The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1834

room, the seats themselves were so uncomfortable and irk-
some, that it was impossible to sit on them night after night,
without injury to health. He thought that the Noble Lord
should take the building of a new house seriously into his
consideration.

Mr. BENE TT was surprised that gentlemen, so fond of
economy, should advocate the propriety of laying out so
much money to build a new house. He thought the seats
were found sufficiently comfortable and convenient, for he
had seen Hon. Members sleep very soundly upon them, and he
thought if they were made more convenient, they would only
further promote sleep, aided as they certainly would be by the
dull speeches- of some Hon. Members.
Mr. GRANT said that if they built a new house, they
should have the consent of their constituents.

Mr. WARD thought if this motion were brought forward
next session, it would meet with a very different fate from what
it met last session.

After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. BUCKING
HAM, and Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, _ _

Mr. AGL lONB Y suggested the propriety of constituting
some Board of Commissioners for the manufacturing and con-
structing of Bills. It would tend to save much of the time of
the House, and bring the Bills before them in a much more
perfect shape.
Mr. GOU LB URN merely rose to express his dissent, that
the Noble Lord might not think that the House was unani-
mous in calling for a new House. If the motion were brought
forward next Session, he would be
_prepared to give strong
reasons why the Noble Lord should not embark in such an
expense.

Mr. LENNARD supported the suggestion of the Hon
Member for Middlesex.

A motion was then made, and agreed to, that a sum should
be granted to the Speaker's Secretary, which, together with
the fees of his office, should not exceed 4001.
Mr. HUME then said that he hoped the Noble Lord would
say what he meant to do in regard to a new House.
Lord A LTHORP said that it was a subject which ought to
be discussed when more Members were present, and not in the
present thin state of the House.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG hoped the Noble Lord would allow
a motion on the subject to be brought forward without making
it a Government measure, or requiring the votes of the ordi-
nary supporters of the Government.
Lord ALTHORP said on such a question as that, the
Hon. Member had never known him to ask any Member for
his vote.

