The Sun. — London, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

EVEN NO DITION. abolition, on w h at groun d s won d it be attempted to be maintained? They had abslis .'capital punishment in other eases, in obediencet3:l emends of the public voice. Did Hon. Gentlemen think for a moment that the public would not be more disinclined to executions as they became more rare ? The less frequent they be came, the m ore i nto l erant wou ld t he public be of them. Besides, the punishment was now less needed : they h!tel.an improv e d p o li ce — an improved system of prison discipline ; and, above all, the benefits of more general education. These were so many safeguards to person and property—so many securities against outrage and violence ; then why not consent to do away with capital Punishments—why, above all things, retain it in the case of murder, that was virtually the only case in which at was now retained? Now, that crime was committed in either of two ways : it was committed either upon calculation or was an act of impulse. If upon calcu lation, capital punishments could not act as a preven tive, b ecause t h at pun i s h men t h a d been duly calculated in the mind of the individual. On the other hand, sup pose the deed was committed from impulse ; the party there altogether overlooked the punishment—over looked the consequences of the case : and again, execution in such a case was not a pre ventive. It might be said that he ought not to come f orward to abolish capital punishments without being provided with a substitute That was an argu ment which could not be maintained, for they kid the system of solitary imprisonment and transportation to penal settlements ; besides, other punishments could be immediately substituted. It might also be objected that if th e y a b o li s h e d t hi s pun i s h me nt, they must sub stitute a more severe punishment in its place, and it might be argued that Juries would be loth to convict where the punishment was more severe than any second ary punishment now in force ; but, in his opinion, Ju ries would convict whatever the punishment were, so that it was not death. The ho:ror of that punishment arose from its being irrevocable ; it could never he recalled, supposing it were to be found out af terwards that a mistake had occurred. By mi tigating th e l aws, t h e pu bli c o pinion would be a gainst the cr i m i na l as we ll as ag ainst the crime. The main tenance of capital punishment was the maintenance ( t tajle old principle of revenge, the lex talionis, not "I accordance with the system of repentance and reform on which they were now acting. They were not acting consistently in continuing the punish meat of death—it was in direct contradiction to the Dew sYstem. How could they expect the people to turn away from scenes of violence and bloodshed, while t hey set legalised examples of violence before their e yes—humanize' their punishments, and they would humanize the people. The people who had been dis used from scenes of punishment and violent death ei,culd be loth to enter into scenes of violenc eand outrage_ they would have received such impressions in favour of humanity, that they would &brink from the perpetration of deeds of violence, and thus they would give an ad ditional guarantee not only for the execution of justice, but for the good order, the peace, security, and tran quillity, and also for the kindliness and benevo lence of the people. Impressed with these feelings, he called upon the House to agree with him, and resign the awful attribute of disposing of human life to Him who gave it.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that it was expe dient to abolish the punishment of death in all cases. Mr. HAWES seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was most ready to pay his tribute of respect, both to the motives which actuated the Hon. Member in bringing forward this resolution, and the ability with which he done so—(Hear, hear) --but in so doing he must state, with the object the Hon. Gentleman had in view, he had not taken the proper course to effect his views, by moving a resolu tion upon the subject. In a matter of such great im portance, the proper manner would have been to have taken the ordin ar y c ou rs e of asking for leave to bring in a Bill, so that the matter might have received the grave at tention of the House. If the Hon. Gent. succeeded in his legislation, he would have attained his end, but if the Bill were thrown out there would have been a regular decision of Parliament upon it. But if the resolu tion were carried in so thin a House, while the hands of the Judges and of the executive would be considerably weakened—(Hear, hear)—while in fact no real step had been taken—the resolution would remain on the books to be pointed out,but neither the Judges nor the Executive would feel themselves bound to depart from the letter of the law. With respect to the motion itself, he certainly was very un willing to enter into a discussion gene rall y , against those arguments which had been adduced in favour of the abo lition of capital punishment. Long previous to that time he had thought that the punishment of death should be very much diminish ed, and capital crimes in our statute book greatly lessened.—(Hear, hear.) He received those notions while sitting as a member of a Committee presided over by Sir James M'lntosh, and again in another presided over by Sir Samuel Romilly ; but with regard to the effect of the statistical details, they were so far consolatory that they showed the House that in what they had hitherto done they had not acted imprudently—that the crimes for which the punish• Tents had been lessened had not increased, and that they had not rendered less certain the inflic tion of punishment. While these statistical state ments proved thus much, he did not think that they were enabled to infer from them that if they went on to greater crimes, and more especially to the crime of mur der—he did not think that those details were sufficient to satisfy the House that, if a change were made with regard to that crime, the effect would be the same. It was to be remembered that the crimes of sheep-stealing, lar ceny, &c., which formerly ,:ere punishable by death, were looked upon by the people as of a comparatively trifling nature, but that the crime of murder excited the utmost horror in the public mind.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman used one argument'which hardly bore him out. He said the crime of murder must be one of calculation or of impulse ; and then he contended that the existence of the crime of murder proved that the present laws were insufficient. He did not think that argument was in any way conclusive. The sime argu ment might be used with regard to any crime which at present existed, even where the punishment was ex tremely slight. It might be urged that these crimes being will continued, the punishment was insufficient, but that certainly could not lead one to the supposition that such punishments should be abolished.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had not proposed any substitute by which the crime of murder might be at once done away with, and yet, if the crime of murder continued, the same argument might be used, that the punishment had failed in its effect. The real question was —and it was a most difficult question to decide— whether a number of persons besides those who had fully committed murders were deterred by the punish ment of death from committing them ?—( Hear.) Now his opinion was (being favourable to the punishment of death) that there were persons deterred by the fear of the punishment of death, and that the number was greater than if a milder punishment was affixed to the crime. It was a matter incapable of proof; but they knew that those who committed murder, knowing that the punishment of death was affixed to it, could not hope that their cases would excite sympathy, and that the Jury would be deterred from doing their duty, and permit them to escape punishment in consequence of any disproportion between the crime and its punish ment. Take some of the atrocious murders that had occurred lately—take the case of Greenacre—and he would ask, was there any opinion in the public mind that the punishment in his case was dispro portionate to his crime? There were a certain number always opposed to the punishment of death ; but, beyond these, was there any feeling that that person had committed a crime for which the punish ment of death was extreme or disproportionate ? (Hear, hear.) So far as he had been able to ascer tain it, such was not the feeling ; and the general opi nion was, that that person had been properly punished. He admitted that the word murder in this law com prised offences of a very different character—(Hear, hear)—and perhaps the law might be so altered as to distinguish between cases in which there was actually provocation and heat of blood, which certainly was a very different crime from deliberate murder.—( Hear, hear.) But there were murders arising from deep seated revenge, from very malignant passions —in the hope of gain to arise from the execution of a plot or conspiracy —to plunder and take away the life of an innocent victim, and thus destroy the evi dence of their crimes. These were crimes which he certainly considered were the most atrocious of which human nature was capable. He would be glad if they could come to the conclusion that society would be as well, or better, for not taking the lives of individuals. But his consideration for the safety of the lives of innocent persons was sufficient to induce him not to assent to the proposition, because, dreadful as might be the punish ment upon the guilty, they were bound to protect the lives of innocent persons, and not expose them to th e danger which would arise from its abolition. They had, in the course of no great number of years, made very important changes with regard to the criminal law, and its administration. By the last criminal tables laid before the House, it appeared that in 1818 the number of persons executed in England aed Wales was 97, in 1828 the number was 59, and in 1838 the num ber was only 36, being one-tenth of the executions of 1828, and one-sixteenth of those of 1818. That was an immense change in twenty-two years in favour o f humanity and improved legislation. When the Hon. Gentleman stated that the spectacle of executions bru talized the human mind, he should have borne in mind that the change in the number of executions had prc duced a great effect. When 120 executions took place in one year, the people might have been brutalized from being hardened and inured to scenes of blood, but when they were reduced to a very small number they were likely to produce a far greater effect—the solemn award of death being only pronounced in cases of very great crimes was likely to produce a correspond ing impression. The Hon. Gentleman said that the persons who went to these execution s were in the habit of indulging in disgusting gaiety and reckless exhibition of indifference, and that it was dreadful to see such feelings exhibited ; but he (Lord J. _Russell) could no t think that executio ns w hi c h occurred but seldom were likely to produce such effects. While these were his opinions with regard to the total abolition of punish ment, he was far from saying that he indulged in hopes that the condition of society might not be so much improved, and that the aver sion to shedding blood would so far gain strength that at some future time, without danger to the unoffending and the innocent, they might not entirely abolish the punishment of death. He did not think they were in that situation at present, and he was very fearful that if they now abolished it the effect would not be corresponding. He would put it to the Hon. Gen tleman and the House to consider what the peril would be of making an unsuccessful experiment. