The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

POLICY TOWARDS TURKEY.

Sheriff.

The HoN. MEMBER then said that, in consequence of
late changes, he should postpone hi, motion regarding
our policy towards Turkey till this day week.

CRACOW.

Mr. ELLIS gave notice for Tuesday week, of a
mot ion relative to the trade and intercourse with Craccw.

Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice of his intention that
day fortnight to move for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Irish Special Jury Act, by making parties
who strike for Special Juries pay the expense in cute
of a non-suit.
On the motion of Col. PERC'EVAL leave of ab-
sence was given to Mr. Luke White on account of
severe indisposition.
ELECTION PETITIONS.
Mr. ORD brought up the Report of the General
Committee on Election Petitions, which stated that the
Committee had directed notices to be given to the par-
ties in the Ludlow and Ipswich petitions, that they
would on Monday, the 6th of April, proceed to select
the Members from the Panel No. 1, who were to serve
in those petitions, and that in the Cambridge petit on
they would make the selection from Panel No. 2.
The Committee believed in the adoption of this course
they had not acted contrary to the spirit of the Act.
On the motion of Mr. ORD, the Report was ordered
to be printed.

PENNY POSTAGE.
Mr. FITZROY wished to know whether there was
any intention to make nn alteration in the postage from
Calais to London ? The Postage to Dover was only
Id., but for a letter to or from Calais the postage was
10d. He also wished to ask a question with respect to
the votes and proceedings of the House. He found
that by putting his name on the cover he could
send the votes free of expense to his friends in
the country—but if he was absent from London he
himaclf could not receive them free of expense. He
therefore wished to know from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether there would be any objection to Mem-
bers being allowed to receive the Votes through the
post, free of any charge.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in
answer to the first question, observed that it was quite
correct that the postage to Dover was Id., but the
postage of a French letter was under treaty, and by that
treaty the charge was 10d. The subject of the
foreign postage had not escaped the attention of Go-
vernment, and the subject, more especially with regard to
France, was under discussion, the object being, that if
the postage of letters to England was reduced
there might he a corresponding reduction on the part
of Foreign Governments of their Postage.
Mr. FITZROY said the Right Hon. Gentleman

had misunderstood him. He did not at all wish to know I

whether the postage on the other side of the Channel

was reduced—what he wished to draw the attention of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer to was, that while only one

penny was charged fora letter from Dover, tenpence
had to be paid for a letter from Calais. Therefore
what he wanted was to have the postage from Calais
reduced.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed that that was just what be did not want to do.
His object was that, in dealing with the French Go-
v4rnment, he might give them a return for what they
gave, and th,y were endeavouring to settle what re-

duction could be made on both sides of the ChAnnel.

He would be very glad for his part if the House could

settle what it wished to have done on the subject of let-
ters going to foreign countries, for he had heard various
opinions on the matt,ir from different Members. With
regard to the second question of the Honourable
Member he should only say that he believed the House

would concur with biro in thinking that after thepri% Hoge

of franking had been abolished,-there should be no re-

turn to it for the benefit of the House.
MR. SHERIFF EVANS.
Lord G. SOMERSET rose to address the House,
but immediately gave way to

Captain POL HILL, who said, that in proceeding to
address the House, he did not know whether he was in
order. The question, however, he had to bring before
them was one of great importance, and though his motion

was the last on the list--2(Laughter)—he wished to sub-

o the House his resolution for the release of the

The SPEAKER said if the House thought the
Hon- Gentleman entitled to precedence, he had no ob-
jection ; but as it was not a question of privilege, he
feared it could not be taken out of tie usual course.
Captain POLHILL would crave the indulgence of
the House.—(Loud cries of .s No, no," in the midst of

which the Hon. and Gallant Member sat do k n,)

