The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-17 00:00:00

PICKERING AND WHITBY RAILROAD.

On the motion of Mr. CAYLEY, the Picketing and
Whitby Railway Rill waa read a third time and paled.
MARYLEBONE ELECTION.

Sir R. INGLIS (in the absence of his Noble Friend, the
trqois of Cisandos) cailed the att-intion of the House
to she notice which his Noble Friend had given, on pre-
senting a petition from Abraham Wilkinson, praying to he
allowed further time to enter into tecneW2 z.nces to prose-
cute a petition against the return for Mitylehone. Toe
application was solely in the House; and although it
would be an act of rrace to grant it, yet it was not
unusual to allow such applications. 'the intention
of the petition r to enter into his recognixtnessos was bona
file ; hut it happened, that while one of the stinsties
aventled before th- examiner, the other, by mistake. was
waiting in the lobby of the House ; when the perisal had
expired, he was found. but it was too lite. Under th-se
eircuinstani es, the Hon. Baronet moved that the peti-
tioner he alluwed until Alonday next to complete his
recognizances.

Ar. O'CONNELL had always under.tond tbat the
petitioner should be c 'fled in, and be requir,d to confirm
what was stated in is petitinn.
The SPEAKER requested the Sergeant to see if Abra-
ham Wilk;n..on was in attendance.

Jr. HU.VIE thought there was no ground whatever
for even calling the petitioner in. The rules of the 11,,use
had nut been complied with, and according to the peti-
tioner's own showing be hid been guilty of gross negligence.
The petitioner had received great indulgence before the
ex:►miner, and now to make such an application was the
most trumpery proceeding imaginab:e. He hoped the
House would not countenance any such vexatious sppli-
ca,ion.

Mr. O'CONNELL said it appeared that the petitioner
did not even know the face of one of their own
sureties. It looked very much I.ke getting up a thing.—
(A lau,.h, and hear.)
Mr. S RICE was strongly opposed to the motion, for
it appeared the petitioner had received considerable in-
dulgence already. He thought that even if the petitioner
was called in, and proved the facts stated in the petition,
these facts did not make out a case to justify the House
in granting the motion, and, therefore, in his opinion, it
was unnecessary to call the petitioner in.
Sir R. INGLIS. in supporting the motion, expressed
his intention of taking the sense of the House upon it.
The House th••n dividA, when there appeared,
For the motion 22
Against it 62

Major;ty against the motion
Mr. HUME moved for returns of certain monies re-
ceived by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and
for other returns, the particulars of which were inaudible.
A conversation then took place relative to the C ou•
mission tif Inquiry into the manufacturing districts, be-
tween Mr. W. PATTEN, Mr. LYNCH, arid Lord ALTHORP.
Mr. HUME asked when the returns, relative to sine_
cures awl diplomatic expenses, which had been otdered,
would be lit d upon the table.
Mr. S RICE said he hoped in the course of this week.
Mr. EWART tieferre i his motion winch stood for this
day, and gave notice of his intention to move for a Bill
to remove the Lancashire Assizes from Lancaster to Liver-
pool.
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT rose to bring in his Bill to
alter and amend so much of the Act of 7 and 8 of Geo. IV.
cap, 23, as relates to prweedings in indictment* against
offenders, who had been previously convicted of felony ;
anti to alter and amend so much of the said Act -is
relates to the proceedings by ind.crtnent against persons
tinder seventeen )ears of a2e, charged with simple larceny.
The Hun. Baronet consideted some such measure as lie
now p op lied was loudly call d for, the offences committed
by young prisons having in. st materialy increised h ithin
the last few years. Three.pai ts of the nuiniter of persons
convicted at she Sess•ons were under 20 years of age. The
clij et of this was to rave such offnders more summarily
stied toil punist ed, and to avoid convictions for felony,
the off-nee being to be changed by this Act into a mis-

denie moor.
Mr LAMB thought the first objet the Hon. Baronet
had iii view was already attained, because the Judges did
not in the first instati, tell the Jury to find whether a pri-
soner -ad bet,n fore convicted.—(Ct tit the Jury knew
i,.") He agreed it was not tight a jury should he prejudiced
by hari is that ktiowl,te; and if the H n. Baronet
could succeed in preventing the jury Irons knowir,g that a
prisoner i.at: been betore convicted, he should be glad.
With rer2tod to he second object. the Hon. Baronet had
in view, it was certainly very desira.ile that tioys not har-
dened to criore should he sparrd the contamination
of the rissociai.s usuary m t with whilst waiting in
gaol to take th-ir trial ; hot he confessed that he saw
gnat dificul y in the Honourable Baronet so framin4
this Bill as not to let yourig experiet ced thieves,
bred up in crime from their cradks, escape, under
the protection of the minor punishments to he awarded
t.y the juvenile tribunals the Honourable Baronet pro..
posed to erect. He thought it would be difficult also
to six the precise age unier which buys shout I be, to
entitle themselves to the benefit of these lighter but more
speedy punishments. Some boys showed as much apti-
tude both for goo I and evil at nine years of &le as others did
at 14. On account of these and other difficulties, 11r.
Portman, not now in the House, had been obliged to drop
a similar Bill lie once brought in. Perhaps the Hon.
Baronet might be able to steer clear of those difficulties,
and then f -re he should be happy to see his plan laid be-
fore the House. The object he hail in view was certainly
a most ,esirable one