MERCHANT SEAMEN BILL.
The Lords' Amendment to this Bill were agreed to, and the
Bill was passed.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS BILL.
Mr. EW A RT, after stating the progress of this Bill
through the House, said that the Lords had thought fit to re-
ject that part of it which did away with the punishment of
death in cases of stealing letters, and returning from trans-
portation. In regard to returning from transportation, al-
though death was the punishment for the offence, yet no cases
had occurred in which execution had followed ; the only real
change, therefore, made in the Bill by the other House was
in regard to the stealing of letters, for which persons had oc-
casionally been punished with death. He thought the better
course for the House to adopt would be not to allow the Bill
with these amendments to pass. That was his own opinion ;
but he was anxious to ascertain what was the feeling of the
House on the subject, before proposing any amendment.
Mr. L ENNA RD concurred with his Hon. Friend, that it
would be advisable, altered and mutilated as the Bill now was,
that the House should altogether reject it. The measure was
completed spoiled by the other House ; and those who had thus
spoiled it ought to bear all the responsibility. He trusted that
as that House had so strongly expressed itself against the pun-
ishment of death, in one of the cases in which the Lords had
retained the capital penalty, that capital penalty would not in
those cases be enforced. It was only four years ago that the
present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Brougham, had, in the
case of Sir James Mackintosh's Bill for doing away with the
punishment of death for forgery, expressed the same opinion.
Mr. Brougham's words on that occasion were thes?:—" If the
law, as it still stood, had little weight in public estimation be-
fore, then in what light was it likely to be looked on hence-
forward ? If men's feelings rebelled against it before, would
not their opinions and prepossessions be for ever rooted and
confirmed by such a division of the House of Commons ?
Would it not operate practically on prosecutors, on witnesses,
on jurors—aye, and on judges themselves ? Not six months
ago had a judge declared to him, in reference to the probable
change of the law as it regarded this offence (forgery), that,
sitting as a judge, he could not think of leaving a man for
execution at a time when Parliament was engaged in a delibe-
ration, the result of which might be that his blood would be
the last which should ever be shed for the crime of forgery."
Hear, hear.) Before sitting down he could not help ad-
verting to certain observations which had been lately made
by a Learned Judge, when on the judicial bench in Devon-
shire, with respect to this Bill. That Learned Judge, to
whom he referred, had on that occasion spoken in terms
of strong condemnation of this Bill. Members of Parlia-
ment had an undoubted right to say what they pleased of this
or any other measure ; but he must say that the judgment seat
was not the proper place to make such observations as those to
which he alluded, and he must take that opportunity of enter-
ing his decided protest against them.
Lord ALTHORP said that the other House had agreed to
do away with the punishment of death in one of the cases,
though they had retained it in another. The question, there-
fore, for the House to consider was, whether or not they ought
to reject a partial good because they did not get all the .good
they desired? He thought they should not. He thought
it would be the wiser and better course to accept a mea-
sure that was good, thought not to the extent they could
have wished. For this reason he hoped the House would
not reject this Bill, which contained some principles
which all admitted to be good. With regard to the
suggestion of the Honourable Member (Mr. Lennard),
that as that House was strongly in favour of doing away with
the punishment of death in a particular case, the law ought
not to be carried into effect, though retained by the other
House, he (Lord Althorp) must say that he could not sub-
scribe to such doctrine. He maintained that the law, so long
as it was the law of the land, must be respected and obeyed ;
and it should be left to the Crown to exercise its discretion as
to the cases in which mercy should be extended to the cri-
minal. But to make the law of no effect because it was the
opinion of one House that it ought to be altered, was a senti-
ment in which he was sure Hon. Members would not concur.
Mr. O'DWYER did not think the measure was of suffi-
cient importance to justify Hon. Members causing the two
Houses to join issue on the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL differed from the Hon. Member
that any measure, involving the question of the life and death
of human beings, was not of sufficient importance to warrant
Hon. Members allowing the two Houses to join issue on the
subject ; but as the Lords had sanctioned the doing away with
the punishment of death in one case, though they had retained
it in another, he thought that the Bill ought to pass. He had no
hesitation in saying that letter-stealing was a crime, which
ought not to be punished with death, and if any Honour-
able Member should next session bring forward a pro-
position to take away the punishment of death for that
offence, he would give it his most cordial support. He thought
that the time was now come when there ought to be some
general measure on the subject, and when the whole of the
subject of our criminal jurisprudence ought to be looked at
together. There certainly was no subject which was more
deserving the attention of the House.
The SOLICITOR-GEN KRAL said that the reason why
our criminal laws were so confused, was, that there were so
many isolated acts on the subject, brought forward by different
individuals. With regard to the present Bill, it had the ad-
vantage of removing the punishment of death for one offence,
and, therefore, he thought it ought to be passed.
Mr. O'REILLY thought the Bill ought to be rejected.
Mr. THE VO R was of opinion that they should agree to
the Bill.
Mr. HOWARD thought that the House should pass the
Bill.

After a few words from Mr. EWART, the Bill, with the
amendments, was agreed to.
BOROUGH OF WARWICK.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose to bring forward the
motion of which he had given notice. It was formerly the
custom of the House, when boroughs were convicted of bribery
or corruption, to propose the disfranchisement of those boroughs
altogether, by withholding a new writ, but that was not the
case which he now proposed. He merely wished the House
to agree to a resolution that no new writ should be issued for
the borough in question until next session. With respect to
the Warwick Bill, there had been no inquiry in the
other House into the circumstances connected with the
last election of a Member of Parliament for that borough ;
but within the last two days that inquiry had been
terminated by the throwing out of the Bill, at least for
this session. He would not go into the reasons on which he
grounded his motion ; but he must say, that as 125 witnesses
had been examined by the Lords, and the printed evidence
extended to 998 pages, it was impossible that Hon. Members
could, during the short period that remained of the session,
examine the evidence with sufficient attention to enable them
to understand the grounds on which the Bill had been rejected
by the other House. It was therefore necessary that the
House should take some steps in the matter, as the decision of
the other branch of the Legislature was so different from
theirs ; and the step which he proposed appeared to him the
best, especially as he had been informed that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Nottingham intended to bring in a Bill, early next
session, on the subject. The motion, then, which he proposed
to the House was, that no new writs for the boroughs of Hert-
ford, Carrickfergus, and Warwick be issued before the 20th
of February next. The Noble Lord then sat down, but im-
mediately rose and said, that as there may be separate reasons
for opposing or supporting the motion with regard to Warwick
and the other two boroughs, he thought it would be better if
the motion, as it affected Hertford and Carrickfergus, should
be put afresh.
The SPEAKER then put the quest ion that no new writs be
issued for the boroughs of Hertford and Carrickfergus before
the 20th of February next.
No Hon. Member having opposed the motion,
The SPE AKER then put the question, that no new writ
be issued for the borough of Warwick before the 20th of Feb-
ruary next.
Mr. G 0 UL BURN, in rising to trespass for a short time
on the attention of the House, would not enter at large into
the subject, but would confine himself to the question whether
or not the House had the right to suspend the issuing a writ
for the borough of Warwick. He maintained, then, that there
was nothing proved against that borough that would justify the
House in sanctioning the motion of the Noble Lord; and that
if the House did concur in that motion, it would be destroying
the privileges of Parliament. There had been no indisposition
on the part of the Upper House to do full justice to the case ;
the fullest means had been afforded by Government to the par-
ties prosecuting the inquiry ; full indemnity to the witnesses