COMMISSIONERS OF ARBITRATION.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET rose to bring
Forward the motion of which he had given notice, and

he would state his reasons for so doing. Although the
sum was small in amount the principle involved
was of very serious importar.ce. He confessed that
he could scarce believe the statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
namely, that Mr. Stevenson received a salary of 1,2001.
per annum as a Commissioner of Arbitration, while he
was at the same time holding the office of Commissioner

of Excise. According to the terms of the Emancipa-
tion Act, the Commissioners had to distribute up-
wards of twenty millions of money. They were armed
with most extraordinary powers, and had most solemn

duties to perform. He (Lord G. Somerset) was not
complaining of the way in which those duties were

performed, because he considered them to have been

accomplished in a most satisfactory manner, Such,
however, was the Commission up to 1838, when Mr.
Stevenson was appointed to the Board of Excise.
When that Appointment took place, Mr. Amiot per-
formed the duties which had hitherto been performed
by Mr. Stevenson, who considered that he had ceased

to be a Commissioner of Arbitration. In October in
that year, Mr. Stevenson received the remnant of his
salary as a Commissioner of Arbitration, and also his
salary as a Commissioner of Excise. Mr. Amiot, all
this time, continued to perform the duties of Arbitra-
tion Commissioner ; but ultimately Lord Glenelg,
thinking it proper to withdraw his recommenda•
tion, Mr. Stevenson was permitted to enjoy
his salary of 1,2001. a-year as Commissioner of
Excise, and his salary of 1,0001. as Commissioner of

Arbitration. That rva3 a course which he (Lord G

Somerset) thought the Treasury ought not to 'sanction

and if rumour spoke true, the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite took the same view of the case, and bad en-
deavoured to remove the pressure which had been put
upon him by other parties to allow such a course to be
adopted. He thought that Mr. Stevenson ought to
have been continued a Commissioner of Arbitration,

and not appointed a Commissioner of Excise. The
office hours of the Commissioners of Arbitration were
from ten till three, and the office hours of the Com-
missioners of Excise were from eleven till four. There-

fore it was impossible that any gentleman could dis-
charge the duties of both offices, becuuse he could not
be at one end of London from ten till three, and at the
other end of London from eleven till four. The Noble

