Customs Consolidalion Bill. [1244 performance of his duties in that office, and not, as at present, derive his salary from another and a subordinate situation, where his duty was scarcely more than chancellor of the Exchequer would take the case of his hon. colleague into serious those of a paymaster. He trusted the consideration. tion of the modifications which had been Mr. T. Wilson expressed his approbaintroduced. He had not, perhaps, adopted the ideas of free trade quite so rapidly fident that, by surrendering some apparent as some other gentlemen; but he felt conadvantages, we should ultimately derive solid benefit from the course of policy which the government was pursuing. advantageous to the West Indies if facilities were afforded to the introduction of the Mr. Bright suggested that it would be productions of the warmer climates. He instanced almonds, grapes, and currants, which he had no doubt would thrive in the of commerce, at present confined to the West Indies; and thus a valuable branch countries bordering the Mediterranean, might be transferred to our own colonies. He thought, also, that the matting of the West Indies, instead of being charged at 20 per cent, should be much reduced. would have seen clearly what his object | ceived, to be liberally rewarded for the was. He had come forward to relieve the commerce of the country, and he divided the subject into two parts. In the first place, his proposition respected the colonial interest: and his second proposition had reference to the expediency of revising the scale of duties on manufactures, &c., and of relaxing those prohibitory, or, as they were called, protecting duties. Of course, the right hon. gentleman could not immediately say what amount of relaxation should ultimately be extended to each manufacture. would take up more than one, two, or That three years. The right hon. gentleman had submitted his plan in March last; and now, having, in the mean time, given the question every consideration in his power, he stated to the House what he conceived to be at present a fair relaxation. The hon. baronet approved generally of what had been done, but he had an exception. When he came to Irish linen, he supported the protecting duty of 25 per cent, while cotton was protected in a trifling degree. It was entirely a question of expediency as to the time when, and the extent to which, those different duties should be reduced. The hon. baronet had observed, that no reduction had been made beyond 30 per cent; whereas, he would find that duties, amounting to 120, and even 180 per cent, had been greatly reduced. The right hon. gentleman had the reason why he had not reduced the The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, deviated from his original plan in two or export duty on coals would apply equally three instances. Linen was one of them; but he had here only deviated with respect the imprudence of attempting to deal with to a number of other articles; namely, to time. In glass, paper, and barilla, some alteration had been made. every thing at once. possible that the right hon. gentleman the present law, all coals carried coastwise But, was it introduced a very material alteration. By He had, however, could go through the whole trade of this great commercial country, and decide at proposed, in the schedule, to reduce this once what should be done? When the duty to 1s. on coals of a particular dimenwere chargeable with a duty of 6s.; he whole interest of the country was at stake, sion. There was a great quantity of coals ought he not to act with caution? And of a small size, which could not pay this yet, after all, he had deviated in a very heavy duty, and which was consequently trifling degree. No man could have had consumed at the pit's mouth. more to struggle with than the right been urged that if these coals were brought hon. gentleman in the course of this pro- into consumption they would be found it had ceeding, and no man could be more enti- extremely useful, partly in manufactures, tled to the thanks of the country for the and partly for the consumption of the manner in which he had met the interests poorer classes. of different parties, or for the soundness of conversation on this subject with a numof the views he had promulgated. The ber of persons, and among others, profes He had had a great deal hon. gentleman concluded by pronouncing sor Buckland, who recommended the alteran eulogium on the Board of Trade. The ation now introduced. He flattered him— right hon. gentleman who presided over self with the hope of carrying the princithat important department, and whose la-ple still further; but he was afraid of hav bours were gratuitous, ought, he con- ing too many irons in the fire, lest he tion of the export duty on coals. After some further conversation, the resolutions were agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 20. SHOOTING AND STABBING (SCOTLAND) BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, should not be able to get some of them | there was no man more unwilling than he out. If parliament should hold its hand was to extend the penal code of the counfor the present, he was sure they would try; and he was sure, if gentlemen condo ten thousand times more good than nected with Glasgow were then present, by following the precipitate course which they would state the fact, that for three some hon. gentlemen recommended. He years past he had refused all applications trusted that the day would soon arrive, to resort to the present measure. But when no article in the schedule would the scenes which had occurred in the west stand at too high a duty for the commer- of Scotland for a considerable time comcial interests of the country. pelled him, however reluctantly, to legislate on this subject; and he felt