Mr. Liddell was quite prepared to take the advice which had been so kindly ofered to him by his hon. Friend opposite, and by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with respect to the propriety of withdrawing the penalty of transportation for seven years. He was very glad that the right hon. Baronet had alluded to the anomalous state of the criminal law in reference to dog stealing, as that was one of the reasons which had induced him to bring in the Bill. There was also another motive which influenced him in doing so. It should be recollected that the penalty of transportation would be the maximum penalty, and that it would not reach casual offenders, but the members of the gang of regular dog stealers who existed in this metropolis in order to commit these thefts, and then extort exorbitant sums from the owners for their restoration. It was when the character of these persons was known to the judge and jury through the police, that the penalty of transportation for seven years would apply for a repetition of the offence. He did not, however, conceive that penalty essentially necessary for the success of the Bill, as there were other portions of it which he thought would amply effect the object which he had in view; and he had, therefore, the less objection in giving it up. One of the reasons why search warrants were not alone sufficient was, that stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that dogs were frequently destroyed when it was known that search warrants for their recovery were issued; and another reason was the extreme difficulty of knowing in which of the many receptacles for stolen dogs that existed in the metropolis the animal was probably detained, so as to be able to state the matter on oath in the information. He did not profess to provide a remedy in that Bill for all cases that might occur; but he believed his Bill would give facilities for the detection of offenders which did not now exist. Without trespassing farther on the time of the House, he hoped the Bill would be then allowed to proceed in Committee.

once. It was said that greater facilities were necessary for searching after stolen dogs; but he thought they could not be adopted without an increase of the penalty attached to the offence. When the Bill was first introduced, it was generally supposed that there were no means of punishing a person for dog stealing; but so far from such being the fact, it now appeared that a penality of 20l. over and above the value of the dog might be imposed. If his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Dundas) divided against the Bill, he would be happy to join with him in doing so; and, at all events, he trusted the sense of the House would be taken on the third reading of the Bill.

House in Committee. On the 2nd Clause,

Mr. Hawes moved the omission of the clause, as he thought the law as it at present stood sufficiently stringent.

Mr. Liddell said, he had advisedly constituted the offence of dog stealing a misdemeanour in the clauses. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott), in thinking that the distinction in the law, which refused to admit dogs or other animals kept solely for the pleasure and gratification of the owners to be regarded as property, was a wise one, especially as dogs were, from their utility and sagacity, to be in many cases considered in a very different light.

Mr. Watson thought the penalty inflicted by the clause too much for stealing all the dogs in England.

Mr. Curteis said, as a sportsman and a farmer, he should stand up to support the value set upon dogs. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the loss of a valuable sporting dog was a very serious matter indeed. Without giving any opinion as to whether the penalties proposed to be fixed by the Bill were too stringent or not, he wished, as one who kept a great number of sporting dogs, not only for his own amusement, but for that of his friends and tenants, to bear testimony to the great value which was, in many cases, set upon them.

Mr. Borthwick considered that the dogs which this Bill was intended to protect, were the very worst species of dogs. They

2. Granting of Leases; Outstanding Terms. Reported.-Banking (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland); Infeftments (Scotland).

3. and passed:-Military Savings Banks. Private.- Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); Cork and Bandon Railway; Keyingham Drainage; West London Railway Extension and Lease; Sheffield Waterworks; Westminster Improvement; Falmouth Harbour. 2. Blesington Estate (Earl of Charleville); Harwell and Streatley Road; Cromford Canal; Hartlepool Pier and Port; Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood Branch).

