The Sun. — London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

evhieh the Ili2ht lion. Gentleman had made, and tau h onvinced that it would improve the state of Ire and. He ad no doubt that the giving the franchise to this dass of enants would induce them to keep up an interest of tbe equirel amount, and would thus perpetuate a respectable class of Isodholders. Sir J. NEWPORT also strongly approved of the pro position. Colonel PERCIVAL should also support it, but he thought that the recommendation of the Hon. Baronet near Lim ought to he adopted, and that the term should be fixed at 20 instead of 21 years. Mr. STANLEY had no objection to make the change now required, from 20 to 21 years, and as he had been accused of yielding to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kerry in granting this franchise at all, he now informed the Hon. Baronet opposite, that the Hon. Baronet might consider the 1 resent question of the 20 years as yielded to him, so that he must take one yielding as a compensation for the other.-- ( A laugh.) Mr. RUTHVEN said, that as the Right Hon. Secre tary had gone so far, perhaps he would go further, and m ,ke the term 19 years, as it was known there were very many most respectable persons who held leases of that date. Mr. STANLEY did not feel that, because he had yielded twice, he should yield a third time, and he must trerefore decidedly decline the recommendation of the Hon. Member. Sir E. SLIGDEN objected to the omission of some words in the clause, the consequence of which he said would be that of a person who held the freehold might lease it out at a pepper-corn rent, and the tenant would have the right of voting on account of the possession, and the landlord who held no more than a hare legal title to it, having parted with all his beneficial interest would also be entitled to vote. On this objection a long conversation ensued, in which Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Knight took part with Sir E. Sudden and Mr. Stanley, Mr. Crarnpton and Mr. Lefroy expressed their doubts whether the consequences appre hended would follow. Mr. STANLEY was not inclined to object to the in troduction of the words, bat he recommended that the amendment should he postponed, as it would be inserted hereafter. Mr. HARDINGE suggested that the amendment might he now introduced, and struck out afterwards if good reason were shown. This proposal was concurred in, and the alteration waa made. Mr. LEFROY complained that the opponents of the Bill had been taken by surprise by the concession to the Hon. Member for Kerry. Mr. STANLEY thought that the Hon. Member bad nst much reason to complain that he hal Rot been taken into the confidence of Ministers. 11r. LEFROY observed, that they certainly had not hi 4 confidence and he die! not Want theirs. Mr. DAWSON objected to the proposed change, inas much as it would tend to make the Bishops of Ireland po litical agents by giving the tenants of church lands a right of voting. Mr. O'CONNELL was of opinion that the temptation to Irish Bishops to interfere in politics would not be so great as formerly, and that the fears of the Right Hon. Gentleman were entirely chimerical. Sir E. SUGDEN thought that the change was meant as a boon to the Bishops, who would be able at least to use their influence with their tenantry. After a few words from Colonel PERCEVAL the el inse was agreed to. The Committee then proceeded to the second clause. Mr. 0 CONNELL said that it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on the clause relating to the 40s. franchise in fee and to the 400. franchise for three lives. Mr. SHAW wished to know whether it was intended, by the clause under consideration, to make any alteration in the mode of registration, so as to prevent persons regis tering as 501. freeholders from voting after they might have ceased to be freeholders ? Mr. STANLEY said, that it was his intention to regu late the mode of registration in such a way as to show at all times the real constituency. The clause was then agreed to. The question having been put upon the third clause, Mr. WALLACE suggested a verbal amendment, to render that part of the clause more clear which was in tended to prevent an elector for a borough ftom voting also for the county. Mr. STANLEY said, that the clause seemed to him sufficiently secure from misconstruction as it stood at pre sent. It was taken verbatim from the 24th and 25th clauses of the English Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the reason for which the electors of towns in England were excluded from voting for the county was to protect the agricultural interest...— That reason did not apply to Ireland, as there were in that country no manufacturing interests, from the preponder ance of which the agricultural interest could he injured. Loral LTHORP said, that the obj-ct of the clause was merely to prevent a man from having two votes for the one property. After a few words from Mr. PRAED, the clause was agreed to. The question was then put upon the fourth clause. Aftergotoe conversation on verbal amendments, Mr. LEFROY moved as an amendment, that after the words " clear yearly value of not less tha❑ 101.," should be inserted words confining the franchise to such persons as should have a beneficial interest of the clear yearly value of 101 over and above all charges, except King's taxes, church cess, and parish rates. Colonel CONOLLY seconded the amendment. Lord ALTHORP should certainly oppose the amend ment. Mr. SHAW supported the amendment. The House then divided, when there appeared-- For the Amendment '26 Against it 15:2 Majority -1•26 The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday next. PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill being read, Mr. LEFROY rose and objected to the principle of this Bill. Although it might not appear at first sight, its object—be might say its exclusive object---was to prevent Orange processions. They had only to look at the terms of the Bill to perceive that it applied especially to the o,ange party. He was not averse to these processions being put an end to with the good will of the Orange men ; but not to cut them off by the rough edge of the law. This Bill would produce the very evil it was in tended to prevent ; it would encourage animosity, dissatis faction, and party spirit ; and would tend to alienate those on whom the Mini-try might shortly be compelled to place their sole dependence for the preservation of Ire land.—(He;:r, hear, frsni Colonel Conolly.) The time chosen for the introduction of this Bill was peculiarly ill judged. Tile Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the greater part of Ireland was in rebellion ; or it he remembered it, it seemed to draw him to the conclusion that this of all others was the fittest time for insulting the only loyal portion of his Majesty's subjects that still re mained true to the principles of obedience to good Govern ment. The only object of the Bill appeared to him to be to force these peaceable and well disposed men into the ranks of the great agitator of Ireland. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be committed that day six months. Colonel PERCEVAL seconded the motion. He could call this Bill nothing but a gratuitous insult and outrage, committed against the most respectable portion of the pulation of Ireland. He trusted, nevertheless, that, how ever provoked, the Protestants would still maintain their character for loyalty and devotion to their Sovere;gn, in stead of (as the Government seemed to wish) throw. ing themselves into the arms of those who were shouting for a repeal of the Union. He begged, however, to be rightly understood. He bad, during all his life, been opposed to these processions. For twenty years he bail succeeded, in his own county, in preventing these pro cessions ; but, nevertheless, to this atrocious measure—to this unjust aggression on the rights of the people—he would give his most strenuous opposition. Mr. STANLEY said that the speech, of the Hon. Member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval) was a decisive proof of the necessity of the measure, and that no other measure than this would be sufficient. The combination betweea the Protestant Member for Sligo and the Catholic Member for Kerry was another proof of the same fact. The Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin had given his opinion, that the Bill was calcu lated to point out the processions it was intended to put down. If, however, the Bill affected Orangemen, and these processions alone, it was because they alone kept alive by their processions those feelings of a religious ani mosity which it was the object of the Bill to put down. Before this Bill was brought in, the Orangemen were de termined to come forth in great numbers, on July 14th, to insult their Roman Catholic brethren—(No, no)—and overawe the administration of the law.—(No, no, and hear, hear.) He had taken down the words of the Hon. Member for Sligo, and lie had stated that the Orangemen were to display their physical force on that day. He had m wished that the meetings should have subsided of themselves, but now they were again rising up in de- fiance of the law. They were not, however, new. In 1930, General D,Arcy reported that the Orange proces sinns in Ulster had been more numerous than they had I een for many years before, and If not put down, serieus evils must be expected. The report was made to the Government of the Duke of Northum berland, and that processions hail a manifest tendency to keep alive religious dissension. In 1831, also, the Orange processions were again numerous, and were held in defiance of the law. The first letter be received on entering office contained the description of the destruction of a village in open day, in Armagh, by an Orange procession. The Orangemen challenged the Ca tholics to fight, as gentlemen challenge each other. Per th s, who went thus forth armed and insulted the people, were the primary cause of the bloodshed that occurred. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to two charges, elven by Judge Jebb in Armagh and Donegal, in 1830 and 1831, to 'how what was the legal character of these processions. The Judge stated the processions were not unlawful in themselves, but in the present aspect of the times, prudence must be consulted. The commemorations formerly praiseworthy and meritorious, were under these changes and circumstances, dangerous, and led to bloods shed : they were, therefore, not legal. The processiont were described by the Judge to be illegal, whatever 'nigh be the intentions of the parties, if they were likely to lead to injury, outrage, and bloodshed. If that were a cor rect opinion, the Magistrates were placed in a difficult situation, when they had to decide on these prudential considerations, whether these processions were legal or not. The necessity of the enactment then arose from this difficulty ; and it was intended as much to be a guide and protection to the Magistrates themselves as a preven tion of outrage on the part of the part of the people. The Bill would not interfere with any of the ordinary and peaceful processions of the people. The Dorkey Queen might be crowned as usual at Dublin. The Bill was con fined to religious processions calculated to excite irritation in tither classes of the people. The Hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy) asked why did not the Ministers le,tielate to put down Police' Unions and other illegal assemblies? 'Why, so the Ministers would, if the Hon. and Learned Member would bring forward legal proof of the illegality of their assemblies. He was happy to say that the outrage committed by numerous parties of Whitefeet, to which the Hon and Learned Member had alluded, were fast diminishing. The Hon. and Learned Member could not mean that they were to be put down by new laws. If they were illegal already they would be suppressed. He admitted that the Political Unions were dangerous to the Government; in his opinion, however, the hest way to get rid of these Unions was to let them dissolve of themselves. That the Orangemen would not do. With them the experiment had been tried, and it had failed. The Orangemen were said to be very loyal ; he would put their loyalty to the test, by calling on them to obey the legislature. He knew the Protestants and Orangemen were distinct, and that the latter were only the last embers of an expiring and bigetted faction, who would preserve order in their own way, but would allow nobody else to do it. He meant to apply these remarks, not to all th 4 Orangemen, but only to the lower classes of them, who were so ignorant that they could easily be ex• cited to outrage. Colonel PERCEVAL exp'ained, that he had not sail the Orangemen were to meet to overawe the Government, or to insult their Catholic countrymen. Mr. O'CONNELL thought the speech of the Right Hon. Secretary had shown that the Bill was totally unne cessary. He contended that the law at present was suffi• cient to punish outrages; but the Government had not taken any means to bring those to justice who had violated the law. Those processions were already illegal, accord ing to Judge Jebh, and it was only necessary to make the Magistrates do their duty. This law was intended to establish a bad precedent in Ireland that might hereafter be applied to England. The Government had encouraged the Orange Yeomanry, by increasing the number of h.m from 17,000 to 30,000. The Hon. Member entered into a history of processions in Ireland, and contended that Orange processions were not, till very lately, looked upon with jealousy by the Catholics. If the Government put down the processions, it could not put down the sprit which dictated them ; and if it suppressed them on particular days, they would take place at every marriage and every burial. The people could not he stopped, and they would only be irritated by the processions beinr , sup pressed. In conclusion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would cordially support the amendment. Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the Bill. Mr. J. GORDON would support the amendment. As long as Political Unions were suffered to exist, it was most unjust to attack the Orangemen. Mr. SHAW insisted that the manner in which the Right Hun Gentlemen had introduced this measure wit; hut a mode of exciting violent feelings in one party while he professed to put them down in another. He contended that this was an absurd and unjustifiable measure directed a , 4a:nst a few comparatively peaceable Protestants in the North of Ireland. Mr. LAMBERT deeply regretted the opposition of his H ot, and Learned friend the Member for Kerry, by whom he expected the measure would have been received with that gratitude which it really deserved. He was surprised, taro, that his Hon. and Learned Friend should have imagined 11 that opposition he couid reconcile parties who never could be united. But let not the Government hesitate— they would deserve and obtain the thanks of their country if they persevered in their endeavour to overturn in Ire land every supremacy but the supremacy of the law. He hoped that this Bill might be passed with the greatest rapidity, in order to prevent the effusion of blood which he anticipated would otherwise take place on the 12th of July. Sir R. BATESON said there was no danger that there would be any blood shed on the 12th of July, if the Orangemen were left alone.—(A laugh ) He protested against this Bill as too partial. Sir EDMUND HAYES wished to know why the Right Hon. Secretary called the Orangemen an expiring faction, when it appeared that their cumbers had increased trebly within the last year ? He insisted that they were the only body on which the Government could depend in case of emergency. Mr. M.O'CONNELL was of opinion that this Bill was as likely to be inefficient as it was indiscreet, and he should therefore vote against it. Colour! CONOLLY had strong and insurmountable ob jections to this measure. Mr. HENRY MAXWELL bad been instructed to pre sent the petition of the Orange Lodges of Ireland against t re 8.11. Captain JONES thought the Bill would be productive of the ino3t injurious effects in the north of Ireland. Mr. A. LEFROY opposed the Bill. The House th.-n divided amid lound cries of question-- For the Amendment Against it llO Majority for Ministers -81 On our return we found the House in Committee on the Bill. On the question that the preamble be agreed to, Mr. PERCEVAL, amid loud cries of 4 Go on," must, at that hour of morning, take leave to move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. After some conversition and repeated cries of " Go on," Mr. STANLEY was not disposed to divide the House on the Hoo. Member's motion, provided that it was under- stood there would be no discussion on the Speaker's leav ing the chair to go into Committee at a subsequent period. With this understanding the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday next. The Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half past Three o'clock till Wednesday. HOUSE OF LORDS, Juys 25. The LORD Cl/A XCELLOR took his seat at Frye o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. HUME, Lord STANLEY, Lord ASHLEY, and others, brought up the Portman Market Bill, and two other pri vate Bills. The Marquess of SLIGO presented a petifon from Rallyrohe, in Mayo eouaty, in favour of the new plan of education in Ireland. Lord SEFTON presented a similar petition from the Dissenters of Liverpool. ? Several Bills were forwarded a stage. Lord GLENGALL moved for a return from the Con stables of Police of the number of outrages committed i❑ certain southern counties of Ireland within the last three months,—Ordered. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY presented several petitions front Sunderland, against the Sunderland Duck 13:11. The Sale of Beer Bill was read a first time. The Bishop of EXETER moved for returns relative to Irish Education, as did also the Earl of WICKLOW, which were respectively ordered. Earl GREY presented a petition from Heading, praying their Lordships to take into consideration the revision of the Criminal Code. Lord RADNOR presented a petition from York against the renewal of the Bank Charter without inquiry. The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition from Horsham, praying for a revision of the Criminal Code. The Duke of SUSSEX presented a similar petition from the clergy, bankers, merchants, and others of the county of Lancaster ; the signatures amounted to 1,000 and up_ wards. Lord HOLLAND presented a similar petition from Warrington, in Lancashire, He was glad to find that opinions so consistent with religion, philosophy, and prin ciples of good policy were gaining ground. Lord CANIPERDOWN presented a siwilar petiti , n from Wakefield. Lord DINORBEN presented a similar petition, as al,o did the Duke of LEINSTER. Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar petition from Kingston-upon-Thames, and expressed himself strongly in its favour, the punishment of death being often inflicted most unnecessarily and inexpediently. The Marquess of CLEVELAND presented petitions from Olney and Beverley to the same effect. Lot.' BELHAVEN gave notice that on Thursday next he will present a petition from tire General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on the subject of the Irish system of education introduced into Ireland. On the motion that the whole House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Anatomy Bill, Lord TENTERDEN felt himself called upon to express is dissent to this Bill. If he were to consult only his own feelings, he should vote for the Bill, as it would relieve him and his brother Judges from the performance of a most unpleasant duty. The principal objection he bad to the Biil was, that there was no secondary punishment known to and sanctioned by the law, which could operate to terrify ill-disposed persons from the commission of crime. The Noble Lord who had just addressed their Lordship bad adverted to the United States of America, but that country was in a situation so different from ours that we ought not to follow her example. He wished to see some secondary punishment selected, and its utility confirmed by experience, before he consented to take away altogether the punishment of death. If any secondary punishment of that nature could be discovered, a Bill like that upon the Table should have his hearty concur rence ; but it would be, in his opinion, extremely dan gerous to alter the law till some such punishment was found. He hoped certainly to see some more efficacious secondary punishment proposed ; but he was afraid, if this measure were passed, that such a hope might be disappointed. If the measure were postponed, the natural and strong desire to find such a punishment would • continue; but if it were passed, and the whale question settled before such a punishment were found, the de-ire would die away, and he was afraid that no such punish ment could then be discovered. To protect property was one great business of legislation. For that chiefly men associated together; and he could not yield to the doctrine, which he had sometimes