which this
Bill was now attempted to be sustained. The Hon. Gentle-
man who had just addressed-the House could not show to him
that the practice was contrary to the law; on the contrary, he
would say, that according to the law of the land every person
had a right to set spring guns on his premises. If it were un-
lawful to do so, then he did not know what was lawful ; for it
had been decided over and over again, by every Judge of the
King's Bench, that as to the setting of spring guns there was
no illegality. Upon that ground, therefore, he should vote
against this Bill ; because it proceeded upon what was entirely
a mistaken view of the law. The Bill itself was altogether un-
intelligible. Its preamble and its clause, were inconsistent,
and, considering the manner in which Bills which *cre sent
up by the House of Commons to the other House were spoken
of, he certainly could not refrain remarking upon the mode in
which this Bill, the production of that other House, was
framed ; and he thought it was very necessary, after this spe-
cimen, to consider how the Bills which came from that House
were shaped. The accidents which had been stated, and all
the mischiefs that he had heard of, as arising from these
spring guns, bad always happened in the day time : the extent,
therefore, to which lie would concede to his lion. Friend (Mr.
Tennison) was this, that persons should be prevented from set-
ting them during the clay; but by their being set at night, lie
considered that so far from their producing evil in any degree
equivalent to the good which they produced by the protection
of property, and the prevention of those desperate fights that
occurred between the gamekeepers and the poachers, who know-
ing there were no spring guns to be apprehended, were fearless
as to the conflicts with the keepers. His Hon. Friend had, in-
deed, recommended a greater number of gamekeepers being
employed ; but the consequence of that was, that it produced
constant fights, where blood was spilt and lives not unfrequently
lost. He could state several instances where persons being un.
willing to make use of spring guns, employed keepers instead ;
the consequence of which was, that every evening the lives of
those men were put in jeopardy by the conflicts that ensued
between them and poachers ; but the moment spring-guns were
set, these nightly affrays ceased. In one case a number of
poachers proposed going to get some game ; and the first ques-
tion was, where should they go. It was then proposed to go
on the lands of a gentleman whom he perfectly well knew; but
the majority said " No ; we must not go there, for there are
spring-guns set on the premises." It was then agreed that they
should go to the lands of a near neighbour of that gentleman,
where no guns were set. The consequence was, an affray took
place with the keepers, in which one of the game-keepers was
wounded ; one of the poachers was also wounded, and another
was taken, and had been since transported. He would repeat,
therefore, that he should, for these reasons, oppose the present
Bill; at the same time he was willing to make it illegal to set
these guns during the day-time.
Sir F. I3URDETT considered that the attempt to protect
property by means of spring-guns was altogether ineffectual,
and that it would be difficult to point out a case where this sys-
tem had had the effect which was aimed at upon those persons
against whom it was directed : it was well known diet they
I were generally innocent persons who euffered by lear,
hear !)—lle begged leave to remark, that previous to the case
which had been recently determined in the King's Bench, there
were not only great doubts as to the legality, of the practice of
setting spring-guns; but the Court of Common Pleas had
actually divided upon the question. Therefore, for the Ho-
nourable Gentleman who last spoke to say there was no doubt
upon the subject as to its legality, was saying too much. And,
if the Honourable Gentleman would read attentively the re-
port of die case to which he bad referred, he would per-
ceive that although the Learned Judges came to that con-
clusion, they came to it very reluctantly; and if the • Hon.
Member would look to the arguments used by them, he would
find a great difficulty in agreeing with the conclusion which
those Learned Judges had drawn from them. In the judg-
ment expressed by Mr. Justice Bailey, it was quite obvious
that he entertained doubts as to the legality of the practice, and
that he considered the practice very inhuman., If too, the prin-
ciple of law, which was quoted by Mr. Justice Best be true,
namely," that no man can do that indirectly which he cannot
do directly, he (Sir F. Burdett) thought the judgment did not
make it appear that that principle did not apply to the
question before the House ; for most undoubtedly the act of
setting a spring gun, by which the life of au-innocent person
might be taken away, was doing that indirectly which could
not be donedirectly. The law of England was so tender of men's
lives, that it would not let any one risk them if they could
preserve their own rights without it. Was it then consistent
with such a principle, that persons might thus blindly and in-
discriminately set engines about their premises, by which any
one who happened, on whatever occasion it might be, to pass
that way, should be shot :dud deprived of life ? It seemed to
him to be a thing perfectly untenable. It did not appear to him
that any person could have a right to do that in the dark and
covertly which he could not do openly. Mr. Justice Brat, in his
judgment, laid it doarenthatelaumanity required in these cases
that the greatest possible notice should be given of the fact that
spring-guns were set, and that the law was consistent with
humanity. But this very admission proved the conclusion to
which that Learned Judge arrived to be erroneous ; for here
not only were persons to whom the fact might have been made
known liable to the danger, but persons who were strangers
to the neighbourhood, and who' had no means of acquiring a
knowledge that guns were set ; children who might be gather-
ing flowers, or old women picking up sticks, neither of
whom might be able to read—were all by the present system
liable to instant death, without any possibility of receiving
any warning of their danger. If, then, no notice could be
given, the right of setting guns could not exist. The pre-
mises not being true, the conclusion drawn from them must fall
to the ground. For the Learned Judges said that a notice was
necessary, and yet they could not show that this notice was
given ; and, therefore, the judgment must be erroneous, as this
was a postulate in the argument that could not be admitted in
point of fair reasoning and sound logic. Chief Justice Abbott
seemed to feel the inhumanity of the practice, but said he was
not called upon to give an opinion upon that point. It ap-
peared, however, to him (Sir F. Burdett), that this was the
only. argument for the consideration of the Court; for if hu-
manity would net admit of such a practice, and if die law would
not sanction inhumanity, it was obvious that the question
which the Learned Judges had to decide resolved itself entirely
into a matter of feeling. But it did not from that judgment
appear that the setting Of spring guns was legal for the pro-
tection of game; that was an argument which did not
seem to have been adverted to by any of the Learned
Judges, who applied themselves only to the question
of right to set guns
,to prevent trespasses On the land,
which was a propriety recognised by law, and not for the
protection of game, which, according to the COLOrnOn law of

