The Sun. — London, England, 1821-05-24 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 23. Mr. Irving, from the Custom House, present ed an Account of the quantity of Manufactured Silk exported from this Country during the last 21 years : and also an Account of the quantity of Wines exported during the same period. Laid on the table. Mr. Alason, from the Directors of the East India Company, presented the Annual Account of the Receipts, Charges, and Payments of the East India Company in Great Britain. Laid on the table. The Earl of CALEnoNt brought up the Report of the Committee on the Highland Roads' Bill, which was agreed to. . Mr. Serjeant Onslow, Mr. Harbord, and others, brought up from the Conunons the Attornies' . and Solicitors' Regulation Bill, and the Sale of . Bread Regulatio►i Bill—Read a first time. Mr. Brogden and others alga brought up mes .9nges informing the House that the .Commons had agreed to the amendments made by their Lordships in the Court of Sessions and the SCotch Court of Admiralty Bills. TIMBER DUTIES. - On the motion of the Earl of BATUURST, the Timber Duties Bill was read a third time, passed, and returned to the Commons. The Report of the Steam Engine Smoke Con suming gill was brought up by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY ) and agreed.to.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The House was occupied until 20 minutes to five o'clock, in Baliotting for a Committee on the Petersfield Election Petition. The Inland Navigation (Ireland) Bill was brought in by Mr. D: Browne, read a first time, and ordered to be read a se cond time on Friday next. Mr. CHETWYND brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Existing Law for Apprehending and Punishing Vagrants.—Laid on the Table. Mr. CHETWYNI) then gave notice, that he would to-mor row introduce a Bill relating to the existing law for the Appre hension and Punishment Of Vagrants. Dr. PHILLIMORE brought up the Report of the Lime rick Election Committee. He stated the right of voting to be in the resident freemen, their eldest ions, in persons who mar ried the daughters of freemen, and in persons who had served an apprenticeship of seven years to freemen resident in the said City.—Laid on the Table. STATE OF EUROPE. Mr. C: H. HUTCHINSON said,. that in consequence of • .the Douse not having met yesterday, his notice of motion upon the State of Europe had dropped.. He was now under the ne cessity, in consequence of the pressure Of business for several days, of fixing his motion for Friday next, when he should bring it on in the Committee of Supply.. Mr. HUME gave notice for the 7th of June, of a motion re specting the lonian Islands. He also gaVe notice for the 12di' .of June, of a motion for an humble Address to his Majesty, praying a reduction of the public Expenditure, parucularty as it regarded the army. Mr. W. SMITH presented a Petition from the Protestant Dissenters of the three denominations, -in and about the Me tropolis, praying. a revision of the Criminal Law.—Laid on the . Table. " • Sir G. COCKBURNE brought up an Account of the Royal 31 a rine Forces, and the number of each rank.—Ordered to be printed. • Mr. BYNG presented several Petitions against the Metro polis Roads MlL—Ordered to lie on the Table. Lord MILTON wished to know from any Member of the Agricultural Committee, whether they intended to introduce any measure for a reduction or repeal of the Agricultural gorse Duty thi'4 Session ? Mr. CURWEN regretted that the Chairman of that Com mittee was'not in his place. He understood, that in consequence of a Resolution of that Committee, a notice for the repeal of the Agricultural llorse Duty was to have been given in the . course of that Pi:TERSFIELD ELECTION. Mr..DYsoN brought up the names of the Petersfield Elec tion Committee. They were as_ follow :-- G. Phillips, T. Wilson, Sir G. Cockburne, H. Gurney, J. Wharton, 41. R. Phißins . , • • J. Bailey, • It obt. Chaloner, W. A. Johnston, V. 11. Hughes, W. HolmeS, G. Gipps, E. S. CoOper, and • Charles Tennyson, Lord Folkestone. Igr. AT'rWOOD presented a Petition from the Bankers of MariborPugh against the Usitu Laws.—Laid °lithe table. Mr. DLTGDALE tit preser.ted a petition from Birmingham; - ' praying a revision of the Criminal haws. Sir J. MACKINTOSH expressed his satisfaction at a peti tion so respectable as that which the Hon. Gentleman had pre tented, sanctioning the principles of a measure which he had undertaken. He hoped that a Noble Friend of his would post pone a motion which stood on the paper for to-night, to some future occasion. . Lord NUGENT consented to postpone his motion, although at the expenee of some inconvenience, for an object so desirable s the passing of his lion. and Learned Friend's Bills, in - • the present Session. . CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRO SECUTION OF LIBELS AGAINST - THE STATE. Mr. BROUGHAM said he was'anxious to take the oppor tunity afforded to him by a pc tition being presented for an al teration in the CriminarLaw, to complain of another alteration in the Criminal Laws, nit inside upon the sound and constitu tional principles of his Winourable'and Learned Friend (Sir J. Mackintosh,) but