The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-13 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 13. 1833.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 12.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack to-day soon after four o'clock, when the Consolidated
Fund Bill was read a third time and passed.
Earl O'NEILL took the oaths and his seat.
Some private Bills were advanced a stage, and the
House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE, 12.
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after five o'clock.
THE LEGISLATIVE UNION.
. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on the very earliest
'day possible in the next session, he should move a resolution
declaratory of the means by which the destitution of the Irish
Parliament was effected—of the miseries which the measure
called the Legislative Union has produced in Ireland—of the
evils which it his inflicted on the agricultural labourers
and operatives in manufactures in England—of the accu-
mulating pressure of the poor laws which it has
created in England, and of the inevitable separation of
both countries, which must result from continuing the
Union as at present arranged and acted upon. And
also for leave to bring in a Bill to render safe, secure, and

permanent, the connection between Great Britain and Ire-
land by the means of the re-establishment of a Domestic
Legislature in Ireland.
Lord ALTHORP said he did not intend to interfere
with the other orders of the day ; but, if he had had an
opportunity, be meant to have brought forward the subject
of tithes in Ireland for 1831, 1832, and 1633, but he
would not press for precedence.
Mr. O'CONNELL trusted that for the sake of the
country the House would permit the Noble Lord to bring
in his proposition on this subject.
Mr. PRICE said he was in possession of the House
by a notice, and if he were now to put it off, he did not
know when he should have the opportunity of moving
again. He bad given notice in February, and here he
was in June.

Lord ALTHORP could not ask,the Hon. Member to
give way, but there could not be any more Enclosure Bills
this session, which he (Lord A.) understood the Hun.
Gentleman's motion exclusively related to, and if his pro-
position were brought forward any time during the
session, it would have the same effect as if it were to take
precedence to-night.
Mr. PRICE said that as that was so, he would with-
draw his notice for to-night.

In answer to a question from Lord CHANDOS,
Lord ALTHORP said it was not his intention to let
any Government business interfere with the Church Tem-
poralities Bill beyond that of his Right Hon. Friend on the
West India question.
upon Mr. H GRATTAN'S suggesting to an Hou.
Friend of his the propriety of withdrawing some order of
the day, . . .
•

The SPEAKER intimated to the House the necessity
of proceeding with some degree of regularity, and in pur-
suance of the rules laid down by the House.—(Hear.)
An HON. MEMBER asked the Noble Lord (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) if he could state when the ques-
tion relative to the Bank of England was to he again
brought forward, for there were many country bankers
now waiting in London in expectation of its being brought
forward at an early period?
Lord ALTHORP said, from the great quantity of business
before the House, it was impossible for him to fix any
day, but it was his intention to bring it on as tepidly as
possible. As to the gentlemen who were stated to be
waiting in town, he could only say that be had had com-
munications with a great many of them, who hail
pressed upon him that he would not proceed
in any hasty manner to interfere with the system of bank.
ing.—(Hear.) He had stated to them that he would
not engage to postpone it, but that from the state of pub-
lic business they would have ample time for considering
the subject.
The NOBLE LORD again rose and said he did not know
whether the House would at once take the orders of the
day, or permit him to proceed with his measures.

On those accounts he moved that the Bill be read

a second time that day six months.
Mr. EWART did not think the present time was the
proper one for discussing the Bill, when many important
questions were waiting. As an amendment he would move
that the Bill should be read a second time that day week.
Mr. LAMB rose amid much confusion in the Howe,
from the Speaker having ordered strangers to withdraw.
We could only collect that the Honourable Member
was of opinion that the prisoner should have the
same privilege of an address in his favour by counsel,
as was enjoyed by the prosecutor.—(Hear, hear, bear.)
He hardly knew how the House was posited on the
question ; but he believed it to be, whether the Bill
should be read that day six months, or that day
week, and be should certainly vote for the shorter
period. He must say that he had never heard a more
triumphant case than was made out by his Learned Friend
when he moved for leave t• bring in the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. HILL said he rose to express his opinion on the
working of the present system, which was, that it absolutely
called for such a Bill as the one before the House.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member opposite had said there were few in-
stances in which innocent persons had suffered ; but he would
ask the Hon. Member what were his tests of innocence?
After trial there were no means of proving the innocence
of a party who had been convicted. He would ❑ot now
go into a discussion of the Bill, as it would not be treating
the House fairly ; but he must say that be thought nothing
was more the duty of the Members of that House
than to protect the innocent front being confounded with
the guilty. The Hon. Member declared that he h..d
known persons to have been executed, who he firmly

