The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-15 00:00:00

PARLIAM

sto prevent crime; but he s'sould go at once to fresh
evidence, contained in reports, of some of the most
distinguished practical lawyers in this country. He
__Would take the second report of the Lords' Committee
nCriminal Law. It did appear strange, that whilst
""a great question had made progress in two of the
stag's of America, was acted upon in the Grand
chi of Tuscany and in Baden, was in balance in
_
a, and almost adopted in Bavaria and, ho be.
_Zen, in Belgium, and in Sweden was under discussion
.';at'n. a view to the abolition of the punishment of
t7tlth., it should have been treated of so shortly, so sue
tee,tlYi and so lightly, as in four lines of this report.
tt" what did those four lines say? " Respecting the
,Quad of abolishing capital punishments wo have
~ft(tinyee scarcely any difference of opinion ; almost all the
saes agree in opinion that, for offences of the
st kind, the punishment of death ought to be re-
tained;' In that second report he found only four wit-
-137e out of a larger number to whom that question had
14;1
]suggested. Mr. Baron Platt and Mr. Sergeant
ter of that opinion ; but the Lord Chief Jus-
-27 of the Common Pleas said, " This question involves
iluowsidertitions much too grave to warrant a hasty opinion,
PET great may be the objections to the punishment
death, and, in my opinion, they are very great." He
(Lord
uYe pitttNin uggent) was aware of the difficulty and delicacy
a question as to the abolition of the punish-
;T),_t of death to a witness about to take his scat upon
the bench. A judge could not he fairly naked his opinion
"411 eat such R Get when he might be called immediately
it. resanis to act in opposition to it. But, in the first
import, udges had given their opinions, and much
strongerdisposed
opinions. Mr. Justice Coltman said ho was
v!sPosed to think that imprisonment for life, without any
r"°Pe of a remission of the sentence, might be substituted
i •
..„ ama 1 punishment. The Learned Judge further
that he did not think the apprehension of the punish-
lnent of death operated much upon the minds of men who
alarnplated the commission of the crime. Lord Chief
Justice Denman said, "I have not sufficiently considered
the question to be able to offer any opinion upon it." This
gnawer
l showed the discretion, straightforwardness, and
t,soa,''sty of the Lord Chief Justice ; he felt the question
oune an important one, and he declined to give an
l)lai°n upon it. The opinion of Mr. Justice Wightman
~ 'as also one which he might cite—it was not so strong
Againste the punishment of death as those to which he
had previously referred; but it nevertheless was clear
and decisive. In the evidence appended to the first
tkePert there was the evidence of eight persons holding
jealicial offices, and yet, disregarding the opinions
°f those eight eminent persons, the Committee ventured
to tell the House they had scarcely any difficulty in
teclaring that the punishment of death could not be re-
laxed. Looking then at the known humanity of the
the
at the mercy of the Crown, acting under
e advice of his Right Hon. Friend opposite—looking
at the mitigated severity which the influence of public
opinion had effected, he still could not help observing
that the best position in which the law could stand
.w.ould be that of bearing a character for certainty and
:iernness, marked however by mildness, and occasioning
Wto the offender as little suffering as possible. Further he
.otild say, that the character of those w
inexorable obe-
ho administered
,ll?e law ought to be one of severe and
"lenee to that law. At present the law was sanguinary, but
thejudge and the Crown were most merciful in its ad-
ministration. It was a trite and ordinary remark, very
Often made, that there must be something wrong in a
I._iYatern of legislation, when those whose duty it was to
eurainister it :performed that duty with feelings of dis-
FUSS and horror. Judges were always in this country
looked up to with the utmost revel ence. The sheriff,
Whose duty it was to carry out the judgment of the
court, was also a person of worship and of high autho
city f but the wretched hangman, the finisher of the law,
was a being with whom the veriest outcasts of society
would be ashamed to associate. So great was the shame
attaching to the sentence of the law, that a cap was
always pulled over the face of the culprit—the public
Were allowed to see one half of the punishment, but the
lawgivers of the land were ashamed to let them see the
other half. They even murdered the language for the
Perpose of killing their victims. They talked of exe-
cuting a man when they should have said killing him—
Ilea' might execute the law, but they killed the man.
e woald repeat, that the general feeling of mankind
We 4 opposed to the punishment of death. When a
:lprit appeared uon the scaffol his crie was almost
forgotten; and it could not be dend ied that the legislators,
Vae.iodges, and the executive authorities of this country
d never taken any pains to render the criminal law
either
)(, certain or uniform. Not a moment ought to
lost in at least rendering it certain. The principle of
gambling ought at once to be taken out of it; and those
,ho were really guilty ought no longer to be sustained
ty the influence of public sympathy. His Right Hon.
triend opposite seemed to attach some importance to
the manner in which the punishment of death operated
as an example; but then the supporters of the punish.