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that it was a great gratification to him, as it was him (Lord John Russell), that, so far as they had gone, the friends of humanity and the enemies of capital pUnishments had no reason to regret it. .But if they were now to entirely abolish capital punish ment. and if some cases of atrocious murder or provoking offence would follow, even after there might be some revulsion in public opinion, and instead of has tening the entire abolition of capital punishment, the opinion might prevail that they had gone too far,and they might be induced to retrace their steps still further, For these reasons he would not agree to the resolu tions of the Hon. Gentleman. He regretted very much that he must come to the decision to oppose the lion. Gentleman's wishes, and those of a large portion of the community, but at the present time he did not think it expedient to agree with them.—( Hear, hear.) Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON regretted that the Noble Lord thought it imprudent to assent to the proposition of his Honourable Friend. He was inclined to suggest, as an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish capital punishment in all the offences in which it was at present in flicted ; and he should therefore move that as an amendment. He would now address himself to some of the arguments of his Noble Friend against the motion. He was aware that there was a vcry con siderable body of persons who considered it contrary to the law of God to execute for any offence—with their theological doctrines he did not mean to grapple. They must form their own judgment from their re ligious convictions ; but his argument to the House of Commons would be of a very different and dis tinct character.—(Hear, hear.) His argument was, that he knew of no reason for any punishment save the prevention of offences and the reformation of the offenders.—( Hear.) He was not the man to inter pose any argument against the lawfulness of capital punishment. His Noble Friend had told the House that in case of capital punishment there was a great readiness on the part of the Jury to convict, and he (Dr. Lushington) believed it to be one of the most calamitous parts of the system, that if they displayed to a Jury the most atrocious offence there was a disposition to convict, whatever might be the evidence.—(Hear.) He had the testimony of a most Learned Judge, who was very conversant with the practice of criminal courts (Baron Gurney) who told him that in Proportion to the atrocity of the offence was the facility of conviction.—(Hear, hear.) That was what weighed upon his mind, and it was lamentable to think that, upon unfair and defective evidence, the life of a fellow creature was too frequently sacrificed. But although that might be the feeling of Juries, it. was not the feeling of witnesses. No one ever went up to give evidence in a capital case, who did not, with very few exceptions, endeavour to weaken and modify his testimony. He felt that the life of a fellow man was upon the word he was about to utter, and he wished to avoid having upon his soul the weight and responsibility of the death of a fellow creature. Such was the feeling that actuated their Judges. Look at the responsibility of the Judges, and how could they wonder at the caution they evinced ? They knew that upon their summing up would depend the life of a fellow-creature, and with laudable astuteness they sought for points on which to impress upon the Juries the neces sity of abondoning their intention of a conviction. Would they do so if the punishment were less than death, and if time were given to investigate the case fully and naturally ? No, they knew that the sentence once pronounced was beyond human power of recall, and feeling that, they endeavoured to escape the calamitous result. He knew an instance in one single session at the Old Bailey, where some men were capitally convicted before Chief Justice Best, who afterwards received a free pardon, it being ascertained that they were perfectly innocent. He might multiply instances of that sort, but he feared to weary the House. By the present system they shut the door upon all chance of a revi sion of the sentence. His Noble Friend saidi t was necessary for the safety of the lives of the innocent that the present system should be persevered in ; but it indeed was a calamitous result if that were to be the only alternative offered to him. When he first under took the investigation of the subject of capital punish ment, thirty-five years ago, the scaffold was deluged with blood ; they had by slow, and very slow degrees, and against strong and repeated opposition, from time to time abolished capital punishments—(Hear)— in a variety of cases ; and he would ask them had this experiment failed, or had it not been crowned with the most signal and beneficial success 2—(Cheers.) He would ask them further, whether they bad not gained the greatest point of all, namely impunity from crime ? He knew the limits of their power and autho rity. The limits of their power, and the right and law fulness of everything they did, was the prevention of crime and the reformation of offenders. If they meant to fix a punishment corresponding to the guilt of the offender's conscience, they outstepped the bounds of their jurisdiction, and trespassed upon that of Him who said, " Vengeance is mine." His Noble Friend said there was a °hence of pub lic opinion going against them, but what was the chance of 'that ? They had fought up against it from day to day, and from hour to hour, and overwhelmed the bankers and the merchants of London, which had loaded the table of the House of Commons with peti tions of the insecurity of property, the multiplication of forgeries without end, and tho destruction of mercantile confidence, if the Bill were passed. He had lately asked a most eminent banker what the effect of that Bill had been ? There is nothing of forgery known in the city of London.—(Cheers.) Such was now the determination to prosecute, that not an indi vidual who offended but was prosecuted, and every person was ready to come forward as a witness—the pu nishment being divested of its former revolting character. They make an experiment upon the good feeling of the people of England, who had long upheld them in those contests, and who now experienced infinite benefits from the abolition of capital punishments so far as it had gone. A. great number of families had been, in this sense, driven from the neighbourhood in which they live ; for was there an execution now in a country town for any offence, the effect was to make all the respectable families quit the neighbourhood for fear of being horrified by the disgusting scene. He would warrant they would have the support of the people with them. Let them be aware they did not fall into their ancient fallacy—that the atrocity of the offence was the cause of punishment— let them keep their eye upon that which would prevent it. He believed a great many murders were com mitted under circumstances over which the party had no control. A burglar might commit it without previous intention for his own protection—it might be com mitted for motives which it would be impossible to account for, and over which he had no control. All this depended on a totally different question, and upon that he would to God the House would look with more serious attention to the prevention of crime— (Hear, hear)—he meant the educaton of the people, and the impressing upon their minds the great doctrines of the Christian religion—the peat obligations they had to perform, and the certain consequences here and hereafter of a deviation from these sacred commands. In his opinion, he said it without the least hesitation, much more might be done by training up the people to prevent the perpetration of crime, for, after all, punishment went but a small way for its prevention His Noble Friend had spoken, and he was glad to• agree with his Noble Friend on one point —as to the dreadful effect produced by the frequent spectacle of a public execution—all agreed the public mind was bru talised and degraded by them ; but said his Noble Friend, the number being diminished, the mischief was diminished also, but he (Sir S. Lushington) said that in consequence of the rarity of executions, the number who attended them would be greater ; and the mischief attending them now, when they were but a twentieth part of the number they formerly were, would be greater than when, instead of six executions annually there were 120. What was the case of an exe cution in the country now ? The lowest order came from one end of it to the other (and none but the lowest order, except a few who might be attracted by morbid curiosity) and were familiarised with the sight of blood —with the last scene of human suffering, and that feel ing which for the protection of mankind God had spread upon the face of death. Remember the last execution in London, and what had happened a few days after ; a woman brought a complaint of having been violated, and it was proved that on the very morning of the evening on which she complained the atrocity had been committed she had been to witness an exe cu ti on , an d w h a t was the result of it? Having witnessed an execution on the Monday, she committ e d p er j ury th e next d ay. H e said if these persons had depraved minds by witnessing such s cenes they b ecame more d eprave d , an d i f per sonst with pure minds attended them they became defiled. There had been instances of persons who had attended an execution th e fi rs t t i me—and one within' his own knowledge—that of a yout h w h o up to that time had ' borne an uni m p eac h a bl e character, but who having witnessed an execution f or forgery, committed the offence within forty-eight h ours a f terwards—of so little preventive effect were they. Were they the last words he had to address to the House, they were these, that the prevention of crime depended on the certainty of punishment, and so long as human life was at stake, the ordinary feelings which operated on every man would conduce to defeat this end. He would address himself to the honour of every iudividual in the House, and ask, if be was sitting as a juror, he would not require stronger and more complete evidence where the life of a fellow-creature was at stake, than where transporta tion or imprisonment was the punishment of crime, and THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 6. 