upon principles and with feelings which justly created serious alarm in the public mind. He alluded to 'the inroad made, upon that which,, if not the exclusive right, had at least been' the general praatice of his Majesty's Attor ney:and Solicitor's-General—the proceeding_ officially against all persons guiltfof offences against the Church or State. He did not mean to contend that by law this right was vested solely in the Solicitor and Attorney-General, for - he held that by law any man could proceed against another for a public offence ; at least, after the many Associations which had been entered into for prosecutions for felony, it was not now necessary . AD raisethe' question. Those Astodations were, howeVor,,eontined to the. punishment of private felonies, or ofiancet of an odious nature, such as those prosecuted by the societies ; for instance, -exhi biting and selling obscene pictures or 'books ; and of ;this So ciety-he would here say, that even it had created considerable alarm in the public mind ; it was not, however, his province to give his opinion upon it further-than obtervingollilt by_confin lag itself solely to the punishment of those offences into which no political or religious feelings'could enter, it. had not only dine less mischief l 'than was apprehended, but had been pro ductive of some goodto the community. But here was an. As sedation of a totally different riature-:--an Asseziation prosecut ing arid punishing for political offences.—(hear, hear o—Here wac a power claimed to be exercised under the direction, and' amording to the dictates of party feelings. It was an Associa tion supported by a common fund, and without giving to the public any single individual who was to be responsible for their acts—(Hear, hear !)—To ; be sure, a great mass of name's were ziven to the ,public,; among those names were to be found many of the very first res_pectability,%and ao those persons he meant at present to- address the language of expostulation only. -He was aware that many of those Gentlemen had enter ed into this Association with the purest and most disin terested motives, and without being aware into what hands they -hid- intrusted the credit and influence of their great names; he would put it to any man who was connected with the Government, and who entertained strong Tory principles in Church and State, whether private individuals ought to be al lowed to.proceed against persons libelling the Government of the country ? lie was aware that instances of libel might occur, ..where it Would not only be the duty 'of 'Govern ment not to: prosecute,- but where a prosecution would be RToductive of .the matest mischief, in bringing the author be-' tore the public!. , Who then, he would ask,-ought to be the ac /utters in eases ofabel against the state ? Was it to be the officers of the Crosan 'or,was the lustiness to be left to one or two At-. torfies, at whose disposal those funds were and who were -reckless both of the expellee incurred, and of the consequences of their conduct.—(llcar, hear.)-4t had been held by many, that the power vested in the Attorney General was one of so high and dangerous a nature, that it ought to be exercised by no one, who. was not under sufficient controul. But here was a power exercised by a set of private individuals without con trout, without responsibility, and of the results of whose pro ceedings no opinion could pretend to judge, unless that House exercised'its influence to check them.—(Hear, - hear !)—lle had . f i ready said, he knew that several of the signatures were th ose o f Lily respectable persons, and he believed that ma.n7 of those persons had been drawn into this association from a wish to protect the religion of the country. He for one would rather see those offences prosecuted by the proper Officers of the Crown, than by such an Association as that which he had de scribed. He had no wish to see prosecutions for offences against religion conducted by persons actuated by that spirit peculiar to different sects and forms of worship.—One word more respect ing the class of persons whose names appeared on this list—there appeared the names of no less than 40 Peers connected with it, and undoubtedly they niiist have joined it unintentionally and without consideration.—(Hear, hear !)—What ! 40 of the Judges of the realm, in the last resort, becoming prosecutors ; surely they could not have for a moment reflected upon what they were doing. There was not any one offence prosecuted by this Society upon which thOse Noble Lords mi<fht not be called upon ultimately to decide. It was true that Peers might have become, in some instances, Members of Associations for prose cuting. felons (and this mode of prosecution would not perhaps be tolerated, were it not that it became necessary, from the po verty of the parties •robbed, or from their unwillingness to pre fer charges from a fear of being bound over to prosecute), but that was a different case, there the Jury at once" decides the guilt or innocence of the party, whereas in a case of libel, the question, after a trial in the Courts below, •might be brought under the consideration of thoSe very Peers who were prosecu tors in the case.