The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-09 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

The Duke of ItUTLAND presented several petitions
against any alteration in the corn-laws.
SCOTTISH SCHOOLMASTERS.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to inquire whether
any steps were likely to be taken by the Government to
revive the Commission of last year for providing any
suitable dwellings for the schoolmasters in fkotland, It

was well known that the Commission of last year' led to
no result.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that the Committee
of last year was likely to be revived this season, but
it waited for the attendance of several Noble Lords that
reside in Scotland, and whose assistance it was desirable
to obtain in that Committee, the subject had not escaped
the attention of Government, and as soon as they ob-
tained the report of this Committee they were prepared
to act. He hoped in the course of a day, in conse-
auence of the attendance of Noble Lords to whom he
alluded, to move the reappointment of the Committee.
Lord DENMAN said that he would proceed in the
shortest possible manner to state to their lordships his
views with regard to the Coercion Bill for Ireland. In
the first place, he had herrd with abhorrence and regret
the statement which had been made in that House the
other night, when its sanction to the bill had been so-
licited. He did not mean to enter at any great
length on the bill, but he believed that the less
stringent the Bill was in its nature, and the less it inter-
fered with the ordinary feeiings of mankind, the more
likely it was to be efficient. With regard to the first
clause giving to the Lord Lieutenant the power of placing
any district where a solitary offence had been committed,
under the operation of the Act it was altogether
too great a stretch of authority. It appeared that where
any murder or attempt at murder had been made, or
any assault, with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm,
had been perpetrated, that that solitary fact was to be
sufficient ground for calling this measure into action.
The House was aware that such crimes were occa-
sionally committed in every country, and yet the com-
mission of a single crime was to be a justification for
using this Act. He had suggested to their Lordships
that the justices of the peace in every county should
make a representation to the Lord Lieutenant, in the
event of this measure being necessary, but that pro-
position was not approved of. He had, however, found
on inquiry that the Lord Lieutenant had sufficient
information from the ordinary police reports, and he
(Lord Denman) could not see the objection to giving
his Excellency the power of calling this Act into opera-
tion, on his own responsibility, as such a course would
be preferable to the present system.—(Hear, hear.)
With regard to the transportation clause, where any
person found out of his dwelling after sunset and before
sunrise was liable to that punishment, he confessed
that he could not help feeling a very strong reluc-
tance to an Act granting such a power, with-
out the fullest proof of the necessity for it.
He owned that the mere right of taking up indivi-
duals who have been found out after sunset and before
sun-rise, was, in in his opinion, giving a very extended
power to the Executive Government. He thought,
therefore, that the person so taken into custody should
be allowed to make an explanation before being taken
to prison ; and he was glad to find that this
clause had been altered; in the Bill for this purpose
the person being taken immediately before the petty
sessions. He was sorry to find that there was one con-
dition in that clause which pressed rather hardly
upon the individual—he meant that which provided
that if only only one magistrate were sitting at the ses-
sions the person should be taken to prison. Ho thought
the liberty of the subject ought not to depend upon the
accident of only one magistrate being at the time
at the petty sessions. He regretted also that the puntsk-
ment consequent upon the offence was so severe. He
felt a repugnance to transportation for fifteen years, or
(as it was now reduced) seven years. He did not
think this severe punishment would be attended with
any good effect. Their Lordships were perhaps aware
that a transportation for seven years was in many cases
a transportation for life, because persons in
that humble station of life could not always
command the means of returning home. He was told
that transportation was a punishment they dreaded, and
that they cared nothing for imprisonment ; but the
power of apprehending was a power for the prevention
of mischief for the time, at least, and let the House
depend on it that imprisonment was not a light
punishment to a labouring man. He had been
induced the other day to speak to the Noble
Lord who had introduced the measure, with a
view of making the punishment proportionate, that was
to say that the individual should be slightly punished
for the first offence, more heartily punished for
the second, and when offending the third
time that he should be held contumacious, and
sentence of transportation be passed upon him.
There was the other subject to which he would refer.
It was that which related to the change of venue to
another country to that in which an offence was com-
mitted. If a strong case was made out for this act at all,
then ought the power to change the venue be given, in
order to put down such schemes and associations as were
supposed by the Act to exist.—(Hear, hear.) The law
which existed in this country on the subject ought to
be extended to Ireland. lie could not agree with the
Noble and Learned Lord behind him, that it was

a great privilege for parties charged with offences
to be tried by their neighbours there were many cases
in which it would operate injuriously for persons to be
tried within the limit of small jurisdictions ; and
there were many instnnces in which it was
much more convenient for offenders to be tried
out of the county in wnich the offences were
committed those in it. There were many parts in Lan-
cashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, in which it was
found much more convenient to try persona in
the adjoining county. If a case was made out for
such an Act as the one proposed, they might
it was a great consolation to him (Lord Denman) to
learn that the Noble Lord (the Earl of Ripon) in his
statement the other evening, did not state that juries
were intimidated in the discharge of their duties.

still he (Lord Denman) could not-but think, that such

must Le case if the violence and insubordination state d
to be the foundation of the Bill, had an exi.tence. It

would be better and safer in his opinion, however, that
instead of introducing the power of changing the venue
in any particular Bill, like the one he was considering,
to introduce the principle into a general Act of Parlia-
ment, so that the practice might be the same as
Ireland as in England. The practice of the Court of
Queen's Bench, in his opinion, ought to be made gene-
ral, and he would, therefore, submit this point to
the consideration of her Majesty's Government.
With regard to the 20th clause, he had evory objection
to its becoming a part of the Bill, for it appeared to him
that it should not be a local or temporary Act. It was
one of the greatest offences which could be committed,
and he did not see why they should hare the
odium of making it a particular instead of a
general act. He had great regret in finding that
particular circumstances rendered it necessary
that it should be applicable to any part of the United
Kingdom ; but he submitted that it was an offence which
should be made the subject not of a particular but of a
general law. He also felt that the punishment of trans-
portation was one which ought not to be lightly in-
flicted.

Lord BROUGHAM agreed with some of the obser-
vations made by the Noble Lord who had just sat down,
and he especially agreedin every opinion he had expressed
that the law should be general, not particular. Ile
would not now refer to his own amendments, but would
come to the punishment of transportation. Now, he
denied that the punishment of transportation was one
inflicted for a light offence. In the first place
the case was one where a discretionary power
was given to the Judge who would try the pri-
soner, and it could not be inflicted unless the
individual apprehended was arrested under suspi-
cious circumstances. To be convicted even then,
it must be proved to the satisfaction of a jury
that the individual was out not on a lawful occasion.
Unless the jury were satisfied that such was the fact they
could not: act on it. It had been said that there would
be no possibility of a party proving the lawfulness of
the occasion on which ho was out, but it was
not from being out that a man would be
taken up because he woutd not be under any
apprehension unless in a district that had
been proclaimed, and in such a district nothing could be
easier than for a man to provide himself with evidence
by which to prove the lawfulness of the occa-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The fact of a man being
out merely, would not be sufficient to warrant
his arrest ' • but if a man were found with
a pistol or a bludgeon, or a dagger, and with a band of
fifty others, then indeed he would be liable
to be arrested, and should account for himself.
Why, the fact of being out with others under such cif-
cumstances, would render any individual liable to the
imputation of being out for treasonable purposes. Ile did
not seem to say that this being out would amount to
a treasonable act, but he could not but say that many
a lesser act had amounted to rebellion against Queen's
authority. The individual charged was not to be liable
to transportation for being out at night, bat for being so
under suspicious circumstances.