rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the laws against Accessories before the fact in certain Felonies." The House must be well aware that in certain cases of felony, such as murder, arson, robbery, and others, the individuals who were, perhaps, the instigators to the crime, but did not participate in its commission, could receive no other punishment than twelve months imprisonment. He would mention an instance which placed the impolicy of the law in this respect in a strong point of view. A jeweller in Arundel-street, was some time since robbed of property to the amount of 2,000l. It appeared that the robbery had been planned by a boy in the employment of the jeweller, and there were strong grounds for believing that he had even assisted in the fact; but, because there was no direct proof of that, the judges were obliged to let him escape with the slight punishment which the law, as it at present stood, provided for his offence. The object of the bill which he proposed to introduce, was, to invest the judges with power to inflict a heavier punishment upon persons who were proved to have been accessories before the fact, in certain cases of felonies, than the laws at present permitted.

then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the laws respecting the crime of Manslaughter." Twelve months imprisonment, which was the punishment usually inflicted at the quarter-sessions, upon persons convicted of petty larcenies, was all to which the judges at present could sentence a person found guilty of manslaughter, however cruel might have been the circumstances attending the commission of the latter crime. He was of opinion, that the judges should be empowered to award the punishment of fourteen years transportation in aggravated cases of manslaughter; and the object of his bill was, to give them that power. He referred to the case of the man who was thrown from a window in Charles-street, Drury-lane, and died in consequence of the injuries he received. The parties concerned in that transaction, who were found guilty of manslaughter, could receive no greater punishment than twelve months imprisonment.

was of opinion, that no part of the law required more amendment than that which related to manslaughter. Under the head of manslaughter, cases most widely differing in the degrees of criminality were comprehended. A mere accidental blow in a scuffle, if it occasioned death, was considered manslaughter, and the deliberate killing of an officer in the execution of a warrant, if the instrument was in any degree informal, was no greater crime. These two things were considered in the eye of the law as exactly the same offence, and the judge had no power to inflict a greater punishment with respect to one than another.

presented a petition from the land-owners of Maidenhead, in Berkshire, praying for a speedy change of regulations in the mode of licensing public-houses. The petitioners complained of the bad quality and needlessly high price of malt liquors; and suggested the propriety of granting licenses to individuals rather than to signs and houses; the effect of which would be to give a free trade to the publican, and enable him to change his brewer, if he found it convenient.

thought, that the giving licenses to persons intead of houses would be attended with mischief. It was part of a magistrate's duty to say where a public house should be as well as who should keep it. If licenses were made personal, the holders might remove their residences at pleasure, and so two or three public-houses might be situated close to one another.

said, the intention was, not to interfere with the discretion of the magistracy, but to put the licenses into the hands of individuals, instead of affixing them to buildings.

doubted whether any licenses ought to be granted to such houses as were the property of brewers.

trusted, that the House would not run away with so important a question. A proposition such as that, which his gallant friend had just hinted at, and which would put millions of property in jeopardy ought not to be looked at hastily. He intended, if he could find time in the present year, to bring in a bill for recasting the laws relative to the licensing and the regulation of public-houses.

was happy to hear of his hon. friend's intention. The licensing system stood in lamentable need of a revision. Not only was the very large and wholly uncontrolled power held by magistrates over publicans most liable to abuse, but in some cases abuse of it had been proved. In many instances of complaint he was disposed to trace the fault rather to bad judgment in the licensing justice than to wilful abuse; but abuses had been shown; and he could not help thinking, that magistrates, in their discretion, were disposed to restrict the number of public-houses too far. To allow a monopoly to one house in each district, and that monopoly to a house belonging to, or connected with, a brewer, led immediately to the sale of an inferior commodity; and the result was an evil far greater than that against which the magistrate, in his caution, intended to provide: persons who, in other circumstances, would have drank good ale or beer, were compelled by the ill-quality of those beverages to drink bad spirits.

presented a petition from the Unitarian Dissenters of Kendal in Westmoreland, complaining, that certain parts of the provisions of the Marriage act pressed on their consciences, and praying to be placed upon the same footing in that respect with the Jews and Quakers in England, and with the Unitarian Dissenters in Scotland and Ireland.

