opposed the bill, which he conceived would inflict great oppression on the poor man who could not afford to keep a horse or a donkey.

said, he did not intend to press the bill this Session, but observed that the House had already sanctioned its principle.

said, the bill might be expedient for the crowded streets of the metropolis as an act of humanity, not to the Canine, but the human race, but he doubted the propriety of applying it to the rural districts.

complained of the additional restrictions placed upon the manufacture of home sugar by this bill.

begged to put one fact upon record, that the sugar monopolists were inflicting a great injury, not only upon the people of England, but upon the landowners, because, from the monopoly price of sugar, the manufacturers found it impossible to make preserves of the fruit, which was so plentiful.

said the prosperity of the fruitgrower had been already swept away by the repeal of the duties on foreign fruit.

wished to take that opportunity of saying a word on a subject which was under the consideration of the House last evening. He alluded to the discussion on the case of John Thorogood. He was not present during that discussion, but from accounts which he had seen of what was said, he apprehended that there was a very great misapprehension as to the power supposed to exist of ordering the release of that individual. It had been said that the churchwardens could, by adopting a particular course, procure his liberation from prison. This was an error. The churchwardens had no such power; nor was any such power vested in any judge, or court, or body of men. A reference to the words of the Act of Parliament would put it beyond doubt that there was no authority which could order Thorogood's release save that of an act of Parliament. He felt it necessary to say thus much, because, as the opinions to which he referred had gone forth to the public, they might raise expectations in the mind of that unfortunate individual which could never be realized; for it was certain that if he were brought before his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) in his capacity as judge of the Consistorial Court, his learned Friend would at once declare that he had no power to order the release unless Thorogood appeared and submitted. The words of the act were, he repeated, so precise, that no authority but that of another act of the Legislature could authorize his discharge.

said, he was under the apprehension that such a power did exist somewhere, and this arose from what he understood to have fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general. He had thought that some of the provisions of an act passed with respect to cases of contempt of the Court of Chancery might be made applicable to the present Case.