The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-17 00:00:00

)Isr• :tell "' ere , )e fore tic to him at After the >r t of one f two. arly betwee n ;colid Whitt on eac h , a nd was vas it jo ust Oct ie p istol" istanec. the Pis- befor e ? l sittiug YeS, S -- Idea° es here had uc' a f e" re -011 to . tve ied and Ao der: 1t juoti to 0. Pr' ;a giOr ett?"-i le V til ae.sti°3 a d 3115 ; jeClin' MORNING EDITION. know nothing at all of that. I presume that the ' depositions will be before this high tribunal in the same- manner as they would be before the Central Criminal Court. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—After looking over papers in the cause, the depoSitions re turned to the House appear to me to have -been taken on the 28th of September. The House has none of an earlier date. Sir Wm. FOLLETT (to the witness) —If I under stood your answer right, Sir, you were examined . OR the 14th and the 19th ? The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Sir Wm. Follett, do you mean to go into the examination of the 14th ? Sir WM. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord. The LORD HIGH STEWARD to the • 'tness— Was your exaimination—were the statements made by y ou on - the 14th, taken down in writing? Not to my knowlege, my Lord. S ir WAI FOLLETT—Was any statement taken down, Sir ?—Y es, but not all. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Was any part of Your statement taken down in writing ?—Yes, some parts, my Lord, but not all. The Earl of HADNOR—Was that taken down and read over to you ?—lt was. And did y ou s i gn i t ?-1 s i gne d i t as f ar as i t went, my Lord. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am utterly igno rant of this deposition, my Lords; but the Clerk to the Magistrates is in waiting, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will call hint. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT I have something further to ask this witness. I understand you to Say, that on the 14th you made a statement, s ome part of which was taken down, which was read over to you, and signed by you ?—lit was. Were you examined on the 19th of September? "—Yes. .NVS your statement then read over to you ? It Was. Were you asked if you had anything to add toit?-1 do not recollect that I was asked that question in the second instance. I ask you, on your oath, was not the question ,put to you whether you had anything to add to Your former statement' !--I do not recollect that question being put to me on my second ex amination. I ask you did you not say that you had nothing to add (lid not say so. Now attend. I ask you did you swear that You were not asked whether you lAL..d anything to add, and whether you did not say, I have nothing to ,say ?—When I was asked if I had anything to add I answered No. Sir W. FOLLETT (to the House) —My Lord, he 1341 _3 7 5 ) I was asked whether I had anything to ,add, and I answered " No." (To witness) — "hen did you state what Lord Cardigan said to You ?---On the 14th, and I repeated tile same ob servations on the 19th. Had 3411 .- ;ct heard a great deal about the duel in the meantime P—No, I am not sure that I had. I heard some talk about it. Did you not read a good deal about it in the newspapers think there was a good deal about it in the newspapers. Were you bound over to prosecute in the case of Lord Cardigan was not bound over in the ease of Lord Cardigan, but of Captain Tuckett. Who was bound over in Lord Cardigan's ? Superintendent Picton. Why was he bound over ?—Because he was the head of the police in the district where the duel took place. By whom was he bound over ?—By the Magis trates at Kingston. Were you examined on all the bills ?—I do not k now; I was examined twice before the Grand Jury. Were you examined twice at the same time ? I come now to another part of your conversa tion. You say that you asked Lord Cardigan if he had been fighting with Captain Reynolds. Nov I ask you, Sir, did he not say, " It is not my principle to fight with officers under my command 2"—No, he did not, I told you what he said. I ask you, Sir, did not Lord Cardigan say, It is not my principle to fight with officers under my command ?"—N ; what he said was, Do you think 1 would fight with one of my own officers ?" • Re-exarahied by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.— when you were examined on the 14th, did you Make the same statement? Sir W. FOLLETT..-1 object, Mr. Attorney- General, to your putting that question, unless You put in the depositions. You objected to my putting the some question, without the deposi tion, and my Lords decided that it could not be Put. If it cannot be put on the part of Lord Cardigan, it must not be put by Mr. Attorney- General. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My question is not the same. Lord BROUGHAM—Let the short-hand writer read his notes. The short-hand writer then read his notes of all that part of the witness's cross-examination which referred to his alleged conversation with Lord Cardigan. Lord BROUGHAM—That is all I want. Now Which of the accounts do you abide by—the statement that you were asked if you had any thing to add, and that you said no—or that the question was not put to you ?—I was simply asked the question, my Lord, " Have you anythin g ; to adil to your former statement ?" Of course 1 took that to be the statement which I made at large, and I replied, " No, I have nothing to add to the former statement," because 1 then made use o f the exact words which I have now. SIT W. FOLLETT-1 ask you when your former statement taken down in writing was read over to you before the question was put, whether you had anything to add to it?—l think the book was open and it was said " Hive you anything to add to your forme' state ment?" I ask you upon your solemn oath if that former statement was not read over to you, and if you were Lot asked whether you had anything to add to it ?—I think the question was asked upon the books being opened in this way—" Have you anything to add to your former statement ?" Answer my question.—l will do so. I was asked " Ilave you anything to add ?" It was read over to you, and then upon its being read over you were asked if you had anything to add, and you said that you had not ? Lord ELDON—Does the Learned Counsel mean to ask whether the witness said he had anything to add to the statement made, or to the record that was taken ? Sir W. FOLLETT—If I understand you, the former statement that you made was read over to you—was it so ?—Ye s , the portion that was in writing was read. The statement that was in writing was read over to You ?—Yes. And then you were asked if you had anything to add ? ►-Yes. And you said no ?—I said no. The Earl of RADNpa—Was it the whole of the state• 'tent that was read over to you ?—The whole statement Was not taken down. Si! W. FOLLETT—With deference to your Lord ablps, the question is as to the contents of the deposi tions, which we are not allowed to examine into. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, there can be no difficulty on tha part of my Learned Friend, for th e depositions are in Court. Sir W. FOLLETT—On the contrary, their Lordships have told me that the Magistrates only returned the depositions of the 28th. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-4 am informed by a gentleman who is now at the Bar that the depos itions of the 14th and 19th arc here, and ready to be laid before the Court. Sir W. FOLLETT—Here ! But they ought to have been presented before. The Earl of RADNOR—When you were examined till the 14th of September did you make that state me.* to the Magistrates or the Clerk, that he might prepare the statement for the Magistrates ? I m a d e that statement to the Magistrates. I was asked if I bad :Nark that statement on my subsequent ex amination before his Lordship. I then said to Mr. Adolphu.% that I had made that statement in the first instan.le, and I appealed to his Lordship, and lie did hot deny it. Now, you made tb,At statement to the Magistrates in the Ilseari n of the Clerk ?--I did. And the Clerk said it was not relevant? Sir W. FOLIATT—.I beg your Lordship's pardon; I should suggest that is not a proper question. The Earl of RADNOR—I ask him as to what the Clerk said on that occasion ; that is my question, and the whole of my question. I submit that the question is perfectly legular, and that it should in put down upon the minutes with the answer. A PEE2.--Was everything pet down by the Cleik ? It is 1:(ir t custom to take down the whole depo,ition in full. A no,aute is made, !,ufficient to justify the Magis• times in ternandiog the party for re-examination, until the whole of the ecider.ce can he gone into at length. The witness then v..i!hdrew. Charles William Waltham was then called and sworn. lixarnii-led by Mr. WALMINGTON—Mr. Waltham, do you resid e at No. 99, in the Poultry ?—I do, Sir. Are you a chemist?-1 am. Carrying on business there?—Yes, Sir. Do you know a Captain Tuckctt ?-1 do, Sir. Does he occupy A reem in per house ?_He occupies Reoccupies rooms in your house ? Yes, Sir. For what purpose does he occupy them?-,As offices. Dues he carry business on there ?—Yes, Sir. How long h a s ha carried on business in these offices ? Nearly fifteen montha. Where is his house—where does he live ?-11arnilton- Place, New -road. What number ?—No. 13. me what his Christian name; are it you know them. .Nt W. FOLLETT—Wait a me.ncnt. You say Captain Tuckett lives at No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road,--be fore you ask that question, you should ask another,—you should not ask him :or a knowledge which be has not. Mr. WADDINGTON —I SITI now asking him to another point. Sir WM. FOLLETT—Yes, I know you arc, but that other point must be found first. Mr. WADDINGTON—I ask the witness what his Chris tian names are. Sir W. FOLLETT—And I object to the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—We may ask what are the Christian names of this gentleman, who took rooms from this witness. Sir W. FOLLETT—I must object to this course of exa mination. The LORD Hints STEWARD—The question is, what are the names of the party who took rooms in this house. Sir Wvt. FOLLETT—That question can have have no relevancy, unless the person for whose Christian name you arc inquiring be in some way connected with this transaction ; and it would be fairer, I submit, on the pin of the Counsel for the prosecution nut to take an answer to a question which is put in the witness's mouth without asking him whether he does or does not know the fact which he deposes. Your Lordships are aware, that by the question which my Learned Friend has put to this witness, as to the house where he lives, and the an swer, No. 13, Hamilton-place, it is sought to identify this Captain Tuckett with a Captain Tuckctt who carries on business in the Poultry. I wish my Learned Friend first to inquire whether he really knows that fact, and I suggested whether he had ever been to that house and seen Captain Tuckett there, and he auswered in the negative that he never bad, show ing, therefore, that he does not in point know the fact, which is to lead to the second question. The LORD Hiatt STEWARD—The question is as to the Christian names of some person whose surname is Tuckctt. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The tenant of the witness. The LORD HIGH STEWARD-!t will not be relevant un less ycu connect them. Sir W. FOLLETT--.lt Will be far more relevant in the first instance to put the question and the foundation after. wards. The Loan HIGH STEWARD—I quite agree with you that there is no proof that this person lives at 13, Hamiltor.- place, New-road. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I perfectly concur in what has been stated. There is no evidence of that at this moment. But, my Lord, we simply ask what is the name of that individual who rents rooms of the witness at the Poultry. Surely there can be no objection to that question—You know the name of that gentleman?— The only name I know him by is Harvey 'Puckett. Now you have said that be lives at 13, flainiltor-place —how do you know that? Sir W. FOLLETT—That is not the right way to put the question. Mr. WADDINGTON—How can I put it ? If I don't know how he found his knowledge I must ask him. My Lords, I ask him tin how he knows that Captain Tuckett lives at 13, Hamilton-place, New-road ?—As being the reference he gave me when he took my premises. Sir W. FoLLETT—I do not know whether my Learned Friend means to say that this is evidence. The ATTORNEY-GENERALI think that it is evidence in this case, and ought to be received. There is a person of the name of Tuckett who takes premises— The Loan HIGH STEWARD—When was that reference given ?—Last November twelve months. On what occasion ?—When he took my premises. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Last November twelve months ?—When he took my premises 15 months ago. Mr. WADDINGTON—Rae you ever, since that, addressed letters to him there?—No. _ _ Havo }ou addressed parcels to him ?—I have forwarded a hamper to him. A PEER—What bus!ness does Capt. Tuckett carry on at your place ?—East India Colonial agent. Sir W. FO:.LETT—I have no question, my Lord, to put to this witness. Edward Septimus Codd, sworn and examined by the ATTORNEY- GENERAL. What arc you ?—An army agent. Do you know Captain Tuckett ?—I do. I; be in the army now ?—No ; he is on half-pay. Do you know what regiment he belongs to?—The 11th Light Dragoons. Who pays him his half-pay 2—The Paymaster-Ge neral of her Majesty's Forces. Sir Wat. FOLLETT—How do you know these facts ? I receive his half pay for him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—HOW lone is it since he retired ?—I don't know exactly ; it is about three or four years. How often is it payabk ?—Quarterly. And you have received it during that time ?—I have. Have you paid it to him ?—I have. Where have you paid it to him?—At 15, Fludyer street, my residence. Have you never seen him except then ?—I have not. When did you see hint last ?-0n or about the 31st of December. When did you see him before then ?—About the 30th of September. Wncre did you see him then ?--At my office. Did he receive quarterly half-pay at that period ? —Yes. What is his Christian name ?—Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuck ett.—( Sensation. ) It was in September you last saw him ?—Yes. When did you see him before then ?—I can't say. It might have been about the 30th of June. He usually came to receive his quarter's pay. You have not seen him in any place except in fludyer street ?—I saw him after his return from India, at the Mi nerva Life Office. You have not seen him at the Poultry ?—No, I have not. Sir W. FOLLETT said he had no questions to ask the witness. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL...My Lords, I now propose to read that card, upon which your Lordships were pleased to say that you would consider whether it was admissible in evidence or not; and if your Lordships think it right, I now propose to read it. Lord BROUGIIANI—Is that your case ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That will depend upon whether your Lordships decide whether the card is ad missible in evidence or net. Sir W. FOLLETT-I suggest, my Lords, that the At torney-General should answer the question, in the first place, because he is not now in a situation to ask whether this card should be received or rejected. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—YOU object to its being re ceived, Sir Wm. Follett? Sir W. FOLLETT—Certainiy, my Lord ; and I wish to be heard on that point. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—We are ready to hear you. Sir W. FCLLETT requested to sea the card, and after having examined it, said—l don't think it necessary to have this card read again. The Clerk-Assistant then read the card, on which was engraved " Captain Harvey Tuckett, " 13, Hamilton-place, New-road." And on the back was " Captain H. Wainwright." Sir W. FOLLETT is that your case? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This, my Lords, is the case on the part of the prosecution. Sir W. FOLLETT—This being the case on the part of the prosecution I venture to submit to your Lord ships that there is no case that calls on the prisoner for an answer. It is an attempt to prove a case without sufficient evidence. Ycur Lordships will observe that in the first count of the indictment, the pri soner is charged with feloniously and unlawfully intend ing to shoot at Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, with a pis tol loaded with gunpowder and ball, intending thereby, of his malice aforethought, the said Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett to kill and murder ; in the second count, he is charged with intending to maim and dis able the same person ; and in the 3d count with intending to do him some grievous bodily injury. Now, my Lords, I apprehend it is not necessary to state any authority to your Lordships in order to show that the pro secutor is bound to prove the Christian and surname of the person against whom the alleged offence is committed. and if he fails in that he fails in the proof of his case. Your Lordships will see that there is no evidence whatever to show that the person against whom the shot was discharged was Mr. Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett. The evidence before your Lordships would tether lead to a contrary presumption. I apprehend that positive evi dence must be given to prove the identity of the party. Your Lordships will observe the evidenc) on this point. They call a parson named Codd, an army agent, who re ceives the half-pay of a Ceptain Tuckett, formerly of the 11th Light Dragoons, and that his name was Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett ; but is there anything to identify him with the person allugd to be at Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September? Mr. Codd never knew anything of his residence, and never saw him except at hig office in Rudy - or-street, and an insurance office. There is nothing to cornett that gentleman with the transaction. What is the rest of the evidence? A person conies from the Poultry, who says that Captain Tuckett occupied offices from him—that he is an Last India and army agent— that his name is Harvey Tuckett, and that he does not know where he lives. Now my Lords, there is nothing to connect that Captain Tuckett, spoken of by Mr, Codd with the party who was in Wimbledon Corn mon on the 12th of September, therefore, 1 contend that they have entirely failed in an essential part of this prose cution. My Lords, this point isexpressly decided in the case of the King v. Robinson, in Bolt's Reports, in which it is laid down tha: it is essentially necessary to prove the Christian and surname of the party against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, and of that there is no proof in the present case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL---11y Lords, the question is, whether there can be any other evidence to prove the fact of the Christian name of Captain Tuckett, the gentleman wounded. If there be the smallest scintilla of evi dence on this point, we are not to be stopped. We are now as if we were before a Jury, and that the Learned Judge wished to direct them to acquit the prisoner on the ground that there was no evidence to go before them. My Lords, I contend that if we had been before a Jury they could live no difficuty in coming, to a conciaiion that the name of the party wounded was Harvey Garnet Phipps Tueltett. How does the ease stand ? My Learned Friend withdrew all objection to the reading of the eayd. Well then the gentleman who was wounded, and against whom Lord Cardigan abet on the 12th of September, was Captain Harvey Tuckett. We have got, therefore, as far as one of his names, and how does it stand with regar.. to the rest ? Am I obliged to call the clerk of the parish where he was baptised in order to prove the baptismal registry ? A m I obli g ed to call his godfithers and godmothers w ho attended at the baptismal font? I apprehend such evidence is wholly unnecessary. I contend, that from the facts proved, no reasonable man could draw an inference contrary to that which we wish to be drawn. There is abun dan t evidence to go to a Jery upon that point, and your Lordships will now have to say whether there is evidence to show whether the Cap tain Tuckett who was wounded was the person who resided at 13, Hamilton-place, New-road. Each time Dann aslred for Captain Tuckett, and each time he was introduced to a gentleman answering to the name of Tuckett ; therefore your Lordships will have no difficulty in believing that the Capt. Tuckett who lives at No. 13, THE SUN. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 184 E. Hamilton-place, New-road, is the man who fought the duel with Lord Cardigan on the 12th September, on Wim bledon Common. L• there any doubt that it was the C.