1840. where if he were punished erroneously, the error might be corrected when discovered ? He then asked if he had not demonstrated that capital punishment was not, from the feelings of man, less certain to be inflicted than any other, and whether they would not be content to convict on ordinary evidence, without torturing their minds to discover some flaw in it to save themselves from the possibility of future remorse, which would attend an erroneous judgment ? If this were true, he implored them to adopt it, not merely for saving some lives which might be sacrificed, but for the sake of protecting that defenceless part of the community for whose protection he agreed with his Noble Friend it was their bounden duty to provide. He, therefore, moved as an amendment, for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of capital punishments. Mr. EW ART said that provided the principle were adopted by the House he was indifferent to the form in which it was done, and he would, therefore, withdraw his motion and allow the amendment to stand as one, which was accordingly done. Mr. GOULBURN said that, although by the form of the motion now before the House they had got rid of one objection stated by the Noble Lord, he confessed the arguments of the Noble Lord were so conclusive against the adoption of the motion that he klt himself necessitated to vote against it. In much that had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentletnal he acquiesced ; but he did not agree with him that the proposed alteration of the law was likely to effect a reduction of the crime of murder. On this question he confessed he entirely concurred with the Noble Lord. The Right Hon. Gentleman had told them that he agreed with the Noble Lord that murder stood on a distinct footing from other crimes, and that when a murder was committed there was not that unwillingness on the mind of the jurors which ex isted in other cases, and told us his observations led him to draw this conclusion, that in proportion to the enormity of the offence was the readiness to convict ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman appeared to him, having stated broadly his principle, to use an argument imme diately by which it was contradicted. He had told them immediately after the statement respecting the jurors that the witness, the man who saw the life of an indivi dual barbarously taken away, came before them not with horror at the crime committed, not with feeling for the individual murdered and for his family, and the mi sery inflicted on them, but he came before the jurors look inn.' only at the punishment to be inflicted on the criminal, and from horror of the punishment of death was un able to give his testimony. Why if the jurors were ac tuated by the atrocity of the crime to convict more readily, he could not understand on what principle the Right Hon. Gentleman supposed the witnesses other - 16se affected by it. The Right Honorable Gentleman must be aware how necessary it was to be cautious in making experiments affecting human life, which, if they terminated unfavourably, would be prejudicial to it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had long been a con sistent and able advocate of the diminution of punish ment, and he had listened to him attentively on the present as on former occasions. He remembered an argument used by the Right Hon. Gentleman against the punishment of death for minor offences, and he could not but think that argument against it in such cases proved that in the case of murder it ought to be enforced. Tne argument was, that it was an in ducement to commit murder, since there was no differ ence between its punishment and that of robbery. But look how the argument applied in an opposite direction, for a person committing robbery, and know ing that the punishment would be the same in both cases, and knowing the danger of conviction, might think that by the sacrifice of victim he might es cape the punishment altogether. He confessed he thought this circumstance held out the strongest in ducement to commit murder. This measure destroyed altogether the distinction between crimes, it took away the natural feeling of mankind, inculcated by the highest authority, that " whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man should his blood be shed." For these reasons, therefore, he should support the Noble Lord, from a firm conviction that removing the punishment of death from the crime of murder would be attended with the greatest possible risk of increasing the commission of that crime, and increasing throughout the community a repetition of offences of an aggravated character, which whatever might be the effect of public executions, would have a greater ten dency to degrade and brutalise the mind than any other. Mr. HOB HO USE said his Hon. Friend had entered so fully and discussed this question so ably, that it was un necessary for him to make a lengthened comment upon it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had occupied a good deal of his speech in stating the inconsistencies of the Hon. Gentleman, but was clearly guilty of inconsistency himself. He agreed with his Honourable Friend, that it was better to waive the religious view of this questien, since it could not be properly intro duced into an assembly of that kind ; but he wished to make one comment on a quotation of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and to say, that it was per fectly impossible that the text " Whoso," &c. should be taken literally, and applied to all times ; and he might remind the Right Hon. Gentleman of the punishment in. flicted on the first murderer, which he thought was a suffi cient answer to him. Another observation of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, that the abolition of the punishment of death would be an inducement to commit murder, but he had yet to learn the proposition was open to that objection. Were there not various gradations of imprisonment? It seemed to him (Mr. Hobhouse) that the only pu nishment that did not admit of gradations of punishment was the punishment of death.—(Cheers.) If they would but study gradations of punishment as they ought to do, they might certainly do away with the punishment of death.—(Cheers.) He knew the unwillingness of the House to listen to statistical details, and how unpalat able any reference to statistics always was to Hon. Members, yet to answer the objections brought for ward in the speech of the Noble Lord, he felt himself obliged to refer to figures. He held in his hand returns relating to capital punishment in the three years ending respectively in 1836 and in 1839. He found that in the year 1834 in Stafford the number of commutations of the punishment of death for murder amounted to one, and of commitments for murder to six. In 1835 the num ber of commitments amounted to six. In 1835, at Derby, sentence was commuted in one case, and the number of commitments was two. The next year the number of commitments also amounted to two ; thus showing that the amount of crime had not increased in consequence of the commutation of punishment, and he found this was uniformly the case. He would now allude to a paper to which he had before intended to re fer, and which referred only to the county of Middlesex, as they had no similar returns from other counties. In the twenty years ending in 1769, sixty-one persons had been executed for the crime of murder, and in seven instances only had any commutation of punish. ment taken place. In the thirty years ending 1830 eighteen persons bad been executed for the crime of murder, and in seven cases commutation of punishment had taken place ; consequently, during the first period sixty-eight convictions had taken place, being rather more than three a year ; and in the latter period twenty-five convictions only had taken place, being rather more than one a year. This proved most cor rectly that commutation of punishment did not lead to increase of crime. He thought the time had now ar rived when they could safely do away with the punish ment of death, more especially when they considered that the uniform result of their experience had been, that crime had not increased in consequence of the commutation of punishment. Let any man consider what was the nature of the effect produced upon the spec tators by the infliction of the punishment of death. It was not a feeling of horror. it was not a feeling of fear— but by witnessing executions the multitude became har dened, and acquired a taste for blood.—( Cheers.) There was a view which had not yet been taken on this subject, which he was anxious to impress upon the House—it was this—lf they did not punish murder capitally they would show by their example the sacred estimation in which they held human life.—( Cheers.) He knew the question was much exhausted, and not one likely to stir up party con tentions, and for that reason he thought it likely to pro duce a greater impression upon the nation at large. He hoped they would not consider him pedantic if he re ferred to an example of antiquity, and when he reflected on the wisdom which appeared in the passage he was about to quote on this subject he felt it difficult to believe that it was written two thousand years ago. The Right Hon. Gentleman would recol'ect the example in the history of Thucydides, of the punishment which it was intended to inflict on the inhabitants of Mytilene.