The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY - 19. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. _ _ - I KINNOUL presented a petition in favour of Cb urch-rates, from a place in Perth. Lord KENYON presented similar petitions from places in. Oxford and Essex. Lord STRADBROKE presented a petition from the Civardians of the Union of Clayton, in Kent, in favour of •the Poor Law Act. _ . Lord BEAUCHAMP presented a petition in favour of Church-rates. _ _ . Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition in favour of the West Cork Mining Company, from the Shareholders ; also petitions against Church-rates from places in Hereford. and Lincoln. GLASGOW POLICE BILL. Lord ROSEBERY moved the second reading of this 'Bill. He did not intend to occupy their Lordships' time , 'but would move that it be now read and referred to a Com mittee, with power to hear Counsel in favour of, and against it. The Earl of DEVON would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he had some objection to its details, which he would urge at another time. After a few words from Lord H ADDINGTON she motion was agreed to. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition frovk Cork against the Cork and Passage Railway Bill, and praying to be beard by counsel against it. The Marquis of DOWNSHIItE preseßied a petition :against the West Cork "%lining Company's Bill, from Cork. UNIV, ERSITIES. Lord CANTERBURY presented a petition from 700 of the graduates and undergraduates of the University of Cambridge, against an.y violent interference with the Uni versities, which would injure their high character and utility. Lord RADNOR said that it was admitted by those those who had the management of the Universities that some alteration in its Statutes was necessary ; and, there.- fore, those seven hundred young gentlemen differed from those who Ind the management of it. Lord CANTERBURY said that it was not stated by the petitioners that no alteration was necessary; but that they confided that no injurious alterations would be made. INSTRUCTION IN SCOTLAND. The Earl of HADDINGTON said that he had gives notice that he would ask a question of the Noble Viscount, as to the intentions of Government in reference to the R port of the Committee on Instruction, which was on the table for a long time.—(Hear, hear.) If lie intended to take the opinion of their Lordships on the question, he would have to allude to the Report, which was of a complex nature, and which contained some very useful matter. He did not, however, intend to take their Lori:- ships' opinion on it ; but he would say, that any man aware of the increasing population in Scotland, and that the num ber of Churches had not increased in proportion, a great defi ciency in Church accommodation and instruction was the result. Much had been done by the voluntary system to remedy this ; but it was not sufficient, although he did net undervalue it. Forty-two Churches had been built two years ago in the Highlands, and endowed, and but for this the destitution would have been much greater; but it was clear that the voluntary system, a lthough it might serve to check the evil, would be ineffectual as a cure ; and as the clergy were paid by seat rents, which were necessarily high, these seats were occupied by. the rich, and the poor were excluded f rom th em . Petitions had been presented from Scotland, which stated that 150,0001. had been subscribed' for these purposes, and that it was likely to be largely added to, and praying for ahl. This hrought the attention of Government and Parlianics.t to the subject, and in 1835 his Majesty was pleased to re commend these churns to Parliament. A change of Go vernment, however, took place in two mouths ; and the new Government did not show the same readiness to attend to the subject ; but a discussion took place on the motion of Sir W. Rae for a Committee of Inquiry, upon which Lord J. Russell nisseed, as an amendment, that a Commission should Inc ,snin'd, and then said, in reference to the Voluntary prie eiple. " that he could bold but one doctrine in respect to it, which was, that a Church Establishment afforded the hest means of religious instruction." Sir William Rae upon this withdrew his motion, and a Commission was iippointed, which made a Report early this year. The same Noble Lord was then present, aril having been pressed upon the subject said that he had been informed t:eo nays benre that further inquiry was about to be treele by the Comniissioners in respect to Glasgow and ihe nigh *lands, and that it adviseahle to wait for the Reports of these inquiries ; that any plan that should he arranged should be prepared with great care ; and that the sub ject was one that demanded serious consideration. Now be (Lord H.) thought that to state merely that the subje,t Vi one: which demanded serious consideration, was a great felling off from the former statements made be Government. Pron. the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that the population of the city of Edinburgh was 163,292. The (Church of Scotland had employed a person to make a csni -sus of the population, and according to their Report it n:r peared that there were 76,000 belonging to the Established Church, and 14,391 belonging to no denomination of re ligion at all. This of itself was a ground for interference on the part of the Government. It was the duty of the legislature of a Christian country to apply a reine(:y to suoh a state of things. He admitted that there were many denominations of religions. For instance, ti=es _Episee,palians, and the ancient old recognised Seceders 'of Scotland, whose attendance they could not possibly se ciare ; but if the 14,000 of no religious denomination were added to the 76,000 belongine. to the Established Church, o,u would have upwards of 90,000, for whom it would be - necessary to provide religious instruction. The Comin,- sioners say that 40,000 or 50,000 persons habitually ab sented themselves from public worship ; and they re marked, from whatever cause it might be, the opportuni ties of public religious worship and religious instruc tion, existing and in operation, were not adequate to the wants of the people of Scotland. He contended that a strong ease had been made out in their belielr. it. was a great disappointment that so long a time should he r:dowed to elapse, and then be told that the subject was sane fbr consideration. He would not propose any speeire measure. He did not want thorn to build Churches. The people of Scotland ha-I subscribed already 150,000/. for that purpose, and all they wanted was that Government should endow these Churches ; and those which hail been already twilt on the voluntary principle—let them he endowed - moderately for each minister, and then the poor would be enabled to obtain religious instruction.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that economy would not be alleged as en excuse for not acceding to this, for the last case in which it should be pleaded was in such a one as the present. Crime had also incressed in Scotland even beyond the increase of population. This would be seen by the returns on the table of the other House, from which it would be evident that in comparison with former years, the amount paid to the public prosecutors was much beyond thst which it used to be ; whereas, if the people had Churches, and active and zealous clergy to inforce their attendance where they would receive instruction, the circumstances would be widely al tered. There had been much misrepresentation of the opinions given by an eminent divine of the Church of Scotland, Dr. Chalmers. It had been said that able divine had deprecated the zeal of missionaries—he did no such thing. He w,ls :aware that it was useless to send out missionaries without providing Churches for them.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He (Lord Haddington) considered that his Majesty's Govern ment paid too much attention to the petitions of the Dissenters.—( Hear.) He considered that the manner in which the Church of Scotland had been spoken of by certain Dissenting clergymen was totally uncalled for, and unworthy of their profession. The bulk of the people of Scotland, attached as they were the Established Church, were looking with great anxiety to his Majesty's Govern ment for the remedy of those evils of which they complained. 