=p tato Tuckett who took the prem:les 29, in the Poultry ? At the Irme he did that act he gave his reference to No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and although there is no evidence to demonstrate directly— although there is not sufficient evidence to show that he who took this place of business was the same Captain Tuckett who held the house, No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and was the antagonist of Lord Cardigan, we now have only one other stage, and that is, whether the Captain Tuckett, who fought the duel, is the same of whom Mr. Codd spoke, and whose name he proved to be Captain Harvey Tuckett, and had been an officer in the 11th Hussars. Sir W. Pot-LETT—There is no proof whataver of that —there is no evidence that Lord Cardigan is Colonel of the 11th Hussars. _ The ATTOItNEY-GENERAL—It was stated in evidence, I think, by the policeman. He said so most distinctly, but he was not cross-examined. Well, my Lords, the Captain Tuckett whose name is Harvey, was proved by Mr. Codd to have been an officer of the 1 lth Hussars, Lord Cardigan's regiment. Ile gave him his card, with 11th Hussars upon it. Sir W. FOLLETT—No, no; you are mistaken. The ATTORNEY-GL'NERAL—WcII. This Capt. Tuckett has the name of Harvey, and thus we have at least one name corresponding with that of the person who fought the duel on the 12th September on Wimbledon Common. Will your Lordships require positively strict evidence as to this gentleman's Christian name ? If there is evidence from which the inference may be fairly drawn, is it not suffi cient for any Court of Justice? Well, then, here is Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to be Captain Harvey Tuckett, who had bten in the 11th Hussars, who retired some few years ago, and who receives half pay. May it not, then, be fairly inferred by any one of your Lordships that this Captain Hervey 'cuckett, who bad been in the 11th Hussars, who had retired some three or four years ago, and who receives his half-pay quarterly, i s the same Captain Harvey Tuckett who lived at, or who had the place of business in the Poultry, who had the house in Hamilton-place, New-road, and who fought . the duel on the 12th of September on Wimbledon Common? Is there not evidence, I say, from which that identity may be fairly proved? Is the prosecution to be stopped on the ground, that there is no evidence to go to your Lordships—not a particle or scin tilla of evidence to show that this Captain Harvey Tuckett, whose name I have proved to be such, is the same as the antagonist of the Earl of Cardigan ? I believe there is no human being who having heard the evidence out of the Court of Justice, would hesitate in drawing the in ference. I believe that the same weight of evidence suffi cient to convince a reasonable man out of a Court of Jus tice, ought to convince a Judge or Judges sitting in a Court of Jastice that that from which the inference is to be drawn is to be received. According to the rules of evidence, would any person out of a Court of Justice doubt for a moment, that this is the same individual who fought on the 12th of September. If the inference would have been drawn out of a Cou-t of Justice should it be said that in a Court of Justice there was not a scintilla of evidence from which it could be drawn ? This would be a most unsatisfactory conclusion to this trial. Your Lordships will weigh the evidence fairly and deliberately. If you think that this is not the same individual of course you will say " not guilty upon ray honour," but You will not stop the , prosecution upon this objection which must be considered a trivial one. Sir W. FOLLETT in reply said, that certainly his Learned Friend the Attorney-General had Idled in proving a very eseential part of the prosecution. Their Lordships would recollect whether the prosecutor had proved any essential part of the posecution. Ile would show their Lordships that no evidence at all had been given to prove the name of Captain Tuckett. It was asked, should they call the clerk of the parish, or the parents of Captain Tuckett, to prove what his name might be? Now, that was not the objection. What he objected to was, that they had called a person named Codd, who proved that he knew a person of that name, but he gave not a"scintilla" of evidence (he would use the Attorney. General's own words) to con. lila that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman who fought the duel on Wimbledon Common. The question altoge ther depended upon Mr. Codi's evidence, and he (Mr. Codd) was to show that a person of whom he spoke was the maa who fought the duel. His Learned friend had said that Captain Tuckett had been formerly in the 11th Hussars. Now, would they leave to a Jury such a question as the present to decide upon, on the fact that he was formerly in that regiment? There was a statement made by Mr. Codd, that on the 13th of September Captain Tuckett was at his house; but the fact of his ap pearing there is inconsistent with the evidence given, that be would be unable to appear before a Magistrate in con sequence of the wounds he received, at least, for some considerable time. He ( Sir William Follett) must say that his Learned Friend the Attorney-General knew he had failed in proving his case, otherwise his Learned Friend would not have so put his case. Might he ask their Lord hips, WAS: that the way in which a trial should be conducted? Were they to be led by what eJinione a person out of Court might or might not form. Their Lordships in that House must be satie- : 3d that Captain Tuckett is the same person who i .ught the duel on the P.2th of September, on Wimbledon Common. Their Lordships were now Bitting as Judges, and they should dismiss from their minds any thing that they might have heard before relative to the question of the subject of the trial. Their Lordships were to say whether because Captain Tuckett bore certain Christian names he was the person who fought the duel. Captain Tuckett may have lived in Hamilton-place, New-road, or in the Poultry, but how did that prove that it was he who fought the duel ? The whole of the evidence of Mr. Codd was that he Ina; a per son of such a name who formerly received half-par. But there is no evidence, my Lords, to show that this Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of Codd is Cie same Harvey Garn et Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this in dictment, as having been on Wim'oledon Common on the occasion in question. No Judge sitting in a criminal Court would leave such a question to the decisionof a jury. There may be two Harvey Tucketts ; and since my Learned Friend the Attorney-General hag referred to your Lordships' knowledge of what may have occurred out of doors, I would remind your Lordships that in the very regiment commanded by the Noble De.fendant there were two officers bearing the same surnames certainly, and I think the same Christian names. I submit to your Lord ships that there is no evidence whatever to prove that Captain Harvey Tuckett, mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Codd, is the same person as the Har vey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, mentioned in this in dictment ; and however unpleasant it may be to the per sons con:teethe; the prosecution, I submit to your Lord ships that they have entirely failed in the proof of their identity. The Loan HIGH STEWARD—I stated when this objec tion was that taken that I thought strangers ought to withdraw, and I am still of tint opinion. The Learned Counsel, however, did not object to the argument of the Attorney-General, and I did not think it right to interrupt him ; but when similar objections are taken in a Criminal Court, I believe the Counsel for the prosecution is merely called upon to state what portion of evidence he believes to be sufficient to make out his c ase. Ido not recollect any case in which an argument has been heard on the subject. I mention this as a point which may be of consequence in the prac tice of the Courts of Criminal Law hereafter. I now move, your Lordships, that strangers be ordered to withdraw. StraPigers were then ordered to withdraw, while their Lordships considered the point raised by Sir W. Follett. On uur return to the House, we understood their Lord ships to have decided the objection as valid ; and we found the Lord High Steward at the Chair r.utting the question to each Peer—Guilty or Not Guilty, e. g.— John Singleton Lord Lyndhurst, how says your Lordship, is Henry Tbouiss Earl of Cardi gan Guilty of this felony whereof he stands indicted, or Not Guilty ?" Whereupon each Peer, upon his name being called, rose, and placing his right hand upon his breast, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour," the only exception to the general rule being- the Duke of Cleveland, who said—" Not Guilty,legallo, upon my honour." After all the Peers had given their verdict, the last of whom was the Duke of Cambridge, The LORD HIOII STEWARD, standing on the steps of the Throne himself, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour." The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS then said Yeoman Usher, call in James Thomas Earl of Cardigan." The Noble Esrl was then placed outside the Bar, when The LORD HIGH STEWARD addressing him, said— . 4 Times Thomas Earl of Cardigan, you have been indicted for a felony, for which you have been tried by your Peery, and I have the satisfaction of declaring to you that their Lordships have pronounced you Not Guilty' by an unanimous sentence. The number I have not precisely at this morntrit before me, or I would have been glad to have stated to your Lonl3hip, but their Lordships have unanimously said Not Guilty.'" The Earl of Cardigan then bowed and retired. The Proclamation dissolving the Commission was then read, and his Grace, the Lord High Steward, standing in front of the Throne, received the Staff from the Garter King-at-Arms, and the Ueher of the Black Rod jointly, held it in both hands and broke it in two, and so the Com mission was dissolved at Half-past Five o'Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEL 16e The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. MeeoaN took the oaths and his scat as Member for Monmouthshire. The Han. Member was introduced by Mr. Baillie and Lord Granville Somerset. Mr. ANTRCBUS took the oaths and his seat as Member for East Surrey. Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from certain mariners of the River Tyne, praying for an alteration in the distribution of the Merchant Searnee's Fund. Mr. ING HAM presented a similar petition from about 3,000 seamen of the port of Tyne. Mr. DAVID ROCHE presented a petition from a pa rish in Limerick in favour of Medical Reform. Sir R. H INGLIS presented petitions from various parishes in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Wiltshire, pray ing for additional Church accommodation. Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the Hull and Selby Railway Company, complaining of the manner of levying taxation on railways. Mr. COLQUHOUN presented a petition from the East India Association in Glasgow, complaining that the grievances with regard to their trade with Java had not been redressed, and that the grievances on the subject of their trade with Jamaica had been increased. Lord R. GROSVENOR — presented a petition, nume rously signed, from the Mayor and inhabitants of the city of Chester, in favour of the Bill for the abolition of the punishment of death. Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from Braintree, in Essex, praying that the period of the appointment of the Poor-law Commissioners might be for a limited period. The petitioners also complained of the separation of chil dren from their parents in the Union workhouses. Mr. FOX MA ULE presented petitions from various parishes in Perthshire, praying for the abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland. _ . Mr. .MILES presented a petition from Horsinq b ton in Somersetshire, in favour of Church Extension. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Clonrush, in the county of Galway, against Lord Stanley's, and in favour of Lord Morpeth's, Irish Registration Bill. Mr. MUNTZ gave notice that in the Committee on the Medical Bill he should move that all prescriptions be written in English and at full length—(Laughter)—and that all labe!s in druggists' shops should be written in the same manner. remunerated in other ways for the risk they had run.. But why did not the underwriters pay the parties ? If they ran the risks of war they were liable to the payment ; and he would ask why they did not make it ? They risk they ran was one which they willingly incurrred, and they ought not look to the nation for the money which became so due. lie did not think he need detain the House any further, hut he would again state to the House that if they con sented to pass that vote they would agree to a resolution which included a large sum of money to parties who had already received a quarter of a million, and they would at the same time agree to a principle the event end termi nation of which no man in that House could determine.— ( Hear, hear.) Sir WALTER JAMES, who rose amidst cries of " Divide," said that he would not detain the House long. He hoped that in taking the subject into consideration they woul i argue it on its own merits, and would not be misled by those arguments foreign to the question, which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced in his speech. The Right Hon. Gentle man stated that the amount of these claims was extremely large, and evidently endeavoured to make an impression on the House by representing them as such. These claims had undergone a most rigorous investigation, and the House would perhaps be surprised to hear that the amount of the debts amounted to nq more than 225,000/. Perhaps it might be urged that fhe time for bring ing forward the motion was not well chosen inasmuch as a large deficiency bad been experienced in the public revenue for the last two or three years. But he would submit to the House that that was no season whatever for rejecting claims founded substantially on justice and on equity. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the payments which had been made into the Treasury, and the money seized, were entirely eatezi up by the rums paid to former claimants. But it should be remembered, that the country would have been obliged to have gone to other purees if it bad not received a large sum from the Danish Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the period chosen for the motion was an ex. tremely inconvenient one, and that it was really too bad that it should be brought forward before any of the public estimates were voted. He could not help complimenting his Hon. Friend on the period at'which he had thought proper to bring forward this motion. It was an excellent opportunity for the House to put in practice the maxim, " Be just before you are generous"—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp)—to practice that economy it was ever so ready to profess. It appeared to him that these parties had an unanswerable claim upom the House on aro count of the two votes they had come to last year ; on the 24th May, 1338, and 18th June, 1839.—( Hear, hear.) Let the House only consider the expense to which they had put these parties. They had been put to all the ex pense of investigation, and it would be bard if thisimetisure, which had proved the justice of their claims, was to be made only an aggravation of injustice. Seeing the impa tience of the Houle he would not trouble them with some further remarks he had intended to make, but he hoped the House would support his Hon. Friend on the motion he had made, because he was satisfied of the justice of the claim itself, and because he thought that it would be con sistent with the honour, dignity, and character of the [louse, having admitted the principle, not to recede from carrying it into effect.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. HAWES said he confessed his opinion was pre cisely the same as the lion. Gentleman's. He ( Mr. Hawes) also had constituents who were interested in this question, and he had to satisfy one part of those if be voted, as he should, for the payment of these claims ; and all he should say to them was, that the claim was a just enc.— ( Hear, hear.) He was not at all intimidated by the pros pect of being called to account at some future day to which the Honourable Gentleman had alluded, and which remark he (Mr. Hawes) thought had been improperly thrown out, to disturb their judgment.— ( Hear. hear.) There were three classes of claimants, two of whom were paid—those which. were founded on book debts, and those which were founded on property 0n shore, bad been paid. He thought if there was any pro perty more protected than another, it would have been that which was classed as property on shore and book debts. The only property respecting the claim of which there could be any doubt by the law of nations, was that which the Right Hon. Gentleman hesitated to pay. lie (Mr. Hawes) asked him to point out any difference what ever between these classes. Hd (Mr. Hawes) had lis tened to him attentively to hear of any difference, and had heard of none. He had heard nothing laid down in justice or principle, to deter hint ( Mr. Hawes) from giving his vote in favour of these claims.—( Hear, hear.) It had been twice argued, and on a former occasion means had been resorted to to postpone its payment, which he did not think consistent with the honour of any Government to pursue, When, on the 6 24th May, 1838, a motion for this purpose was carried by a majority of thirty-four, in. stead of complying with the rote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer directed the amount of the claim should be scheduled, but not examined. Now, the House had then heard the whole claim argued, and had come to a deci sion upon it, and he (Mr. Hewes) had yet to learn the propriety of any Minister afterwards opposing the pay ment. If there had been any doubt upon the subject, the. Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been right in opposing the claim to the utmost, but he (Mr. Hawes) believed the claim to be a just claim. Two classes out of the three had been satisfied by the Government, and he should undoubtedly continue to vote for the payment of the otner.—( Hear, hear.) Alderman THOMPSON, who was but very indistinctly heard in the gallery from the great Iloilo in the body of the House, said (as we understood), with respect, to In surance Offices, when they insured property they received premiums according to the risk which they underwent. lie would join lame with the Right lion. Gentleman op posite as to the very grounds oa which these claims were opposed-because those ships' cargoes were insured, the claim ought to be refused. Now four or five times the amount of premium would have been cliege.d had the ease which took place been contemplated, and therefore the Right lion. Gentleman's argument would not stand. He ( Mr. Alderman Thompson) conceived that when the House, by a majority of three to one, in the year 1839, dtractcd that the Commissioners should proceed and ad juslicate on the claims, it substantially decided that those claims ought to he paid, and evere . jest.—( Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding the difficulties which the Right Ho nourable Gentleman had thought fit to say he would con tinue to throw in the way of the payment of these claims, he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) must say that he ought not to represent that this was a question between the House of Commons and the merchants of Liverpool. Now it was a question that concerned all the traders ef the kingdom. —( Hear.) The question to be decided was whether the merchants and shipowners of England should have justice done to them by the payment of 250,0001. or not. lie would certainly give his most strenuous support to the measure. Mr. O'CONNELL was fully convinced that the claim was a just one, and ought to be paid. Indeed the case was a good deal stronger than the Learned Alderman had put it, because, in the first place, the insurers never could have contemplated the risk, although the general words of the policy covered that defect. He really was surprised at the opposition that had been given to the motion. Fora num ber of years the entire claims were contested, and then a part was conceded on the ground that the seizure of debts was against all international law—the seizure of goods on shore was resisted in like manner; but the House decided that the Government ought to pay them, and did make it pay them. Now, in the present case, the shippers of cargoes were informed at the Admiralty that no war whatever was in contemplation against Denmark, and it might be said that the Government actually induced them to send out their cargoes, and yet that claim, in spite of the repeated decisions of Parliament, the Government now resisted. Economy was certainly an excellent virtue in a Government, and one which ought to be in all cases practised, but economy was one thing, and common honesty another.—(Cheers.) It was said there was no war whatever with Denmark, but there was something very like it in practice, and something very advantageous to those who got the Droits of the Admiralty, to the amount of 1,300,0001., and out of which ample compen sation might be made to the merchants whom they de ceived into sending out their cargoes. The Government had thought fit to make a present of the Droits of the Ad miralty for the purpose of making improvements at Wind sor. They deceived the British merchants, whe❑ they sent out their cargoes, on the ground that there was no apprehension of a violation of the peace, and now, in spite of the repeated decisions of the House, the Govern. ment hesitated in refusing these parties redress, lie hoped, however, that the vote of that night would put an end to the matter.