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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY

coveries of the remains of Nineveh, by any pecuniary
grant, and if so, to what amount?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had written to Mr. Layard, mentioning a sum to propose
to Parliament, but he had not yet received any reply from
that gentteman.

IhSa Ivli Mn
having
presented
Te s e On re d DEATH.
Mr. .
Mr. EWAFRUIN'
number of
petitions against the punishment of death, proceeded to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish it, remarking
that if he were not convinced that the feeling of the
country was against it, he should not have troubled
the House with the motion. Every day, however, con-
vinced the people more and more of
the =policy of
continuing
ing in the country against it was stronger than some
Honourable Members were disposed to admit.
They were at a crisis on this subject—the time had come
when the question must be settled. The number of
murders had unfortunately increased; but unlike others,
he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that
their institutions had produced no effect. He bold it to be
true that death by the law did not deter from the com-
mission of murder. But suppose they bad abolished
capital punishment, would not his Right Hon. Friend
(Sir George Grey) have attributed the murders that
had taken place to the repeal of the law? Now, he
entertained is contrary opinion ; he attributed the
murders that had taken place to the public executions
that had preceded them, to the hardening of these who
had witnessed such exhibitions, and the teaching of them
to look upon human life with less respect than before.
As on former occasions on which he had submitted this
question to the House, he should on the present avoid any
allusion to the theological part of the subject. Ho
leoked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of
our religion. The question was one, he considered, of
expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon
that ground. Upon that ground Viccaria, an eminent
writer, who first converted him to the opinions he held,
urged the necessity of abolishing the punishment of
death. Then the last report of the Commission on
Criminal Law, stated it as its opinion that all punish-
ments rested alone upon social necessity. He held that
social necessity justified the abrogation of the punishment
of death. They had appealed in this matter to the fears
and prejudices of the country. His Honourable Friend
had said that attempts to murder had increased, for
the five years ending with 1846, as compared with the
five years ending in 1831, the number being in the
former 1,099, and in the latter but 451.
He also said that there had been an increase of rape, arson,
and poisoning, and attributed this to the abolition of the
punishment of death with respect to these cases—that the
abolition of the punishment had caused an increase of
crime. He denied that he had taken a true test. In
order to have rendered his argument logical he should
have gone further and demanded the renewal of
death punishments in respect of these cases.
But he took a fallacious test—he took only four cases
out of 20, which he should have taken, and which he
(Mr. Ewart) was prepared to show had fallen in num-
ber though the death punishment had been abolished.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Cr. Grey) had stated that
there was an increase in the number of cases since ca-
pital punishment was repealed for rape, but the fact was,
that previous to the repeal, persons hesitated prosecuting
for rape, and indicted for the minor offence of an as-
sault. The returns laid before the House showed a
great diminution, instead of an increase, in those crimes
which were previously punishable by death. For five
years previous to the abolition there were 259 execu-
tions, and for the first five y ears afterwards only 99 ;
while the number of offences in the former pe-
riod were 12,000, and in the latter 11,320.
To show that they could safely do without capital punish.
ment he would simply mention that the returns before
the House went to show that whenever they had mid-
gated the law, the experiment had proved most success•
tul. It would not do now for the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department to rise in his
place and meet this motion by saying simply that the
murderer deserved his punishment, the Right Hon.
Baronet was bound to prove that punishment of death
was justifiable on the ground of legislative expediency,
and not as a system of terror. He, however, could
urge many reasons why capital punishment
should be done away with. In the first
place, it was an uncertain punishment. The excellence
of a punishment consisted in its certainty, and to make
this punishment certain they must be prepared to
execute every criminal convicted of the crime of
murder. He apprehended, however, that no advo-
cates for capital punishment were prepared to go
that length. Considerable sensation had recently
been excited upon this subject by the execution of two
criminals, between the extent of whose crimes there was
a very material difference. He alluded to the unfortu-
nate woman executed at Bristol and the notorious cri-
minal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there
not to have been a distinction between these
two criminals?—(Hear, hear.) Even the staunchest
upholders of the necessity- of capital punishment
admitted the inequality of the punishment in eases like
those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore,
that, with a due regard for public feeling, the Right
Hon. Baronet could not execute in all cases of murder.
