The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-24 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION. TUE ON C lir" 1- ilr yr rE A TIIIS EVENING. WHITEHALL. 23, 1837. The King has bean pievr:a to present the Rev. Adam Cairns to the charge and office First Minister or the church and parish o! Cupar, in th: vrPshvt , n-y of Cupar and shbe of Fire, vacant b,y the death of the cz. Dr. Lawrance Adarason. WAR-OFFICE, MA FCC7I.2* 2il Regiment of Li:;G;ards--Lient. T. Gardner to be Captain, by purchase, vice Ricardo, who yeti:es ; Cornet and Sub-Lieut. F. Preke to be Lieutenant. by purchase, vice Gardner ' Lieut. C. H. Drummond, from the IZith Light Dragoons, to b e Cornet and . Sub-Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Freke, March 24. fid Regiment of Dragoon tiaards—W. Squire, .o:mt., to-be Corr.et, by purchase, vice Campbell, who retres, March 21. 4th Regiment of Lie,t Dragoons—Lunt..:. Forbes, trona the 2t;th Regiment, to be Lieutenan, vice Miller, who exchanges ; Gentleman Cadet J. F. Fitzgerald, from th e Racal Military exchanges to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Routh, appointed to the 16th Light Dragoons, March 24. 14th Regimec:t pf Light Dragoons—Lieut. G. M. Fullerton, from the 14th Regimeat of Foot, to be Lieutenant., vice Yelverton, who exchanges, March 24. 11th Regiment Feet.—Lieut.. General Sir R. S. Donkin, K.C. 8., from the 80th Regiment, to he Colonel, vice General Sir 11. T. 'Alontresor, K.C.11. deceased, March 13. 14th Foot—Lieut. Hon. C. B. Yelverton, .from the 14th Light Dragorns, to be Lieutenant, vice Fullerton, who exchanges, Marsh 24. 15th Regim:nt of Light Dragons—Cornet H. L. Cocksedge to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Drummond, appointed to the 2,1 Regiment of Life Guards; E. Connor, Gent., to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Cocksedge, March 24. 16th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Cornet R. Routh, from the 4th Light Dragoons, to be Cornet, vice MacGregor, who retires, 111ar_h 24. `23d Foot--Major W. Ross to he Lieutenant-Colonel, by pur chase, vice Harrison, who retires ; Capt. W. Fenwick (o be Major, by purchase, vice Ross ; Lieut. W. Alcock to be Captain, by pur chase, vice Fenwick ; Second Lieut. H. G. Anderdon to be First Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Alcock ; A. W. W. Wynn, Gent., to be Second Lientenant, by purchase, vice Anderdon, March 24. 24th Foot--E. Wodehouse, Gent, to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Moore, who retires, March 24. 26tH root—Lieut. J. Miller, from the 4th Light Dragoons, to be Lieutenant, vice Forbes, who exchanges, March 24. 36th Foot—Lieut. A. Trollope to be Captain, by purchase, vice Ilibbert, who retires ; Ensign A. Thisticthwayte to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Trollope ; W. W. Abbott, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Thistlethwayte, March 24. 80th Foot—Lieut.-Gen. Sir J. Taylor, K. C. 8., to be Colonel, vice Lieut.-Gen. Sir R. S. Dunkin, appointed to the command of the 11th Regiment; Major N. Baker, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, by purchase, vice Cassidy, who retires ; Captain J Bowler, to be Major, by purchase, vice Baker ; Lieut. J. Scully, to be Captain, by purchase, vice Bowler; Lieut. J. Li'rhtbody, to be Adjutant, vice Black, who resigns the Adjutancy only, March 24. 82d Foot—Lieut. C. E. Nugent, from the half-pay Unattached, to be Lieutenant, vice Holmes, appointed Pay-master to the 35th Regiment, March 23 ; Ensign W. R. Cazalet, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Nugent, who retires, March 24; Ensign and Adjutant J. Stoodley to have the rank of Lieutenant, March 25 ; E. R. W. W. Yates, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Cazalet, March 24. 97th Foot—Ensign H. Russell to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Henry, who retires ; J. C. Strode, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Russell, who retires, March 24. UNATTACHED. Lieut. G. S. Fitzgerald, from the 26th Regiment, to be Captain, by purchase, vice G. J. Lenon, who retires, March 24. STAFF. Brevet Lieut.-Colonel C.6.nixon, from the half-pay Unat tached, to be Major and Military Superintendent of Hospitals at Chatham, March 24. Commissions signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Renfrew. Renfrewshire Yeomanry Cavalry.—Captain H. Stewart to be Major-Commandant, vice Sir M. S. Stewart, deceased; Lieut. J. Hamilton to be Captain, vice H. Stewart promoted ; Cornet D. Mure to be Lieutenant, vice Hamilton, promoted; J. H. Max well, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Mure, promoted, March 3. DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. CHARLES BRENCHLEY, auctioneer, Old Jewry. • BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. JOSEPH GREEN, grocer, Liverpool. BANK R UP T S. ISAAC SOLLY and ISAAC SOLLY, Jun., merchants, St. Mary Axe, to surrender April 4, at half-past eleven, and May 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee ; Gatty and Garth, Angel-court, Throgmorton-street. WILLIAM CATLIFF, draper, WisJeach, :Cambridgeshire, April 5 and May 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Tur quand, Copthall-buildings, official assignee ; Ashurst and Gains ford, Cheapside. JOHN STIRLING, silk-mercer, Conduit-street, Bond -street, April 4, at two, and May 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Gibson, Bassinghall-street, official assignee ; Turner and Hensmae, Basing-lane. • WILLIAM FRIBOURG EVANS, coal-merchant, MiHbank street, Westminster, March 31, at one, and May 5, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Goldsmid, Ironmonger-lane, official as signoe ; Miller, Du,e-;treet, St. James's. JOHN WILLIAMS and ROBERT WILLIAMS, copper smiths' Houndsditch, April 4, at eleve n , an d M ay 5, at twe l ve , at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee; Hilleary, Lime-street. EDMUND SALMONS MERRINGTON, flour-seller, Down ham-market, Norfolk, April 10, and May 5, at twelve, Beckwith an.l Co.'s offices, Norwich. Clarke and Medcalf, Lincoln's-Inn fields ; Beekvkith and Co., Norwich. SAMUEL HOLMES, silk-dealer, Derby, April 5, at two, and May 5, at eleven, at the New Inn, Derby. Capes, Raymond buildings, Gray's-Inn, London ; Williamson, Derby. JOHN EVANS, cordwainer, Kidderminster, April 11, and May 5, at twelve, at Messrs. Hill and Daniel's offices, Worcester. Smith, Chancery-lane, London ; Hill and Daniel, Kidderminster. THOMAS LEWIS, cheesemonger, Glanginwidd, Montgome ryshire, March 29, and April 5, at twelve, at the Royal Oak Inn: Welsphool, Montgomeryshire. Clarke and Medcalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields ; Wace, Shrewsbury. LOUISA BIGGS, shopkeeper, Goodrich, Herefordshire, April R, at one, and May 5, at eleven, at the Commercial Rooms, Bristol. Perkins and Frampton. Gray's Inn-square, London : Smith, Bristol. WILLIAM ROSTILL, caddy maker, Birmingham, April 8, at one, and May 5, at two, at the New Royal Hotel, New-street, Bir mingham. Harrison, Birmingham ; Norton and Chaplin, Gray's- Inn-square, London. DAVID MA TEER, merchant, Manchester, April 8 and May ts, at two, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. Avison and Son, Liverpool ; Adlington, Gregory, Faulkner, and Follett, Bed ford-row, London. JOSEPH SUMNER, carpenter, Edgbaston, Birmingham, April 1 and May 5, at one, at Radenhurst's Hotel ; New-street, Birmingham. Taylor, Turner, Sharpe, and Field, Bedford-row, .London ; Ryland, Cherry-street, Birrpingham, JONATHAN WARD, innkeeper, Greta-bridge, York, March 31, and Slay 5, at ten, at Mr. Fryer's, inkeeper, Catterick-bridge, York. Tilsous, Squence. and 'Filson, Coleman-street, London, Allison, Richmond Yorkshire. JOHN BREARLEY, JOHN SAMUEL WOOD, and JO SEPH WOOD, corn-millers, Rochdale, Lancashire, April 13, at eleven, and May 5, at two, at the Sessions•honse, Wakefield. Ad- Greetry, Faulkner, and Follett, Bedford-row, London ; Taylor, Wakefield. *ABRAHAM NICHOLDS LEA, builder, Birmingham, Apr:l 8, and May 5, at one , at D ee ' s Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Tooke and Son, Bedford-row, London : Melt and Sons, Birmingham. RICHARD TARLETON, spirit-merchant, April 7, and May 5, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Norris and Allen, Bartlett's-Imild...igs, Holborn, London ; Toulmin, Livcpool. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Muccir 23. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. On the motion -of Mr. GREENE the Marsergh (West mordand) Inclosure Bill was read a ttird time, and passed. LUDLOW AND BIRMINGHAM RAILROAD. On the motion of Mr. DUGDALE the London and Birmingham Railway Bill was read a second time and or dered to be committed. BATH AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY. After a few words from Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. HOPE said this case was essentially different from that decided yesterday. With regard to the assents and dissents, he should say, that the great majority of the large landed proprietors were decidedly opposed to it, though some of the small proprietors in the town of Frome were in its favour. Ile hoped the Ilouse would not sanction the cecotet reading of the Bill. Mr. SAN FORD said, in reference to the observation of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, respecting the difforenee between the present case and the one de cided by the House yesterday, the fact was that a petition was presented complaining of the manner in which the sub scription lists were got up. He should abstain from enter ing into the merits of thn! question, contenting himself by moving that the second reading of the Bill should be deferred anal the I lth of April. Mr. SHEPPARD said he had received a communica tion from one of the Directors of the Company, stating that the adverse landed proprietors were 269 ; the assen .ients 700 ; the neutrals 100 ; and the number from whom no replies were received, 341 Mr. SANFORD said as the general opinion seemed to be that the Bill should be postponed, he should move that the Bill be read a second time on Friday, April 11. Sir R. VYVYAN—Of all the cases that had ever neen brought before the House, the present was, in his opinion, the grossest.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared that nut of 2,500 shareholders, 1,300 hag petitioned against the Bill, and his impression was that the Bill should now be thrown out, instead of having it postponed. He should Therefore move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a . scond timo that day six months.--( Hear.) Mr. BENETT hoped the House would pause before 1 threw-out a Bill of so much importance. It would con , very great advantages upon the manufacturing districts of Somersetshire, by enabling them to obtain a supply of coal at a much lower price than they at present paid. It was really very hard after Gentlemen had taken a great deal of pains with a measure, that at the eleventh hour parties should come with a petition of which the projectors of the Railway knew nothing, containing charges that the signa tures •to the deeds before the House were false. Was credit to be given to the signatures to the petition and not to th ose to the deed before . th e H ouse ? He thought that the House,"., . t not to be led aw a y by suc h a system. H e of AV, aqbat the projectors of this Railway were en itairtet*OsttEfinement which was asked, in order to en- W t e 4 the statements in th e pet i t i on. Il e sk ;: i. -,.. ~_ ' t4)okaelc;: seen the Ch a i r m an o f t h e C ompany, l a i -,re.44l.EtiV--man, who bad entr ea t e d hi m , i f posaible , riv t l~v/~ ..:- ;; ~~ to obtain a sight of the petition, the wboh , of the statcmt.nts of which were entirely false. That Gentleman Lad farther . stated to hitt) ; that the petition had no signatn2:2,-,-, whatever mended to it. Under such circtur4ranceac ttoted the House would delay the s t rong rctding tO the 11th of April. Mt r. i-xx.ToNT thou gh t that twe te.i.iernents which had :just been Madre by the Hon. Member for Wilts ougiat to in'duc'e the i!ouse to go even farther than postponing tile end reading. For his own part, he believed that all the .ignatures to the deed were genuine We knew several of the Directors of the COttipaliy, who were men of the highest character; - some oi whom had told him, that with the excep , tion of the. fraudulent attempt:noticed by the Hon, Member, they believed that all the signatures to the deed were ge nuine. It was his opinion that the House ought to allow the secend reading to take place that day ; if they did not, the motion for the postponemext ought to he agteed to. Strangers were then Ordered to withdraw, but no division took place ; the motion for . the postponement being Agreed to. The second reading was then postponed to the 11th of April. HOLNIE RESERVOIRS. On the motion of Lord MORPETH, this Bill was read a second time. GRANTON PIER BILL. On the motion of Mr. EWART, the Lords' Amend ments on this Bill were agreed to. LEWESTEIt SMALL DEBTS. Mr. T. GLADSTONE brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill. BATH AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY. Mr. A. SANFORD presented a petition from the solicitor to this Bill, denying the statements in the petition that had been presented by the Hon. Member for Bridge. water on a former day. The petition was referred to the Committee. LONDON AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY. Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE brought up the report of the Committee on the London and Southampton Railway. CHELSEA RATES. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from tle rate-payers of Chelsea, complaining of the manner in which the trustees collected the rates. 'The HON. MEMBER then moved for a return of the numer of trustees appointed, under the Act 59th Geo. 111. —Agreed to. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Clerkenwell, praying for a repeal of tlle rate-paying clause in the Reform Bill. Mr. HARCOURT presented a petition from So:nerstt against the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. PEASE presented a petition from 45 officers of Excise of the county of Durham, praying for the establish ment of a superannuation funl for the widows and orphans of Excise-officers, similar to that new existing in Scotland ; also a petition from the Coroners of the county of Glouces ter, praying for such a division of counties as would facili tate the duties of Coroners. Mr. WILKS presented petitions from places in South ampton, Norfolk, Denbigh, and from Congregations in Stepney and Lincoln's Inn-fields, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. ABOLITION OF TITHES. Mr. G. S. BARRY presented petitions from Cork in favour of the abolition of Tithe, and of the Municipal Cor porations (Ireland) Bill. CHURCH RATES. Mr. HUME presented three petitions praying for the abolition of Church-rates. The Honourable Member also presented a petition from Ilfracombe, in favour of the Shipping Gazette, and praying that the privileges of the Post-office Gazette might be done away with. UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. Lord MORPE TH presented a petition from certain graduates and under-graduates of the University of Dub lin, praying that a certain number of students, called Mo derates, might be admitted to the elective franchise. SEVERN NAVIGATION. Sir R. VYVYAN presented a petition from the Coun cil of Bristol, and another from the Western Dock Company of Bristol, against the Bill for the improvement of the Severn navigation, particularly the clause for imposing tolls. The Hon. Baronet also presented several petitions from parishes in Bristol, numerously and respectably signed, against the Ministerial plan of Church-rates. Mr. HIN DLE Y presented petitions from the Church wardens and Vestry of Ashton-under-Lyne, praying for the abolition of Church-rates ; also a petition from the same place, complaining of the Poor-law Amendment Act. Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from a parish in Exeter, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates ; alio a petition from Exeter against the duty on fire insurances. NEW WRIT. . On the motion of Mr. J. STAN LEY a new writ was ordered to issue for the counties of Ross and Cromarty, in the room of J. S. M'Kenzie, Esq., who has accepted the office of Governor of the island of Ceylon. LONDON UNIVERSITY. Mr. TOOKE, seeing the Hon. Member for Bridport in his place, wished to ask him, as he was the only Fellow of . the New London University in that House, whether they had yet opened their Charter—where they proposed to hold their meetings, and how soon—and whether they had fixed upon any course for enabling students to take out a College degree ? Mr, WARBUItTON said the London University had opened its Charter, the Government had given them rooms in Somerset-house, and they had appointed a Committee to consider all regulations connected with the taking out of deg re POOR LAW UNIONS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice of his in tention after the holydays to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending the Act relative to the Union of parishes. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in answer to a ques tion from Mr. WASON said, upon the subject referred to by the Hon. Gentleman, there were two contradictory de cisions. At one time the clause was agreed to, and on the second it was rejected. He would take time to consider whether he should propose the re-insertion of the words giving an exemption to Members of Parliament from its operation, but he certainly should take care that the Hon. Member should have due notice that he would not be taken by surprise, as he (the Attorney-General) was on the last oecasion. POOR. LAWS (IRELAND). In answer to a question from Mr. RICHARDS, Lord J. RUSSELL said h. did not think he would be able to bring forward the second reading of the Poor-law Bill for Ireland, and he should now fix it for the 17th of April. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Sir J. GRA HAM said it would be very convenient i the Noble Lord would state what business he propose with which to occupy the House on Monday, the 3d of April Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the order in which he would propose business to be taken was, that the Attorney.. General should upon the 3d of April have precedence in Committee on the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, and he hoped his Noble Friend, the Secretary at War, would be afterwards enabled to bring on the Army Estimates ; if not they would take the Army and Navy estimates on the Frida:, following. As to what was stated the other evening by the Hop. Member for Liskeard, it was not his (Lord John's) wish to interfere with the Wednesdays, on which Members might have business that they -wished should come on. But he certainly did wish to have an opportunity of bring in?. on the affairs of Canada, as his Noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, thought it of importance that that question should be considered as at an end as early as possible. He thought it would be inconvenient to fix it for the first dai , after the holidays, and he had a difficulty in fix ing it. for the following Friday, because if the discussion should last he would be obliged to postpone it for a week longer, or postpone the third reading of the Irish Municipal Bill. He would therefore fix the further discussion on the affairs of Canada for the Wednesday after the House met. Mr. C. BULLER had never meant to press any thing whiCh might interfere with the public business of the Go vernment. His only object was to secure a better obser vance of Wednesdays.—(Laughter.) He would withdraw the notice he had given for the Wednesday after the House met. _ ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord JO UN RUSSELLmoved that the House, al its rising, do adjourn to Monday, the 3d of April.—Agreed to DISTRESS AT SEA. Mr. HU NIE wished to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government had received any official accounts relative to the statements which had appeared in the public papers that 30 passengers from Liverpool to New York had been starved from actual want of provision ? Sir GEORGE GREY said that no official accounts had been received of that unfortunate occurrence. He bad read the statement with some attention, and he was unable to account for the statement which had been made, in the investigation as to the amount of provisions put on board, but inquiry would be instituted into the facts. Mr. RICHARDS asked the Right lion. Geneeman opposite, if it was his intention to proceed with the im prisonment for Debt Bill to-night ? Mr. G. F. YOUNG gave notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, he would move for returns, for the purpose of throwing a light on the construction of vessels in the navy. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, in reply to the question asked by the Hnn. Member for Knaresborough, that he did not intend to proceed with the Imp r i sonment for Debt Bill thi s even i ng , a s he despaired of a full atten dance of Members. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that an Address be presented to his Majesty, for a return of the nun.ber of wiminal offenders convicted at the Assizes and Sess'ons in the country in 1836.—Agreed to. SUN LONDON, PHIDAY, MARCH 621, I. Sir G. SI nslced the Noble Lord if it wns the qt , entian of Governtient it> pu ipo auk- thealtire resp€et ing tithes in Ireland ; and if it. were; at what titne would it be proposed) , , 1 • Lord J. iI.T.;*SELL nlc3 that it was intended to intro duce such a measure sonic time aftei EAiter; but lie could cot say exactly - - • • • • Mr. D. NV. HARVEY as k e d ',ord LI. dis:ell when it n•as intended to tifbeced with the Church-rate regu . ...ition question. Lord J. RUSSELL—On FriLy, the 21st of April. The second reading of the Hackney Carriages (Metro oohs) Bill was It•stpotied to Wednesday, the bth of April. The second reading of the Sheriffs' Fees Bill was post poned to the sth of April. The second reading of the Attorneys' an:l Solie't lrs' Bill ..vas also postr oned to the sth of April. Lord MORPETH then stated that he wished if pos sible that the second readiing of the Dublin Police Bill should be taken this evening. upon off, , nders the ilr,iad would , rendpr it salutary. The prisoner had the fiat ur..l hope Which all inch laid :il that situation; that capital piinilitneut t rotilil not reach him ; and it teat; an tilix.:l:vatiett:L i ti part c( the iiharacteristie phi , i lesopl:y—that death tseir ;or Imiriy hart no want s. It war. worthy of remark; there was no passion in the mind • it hint i • of man 6 weali„ it nia e ronger t . If that were irue, and there so pa iii that tilvcrean.e the apprehensimi of death, how easy might it be overcome, when that apprehension was so distant that there seemed scarcely a chance that the prisoner would have the utmost se thti lad' inflicted tirtin Wm-4 Hear, hear.) That was the ground on which, with fo3Ptidt to that and set oral similar offences, he had desired the Criminal Law Commissioners to give hint an opinion, whether there might not be some definition given by which the 1)unit:10 - tient of death should be reserved to a smaller class. In sO doing be did net ask ; and he did not expect, that they should form any de finition which ttouid comprehend only those upon whom the punishment wes ultimately to be inflicted. It was not possible so to frame any law as to say that that law ought to be firmly and inflexibly adhered to ; but he thought that the law might be so far defined that it could be said generally, that persons who had committed the offence mad_ themselves liable to the capital punishment, and that it would be a question for the discretion of the Judge, and afterwards for the Secretary of State, to consider whether there were not circumstances which fully entitled the cul prit to mercy. He would take as the best instance he could give of the proposition he was then making—be cause it was a crime for which capital punishment was formerly inflicted—the offence of. forgery. It would be in the recollection of many members of the HOuse that there was very often an attempt made in the House before it succeeded to abolish the punishment of death for forgery. On one occasion the Bill actually passed the third reading ; and Lord Castlereagh, after the third reading, declared he would again divide the House with respect to the Bill passing ; and the Bill was then lost on the mo ' Lion that it should pass.