Lord proceeded to say, that he found from a paper he
had before him, that the officers employed under the
Excise were not less than 6,000. He was at a loss to
conceive how the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite
could justify the proceeding which he wished to
allude to. A gentleman who was in the receipt
of 1,2001. a year, and who had important duties
to discharge, had been appointed to another office,
with another salary of 1,0001. He believed that if the
Lords of the Treasury had studied a little more closely
than they appeared to have done the terms of the Act
of Parliament, they would not have acted as they had
done in the case of Mr. Stevenson. He found it laid
down in one of the clauses of -the Az-v-thia Atn aoaount
should be annually submitted of the payments which
that officer had received. Five years, however, had
elapsed since that gentleman's appointment, and no
such account had yet been laid before the House. If
ever there was a suspicious circumstance, he thought
that was one. If the Right Hon. Gentleman and his
Colleagues intend to perpetrate a job, that would have
been the way to do so. He did not accuse the Right
Hon. Gentleman, or the Board of Treasury of such a
proceeding, but he accused them of gross neglect in not
carrying into effect that check which the et of Parlia-
ment provided. He regretted that Mr. Stevenson
should have accepted the additional salary, and he re-
gretted also that the Treasury should have allowed it.
The Treasury was, however, much more to blame than
Mr. Stevenson, and they had been guilty of most mon-
strous dereliction of duty in sanctioning such a pro-
ceeding. Now, what was the state of this case—it
was the violation of an important principle, that an in-
dividual should not hold two important public offices,
the performance of the duties of which were incompa-
tible with each other. If an individual held an office
which occupied only a portion of his time, at a salary of
some 3001. a year, it was not improper to give
such a person a similar situation at a similar
salary, provided the duties of either would not
interfere with those of the other, but in this case
such was the fact, for those two important offices
could not be properly filled by the same person.
He considered the giving an additional salary to a per-
son already holding an appointment, was in direct contra-
diction to all those expressions of an anxiety to diminish
public burdens, which had been so lavishly indulged in
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was still more im-
portant if they looked to the principle involved in it.
Every gentleman accepting a situation as a Commis-
sioner of a Revenue Board, ought not only to devote
the hours of official business to the performance of his
duties, but he was also bound to devote the whole of
his leisure hours to making himself master of the
details connected with his official duties. A Commis-
sioner of Excise, in order to discharge his duties effi-
ciently, should make himself master of the details of
several manufacturing processes. If the Senior Com-
missioners of Excise had more onerous duties to perform
in another way, Junior Commissioners had to make
themselves masters of the details of their duties. He
had endeavourer, to state the case correctly and with-
out exaggeration, but he had not been able to do so as
perfectly as he otherwise should have done for the
want of those official documents to which he ought to
have had access. He had, however, he thought made out
a case sufficient to show that this matter required
further elucidation, and to authorize the House to call
for the papers of which he had given notice, and if
those papers were granted, he thought they would prove
that the Board of Treasury, as regarded this case, had
not done their duty. As he did net intend to refer to
the Marquis of Normanby, he mould withdraw the
resolution which referred to that branch of the subject.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving for a return of
all persons appointed to be paid Commissioners of Arbi-
tration under the power of the Act 3 and 4 William IV.,
cap. 73, stating their names, the dates of their appoint-
ments, the salaries and emoluments to be paid to each
of them, and the payments made to each of them re-
spectively, on account thereof, the dates of the said pay-
ments, an 3 the authority under which such payments
have been made ; also a return of any other office (if
any) in the public service, held by each of the said paid
Commissioners of Arbitration, specifying the data
of appointment to each office respectively, the salaries
and emoluments payable, and the salaries and emolu-
ments paid in consequence of such other office, together
with the dates of payment in each case. Copies of
any warrant or warrants by which any payments may
have been made to Mr. Stevenson as Commissioner of
Arbitration, since the appointment of Mr. Stevenson
to be a Commissioner of the Board of Excise. Copies
of any communications from the Secretary of the Colo-
nies, Lord Glenelg, to the Board of Treasury or the
Board of Arbitration Commissioners, in reference to the
appointment of Mr. Amiot to be a paid Commissioner
of Arbitration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he was sure the Noble Lord
.must have known
that there would have been no objection to produce any
of the papers, nor any others which might throw light
on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) And perhaps it would
have been as well had the Noble Lord refrained from
arguing the case till the papers were produced.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) However, as the Noble Lord
had made his statement reflecting rather strongly
on his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's)
conduct in the transaction, he would take leave
to make a couri.er statement on his own responsi-
bility, which he believed the papers when produced
would fully bear out. Now first as to the Commission—
there was an arrangement, not for salary but for a cer-
tain allowance, at the rate of 1,0001. n-year to be
granted by the Treasury, as the Commissioners re-
ported.tbeir business accomplished. Of the planner in
which they had discharged their duties he believed that
every gentleman who had been at all engaged in West
Indian interests would bear bonour?ble testimony,—
(Hear, heat.) A legal gentleman, in a letter he had
written upon the subject, had stated that the manner in
which the business had been done by the Committee

was well deserving attention, with reference to the inns.
provern,nts of some of the Courts of Law. He would
no.v proceed to what the transactions were with regard
to Mr. Stevenson. 1-Ic was appointed a Commissioner
of Excise in October, 1838, and in the autumn of that

year he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had two
points brought before him, the first was as to the state

of business of the Commission, and upon looking into
that he thought it would be advisable to issue ❑otices
that the business of the Commission would be brought
to a conclusion, and those notices were accordingly

issued stating that the Commission would cease

on the Ist of January, 1841, and the next part was
as to Mr. Stevenson receiving the salary of two high
offices. Now, with respect to the latter he must do
Mr. Stevenson the justice to state, that he had offered

to do the business and close up the proceedings of the

office with or without any emolumen, as he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) might think right, and for any
p tyments that had been made to him he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) was reiponslle. The Com-
reissioners were to be paid according to the amount
of labour performed, and if they looked to different pe-
riods of the Commission they would find its early labours
were of the most important and laborious kind, but
subsequently of a much lighter nature, and he considered
if he was to retire, and was paid for the amount of
labour, it would not be a fair mode of proceeding. As
to the amount of labour, it was not the salary that was

about to issue to Mr. Stevenson, but what was fairly
due to him, they were to consider, not for future years
only, but for what he had actually performed. That
consideration formed a considerable ingredient in the
decision he had made, and under these circumstances
he told Mr. Stevenson he should not refuse him that

issue, hut afterwards he must perform the duties of the
Commission gratuitously during its continuance. He
had since considered his decision, and was prepared to

abide 14 it. The facts were, that his Noble Friend
(Lord Glenelg) under the impression that Mr. Stevenson
was obliged to resign, appointed Mr. Amiot, but, in a
few days, discovering his mistake, he informed Mr.
Amiot that the appointment could not be confirmed.