'Much had been said about justice, and he called on the Noble Viscount and on Ministers to do justice to Scotland ; not that justice which would destroy, but which would build up. He trusted that in the answer he should receive from the Noble Viscount to the questions he should put, would be such as to show that Government were resolved upon do ing justice to Scotland. He wished first to know whether the Noble Viscount was prepared positively to state, that it was the fixed intention of his Majesty's Government to apply an efficient remedy to the evils of which the people of Scotland complained ; and secondly, whether the Noble Vis count would inform the House what course his Majesty's Ministers were prepared to take, in consequence of the Re port of the Commissioners of Religious Instruction, and whether that course would be adopted immediately, or be delayed till a general measure could be devised. Viscount MELBOURNE, before he answered the Noble Earl should make a very few observations on the preliminary matter with which the Noble Earl had prefaced his questions. The Noble Earl had said that if he were to follow the strict course of parliamentary proceedings he would have to make a motion instead of putting a question, but front the latitude which the House allowed in putting questions, he ( Viscount Melbourne) did not see, if the Noble Earl had made a motion, how he could have prefaced it with a longer or more elaborate speech than the one which they had heard on the present occasion.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Noble Earl had stated in the first place that this matter took its origin in his Majesty's Speech, made in the beginning of 1835, re commending that Parliament should give its attention to the state of the Church of Scotland, with the view of giving the poorer classes of the population of Scotland more fre quent opportunities of receiving religious instruction. He (Lord Melbourne) had stated as his opinion that the recom mendation was very ill-considered, and he was sure if the then Government had continued in office that they would not have been able to carry it into effect. He did not say this -with reference to the number of their supporters, but because he thought they would have been met by the reason of the case, and driven to precisely the same course of inquiry as that which the present Ceovernre,ent had adopted. He (Lord Melbourne) did not say that this was the intention of that speech, or of the speech of the Noble Earl—a speech made just at the meeting of the General Assembly, just at the mo ment when a great popular election was pending. He did not soy that that was the intention of the Noble Earl, for he be- , lieved that he brought the subject forward at the present mo ment from higher and better motives—to uphold the cause cf religion and morality. He did not believe that the Noble Earl was actiaated by any such intention, because he (Viscount Melbourife) knew that it would not be becoming nor 'fitting L for a great party to be bribing against their antagonists with public money to obtain the favour and interest of the General Association and the Ministers of the Church of Scotland in the elections, and to obtain the great political ,power which the clergy were at present wielding and exeecising (as he. understood) without much scruple in that eountry.—( Hear.) He knew that that was not the intention of. his Noble Friend opposite, nor of the Noble Lords with whom he acted ; but he knew that the effect of the recommendation had been, to proclaim througinout the country the Noble Lords opposite as the friends of the Cherch—(Hear)—and to enlist on their side all the clergy of t'ne Church of Scotland, who it was known had mad.a their pulpits resound with their denunciations of those whom they supposed to be their enemies and the enemies of ',:heir Church. He (Viscount Melbourne) said that that was not the meaning of his Noble Friend in bringing the matter forward upon the present occasion ; but the subject was one which ought to be considered in reference to its own great im ' portance, and in reference to the object which it had in view. It was a question of very great importance in itself, and of very great importance with respect to the religious feeling of the ' country ; of very great importance with respect to the moral character of the country—a question not only of importance with respect to Scotland, but a question of great importance when considered with reference to England—with reference to the whole empire. With respect to the want of accommo r dation in the city of Edinburgh, it was well known from docu ments of unquestionable authenticity—in fact, from inquiries made under the direction of the Right Reverend Prelate who ' presided over the metropolitan diocese—that the means of re ligious instruction with reference to those who were to be fur ' nished with it were very inadequate in this city. The ques tion was also one of very great importance with reference to the feelings which prevailed at the present time. The Noble Earl had stated correctly that a pretty strong contro versy at present existed between what was termed the volun tary principle and the Establishment. The Noble Earl had put the case rather less strongly for himself than he (Viscount Melbourne) thought he could, for the Noble Earl had seemed to consider that all the Dissenters were friendly to the voluntary principle.—(" No, no," from the Earl of Had ' dington.) Now that was not the case. He (Viscount Mel ' bourne) was himself a decided friend to a religious Establish ment; but it was not necessary to argue that question upon the present occasion, because it was not before the House ; but he considered an Establishment necessary to the religious , and moral instruction of the people ; and for another purpose —not merely for the religious and moral instruction of the people, but for the purpose of preserving a standard of reli , gious truth and purity, and t o save men from the dangers of , enthusiasm on the one hand, and fanaticism and infidelity ' on the other.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl had stated ' correctly that the Commission was to report from time to time, ' and that when the proper opportunity arrived some measure ' should be proposod. It undoubtedly was the intention that ' some measure should be proposed, but it was not intended, whilst these reports were evidently imperfect—when further information was required, and when it was absolutely neces sary to make further inquiry with respect to other parts of the country which might be placed in the same situation—it was not intended that the Government should be required to take rash steps, which they would naturally bind themselves to ' follow up and apply as a principle to other cases which might appear to be analogous. He would admit that he had not ' studied the report with so much attention as the Noble Lord ; ' but upon that report he ( Viscount Melbourne) saw very good ' reason to take time to consider what steps ought to be adopted, for it certainly was an alarmin g feet—one which everybody must gr ea tly l amen t an d deplore—that there should be in the city of Edinburgh so many persons who did not attend public worship at all. It would not be tie , cessary on the present occasion to inquire to what cause , that was attributab!e ; but this he knew, that there were 20,000 seats remaining unlet in that city, 11,000 in places of worship belonging to Dissenters, and 9,000 in places of ' worship belon g ing to the Establi s h men t. It was not t h e high prices of the seats which occasioned this, for it was proved that the low priced seats let the worst. Under these ' circumstances, therefore, it was absolutely necessary for the Government to consider before they took any step, for they 'night take one in the wrong direction, and thereby defeat the object which they intended to advance. Now, with respect to the questions of the Noble' Earl, he (Viscount Melbourne) had no hesitation in saying that his Majesty's Ministers were as anxious to carry into effect the recommendatious of the report—as anxious to effect the object which the Noble Lords opliosite had in view—as anxious to encourage re ligion and morality gcnei ally in that part of the cow,- , try, and particularly to extend as far as was fair and just tile influence of the Church Establishment of Scot land, as the Noble Lord himself, or any one of the Noble Lords who acted and thought with him. The Government were ready to take every step necessary for that object: but undoubtedly he did tint see how it would be poslble for them, acting carefully, prudently, or wisely, to take any single step on this report which related merely to the state of the Church accommodation in the city of