Then he lost the advantage of cei tainty in the punish-
ment, while, on the other hand, if he adopted this
measure the punishment would be made certain.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") No one could deny that
public executions had a demoralising tendency.
So long as they continued capital punishments, not only
would they have the demoralising spectable of the scaf-
fold, but they would have the accounts, in all the
pomp of circumstance, from the first beginning
of crime to its last ignominious expiation, re-
corded by their liberal press, which narrated
all those demoralising circumstances, and thus produced
the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the
religion of the people; and so long would they throw
around the assassin that morbid degree of interest
which now always attached to him. Under the present
system, instead of leaving the criminal to
dwell on those motives for repentance which
his position was calculated to awaken, they
diverted his mind from that wholesome exercise,
by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignomi-
nious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital
punishments to be objectionable in that they inflicted on
the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had in-
flicted on his victim. But there was another great ob-
jection, and it was that when once capital punishment
was inflicted it could not be recalled; it was beyond
compensation, and if once executed the criminal was
placed beyond the pale of repentance. Capital pu•
nishment had been abolished in Belgium and
in our own possessions in the West Indies, and
during the best years of the Roman Republic capital
punishment had never prevailed. Ile felt
strongly that the principle which he was
advocating was gaining hold on the people
of this country.—(Hear.) A greater number of
the clergy were daily corning over to his views ;
he had the opinion of several Recorders of
large towns, of three English Judges, and
of two Irish Judges in favour of the repeal of punish-
ment by death; and he thought the day was not tar dis-
tant when the efforts to repeal that ignominious and
demoralizing punishment would be successful, and when
tho people of this country would call on that House to
wipe from its statute book the spirit of revenge, and to
leave unlettered the exercise of the merciful precepts of
our holy religion.
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 of
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 efforded 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 neces-
sary 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. He was not prepared
to say that men who committed the crime of 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, in
consistency, the same regard ought to be extended to
the protection of prcperty 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 same 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
s punt • lment 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 Hon. Gentleman offered a certain punish-
ment, but did not state what it was. There was the
ease of a poor woman who, from the pressure of poverty
and distress, bad deprived such
her child of life. In a
case as that it was right to recommend the party for
mercy, not, however, that such an 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 error. Ca-
pital punishments land be withdrawn fro u those of;

fences against the person which were not attended with
violence endangering life. Such offences had been for-
merly punished with death, e hich had been since removed,
and the effect had been that this description of offences
had 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 miiigation which
had taken place in penal punishments, and he only made
the statement to show that statistical facts could not be
relied upon 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 the 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 au act of cold cruelty 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 most
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. He 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
thaw. He 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 core
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 Praetor, 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 thau 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 not
premeditated; but the fear of death did not prevent the
perpetration of the crime. With regard to public exe•
cuttons, 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 were 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, Jem,
die game;" and he did die game, as they considered it.
The effect of this suggestion was that he was 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
accounts, from a morbid feeling of curiosity to know
was a desire, on the part of the public, to read these
what was connected with the death of a criminal, arising
from what was, in some respects, a sentiment of vindic-
tiveness against the convict? lie 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 also, and he buf-
fered death; but since 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 he 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. He
himself had seen a letter from a medical man, in
which he stated that to his own knowledge
four persons were acquitted, and then at large,
notoriouslystate of
of murder, but escaped in
c olt the law. The Right Hon.
recollecte the case of the two men at Dur-
hamconsequence of
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 ho 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
lest they might be murdered
he would ask the Right Hon.
that Anisette Meyers was
tmas executed? Both were
to
re bad
foreclsupagi
Gentleman,titi olevydinl, egg anuyne: elvdtiytwdiheiheonnyferc
eromurdercountry,
in its most dreadful form.