li,sides, Mr. Amiot, of whom he did not wish to

speak disrespectfully, was not qualified to deal with the
legal questions that came before the Commission. If
the Noble Lord contended that persons holding office
in the Excise should be disqualified from holding office
in any other department, he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) could show instances during the Administra-
tion of the Noble Lord himself, in which gentlemen
holding important Excise offices were also entrusted
with duties of a very important nature in
other departments. Lord George Seymour, when
first Commissioner of Excise was also a drainer and

wharfinger in Ireland.—(Laughter.) The Deputy
Chairman of the same Board, Sir Francis Doyle, was
also Deputy Lieutenant of the Tower, at a salary
of 7861. The cases to which he was referring

had all occurred in the year 1826, when the
Noble Lord (G. Somerset) was a Lord of the
Treasury. Mr. Greville, Mr. Linch Hatton, Mr.
Jenkinson, and Mr. Willimot, all held largely
paid salaries in the Excise at the same time with one or
more high salaried offices in other departments. He
trusted the explanation which he had given would be
satisfactory to the Noble Lord—(A. laugh)—and to the
House.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, who seemed
to be so well acquainted with all the papers relating to
this transaction, had omitted one which he (the Chan-
cel or of the Exchequer) considered of some import-
emit!, and for which he would therefore move, in addi-
tion, that was the amount of the payments made to
Mr. Stevenson since his appointment to the Board of
Arbitration.—[The Right Hon: Gentleman at the

