The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-05 00:00:00

The Report on the Exchequer Bills and Public Works
Bill was brought up and agreed to.
The Bank of Ireland Bill was read a second tim: Lnd
ordered to be committed to-morrow.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, a Select Committee was proposed to be ap-
pointed to inquire into the losses sustained by the Speaker
and other officers by the burning of both Houses of Par-
liament and to report thereon, but the debate on the
question was adjourned till to-morrow.
Adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 4.

Lord SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR, took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock.
Mr. V. SMITH, and other Members of the House of
Commons, brought up a message requesting that the Bishop
of Exeter should be allowed to be examined before the
Education ( Ireland) Committee.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then took his seat on the
Woolsack.

Mr. Bernal, and other Members of the House of Commons,
then brought up the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Bill ;
the Malt Duties Bill ; the Borough Boundaries Bill ; the Re-
form of Parliament (Ireland) Bill ; the Dundee Improve-
ment Bill ; and several private Bills. Also a message re-
questing a conference on the subject of the amendments to
the Municipal Act Amendment Bill.

On the !notion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, the request
was agreed to, and the conference appointed to be held in
Committee Room, No. 5.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented petitions from
Preston against the Bolton and Preston Railway Bill ; also
a petition from the North Union Railway Company, praying
to be heard by Counsel against the Bill.
FINAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
On the motion of Lord RADNOR this Bill was read
!a first time ; to be read a second time on Thursday.
i The Lands and Buildings Conveyance Bill then went
through Committee. The Royal Marine Force Bill also
went through Committee, and the Bills on the table were
advanced a stage.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition signed
;by two hundred and seventy-five coach proprietors in various
[parts of. the kingdom against Sunday travelling. Also,
a petition from Derby, in favour of a better observance of
the Lord's Day. He took that opportunity of expressing
his satisfaction at the resistance made by the Postmaster-
General to a proposition for a delivery of letters on Sun-
day. The Right Rev. Prelate then presented petitions
from the Bakers and Butchers of Derby in favour of the
jbetter observance of the Lord's Day.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY begged to ask the
Noble Viscount opposite if the Commissioners appointed
to consider the plans for building the New Houses of Per-
i
;liament were still to continue in office, now that a grant
:was made in the other House for the building of the New
Houses, with a view to carry those plans into effect.
Viscount DUNCANNON. said that the services of
lthe Commissioners had been valuable, and some acknow-
ledgment for their labours was due to them.
BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR BILL.

L On the Report of the Committee being brought up,
r•-• The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that the e‘i-
A
e,.dence taken before the Committee had shown that the
10harbour would never be a good one. He was justified in
eAthis opinion by the first authority in the country. He
would take the sense of the House on the measure on the
'." third reading of it.
' Lord MANVERS had attended diligently the Com-
mittee, and he had no fears for the result. If Nohle Lords
,;• read the evidence, he was sure their opinions would I e
.1, favourable to the Bill.
fi The Earl of HAREWOOD suprorted the MIL
4 The Report was then received.
i... Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions in fa:mr
:,',of the Lord's-day Bill.
'll The Earl of WICKLOW presnted a petion fnm
•
`Donegal against the contemplated measure rrspe:tirg
i. 4 Medical Charities in Ireland.
4On the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, the Marquis
of Salisbury, the Marquis of Exeter, the Earl of Selkirk,
4.. Lord Stanhope, Viscount Ilawarden, the Bishop of
1-. Hereford, and Lord Colchester were appointed Managers
.7.0 f the Conference respecting the Municipal Act Amend-
4;ment Bill on the part of the Lords.
tlOn the return of the Managers.
114 The Marquis of SALISBURY said their Lordships bad
r..-7met the Managers of the Commons, in the Conference which
t7was conducted on the part of the Commons by Lord JAn
..13,7 Russell, v‘ho stated the reasons of the Cemmens for
r'.diaagreeing with one of the amendments of their L )rd-
'ships, and that they agreed to the remainder.
••• i The Bishop of EXETER said that in reference to the
,::
-';,:request, of the Commons that he should give evidence be-
ta fore the Committee of the Commons on Irish E location,
:ee, he was a Member of a Committee of their Llrilship's
e,---- i .--...1 I n.,• t,.. 1;,,,,,5,,;1 to nt.trni to wive etifrn,•o
c= elsewhere.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE made a few observe-
ie, vations, which were inaudible.
I Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that it was the
:i•]•privilege of the House not to attend Comm:ttecs of
1.-, the other House, and the best course to le pursued was to
remain silent in reference to the request Of the Comm ens.
(!:2,
A. The Earl of WICKLOW had the bonen:. to he a
t im-mber of the Committee to which the Right Nev. Pre-
., • late referred, and his services had been eo valuable that he
les.hould he sorry they should lose them by his attendance
f.-elsewhere.

