The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We entreat the Government once more, whiff
there is time for reflection, not to falsify the principle
of criminal jurisprudence which they had for year
asserted—not to disappoint the just expectations 0
an enlightened public, arid !listless the feelings whicl
their own Parliamentary exertions hail formerly ex-
cited in favour of a reformed system of justice, by ti
revival of the sanguinary law of forgery. We en•
treat them to recollect that even Sir Robert Peel.
the author of that law, did not venture to carry it
into effect after the punishment if death, to use Ott
language of Lord Brougham," had been branded by
he vote of the Commons of England." But it
Ministers persevere in establishing the precedent
of shedding blood under this law, arid Sir Robert
Peel should hereafter return to power, who car.
doubt that the precedent will be fruitful of sangui-
nary consequences, and that, in answer to any oh-
jectiona of the advocates of civil'zed justice, the
Right Hon. Baronet will plead the examples of ,
blood which shall have been bequeathed to all future
Ministers by a JVhig Administration ? Will Minis-
ters attempt to justify these examples on the ground
that they relate to worse cases of forgery than any
which have come under their consideration sinee
the passing of the present Forgery Bill ? Sure wr
xre that, bad as they may be, they are not worse.
than the cases of Savory, of Bristol, and tin '
Rev. Peter Fenn—two superior offenders, whose
crimes as forgers were beyond the ordinary
degree of depravity—and yet Sir Robert Peel, '
whom no person ever accused of an over-ten-
derness for life, thought it right to recommend
them to the mercy of the Crown. Their sentence
of death was accordingly commuted, and they were
transported for life. What advantage could the in
terests of society have derived from their blood ?
Here were men of education—of respectable con-
nections—persons not easily suspected of dishonest
practices, and above that stimulant necessity, which
provokes men to crime, except such ai their own '
folly created. Here were those men convicted of
forgeries to a large amount, and the sword of ins- I
rice smote them not. They were punished in such
a way as prevented a repetition of the offence against
society, not by cutting them off in their sins, but
by degrading banishment, where, by penitence and
amendment, it was yet in their power usefully to
atone for the violation of the laws of their country.
Could Sir Robert Peel have advised the execution
of such offenders as Calvert and Collier at the time
when he recommended the mercy of the Crown to
be extended to Silvery and Foul ? If he had done
so, would it not be justly said to afford example of a
most partial and capricious application of the law
of capital punishment ? Would it not be said, with
truth, that men are hanged for forgery, or saved,
not because of the greater or less degree of guilt,
but because of the more or less powerful interest
exerted in their favour—or because of the consi-
derate or callous disposition of the Home Secretary
for the time being ? During the discussions on the
Forgery Bill last year Sir Robert Peel acknowledged
that the criminal law of England, though so recently
revised and amended by himself, was still die most
sanguinary of any in Europe; and he made, at the
same time, this remarkable admission—" I have been
the instrument in many cases of mitigating the se-
verity of the law, and I can assure the House that
in nu instance has any obstruction of justice arisen in
consequence of such mitigation." It is only to be
regretted that he did not try the effect of mitigation
oftener; and it is still more to be regretted that,
when he went to the trouble of framing Bills to re-
vise arid amend the criminal law, he did not relieve
the Home Secrete!), horn the burdensome duty of
attending to numerous applications for commutation
of punishment by mitigating the law itself, so that
sentence of death could only pass in cases of such
enormous atrocity as would leave no ground for an up-
plication for mercy, except where there were reason to
entertain doubts of the convict's guilt; and in such a
case, indeed, it would rather be a demand for justice
than mercy. But the present Ministers, when out
of office, have argued the question of capital punish-
ment for forgery, not as one of degree but of prin-
ciple. They objected to this punishment in all cases
of forgery—both on the ground that the punishment
is not commensurate vtitli the offence, and because
it is incapable of being uniformly executed; thus
leaving property less protected by its capricious se-
verity than it would be if the punishment were mo-
derate, and its application certain. It Should not be
forgotten, at this time, that, besides the one thou-
sand bankers who petitioned last year for the aboli-
tion of the punishment of death in all cases of for-
gery, three of the greatest bill-brokers in Lotidon—
namely, Mr. Gurney, Mr. Rothschild, and Mr. San-
derson—petitioned to the same effect. It was stated
that one of those petitioners bad bills passing through
his hands to the amount of fiorn twenty to this ty
millions annually, and that the whole united did
not cash less than sixty millions a year ! The
Marquis of Lansdowne, in referring to this pe-
tition, said, " I think, my Lords, three more
unexceptionable witnesses---three more impor-
tant individuals, whose opinions ought to have
weight with the House on the subject of an altera-
tion of the law—could not be found in the country.