convinced that he could not devise an adequate remedy for this evil, if this clause was not introduced. Much information would be found on this subject in the evidence given before the committee on the combination laws. He held in his hand two certificates from Dr. Corkendale of Glasgow, detailing the deplorable state to which two workmen had been reduced, in consequence of sulphuric acid having been thrown in their faces. Several persons were tried for this offence, and sentenced to transportation; but that punishment had not the effect of diminishing the crime. Every clause of lord Ellenborough's act applied to this case. If a man were cut in the slightest degree with a sharp instrument, he was liable to the penalty of death for the act; and surely there could be no comparison between a slight injury of that kind, and the misery which an individual must suffer when vitriolic acid was thrown in his face. The man who inflicted a wound, might have had the knife in his hand, by chance, at the moment; but, when vitriolic acid was flung on an individual, it must have been purchased for that diabolical purpose. If this clause were thrown out, he would withdraw the bill altogether. In cases of shooting and stabbing, the probability was, that the person injured, or some passing individual, could give evidence as to the hand that inflicted the wound; but where vitriolic acid was made use of, such precautions were taken as rendered it extremely difficult to procure evidence. It did not however follow, that though the offence was capital, capital punishment would always be inflicted. A discretionary power was left in the hands of the judge. Neither was it intended that this should be a permanent measure. It was meant to confine it to five years; at the expiration of which time he hoped the necessity for it would have ceased. Mr. J. P. Grant said, he had no objection to the extension of lord Ellenborough's act to Scotland; but the bill now went a great deal further, and created, in the last clause, quite a new law. It was there enacted, that if any person threw vitriolic acid on the person of another, for the purpose of doing him any bodily harm, that act should be deemed a capital offence. This provision was introduced in consequence of certain proceedings that had recently taken place in Glasgow. Vitriolic acid, it appeared, had been thrown on the clothes, and sometimes on the persons, of individuals who refused to join the workmen in their unlawful proceedings. It was fit that this practice should be put down; but the way to put it down was not by enacting a penalty at which the public mind revolted. There was, too, a strange anomaly in this bill. By lord Ellenborough's act it was provided, that if A fired a pistol with intent to kill or maim B, and that, in doing so, he missed his object, and killed or maimed C, he should be subjected to the penalty of death, just as if he had succeeded in his original intention. But here, if A threw vitriolic acid at B, and deprived C of sight, he was not liable to the penalty, since it was only the absolute act, and not the intent, that was punished; and he believed that there would not be found in the legislation of this or of any other country a measure which did not visit the intent with punishment, except where it succeeded. He should therefore move the third reading this day six months. The Lord Advocate of Scotland said, Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was about to suggest to the learned lord the propriety of restricting the measure to a cer tain period. He was happy to find that the learned lord saw the subject in the same point of view; because he felt that it was due to the moral character of the people that the bill should be temporary. Mr. Hume said, that the forbearance shown by the learned lord, when he was called on to legislate on this subject, did him the greatest credit; and any hon. member who looked to the evidence taken before the committee on the Combination laws, would see that the best possible results had been attained by that forbearance. Mr. J. P. Grant said, that as this was to be a temporary measure, he was willing to withdraw his opposition. The bill was read a third time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 21. was, to inquire if there was ground for the House to address the Crown to remove an individual from a judicial office. It must first, however, be determined, whether or not the House would enter on the inquiry. If they agreed to summon witnesses, that would be at once to determine that they would inquire. It was due to the individual, and to the importance of the precedent which would be established, to consider what were the grounds for such a proposition. He thought that if the learned gentleman would embody his charges on paper, it would give the individual accused the power of more satisfactorily replying to them. At any rate the motion for summoning witnesses ought to be postponed until the papers were printed. Mr. S. Bourne wished only to give Mr. Kenrick the advantage which the meanest offender would have before the lowest magistrate; namely, that of having the charge specifically stated, with a proper opportunity to be heard in his defence. Mr. Abercromby said, that there were two propositions which no man would dispute. First, that the House ought not prematurely to go into the inquiry; secondly, that they ought not to proceed in it without furnishing the accused with a knowledge of the charge to be preferred against him. But both of those objects had been already attained. The first was effected by the petition of Canfor, which contained the whole matter of the charge. As to the second, a friend of Mr. Kenrick's bad stood up in his place in that House, and stated, that it was his anxious desire that there