Edinburgh. It would be ab solutely necessary to inquire into the same question in the other great and populous towns of Scotland ; and before re commending anything like a grant of public money, it would be equally necessary to inquire whether there were not other re= sources at the disposal of Government which could be applied in the first instance, before Parliament should have recourse to that which had been pronounced by a great authority in ono ther place to be always a very vulgar expedient, namely, a I grant from the Consolidated 1 7 iind. He had rec,!ived a me inerial from certain persons deeply interested in the question, to which he would beg to refer the House. Tile memorialists stated that they demanded the consideration of those who were about to propose a practical measure on the subject. The memoriflists did not presume to point out resources, but they might venture to mention one fund, the application of which appeared to be peculiarly appropriate; namely, the fund consisting of the tithes and rents belonging to, and ad ministered by, the Bishops in Scotland prior to the Revo lution. On the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland these tithes and rents had, and ever shine have been, adminis tered by the Crown. They had been granted by various royal warrants in digerent ways ; but the amount of these tithes and rents was now 1,7171. per annum, and the me morialists then went on to say, that they had reason to be lieve that under a inure economical arrangement the annual proceeds might be made to nearly satisfy the immediate de mands CAI this subject. Non, before a grant was proposed of the public none y would it not be necessary to inquire into the accuracy of this statement? There was also another fund to which, it appeared to him, it would be very natural to resort before adopting the vulgar expedient of a grant from the Con solidated Fund. He alluded to the unappropriated and un exhausted tithes, the teinds to villich all the land of Scot land was subj'..ct.—( Hear, hear.) He knew that it would be said that this would have the effect of levying a tax upon the heritors of Scotland to which they were not at present liable ; but no doubt those persons would be anxious to forward die interest of the Church, the welfare of which they appeared to have so much at heart, and therefore they would offer no opposition to such a measure. However, it was necessary to consider the subject very maturely, and also to obtain every information which, as the Ge nera Assembly was now sitting, would be no very difficult task, and of course there would be no indisposition on the part of Government to make these inquiries, which would of necessity expedite the course which they were undoubtedly most anxious to take upon the subject. With respect to the second question of the Noble Lord, whether it was the inten tion of the Government to take any immediate legislative mea sure upon this report, he (Lord Melbourne) could answer, for the reasons which he had already stated, that he was not pre pared 0 act upon that report. These were his general views upon the matter. The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that the composition of the Commission was such, that it was impossible that the Commissioners could ever agree in recommending any course whatever.—( Hear.) At the time of the formation of the Com mission, two years ago, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) remem . bored urging very strongly up on t h e N o bl e Vi scount t h e ne cessity of appointing a Commission of th a t d escr ip t i on . I t was admitted on all hands that the Church accommodation in Scotland was insufficient. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) main tained that no Commission was required for any information vihich his Majesty's Government did not possess without any Commission. When a deputation from the Church of Scotland was in London, two years ago, it was urged upon the Government that the Commission could onlj tend to interminable delay, and it was then proposed that the Commission should report from time to time. Surely the object of that must have been to allay the apprehensions of those reverend personages, but now it was said that no mea sure could be adopted until all the inquiries on the subject were complete. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) therefore thought he might fairly describe the refusal on the part of the Govern ment to act upon this partial report as a want of faith, more especially when he remembered that there had been laid on the table of the House a letter, containing the instructions to the Commission signed by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, which concluded in these words : " I trust that in the course of six months the greater portion of your task will have been accomplished." He (the Earl of Aberdeen) should have thought that the Noble Lord had had sufficient experience of the vitality of Commissions not to have entertained such an expectation, but now, after nearly two years, and when it had cost the country nearly 20,000/. (one-half of the Commissioners being gentlemen well paid for their labonrs), they were debating and considering whether they should give a beggarly endowment for Churches already built, whilst the Government were at this very time spend ing very nearly as much as the sum required in the Commission. The Noble Lord said that these inquiries were necessary—that the Crown was in posse:!sion of certnin funds which might be applied to this purpose. Now, what he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would ask, had the Commissioners been about ? He should say that the whole information required by the Noble Lord might have been easily obtained long before this. With respect to the teinds, he should say that they were not more liable to be applied in the manner mentioned by the Nobie Lord than the private estate of any gentleman. The land was liable to support one Minister in the parish, but after that nothing more. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) would really re commend the Noble Viscount, as lie had expressed his anxiety to promote the efficacy of the Church of Scotland, if he ever intended to carry out that object, not to shrink from the at tempt from any unworthy apprehension of the effects of any measure fourn led on the Report now before the House. He would not say that the Dissenters did not entertain apprehen sions en the saikject, but then the Noble Viscount was not now in a situation to decide between that party and the Church. He (the Eath of Aberdeen) would assume, if a fair claim conld be made akit, if the necessity should be found to exist, that the Noble Viscount was prepared to afford the assistance +required. Bs should hope that, under the pretext of waiting for 'further in'iormation, the Noble Viscount would not adopt a , course which. would have the effect of putting off the question thootber.- -( Hear, hear.) The Earl of ROSEBERY thought that Government was perfectly 'justified in the course whi c h th e y were p ursu i ng . The 1 2arl of HADDINGTON had not brought the mat ter forward inconsequence of the vacancy to which the Noble Viscount had alluded, or in consequeeco of the meeting of the General Assembly. Here the subject dropped. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND) AMENDMENT ACT. On the bringing up of the Report of this Bill, after a few verbal amendments, Lord WYNFO RD proposed to their Lordships an amend ment on clause 12, to the effect that the presiding officer in the Council should be the person who was assessed to the poor in the largest amount for messuagcs, lands, tenements, tithes, or other hereditaments in the t ow n Of which he was the occu pier or owner. The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped that the Noble Lord would not press his amendment ; by that proposition the richest man in the town might, under some circumstances, be excluded. An amendment which had been inserted in the Committee had introduced this absurdity—that the presiding body, which was, as it at present stood, to consist of those Councillors elected by the greatest number of votes, were en titled to a casting vote. Now he would suggest, in order to obviate that difficulty, that where a town was divided into wards the Councillors who were elected by the greatest num ber of votes should appoint one of their number to be the pre siding officer. Lord DENMAN was unable to concur in either of the pro positions which had been made. He would suggest, with great diffidence, that the presiding officer should in such cases be selected by lot. Lord BROUGHAM approved of the plan proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend would meet the case, and therefore, under these circumstances, it should receive his support.