One of these petitioners is a member of the Church
of England, another is a D:ssenter, arid a third is of
the Jewish persuasion. I am glad to have the op-
portunity of naming these individuals, as it shows
that the desire of seeing the abolition of death for
forgery is riot cot:fined to any particular sect or de-
nomination." In the year 1809, in the debate upon
the Bill for the repeal of the penalty of death for
shop-lifting, Mr. Wilberforce, in commenting upon
the severity of the law and the lenity of its practice,
said, " The infliction of death, instead of being de-
signated by a known law, is left to the discretion of
the Judge—a momentous trust, ever to be regarded
with jealousy, and which, however purely it may be
executed, will always have such ail influence upon
prosecutors, upon ss 'messes, arid upon juries, as to
produce the frequent impunity of guilt." It is cer-
rain that the penalty of death for offences against
property oftener terrifies the injured party from prose-
cutieg, titan the thief from depredation. But it may
be said, " it is the law that has affixed the penalty
of death to the crime of which Cubist and Calvert
have been legally convicted, and the Ministers
of the Crown are bound to see the law executed."
We admit the general principle; but, at we have
said before, the proogative of laercy is as much
the law (If the land as any penal Statute; so that,
where the mercy of the Crown mitiga'es the punish-
ment annexed to a crime by a particular Statute,
there is no departure from the general principle.
The punishment of death is according to law, and
the prerogative which substitutes a milder punish-
ment is also according to law, Both cannot be
exercised togetheria—one must be destructive, pro
twat), of the other. It becomes then a question not
of law, but of morals or of public policy, which
ought in a given case to prevail. The Constitution
vested the prerogative of mercy in the King, for the
purpose of correcting erroneous decisions of Courts
of Justice, or witigiting the severities of sanguinary
laws. Ate precedents asked for in the latter case?
We may mention that in the year 1808, in the dis-
cussion
yluof doefatShirfoSr
sou, there was one instance within hying me-
.stletataimingilly;srißvaitlel
ityo
jr,,epeeniall.;t4l;eppos,--
tnory of the capital Statute having been car-
ried into effect, Again, in the year isoq, when
the Bills to repeal the penalty of death for
stealing to the value of forty shillings in a
dwelling-house, and free shillings in a shop, were
under discuss:on, it was admitted, by the speakers
on both sides of the question, that during the pre-
vious seven years no less than 1,872 personshad been
committed for those offences, of whom only one lord
been executed ; and it should be borne in mind that
during those seven years, with tha exception of one
year, there had been a Tory Administration. Titus
these laws were some time abrogated in practice be-
fore they were erased from the statute-book ; and
these examples of a mercifo dispensation with the
extreme penalties olf sanguinary laws were given by
l'ory advisers of the Crown. As to the forger', law,
I we know that if it were not for the Reform 114 the?

tattles of both llou-es of Parliament would, this
Ittive been cro,tivtl with petitions for its re-
deal. N..y, we should consider the present Ministers
r!titid to b ing 811 for that purpose theniselve:,
s their to miled opinions prove that they must re-
4-ard every instarco of the infliction of death for
'orgety jurrcial murder. is it possible, then, that
,ur Ministers can allow human victims to be offered
tp to a law whielt it is their solemn opinion ought
never to liqvc existed?-11forning Herald.

