The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-11 00:00:00

tell us of the amazing force which it will bring to
the poll as a subject of alarm, they in their breath-
less haste to excite our tenors forget two very es-
sential points; in the first place, that though the
metropolis elected its membeis universal suffrage,
the number of representatives which it sends to the
House of Commons—be they as democratic as they
may—bears but a small proportion to the whole House;
and in the second place, that though a house-
holder paying a rent of 10/. has a vote, the great
majority of the electors will enjoy the privilege Oil
much higher qualification. Such persons will, no
doubt, be startled to learn, that out of the 13,599
householders who will have a vote for the city of
London) only 1,88 are limited to payments be-
tween 101. and 201., and more than 7,422 pay a
rent of more than 401. The same proportion is ob-
servable in Westminster, and in the other di risions
of the county of Nliddlescx. Take, therefore, the
qualification of 40/. for the metropolis, and you will
-till create a great, but certainly not a democratic
constituency—a class of constituents which ought to
have a voice in any representative system,—a con-
stituency, whi.7.11 will not only manage by its influ-
ence, but overpower by its numbers, the poorer
portion of the electors, for whom certain persons
seem to entertain what the late Lord Castlereagh
would have called such a hydrophobia. We have
neither time nor space at present to pursue further
this subject, or to advert to the changes introduced
by the Bill into the electoral system of Ireland and
Scotland. We may again recur to it.—Times.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Stx, —As the Reform Bill, in place of influence, will
confer on the aristocracy the right of dictation. lam
not surprised at the list of great names appearing in the
majority.
I am agent on an estate on which there are 76 tenants
who will be entitled to vote (although the rental is tinder
14,0001.), not one of whom dare disobey the commands
of their landlord, for there is not one among them but
who has experienced more or less indulgence in the pay-
ment of his rent; and although they cannot be dispos-
sessed during their leases for daring to think for themselves,
the power of a distress warrant may be resorted to to get
clear of them. If the Duke of Newcastle or Lord Exeter
dispossessed a shoemaker, he may cross to the opposite side
of the street ; and if a good workman, his trade will
follow. Not so with the agukulturist, who cannot transfer
his capital and industry to a different soil.
As it is in vain to expect that the great landowners in
Parliament will attack a measure which will give some of
them some hundreds of votes in lieu of the one they now
possess, I trust you will use the influence of your journal
to prevent so valuable a portion of the community as the
farmers being placed in such a state of political slavery.
July 5. A REFORMER.
We are authorised to contradict a paragraph in
the John Bull of yesterday, which pretends to give
as the sub:stance of a report prevalent in Bristol, a
story respec!ing a communication said to have been
made by some of the Somersetshire Yeomanry
Cavalry to Lord Melbourne. The Nhole is a mere
fabrication without the least foundation of truth, as
no communication of the sort was ever made to h s
Lordship, and therefore he could not, and did not,
make any such observation as is attributed to 11n1
in the paragraph in question. This paper professes
to be scrupulous in its publication of facts : if so,
it is the most injured or the most credulous of
journals, for every week some gross absurdity is
imposed upon it, to which it gives utterance with
all the simplicity of ignorant childhood. This Sun-
day paper and a certain evening paper are the repo-
sitories for all the trumpery gossip and idle inven-
tions of all the twaddlers and hoaxers about town.
It is pleasant to see the cause of the Anti-Reformers
in such hands. One is ashamed of contending with
such vai lets.— 7'imes.
It will be recollected that Mr. Evart, the Member
for Liverpool, gave notice that he would, we believe
ott Tuesday, move for leave to bring in Bills to re-
peal the purishment of death for the offences of
horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, and stealing in the
dwelling-house, no person being put in fear. We
are glad to see an independent Member of Parlia-
ment coming forward as a practical advocate of Re-
form in our Criminal Laws ; and thus taking the
earliest opportunity, that his situation as a Legi-
slator afforded him, to endeavour to erase from the
Statute-book some, at least, of those sanguinary
laws which are a disgrace to a Christian land, and a
reproach to a civilized people—laws which, founded
on the principle not of jutice, but of vengeance, ex-
press riot the moral wisdom, but the vindictive in-
temperance of the Legislature—making crimes of
various degrees of malignity and moral guilt expiable
only by human blood. Had the life of Sir Samuel
Romilly been spared to his country, it is pro-
bable that this code of vengeance would have be-
fore now been purified of much of its barbarism.
For his were Statesman-like views of Reform

