Sitting of 3 June 1824

FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Stokesley, praying for Freedom of Public Discussion, both in speaking and writing. He said, he quite agreed with the petitioners in censuring the number of prosecutions for publishing books on religious topics; to which prosecutions new vigour seemed to have been given since the present Attorney-general had come into his office.
Mr. M. A. Taylordid not oppose the bringing up the petition, but he would take leave to say, that if such opinions as those promulgated by Carlile and others were disseminated with impunity, the uninformed, and lower classes of society would be left without protection against the basest and most mischievous schemes. He had himself seen a House in Fleet-street, on which was an inscription stating, that it was the "Repository for the Deist and the Republican." He had no objection to every man's worshipping God in his own way; but he must denounce as highly dangerous such practices as these. There ought to be a Church Establishment in every state; but the attack now made was levelled against all religion.
Mr. Humereplied, that nothing contained in the petition warranted the tirade just delivered by the hon. member. Such tirades were generally mere cant and hypocrisy. One of the cant words employed on these occasions was "Blasphemy," which even the hon. member would find it difficult to explain. The petition only prayed freedom of discussion. He moved, that the clerk should read it at length. It was read accordingly.
Mr. M. A Taylorthrew himself upon the candour of the House, to decide whether any thing he had said warranted the anger his hon. friend had expressed. In his opinion, the purport of the petition was, to prevent prosecutions for publications injurious to religion. No man was prosecuted for his opinions. It was lord Mansfield's doctrine, that if the Devil came into Court, he must have' justice; and even those who had impugned the Gospel and blasphemed religion, had met with

1079
the most impartial treatment. The cant and hypocrisy was all on the other side, when such books as Queen Mab were put forth as fair works of doctrinal discussion.
Mr. W. Smithadmitted, that his hon. friend was as free as any man from cant and hypocrisy. Religion must stand upon truth only, and truth could only be discovered by discussion. He once had believed that the promulgation of certain opinions ought to be repressed; but he was now convinced that such a doctrine was equally dangerous to truth, and to the liberty of the subject. All experience tended to shew, that prosecutions for religion's sake were ineffectual.
Mr. Humeexplained, that he had not meant to apply the phrase, "cant and hypocrisy" to his hon. friend.
Mr. Warreconcurred with what had fallen from the hon. member for Durham.
Ordered to lie on the table.

TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF MISSIONARY SMITH.
Dr. Lushington Dr. Lushington moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the case of Mr. Smith, for the purpose of postponing it. His reason for postponing the discussion was, that many members who wished to take part in it had made arrangements to leave town for the holydays, from which it would be very inconvenient for them to depart.
Sir R. Wilsontook that opportunity of asking the secretary for the colonies, first, whether the minutes laid on the table of the House were the only official copy of the trial which the government had received; and secondly, whether the hon. gentleman was prepared to admit or deny the authenticity of the copy of evidence published by the Missionary Society? If there had been any suppression of evidence, it would be a great aggravation of the charge which had been made against the authorities of Demerara.
Mr. W. Horton, in answer to the first question, said, that the minutes received by government had been printed without the omission or alteration of a single word. With respect to the second question, he could neither affirm nor deny the authenticity of the copy of the trial published by the Missionary Society. There were discrepancies between that and the official Copy, with respect to which he would leave gentlemen to draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Buxtonsaid, that as some doubt existed as to whether the court had received hearsay evidence, he begged to state, that Mr. Elliott, a missionary, who was present at the trial, was now in London.
Mr. Lockhartasked, whether the authorities in Demerara had issued a proclamation revoking martial law?
Mr. W. Hortonreplied, that there could be no doubt that martial law had been repealed.
Mr. Brotighamsaid, he had at first intended to propose the resumption of the debate to-morrow; but for the reasons stated by his learned friend, he consented to the postponement.
The order of the day for resuming the debate was then fixed for the 11th instant.