begged, before he opened his proposition to the House, to put in two petitions, the one from Sheffield, the other from Stockton upon Tees.

proceeded. In bringing forward the present motion, he should begin by stating the grievances of which the petitioners complained. Their complaint was, that by the regulations of the act of the 26th George 2nd, commonly called the Marriage act, they were placed in a situation painful to themselves and different from that in which, previous to the passing of that act, they had been permitted to stand. It would scarcely be denied by any one that marriage was a civil ceremony. It was so considered, not only by the common law, but by the canon law; and from the year 1753, up to the passing of the act now complained of, marriages solemnized by the Dissenters in their own places of worship had been held good and valid. The act of the 26th Geo. 2nd, however, enacting that every marriage, to be held legal, must be solemnized in the church, by the Ministers of the church, and according to the ritual of the church, completely deprived the Dissenters of their before enjoyed privileges. He was one of the class of persons now praying to be relieved from the pressure of that act, and it was important to those persons, as a class, that, coming before parliament, they should stand rectus in curia. He begged, then, to aver, that the Dissenters were un-arraigned of any crime, and that they had as good a title to worship God in their own way as any members of the Church of England. Marriage was the natural right of the human species, and neither man nor woman, without the grossest injustice, could be deprived of its benefits. Yet the act of the 26th Geo. 2nd, said to the Dis- senters, "You shall comply with terms which are contrary to the dictates of your consciences, or you shall forego the advantage of that natural right." Such a holding was most unjust. It was not, indeed, without precedent, because the same course had been pursued under Louis XIV., towards the Protestants of France. The measure in France, however, though unjust, was not so inconsistent as the law in England; because the government of that country recognized at the time no religion but the Roman Catholic. To presume every Frenchman a Roman Catholic was most unjust; but, such being the presumption, there was no inconsistency, in saying, that members of the Roman Catholic church should be married according to its rites. In England, however, there was a palpable inconsistency about the arrangement. At the very time when the act of Geo. 2nd passed, the Dissenters had the benefit of the act of Toleration. At that time it so happened that the Unitarian Dissenters were in small numbers; so small, indeed that they had not a place of worship belonging to them; but the Jews and the Quakers were especially exempted from the provisions of the act. The Jews could scarcely, perhaps, be called Dissenters from the Church of England—but the Quakers were, to all intents and purposes, a sect dissenting from the Church of England, and they could have no right to any exemptions in which the Unitarians were not entitled to participate. By the canon law, marriage was nothing else but a civil contract. This was stated by high authority in this country, when, in 1813, a question respecting the validity of a Scottish marriage was discussed. The opinion of the lord chancellor was, that the Scottish law was founded on the canon law, which was the foundation of the laws respecting marriage throughout Europe, and which regarded marriage as a contract. The Marriage act had for its object the prevention of clandestine marriages. With that object he wished not to interfere, and he would, therefore, only propose the alteration of the religious part. Some religious ceremonies were common to all nations, and were highly proper, but they were not necessary. As a proof of that, he might refer to the decree of pope Innocent 3rd in council, which declared the religious solemnity not to be necessary to the validity of marriages. But the religious cere- mony ought, to be in unison with the feelings of the parties. The ritual of the Church of England was derived from the Romish church. Now, to make that ritual a necessary part of the marriage, where religious objections existed to it, was a positive absurdity. He proposed to leave out the whole of that part of the ritual which stated opinions on which the petitioners dissented from the Church of England. He concluded by moving for leave bring in a bill "for altering certain parts of the 26th Geo. 2nd, commonly called the Marriage act."

did not see what possible objection there could be to Unitarians being married by their own clergymen. The whole service would then be suited to their own sentiments, and, banns being regularly proclaimed in the church, no inconvenience could arise from it. On the other hand, there were many objections to parties having the service performed by clergymen of a different persuasion. He wished, therefore, that instead of such a measure as was now proposed, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Dr. Phillimore) could embrace the subject in his bill.