— (Cries of " Oh, and cheers.") Gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to disparage the lessons of antiquity— (Cheers)—he had al►vays understood that a leading tenet of Conservatism was a reverence for the wisdom of those who had gone before us —( Cheers, and laughter.) It had been proposed to inflict the punishment of death on the inhabitants of Mytilene, and the Athenians, led away by the passion of the moment, had been induced to ap prove the sentence; they, however, determined to recon sider the subject, and on that occasion two speeches were made, one for, and the other against, capital punishment, which were recorded by Thucydides, and from that against the capital punishment, he was about to quote.—( Cries of " in Greek," and laughter from the opposite benches.) He was not about to quote it in Greek, as he did not ap prehene he should thereby derive any essential benefi►. The passage was then quoted by the Hon. Gentleman, and it was to the effect that the punishment of death was in effici, nt to repress crime, because, notwithstanding the constant infliction of that punishment, crime st►ll con. tinkled, and poverty added boldness to necessity, sufficient to brave even death itself. He hoped that some Gen tleman opposite would dispose of that part of the argu ment. These were the grounds on which, he thought, the House ought to consider the question —not whether mur der deserved the punishment of death, for, if asked that question, he should say it did deserve it—but whether death was the best punishment to prevent the commission of crime. He believed that reason, experience, and the lessons of history, were all in his favour ; and the present time was most opportune, when the public had been used to witness the spectacle of execution less frequently, to advance one step fu•ther, and abolish the punishment of death altogether.—( Cheers.) Mr. PLUM PTRE, although he had voted with the llon. Member, in 1837, for the abolition of capital punish ments in all cases except murder, could not support him on the present occasion, as he thought that .‘ whose shed deth mates blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Mr. MUNT Z had long been of the opinion of tl:e talented author of 4‘ Paul Clifford," that the worst use you could put a man to was to hang him.—(Cheers and laughter.) Ile believed that the great feeling existing against the punishment of death for murder being ab )- lished, was owing to its being considered to be a divine ordinance, handed down to us from the Jewish dispensa tion ; and if that were the case, he would ask why they did not, on the same authority, punish adultery with death.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But they lived now under a milder dispensation, and did not, or at least ought not, to return evil for evil, unless great public advantage could be shown to result from it. Was the punishment of depth the most severe that could be in flicted upon man ? lie doubted it, when he looked to the nnmerous instances of suicide. What induced persons to c nimit suicide ? Why, the fear of life, not the fear of death—they feared the punishment that might be Inflicted on them by living—they dreaded anguish of mind and of body, and sought a refuge for fife in death. It they looked to the case of those unfortunate individuals who had taken away the life of a fellow-creature, the whole of his future life must he one continued state of punishment in suffering the pains of Imprisonment or transportation, and he would ask the House, unless great and undeniable ad vantage could be shown to result from the taking away his life, not to take away from him that opportunity of re pentance of which all stood so much in need, but he more peculiarly than his fellow -creatures. Mr. FITZ ROY was in favour of the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases except murder ; end, not ,.vithetanding the arguments of the Hon. Member for Rochester, and the Hon. Member who had just rat down, he considered the divine command was imperative to in flict death upon the shedder of man's blood. Mr. BR OTHE RTON would ask the lion. Member who had last spoken if he were to carry out his principle where it would end. He (Mr. Brotherton) hid risen for the purpose of recording his sentiments in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, as lie held it as a prin ciple that no mar, had a right in any case to take away the life of his fellow man. Therefore, when he saw laws enacted for the purpose of carryin_ into effect a punish ment so shocking to the feelings of society, he could not help entering his protest against them as being in con tradiction to every principle of humanity and sound policy. It had been shown that capital punishment did not prevent crime, and that crime had not increased in consequence of the mitigation of the severity of the law, and therefore he believed that they were bound to show how sacred they held human life in their estimation by not daring, under any circumstances, to take it away. If the object were to prevent crime, let them instruct the people in their duty, and teach them the true principles o: religion, which would ever be found in accordance with justice, humanity, reason, and common sense. The law of God was simple; it said plainly, " Thou shalt not kill," and until the clergy and Bishops turned their attention to this subject, so as to instruct the people according to right principles, they would never produce that effect which they ought to pro duce. The Mosaic law had been quoted in support of this vindictive and retaliatory punishment, but the same law said, if an ox should gore a man or a woman, the owner of the ox, should suffer death.---(Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) He said—Yes, yes—and he said what was true; but that punishment in such a case might be commuted by the owner being mulcted in a sum of money, and that showed that the Scripture in this instance did not bear the usual interpretation; and he stated, on the authority of Mr. Bellamy, who had devoted fifty years to the study of Hebrew, and from whom he had presented a petition two years ago, on the subject of the new trans lation of the Scriptures, that that interpretation was not in accordance with the original Hebrew. He therefore thought they were called upon, by every principle of reli gion, of reason, of humanity, and of sound policy, to abolish the punishment of death. Sir ROBERT INGLIS was not one of those who would, either in peace or in war, desire to take one hu man life unnecessarily. He believed, in former times, the punishment of death had been carried to great excess, but when he saw how the severity of the Criminal Code had been mitigated, he thought it right to trust to that im proved state of the public feeling which showed that no thing of legislation on the subject was now necessary— ( Hear, hear, hear)— legislation which, if carried into effect, would deprive the Crown of its brightest jewel, the prerogative of mercy, and do away with that wholesome fear which operated as a re straint on crime. It must be in the remembrance of most present, that a woman was sentenced at the Old Bailey Sessions to be burnt for the crime of coining., and although she was dexterously strangled by the executioner previous to the full sentence being carried into execution, yet as far as the spectators were concerned the sentence might have been said to be actually carried into effect, as the body was burnt in their presence. He mentioned this to show how publio feeling had advanced on this subject, and how safely they might trust to that feelin g without hav ing recourse to legislative measures.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Honourable Member proceeded to say that the pro portion of crime to punishment had decreased within the last 50 years, at the rate of tell to one, that was to say, that where there were a hundred persons convicted in for mer times, there were ten executed, and there was but one executed now, though the law continued to be the same. That alteration was to be traced to nothing else than a change in the feelings of the country. Ho was therefore of opinion that all that Hon. Members could desire to obtain by legislation had been already obtained by the gradual progress of feelings of respect for human life, and of a conviction of the inutility of capital pun ishments to effect the objects for which they had been designed. He trusted that if the Hon. Member for Wigan pressed his motion the House would not ac cede to it, because while he was convinced that it should be the object of every man to save human life as much at possible, he could find no state of society with a single exception in which the pain of death had teen wholly abo lished. Not more than six capital punishments in the year had of late taken place, but he thought that the total re moval of such a punishment might be attended with the most injurious consequences. The authority of Scripture had been appealed to in their discussions, and though he was unwilling to enter into such a subject, he should say at least that there were instances of punishment by death in the Bible, and that such instances should for ever save from any censure those who should inflict that punish ment.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that he would not detain the House many minutes. The Hon. Baronet who had just sat down had paid himself the great compliment of saying that he was not one who would unnecessarily put any man to death.—( Laughter. ) What the Hon. Baronet should have demonstrated was that there was any necessity for putting a man to death for the crime of murder. The Hon. Baronet, and those who had supported the same views he had put forward, had not done that ; but they had done the reverse, because they had a d m i t t e d, th a t as far as proofs went, every mitigation of punishment in the laws had been followed by a diminution of crime.—( Hear, hear.) That was a consolatory fact at 'all events. They could judge of this question by no other means than by directing their attention to what had already happened, and they were justified in hoping that that would happen again. Now what was it that had already occurred ? Why in every country where punishments had been miti gated, crimes had diminished also, and that was true of every crime, even of murder. It was therefore proved that wherever punishments were diminished they softened the ferocity of men—they ameliorated the human mind, and by the example which they showed of a respect for life, even in its worst forms, they inspired others with the same respect. It had been said, how ever, that this might not be the case hereafter. The matter then stood thus : the House had facts on the one side, and perhapses on the other.