England, was not property. This was the great evil, and it
became the Douse to see whether a better system could not be
devised than that Which -was blit little else than the cause of a
constant civil war being kept up -between the rich and poor
classes in the country. If, indeed, it could be shewn that the
intention of these spring guns• were answered, and that the
mischiefs arising from the Game Laws were wholly suppressed
by them, the question Would then be whether it would not be
better to have spring guns than -all the results which flowed
from those laws ? But when it was seen that, notwithstand-
ing these spring guns, all the evils of the Game Laws still
existed, the proof.of which was. obvious enough in the fact,
that there lacked no supply of game in the market, it was clear
that the system did not have the effect it was • said to promote,
and that therefore, as it operated very injuriously to the inte-
rests and even lives of the people, he considered that such a
pernicious system ought immediately to be suppressed.
Mr. W. R. N. COLBORNE opposed the Whatever
might be the fate of this Bill, he was prepared to admire the
humanity of those who supported it, because it caused the de-
struction of human lite, and yet at the same time boasted that
they had always a good organized force ready to turn out against
those who should trespass upon their property, although such a
meeting was well known to be at the peril of their lives. If
the blood which was spilt in these nightly contests could pos-
sibly be compared with-what was spilt by means of spring-guns
(and no one lamented such a fact more seriously than he did),
his conviction was, that the tide of public opinion would not run
so much against the system of protection by the means of guns,
as it possibly did at present.—( Hear !)
Mr. It. GURNEY supported the Bill. It was impossible
that the common law of this country could be brought to prove
the legality of letting such murderous engines as these. Ile
could not refrain Berm expressing his great obligation to the
Noble Lord who originated this measure. That Noble Lord
enjoyed as fine a preserve as any gentleman in the country
without using a single spring-gun ; this spewed that game
might he enjoyed withont these deadly engines.
Lord BINNING approved of the principle of the Bill, which
went to prevent spring.guns being set to preserve genie, but
it also embraced other principles, and was drawn up in so
strange a manner, that it ought to be objected to. The Bill
went to prevent spring-guns being set in nursery gardens and
walled gardens; these were a very different species of property
from that of game, and he thought the public opinion was not
so decided against the setting of guns for the preservation of
property which was essential to life, although they might be
opposed to the Game laws. The bill was, in fact, drawn in so
strange a manner, that he did not know whether it could be
altered in a Committee. If the man who should be injured by,
a spring-gun should die within a year and a day, it was man-
slaughter; but if he should not die, then it was only a misde-
meanor; but then came a clause which enacted that all actions
were to be begun within six months. He must say he thought
this Was a specimen of very blundering legislation, and he was
certainly surprised at it coming as it did from that House, where
they were so very much disposed to criticise whatever came up
to them from this House. Public opinion was very much alive
upon this subject, and he thought the House ought to pay atten-
tion to that opinion ; but sure he was that the people would not
be satisfied with the arguments that had been used to-night
against the principle of the Bill.
Mr. SCA RLETT made some observations in explanation,
as we understood, of the clauses relating to the time for bring-
ing the action ; but his words were inatulible in the gallery.
He confessed it seemed to him very extraordinary that the law
should permit that to be done involuntarily which could not be
done voluntarily. The law of England did not recognise game
as being a property ; and it seemed to him that the use of such
violent means to preserve that which was not property by the
common law, was a great grievance. On the whole, he could
not consider that, for the purpose of preventing poaching, it
was either proper, just, necessary, or humane, to endanger the
lives of innocent persons by setting spring guns for the preser-
vation of game.—(Bear !)—lt was further matter of doubt how
far there existed any right to set such destructive engines, even
to endanger the lives of poachers themselves.
Mr. TENNISON replied. •
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the second reading, $9 I Against it - 27
Majority in favour of the second reading, 12
GARDENA PROTECTION BILL.
The Gardens Protection Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.
ASSESSORS AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Mr. H. TWISS moved that the House do resolve itself
into a Committee of the whole House on the Assessors at
Elections Bill.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. HOBHOUSE said this Bill had been before the House
repeatedly during the last Session and that before; in fact, it
had been almost coeval with his recollection, and the existence
of the present
:Parliament. He could not concur in the pro-
priety of going into a question of such importance as it re-
garded the election laws, at the present late period of the
Session. There was no want of lawyers at elections ; their in.
terfereece was already too extensive on those occasions, and he
was sure they had enough to do with lawyers after elections;
at least that was frequently the case, and had occurred to many
other Hon. Members, if not to himself.—(A laugh.)—He
would merely ask the lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
Twise) why lie had deferred the Bill till the present late period
of the Session, if' it were not through a consciousness of its un-
palatable and unwelcome nature?
Mr. li. TWISS said he had brought the Bill forward at an
early period of the Session, in March last, and he had been
then appealed to by Gentlemen at the side of the House to
which the Hon. Member (Mr. Hobhouse) was such an orna-
ment, for farther delay, in order that the subject might be
farther considered, and receive the benefit of the elucidation
of other lion. Members at the same side of the House, whose
opinions were always so valuable. He had consented, and the
(louse had since been so occupied with important measures,
that it wits impossible to bring the subject before it at an ear-
lier period. lie could not consent to withdraw the Bill with-
out saying that it had failed not through any fault of his ; sod
:thee that the opinion of the House had never been expressed
upon it fairly. The measure-was introduced foar Sessions ago,
which proved he had not attempted to take the House by sur-
prise, and that delays were not always confined and peculiar to
• the Court of Chancery:
The Bill was then withdrawn.
The other Orders of the ll:ty were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