believed to have been innocent.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his objection was
that the proposed measure would be altogether impracti-
cable. He would frankly admit it was unjust and scan-
dalous that there should he a speech for the prosecution, atld
that the mouth of the prisoner's counsel should be closed.
He should, therefore, as he had said before, wish that the
mouth of the counsel for the prosecutor be closed, or the
prisoner's counsel be allowed to make a speech. But
the present Bill in the existing state of the judicial esta-
blishments would be impracticable from the length to which
the sittings at the Old Bailey, at the Assizes, and at
the Quarter Sessions would be prolonged, so that the As-
sizes, which were obliged to be held between the terms,
would last two months at one county where the busineis
was now done in t'te space of little more than a week.
After some further discussion the Bill was ordered to be
read a second time that day se'nnight.
LAW AMENDMENT BILL. .

Mr. LENNARD moved the order of the day for re-
ceiving the report of the Law Aniendment Bill. The'
Bill was limited to the single point of taking away the
punishment of death in the case of breaking into a house
in the daytime. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to
pass without opposition. It was called for by the present
state of public feeling on the subject, as expressed in nume-
rous petitions, one of them signed by 1,100 persons accus-
totned to sit on London Juries. As Sir William Grant
wisely observed, it was most important to the ends of
justice that the feelings of the people should be consulted.
After the manner in which this question had been argueil
on several occasions by Sir Samuel Rotnilly and Sir
James Mackintosh, he should be sorry to find it now meet
with any opposition, particularly from Ministers.
Mr. G. LAMB felt himself obliged to oppose the Bill
from a sense of duty, and, as the support of such mea-
sures was an easy mode of getting popularity, it was
natural to suppose that be opposed it with reluctance.
He opposed it, in the first place, because be thought it
desirable that there should be further time for considering

the subject. He must enter his protest against it for another
reason, which was, that, under the system of mitigation
hitherto pursued, crime was greatly on the increase. He
would call upon the House to look to the cases in which
the punishment of death had been taken away. The
punishment in cases of forgery was mitigated last year,
and the crime had since most lamentably increased. It
might be said that it was net the crime but the prosecu-
tions had increased. This idea, however, was now aban-
doned even by those who most fondly entertained it. Sir
S. Romilly and Sir J. Mackintosh had not an opportunity
of seeing the result of the experiment, and their opinions
ought not to be set up against experience. For two years
capital punishment in cases of forgery not having been in-
flicted, the punishment was supposed to be virtually abo-
lished, and the crime did not increase. It was natural,
therefore, to conclude that it would not increase when this
punishment was removed from the Statute Book. The con-
trary was the case. He believed the existence of the
capital punishment on the Statute Book had a great effect
in preventing the crime, as it was natural it should.
Horse-stealing also was not diminished, and coining ap-
peared again. It was said that under the present law, a
child by putting his hand within a window, and stealing
a bun, became liable to death. It was so; but, under
the alteration now proposed, a full-grown man may enter
a house in the daytime and steal 30,0001. without any
risk of life. He contented himself with merely enter-
ing his protest against this mode of legislating by separate
and unconnected Bills upon a subject of such high im-
portance as the criminal code of the country. It was im-
possible satisfactorily to legislate for the prevention of
crime in this manner. So many Members came forward
' to mitigate the severity of the criminal code, taking away
the punishment of death from the most grave offences,
that if the system were proceeded in it would operate as a
measure of impunity to crime.
Mr. BERNAL thought with the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down that it would be much better and more
satisfactory if the Government were to take the whole
question of the criminal laws in hand, with a view to
their amendment, upon some given and ascertained
principles, so that every separate part might in fact
combine and harmonise with all the rest into a
perfect system. The omission to take this course gave
the Government infinitely more trouble in answering
and opposing the different Bills that were brought for-
ward without concert or correspondence by different
Members of the House. He could not, however, con-
cur with the Honourable Gentleman in the observations
he had made respecting the abolition of the capital punish.
ment for the crime of forgery, and the consequent, as he had
alleged, increase of that particular crime. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had dilated much upon the bad effects, as he ex-
pressed it, of that alteration of the Criminal Code. Was it
possible that he could contemplate the going back to the
sanguinary state of law from which they had departed?
Such a proposition, he was sure, if ever made in that
House, would neither be sanctioned by the House nor the
country.--(Hear.) It was, however, necessary that in
proportion as they softened the rigour of the criminal law
they should adopt some efficient secondary punishment.
Solitary confinement had been tried in America and found
completely successful.—(" No," from Mr. Limb.) Surely
it would not be said that it had not been found successful
in the great gaol of Auburn, where it had been tried with
great care, and upon which a full rerert had been made,
which be thought the Hon. Gentleman could not have
seen. Then, as to the prevention of forgery which the
Hon. Gentleman stated had increased so much since the
abolition of the capitol punishment. A secondary pu-
nishment of a more severe nature would be a very good
thing in the punishment of that offence. At present
forgers upon being sent out to the penal colonies were ge-
nerally selected fer what were called situations of gentility,
such as clerks in stores, or cashiers. He could not help
lcolting upon this as a very erroneous part of the system.
Mr. STRICKLAND did not feel satisfied with the
statement of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lamb) that the
number of forgeries had increased in consequence of the
abolition of the capital punishment. Before be could im-
plicitly believe the fact to be so he must know whether the
Hon. Gentleman deduced the fact from the increased num-
ber of prosecutions or from the increased number of
offences. The latter only would justify the statement as
to the effect of the abolition of the capital punishment.
He was himself a magistrate of a populous district, and he
knew that after the mitigation of the punishment attached
to any offence the number of prosecutions always increased;
and it must be known that great reluctance existed in the
minds of society to prosecute for forgery so long a death
was the punishment, which of course would not operate
when that was removed. Some secondary punishment
ought certainly to be adopted, and there should be great
care in the selection. He thought that no adequate rea-
son had been shown for opposing the specific amendment
now proposed by the Hon. Member for Maldon.
Mr. LLOYD could not consent to oppose this or any
other specific amendment of the criminal law because it
was brought forward in a separate form, unless his Ma-
jesty's Government would pledge themselves to prepare a
comprehensive alteration, which should render it more in
conformance with the general feelings of the community.
Not even the Hon. Under-Secretary of State himself