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that the House would not be at a loss as to how they should decide under such circumstances. He was sorry to have beard theological discussions intro duced on the occasion; he did not think that was the place for such allusions. He should say, however, that the texts which had been cited had not been fairly inter preted. Those texts should not be applied too literally. At all events they were no longer living under the Jewish dispensation. They were living under another and a more beneficent one—under a dispensation of charity, and which discountenanced revenge. The question was manifestly making great progress in the House, and when Sir Sa muel Rornilly had first submitted it to their consideration, he could hardly find a single supporter. He should urge, as an objection to the present system, the innocent were often punished undeservedly; and the punishment of death carried with it this injustice--that whenever an innocent man was so punished there were no means left of repairing the grievous wrong.—( Hear, hear.) He remembered a case in Limerick, which the present Judge Burton had tried, in which a prisoner had been sentenced to death. H e ( Mr. O'Connell) had been the man's counsel on the occa sion, and he had solicited from the Judge a respite of a week. The respite had been granted, and before the end of the week it had been found that the man was as in nocent as the Judge himself.--( Hear, hear.) There was again a case, which many Members of the House might remember, that of three gypsies in Monmouth, who had been found guilty of robbery, and who had been transported to New South Wales. It had after wards, however, been found that those p ersons had been innocent, and they were accordingly brought back. If, however, they had been condemned to death, and had injury . done t-) them could suffered their sentence, the repeat, that the never have been re-called. would d s ex periment of mitigating they should be suc ceeded,dieepl- and he thought th p a h u t n n v, tb e e v y a., could safely follow u ) that experiment now. If, pointed in their expectations of a continuation of similar results, and if the experiment should . t o ad, they could again have recou rse to legislation, and a,ain repeal th e new Statute. He would conclude by conjuring them, in the name of justice and humanity, to allow the motion to pas., and to let the Bill, at all events, be brought be fore the House. Mr. JONES rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide." lie should object to the motion, because he really be lieved that in many cases there would b e a great difficulty in d evisin g a secondary punish men t, if t h e punishment o f death were abolished altogether. H e be lieved, too, that t he abolition of that punishment would enco urage a spirit of retaliation and revenge, because if death were not inflicted in cases of murder, the relations of the murdered parties would be apt to take the law into their own bands. Ile would wish, however, that sentence of death should be pronounced in cases of murder only, and if the Hon. Member for Wigan were to limit his motion in conformity with that view of the question, he should give it his support. Lord WORSLEY resisted the motion. He would, however, offer a suggestion to her Majesty's Government. If the motion then before the House were lost, he would advise the Government to bring in a Bill to alter that port of the statutes which related to the punishment of treason, and he believed that such a measure would meet with the approbation of the country. Mr. EW ART said he had only a few observations, in reply to the arguments used against the motion, to address to the House. In answer to an assertion from the lien. Member for Carmarthenshire, he should say there was but little danger that the motion could lead to the creation of a spirit of retaliation and revenge. It appeared, fern Returns made to the House , that 29 persons,found guilty of murder, had lately been pardoned, and that had not fed in any instance to such consequences as the lion. Member seemed to apprehend. He should also observe that any Han. Member who might vote for his motion might after wards have an opportunity of making such alterations in it as they might think fit ; and he therefore hoped that those Hon. Members who were in part favourable to its objects would in the present stage give it their F..!ppnrt. The [louse then divided, when the numbers were— For the Bill OO Against it Majority PRIVILEGE. Sir E. SUGDEN then rose, and after pzesenting a petition for the discharge of the prisoners in custody of the House, proceeded to say that in bringing forward his motion for a Committee to inquire into the practicability of some means for preventing the publication, by order of the [louse, of libellous matter, he had intended to give a succinct view of the course formerly adopted as to the publication of their proceedings and the course recently adopted ; but the Noble Lord had—by the amendment of which be bad given notice, for a Bill to af ford summary protection to persons engaged in the publi cation of Parliamentary Papers,—taken him greatly at a disadvantage, because Members would naturally he anxious to see what the measure of the Noble Lord would be.—( Hear, hear.) If the object of the Noble Lord was only to protect individuals, to facilitate necessary legisla tion, he would not find in him (Sir Edward) an opposc..r. But if !he Noble Lord meant to givo to the House greater lower, leaving the resolutions of 1837, claiming the sole right of dceiding,, on their privileges, untouched, he should strenuously oppose the measure. For the present, how ever, he .ould withdraw his motion, leaving the Noble Lord to bring forward his own proposition.—( Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said, with the permission of the House be would now state the nature of . the proposition he meant to have moved as an amendment, and the propriety of which what had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman had tended to convince him still furth'er. He would take this opportunity of saying that he did not think any re striction should be put upon the right of publication by that House, whatever might he the determination of the House respecting the mode of publication.—( Hear, hear.) But he had no hesitation in saying, if it could be shown that the mode of publication which had been adopted of late years, had led to the publication of libellous papers, any means within the Hou,e itself of preventing such publication, as much as possible, should receive his best attention.--( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he knew not a moro difficult subject to be undertaken, because there were many publications containing reports of pro ceedings, which, although not intended to affect indi viduals, yet incidentally brought in the names of indi viduals, but were afterwards the foundation of most useful Bills, applying general remedies called for by particular cases of abuse.—( Hear, hear, hear.) As to the present position of the House, whatever might be the power and privileges of the House, it was desirable that they should have some more efficient mode of exercising those powers and privileges than they possessed at present. His opinion was, that these powers were very large, and if used to their utmost extent, was commensurate to the ne- cossary object. But the mode in which they were exer cised was liable to great objection in its practical opera tion.—( Hear, hear.) Take the case of an action com menced during the recess, and being undefended, the damages assessed —true, on the house assembling, they might assert their privileges, but they would be too late to stop the action—( Hear, hear)—and could only punish executive officers.—( Hear, hear.) And even in respect to cases occurring during the sitting of the House, the privilege could not be maintained without repeated discussions, and consequent waste of the public time. If the House had to deal with persons bona fide desirous of vindicating their character, they would find no difficulty in inducing submission to their authority, for such persons would cheerfully avail themselves o f the redress the House would willingly afford to them when they showed them selves to have been injured. But the parties with whom they had to deal were such as having no character to lose, like Mr. Stockdale, wished to make a profit and a trade of vexatiously entering into contests with that House. And would it not be highly prejudicial that the public time should be occupied in repeated discussions about individuals? Then there were ether and greater evils—for instance, the probability of coming, more directly than the House had hitherto done, into collision with the Judges of the land. —( Hear, hear.) This was a great evil, because consi dering, as be did, the judgment of the Queen's Bench utterly erroneous, be felt the importance of pre serving alike for the House of Commons and the Judges public respect and regard—(Hear, hear)—which would be destroyed or endangered, if these two parties were to come directly into collision—one part of the community being ranged on the side of that House, and the other part arrayed on the side of the Judges.—( Hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, that the House ought to come to some enactment in which the other branches of the Legis- lature might concur, for preventing the recurrence of those inconveniences. He admitted, at the same time, that any legislation upon the subject might give force to the objection that the privileges of the House would be ren dered questionable by any reference of them to the other branches of the Legislature. But he remembered that at all periods in the history of the constitution of this country, whenever there was any great difficulty in the interpretation of the privileges of the House, the other branches of the Legislature had been called upon to soave that difficulty. —( Hear, hear.) Although he was aware that the constitution of the country was very rude in its formation, he was still convinced that it was very . , wise in the distribution of powers to the several branches; and when a difficulty like that which at present embarrassed the House arose, it could be remedied enly by a measure in which the other branches coneurrel.-I(Haar, hear.) Nor was that course without precedent. In the com mencement of the reign of James 1., when the Warden of the Fleet was unwilling to liberate a Member of the house who was in his custody, although the House interposed its authority, it as not thought inconsistent with its duties to consent to an Act of Parliament which allowed the Sheriffs to revive the custody of Members of the House after the prorogations, and to continue the confinement during such times as the attendance of the Members was not required in the House. After the Revolution the House thought it necessary to concur in an Act of Parliament to declare that no Member of that House should be liable to any action at law, for anything done in the discharge of his duties as a Member.