arises, or any individual magistrate thinks there is a difficulty, and wishes for a consultation upon it, we retire uniformly into the chamber, and in the chamber I give them a short charge, directing their attention to what is the point in issue in the case, and explaining the law, when explanation appears to me to be necessary, as applicable to the case. I have always found the magistrates in both counties ready to listen to my view of the law, and to take my recommendation, where the offence does come within the strict interpretation of the law, as to the impolicy of literally carrying it into effect against a prisoner, where the case does not seem to call for it. Perhaps it will be wished that I should mention some clauses of the act of parliament which are never or seldom put into force at all. There is a clause which is very imperative in its terms, That all persons found in a public-house after nine at night are subject to transportation that I have never, in any instance, carried into effect. At first we were very much perplexed what to do, for they are so improvident, so rash, that we found it would be a desperate effort to transport persons (fourteen and fifteen in number at a time) who have been tried before me for being in a public-house at night, where it was obvious to every one it was nothing but the effect of rashness, and when the state in which they were precluded them from doing any mischief. In those cases I have never applied the act, not giving up, however, the right to put the act in force, when there was evidence of the assembly being for the purpose of carrying into effect any of their plans. I always kept that in reserve,-that if it appeared to the magistrates they were doing anything bad, anything tending to the disturbance of the country, the act would be strictly

carried into effect, and that they ran that risk in doing so; and, at all events, suffered the inconvenience of being brought to trial, though they were acquitted of it. There is another clause in the act for tumultuous assemblies in the day-time, which I will mention, that has been, and may be, carried into operation, with great advantage to the public, in preventing rescues of cattle and opposition to the collection of tithes ; but that has never been carried into effect, either to the extent, or in the cases, which the act of parliament literally empowers us to do, for a tumultuous and unlawful assembly is, in its legal meaning, one of the mildest offences against the law. An unlawful assembly may even be for the purpose of accomplishing by force that which is a lawful object; in that case, unless the peculiar disturbances at present seem to be the object of the unlawful meeting, the clause of the act of parliament has not been carried into effect.

In taking the evidence on the trial, did you adhere to the strict legal rules?-Always on the part of the prosecution; but there has been a liberality, perhaps not justifiable, allowed to the prisoner.

The

Have you ever found any cases of great hardship from that strict adherence, and those cases frequent?—No; we have always allowed a relaxation of the rules to prisoners, but I have always held the prosecutor to strict proof. I will give an instance which occurs to me at the moment. prisoner wants to establish a fact which appears to have been in writing, and does not bring the writing there; the laws do not permit the contents of it to be given in evidence without producing the paper. I have, in cases where it was important to the prisoner he should examine into the contents of it, suffered him to do

so, when I have not allowed the same indulgence to the prosecution. The case has sometimes occurred. There is an instance of it where arms have been called for. It is a part of the offence, that arms shall be denied to a person that is authorised to ask for them, and that authority must be in writing. It has sometimes happened, and in more than one case, that the party did not bring his written warrant, thinking that he might state the contents of it. In a case of that kind, persons, against whom the offence was made out in all other respects, have been acquitted.

Have you ever had a case before you, where the absence has been for so short a time, that it could not be for a seditious purpose?-I cannot say that I have; but I have had cases very closely bordering upon it: for I have had a case before me, where the person was out, and where the defence made was, that he was out, two or three fields off, looking after some cattle or horses, or after sheep that were straying. I have had a case of that kind sometimes before me. But it is a very short time that is sufficient for insurrectionary purposes; for one of the greatest and most frequent outrages we have, is burning the houses of persons who are not their friends; and a person can very quickly run out of a house with a half-burnt turf in a kettle, run across two or three fields, put it into the thatch, and run back again.

To what circumstance do you attribute the large disproportion between the number of commitments and the number of convictions?That is, I think, easily answered, from the nature of the clause under which the great majority of all the convictions have been made; that is, the clause which is made for the purpose of keeping persons within their houses at night. The crime there, is being

out of the house at night without a proper occasion; and it is prima facie evidence of that crime, that the man is found out of his house on its being examined at night. It lies then upon the person who will not stay within his house, according to the proclamation calling upon him to stay within his house, to furnish to the Court a proof of innocence. Now, it is impossible, when persons are found out at night, to vest the power of the Court in the person who takes him up; and, therefore, the person who does rashly, when the act requires him to stay within, go out, is brought in for trial, and in many cases he establishes a lawful and proper excuse. I should mention, that in order to obviate the inconvenience arising from the rashness of persons going out at night, in fact without what may be strictly called a proper excuse, it has been found necessary to adopt two measures:-one of them was, to admit a man to bail whenever it appeared to the magistrates that there was reason to expect he would be acquitted; and that was done with more safety afterwards to the public when petty sessions were established, and they were brought before petty sessions. The case was there inquired into, and the circumstances; and the petty sessions sometimes discharged the man altogether when it appeared to be quite a plain case; and, unless there was strong appearance of guilt, they generally admitted him to bail.

