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

IRISH TRADE.

Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from several Merchants
of Limerick, complaining of the heavy charges to which ships
concerned in the trade of Ireland were exposed. There was
one ship owner of Belfast who had to pay on voyages from
Belfast to London, a sum which, on comparison with the
same number of ships from Liverpool to London was as
1,7001. was to 281. This large sum was payable chiefly to
harbours, such as Dover and- Ramsgate. He conceived that
justice no less than policy required that the trade of Ireland
should be put on an equal footing with that of England. He
knew not whether it was necessary for his Majesty's Govern.
ment to take up this subject, or whether it was within the power
of the Committee on Foreign Trade to take it into their con.
sickration.

Mr. WALLACE said, the Committee on Foreign Trade
had this very subject under their consideration. It was no
doubt proper that the Irish Tmle should stand upon an equa-
lity with that of England.
Mr. ELLICE took the present opportunity of noticing the
charges on our Colonial shipping. In some cases they were as
much as 10s. a ton on a ship of 300 tons ; and' they were gene.
rally for the benefit of different persons holding offi i ces n the
islands at which they were imposed. In the Foreign Colonies
these duties did not amount to more than one shilling sterling
per ton, and were imposed to defray the expences of certain
Police regulations. Ile wished to know whether there was any
intention to reduce these charges.

Mr. lIUSEISSON said, the subject had been considered
but the lion. Alember, was not unaware that it was one of con-
siderable difficulty„ The charges in question had been prin-
cipally imposed by the local legislatures of the different colo.
meg. With regard to the petition about to be brought up, he
fully concurred in all that had been said, to she* how desirable
it was to rernetli the inequality complained of by the petitioneri.
Sir .1. NEM PORT spoke in favour of the petition. It was,
be said, the practice of our Customs to treat the Irish trade as
a foreign one, and impose upon it all the consequential re-
strictions.
Mr. ELLICE explained ; and the petition was then brought
up, read and referred to the Committee on Foreign Trade.
DUTY ON CANDLES.
Mr. SYKES rose, pursuant to a notice he turd given, to call
the attention of the House to the duty on Candles. Ile had
last Session given notice of a motion on this subject ; but his
notice dropped in consequence of there being no House on the
day he had fixed. Bellied° no complaint of this circumstance;
indeed he scarcely regretted it, for he felt convinced that he
should now introduce the motion, with which it was his inten-

tion to conclude, under circumstances more favourable to his
case than he should have done, had he succeeded in bringing it
on last Session. It was then asserted that the country would not
be relieved by the reduction of taxes ; and this assertion was di.. rected particularly against the complaints of the landed interest.
Now, he was happy to say, this assertion had been admitted to
be erroneous; for his Majesty's Speech, at the opening of the
Session, had pointed to the reduction of taxes as the only mode
of relieving the country, and particularly the Agriculturist.—
He was happy, too, to find that the delusion which was held
out for some time, of obtaining relief by forcing up prices,
had bgen dispelled, and that a diminution of expenditure
was admitted to be the only true mode of obtaining any relief at
all. He believed he might consider that point as conceded to
him ; and, if so, the only question would be the measure of di.
minution, and the mode by which it was to be effected. He
was much gratified at the repeal which had taken place of a
large portion of the Assessed Taxes ; but the taking off of
taxes on windows, hunters, and the rest, could not, he itna.
gined, be said to assist the fanner. But, be that as it might,
he contended that relief had not been granted either in
the mode or to the degree . which was absolutely necessary...—.
He thought Ministers were perfectly right in endeavouring
to preserve our neutrality in the course or the struggle which
now atcted apart of Europe; but if we preserved peace we
ought bathe advantages of peace. The principal misa.
chief of war was alleged to be, that it would prevent any re-
duction of the public burthens. Again, he said, the question
was, whether reduction had gone to the full and proper extent.
So decidedly was he of opinion it had not, that he could not
think of going down into the country and facing his consti-
tuents, had he not done his best to obtain a further reduction.
Having thus disposed of such general preliminary observations
as he considered necessary, he should proceed to explain why
he thought the tax upon tallow candles a fit tax for repeal in
preference to any other. It certainly was not of any great
amount; but he did not expect that this circumstance would be
thrown in his teeth by those who opposed bins ; for if the re-
peal was little to ask, it was also little to grant. The gross
amount produced by the tax was 375,000/. in England, of which
313,0001. was nett, and a sum in Scotland which yielded only
16,0001. nett. The whole amount was about 329,000/. net.._..