Reported.-Glasgow Bridges; White's Charity Estate; Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Trent Valley Railway; Whitehaven and Furness Railway; Eastern Union (Bury St. Edmund's) Railway; North Wales Railway; North Woolwich Railway; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; Glasgow. Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch); York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch); Shaw's Waterworks; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Crediton Small Debts. 3a and passed :-Earl of Onslow's Estate; Morden College Estate; Lord Monson's (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Heaviside's Divorce; Dundee Waterworks; Kidwelly Inclosure; London and Greenwich Railway; Kendal Reservoirs; North British Railway; Belfast and Ballymena Railway; Blackburn Waterworks; Manchester Court of Record; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tynemouth Extension) Railway North British Insurance Company.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bath Easton, and 3 other places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-From Bath Easton, and several other places, for the Better Regulation of Beer Houses.-From Aughmacart, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).-By the Duke of Buccleuch, from Provincial Synod of Aberdeen, against the proposed measure relating to Universities (Scotland).

ATTENDANCE OF PEERS ON COMMITTEES.] Order of the Day for the attendance of Lord Gardner in his place, to state to the House the reasons for his not attending the Select Committee on the Glasgow Bridges Bill, read,

Lord Gardner said, that not being in the habit of speaking in the House, he had prepared a statement upon paper, which, with the permission of their Lordships, he would read. The noble Lord then read a statement, which was, in substance, that his non-attendance upon the Committee in question was occasioned by no disrespect towards their Lordships; that he was ignorant of the Standing Orders, and therefore considered himself incompetent to adjudicate in Committee upon points arising out of them. He had, moreover, a conscientious scruple against serving upon Railroad Committees, as he had some years ago

become a shareholder in almost all the trunk lines; and he did not conceive it proper to place himself in a position in which he might become in a manner a judge in his own case. He had been asked by his noble Friend (the Earl of Besborough) to be a member of the Committee

that he had informed his noble Friend that attendance was compulsory.

in question; but he had considered it rather in the light of an invitation which might be accepted or declined at pleasure, than as an Order of the House, which must be obeyed. He had no objection to serve if required; but he thought that the right rev. Prelates in that House ought to perform their fair share of the business of these Committees, and he would give notice of a Motion on the subject.

The Duke of Richmond could not understand how the noble Lord's being a shareholder in railways could operate in preventing him being a Member of the Glasgow Bridges Committee. The Committee on which the noble Lord had been appointed to serve, had nothing to do with railways at all, and it was not apparent how the noble Lord's conscientious scruples were applicable in the present case. He must inform the noble Lord that it was not his noble Friend (Lord Duncannon) who had required his attendance on the Committee in question, but the Select Committee for recommending the Members of the different Private Committees, the recommendation of which Select Committee was enforced by a vote of their Lordships' House. The noble Lord had said he had no objection to serve upon Committees, if the right rev. Prelates in that House performed their share of duty. The noble Lord was not only perfectly ignorant, as he had acknowledged, of the Standing Orders, but of what had occurred within the last three weeks. There had been many right rev. Prelates on Committees; and to their credit be it said, they had never declined when their services had been requested. He would remind the noble Lord that Peers possessed many privileges; that they were exempted from numerous offices which other gentlemen had to serve; but with their privileges they had duties also, and this was one of them. It was only necessary to add that in having moved that the noble Lord should attend and give an explanation of the cause of his absence, his (the Duke of Richmond's) only object had been to maintain the high character of their Lordships, which would be injured in the eyes of the country, if it appeared that Peers wished to shrink from the performance of their duties.

The Earl of Besborough agreed that Peers were bound to attend, and if they did not, they would not only be disobeying the Order of the House, but neglecting the business of the country; and he explained

The Earl of Malmesbury did not deny the existence of the great powers that had been ascribed to their Lordships in cases of non-attendance; but when heavy fines were spoken of, and the sending Peers to the Tower, he did not think that such a course could be taken practically with respect to the Railway Committees, for they must have the feeling of the country with them in the adoption of such extreme measures. He had already served on one Committee, and he was ready to serve again ; but when noble Lords spoke of resorting to stringent proceedings against those who absented themselves from these Committees, it should be remembered that there were about two hundred Peers who never came near the House at all; and if the law of Parliament was to be put in force at all, it should be against all alike, both those who were in the habit of attending the House, and those who never came, so that the public might see that all Peers were upon the same footing.