meet very frankly admitted that it produced no good
"acct upon those who were the actual spectators of the
dreadful scene called an execution; but that it had an
Indirect effect upon the population at large through the
Publicity which newspapers gave to the history of such
c'tents. He confessed that he thought, if Hon. Members
could offer no better reason than that in favour of this
barbarous practice, they might surrender it without fur-
ther hesitation. He understood there was a penny thea-
tre—he believed in York—but, if misinformed respect-
ing the locality, he begged pardon of that splendid city—
there could, however, be no doubt of the fact that there
was a penny theatre in which the likeness of a man
was hanged, clad in the clothes—warranted to be really
the clothes—worn by a person who had been
hanged ; and, for the purposes of that drama-
tic execution, a man was employed to hang
the effigy of the supposed culprit, warranted
to be the same man who had hanged the original offender.
The most awful consideration connected with this sub-
ject yet remained to be noticed, and he purposely re-
served it for tho last; it was the irrevocable nature of
the punishment. No truth could be more evident or
mere practically important than this, that an irrevocable
Punishment was incompatible with the notion of a fallible
tribunal. This was no fanciful hypothesis. It was a
grim truth from which they could not escape. It ale
Peered from the evidence taken by the Committee whose
report ho held in his hand, that recently one person in
every three years had suffered capital punishment whose
innocence had been subsequently proved; and that during
the last fifty years as many as forty-one persons had
been executed whose innocence had been discovered too
late. It appeared that the lives of as many as five inno-
cent persona had been saved through the exertions of Mr.
Sheriff Wilde (as we understood). Attention had re-
cently been called to the case of Michael Howard, in Lime-
rick, who had escaped by mere accident. Upon the Le-
gislature of England a deep and heavy responsibility
rested,—a cry of innocent blood rose up against them. It
was no forced gloss on the words " vengeance belongeth
unto God," to say that they formed a phrase of high im-
portance in the present discussion, Vengeance belonged
alone to that tribunal whose decision could neither be
questioned nor withstood. He well remembered that
Members of that House had often said murder could not
be stopped without the aid of capital punishment ; but
such Hon. Members were bound to show that no other
punishment would be efficacious,—the onus probandi
rested upon them. He conjured them to remember that
the responsibility 'rested upon their votes,—that with
them rested the great blood-guiltiness of delay. In the
present age we looked back with horror and wonder at
the severities practised by our ancestors, and the
next generation would regard with equal astonishment
the legislators of these times. He hoped, however,
that the period was not distant when the punishment
of death would be abolished, and he doubted not that,
in five years from that time, the world would look back
with infinite surprise at the present state of the law. He
hoped that the vote of that night would give the country
an assurance that capital punishments would be speedily
abolished.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS, though he rejoiced at the re-
appearance in that House of the Noble Lord who spoke
last, yet differed from him on many points. Their
attention had been called to the opinions delivered by
more than one judge respecting the punishment of death.
He did not inquire who put these questions; he did not
tusk whether any one put them being himself a judge ;
but he thought that such interrogatories must have pro-
ceeded from one who had not well considered the respon-
sibility of the judicial character. It was to be remem-
bered that Scottish and Irish judges had given evidence
on the subject, and their opinion% were certainly in favour
of retaining capital punishment in certain cases: They
certainly wore opposed to statutory changes in the law.
Amongst the observations which tell from the Noble
Lord, there was a complaint against lawyers for multi-
lating the English language. Ho was surprised to hear
a scholar like the Noble Lord say that " kill" and " exe-
cute" might not be used as synonyms. The highest
authorities had so used them. Dryden had said—
" Ohl Tyburn, could thou reason and dispute,
Then couldst thou judge a well as execute."
There were some, but he was not one of those, who
bought popularity by saying that the punishment of
death ought to be maintained for the sake of example.