( ➢iucE ID.)

would say that the punishment of death should be attached
to every ffence for which it was prescribed in the pres, nt
state of the criminal law. There might have been an in-
crease in the number of prosecutions for forgery since the law
had been mitigated ; but that had arisen because of the
indisposition so generally existing to prosecute by reason of
the great severity of the laws. He should not dwell upon
this subject further at present, as it was his intention,
should this Bill be lost, to propose another connected with
the same question. He fully concurred with the Hon.
Member who had brought it forward, and should certainly
give the Bill his support.
Mr. HILL concurred in the necessity of some general
revision of the criminal law of this country. Too great
severity created crime instead of suppressing it. In for-
mer times the criminal law was as sanguinary in practice
as it was now in the letter. In the reign of Henry VIII.

historians stated that no fewer than 70,000 persons were

executed. This showed that the terror of the laws did

not prevent the commission of capital offences. On the
ether hand, as the criminal law had been relaxed in 'eve-
rity, offences had diminished in number. Even so late as
the end of last century it was dangerous to walk out into
the streets of London after dark, so many desperadoes were

abroad, anti were seen even in broad day-light in the
streets, but so well supported by their followers that the
police dared not attack them. This was the statement made
by Fielding, and confirmed by many contemporary authors.
Now, how different was the state of crime. In the metro-
polis but little insecurity as to life was felt at any hour of the
day or night, and the number of murders was very small
compa,ed with what it used to be. He knew many persons
who never would prosecute where the punishment was
derh, not choosing to be instrumental to the loss of life in
a fellow creature. This feeling was spreading—( Hear)—
and it would be found to be impossible, unless they had
Judges totally disconnected from the people, and actuated
by different feelings and sympathies to execute a state of
law which was at variance with the opinions of the majo•
city of the people. So long as the Jury system formed
part of the judicial system, it would not be practicable to
maintain a system of laws which was contrary in its spirit
to the feelings of the people. The number of the prose •
cutions was not a just test of the increase of crime, as
had already been observed by other Members. To argue
that it was, was to argue like a clerk of the peace, who
judged solely by the increase of his own business, that
there must he a large increase of the offences for which
his services were put in requisition. It was not a correct
mode of ascertaining the point. The Hon. Under-Secre-
tary had talked of softening the criminal law as giving
impunity to crime. Surely sending a man to Botany
Bay for life was not impunity. At least it was that sort
of impunity which he (Mr. Hill) should be very sorry to
experience for any offence of which he might ever be
guilty. He hoped there would be some general systematic
amendment of the criminal law; but in the meantime be
hoped separate and specific measures for that purpose
would be brought forward.
Mr. SHAW thought it would be impossible so to amend
the criminal law as altogether to supersede the necessity of
discretion in the Judge. It was impossible to draw the
exact line which should render discretion in the Judge un-
necessary. There were no doubt anomalies and apparent
contradictions in the system as it was written; but these
disappeared when the actual practiceof the law was looked
into. At this time of the year the capital punishment was
taken away from a burglary committed at three o'clock in
the morning. That, perhaps, required amendment. On
the other band, the case which had been put of a girl
breaking a window and stealing a bun showed how diffi-
cult it was to make a rule which should operate impartially
and harmoniously in every possible case; and it showed
also bow essential it was that the Judge should have a dis•
cretionary power for the purpose of adjusting the balance
in all such cases. With respect to burglary, the practice
now was in all Crown cases to leave the words " break and
enter" out of the indictment, unless in cases marked by
features of great atrocity. Whatever advantage might be
gained by a general and systematic alteration of the law,
he thought great evil was engendered by these attempts to
amend it by separate and disconnected efforts.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought a general amendment of the
criminal law would be preferable to the present mode, but
he preferred to have it amended piecemeal rather than not
have it done at ail. He should give his support to the
Bill of the Hon. Member for Malden.
Mr. ROTCH considered that the best mode of prevent.