Has it not come to your knowledge, that persons of the worst description in the county, of notoriously bad character, have been found out of their dwellings, and therefore violated the law; and upon that ground, and that ground alone, been tried?-Instances of that description have happened, no doubt of it. By the Insurrection Act, persons absent from their houses at an hour prohibit

ed by the Act, are bound to shew that they were absent on their lawful occasions. The great majority of the people who were tried before me, merely upon the charge of being absent from their houses, either shewed the innocent occasion of such absence, or else they shewed it by fair inference,—that is, by evidence of good character,-which rendered it nearly impossible that they should have been engaged in an insurrectionary pursuit, and, in consequence of such evidence, were acquitted by the magistrates.

At the moment when sentence of transportation is passed, must not the feeling among the people be, that so severe a punishment ought not to be inflicted for so trivial an offence as absence from a dwelling, perhaps through inadvertence; must not that be extremely injurious to the country?-I think it must make a very serious impression upon the country, if the magistrates were to convict persons for mere absence from their houses, occasioned by inadvertence; and if a conviction of that description had taken place, I should certainly have applied to the government of the country for the pardon of the convict.

Did you never hear a burst of peculiar dissatisfaction arise from the crowd, upon sentence being passed on a man who was absent from his home only; it not being proved that he was guilty of any insurrectionary crime? I recollect, on one occasion, upon a trial at Mallow of six or seven prisoners for being absent from their dwelling-houses, situate in a neighbourhood in which some flagrant of fences were committed, that a considerable murmur took place on their conviction; though the absence of the prisoners from their houses was on the same night in which private property had been consumed by fire, and no satisfactory account was given

of such absence. But I do not recollect any other instance of such an effect being produced by a conviction under the Insurrection Act for the offence alluded to.

Do the provisions of the act, which confine persons to their own habitations, press with greater severity upon the industrious and well-disposed, or upon the turbulent part of society? -The peaceable part of society are protected against the turbulent by the operation of the Insurrection Act; but, in order to secure that protection, they must submit to the inconvenience of remaining within their houses within the hours prohibited by the Insurrection Aet. And I think it is quite essential to the protection of the peaceable and well-disposed, that the government should be entrusted with the power of putting the Insurrection Act in force, or not, according to the state and exigences of the country.

REPORT of the Select COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON MARINE INSURANCE.

In a country where commerce, in all its various branches, has been carried to such an unexampled extentwhere we have so much of the produce of our soil, and of our industry, to exchange for that of the rest of the world-and, from our insular situation, so much to exchange among ourselves, by the navigation of the seas-and where the most perfect and improved mode of this circulation is so much connected, not only with the comforts of individuals, but, through the revenue, with the safety of the state-no subject can be of more real and extensive importance than that which has been referred to your Committee.

companies having possessed their exclusive privileges more than twice the period of time for which they paid any valuable consideration, no claim can be set up for their continuation, should the House be of opinion that the existence of such privileges are, according to the words of the act, "hurtful or inconvenient to the public."

From the sequel of this Report it will appear, that this is decidedly the opinion of your Committee; and should the House adopt their recommendation, to repeal the exclusive privilege of the two companies, but to preserve to them unimpaired all their other chartered rights, there is every reason to believe, that this necessary sacrifice for the general good can be attended with little, if any, injury to the companies themselves, as it is not probable that their marine insurance business will be diminished below that very limited extent to which they confine themselves.

It is not necessary for the present purpose of your Committee to animadvert upon the several inconsistencies of the act by which the two companies were incorporated, nor to discuss the question, whether the House should hold itself bound, by the very singular restriction of the rights of future Parliaments, to grant such powers and privileges to any companies hereafter as might be abrogated from those now existing, because your Committee could not recommend to the House to grant the same exclusive privileges to any company.

The motives which induced the legislature to grant these privileges in 1719 are set forth in the preamble of the act; which, among other things, recites, "That it is found by experience, that many particular persons, after they have insured large premiums, or consideration moneys, for > or towards the insuring ships, goods,

and merchandise at sea, have become bankrupts, or otherwise failed in answering or complying with their policies of assurance, whereby they were particularly engaged to make good or contribute towards the losses which merchants or traders have sustained, to the ruin or impoverishment of many merchants and traders, and to the discouragement of adventurers at sea, and to the diminution of the trade, wealth, strength, and public revenues of this kingdom.

or

"And whereas it is conceived, that if two several and distinct corporations, with a competent joint stock to each of them belonging, and under proper conditions, restrictions, and regulations, were erected and esta blished, for assurance of ships, goods, or merchandises, at sea, or going to sea, exclusive of all any other corporations or bodies politic already created, or hereafter to be created, and likewise exclusive of such societies or partnerships as now are, or may hereafter be, entered into for that purpose, several merchants or traders, who adventure their estates in such ships, goods, or merchandises, at sea, or going to sea, (especially in remote or hazardous voyages,) would think it much safer for them to depend on the policies or assurances of either of these two corporations, so to be created and established, than on the policies or assurances of private or particular persons."

On inquiring into the manner and extent of the exercise of these rights by the companies, it appears evident that the intentions of the legislature have been wholly disappointed. Whether these companies have, as companies are very apt to do, degenerated from their original principles, it is certain that at present, instead of relieving the merchants, as the act supposes they would, from the insolvency of individual underwriters, the whole of