conclusion of his speech was loudly cheered by the 11l
nisterial benches.]
Mr. GOULBURN did not rise for the purpose o
any general discussion of the particular case before the
House, but he was surprised that the Right Honourable
Gentleman should have brought forward the cases of
Lord Seymour and other gentlemen without giving
notice to those Members of the House who were in-
terested in explaining then. He must also say that his
Honourable Friend- had stated the case of Mr. Ste-
venson very fairly and moderately, and that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had offered an explanation which was
by no means satisfactory.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from
the Ministerial benches.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
had, said that Mr. Amiot was not qualified to take the
place of Mr. Stevenson, because the latter had been so
long acquainted with the duties of the office ; whereas
Mr. Amiot had attended the Board nearly from its first
appointment, and was therefore as conversant with all
the details of the subject as Mr. Stevenson or any other
Commissioner. The facts which the Right Honour-
able Gentleman had quoted did not bear him out
in his to quoque argument.—(Dear, hear.) It was
true that Lord George Seymour and the other gentle-
man held sinecure offices at the same with the situations
in the Excise.—(Hear.) But such offices were in those
days customary, and when Parliament thought fit to
abolish that improper system it recognised the previous
practice by giving compensation to the holders of the
abolished offices.—( Hear.) But if the former practice
was to be made the plea for giving double appointments
the public would lose more than it gained by the aboli-
tion of sinecures.
Mr. HUME concurred with the Right Hon. Mem-
ber for Cambridge University, that the Government
would not be justified by any reference to the miscon-
duct of any Government which preceded it. But he
(Mr. Hume) understood the Chancellor of the Exche,
quer to say, that the moment when he discovered the
irregularity he corrected it.—(Hear.) He thought,
however, the House was not in a condition to give an
opinion upon the transaction, and that the papers
ought to be returned.—( Hear.) It was quite clear
from the information which had beep elicited that the
duties of the Board of Excise would be very well done
'ny three Commissioners instead of seven, and that six of
the Commissioners of Customs could also be eery well
dispensed with.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) From
what he knew of persons who had lately been appointed
in those departments there must be very little to do
if they were able to do it,—(Laughter.) He did not
sec why the Commissioners of Excise and Customs
should not go to business before ten in the morning and
should leave at three. Why should they not go to work
like other people at nine in the morning and stay at their
business till five ? They were very well paid for it.—
( Hear and laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh, but he
could assure them that the more work men had to do
the better they did it—(A laugh)—and it was very well
known that if you pay people high wages for doing little
you cannot get them to do anything at all. In the Board
of Stamps a document was to be signed once a year
by three Commissioners, and for three years it remained
unsigned. because during that period three Commis-
sioners could not be got together on any one day. He
hoped the Government would review the duty of those
departments, to see whether, in the present state of the
finances, a considerable saving might not be effected.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the facts of
the present case were not to be accurately obtained
from the statements of the Noble Lord, he felt bound
to make a few observations to the House. The Noble
Lord opposite had stated that Mr. Amiot had been in-
terfered w,th in his office by Mr. Stevenson. Now
what was the fact ? Why, Mr. Stevenson having stated
that he did not think he could go on with
the Commission of Compensation, Lord Glenelg
did recommend Mr. Amiot ; but upon farther con-
s'deration, as the Commission was proceeding to reach
its termination, Mr. Stevenson thought that he could
proceed advantageously with the remaining business
until its completion ; and upon this an intimation
was sent to Mr. Amiot by Lord Glenelg, stating
that his appointment was withdrawn. The N oble
Lord had stated that the intimation was not given to
Mi. Amiot of his appointment tieing withdrawn till
some considerable time after the appointment of Mr.
Stevenson to the Board of Excise. Now that was not
the fact, for Mr. Amiot was informed in the same
month. He did not look upon this as the Noble Lord
had done, as the holding of two offices by Mr. Steven-
son. Mr. Stevenson had been appointed to a Com-
mission, which had already gone through a very con-
siderable portion of its business. Mr. Stev son was
an exceedingly active man in the performance of his
duties. The Commission at the period when Mr.
Stevenson was appointed had disposed of 3,853 cases,
and there remained only 1,150 to be disposed of.
Under those circumstances Lord Glenelg thought that
it would be far more beneficial that Mr. Stevenson
having performed his duties hitherto so efficientl
should he allowed to conclude the duties of the Com-
mission. which were to terminate at the end of 1840.
With respect to the statement of the Noble Lord as to
Mr. Stevenson receiving the salary. both as the Com-
missioner of Excise and of Arbitration that was
exactlycorrect,because Mr. Stevenson,in tha ,unit props
mariner, had stated his readiness to perform the duties
of a Commissioner of Arbitration, leaving it to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to give bins any remunera-
tion or not as he thought proper. With respect to
what had been stated by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
who seemed to think that the public service was greatly
neglected by the public servants, he felt bound to say,
especially with reference to the subordinate stations,
that instead of reproaching them for not giving sufficient
time to the public service, such was their zeal and assi-
duity that he was often obliged to remark to them that
they were often ruining their health.
Mr. J. IRVING bore testimony to the zeal and abi-
lity displayed by the three Commissioners of Arbitration
in adjudicating upon the conflicting claims that came before
them. He believed that no Commissioners had more
ably discharged their duty, or were more entitled to the
thanks of ton country at large. As a proof of the esti-
mation in which they were held by the parties on
iwhose claims they had adjudicated, he understood that
t was their intention to present them with a piece of
plate, and also to present a memorial to the Government,
stating that the remuneration they had received was
quite inadequate for the services rendered.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET having replied,
The returns were agreed to without a division.
ABOLITION OF THE PUNISHMENT OF
DEATH.
Mr. MART presented a petition from Chelten-
ham, signed by 1,310 persons, prayprayirt frythe ebolition

EVENING EDITION.

of the punishment of death. Tile Honourable Mem-
ber also presented ir petit ions from Shtf-

field, Bourne, Watford, and Riekmanswo►th.
Mr. Jervis presented similar petitions from Chester,
Mr. A.,glionby from Cockermouth, and Sir Robert

Price from Gosport.
Mr. E W ART then rose to make the motion of
which he had given notice, for the entire abolition of
the Punishment of Death. lie could assure the House
that he cid not rise to make this prop isition without
great emo!ion. Nor should he make it but for two
reasons. The first was the deep conviction he enter-

tined upon the subj. ct ; and, secondiy, twenu.e he
knew that he ,as supported by many of the best,
and some of the wisest, persons in the country, lo
entering upon this question, he should at once dis-
card the religious view of it, being too sacred a sub-
je,t to be profaned by the heat and animosities of a
political assembly. He discarded from his view the
abstract part of the question, and those who
wished to look at it in a metaphysical light,
might consult such writers as Voltaire. The
simple question he was bound to eons;der was
this—Had society a right to inflict a greater amount
of punishment than was necessary for its safety and
preservation ? The question now before the House
was, whether the punishment awarded in extreme cases
by the law was necessary for the safety and existence of
society ? And looking at the question with reference to
the mitigation that had taken place in the criminal law,
it was clear that since that mitigation had taken place
crime was not increased, but in almost all cases bad

