The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 1.
RAILWAYS.
Lord BROUGHAM (in continuation from our Thirl
Edition of last night), said—He knew another instance,
where a large capitalist in the City managed,
by well-
known contrivances, to lower the market price of the
shares of a certain railway company, and then, having
purchased a large quantity of shares on his own account,
by the attraction of a 10 per cent. guaranteed dividend,
raised the price of the 'shares 20 per cent. What fol-
lowed? Mr. Holdfast got rid of all his shares, two
thousand he believed, and thus cleared 40,000/. He
would refer to a friend of his, Mr. Hutton, of Bristol,
who succeeded as legatee or executor to a person who
died worth 50 shares. His friend properly considered
that those shares should be inquired into, and thereupon
requested of the rail Way directors to allow him to see
' their books. They for some time hesitated, stating
that they had a clear balance of thirty-two thousand
pounds in the hands of their banker. He (Mr. Hutton)
however persevered, and went to Plymouth to examine
into the condition of the property of the deceased; stud
what was the answer of those directors to him?
In allowing him to see the books after considerable
trouble, said that they would not permit him to make
any extracts from them. However the result of his in-
spection of their books was, that instead of the 32,0001.
clear balance, they had only 2,5001. in the hands of their
banker, and the remainder was represented by bills not
worth a single farthing. The question then was, how
did these over-due bills come to be placed to the credit
of the company ? The solution of this question tended
to throw new light on the mode in which these share-
mongers kept up the apparent value of the stock for
their own private purposes. Of that deficit of 29,0001.
the sum of 11,000/. was owing by the solicitor—he was
sorry to say the bead of what he had always considered
a respectable house in the city of London ; and ho had
the other
Great calls,
Western and i t
Railway, Mr.Ssunders,
paid these bad bills, which were over-due and never
paid, as his calls when they were, demanded of him.
This led to further inquiry, and his friend proceeded
ttuornaed ask
eaubotutthath the
who enjoyed the sad sum of 3,0001.
' a year tor his services as secretary to the Great Western
Company, had been allowed to rue in arrear of his calls
of 13,000/.; he had only paid 2,0001. out of the 15,000/.
that the payment secretary
of
calls which had been made upon him.—(Hear, hear.)
Good God! could anything be more disgraceful than the
conduct of these directors, who were appointed to act as
trustees for the body of shareholders ? Could anything
be more disgraceful than such collusion, if not fraud, as
that of allowing their own well-paid secretary to run in
arrear for his calls, when they pounced upon the poor
widow, or the guardian of the orphan, and ruined them
by enforcing the payment of their calls?—(Hear.) The
other gentleman, the attorney to whom ho referred, and
whom he would not name, owed to the company
190,0001., he having received from the company, at va-
rious times, different large amounts, to pay for the land
required for the purposes of the railway. At different
times he was allowed sums of 20,0001', 40000/"
,
'eel so on, from the company, without having b enca
upon to show any vouchers for the money he had e GOOOO/
paid.
might be asked why the company did not sue the party
for the amount? The answer nas clear. The attorney was
not worth a halfpenny, and it would only have be en an
additional expense to the company if they had done so.
There must be an end to any further concealment of the
mischievous maecouvres of such men, for his motion
would put an end to such practices as he had detailed,
now and for ever, for the concerns of railroads would be
made plain to Parliament and to the country. Ile had
one more statement to make which was not immaterial,
and he meant in the case of two lines in the hands of
the same directors, the mode they had of adding to one
concern. when the capital of it was insufficient, which
system he considered to be fraught with fraud and deceit.
Those directors, after they had received the bills of the
engineers, parliamentary agents, and other., make appli-
cation to Parliament to obtain power to enable other
persons to take shares, for the purpose of
getting more
money; and for the purpose of inducing persons to take
shares they create new ones, which they call preference
shares, a very great disadvantage to the old shareholder?,
guaranteed for the preference shareholders were •
d 5 per
ten'., and in many cases were paid out of the capital.—
t t t didtthey
e y l
fellold fa t
o s t
a keepe thosee discount, when a e
(Hear.) Now these two agents, to whom he bed before
alluded, bad preference shares; as long as they consi-
dered it to be a source of advantage to them—so long
and n
momento
i
called on to pay for their preference shares, they
turn round and ray, we have been all, of us fraudulent,
and are not, therefore bound to pay. Such bad been the
act of the solicitor to whom he
alluded. He should like
one thing for mere curiosity—he should like that an-.
rs
they but
were
the
other House of Parliament, not, the one in this, but in
another country, would take his hint, would institute an
inquiry into the expenses of railroads in their country.