After a few words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
and the Bishop of EXETER the conversation dropped.
COMMU FATION OF TITHES.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second
F..reading of the Commutation of Tithes (England and
Wales) Bill. The object of the Bill, which was to put an
:end to litigation, and to procure more accurate maps and
surveys, for the purpose of carrying the commutation of
;tithes into effect, were most desirable, and he hoped no op-
position would he given to it.
Lord MALMESBURY objected to the discretionary
!"..4
power vested in the hands of the Commissioners as regarded
lay impropriators, in whose hands two-fifths of the tithes cf
the country were. The lay impropriators would be then
r under the operation of two Acts, one of which compel', d
V them to sell, and the other to compound, and that was a
n, state of things for which some remedy ought to be provided.
MAfter a few words from Lord PORTMAN and the Bishop
rot- LONDON,
A The Bishop of EXETER thought it was too much to
deprive the tithe owner of the protection of an accurate
survey. He was, however, unwilling to oppose the in
this stage.

The Marquis of L NSDOW NE rcp!ied.
The Bill was then read a second time.—Committed tc-
imorrow (this day)._

FORGERY BILL.
Lord DENM AN, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, would state that this Bill could not be considered as a
hasty measure, for the subject had been maturely considere I
by Commissioners appointed by his late Majest) • and these
Commissioners had come to the conclusion that, before any
complete digest of the criminal law should be attempted it
would be better to introduce a practice in assimilation of
~..
the law to that which was, in point of fact, carried into
effect in the administration of the law. By these Bills six
or seven crimes now punishable with death would be visited
4 with a mitigated punishment ; and would it not be better at
,
,• once by a Statute to relieve the Judges from the exercise of
a discretion in such matters ? The measure, moreover, was
not hasty, because it bad been submitted to many high legal
authorities, and all the Judges of the land were of opinion
that the alteration should be made. The Bills related to
• the crimes of forgery, burglary, offences against the person,
arson, piracy, robbery, and to certain provisions of an
Act which was introduced by a Noble Friend, which
•:' proposed to make transportation irremissible, and to abolish
• the punishment of death altogether. The first Bill re-
lated to the crime of forgery. When he (Lord Denman)
held the office of his late Majesty's Attorney-General
he introduced a Bill to mitigate the punishment in this
case, and the result was that parties injured now more
. frequently engaged in prosecutions, because they knew that
the punishment of death would not ensue. There was one
•xception, however, in that Bill, and that was with respect
to forging a will. That was certainly a most heinous of-
fence ; and at the time the Bill passed, there were no less
than five or six cases of that kind standing for trial. These
cases were of persons who had forged seamen's wills—a
sort of low conspiracy of individuals, assembled in a public
house, and it certainly never occurred to the mind of any
person that the punishment of death ought to be visited en
those offenders. In the course of the last year a case oc-
curred in which an individual withdrew a sum of 7,0001.,
the whole property of a married couple and family, and this
was done by a party who was not only a trustee, but a bro-
ther, without the slightest prospect of ever replacing it.
Th© Jury recommended the prisoner to mercy, but even in
,hat case no person ever thought that the punishment of
leath ought to he inflicted. This being the case, was it
not a fact that the punishment of death for forgery was
virtually repealed ? Would it not be infinitely better
that the Statute-book should be relieved from the odium
-)f an enactment which was never likely to be carried into
affect, and that parties should at once know that they might
ome forward with a free bosom to prosecute where the
punishment was adequate and moderate? The consequence
of that Bill was, that the number of forgeries was less nume-
rous, and this was an opinion participated in both by the
Bank and Bankers generally. He would now proceed to
the other Bills. It was first' proposed that fifteen years
.hould be the term of transportation in certain cases of
robbery. In cases of robbery, attended with violence, the
nunishment was to be transportation for life ; and in cases .
if robbery attended with violence of the most aggravated
nature the punishment was to be death. With respect to