Sir T. FREEMANTLE supported the motion. lie
considered the present system as only fitted to entrap a
jut), into a verdict of guilty.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He had been a Member of toat Houma-Al • House
when Mr. Davenport hail introduced his Bill on this sub-
ject, and he (Sir T. Freemantle) bad then supported his
propositions, and to the estati•i•hment of a separate juris-
diction fur tte juvenile t ffenders, he thought the
great evil of it would be, .tioit a lighter punishment
tieing by law awarded to persons and-r a e,rta•o age,
experienced thieves would, in place of committing,
depredations themselves, employ those young persons to
the great injury of public virtue. The great obj,cr was to
guard ag,inst the contamination of hose young offenders
in gaol ; and he thought that might be otherwise effected.
Sir 0 MOSELEY also supported the motion ;
and stated that, as Ciair man of the Staffordshire
Quarter Sessions, one half of the offenders who
were brought before him were under the age of
twenty-one. It was totally impossible., even under the
best cyst-in of gaol di•eipline to keep the juvenile ori-
sutlers apart from the more practised offender. At St.dford
they bail instituted a school for the purpose of protecting
them from the influence of injurious example and association
in the gaol; but it had nut been found tffecrual. The greatest
evil in the present system was, that there was no prorr
distinction drawn between minor and more gr ive felonies.
He had seen a young pet son committed for stealing three eggs
and alter bt•ing in prison for two months previous to trial,
was then brought up with as much parade of public jus-
tice, as if he had stolen so many hundred pounds.—
(Hear,
" ear• ) In this way the juvenile offenders
got hardened. It would be far better, he thought,
that a summary jurisdiction should be bad over
such eases by Magistrates who could dispose of them
more speed.ly, with less expense to the counties, and
with much better effect to the offenders themselves.
He held trial by jury to be the great palladium of our
liberties, but it would be just as easy to get a jury at the
petty as at the quai ter sessions. If the offender called for
a jury, he could be remanded for three days, and then
trit-d before a jury at the petty sessions, but if he chute
he could be tried I,y two Magistrates owy. It had been
t rvthe Right Hon. 0 ntleman (Mr. Lamb),
tibloaetined by
p.:
pulous districts, like the metropolis, the buys
were as experienced as the adult thieves, of whom they
wee made the tools and instruments. That, be thought,
was owing to boys twin!, imprisoned at an early age for
comparatively insi4ntficant offences, and confined with
older offenders. The Bid was, in his opinion, of very
or-at importatice, and would be pro,luctive of much good.
, „
tie 'Jolt d, the House would not lose sight of it.
COBBETT hail no in ention to oppose the motion
for bringing in toe Bill ; but at every subsequent stage, if
the 11:11 extended the power of the Magistrates, or went

to dispense with the triil by jury, lie would divide the
House upon it, though he stood singly. The trial by jury
hail been growing less and less during the last forty years.
If they only went on'at this tilt-, and ulloa•ed Magistrates
to try offences which subjected men to transportation
without a jury, five years would not elapse before they
would bang men without a trial by jury —(Cries of " No,
no. ') Gentlemen might say no ; but already the M gis-
trates punished forty times more than the Judges.—(Hear,
hear.) Who were these Magistrates? He spoke it with
great respect to the two Hon Baronets; but they did not
take into consideration the deficiencies of these Magistrates
themselves; they did not consider that many of the Magis-
trates were clergymen of the Church of England, looking
for preferment—(Hear, hear)—that many were half•pay
officers o' the army or of the navy, looking for promotion ;
yes, many of these Magistrates were half-pay officers, and
a more dependent set of men were not to be found on the
face of the earth. To such Magistrates he would give no
additional power. It was exceedingly difficult to legislate
with respect to young people, on account of the very great
difference among them in all the circumstancea which
c:rnstitute criminality. A child of Cue yews was frequeotly
more advanced in that respect than one of fiiteen, and .it
frequently happened that a youth of fifteen was more ac-
qitainted with p ,rticulars of what he ought to he iv wait,
and more skilful in all the means of avoiding ,deteetion
when he had committed a c•ime, than a young man of
twenty-one or twenty-two. It was im►rrrasinle to provide
for all these contingencies. The Hon. Memher concluded
by repeating his intention to oppose the Bill in all the fu-
ture stages.

