The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-04 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION

the printer of the Morning Chronicle do appear at the bar
of this Houge."—( Cheers. )
Mr. HUME rose to address the House, but was inter-
rupted by cries of " Order, order."
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the paragraph
complained of by the Hon. Member should be read.
The paragraph was then read, the substance of which
was that the Hon. Member (Mr. Handley) approved of
the manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the subject of
the Corn-laws.
Mr. HUME said that having been present when the
Woe. Member spoke, and having been near him, he could
say tlat the paragraph just reed not only did not contain
the words which the Hon. Gentleman used, but a total mis-
representation of them ; however, as the Hon. Gentleman
had obtained what he desired, publicity of the vindication
he wished to make of his conduct, he (Mr. Hume) hoped
be would be satisfied with it, and would not press his mo-
tion of summoning the printer of the Morning Chronicle
to the Bar of the House.
S'r DE LACY EVANS was surprised that the Hon.
Member could bring forward such a motion as the present
one. Humble as he (Sir De Lacy Evans) was,
be was often misrepresented, but he never bad the
presumption to apply to the House about the
matter. He did not think that anybody could se-
riously imagine that the re.pre•entetion was inten-
tionally male. The Honourable Member had de-
ela-ed, in formidable terms, the opposition he
me ,nt to give to her Majesty's Government. He ( Sir
De Lacy Evans) did think that he ought to be ceteent
with so doing, and in correcting an error ought not to give
a bad example to ether Members, who on the eve of an
election might be glad to avail themselves of such a pre-
cedent.
Mr. HANDLE Y said it was net his good fortune to be
possessed of the modesty of the ilepo. and Gallant Member
who had just sat down. The Honourable and Gallant
Member might collect his constituents any evening he
chute at the Cat and Gridiron, or any other such
place—( Hear)—but he would find that some time
would be required to go through such a consti-
tuency as he ( Mr. H ) represented in
rder to vindicate hints —( A l,rug t.) The
Honourable and Gallant Member too, might have
so many claims on his constituents, that they
would surely overlook such a derelicti in of duty.
He (Mr. H.) acither participated in the feelings that
induced the lion. and Gallant Member to c.nne forward on
the present occasion, nor did he think that the House
participated in them. As on the one hand he coneuded
his motion according to the forms of the House, he would
on the other leave it to the House to decide whether he
ought .to be satisfied that the reparation offered was
commensurate with the injury done him. He would, how-
ever, withdraw his motion.
In answer to a question from an HON. MEMBER,
Lord J. RUSSELL sail !bathe should be presa-ed on
Friday to state the amount cf duty that he meant to pre-
pose on corn.
Lord SANDON said that on Riley next, previous to
the House going into Committee, he would propose a re-
solution, by which the seese of the House would be
tact:, in opposition to the proposition of the Ri ht
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor cf the Exchequer),
and that he would take an early opportunity of apprising
the House of the words of the resolution.

Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that he would take an
opportunity of taking the sense of the House as to the
propriety of bringing into the cout,try or any ok.its de.
pcnd:nciect sl”.ve-grown sugar.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL. .

-The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the
Puni-hmeut of Death Bill was then read,