We have more than once alluded to part of the
oolicy of Ministers, which is, we believe, the subject
of general remark thoughout the country:—That
the (Herald) of Saturday last :
Pa
ollekt.yreris
" Chief Baron who was raised to the Bench by the
frviotemll dpesucbriiibne,dirilnathlNerofronllionwin
gcgontpeamsspaogre in
present Government: voted this day for the Anti-Reformers.
I suppose it is for Lis good services in supporting the i.ame
interests at the I,st election that they are going to make a
Bishop of Tot rent ; for he possesses no other merits to
eatirle him to such a distinction, except indeed that he is a
'Prentice Boy of Londonderry. But these are by no
meant singular cases; and it is cerrent opinion that the
best way to get anything front the p esent Government, if
you be not a cousin of Lord Grey, is to abuse, revile, and
thwart the persons and the principles of himself and bis
colleagues both openly and in secret."
The same system of passing.,faver their friends,
and bestowing lucrative situations on the:r:enemies,
has been pursued in Edinburgh. An instance was
told us of a valuable place having been given to an
effluent Tory, who, speaking of it, said he detested
their principles as much as ever, but he was not
such a fool as to refuse from them a situation yielding
so good an income. The principle on which they
proceed we take to be thi,. They say to thems
selves, we can count on these men who maintained
the principles we now profess in the worst of times.
If they adhered to these principles when they were
disadvantageous with a view to worldly interest,
they will riot abandon them now. We have nothing,
therefore, to apprehend from them. Bet with re-
spect to men who either have no principles, or such
principles as they would e illingly change, or men
who are opposed to us, they will have no scruple in
attacking us, and it is, therefore, good policy to con-
ciliate them. A policy like this, however, when it
becomes known, soon defeats itself. It is Hobbes,
we believe, who remarks, that in the disturbances in
tie time of Charles the First, the buying off one
opponent always raised up a number of fresh oppo-
nents. Now that it has taken wind that the way
to be on good terms with Ministers is to be their
enemy, they will have abundance of enemies.
The conduct of Government on the Dublin election
has been most disgraceful--because their ene-
mies charged them with using their influence in
the last election, they determined not to use any in-
fluence ! As if men of any prudence would think, in
such cases, of taking counsel from their enemies. All
the men holding situations during pleasure tinder
Government have openly voted for the Anti-Reform
candidates. These men are too wise in their ge-
neration to have taken a step that they were not
assured would be harmless to themselves. Arid
maik the advantage taken of this already. In the
John Bull of yesterday it is said—" Nothing can
more distinctly point out the reaction that has taken
place in popular feeling with regard to Lord Grey's
Administration and the Reform Bill (without which
it could not exist a fortnight), than the returns
which have been made in open and populous places
since the mingled cunning and absurdity of thi
te-
volutionary measure have been made evident.
Anti now at Dublin, Latoto.;he and
01.oghlen, the pets of Reform, have ht.:en obliged
to give in, lest the majority of their opponents
should become too great for mortal Whig to endure.
This coming on the heels of Mr.
Stanley's successful negative to Mr. Gordon's reso-
lution will shake the tottering fabric prodigiously.