He wished that the Canadian House of Commons, which
he highly respected,,would act thus. In 1837 ho ob-
tained the concurrence of their .Lordships to a standing
order, which put railroads on a far different footing from
what they had been previously; and he asked if that
measure had been beneficial
to England, why not in
Canada? Why, he asked, should not the Ilouse of
Commons of Canada, the faithful representatives of
the good people of Canada, institute a
similar inquiry.
—([hear, hear.) He had some time ago suggested
to some of the representatives in the Canadian
Commons, that if that course were adopted by
them, that it would work well. But when
they returned to their respective seats in that Home
they changed the tone of their opinions, and said it
would not by any means work well. They admitted
that it was good for England, but thought that it would
not do for Canada. It was known that their elections
were often very expensive, and that their constituents
frequently required employment through their influence,
and they considered that the best and cheapest mode to
procure such employment was to vote for such and such
railroad Bills, and thus save their own coffers, and up-
hold their influence. He had used every exertion for
suppressing the mischievous system of those gambling
speculations, and at length, after seven years, had
H degree.
ha
succeeded in effecting his desire in some gthis
He knew that the House of Commons
country had done its duty, but what he wished
should
inquiry as 'to what took place before those Bills
were passed by them, and that it al so
then occurred.became the
Parliament of this country to know what
makefor
was, that the Canadian. Parliament
He had seen some of their Bills, and fully believed
that the money was not accounted for. He should at
the same time state that he believed that the solicitors
engaged were honest, that is, that they did not pocket
the money, but he felt assured that they placed right
shares in the right places. When some six Members of
that House had any Interest in a Bill, they induced others
to vote with them, and it was to prevent that system any
longer that he pressed his recommendation. He said
that if those proceedings were sifted, it would throw
great light on the mode adopted in the Canadian Com-
mons of carrying Bills through their Parliament, and
also their mode of voting. A friend of his (Lord
Brougham), a second, and a third, had stated to him
that they had been offered 5,0001. if they would lend their
names to be railway directors, In fact, the Canadian
House of Commons has a strong objection to such an in-
quiry, or to allow any investigation into matters of
bribery or corruption. It should be considered that if
there was anything disgraceful discovered, that it would
not attach itself to the House of Commons, but to the
guilty individuals. The whole of the matter, required
the interposition of Parliament; for a remedy must be ape
plied to check those unworthy members of society from
falsely and fraudulently manufacturing railway shares,
and from their shameful system of gambling. He thought
that giving absolute publicity to such proceedings would
tend very much to prevent them, and saw no other
course that Parliament should take than that suggested
Hepecl discouragedho that
uld
by him. His Noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) bad in-
troduced a measure, very useful both to England and
Ireland, for obtaining certain audit of railroads. He
hh s
the
therefore Nin ocb 01 Noble Lianyog forwardr
hisd
motion (Lord
again
oMonteagle)a
with
th e
histatable,
mle n
wouldt noondt
.
would wish, es he understood that it would require
w oaunl
xd be eugs i
tnh taht e t gh
so
roed
swh
uo
ur kl d a sh
es onoun
daesl a
yp o
sys shi ba lten,v feorr,
many months to procure the necessary information, that
washthees•
for it was moat essential that that giant evil of gambling
should be suppressed as soon as possible. What he tad
stated were facts, and if any Noble Lord doubted those
facts, be fel, prepared to furnish him with all the papers
to prove the accuracy of his statements.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he hoped
that their Lordships would agree with the proposition of
the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham). He
should at the same time say that it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to procure all the necessary information
at once, but at the same time fully concurred with him,
that as little delay as possible should be offered to so
useful a proposition. The time has now come. when re-
sistance must be offered to such proceedings . as the
Noble Lord (Lord Brougham) strongly and truthfully
alluded to. Ile also hoped that the Noble Lord (Lord
blonteagle) would again introduce his Bill, and assured
him that Government would give it their best support;
and that if he gave it up, the Government would feel it
their duty to introduce a similar Bill, yet ho hoped that
the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) would introduce it,
as he believed that it could not be brought on with more
success by any Noble Lord than by his Noble Friend
(Lord Monteagle).

