The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-10 00:00:00

MR, BLACKER.

Mr. SHAW asked for a moment's indulgence while
he alluded to a charge that was male the other
night against a gentleman of high respectabiii:y—he
meant Mr. Blaker, the Chairman of the County of Dub-
lin. At the moment when the charge was made against
Mr. Blacker, he and those gentlemen around him who
knew Mr. Blacker, felt convinced that the charge was
unfounded, but he would now read a short passage from
a letter which he had received on the subject from
Mr. Blacker himself. The passage was as follows—
" I gave up in 18'26 going the Circuit, and never.
either before or since, have belonged to any political
society of any description, or worn any badge
either Orange or not, either in the Circuit or else-
where.—(Chcers.) The charge therefore, is not only
unfounded in fact, but is contrary to all my habits and
opinions."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON had received a letter
from Mr. Blacker to the same effect.
Mr. BATEMAN had known Mr. Blacker for
thirty years, and he felt authorised by that long
acquaintance to state that the insinuation of the
Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin was
perfectly unfounded, and when the Hon. Member him-
self wore political badges in that House.—(Loud cries
of " Order, order," during which the lion. Member
resumed his seat.)
DRAINAGE OF LANDS IN IRELAND.

Lard MORPETH, in moving for leave to brifg in
a Bill to amend the laws relating to the drainage of
lands in Ireland, said that in England much had been
done for the drainage of lands, which had been under-
taken either by individuals or companies ; but although
Ireland possessed an immense quantity of table-land
which might be rendered most valuable by drain-
ing, the only legislative enactment on the sub-
ject was the Act introduced by his Honourable
Friend the Member for Kildare, now Secretary
to the Admiralty, in the reign of the last King.
What he proposed by the present Bill was, to take
from the Companies, who at present controlled it, the
drainage of land in Ireland, and place it in the hands '
of Commissioners. He believed that this would have
the effect of improving Ireland greatly, increase its
revenue, and improve the resources of that couatry.
There were many operations in drainage which were on
too minute a scale to require a general provision, and
several proprietors in Ireland had suggested that to
meet such cases a less expensive mode should be devised.
The Bill which he now proposed was in effect the
same as that which he introduced on a former occasion,
when the late period of the Session caused it to be aban-
doned altogether. A Committee appointed by the House
to inquire into its merits had reported favourably. Toe
Bill which he now proposed to introduce was framed
upon the evidence of Government engineers and others
practically acquainted with the condition, the wants,
and the resources of the country. Whatever might
be the faults of the measure, he believed it was eaten•
fated to do more for the solid good of Ireland
than many of the measures which occupied the time of
the House relating to that country.—(Cheers.) He
believed it was calculated to do much more good to
Ireland than either the Registration Bill of his Right
Hon. Friend opposite or his own.—(Cheers and
laughter.) It was clearly more calculated to do good
than his Hon. Friend's.—(Great cheering and laughter.)
He did not however expect that it would be taken so
much notice of as either of the Registration Bills—
(Laughter)—but he sincerely hoped that it would not
encounter so much opposition.—(Great cheering and
laughter.)
Mr. GOULBURN should certainly protest against
any grant of public money being made for the purpose
of carrying the Bill into effect. He wished to ask
whether the Noble Lord intended to ask for an issue
of Exchequer Bills, and if not in what way he proposed
to raise money for defraying the expenses of the works.
Lord MORPETH said it was merely intended to
place the promoters of any of the works upon the same
footing as the projectors of other public works, and to
give them a power to borrow.
Mr. SHAW did not intend to offer any opposition
to the first reading of the Bill, and he agreed with
many of the general observations that had fallen
from the Noble Lord. There was no one project of
improvement the Government could so well direct their
attention to as the improvement of the agriculture of Ire-
land. He must deprecate any attempt to give an undue
influence to the manufacturers of Ireland, and to ex-
clude others, however much he might wish to see the
native manufactures prosper. As the Noble Lord
had referred to another measure before the House
(the Irish Registration Bill), be would just observe
that it was rather inconsistent in the Noble Lord,
while he professed a desire to improve the system of
agriculture in Ireland, to attempt to introduce a
system of 5/. tenements, the splitting of farms
and the minute sub-division of land, for that was what
the Noble Lords' Registration Bill would ultimately
lead to.

