The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-09 00:00:00

have an opportunity, however, for a full discussion upon the
matter.

Lord ASHBURTON said he considered it most objection-
able for the judges of the land to pa s sentences which it was
never intended to carry into effect. if any great change was
to be effected, it ought to be done with the sanction and under
the authority of an Act of Parliament. He wished to know
whether a criminal could insist upon his sentence being car-
ried out ?

Lord CAMPBELL said that, in his opinion, he could not ;
the power was given to the executive to transport if it was
desirous of so doing, but there was no compulsory obligation.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he desired to know whether
his Noble and Learned Friend was of opinion that the Execu-
tive could imprison for life after sentence of transportation for
life had been passed ?
Lord CAMPBELL said that he certainly was of opinion
that tnere was such a power vested in the Executive.
Lord LANSDOWNE said that it was not the intention of
his Noble Friend to advise the Crown to a course which m'ght
appear to be even indirectly illegal, although really le.:al. But
the Act of Parliament was perfectly clear upon the subject,
and seemed framed to meet the objection of the Noble Lord.
The Act expressly gave the Government power to trans-
port or retain in prison. (The Noble Lord then read
the words of the Act. Now, in no cas•e could he become entitled
to his liLerty, even if he had Leen cor.fined contrary to his sen-
tence. He said that this cl-.use provides that no m,n could be
prevented from suffering the imprisonment to which he was
sentenced, whether for one month, one year, or even for the
a hole term of life. Ile was quite ready to admit, that sup-
posing Government was quite ready to give all the operation
which his Noble Friend desired, yet-he felt quite assured that
it was quite necessary to have the experience t hat this Bill re-
commended. He did not consider this as a permanent altera-
tion, but as a temporary trial. This was a departure, a limited
departure from the old practice, and his Noile Friend, who
was lately Secretary, would, he felt assured, be convinced that
it was not intended to depart from the established practise
without sonic sufficient reason, and that reason was to be as-
certained by •he trial that was soon to be made.

Lord BROUGHAM felt that from the construction of this
very clause, that it was intemied to do away with the principle
of transportation. If they were to punish offenders by impri-
sonment instead of by transportation, transportation for seven
years was either too long or too short. It was too long for
imprisonment, but too short for transportation, for, in fact, the
people were sent out for three or four years, and not for seven.
Lord Lyndhurst had no recollection of what had transpired
when., he brought in his Act when he was Attorney-General,
but the principle had been adopted by him of modifying the
system of transportation; but he had left it to the usual prin-
ciples of the law to rectify the abuses, while he preserved the
principle.
Lord ASHBURTON conceived that there was no sufficient
time for testing the principle, and that the clause would never
effect its purpose. He thought, therefore, that there ought to
be some change so as to bring the experience within a shorter
period.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH conceived that the
change could not be made, unless there was some assurance
that the Noble Earl, who was now Secretary for the Colo-
nies, would remain in office until its results were fully ascer-
tained.

The Earl of CHICHESTER thought that, however the
rule might work with respect to adult offenders, it would not
apply to juvenile offenders, for it was unwise and unjust to send
a boy sentenced to transportation to Pentonville, when another
person under the same sentence was sent abroad. There was
no equality of punishment between the two offenders.
Earl GREY quite agreed with his Noble Friend, that this
princip'e could not be universally adopted. In 1841, when a
motion was moved in the House of Commons, it had been
mooted that there was no such equality. for the fact was, that
by far the greater number of convicts sentenced to transporta-
tion were for seven years, the greater part of whom were in-
tt-nded to be sent to the hulks and kept at home, and when they
had suffered a certain degree of punishment they should be set
at liberty.
After a mutual explanation between Lord BROUGHAM and
the Earl Of CHICHESTER.
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the motion, that a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into the execution of the
criminal law with respect to transportation, and especially with
respect to juvenile offenders.
1 he Earl of ELLENBOROUGH complained of being taken
by surprise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR offered to put it again, bat
this was declined, and the Comraittee was agreed upon.
CENTRAL TERMINUS AT GLASGOW.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table the report
of Commissieners appointed to inquire into the necessity of a
central terminus at Glasgow.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS
The Martins of LANSDOWNE also laid on the table the
report of Mr. Burrell, magistrate of Queen-square Police-
(Ace, respecting the committal of John Hockham to Tothill-
fields Prison.

LABOURING POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The amendments moved on this Bill were adopted, and it
was read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.