Mr. -iIARDY was understood to support the motion.
Whether they wee members of the church or were con-
nected with the army, he had never seen men mole dis.
pus, d to'do their duty than the• magistrares in general.
Spe ,king of them as a b.,dy, he considered them to be as
nub aetu ited by an anxious wish to do their duty to the
heat of their abilities as the Hon. Menywr for (Munn
himself He had no wi4i in these observations to curry
favour with his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. CORBETT explained.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER alluded to a case of juvenile
delinqn,ney, in which the young criminal was imprisoned
for stealing a few potatoes for his Sunday dinner, and
exposed to the danger of that contamination Which is
unavoidable in the society of the usual inmates of a pt icon.
He would, hvwevt r, h ye no objection to allow boys the
benefit of the trial by jury.
An HON_ MEMBER, objected to Magistrates possessing
such extensive powers of summary convictions. He
suggested the propriety of referring the subject to a Com
mime up stairs, who should examine the whole question
of secondary punishments.
Mr. O'CONNELL could not allow the sulij-ct to pass
without protesting against the deprivation of juvenile
nd,rs of the benefit of tri •I by jury. He was friendly
to the principle of inquiring into the previous character of
prisoners. Nothing could be of wore unportanc.r thsn to
impress upon persons the idea that character constituted a
species of ea-tie. In his opinion, many of the proceed-
.

ings on criminal trials were the most farcical that could
easily be imagined. Nothing, for instance, could be more
ridiculous than the scruples which were made about al-
lowing a prisoner to convict himself. The pri-oner in
his opinion, ought to be called upon to explain any circum-
stance which might appear t►y the evi fence to be of an
equivocal nature. 1,,r41 Alansfi -Id deserved great credit
for the good sense of his remarks upon the subject. He
hope:i he should live to see the time when ev.-ry
criminal should be interrogated as to the particulars
of the transaction tespection which he was accused.
He would not advocate tie subjecting of a prisoner
to any duress, to any imprisonment, to any torture, in
order to extort a confession from him ; nor would he de •
sire that a prisoner should, as in a neighbouring coun-
try, be subjected to all the ingenious cross-questioning on
the part of the Judge, which was usual in a case conducted
by counsel; but nothing could be more preposterous than
the caution frequtartly given from the Bench to a prisoner►
not to criminate himself. Instead of using every method
in order to reach the real facts of the case, it was not un-

usual, upon a prisoner pleading guilty, tor the Judge to
point out to him the favouraole point in the evidence, and
to advise the prisoner to withdraw his plea, and take the
chances of a trial. He had known V•at caution given in
the case of a very bad murder. The criminal took the
Jud.ae's advice, anti was succe.sful is obtaining a favour-
abl•• verdict; but he died in prison. There was also too
much di-lay before the trial. The whole system of
criminal trials required revision ; and the basis of the re-
form should be to make them come on snore rapidly, and
to get rid of those foolish scruples, which operated as a
protection to the guilty.
Mr. SANFORD defended the conduct of the Magis-
trates. _ _

Lord JOHN RUSSEL agreed in the propriety of ques-
tinning the prisoner, and making inquiries respecting, pre-
vioirii character.
Mr. RICHARD POTTER mentioned a ca,te, in which
a juvenile offender hid nearly been sent to the tread-mill
for see ,line 161 is of dung.
Sir E. WILMOT agreed to alter the Bill according to
the sug,otions :chicle had been thrown out.
Leave eratited in iiring in the Bin.
ALTERATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAWS.
Mr. LENNARD, in rising to submit his promised
motion, said, that when his Hon. Friend the Member for
Middlesex, some weeks ago, presented the London peti-
tion for *he improvement of the criminal code, they were
reminded, and very properly, of the great improvement
which had already ern made in it. Although he fully
aianitted that, yet he thought it could not be denied that
much still remained to be done before the criminal code
of laws could be said to be in a satisfactory state. The