Lord MONTEAGLE said be could not refrain from
expressing the satisfaction he felt at finding this subject
taken up so earnestly by the Noble Lord. When their
Lordships came to consider the probable effect it would
have upon commerce, he thought it would be deemed im-
possible to Overrate its importance. It was beyond the
reach of legislation to prevent the imprudence of man-
kind, but he believed that if- the recommendation of a
Noble• Friend of his, now absent, had been remembered
there and elsewhere, the consequences of imprudent
speculation which they had recently witnessed, might,
to a great extent, have been avoided. Lord Dalhousie
recommended that a selection should be made of those
lines which the public had most confidence in, and
which were most likely to prove round speculations.
That recommendation had been avoided, and unfortu-
nately most of the evils had occurred which his Noble
Friend had foreseen. The powers which Parliament
had given from time to time, for the indefinite perpe-
tuation of a fraud,iby raising dividends to a suppositious
value, upon the faith of which purchasers bought, ought
to render Parliament responsible for the results; at any
rate, whilst that ground of complaint existed, there was
no occasion to complain of the acts of persons out of
doors. In this way many of the companies had
contrived to clear 100, 150, and even 200 per cent.
upon the purchase of their shares, which, had it not I
been for the private information they were able to ob:ain
possession ot, would have found its way, as it ought to
have found its way, into the hands of the parties who
were dealing with them. The subject was deserving of
the greatest attention, because it had now become a com-
mon practice to allow powers to the trustees under a
marriage set Cement, for the investment of capital in
railway shares. The audit of railway companies' ac-
counts, as at prevent managed, was a perfect farce.
Lord BROUGHAM -.observed that his chief object
had been to point out how great facilties for fraud and
abuses bad been afforded. At the same he would
remark that the completion of 4,000 miles of railway,
eleven times the distance between London and Edin-
burgh, was some evidence that many of the schemes were
substantial, and intended to be pursued to completion.
Lord GRANVILLE acknowledged that the present
system of auditing railway accounts was extremely im-
perfect. The Government would give its assistance in
remedying it.
The motion was then agreed to.
The Rate-in-Aid (Poor-law, Ireland) Bill was read a
first time.
Their Lordships then''adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Lord NUGENT seconded the motion.
Sir GEORGE GREY believed that the time was yet
far distant when they could with safety dispense with
the extreme penalty of the law in cases of the crime ot
murder.—(Hear, hear.) It should, he considered, be
borne in mind, that since the year 1841 not a single per-
. son had been executed, unless for the crime of murder.
—(Hear.) In one observation which his Hon. Friend
gave expression to he entirely concurred, namely, that
this question did not rest upon theological grounds. He
was convinced that there was nothing in the written
word of God which precluded the State from inflicting
this punishment, if deemed necessary for the preserva-
tion of human life; but it was said that there was
nothing imposed on rulers, as a moral obliga-
tion, to deprive persons of life even in cases
of murder. Now if -that were right, as well might it be
said that the State had no right to transport persons,
nor to deprive them of their liberty, for the purpose of
gratifying a vindictive feeling. The only justification
of Government in inflicting the punishment of death
was to be found in 'its object to protect life, and that
protection was in a great measure afforded by the terror
which the punishment of death inspired. If the State
had no right to inflict severe punishment, where, he
would ask, was the safeguard of society? He appealed
to his Hon. Friends whether he did not think it m ees-
eery for the protection of human life and of property.
that there should be a power in the hands of the Go-
vernment to impress terror on the minds of persons who
might otherwise have recourse to the commission of the
most enormous crime. He believed that the punishment
of death tended to inflict terror, and to keep down, to a
great extent, the crime of murder. Be was not prepared
to say that men who committed the crime ot murder
ought to be put to death recklessly, but the punishment
of death doubtless operated to diminish the crime.
