The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-13 00:00:00

passed, some verbal amendments having been made on two
or three of the clauses on the motion of Lord GRAN-
VILLE.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of ABERDEEN, this bill
was read a second time, after a few remarks in opposition
to it from Lord Redesclale ; but it was finally s greed to
take the discussion on going into committee on Monday.
COMMON LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

The report on this bill was received.
BURIALS BEYOND THE METROPOLIS BILL

This bill was read a second time.
The Employment of Children in Factories Bill was read
a second time.
The Assessed Taxes Bill, the Insurance on Lives Bill,
and the Sheriffs (Scotland) Bill went through committee.
The Public Works Act (Ireland) Amendment Bill was
read a second time.
Their lordships adjourned at two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY. )
CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION)
BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATION REPEAL BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CHANCERY SUITORS
L. FURTHER RELIEF
BIL
This bill was read a third time and passed.
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. S. WORTLEY said it appeared to him that this
bill provided a very good substitute for transportation.
Under the old system there was great uncertainty as to
the extent of punishment that was really inflicted on
transported criminals. Judges often sentenced criminals
to various periods of transportation without being able to
tell what the ultimate punishment would be, and he
would suggest that under the new system all this uncer-
tainty would be removed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KEATING thought the clauses which gave
power to the Secretary of State to grant tickets of
leave required further consideration. He admitted
the importance of reforming the criminal, but refor-
mation was not the only object of punishment. There
was the other equally important object of deterring
others from the commision of crime, and he felt that
this bill was open to objection, because it gave the Secre-
tary of State power to revise every sentence which was
passed by the judges of the land. It was altogether a
new feature in our criminal jurisprudence, and Parlia-
ment ought to give the subject that consideration which
its importance demanded. He would, therefore, sug-
gest that these clauses should be left for future delibera-

