The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. JAMES presented& Petition from certain inhabitants
of the parish of St. Pancras, cmplaining of the borough
system. and praying for a radical reform in the representa•
tten.—Laid on the table.
General PIIIPPS presented a Petition from the ship-own-
ers of Scarborough against the Reciprocity of !Mies' Bill.
—Ladd on the table. _ . .

Mr. CURTER; gave notice that he would, in the course of
next Session, Introduce a Bill for repealing the law which
places distinctive marks on hop sacks.
Mr. A. BARING presented a Petition from au individual
named Edmund Townsend, complaining of the operation of
the Bankrupt Laws.
Mr. J. SMITH trick that opportunity to express his re-
gret that the measure respecting the alteration of those laws,
which was before the House, was not likely to be completed
this Session.
Lord A. HAMILTON expressed his opinion that some al-
teration was necessary. The Petition was ordered to lie on
the table, and to be printed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a Petion from the ship-
owners of Whitby. in the county of York, against the Reci-
procity of Duties' Bill—Laid on the table.
SALE Ole G A E BILL.
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved the Order: e f the Day for the
further consideration of the Report on this Bill, for the pur-
pose of postponing it. The lion. Member said he should
postpone the subject till the next Session. •He wished, how-
ever, to take this opportunity of stating that his object was
to giveto each individual the right to kill game on his own
estate. Yet, at the same time, he desired that there should
be certain checks provided by the Legislature respecting the
sale of game.
After a few words from Mr. R. COL.BORNE, Colonel
DAVIES, and Mr. TENNYSON, the motion was agreed
to, and the Report was ordered to be taken into further con-
sideration that day three months.
Mr. P. MOORE presented a Petition from the ribbon-
o: Coventry, praying for a repeal of the Spital-
Acts.—Laid on the table.
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW gave notice, that early in the
next SRllliOll he would introduce a Biti for the repeal of the
Usury Laws.
Mr. 11. G. BENNET expressed his hope that the Hon.
and Leaned Member would introduce the Bill at as early a
period as possible.
Mr. HUME presented a Petition from an individual
named Milford. praying for an inquiry into the state of
private madhouses. Tne Petitioner stated that he h
had access to a nue of these establishments, and had pub-
lished a book, exposing the mal-practices that prevailed in
them.

Mr. HOIMOUSE supported the prayer of the Petition.
Mr. BROIJOrIAki bore testimony to the proper conduct
Of Dr. Warburton, in theilischerge of his duties, at the head
of an establishment for insane persons. Ile did not by any
means wish to close life doors against those petitions, but
the House ought to receive the complaints of individuals
with many grains. of allowance, and not give credit too
lightly to such eases as tile present. Ile saw lately a state-
ment, professing to be an accounl of the horrors of mad-
' houses —a statement which was a disiernce to the press of
this country, and merited his must un ivaiiOel disapproba-
tion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he could not consent to an in-
quiry with a view to an,tlisli private madhouses. Ile was
sure the statements alleging abuses in them were often tulle
and gonerall exaggerate i. Kook+ were often Ida into his
own hands, containing lithographic drawings of persons tor-
tared by the keepers; but on inquiry he found that there was
no truth in those representations. lie thonght that private
madhouses, under proper regulations, very useful inctitu.
don*, and would be preferred by many to the public chari-
table asylum'.
Alr. 0. RENNET said he wished for inquiry, with a view
to further regulations- lie saw the petitioner, and he knew
from his own inquiries, that several of the facts scaled 40 the
, book which was published by hint were.% ithout any 'wand,.
don in, truth. ny hoped Dr. Warbarton would take iamb
steps to prowl& thripartles eptlcerao I in that publicalin

kN. ,

for othrgwlse be could not with clean hinds coma bet** a
Court of Inquiry.
Mr. W. %YYNN held that s'verel exaggerated elatementa
atme to hie Diva knowledire. Tae subject 'demanded Impe-
riously the attention of Parliament. On a former occasion
Ma Howse sodt up to the dthei Roue of Paillasestailll

for fluffier regulatiobs of those Houses ; but It, for some res-
ult*, another, was rrjeeted. Those private houses were
%Maul, but the system of iospectioa already established was
not sufficiently efficacious.
The petition was then read, anti after a few words from
Mr. !WISE and Mr. BROUGHAM, wet ordered to .be
printed.
SLAVERY.
Petitions against Slavery were presented by Mr. HOH.
HOUSE ((or Mr. Lambtou) from the Inhabitants of Ches.
trr-le-street, in the comity of Durham, and by Mr. W.
SMITH, from the inhabitants of Alton, near Southampton.
—Laid ob the table.

ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. HOBIROUSE presented a petition Dom the inhabi-
tants of the parish of St. Ann. Westminster, praying for a
total repeal of the Assessed Taxes: He was aware that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could net for the present gofer
that tat to he remitted, but be hoped he waled take It into
his eonalderstion before the next Session of Parliament, and
propose that among other taxes to be remitted. He had on
a former night asked whether all short windows were not to
ItseXemptirons tea, end he then understood from the lion.
Secretary to thaTreesury that such was the Intention; bet
he found since that only the street windows of the gimps
were Dee; sad that ad back windows were still liable. One
instance which be gave, was the shop of a hooter/Mein
Charing-cross, to the three back windows of which the re- j
mission was not extended.
The CH %NCEI.LOtt of the EXCHEQUER was ander•
stood to Bey he woul I inquire into the case.—The petition
was then read. and ordered to be printed.
I.6r4MILTON presented a petition from William Sepys,
a atilmneyyreep, preying the House to rescue from misery
thousands of helpless children, —l.ais the ratite.
COMtIINATION LAWS.
Mr. W. SMITH presented 6 petition from I.4oo.ionnwer
men weevers and other persons of that description. Inhabi-
tants of Wyverton, in the county of Norfolk, praying for a
repeal*of the Combination Laws.—Ordered to he orinted.
The same Hon. Member presented i similar petitlon,sign-
rat by 6,730 at k wearers and other persons of respectability
In the city bf Norwich.
Mr.'P. MOORE said. those petitions were the result
of the Bill, which he had brought into the Hoose. If
the House were to sits few weeks longer, they would hive
thousands of such petitions. To the people of Norwich
he sent the first mug of his Bill thst was printed, and
that petition 15 cards long was the consequence. His'
Bill was of vast importance to Norwich, London, and
m inufactnring towns. • He was sorry that the Hon.
Slember fur Yorkshire was desirous that the Bill for the
repeal of those Combination Laws should be postrned.
His object in introducing that Bill tart° diminish the
'pone rates, and to get his Majesty's Ministers ten of
difficulties in which they did not see their wig. They
wished for time to consider the expetlieley of his Bill,
and to take the sense of the country en it. The sense of
the country was already known, and the discussion of the
Bill in that House nii.fht be cdnelailiql in one day. If
'Ministers were not disposed to past theßill that Session,
at least they ought to let it piss the • second reading, end
then let it is *before a Counitiree op stairs, so as to be
prepared to enact it inte a law next N..ssiod. •
The petition was then read aail ordered to be printed.
A petition was presenW from-the Ship-oWiirraof New-
castle-upon-Tyne, against the Reciprocity of Duties Bill.
—Laid on the table.

Sir•JANI ES MACINTOSH postponed. to a future day
a question, of which he hid given notice, in consequeree
of the absence of the Right lion. Secretary for the
Foreign Department:—(llr. Cattning entvrech the House
'soon after.)
*VOW!' :I IatIES BILL.
Mr: KENNEDY moved the flt rid reading of this Bill'',
Lord BINNING opposed it. Ile'objected to tie
4ng of Juries by ballot, which was one of, the .principles
.of the Bill. He thought that poser should not be taken
from the Judges, who had hitherto used it with so muck
discretion. He did state substantially the objections he.
4sad to the Bill, and he would implore the House not to
sanction the principle of so vile an innovation as it eon-
/tatned. He denied On be opposed all improvement in
the condition of the Criminal Law in Scotland ; but the
present was so serious an innovation, that he would de-
. etdedly vote aping it.
Mr. A lIEBLROM BY ,said, as the Bill was already
sufficiently discussed, he would not occupy the time of
the House upon it at aay length. The power of peremp.
tory challenge given by the Bill of last year, atfmrled
the Wiest security against any evils arising front the
system of ballot. He regretted that the Noble Lord
did not state his particular objections. lie also re-
gretted that lie did not express the Caine objections to
a ballot in the Committee. His propositions might
then hare had a full and fair discussion, but lie was
at present tun law, and let slip the opportunity which
the Committee gore. He concluded by supporting the Bill.
Mr. PEEL said, the real question was, whether the
Bill was a wise experiment in altering the Criminal Laws
of Scotland. Now, for his part, he was ready to admit
that he did not approre of it; and he was certain that the
Hon. mover would. before two Sessions, find that his
views would be mistaken. He objected to the plan of
alphabetical arrangement, es it would have the effect of
lacing jurors of the same name on the panel in particu-
lar
districts. There were many other objections to the
Bill, which ought to make the Hon. Gentleman pause
a little before be precipitated a Bill of so much import-
ance, affecting the lives and properties of aarliole nation.
For these reasons he would oppose the third reading of
the Bill.
Sir J. MACINTOSH was 'surprised at the time and
the mode of t: e Bight Hon. Gentleman's opposition.—
There was no apprehension of any danger from party
animosities, as local feuds had subsided altogether.—
There was no dangerof putting, a number of people of the
same name on the panel. The authority of the public
prosecutor and his deputies might always be interposed
in case of any apprehension of a partial Jury. The Noble-
Lord should have stated his objections to a ballot in the
Committee, and not have waited till the pre ent time,
when the sanction of the House had been so often given
to the principle.
Mr. CANNING said, that it was too much to expect
that because an Hon. Member had not opposed a certain
part of the Bill in the Committee, that he was to be de-
prived of all opportunity of doing soon the third reading..
So far as his memory went, the Noble Lord did oppose a
ballot in the Committee, and on the second reading of the
Bill professed the same opposition.
M. KENNEDY briefly. replied.
Mr. FEEL explained.
Mr. FORBES said that he would support the Bill.
The House then divided, ivhen there appeared—For the
third reading. 60—Against it, 56—Majority, 4:
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
(In one return to the gallery, we found the Home de.
bating on the third rea.iing of the