—(Hear, hear.) lord BROUGHAM thought they had better try the other House again.—( A laugh.) Lord DENMAN believed that the House of Commons had not been very strong in their objection ; and he entertained no doubt that, if their Lordships should really think that this was the best scheme that had been suggested, it would be agreed to by the other House. Lord ELL ENBORO UGH could not agree to send down to the other House any proposition for which he would be unable to assign good reasons in conference. The Earl of DE VON expressed a similar opini m in favour of the proposition for the selection of the presilirg officer by lot. The question was then put, and the amendment carried without a division. Several other verbal amendments were agreed to. The report was then received. In reply to a question from Lord ELLE NB 0 R 0 UGH, The LORD CHANCELLOR said th a t th e Bill, with the amendments, would be printed before it would be read a third time, in order to give the House an opportunity of knowing all its details. Adjourned-at half-past Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mar 19. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before 4 o'Clock. Lord MELGUND for Hythe, and Mr. Bt OADNVOOD for Bridgewater, were introduced, and took the oaths and their seats. Lord CLI VE brought up the Report of the Shropshire and North Wales Insurance Company Bill. STEVENSON'S BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Sir C. BLUNT, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to a petition which he presented a few days ago from a Mr. Yeates, complaining of the mode in which signatures had been got to the deed in favor o!' Stevenson's line of Brighton Railway, The Hon. Bart. spoke in so low a tone as to render it a l mos t imp oss ibl e to catch a single word that he uttered. We, however, un derstood him to say, that according to the statements of the petition, the names of no less than six individuals had been attached to the deed without the knowledge of the parties themselves. If such was the case it was highly important that the House should inquire into the subject, and for that purpose he should move the petition be referred to the Deptford and Dover Committee. Lord GEORGE LENNOX did not care whether the petition was referred to the Committee or not. From the statements of the Hon. Baronet himself, it was evident that no charge of fraud had been substantiated. The only state ment in the petition was that the names of six -gentlemen had been appended to the deed, as it was stated, without their knowledge. Now, what was the fact ? Why, these gentlemen being from town had written letters authorizing their agents to subscribe the deeds for them. If the House thought that that was a subject worthy of inquiry, he should throw no obstacle in the way of such inquiry taking place—the only effect of it would be to entail expense upon the parties who brought it forward.—(Hear.) If it would be any satisfaction to the House he (Lord George Lennox) could produce the authority for sign ing the deed. He would, however, appeal to the House whether it was fit to refer it to a Committee or not ? Sir C. BLUNT stated that the petition charged that the names had been attached without any authority, which he believed was the case. It was necessary, therefore, that it should be ascertained whether they were or not. Captain PECHELL said it appeared to him no answer had been given to the statements in the petition, although he did not deny that the Noble Lord was a very good advo cate for the parties whose cause he had espoused. He thought the House would be committing an act of great injustice if it did not send the petition of Mr. Yeates before the same Committee to which the petition of the other parties had been referred. After a few observations from Mr. GREENE, who opposed, and Mr. CRAWFORD, who supported the motion, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— Ayes Noes 43 22 MajOrity ..... -21 The petition was tlen ordered to be referred to the Depi ford and Dover list. GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY. Mr. DUNLOP moved the third reading of and Ayr Railway Bill. Dr. BO WRING called upon the House not to permit the clause to prevent travelling on Sundays being embodied in the Bill. It would be most prejudicial, in many respects, to the public interests. For instance, the mails might con vey the correspondence on Sunday as far as Ayr or Kilmar nock, and it would be then stopped. That was a state of things to which he was satisfied the House would not consent. It was, in his opinion, unfair to apply to that particular dis trict a provision which did not extend to other places, and which was not necessary, as it had been declared that the common law of Scotland was sufficient for the purpose. Mr. DUNLOP, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, thought it right to state to the House the mode in which the clause was introduced. When a proposition to that effect was made, it was commu nicated to the promoters of the Bill, and they immediately stated, that as it was the custom in Scotland on all other roads to prevent travelling on Sundays, they would have no objection to the introduction of such a clause into the Bill ; but as they were not authorised by the subscribers in Glasgow to insert such a clause, they would ra ther that the Committee should do so, and they would offer no opposition to it. The clause met with the approbation of a great majority of the people in the two counties through which the line passed, and, as he was astonished that such being the case, Hon. Gentlemen were not satisfied with the opposition already given it. He did not believe that, even if the clause were struck out, that carriages would run upon the Lord's Day.--(Cheers.) But as the people did not object to the introduction of such a clause, and as by the law all other public conveyances were stopped on that day, he trusted that the House would not reject it. Lord J. STEWART had felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause in Committee, and his opinion had not been changed since ; so that he would then offer it all the opposition in his power.—(Cheers.) It ought to be known to the House that the clause was carried in the Committee by a bare majority of one.—(Hear, hear.) If the clause were retained, the Hon. Bart. opposite (Sir A. Agnew) must in justice introduce a Bill to shut up the King's high way upon the Lord's Day.—(Loud cheers.) He must in troduce a Bill to shut up all turnpike gates on Sunday, otherwise the legislation would be partial, for if turnpikes were not shut up, the rich who could afford to keep their own carriages might travel without molestation ; but the poor who could only enjoy a ride by means of the cheapness afforded by railroad, would be altogether stopped from at all, he would not say enjoying themselves, but from travelling upon any pretence on a Sunday ; for these reasons he would give the clause all the opposition in his power, and he trusted that the House would reject it. Sir ANDREW AGNEW was sorry to differ from the Noble Lord, but he had letters from the constituents of almost all the Members in that House—(Cheers)—and also from those of the Noble Lord himself, requesting that this clause might be retained. He had every reason to be lieve that the greater part of the subscribers to the railway were anxious to have this clause retained.—(Hear.) Mr. WAKLEY thought the House ought to consider, that in legislating upon the subject, they were doing so not for Ayrshire alone, but for the whole of England and Scot land.—(Cheers.) He considered the clause so monstrous, that if he stood alone, he would oppose it.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Members had better be candid, and tell the House at once, that the clause was intended to prevent the poor of Ayrshire from availing themselves of recreation on the Sab bath. This clause did not touch the wealthy classes. No ; the rich man might ride about in his carriage, but the poor man was to be prevented availing himself of this great im provement in travelling. If this species of legislation were to be tolerated, in his (Mr. W.'s) opinion, the Houses of Parliament would be brought into the most utter con tempt. There was a commandment from the Deity prohibiting work on the Sabbath-day.