NEW CHURCHES BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Jamessaid, he must protest against the uncharitableness of alleging, that all those who thought with him were hostile to the established church. In that religion he had been born and educated, and that religion he should continue to respect; but he was decidedly opposed to spending the public money on such purposes, whilst such ample revenues remained in the hands of the church. How was it that the Dissenters were able to build chapels and meeting-houses for the maintenance of religion? Were the Protestants less zealous? He believed the fact was, that the exertions of the Protestants were mainly impeded by ecclesiastical regulations. He would mention the circumstance illustrative of his opinion, which had occurred in Liverpool. There was in that town a reverend gentleman of the name of Bragge, regularly educated at Oxford, who built a chapel at his own expense. He was a most excellent reader and preacher, consequently he was much followed, and brought about him an extensive congregation, from which he derived a handsome property. This vocation he continued to follow for the space of twenty years; when the then bishop of Chester sent to him, telling him he would be very happy to come and consecrate his chapel. Mr. Bragge very respectfully declined the honour. Shortly after the bishop proceeded against him for preaching in an unconsecrated chapel; in consequence of which Mr. Bragge took out a

1081
license as a Dissenting clergyman, and continued to preach for many years the doctrines of the church of England. When he died the chapel became the property of his heirs, and now it was a sugar-house, and at present a boiler stood in the place of the pulpit. It was with these feelings that he now objected to the present proposition; and his hostility would not be diminished, even if the people were in affluence. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, "That this bill be committed on this day six months."
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. He thought there never had been a measure so ill-timed, and particularly after the statement that no part of this money was to be applied for three years. Let churches be built by those who required them, and let the existing regulations with respect to building churches be revised, and there would be no necessity for calling on the public money.
The amendment was negatived, and the bill went through the committee.

VAGRANTS BILL—WHIPPING.
On the motion of Mr. Estcourt, the House went into a committee on this bill. On the clause for "lewdly and obscenely exposing the person,"
Mr. John Smithbegged the House to reflect on the possible abuse which might grow out of such an enactment. To give a summary power of conviction to magistrates to punish men merely because witnesses were found ready to swear to the fact, might occasion the greatest perversion of justice. The very charge itself subjected the accused to the whole weight of public opinion, which in this country was decisive. If himself or any of his honourable friends were merely charged with such an offence, and no investigation were allowed, save the oath of an informer, they would never recover from the consequent depression of feeling during their lives. What also must be the sufferings of a respectable family, when the head of it was, on the oath of a solitary witness, accused of such an offence? The feelings of the honest and deserving classes ought not lightly to be exposed to such grievous imputations. At least they should be allowed that security which the intervention of a jury would afford them. There could be no objection, on the ground of a delay in the administration of justice, as a jury would go through the whole investigation in ten minutes. The offence was
1082
one which admitted of various shades; but unquestionably, when it was Of great enormity, it ought to be severely punished. Of the magistracy of the country generally, he thought very highly; but unquestionably, in some of the small corporate towns there were individuals in the commission of the peace, who were in the very lowest sphere of life; and it really was too much that the character of an English subject, under such peculiar circumstances, should be at the mercy of the immediate decision of one such person.
Sir J. Newportalso objected to a summary conviction before one magistrate, and on the oath of one witness, in a case where that conviction would necessarily consign a man to infamy for life. The higher the offence, and the more dreadful the consequences of conviction, the more necessary it was that the greatest caution should be used to guard against injustice. Trial by jury would undoubtedly be the safest proceeding. No man thought more highly than he did of the character of justices of the peace generally; but this was not a case which ought to be left to the decision of a single magistrate.
Mr. Estcourtacknowledged, that in the first instance he was strongly against introducing this offence into the bill, and so were the committee; but, considering it expedient to obtain all the information they could upon the subject from magistrates, they found, after extensive inquiry, that some provision of the kind seemed absolutely necessary. In introducing that provision, they had endeavoured to guard it as much as possible from abuse. The offence was exclusively that of insult to a female. It had been stated by the magistrates, that the offence was so frequent, and it was so difficult to prevail upon females to overcome their natural delicacy, and prosecute the offender in a court of justice, that some summary punishment was almost indispensable.
Mr. Monckcontended, that as the liberty of appeal was given by a subsequent clause, it could not be said that a conviction under this bill depended on the decision of a single magistrate. If any party were discontented with the decision of a single magistrate on his case, he had full power to obtain upon it the decision of a bench of magistrates, before whom he would be able to have the assistance of counsel, and to derive all the benefit which he ought from the respectability of