He believed that neither his Hon. Friend the Member
for Dumfries, nor his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, who deprecated the
discussion of the theological branch of the question in
that assembly, would shrink from the application of the
argument in private life. Why, then, should they throw
aside the argument which the Word of God would supply
in legislation? His Hon. Friend said last year that
the rigours of the Levitical law had been softened by
the humanizing influences of Christianity. He (Sir
R. Inglis) contended, however, that God had not re-
pealed that law which he gave to his own peculiar
people, " Whoso aheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed ;" the reason assigned being, " for
in the image of God created be him." It was not laid
down that the end aimed at was the peace of society,
the prevention of crime, or the reformation of the
criminal, but the Scriptures said that the shedding
of man's blood required the blood of man, " for in the
image of God created he him." lie was aware that
these were solemn and sacred subjects, but they only
became improper for discussion when they were either
referred to in an improper manner, or were received,
which was certainly not the case in the present instance,
in an improper spirit. From the earliest times our le-
gislation had been built upon the Scriptures. Refe-
rence had been made to the horrible scenes which
sometimes took place at public executions, but these
amiss had no more to do with the punishment of death
than the punishment of petty larceny. Tne punishment
of death might be continued, though deprived of those
characteristics of horror and incitements to vice which
had been referred ;to; by:the Honourable Member for
Stafford. Of late years the infliction of the punishment
had been much less frequent thsn formerly. He re-
collected the time when twenty-five persons were put to
death in one week. lie did not desire to see so sun-
vinery a system perpetrated ; but, trusting that
the law would be mercifully administered, as he knew
it would he, he still heliseed that the sword had not hewn
committed to the magistrate in vain. When the extreme
Penalty of death was not required, he was by no means

insensible to the value of measures designed for the re-
formation of offenders. But the question of secondary
punishment was like political economy; every man's
hand was directed against his brother. Transportation,
solitary confinement, secret confinement, were all in turn
applauded and condemned as secondary punishments.
When his Hon Friend the Member for Dumfries pro-
posed to abolish the punishment of death, he ought to
have stated what secondary punishment he proposed to
substitute. His Right Hon. Friend had referred to a
punishment inflicted in Russia, not nominally death,
though practically terminating in death in the generality
of cases. Would his Hon. Friend propose that as a
substitute ? Would he propose perpetual solitude, or
working in gangs in the streets in prison dresses?
Thinking that no sufficient reason had been shown for
the abolition of the punishment of death, he concurred
with her Majesty's Government in resisting the intro-
duction of the measure.
Mr. HUME said that crimes changed with changes of
manners and characters. The lion. Gentleman who had
just spoken relied chiefly on the Word of God, but he
(Mr. Hume) denied that any text of Scripture could be
quoted giving authority to one man to take away the
life of another. " I will have mercy and not sacrifice,"
were the words of God himself. He also said, " Thou
shalt not kill," a command which ho believed referred to
the taking of life as a punishment as well as to the crime
of murder. He had never seen an execution but once,
and then twenty persona were hanged together, for
crimes which had been subsequently blotted from the
statute-book as punishable by death.—(Hear.) He
believed that in all countries where life was held cheap
by the public authority it was held cheap by the people.
—(Hear.) Wherever executions were frequent reckless
assassination and murder became matters of course. He
believed that society had been batter conducted under the
amended system of punishment which began with Sir S.
Romilly, and he believed that if he were alive now
he would support the motion of his Hon. Friend. His
representative, the Hon. Member for Devonport, said
that all executions were evil, and yet they were defended
as examples to society. It was well known that murders
had been committed which had originated in the behold-
ing of public executions.—(Hear, hear.) Ho was opposed
to execution' in private, because they would then be
little short of acts of revenge. He believed that every
execution was an injury to the State, and led to others
of a similar nature. He would, therefore, support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Dumfries.
Mr. WOOD said that he had given a serious and
early attention to the subject before the House, and he
came to the conclusion that it would not be expedient to
abolish the punishment of death for the crime of murder
—a conclusion to which he would not come if he believed
that the taking away a man's life was unauthorised by
Scripture. The sacredness of human life was the object
they all had in view; but their feelings were likely to
lead them astray as they viewed the subject from one
point of view or the other. He thought that the vin-
dictive element of the punishment of death ought to be
eliminated, but he had not heard a single argument
against the right of the State to take care of all its citi-
zens in the dearest of their privileges, that of life itself.
fie thought that no method of preventing the crime of
murder was so effectual as that of the frightful punish-
ment of death. There were two objects in punishment
—the prevention of the crime, and the reformation of
the offender. With regard to the punishment of death,
the latter consideration was out of the question ; but
with regard to the prevention of the crime, they did not
,nerely prevent it tor the sake of the class of persons by
wham it was likely to be committed ; those who from
want of education—and in that respect he feared they
had much to answer for—(Hear,hear)—or from the bad
example of their parents were prone to crime. They
had, then, to consider what mode of punishment was
most likely to deter them from crime. lie feared that
those who were disposed to commit the crime of murder
would nut be open to other influences than those of
terror and punishment of death. And it seemed to him
to be perfectly consistent with the most earnest love of
man to deter him from the commission of crime to which
an evil disposition might lead him by the prospect of
such a punishment. One of the three greatest poets of
the world, Dante, made one of the condemned souls
say—
"I was created by Almighty power,
The highest wisdom and primeval love."