The Honourable Gentleman referred to Belgium for
an example of the effect of the absence of capital
punishment. He also stated that in the best times of
the Roman Republic, there was not capital punish •
went, and murders were infrequent ; and further, from
the relaxation of our own criminal law to the pre-
sent time, that crimes had diminished. Whatever
result might appear from the returns of last year with
regard to burglaries, the effect had been that there was
an increase of the crime since the relaxation of the law
with regard to its punishment. It was argued that, iu
consistency, the same regard ought to be extended to
the protection of pr: perry as of life, if the infliction of
capital punishment was justifiable and productive of be-
neficial effects in repressing crime. The fact, however,
was, that aggressions on property were not regarded in
the saute light, and when capital punishment was in-
flicted, juries found the parties accused guilty of the
minor offence, to avoid its infliction. In the case of
sheep-stealing, not one in a hundred of those tried for the
offence had been executed, and the uncertainty of the
punishment operated in removing the check upon the
commission of the offence, which the certainty of the
punishment would prevent. The certainty of death
as a punishment did attach to murder, although in
some cases, where there were mitigating circumstances,
the sentence was not carried into effect. The ordinary
rule was, that the. law was allowed to take its
course, and the criminal and the public had an assur-
ance that death was the penalty the offender had to
incur. The lion. Gentleman offered a certain punish-
ment, but did not state what it was. There was the
case of a poor woman whos from the pressure of poverty
and distress, had deprived her child of life. In such u
case as that it was right to recommend the party for
mercy, not, however, that such un act could be Justi-
fied, but it might be considered to be perpetrated with
mitigating circumstances. The pamphlet upon which
the lion. Gentleman relied to sustain his own statements,
and to impugn his, led his Hon. Friend into ert or. Ca-
pital punishments had been withdrawn from those of-
fences against the person which were not attended with
violence endangering life. Such offences bad been for-
merly punished with death, which had been since removed,
and the effect had been that this' description of offences
bad increased.- Taking the seven years which preceded
the abolition of capital punishments, as compared with
the same period which followed, offences had more than
doubled. He did not mean to argue that this increase
of crime had been occasioned by the mitigation which
had taken place in penal punishments, and he only made
the statement to show that statistical facts could not be
relied upou as a criterion to form a judgment on the sub-
ject. The relaxation of punishment with regard to
forging documents for the delivery of goods was attended
with the same result, as forgery had increased. With
regard to rho statement which he had made last year,
with reference to burglary, he had been charged with
making a wilful mistake upon the statements he had of-
fered to the House, and yet it had been proved with re-
gard to burglary, that offences of that description, since
the penalty of death was removed, had taken place be-
tween nine o'clock at night and six in the morning,
more frequently than before. He did not, however, rely
upon figures, but asked the House to consider the sub-
ject upon principles of common sense, and to say whe-
ther the time had come when it would be safe to
do away with capital punishment?—(hear.) Next, with
regard to treason—it was argued that it was not a crime
to which capital punishment should be extended,
and it was described as an act of cold ctuelty to de-
prive the offender of life; but ho would ask the House
whether such a description could apply.' to the case
of a party who entered upon a course which would in-
volve the country in bloodshed, and, in its consequences,
lead to results that would deprive thousands of life?—
(Cheers.) His Honourable Friend said he hoped they
would not yield upon this question to the vindictive feel-
ings of the public. He, however, thought it was must
desirable that the public should be impressed with a
consciousness that the law, was strong enough to protect
them, and that they were not required to protect them-
selves. lie was of opinion that if capital punishment
was abolished, it would give rise to acts of private re-
venge which were at present kept down by the convic-
tion of the power of the law to inflict adequate punish-
ment. The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to
the practice of public executions. With regard to them,
he thought that nothing would be more injurious than
the anxiety to witness these executions, and the facilities
which were afforded, for the sake of gain, to witness
them. lie begged, however, it might be understood
that public executions were not essential incidents
to capital punishment, as might be inferred from
the practice in foreign countries. It was alleged that