had been given ; the case had come before the Upper House
with every facility given for attaining the ends of justice, and
their Lordships had, after a full hearing of the case against
the borough (for the evidence in its favour had not been
entered upon even), had come to a decision in favour of the
Warwick electors. The borough having been thus acquitted,
it was not just to withhold from them the writ returning their
representatives. The Noble Lord had said that the ;tate-
ment of an Hon. Member, not then in the House, that he in-
tended next session to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the
borough, was his ground for making this motion. Surely such
an outrageous preeedent as this would not betitdmitted.—
( Hear, hear.) There had been cases where the Crown had
attempted, by sinister means, to get rid of some representa-
tive whom it conceived to be opposed to some contemplated
measure ; revolutions which hurled that Crown into the dust,
had been the expression of indignation felt by the people at
such unconstitutional attempts. There might possibly be
parties in that House who had a similar interest in preventing
certain parties from having seats; but he would warn them
against such dangerous and unconstitutional attempts. He
trusted the House would not permit the admission of a prece-
dent which might hereafter be acted upon to an extent de-
structive of the Constitution. He for one should strenuously
oppose the motion.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON was not much surprised at
the opposition offered by the Hon. Gentleman, remembering
•how opposed he had been to bringing forward the question at
all. He ( Mr. P. T.) was not at all disposed to think that the
rejection of this measure by the House of Lords should lead to
the conclusion that the borough of Warwick stood acquitted.
—( Hear, hear.) That borough had been condemned in the
House of Commons on the clearest evidence, and its exculpa-
tion by the Upper House did not at all invalidate the justice
of the decision which had been come to by this House, nor
render the suspension of the writ unnecessary. If this House
were to be called upon to declare they were wrong in sending
up that Bill to the Lords at least let them not do it without
the fullest deliberation and consideration of the evidence given
before the Upper House ; let them not reverse their judgment
at a moment's warning, on the spur of the moment, without
being fully convinced of the necessity for it. Such a step
would not be consistent with the dignity of the House.
The House of Commons, by a large majority had come
to a conclusion ; the House of Lords, on evidence of
which this House knew nothing, had come to a different
conclusion ' • it was at least necessary that the Com-
mons, before they reversed their opinion, should have
full time for considering this fresh evidence. The Hon. Mem-
ber talked very pathetically about this being a breach of the
Constitution, and depriving a constituency of their representa-
tives--all that was asked was a suspension of the writ till a
few days after the commencement of next session. There
would be no great hardship in this to the particular constituency
or to the public, for it would be no great advantage to the
electors of Warwick to have a couple of representatives
while the House was shut up. When the House, after full
inquiry, had decided that a particular constituency were not in
a fit state to be intrusted with the responsible task of electing
representatives for Parliament, it was mere mockery to ask the
House to issue a writ to enable those electors, so declared
unfit, to send representatives to Parliament. Such a course of
proceeding would in no way conduce to that good and consti-
tutional system of representation of which the Hon. Member
had spoken, and he therefore trusted the House would consent
to suspend the issue of this writ.
Mr. HUME entirely concurred with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr, Goulburn) had talked
largely about the downfall of Crowns happening as the conse-
quence of such unconstitutional attempts as iii?se, and had
seemed to insinuate the possible presence of suspicious rnotives
in this case. This was hardly fair of the Hon. Gentlemaii.
What would the Hon. Member think of his (Mr. Hume's)
insinuating the possibility that perhaps the Hon. Gentleman
himself had more interest in the party to be returned for the
borough than for the constituency, and to suggest the possibility
of a hand-bill being circulated among the electors of War-
wick, in which one Edward Goulburn should be held up to
them as a fit and proper person to represent them in Parlia-
ment.--( Hear, and a laugh.) As to the present motion, it
would be most absurd and inconsistent in the House to reverse
their judgment without the fullest deliberation and strictest
examination of the evidence given before the Lords. It would
be wanting in respect not only to themselves, but to the Upper
House ; and he therefore trusted the House would consent to
the motion.
Mr. ROLFE did not, of course, see that the decision of
that House should be put at all upon comparison with that of
the Upper House ; the latter House did not sit as a House of
Appeal from the House of Commons. Both Houses had sat
to form their independent decision ; but if they did not concur
in their decisions, it was hardly right to deprive the borough
of the right to elect their representatives.
Mr. WARBURTON said the House was bound to support
its own verdict by suspending the writ. It was absurd to sup-
pose that on the mere authority of the Lords, the Commons
would consent to act so absurd, so inconsistent a part as that
required from them by the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. SHAW opposed the motion, and observed that the
Lords had thrown out this bill solely on the evidence of those
witnesses who supported it ; this must surely be considered a
strong argument against it.
Mr. T. DUN C OMBE supported the motion. The House
was placed in a peculiar position. In the other House one of
his Majesty's Ministers had rejected the bill ; in this House
another Noble Member of the Ministry came forward to move
the suspension of the writ. Under these circumstances the
House was peculiarly called upon to act for themselves, and to
support the report of their committee, which had, after the
fullest inquiry, stated that the grossest bribery and corruption
had been carried on in this borough. No fresh evidence had
been adduced to show that this report was unfounded. He
did not suppose that the Hon. Member had any personal mo-
tives for opposing the motion; his opposition probably arose
from his being an Anti-Reformer; it remained for the Re-
formers to support their view of the question, and to carry
their principles of reform to their fullest practical extent.
Captain GORDON said, that it was not constitutional, nor
had it been the practice of that House, to examine into the
reasons the Lords might have for rejecting a measure, and he
did not see that there was anything that required their doing
so in the present instance. He hoped the Noble Lord would
not press his motion to a division.
Mr. HAL COMB contended, that the motion of the Noble
Lord was a gross violation of the dearest liberties of English-
men and he should be surprised if, when it came before the
public, the Noble Paymaster of the Forces did not fall off in
their opinion as a sound defender of their rights. All the
ground lie had advanced for the motion was, that a Gallant
Friend of his intended to bring forward another Bill affecting
Warwick early next session ; but even if the writ issued, any
measure they thought proper could be brought forward next
session. He had read through the evidence on which they
had passed the bill, and he defied any man to say that there
were more than four clear cases of bribery established besides
the cases of the ten men who voted against the candidate
who bribed them ; and even the four actually guilty were
not 101. householders. But this question was to be de-
cided, not upon the merits of the case, but constitutional
principles ; unless indeed the House was prepared to act
upon the republican principles—( Oh, oh I)—yes, the de-
mocratic and republican principles into which the arguments of
the Hon. Members for Middlesex and Bridport resolved them-
selves. He was anxious to hear the opinions of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer upon this question, for he had some reliance
upon the constitutional principles on which he guided his party
in the House ; but he had no confidence in the constitutional
principles of the Noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces, or
in the Right Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thom-
son). He hoped the Noble Lord would oppose the motion.
The Hon. Member then referred to a report of the speech of
the Lord Chancellor against the Bill, which he said he had in
his hand, but could not read, though he might repeat it as his
own sentiments.