—(Loud cheering.) Mr. INGHAM wished to make a few remarks to the House, in order to show why he thought the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to weigh much with the House. He considered that the objections of the Right Hon. Gentleman did not apply to the case be fore them. The House had on two occasions solemnly sanctioned the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, and it was shameful now it they had not the moral cour age to put the parties in the way of getting satisfaction for their claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not deny that the decision of the House had been in their favour, but his objection was, that he himself had taken a different view of the case. He thought it most unjust in the Right Hon. Gentleman to withhold his assistance from the parties in obtaining their money. The Right Hon. Gentleman had relied upon the first division, in 1836, when the majority was against the elaims ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman did not state what the amount of the majority was, or what were the numbers in the House. He knew that discussion had taken place at the close of the Session, when there were not one hundred Mein. to-rs in town—( Hear, hear)—and when the majority did not exceed eight. Now it Was perfectly well known that the greater number of the Members attending the House at the close of the Session were the friends of Mi nisters, and it was therefore impossible to suppose that ste e l ) a decision would at all weigh against the decisions which the House bad twice come to since. On those grounds he would give his strenuous support to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member. Mr. GOULBURN did not hesitate to say that his opinion on the subject remained unchanged. He was quite ready admit that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was equally entitled to hold his former opinions t.u . the subject, and might very properly abide by that de mon to which the House had already come. He was not influenced in his opinion by the amount of the demand if the claim were a just one, and if it would not be attended with fatal consequences he would at once say to the Government pay it ; but his ground was that if they made that particular payment there never would be a war hereafter, or those circum stances which led ultimately to a war, which. would not ultimately involve them in claims which it was impossible to calculate, because it was impossible to calculate the ac tivity of the enemy's cruizers against their merchant ves sels. It was no uncommon case that an embargo was laid on, and in particular circumstances that step might lao followed by a war, and if in such cases they were to make allowance to the underwriters, or those who insured i n consequence of the warlike measures taken by the coun try, he repeated that there would be no end whatever to the expenses they would be called upon to defra y . .lie thought such a step would strike at the beet energie s o f the country, and he should therefore give , his vote against the Honourable and Learned Gentleman§ mo tion. Mr. WHITE said the notion of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if these claims were admitted, other similar ones would be brought forward on future occasions ; but he contended that every claim should stand upon its own foundation, and he believed that the present one was founded in justice. • Sir C. GREY wished to state on what principles and grounds those who voted in support of these claims founded this opinion. lie was also anxious that it should not be suprpasrd, in voting for the present motion s that be should fall into the error of pledging himself, or commit ting himself, to a similar vote on future occasions. The two first egSSCS :of claimants, of book debts and property on shore, had been allowed compensation on the ground that the confiscation of their property was con trary to the law of nations. The Gov, rniaent had in these cases recognized the right of the claimants to re 6reas ; and the House should recollect that the war was begun in a manner different from that of any other war. It was not the case of an embargo. England had come forward acknowledging she had no cause fur making war against Denmark., but understanding that there was a design to seize the Danish fleet by their most deadly enemy, it was thought proper to put it in cafe keep ing, and the Danish fleet was accordingly seized. The whole question turned upon this pivot, whether under such circumstances, the Danish Government having made war upon this country, the British Government was justi fi:d in applying so large a portion of Danish property to the purposes of revenue.—( Loud cries of " Divide, di vide.") Twelve hundred thousand pounds were so ap. plied.—(Divide, divide.) That was the ground upon which this question turned.—(Divide, divide.) He thought the sufferers in this case bad a right to have their losses made good, out of the proceeds of the vessels seized under such peculiar circumstances.—( Renewed cries of " Divide, divide.") Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not deny what had been stated by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, that there was a great difference between the case now before the House, and those other two in which compen sation had been given. But be thought his Honourable Friend bad signally failed in making out a reason for vot ing for this motion. The Honourable Gentleman had said that, with respect to the book debts and the goods seized on shore, these did not come under the class of or dinary seizures in time of war; and that the Government had therefore either of two courses to choose—either to call on Denmark to make reparation, or to do so itself, But his Hon. Friend admitted that the present case was different from those. This was a case of ordinary capture in time of war. It had been stated by the lion. Alder man the Member for Sunderland, and the Hon. Member for Hull, that in all cases like the present, when the Go vernment had not made a public declaration of war, or given notice to the insurers, of the approach of war, the public money ought t o b e paid in com p ensa ti on . ould anything be more dangerous than this ? There might be a great expedition preparing in the ports of another country to invade this; and it might be necessary to take steps to prevent the invasion. Would it be contended that the Government was to give notice of the preparations which it thought necessary to make, for intercepting the armament before it reached our shores ?—(Hear.) It was said that the sum now claimed was a very mode rate one—no doubt it was so, but if they consented to pay one quarter of a million they would be setting a pre cedent which would entail upon them claims to a much greater extent. It was said by the Hon. Baronet that Denmark was much irritated—no doubt she was, and he thought she had much reason to be so. Her capital had been bombarded—she was a great sufferer, so that, in fact, she was very naturally much irritated, and he (Lord John Russell) did not think it was either rashness or showed any want of prudence in her going to war with the country which had done her so much damage.—(Laughter.) His Hon. Friend said they would be perfectly safe in paying the present claims, because they would never again meet with such a case. He could tell his Hon. Friend he was much mistaken, for we might perfectly expect that we might yet be thrown into war with other countries, and if the House allowed themselves to be bound to refund anything but that which was lost by anything done against the law of nations, or the rules to just war, they would open a door to Most extra vagant claims—if they acknowledged the present claims they would go much beyond anything which had ever been done before. He felt bound to go much further, and say, that they were not bound to indemnify any particular classes. If it was necessary for the security of this country—of the whole com munity—if they should in certain cases be ooliged to step out of the usual usages of war, the whole community had the be nefit of the act—the shipowners of Hull, Sunderland, and Li verpool had the benefit of it, and they had no right to come forward as individual claimants, and say they had the benefit of the general protection of their country, but their country could not vindicate its honour without their claiming to the very last farthing fur any losses sustained by them in consequence of a due prosecution of a necessary war, and one carried on strictly according to the law of nations. If the House of Commons persisted in acknowledging such claims as those now brought forward by the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, they would recognise claims for which no precedent was to be found in past history ; but if the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were to be agreed to, many would be found in our future history. Mr. CIIESSWELL rose to reply. The Hon. Gentlemen said, that, notwithstanding what had been said by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was sure the House would go along with him in saying that there was nothing improper in the feeling which had brought hint forward. (Hear, hear, hear.) Unless he had been urged to it by his constituents, he would never have brought before the House a question of that nature, and he trusted that Hon. Gentleman would think that lie was justified in speaking on behalf of certain firms in Liverpool. He would say one word or two with regard to the time at - Nvhich he had brought forward the question. The Right lion. Gentleman, like many other persons who had disagreeable things to encounter, was never pleased with the time which was chosen for this discussion. If he (Mr. Cresswell) came late in the session all imaginable objections were made ; he was told that there was no money for him, and that he should not have delayed his motion to so late a period. If he came early, he was met with the objection that there was no money in the Exchequer, and asked why be had come so soon. Now, he thought the best plan was to bring it forward at an early period cf the Session when he could expect a full House. At this season of the year he would expect a large House, and lie hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the numbers on that occasion. He could not help remarking, in reference to the speech of the Noble Lord, how very prone they were to deal with that portion of a Member's argument, which exactly coincided with their own. The Noble Lord approved of that part of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman which favoured his own case, but he disapproved of the others, which oppo se d it. Hi s (M r . Cresswell'e) opinion upon this subject was still that which he had expressed when he first brought the subject before the House. He, for one, could never understand that they had any right to call upon Denmark to make compensation for the book debts and the goads on shore. He never could under. stand what pretence they had for such demands. Was there any complaint against Denmark? Had she committed any wrong against this country? Had we asked for redress fur any wrong or injury which we had suffered? No. But, not withstanding that they hail no such complaints to make, they had laid an embargo upon the ships of that country ; they had seat out cruisers to capture her vessels wherever they could find them ; they had sent out powerful armaments to slaughter her subjects and to seize her fleet ; and they now said, that because they had taken their book debts, they should continue to suffer. This was not a case of war. He totally denied that it was a case of war, and he hoped that this would never be made a precedent for other cases ; that the country would never be in the same straits again, and therefore would not be induced to resort to similar practices. What was their own statement to the Danes, at the time that this expedition was undertaken ? What was the proclamation made? Why, that they came to their shores not as enemies, but in the way of self defence. Was there any war at that time ? Was it con sistent with the notion of a state of war? If it was a state of war, and it took place according to the ordinary usages of na tions, why was that State paper put forward in 1837 to justify these proeeedings ? Did the Government attempt to justify its proceedings upon the ground of war? No such thing. He trusted, therefore, that, under all the circumstances, the House Would vote, as it had voted, for the compensation of the Dan ish claimants. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the Motion Against it Majority in favour of the Motion The announcement was received with great cheering. EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS. Mr. RICH then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the public execution of criminals, and to provide for their execution within the gaols in which they may no confined before duly appointed authorities, and a limited number of witnesses. The Hon. Member stated that he was actuated by a desire to do away with what appeared to him to be a barba rous practice, and he proposed to keep clear of the abolition of punishment of death, and the mitigation of our Criminal Code. Hitherto all our public executions had partaken of the charac ter of public exhibitions, and nothing could lie more revolting than the exhibition of torture, or at the same timemore useless, This was proved by reference to our history. At the Restora tion the head of Charles 11. was not deemed to be seem e until the embowelment of the regicides. In like manner, it was supposed there could be no safety for the Hanoverian family unless similar barbarities were inflicted upon the Jacobites. At a later period it was thought there would be no safety for husbands unless Catherine Hayes was burnt alive ; and, later in 1713, women were dragged to execution in Smithfield and burnt alive. All Hon. Gentlemen were ready to denounce these barbarities, and to deplore the mistakes of our ancestors. They could remember women being whipped in prison, and the practice defended in that House. All this was now denounced, and what was the inference? Was it not the fair inference that that this gradual diminution had taken place, and this extreme rigour been abandoned, because each successive generation found the exhibition of terror was an erroneous practice,-erro neous not in degree but in principle. He might be told the present system of executions was working well. What were the facts? Who were the people that attended executions? Where were the fathers who sent their children—the masters who sent their apprentices ? (Cries of " Hier.") What respectable person, who had witnessed an execntion, did not think it necessary to snake some excuse for d3ing so? But, perhaps, it would be said that the predominances of the law was supported by the effect produced by public executions. This was a curious argument, that the predominancy of the law lay more in the exhibition of an execution than in the extreuse tion itself. Then who were the evil-disposed on W t ho th m at the spectacles operated beneficially ? Was it not worst What of were thievesthe flogiar . th, and the a l ti ve ti r l e eri t t h ie e s m en ost th f i r s e s q u u h e j n e t ct ar n T da i L nftasc li a e t n. th 6 e, e n n i tleman then quoted the works of Fielding ! executions. The Hon. Member next quote d Rev. Mr. Cotton, to prove the demoralizindgfroerntietiitie(e)ivi public gate, who state that public of Mr. Brown, the Keeper of New executions could have no mo ral effect o G ne lo o ti f ce t s h t , e m r, tleman, who, in the cour se of thirty years, ;and i a la l d et a t t e t r en f d ro e m d t a he G l e a r s - t a m n o d m i e i n c t h s e of t f e rfifty. Thatcriminals ge n t l i e n m t a h n e s g t a a t e e i d s that at ß e r s e t r o y l had attended at least one public execution ; and most of them had attended several. In the course of those thirty years, of all the persons condemned to death, whom he had attended, there were but three • who had not been present at executions, and these three were respited. Th e effect of example on the human mind was certainly very great, but it was also very mysterious. The effect of execu tions, he had shown, was not to deter by example. On the contrary, it seemed to invite to crime. The effects of eimita tion were to lend to self - destruction and other crime s , H similar purpose, she re lated the case of a young woman , who, having been prevented f rom -drowning herself, was taken afterward s t o t h e spot where another shown w or e a l r In three we ek s effectedad w ea and the body was drowned her self in the same place, with the same kind of clothes with the same amount of money upon her, her pocket ,and with a simi lar bunch of flowers in her breast. The Hors. Gentleman then related instances of parricide, and other crimes, having been committed by persons immediately after WitnessinFt the execution of crimin a l s f or the same. 4arrin gton, in his life f _ utt himself, said au ex ec • o u was the most favour a ble occasion for DANISH CLAIMS Mr. CRESSWELL rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that this House will, upon Tuesday, the 23d day of this instant February, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the fol lowing Address to her Mejesty, that is to say, that an humble Address be presected to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into conaide tion the Report, bearing date 12th May, 1840, made by ti.e Commissioners to whom it was reterred to examine and adjudicate upon the claims of certain British subjects, fur losses sustained by the mime and confiscation of their slips and cargoes by the Government of Denmark in the year 1807, and that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such claimants the amount of their respec tive losses as ascertained by the said Commissioners, and to assure her Majesty that this house will make good the same. The Hon. and Learned Member briefly alluded to the facts of the case, and to the classes of claimants—those who had ships and goods, and those who had goods ashore and book debts. He had hitherto been opposed by the Government; but he would not then enter into the merits of the question. If, however, he should hear any new arguments urged against the motion, he should use his prmileee of replying to them. Mr. " HUTT said—l rise for the purpose of seconding this motion. It has been with feelings ef regret that 1 have for some time observed the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give to this subject the same opposition as his predecessors, and adopt all the er parte considerations by which they were influenced. From the straightforward, manly character of my Right Hon. Friend, I would have imagined that he would not interpose his au thority to prevent the compensation justly due to those claimants. With, every feeling of respect, I must say, that I believe the Right Honourable Gentleman does not understand the merits of this case. When this British property was seized by the Danish Government the Bri tish Government had seized upwards of 1,300,0001. worth of Danish property, without providing any protection for British merchants. That property was always represented and understood to be intended as a fund from which compensaticn should be given to the British merchants who were sufferers by the course pursued by our Government. These persons have constantly since that time down to the present period, pressed their claims. The House of Commons has ordered payment to be made to two classes of claimants—to those who had claims for beck debts, and to those who had their good's seized in the ports. Now there is a third party who have had ships and cargoes seized at sea by Danish ships. I cannot see how the Right Hon. Gentleman can oppssc himself to these applications. The judgment of the House has been on two several occasions pronounced in their favour; and I am sure, Sir, that it does not become the character of this House, to do that which would be considered mon strous in a Court of Justice—to reverse the decision which is has twice pronounced, when there are no new facts by which its judgment can be influenced. I cannot think the House will do so ; still less can I think that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, who hes ever shown the greatest regard for maintaining the character and consistency of the House, would recommend such a course. For my own part, I must say, thaVhaving advo cated those claims for nine years, it is with feelings of in dignation I am compelled to come forward nn this occa sion. A large sum of money was obtained previous to the war at the sacrifice of British property. Surely no one will pretend that the object was to plunder the owners? —( Hear.) I hope the House will do them fair and honour able justice.—( Hear, and a laugh.) They ought to be paid not only the principal, but I am quite sure that thine claimants whose case has been so improperly delayed, ought to receive compensation fur that delay.—( Hear.) I will not further trouble the House on this occasion; but I will say that this is not a party question. The House has twice declared itself in favour of these claims; and I trust it will not now reverse its decision.—( Hear. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry, after what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, to announce that he should not only fellow the course of his predecessor upon this question, but was fully pre pared to appeal for support sad approbation to the House, and even to the country at large.—(Cheers from the Tory benches.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was an old advocate, and he bremeht to bear upon this question his habitual adroitness. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman always put this question as between the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and the claimants. That was a most adroit way of putting the question certainly ; but the real question was, were they justified in calling upon the people of England to pay those claims. Were they justi fied in taking the money out of the pockets of other people to put it into the pockets of these respectable persons re siding in Liverpool ? From the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, be was of opinion that they had no right to call upon the public to do so. Tae 11,n. and Learned Gentleman, and the Hon. Gentleman who had followed. him, had carefully avoided all allusion to that portion of the question. He had alluded to the decision which the House had already made. He admitted that the Hen. and Learned Gentleman had had one decision in his favour; but the first decision which had been come to, and been come to by the very Parliament which had directed the other classes of claims to be paid, had been against the claims which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was then advocating. In accordance with the expressed cpiniou of the Reformed House of Commons Lord Spencer had given way, and cdmitted the claims of the two first classes of claimants, which claims had been paid. The very claims which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was now advocating had been submitted to them, and they had refused to admit them, It was remarkable also that Sir James Mackintosh, who was the first who had brought the subject of the Danish claims before Parliament, held in his speech on that occasion only alluded to those claims which were already settled. Those were the only claims which he thought the country called . on to pay. In that speech he had stated that there were certain acts which the Danish Government had committed contrary to the laws of war and the laws of nations ; by those acts British subjects had euffcred wrong. The English Government, at the making of peace, had a right to call upon the Danish Go. vernment for compensation for these wrongs. They had, however, neglected for some reason or other to do so, and he had argued that, in consequence of having thus ne glected their duty, ehich was to enforce these claims as against the Danish Government, they had taken upon themselves' the duty of compensating the English subjects, who ought to have been compensated by the Danish Government. That the claims now brought forward by the Learned Gentle man had never entered into the contemplation of Sir James Mackintosh, appeared still more clearly from the calculn tiona which he had made on the subject. On that occa sion, Sir James Mackintosh had stated that the outstanding claims amounted to about 200,0001., but that they had been reduced by various circumstances to about 100,000/. Now the Government bad already paid 284,0001. on ac count of those claims, and here was another class of claims now brought forward, amounting to an additional quarter of a million. It was obvious that there was a great dis tinction between there claims and those which had already been paid. Denmark was bound to pay the other classes of claimants; she might - have been compelled to do so. Now there was no doubt that, according to the laws of war and the lows of nations, Denmark - was perfectly justi fied in coefiscating the property in question. She was per fectly justified in making this seizure; consequently no claim could be' brought' against Denmark, and no claim could be made against her for compensa tion. Therefore, the grounds on which the former claims had been voted did not exist in the pre sent instance. The following argument had also been attempted to be raised in support of those claims. It was stated that we having received a large sum of money for seizures taken from Denmark were bound to give compen sation to these claimants. He knew not on what ground the Hon. and Learned Gentleman assumed that they were in possession of that sum of money. As far as he could ascertain, after the expenses of the captors and of adjudi cation had been liquidated, and the other expenses had been paid, the suns remaining had, if not the whole at least, by far the large portion of it, had been already paid for those Danish claims which Parliament had already voted. The payment of those claims had, as nearly as possible, eaten up the whole of the money received as the produce of those seizures. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had contended that those claims ought to be satisfied out of the droits of the Crown, but as be had before stated, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that after paying the expenses of the captors and tne payment of the claims already liquidated, there was any surplus re training. Mr. CRESSWELL here expressed his dissent. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— Would the Hon. and Learned Gentleman put it upon that f oo ting? He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that after paying c iptions, and expenses, and other claims, it would be found that there was scarcely any yT intohe Hon.the subject and a and d he Gentleman (the Chancellor not gone surplus remaining , cer tainly nothing like the amount of 100,00 0 /. , or 200,0001., as the Hon. Gentleman seemed to im agine. of the Exchequer) would not detain the House by any l e ngthened observations. He perfectly admitted that if the claim were founded on justice the amount of the claim o ught not to be taken into account. But if there were G e ntlemen there who were under the influence of that act i ve canvass which he knew h a been carried on, he very ull warned them that the case was not a trifling one, and that which happened once might happen again. He thought it necessary to caution them that they would not be vot ing a quarter of a million, but a million in full. There were five cases of the same nature in which he believed similar claims would be put forward, and he would tell them that they knew not what might happen if they once opened their doors to such applications. It was sup.. posed that the Danish claimants were the only claimants of the kind ; but if the House should grant the mo ti o n of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman they would have similar claims submitted to them on the part of the Spanish Governments for the amount of 60,6001. The more they admitted sueh a principle the more would . parties endeavo ur t o ava il t h emse l ves o f it. If they let in one end of the wedge the rest would be sure to follow, and they would find that the annual ex pense in meeting such claims would form a very large item in the public expenditure. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had urged the claim then under their conside ration, at a very unusual time—before they had voted any of the supplies on the estimates gar the Army, the Navy, or other public expenses. But let them lock to the nature of the claim itself. He found that there were out of the million about 55,000/. paid. to Insurance offices. Now be (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not see why the underwriters should come and recompense them selves out of the taxes of the country, which they were p put into their own pockets, because they must have been MORNING VDITION. picking pockets, because the eyes of all were fixed upon one object; and at the time when Barrington wrote, stealing from the person was puunished with death.—(llear.) Ile then read letters from several chaplains and governors of gaols, in different parts of the country, to shove the immoral e ff ects o f 'public executions on the mass of the people, and the debauchery and erime that took place before and after such exhibitions. He said that in London they were attended with no better effecte, and he teed from the newspapers an account of the . execution of Courvoisier, in which it was stated that several per sons of the highest respectability and some I',lembers of Parliament had the good fortune to obtain standing places in the paseages through which the criminal bad to pass. The papers went on to state that during the whole of Sunday a large number of persons visited the Old Bailey, who re-assembled in the evening, and the numbers continued to increase till Monday morning. There were shouts, whist ling, jeering, and jostling during the entire time. The Globe added that those windows which commanded a view of the drop presented a considerable number of well-dressed ladies. The Observer said that before 7 o'clock several noblemen and gen tlemen were admitted int' the prison, ,with Members of Parlia ment, foreign Princes and Counts, who wished to see the English mode of disposing of criminals. Mr. Sheriff Evans, it was stated, drew a letter from his pocket and asked the pri soner fur his autograph, while Mr. Sheriff Wheelton wept bit terly. The prisoner on his appearance was received with one unanimous yell from the assembled multitude. The Observer remarked on tke indecent way in which those who had been admitted by special orders nit() the gaol rushed towards the place of execution. Thus they had Princes, Counts, and sena tors running on Sunday morning, nominally to hear the con demned sermon, but in reality to stare at the prisoner. On the following morning the same parties crowded round him while he was receiving the last offices of religion ; and while his burial service was being read one Sheriff wept, and the other very smirkingly asking him for his autograph. Who wished that executions should be so conducted in future ? ( Hear, hear.) Could any one point out to him the benefit which would accrue from congregating together such masses of profligacy, vice, and idleness to witness the death of a fellow crezt ure, by which it was impossible but their hearts must be hardened? But Hon. Gentlemen might say that the mischief which would result from a change in the law would be such as to undermine justice itself. He should repeat that he dis claimed most emphatically all intention of making executions private. He asked for publicity, but not such as that which now existed. lie wished to constitute a formal, appropriate, and independent assembly to witness' the last solemn scene of the law, whereby the public might be assured of its full and exact performance, while the criminal might not be unneces sarily interrupted in his last moments. He proposed that all the officers who now conduct executions should be present , he proposed that the Inspector of Prisons should also he pre sent, and should make a special report of the whole circum stances of the execution to the Hcme-effice, which report should always be laid on the table of the House of Commons in each following year. He adopted all the provisions now in force for securing free access to the ministers of the faith of the culprit: He alto provided for the admission of those relations or friends of the party who might wish toassist at the execution. That e do away with any suspicion which might attend a snore pri private execution. lie provided also for the admission of a certain number of gentlemen of the press, whom; accounts would have the effect of spreading the knowledge of the exe eutioa far and wide. He would require the attendance of all the convicted prisoners who might be in gaol at the time, who should be obliged to spend the rernaineer of the day in thei 'private cells, where they would have an opportunity of re flecting on the scene they had witnessed. lie also provided for the admission of a certain limited number of Magistrates, as well as for that of a certain number of witnesses, indiecri erhninately chosen, who on the third day before the execution should signify to the Governor of the gaol their desire to be present. Whenever the number of applications should exceed the number which could be admitted, the matter was to be settled by drawing lots, in order to prevent any jealousy.