Mr. O'CONNELL must complain of the opinions
the Right Honourable Gentleman expressed with
regard to the manufacturing produce of his coun-
try. He wished the Right Honourable Gentle-
men had discussed that subject with his friend Pro-
fessor Butt. Bat what had the question of Irish ma-
nufactures to do with draining. The draining of Ireland
was the question before the House—a process which
that Assembly had for many years past been
pretty familiar with.—(Laughter.) Tne Right
Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) was
so alarmed and terrified lest any money should go from
this country to Ireland, even in the shape of Exchequer
Bills, that he had felt it necessary to rise immediately after
the Noble Lord to enter his protest against it.

Why. the Right Hon. Gentleman appeared to forget
that 74,0001. annually, the produce of the Woods and
Forests in Ireland, was remitted to beautify London
and improve its streets and squares, and that
there was also a surplus of two millions from the Irish
Exchequer. He hoped the House would not participate
in the antipathy of the Right Hon. Gentleman
to Ireland, and that, if money were required upon good
security, it would not be withheld, even if• England were
the lender.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY rose to bring forward
his motion for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish
the punishment of death in all cases except mur-
der and high treason. It would not be ne-
cessary for hies to intrude upon the attention of
the house at any length, because it wns impossible
to mark the progress of legislation for the last
forty or fifty years the spread of education and know-
ledge, without feeling that the severity of the criminal
code had been most materiallyand judiciously ameliorated
in that period. Since then the number of crimes have
been diminished, and the number of convictions in pro-
portion. In the beginning of the present century there
were three hundred offences punishable by death by the
laws of England. Since that period owing to the
great exertions of a few individuals, notwithstanding the
powerful and determined opposition of many persons,
among whom were a number of gentlemen belonging to
the profession to which he had the honour to belong,
there had been a great reduction in the number of
crimes which were denominated capital, and they were

now reduced to about 30. The last occasion was in

1837, when several Bills were . introduced in Parlia-
ment by the Noble Lord opposite (J. Russell), and
these had, after full discussion, received the sanction
of Parliament. Feeling, in common with many
who had devoted their attention to the subject,
that a sufficient period had elapsed since then to enable
the public and the Legislature to decide on the pro-
priety of further improvements, he had in the last STS•
sion of Parliament introduced a Bill to exempt from ca-
pitai puni,hment all crimes but murder and high treason
It would be in the recollection of the House that last
Session his Bill passed through all its stages by large
majorities, and that it was only on the motion that it
be read a third time that in a thin House and
by no means a large majority it was defeated. Be-
lieving that he would be giving effect to the wishes
of a very large majority of that House and
of the well thinking of the people, he begged
leave again to submit to Parliament the propriety
of abolishing capital punishments in all cases except those
of murder and high treason. As he had often before stated
the general arguments in favour of the Bill ; and as he
understood that he was to meet with no opposition in
introducing his Bill, he did not think it necessary to
trespass further on the time of the House than to
state that the object of the present Bill was co-exten-
sive with that of last Session. In substance it was
the same, but in deference to the wishes of many Hon.
Members he had materially altered it in point of form.
In place of doing as in the Bill of last year, name all
the crimes the punishments of which were capital, and
which he proposed to abolish, and then in one clause
doing so, he now made each crime and the abolition of
capital punishment respecting it the subject of a sepa-
rate and distinct clause,—( Hear, hoar.) He now saw

PRICE sd.