He (Mr. Bright) rejoiced that Annette Meyers was
not executed, and, indeed, St the time, he received a
the soldier, which did
letterthem frmomuchthecrefdaimt,tlyof
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.
HQ had a veto in all those cases given him bthe law--
the whole responsibility almost fell on him when he had
to take each case into his 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 cf 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
lot 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 lot take place. Deputa-
tions of that description were of frequent occurrence,
and it WrAii 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 far his exertions in the
cause, informed him, that at upwards of fifty meetings
at which he attended, in various parts of the country,
he bad never witnessed before, no matter how exciting
or interesting the sulject 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-
sition. Such may be the notion entertained in 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 the
people of that district, fur their tenacity in seeking it.
But such was not the case in that House. He believed
five-sixths of lion. Members never considered the ques-
tion at all; and he was also convinced that, if the Right
lion. 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
Hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries.
Mr. HUME 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:fur murderers elsewhere, so that the people
thought that murder, after all, was not so great a crimp,and so it was thought us little of as during the middle
ages. The Honourable Gentleman Wei they could
mitigate and modify file puniehent ; that they oould
modify in SCAIIQ eases, and, in fact, in others let them
out altogether.
Mr. BRIGHT observed that the Hon. Gentleman
mistook him altogether. What he said was, that in
certain deserving cases the punishment might be miti-
gated, but in no case whatever would he consent to have
a murderer return to society.
Mr. DRUAIMOND begged the Hon. Gentleman's
pardon. lie should, however, give the motion every
opposition in his puwer, convinced, as he Was, gig,

" Whoso shtddeth man's blood, by men 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 subject then under discussion. lie was
not, however, prepared to vote for the motion of his
Hon. Friend, because it seemed to him that they had
not at present arrived at that point in which they could
sav there was any uncertainty or difficulty in obtaining
convictions when murder was committed. On the other
hand, it appeared to him that there aas an increasing
dislike, growing up to convict in capital cases. He had
seen it in the county which he had the honour to repre-
sent, in the instance of some most 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, bet
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 iound 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
tor 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 itte as in a room,
and it was impossible that more than it limited number
of persons could be present. Executions might take
place 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 vote
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 had been
said by the Right Hon. Baronet and others, that the time
was not as yet come to make the proposed change, be
wisbed to know what sign they were to have when it
should come? The great end of punishment was refor-
mation; but capital punishments did not 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 he 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 be conveyed
to the country. No Governor had the power of exer-
cising the prerogative of mercy, nor could any convict
escape the severity of his sentence, a xcept by the exercise
of the prerogative of the Crown.
Lord NUGENT said that capital punishments had a
tendency to increase crime, and therefore the punish-
ment of death was unnecessary and unjustifiable. The
majority of the Judges were in favour of the abolition of
this punishment. Several eminent criminal lawyers
were of the same opinion, and their reason was that
within their knowledge several persons had suffered
death who were innocent.—(Hear.) He would entreat
Hon. Members, if they had any doubt on this subject, to
remember that if they thought there was anything in the
argument in favour of abolition, every year was a year
of unjustifiable bloodshed.—(Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY could not yet make up his mind to
abolish the punishment altogether. Public executions
were abhorrent to the feelings of humanity, and some
other mode of executing criminals should be devised, if
that punishment was to be continued. A gentleman
who had seen Rush executed had informed him that he
was convinced if a criminal was seen no more after sen-
tence of condemnation it would have a greater effect
upon the public mind than the present system.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
••• ... 51
Against it ...
..• 75
Majority ..
•••
..„ —24
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 37,5001.,
showing an increase in the intermediate period of 34,0001.
per annum. There was no effeceual check upon this ex-
penditure, and the uncertainty attending the trials was
so great that offenders specu'atted upon an acquittal. It
was perfectly well known that extensive alterations had
of late been 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 to have
seen it before it had been laid on the table.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he 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.--(Hear,
hear.) The consequence was, that the people telt there
was what was tantamount to a denial of justice, for
the people were astute enough to see that where the
chances of escape were so numerous, justice was but im-
perfectly administered, and the matter, therefore, called
for immediate investigation. He thought he 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.