more the public were accustomed to consider the subject
of crininal jurisprudence, the more anxious did it become
to remove ell traces of that sanguinary character which
were impressed on it in those times when, in the words of
Mirabeau, blood, and nothing but blood, and pounds of
11--sh, were required for every offence. He wished the
Government had leisure to undertake an entire revision
and reform in the criminal code. It seemed to him that
such a work could be best done by the Government.
But there were many gentlemen in that House whose
opinions were entitled to great authority who entertained a
different opinion, and who thought that the necessary
im-
prnvement in our code were hest made by the exertions of
individual members bringing forward motions for such
amendments as to themselves might seem most convenient.
He teal therefore determined to bring under the omit-
iteration of the House the state of the law in regard
to two offences, respecting which he thought there
would be no question but that the law ought to be
changed. But the change he should propose was rather
nominal than real. The laws denouncing punishment i f
bath on the crimes of housebreaking with larceny, and
stealing in a dwelling-house, any one therein being put in
fear, had 1-,ng been all but dead letters in the s atute-hook.
They had been for meny years, and they could now be,
nut very rare:y executed, and they seemed only to he left
on the statute-book as a remnant of the barbarism of
former times. Looking at the returns, it would he seen
that for the crime of housebreaking during tie last seven
ears, out of every 91 in Engiand and Wales who had
been convicied, not more than one had been executed
Taking the last two years, the proportion of executions to
convictions 'vas still less. In 1831, out of 517 convic-
tions there had been only one excution. In 1832, out of
583 convictions there had been only four executions;
and in this latter case he believed it would be Mund that
these which were sta ed to be executions for housebreak-
ing were in reality executions for burglary. He had been
informed that this was the ease on authority in which be
placed the greatest confidence. Now, during the same
two years in London and Middlesex, although there had
been 122 convictions for this off- ace, there had net been
one execution. It was true that it was stated that in
the year 1832 one execution bad taken place, but th.t
was a mistake. The execution alluded to was that of
I)rewitt, and his offence was certainly nut bousebre k-
ing, but burglary. Of the other off-nces, va., robbery,
Sec , no distinct mention was made of it in the re-
turns, but be supposed it was included under the general
bead of larceny, Sze. An.. with respect ni that offence,
what did the returas shun'? Why, that out of 567 who
had been convicted of that offence to Eneland and Wal. s.
14, only had been executed. That in 1832, out o 59
persons convicted, none were executed. In 1831, out of
113 who were convicted, only one was executed, and ,o
on. Again, to London and Middlesex, during the last
three years, there had been but one execution, and during
the two Years preceding the last three years there had
been but One execution in each year. Here, then,
was expressed, in the strongest pussible manner,
what Beccaria called the tacit msappronation of tin
laws in the non-execution of them. If in the time o:

Sir S. Roma!), it had been admitted to have been a grave
charge against our laws that not one in twenty of those
who were convicted were executed, what could be said of
a law of that sort where not one in -110 was executed ?
In such a state of things it seemed absurd to pretend that
the law could be any terror to evil doers. The criminal,
were the chances were so greatly in his favour, was sure
to calculate on the chance of escape. Bat it was a terror
to the injured and the innocent. Those who had made
inquiries into the subject knew that when in cases of that
r.);
uheesuf:bnerl
gsei
escape
opawenphdor
.01
sort the law was allowed, as it was. said, to take its
t
course, the sure result was to make in any per-
sons more unwilling to prosecute than they were
there were prosecutions, and to bring about that state
tif things so well described by the present Archbishop of
oeigi:bonrhood of persons of the best character not only re-
ee e met
alabouringus c't
with
leia;traydneene way
os
ui
anto e
eh iit piondi:t' Ole
against the offences, and they could not bring themselves
to incur even the remote and almost imaginary risk of ex-
posing a -thief to that fate. He held in his hand some
tables which proved, beyond all possibility of contradic-
tion or doubt, the fact of the unwillingness of juries to
make themselves instrumental in giving effect to the Nan-
rinary enactments of our code. Anything on this su:).
ject, he was aware, might be looked upon as a work of
tet
sort;increase
ut
hibl
atu:t, the number of acquittals, where
supererogation, so well ascertained was the fact; but it
wee so clearly and unanswerably established by these
tables, which had been drawn up with great care and la-
bour by Mr. Wrightson, that he was really anxious to
trou.le the House with them for a few minutes. A com-
parison was made of the total number of acquittals on
capital charges with those on non-capit-.l charges during
the «even ye .rs ending 1831, from which it appeared
that in England anti Wales the cente-imal propor-
tions of acquittals to c‘tminitments on capit eases
were 28, whi,e on non capital charges the acquittals
were only 19, the stiff-reuce between the two being
10. Thus in England nearly II more out of 100 com-
mitted ter trial were acquitted on capital than on non-
e pica! charges. Again, in London end Md.:les:4 it ap-
pears the centesiin I proportions of acquittals to commit-
ments in capital cases is 44 ; ditto, is min-capital cases,
20 ; the difference being 24. Why was this ? If airy
looked at the number of cases in which executi ass took
place in Lindon and Middlesex, and compared there with
the number in England and Wales, t, a cause would be
apparent. la England and Wales 5 out of every 100 we. e
executed In Loudon and Middlesex 10 were executed.
The greater probability t .at the last pen ,Ity of Cite law
would be inflicted in the latter ca ie made juries mare re-
luctant to convic , as has been observed by Mr. W. ight-
eon, the author of those stateasente. Again, they had tables
giving the centesimal poportions of executions to convic-
tiens, and the centesimal proportion of a quit ails to teinitnit-
inents for the cr lines of rubbery, burgl try, and houir-brealt-
Mg in England and Wa.es, anti in L ion and Mid ii sex.
Ttie first taele was tor England and Wale., the sec old for
London and M dillesex, embracing a period of 21 yat a,
trout 1810 to 1830. Looking at the first table, it ap-
peared that, throughout the whole of that period its Eeg-
;and and Wales, the executions for robbery had been much
more numerous than tor the other two comes in toe table.
Tile acquittals for robbery had b. en much more witnerous
also. In the fist period the proportion of exccutione to
convictions had ronbery, 14 ; fur burglary, IS ;
for housebreaking, 3. The proportion of acquittals for
the same offences bad been as 36, 27, 22. Fdr the second
period the elect' ions were as 12, 6, 1. In the thiid
period the executions were as 6,3, 1. The acquittals
were as 37, 21, 19. Again, burglary had ben pu-
nished who death less (Men than robbery, but more often
than housebreaking. Par instauce, in the first
period the executions fur burglary and housedetking
were 13 and 3 ; the acquittals were 27 and 22. In the
second period the executions were 6 and 1; the .cquittals
w re 23 and 16. In the third period when the executiuns
were 3 for bur4lary and 1 for housebieskino the acquit
tab were 21 and 19. Again, comparing the second period
with the first, a considerable diminution was found to
have taken place in
,the number of executions for all the
three crimes in the tables. A corresponding rit crease
would be remarked in the number of acquittals. In the
first period, the number of execution, being as 30, the
number of acquittals were as 85 ; in the second pet iod,
the executions being as 19, the acquittals fell down to 60 ;
in the third period, the executions for burglary declined in
tote proportion of 6 to 3, and the acquittals for that crime
declined luso. "1 he second table showed, as was observed
by the author of those tables, the reluctance of juries to
conv.ct of capital offences in a manner still more striking
and more conclusive. In London and Middlesex robbery
presented the greatest number of executions, and t e
largest number of acquittals; the executions for robbery,
burglary, and housebreaking being in the first period 5,3, 1
.—the acquittals 37, 22. 18 ; in the second period the
executions tieing as 13, 8, s—the acquittals as 49, 34.31.
It_ should be observed from that statement, that in house.
breaking, where there was the smallest number of . xecu-
tions, there was also the smaller number of acquittals,
while in burglary a medium number of executions
and a medium number of acquittals. N.w, there watt one
oilier view which these tables pees lard. It appeared
that the executions in London and Alidllesex, in prupor-
iron to the convictions, were—for robbery twice ea nu •
merous, fir burglary nearly three times as numerous, fur
housebreaking five times as numerous as in Eneland and
Wales. What was the effect? The acquittals ni London
and Middlesex in proportion to the commttinents were,
during the last seven years, one-third mare numerou-
than in England and Was , and that in each of the three
crimes about 12 mole out of every 100 escapAl in the,
farmer than in the latter. He had troutiled the House
with these statements because they proved in the cleaest
manner the repugnance of juries to find persons gui.ty of
affences punishable with death, and he agreed with the
very ingenious author of those statements, and he thought
the H .use would agree oho them, that no further proofs
coma be wanting. What; then, was the effect of
lugattempt-
tobe toe
excessive
?It only
crime bypusenciushremd impunityiei t
punishments which toh tc•
crime
cir a
test
to
great many cases where it ought to have been visited with
a moderate punishment. With respect to the crime
of housebreaking, the law hail lately been made more
s,vcre even than it was formerly. Under the old law it
was necessary that property to the value of ss. should
have been stolen; but by the act introduced by Sir
Robert Peel that was altered, and a stealing to the
smallest possible amount constituted the capital offence.
Why was that course taken? He did not recollect any
reason which the Right Hon. Baronet gave for it. It
occurred to him that it might have been done, because.
juries were in the habit of finding the value of the prtk,
verty stolen under that required to constitute the capital
offence. if this WAS the intention of the P.iget Rohs
Baronet, he had failed, as teen ever would fail who
attempted to legislate without reference to the public feel-
ing.