LIST OF THE MAJORITY
On Mr. Tennyson's Motion for the Second Reading of the

...
Spring Gun Bill.
Allan, J. H. Handley, Henry Rice, T. S.
Browne, Dom. Howard H. Russell, Lord J.
J Burdett, Sir F. Hume, J. Sefton, Earl of
Binning, Lord Hutchinson, Hon. Scarlett, J.
Benett, J. C. H. Tulk, C. A.
Hendrick, Lord W. Johnes, J. Trant, W. H.
Corbett, Pantos Lamb, Hon. W. Twiss, Horace
Cooper, R. B. Lockhart, J. J. Wodehouse, Hn. J.
Denman, T. Marjoribanks, S. Wilson, C.
Evans, Wm. Monek, J. B. Wilson, Sir R.
Forbes, Sir C. Mundy, F TELLEItS.
Gurney, Hudson Phillimore, J. Tennyson, C.
Hardinge, Sir H. Plummer, John Hobhouse, J. C.

MINORITY.
Bankes, II enry 'dowdier, J. Townsh end ,lln . H.
Bridges, G. Lushington, S. R. Tremayne, J. H.
Clerk, Sir G. Loraine, Lord Wortley, J. S.
Douglas, J. Manners, Lord R. Wilson, T.
FeHowes, W. If. Milbank, M. Wigram, W.
Gordon' nom W. Percy, Hon. W. 11. Wharton, J.
Green, Thos. . Ross, C. TELLEAS.
Jolli, 11. Seymour, li. Colborne, N. R.
Lowther, Vise. Somerset, Lord G. Shelley, Sir J.

It was Mr. Lambton. and not Mr. Bankes, jun. who corn.
plained in the House of Commons on Monday evening, of
being misrepresented in the Morning Herald respecting the
Hull Docks IZill. We were led into this error, in common with
several of our contemporaries, owing to the Hon. Member for
the county of Durham not having spoken from his usual seat.

MELANCHOLY StIICIDE.-Yesterday evening an
inquest was held at No. la, Montague-street, Portman-square,
before T. STIRLING, Esq. Coroner, to inquire into the death
of Mrs. Mary Jane Hughford, a maiden lady of advanced age,
who several years
lady past had, with another lady, kept a seminary
of distinguished character at the above house, for the education
of the junior branches of the Nobility and Gentry. The de-
ceased had continued her establishment with great credit
until the present time, but, unfortunately, about- three months
since, a kind of epidemic complaint appeared (said to be the
scarlet fever) and many of the pupils were sent home to avoid
lt-9 contagious effects, which fortunately soon abated ; the eir-
curnstar,tea preyed on thelady's mind, and she imagined her
school would sustain great injury, and gradually declined in
her health, until her mind sank into extreme dejection and set-
tled melancholy. On Sunday morning last, while the family
were preparing for church, a servant coming down stairs, hear-
ing a strange noise in a closet, opened the door, and her mis-
tress tumbled forward, bleeding profusely from the neck, and in
each hand was
tightly grasped a penknife.; the family, on the
alarm sent for Mr. Smith, surgeon, of Upper Seymour-street,
but his aid could avail nothing ; the unfortunate lady had too
well effected her object; the wounds on her neck were despe-
rately extensive, themain arteries being completely severed—,
She instantly expired. Evidence was given to prove the lady's
state of mind for some time past, and the Jury, which was high.
1 ly respectable, rettuned a verdict qt." Ptaniti." ..