The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-25 00:00:00

- - -4,,„:-, '';- .:'--. 4-'7
t
4 ---. :,.-/
:. -
- ‘,. ....4,-; A, .
...-
I ='! ILN- ,
i',.t,
~72 A

FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 25, 1825.

of al., or a month or two of imprisonment. The principal diffe-
rence from the old Act would be the introduction of a clause to
allow Magistrates or the Quarter Sessions to award. reasonable
expences to persons prosecuting under it, so that they should
not be losers. The lion. Member then moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to amend the former Act
Mr. HEATHCOTE opposed the motion.

Mr. F. PALMER objected to any legislative measure upon
such a subject, and expressed his regret that the former Act
had passed. He stated that he was present in one instance
where the Honourable Member called a coachman to order
—(a laugh)—for flogging a barge—not over the head and
eyes—but only for such a uae of the whip as was necessary'
to keep him to his work. He should support his Honoura-
ble. Friend in opposing the further progress of -any such
measures.

Mr. LOCKHART thought great thanks were due to the
lion. Member for Galway, and in consequence of his endeavours
Parliament had consecrated the great principle that the in-
ferior animals were entitled to tin protection of the law. He
thought, however, with the lion. Member for Knareshorough,
that more was to be expected from the moral influence of this
decision upon the minds of the people, than from any punish-
ment which could be inflicted. lib therefore advised the Hon.
Member not to press further legiation. It would only injure
the existing law, which. appeartcl - to him to be soak-let:ay
effective. •

•
WARRE supported the motion.
Mr. CORDON (as was understood) objected to it.
Mr. C. WILSON said that as far as his observations went,
he thought it would be advisable to make the offence a
misdemeanour, and upon this ground he should vote for the
motion.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that under the present
law, many convictions had taken place, and it had completely
altered the character of the Smithfield drovers. He was not,
however, prepared to go the length of. raising offences against
it to misdemeanours, although he should vote for the intro-
duction of the Biil.
Mr. MAXWELL made a few observations in favour of the
motion.

Mr. R. MARTIN replied. He stated that one object of the
Bill was to extend its operation to, the dog, which had been
left out in the hurry of drawing up the former Bill. It further
proposed to make the offence a misdemeanour ; 'and in doing
this, he claimed the support of the Learned Attorney and So-
licitor-General. For the Bill which he desired to introduce was
in that respect precisely similar to one brought down to that
House from the house of Lords, which was introduced by
Lord Erskine and received the sanction of the Lord Chan-
cellor and the late Lord Ellenborough. With regard to what
had fallen from the Honourable Member for Readin`g, (Mr. F.
Palmer) he believed that Honourable Member pretended to be
an equestrian ; but he knew little of the proper treatment of
a horse if he would flog him for starting. He advised the Ho-
nourable Member to make himself better informed upon the
subject before he spoke about it in that House. He could
assure him, too, that to be the only solitary instance of a Mem-
ber getting up and expressing his regret that the present Act
had passed into a law, would be no recommendation to him at
his next election.
The House then divided—
For the Motion
Against it
Majority -
SHAIIIENS' WAGES.
Mr. HUSKISSON ruse to move for leave to bring-in the
Bill for making the new regulations relating to the payment of
Seamen's Wages. The first observations of the Hon. Member
upon the point of paying the men a certain allowance in foreign
Ports, were not audible, in consequence of the rush of strangers
into the gallery. He stated another object of the Bill to be that
of legalising the payment of seamen -in ports where there was
no resident Commissioner. According to the law as it now
stood, if a squadron stationed at Falmouth were 'ordered for
instant service in the North Sea, and a certain arrear of wages
remained unpaid, it would be necessary to send them round to
the Nore, where a Commissioner resided, before they could pro-
ceed upon the service. It was therefore intended to provide
that Commissioner should be sent to the fleet, instead of bring-
ing the fleet to the Commissioner, and also to empower other
Officers to superintend the payment when the principal officer
was unable to attend. He then moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to make further provision for the payment of the crews of
his Majesty's ships.
Mr. HUME made some remarks which were inaudible, relat-
ing to the full payment of seamen upon foreign stations.
Captain GORDON thought the suggestion of the Lion.
Member worthy of consideration.
Mr. J. MABERLY said a few words which were in-
audible.