—(Cheers.) If that command were not sufficient to prevent it, had the Hon. Baronet the presumption to suppose that he could accomplish it by an Act of Parliament ? The clause was levelled against the working classes, and against no one else. He had occasion to go the other day to Primrose-hill, and he was there in formed that on every fine Sunday and holyday no less than from 6,000 to 10,000 persons visited that place for recreation. —(Cheers.) That was travelling, and the clause was in tended to prevent that. He would ask, was there more harm in using the feet on the Sabbath day than a railroad ?—(Cheers.) Beasts were driven from distant places on the Sabbath, in order to be in London on the Monday morning ; and if the present clause passed, instead of being conveyed by this easy and convenient mode, they would be obliged to adhere to the present system, and be driven on foot. He consi dered the clause an insult and a mockery to the religion which they professed ; and being of that opinion, he hoped and trusted that the House would not only reject the clause, but reject it with such a majority as totally to prevent any Hon. Member from introducing such a clause in future. Mr. FINCH thought the arguments of the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury went too far. He had said that the Deity had commanded that man should not work on the Sabbath day. That was true ; but the Deity had also commanded that neither murder or theft should be committed, and yet human laws were necessary to prevent both. So far from the clause being intended to prohibit the poer man from en joying the Sabbath, it was intended to protect him in that enjoyment. Mr. ROEBUCK said that there had been so many appeals on the subject that it was highly necessary that they should be understood. First, an Hon. Member had got up and insinuated that which be knew it would be un parliamentary to state openly.—(Cheers.) The insinuation of the Hon. Member for Ayrshire with respect to his (Mr. R.'s) religion was totally uncalled for. What was the meaning of that insinuation ? A man of high feeling, of Christian charity, of common honesty, would not make an insinuation when he dared not make a direct assertion. —(Loud cries of " Order, order," from the Tories.) The SPEAKER said he thought the Hon. Member must himself feel that he was using language not quite Parliamentary.—(Hear, hear, from the Tories.) Mr. ROEBUCK—I bow to your decision, Sir. The language is too strong for thi s H ouse ; b ut i t was ca ll e d for by an insinuation that ought not to have been made in it.—(Loud cheers.) They had a right now to understand the question fully.—(Hear.) Those who oppose this clause in a Railroad Act were said, by insinuation, not to have a full and proper reverence for the Christian religion—that was the meaning of the insinuation. Now he asserted distinctly and broadly that the Christian reli gion had nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath. The Sabbath Day was the Saturday kept by the Jewish re ligionist ; and the Sunday, which had so reference to the 4th Commandment was not contemplated at all by the 4th Commandment. The Sunday was not ordained by the Christian religion ; but was an ordinance that had grown up by mere custom.—( Hear, hear.) He held in his hand, and he was determined to push this question to the utmost, a tract written by Archbishop Whateley—( Hear, hear, from the Tories) and he quoted Archbishop Cranmer— (" Hear,"from the Ministerial benches.) He hoped that was authority enough for gentlemen opposite who talked about the Church of England. Now what said Archbishop Crani mer :—" Know ye not, good children, that the Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath day, and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday ; but we Christian men in the New Testament are not bound by such commandments of Moses's law concerning differences of times, days, and weeks ; but have liberty and freedom to use other days for our Sabbath days, thereon to bear the word of God and keep holy rest, and therefore the Christian liberty may be kept and maintained. We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday, as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we must obey."—( Hear.) What was the meaning of that assertion ?—why, that the fourth com mandment, like the other portion of the Jewish law, was abrogated by the Christian Creed, and was no law upon us. Archbishop Whateley, no ordinary authority, distinctly laid down that rule, and said, that on the Sunday— which was a mere day of commemoration, and not ordained, nor commanded in any way by the Christian religion—we keep our holy rest.—( Hear.) Now he would go somewhat farther. He wanted to know by what rule and by what Christian guide those men were led, who in sinuated those individuals were not Christians who op posed the principle of such a Bill as that before the House ? He held in his hand the code of the Christian faith, and he would quote that raverend book, and he would from it take his rule and his Christian charity.—(Cheers.) He was about to read, ivith all due reverence, and be hoped that reverence would extend to others, a portion of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. In the 14th chap. of that epistle St. Paul spoke thus, " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who was weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God bath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another ; an other esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be full) persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not to the Lord, he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Another verse was this, " But why dost thou judge thy brother ? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brothe% for we shall all stand before the judge ment seat of Christ ; for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Again,—" Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may defy another. For meat dcstroyeth not the work of God, all things indeed are pure ; but it is evil for that man which eateth for offence. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor any thing wherewith thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." He would read one verse more, and hare done. " Let us, therefore, not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." That was his (Mr. Roebuck's) rule.—(Hear, hear.) He would say, that no particular day having been specified, it was not the duty of the Le gislature to interfere and enjoin the observance of any given day, and thereby " put a stumbling-block in their brother's way." In his opinion it savoured more of Chris tian charity—and above all of Christian humility—to take care •of his own conduct—(Hear, hear)—to square his rule for himself ; but not in any arrogance of special command, and then to do that which he would be un willing to do himself. Let them, if they will, be as sured that they are in the right path, but let them not drive others into it.—(Loud cheering.) Who, he would ask, had set the Hon. Members on the other side up ? Who had enabled them to judge ? He saw nothing to distinguish them from other men—at least nothing of excellence.— (A laugh.) But the Hon. Member for Ayrshire bad said the people of Scotland liked the clause, and he (Mr. R.) would ask, if so, did the law command them to travel on the Sunday? Was there anything in the Act of Parliament to insist upon their going upon the railway on that day ? Were, they not able to show their peculiar faith by staying at home on Sunday ?—(Hear.) Why did they not begin nearer home if such enactments were to be carried ? Why not stop the Greenwich Railway or the Greenwich steamers? —(Hear.) They dared not.—(Cheers.) It was well known that to do so was absolutely beyond the power of Parliament.—(Continued cheering.) He respected the people of Scotland ; but he did not admire their manner of keepine. the Sabbath Day. He knew the meaning of the nod of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh—it savoured of the same arrogance as he had before alluded to.—(A laugh.) He would again repeat that any ascetic observance of the Sabbath was unwise, and that forcing the conscience of any man was not only unwise but unjust. The people of Scotland would not be injured by the re jection of the clause—it still left them their own uncon trolled will in the worship of God according to their consciences, and they should thereby abstain from un charitably forcing the consciences of others.