in Criminal Law—founded in principle, guided by
a comprehensive intelligence, and pursued with a
spirit of integrity and perseverance totally discon-
nected from any consideration of politics or party.
His masculine intellect and vigorous benevolence dis-
dained the petty views and mutilated improvements
of a temporising expediency. His ambition was
not to smooth down the rugged exterior of bar-
barism by some superficial amendment•, but to ex-
tirpate it by essential Reform. When he brought
in a Bill to repeal the law which punished theft to
the amount of forty shillings in the dwelling-house
with death, he did not propose to raise the value of
human life by three pounds sterling! and then fancy
himself a Solon, because, while Draco would hang for
forty shillings, he would not haag for any sum short
of five pounds! No; he knew that such legisla•'
tion was not improvement, but deception ; that it
left the barbarous principle untouched, and only en-
deavoured to make it in a small degree more tole-
rable, with a view to its perpetuity. He, therefore,
proposed that for this offence the pun;shment of
death should be abolished, without any refe-
rence to the amount of the sum stolen ; he, once,
carried this Bill through the House of Commons,
but was defeated in the House of Lords, notwith-

standing the able exertions in support of his mea-
sures of Lords Grenville, Grey, and Holland, of
whom the two latter have lived to become leading
Members of an Administration, who advised the
Crown to execute a miserable culprit the other day
whose offence was against this statue, for stealing
privately in the dwelling-house—a statute which, as
far us depended on the House of commons, had been
repealed in the year 1811, and which, under. sWhig
Ministry—a Ministry composed of the once zealous

supporters of Sir Samuel Romilly's principles, was,
in defiance of public opinion, carried into sanguinary
force in the year 1831. The Bill of Sir Samuel

Romilly proposed that the stealing to a certain
amount in a dwelling-house should be punishable as
simple larceny only ; and that the stealing any mo-
ney, goods, chattels, wares, or merchandize, beyond
hat amount, should be punished more severely than
simple larceny, viz., that the offender, and his aiders
and abettors, should " be liable to be transported be-
yond the seas for life, or for such term, not less than
seven years, as the Judge before whom such persons
shall be convicted shall adjudge, or, in case the said
Judge shall think fit, to be imprisoned only, or to
be imprisoned and kept to hard libour, in the

common gaol, house of Correction, or Penitentiary
for any term not exceeding seven years." We re-
gret to say that Sir James Mackintosh, who took up
the subject of the Criminal Laws after the death of
Sir Samuel Romilly, has slept over them for years;
or, rather, by the most injudious praises bestowed
upon Sir Robert Peel's pedantic and superficial
efforts, has been in some degree a party to that mock
Reform of the Criminal Law which we have, not
vainly, endeavoured to make the public understand
and to appreciate as it deserves. It is true Sir
James Mackintosh was the proposer of the amend•
merits to Sir Robert Peel's sanguinary Forgery Bill,
but it was the present Lord Chancellor who was
the energetic and powerful leader of the opposi-
tion to that crowning specimen of the then
Home Secretary's temporizing legislation. The
last act of Mr. Brougham, as a Member of the
House of Commons, was to present a petition
from the Foreman of several Grand Juries of the
City of London, playing for a thorough and efficient

rettorm of the Criminal Law ; since when Sir James
Mackintosh and his friends have been perfectly mute
on the subject. We are, therefore, pleased that Mr.
Ewart has come forward, and we hope that other
Members will take up other branches of the Criminal
L►w, and co-operate in this great work, that what-
, ver may become of political parties, and political
arrangements, the more important interests of eivili-
z trion and humanity may not be neglected. We
will just mention, for the information of Mr.
Ewart, if not already acquainted with the subject,
what are the provisions of Mr. Livingston's en-
lightened code for Louisiana, relative to the offences
of stealing in the dwelling-house and house-breaking.
They are these, " If any one shall in the day
lime, with a fraudulent design, enter a house,
without breaking or violence, and shall then and
there commit a theft, he shall be imprisoned not less
than three, nor more than six year', at hard
labour. if any theft shall be committed by break-
:rig any closet, box, or other place of the like nature,
in which property stolen was contained, the punish-
ment shall not be less than four, nor more than se-
ven years at hard labour. Whoever enters a house
secretly, or by force of threats, or fraud, during the
night, or in like mariner enters a house by day, and
conceals himself therein until the night, with the
intent in either case of committing a crime, is guiliy
of the crime of house-breaking, and shall be impri-
soned at hard labour, not less than ten nor more
than fifteen years." Here is something like an
apportionment of the penalty to the offence; a
gradation rf punishment according to the gradation
of guilt, a principle of wise legislation, in which
our English law is wholly defective. Justice rea-
sons, but vengeance does not.—Morning Herald.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