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The then Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst) argued with great ability and knowledge of the subject the objections to the abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases with respect to the forging of cheques. He stated, that from returns which he had seen, that the transactions of twenty bankers in bills and checques, amounting for the previous month to nine millions sterling ; that four banking houses did business in the same sort of securities in one year to the amount of 500,000,000/. ; and that 20 other houses had during the same period, transacted business to the amount of 1,000,000;0001., a sum greater than the national debt.—(Hear, hear.) That was one of the reasons urged by Lord Lyndhurst, why they should not put in jeopardy so great an amount of property, and thereby shake the public faith in their commercial transactions. These objections had all the appearance of very sound argument against a precipitate course, and, on a division, Lord Lans downe, who brought in the Bill, had only 22 Peers to vote with him, while there were 70 against him. Again, when Lord Denman was Attorney-General, a Bill was brought in relative to forgery, and it passed with the exception of an alteration made in thu House of Lords, excepting wills and powers of the at torney. Seeing the alarm the subject has created, it was important, he thought, to see what were the effects pro duced by the abolition of capital punishment in certain cases of forgery. He had taken the average of three years before and three years after that period—there were 155 committed on the average of the three years previous to the passing of the Bill, and 210 on the average of three years since its passing ; but then with respect to convic tions there were, in the former period, 58 per cent. con victed, and in the latter period 71 per cent. With respect to the number of commitments of cases of forgery in which the punishment was not capital, they were shown by the following document : " A comparison of the forgeries committed still capital with those that are no longer so." The Act abolishing the punishment of death in certain cases of forgery was passed in August, 1832. The only exception made in the Act was relating to the forgery of wills, and powers of attorney for the transfer of stock, or receipt of dividends. 1833. The capital cases not separately distinguished. 1834. Commitmehts for forgery, not capital Capital (forging a will) 1 1835. Commitments for forgery, not capital Capital (forging a will).. 1 1836. Commitments for forgery, not capital Capital (forging a power of attorney for the trans fer of stock) . 1 Last year a letter had been sent to him by a solicitor em ployed by twenty bankers, who stated that since the year 1833 there had been a material diminution of the number and amount of offences of that nature, and, at the time when he wrote, there had not been, for many years, comparatively se small an amount of the crime of forgery. The following important facts were mentioned in the let ters addressed by this gentleman to the Society for Prose cuting forgery : Particulars respecting the increase or decrease of forgery, drawing from the letters of the solicitor, to the society for Prosecuting Forgery. The report states the number of forgeries committed on the 24 firms which are members of the London Bankers' As sociation from the commencement of 1832 to March 1835. From January to August, 1832, when the capital punish ment was abolished, seven forged checks were issued. From August, 1832, to August, 1833, Arty-eight forged checks and bills of exchange were issued, eighteen of which were traced to be the work of one forger. From August, 1833, to March, 1835, twenty-five forged checks and bills of exchange were issued. In the first period the number of forgeries averaged less than one per month ; in the second four per month, or, ex clusive of the 18 forgeries committed by one person, 21 per month ; but, in the last period, they have averaged 1 only. In order to show in a more striking light the feeling which existed against capital punishments for the crime of forgery on the part of those who were most interested in repress ing it, he should add to his statement a case which had been tried by Lord Denman last year, in which a person was convicted of forging a power of attorney. The life of the convict was of course forfeited under the existina. law ; but before the case had been brought under his (Lord J. Russell's) consideration, he received a statement from an Hon. Member of that House (the Member for the city of London), signed by himself and a considerable number of bankers, declaring it to be their wish that capital pu nishment should not be inflicted. He also received at the same time a letter from the Governor of the Bank, inti mating that although he had no desire to interfere with the decision of the Secretary of State, yet that it was the wish of himself and the Directors that capital punishment should not be inflicted "n any case of forgery. With regard to the other offences for which capital punishment had been abolished, he would read to the House the number of commitments, acquittals, and convictions, by which it might be considered on the one hand that. so great a change had not taken place as might have reasonably been expected, and by which it would be seen on the other that there was no reason to dread any great increase of crime from the abolition of capital punishment where it was.verY seldom inflicted, and where, he contended, its infliction on one ease out of 100 or 200 was but a use less deprivation of IMman life.—(Hear, hear.) • The num ber of persons committed for horse-stealing before the law was altered was 540, proportion convicted 74 per cent., and since the alteration 555, proportion convicted 73. Sheep-stealing during the first period 787, convictions 67 per cent. ; since 716, convictions 72 per cent. Larceny in a dwelling-house, first period 422, convictions 89 per cent ; second period 526, convictions 75 per cent. In coining he perceived a great increase ; first period 14, convictions 50 per cent. ; second period 39, convictions 71 per cent. With respect to housebreaking, upon which some erroneous conclusions had been drawn, it was to be observed that when capital punishment for that offence had • been abolished, it was very often thought expedient or necessary to indict for burglary, because the crime could be brought under that head; but that as long as it remained a capital offence it was usual to indict for it, as being thought more easy of proof than that of burglary. The number of commitments for the crime of housebreaking during the first period—that was, during the three years before the abolition of the capital punishment attached to it, was 2,150, and the number o f capital convictions 76 per cent.; and during the second period the number of commitments was 1,578, convictions 77 per cent. The whole number of commitments for these different crimes amounted in the first period to 4,068, con victions 72 per cent.; and during the latter period the 1 commitments . were 3,624, convictions 75 per cent. The Noble Lord then proceeded :—From which it appears there is a clear increase in the number of convictions, as com pared with former periods, and no considerable increase in the number . of commitments. With these impressions I think we may proceed safely to relax the severity of the law still more, and in accordance with public feeling ; for it could not be denied that there was a strong feeling amongst all classes that the number of capital punishments should. be diminished. I find that expressed in strong terms by several gentlemen who were examined before the criminal law Commissioners. Mr. Harmer particularly stated that he had had great experience in criminal trials; and was well acquainted with the feelings of the public—that there was a general wish for a diminution of capital punishment ; and that, in accordance with that and his own opinions, it might be proper to limit it to murder, arson, burg lary, highway robbery if accompanied with violence, and cutting and maiming, an offence made capital by Lord Ellenborough's Act. He stated also that he had been often present when criminals reeeived . sentence of death, and that they were often less affected on the sentence be ing passed than the audience. That was another reason for a further relaxation of the punishment, There was a CRIMINAL LAW. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that on rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the punishment of death in cases of forgery, which he should follow up by moving for leave to bring in several other Bills with respect to the criminal law, he thought it due to the House and the country to state the motives that had induced him to bring forward the subject in the present state of the public business, and which, when there were so many measures before the House that require great consideration, he should have been most willing had he thought it consistent with his duty to postpone a question relating to the consideration of the criminal Hear, hear.) The adoption of the course like wise seemed to be indicated by the appointment of the Commission, with respect to the civil and criminal law of the country appointed some years ago, It was the inten tion, on the appointment of the Commission, that they should consider—first, of the propriety of revising the whole of the unwritten criminal law on the one side, and of revising the whole of the written crimi nal law on the other, and, finally, they were to consi der the expediency of consolidating the whole. The Com missioners undertook this labour, and went through a con siderable degree of examinations, more especially with re spect to the unwritten law regarding thefts. One of those examinations was exceedingly valuable, as showing the va rious decisions in the common law on the provision with respect to thefts.—(Hear, hear.) It soon ep peered that in order to make a digest of the whole of the unwritten law, and also to make a digest of the whole of the written law, would hardly be done without at the same time endeavouring to bring them into a snore regular and methodical shape. That question led to most im portant and intricate questions. Seeing the time which must necessarily elapse—seeing the great importance and the great intricacies of the questions thus raised, and which had changed the whole body of the criminal law as it ori ginally prevailed, and as it had of late been interpreted —(Hear, hear, hear)—the Commissioners had their atten tion directed to the present state of the criminal law with a view to its reform, and the consequence of their at tention being so directed was, that a report was p resen t e d to Parliament in the course of last Session, in which the Commissioners stated, that in their opinion there were many offences now capital from which capital punishment ought to be removed, and that capital punishment ought to be limited to a small number of offences. With that opinion it seemed to him essential that they should not continue an other year without bringing under the consideration of Parlia ment such amendments as could be made for the present, without waiting for the total reform and digest of the whole unwritten and written law. 'That opinion was very much strengthened by the present state of the execution of the criminal law in respect to certain offences. It was the opinion of Dr. Paley, and which for a certain time pre vailed, that it was expedient to draw into the criminal net a great number of offenders, and then to select a few of those only for punishment. But the impolicy, and injustice be might likewise say, of that mode of proceed ing was, he believed, fully demonstrated by Sir Samuel Romilly, when he undertook, to his immortal credit, and the great advantage of the country, to bring b e f ore Par liament the question relative to theimprovement and re form of the criminal law. —(Hear, hear.) Without dwelling very long upon opinions not now entertained, he would state to the House one or two reasons .v'hy he parti cularly thought the course formerly adopted was most in expedient, and likewise unjust. It was the object un doubtedly—no man now doubted it—it was the object of capital punishment, not to satisfy the purposes of divine jus tice, or to inflict human vengeance, but to deter and pre vent crime.—( Hear, hear.) But that purpose was not at all answered, when you say that out of a very great proportion of offenders only certain victims should be chosen for the execution of the criminal law, without defin ing the aggravated circumstances of the case. If it were a question of the exercise of the privilege of mercy, there were certain circumstances that occurred to every mind why the privilege of mercy should be extended. As, for instance, where offenders were drawn accidentally into the commission of crime ; where persons had a good cha racter ; where they had not been .guilty of any offence be fore ; where they had been misled by others ; or where there was reason to suppose that they were not the most guilty in the commission of the offence. There were various other grounds of mercy which would occur to every person, the most simple as well as the most learned. If they were to say that they would not extend mercy to a certain number of cases to which the penalty of death was affixed by the law, but that they would choose out of a very great number of offences those of an aggravated nature, on which they would inflict capital punishment, it was not known, and it could not be known, either to the persons committing the offences or to the country in general, what those aggravations should be, so that offenders should be deterred from such crimes. He would give two or three instances, in order to show the great disproportion between the number of persons sentenced to death under the present laws and the number executed. In 1835, the whole number con demned was 523 ; but the number executed was only 34. In 1836, the number of persons condemned to death w as 494 ; while the number executed was only 17. With respect to certain offences, the punishment which had taken place was in great disproportion to the convictions. With respect to murder ; for instance, 25 persons were convicted in 1835. One of these was pardomed in consequence, as he recollec ted, of some informality in the indictment. Three were transported for life, and 21 out of the 25 were executed. But with respect to burglaries 193 were convicted and sen tenced to death, but only one was executed ; and with re spect to the crime of shooting, with intent to murder or maim, 60 were convicted and only two were executed ; as to larcenies 202 were convicted and no person executed. With respect to burglary, it appeared from the returns that since 1832 there were three persons executed for offences of that nature. In 1833, one was executed ; in 1834, one ; and, in 1835 one also, for the offence of bur glary. He submitted that the great disproportion between the number executed to those who were sentenced to death was too great ; and he instanced the case of burglary as showing that a beneficial effect on the public mind did not result from the present state of things—(Hear)—besides, it placed in a very painful situation the judge s o f th e land, and the .Secretary of State, who were obliged to administer a law which generally was not carriedinto effect, except in some few cases, where it was expedient to enforce it, even so far as the extreme penalty of death. One of the cases to which he had referred was brought before the King in Conned, and it appeared that the circumstances as detailed at the trial, were that the accused was a professed housebreaker, that he was a sort of master of arts, who taught youths the science of burglary, that tools and instruments were i'oiind in his possession calculated to effect an entry into houses, and that lie kept a school or fan:ily for that purpose. The second person executed was similarly situated, and it appeared that he had committed burglaries on three fol lowing nights—in one case in the house in which he had been before employed as servant. The third offence, where execution followed was that of a man who was engaged in burglary with a gang who broke into a house armed with weapons, and being resisted they attempted to force their way, but were repulsed ; they returned, however, and in the course of their breaking in , inflicted several blows of a severe nature on the family of the House.