certain judges were favourable to the abolition of
capital punishment; but it should be taken into con-
sideration with regard to this allegation, that the
majority of the judges examined before the Lords' Com-
mittee on this subjeet were in favour of retaining it, and
that the Committee, after hearing the evidence of the
judges, were unanimous against the abolition of capital
punishment. He hoped the House would not allow the
Honourable Member to place the Bill upon the table of
the House, and not encourage any illusory expectation
of the abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. BRIGHT said that it was well known that the
early Christians.did not inflict death, and it was known
that a Roman Emperor removed Christians from the
office of Preetor, because they could not carry the
punishment of death into execution ; this was the prin-
ciple of Christians for-the first ages of the Christian re-
ligion. In Belgium, Tuscany, Austria, and Sweden, the
punishment of death was but rarely inflicted, and mur-
ders were much more infrequent there than in
Spain or Ireland, where capital punishments
were not infrequent. Could they believe that
any punishment would deter such a man as Rush
from his grave offence? It was premeditated, and every
precaution taken to escape detection, and was deliberately
perpetrated. • Take the case at Bristol; that was noto
premeditated; but the fear of death did not preventth
perpetration of the crime. With regard to public
exe-
cutions, people were collected together to see these exe-
cutions for example; but there were none of the persons
who went to witness these scenes who wire not injured
by the exhibition. Then, with regard to the execution
at Bristol, what could have been more disgusting than
to see six or seven men dragging a girl of sixteen to the
scaffold, and the clergyman coaxing her to go quietly to
execution? Then there was an execution at Brecon,
and when the sentence of death was passed upon the
man, a companion in the court cried out, " Now,
Jew,
die ame;"
and he did die game, as they considered it.
g
The effect of this suggestion was that he wits preparing
his mind to brave the law, and was more intent upon that
than in attending to the instructions of the clergyman.
Why, he would ,ask, did the newspapers give such
lengthened accounts of these executions but that there
• WAS a desire, QLI the part 9f the public, to read thes

accounts, from a morbid feeling of curiosity to know
what was connected with the death of a criminal, arising
from what was, in some respects, a sentiment of sindic-
tiveness against the convict? He had seen cases of that
kind which were very striking. Some time ago a young
man at Stockport shot a young woman with whom he
had been living, and was hanged at Liverpool. Shortly
after another stabbed a young woman els.), and he suf-
fered death; but shies that another murder of a similar
description was committed at Leeds; two in different
parts of the country, following each other in such rapid
succession, that ho believed the effect of the notoriety
given them was to create the offences.--(Hear hear.) If
the punishment, for example, were perpetual imprison-
ment, they could relax it in the case of a deserving cri-
minal, and continue it to those .who did not deserve
such relaxation. Besides, the present system often in-
duced men to commit murders, because juries often
seized on objections which were not valid, and fre-
quently acquitted the most notorious criminals, lie
himself had seen a letter from a medical man, in
which be stated that to his own knowledge
four persons were acquitted, and then at large,
who were notoriously guilty of murder, but escaped in
consequence of the state of the law. The Right lion.
Baronet must recollect the case of the two men at Dot-
ham last year, charged with the murder of the Duke of
Cleveland's gamekeeper. One of those men was found
guilty and hanged and the other acquitted, on the ground
that he did not fire the shot which deprived the man of
life, whereas at that moment it was believed that the
man acquitted was really the person who fired the shot;
and what was more-, two persons were now in gaol for
another murder arising from motives of revenge out of
the murder of the gamekeeper- Indeed it was well
known that so great was the terror inspired on the occa-
sion, that many witnesses examined for the prosecution
had to leave the country, lest they might be murdered
for giving evidence. Now he would ask the Right lion.
Gentleman, why was it that Annette Meyers was
respited, and Harriett Thomas executed? Both were
equally guilty of murder in its most dreadful form.
He (Mr. Bright) rejoiced that Annette Meyers was
not executed, and, indeed, at the time, he received a
letter from the family of the soldier, which did
them much credit, expressing a wish that he
should state to the House their anxiety that
she should not be executed. These things evinced how
perfectly impossible it was to be impartial in these cases.
He (Mr. Bright) really had commiseration for the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department.