1M PE RIA L PA RLIAM ENT

OF THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Half--past Three o'clock.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY the Bill for set-
tling disputed rights as to tithes, and for making a com-
position in lieu thereof, in the parish of Ashton-under-
Lyn,., was read a third time and passed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

A messenger from the House of Lords appeared at the
bar and summoned the House to attend and hear the Royal
Assent given by Commission to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, attended by several Members, left the
House. On their return, the SPEAKER. informed the
House that the Royal Assent had been given to certain
Bills, which he enumerated.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman THOMPSON (we be-
lieve) that a Tithe Commutation Bill for some parish in
Carmarthenshire be read a second time,
Sir J. MACDONALD complained that while Bills
were now before Parliament for a general regulation of
the tithes, these small Bills applicable only to individual
parishes were brought in ; he believed in many instances
these small Bills were brought in without the concurrence
of the body of parishioners, and lie had a petition from a
great many of the parishioners of the parish in question
against the passing of this Bill. He begged to move that
this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON defended the Bill as the
only means of putting an end to the disputes and
tion which prevailed in the parish respecting tithes. The
lay impropriator had no objection to wait until the opera-
tion of the General Tithe Bill, but as this Bill had been ap-
proved of by the parishioners, and having been read a
second time, and referred to a Committee last Session, it
ought to he allowed to go into a Committee in the present
Session, in accordance with the Resolutions of the House
on the first day of the Session.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
said that a petition, signed by at least 400 persons, would
be presented against this Bill. He thought it unjust that
the Bill should pass, compelling a parish to pay a lay im-
proprietor 2,0001. a year, and that it was establishing a
very bad principle.
Mr. DAWSON said the proprietors of two-thirds of
the land in the parish had assented to the Bill.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw for a division, but
none took place, as the amendment was withdrawn.
NOTTINGHAM EI.ECTION.

The Marquis of CHANDOS said he had a petition to
present, which was of considerable importance, and s hich
would involve a question respecting the interference
of same persons connected with his Majesty's Go.
vernment in elections—the petition was from the
borough of Northampton. The Noble Lord did not
know the petitioners, but he could vouch for the accuracy
of the statement, he was about to make. During the last
election his Majesty's barracks at Nottingham had been
allowed to be used in accommodating and entertaining
the partizans of the Ministerial candidate—(Hear)—some
of the electors were kept there five or six days, and in
many instances their families were with them, only being
allowed to pass in with tickets. Now, supposing there
Lad been any occasion (or the military, in what
a situation would the barracks be found ?—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord thought that he had made out a strong
case fur inqutry ; the petitioners did not state by whose
orders the barracks were so occupied, nor by whom the
refreshments were paid, but they prayed for an inquiry.
Mr. S. RICE had heard the statement with some sur-
prise, but if it were true the best and only place where it
could be discussed was the Committee to whom a petition
against the return had been referred. Not only were the
Committee proceeding with the inquiry upon the return,
but proceedings had been taken under the Grenville Act.
—(Hear.) He thought that to discuss the subject now
and in the House was to prejudge the case, for the Com-
mittee was the proper tribunal to enter into the inquiry.
Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE thought this petition
had nothing to do with the election petition; the one
was against the return, and the other, he observed,
was against the interference of the Government at the
election, and against the conduct of an officer. He thought
a very strong case had been made oat for an enquiry, for
the barracks were actually given up during the whole of
the election to the partizans of a Ministerial candidate, and
even the soldiers' beds were taken down to accommodate
them. This was done no doubt with the view of having
it confirmed that the King was in their favour.—(Hear,
hear)—that they were to go to his Majesty's barracks and
have a dinner, and then go and vote for the Ministerial
candidate. lie understood that the electors were locked
in the barracks, and not allowed to go out until they
promised to vote for tke right person.--(Hear.)
Mr. TENNYSON said, that considering the surcharge
upon Government, he would only state that a complaint
lowing been made to the Board of Ordnance that the barracks
at Northampton had been occupied as alluded to, a letter
was sent there to ascertain the fact. And it appearing on
the answer that the barrack-master had taken the liberty
to throw open the barracks, the Board of Ordnance im-
mediately addressed to him another letter, severely repri-
manding and commanding him in future to abstain from
such misapplication of his Majesty's barracks,
Sir H. HARDI NGE said the Bar rack-roaster had not been
the only person to blame, and he did think, on the admis-
sion of the Hon. Member the Clerk of the Ordnance, a case
had been wade out for inquiry at the bar of the House.—
A worse c tee of interference lie never recollected.
Mr. SMITH said lie was very well aware that the
object of the petition was in order to disturb his election,
and he was not surprised at the malice of the petitioners,
who, if they could not fight the battle fairly, had deter-
mined to try their strength in this underhand way. He
would state the circumstancrs as briefly as possible. Ile
was told the barracks had been used at previous elections
for the candidates in the interest of Government. The voters
were kept there aloof from the opposite party, brought
thence to the poll, and taken back again. On the second
day of election Captain Reid stated to him that he bad
received a complaint from the Board of Ordnance,
relative to that, and he (Mr. Smith) immediately desired
him to put an end to the proceeding, and he believed the
barracks had been cleared that evening. He would ask
the Honourable Member if the barracks had not teen
so employed by those who were in the interest of Major
Winter in 1518, and in 1826 whether there was not
(lancing, music, &c., by the supporters of Sir R. Gunning.
The Hon. Member for St. Germains might have ap-
prized him of thus much, as be was seen there, more
,ban once himself, tripping ." on the light
fantastic toe" within the barracks. It had been stated
that Government influence had been touch used in the
tow/J. He could assert with confidence, that never had
there been a general election carried on with less Govern.
ment influence.