—( A laugh.) By this means he would secure the attendance of 40 or PO independent witnesses. A certificate of the execution on the part of the Governor of the gaol was fo be transmitted to the Home Office, and atterwards posted up in the gaols and other conspicuous places in the counts'. With a view to arrest the attention of the neigh bours, notices should also be fixed in conspicuous places of the intended execution some time beforehand. Ile would further require, in order to arrest the attention of the people in the neighbourhood, that the officers appointed to con duct the execution should assemble at the Court-house, or some other place, and proceed from thence in solemn ceremony to the place of execution, while the parish bells tolled as they passed. This was the substance of the resolution which he submitted to the House. He thought he had provided for suffi cient publicity, and for the attendance of persons of all classes, while the press and the official certificate would be a sufficient security that an authentic account of the execution should be given to the world. He had said nothing of the unhappy per son himself ; and after having intruded so long on the House, he did not feel inclined to trespass on their attention at any greater length ; but he would put it to the House whether it was just to a Christian, that at his last moment an unhappy being should be dragged forth pinioned and blindfolded, and exhibited as a spectacle to an infuriated multitude.—( Hear, hear.) True he might look calm, but that might be the calm ness of unspeakable agony—true he might appear hold, but it might be a boldness in which every nerve was shaken. The vision of that ocean of faces, and of that burst of execration, might ha se caused his unspeakable agony during the nights previous to his execution; but unlike the criminal condemned to transportation, he could not return to tell his comrades of his sufferings, and thus produce a salutary effect on their minds. This terror also acted very unequally, depending as it did upop the caprice of the multitude who, after witnessing his dying agonies, retired to the gin palaces, and, talking over what they had witnessed, hardened one another by the observations, and perhaps pitied the prisoner as one who, according to the slang expression, had died game. How many who, now gone to the last bitter ac count, had been deterred born making a full and free confession from the fear that, it they did so, they should be considered as not having died game. Aud how litany a young mind bad been debased and perverted from witnessing the apparent cool ness with which the punishment had been endured. lie had endeavoured to point out the mischiefs of the present system, and to devise a remedy for those mischiefs.-( Cheers.) Thanking the House for the patience with which they had heard him, he should now conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the public execution of criminals, and to provide for the execution within the gaols in which they may be con fined, before duly appointed authorities, and a limited number of witnesses. The :notion having been seconded, General JOHN S6l‘l said that all the arguments of the Hon. Member went to do away with the punishment of death alto gether; in that point lie heartily concurred with him, but he never could consent to putting people privately to death ; and after all his plan went to convert an execution into a perfect raree-show, for admission to which the applications would be so numerous, as according to the Hon. Gentleman's own showing, to require to be determined by ballot. lie should oppose the motion as one altogether foreign to the feelings of Englishmen, and shoal,' the Hon. Member succeed in bring ing in his Bill, he should oppose it at every stage. Mr. E WART, while doing full justice to the relatives by which the Hon. Member was actuated in bringing forward this motion felt bound to oppose it. He fully admitted the evils of public executions, but the true way of getting rid of it was to abolish the punishment of death.—( Hear, hear.) Himself and the other opponents of capital punishments had lone- been travelling in one direction, and the Hon. Member for lenares borough now wished them to travel in another. He was right in his motives, bat he was wrong in his principles, and by thus removing one of the arguments against the abolition of capital punishment the effect of his motion would be to make capital punishment snore lasting. The principle of private execu tions was bad, and he would ask whether such a system might not be abused? Let them look back to history --all the most horrible punishments had been inflicted in private ;—the rack, the torture, and all the horrors of the Inquisition had been in flicted in private. Publicity was a check upon cruelty. To refine and humanize the people they should look to a more extended measure of cduca'ion, and to the total abolition of capital punishment. lint he had strong doubts as to the of of the measure proposed by his Hon. Friend for the attainment of the object he had in view. The press, in the present day, was the great interument of publicity, through that all the de tails of the ;Tony of the prisoner would be given to the world exaggerated and magnified, and the public appetiteeevould be pampered by reading the horrors which they did not see. He thought the admission of the relatives of the prisoner would be no effectual check, for he hoped that none of them would ever attend such a scene. Secrecy was an evil in principle, and in this case more than any other. A great change had lately taken place in the public feeling in relation to'criminals : for merly they were considered as heroes and martyrs —now they were considered as miscreants. He would admit that it was dreadful that the people, as in the case of Courfroisier, should greet an unhappy criminal, on his appearance on the scaffold, with bursts of execration • but surely it was bett er t h an that he should be cheered as a hero, as had formerly been the case. His Hon. Friend's object was to do away with public execu ' cutions; but, in carrying out this object, he should not forget the habits of the people. In Prussia private executions were more unfavourable with the habits of the people than in this country. On the whole,, though he approved of the motives of his Hon. Friend, he would not agree to his motion. .He trusted, however, that they would soon all combine in the one object, which had How become almost a European object, of opposing capital punishments altogether. Mr. FOX MA ULE said, that he could not let this question go to a vote without expressing his opinion in very few words upon the subject which his Hon. Friend had brought before the House. He must say that he entirely concurred with the view taken by the Hon. and Gallant General, that this attempt to snake executions private would be abhorrent to the feelings of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The whole argument of his Hon. Friend appeared to him (Mr. Fox Maine) rather to make a case for the abolition of capital punishments, than for e un x- . private trefle s e e n x t e e e n u c t e i o o n f of criminals the u w ea ho r.) had ue fall t e h l o i u u g n h d t e r h i t s h the Friend had been peculiarly unfortunate in his measure, because the e , House. h i m on that ihnoopefeca hoped s o i ut o ir n i a t i o i tf o i t mtel e i yonthouo entirers those would withdraw that which, he tanybli e:honl abolition nratr. enemiesou r f a t s e ue d ev he, against tsytueohenffoioi nsstriegi :rev present system of capital punish of the House, i ostler to cut er t a o bl s e av G e c tl i t i e tle i m le a m n , , ,, best from themotives, he had Which his b before With reference to the details n. Friend had. t by referring to inveotiss were feeling ' I this —was The question was sinip y . the system of exe_ thetmi.,s in this country to be public or private. He lamented, '' as u lie l had no doubt the House would lament, that it should ever entered, he would . not then occupy the House be leaTesuted that so much depravity s h ou l d be witnessed when ary to have recourse to capital pu n i s h ments, and he also a public example was made for the purpose of encouraging chloi ashaldiesroegarbeltytepdrothpoatsehdethsheoulleda:R.ffre, public virtue. But, he believed, that if they were to tl pu o away Kith the punishment cf death, above all, it they • Acre to make r t o shisdu duty o t n o . it secret, more evils would follow in either case thanwere complained of under the present system. Holdime their l' if the lloc)u)sl edivided upon it, he (Mr. F. Maitle) eluesuld(ilfeeerl give hi, m A nl r,N. who Ho y o Lh t ra e , b a si i ,a n ot s ud t g thhhete forward would r o w tin a o rdr . e t c h o is m m m o e t n io d n t n le o e Non. t top G ress en it tic: o - a division, seeing that the sense of the Ileums - Was entirely op posed to him. None of his arguments in favour of private executions had met with support on .either side. At the same time, they must all feel obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for the strong and powerful case which he had made against pubic executions.—( Hear, hear.) He had proved to dernons!retion that publi c execut i cns were a nu i sance, an d t h at, i nstead of doing goo d , t h ey di d harm.—( Hear, hear.) He would re commend the Noble Lord to the left of the Hon. Gentleman to weigh well the arguments which had been advanced, and the facts which had been stated; and he trusted that he would be prepared, whenev e r the question of total abolition came on, either to answer them, or to agree to the motion. He wa s quite sure that the details which had been given by the Hon. Gerelernarn if well reported and well considered, r ould have great weight upon the co:nary. Mr. RICH, in rising t o re p l y , taid h e should be most un willing, on any occasion , to press anything ag a i ns t th e general opinion of the House. He had felt that the object was a new one, and that if any value attached to his views, his purpose would be best answered by bringing them before the House and the country. With respect to the opinion that he would, by what he proposed, revive anything like secret executions or inquisitions, lie could only repeat the disclaiiaeers which he had already made of any such intention. With regard to history being entirely against his plan, lie believed, that in the ve r y best periods of an c i en t hi story, executions took piece before competent witnesses. (Hear, hear.) It was only when profligacy began to prevail that a different custom w jive ? 100 cl/ 11 ' t; queD e C 3 r tit4l csvt . v. a oine °lic e • i th o t ,6e 4 111 to e ° , h e t 111 sioeo , s ocl l o ve , VI t?' I 0 0 0 I', t he ere . big 'the suP; Is ' filer P iy 7 1 0 , V t~ ,~