ing crime was by making the laws for its punishment cer- I
tain in their nature and sure in their execution. They had
now got a measure of decided amendment before them,
and he hoped the House would not allow it to be lost from
the mere expectation of what might be done hereafter.
Mr. EWART said be should support the Bill before
the House, but he thought it would be improved if the
hours within which the offence became changed in its
character should be distinctly defined. He thought the
hours should be named in the Bill, and be from ten o'clock
at night to five in the morning throughout the year. Par-
liament having modified the law as to the higher class of
delinquents, were bound to do it as to the lower order.
He hoped to see the criminal laws of this country more
consonant with the feelings and opinions of a civilized
people than they were at present.
The report was then brought up. On the motion that
it be read,
Mr. SHAW asked if the last clause had been left out?
If not, he was sure the Old Bailey in this country would
become useless for the trial of offences.
Mr. LENNARD said that the last clause had been
expunged at the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman. The Hun. Member proceeded to show from sta-
tistical accounts that in many of the great agricultural
counties the crime of sheep-stealing had decreased since
the relaxation of the criminal code. Certainly he would
admit that there were two cases of forgery which bad been
prosecuted, and which cases were of a peculiar cha-
racter. The one was the case of the forgery of a will,
which was not prosecuted to conviction ; and the second
was the forgery of a bill of exchange, to which the pri-
soner pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to punishment
for the minor offence. The House should consider that
hundreds of petitions had been presented to both Houses
of Parliament, praying that the punishment of death
should not be inflicted upon any person for forgery ; and
he thought it would be clear upon all bands that secondary
punishments would more effectually prevent crime than
the chance of a criminal prosecution, or the still less
chance, if the law were to take its course, of inflicting
the punishment of death. With respect to the prevention
of the crime of forgery, he thought the certainty of con-
stant and hard labour, together with imprisonment, would
more effectually operate against it than the uncertainty of
the punishment of death. The French Government had
anticipated the inquiries of our own upon this subject in
America, and it was there found that their system of pri-
son discipline had done more to prevent forgery in Boston,
New York, and other large States, than the chance of
inflicting capital punishment upon offenders.—(Hear,
bear, hear.) Vindictive punishments never could effect
any good purpose, much less operate to the prevention of
crime.—(Hear, and cries of " Question.") He would
not, seeing the temper• of the House, detain them any
longer, for he was sure they would at once agree to his
proposition.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. LAMB explained.
Mr. ROCHE said a few words, which did not reach
the gallery.
Mr•. LLOYD said he only rose to say a few words on
the principle involved in this question.
The SPEAKER begged to say that the Hon. Gentle •
man must perceive the object in discussion was the report
of a Bill to remedy the existing criminal laws, and the
question was, was the object of the Hon. Member's ob-
servations to go in pari materia with the subject matter?
Mr. LLOYD said lie would bow with great submission
to the decision of the Speaker.
The proposed amendments were then agreed to. The
report was brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be
read a third time on Wednesday next.
SUPPLY.

On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the further con-
sideration of the Committee of Supply was deferred to
Friday next.
TITHES (IRELAND).—THE COERCIVE BILL.
Lout ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the
House to go into a Committee on the Tithes' (Ireland)
Act. (Order read). His Lordship then moved that the
Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. LAMBERT rose to move an amendment. He did
not wish to embarrass the Government, or throw the least
difficulty in its way; but he felt that he bad no other
course to adopt than to move an amendment to the motion
of the Noble Lord. He bad been prevented, last night,
from making the motion he intended to make, and from
giving that explanation he thought it his duty to give ;
and having been prevented from then making his state-