Let them talk of the evidence before the Committee
as they please—here is evidence of mistrust and un-
popularity which neither trickery can 41e, nor eva-
sion overcome." That the people are rokewarm, is
so far front being the ease, that the are generally
chagrined at the slow progress of the Reform Bill—
a state of feeling indicative of anything rather than
lukewarmness. The first steps in the other House
will soon show how the people feel. With regard
to the affair of the Irish yeemanry, it would really
appear as if Mr. Dawson arid the Members of his
side were the supporters of Ministers, and the
Members who waited on Earl Grey were their op-
ponents. We really think Mr. Shell might well
"express his surprise at the complacency with which
Right Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side re-
ceived the cloud: of incense which were poured
upon them from that side on some occasions. It
was by no means supeilluous in him to remind Mi-
nisters, that the Gentlemen of the Deputation were
their supporters. " The Right Hon. Member
for Harwich said that the Members for Ireland did
not agree with the gentlemen who waited on Earl
Grey ; but he (Mr. Shell) would remind the Right
lion. Gentleman and his Majesty's Ministers, that
all those Members. for Ireland, who usually support
the Government, were present at that interview."
After the threats of Mr. Dawson and the ether
opposition Members, Ministers are bound to put
down the yeomanry. Whet! shall it be said that
we have no other security for Ireland than in putting
arms into the hendsof a small minority of Protestants
to be used against the Catholics, and that if the
arms are taken from the Protestants they will join
the Catholics, when both will oppose the Govern-
ment ? Well might Mr. 'Wyse say, "as to the
threats of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he hoped that
no Government would be so pusillanimous as to
submit to the dictation of Pretoria!) guards." Such
a force ought net for one moment to he allowed to
exist, if Ireland must be coerced, let disciplined
soldiers be employed who will coerce, without re-
,pect of parties, both Catholios and Protestants.—
We believe that force is required for Ireland, and
that it will be required for some time; but to employ
11 yeomanry force is to make the distempered state
of the country permanent, to exclude ail hope of
improvement.—Morning Chronicle,.

One more clause of the Reform the
22d—was added on Sattirday to those which had
already received the sanction of the House of Com-
mons, Previous to the discussion which took place
upon that clause, and on a perverse Anti• Reform
amendment which had ben moved in substitution
for it, Mr. Hume brought forward his motion, that
orders of the day should take precedence of notices
on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, sod thAt
the House should thenceforth meet for the despatch
of business at twelve o'clock in the day. The mo-
tion was withdrawn, on an understanding that he
more time should be wasted in the battling of pet',
dons, and a deference (we must add a just one) for
the opinion of Lord Althorp, that men in office
would be much impeded, by adopting the motion,
in the discharge of their official duties, and that the
public business would not be expedited by the
change. It is curious to observe the hardihood
with which the most outrageous assertions are
risked by men in desperate circumstanci s. Mr.
Herries had the face to suggest,—as Sir It. Peel
had done very gravely, though unsuccessfully, some
weeks ago,—that the House should adjourn,
and because the people were cooling towards
the Bill (!) enable them to cool more com-
pletely. This was a pretty exhibition of modest
assurance, when addressed to a House of Commons
who had passed the second reading of the Bill, and
who had only yet not passed every clause of it iu
Committee, from the vexatious delays which Mr.
Herries and other close borough Members had inter-
posed, for the sake of preserving their own existence
ie
a hale longer. The people cooling towardst.te.r
Bill No; the people are motionless, because their
h
inieds are made up—because the cwair.,,y,,,,L0",,ht0le
le
Bill, and its actual incorporationiiad its speedy and
body of the
~„ law of England,
'representative system
powerful influence upon
unchangeable. When
considered a
anxietypoit s
waso-
principles of the Bill, it ex-
directed towards the
itself by eager discussion; now that there is
pressed
Ino anxiety but for Vie passing of the Bill, action is
ofte alto-
tether fiXteadre'art:(rieU"nje

susr ended, and the people hold their breath and
lock on. The moment, should such a moment ar-
me, %then any important section of the House of
Lords shall venture to show an hostility to the mea-
sure, we suspect that the most daring paradox•
monger of them all will find reason to be satisfied,
that instead of a cooling it is a fermenting process
on which the nation are about to enter.—Times.

We have already alluded to Mr. Senior's pamphlet
on poor laws for Ireland, commutation of tithes, and
a provision for the Catholic clergy. On all these
important objects of legislation, the remarks of Mr.