—(Hear, hear !)—He was fully sure that if , this had struck those Noble Lords, they would never have become Members of the Association in question. He should not be surprised to find that Counter Associations were formed to re pel the attacks of this one, but this would afford no remedy, and would 'only tend to put an end in a short time to all politi cal discussion.—(Hear, hear!)—The Petition was laid on the Table. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A Message. came _down from the Lords, stating that their Lordships had agreed to the Timber Duty and other Bills. Mr. DENMAN presented a Petition from the - Farmers of Nottingham, praying an inquiry into the Adulteration of Clover and Trefoil ;3 eed.•---Ordtrcd to lie on the Table. - . Mr. DEN M AN presented a similar Petition from the Seed Merchants of Nottingham.—Ordered to lie on the Table. boid NUGENT postponed his motion for a Committee re specting the Courts of Justice of Tobago, to the 6th of June. RESCUE OF FELONS Mr. G. BENNET moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relative to the rescue of felons. A person who attempted-the rescue of a felon was liable to the same punish ment as the felon himself. The Hon. Member shelved what he contended was the defective state of the law upon this sub ject. If a person was convicted of attempting to rescue a felon, he was liable to be, punished by seven years' trans portation ; whereas if he sueceesled in the rescue, he escaped the meaning of the Acts. One of the objects of his Bill v'as to give protection to those entrusted with the custody of felons. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not rise to object to the motion, but to notice the observation which had fallen from the Hon. Member relative to the Act which provided• the pu nishment for the attempt to rescue felons. The Hon. Member stated, that if a person succeeded in rescuing a felon, he was notliable to suffer under the Act. But did he not know that the actual rescue constituted • a felony of itself ? There was consequently no necessity for providing a punishment by a fresh Act. Mr. G. BENNETT explained.—Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. Mr. WILBERFORCE gave notice of a motion for to-mor row se'nnight, for some papers connected with the Slave Trade. From the very low tone in which he spoke we were unable to collect the terms of the Hon. Meinber's motion. Mr. COURTENAY postponed his motion respecting the American Loyalists to the 6th of June. FORGERY MITIGATION BILL. Sir JAMES M ICKINTOSII moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Bill for Mitigating the Punish ment of Forgery. The question being put that the SPEAKER should leave the Chair, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and said, that he felt himself, though reluctantly, bound to op pose the motion. He was sure that his Hon.and Learned Friend would not suppose that he did so from being insensible to the feelings of humanity.. He felt himself compelled to do so from a sense of public duty, and for the purpose of guarding_ against what he considered a public evil. In the discussion of the question before the House,there was one very gratifying consideration ; it was this—that no party feeling could possibly obtrude itself upon them, but that they would calmly and fairly consider the question upon its own merits. That great question arose out of the Report of the Committee appointed in the last Session of Parliament to inquire into the state of the Cri minal Law. It was therefore necessary to advert to that Report. fie was willing to admit that the Members of that Committee were - men, who, from their talents and experience, were well cal culated to discharge the important trust reposed, in them by the House. But still he would say, that the Repo%'t appeared to him to have taken but a very partial view of the subject. It was, he conceived, impossible for any one to read that part without being impressed with the conviction that the Committee took but a very partial view of the question. In saying that he did not impute blame to the Committee, the thing naturally arose out of the nature of the inquiry. Every one knew that in this country there was a body of men who were very adverse to the infliction of capital punishments; such men, eager in the pur suit of a favourite object, pressed before the Committee to give evidence in order to forward their peculiar opinions. It was impossible to look at the Report, and not to see that that ac tually took place. It was, he conceived, equally obvious that persons impressed with very diffe rent opinions felt unwilling to appear before the Committee uncalled for. Such persons were not compelled, and of course no evidence from them appeared 'on the face of the Report. The Report itself was evidently drawn up in haste,' as many inaccuracies appeared in it. Thus, it was stated, that stealing in dwelling-houses to the amount of 40s. was a 'capital offence by the - law as it stood. Now he had no hesitation is saying that there ivas no law respecting stealing in houses to the amount of 405.