—( Hear.) The circumstances of these three cases were widely different, and he (Lord John Russell) would defy an y one to say that it could have been beforehand the intention of the law, as regarded any one set of circum stances,saccompanied that there was that they could b e taken a s forming the ground work for the infliction of capital punishment.—(H ear. ) When the judges thoug ht that the cri me was so aggra vated it s by ilo the ukl b circumstancese visited ‘,i t h b a which pi ta l punishment,i .a t no doubt that they made the best use of their discretion, and in such cases the Secretaryof State could not interpose,for they could not find sufficient grounds for the extension of m3rey. But at the same time, in respect both to the Judges and the Secretary of State, men's opinions differed as t.) the circumstances which should call for capital punish nent, and, therefore, it was e xceedingly difficult to deter mine the punishment which should be infficte 1, in cases of burglary, for the crime was of such a nature, and the circumstances connected with it were frequently so varied, that amongst the many persons found guilty of burglary some had been ordered for six months impri sonment ; and in cases tried by the Central Cri minal Court, some were sent to prison for twelve months, some for six • months, and some even for three.—(Hear.) This embraced the first objection that he made to the present state of the law—its extreme uncer tainty of infliction, and the difficulty, or he might say. the impossibility, of saying by the Judges vs ha ! were the circumstances which should agg,•avat this crime to a capital offence.—(Hear, hear.) But . , there was another object i on to ca pi tal punishment so inflicted—it was not in such cases calculated to impose feeling rising up in the public mind, a feeling among judges and jurors, different front that entertained by the persons convicteu th 6 ‘l,.:inte..qttletic. vihich was, that while the punishment of deatli riot M eter r..?iany from committing crimes; it prevented prosecution . ; frtiro being successful The law, t!:i:Se; acte.d not on those againt w horn it was framed, but it :u.ted injui'inti on thoge for whose sake it was td be Carried into efLet. I may a , ll, tit great al tera;On:, rrildniti the criminal law of almost all the States of Europe, t u tu i 7 oit.N.l States of America the number of offences for which capital pdt - iijlanant is in flicted is very restricted. It appears, from th e ev id enc o o f Mr% J; Vickery; that tti the State of Massachusetts it is limited to high tiCagon; tiwrder; rolikry ttith n dangeronti weapon, violation of : a child under ter/ years of age, arson if the house is inhabited, ;Ind burglary tfith tiolence. I aced not go through the list of offences fin. which capital punish ment is inflicted in the ether States of the Union ; I may merely mention that in one of them i confined to murder. in latafbi and Prussia the number or capital ptini.bments has also been greatly diteluishud, In France there had been a similar diminution ; and that leads rod to "tate to the House, the means that may be adopted for relaxing the :an., There are two ways in which the number of capital punishmeins may be diminished, one by a stricter definition of the crime, and by saying that no crime shall be capital unless so de fined ; and a second, by leaving it to the Jury to say gene rally whether it is an aggravated offence, and merits capital punishment. The latter is the mode adopted in France, and the following statement will show how it operates in that country : " While the capital punishments have in many cases been abolished in this country, changes of a similar nature have been effected in the French laws. By a recent modi fication Juries are permitted to attach to their verdicts a spontaneous declaration of circumstances in extenuation (circonstanccs exti'munntes), and thereby to proportionate the sentence to their opinion of the crime. Thts change, the Minister states in his Report, experience has proved to have had an influence on the truth of the verdict, and to have greatly lessened the practice of Juries giving a ver dict at variance with the evidence (which has been a com mon practice also of English Juries) solely with a view of reducing the severity of the sentence ; and he remarks that the law has gained in certainty what it has lost in severity. " The numbers capitally convicted and executed in France in the three last years, published in the tables, es compared with the same three years in England, were— IN FRANCE. 1822. Sentenced to death . 90—Executed 4l 1833. Ditto 5O Ditto 1834. Ditto 2s—Ditto ENGLAND AND WALES. 1832. Sentenced to death .480—Executed 34 1833. Ditto 523—Ditto 1834. Ditto 494 Ditto In 1826 the numbers capitally convicted in France were 150, of whom 111 were executed." By this statement it appears that the number of capital punishments has decreased ; but it must be evident to every one that by giving the jury the power to say whether the offence is extenuated or aggravated, and by deciding in what cases the capital punishment shall be inflicted, the law is totally uncertain.—(Hear, hear.) And it was uncertain not as regarded the Crown or the Judges, but as regarded the individuals who composed the jury. Different juries might take different views of the same crime ; and this might be carried so far that though some of them might admit that a man was guilty of the horrible crime of mur der, yet they might return a verdict of guilty, under exte nuating circumstances, thereby screening him from the capital punishment, fixing the law in every particular case, and exercising _a peculiar and undefined prerogative of mercy. It appears that an alteration of this kind never would give satisfaction in this country. Juries, as I have said, would differ in different places, and even in the same place. What might be considered an aggravated case at York might be regarded in a different light at Exeter, and the consequence would be a demand on the part of the pub lic that the law should be better defined, and a question of life and death not left so uncertain.—(Hear, hear.) In a letter which I addressed to the Commissioners for inquiring into the state of the criminal law, I stated that I was dis posed to follow their suggestions in the report, where they proposed that capital offences should be reduced to 1, high treason ; 2, murder; 3, attempt to murder; 4, burning of buildings or ships ; 5, piracy ; 6, bur glary ; 7, robbery ; 8, rape ; leaving out of conside ration a nameless offence of great enormity. In the answer which I received from the Commissioners, dated January 19, 1837, they say—" the doctrine which we attempted to establish in onr report was, that capital pu nishment should be confißed to high treason, and, with some exceptions, to offences which consist in, or are aggravated by, acts of violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger human life. In carrying this doctrine into prac tical effect, as well in regard to the capital offences which we have retained, as in those which we have classified as secondary crimes, we have endeavoured to define with pre cision those acts which now form no part of the crime ; but are merely taken into consideration as guides in the ap portionment of the punishment, and -to constitute them a part of the corpus delicti." But, Sir, with respect to high treason, to murder, and to the crimes of violence, 1 know that in the opinion of very competent authorities the defini tions of the Commissioners are thought to be capable of very considerable improvement. The answer of the Com missioners thus proceeds :—" We propose by one Bill ex pressly to abolish capital punishment with respect to all the following crimes, substituting for it a discretionary punish ment, varying between transportation for life and imprison ment for five years : these are-1. Offences against the Riot Act, Ist Geo. 1., stat. 2, c. 5, s. 1. and 5.