—(Hear.) Mr. LABOUC HERE—The present discussion merely convinced him of the impropriety of bringing forward such subjects in a popular assembly. Although he admitted that nothing had fallen from any Hon. Member during the pre sent discussion which was likely to create any unpleasant feeling, it was desirable, nevertheless, that this debate should not go further.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Labou chere) rose for the pnrpose of stating the grounds upon which he intended to vote upon the present occasion. He could have no hesitation in voting for the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock to strike the clause out of the Bill.--(Loud cries of hear, hear.) It was his belief that the adoption of a general principle to forbid travelling upon Sundays was unwise and impolitic. Mr. DUNLOP explained. If he had used any argu ments which were unparliamentary he begged leave to with draw them.—(Hear.) Sir R. INGLIS said the arguments of the Hon. Member for Bath ought to lead him to move for the repeal of all the enactments respecting Sabbath observance, rather than to oppose the present clause. Mr. JOHN MAXWELL opposed the amendment, amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide," and " Question." Col. THONIPSON objected to the clause amid loud cries of " Divide." If Hon. Members opposite could show any authority in that sacred work to which the Hon. Mem ber for Bath had referred for the course they were adopt ing, he would at once withdraw his opposition to the clause. Lord J. RUSSELL said as he had not been accustomed to vote upon private Bills, he thought it necessary to say a few words in explanation of his reasons for giving his vote against the clause proposed. It seemed to him that in adopting the clause, the House would be going far beyond what it had hitherto done. He could not consider that the House would be acting rightly to legislate with respect to a particular railway in a particular district, without extending it to all railways ; and if it did, the same provision ought to be extended to all travelling. Now as he was not prepared to go that length, he felt bound to vote against the retention of the clause. Sir A. AGNEW explained. The CHISHOLM said the Noble Lord had evidently not read the Bill. It did no more than leave the law as it at present stood in Scotland, and he hoped the clause would be retained. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Honour able Member who had just addressed the House did not understand the question.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The clause as it then stood prohibited the travelling upon this railway from 12 o'clock on Saturday night till 12 o'clock on Sunday night—the clause was most unnecessary, and, in his opinion, would be most injurious. He did not agree with the opinions expressed by the Hon. Member for Bath with regard to the manner in which the Sabbath was ob served in his native country. He trusted it would alwaysbe as well observed, but he could never agree to such a clause as the one in question, which might actually prevent many from riding a few miles by the railway in order to attend the church. The Gallery was then cleared, and the numbers were— For the clause Against it Majority -32 The clause was then struck out, and the Bill read a third time and passed. IRISH POOR-LAW BILL. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor law Bill was read, for the purpose of being postponed till Tuesday next. Mr. HEATHCOTE beggdd to ask the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), whether the Government were intending to take any steps for carrying into effect the Report of the Committee which had sat, for the purpose of finding out means for reducing the expenses of carrying into effect the English Tithe Bill ? As the matter then stood, the ar rangements for commutations were entirely put an end to, and he trusted the Government would do something in order to put an end to such a state of things. _ _ Lord J. RUSSELL said the President of the Board of Trade, who was a Member of the Committee spoken would introduce a Bill upon the matter in a short time. BURMESE PRIZE MONEY. In answer to Mr. Hume, Sir J. HOBHOU3E said he was happy to inform the House, that he had that day learned there would be an immediate issue of the prize money arising from the Burmese war. Mr. ROEBUCK said before the House proceeded to the business of the night, he hoped the Noble Lord would say how he intended to carry on the Government business. Would it not be better to follow up one Bill and pursue it to the end ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad that the subject had been again called to his attention, for many Hon. Members were then present who were not on the pre vious night, when the Hon. Member for Bath proposed that the Government should proceed with one Bill, and pursue it day by day until it was finished.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that, as a deliberative assembly, and especially as a representative assembly, it was necessary that some time should elapse after a Committee on a Bill and the receiving of the Report, that the country might be aware of the alterations made in it in Committee. Formerly when he (Lord John Russell) had a seat on the Opposition benches, on Mondays and Fridays Orders of the Day had precedence, and on Notice Days they were taken in the order in which they stood, unless when one of very particular importance was brought for ward, and when others in courtesy gave way.--(Hear.) He thought it was to a want of that kind of consideration that much of their present difficulties were to be attributed; and if the House would only comply with the former mode of proceeding, much of the inconvenience complained of would be obviated. Mr. ROEBUCK explained. Mr. ROBINSON said it would be impossible for the House to go on with the business, unless it adhered strictly to some fixed rule. There had never been any want of courtesy on the Opposition side of the House towards Go vernment. He hoped the experience of this and last Session would induce every Member of the House to endeavour to find out some measure by which they might more satisfac torily get through the business of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a great many of the evils at present complained of, might be attributed to the practice of adjourning debates. Mr. O'CONNELL said the great error was in the u❑ natural hour at which the House sat.—( Hear.) It would be better to have two days in the week devoted entirely to Committees, and the other four to sittings in the House, beginning at the hour at which the business of the Courts of Justice commenced, 10 o'clock. They might then get through their business with some satisfaction to themselves and the country. Mr. H. TWISS did not think the suggestions of the Hon. Member for Dublin could be acceded to. Mr. AG LIO NBY said. he should draw the attention of the Noble Lord probably next week to the mode of drawing Bills, and the internal management of the business of the House, as he was convinced the mode in which business was carried on was detrimental to the public. Mr. B. HOY complained of the course proposed to be adopted by the Noble Lord. He had a motion for Tues day next, and if the proposition of the Noble Lord were acceded to, he should be unable to bring it forward. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the postponed question would not necessarily take precedence of the Hon. Mem ber's motion, although if the Hon. Member gave way, it would be a .convenience. With' respect . to the question of the Hon. and Learned . Member for Ccie4;thouth, the questionAihethir it would be desirable to appOint a Committee to consider the arrangement of the business of the House, was at present un der consideration. The Noble Lord then moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Forgery Bill. Col. SIBT WO RP rose, pursuant to notice, to make a mo tion for the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurances. The Hon. and Gallant Member was proceeding to address the House in support of his motion, when Mr. C. BUL LER rose to Order. The Hon. and Gallant Member was acting in accordance - with a practice which had long prevailed of moving questions of a general nature on the reading of the first Order of the Day ; but he (Mr. Buller) doubted whether it was a practice in accordance with the Or ders of the House.