Lord Brougham said, there was not the least doubt that the House had the powers to which he had before adverted. On one occasion, before he had the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House, all Peers had been compelled to attend on the service of the House for six or eight weeks, and had been compelled to give up the whole of their vacation. He agreed with the noble Earl that all Peers who had taken their seats in that House should be placed on the same footing; and those who were in the habit of attending the House on other business, ought not to be punished with greater severity than those who never came near the House at all.

Lord Redesdale did not perceive the necessity of calling Peers from a great distance, if a sufficient number were in town to perform the necessary duties. Such a course would at least be discourteous to their brother Peers. The noble Lord had rather misunderstood the nature of the duties which would devolve upon him in attending a Committee. They did not necessarily require so perfect an acquaintance with the Standing Orders as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, but were such as, were he not a Peer, he would be very likely to be called upon to perform as a jury man.

The Marquess of Clanricarde said, that undoubtedly all Peers ought to attend; but if they were to summon Peers for the

express purpose of attending these Railway Committees, they would be adopting a novel course of proceeding; for all the precedents of this kind on the Journals related to matters of much graver import, such as the consideration of matters of State. Moreover, if they were to compel Peers to come from a distance for the express purpose of attending these Committees, the question was, whether they would attend them in a spirit and temper best calculated for the discharge of the duty.

Lord Gardner then gave notice of Motion to the effect that the Lords Spiritual, as well as Temporal, be summoned and compelled to attend the House, beginning with those of the highest rank, and so continuing until the whole of their Lordships had served.

The Duke of Richmond repeated that the Lords Spiritual had attended the Committees without any excuse, and without pleading ignorance.

The Duke of Wellington said, that if the House was in course of performing those duties with regularity, and if they were going on in a satisfactory manner, he entreated their Lordships to discontinue this discussion. When there was a difficulty in finding Members for these Committees, let their Lordships consider what course ought to be adopted. Meanwhile he thought that all the Members of the House would lend their aid in carrying through the duties.

Lord Brougham said, he believed the form now would be, to enter on the Journals that Lord Gardner having attended in his place, and explained the cause of his non-attendance, the Order was discharged. The House proceeded no further in the

matter.

manner which must be considered by all who had read their Report, to be one displaying the greatest industry and sagacity. The Commissioners recommended that the Penal Statutes, against recusants should be repealed; that the Jewish religion should be protected by law as well as the Roman Catholic; and that one form of oath and declaration should be substituted for the many now in use throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the case of candidates for public offices. He should put the question to the noble and learned Lord, of which he had given notice, whether it was proposed to lay on the Table this Session, a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners ?

The Lord Chancellor said, his noble Friend, in putting a question to him with respect to the Report to which he referred, had done no more than justice to the learned persons upon the Commission, in the commendations he had bestowed on their industry, and the accuracy and intelligence with which they had performed their duties. Every person who turned his attention to the subject must consider that it reflected great credit on them. In answer to the question, he begged to say that he had directed a Bill to be prepared on the footing of their Report; but when it was considered that there were more than 700 Acts of Parliament to which their Report applied, it must be admitted that no little consideration and trouble were required for framing such a Bill. That work was now in the hands of persons in whose industry and care they might confide to produce it as soon as they could, consistently with the necessary examination and reflection demanded by the subject. The Bill would be produced as soon as the Commissioners were able to lay it on the Table of the House.

The Earl of Ellenborough could not help thinking that any Bill merely confined to repealing certain Acts, and parts of Acts, would be extremely inconvenient. It was essential that the public should know how the law really remained; otherwise, the uncertainty consequent upon leaving it vague or undefined, might lead to great mischiefs. It was a subject requiring extreme consideration from his noble and learned Friend, and those whom he might employ. But he hoped that the new Bill, when it was prepared, would be such as to