Juries could not now secure the escape of the
critninal by finding the property stolen to be of the value
of ls. Ilit, but they effected the same object by a ver-
dict of stealing only. A atinilar failure had attended
a so her of the enactments which formed pirt of the B It o
t Right Hun. Baronet, and he mentioned it in order to,
ii:ustrate ens prove the general principle which he Wag,
,ivocalin4. By the old law privately stealing in a iiwet,
ling house to the value of 40s. was a capital offence. The
Right Ron. Baronet, acting on a contrary principl• to
tit it which he had pursues in the case of 11.usebreaking,
rai.eil the value to 51. Under the old law j,irtes we.rek
in the habit, in a great number of cows, of finding, tho,
property stolen under the value of 40i.—viz.
what did they do now? Why, they found it to the value
of 995. A great deal had been said, at diff-rent times,
uhun the atrocious and dangerous character of the crime
of burglary; but there were two offences confessedly of
touch less criminality and danger, to which the law awariltd
the same putiishinent that it did to a higher and graver
offence. There could not well lie a stroneer instinct.,
xthough the statute-book abounded with similar ones, of
t-:e utter disregard of principle in the formation of the
c, iininal code. Wilde it was so—while it was thus capri-
cious, and therefore unjust—could it be expected to obtain
the respect of the public, or be iff cove for the floppies-
ro..n of crime? Was it not disgraceful to us to retain the
capital punishment in such cases as those where toe
oifence was comparatively a small one, while in oth-r
states tilt.), were making the experiment whether the
!ainislitnent of dtath might not lie dispensed with alto-
tzetber ? A writer, speaking particularL of the prisons of
Pennsylvania, said there was the nest of all evidence—
demons:naive proof—that brutal treatment, hanging, and
gibbetin4 were neither the must econoinintl not the must
Ilieactitus, as they were certainly neither the most humane
our the most enlightened modes of punishing crime, or
:donning society. o,tor states had been induced to ful-
-1 iw
the example so successfully set by Pennsyvani t, and
tip to that time with toe best effect. Ev• ry one koeuv,
t.o, that Ow punishment ii death had atouhs'..st
f um Tuscany for a period of 20 yews. It was rt-r.
ive
hy the authority of Buonaparte, and hail not 'l7::e ben.fl,,:t,d.
entirely attoiished, though it was very ra sly
liut what was, perioap., not so well kno we', th it
thr e
Amino, a pe riot of 60 vs-{r+ in
th.t "eatel:olti'tiko,"t:,gtior 20
4 ndintghe 20 su,
•
sequeitt•y—
fiu.ing whom it Was abui.ae!.., a v
periods of 20 years—she 20 preceding .tats-,
than In either the piecteling or the i•utis,Au tit
It was one of edise cases which, as a tnarta of
riods.
f seer crimes bad been committed during tor pet cod ot t.t,e
tory, might appear /11010 riarprisii than fiatiou. But