—( Hear, hear.) In like manner, when it was considered an inconvenience to the Members of the House of Commons, that the ser vants of Members should be arrested during the sittings of the House, the Act of the 11th of George 111. was passed to prevent the inconvenience. He thought, there fore, that an Act could be passed without derogating from the privileges of the House. At the game time he ad mitted the force of the objection, that in resorting to legislation, the House submitted its privileges to some sort of restriction. He thought the objec tion might have some foundation. It might be Si) but it was not likely that any question of privilege could arise so difficult as this one respecting publication. It was not likely that the House would be brought into col lision with the Courts of Law upon any other question so often as they must be upon this question of publication, if the law was allowed to remain as it was. In this case, there was great popular misapprehension that this House would declare anything to be privileged which was incon sistent with law. and set aside the authority of the Courts, and the right of the other branches of the Legislature. It had been said, most extravagantly, by a person pleading before Lord Denman, that if the House of Commons proceeded in its present course it might order any man to be taken into the lobby and hanged there by the Sergeant-at- Arins.—( Hear, and a laugh.) With out going to the extent of that argument, he thought it was necessary, for the due exercise of the powers belong ing to that House, that it should be the sole judges of its own privileges, without reference even to co-ordinate or saperior bodies. If he were asked what check and limit there should be to that paver, his answer was, the same check and limit that there wes to the preroga tive of the Crown and to the privileges of the House of Lords and the Court of Chancery. The real question was whether the house of Commons or the Court of Queen's Bench was the proper judge of what was ne cessary to the exercise of the functions of the House of Commons. It was reasonable to suppose that the House might be better acquainted than the Court of Queen's Bench could he with the matters which celled for the exercise of its power, and with the best mode of their administration. It seemed to hi n, therefore, that whatever they did they could not relax the power they possessed of declaring what was necessary to the due performance of their duties ; and he thought, placed as it was in a body, elected as the Members of that House were, it was not likely that any extraordinary tyranny would he exercised. He now came to state what was the nature of the measure he proposed. He did not, of course, after whet he had stated, propose to place any restraint on the power of publication that at present existed, or limit the privileges of the House : on the contrary, lie thought it accessary to preserve and save all the privileges the House at present pos sessed; and they were, therefore, in no manner affected or altered by that Bill ; but what he proposed was, that publication should be authorized by either House of Parliament upon the certificate, either of the Lord Chan celloror the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Speaker of that House, and that upon the production of such certi ficate tile proceedings of any Court of Law should be stayed. With regard to the mcde in which that was to be accomplished he should probably be leading Hon. Mem bers into error if he was to state the course proposed by the Bill. What, therefore, he should now propose would be to bring in the Bill, have it printed, in order to give 11.mourable Members an opportunity of seeing and considering its provisions.—( Hear, hear.) Thu ob ject of the measure, undoubtedly, was to give at once a remedy in Courts of Law ; when publications authorised by either house of Parliament were called into question, it would therefore be a remedy, not only ivith respect to actions brought during the time Parliament was sitting, but those brought during the recess. He did not by this Bill propose any limit to the right of publication, but lie was ready, if any plan could be shown by which greater security could be given to individuals, to listen to any suggestion ; but at all events he thought that the authority should be kept within . the House itself. There ought to be nothing to restrain them from printing that information which they considered necessary. He would not say a word now as to the question so often urged on that House, that it ought to have the power of pub lication, and that it could not beneficially exereis , ! its functions without it. He had therefore only now toast: leave to bring in the Bill, hoping that it might be the means of putting an end to the evils which were complained of. He thought the House was fairly entitled, after what had passed, to ask the House of Lords to concur with theist in some measure of this nature. He thought the the House of Lords must feel as they did, that the continuance of this conflict must be injurious to themselves and to their countryat own I apregbei publication a t t l i i e e Iyl it must was feel desirable a th with at there regard b e some legislative remedy. It was to be recollected t hat with regard to the publication, that e r the shouldto the whole cause of action arose from a Committee of the House of Lords having taken certain evidence before it, w ith regard to New Zealand. The House in adopting that course could have no other desire than that of giving to the people of the country information, as to whether that country was fit to be made a colony of, and in that evidence so give s , i t was stid that there were circumstances stated which were of it libellous tendency towards Mr. Stockdale. With regard to the statements of the Hon. Gentleman as to the print. i n g of papers, the Committee on printing would, he had no doubt, lay before the House the whole circumstances connected with its printing and publication, and the House . would then see that the practice adopted at the present moment afforded far greater checks against libellous publi cations than had been afforded in former times. He thought it wzs most desirable to lay before the House what those checks were—the manner in which those various publicatiuEs were examined and corrected before they were ordered for printing, and then it would be for Honourable Members to state in what manner those checks could be improved. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill. Sir E. SUG DEN was not satisfied with the explana tion of the Noble Lord or the guards which he intended to throw over the publication of that House. The Noble Lord had stated that the Committee on Printed Papers would report facts which the House were already in uos ses,,ion of, but the Noble Lird had not stated that the Committee were prepared to propose any measure that would secure individuals from a'tacks on their character. He thought that he should be able satisfactorily to show to the House that the sale of the prit.ted papers of the House was to save expense, without refer:nee to the cha racter of the publication. lie agreed with the Noble Lord that the House ought to continue within its own power the publication of its proceedings, but what he wished was that that publication should be placed within proper limits before greater powers were asked for. The Noble Lord said that all he asked was that the House should be the judge of its own privileges as far as it was necessary to enable it to carry on the business of the country. Now, in the resolution of 1537, he found no such stipulation. That resolution said, in so many words that the House had the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon its privi leges, and the institution of any action bringing those pri sileges into question, was a high contempt of the privilege- s of the House, would subject the party to its just displea sure, and the punishment consequent thereon. There was therefore no qualification, and it was of that particular resolution that the people of England were justly afraid. C►rcumstances might arise in which the very liberties of the country might be put in peril by the assertion of rights like those. It never was the law of the land that the House should claim such privilege, and he would venture to say that that resolution would never make it so. The Noble Lord had founded himself on that resolution, although he endeavoured to explain it away. He wet as anxious as any man to support the privileges of the House, but he thought they had already been carried to too great an extent.—( Hear, hear.) His objection to the Bill was, that it would give a great power to the House before it was provided that those salu tary measures should be taken which were contemplated by the motion he had put on the paper, and which were neces sary in order to satiafy the minds of the public. He would not oppose the Bill if the Noble Lord would provide those necessary guards to which he had referred. He was afraid that the Noble Lord had no such intention, because he might use the expression he had stifled his motion in its birth. He would feel it his duty to oppose the Bill unless be got some assurance of that kind. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose with great pain to oppose the motion of the Noble Lord.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) All the inclinations of his mind, of course, would lead him to support the Noble Lord, connected as he was with the Government, but he considered that his duty as a Member of Parliament was paramount to any duty that be owed to the Government as its officer.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He knew that the Government took the course proposed by the Noble Lord after the most careful consideration, but he conceived that they were mistaken in the course they had taken on this subject, as he thought that the proposed Bill would lead the House into new difficulties, and would inflict a deep wound upon their privileges.