• In like manner the Report stated that stealing in ships and vessels in navigable rivers was a capital - offence; there was no such offence known to the law of England; he mentioned 'so much, in order to prove that the Report was` drawn up in haste, and without due consideration. The House would allow him to make another obser vation on the Report—the Report brought for ward a charge, by implication, against the memory of a Learned Judge whose character he venerat ed (we understood the llonourable Gentleman to allude to the late Judge Heath); that Learned Judge was represented to have acted in a harsh and cruel manner on the trial of a party who was convicted at the lissex Assizes, under the Statute of Geo. I. for having cut - down timber. The man was found guilty, and was executed. The charge against the Learned Judge, and against the Se cretary of - State for the Home Department, was thit the man did not suffer so much for the crime for which he was Convicted, but for other crimes of which he was suspected, but of which he was not convicted. Such a charge, so serious ill its nature, brought too against the memory of a 'Learned Judge, should not have been has tily made, should not have been made with out due inquiry. The Committee had it in their power to have instituted that inquiry=the Clerk of the Crown for Essex lived in London ? and might have been called before tbern aird exanrin ed ; no such examination or inquiry took place. lie (the Solicitor General) had inquired into the circumstance, and he ascertained that the indivi dual who had suffered the sentence of the law, so far from not having been convicted of any other crime,. - was at that very Assize - charged under eight distinct indictments, with eight dis tinct offences, one of which was burglary; and-Of four of those offences he was convicted. lie ask ed, then, was it for such an individual that the Learned Judge could have called for the mercy of the Crown ? Mr. Buxros--Was'be convicted of the bur glary The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—There were seven cases of larceny charged against him, of four of those he was convicted ; he was not convicted of the burglary—(Hear, hear ! from the Opposi tion.)—lt was proved that he had cut down the timber from motives of malice against the pro prietor of the land. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman said, he thought, it necessary' to state the circumstance, not for the purpose of throwing any censure upon the Committee, but to free the character of a man he highly revered, from the odium which might by possi bility be thought to have been thrown by their Report upon his memory. In adverting to the Bill before them, it appeared that the object of that Bill was to take away, for the first offence, the punishment of death in cases of forgery of every description, save those of notes of the Bank of England. It was necessary therefore to Con sider the cases to which the Bill applied. It ap plied to the forgery of wills—a crime easily com mitted, and by which families might be stript of their entire property. It applied also to the for gery of marriage settlements—a crime which went to destroy not merely the property of families, but to affect the legitimacy and character of its members. It, also applied to the forgery of deeds of conveyance of property to any amount, and cases of the transfer of stock—cases so very im portant, and on which depended property to a great amount. He recollected having been em ployed hi one case where the party was charged with having committed forgery respecting the transfer of stock to the amount of 20,0001. The House, he thought, should not in cases of such great importance, proceed to alter the law with out having before them the strongest reasons for a measure so important to the country—so deeply affecting the security and property of families.— lie was aware that it might be said that' the ex isting laws against forgeries were but so many in novations on the common law. By time common law the crime of forgery was'not punishable With death, it was treated as a misdemeanor. But it should be recollected, that in the infancy of so ciety, when commerce was limited, and the trans actions of the people were simple, forgery was a crime of rare occurrence. But as commerce in creased, and society advanced, the crime of for ' gery became more frequent ; hence the statute of 'Elizabeth, a statute enacted to guard against the repetition of the crime. That statute, though it did not inflict the punishment of death, affixed a punishment nearly as grievous. It enacted, that' every one convicted of the crime of forgery, should pay to the party injured double the value of the property, should be imprisoned for life, should be put in the pillory, and have his ears nailed to the pillory—should have his nose slit, and should be seared with a red hot iron,—should forfeit his goods and chattels to the Crown, and his lands and tenements for life. Such was the dreadful pu nishment affixed to the first offence ; for the secOnd offence the party was to be executed. So the law remained until the reign of George 11. The manners of the times rendered that law necessary. The Revolution effected a sensible change in the manners and feelings of the country. Imprison