Star.
London, England, 1828-04-03 00:00:00

OFFENCES AGAINST THE'TiEKSON BILL.

On the motion of she =Marquis of LANSDOWN, the
House resolved itselfinto a Committee uron this Bill.
Tee Noble-. Marquis would state very shortly to the
Committee, that he had some further amendments to
propose, which, with the exception of one to which he
would presently advert, were merely verbal, and con-
sequential upon the former amendments which had been
introduced. The amendment to which he had adverted
of a substantial nature, was an amendment upon the
amendment which had, very properly, been introduced
by the Noble and Learned Lord, the Chief Justice of the
King's Bench. The object of that amendment of the
Noble and Learned Lot d's was to alter the statute com-
monly known by the name of Lord Ellenborough's
Act, so far as to mitigate the punishment in the case of
person attempting to kill, and relenting prior to the
lull execution of his purpose." By the amendment as it
at present stood, this mitigation would apply, in the case
supposed, to all attempts to commit murder except by
poison. The reason why the case of poisoning
was excluded was, that the Noble and Learned Lord
had supposed that it was impossible for an oppor-
tunity for relenting to be afforded in the progress of
this crime. He (the Noble Marquis) had bestowed
much con.id ration on the subject, and he was fully
convinced that the opportunity to relent might be
allot Jed in the progress of this crime to its comple.ion,
and that it did not in this respect form an exception to
the other modes of attempting tl kill. He had been
present at a very re mat kable vial at Paris, that of Mon-
sieur Carstaign, where it was proved that the prisoner
had attempted to murder his ftiend by the gradual ad-
ministration of small doses of acetate sof memphin 4, and
that previous to his death, which did in tact ensue, the
prisoner had repented of his intention. This was enough
to show that there was no good reason why poisoning
should be excluded from the class of cases in which a
distinction might be made between the incohate and the
completed offence. He had explained the object of hi.
Amendment; but as he had not ha i the opportunity of
consulting the Noble and Learned Lord, who was not
now present, he would not move it until JO-Morrow.—
He hoped tbeit Lordships would not Lbject to the Re-
port being received to-morrow, as it was his intention
to move the third reading of the Bill on the first day
after the adjournment. The v, hal amendments were
agreed to, and the House then r Aimed.
The Law Of Evidence Amendment Bill went through a Com-
mittee.

The Haute then adjourned at HALF rase Su o'cLocic.
HOUSE OF COMNIONS.

Mr. Caavaa, from the Treasury, presented various Returns re
lating to the Importation of Foreign Wool, which were ordered to
be laid upon the table.
11r. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from the Inhabi-
tants of Whitechapel, in favour of the East London Rail Road Act.
—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Secretary HUSK ISSON presented a Petition from certain
inhabitants of Liverpool against the Ayr and Calder Canal MIL—
Referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Mr. J. GRATTAN presented a Petition from certain Proprie.
ton of the Hibernian Joint Stock Company, praying that the said
Company might not be dissolved.—The Petition was ordered IQ
be laid upon the table.
Mr. W. BURRELL presented a Petition from the Trustees of
the Horsham Road, praying that a Public Bill might be passed for
maintaining the said road. The Honourable Member said, he
would take that opportunity to complain of the enormous ex-
pense attending the passing of Private Bills through the House of
Commons.
Mr. LITTLETON said, the expense of witnesses and solicitors
In attending the Committees might be very easily diminished.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY supported the Petition.
Mr._Secretary HUSK ISSON thought it would be a great im-
provement if the parties to a Bill were not to be brought before the
House a second time, unless they asked for new powers.
The Petition wait read and ordered to be printed.
Mr. LITTLETON gave notice that be should on Tuesday, the
15th inst. submit certain Resolutions to the House on the subject.—
The same Hon. Member presented a Petition from Hanley, in the.
Staffordshire Potteries, complaining that the Small Beer Breweries
in that neighbourhood were converted into dialing houses, from
which much inconvenience arose. The Petitioners prayed that