—(Hear.) After mature consideration he could not entertain any other opinion than that the resolutions of 1837 were well founded upon Parlia mentary law, and that they were supported by the Con stitutional writers of the very highest authority during the last century, and that, maintained in their integrity, they were essential for the due discharge of the functions of that House, and he would say that in their terms they did not go one iota beyond the necessity of the case. In looking at this, Hon. Members must look at what gave rise to them, and they would be found just in principle, and in strict conformity with Parliamentary law, which was the law of the land. He would look at the Bill proposed, and see whether it was calculated to relieve the 'House o its difficulties, and see whether it was not a greater risk and infinitely beyond any advantaage that could arise from it. He believed that the effect upon the public interests would be deep, permanent, and most injurious. After long and mature deliberation, he had had the strongest opinion that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, was wrong and unfounded, and he earnestly wished that the House would neither confirm nor sanction that judg_ merit. The Court had decided that the privileges of that House could not be pleaded in bar to any action. The Bill proposed by the Noble Lord had for one of its ob jects summarily to stop any proceedings in any action brought against an officer of the House for publication. By this they then admitted that the privileges of the House were no bar to that action. Were they prepared to admit that the Court ass right ?—( Hear, hear.) While . . that judgment stood, any legislation, not condemning it, lcd to the inference that the House could not set up its privileges as a bar, but wanted some legislative aid to render its privileges effectual.—( Cheers.) The proposed Bill, by its enactments, affect the privileges of the House ; but legislation of any kind, while that judgment stood—legislation, without expressing the slightest dissent from that judgment, must !ead to this—that no lawyer, at a future day, would look back to what had then trilten place, without saying that they had legislated, became they could not maintain their privileges. Many Members were not aware of the nume rous privileges which had been concedsd to them for the public benefit. Many most important Acts had been car ' ried by very small ni,joritiev. The Act of Settlement itself was carried by a majority of one. How important would it ha that a few Members horn either party could be snmmoned down, upon subpoena, to Devon or to Cornwall ? How would that affect a division in an important case ?—(Loud cheers.) Members were exempt from being called to serve upon Juries.—( Hear.) Pass the Bill, and how long might that privilege remain ? They were not liable to serve the office of Sheriff; there was an infinite variety of offices and duties from which they were exempted by Parliamentary privilege, not for the Mem ber's benefit, but that the public business might be pro ceeded with. They had the right to call for persons, papers, and records. Suppose a witness refused to answer a question, to produce a paper, or to attend—all these questions might give rise to discussions in a Court of Law, and the Judge there would have to decide upon the relevancy of the papers, and to decide as to the power of the House to call for the witness. For ages Parliament had bean deemed paramount, and that had been conceded by the highest ornaments of the bench, but had now been denied by the Court of Queen's Bench. Let :hem pasA the Bill and change their position, and their privileges would not remain with them. The judgment of the Court displaced the constitution of the Holm. According to that judg ment that House had no longer a cc-ordinate jurisdiction with the House of Lords.—( Loud cheers.) That balance and constitutional check, which had been the pride and glory of those who had investigated the Constitution o, England, was gone. The House might have every one of its privileges dragged before and decided upon by the House of Lords. Where would their privileges be then ? —( Loud cheers.) With the House of Commons subordi nate to the House of Lordi the Constitution would lose one of its best safeguards. They were going to do by the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord, what tacitly sanctioned that judgment which displaced them from their position, which dishonoured them, took from them that respect which gave force to their acts, and which placed their privileges under the control of the lowest Court in the kingdom; He knew very well that there would he great difficulty in pas sing a Bill condemning that judgment, and that was one reason why he would not legislate.—( Loud cheers.) Ho earnestly wished to see an end put to the difficulties they were in-2nd that by Act of Parliament—but that was no reason why they should take a Bill that was more pregnant with mischief to the dignity and character of the House. —( Hear, hear, hear.) He thought they were doing great evil in bringing in such Bills. He did not believe that it would pass even in its present shape.— (Cheers.) lie believed that it would undergo alterations, such, that even the Noble Le.rd would not be able to ac cept it.--( Hear, hear.) Before he would consent to send up a Bill which must give rise Co discussions not calculated to increase the dignity of the House—(Cheers)—he would like to know what was likely to be the end of i'. He did not think it would tend to relieve them from their difficul ties, but would iner,age them.—( Cheers.) Suppose the Bill to have passed in the shape acceptable to toe Noble Lord. It would at once be said that they bad been obliged to resort to legislation for other powers than those they pos sesved, in order to maintain their privilege. His Righ t Hon. Friend ( Sir E. Sugden) had spoken with his usual caution of the actions which had been hi ought against the House. In the course of 200 years they had entered into inquiries of the most dist casing nature, having examined into the abuses of the South Sea Company—of slavery and the slave trade—having taken much evidence of a highly cri minatory nature, all published with a view to legislation ; surely something might be said of the care of the House, when during the whole of that time the only individual who had complained was John Joseph Stockdale. He could not help thinking that that was pretty good evidence that there had not been so much slander pub lished as some Hon. Members would lead them to believe. Three of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had said that that which was necessary to the func tions of the House of Commons was a part cf its privileges, while in the same breath they were told that they were to be the sole judges of what was necessary to the proper discharge of the functions of the House. In the course of the last five years there had been twenty writs of error brought against judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench, and ten of the unanimous judgments of that Court had been reversed. What ground b had they, therefore, for expecting anything (l i ear r eertai A n i t r y in a legal contest with that Court?-- Howard had brought an actio n against the' Se a rg . e ) ant.t . - Arms—would their Bill stop that action? He did not think it would, and all the diffienlties they had now to contend rith would be continued under another form.—( Hear, hear.) In truth they would not get anything by their Bill. and he could not help thinking thrit Mr. Hausard's would not be the only action. They would eventually have to come to the determination to support and maintain their own privileges.—(Cheers.) The question was whether, row that they were involved in this difficulty—having ne reason to expect the attack made upon them by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench—they would get out of it by the independent exercise of their owa privi leges and prerogatives. The true character of the contest was to render that House subservient to the inferior tribu nals of the country. He trusted they would never submit to that, for the efficient existence of the House of Com mons was, in his opinion, never more veriouely threatened than at the present moment.—(Cheers.)On the ground that they could not relieve themselves from any of these difficulties by legislation, he anught it inexpedient to agree to the proposition of the Noble Lord. Lord STANLEY, in the course oft he pro meted dis cussions that had taken place o n the prsent question, b a d never felt himself jiestitied in trespassing even for a single moment on their PA...WIWI. He had been a silent but not inattentive observer of their proceedings. 11, shoal however now st.tte as shortly and as plainly as be could his reasons far giving his vote in favour of the pr ,position EV ENING EDITION. of the Noble Lot d.--(Hear, hear.) He admitted that the question was one upon which much might be . said and meny reasons advanced on either the one side cr the other. He admitted also the necessity of coming to a de eisien on the subject free from all passion and prejudice, while IT would add that the question was one of all °tiers, upon which it was most d.fficult to come to an un prejudiced and impartial conclusion. The Bill of the Noble Lord was opposed by the most opposite parties, and for the most opposed reasons. It was opposed by those who desired to abolish their privileges—it was opposed by those who desired to confirm their privileges; and the argu ments of the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen opposite against the Bill, were of a nature totally different trail these of some other Hon. Gentlemen. It was difficult from this circumstance to address his arguments, so as to suit the opposite views of the different Hoe. Gentlemen who opposed this Bill. He would confess he felt as strongly as the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen himself, the importance of upholding the privileges of that House in their full extent and latitude, and subject only to such re straints as the: House itself might think proper to impose With regard to the privilege of publication, he was pre- Tiered to co to the fullest extent, and to contend that it was the right and duty of that House to communicate that information to the public at large which it had made tk-c subject of its investigation or the foundation of its legisla tion.—( Cheers.) No man would contend more strongly than he would for the privilege of publication Ley that House, and if he thought that the adoption of the measure proposed by the Noble Lord would tend in the least to destroy that privilege, he should most decidedly object to it. He could not concur with the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon in the view which be had taken of this subject. He could not concur with him in opinion that it was an unfortunate case, this case of Stockdale, cm which to bring the point to an issue. He rejoiced that the question had been brought to issue on this cam, because it showed the danger in which their privileges were placed. The argument in their favour was irresistible on the merits of case.