Fiend came into office in '4B or in the latter end ot '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-
meats 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, 37i Crown prosecutions had
been carried cn, at an expense of 3,2231. 10s. Since
the new arrangements had been acted upon, the return
showed that 348 cases had been tried, at an expense of
9761. 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 lion.
Friend blamed for the mode in which he had conducted
the prosecutions, ho was happy to be able to refer to
the opinions of men who were well acquainted with his
conduct, and who gave that conduct their decided up.
proval. The lion. Member (Mr. Keogh) had alleged
that there was a failure of justice, because the Irish At-
torney-General would not prosecute for petty larcenies;
but he thought his Right Hon. 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'FLAHERTY was glad to hear of the reduc-
tion of the expenditure which had 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
rejoice that the reform bad been carried so far, and he
trusted it would be still carried farther.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a few words, after which
the motion was withdrawn.
CORPORATION OF LONDON.
On the motion of Mr. DIVETT a return was ordered
of all moneys paid to the Chamberlain of the City of
London by persons either nominated or elected to the
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 let of Ja
nuary, 1800, to the present time; stating also the amount
received in each year, the sum total, and the purposes
to which the money was applied by the Corporation of
London,

RAILWYS.
Mr. KEOGH ask IRISH
ed for leave toA bring in a Bill to fa-
cilitate the transfer of land to railway companies for
railway purposes in Ireland.—Leave given.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL next obtained leave to
bring in a Bill granting relief against defects in leases
made under powers of leasing in certain cases.
The House then adjourned at Nine o'clock.

ESCAPE OF Two CONVICTS. WOOLWICH, MAY 1.
—About twelve o'clock last night two convicts escaped
from the convict hulk Hebe, recently moored in the
river near the west end of the Royal Arsenal. One
of them is named Charles Lanker, 28 years of age, a
native of Shall, ld, and cutler by trade. The other is
named Thomas Bradbury, 19 years of age. He was a
native of Coventry, and followed the occupation of e
hawker.

Lord Carington, the High Sheriff of Bucks, and the
Town Clerk, had au interview with Sir George Grey
Yo*terday.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE • CHANCERY CU 1.1.R.7', May 1.
(Beture Sir J. KNIGUT BRUCE.)
PIPER V. SOYER.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from preventing the plaintiff from having ac-
eCee to the books of account in the partner ship in the
bill mentioned, and from exercising the rights of a part
ner. The plaintiff alleged that eerly in 1848 he
vented a beverage called " Tortoni's Anana," and gene,
rally known as " Soyer's Nectar," and that he entered
into partnership with the defendant, John Gibbs,
for the purpose of making and selling said
beverage, and that in consideration of said
partnership, and also of the undertaking becoming
the property in equal moieties of plaintiff and said de-
fendant, the latter brought 200/. into the concern, and
premies were taken for the business in Rupert-street,
Haymarket. The capital not being sufficient, it was agreed
that Gibbs should bring in 200/. Inurtevehich was to be con-
sidered as a debt due by the partnership. Subsequently',
in the same year. it was agreed between them, that the
defendant, Alexis Benoit Soyer, of the Reform Club,
should be admitted as a partner, it being considered that
his name would be of great advantage, and it was agreed
that he should bring in 100/. only, in consideration of
his acquiring one-third interest in the concern, the two
previous partners each retaining a similar share. In
September, 1848, it was agreed, for the further extend-
ing the business, that the defendant, Richard Baker, of
Bisson's-grove, St. John's-wood, stockbroker, should
be admitted a partner into one-forth of the business.
on consideration of his bringing 1,1)00/. into the con-
cern. It was also agreed that the 2001. advanced
originally by Gibbs should be charged to the plain-
tiff's share, that each partner's share should be one-
fourth, that " the manufacture and sale of Soyer's
Nectar should be common to the four partners, that the
agreement be for seven years, and that the firm be called
Soyer and Co." The plaintiff alleged, that during the
old partnership he had kept the secret of the manufac-
ture of the beverage to himself, but that the defendant
Baker refused to enter into the partnership unless such
secret was communicated, and that accordingly on the
execution of the agreement it was communicated. Dif-
ferences soon arose, which ultimately led to the present
proceedings, and to the arrest of the plaintiff by Mr.