lie would not say that those who supported the motion
were actuated by a morbid humanity, but he believed
there was amongst a large portion of the community a
revulsion of feeling—the effect of their former severe
criminal code—which now shrunk from what appeared
to him to be a lawful, proper, and consistent mode of
punishment. lie believed that an increase of crimes
followed where the punishment was removed. Captain
Maconochie stated, that after twelve executions had taken
place in New South Wales of bushrangers who had com-
mitted crimes attended with murders, those crimes had
ceased, and the remedy had been effectual. It was a re-
markable proof of the efficacy of the punishment also,
that after the late executions in Ireland assassinations
and murder had ceased in that country. There had been
some very alarming instances recently of public feeling
upon this subject. Persons had been recommended to
the mercy of the Crown whose offences were of a very
heinous character. It would be probably said that the
cause of this was the harsh character of the punishment.
tie believed, on the contrary, that it was not the harsh-
ness of the penalty, but the publicity given to the execu-
tion, which raised the sympathy of the public. The
proper course would be for the criminal to be taken from
the bar, and never to be heard of again, save through the
official communication that he had suffered the penalty
of the law in presence of the proper officers. For these
and other reasons he had come to the conclusion, that it
was impossible to support the Bill of the Hon. Member,
and he should consequently vote against its introduction.
Mr. BRIGHT thought he was able to discover an in-
creased interest in the discussion on this subject within
the House, and he thought he could venture to say that
there was a very greatly increased interest in it out of
doors. They had not been charged on this occasion
with " morbid feelings" and " sickly sentimentalities."
The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford congratulated
Mr. Romilly with not having gone further upon this
subject than his father did. He (Mr. Bright) should be
glad to know what ancestor of the Hon. Baronet had
equalled him in his political opinions. It seemed to him
that this punishment of death proceeded on an erroneous
idea of what were the feelings of people likely to com-
mit crimes. The threat of eternal punishment, which
was sounded every week from 10,000 pulpits in this
country, did not deter from the commission of crime:
how much less, then, could the threat of pueishment by
death deter?—(Hear, hear.) Let the House really ask
themselves what the threat was. If they looked over
newspapers at the time of the assizes they found people
condemned to death for very unequal offences. They
would also find that people were sometimes even ac
quitted on the ground of the harsh nature of the punish-
ment. There were several cases in proof of his last
position. The case of the two sisters, Seeley, tried at
Taunton, for poisoning their own relatives, was strongly
in point. In another case, that of a man who murdered
his fellow-servant at the Guildhall Coffee-house, sheriffs
and aldermen came forward to intercede for the mur-
derer.
Alderman HUMPFIERY—No. No aldermen.
Mr. BRIGHT—There was another case of the mur-
derers of Lord Coventry's gamekeeper; and even at the
last assizes, several murderers were respired, in conse-
quence of the general feeling of the public against
punishment by death. He was not calling in question
the justice of exercising the royal prerogative in these
cases; he looked on every respite that issued from the
Home-office as a further indication of the power of the
people upon the subject. Even with respect to the most
recent case in which the prerogative had been exercised,
he had only that morning received a letter from the
brother in-law of the murdered soldier, who declared
that among the friends of that unhappy man there was
the strongest feeling that the last punishment of the law
ought to be averted from the culprit, and that they were
most ready to sign a petition to the Crown, praying for a
mitigation of the penalty.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then,
it was clear that it was quite impossible for the Govern-
ment to carry out the laws. It was in the power of any
single juror to defeat the law; it was in the power of
any humane individual to arouse so much public feeling
in any particular case as to place any Home Secretary
who carried out the law in an awfully responsible post •
tion. But the argument which weighed with him most
upon this subject was the necessity for strengthening the
publics reverence for human life and its inviolability.
Did capital punishment weaken or strengthen that
feeling of reverence?—(Hear, hear.) lie believed it
was most important that Parliament should abandon
this punishment rather than that juries and the people
should themselves virtually put a termination to the
practice.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR having bad considerable experi-
ence—(Loud laughter)—in the operation of the criminal
law, was desirous to offer a few observations. It was
his conviction, in opposition to what had been just said,
that the public would never tolerate the practice of ac-
quitting murderers clearly convicted upon the evidence of
witnesses, merelyhecause of the punishment to which the
party might be subjected. As far as the punishment of
death went, it seemed to him that great reforms were
already being made. There was now, in the power to
convict of manslaughter, an opportunity of finding a M. 1113
guilty under circumstances of extenuation. But wbeist
regarding with sympathy the fate of the murderer, let
them take care they did not render the life of the public
less secure. With regard to what had been said in
favour of secret executions, he hoped the country would
never again hear of such a proposal.
Mr. G. THOMPSON extolled the motives of those
who petitioned this House in favour of the measure now
proposed for their adoption. He contended that no one
not possessed of the infallibility of judgment, solely
vested in omniscience, should dare to wield the sword of
omnipotence.
Mr. DRUMMOND observed that the argument de-
rived from the fallibility of human judgment might, to
more or less extent, be directed against the infliction of
any punishment whatever. He contended that there
was no fear so effectual for the repression of great
crimes as the fear of death. lie strongly deprecated the
mawkish sentimentality which had been growing up on
this subject, and which was encouraging jurors to violate
their oaths and to abandon their duty to God and man,
by a preposterous sympathy with all the rogues who
were brought before them.