In Ireland there was no candle tax at all ; but lie hoped that
this circumstance would not deprive him of the support of the
Irish Members, who, he had no doubt, would consider the ge-
neral interests of the country, as they had so.often called upon
others to do. The first of his objections to this tax was, that
the difference between the gross and the net amount was extra-
ordinarily great ; and he believed he might advance it as a
principle in political economy, that this was a serious objec.
tion to any tax. The average amount of the expence of col.
lecting the whole Revenue was 3/. 16s. Id. per cent., but the
expellee of collecting this tax was no less than 17 per cent. on
the gross, and 20 per cent. on the net amount. Indeed, it wits
the most expensive in the collection of all the taxes. Another
objection was that it pressed particularly on the poor. The
rich consumed wax, spermaceti, gas, and other articles of
consumption, invented by philosophy or luxury, but the
poor man had nothing beyond the stick in his fire to
afford him light, except the tallow candle. Indeed it almost
appeared as if human ingenuity bad been exerted to make
this tax fall particularly on the poor. Perhaps few of the
Honourable Members around him knew any thing of tallow
candles except.by the smell of a tallow chandler's shop. How.
ever, there were such things as tallow candles; and were prin-
cipally divided into what were called moulds and dips. The
former he might take as being sold at 9d. a pound ; the latter
at 7d. ; and it so happened that the tax fell heavier upon the
dips which particularly and especially were consumed by the
poorer classes. The disproportion in this instance was as much
as 12 per cent. ,Another objection to the tax was, that it
operated as a tax upon labour. Many poor persons worked,
particularly in winter, by candle light ; and a man who earned
but eighteen or twenty pence a day, was not unfrequently
obliged to pay 3d. for candles. Thus the tax fell, not only
upon the poor, but upon the laborious poor. His next objet.
Lion was, that this, of all taxes, was the most vexatious in
its collection. If lion. Gentlemen would look through the
different Acts passed respecting this Tax, they would be sue-
prized at the complication of penalties lich were imposed by
them. He had received a letter from a Tallow Chandler, com-
plaining of these penalties, and of Vie visitations to which
he was exposed ; and adding, that he and his man were obliged
to take no less than-33 oaths in one month, respecting this tax.
This latter circumstance was one, he was sure, which would
gall him the support of sonic of the lion. Members of that
house in his Motion for the Repeal. In short, all the regula-
tions were paltry, and yet offensive. lie trusted that he had
now made out the four propositions which he considered
necessary to support his case. First, that it was an ex.
pensive Tax in the collection ; secondly, that it fell prin.
cipelly, if' not exclusively, on the poor ; thirdly, that of
the poorer, it pressed most heavy on the 'shouting classes ;
and fourthly, that it was vexatious in its operation. If
these were not reasons for repealing a Tax, he really
slid not know on what grounds it could fairly be pro.
posed to repeal any tax. It might be said, in support
of the present one, that it was a very old tux, and had
been imposed in the reign of William and Mary, lie be-
lieved ; but he submitted that that was not the era of our his.
tory in which the wise principles of taxation were best under.
stood. If he were to be told that he ought not to prose
the repeal of this tax without being ready to propose another
as a substitute, he would answer, that " he was not Chancellor
of the Exchequer," and that it was not his business to find a
substitute. He was, however, ready to waive his right to
make this answer, and would refer the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to substitute for this and many other taxes ; to a
storehouse for substitutes—he meant Economy in the Public
Expenditure.—(Hear, hear !)—An economy to be derived from
the reduction of large salaries, and a saving in, the expence of
collecting our Revenue. Much could be saved from our
large Establishments, our Civil List, and our heavy Salaries.
From such sources us these it would not be difficult to
raise the three hundred thousand pounds saved by the re.
auction of this tax. He knew very well that a
.practice had
prevailed of meeting proposals to cut down salaries, by extol-
ing the merits of the individuals who received them. This had
been done on occasion of' the Duke of York's 10,0001. a-year
for uttehding on his late Father. It was then urged that he
was a good son. On another occasion, when it was proposed
to reduce the salary of an lion. Gentleman, the Secretary to
the Board of Controul, his merits were spoken of by the Right
Hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They were indeed me.
tits of another description; for the Right Hon. secretary
stated, that the lion. Gentleman had just had a tenth child.—
(A laugh.)—So that the filial merit of one., and the parental me-
nt of another, were equally good excuses for an allowance of
large salaries, and for outweighing the just claims of' the coun-
try. His lion. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, had pro-
potted to take oil' this tax, and find a substitute fpr it in a tax
upon the importation of foreign tallow. lie (Mr. S.) did not
admire this proposal. Ills object was to take away the bur.
then altogether, and not merely shift it about. If, however,
he could not obtain the total repeal of the tax, lie would fall
in with the proposal of his Hon. Friend. lie had now dis-
charged his duty ; and it was for time House to discharge theirs.