Groomridge, one of the creditors of the firm.
His HONOUR directed the partnership to be dissolved,
as from this day, without prejudice to any question, the
defendants within 48 hours to discharge the judgment
obtained by Groomridge, without prejudice to any ques-
tion, they to be entitled to credit in the account for what
they shall pay to Groomridge. His Honour likewise
directed a reference to ascertain and arrange, on equi'
able terms, the interests of the respective parties.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF SAMUEL BENNETT.
This bankrupt who was a draper at Islington, came
up on the question of certificate.
Mr. Linklater supported. The bankrupt was op-
posed on behalf of the Leicester. square Loan Society.
'1 he ground of opposition were misrepresentation to
his creditors, and the vexatious defence of an action.
Mr. LINKLATER contended that his client had
acted with perfect sincerity and honesty, and that
at the time those representatives were made the
bankrupt's books showed that he had not
in any way misstated his position, and that as
soon as he found himself in difficulties, he placed his
affairs in the hands of accountants, who were concerned
for his principal trade creditors. As regarded the
second charge, the plea was put in for the purpose of
preventing the Loan Society sweeping away the pro-
perty under an execution.
The COMMISSIONER said, as the plea had been put
in for the purpose of protecting the other creditors,
much of the blame which would otherwise attach to
such a proceeding was pardonable. Under all the
circumstances he would grant the certificate.
A bankrupt named Chappell, a wine merchant in
Water-lane, Tower- street, came up on the question of
certificate, which was suspended for two years, on the
ground of reckless trading. The debts and liabilities
were about 1,7001., and there was not a penny for the
creditors.

-
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
A well-dressed man, who gave the name of Henry
Edwards, and who is supposed to be a clergyman of the
Church of England, lodging at No. 8, South ➢iolton
street, was charged, before Mr. Bingham, with having
indecently assaulted George Gough, a young country-
man, living at 42, James•street, Oxford-street.
The prosecutor stated that about three o'clock on Sa-
turday afternoon he was proceeding along Oxford-street,
when the prisoner, who is a perfect stranger to him,
accosted him, and asked him to have some porter. Wit-
ness accepted the offer, and they went into a public-
house, where they had a pint of porter between
them. When they came out of the house,
witness thanked the prisoner and wished him
good afternoon. Witness the❑ walked away, and
had got as far as Regent-street, when the prisoner came
up to him again and asked him if ho had been to tea.
Witness replied that he had not, when the prisoner said
if he would take him where be could have some tea, he
(the prisoner) would pay fur it. Witness then took
him to a public•house in Shepherd•street, but as they
were entering the tap-room the prisoner observed some
men there, and refused to go in. They had a pint of
porter at the bar, and then left the house. The pri-
soner then took him to his lodgings in South Molten-
street, and desired him (witness) to wait at the
door whilst he ran upstairs. The prisoner then lett
him, and after a few moments' absence he came down
and asked witness to follow him up stairs. Witness did
so, and went into a room at the top of the house. The
prisoner then gave him half-a crown, and, subse-
quently conducted himself in such a filthy man-
ner towards witness that he ran out of the
house. The prisoner followed him, and on witness
meeting with a constable, he gave the prisoner in charge.
The constable who took the prisoner in charge said he
found upon him several letters, addressed to the Rev. R.
8., 3, South Melton-street, where ho had been lodging
about a week.
The prisoner, who denied there being a particle of
truth in the statement made by the prosecutor, was fully
committed for trial.

CL ERKEN WELL.
William Jackson, a portly. looking man, six feet high,
was brought before Mr. Combo, charged at the instance
of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, with
having committed a burglary in St. Pancras workhouse,
and stealing twenty sovereigns and 155/, in silver.