Senior are worthy of being well considered. With
regard to the two latter points, he would have con-
vinced us, first, that the existing mode of support-
ing the established clergy by tithe ought to be
abandoned; and, second, that the Catholic clergy
ought to have subsistence provided for them by
law,—Mr. Senior, we say, would have convinced
us of the truth of both these propositions, had not
our judgment been made up in their favour many
years ago. But respecting the first question which
he handles,—viz., that of Irish " poor laws,"—we
must he content with admiring the ingenuity of his
arguments; our opinion of the necessity of a provi-
sion for the poor of Ireland remains altogether un-
moved. It is beside the purpose of any inquiry
into the justice or expediency of such an institution,
to take into account any interests or considerations
but such as are expressly Irish. Mr. Senior in-
sists, and very reasonably, that "legislating for
Ireland, we tire bound to look exclusively to the
interests of Ireland, and that to impose on
Ireland ' any internal regulations, with a view
to produce good, or to prevent evil' (he might
have said exclusive good or evil) to Eng-
land, would be a base abuse of the prepon-
derance in the United Parliament which the
" Union gave to England." If, however, it be true,
as Mr. Senior alleges, and as we believe, that the
establishment of poor laws in Ireland would not
prevent the periodical immigration of Irish labourers
into England, the gentlemen of Ireland ought to feel
the less apprehension of any additional burden which
would be thrown upon themselves by such poor
laws, since the same number of their native poor
would still carry home from their employment in
this country the means of livelihood, independent of
their parishes. Mr. Senior bears hard upon the
opinions of Dr. Doyle, who has written and spoken
in favour of Irish poor laws; and we must allow
that in some respects his strictures upon this able
politician are not much open to cavil. It is to be
regretted, that Dr. Doyle's evidence,no less than his
pamphlet, seems open to the charge of being both
vague and declamatory; and although we have our-
selves arrived at the conclusion, that for a mass of
poor who have been plunged into poverty by a
system of which others have the exclusive guid-
ance, the natural relief is to be found in some mea-
sure which would impose upon such guides a mo-
ral necessity of amending their system and turn-
ing it to the poor man's benefit as well as to their
Own, we cannot collect from Dr. Doyle's lips or pen
what is the precise measure which lie would intro-
duce bearing the name of " poor law," more espe-
cially what are the exact regulations and con-
ditions by which he would entitle the pauper
to a provision under it. We quote the following
passages from Mr. Senior's pamphlet, containing a
somewhat severe comment upon the apparent ob-
scurities or inconsistencies of the Catholic Bishop.
But we must observe that there is a considerable
difference between exposing the weakness of an ad-
vocate and disprovi! g the justice of his cause or the
advantages of a great remedial measure, the neces-
ai y for which stands on the admitted magnitude of
evils now existing :
" Dr. Doyle's views are, in several respects, opposed to
Mr. tl'Culloch's. He admits (4591) that a system of
poor laws would cheek the clearing of estates—be admits
(4509) that it might not tend to lessen the number of
people. He does not propose any thing so repugnant to
the natural liberty of man, or to the habits of the Irish,
as a law of settlement under which a man, though not
chargeable, could be removed. What he does propose,
often as he repeats it, it is not, perhaps, quite easy to
understand.
" He affirmed (Pamphlet, 46), that no friend to the
Irish poor contemplates the introduction into Ireland of
the English poor laws, or of a system which would vest
in the idler, in the drunkard, or the improvident, a right
to subsist at the public cost (25). He states (Evidence,
4,537) that the system of relief which he proposes is one
that, in country parts, and even in towns, would be in
ordinary years extremely light ; that it would be given, in
ordinary cases, to those only whe are not capable of exer-
cising any industry (1,539.)