He had a veto in all those cases given him by the law—
the whole responsibility almost fell on him when he had
to take each case into bis consideration, after they were
adjudicated on by judges and juries, and his difficulties
were every day increasing. He had been in the habit
lately of referring cases el that description to the judges,
and without venturing even to insinuate anything dero-
gatory to those eminent personages, differences of opi-
nion might arise from feelings entertained on the subject
before the House. In one case a deputation waited on
a judge, and stated as their reason for asking a commu-
tation of punishment, that they were opposed to capital
punishments altogether, and his reply was that he could
not listen to such a reason, but that he should be happy
to hear any which he could consider, as he was most
anxious the execution should aot take place. Deputa-
tions of that description were of frequent occurrence,
and it was hardly necessary to say that they indicated
the anxiety of the public mind on the question. Then
there was a case at Monmouth, where a memorial was
presented to the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir G. GREY—Not on the merits.

Mr. BRIGHT—Not on the merits, certainly, but
praying that it should not take place at Monmouth.
Then, at Bristol, 3,500 women sent up a memorial in
favour of Harriet Thomas, and five different religious
congregations for the same object. The Mayor and
corporation of Gloucester did the same, showing that
public opinion was running hostile to the system now
pursued. An intimate friend of his *(Mr. Gilpin),
whose name when the question was settled would be ever
remembered with gratitude for his exertions in the
cause, informed him, that at upwards of fifty meetings
at which lie attended, in various parts of the country,
he had never witnessed before, no matter how exciting
or interesting the aulject might have been, any question
which gathered together larger assemblies, or filled
larger rooms than the present, not to condemn pas-
sionately or foolishly the abolition of punishment by
death, but to consider and discuss it, calmly and dis-
passionately, and from these meetings all but unani-
mous declarations in favour of the principle of the pre-
sent motion were come to, which was a good test of what
the public feeling was on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right lion. Baronet had, however, one difficulty in
considering this question ; he was under the impression
that the opinion of the House was against such a propo-
silion. Such may be the notion entertained jn the
House of Lords, where it was said by some one, on the
presentation of a petition from Lancashire in its favour,
that its prayer ought be granted as a punishment to tho
people of that district, fur their tenacity in seeking it.
But such was not the case in that Hpuse. He believed
fire.sixths of Hon. Members never considered the ques-
tion at all; and he was also convinced that, it the Right
Hon. Baronet proposed a measure for the abolition of
capital punishment, scarcely a Member in the house
would be found to oppose it; or, if so, only to the length
of limiting the duration of the measure for a few years.
For the grounds stated he implored the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman to give the question his best consideration; and
for his own part he should support the motion of his
lion. Friend the Member for Dumfrie,.

Mr. HOME DRUMMOND regretted to see on every
side increased sympathy for murderers. Murders had
increased in intensity, and he believed it was so in con-
sequence of the debates in that House, and the sym-
pathy shown:for murderers elsewhere, so that the people
thought that murder, after all, was not so great a crime,
and so it was thought as little of as during the middle
ages. The Honourable Gentleman said they c ,uld
mitigate and modify the punishment ; that they could
modify in soma eases, and, in tact, in others let them
out altogether.

Mr. BRIGHT observed that the Hon. Gentleman
mistook him altegt•ther. What he said was, that in
oertain deserving eases the punishment might be miti•
gated, but in no case whatever would he consent to have
a murd-rer return to society.
Mr. DRUMMOND begged the Hon. Gentleman's
pardon. He should, however, give the motion every
opposition in his power, convinced, as ho was, that—
" Whose aheddeth man's blood, by man should his
blood be shed."
Sir E. N. BUXTON could not agree with the Hon.
Gentleman who had just addressed the House, in the
interpretation he put .on the text which he quoted, or
its bearing• on the subjsct then under discussion. He was
not, however, prepared to voto for the motion of his
Hon. Friend, became it seemed to him that they had
not at present arrived at that point in which they could
say there was any uncertainty or difficulty in obtaining
convictions when murder was committed. On the other
hand, it appeared to him that there was an increasing
dislike, growing up to convict in capital cases. lie had
seen it in the county which he had the honour to repre-
sent, in the instance of some must atrocious cases. About
two years ago a woman was tried for poisoning her hus-
band, and, notwithstanding the evidence given, she was
now at large. So convinced was the prosecutor of her
guilt, that she was tried again. A second indictment was
preferred against her, but she was acquitted, one of the
jurors subsequently stating that she would have been
convicted but for the punishment of death. In the fol-
lowing year another woman was tried and convicted, bat
in the present a third was tried and let off. He (Sir E.