Mr. ROSS.denied altogether the truth of the observa-
tions made by the Hon. Gentleman yr ho had jest sat down.
There way a public-house within the walls—(Hear, hear,
and laugh) into which conic voters had found their way,

'n 1826, I u in the banack, zi(A a sinkle indiv:dua! ti as
..ntertained.
Mr. HUNT shnuld move, and hoped the Noble Marquis
who had ht ought forward this petition would second him,
hat the Barrack-master he called and examined at the bar
of the House. At this much dissatisfaction was evinced,
and the Hon. Gentleman sat down amid great disturbance.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said it would be in the re-
collection of the House that in the course of last Parlia-
ment be brought forward to the utmost of his ability a
.'etail of the state of the law and pratitice of the Court of
Chancery, for the purpose of calling the attention of the
Government to its condition. He did not wish to hurry
Government into a proceeding for the improvement of this
law, but he bad hoped before this time that the subject
would have been brought forward by them. Having
heard nothing of it, however, except what:had pissed in
the other House by a Noble Lord, who in his st.te-
went had never said a word about what had tak
place in the Commons House of Parliament, but taller' up
the subject as if it had been entirely new, lie wished to
know what his Majesty's Government ha i done respecting
this great and important work.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, in the absence of
the Noble Baronet (Lord Altborp) had beli,oved that a
Bill was about to be iminedtately brought into tl e House
upon the snbject, and he had full confidence that it would
be found to give general satisfaction.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN asked what had been done
respecting the salaries of the Masters in Chancery, who
had just retired ; and also, whether the Masters who-had
conic into office in the place of those who had so retired
had agrced to consent to a division of their labour with.
out corn pensation.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that the inwome
of the Alaster who had just retired would be subject to the
old regulations—those who had just entered office had con-
sentee to conform to any regulations that should be here-
after thought proper to be made.—(Cheers.)
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Lord MORPETH presented eight petitions from va-
rious parts of Yorkshire, praying for a complete abolition
of slavery.

Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Bradford, in the county of York, praying that
Parliament would interfere to regulate the time in
which children ought to he kept at work in
Worsted Mills. the petitioners, from seeing the evil
effects of the present system, both bodily and men-
tally, were the best calculated to give evidence of
the facts to which they spoke, and they stated that
the inconvenience which had been said in some quarter
would arise from a Parliamentary interference in the man-
ner by This petition prayed fur, would be an inconvenience
altogether imaginary. The state of the poor children em-
ployed in those mills—the benefit of their employers--
the state of society—all cried aloud for such a Par-
liamentary interference; and the Noble Lord hail no
doubt that the Hon. Member for Westminster would have
such a clause in the Bill he was about to bring forward.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Bradford, praying for universal suffrage, vote
by balot, and annual Parliaments. He felt it his duty to
present the petition, but at the same time he considered it

an impolitic p.lJyer, and could, he said, not support it.
Mr. HUNT said it was what he had always contended
for, and a clause which he should move to be inserted in
the Reform Bill when it came into a Committee.

On the Order of the Day being read for going into a
Committee on the Waterloo Bridge-street Bill,
Mr. D. W. HARVEY rose, and entered into a state-
ment of the expence of such a measure, and its compara-
tive inutility.