diminished. Gentlemen who looked back some ten

years since would be astonished to find that in this
metropolis alone, in the preceding ten years, no less
than about 221 persons had been sacrificed at the
shrine of this sanguinary law ; while, in the ten years
that had elapsed since, only about 21 had fallen
victims to it, and within the last kw years
not a single person had met with the fate
which formerly awaited so many, and yet society was in
a more secure state.—(Hear, hear.) He mentioned
this fact for the purpose of inducing Honourable
Members to distrust the opinions they had hitherto
formed, and to come to the conclusion that having taken
one step towards the abolition of the punishment of
death they might put an end to it altogether. The first
levidence that he should adduce, in order to show that

:he diminution of crime was attended by the abolition of

capital punishment ,was one of the returns that had been
laid before that House. Hon. Members would recol-
lect that a great abolition of capital punishment took
place about the year 1838. The executions in the five
years, ending in 1833, amounted to 257, while the exe-
cutions in five years, ending in 1838, amounted only to
99, being a diminution of 160 executions. Yet so far,
in consequence of this, was crime from increasing, that
the commitments for capital offences were six hundred
and fifty less during the years of mitigation than when
capital punishment was at its height. These facts could
not be disputed, and he earnestly recommended them
to the consideration Jf the House. The next proof be
should offer, that the abolition of capital punishment
was accompanied by a diminution of crime, was derived
from the statistics of London and Middlesex, the pre-
vious ones being taken from England and Wales.
In London and Middlesex, as in England and Wales,
the executions had greatly diminished between the year
year 1830 and the year 1836. The executions in the
three years ending 1830, were fifty.two, in the three
years ending 1836 there were none yet the commit-
ments for crimes capitally punishable at this period, were
less in the latter period by 127—showing, therefore, a
remarkable diminution o Jaime attending a virtual abo-
lition of capital punishment. A considerable abolition
of capital punishment took place in 1837, under the Bill
introduced by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud.
From that occasion the executions were greatly
diminished, and there was also a great dimi-
nution of crime. He would now show that
mitigation as well as abolition of punishment had
been accompanied in a very great degree with a dimi-
nution of crime. That might be observed principally
with respect to murder. In the years during which
executions were common 15 persons were executed
yearly, on the average, for murder in England and
Wales. In the years of mitigation of capital punish-
ment for murder, only seven were executed on the
average yearly. Yet the average of crime was less
during the years of mitigation than during the years of
capital punishment in the proportion of 64 to 70. That
was the result with regard to England and Wales, but
in London and Middlesex the crimes within the period
of mitigation fell to a fourth part of what they were
before. He had had a return a short time ago which
showed that in 19 counties during five years that the
punishment of death was commuted to a milder
punishment that the commutation was attended with
decrease of crime. In the year after the commuta-
tion, taking all the cases together, the com-
mitments fell from eighty-three to ' thirty-three.
The fact that mitigation of punishment diminished crime
was confirmed by what had taken place in th, country,
and be could lay before the House statistics from Bel-
gium proving the same result. The diminution of capital
punishment increased the certainty of conviction, and
that principle was laid down by Sir Wm. Blackstone and
Sir Samuel Romilly, and he could show the House, if it
were necessary, that various crimes had diminished since
the Bill of the Noble Lord, such as burning, attempts
to murder, cutting and maiming, robbery and burglary.
He contended that those who were the advocates of pu-
nishment of death were the advocates of impunity of
crime. From a return laid before the House this week
he found the abolition of capital punishment in 1837
produced a large increase of convictions. In a given PF-
riod before 1837 he found the executions were 85--10
the same given period, after 1837, the executions were
only twenty-five, showing a diminution of sixty. The
convictions were increased in the same period from
1536 to 1738. In the case of murder, the
crimes became fewer as the punishments became