N. Buxton) certainly did think it was right they should
watch the course taken by jurors, and if they found there
was an increasing difficulty in getting a conviction in
cases of murder, he certainly should be prepared to
support the question. Although he could not then con-
vince himself that he should be acting right in voting
fur the motion, yet, as to the expediency of putting an
end to the present mode of public executions, he had no
doubt whatever.—(Hear, hear.) A person was no doubt
publicly tried in a court of justice, but it pas in a room,
and it was impossible that more than a limited number
of persons could be present. Executions might take
ph -co within the precincts of a gaol, for example, so
that, while they maintained the principle that the ends
of justice should be satisfied, only a certain number of
persons, as witnesses, should be present to see the law
carried into effect. On these grounds he could not vole
for the motion of his Honourable Friend ; but he con-
fessed he came to that conclusion after much difficulty
, and doubt.

Mr. BROTHERTON should support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Dumfries, and as to what bad been
said by the Right Hon. Baronet and others, that the time
was not as yet come to make the proposed change, he
wished to know what sign they were to have when it
should come? The great end of punishment was refor-
mation; but capital punishments did nut prevent crime,
and demoralised rather than improved those who wit-
nessed them.

Sir G. STRICKLAND said he hoped to live to see
the time when capital punishments should be abolished
altogether. From the infirmity of human tribunals the
innocent had often, he was convinced, suffered as guilty.
Then be thought that they should not have recourse to
a punishment which never could be recalled.
Colonel THOMPSON said he did not think that
transportation had all the effect attributed to it, but he
thought that expatriation, under hopeless circumstances
of ever returning, might, in many instances, he substi-
tuted for threepenny-worth of rope and the hangman.
—(A laugh.) At present transports were buoyed up
with the hope of returning home, or of obtaining a par-
don, or at least a material mitigation of the severity of
their punishment; but if the murderer were deprived
altogether of that hope and banished for ever to some
far distant country, that :he believed would be a safe
substitute for the degrading system of public executions.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he hoped that, from the
tone of the debate respecting the punishment of trans-
portation, an erroneous impression would not beconveyed
to the country.. No Governor had the power of exer-
cising the prerogative of mercy, nor could anythe exercise
escape the severity of his sentence, t xcept by
of the prerogative of the Crown.
Lord NUGENT said that capitalpunishmonts had a
tendency to increase crime, and therefore the punish-
to. lit of death was unnecessary and unjt theustitiaabbolel.itiol'hoef
majority of the Judges were favourin o
this punishment. Several
eminent criminal lawyers
Nero of the Sane opinion, and their reason
had suffered
death n
swasuetrheadt
within their knowledge
several persons
death who were innocent.—
iosu
subject,ld . entreatto
Hon. Members, if they had any doubt this
remember that if thethought there was an thing in the
argument in favour of abolition,laeevery year was a year
of unjustifiable bloodshed.—(Hear.)
Sir 11. VERnot could
,t)•eri)make up his mind to
abolish the punishment altornblic executions
were abhorrent to the feelingsghef humanity, and some
other mode of executing criminals should be devised, if
that punishment was to 'be continued. A gentleman
nho had seen Rush executed had informed him that he
was convinced if a criminal was seen no more after sen-
tence of condemnation it wourledn=y3ateuagreater effec
upon the public mind than the present:}stem.

_

Tho House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ct
••• _ _ -
Against it ...