It was no great boon that he asked ; but as far us it went, it
would afford a very seasonable relief. In every point of view
he thought the subject worthy the serious consideration of Mi-
nisters, and was of opinion that the repeal of this tax was most
advisable. Before he sat down, ho would shortly anticipate en
argument which lie believed would be urged against his motion.
Ile knew the House had resolved that a Sinking Fund should
be maintained to the amount of five millions; but this resolu.
tion did pot, he apprellefided, bind the House to shut itself out
against discussion. For his own part he confessed that he was
no great admirer of the Sinking I;'und. He liked to see a stir.
plus revenue over expenditure; but he had witnessed much of
the delusion which had been worked by a Sinking Fund from
its first suggestion by Sir Robert Walpole to its completion by
Mr. Pitt, and from that up to the present time, and the result
of his observation was, that the Sinking Fund was an engine
in the hands of Government for raising taxes and spending the
public money. The lion. Member timedcoed by moving
tor leave to bring in a Bill for repealing duty on Tallow
Candles.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that in
what he hail to address to the House, he did not expect to be
stdamusing us the lion. Gentleman had been; but he should,
at least, follow his example, in stating as briefly as he could,
the grounds upon which he opposed the motion. First, he
would say that the revenue could not afford to lose a tax witch
brought in 350,0001. and this was not a tax which pressed with
particular severity upon any class of the people. So that if
the revenue could afford such a loss, there were many other
taxes which required relief in an infinitely greater degree 'than
this—(lleer, hear, hear I)—The lion. Gentlemen hail done tie
Government no more than justice in acknowledging the extra
tons of the .Government, and its readiness to reduce taxation as

CRIMINAL WS.
Sir JAMES MACK INTOSHLA rose, pursuant to his no-
tice, to move certain Resolutions relative to the, state of the
Criminal Law. He observed, that as he had on former oc-
casions had the honour to introduce this subject to the notice of
the House, he should not new preface it by observations, which
however pertinent to the subject, could not by any means be
supposed novel to most present. Ile should therefore avoid any
thing like a formal general introduction at present, and proceed
at once to give the House his reasons for the motion in as novel
ia shape as circumstances and the time which had elapsed since
his last motion would enable him. He recollected on his
return from the East, that the first public discussion he heard
was in the House of Lords on a similar measure, which hail
been introduced by that great and humane man Sir Samuel
. Homily. It was said on that occasion, that if foreigners were
to judge of us by the existing regulations and penalties of
our Criminal Code, we must be considered by strangers as
nothing less than an association of ferocioos herbaria:7s. How.
ever bold such an assertion might be, yet the more he thought
of the expression the less was he disposed to take an exception
to it. Ile would, for instance, ask what foreignere must think
of a country where there were not less than 200 ease* of crimes
liable to the penalty of death, only 20 of which hoWever were
ever put into execution ; where there was a Code dmouncing
threats to such an extent that they rendered the laws themselves
feeble; where there was a code of laws founded on principles
which were, even in theory, odious, and rendered that code
in practice, impotent; where there were laws by which the
children, though innocent, were punished with the guilty father;
and, what was still worse, as in the corruption of blood, where
children were rendered liable to punishment, when there had
been no condemnation of the father whatever ; and lastly, where
there were laws which carried so far their anhnosity to the of.
fender as to ►wreak their vengeance on the inanimate remains of
the dead ?—(Hear!)---What would the foreigner then say if' he
were told that we had the Trial by Jury, the writ of Habeas
Corpus, and enjoyed the blessing of the recognised principle of
a popular representation ? Would not such an irreconcileable
political phenomenon strike the foreigner with wonder and
astonishment ? It might, perhaps, be said, all these abuses were
the remains of past ages of barbarity and ignorance; probably
then that foreigner would be disposed to admit this as an excuse ;
but what would be his surprise when he learned that all these
legalized barbarities were in the 19ih century advocated hymen
of the first character for humanity and learning. Here the Hon.