Mr. N APIER said that every portion of our law, as
it existed, manifested the tenderest care for the life of
man, the utmost caution that, without the clearest evi-
dence of deadly crime, no life should be sacrificed; but
the existence of such crime being proved to the judg-
ment of those called upon to try offences, there could be
no real doubt that the Divine Word delegated to man
the punishment of crimes committed against man, and
that this punishment might be extended to death in
those cases for which Divine and human law assigned
that last penalty.
Mr. BROTHERTnN, who spoke amidst lnul f•r,,, of
" Divide," protested. against the question being argued
on the ground of expediency. He (=tended that as

man had no power to give life he had no right to take
it away.
Mr. MUNTZ remarked that the very worst use you
could make of a man was to hang him.—(A. laugh.)
He was influenced by no morbid sympathies. If he
found a man breaking into his house he would shoot
him.—(Great laughter.) But that was a very different
thing from hanging a man in cold blood. To justify
hanging you must prove that it prevented crime. And
there was no proof that that was the result. It was far
better that one thousand guilty men should escape than
that one innocent man should be hanged, and they
also knew how fallible juries were, and that innocent
men had often been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
Except in the case of punishing by death, they might
in some degree remedy the injustice of a false conviction;
but if they hanged a man they could not unhang him.
He knew what it was to be tried by a jury. He had
been once tried by a jury for an offence of which he
was as innocent as the Speaker of that House—(Hear,
and a laugh)—and yet that jury had determined before-
hand to convict him, and would have done so but for
the charge of the Judge.
Mr. E WART shortly replied, and the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the motion 66
Against it 122
Majority —s6
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY EXPENDITURE
Sir H. VERNEY moved an instruction to the Select
Committee on the Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates
to consider whether the character of the navy and army
might not be elevated by the more frequent employment
of discharged sailors and soldiers, who are duly qualified,
in subordinate offices of various public departments, for
instance, in the Customs and Excise, offices under the
Admiralty and Horse Guards, dockyards, victualling-
yards, arsenals, &c., so that additional prospect of re-
ward for meritorious conduct might be held out to
sailors and soldiers, and that during their employment a
portion of their pensions might be saved to the country.
Whether means are afforded to the troops for spiritual
and moral instruction, particularly to those on active
service in India. Whether sufficient provision is made
for the intellectual employment and instruction of
soldiers in barracks. To consider the best mode of
applying the proposed grant of 150,0001. for re-organ-
ising the militia, and whether that force appears to be the
best that can be devised for the defence of the country in
time of war.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did
not think it would be wise to impose on the Committee
the duty of inquiring into the subjects referred to in the
motion, though he did not mean to say that the depart-
ments to which they related might not properly turn
their attention to them.
Mr. HUME thought it was necessary the House
should have some knowledge of the matters to which
the Committee were really to turn their attention.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Committee was appointed to investigate this depart-
ment of the public expenditure.
Sir 11. VERNEY then withdrew his motion.
KILLING OF HARES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. I,IACKENZIE obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to enable owners and occupiers of land in Scotland,
having a right to kill hares on that land, to do so them
selves, or by such persons authorised by them, without
being required to take out a game certificate.
REDUCTION OF SALARIES IN STATE DE-
PARTMENTS APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. HUME moved an Address to her Majesty, that 1
she will be graciously pleased to direct that in all ap-
pointments to office, in every department of the State,
both at home and abroad, the appointments to be made
subject to a reduction of salary and allowance, and even
to the abolition of offices, if such be deemed necessary,
after a careful inquiry into the state of the finances of
the country, in order that in cases where such reduction
of salary or emoluments, or such abolition of office be
made, no claims for compensation be founded thereon.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think it advisable to address her Majesty on the subject,
although he admitted that the spirit of the resolution was
good, and ought to be carried out. He could only say
that the rule in granting appointments in the Treasury
was, that in any change which might result from any
pending inquiry, no compensation should be given.
Mr. HUME said he would withdraw his motion if
the Government would promise that that rule should be
general.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
only speak of the department with which he was con-
nected.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Government did
not at all object to the principle of the Honourable
Gentleman's motion, as they considered it would be ex-
tremely improper of tko Government to use their
patronage so as to cause the least obstruction to any
pending scheme of economy, but to its present form he
could not consent.
Mr. HENLEY approved of the motion, but thought
that the best course would be to postpone it until the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government should be
present.
Mr. HUME said he would withdraw it for the pre-
sent, reserving to himself the power of reviving it on a
future occasion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
BOROUGH OF HARWICH.