ment for life, and the dreadful punishment of mutilation, could no longer be effected. The law of Elizabeth remained'a dead letter, and the crime of forgery greatly increased in consequence. To meet the evil the Act of George Ti. was made ; it was made after very great considera tion, and with the best advice. Lord Ilardwicke was then Attorney Gene'ral, and Lord Talbot was Solicitor General. The Act, so cautious was the Legislature, was first tried as a tempo rary Act, to expire in five years: The subject was shortly afterwards brought again under the consideration of the Legislature. ,Some verbal defects having been discovered in the Act, it became necessary to correct them, in conse quence of which, in less than a year after the passing of the Act, the matter was brought a se cond time before Parliament. Again, shortly before the expiration .of the five years, the sub ject was by - ought under Legislative consideration, and the Act having been found effective was made perpetual. Since that period the subject was frequently brought under the view of Par- liament ; so lately • as the year 1805, those Acts were re-enacted, with reference to a particular object; The - House was - aware that Scotland was exempted from the provisions of the Act of George 11., because at the time that Act was passed, forgery, by the law of Scotland, was pu nished with death ; and a great many . executions had taken place 'in that country from the time of passing the statute of Elizabeth to time reign of George 11. He had, in support of the prevent system, the practice of this country during the Administration of some of the wisest men that ever lived in it, and during Parliaments which had been composed of men of the brightest ta lents. When they fouud a law so established, it required that not an ordinary, but an irre sistible case should be made out to warrant its repeal. What, then, were the reasons on which this Bill was founded ? If they looked to the Preamble of the Bill they would find the only .reason there stated was that the existing law was ineffectual for the prevention of forgery. On this issue he would meet his Honourable and Learned Friend. All his experience and the ex perience of those of the greatest knowledge on such subjects, whom he had consulted, induced hirn to withhold his assent to this proposition. He was convinced that although the crime was not altogether repressed (as what crime could be by any punishment ?), and that though some in stances or it'occurred which were not brought to punishment, yet on the whole it was effectually prevented. But it was stated, that if the punish ment were mitigated, there would be more con victions, because' many persons might not now prosecute from the knowledge that the penalty of the crime was death, and that that severe penalty Was generally inflicted in case of conviction. The truth of this he did not deny, but he denied that they could argue on this fact alone. They must take- the whole of- the case together. Though they might by mitigating the law increase the prosecutions, they should put, on the otheislde, the diminution of the terror of the heavy penalty and of the almost certain infliction of that penalty in case of conviction. This brought him naturally to the nature of the punishment proposed to be substituted for that of death. The object of punishment was the prevention of crime by terror. The punishment in this case was to be transpor— tation. Now it was.known that transportation was scarcely regarded in the light of a punish ment ; that it was regarded with no terror ;. that the criminals on being sentenced to it often bowed to the Judge and thanked him. Who were the persons who were likely to commit private for gery ?—They were individuals who were in dis tress or embarrassment, and in circumstances in which the success of their crime seemed to them probable. Such a man would say to him self—" If I am convicted, what is the result ? I shall suffer transportation—a change of circum stances scarcely to be deprecated. If I succeed, and am not detected, I may escape to another country to live in affluence ;" for it was to be re collected that this was a crime the object of which was, not the possession of a few pounds, but of a whole fortune.- 7 -(Hear !)—He did pot say that a man about to commit a crime coolly reason ed thus, but these considerations passed through his mind, and determined him as by instinct. But as the law now stood, he would reason thus, perhaps—" the humanity of the person whom I am attempting to defraud may withhold him from prose cuting, but if he does I am sure to forfeit my life." He asked them, then, whether the new law was not likely to be much more inefficient to the pre vention of the crime than the present law ? Yet the prevention of the crime 'was the only object which the Bill recognised. But his Hon. and Learned Friend would say, " I do not confine you to transportation, you may inflict hard la bour and imprisonment." But in fact, whatever might hereafter be effected by the labour of the benevolent individuals who were labouring so usefully to that purpose, there was no such pu nishment in England as imprisonment and hard labour for great crimes.