and Learned Member read from the work of an ingenious friend
of his, Mr. Cranston, a description of the character of our present
Penal and Criminal Law ; and said he should proceed to argue
against the propriety, justice, and policy of our present Code on
these subjects, assuming that the resolution of the 4th of June
last was now to be taken as read. Here he took a review of how
the question was placed as regarded the previous resolutions of
the House upon it. In the year 1819 a Committee had been
appointed to investigate this subject, upon his recommendation
and on his motion. In 1820 several measures were introduced
into the House upon the suggestion of that Committee, which,
however, were unsatisfactory to him. However small as these
1 concessions were they were only reform made in our Criminal
Laws since the reign of Edward VI. It was, however, a subject of
gratification to find that by this reform ten eases of capital
criminality had been wiped away from the Statute.book in the
first year of the reign of his present Majesty. He alluded with
pleaeure, he said, to the abrogation of the capital part of felony
in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy. In the year 18tH the House
went so far as to approve of the proposed repeal of the capital
felony in cases of forgery; but this bad been got rid of, by
what he called a Parliamentary stratagem. In the last year the
House adopted a general Resolution, pledging itself to consider
and devise means of increasing the efficacy of the Criminal
Code by diminishing the rigour of punishment. And here he
must advert to a case, which was the more valuable as it came
from an enemy's quarter—" Graia pendetur ab urbe."—
He hail seen in some publication that there was a Bill under
consideration somewhere fer regulating the laws relating to
marriages, and was most happy to find it went to repeal that
odious and abominable Statute, the 2tith of George 11. On
a former occasion he had proposed to repeal the five capital
offences created by that Statute, and his argument had been met
by a statement that he was about to sap the foundation of our
Constitution. But now he had found that the very man who
was strongest in opposing this reform of the criminal code, had.
made the admission that the best way to refOrm the criminal
code was by increasing the efficacy of that code. After such
events as these had taken place, he would tell the Patriarchs of
Ancient Institutions, the Elders themselves, that the leader of
their sect had decided in the teeth of those objection and in
favour of his principle. He now coneeived he was strict! entitled
to call on the House, pursuant to its pledge, to abate file undue
rigour of the law. With that view he should propose a set of Re-
solutions, which eheweil in the first place all that hail hitherto been
done in the way of reform of the criminal code, and next lead
the House to embrace a declaration of its opinion attic propriety
of adopting a series of future measures which he meant to pro-
.e. In so doing, he thought he should snore likely be charged
with deficiency than imprudence. And addreesing.iiiinself to
it
at::ie rvta set
v:tifntoth7rtethial:b einids: thn
cruseteew:raaetitic;°loti ‘tildirc positivepc: °nu' s; hlhnt:eign:i n4Citie 4elmt.
1°:
. elret efe`hrt .Pcheeffierg4i ncr
t"i:reillnntilcrinr'aci °I
criminal
ishne;titatjehl ;lie( Gale
itglt '')
d:
'llo6l,
ioni:f.uitinsic)ruiliti:itsi.,olfilecwnntiatiefteclogu.
iler.lv7le,ult tsaiiitatkiirticitlastofthojtecitshthgennitinitninwrithittirgr
rrer:l,lp..if-liewecirtivi,,hfl
principles'of tolixation, and the spirit of pereecution had alweys
firuind that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Chun'

it was False as a principle that crime was the result of delibera-
tion. Crime sprung out of passions deeply planted in our na-
ure, growing with our growth, and strengthening with our

system tel Use, to be OE ceeious, should a iehool
saf morality, and should retweaent dee feelings of all good men-
in society. But what sort of - morals did we teach by the
Laws cif England, which - punished
.equally by the loss of
life tlie man who destroyed a twig or cut down a cherry-tree,
•end the black hearted criminal who betrayed his country to a
• foreigh yoke, or spilt the innocent blood of a fellow-Creature,
without provocation ? lie thanked Godthis conspiracy of the
Criminal Lew against the moral feelings of mankind was rot
sucteessful.. Tthee,:feelinge of more overcame the sophistry
anti .corruption).rof law, which in its failure became con-
' temPtible, and too ocn trip - object of that indignation
-which ought to have Wien on the head of the transtgres-f
sor. He bad often thought that the assertion that our rem.