Mr. BAGGE moved that a new writ be issued for the
borough of Harwich in the room of John Attwood, Esq.,
unseated on the ground of bribery.
Mr. BLACKSTONE opposed the issuing of the writ,
on the ground that a special report had been issued by
the Committee appointed to try the merits of the late
election. Ile considered that the practices which had
fur some time prevailed in Harwich, were such as loudly
to call for the interference of the House; and that, at
least in the present instance, nothing should be done
until the special report and the evidence were in the
hands of the Members.—(Hear, hear.)] The Hon. Mem-
ber proceeded to quote the evidence taken before Mr.
Roebuck's Committee, more especially that of Mr.
Bagshawe, the then unsuccessful candidate for the bo-
rough. That Gentleman stated that in the contest in
which he had been engaged Mr. Attwood spent 6,0001.,
Sir D. Le Merchant 1,500/., and himself SOU That
about thirty voters had obtained Government situations,
and that there were more Harwich people holding
similar appointments than there were actually voters
in the borough,—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Blackstone)
considered, in the face of such testimony, and after the
recent decision of the Committee, the House would de
well to pause before it allowed the electors of Harwich
again to exercise the franchise. He moved, therefore, as
an amendment, that the issuing of the writ be post-
poned until the 10th of April, and that in the interim the
minutes of evidence taken before the Committee be laid
on the table.
Lord D. C. STUART supported the amendment. He
wished that the House could devise some plan by which
bribery and intimidation at elections might be done
away with.
Sir G. GREY said he had not been aware until that
moment that the Harwich Committee had made a special
report. He thought that the better course would be to
postpone the issue of the writ (withqut fixing any day)
until the evidence taken before the Committee should be
in the hands of Members.
Mr. AGLIONBY considered that the report of the
Committee made out but a very weak case, for the vir-
tual disfranchisfment of the borough. Out of ISO
voters, the Committee had reported only one single ease
of bribery.
Mr. COBBOLD, as one of the constituency, vindi-
cated the general body of the electors of Harwich from
the charge of bribery and corruption.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that the
evidence might be in the hands of Members to-morrow
(this day) when the motion could be renewed.
Mr. BLACKSTONE was willing to postpone his
motion until the evidence was printed.
Mr. B AG G E said, that seeing the feeling of the House,
he should withdraw his motion.
The motion was then by leave withdrawn.
TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE.
Mr. C. ANSTEY postponed the adjourned debate on
the treaty of Adrianople until Thursday next.
THE EXCISE LAWS.
Mr. COWAN wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Au
expectation had been prevalent in the country that
the Government intended to enter into a consideration
of the whole system of our taxation. He was afraid
it was not now likely that the inquiry would
be so general ; but he had some reason
to expect that there would be a very material alteration
of the excise system, and as there were so many persons
interested in the existing system, be should he glad to
hear what was the nature of the alterations which there
was reason to expect, and when they would be likely to
take place ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
could only repeat what he had stated before Christmas
upon this subject, namely, that the excise system was
under consideration, and that he hoped in the course of
the present session to bo able to bring in a Bill to amend
some of the excise laws. The business before the House
was, however, so pressing, that he could not state when
it would admit of his doing so ; as to a general revision
of the whole of our taxation, it was not practicable to
attempt it at once ; the only practicable course was to
I take one subject after another.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
,he House adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve.

Mr. Beuler's annual soiree is to be held this year
at the Hanover-square Rooms, on Monday, the 20th
inst., and his programme promises much amusement.
The first part, consisting of songs and readings, his own
humorous productions, is to be by himself. The second
part, a concert, will be by Misses Stewart, Felton, Mrs.
Aveling Smith; Messrs. Sporle, Delavanti, Day, Lee,
Small, F. Chatterton, C. Matthews, and Signor Cittadini .
A third part, very attractive to many, may be calculated
on from past experience, although not mentioned in the
bill of fare, namely, quadrilles, &c. Therefore if any of
her Majesty's subjects who are afflicted with melancholy,
ennui, the meagrims or blue-devils, will attend her Ma-
jesty's Concert-rooms on Monday next, they may expect
an immediate relief, and to return home much better both
in-mind and body.
A letter from Copenhagen says that it is the inten-
tion of the King of Denmark to re-unite himself in
marriage with his second wife, from whom he was sepa-
rated some time since. The Queen is not indisposed to
this reunion. She has been for some days at Berlin,
with her relative, the Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh
Strelitz. The mortality in Flanders continues very
great. At the commune of Minello Beke, which con •
tains 8,500 inhabitants, there were in January and Feb •
ruary 116 deaths, and only 17 births. The number of
births at Brussels in February were 421, deaths 31t4.
Brussels papers, March 13.