" An ordinary provision for the impotent, and extraor-
diaary and temporary assistance to the able-bodied in cases
of peculiar emergency, appear from these statements to be
all that lie proposes. But, on turning to the pamphlet, 1
nd him asserting (p. 62) the total inability of the poor of
Ireland to subsist by their own labour unassisted by the
State ; that the number of destitute is exceedingly
great (7) ; that one-half of the population Lave no inte-
rest in the preservation of order (11); that the poor law
which he proposes, is to shelter the houseless, clothe the
naked, feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, relieve the
distressed, put an end to vagrancy, separate the imposter
from tLe virtuous, compel the idler to do his work, and
remove from the turbulent the food of sedition. And lie
directs us to organize the population, place them in their
proper classes, assign to them their respective duties, and
ensure all of theta subsistence (55).
" Ireland, in short, is to be one vast house of industry,
divided into as many wards as there are parishes, in each
of which a Committee of six, elected by the householders,
is to take care that no person wants house-room, fuel,
food, or clothing ; taking care also that no person be idle,
drunken, improvident, or an imposter, but not being
'guilty of the unspeakable wickedness of throwing obstacles
in the way of marriage, or of warring with Heaven by
checking the multiplation of the human kind.' (27). And
all this is to be done by a system that, in ordinary years,
would he extremely light !
" If any moral fact can be ascertained by experience, if
the testimonies of all ages and all countries have any
weight, it is established that idleness and improvidence
can be prevented only by leaving them to the punishment
inflicted by nature—want, and degradation. What are
the securities against them, if we obey Dr. Doyle ? First,
that the committee selected to administer relief are not to
be obliged to give relief but as they think proper (4,551);
that they would be careful to limit the assessment as much
as would be necessary, and at the same time not to stint
the poor beyond what was Just (4456) ; and, secondly,
that there always has been, and there always will be, an
aversion in the minds of the poorer classes to seek relief I
(4551).
4. On the first point I cannot but agree in Mr. Wyse's
anticipation (6949), that but a short interval can elapse
between the establishment of the assessment, and relief
being claimed under it as a right. Dr. Doyle's pamphlet
is the best commentary on his evidence.
" If a man want bread to sustain his life, he is bound
to give in exchange for it any other property he way
possess, or hire out for that purpose his labour or what-
ever he can sell, except his liberty or virtue; but should
he have nothing to dispose of, or find no person to give
him food in exchange for his goods or labour, he is to
apply for subsistence to the bead of the state, to whom the
ease of the whole community is confided, or to the Magi-
strate or other person to whom is intrusted the admini-
stration of the laws. Should his application be unsuc-
cessful, and his life be about to perish of hunger—but we
can pursue this subject; no further. If then the right of
every individual to preserve life be incontestable ; if no
man can deny this right, neither can any man deny that
the governing power in a state is entitled and obliged to
provide, in (ale shape or other, for the preservation of the
lives of its subjects ; whereas, if it neglect to do so, it
must either punish as crimes what in reality are not
offences against the laws of nature, it must permit what
are called theft, robbery,, 'violence, and even bloodshed,
when these happen to be committed by its subjects driven
to iecotninittitl of them by extreme want.' (p. 72-74.)
. The only difference in this respect between the plans
of M Culloch and Dr. Doyle is, that, according to
Mr M'Culloch's O
en, the rightis to be a legal right, en
forced by the magistrate; according to Dr. Doyle, it is
to be a natural and indefeasible right to e. enforced by
what are called theft, robbery,
avriyoletce,acn'd bloodshed.
" But it will not be necessary
would notensact•ethiet,
poorfor be-
yondtlte
Committee, says Dr. -r)
just.' tally believe that they
what was
would not. I fully believe that
with s what arey
and bloodshed' before their
called theft, robbery, violence,
eyes, they would respect the natural and indefeasible right
to relief, as long as a particle of property remained to tip-
pease it. But this we are told, would not encourage idle-
ness, and provide far the dissolute at the expense of the