to mention a roe which earns more home to them-
selves and to their own feelings, it was well known that
during the time that the amiable and kind•hearted man,
Sir J. Mackintosh (a name never to be menti' ned without
feelings of deep regret for his loss) was Recorder of Bom-
bay, a period of seven years, the punishment of death
was entirely discontinued. If the experiment ever was
to fail, its failure might have been expected in such a
place as Bombay—a crowded Indian sea port, composed
of a mixed, and even shifting population. But what
was the result ? It had been most successful, for Sir J.
Mackintosh declared from the bench in his last charge,
when he was going to return to England, that the district
bad been governed without one capital punishment, and
with no increase of crime. But he was, at least not at
that moment, advocating any such extensive alteration in
this country ; all be asked was, to make the written
enactments conformable to what, with few exceptions,
was the practice. If he obtained leave to bring in a
Bill, he should propose to abolish the punishment of
death altogether from these off nces and in place of death
to give the judges the power at their discretion of punishing
the criminal by imprisonment or hard labour, or by
transportation for 7 or 14 years, or by imprisonment and
hard labour first, and tr osportation afterwards. He was
convinced that, und. r such a law as that, crimes would be
much more certain of king punished than they now were,
which every one would admit to be the great object to be
aimed at in all. legislation with a view to its efficiency.
No one could have looked into the subject without being
aware of the great increase of crime in late years. He
hardly supposed that would be used asan argument against
his motion. But those crimes had increased, net only in
spite of, but, as be thought, from the present injudicions
system of criminal jurisprudence ; hut, be that as it
might, the fact, though to he deplored, was what no man
could be surprised at. What had been dune to check the
increase of crime ? Almost moll ng. We had, perhaps,
the most inefficient police in the world. It was true that
in the metropolis we had a police, founded, as he thought,
on some wrong principles, tieing too much dependent on
the Secretary of State for the time being, but still an eft
cicent police; but, throughout the country, generally, we had
nothing which deserved the name of a pol•ce, and conse-
gilently one of the great means of preventing crime was
wanting. Then, with respect to our gaols, we had good
I.ws, it was true. but they were, in many cases, sham--
fully neglected, and even in one of the prisons in this me-
tropolis he was told there was hardly anything which
deserved the name of classification observed in-it. Again,
what hdd they done for the improvement or education of
the people ? So far from having attended to that subject,
they had allowed a whole generation to grow up in the
manufacturing towns under circumstances which made it
impcssible for them to obtain any mental improvement
whatever. Neither should they overlook the effect of such
laws as those now under consideration in demeral zing the
people. He could conceive few ti ings more prejudicial to
the morality of the p.ople, or to the interests of justice,
than the practice of juries finding what had been called
compassionate ver.licts in opposition to the strongest evi-
dence, and, in other words, uttering a falsehood..-.com.
witting perjury for the purpose of avoiding giving effect
to the law. We had begun to alter this system, but we
must go on still further. He knew the reform which he
was then proposog was a very trilling one, and went but a
very little way towa, ds the accomplishment of those ob-
jects, but if it was adopted it would at least cure the
anomaly of treating cases of petty theft wilh the same
severity as murder and parricide, and would enable pro-
secutors, wi,neases, and juries to punish guilt in many
cases where they could not do it now without violence to
their feelings and consciences. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal
of so much of the 7th and Sib of Geo. IV., c. 29, s. 12,
as enatrs, that if any person shall break arid enter any
dwelling-house, and steal therein any chattel, money, or
valuable security, to any value whatever, or shall steal any
such prop-rty, to any value whatever, in any dwelling-
house, any person iherein being put in fear, every such
offender being convicted thereof sl all suffer death as a felon.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not by any means
rise to oppose the motion of his Hon. Friend.. On the
contrary, no object was nearer his heart than that the
punishment of death should be abolished wherever it was
found practical to abolish it ; although he was not san
guine enough to believe that it would ever be possible to
abolish it altogether. Crimes of violence, he feared, they
must continue to be under the painful necessity of visiting
with death. For murder, for burglary, for arson, for ail
crimes which threatened life, it seemed to him that the
punishment of death accorded with the natural fee ings of
man. Until two years ago the criminal code of England
was one of unexampled severity. But it must not be for-
gotten; that very important measures had been adopted
for the purpose of diminishing that severity. He was
happy to any, that since his Majesty's present Govm nment
had come into power, that in the course of the last ye,,r
the offences of coining, of forgery, of sheep-stealirkt, of

horse-stealing, of seedling in a dwelling-house, all of which
had formerly been capital, were rendered not so. He
felt the country was under considetab'e obligation
to the Right Honourable Member for Tamil orth for the
great efforts he had made in ameliorating the criminal
code of the country ; and he was glad that that Right
Honourable Baronet was absent, as it afforded him
a more fitting opportunity of expressing his sincere grati-
tude to him. He confessed be could not see any reason
why the law should be more severe in the particular in-
stance of a boy breaking the window of a shop, and steal-
ing a bun or cake of the value of a halfpenny—the ground
for that severity being a constructive breaking; and he
should tberefore be gratified to see it cease to be an offence
of a capital nature. He would not, however, follow his
lion. Friend through the various topics of his able speech.
He fully concurred with him in a desire for a wise and
thoughtful revision of the criminal code of the country.
But he could not look with other feelings than those of
fear at the multifarious notices of amendment of the law
then on the books, there being no less thin 10 for altera-
tions of the criminal and 15 for the civil code. He
thought it would be much better if a little time were
grJneed to Government, that a uniform revision might be
entered upon by them, instead of each Member attempting
to act on his own views or force the House to a premature
consideration of his own suggestions. It would ultimately
he productive of much more good, by opening a safe road
for the consideration and adoption of all practicable
amendments.

Mr. C. WYNN should be sorry to see the House sanc-
tioning a Bill which went so far as this one did, at least
for the present. Hereafter, when the system of secondary
punishments had been mere thoroughly investigated and
matured, the proposed measure might be desirable. Tory
should, however, proceed gradual:y, and he, therefore,
considered it more desirable that the House should wait
and see the effect of the Bill passed in the last session of
Parliament. Ile should strongly recommend that the
motion should be altered to one for a committee on the
laws in questi.m, and he was the more disposed to this, as
all those Hon. Members who had notices on the subject
might be included in that committee.