The preamble of the Bill and clauses were postponed.
On clause 2 being put,
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the clause, but in so low
'a tore, and in the midst of so much noise, as to be totally
naudible in the Gallery.
Sir R. H. INGLIS also disapproved of the clause.
He thought that in certain cases of the ruin of public pro-
p.lty, the punishment of death ought to he inflicted. The
Hon. Baronet alluded to a wilful fire which bad recently
taken place in the dockyard of Plymouth; he thought no
punishment could be tao great for such a crime.
Lord DUNGANNON agree I with the Hon. Baronet.
There might be cases in which it would be unnecessary to
inflict the list penalty of the law, but the clause was, in
his opinion, of too' sweeping a nature.
Mr. HUNIE did not think that the punishment of
death was in any case a security against crime. In all
those cases in which the punishment of death
had been abolished, the change had not been found to
work unfavourably. He did nat think that public property
should be protected in a different way from the
property of individuals.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He
concurred most heartily in the provisions of the
clause, and be thought the experience of the Noble
Lord since the Bill was last bcftc the House should
have shown him that the punishment of death in cases of
that sort afforded no sufficient protection, and it might as
well be put an end to.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Noble Lord had talked of
using the strongest arm of the law to put down
offences of the sort, but the question was, what was the
strongest arm of the law ? The Noble Lord's proposition
might be the strongest arm, but it was the shortest.
In his humble judgment a secondary punishment would be
found more effectual, as it would be more certain, and it
was quite clear that the enunciation of the punishment did
not prevent the crime. He firmly believed that
they could net have a greater incentive to crime than
familiarising the public with those scenes of death.
It was said, if you refused the clause you would have par-
ties setting fire to a King's ship in the face of the enemy ;
but the Committee would recollect that that was high trea-
son, and could be punished accordingly. He need not allude
to the recent casein which a man was executed, who died in
the most solemn and impressive manner appealing to God
that be was innocent. Man was fallible, their tribunals were
fallible, and they ought to endeavour to lessen the chance
of committing the most awful mistake that could be com-
mitted. He trusted they would persevere in their present
course of harmonizing the people by mitigating the severity
of their criminal law. At present it was in a most unsatis-
factory state. —( Hear.)
Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD would also give his vote
in favour of the clause. He entirely concurred with the
observations of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Kilkenny, and believed that crime would be more effec-
tually prevented by lessening the severity of the punishment,
and rendering it more certain than by the present system.
He (Mr. Sergeant Talfeurd) was at Shrewsbury at the
time of the trial of Misters, and he had seen something
of the sympathy which was excited on behalf of the
criminal. If he had been transported instead of executed
no doubt had been entertained of his guilt.
Mr. SWART said that fees and figures had shown
that capital punishments did not deter from crime, and he
should on this account support the amendment.
Lord DUNGANNON said with regard to what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Reading, he (Lord
Dungannon) was a member of the Grand Jury on that oc-
sion, and be was sure no one entertained a doubt of the
prisioner's guilt. • In his opinion it would be dangerous to
abolish the punishment of death, in cases of malicious fire..
raising in dwelling-houses. He thought it would tend to
make life and property insecure.
Mr. W. ROCHE supported the clause on the ground
that the secondary punishment would afford an opportunity
of correcting any mistakes which might occur in the trial
of any party.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against the clause 122
Majority against the clause —l2
The clause was then expunged.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
On clause 4 being put,
Sir C. DOUG LAS moved the following amend-
ment:—That, in case of rape, and of unlawfully and
carnally knowing and abusing any girl under the age of
ten years, whenever either of the said offences shall be
committed by any two or more persons, and such person
or persons shall be convicted of either of the said offences,
such person or persons so convicted shall be subject to the
sentence of death, and shall suffer death, as in and by the
said statute of 'the ninth year of the reign of his late Ma-
jesty George the Fourth is provided. '
The ATTORNE Y-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment. The subject to which the clause related was one of
great difficulty and embarrassment. There were many
arenas of the most revolting nature which came within its
operation, but there were others of a less aggravated na-
ture. Notwithstanding all the attention which he had
given to the matter he had been unable to frame provisions
which would exclude the punishment of death in certain
cases of the kind, and would retain it in others. The only
'
course,
therefore, he saw open to them was to abolish the
capital punishment in all the cases in question.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the principle of the
amendment. He thought every Hen. Member should
consider the subject as if it related to the members of his
own family.
Lord DUNGANNON did not wish to see the punish-
ment of death abolished altogether, in regard to the
crime to which the clause referred. There were certainly
cases of a more and cases of a less aggravated character,
but he thought the punishment to be awarded might be
safely left to the discretion of the Judge..
Me. O'CONNELL said the worst feature of our cri-
minal law was the quantity of discretion left with the
Judge—it made- the punishment uncertain. Let them
make the conviction as certain as possible, and let the
punishment follow as a matter of course, and then the
crime would be checked. He instanded the case of two
gypsies NI were convicted of stealing 18/, from a pen-
sioner in the neighbourhood of Monmouth about four
years ago--they were transported for life, and at the lapse
of two years it was found out they were entirely innocent,
and were brought home at the Government expense.
Under the old law they would
Gave
what position would they then
bavveebbeen executed, and in
Lord DARLINGTON defended
thebeen
?
character of the
Learned Judge who tried Misters,he was tried in a
crowded Court, and there was not a
his being guilty of the atrocious ciirtiec"d opinion as to
imputed to him. In
ins opinion the Judges generally had exercised their dis-
cretion in a sound manner.
Mr. HOB HO US B opposed the amendment, and dere-
cated any extension of the discretion of the Jud p
Magee'
ice
Mr. GODSON supported the clause. Man
tions would be had if the crime was reduced to yaconv
portable offence, which now were lost, because Jurietsrahnawsi
a horror of the punishment of dbath.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the object of legislation Was
to present crime, and in his opinion that would bestbe
done by ensuring convictions, which could only be done by
abolishing the punishment of death as attached to such a
crime.

• 4

' Sir R. PEEL could not concur in the feeling that the
punialment of death should be abolished in the cases of
murder, attempts to murder, or rape.
Mr. C. BULLER supported the clause.
Captain POLHILL hoped the Hon. Baronet would
withdraw his amendment, and I;.‘t the division be taken
On the clause itself. He was strongly opposed to it. and
would certainly vote against it.
Sir C. DOUGLAS withdrew his amendment.