pugnance to enforce„ severe penal - laws was an under-
statement, inasmuch ea a coneictien- of "a trifling of-
!fender, and his sentence to an excesslet-purtiehruente. never
failed to affixt the bystiinders with pity or disgust; and not un-
freqtiently the recellection of it induced the juror to swerve
-from hisseadt On the trial, or the prosecutor from his charge.—
Hence' the 'law became the object of that indignation, which
should have been directed against the crime. He appealed to the
ration at large, if such was the feeling created by the appre-
hension of inadequate punishment on the prosecutor's mmd,
thottgh an aggrieved party,' and acting consequently in a
seirit of irritation, what must be the effect produced by the de,
eention on the mind of the calm spectator, on the public, when
inade the subject 'of narration, or on posterity when it shall
hereafter become a matter of history ? The due apportionment of
pUniehment made the law respected and venerated. This was
its jot criterion; and every attempt to equalise the penalty to
the highest possible infliction, namely, death, in venous eases
14 different degrees of criminality, was the bane of legislation.
In his mind, every instance of the punishment of a sheep-stealer,
by the existing rigorous• laws, robbed society of part of
the security of human, life:—He would ask those who ob-
jected to all improvement in the Penal Code, whether such
had been the system of the ancient laws of England ? In the
time of Sir Ai. hale, the number of felonies had not en..
.eettled four ; and that enlightened man had said, that Eng-
land was the country where the laws were most literally exc-
. voted, and where least was left to the discretion of the Judge—
a eleitriojaris. Those characteristics had been since changed;
the number of capital felonies had increased from flair -to
200 ; and those laws which-formerly had been so literally exe-
cuted, were now administered on the opposite principle, anti that
discretion, formerly in such little-Ose, was now in full opera-
tion. Ile .did nut propose the repeal of -any of the Ancient
•Switutes of the kingdom; there were but two Statutes en.
acted prior to the Revolution, the repeal of which would be
consequent to his proposed melioration of the Penal Code.
The last century had been remarkable for penal enactment; ;
but that age had passed, and the system of penal enactment); had
been stopped by the interposition of a lamented lion. Friend,
whose opposition to those blood-th irsty enactin en tit was sufficient,
independent of his illustrious fame and great talents, to humor-
talizehis name. •Witence had that system derived its origin ?
If not in antiquity, it might have originated in the wisdom of the
.Legislature; but unfortunately it appeared, from the page of
liistofy., that it arose from the culpable neglect by Parliament
of one of the greatest principles of all civilized Legislatures—the
inviolability of the life of man. It was strange to find, that
while the. people of England. had increased in all the arts of
~civilization, the progress of legislation had deteriorated. But
the country now beheld those errors ; it resolved to remedy
:them? anti the people called for an amelioration of the
Criminal Code. It was remarkable that for the forty years
succeeding the Revolution, as the legal reports of those
years ..demonstrated, the number of criminals executed on
the Home Circuit had not been one-half of the convicted, and
the last 40 years it had been one-fourth, while in the other parts
of England it had not been one-eleventh part ; thereby cx.
hibiting the extraordinary fact, that, while the number of penal
Jaws had increased, the proportion of capital punishments had
decreased. lie appealed for a proof' of that position to the ex.
perience of England since the Revolution. He would not,
while alluding to the laws of the Hebrew people, contend that
they ought to be applied to the civil government of this or any
uthernutton; yet there was one fact which deserved notice—their
'venerable legislator had paid special attention to the principle of
the mere liability of human lite in all cases of theft, except, in-
' deed, one case, viz. man-stealing ; that great legislator had ordered
the pdnisluitent of death to be inflicted on the dealers in human
• flesh, and yet that abominable traffic had had its defenders in that
:'House. In other cases of theft a two-fold or a four-fold restitu-
tion had been considered a sufficient punishment; but death was
reserved for the traffic inAheir fellow-men. Front the small num-
ber of persons executed-in France when contrasted with Eng-
-land, one might be led 'to suppose the morality of the former
'country %ulterior to the latter; but that was not in reality the
case—the difference arose front their different code of laws. It
was futile to reason front the natured their different police : the
:,.police eta country did not SO untch tend to prevent crimes as to
ensurethe,punishment of diem. Upon those principles he should
'feel it his duty to proposucertain 'Resolutions to the considera.
lion of the 'House, as topreliminstry foundation for the in-
troduction of certain Bat to ameliorate the Penal Code of
Great Britain. Those Resolutions would specify certain felo.
nies' the repeal of the capital punishment for which he hoped
the Legislature would agree to. The two first Resolutions
:would affirm the opinion of the House : —first, that it would be
:expedient to repeal the punishment of death in certain cases;
-and secondly, the substitution of transportation and imprison.
•thent in its room. To these would be AllbiOilled two liesolu.
