The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-22 00:00:00

measure would prejudice the objects which the non. Gentleman
himself had in view. The proper way to retrace our steps would
be by doing so gradually. Ile, therefore found it impossible to
agree that the Resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman should be
carried.; but as in many of 'them he concurred with the lion.
Mover, he preferred meeting them with the previous question,
instead of a decided negative leaving it to the lion. Gentleman
to bring in separate Bills upon each of those in which they both
agreed.-,4Hear, heat 1)
Mr. F. BUXTON contended, that the very small number of
executions that had taken place within sixteen years for some
crimes, was a good reason why the capital punishment in those
cares ought to be done away. There was another point on which
he trusted his Hon. Friend would not yield—the increased num-
ber of executions for the crime of privately stealing in a dwell-
ing house,. that has taken place within these few years, proved
that they had not had the effect of deterring from that crime,
which he thought an unanswerable argument in favour of the
repeal of capital punishment respecting it.
Mr. SCARLETT said that in any case in Which discretion
could be avoided it was quite right that it should be dispensed
with, for the value of punishment was that it tbllowed crime with
the utmost certainty and celerity. The argument too of so many
individuals haying escaped from death who were sentenced to
that punishment, made in his mind against the punishment.
There were some of the Resolutions to which he could not
accede, though he agreed to all of them in the abstract. Be-
fore he sat down he could not but express his satisfaction that
the principle laid down by his lamented friend, Sir S. Romilly,
now for the first time received the concurrence of the House.
Mr. PEEL explained that he thought it desirable to take the
subject of the Criminal Law into consideration for a particular
and specific purpose—to see merely whether punishment ought
to be mitigated.

Mr. SclnixTT explained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL complained of the incon-
venient mode in which these resolutions were brought forward
—they were called upon to vote a sweeping abolition of the pa-
nishment of death, as far as it applied to larcenies in dwelling_
houses, and yet against many of these acts not one word was
urged.
Mr. It. MARTIN said, that should the lion. and Learned
Gentleman be defeated to-night, he hoped he would not hesitate
to bring forward Bills containing every one of his resolutions.—
It by no means followed, that though he was defeated or: that
night, be should not subsequently succeed in every one of his
resolutions.

Mr. J. 31ACKINTOSI1 replied. The Attorney-General
had tbund some fault with the phraselareeny in a dwelling-house.
Now if that objection had been urged against a Bill, there would
weight, in
its
be some technical nicety ' • but to a resolution, it
seemed to him to come with rather a bad grace. Upon the first
resolution he would take the sense of the House. To that course

.
lie was determined to adhere. A great deal of Parliamentary
special pleading had been introduced upon that occasion. This
was merely introducing another stage into the Bill ; and if the
previous question was carried against his first resolution, he
should certainly .despair of making any impression upon the
House as to the necessity of repealing the too severe enactments
of the Criminal Law. If it were negatived, he should not
trouble the House with dividing upon the other resolutions, but
merely propose them for the sake of procuring their insertion
upon the Journals of the House.
The House then divided, and the numbers were--
For the Resolution 7t;
Against it - - . . 86
Majority - —to
The other Resolutions were then proposed and negatiVed.
DOG FIGHTING.
Mr. H. MARTIN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to pro-
hibit Bull baiting and Dog fighting.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he was a friend to the prin-
ciple of any measure calculated to put an end to animal' or hu-
man sufferings ; but it was an objection to the present Bill that
it did not go far enongh. It aimed at the prevention of sports
which formed the amusement of the lower orders, but did not
interfere with those in which the more wealthy and powerful
classes indulged. He would ask whether fishing, grouse-shoot-
ing, hare-hunting, fox-hunting, horse-racing, and other diver-
sions of the same kind, were not to the full as cruel as those
against which the Bill was levelled ? Unless the Bill was
amended so as to include both, he would object to any measure
cwlaasssneisoodie itloisinlileairfeserteyw'si tshuttjeccatili.usetsenhtes
founded on a distinction between the lower and more powerful
saidtt a thate rc norich,
h attempte wd
oppose the Bill in its first stage, and in every stage if necessary.
Mr. It. MARTIN observed, that the argument of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman was most absurd. It was as much as
to say, if five hundred persons were cast upon a desolate rock,
because he could not save them all they should all be downed.
Mr. IlitouutiAst and Mr. MARTIN' mutually explained.
• Mr. P]alsh objected to the Bill as an unfit subject for legis-
lation.

Mr. J. SMITH said, that he would vote for the motion of
his Hon. Friend, so far as it related to dog lighting—a sport of a
brutal nature, which was very much indulged in.
Mr. W. SMITH declared himself in favour of the Bill, and
denied that such sports had any tendency to keep up the manly
character of the lower classes. They were practised by the
worst description of persons, and not by those who had any
character to recommend them, and their obvious consequence
was to introduce cruelty not courage.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought such subjects were beneath
legislation, and denied the tendency of such sports to excite to
cruelty. He had himself attended them frequently in early
life, and did not feel that they had hardened his feeling's.
Mr. BUXTON expressed a hope that his Honourable Friend
would not be prevailed upon to withdraw his motion. The
tame arguments had been urged against his former Bill, the
effects of which were found to be so salutary. As to the
tendency of such sports. he could state the case of a boy, who,
from attending at dog fights, and mixing with the society there,
became perverted in character, and lost to every useful purpose
in society. Ile was less fortunate than the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, for his morals were corrupted.
Mr. BROUGHAM wished to ask his Hon. Friend if he had
taken the trouble to analyse the component parts of the company
at a horse race ?
The house then divided on the question for leave to bring in
'the Bill. The numbers were—
For the motion 10—Against it 47—Majority 29.
Mr. S. RICE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
laws relating to the office of Coroner in Ireland.
Mr. GOULBURN objected to the motion, and expressed
his opinion that the office of Coroner in Ireland should be assi-
milated as far as possible to the same office in England, but not
invested with greater power.
After a few words from Sir .1. Newport, Mr. Martin, Mr. J.
Grattan, and Mr. S. Rice, the motion was negatived without
a division.
Mr. C. WYNN moved that the House this day resolve it.
self into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the Acts
of the 53d, the 54th, and the 57th of the late King, relative to
the East India Trade.
Mr. FORBES observed, that if the Right Hon. Gentleman
meant to put India shipping and seamen on a level with British
shipping and seamen, he would oppose the motion.—Agreed to.
Mr. S. RICE gave notice that he would this day propose
to the House to fix a time for submitting his propositions rela-
tive to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. He was prepared
to net according to the pleasure of the House; and whether
it seemed expedient that he should bring forward his measures
on this most momentous question in tins Session or the next,
he was equally ready to meet the subject on his own responsi-
bility.
The Iletwrt of the Masters and Apprentices Bill was brought
up and ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday next.
On the third reading of the Sheriff's` Courts of Scotland Bill
being moved,
Mr. HUME proposed that it be re-committed, on account of
the-House-having been taken by-surprise in a manner that pre,
vented. discussion on the several stages of the Bill.—The Bill
was then ordered to be re-committed on Friday, the 30th.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Hat r-easT Two.