—( Hear, hear.) What relation could the question of the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurances have to the Forgery Bill ? After a few words from the SPEAKER, Colonel SIBTIIORP, and Lord Jonm RUSSELL, the House went into Committee on the Forgery Bill. After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the House resumed, and the Bill was reported, with amendments—the Report to be further considered on Monday. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. The Order of the Day was then read for going into Com mittee on the Punishment of Death Bill. Mr. EW AR T, in rising to move an instruction to the Com mittee, said that although he himself entertained a strong opi nion that in the present state of society the punishment of death might safely be dispensed with in all cases, yet the en forcement of that opinion was not the object of his present motion. He thought, at all events, it would be felt that they had the right to inflict as much of punishment as was neces sary for the preservation of society. For some time past there had been a growing dislike to all harsh punishments. This was seen particularly in those countries where the system of trial by jury prevailed, and therefore it was that in Eng land, France, and America the opponents of capital punish ment were to be found in the greatest number. It was a re markable fact that as executions had decreased crime had be come diminished. Society, indeed, was in a better state as regarded crime now that capital punishments bad been re duced in number.—( Hear.) He did not think the principle on which the Noble Lord's mitigation of punishment pro ceeded was in accordance with the feelings of the community. In France, Belgium, Prussia, and Austria, the punishment of death had been almost entirely abolished, and why should it not in a free country like England? It no doubt was true that the Code Napoleon retained capital punishments in cases of burglary, but in 1822 even this crime was not punished with death in France, and no bad effects resulted from the mitigation ; yet, in the face of such evidence, the Noble Lord intended to continue capital punishments in no less than eight cases. Rape was one of them, and he could only say that the experience of other countries proved that, even in the case of this offence, the abolition of the punishment of death had been attended with no evil consequences. He should also wish to see capital punishments done away with for infamous offences. They might stamp such atrocious crimes with as much popular horror as they pleased, but still he was convinced that the removal of the punishment of death in these cases, as well as in cases of robbery and burglary, would be attended with benefit rather than injury to the community at large, be cause it would have the effect of rendering the punishments certain, and at the same time inducing prosecutions where now they were abandoned, in consequence of the severity of the laws. Now he might be asked what the substitution was that he would propose. To this he would answer that he would extend imprisonment—he would even go the length of ex tending it for the term of life in some cases ; and that he thought would be a sufficiently severe punishment for any of fence whatever. He knew that the Noble Lord considered that punishment too severe • Luf Ps severity and certainty of punishment seemed to be the only effectual mode of prevent ing or repressing crime, he (Mr. Ewart) entertained a very different opinion. When examined before the Law Commis , stoners Mr. Ald e r man H armer ex pressed it as his opinion . " / the punisnment of de a th was no t so sure a means of crime as long imprisonments, and this was confirmed by the", perience of almost all f ore i gn nations where the experin see ' of abolishing capital punishments had been made. Viet!: nishmeut of death, it should be recollected, was irrevoca b l e while that of i m p r i sonmen t was not , an d as m an had no sir . to exercise the v e ng eance w hi c h a l one b e l on g e d to the h! prcme Being, he th oug ht no h uman p ower s h o uld take aw! , , the life which God had g i ven . Hi s b e lief was that dly a should abolish capital punishments in all cases where it eon s be removed with p er f ec t secur ity t o soc i e ty, because notint could have a worse influence on the minds of a people thane' uring them to sc enes o f bl oo d. Thi s was suffi c i ent l y prov ed by the spectacles whi c h th e recen t execu ti ons in this coun t, :, exhibited. Nothing cou ld p oss ibly b e more la men Sable. r e % sons were to be seen amo ng th e crow d s co ll ec t e d on these * . cesions smoking thei r pip es w i t h th e most a p at h e tic ice fo r rence, and indulging in language the most inappropria t e, scenes so solemn, and at the same time so revolting to humor , ture. It was well known that women, and even children, had be w present at such exhibitions, and lie did not think it could ' , " 11 doubted that they went away more depraved than they li be gone.—( Hear.) He considered it a wise policy to teach t si , people a sacred regard for life, and as an existence bad he` bt given to man for some wise purpose by the Almighty, it ag o , not to be trifled with, or h as tily or p rema t ure l y taken ay; 1 0 Even in Russia a considerable decrease had taken Pla ee _ bs , capital punish men t, an d i n T uscany h a d b een a l toge ther a es lished nearly half a century ago, In Austria, too, it lsad be ts considerably diminished ; and when th e y f oun d th a t the ea considerably of other countri es h a d b een f o ll owe d up i n t hi s respect 1.1.t0 such good effect, he thought they should not hesitate at lese` fi try the experiment. Capital punishment had also been mitigated in Hindostan by Sir James Mackintosh, Sir Chari — Metcalf, arid other eminent Judges; and what was the cop se ; quence ? Why, that th e c h ange to a milder code of laws baa ' prßuced the most beneficial results on the habits and mane e die of the people of th a t p ar t o f t h e wor ld.—( H ear .) I n t h e m id dl the last century the sanguinary code of this country had a t) tracted the attention of Sir W. Meredith ; but he (Mr. Ewe believed it to be wholly attributable to the aristocratic C „" 0 racter of the Governm en t, w hi c h h a d f or so long a time be in the habit of consid er i ng th a t cr i me cou ld on l y be repressel vi s severe and cruel laws. U n d e r th e c i rcums t ances w hich he l a s stated, he now called on the House to mitigate the priail ) ;, of the Bill of the Noble Lord, without, however, at all W e , feline. with the crime of m ur d er , an d i n so d o i ng h e w as 1 " ,4 suaded' that he was supp or t e d by th e vo i ce o f t h e country. believed that the c h ange was requ i re d b y goo d po li cy and 'Ts tural feeling, as well as by re li g i on , an d, t h ere f ore , h e shoe' conclude by moving, as an amendment, " That it be an insta s l: tion to the Committ ee on t h e Bill to a b o li s h cap i ta l pun i ment in all cases except cases of murder."—( Hear.) b 0 Mr. HUME seconded th e mo ti on o f hi s H on . F r iend Ws, had just sat down with muc h sa ti s f act i on , b ecause , h av ing an ti voted considerable attention to this subject, he had arrived the same conclusion to which his Hon. Friend had COn° . Indeed, it was impossible to examine the tables before tie 1 with respect to crime, without being convinced that caP t ct punishments ou g ht t o b e a b o li s h e d. Th ey s h ou ld re coils , that unnecessarily severe laws only tended to sender 0t people barbarous ; and this was a truth which the rec c e executions executions in the metropolis, at Gloucester, and elstssch f e ' r il strikingly exemplified. Now, he submitted to the Noble 'J e ts whether the tendency of such exhibitions was not rathe, encourage than repress crime 1 And if he only looked, the motives which actuated human nature, he must be O.", vinced that such scenes were not calculated to human t l it " a people. The duty of a Government was to promote, as 1 ,) as pcsFible a high state of moral feeling, and he (Mr. ' HO" thought that the removal from public view of such revolting scenes as executions was one means by which that object to be attained. In Belgium capital punishment had been s o ts lished, and what w a s th e consequence ? Wh y , t h at t he M e m, serious description of crimes had been greatly diminished. had visited a prison in that country in which eighteen crisaia s t of this kind were confined, and he was told by the goverls that the practice of l o n g i m p r i sonmen t s h a d d one ma ch g e ,,, s in the way of prev en ti ng cr i me , an d p u t t i ng d own t h os e acn, and ferocious feelings w hi c h l e d t o th e comm