- That punishment did not exist as an object of terror, especially as re garded those crimes, the commission of width was attended with great pecuniary reward. The objection which he had to the punishment of transportation would therefore apply with more force to the other alternative of hard labour. He had now, he conceived, gone oyer The whole of the, case, when he showed that the proposed • 13i11 could not be effectual to the repression of the crime. It was said, and he did not wish to evade the argument, that in other countries a milder punishment was applied to the crime, and was effectual. In reply to this he should say, that in other countries they had surer ways of detecting and of convicting criminals, from the peculiar nature of their institutions, which this country could not bear, and which he hoped to God never would. When individuals in those countries were charged with crime, they were obliged (as was sometimes the practice at the Bar of the House) to admit their own crimes. To these causes alone was it to be attributed that in those countries the milder' punishment was inflicted. Unless, therefore, some substi tute for the punishment of death was pointed out, the Bill could not be supported. He had re ferred to the Statute of Elizabeth, the punish ments of which were of the most cruel nature, and which • could not be tolerated • in this age. The observations he had made applied to Om offence of forgery. It would probably be con venient that he should not refer to the subjects of the other Bill, till they came to'be discussed.— !)—He should therefore now move that this Bill be committed this day six months.— (Hear, hear !) Mr. BUXTON said, in rising to reply to the. So licitor-General, he should not do justice to his own feelings if he did not bear testimony to the extreme candour with which he had met the question.—(Hear, hear !)—He was rejoiced to find there was no great difference between him and his Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir J. Mack intosh). He had said that the Gentlemen who supported the measure had not as yet discovered a substitute, and therefore he could not consent to the abolition of the 'punishment of death. He (Mr. Buxton) did not mean to say that transpor tation would be a good substitute ; in fact, it was no punishment at all. It seemed to be one of the privileges of his Majesty's subjects, open to any one who might qualify himself by committing a transportable •offence ; but when he admitted that, was it to be assumed there was no other punishment ? There was strict prison discipline, close confinement, and hard labour, which were the. proper secondary punishments. He was happy to hear the Hon. and Learned Gentleman lay down the doctrine that prevention of crime was the great object of punishment. This was the precise point he was aiming at. We have been going on in this country year after year under the impression that punishment prevented crime. For the last century a rapid increase had been made in the criminal law ; severity seemed to be wisdom, and capital punishments the only mode of preventing crime ; and now he supposed the country had arrived at the highest pitch of perfection, and could repose with secu rity, and as it was so eminently distinguished for the severity of the punishment, so also it would be remarkable for the paucity of its crime.— (Hear.) —But there were facts that could .be stated that placed this system in the most for midable and alarming point of view. In 18 - 18 it appeared that no less a number than 107,000 persons passed through the prisons of this country ; and if prevention , be •the object of punishment, he should wish to ask any im partial person whether in this multitude of delinquents he saw any symptom of an effec tive law ? There was another fact, just as impor taut and as melanCholy :—lt appeared upon evi- • dence which was but too conclusive, that there were from eight to ten thousand juvenile offend= ers who actually earned their daily bread from their daily enormities. At present they were em ployed in petty pilfer, but would soon become 'formidable to society ; and he would ask any man whether, from the number of these juvenile offenders, from amongst whom the jails, peniten tiaries, and 'gibbets were supplied with victims, he' san , any prospect of an effective law ?—(Hear, hear!)—There was another' consideration with which he should not detahrthe House, namely, a comparison of England in this respect with other countries. But would it be believed that in. France, with its twenty-nine millions of inhabi tants, where the peace-officers kept the closest watch on the people, the numbers were less than in England, where the officers paid scarcely any attention at all. If a foreigner came to.examine the matter, the first thing he should inquire would be, " Has• this system been tried sufficiently ,long, and on a scale extensive enough to judge of its effects ?" The Honourable and Learned Gen tleman had admitted it was sufficiently long: in practice, and God knows it had been tried' on a sufficiently wide scale in this couotry,,where, kill your fatherand kill a rabbit, the punishment was the same—destroy the three, countries . and shoot a hawkplei the punishment was the same—meet a gipsy woman on the road, and. kill the said gipsy, and you would not be punished mote severely than for merely living with the said gipsy.