1083
his character. No person had gone into the committee with a greater objection to this part of the clause than he had done, and no person had come out of it more fully convinced of its necessity.
Mr. Secretary Peel,while he admitted that the question was one of considerable difficulty and delicacy, supported the clause. It was only when the charge was made by a female, that the accused could be convicted of the offence; where the charge was made by a man there must necessarily be two witnesses. He was quite aware, notwithstanding all the precautions that could be taken, that it was a power that might be abused; and it would be advisable to have occasional returns laid before parliament of the convictions under the act, to ascertain from time to time, not only whether there had been any abuse, but whether there had been any suspicion of abuse? It might be also a subject for future consideration, whether or not, where the enormity of the offence was very great, it should not be liable to a punishment of greater severity.
The clause was agreed to. On the clause relative to the power of sessions "to detain and keep to hard labour and punish by whipping rogues and vagabonds and incorrigible rogues," being read,
Mr. Monckargued against that part of it which empowered the magistrates to cause individuals convicted as incorrigible rogues to be whipped. In his opinion, twelve months imprisonment, and the labour of the tread-wheel, was a sufficient punishment. He never would consent to any measure that savoured of torture; which the practice of whipping did. Formerly, sturdy vagrants were punished by whipping, branding on the forehead, boring the ears, and slitting the nose. All these inflictions, except that of whipping, were now done away; and that remnant of a system of torture ought also to be removed. It degraded the individual; and instead of reforming his evil propensities, rendered him more determined in the pursuit of vice. Another great objection was, that nothing was said as to the mode of apportioning the quantity. If the punishment were persevered in, some criterion, such as the breaking the skin, or the drawing of blood, should be laid down for the direction of those who administered the punishment. He concluded by moving "that that part of the clause which related to the punishment of whipping be left out."
Mr. Lockhartsaid, there was something absurd in the idea of sending to the house of correction persons who were convicted of being "incorrigible" rogues. He strenuously objected to the practice of whipping. Wherever it was resorted to, it must lead to consequences diametrically opposite to those which it should be the object of all criminal legislation to produce. Suppose a man sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, and, in addition, to a whipping. At what time was that whipping to be inflicted? Was it to be inflicted before the imprisonment commenced? In that case, the individual would go into gaol, exasperated against society, and more anxious for revenge than for reformation. Was the punishment to be administered at the end of six months? Why, during that period the morals of the man might have been improved, he might have repented of the evil of his ways; and therefore it was unjust to punish him. It was also unwise: for that punishment would, perhaps, drive him back to his old courses. Or, was the whipping to take place at the expiration of the twelve months? There, also, the danger existed of committing an act of injustice, by punishing an individual whose moral character had been improved. If whipping was at all resorted to, it ought to be as a summary punishment. The offender should be set at liberty the moment he was so punished.
Mr. J. Smithobjected to whipping, under any circumstances, as a punishment that could do no good. It was absurd to suppose, that by tormenting the body, they could reform and render more virtuous the mind. Severe punishments always had the effect of exciting our sympathies on behalf of the suffering individual. The horror which his crime should elicit was lost in the recollection of the protracted misery which he endured. No one could reflect without shuddering on the torments which Damien and Ravillac were compelled to endure. However atrocious the conduct of a criminal might be, the refinement of cruelty in punishing him always excited some degree of sympathy for him. He looked upon solitary confinement as a much more effectual punishment than whipping. On this point they might take a useful lesson from their French neighbours. There 30,000,000 of people were ruled without any corporal punishment, with the exception of marking on the shoulder, and that, he believed, was done

1085
with some sort of liquid. He had seen it performed in Paris, and the individual did not appear to feel any pain.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that the present was an improvement on the old law. Formerly, vagrants, before they could be passed to their parishes, were obliged to undergo a whipping, and an imprisonment of seven days. By this act, however, whipping was confined to incorrigible rogues and vagrants only; That punishment was awarded, not in the hope of effecting reformation, but as a terror to others who were likely to transgress.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, it appeared to him that gentlemen had argued this question with reference to the general subject of whipping, instead of confining themselves to its immediate connexion with this clause. He could not coincide with those who were of opinion that corporal punishment should be entirely abolished. The knowledge of the fact that it might be inflicted for particular offences, produced a salutary terror, which checked the growth of such offences. It was not introduced for the purpose of effecting reform, but as an example to others. A learned gentleman had made a remark on the word correction as inapplicable to incorrigible offenders. The word had, however, two meanings. If it were taken to mean reform, it would certainly be absurd to apply it to those who were adjudged to be incorrigible. But here the word correction simply meant punishment. To show the necessity of having recourse to corporal punishment, he would state a fact which had occurred some time ago. The convicts in the Penitentiary had been removed on board the hulks, and were there subject to the same regulations as they had been governed by while within the walls of the prison. Those regulations, however, which answered very well in the Penitentiary, were found insufficient on board the hulks. The convicts became turbulent and refractory: they combined together, insulted those who were placed over them, and behaved badly in every respect. A bill was in consequence passed, placing them under the usual regulations that were observed on board the hulks. Those regulations authorized corporal punishment for refractory behaviour. The consequence was, that the terror of that punishment reduced the convicts from the Penitentiary to a state of perfect subordination and obedience.
Mr. R. Smithhad no objection to visiting incorrigible rogues with this species of punishment, if those who ought tocome under the denomination of incorrigible were properly pointed out. The bill now before the committee set forth three classes of persons, as coming within the denomination of incorrigible rogues. 1. Those who break prison, before the term of their imprisonment under this bill. These were certainly fit subjects for additional punishment. 2. Those who were a second time convicted, as vagrants, under the provisions of the bill. He had no objection to the infliction of the punishment in cases of that nature. 3. Persons assaulting and resisting officers, while endeavouring to apprehend them as rogues and vagabonds. To this he could not agree; because officers might endeavour to arrest an innocent man. Such an individual, in a moment of passion and irritation, might resist and assault the officers. In that case, under this third portion of the clause, he must be considered an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, though, on inquiry, it might be found, that when the attempt was made to apprehend him, he was no rogue or vagabond at all. He therefore proposed, that the words "and being thereafter convicted as a rogue and vagabond" should be introduced.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, it was true that this punishment might not reform the mind of an offender; but it would forcibly impress on his memory the inconvenience which must result from his adherence to those practices which occasioned such a painful and disgraceful visitation.
Mr. J. Smithwas happy to learn from the right hon. secretary that his mind was still occupied with the revision of the criminal code. They had gone on, exercising a great severity of punishment, for many years, with very little effect; and he was convinced that if a milder course were adopted, much good would result from it.
The amendment proposed by Mr. R. Smith was agreed to; after which the House resumed.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. The hon. gentleman, after observing upon the mass of interests which the bill affected, stated that it was the desire of parties concerned