%ions, declaring that it was expedient that the Judges should
not be obliged to pronounce sentence of death, except In cases
where they considered itshiffiction imperative, and that all con-
fiticettion of 'property should cease after suicide, and that all in-
,dignities after death should cease to be Inflicted on suicide and
-on persons executed for high treason. Another Resolution
-would be declaratory of the expediency at' repealing all the crimes
.rendered capital by the Black Act, except the crimes of wilfully
• setting fire 'to houses, or of maliciously.stabbing, as well us of
,Tepealiog the five felonies created by the Marriage Act. The
alloble Reformer of the other House might render his resolution
'with respect to the latter unnecessary • but if it led the way in
repealing those felonies, he had no objection to follow in their
4botsteps. The repeal of the five capital punishments which the
*Committee on the Criminal Code had recommended, was also to
-he proposed as a resolution, the general principle of which had
been already admitted by the House. The nex t would embrace the
Utility of a similar enactmennin relation to the stealing of sheep,
• floret:seem' cattle, and to larcenies committed in shops, dwel-
,Jing•houses,. and navigable rivers. Within the list 16. years,
the proportion of exeeetions of persons convicted of those lar-
cenies was one in.o6; so that it became a matter of mere
chatice. whethera person -.so eonvicted. would be executed or
etipt. Ile would always objett,to the rendering the amount of
property stolen the criterion of crime, for the small property of
the poor required to bo preserved to them ns well us the great
property of the rich : he would always object to the rendering
jurors excuseable on the score of humanity for pious. perjuries.
The statute 1 (leo. IV. had removed the punishment of death
'for stealing in shops tinder die valtie of 181. instead of tis., as
before ; yet that the Act had become a nullity for stealth over
.10 shillings, for the accused were arraigned under another
Act for stealing in a dwelling-house, as those shape in ninety-
nine cases out of a hundred, were attached to a dwelling.
house. The Black Act had originally been a merely telt)-
. .
'...rary measure, as its preamble proved, to prevent pertains is-
_ gime(' from conuoitting odious - crimes, and its clauses had
become nugatory until 1750, when a person named Berber had
~Written albreatening letter to the Duke of Marlborough; and
~the indolent Parliament of that period, instead of extracting.
Ale only Clause whiCh that ease required, had actually rendered
the ,whole Act perpetual. The Acts 'which he desired to
elnive-repealed were those of the -21 James 1., 6 (leo; 1., 27
1-(jeo. IL, 3 (leo. lit, 23 Geo. HI., and 24. Geo. ; all
athttive to the:offinizes in which capital punishment ought not
to he inflicted. With respect to sheep, horses, and fattleitteal
ing, the Acts requiring the infliction of capital punishment laid
been passed in 1740. If the infliction of that punishment had
been in reality necessary, why had it not been enacted before ?
The infliction of, that punishment was so uncertain, that not
more than mute in thirty of the convicted lout been executed,
for a crime which, although rendered capital, was in itself' so
obscure, that the infliction of death • had not been rendered a
mean of prevention. There was another circumstance con.
neeted with the infliction of capital punishment in those cases,
which merited attention—it was, that it depended upon local
'circumstances, upon the fears of applicants to the Judges on
-leaving the Assize towns. It would be worthy of an ethightened
Legislature to 'remove such anomalies from its Statutes. lie
• : now approached an important topic, of which the consideration
,was equally important—it was the infliction of capital punish.
went for forgery. lie thought that the authors of the cash
payments had merited the thanks of the Legislature, if not for
the measure itself, at least for its having removed' the necessity
of such a waste of' human life. The midi Bank-notes had dis.
uppeared, and the diminution of
prosecutions for forgery had
been so great that the propornon was last year, when contrasted
with the preceding year, as one to two. the etateinent was as
follows :

Charged. Convicted. Executed.
In 1821 - 121 - 76 - -16
In 1022 - 63 - - 6
This proportion he regarded as highly advantageous when con•
trusted with the former years, and as
.preparatory to the intro-
duction of a better system of punishment for that crime. For
the crime of private forgery he thought a regulation of similar
nature would be useful ; for it would remove the odium •of
,causing the death of a clerk, of a relation, or of a conlideptial
vent, .by whom that Crime was most frequently comutitteti,
-while it would render the punishment of it more secure by ren-
tiering it less repuOiant to human feelings. While speaking of
the utility of commuting capital punishments in those instances
for secondary puinslmients, he would congratulate the House on
the descrease of .a mode of punishment, which was calculated