heard, that it was con trary to their feeling of duty towards human beings, to take the measures which were necessary for the protection and security of property. In the argument which was sometimes stated against taking life he could not agree, though he admitted that the necessity for doing that ought to be clearly made out. The object of the present Bill was to put an end to the punishment of death for stealing in a dwelling house to the value of 51. The offence of stealing in a dwelling-house was first made capital in the reign of William 111., and then it was made capital to steal to the amount of 40s. The Act stated that disorderly persons were induced to plunder the property of their masters and others by the be nefit of clergy; and to deprive such persons of this advantage, the Act was passed to deprive such per sons of the benefit of clergy. After a considerable time, the Legislature was induced, by the alteration in the value of property, to make the sum 51. He believed the temptation to steal would lie greatly increased if the pu nishment were to be abolished. It was correctly said that the punishment was rarely inflicted, and therefore that it ought to he abolished. That it was rarely inflicted he was glad to know, and whatever complaints, therefore, were made of the severity of the law of England wane wet e made as to the mede in which it wag administered. The corn plaints were not directed against the administration of the law, but against the law itself. Though the law, there fore, was severe, the mode of administering it necessarily alleviated much of that severity. Whatever doubts other people might have, lie had none, that, when a man was ahle to say positively that he should not suffer death for a certain crime, that he would have less repugnance to com mit it than when he must say, as at present, that though he might escape yet there were great probabilities that hP might be punished with death. The object was to prevent crime, and that he thought was accomplished by this appre hension. It was said that the prosecutors would not prose cute on account of this severity. He believed that to be not correct. Another branch of thisßill was to abolish the punish ment of death for stealing horses. That was made capital so long ago as the reign of Edward VI. The stealing of sheep was not made capital till the reign of George I. Certainly since that time the offence had decreased ; but he did not attribute this altogether to the law, but to the greater ease of tracing such property and caution in buying it. The Noble Lord next adverted to the practice which he said formerly existed, of the Judges telling the Jury to find the value of the property stolen different from what it really was, and said that such a practice no longer existed. The Judges were anxious to press upon the Jury the ne necessity of finding the value of the article, according to what it would be worth if sold. It was said that proses cutors abstained from prosecuting nut of humanity; he knew that such professions were made, but he did not be lieve they were always well founded ; for many prosecu tors acknowledged that it was to save themselves trouble. Ma Ladphip concluded, by recommending, as we under stood, that the Bill should be postponed, with a view of finding some satisfactory substitute for the punishment of death, before that punishment was abolished, and the No ble Lord declaring himself willing to lend his aid in at taining that object. [The Noble Lord was not audible below the bar, and the above is only a conjectural outline of what we believe his Lordship said. The Earl of ELDON said he had not had much expe rience in criminal courts ; but for twenty-five years he had been the individual who had advised his Majesty as to the infliction of the punishment of death, and he hoped be had discharged that duty conscientiously, as he was sure he had with much assiduity. He never went to the King with the Recorder's Report in hip hand, without having carefully read every case it contained, made an abstract of the whole evidence, and considered the effect of that evi dence, and its bearings in each particular case. It was no easy task to find an appropriate secondary punishment, for that had employed his thoughts and attention for twenty five years, and he never could find what he considered a proper secondary punishment. He must state to their Lordships, that according to his experience the fear of death did very often operate to prevent the commission of those crimes against which it was directed. He remem bered a particular case, that the Judges having fe.und a great number of horses stolen, had declared that on the next circuit they would leave every man for execution who was found guilty of that offence. He believed that between that and the next circuit not one horse was stolen in all England; so that the Judges were saved by that fact from putting into execution the di nunci rtion they had previously made. Many crimes of the same de nomination differed so touch in circumstances, and were so different in degrees of guilt, that the Legislature bad been compelled to make a sweeping law to embrace them all. He need not go further than the subjects mentioned in the Bill, to find an illustration of this fact. One part of the Bid related to horse-stealing; and he remembered two cases of horse-stealing which would explain what he meant—one was the case of a man who stole a horse in the neighbourhood of London, and afterwards sold it to some person near the Small- pox Hospital, who killed it. That horse, it was proved on the trial was, not of the value of five shillings, except to be killed. The Crown extended its mercy to the man, and it certainly would have been a hard case if the law had been suffered to take its course. In the same report was another case of a man convicted of stealing a horse eight or nine miles from London, in the county of Essex. On this man's trial it was proved by those who traced his progress after stealing the first horse, that before he reached Lusdon he had stolen nine horses more. Not only was he guilty of all these offences; but it was also proved On his trial that there were found on him the keys of all the turnpike-gates within six miles of London. These two cases were very different, and he was not able to find out how one law, one punishment, could be made to ap ply to such different cases, though they came under the same denomination. The same difficulty was found with respect to forgery. Suppose a man was to forge a check upon him fur 101., be should as soon think of hanging hina , <elf as hanging the man for that single offence. But forgery might be committed with some most aggravated circumstances ; there might be great breaches of confi dence...