. .
parish constables and overseers might have a concurrent jurisdiction
with excise officers, in laying information against such brewers. It
would be easy to remedy the inconvenience complained of, if the
Member for Oxford (Mr. Estcourt) would add a clause to the Bill,
granting to the Petitioners and ethers similarly circumstanced the
powers they sough: for.
Mr. ESTCOU KT doubted whether any remedy could properly
be introduced into his measure, and mentioned that in the cider
counties he had been informed that the same disorders prevailed,
from the little contrail eserciscd over the shops where that beverage
was retailed. _ _

Sir T. 1). ACLAND said similar abuses existed in the small
eider boosts of Devonshire, which bad become the resort of
panthers and other irregular characters. He had a Petition to pre-
sent to the House on the subject from the Publicans of that county.
Mr. HUME hoped the House would not listen to the sugges-
tions of any Honourable Members, or any ether persons, to repeal
the Act, which the House would recollect bad been Introduced by
the Late Chancellor of the &duper, with the object of terminating
the monopoly previously enjoyed by the great brewers.
Mr. M ABER LY took a similar view of the subject, and opposed
the Petition, hoping the House would not increase the penalties to
which the parties in question were already subject.
Mr. LITTLETON assured the House that there was not the
name of a single publican attached to the Petition.
Mr. CA LCRA FT was opposed to the renewal of the old
,pe-
nalties.—The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Secretary HUSKISSON presented a Petitien from certain
owuers of houses in the town of Liverpool, praying for an alters-
don in the law of landlord and tenant.
After a few words from Mr. TINNISON, the Petition way ordered
to be printed.
The same Right Honourable Gentleman then presented a N-
I don (very numerously signed) front the inhabitants of Liverpool,
praying that the duty on tecelpt stamps should be repealed. The
Right Honourable Gentleman lamented that it was not la his
power to hold out to his constituents an expectation that the prayer
of their Petition could, In the present state of the public revenue,
be complied with.
Mr. CA LCRA FT thought it would be &Remit to find a substi-
tute foe the tax in govatios, and that therefore, it would be inex-
pedient to repeal it.
The Petition was ordered to be printed. •
Sir T. D. ACLAND presented a Petition front the Licensed
Victuallers of Tiverton, in the county of Deem, against Cider
Sbojat..-Skdered to be printed.
Mr. FARQUHAR presented Petitions front the Hammermen,
Fleshers, Screw-makers, Wrights, Tailors, Masons, and other Cor-
porations of the Royal &ash of Dunfermline, praying for the re-

peal of the Test and Corporation Acts. These Petitions were
4everAlly unlered to he printed.
Sir J. GRAHAM presentetk a similar Petition from South
Shields.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the Forfarshire and
Perthshire Fire Insurance Company, praying for a reduction of the
Stamp Duty on Policies of Insurance.--Ordered to be printed.
The same Honourable Member presented a Petition from the
Dean and Guild of Montrose against Receipt Stamps. He thought
the inconvenience complained of might be got rid of by an in-
creased scale on Receipts above a certain sum. He understood
that the traders of London would be willing to compound for all
sums under sixpence.
Mr. CA LCII A FT said that Scotland had no right to complain,
as, by the admission of the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Hume), they
were in the habit of evading the law there.
Sir J. NEW PORT said, under present circumstances, this tax
could not be got rid of without a substitute. He concurred with
his Honourable Friend who spoke last, that those who were in the
habit of evading the law came before the House as petitioners with
a bad grace.
Mr. HUME denied that the Petitioners were In the habit of
evading the law. He admitted no such thing. They merely took
advantage of a defect in the law, to remedy which a measure had
been brought into the House.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from Burden, in Staf-
fordshire, praying for an alteration in the Retail Brewers Act.—
Ordered
to Be on the table.