Sir F. VINCENT did not understand the Hon. Member
for Bridport to contend that they were bound, under all cir-
cumstances, to refuse issuing the writ to Warwick—( Mr.
Warburton, " Hear, hear")—but simply that they should re-
hear the case.—( Cries of " No, no.") It came to the same
thing ; for the Bill, having been rejected, they had to recon-
sider it.—(Cries of " No.") At any rate they would recon-
sider it.—( Cheers from the Conservatives.) If upon exami-
nation of further evidence their opinion remained unchanged,
it would be their duty to abide by their former verdict ; but if
upon an examination of the evidence they found reason to alter
their opinion, of course they would not be bound to abide by
a measure proved to be bad.—( Hear.) He had great respect
for their hereditary legislators ; but he could not allow them
to dictate to him what his opinions should be, and oblige him
to change them without even seeing the grounds on which he
was to do so.--( Cheers.)
Mr. MARK PHILIPS said that, having conscientiously
voted for the Warwick disfranchisement, on what he thought
good evidence, he could not at once stultify his former vote,
merely because other parties had taken a different view of the
case. The House was entitled to have an opportunity of con-
sidering the evidence which had induced the Lords to differ
with them.
Mr. FOWLER expressed a similar opinion.
Sir GEORGE M MURRAY entreated the House to consider
whether they were not about to establish an exceedingly dan-
gerous precedent. The motion of the Noble Lord might take
the popular side of the question, but that was a circumstance
which ought to put them more upon their guard against it.
The question was, whether they were to adopt what was the
result of the argument of the Hon. Member for Bridport, viz.
that the House of Lords should have nothing to say to
these questions at all.—( Hear, hear.) If it were wise to make
such an alteration in the mode of disposing of election cases,
let a proposition be legally brought forward with that view,
but let them not change their practice in the manner now pro-
posed.—( Hear. )
Mr. LYNCH thought the House hail the power of suspen-
ding a writ for a time with a view to examine further evidence.
Mr. HE RR IE S thought the examination of the case was
concluded, unless indeed they meant to establish the doctrine
that no such case should be concluded except as they chose.—
( Hear.) Although not directly advanced by the Noble Lord
who made the motion, that doctrine lurked in the argument
he advanced. It might have a majority, but it would not
stand the test of common sense.—( Hear.) Those who sup-
ported that motion should at least have stated what course it
was intended to pursue ; but all they had heard upon that head
was, that the Noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, had
had an intimation from a Gallant Friend that he intended to
bring in a Bill upon the subject next Session. Could this
mean more than that there was a resolution by all possible
means to prevent the issuing of the writ ? He could not help
calling the attention of the House to a short passage in the
judgment, for so he might call it, of the Lord Chancellor upon
this case, as it appeared by the short-hand writer's notes to
have been delivered. After stating very fully all the reasons
which should make him wish, as an individual, to see the Bill
pass, his Lordship expressed himself to this e'ect :--" The