—( Cheers.) They had been proceeded against by a man of notoriously infamous character for the publication of a document which bad been ordered to be laid beftwe both Houses of Parliament—the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and that, moreover, was not the first Report. In the first Report it had been stated that such and such abuses existed in the management of a certain prison, end that the most important prison in the kingdom—the prison of Newgate. The charge was denied. Now, was it not a subject entitled to examination, the conduct of this pri son ? Was it not right to ascertain whether the conduct of it was such, as to entitle it to an exemption from legislation? —(Cheers.) A public body came forward and presented a paper to that House denying the charge, and calling for the proofs of the truth of it. That paper was rd ferred to the Conimissieners, who, in support of their allegation, when challenged to the proof, stated that they had found, in the hands of a prisoner in that prison, a certain obscene publication published by a well known publisher of such publications, named Stockdale, and this was a ground. and a proper ground, of inquiry on which to found future legislation. It was in a case-so strong that the Court of Queen's Bench said they would not admit the authority of that House to exercise the privilege of publi. cation, but would inquire in every case into any matter ordered to be published by that House as they would in the case of a common individual. If the exercise of the pri vileges of the House of Commons were to be subjected at the will of the Queen's Bench to this interruption there would be an end at once to their independence and effi ciency.—(Cheers.) The Parliament was bound, for the instruction of the people, to lay before them the grounds of their legislation, and as regarded the privilege of publics tion, he would not abstain one jot from the right of the House to carry this privilege to its utmost possible extent. Parliament was called on in the exercise of their functions to be wholesale libellers, and it was necessary they should be so if they efficiently discharged the duty entrusted to them. They must disregird the infliction of pain on individuals if they were influenced in the publica tion of information, net by malicious motives, but by a desire of forwarding the public good. The most important Acts of Parliament had been founded on the publication of a series of libels. He would not submit the privileges of that House to the jurisdiction of the highest Court in the world—he had the highest respect for the present Judges, but was he therefore called upon to submit a question as to the privileges of that House to the political views which any Chief Justice might happen to entertain on the sub ject.—(Cheers ) Neither could he agree with the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon that no course had been adopted by the House to check un due publication. The Right Honourable Gentleman had given notice of his intention to move for a Committee to inquire into the restraints necessary to be imposed on publication ; he had somewhat altered it from his first no tice on the subject, which was to rescind resolutions relat ing to the publications by order of the House.—( Cheers.) He was not going to contend that the indiscriminate sale of all publications had not tended to produce an effect on the public mind in regard to this question, but carthe other hand, the Right Hon and Learned Gentleman must admit that as regarded the right claimed by the Court, of interposition ; it was not affected by the resolution of 1834, inasmuch as, if he had obtained half a dozen copies of the Report from the Speaker, and distri buted them among his friends, that would have amounted to a publication.— ( Cheers.) Now with regard to this in quiry, the Right lion. Gentleman had only a few days ago withdrawn from a Committee, where one of the iub jects of most anxious inquiry was as to the restrictions to which the right of publication had been heretofore sub mitted, and as to those which it would be prudent to imn. pose upon it for the future ; and if he had attended that Committee, he would have found that that Committee was most desirous of laying before the House a full report on this subject. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not object to this Bill, provided previously they would impose a restriction on the sale of their publications. Why, that was begging the whole question. He did not *lnsist that a legislative enactment should be introduced into the Bill to that effect, but that the House should come to a resolution on the subject. Why, what one House of Com mons might do another might rescind, and the next Par liament might revive the resolution of 1834, and thus re-introduce the practice of publication and sale. If the Right Hose Gentleman or any man would show him how, without unduly interfering with this publicity, they could guard against unduly wounding the feelings of indi viduals further than was necessary for the public serviot, no, man would support such a proposition more cordially than himself. No man felt more sensioly than he did the pain of inflicting this injury, but at the sates time he felt post forcibly the injury done to individuals was not to be cum pared to the general advantage secured by the maintenance of this privilege.—( Cheers.) But now he turned to the Lion. and Learned Gentleman, with whom he was reside to support this privilege to the fullest extent, and who told them not to pass this Bill, first, because it would not pro duce the advantage proposed, and next, because it would he followed by ulterior and injurious consequences. That the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong he hesitated to pass an opinion, but he conceived if that judgment was right it was one most fatal to the Parliaxnen tary privilege—aye, to the existence of that House as a re presentative and legislative body, and ho was fortified by the authority of the Solicitor-General, and high legal authorities on both sides of the House, in being tempted to believe that it was as wrong in law as it was unsound in constitutional doctrine. But, said the lion. Gentleman, " take care you don't confirm the judg ment ;" but he failed to show how the Noble Lord's Bill • confirmed it. The Bill, if he rightly recollected, said, in the preamble, that it was of the first importance this privilege of publication should be maintained, but that the existing law of Parliament was insufficient to maintain it; did it therefore confirm the doctrine that they had it not? No; but affirmed they had sufficient power to main tain it. He had followed the course of these proceedings 1 with great anxiety—be had voted with great reluctance on many points in them, and for nothing wise ereater reluctance than for committing to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms two gentlemen on whose moral conduct there was not the least imputation. Andon what ground did he so vote ? Because it was necessary in sup port of their authority to give that practical proof that it was co-equal and co-ordinate with the Courts of Law, which would have taken the same course if their authority had been disobeyed ? And this authority mould cease to be coequal if, when threats were held out for disobedience by the one, then it was strictly enforced, while the other was led by any consideration to depart from the exercise of its authority. But this conflict placed those innocent-per sons in great difficulty, and was justly a ground for the interposition of the Legislature to prevent is, future such an occurrence. But the Honourable and Learned ' Gentleman said, " Don't abandon your privileges."— ( Hear, hear.) lie did not mean to abandon one but what were they—their privileges ware great, and their power was great, but what means had they of enforcing them ? Commitment, it was said. lie said so tee) so long as the Session lasted, but when it ceased they had no effectual power of protecting those who obeyed their or ders, but so long as they sat they could commit those who committed such persons; and their they were led, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, to that point at which law ceased, end power began; and it was because he knew that point was at no remote distance, he cordially agreed with the Noble Lord—nay, had watched with anxiety for an opportunity for the House to attempt to legislate upon ; the subject. He did net propose to sacrifice one privilege, I nor to affirm the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, nor Set to express the slightest dissent to it. But in what manner coald they defend their privileges, and pre vent perpetual actions being brought during the recess of Parliament, and damages being recovered and received ? By interposing their authority when Parliament met and committieg every person who had taken part in the pro ceedings, and so come into collision with the Judges, and suffering the officer of the House to be plundered in the whole amount of damages against him. This was their present power of defending their privileges. Now, the Noble Lord's Bill maintained the privileges of the Hoare, and to remove that which bad been felt a great objection by the Courts of Law, stated that the exercise of this privilege no being secured by law, it was necessary to pass a law confirming it. —( Wear.) The introduction of the Bill would not impair their privi. fees,but would confirm the m, and would en ab l e them to suPpor ttbem , whilst it would g ive the p eo p le of En g land a security that their rights were recognised by the laws, an d would give them an argument against which the Judges could not stand a moment. Here were their pri. vilegcs recognised by law, confirmed by law, and laid down by the law, which all were bound to obey. They would thus remove the' most formidable argument and objection against the state in which their privileges now stood both before tast Judges and the country. Hs felt that he ought to apologise to the House—(Cheers)—for haviwg so long detained the House with his views on the subject.— i ( Hear, hear.) lie had, however, looked to the question with intense interest from the commencement, and he looked at it with no less intense an interest at its close. He hoped they were at the close of a question which if it continued to be kept open would involve the House in great difficulties; and in endless discussions, and which would terminate, if they were to follow the course recommended by the Hon. and . Learned Member the Solicitor-General, in an actuat:on filet with those authorities to whom it should be their de iatre that every respect should be paid. elde.saw thatedal-• 1 ger, and he did not see bow their privileges could be an 1 0- of .1 I I