-2. Rescuing persons committed for or convicted of murder, 25th Geo. 11., c. 37, sect. 9.-3. Setting on fire or destroying ships or stores in his Majesty's dock-yards, &c., 12th Geo. 111., c. 24.-4. Pndeavouring to seduce soldiers or sailors from his Majesty's service, or inciting them to mutiny, 37th Geo. 111. c. 70.-5. Administering unlawful oaths or engagements, 52d Geo. 111., c. 104, sect. 1.-6. Escaping from the Milbank Penitentiary, .59th Geo. IV., c. 136, s. 17.-7. Offences against the Act for the Abolition of Slavery, sth Geo. IV., c. 113, s. 9.-8. Offences against the late Smuggling Act, 3d and 4th Wm. IV., c. 53, s. 58, 59." Now, Sir, I say generally that the rule which the Corn sioners have taken as the principle of their recommenda- . . tions (although that rule is certainly not accurately defined) is, that capital punishments should be retained only in cases of high treason, or, with some exceptions, to offences which consist in or are aggravated by acts of violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger human life. They propose to abolish the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, and to modify and restrict the application of capital punishment, and to provide appropriate secondary punishments for—" Malicious injuries ; burglary ; robbery, and stealing from the person ; burning or destroying build ings or ships ; piracy." Then, Sir, with respect to the definitions which Commissioners have given of these respective offences, I must say that they were the subject of great, anxious, and elaborate consideration on their part, and that I have had the advantage of consulting Lord Denman as well as Baron Alderson, who did me the honour to write me a letter on the subject. O❑ some points those Learned Judges differed, but they agreed that a more distinct line should be chalked out. I certainly agree ge nerally with the definition of the Commissioners ; but in some eases it may be desirable to consider whether they have not made too wide, and in other cases too narrow, a distinction. The first class of offences, besides treason, murder, rape, and sodomy, respecting which the Com- missioners propose to retain the punishment of death, are—" Administering poison ; attempting to drown, suf focate, or strangle ; stabbing, cutting or wounding, or doing actual bodily harm by any other means, manifesting a de sign to kill ; with intent in any of the above cases to mur der." Now, as to " doing actual bodily harm," it is proper, perhaps, to take the distinction (although a popular one), between an attempt to murder where no personal injury has been inflicted, and an attempt to murder where a personal injury has been inflicted. There can be no doubt that when an attempt to commit murder has altogether failed, although morally speaking the guilt is precisely the same as if it had succeeded, yet, the offence not having been com pleted, there is a great difference in the public feeling re specting it, and threfore, that it ought not in some cases to be visited with capital punishment. It is the opinion of Mr. Baron Alderson that shooting at the person should be made capital. In my opinion, instead of " actual bodily harm," there ought to be " grievous bodily harm." Where the injury is only slight, capital punishment ought not to follow. It may be contended that the question as to " grievous bodily harm" will be a subject for medical rather than judicial inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) But the law as it now stands on that subject is very defective. By Lord Ellenborough's Act, any person stabbing, cutting, or maiming another with intent to commit murder, was held to be guilty of a capital offence. It was held, how ever, that if an injury was inflicted by a blunt instrument, that that was not within the meaning of the Act. And in this country there are so many capital offences, that judges and juries are always disposed, if they can, to soften the application of the law. In his consolidation of the criminal law, the Right Hon. Baronet introduced the word " wound ing" to obviate this defect ; but at the April Old Bailey Sessions, in 1834, a man was indicted for maliciously wounding a peace-officer, by biting off the end of his finger, with intent to resist his apprehension. He was convicted by the jury ; but a doubt having arisen upon the construc tion of the words of the Statute, whether this act was a " wounding," the question was reserved for the opinion of all the Judges, who held, by a majority of seven to six, that, in order to constitute a " wounding," so as to bring the of fender within the 9th George IV., c. 31, the injury must be inflicted with some instrument. Another instance oc curred in a case tried before Lord Denman, at the sum mer assizes for Somersetshire, in 1834, in which a man, with the • deliberate and avowed purpose of destroy- ing hi's wife, had assaulted her wit . Ul n heated' poker, hsr! beaten her furiously till she was in sensible, and had actually set her 'clothes on lire, when' be was prevented froiti killing her by the interference o f the neighbours. Theugh the bruises and burns occa sioned by tit fia ,rocious assault hal nearly poduced death , Ineis.d wonnd was inflicted, clid, therefore, a s the case did not fall 1.1 . ithin any of the e.s laues of the statute, he could only be punished foi an iggravated assault. Now flo' take to ire a great defect in our criminal law, which ough-t . to he remetred. For the purpose of remedying it, the' Commiss oners recommend the introduction of the words, " or Shad by any other means whatsoever, manifesting a design to kill, do actual bodily harm, with intent to mur der." The other offences respecting which the Commis missicncrr are of opinion the punishment of death s hould be retained, arc, " Burglary, accompanied by an attempt to murder, or by stabbing, cutting, wounding, beating , strikirisri to any other personal violence to an inmate ; rob bery, and atttaupts to rob, accompanied by cutting, stab binsc, wounding, or doing actual bodily harm, with enl offensitie weapon or instrument ; setting fire to any build big, with intent to murder, or to any dwelling-hause acttl. ally inhabited, or to any building, parcel of such dwel'ing hougc nr adjoining thereto." It is obvious, Sir, that these three classes of direness, although brought under one head, are very different in their nature ; and that a line should he drawn with respect to there. I am satisfied with respect to the first two, that it would tend to producemore convictions' , as well as to prevent much personal violence, if, where there was no violence, and where no weapons of destruction were found, a punishment less than death should be inflicted . With respect to breaking into houses at night, howevei, and disturbing the peaceful rest. of the inhabitants, that cer tainly may be a fit subject for capital punishment. It iss however, in my opinion, desirable to abolish the punishmen t of death for the offence of setting fire to stacks. It i 5 certainly a great offence ; and if I thought the continuanc e of the punishment of death would be effectual in checking it, I might hesitate ; but I am persuaded, on the contrary; that the punishment of death 'prevents the conviction of many offenders. The compassionate feeling of the farmer induces him not to prosecute—that of juries not to find guilty. I was one of a small number who, in 1835, sup ported the abolition of capital punishment for this offence- Ten persons have been convicted of the offence, of whom seven have been executed. Although many hundreds have been committed, only sixty-four have been brought to trial ; and, as I have already stated, only ten have been convicted —so strong is the prejudice against capital punishment for that offence. The remaining offences to which the Com missioners recommend that the punishment of death s hould still attach are--" Setting fire to, casting away, or destroy ing ships, with intent to murder, or whereby life is en dangered ; exhibiting false lights or signals with intent to bring ships into danger, or doing anythir', tending