--a person might be intrusted with powers of at torney and might defraud all his customers —a man might du as Fauntleroy did, forge all the names of the customers I for whom he was trustee, and might take out of the pockets of those customers, in a few months/ 250,0001. or :300,000/. ; and to say that such a man was not to be pun i s h e d with death, out of respect for human life, was cirrying the doctrine too far ;: and in that he could riot agree. If a man was to steal Si. in his dwelling-house he would prosecute, in the confident hope that the capital punishment would n o t be inflicted ; otherwi se b e wou ld feel miserable at the thou g ht all hi s life. But suppose 51. were stolen from a cottager in his dwelling -house, the crime very different, for this might be every shilling he e wouldh d be in the world, and more, p er h aps, than he could collect again by ten y ears o f industry and fr uga lity; and yet how could a secon d ary punishment be f oun d w ith a to each of these two cases? He a general name applying rook credit to himself for placing at the head of the Court of King's Bench one of the very best men in the land, and their Lordship!s had heard whit he said on the subject of .furies, and be concurred with him, that juries generally did their duty. Before, then, they altered the law, let them settle what was a proper secondary punishment. As fpr himself, he could never find one that was sans factory.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see that the capital denunciation could be dispensed with consistently with the prosecution of enormous crimes, and the mitigation in proper cases ought to be left to the Crown, whose mercy was never withheld where it ought to be extended. Let their Lordships consider that a robbery of 101. might be worse to some poor people, than a robbery of 10,0001. to some of their Lordships. If their money to a large amount should We drawn from their banker's by a forgery, it might put their Lordships to an inconvenience for two or three weeks, but if a poor man were robbed of 1001. in the same manner, the loss to him might be ruin, and he might not be able to accumulate so much again in fifty years. He implored their Lordships to settle first the se ise:id:3.l-y punishment, and till then to continue to trust to the mercy of the Crown, leaving the law unaltered. Lord DACRE admitted it was desirable that they should have in view the secondary punishments to be sub stituted for the capital, hut they might endeavour to adopt punishments similar to those which were in operation in America, in the Netherlands, and in France, as had been suggested by his Noble Friend below him. The number of instance in which capital punishment was denounced, but not inflicted, rendered the denunciation ineffectual by way of prevention, and yet it often rendered people un willing to prosecute. In the years 1826, 7,8, 9, 30, and 31, there had been 933 capital convic tions for sheep. stealing, and of these only 14 of the culprits, or about 1-14th per cent., had suffered. As to the two instances of horse-stealing mentioned by the Noble and Learned Lord, he admitted that was a case in which the discretion of the Judges might be properly I exercised, and he did not wish to deprive them of all die , cretionary power. But then it ought to be considered that these statutory enactments of sanguinary punishments were passed in comparatively barbarous and ignorant times, and in those times they might have been attended with a considerable effect ; hut such punishments were not now consonant to the feeling of the people, and there . fore they could net be executed, nor operate as a preven t tive. Their Lordships would find from the returns, that in all those crimes to which this Bill applied, the propor tions of executions, as compared with the convictions, was so small, that the denunciation would have little effect on criminals by way of prevention, while prosecutions were diminished. and Bills ignored owing to that denunciation. If the punishments were milder the prosecutions would be more certain, and also the convictions and punishment. In order to show the effect of such a mitigation, he might refer to the report of Manfredi, as to the effect of the system followed by the Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany. There it appeared that certainty of prosecu tion and conviction had increased with the mitigation of the punishment, and that crimes had, in consequence, gradually diminished, and that, subsequently, when a different system was adopted, an increase of crime had followed the incteased severity of punishment. In the same manner he was of opinion that the passing of this B 11 would have a tendency to diminish crime. Lord WYNFORD had telt a strong inclination to vote for going into a Committee on this Bill, but he was very much struck with the arguments of his Noble and Learned Friend, whit called upon them, in the first place, to settle the secondary punishments. In America they had the greatest difficulty in finding a proper secondary punishment. They had not even a proper piece of transportation, and criminals were wandering up and down in America in dis grace, after having been discharged. He was anxious to repeal capital punishments, except in cases of enormous crime ; but still they ought to settle the secondary punish ment before they altered the law. Transportation had now terrors. On the contrary, crimes were sometimes committed with a view to transportation. On the first circuit which he went as a Judge, a man was tried before Mr. Justice Holroyd for a theft, and it appeared that he had committed it solely for the purpose of getting himself transported, and he was acquitted fur want of the ani mus furandi, and so was disappointed. It was the fault of this Bill that it looked to the diminution of the punishment of the guilty rather than to the protection of the innocent. Horses and sheep were a kind of property that was very much exposed, and it required the protec tion of the terror of capital punishment. If the punish ment of death were too frequently inflicted, that would have been an imperative call for alteration ; but the argu ment was the other way. We had not, and could not have, so efficient a preventive police as that which existed in some other countries ; and therefore it was necessary that our legal code should be more severe; and yet they had lately heard of a case in France, in which a man, by way of mitigation, was sentenced to 15 years bard labour. The LORD CSANCELLOR did not mean to occupy their Lordships' attention long; but after the opinions which he had always advocated in another place, he could net allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words. That this subject was one of the greatest importance no one could doubt; and it was as little doubtful that it was surrotmded with a great deal of difficulty. But the dif ficulty ought not to deter them from discussing the sub ject, and adopting such amendments as could be adopted on sound principles and in consistency with the pub lic interests. He coneratulated the House on the moderation which had been displayed in the discus s ons on this subject, both in this and the other House. It was certainly a subject in reference to which all party feelings ought to be discarded. He had listened with the greatest attention to the arguments of his Noble and Learned Friends, and if he could