A LESSON READ BACILWARDS.—The Suffolk
Chroniele says that two countrymen, who lately went to
hear a lecture on the advantages of pe-ce at Ipswich,
• were so much etruek by the keturPr':, 1-count of th.
large sums which the Duke of Wellington has received
for his military service, that they instantly went to a re-
cruiting sergeant and enlisted as soldiers.

MAJORITY—NOES, 122.
Ahdy,.T. N. Forbes, William Morris, David
Adair, R. Shafts Fordyce, A. D. Napier, Joseph
Adderley, C. E. Gladstone, W. E. tiorreys, Lord
Anson, Colonel Goring, Charles O'Brien, Joha
Anstey, Thomas C. Greene, Thomas O'Connell, M. J.
Armstrong, It. It. Grenfel , Charles W. Paget, Lord A.
Arundel, Earl of Grey, Sir G. • Paget, Lord C.
Bagge, W. Haggitt, F.ll. Palmer, Robert
Barrington, Lord Hamilton, G. A. Parker, John
Bellew, K. M. Heathcoat, John Patten, J. W.
Berkeley, Captain Ileatlicote, G. J. Pi got, Sir R.
Blacken, S. W. Ileatlicote, Sir W. Pinney, W.
Blackstone, IV. Ileneage, G. 11. W. Rice, E. R.
Blakemore, It. Henley, J. W. Romilly, John
Bouverie, E. P. Hildyard, R. C. Rushout, Captain
Boyle, Colonel Hildyard, T. B. T. Sanders, George
Brockman, E. D. Hodges, T. L. Seymour, Lord
Bunbury, Edward Hope, Sir J. Shell, R. L.
' Burrell, Sir C. Hope, Alexander Sibthorp, Colonel
Burroughes, H. N. Itoward, C. W .Q. Somerville. Sir W.
Busfeild, W. Howard, E. G. Stafford, Angustus
Campbell, W. F. Ilumphery, Ald. Stanley, IC J.
Carow,',W. P. Inglis, Sir^ R. Stanton, W.:li.
Chichester, Lord J. Jerrnyn,".F.arl Strutt, Edward
Clive, IL B. Jervis, Sir Jokn Stuart, Henry
Coke, Edward K. Johnstone, Sir J. Sullivan, Michael
Colebrooke, Sir T. Keogh, William Thesiger, Sir F.
Coles, Henry B. Keppel, G. T. Tellemache, John
Compton, 11. C. Labouchere, Henry Verney Sir 11.
Conolly, Col. Langston, J. H. Vivian, J. E.
Craig, W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Vyse, R. H.
Deering, Joh' P. Lewis; G. C.I Walter, John
Drummond, Henry Mackenzie, W. F. Ward, H. G.
Duicuft, Johnt M.Neghten, Sir B. Westhead, J. P.
Dundas, Admiral Megan, W. W. Whitmore, T. C.
Dundas, George Maitland, Thomas Wilson, Matthew
Du Pre, CG. Marshall, William Weod, Sir Charles
East, Sir J. B. Matheson, Colonel Wood,.W. P.
Ebrington, Viscount Melgund, Tiscoant
Edwards, Henry bleux, Sir llenry TELLEF.S.
1 Evans,-.William Mitchell, T. A. Tufnell, Henry
I Ferrer, James Morpeth, Viscount Hill, Lord M.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday, at midnight, the three per cent.
income-tax for three years was passed by 3G3
against 138.
And now I will go over some of the ground again ;
because I seem to have gotten a clearness on one
point I never possessed before.
I think by the favour of Lord George Bentinck I
see to the bottom of the fallacy so often presented to
us, in the shape of the assertion that duties on foreign
produce are paid by the
,foreigner. Suppose the case
of corn. A duty of Bs. is proposed on foreign corn.
The effect of this is to raise the price to the English
consumers, by Bs. above what the corn c tn be brought
for into a British port, and consequently diminish
their demand for foreign corn. But at the same time
the price of corn in the foreign markets will fall in
consequence of this dhnieished demand, by pos-
sibly 2s. So that the argument is, "Go with-
out foreign corn, and you will be asto-
nished to see how cheap it will be in
foreign ports. Pay 65. more for your corn, and
never believe us again, if the price does not fall by 2s.
abroad." And so in the opposite case, where the
proposal should be for taking off a duty. The argu
ment to us then is, " Never think of taking off es.;
for do not you see you would get so much corn as
would make it rise '2s. in the foreign markets, and
what will become of you then ?"
But this is not the whole. All duties on foreign
produce, whether avowedly so designed or not, have
the effect, directly or indirectly, of raising the price
of some commodities of home growth, and so far giving
them an artificial price. And the great secret of
free trade,—which Leagues and lecturers have not
attained to making familiar to the public, because the
adversary gave way before they were brought to the
necessity,—is that all that is over-paid under the
operation of an artificial price, is so much clear loss
to the community when all men s gains and losses are
thrown into hotch-pot.
