The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-08 00:00:00

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 8, 1833.

A Select Committee was last night appointed
to inquire into the state of the Crown lands.
Such a Committee has long been wanted, for
although we believe that much exaggeration has
gone abroad respecting the value of these lands,
we are no less certain that they have been
means of greater corruption in the hands of the
boroughmongers than is generally imagined. We
doubt not that sufficient facts will be brought to

light, to show that a lease of Crown lands has
been the consideration of many flagrant acts
against the liberties of the people. The cor-
ruption exerci'ed in this way has been far more
dangerous than the open routine course of pen-
sions, which are exposed to public animadver-
sion, and thus to a certain extent, even in the
worst of times, liable to be checked by public
opinion.

The Duke of SussEx presented a petition
last night in the House of Lords, which gave
rise to a conversation of some interest upon the
subject of the alteration made in our criminal
law last session. It will be recollected that
many offences under the old law carried with
them a sentence of death, which was hardly ever,
indeed never, executed. The punishment in
fact rested in the discretion of the Judge, a cir-
cumstance which occasioned the greatest variety
of puni,hments for the same offence. To put
an end to the scandal to which this gave rise, a
Bill was last year brought in, changing the
punishment of death in certain cases into trans-
portation for 14 years, and Lord WYNFORD
introduced a clause taking away the
discretion of the Judge. Lord TENTERDEN,
Lord BROUGHAM, and other great authorities,
considering how necessary it was that punish-
ment should be certain, in order to repress
crime, concurred in the amendment. The
Judges were left the power of recommending
the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment to commute the punishment, and Lord
MELBOURNE stated that every such recom-
mendation was considered with the greatest
attention. So few recommendations of the kind,
however, had been made, that out of 300 con-
victions under the Act, the punishment has only
been commuted in ten cases. Lord LYNDHURST
said that to enforce law, in 29 cases out of 30,
was a harsh and unjustifiable administration
of the criminal law. Now this is pure non-
sense. If 29 men have been properly convicted,
it is not harshness, but mercy as well as justice,
to inflict in the whole 29 cases the punishment
awarded by the law ;—it is mercy to the thou-
sands of wavering criminals, who will be de-
terred from commuting the same offence by the
certainty of punishment, and justice to the
country by ridding it of convicted offenders. In
crimes of ordinary occurrence, that is, which
derive encouragement from impunity, no mercy
is shown by relaxing the law, nor harshness in
enforcing it, although it be in 29 cases out of
30. Quite apart from this question, however,
an anomaly which was not foreseen on the pass-
ing of the Act of last session has arisen. The
discretion being still left to the Judge in the
capital case of breaking and entering a dwelling-
house, he may sentence a man to a much
lighter punishment than is inflicted by the law
for an offence not capital. This is an anomaly
which ought to be removed ; and we are glad
to see that both Lord MELBOURNE and the
LORD CHANCELLOR are disposed to take into
consideration the best means of removing it.
The progressive increase in the number of com-
mitments since 1812, from 6,000 to 20,000,
is also a subject well worthy of investigation.

The canvassers of Sir JOHN HoimousE are
anxiously exerting themselves to turn the con-
duct of the crowd yesterday towards Sir Joini
to account among the respectable electors, and
many who wanted some excuse for voting in his
favour are very willing to assign this as a mo"
tive for the abandonment of principle. It
would be only fair in the friends of Sir ;low;
HoßnousE, when they censure the conduct of