have agreed with them that the denunciation of death had a tendency to de ter people from committing crimes, lie would have thought that the law might not be altered. But he must say that his opinion as to its deterring people from the commission of crime differed from their opinions. He did not know any law, human or divine, that forbad the taking the life of man for committing enormous crimes. Sonic perms had an objection to the infliction of capital punishment for any crime but murder, because the Scriptures had said— "He who shetideth blood, by man shall his blood be shed." But then the Scriptures did not say that in no other cases should death be inflicted ; but only that in that case at least, death should be inflicted. But well-informed and well-regulated minds must be aware that death might be the penalty for other enormous crimes on the same principle that murder was punished with death. What was it that justified the putting a criminal to death for murder It inflicted a great and irreparable injury on the murdered man anti his family, but still they had no right to take the life of the murderer merely as a punishment for the crime. The only principle on which the putting the murderer to death was justifiable was, that the com mission of such an enormous offence might thereby 'be prevented as much as possible. The punishment was re sorted to, because it was the best security against the com mission of the crime that could be adopted; and upon the seine principle the penalty might be applied for other atro cious crimes. Then the only question was, the efficacy of the denunciation; and if he could agree with ha Noble and Learned Friends that the denunciation in the cases to which this BPI applied had the effect of repressing crime, he should be disposed not to alter the law. But his ob jection was, that the punishment had been so long de nounced without being executed, that the denunciation was inoperative ou the criminal. Under existing circumstances it must needs be an empty threat. Take the case of sheep stealing, for instance, and it appeared that in 1831, the sentelice had been passed on 162 cases, and only one was executed. In the case of horse-stealing, in the same year, 123 sentences had been passed, and not one was executed ; and as to the stealing to the amount of 5/. in the dwel ling-heuse,loo capital sentences were recorded, and not one o w n a ly s eoxneecuexteed. execution. that ~ Out t ie o r there re S of 1,108 I,los wets capital sentences,sentences and es for crimes against property, only 11 bad been executed; so that the criminal had 99 chances out of 100 in his favour. For this reason, it was notorious that the denunciation was a (lead letter, and had little effect on the crimi nal. But it had an effect on the prosecutor. He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend, the Chief Justice of t he King's Bench, that Juries generally did their duty in a dministering the law as it stood, and as they were bound by their (tithes to administer. But the denunciation had a strong influence in deterring prosecutors and witnesses. It might be that in some instances persons who ought to prosecute held back, on the plea of humanity, when the real cause was to save themselves expense and trouble; but in many caves, it was beyond a doubt, that prosecu tors and witnesses were deterred by the severity of the denunciation. In the case of forgery, for instance, a pe tition had been presented to the House of Commons not long ago, which might be considered as expressing the opinion of one thousand country bankers in England, pray ing for the abolition of the punishment of death in cases of forgery—not on the ground of humanity, although they we re humane men, but sol e ly ors the ground th a t w ith out that abolition their property could not he adequately pro tected. They found it itnp,issitile, in the existing state of the law, to get people to prosecute, and when prosecu tions were instituted by themselves or others, they found the greatest difficulty in getting evidence and conviction. The petitioners, therefore, spoke from their own experience, when they declared that the existing law was found in operative and ineffectual. But then it might be asked why, if the small number of cases in which the sentence ,vas executed rendered the law inoperative as to the crim inal, did not the same reason render prosecutors willing to come forward ? The reason was simply this :-.The criminal acted under a strong temptation, and calculates! an his chances of escape, while the person who ought to droseeute reviewed the matter more calmly, and often felt unwilling to put iu the power of Juries to convict, or o Judges to exceute. Another illustration might be takenf front the case of the excise stamps. There had been many prosecutions for the forging of excise stamps before 1806, but in that year the forging of them was made capital, and the prosecutions immediately diminished. After showing by a variety of cases that a diminution of;prosecu lions bad invariably followed the increase of the severity of time punishment, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to remark on the extraordinary reluctance which Parlia ment had always evinced to lighten the penalty exacted in cases which had been made capital. Sir Samuel Romilly, to whose unceasing and never-to be forgotten exertions for the improvement of the criminal code they were in debted for all that had yet been done, and for all that was ever contemplated—Sir Samuel Romilly had not lived to see any of his recommendations carried into effect, for he believed that the repeal of the law which indicted capital punishment for stealing in a bleaching-ground was not repealed till the year after that lamented man's death. It was a curious thing, and illustrative of the nature of c ipital punishments, that in the province of Ulster, where their Lordships knew there were a greater number of bleaching-grounds than any where else in the three kingdoms, the total number of committals for the offence of stealing in a bleaching ground i❑ the seven years before the repeal of the capital punishment were sixty-one, and the convictions only three, or one in twenty, while in the seven years after the repeal, the commitments were thirty-seven, and the con victions seventeen, or nearly one in two. After observing on the vast disparity between the commitments, the pro secutions, and the convictions in ever case of forgery, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to show, that in that class of offences which were held in abhorrence by the public, and in which thelpublic feeling went along with the punishment, few or none of the criminals escaped. In the case of murder, for instance, during the last seven years up to 1830, the number of convictions for ►nurder had been ninety-nine, and the executions eighty-eight, while the eleven whose sentences were not carried into effect, did not escape from any repugnance to carry the la.v into effect, on the part of the ex:cut.ve or the prosecutors, but in conse quence of peculiar circumstances in