to the immediate loss or destruction of ships indistress piracy, accompanied by an attempt to murder , o r by stab bing, cutting, or wounding." Having thus disposed o f the offences with respect to which they are of opinion that the punishment of death should be retained, the Commissioners proceed to specify those offences, now capital, for which, j e . . their opinion, appropriate secondary punishments •ought be substituted. Among these are :—" Attempting to ad; minister poison with intent to murder ; shoo tin g at, or at tempting to discharge loaded arms with intent to maim, dis, figure, disable, or to do grievous bodily harm, or to resist lawful apprehension for a crime ; stabbing , cutting, 0' wounding, with the like intent." They also recomme nd secondary to be substituted for capital punishment for variou s cases of burglary, and for an offence analogous to burglal viz., stealing in a dwelling-house, any person there in beingl3°, in fear. The next point, however, to which I wish to call th i : attention of the House is the nature of the secondary wit ment which the Commissioners wish should be i nflicted on t"c offences I have just mentioned. I must say that I entertain i considerable doubt whether the system of transportation ough to continue to be carried on as it has been carried on of late years. In theory it seems highly desirable to remove an act' der to a great distance from the place where he committed thl offence, and to leave him in that new country viith mew l ' which may enable him to support himself by his lah°°,l; And I think still, that with respect to many offences, LP punishment of transportation is the best that can be 1 ° flicted. But I propose, not only as the result of my 01 investigations of the subject, but in accordance with tb opinions of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, and tli Chief Justice of New South Wales, that no person slu t ' be transported for any period less than ten years ; it beinl found that persons transported for a less period were unr ol and incapable of subordination. The next period of trans portation which I propose is for fifteen years ; and the las for life. I think, also, it may be necessary shortly t' abridge the number of persons sentenced to tranaportial tion. The accounts of the manner in which that puta is ment is carried on are very unsatisfactory. The g rcA , fault is, that the four or five thousand persons who sr; sent out every year to New South Wales are not a bsorb e‘ in the general population, but form a large and viciou separate mass.—[The Noble Lord here read a letter 0 ' the subject, which he had received from the Chief . 11 / 5 , tice of New South Wales, but in so low and h urriel a manner, that we were unable to collect its impor t. A suggestion which has been made with reference to tabl better regulation of our penal colonies is—that no cony should receive any indulgence for a certain period after arrival, and after he shall have conducted himself we l l This is a question to be considered. I will observe 01 ? that if such regulation be adopted it will require an a r , teration of the law, because I believe the Noble Lord r posite (Lord Stanley) when he was Secretary for the Col ° nies, gave an order of this kind ; but it has since b e e , found found that without some legislative proceeding with „r ference to the colony this punishment cannot be legally flicted. I will just quote what Colonel Arthur has s td b' with respect to the actual manner in which these pull ° ments in the colony are actually carried on. It was vt,, known that Colonel Arthur reported to Archbishop \VW , "- ly his opinion that the punishment of transportati? ought to be persevered in. That opinion is opposed to t th' y Right Reverend. Prelate, and therefore the statem en Colonel Arthur cannot and ought not to be considered one given under an unfavourable bias.—[The Noble I ,° !, in a low tone of voice read the statement alluded to, b ut :, the absence of the document we are not enabled to c omm .; nicate its d e t a il s . W e understood its general purport, he.".,;, ever, to be, that the crimes of the convicts continuallYJ", volved the settlement in trouble, though the discipline of v Diemen's Land was carried to a much higher extent 'thewl could ever have been contemplated. The colony tnighteb travelled by night or by clay ; and there were amongst 1., inhabitants very many to be found always ready to suPP.°t; the Government in any exigency. Many of the Ne vi :, were much reformed under kind and considerate wa ste ', but there was, nevertheless, so much peculation amilPos,l then), so much disobedience of all lawful authority , "°" f l i t much dishonesty, as to demand continual reference to al magisterial authority. If a case occurred which was a t of a serious nature, the master of the convict was b ol : ut to appear, and, in addition to the injury which he thur; bo tained, he had to suffer in various ways. There emnus, A t no question that things might be made much better t e r they they really were. Under the present system the se t. of the convicts or servants overlooked these frauds and of peculation rather than take the trouble to punis" a r offender.] Now this, continued the Noble Lord, is it extremely unfavourable picture of the proceeding's 0 the colony ; and if applied only to a small ntiruhe r t o men, it might be considered that by a more rigid sYs 0 , of discipline these evils might be overcome; but , whe e ,e, rAlect that this is a colony containing 100,0 00 p er erg an 1 that we send 4,000 or 5,000 convicts o ut Or to year, the obvious consequence of the present s t rcs i. of things must be to make that colony t he s e er dence of the most depraved people that have e ver Lry the world. I think, therefore, that it will be n e ts e ta' before long to take some steps, not to abolish transln i a tion altogether (for I do not go the length of Archhisseta Whately), but only to make some change in our P re biel mode of proceeding. I will not go into all the evil s "atati now exist in the coony ; and I will therefore o n lY that the system of transportation, as it at present r e ,,ble if looked at on th e score o f eco nomy only, is objec tl° 7oo/ inasmuch as it costs the country from 350,000/. to 4° ,, i "' bli The force syste bothm requires the maintenance of a eensPr, in New South Wales and Van Di iA nd emen? „ n ot' where the troops are of necessity far removed and from any ser v i ce to w hi c h they might otherwise "`" 0 1 11 sionally required. I think that with respect to thgt.s!l7 At offences for which the penalty is now transportatio :00 should, rather than diminish the lesser term of tra os P er ioi tion, establish the rule that it should not be for a le' s t o 1.1 34 than ten years' transportation. With regard , toot ogre! periods of imprisonment, lam sorry to say I cane bay` with the Commissioners. Sir, the Commissioneqoo. proposed that ten years shall be the maximum dura-tia ' 91 1. think that five years is the longest period to be nameonsee°l I am convinced that the effect of a ten years' imP ri ! --e hi must be only to harden the criminal, and to desl , ru o J o rt powers and the capacities of the mind ; and 1 ht w hich over, that it is a punishment the infliction ° . 0 sh"' in some cases, is worse than death. Sir ' 1 0 f the opinion I know one, at least, if not more. Learned Judges coincide ; and I shall certattlor to be disposed to leave in the hands of any en the P° , here Dog inflict a punishment of ten years' imprisonmem . ,. o co un t observe that this is a punishment unknown to to, oo k, an and in only one case is it known in the Statute"," t he S C never has it been carried into effect. I allud e which i t is which refers to the Penitentiary a t Milbank , by ° be WO enacted that if any person should be sentenced t!:' es, b e re; ported for life, he . may, under certain circtimst ane for t ° years.taied in ß u t t h w e h P a e t n i i s t Penitentiary, a f r a y e , t ? a and Why, im thatrison ti e 11:!, ore than Pa r erosetil moment few have been retained there for s nore. tn e ijec years k and, from what I am generally told, I done . lo bat that - any case has - occurred - in which the