1087
to be heard by counsel against it. As it was certainly inconvenient to the House to hear counsel at the bar, he would move, as an amendment, that "the bill should be committed to a select committee."
Sir F. Ommaneyseconded the amendment.
The House divided: For committing the bill 29. Against it 25. On the question "that the Speaker do leave the chair,"
Mr. Robertsonobserved, that there should be more caution exercised In infringing upon vested rights, and especially in the present case. Here was a company (that of Lloyd's Room) of long establishment, which had conducted marine insurances in the most advantageous manner for the whole country, as well as with profit and honour to themselves. They had extended and improved their establishment, until the advantages of it were felt by British navigators and merchants in every corner of the globe: they had, by their enlarged intelligence and active agency, become the centre of all information respecting maritime affairs; from them was drawn the knowledge which alone could enable any company to conduct insurances with safety: they were in possession of all particulars by which the hazards of different policies were distinguished. The dangers of particular seas, new discoveries with respect to sandbanks, by which nautical charts were improved, were delivered to them first. Their resources were such, that the two other companies, which were allowed by the act of George 1st. to effect marine insurances, were obliged to apply to this company for information to guide them in effecting policies. So far from breaking down monopoly by the present bill, it would more than ever promote it, by condensing the power of money capital, and placing the public interest at the entire disposal of the wealthy.
Mr. T. Wilsoncontended, that this was an improper time to meddle with the subject, and that it would ruin both the underwriters and brokers of Lloyd's. He wished the hon. member who had brought forward the measure would allow it to lie over till next session. All such measures ought to emanate from the government. The measure would create ten monopolies.
Mr. Plummertook the same view of the matter, and contended that, little losses were ever suffered by insuring at Lloyd's.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, the House could not take away the privileges of Lloyd's, without granting a compensation, as had been done in the case of the South Sea Company.
Sir C. Forbesspoke also against the motion.
The House then divided: Ayes 33, Noes 22. Majority for going into a committee 11. The House then went into the committee.
Sir F. Ommanneyproposed, as an amendment, instead of the words "from and after the passing of this act," to substitute "from and after the year of our Lord, 2000"[a laugh]. The hon. member declared his intention of dividing the committee upon it, even if he stood alone.
The committee divided: For the amendment 12: Against it 33. Majority 21. The committee next divided on the clause for saving the rights of the two chartered companies. Ayes 37: Noes 12.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonproposed a clause for rendering each partner of any insurance joint-stock company liable to the insured, notwithstanding any clause in the policy or agreement to the contrary.
Mr. Huskissonobjected to the clause, as an interference with private contracts. If a party chose to take the more limited responsibility of a joint stock rather than have his remedy against each individual, he was averse from interposing against the exercise of such discretion.
The committee then divided on the clause proposed by Mr. Alderman Thompson, for compelling any joint-stock company to enregister the names of the partners in the court of Chancery. Ayes 7: Noes 30. The House then resumed.