their case warrant ing the extension of mercy in their peculiar cases. He thought this furnished a sufficient illustration of the folly of continuing to persist in capital punishments when the opinions of mankind were against them, and of the efficacy of the law when these opinions were united in their fa vour. When forgery was first made a capital offence, about thirty years after the Revolution, out of thirty eight sentences no less than twenty were carried into exe cution ; and in the same manner cattle and horse-stealing, which was made a capital offence by the 14th of Geo. 11., was for a long time punished invariably by a strict execu tion of the sentence. Formerly, indeed, it was almost proverbial, that a man found guilty of forgery would be executed ; but new it was just as certain that he would not, and he put it therefore, to their Lordships, whether in this alteration of the feeling of the time it would be for the se curity of property, and the due administration of justice, to permit the capital punishments to continue in the Statute book ? Hiving said so much, he was bound to make one or two observations on a most important question—that of secondary punishments. He fully agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, that it was absolutely necessary to make secondary punishments much more efficient, and to increase their terrors to offenders. By a due modification of the punishment of transportation, by rendering it more rigo rous to all grave offences, and by taking away from any the hope of e.cape, he entertained a belief that secondary punishments might be rendered perfectly effective for that great object, the prevention of crime. It was stated, how ever, as an objection, that secondary punishments should be rendered more effectual, and placed on a better system, before they repealed the capital punishments. He would admit the force of the objection if he was not prepared to give it this answer, that as the severer law was never ex ecuted, secondary punishments, even in their deficient state, were all they had to rely on at the present moment. —(Hear.) On the whole, therefore, he thought he saw abundant reason for asking their Lordships to consent to the measure now proposed. Lord SUFFIELD supported the Bill, and contended that secondary punishments had in every instance the moat beneficial effects in preventing the commission of crime when they were brought into salutary exercise. After a few words from Lord SUFFOLK in support of the Bill, their Lordships went into Committee. Lord WYNFORD moved, as an amendment, that the di c etionary power should be taken away from the Judges with respect to the cases in the Bill, and that transporta tion for life should be the inevitable consequence of con vict on The Earl of MELBOURNE saw no objection to tile amendment, and it was therefore agreed to. Some other amendments were agreed to pro forma, the di , cussion on them being, at the suggestion of Earl GREY, postponed. The House having resumed, The Marquees of NORTHAMPTON postponed till \Vedas fay next, or Wednesday sennight (we coal not hear which), the second reading of his Bill for securing Ministers from the loss of their seats on accepting office. Their Lordships then adjourned, at a few minutes after Eight o'clock, till Wednesday. PARLIAMENTARY PAPER. A BILL FOR ABOLISHING THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH IN CASES OF FORGERY. Whereas, by an Act passed in the first year of his pre sent Majesty's reign, entitled, " An Act for reducing into ' one Act all such Forgeries as shall hereafter be punished with Death, and for otherwise amending the Laws relative to Forgery," it was provided, that if any person should, after the commencement of that Act, be convicted of any Forgery, or ether offence therein named or described, for which he would at the time of the passing of that Act have been liable to the punishment of death, he should n suffer death for the same, unless the same should be made punishable with death by that Act : and whereas, it is exl.edient to abolish the punishment of death altogether for offences of that ❑ature ; be it therefore enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Common;, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that so much of the said Act as enjoins or authorizes the infliction of the punishment of death in any case whatever, s hall be and the same is here by repealed; and that every person who shall, after the passing of this Act, be convicted of any offence whatever, which was made punishable with death by the said Act, shall, at the discretion of the Court before whom such conviction shall take place, be transported beyond the seas for the term of such offender's life, or for any term of years not less than seven, or be imprisoned, with or with out bard labour, for any time not exceeding four years, nor less than two years; and it shall be lawful for the Court to direct that such offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portiot.s of such imprison ment, as to the Court shall seem meet. . And in order to prevent justice from being defeated by clerical or verbal inaccuracies, be it enacted, that in all informations or indictments for forgery, or in any manner uttering any instrument, it shall not be necessary to set forth any copy or fac-simile of such instrument, but it shall be tufficient to describe the same in such manner as would sustain an indictment for stealing the same, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. YOUNG, the tragedian, on retiring from the stage, has, we understand, in the most complimentary manner, presented to his friend Mr. COOPER, of Drury lane theatre, almost the whole of his varied and costly theatrical wardrobe, as a testimonial of his sincere appro bation and esteem. butLheAhPaOsß:ntE his has com no p t li yetcompliments nt made s tothe aly engagements, i l arecompany.pro. mising to communic ite with them shortly, and expressing a hope that his arrangements will give general satisfaction. REFORM FESTIVAL.—To-morrow will be a grand day to the poor inhabitants of the ward of Cripple gste Without ; a dinner to SOO Is to be given in com memoration of the passing of the Reform Bill; the tab'es are to be laid in the extensive carriage galleries belonging to Mr. DixoNT, at the City Repository, Barbican, who has generously prod', red the use of his commodious premises tsar the happy occasion. The fare is to be in the old English style, and a day of harmony and jollity is antici pat,(l, Alderman WOOD has consented to preside at one of the tables, and the two Common Councilmen of the Ward at the others. —Morning Herald. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EXCISE, MONDAY.--TIIE NEW DUTIES ON WINES.