should be full and prompt inquiry. The only question left for the House was, how soon they ought to go CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK.] Mr. Denman said, that as the papers respecting Mr. Kenrick's case were now before the House, he wished to give notice, that he would submit a motion for bringing to the bar, on Friday next, five witnesses, to give evidence of the allegations against Mr. Kenrick. The letter, not yet printed by the House, was that which was published by Mr. Kenrick in a Lincoln paper, and was inconsistent with the facts as developed in the affidavits before the court of King's-bench, as well as with the statements of all the other parties. When these witnesses were examined, then he should have done all that could be reasonably expected of him; for of it he knew nothing except from these sources. It had been intimated, that he ought to bring forward a written charge. But, how could he do so without imputing a legal offence? All the written evidence which he could adduce was, the letter which re-into it? The petition of Canfor was beflected so strongly upon John Franks. That letter, together with the statements of the witnesses, was of such a nature as, if uncontradicted, was calculated to make out a strong case of malversation, partiality, and oppression, against Mr. Kenrick. Should that prove to be the case, it would remain for the House to decide what course they ought to take. At present, he should merely move, "That John Franks and Esther his wife, Edward Arnold, Henry Peters, esq., and Martin Money Canfor, do attend this House upon Friday next." Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that the object of the hon. and learned gentleman. fore them: affidavits had been prepared by Mr. Kenrick for another place. If evidence were necessary, the House would hear and dispose of it. But, of all cases he had ever known, this was the clearest; and Mr. Kenrick himself courted prompt inquiry. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he did not speak in reference to Mr. Kenrick, but to the forms of the House, and the principles of justice. The House had not determined on inquiry. The learned gentleman might, between this and Friday, reduce his charge to a specific form in writing. Mr. Wynn said, it was the duty of the House to take care that the accused should have ample knowledge of the charge, which ought to be reduced to writing and handed to him. If the charge affected the party in his judicial capacity, it must be reduced to form in writing. In the case of baron Page, the complaint against him was ordered by the House to be reduced to writing by his accuser, and a copy was ordered to be furnished to him. The House could then decide if there was, primâ facie, a sufficient ground of charge to merit further inquiry. Mr. Tierney said, if he understood rightly, there was no charge against Mr. Kenrick as judge, but only as magistrate. If the charge affected him as a judge, then undoubtedly it must be reduced to writing; but the petition, which really contained the charge, only affected him as a justice of the peace. His learned friend did not make any charge; he only presented the petition. It was an odd way of going to work to fix the responsibility upon a member of instituting, by a settled form of his own, a charge contained in a petition; when they ought rather to choose to hear the petitioner themselves, that in case of his not making his charge good, he might be made answerable. What his learned friend proposed was, that the petitioner should be heard. In the event of proving his charge, it would become the duty of the House to address the Crown for removing Mr. Kenrick from the commission of the peace. Then it would afterwards become a question, how far it could be proper to retain a man in the office of a judge, who was found unfit for the magistracy. The Solicitor General said, that if the motion was agreed to, the House would be going into evidence, without having before it the matter to which the evidence applied. Mr. Brougham was surprised at the doctrine laid down, that a complaint was not to be entertained, unless the House cramped itself by an impeachment or a written charge. He had understood, that the proposition of his learned friend was grounded in parliamentary enactment, and that this mode of proceeding was a statutory provision to enable the House, in particular cases, to do something which was not so light as a mere complaint, nor so weighty as an impeachment. There had been already two instances of this same kind of proceeding in this session, and yet no demand had been made of a VOL. XIII. charge reduced to writing. The first was against the duke of Manchester; the second against lord Charles Somerset. Inquiry was, in this case, necessary. They might have to impeach. But just now the House was not called on to exert its judicial, but its inquisitorial functions. He had long known Mr. Kenrick professionally, and he did hope that he would be able to clear himself of the charge: but the House must inquire, and it must not be hampered. Mr. Denman consented to withdraw his motion. After which, it was ordered, 1. "That the matter contained in the petition of Martin Money Canfor be taken into consideration upon Friday next.-2. That a copy of the said petition, together with the above order, be communicated to Mr. Kenrick.-3. That Martin Money Canfor do attend this House upon Friday next.