If laying duties for the sake of enjoying the fall of
price arising out of not buying, was insufficiently
proved absurd before, this seems to finish with it.
And it is of the more importance, because even in
the present debate the Minister could not help letting
out, that he had a lingering affection towards a fixed
duty, founded on: the cheapness of foreign corn
which would arise from not getting it from the
foreigner.
On Tuesday the principal subject was the motion
of Mr. Ewart, to bring in a Bill for the Total Abolition
of the Punishment of Death. The question has evi-
dently made a stride. There appeared a universal
understanding that the dispute was confined to the
application of the punishment of death to murder. A
vast variety of arguments were advanced on both
sides ; among which sufficient prominence was not
given to the single question on which the decision
will ultimately be made, which is whether the fre-
quency of murder will be greater or less under the ap-
plication of some other punishment than death. If it can
be shown from experiment to be less, the statesman or
man of any kind, must in a Noble Duke's expres-
sion "be mad," who would dream of resisting the
alteration. One argument which I am surprised
none of the speakers urged upon the House, is in
the fact that the period has arrived when the Govern-
ment is virtually unable to inflict the capital punish-
ment. Two notorious cases occurring within a
few days, will immediately present themselves.
Both were the cases of women, who acting
under the furious excitement which seems to be
connected with the abandonment of the decencies of
their sex, executed assassinations of the foulest kind,
in gratification of their rage against men with whom
they were living in dishonourable commerce. One
of them murdered two children, by way of avenging
herself on the mall who had forsaken his own wife
for her society ; and so strong was the sympathy of
what calls itself the public, for this peculiar
complication of murder and adultery, that it
was not without difficulty the Government was
able to carry the existing law into effect.
The other case was also of a woman, of the class of
female servants, who having formed a coarse and
profligate connexion with a private soldier, or if the
reports of evidence may be trusted, with several
private soldiers, found herself coarsely and profli-
gately treated, and thereupon made herself a heroine
of low romance, by in the public street blowing out
the brains of the silly and reckless lad with whom
she had connected herself. There was no touch of
virtue about the whole ; no seduction, no breach of
promise of marriage, nothing which could distinguish
it, except in degree, from any of the freaks of un-
happy women in the streets with which the police
have hourly to contend. But there was enough to
attract the sympathisers ; and it is probable that by
this time a feather of the bed the murderess slept
on is selling at no inconsiderable price. The
Government was obliged to give way ; the tide of
public dislike to capital punishment, added to the in-
terest taken by those who delight in seeing a
woman jump through a hoop or shoot a guards-
man, was too strong for it. Nobody can, after
this, be put to death for murder. Is it not, therefore,
high time that the Government should disembarrass
itself of a punishment, which it can only inflict by
permission of the frequenters of the minor theatres ?
And if the usual crop of imitation crimes shall
follow, will not the Government have itself to blame,
for having refused attention to the subject till the
power was wrested from it by a stronger than
itself ?
On the present experiment, the motion was nega-
tived by 122 against 66.
our obedient servant,
I amp Sir, y
pERRONET THOMPSON.
Blackheath, London, March 15, ims.

REMINISCENCES OF PRINCE TALLETRAND, BY HIS
PaivATE SECRETARY--The new Revolution in France
has increased the interest which had already been ex-
cited by the appearance of this work. It has been justly
observed that " Talleyrand was. so shut up in diplo-
macies, had acted so many parts in his day, had shared
in so many triumphs and reverses, and was so conspi-
cuous in all, that foreigners were as eager for revelations
about his private history and his state-craft as his own
countrymen. He lived to so great an age, too, and had
seen such changes, dynastic and complete, pass over the
face of France, that be acquired during his lifetime an
historical reputation. He was a man of the past as well
as the present; had literally passed through the ordeal
of two or three posterities—(toF what else were the suc-
cessive epochs of the Revolution, the Convention, the
Consulate, the Empire, and
i the Monarchy of July?)—
and lived to find his actions n each of the great phases
of the ago discussed with as much gravity of freedom as
if a century had already removed. him from the scene."
—Atlas. The extracts from.. Prince Talleyrand's manu-
scripts, opinions, and political writings, appended to
these reminiscences, will be found not the least curious
part of this work.
E TAX.—
PROPERTY AND INCOMW b
TAX.—We observe, y
the votes of the House of Commons, on the motion of
Dr. Bowring, a return has been ordered for a copy of
the charges preferred to the Board
.of Stamps and Taxes
by the late clerk to the Commissioners of the City of
London, acting under the Property and Income Tax
Acts, against the Surveyor of Taxes for the City of Lon-
' don ; also, for a copy of the Minute of the Board of
Stamps and Taxes in reference thereto.
The Prussian Govertanent has forbidden the
1 export of horses from the territory of the German
Customs Letspe,