Star.
London, England, 1821-05-05 00:00:00

MOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. CURWF.Nprviented a Petition from certain individuals,
inhabitants of \tigtou, in Cumber Land, praying a revision of the
Criminal Code.

Mr. S. BOURNE presented a Petition from the Vestry of St.
George's, Hanover-square, praying that in the Rill now pending
for regulating the office and duties of Magistrates in the letro-
polls, Mille provision might be introduced to put an end to the
nuisance arising from persons hawking goods and blowing horns
through the streets almost night and day.
A new Writ was ordered for Andover, in the room of T.
Asirros Smits', Esq.
Petitions were presented from Renfrew, Padstow, and 'eve.
ral other places, praying a revision of the Criminal Code.
Similar Petitions were also presented from Bristol.
A Petition was presented from the Watermen of London,
against the London Wharfs Bill.
Mr. A BERCRO}IIiI I:. presented a Petition from Kidder-
minster, praying a revision of the Criminal Laws.
Mr. SIIA %V presented .s rctitioti, signed by upwards of :WO

Mr. P. MOORE said, he held in his hand a Peti-
tion from an individual named Fleming, complaining
of some reflections which had been cast on his cha-
racter by an Hon. Member of the House, in the
course of a discussion which took place on a Petition
being presented on a former night.
The SPEAKER said, it must be obvious to the
Honourable Member, that as the Petition referred to
what had been said within the walls of the House, it
could, not, consistent with the valuable privilege of
freedom of speech, granted to the House at the com-
mencement of every Session, be received.
After a few words- from Mr. P. MOORE and the
SPEAKER, the Petition was withdrawn.
Mr. MACKENZIE, alluding to something said
by the Member for Shrewsbury on a former night.
which he said reflected on some high official charac-
ters in Scotland, said he was convinced the Honour-
able Member could not have intended any such re-
flection, but must have been misunderstood.

Mr. BENNETT disclaimed any intention of re-
flecting on the individuals alluded to by the Honour-
able Member.

General GASCOYNE presented a Petition from
Liverpool, praying a revision of the Criminal Laws.
Mr. PETER MOORE gave notice that he would,
on a future day, again bring forward Mr. Fleming's
Petition.

Mr. S. COOPER asked on what day?
Mr. P. MOORE said, he could fix no day until
he had consulted with the party.
Mr. BENNETT presented a Petition from an indi-
vidual, an Officer in the Marines, complaining of
great hardships, in being denied promotion, &c.
Mr. CROKER defended the conduct of the Lords
of the Admiralty.
Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from cer-
tain Merchants of the Chamber of Commerce at
Manchester, on the subject of the comparative duties
on East and West India Sugars, and praying relief
for the West India grower.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. EAR
HAM, and Mr. RICARDO said a few words on the

subject.
Mr. BENNETT said, here was another mania
rising. We had not yet got the better of the Timber
Duties, and now here was a new proposition, to pro-
tect the West India grower at the expense of the
People. He never would sit silent and hear such
doctrines advanced. He would stand up for the
Public against such systems, whether they were for
the benefit of the West India grower, importer, or
dealer in human blood and human esh (call them
what you would) ; or the timber grower, or land-
owner, or any other class who desired to set up pri-
vate interests against public good.
Mr. GORDON defended the West India Mer-
chants from the attack made on them by his 11(
nourable Friend, who might as well have spared his
epithet of dealers in human flesh and human blood.
Such epithets would not apply to the sugar growers
of the present day.
Mr. BARHAM defended the sugar growers. He
would ask his Honourable Friend how he could jus-
tify himself for having described the West India
merchants as persons having invested their capital
in human blood and human flesh ? He was sure the
Honourable Member's own conscience would con-
demn him for the expression he had used; and he
expected the Honourable Member would correct
what he had said.

Mr. BERNAL was surprised that his Honourable
Friend had suffered his warmth to get the better of
his good sense, and allow himself to use the expres-
sion he had done, which was unjust and inapplicable;
and he trusted his Honourable Friend would hand-
somely unsay what he had said, which could only tend
to excite a prejudice against the West India proprietor.
Mr. BENNETT intended no reflection on any of
his Honourable Friends, who had thus attacked him;
but he could not retract the opinion he had given--
that the general system of slavery was one of cruelty.
Mr. GORDON. said, since his Honourable Friend
would not retract what he had said, he wished him
in future not to speak on subjects which he could not
possibly understand !—(Hear, hear! and laughter).
Sir H. WILSON thought the existence of the Slave
Trade at all was a disgrace to this country.
Dr. LUSHINGTON supported the arguments of
Mr. Bennett, and contended that the system of slavery
must be a system of cruelty.—Petition received.
Lord STANLEY then presented a Petition from
Rochdale, praying the interference of the House to
put an end to the practice of Bull-baiting.
Mr. B. WILBRAHAM supported the Petition,
which was received.