-4. That Mr. Kenrick have leave to attend this House, by himself or counsel, on Friday next." UNITARIANS TOLERATION ACT.] Mr. W. Smith rose, to present a petition signed by a small number of individuals who were, however, well known and of great respectability, complaining of the situation in which they were placed by the present state of the existing laws affecting the profession of certain religious opinions. He had heard that it had been stated in a very high quarter in another House, in respect to the laws affecting the Unitarians, that before any act could be passed for relieving them from the operation of particular statutes, it would be well that some bill should be passed previously, to protect them from the penalties to which they were still subject at common law. At the same moment, and from the same high and learned quarter, there proceeded an appeal which it was impossible not to perceive to be directed and addressed to him (Mr. Smith) personally, and which went to remind him, that at the time a bill which he had been instrumental in carrying through parliament was passed-such bill having for its object to protect Unitarians, in certain cases, from the legal consequences that might attach to the impugning of the doctrine of the Trinity-he had made a declaration to the noble and eminent person in question, whereby he agreed, as to all cases not provided for by such statutes, to leave the Unitarians liable to all the visitations that they might be still 4 L exposed to from the common law. Now, most unquestionably, he had never made such a declaration. On a former occasion, when he was preparing a measure for the further relief of the Unitarians from the obligation of taking certain oaths, he had had an interview with that most reverend and distinguished prelate, the archbishop of Canterbury, for the purpose of explaining to his grace the principle of the bill he was then about to bring into the House. The archbishop of Canterbury, at that time, told him, that if his object was only to remove such penal liabilities as operated to prevent, perhaps, the fair, friendly, and candid discussion of the doctrinal points to which the Unitarians excepted, he was willing to consent to the repeal of those statutes that might be thought to stand in the way of such a discussion; but, of course, not extending this understanding to any denial of Christianity in general, or to blasphemy; both of which he (Mr. Smith) himself proposed to except out of the operation of his bill. The object of his bill, the 3rd Geo. 4th, was simply this-to put Unitarian Dissenters on the same footing, as to the consequences of professing certain peculiar tenets, as all other Protestant Dissenters had been placed by the act of Toleration. Now, it had been clearly stated by lord Mansfield, that unconformity, simply and as such, was no offence at common law. Why then, it was very desirable that these parties should feel assured that the common law would not visit them as if their unconformity was an offence. The act of the 53rd Geo. 3rd, cap. 160, which recited the act 19th Geo. 3rd, exempted Protestant Dissenters from all penalties to which they were previously liable at law for nonsubscription to certain doctrinal articles and oaths. So that he inferred, that nothing could be clearer than this factthat it was only the denial of Christianity in general, or blasphemy, which was an offence made penal at common law, and not mere non-conformity to particular points of doctrine. By introducing the 53rd Geo. 3rd, he had flattered himself, at one time, that he had done some service, by amending and explaining the law in the respects he had mentioned. The penalties denounced against the profession of these tenets by the common law were of the most severe and heavy kind-fine and imprisonment at the pleasure of the judge, who was authorized, therefore, if he should see fit, to take from a man the half of his fortune and years of his liberty for dissenting from the received doctrine of the established church. With the knowledge of facts like these, how was it possible that he should have made any such agreement as that imputed to him? Really, a statement of so serious and so mischievous a nature ought not to have been lightly made in the quarter to which he was alluding. The hon. gentleman, adverting to the other bill he had brought in for the relief of Unitarians from the obligation of taking certain oaths prescribed by the marriage ritual, observed, that after it had received, with one exception only, the sanction and support of all the most efficient and responsible of his majesty's ministers, it was thrown out in the other House. The petition he had now the honour to present, entered so fully into the object of the pe titioners, that he could not do better than refer the House to the object of their prayer, premising only, that if the House should feel hereafter disposed to accede to its prayer, the denial of Christianity as such, and blasphemy, would of course remain, as they at present were, offences at common law. Mr. Robertson expressed himself decidedly adverse to the prayer of the petitioners, and cautioned the House to be aware how they encouraged too much the prevailing spirit of innovation. The petition was read, and ordered to be printed. CRUEL TREATMENT OF CATTLE BILL.] Mr. R. Martin moved the second reading of this bill. The Attorney General said, that three years ago a bill had been introduced by his learned friend, the member for Knaresborough (sir J. Mackintosh), which rendered it a felony punishable with transportation, to wound or maim cattle. Previously to the introduction of that bill, the wounding or maiming of cattle was, under the act of Charles, made a felonious offence, in those cases only where the guilty party was proved to have acted from a malicious motive towards the owner of the cattle. As the law now stood, however, maiming or wounding cattle, whether it originated in a malicious design or otherwise, was viewed as a felony against the owner. In the course of the last session, the hon. member (Mr. R. Martin) had brought in a bill, which passed that House, but was thrown out in |