tion,
Lord PALMERSTON was not surprised that hon
gentlemen should be struck with the novelty of the
arrangement proposed by the bill, but be could
assure the honourable and learned gentleman that
it had received the fullest consideration on the part
of her Majesty's Government. He believed that the
bill provided a punishment which, while it would have a
reformatory influence on the criminal himself, would, at
the same time, act as an example in deterring others from
falling into criminal courses. The principle was by no
means new, while as for the objection of the hon. and
learned gentleman that the bill would increase the power
of the Secretary of State, ho could assure him that
one of the principal duties of the Secretary of State
at the present time was that of revising the sentences
passed upon criminals. He trusted, therefore, that the
bill would be allowed to pass as it stood; and if it failed,
there would be no difficulty next session in bringing in
another bill to alter and amend this one. (Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE entirely concurred in the existing
system of punishment, and thought they ought to be ex-
ceedingly cautious how they altered. At all events, he
hoped there would be no change made in the time that
was devoted to solitary confinement, which, hitherto com-
bined by the system ofemployments, had worked most bene-
ficially in reforming the criminal. It was a case of necessity
that transportation should be abolished, and he cer-
tainly preferred the plan of this bill to resorting to a
system of penal settlements such as these, as they had
recently seen in Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's
Land. He was decidedly opposed to distant penal
settlements, but be thought they could judiciously
establish some penal settlements in the Channel Islands
on the coast, or nearer home.
Mr. SPOONER agreed with the objections which bad
been urged by the hon. and learned gentleman who had
raised this discussion. He thought no sufficient answer
had been given to them by the noble lord at the head of
the Home Department. He objected to that part of the
bill enabling criminals to return to society upon tickets
of leave, and suggested that some general settlement
should be established near home.
Mr. PHILLIMORE found fault with the system of
qualified servitude which the bill would establish, and
which he contended would be based on a principle un-
known to this constitution.
Mr. BARROW was not so surprised as some hon.
members appeared to be at the clauses under considera-
tion, In the present measure, as proposed by the Go •
vernment, the matter was in some degree remedied, the
jump being only from two years' imprisonment to four
years' penal servitude. He saw no reason why there
should be any such gap at all ; but, on the contrary,
thought the measure would be more efficient if it pro-
vided that a short term of penal servitude might be
inflicted. He therefore proposed in the 12th clause to
leave out the word "four," and insert the word " two."
By this alteration, from two to ten years of penal servi-
-1
tude might be inflicted, instead of the limits being four
and ten years.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS, adverting to the subject which
had been discussed in the earlier part of this debate,
thought that the objections against the ticket of leave
clause of the bill were zeducible to two heads ; first,
that they introduced a new system, and secondly, that
the system so introduced was a vicious one. If a man
were returned to the world determined and hardened in
his wickedness, and the law had no control over him, he
must proceed to commit fresh crimes before the hands
justice could overtake him. Under this bill, if such an
individual obtained a conditional pardon he might,
immediately on his disposition showing itself, be brought
back to punishment. As to the possible evils in regard
to a person in a state of qualified freedom entering into
engagements or contracting marriage, that was undoubt-
edly a drawback in the scheme, but it was no greater
than what attended all human efforts. The question
was, how to effect the objects of the measure with the
least possible drawback, and he believed that was done
by the bill before them.
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not view the abolition of
transportation with pleasure. So late as 1847 it had
been approved by fifteen English and by most of the
Irish judges. It was true that the discovery of gold in-
terfered with transportation to Australia, but that ought
not to affect the punishment itself. To say that it was
a bad system contradicted the evidence of one's own
senses. Had not the great colonies in Australia and
Van Diemen's Land their rise in the system ? Reason
showed that no punishment could have a better effect on
a criminal. No man could become reformed so long as
he remained near to the scene of his crimes. Some very
intelligent Americans with whom he had conversed on
this subject had expressed their regret that, from its
situation as a continent, America could not rid itself of
its criminal population as England had done. This mea-
sure would deprive England entirely of its natural ad-
vantages in this respect, and thus we were voluntarily
depriving ourselves of that which another nation would
most gladly possess.
Mr. EWART thought the reformation of criminals
was to be effected rather by dispersing than congregating
them. If this bill were carried it would entail the ne-
cessity of a surveillance being exercised similar to that
of the Paris police. He should hope that when these
criminals had been reformed as far as they could be in
this country, the colonies would no longer have that ex-
treme repugnance to receive them that they had now.
Mr. HUM E observed that we had arrived at that state
that the colonies would no longer receive the convicts,
and Government must do the best they could with them.
He thought the house ought not to throw difficulties in
their way.
Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed his regret that the
suggestions he made the other night with reference to
extending the period of transportation had not been.
adopted. He thought the maximum of eight years'
penal servitude as a substitute for fifteen years' transpor-
tation was too short. He thought also that it should
rest with the court that passed the sentence, rather than
with the Government, whether a prisoner was to be
transported. Either the courts must abstain from sen-
tencing to transportation, or they should know whether
the prisoner was to be transported. It was desirable
that both the court and the prisoner should know what
a sentence really meant.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. WALPOLE moved the second reading of the
Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, not with the inten-
tion of pressing it during the present session, but with
a view to elicit the opinions of the house upon its pro-
visions. His object was to simplify the law, and to pro-
vide against intimidation and undue influence on the
”ter. He proposed to repeal the existing statues, and
In re-enacting them to lay down specifically the mean-
iewnngdo
ualtncoi d. b feu
il
nl
cextent of then
as offences intended to be put an
the case ofU treating
compriseas well aas eaertitnhgeatshhweeaed of bribery, the person bribing
the
or
woulddirect offers p a
rty
treating
t personiug
we
üblrdi bribed, and
included
ei
dn
and treatingrecipient of the treat. Bribery would
given for a corrupt purpose. Intimidation ar g
u ora
would
in
cvloutdee,
all attempts to undulyhainvfleuernefnceeeereaneletco eattotrr.Aodr
ecdlrairank.
tion would also be
act of from a candidate that he was
exercise of any undue bery or treating, or of the
not aware of any
n efor e influence.wtloiuelc institution blVith respect to elec-
tion for reaching
thet iongcuoinl
guilty
parties.itte es facilities
of any inquiry
oteld
be
fe required
ythe act'•
the parties objectinhe• to the return
gaunildtythoef
power to pvesti-
any
g iovfe
thein a
offenceslist
enumerated persons
13
committee would be invested with the
gate before the question of agency was
seat would be voided, even though the offence mightTnhot
The
be brought home to the sitting member, but without in-
validating his right to stand again. When the offence
was brought home to him, however, he should, as at
the
then be incapacitated from sitting again during
then Parliament. He thought the existing penalties so
the penalty to 50/. and
high as to militate against their enforcement, and he
therefore proposed to reduce
it would be open
should
He further proposed, that
to any one els 3 to do so. . t
the voter, he
the h(nsa decline to prosecute, ' ' '
seven years ; and when
should be disfranchised for .
where a conviction was obtained against
ld b v
for a similar period. Parties thus convicted won u e
against a eamdidate, disqualification to sit in Parliament
to the public.
orders of the Speaker, but 'to be open
their names enrolled in a book, to be kept under the
should be liable to imprisonment for any period not Any agents, not being electors, guilty of these offences,
ex-
ceeding six months.