_
23
33
--10

Sir G. COCKBURN said, that to adopt the method of pav-
ing seamen abroad, a's in the army, was objectionable. Under
the present arrangements, sailors appropriated a part of their
wages to the support of their families at home. He did not
mean to say any thing against the character of our sailors, but
it was well known they did not think much fir themselves, and
therefore required somebody to think a little for them. He
wished them to have pocket-money when they entered foreign
ports, and that would be provided by the bill. But he thought
no one could desire to see the effects of sending a crew on shore
in a foreign country with 6 months pay in their pockets. By
the present regulations, every comfort of the seaman was pro-
vided for, and the men were as happy as any class in existence.
In proof of this, the Gallant Member stated, that the practice
now was, not to punish men when they behaved ill, but to dis-
miss them from the service.--(Hear!)
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
ALTERATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW.--
THREATENING LETTERS—FREE PARDONS.

Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that he was about to apply for
leave to bring in two Bills, and as they both went to effect im-
portant changes in the Criminal Law of the Country, he would
save the time of the House by stating the objects of both while
he was on his lets. The first Bill was to provide a punish-
ment for the writing of threatening letters, charging persons
with an attempt to commit certain crimes. At present the law
only provided for cases where a charge of committing the crime
was threatened, and that was punishable with transportation.
He thought it was impossible not to see that the moral guilt in
the two cases was equal, and that it ought to be equally
punished. It had, however, happened in the course of the last
summer, that a person had been acquitted because he had only
threatened to charge the attempt. To remedy this defect in the
law was the object of the Ist Bill. The 2d Bill comprised
three objects—the first of which was to facilitate the granting
of pardons to persons suffering under the sentence of the law.
At present a person could not be restored to the possession of
his rights unless his pardon passed under the Great Seal, the
expense of which shut many persons out from the full benefit
of the pardon they had received. One consequence of Oafs was,
that if such a person was summoned before a Court ofJustice,
he was not competent to give evidence. It was not intended
to interfere with the privileges of the Crown. The object was
to provide that by virtue of a pardon from the Crown,
bearing the sign manual, and countersigned by the Se-
cretary of State, an individual should be restored to his credits
and capacities, in the same manner as though his pardon had
passed the Great Seal. In the present state of the law, sup-
posing an individual sentenced to imprisonment for six months
f9r a slight offence which did not materially affect his character,
and who had been pardoned, not under the Great Seal, to be
the only witness in the case of some great offender, he would
not be capable of giving evidence until all those forms had
been gone through, which would probably allow the offender
to escape and defeat the ends of Justice. The next object of
the Bill was to extend the same alteration of the law to ,
par-
doned convicts in New South Wales, who from being situ-
ated some thousands of miles from the spot, were unable to go
through the forms at present required by law. The Bill would
also provide in the cases of persons who had suffered a commu-
tation of punishment, and had fulfilled the conditions imposed
by such commutation, they should he restored to all the pri-
vileges of free citizens. Its next object would be to remove
that part of the law by which a singular omission was made
in favour of the Clergy, by which they were exempted from
punishment for crimes, which were punishable if committed
by any other class. Ile should first state that by the old
law, prisoners were set free after being branded on the ball
of the left thumb. But that part not being sufficiently
conspicuous, the branding was ordered to be made on the
As society ad-
imprisonment or whipping in its
was
.abolished, and the Court was
ad-
vanced, left cheethk,isapsunneiasrhmtoentthe nose as possible,
change,tia it happened that this stead.al of carry'
In *with .
it the same
substitu-
tion did not receive the powerun)b namely, that of restoring the
lowed
WButi
substituten til e
effect of branding on the th
thereforey,
Ile proposed to supply
civil rights of the prisoner:that power. The third ob
ject was to remove that anomalous
a had before
state of our laws to which alluded, namely, the