that that plan had many advantages, for any Member
would now have it in his power to discuss the whole
question as applicable to any crime. But one still
greater advantage was this—there were so many el
the crimes which were now punishable capitally that
were, be had almost said of so trivial, a nature, that no
one would think for a moment of applying even the
next punishment to them, so that by the present plan
the Reuse would have it in its power to apportion what
punishment it thought proper to any individual ern e.
With a few exceptions, the Bill was in form nod sub•
stance similar to that introduced last year. He most,
however, express his regret that he was unable to lay
an the teble of the House, at the present time, the Bids
for the abolition of capital punishment in Scotland and
Ireland as well as in England ; but he thought it li
was too much foe any individual Member to bring in
three Bills at the seine time for the abolition of capital
punishment. If capital punishment, in all cases pro-
vided for by the present Bill, were abolished in Eng-
land, it would be virtually abolished in Ireland and Scot-
land also ; and where the Legislature would sanction a
Bill of that nature for England, ho thought that a si-
milar Bill for Ireland and Scotland would meet with no
opposition in either House of Parliament. He would
therefore pledge himself, when the House was satis-
fied to pass the Bill now introduced, to bring in si-
miler Bills for Scotland and Ireland. Ile also re-
gretted that in the present state of the law there was a
very indlieient and imperfect system of secondary
punishment. A !though the law of secondary punish-
ment materially required amendment, he thought it
impracticable for any iNdividual or for any but
the Ministers of the Crown for the time being, to hope
success in carrying any measure through Parliament
for the material alteration of the law respecting secon-
dary punishment. It was quite obvions, that in order
to introduce a new system of secondary punishment. a
Government account, in the criminal expenditure of the
public money, would be saved on the one hand and
expended on the other, in bringing in the new system
into operation ; a number of public officers should be
appointed, and other steps taken which would be in-
dispensably necessary, and all those steps would be of
such a character as that it was obvious none but the
Ministers of the Crown could hope to pass— a measure
which would have for its object the amendment
of the law respecting secondary pueishment.—(Hear.)
If no other Member would turn his attention to the
subject, he expected that he should himself be able to
introduce some resolutions by way of suggestions with
regard to secondary punishment. He hoped that the
Hon. Member for Leeds (Sir W. Molesworth) to whom
the House and the country were already so much in-
debted for the attention he had paid to that question,
would introduce s'nre measure with respect to it. But
. .