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
Mr. KEOGH proceeded to call the attention of the
House to the general management of Crown prosecutions
in Ireland at assizes and sessions, and to the expendi-
ture incurred in those prosecutions. The expense of
those prosecutions to the country in 1847 amounted to
71,0001, while in 1830 it amounted only to 3,,1.00
showing an increase in the intermediate period of 34,0004
per annum. There was no effectual check upon this ex-
penditure, and the uncertainty attending the ~trials was
so great that offenders speculated upon an acquittal. It
was perfectly well known that extensive alterations had
of late b(eu made in the criminal laws; and, therefore,
the counsel taking charge of criminal prosecutions should
have a good knowledge of these alterations. He had
moved last session for a return as to the conduct of
criminal prosecutions in a certain county in Ireland, but
that return had not yet been made.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it had been laid
on the table. . .
Mr. KEOGH said he should have been glad .ta hate
seen it before it had been laid on the table. .
The ATTORNEy-GENERAL said ho had not been
aware of the circumstance till now.
Mr. KEOGH continued, and said that a great portion
of the duty of the Crown solicitors devolved upon the
stipendiary magistrates, who were not, from many cir-
cumstances, qualified to perform the duty.—(llear,
hear.) The consequence was, that the people felt there
was shat was tantamount to a denial of justice, for
the people were astute enough to ace that, where the
chances of escape were so numerous, justice was but im-
perfectly administered, and the matter, therefore, called
for immediate investigation. Ile thought be had laid
sufficient grounds to induce the Government to
grant an inquiry, and he was of opinion if a Committee
were granted, that a system might be devised which
would give them a cheaper and certain system of admi-
nistering justice in Ireland.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the
matter might, be safely left in the hands of his Right
Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney-General. His Right Hon.
Friend came into office in '4B or in the latter end of '47.
As the Crown Solicitors were paid by fees, it was not to
be wondered at that they should be desirous of increas-
ing the number of counsel, and of course the number of
briefs. The Irish Attorney-General, in 1835 (Mr.
Blackburne) bad his attention called to this abuse, and
he issued an order limiting the counsel to the number of
two, allowing that in certain cases an additional counsel
should be called in. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
went on to explain in detail the mode which the fees of
the Crown solicitors in criminal cases in Ireland were
under the old system so largely increased. When the
present Attorney-General (Mr. Monahan) came ,into
office, or soon after July, 1848, he issued an order that
the practice should be uniform on all the circuits, and-,
directing other arrangements as to the employment of
counsel, namely, that in certain cases one counsel only
should be employed. There were other minor arrange-
ments for reducing the expenses of Crown prosecutions,
and he,(the Attorney-General) thought that the arrange-
ments which had been made by his Right Hon. Friend the
Irish Attorney-General were highly honourable• to
him. He held in his hand a return which showed
that in the season before the new arrangements
came into operation, 375 Crown prosecutions bad
been carried on, at an expense of 3,2231. lOs. Since
the new arrangements bad been acted upon, the return
showed that 348 cases had been tried, at an expense of
8761. The House would, therefore, see the great re-
duction which had been . effected already by the Irish
Attorney-General, and when he heard his Right Hone.
Friend blamed for the mode in which:be bad conducted
the prosecutions, he was happy to be able to refer to
the opinions of men who were well acquainted whirl: 6o
conduct, and who gave that conduct their decided -ap.
proval. The Hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) had alleged
that there was a failure of justice, because the Irish At-
torney-Generel would not prosecute for petty larcenies;
but he thought his Right Hem Friend was quite right
in acting upon that principle.—(Hear, hear.) He was
of opinion he had sufficiently answered the statement of
the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh), and he
trusted therefore he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. KEOGH explained.
Mr. O'FLA HERTY was glad to hear of the reduc-
tion of the expenditure which bad been effected, and
hoped it would be continued.
Mr. HENLEY felt that the statement which had been
made of the former practice in Ireland in Crown prose-
cutions was so startling, that there was great reason to
rejidet, that the reform bad been carried so far, and he
trusted it would be still cirried farther.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a few words, after which
the motion was withdrawn.
CORPORATION OR LONDON.

75
••• -24

On the motion of Mr. I)IVETT a return was ordered
of all money% paid to the Chamberlain of the City of
London by persons. either nominated or elected to tho
office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, with the date,
cause, and amount of each payment, and the names and
addresses of the respective payers, from the lit of Ja-
nuary, 1800, to the present time; stating also the amount
received in each year, the sues total, and the purposes
to which the money was applied by the Corporation of,
London.