The prisoner, who has been a patient in Guy's Hos-
pital, with a broken leg ever since February last, was
brought to the court in a cabriolet, and was supported
into the presence of the bench by the officers with the
aid of a pair of crutches, and his foot in a sling sus-
pended trom his shoulders. He appeared to suffer great
pain, looked very pale, and was allowed a seat in a chair
near the space allotted for solicitors.
Mr. Howarth, the barrister, attended on the part of the
parish to conduct the prosecution,
Mr. COMM asked the prisoner if his health was
sufficiently strong end restored to have the case pro-
ceeded with ? The prisoner replied in the affirmative,
but he would prefer a postponement, as he expected
Mr. Huddiestone, the barrister, whom he had retained
to attend for him.
After some desultory conversation it was resolved to
take the necessary evidence to warrant the remand of
the prisoner, when
Mr. Howarth stated the case for the prosecution,
which was a reiteration of circumstances which have
already appeared before the public.
It may be recollected that on the night of the Bth of
February the strong-room in the workhouse where the
property had been deposited was broken into, and, 20
sovereigns and 155/. in silver was stolen; and on the
same night the prisoner was found within some area
railings near the workhouse walls,where his cries for help
brought assistance, and be was conveyed in a cabriolet to
Guy's Hospital, Borough. On the following morning
the robbery was discovered, some housebreaking imple-
ments were found in the wasbhouse, and near the spot
where the prisoner made the alarm were found some
skeleton keys, a large pair of list shoes, such as are used
by housebreakers, and a dark lantern, &c. There was
little doubt that the prisoner was the perpetrator of the
robbery, and having afterwards dropped from the work-
house wall fell within the railings and met with the acci-
dent to his leg, which was of a very severe description;
but there was so much mystery about the case that for
some time a few of the parish functionaries were sus-
pected, until a reward was offered fur the discovery of the
cabman who drove the prisoner on the night of the rob-
bery, and of the person who was attracted by the pri-
soner's cries and who assisted him over the railings into
the cab. They were at length traced, and on the pri.
Boner being visited by the officers he was identified as a
returned transport.
Mr. Henry M`Gahey was called, and deposed that he
is son of the vestry-clerk of St. Pancras. On the night
of the Bth of February last he deposited 155/. in silver
and 20 sovereigns iu a box in a drawer in the strong-
room. On the following morning the cashbox was
found empty on the floor, having been forced open, and
the property was missing.
Mr. Joseph Lye, compositor, of the Metropolitan-
buildings, St. Pancras-road, deposed that at about 12
o'clock on the night of the Bth of February last he was
passing near St. Pancras Workhouse when he heard
cries for help, and discovered the prisoner within some
iron railings, leaning with his back against the wall. He
begged of witness to help him over the railings. Wit-
ness asked him, " What was the matter?" and helped
him over. He said that a man had thrown his hat over
the railings, and on clambering over to get it again he
fell, and had broken his leg. Witness said, " I had
better ring the workhouse bell and obtain assistance."
He objected to that, and begged of witness not to do so.
He said he had no business at that end of the town; he
had been drinking with some friends, and wished to avoid
exposure, and would thank wi;ness it he would put him
into a cab. With great difficulty he did so, and he was
driven away.
Mr. Howarth—How high were the railings? Wit-
ness—Four or five feet high.
Mr. Co:nuts—Had the prisoner the appearance of be •
ing drunk? Witness—He had the appearance of having
been drinking a little, but he was not drunk. He was
exceedingly agitated and excited.
Mr. Benjamin Lawberd, of Gray's-inn, road, one of
the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, bad accom-
panied the directors to the strong-room ou the morn-
ing of the robbery, and found a crow bar and screw-
ilriver, &c. (now produced). The place had been broken I
into.

James Hale, an inmate pauper of the workhouse, was
called, but was to druik to be e:camined, end was or-
dered to stand down.
Jeremiah Lockerby, 180 S, being called, said he had
every reason to Where that he should be enabled to