if no Hon. Member, and if the Government, were not
prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject, he wou'l
think it his duty to undertake the task. He wished to
say a few words in allusion to the Bill which he under-
stood it was the intention of Ministers to bring forward,
for the further abolition of capital punishment. Ha
had been sincerely gratified at that announcement, and
if the Government bad found it convenient to lay on the
table of the House, the Bill which they proposed
to introduce, at the time at which he had given
notice of his motion, he would not then have
interfered on the subject, but he would have de-
fer red his motion until he bed made himself acquainted
with that Bill, and until he had ascertained whether it
would carry his (Mr. K:Ily%) intentions into effect. But
the Hen. Member, the Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department, had intimated that the measure
in question would not be submitted to the House for
the space of another month, and no disclosure had been
made as to the extent to which it would go ; so that
he felt it his duty to submit to the House the motion
then under their consideration. He hoped the House
would accede to that motion ; but he certainly should
not ask them to go into Committee until they had an
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Ministe-
rial measure ; nod if he found that measure co-extensive
with his own, he would cheerfully resign the task he
had undertaken. The Hon. and Learned Member
concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the
abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases.
Mr. E WART said that, in seconline, the motion, he
hoped he would not be considered as unfavourable to
one of a more extensive nature. He certainly thought
that the time had come when capital punishment, might
be abolished altogether. That was a truth, of which
every day's expimenee convinced him more and more ;
and he hoped, on a future occasion, to lay before them
proofs in support of that opinion from a very eminent
person, the Speaker of the House of Assembly in the
Dachy of Baden. For his part, he was persuaded that
crime diminished with the abolition of capital punishment.
The interest taken in this question was not confined to
this country. The attention of the Legislature of every
civilized country in the world had been turned to it.—
(Hear.) He thought the punishment of transporta-
tion ought not to be made a principal punishment, but
reserved as secondary, and to be resorted to in cites
where a removal from his native country might he likely
to lead to reformation of the criminal. He trusted that
whichever measure was finally adopted by the House, it
would be ee-extensive with the reforms of the age.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Hon. Gentle-
man who proposed the motion had rightly stated the
number of punishments in the period to which his
tables referred. Tne difficulties of the question, how-
ever, were so great, that not only the heads of the law,
as the Hon. and Learned Member had rightly stated,
were divided upon it ; but when a measure similar to
that proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member was
introduced by Sir J. Mackintosh, it was opposed by
the whole strength of the Government ; and on its
being carried through a third reading, the Minister, sup-
ported by a few Members who afterwards came in,
resisted it upon the question that this 13i11 do pass,
and succeeded in throwing it out.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was, at the same
time, right in saying that a great change had ap-
peared, not only in the spirit of the different Govern-
ments, but likewise in the opinions of the heads of the
law, and those to whose opinions great deference was
always properly paid. He (Lord John Russell) agreed
with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman thus far, but
he confessed he did not agree with him that it was ex-
pedient to charge the criminal law to the extent which
he proposed, with a view, as he had stated last year, of
abolishing the punishment of death altogether. At the
same time, he admitted that there ought to be further
change and mitigation. He admitted there acre some
crimes now by law punishable with death which ought
not to be so punished, and therefore he could not refuse
leave to bring in a Bill by which the punishment of
death in such cases was proposed to be abolished. It
would be for subsequent consideration how far
it was proposed to carry such mitigation. It was
to be always remembered that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, and the Hon. Gentleman who se-
conded the motion, declared - their object to
he the entire abolition of the punishment of
death.—(Hcar, hear.) This was their object, stated
undisguisedly, and it was an object in which he (Lord
John Russell) could n:,t concur. Now there were,
with respect to offences still remaining on the Statute
13aok as punishable with death, two distinct classes.
There were certain offences with respect to which
hardly any ono could wish that the punishment of
death should be retained, but for which, having been so
punished in former times, that punishment still remained
upon the Statute Book, there having been no subse-
quent
Act of the Legislature upon the subject. rreere
were others respecting which there still existed great dif-
ficulty. Instances of both those classes were discussed in
Committee last year. There were offences created by a
single statute, but which were classed in the manner
which was then the custom, and coupled with classes
of graver offences—offences of altogether a different na-
ture, and all punishable with death—he meant the
offancer, of destroying ships and stores in dockyards.
Now the former was an offence which he thought par-
took of the character of high treason—( Hear, hear)—
but there were in the same statute other offences, those
of destroying ropes and destroying stores in dockyards.
which, of themselves, considered as offences against
property, ought not to be punished with death.
With respect to that statute it was an instance of a law
containing two distinct classes of offences, both at pre-
sent punishable with death, from one of which he
thought the punishment of death should be taken away,
while it should be retained for the other. There were
other cases in which there was a greater difference.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that
it
was true that secondary punishments werenot yet so
well considered as to enable hint to state what second-
aryt
punishments lie would substiitute. for the punish-
ment of death. He (Lord John agreed with
that opinion ; but, at the same time,
d the on. and
Learned Gentleman said that he did not think that it
was the duty of any individual to taae up the question
of secondary punishments, but that
aft
thet considerationGv e
nni ent.
of that question must devolve upo
.f
He held that opinion good also, but so, le thought
that that Government which had so much mitigated the
v
1837, and which bad subsequently
Criminal Law in .
devoted se much attention to the consideration of
secondary punishments, might have been left
at liberty to consider the whole subject, and
that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
might have given them further time, interposing
interposin
thus early in the Session with the present motion. He
agreed that much remained yet to be done with respect
to secondary punishments, and that a system of se-
condary punishments entirely satisfactory could not
be established until they had other prisons main-
tained at the expense of the State—(Hear, hear,
hear)—iu which persons might be confined who were at

present liable to such punishments pis' transportation.
At all events, it was clear that much .v:quirc.d to be
o
amended before any system could he satisctorr Is esta-
blished. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had.adluded
to the alteration of the law in 1887. At that t.inre be
(Lord John Russell) had proposed that in certain‘ cases
which were then liable to be punished with death_ that
punishment should be done away with, and transporta-
tion or imprisonment for five years be substituted. 'I
other House of Parliament thought that imprisonment:
for five years was too long a period, and gave three
years for the maximum of imprisonment that could
be inflicted for those offences ; and such was the
state of the law at present. There were now, in
consequence, many Acts on the Statute Book inflicting
imprisonment for five or seven years for offences of less
grave nature than those for which imprisonment for
three years was the maximum punishwent that could lie:
inflicted at present It was evident to him with respect.
to this subject that it was necessary to take a compre-
hensive view of the whole subject, and that punishineets
should be made commensurate with the offence. In
legislating on this subject for the future, they should
endeavour to take a general view of the whole subject,
:o that there might not be heavy punishments for light
offences, and light punishments for serious crimes. The
Hon. Gentleman's proposition would do away with a
great amount of capital punishment, but it must be
well considered before it was adopted.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
EAST INDIA PRODUCE. a a