(LEFT urrme.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission to
the Buckinglirm House Palace Exemption Bill, the De-
puty Lieutenant of Scotland Bill, and the Expired Com-
missions (Ireland) Bill The Commissioners were the
Lord Chancellor, the ALrquis of Londonderry, and the
Earl of Shaftesbury,
Mr. BURRELL, Lord STANIAY, and others brought up
the Dean Forest Boundary Bill, and eleven private Bills.
The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a petition
from the Protestant freemen and inhabitants of the town
of Galway, praying for an extension of rights to Catholics.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Galway to the same effect.

A NOBLZ 1.011.13 whose name we could not ascertain, pre-
sented a p:Aition from the Committee for the Distress in
Ireland in favour of the introduction of Poor Laws into

Ireland.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from
Chester against the Beer Bill.

The 51arquis of LONDONDERRY presected a pet
tion from Newcas•le against Reform.
TITHE COMPOSITION BILL.

Tire Archbishop of CANTERBURY begged ti post-
pone the second reading of this Bill, which was appointed
for to-day, to Thursday next, in consequence of the
request of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack.

Lord KENYON suggested the propriety of postponing
it only till to-morrow ; it was a Bill of great importance,
and had been postpone.' several times already..

The LORD CHANCELLOR atlinmitted that the
Bill had been postponed both in the present and the
late Sessions. It was not on account of his not be.
ing master of the contents of this 13t11 that he wished
the second reading to be postponed, hut in consequence of
another Bill on the same su:tject, but very different in its re-
medy, standing for discussion on the same night. The Noble
Lord who introduced that Bill wished the two to come under
discussion together. He (the Lord Chancellor) had never
seen that Bill, and he should therefore come to the discus-
sion of the subject without being properly apprized of the
nature and provisions of the measures. Individually he
had no objection to the second reading standing for
to-morrow, but it was extremely desirable that
a Noble and Learned Lord who had once filled
the high station he (the Lord Chancellor) now held,
should then be present. That Noble Lord had met with a se-
•ere domestic calamity which rendered his attendance im-
possible till after Wednesday. But on Thursday next he
would be able to attend, and he trusted under such cir-
cumstances the Noble Lord would allow the subject to
stand over to that day.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND had seen the Noble
Earl alluded to, who had stated that he should attend on

/1114 day.
Lord KENYON, after such an explination, could have
no objection to the postponement that had been recom-
mended.
THE AFFAIR AT NEWTONBARRY.

Lord FARNHAM gave notice of his intention to move
to-morrow for certain information that had been received
by Government relative to the affray at Newtonbarry.
air' GREY observed that it would be a matter of con-
venience to him if the Noble Lord would mime some
other day,
Lord FARNHAM said he did not wish to raise
discussions in that House ; but the mis-statements had
been so gross and scandalous on that subject, and
so utterly devoid of every thing like truth, that be
thought he should not perform his duty if he did not
call for the information which Government had received in
order to remove from the public mind the statements that
had gone forth. He must do this on or before Wednesday,
and if that day was convenient to the Noble Earl, he
should give notice to that effect.
Lord GREY said, that if the Noble Lord could not
postpone his motion to a longer period, he would endea-
vour to meet it on that day.

THE DEPUTY IRISH LIEUTENANT BILL.
Lord MILTON wished to postpone the bringing up of
the Report of the Committee on this Bill to Wednesdgy
next.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought it incum-
bent on him to take this opportunity of giving
some answer to the confounded persondl attacks that had
been made upon him by three Noble Lords on the com-
mittal of this Bill.

Lord :MELBOURNE rose to order—it was not usual
for Noble Louts to allude to what had passed in former
debates.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY considered the
attack referred to was one of the most uneourteous he had
ever witnessed, and he gave notice that on the third read-
ing of this Bill he should enter at large into this subject.
Lord GREY thought the course intended to be pursued
by the Noble Marquis was very irregular. He thought
that the Noble Marquis, on re-consideration, would abon-
his intention.

The Marquis of LONDONDERY would apk the Noble
Earl what course he would pursue other than that he had
chalked out for himself, if he had been attacked in so un-
founded a manner by three Noble Lords.
Lord PLUNKETT did not see why the Noble Lord
!night not now be permitted to state his gievance, and set
hiinselr right with the House, he (Lord Plunkett) if
wrong would be happy to be set right.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would show most
dearly that the attack made upon him by the Noble and
Learned Lord, had arisen entirely from his (Lord Plun-
kett's) misconception.
‘‘ln.go,
erdudnpi: :eLyr.Be_pO:AUr
tdßjo(N:ultri,..ni
eethen o gmamv t
tne
eo t roc-
non w,
he