milder ; and the punishment became more certain, aS
the execution became more rare. In twenty-six yea",
ending in 1835, there were executed yearly fifteen pet'
sons, but the proportion of persons convicted was twenty-
five. In the three years ending in 1838, after the ow
tigation, there were executed only seven, showing are
duction of one half ; but the proportion of persons con
victed was twenty-nine, being in the ratio of twat,y'
nine to twenty-five, and showing in this case, and
the case of murder, an increase of the certainty of
punishment, when there was a vast diminution in the
punishment of death. In twenty-one years ending
1830, there were executed in London and Middles°
thirty-eight persons —the proportion of persons con-
victed was eighteen. In the eight years ending 1828'
there were executed only seven, but the proportion con-
victed was thirty-two, being in the ratio of thirty-twe
convictions to eighteen. These returns present the
subject in a clear view before the House and the
public.—(Hear, hear.) It was consoling to find'
that in no country was the rule he had laid down
of a diminution of crime, and the certainty of punish-
ment, produeed by mitigation, contravened. If they
looked to France they would find the same result. The
present King of the French, shortly after his accession,
declared himself the decided enemy of capital punish'
inent. The present very enlightened Sovereign of Bel-
gium was also the avowed enemy of capital punish-
ment ; and in Belgium, too, even in times of excite'
ment and revolution, a diminution of capital punishments
had been attended with a diminution of crime. 13°
this was not a question of moderation only. The re's
ciple that mitigation of punishment had decreased
crime was acted upon in the last century by that errt
lightened sovereign, Leopold, Duke of Tuscany.
stood recorded in the edict of that enlightened man'
that the effect of the abolition of punishment through'
out his country was almost a cessation of crime. o°k
subject of this kind they ought not to overl°ca's
their own distant possessions, and he would beg to ,
vert to that which was so successfully accomplished-
Sir ej
James Macintosh, when he was Judge of the Sis,
preme Court of Bombay. During the seven yearso
presided there no capital punishments whatever Wer
inflicted. Crimes very considerably diminished, °fie
Sir James Macintosh, in his farewell address to CP
Grand Jury of Bombay, stated that 200.000 had bee°
governed for seven years without capital punislimeati
and without any increase of crime, and in other parts et
India, also, it was true that a mitigation of punishilleue
was attended with a decrease of crime. Above all, Po
.-
(Mr Ewart) felt he would not be doing justice to Oils
subject if be did not allude to that which all the netv
tions which bad been sent to the House represented---
namely, the degrading, demoralising, and un-Christiae:e
like effects which capital punishment had on ther,
before whom the punishment took place.--(11,,le
hear, hear.) The greatest possible injury was °°es,
to the moral feeling of the spectators. Those cse of
tions were scenes of profligacy and impiety--scenes ey
the ribald jest and the profane oath. Would tiles
contaminate the people with such exhibitions, vlso
might be called the saturnalia of the gallows,:,ssy
they found united the greatest degree of prl°-the
and profaneness with the levity characteristic e'suci,
worst times of anarchy and confusion—and while
was the effect produced on the minds of the peoplciefoo,
they feel justified in maintaining laws which thussuss of
ralized and rendered impure the morals and feell°!" the
the nation?—(Hear, hear.) Nor was it uPenvols
spectators that those bad effects were produced•
croi-
at the effect that was produced on the minds ef_ /gr.
nals. Were their minds not hardened? He `who
Ewart) had received a letter from a clergYllaue' bad
stated that out of 167 criminals whom hesosots
attended to the gallows, 164 had been
.'irroob
cdly present at executions.—( Hear, hear.) Stilitis.
for the force of example, produced by those exh.", 4r.
He had stated that fact to Mr. Brewster and vssy
Cotton, of Newgate, and they stated that it wssdestli,
rarely that any one underwent the sentence of
at
it
who had not seen executions repeatedly, so „sloes
would seem those exhibitions increased crime '"ctotor
of controling them. They found that neither sPeo but
nor criminal were benefited by these punislituoni ,bat
on the contrary, were made worse ; then ?iatments
ground could they ask to maintain capital pun'. ?iv.
in our criminal code ? When such great natr,, ltvilaer•
Burke, Fox, Romilly, M tekintosh, Johnson, cto the
force, could he cued pacing favoncat

- • -•

I