—(hear!)--- When he considered all things he must come to this conclusion, that something Was wronein the • system. The Hon. Gentleman then went into a long statement to prove that .when the- punish ments of crimes were mitigated, prosecutions be- • came more numerous, and the crime itself g,ra dually diminished. In .1807 some persons be longing to linen-bleachers, in Lancashire, pre sented a Petition to the Moose, praying for a Mi tigation of - the punishments against offenders. The prayer was complied with, and the consequence was, that the number of delinquents gradually diminished. He quoted similar instances in the north of Ireland. lie laid those statements be- - fore the House .to spew that no evil consequences could arise from the mitigation of. these laws.— The House then was called on by every principle of common sense, - common justice, and common honesty, to abandon a system which they have fonnd did not. succeed. The Hon. Gentleman then alluded to the state of crime in - the reign of Henry VIII. during whose reign 72,00 Q persons were put to death, exclusive of. his religious- exes cutions ; and this, upon a calculation, amounted to six deaths a day, Sundays included, during his reign. , The Learned Gentlemen on the other side placed all their confidence on the old law of the land, and it would surprise the House to Yearn ,that, there could h e -ne greater innovation than the modern law on the spirit .of the old law of the country. The old code of law was still preserved to us, and no such se- j verity was to be found iu it. The code of King Alfred, for example, repealed the whole of the old Jewish law, as unfit, from its severity, for a Christian kingdom. The Danes, abolishi4 every, thing else, retained that paucity of crinil gal punishinents which the Saxons introduced ; and King Canute had ordered that judgments should be merciful before God 7 and forbade that Christian men should be executed for slight causes. . The most remarkable proselyte wa s William the Conqueror himself, whO was pont trayed by his contemporaries as'a tyrant and do- . presser—as one who loved the tall stagS as if were their father, yet he had declared that Pe man should be put to death for any crime whit" ever. Judge Blacksione's and Sir Henry Spel man's authority were to the same effect ; the 1 3V ter regretted that whilst every thing else had he-. 'come dearer, the life of man had becomcheaPe l ‘ than ever. The law as it stood at present haLlt comparatively speaking-, no antiquity at all; There. were persons still in existence who' coul',. remember when the criminal code contained no t More than seventy capital offences, although lg now contained 'more than three tines that nom' her, and of the six hundred men condemned to, death last year, the far greater ' proportion 9' those who suffered death was under the authoritf of those statutes which were so . comparative;{ recent: The factis, that the old cornmon ° the land and the recent statute law are complete' 'ly at variance ; on that he would give no opini° r 's but such was the fact. A few words an fire manner in which these laws had been passed It appeared that our whole penal code had bee f quadrupled within the last century; every vela one capital offence, at least, was- created, 0 sometimes the Legislature had fagotted th' o t : together, making up a bundle of ten or twe le offences—one of which might be of such a 0 4, tore as to 'be punishable with a fine of and another an atrocious murder. The fact that they were all passed stir) silentio, «'r out any debates orinquiry whatsoever. He I °. heard an anecdote which skewed how these were made. Mr. Btirke :being about to leave t . 13f 1 ,1 House, was stopped by a Learned Sergeant, ! y i p requested to stay . a short tame loager. Burke pleaded that lie was in haste ; to wll' f the other replied, .that there was .only a fel° o without benefit of clergy to dispose of, 311 ' could not possibly, therefore, lake above a, e f c t. minutes. Another anecdote, to the same eP t o f was of Sir :William Meredith, who,,going 0d A 'the House up stairs to write a letter, fot''' to country gentleman in the room nearly asleer , ; o a whom a clerk was reading. Sir William f ° . 60 0 his•letter.constantly interrupted with a rePe tl he of a sort of chorus, " for every such, 011 . 0 1 111 e shall suffer death without benefit of clergY: ate ' inquired what it was, and was informed ab il bl gentlemen in the country had suffered o ti hatl having their turnips stolen, and the minist er t h a t consented to make it a' capital offences S f uri a they hoped to be no more troubled with stealers He • (Mr: Buxton) would asZ io , House whether laws pwsed hi.ruoments Of " th e ' tion and resentment were to be considered 35 • A . old pillars of the Constitution ? lie " °' ld t t s . the Learned Gentlemen opposite who ere •• Solons mid Lycurgii to whom we were 1.1 for our criminal code ? 'They nameless persons, but theirpreudi "e", c v esa ' l l(ll : tt:lft°rLi r