i ss i on o f v:e'"o offences. He asked the Noble Lord whether the present ', j i g not a fit opportunity for trying the same experiment in t country ? He did not b e lie ve th a t th e p eo pl e o f E ng l a nd We re less likely to benefit by mild laws than the people of Belgil or of ans other country ; and therefore it was that he hel l s( the instruction of his Honourable Friend would be a dopted the House, even though it did not go quite so far as be ca e o wish, or as he thought it ought to go, inasmuch as he 11 against the infliction of capital punishment in any case. The SPEAKER having put the question, to Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was very unwilling , enter into the pres en t di scuss i on , b ecause th e H on . o , e o , tleman who had moved the amendment, and the Hon. tl e tieman who had seconded it, had rather tr ea ted hi s prop sition as if the object of that proposition had been • increase capital punishment. Now, what he proposed w ss , decrease, and not an increase, of the punishment of death 4 (Hear.) There w ere a t p resent thi rt y- seven o ff ences vO ll o f were capital, and what he intended was that in twenty-one/ these the punishment of deaths should be wholly re peal' and with respect t o severa l o th ers on ly i n fli cte d un der F li e ; culiar circumstances. He made this proposition because be considered it more lik e ly t o carr y w i t h i t th e o pi n i on oN op country, and at the same time effect a considerable mitigaP e , in the severity of th e l aw th an if h e h a d gone an y furtbus, The argument of the Hon. Member for Liverpool wo r doubtedly led to the conclusion that he wished to do a . 00 with capital punishment altogether, although his ni cti f e did not go quite to th a t ex t en t ; b u t th e H on . M e mber t. , Middlesex openly avowed what his views were—that wai desirous of having capital punishment entirely abolish!, The two cases taken by the Hon. Gentlemen as ill us tratild in support of th e i r v i ews were t h ose w hi c h recen tly occur. in London and at Gl ouces t er . Th e y were b o th e xecutioa: for murders of an aggravated description, and with the cots mission of which off e n ces th er e could be no human sympatul e i —( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, however, declar o that in no case ought capit a l p un i s h men t t o take place ; all with respect to a p ro p os iti on go i ng to suc h an ex t e nt, al' could say was that lie was of opinion that the Legisla ture would not be acting in accordance with the generai feel l › and sentiments of the country if they were to go any su s , length as to say th a t ca pi ta l pun i s h men t s h ou ld b e wholly e o tinguished in all ca ses . Hi s b e li e f was th a t if Parlialc O f were to pass a law aboli s hing the capit a l puni s hmen t offenders such as those who had been executed—offenders i 'j had excited the unqualified abhorrence of the public in gee e et e of this country—if, h e re p eate d, o ff en d ers suc h as t hese 0 ,4 not subject to capital pu n i s h men t, h e was s ati s fi e d that 01 would soon see a reaction in favour of the punishmen t death, which would oblige Parliament to retrace its steP s ;o6 ( Hear, hear.) He thought that such a revulsion in p i r e, feeling would be a ver y great m i s f or t une , an d h e , d i ese ,. l' s , rather than adopt any other course, preferred lookingl4 public opinion f or a gra d ua l an d proper mo di f i cat i on of t 4 criminal law, by t a ki ng away cap i ta l pun i s h ment for? fences against property, and preserving it in instances of e go . cious violations of the security of life and person. By means he was persuaded the greatest amount of good wy be effected. Prosecutions w ou ld b e encourage d, and J u 4 would be induced to convict ; and a further advantage W5OO would be gain e d was , t h at t h e w h o l e we i g h t o f pu bli c o p air would be found to he more in accordance with the due eat Se tion of the laws. With respect to the question of the ab ° 1 ;•; Lion of capital puni s h men t, an d w h et h er h e cons id ere d 'of question in a phil o sophi ca l or pract i ca l point of v i ew , he e. inclined to think that it was far better to leave it to chat:l e ns / to open discussion by p u bli c writers—than if th e y were " e (); to proceed to the consideration of it. In short, he did 0 believe that they were prepared to go into such a questie d e ser present. But, at all even t s , w h e ther they were not goina o ld enough, or whether th e y were go ing too ta r , h e f or on e W e po not consent to abolish capital punishment.—(Hear.) t sef Hon. Member for Liverpool had quoted the example of e t he countries, but he ( Lord J. Russell) believed that, with oat exception of Belgium, the punishment of d ea th ex i s t e d in if not all of the countries which the Hon. Gentleman e at named. In France, for i ns t ance , th ere h a d i n t h e last" ; th , been no fewer than fifteen capital ex ecu ti ons , even ne t " s standing the power whi c h th e J ur i es o f th a t countr y posse to of returning with th e i r ver di c t extenua ti ng c i rcums tance t se prevent the infliction of that punishment. Now, dill soa last year in England, the t o t a l am ount of execut i on s ° I ISO exceed seventeen. In cases o f this kind th e compar ison boa the Hon. Gentleman made was not fair. There migh t t tb o been thirty three yea rs ago ; b u t i t was an ascerta i ne d Pi c a tbn only 17 criminals were capitally punished last year, or s no; great probability was th a t thi s y ear th e num b er w orld t he reach any such amount. B u t h e wou ld no t f urt h er occePi t ab's attention of the House, because he really felt that the ti btio ject was one which oug ht t o b e l e ft t o th e di scuss i o n of lim e s, writers, writers, and the effect of public opinion in future u hl!c What he proposed was to m a k e th e l aw accord wit h ' PSser opinion, and the J udg men t o f t h ose i n w h ose h an ds the s oil nistration of justice was placed.—( Hear, hear, bear.) io to seemed to be the best course he could take ; but he ong t he say that, with respect t o w h a t h a d b een sa id w ith regard e el' scenes exhibited at the late executions, he entirely age ee ;gge though he knew that news p a p ers were li a bl e to such cs o est , rations in the accounts they gav e o f suc h c ases. 11e , 00 0 5 however reprobate, in common w i t h t h ose w ho ban e r iit before him, the condu c t o f th e persons who were Pr e s s o f the occasions referred t o , an d th e feelings which they ° r oe: played ; but he was aware that such scenes did not P, oo t any immediate conseque nees , an d h e a tt r ibuted such fee on tb the want of sufficient moral and religious instruction 007 part of the people.—( Hear, hear.) He was quite sur d e ns ee s the persons who attended those executions had received moral and religious instruction they would have been 7, 1 , 1 by very different sentiments ; that such spectacles we's` , t here' produced in their mind the most serious reflections; a nd ' fore, as it was not to the spectacles themselves, but ; . ?_ sis , LP : e barous and revoltin a conduct of those who witnessed tn o p tP the fault belonged, he was unwilling to place any stres s arguments drawn from such exhibitions.—( Hear.) , an d l_ 4 ll° Mr. F. BUXTON must thank the Noble Loru_ oo . o io ll 4 Government for removing so large a portion of the F o rge!, laws of our criminal code, especially fleeting. s th s ' from the statute book. Two experiments resr n i s ene v et had been tried. The one was the process of t he ,lit h w i t h regard foie, were e ir /l e t es - c s 4; crime by rigour, and the other by mitigation. instance, all persons convicted of forgery Bow-street mercy, not a single wretch being allowe At one Assizes no fewer than mine persons sver t t to u de ath o of this offence, and thee evry one of them was P u s s e ars eg 'for (Hear, hear. ) In metropolis alon o e ff , e t: c o: 1 :3; 0 . 7 e: t th h e : l i h i t tl , greater number of persona were executed for_T, a f so het_ t he all other offences throughout England and N'"!: 18.9 3 10 0 this inexorable severity put down the number of convictions for forgery was 213, be thoug ht' year it did not exceed 179.-4 Hear, hear.) i",. a ' s i ta l pe: 4o o was conclusive in favour of the abolition of thF'S jo r se of f', o l, ment, the more especially as all other degas s;a ose had, during the same period, rather inereued TEA; SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1837. I