Mr. ENS'ART in withdrawing a motion of which
he had given notice relative to the " reduction of re-
maining high duties on E ist India produce to the same
rate of duty as is levied on similar articles, the produce
of the West Indies," said he hoped that by one concha—
sive measure all those invidious differences which ex-
isted in the matters to which his motion referred, would
be swept from the Statute Book. Since he gave notice
of his motion, her Majesty's Government had, he under-
stood, given notice of motion to bring in a Bill to the,
same effect. The duties to which his (Mr. Ewart's)
motion referred were distinguished, first into agricul-
tural duties, next into duties respecting manufactures,
and thirdly into Colonial duties, such as those on the
produce of Ceylon, &c. He hoped that her Mojesty's
Government would think it proper to embrace 041 those
subjects in the most comprehensive manner, and that
they would not confine the alterations proposed to the
single article of rum. He hoped that it was not a li-
mited commercial reform which they intended to carry
into etTect. In his opinion the refOrm ought to be by.
far more comprehensive than what he understood it
was intended to propose. As, however, the question
would come before the House on Friday nert, be would
not, in justice to the Government, who had thus shown
their willingness to advance commercial reform, pre-
maturely difelose his views on the matter. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by stating that he withdrew his
motion I,:r the present.
TITHE RECOVERY ACT.

Captain PEC HELL, in rising to introduce the mo-
tion of which he had given notice, relative to " a Bill to
amend the Tithe Recovery Act (5 and 6 Will. IV.),
and to take away the jurisdiction from the Ecclesiastical
Courts in all matters relating to tithes of a certain
amount," said that it might be in the recollection cf the
House that in the year 1835, a Bill which he had the
honour to introduce was passed in the sth and 6th year
of William IV. By that Act it was provided that all
suits to which it referred should be held before the Jus-
tices of the Peace, and it appeared now that the Ec-
clesi isticel Courts did not come within the scope of
her M.ijo;ty's Courts. He bad no doubt that they
could not be called her Majesty's Courts, but it was the
object cf the House to prevent all suits ;vial respect to
tithes being carried before the Superior Courts. A pe-
tition was now lying on the table of the House in which
it was stated that a poor woman, named Sarah Young,
re:ying upon the Act of the and 6:h Will. IV., was
cited to appear before the Bishop's Court at Llndaff,
at the suit of a Reverend Divine, whose name he pooh'
not mention, for an alleged arrear of tithes, to the
amouot of 7s. The poor woman was unable to take
her appearance. She was, in consequence, held in
contempt, end confined in the gaol of Monmouth, where
she remained seven months. Another case occurred in
the diocese of Exeter. It appeared that a citation was
issued to a person named Hill, who had not complained
to that House, but whose case was well known. That
gentleman employed a proctor, who advised him, when
he should put in an answer to the citation. The man
appeared in the Court, and held up the Act of the sth
and 6:h Will. IV. ; but to his own astonishment, and
that of the proctor whom he had employed, the case
was dismissed, but without costs. If a person liable for
tithes to any small amount were cited to. appear before
the Bishop's Court, he understood that in such citation
no mention was made as to the sum claimed. When
the Act passed in 1835, all parties were desirous a corn-
' position should take place, and that had been settled,
he believed, to the satisfaction of all parties. Nobody
could deny that it was highly desirable the Ecclesiasti-
cal Courts should be placed on the same footing as her
Majesty's Courts. He had hoped that the Nob!e Lord
would tiring in a to abolish the jurisdiction of the
I Ecclesiastical Courts in tithe cases altogether, but, at
any rate, be hoped the House would agree to the Bill
he then moved for leave to bring in.
Mr. HAWSE seconded the motion.

Dr. NICHOL said, that :ill the difficulty had arisen
in consequence of the Hon. and Gallant Member
being such a bungler at legislation, and meddling with
a subject that he was not acquainted with.—(Littnrhter
and cries of Oh, oh.)
Mr. FOX MAULE thought that great responsi-
bility was attached to the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
men (Dr. Nichol), because he was perfectly well aware
of the measure, and allowed it to pass in its imperfect
sh,pe.—(ll,,ar, hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME submitted that the observations of the
Learned Civilian were perfectly unjustifiable.—(Hear,
hear.) Great credit was due to the Hon. and CI tilant
Gentleman for taking up the subject, but he did not
think that the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Civi-
lian was very praiseworthy, who. seeing an error, had
not thought fit to correct it.—(Hear,