003.
writ is suspended for the present, although I hope it wi
long be suspended ; for the House of Commons ought to u)
the writ, in order to make its number complete."—(Cheer
He agreed with the Learned Chancellor, that they °ugh,*
make their number complete, and should therefore vote fin'
issuing of the writ.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, afwr what had Niel
from the two Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite. he felt on!!!
in a few words, to restate the grounds on which be
motion. He did not rest it upon general but upon Pe .eea
grounds. The House of Lords had been occupied tieT,,,e
eighty and ninety days in taking evidence, which filled a .""Pre
folio volume, and had decided on the 4th of August that 1;1
were not sufficient grounds for them to proceed this
The question, under these circumstances, was, whether t.11'7,
were, three days afterwards, so near the close of the Sessi;
to preclude themselves from all opportunity of examining
evidence with any view to a useful result. They should
,tct
serve their decision till they had an opportunity of seeing "lyi,
that evidence was.—( Hear.) He had stated, merely in ad of
Lion, and not, as had been represented, as the main reaon
his motion, that an Hon. and Gallant Friend, who illnetso
reste:tanion
prevented from being in. his place, had it in conteinflati°llge
propose some measure on the subject early next Session.
to
had stated this with a view to show the House that it
H.
come before them early next Session ; but whetherOs .°OO,
and Gallant Friend did or did not bring forward his We';'-es.
he thought they ought at the commencement of next 'Lel
sion to have an opportunity of deciding whether te ,
should pursue their inquiries into the Warwick case iulp,
ther. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor had beenr,jt
ferred to, but his Lordship had no more right to point /1";„
what course they should pursue with respect to the writ
the
they had to direct the Lords what they should do with di.
Bill.—( Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the cannot
dates for the representation of Warwick, but they vielluel
be injured by the delay of the writ till the next session. .v 0
would during the vacation have full opportunity of and
the electors, and of making them so well acquainted w!
their sentiments on the concessions to be made to the 1?105„
senters, and other subjects likely to come under discuss' ,41
as to prevent, perhaps, any discrepancy appearing bets'ear%
their professions on the hustings, and their votes in P

liament.—(Loud cheers.)
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY denied that further ioll,es.
tigation would be precluded by issuing a new writ for the ber
rough of Warwick, or by the presence of a second igell'te
for that borough in the House. He should certainly
-
agaipst the Noble Lord's motion.

-The House then divided—
For the motion
Against it
—49
Majority Velr
On our return to the gallery, we found seve.ral Hen. ' ice
bers presenting, or about to present, petitions ; but n-010
being taken that 40 Members were not present, the 11°Lise svai
counted, and 40 Members not being present, the 1-kus',
adjourned at half-past 12 this morning.