—The Ex 'eke Commissioners, the lion. Mr. TREFUSIS, Mr. PLUN KET, and Mr. HARRISON. , were occupied th e greater por tion of the day in hearing and determining information t a • i n s i e e n d t u t i, i 4 e y s ot the e w p m7 k , e which w were imposed exhibited by the Excise authorities, against divers Wine- Mr. MAYow, the solicitor to the Ex merchants and licensed victuallers, for having neglected to of WELLINGTON'S ilAn , Lh t ei h n e il:t e tr x ea t t r pi a oanr e .i x i c;se, attended on behalf of the Crown. The defendants were veverAlly amerced in double the amount of duty, PRICES OF STOCKS THil Rank Stock 3 per Cent. Red. 5 31.113i 3 per Cent, Cons. 1 1 ,6 per Cent. Ditto Red Nrew 3% per Cent. 3 per Cent. Ann. 1726 - 1 per Cent. 1826 Stink Long Ann. to expire Jan. 5, 1860 116% 7-16 Oct. 10, 1869 Jan. 5, 1860 Jan. 5, 1880 April 5, 1880 Jan. 5, 1870 PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS Austrian Bonds 9144 Belgian Bonds 73 Ditto Account Brazilian Bonds 74 Ditto Account 45% Buenos Ayres Bonds 24 3 Ditto Account Chilian Bonds Ditto Account Columbian Ditto Account Ditto Bonds, 1824 1 2 1j% Ditto Account Danish Bonds 67 Ditto Account 66% Greek Bonds. 2l Ditto Bonds, 1825. 3044 Ditto Account 30% Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent 26' Ditto Account ._. Ditto, 6 per cent n9V, Ditto Account 29; Neapolitan — . DAY AT OWE O'CIACY. N'ew 5 per Cent. India Stock Ditto Bonds South Sea Stock ..».» 9 5 1 /4 Old Annuities New Ditto. ....... 3 per Cent. Ann. 1751 .... Ex. Bills, £l,OOO 9 10 pp 9 10 8 01 Ditto Small 10 11 V , Ditto Commercial...„.....— Ditto Advertised ..... p 5 Bank for Account India for Account Cons. for July 18 .84% THIS DAY AT ONS O'CLOCIC. Peruvian Bonds Ditto Account 13 1 :4 Portuguese Bonds Ditto Account 53 1 4 Regency Scrip OU %pia Ditto Account 04pol. Prussian Bonds 99 Ditto Account .. Ditto Bonds, 1822 ICO4 Russian Bonds, 18 - 22 .98% 4 Ditto Account 9F0.4 New Loan 91% Spanish Bonds, 1821 l4 LOS Ditto Account. 144 Ditto Bonds, 182.1 133 Ditto Account .... French Rentes, sp. c. --f --6 Exchange —f —c. —3 per cent. —f. —c. Exchange —f —c , Dutch Scrip 431 Ditto Account 434 32% 'Frtnch Scrip --• PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAT AT ONE O'CLOCK. Paid. Per Share. Anglo Mex. Min. Co. (iss. at 5/. pm.) £lOO 10% Bolanos Mining Company £l5O 195 100 Brazilian Imp. Min. Co. (iss. at 5/. pm.) £2O 41% British Iron Mining Company £5O 7% Columbian Mining Co. (jai/. at 5/. pm.) 48 5% English Mining Company 123 22% General Mining Association £l2% 20 Real del Monte Mining C 0...., - United Mex. Min. Co. (iss. at 2/. pm.) 40 Ditto New Scrip 2 Alliance Fire Insurance Comp. lO Protector Insurance Comp. Australian Co Canada Company Provincial Bank of Ireland 25 8 £1 7 eq 27y:7h FOREIGN EXCHANGES ON LONDON. AMSTERDAM, JUNE 22.-12 f. 15c. to 12f. 12c. 5.10. Two months, 12f. 7c. 5.10. HAMBURG, JUNE 19.-13. 14 ; two months, 13 13. PETERSBURG'', JUNE 12.-10 7-10. CHRISTIANIA. JUNE 9.—Three months, 6 39. BERLIN. JUNE 16.—Three months, 6 28%. SrocutoLst, JUNE 12—Ninety days, 14. 3. Mans. Arrived. Due. Arrived. Due. 0 America 0 0 Hamburg 1 0 Brazil 0 Buenos Ayres 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 Carthagena 0 0 Leeward Islands ... 0 2 Dublin 0 1 Lisbon 0 1 Flanders 0 0 Malta 0 1 France 0 0 Sweden 1 Guernsey &Jersey.. 0 2 Waterford 0 HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Slorning... 5 minutes after 1. I Evening... 37 minutes after 1. Just ready, in 2 vols. Bvo. EXCURSIONS IN INDIA. By Capt. T. SKINNER, 31st Regiment. Comprising a WALK over the HIMALAYA MOUS.' TAINS to the SOURCES of the JUMNA and the GANGES, Rze. " Wherein of antres vast, and deserts idle, Rough quarries, rocks, and hills, whose heads touch Heav'n, It was my hint speak." Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, New Burlington street. rbe =ult. LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1832. RECEPTION OF THEIR MAJESTIES. At a little before ten o'clock the three bat talions of the Ist Regiment of Guards marched into the Palace-yard, where they were inspected by the KING (previous to the review); the QUEEN, the Duchess of GLOUCESTER, Princess SOPHIA, and Prince GEORGE of Cumberland' viewed them from the windows of the Palace' Shortly after the Royal cortege set out for Hyde Park to the review. The procession consisted of seven Royal carriages, with the servants attired in their State liveries. In the first carriage were his MAJESTY, Sir HERBERT TAYLOR, and Sir A. BARNARD. The QUEEN, accompanied by the Duchess of GLOUCESTER, the Princess SOPHIA, and Prince GEORGE of Cumberland, occupied the last carriage. The others contained the Princess AUGUSTA, Earl Of ALBEMARLS, the Master of the HORSE, and all his MAJES' TY'S Equeries and Lords in Waiting. As the royal cavalcade proceeded, the shouts of the people were deafening, especially in the Parks where the populace simultaneously rent the air with their acclamations. The QUEEN passed unnoticed by many, till she was recognised . I' o the grand ring, when she was partially cheered by the people. The reception of the KiNa. must have been highly gratifying. It is not true that their MAJESTIES intend honouring the Duke of WELLINGTOI with their presence this evening, at the grand; ball to be given by his Grace, as in point oi fact their . MAJESTIES will give a splendid en' tertainment at the Palace,—the tables have beef) laid for ninety. This being the second anniversary of his MAJESTY'S accession to the Throne, the Pack and Tower guns fired a double royal salute a► one o'clock, and the British flag was hoisted 0 12 the church steeples, whilst the bells rang merrily'' We are glad to find that at some of the elec' tion meetings, and particularly at the meeting held in the City, the subject of national ethics' tion formed a topic of discussion, and was re' commended as one of the instructions to be, proposed to candid a tes. Prop e r religious mora l education is only another name for sound cone mon sense, and ought, therefore, to be one 0; , the prime objects of every Legislator, as being one of the best guardians of public peace, and the best promoter of ind ustry, sobriety, 311" A good order. Experienc e i s worth a hundre d theories, and we therefore appeal to that in or port of the argument. The two tries perhaps in E urope (we mean as to so il) are Scotland an d S witzerland—yet, where is any parallel to b e f ound to them in the g_ in o° 3 order and frugality of the inhabitants, and mpoaokreestucponfont' the w an t o f those local advantages enjoye d the indu s t ry with which they by their r i c h er neighbours? Agriculture a na manufactures are alike attended to in both con"' tries, and the public peace is so seldom di s ' turbed by anything like riot or infraction of the laws, that the civil authorities seldom find o ar Sion to apply for military assistance. For m aul years Scotland may be said to have been absn' lutely without a standing army, there not having been, with the exception of the recruiting d e : pots, more than a few hundred soldiers in eacf of the manufacturing districts, and the peace the Switzerland has been pres erve d w i t h near ly w same facility. Now, i n t h ese two cou ntries , education is nearly un i versa l . S choo l s a re so abundant and ed ucat i on i s so cheap, i n a ll bu t h the high mountainous parts, that a person w ho ° cannot read a nd wr i te i s regar d e d as a phen .