Mr. J. H. LOYD (Stockport) considered the plan just
proposed was worthy of serious consideration. By ad. pt-
ing it, they would be able to incorporate all the improve-
ments that might suggest themselves to practical men,
without the cumbersome mode which would otherwise
have to be followed. It should be recollected that all the
in:orrnatton they hitherto had on the sufject of secondary
punishment was of the most meagre character; that the
question—important as it was—w.oi still in abeyance.
Air. CUTLER FERGUSSON would stienuou•ly ad-
vise his Hon. Friend to withdraw his motion, if he were
assured a Commission would be appointed to inquire into
the punishment and effects of punishments for all offences
against property. At the same tune, he thought tie first
part t .f the motion of his Honourable Friend was so rea-
sonable, that, if pressed to a division, he most certainly
should vote in favour of it. He wished to see punishment
for crime the rule—escape the exception.
Alr. EWART complained of the severity of the punish-
ments awaied by the criminal code. It they would con-
sider the question abstractedly in its effects on mankind,
they would find that a n-.il I code was really the muse, wise,
asunder it the inhabitants of a country were always ;
whereas, by being accus,otned to scenes of blood, their
minds were brutaliz,d, and in a measure habituated to
crime. They must thoroughly sift the question of se-
condary punishments, and then it was to he hoped they
might find a code of criminal law which would not con-
tradict both the feelings : rid the opinions of the country.
Air. CORBETT said, every gentleman had his project
for altering the law—etch one had his remedy for the evil
—and he had his. line thing, however, greatly excited
his displeasure; yes, he should almost say, his disgust.
It was the constant reference to France—the constant re-
let ence to America—the constant reference to the opinion
of foreign nations.—(Cheers.) What to them were the
opini• ns of people atito.d ? What then was Ehgland
was this boasted land—this cradle of liberty and of jus-
tice—tjus-
tice—titbe always looking to France and to America, and
be knew not n hat conniry, for wisdom and for knowledge?
e 4r.) For his parr, he knew nothing of the
opinions of France on these !natter', and he wanted to
know nothing. The Lord deliver him front French
Courts of Justice—that's all he should sty. Then as to
America—why it was one of the articles in the constitu-
tion of each State, that the laws should he the same as in
England. Aud yet we must be ever referring to America
for instruction. We shipped a cargo of law from Liver-
pool to America, but we should laugu at it When brought

back agala—aye, and be sure to reject it.—(Hear, and
laughter.) Every change which we made in the Common
Law of England, a e somehow or other managed to make
fur the worse..

Mr. M. HILL strongly supported the motion.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. FAITHFUL, after some preliminary observations,
brought forward the resolutiou of which notice had been
given, and the subject of which was one of the most
general importance. This resolution embraced three prin-
cipal points :—First, That the Church of England, as by
law established, is not recommended by practical utility;
secondly, That its revenues have always been subject to
legislative enactments ; and, thirdly, That the greater
part, if not the whole, of those revenues ought to he ap-
propriated to the relief of the nation. The Hon. Member
feared that his capac ty was in idequate to a proper expo-
sition of this most important subject.; but he felt sure
that the importance would insure the indulgence and atten-
tion of the House.—(Hear, hear.) He was far from being
prejudiced against or hostile to religion. On the con-
trary, he felt that it was the interest of religion that he
was consulting ; but the Church was one thing, and the
Establishment another. Never were two things more dis-
tinct. The Establishment he detested ; yet still he did
not wish to overthrow it ; no—let it remain ; have your
Archbishops anti Bishops ; your Deans, your Arch-
deacons, and Deacons—and all the rest of it. He had
nothing to sly to them ; but what lie asked—and all he
desired was—that violence should he done to no
man ; hut that each religious sect should have to
support its own establishment, and no others. He desired
to see religion supported on a firm and pure basis. This
would never be the case under the present monstrous sys-
tem. As he before said, he entirely denied that the Esta-
blished Church was recommended by the slightest practi-
cal utility. This could be proved to demonstration. He
would ask the House one pointed question. Was an esta-
blishment, like this sanctioned either directly or indirectly
by our Lord Jesus Christ, or any of his Apostles, or was
it not ? No, it was not. He defied any one to show that
it was. He would not ask the House to believe this on
the evidence—incontrovertible as it was—of the assen-
ters ; but he would-call to their most serious attention the
opinions of the soundest Divines of the Establishment it-
self, beginning with that of A•chtleacon Riley, who de-
clares that "we find in the Christian religi-ri no scheme
of building up any Church, or of administering to the
particular views of any Ecclesi tstical G vernment ; but,
on the contrary, our religion exhibits a complete abstrac-
tion from all Ecclesi 'sties, or civil bodies." Such was the
opinion of Paley, and he (Mr. Faithful) would ask any of
those Members who were convers ant with Scripture, if
they could point out any passage in the New Testament
which could directly or indirec.ly induce the most distant
apprehension that Jesus Christ or any of his Apostles
contemplated such an establishment as this as an eligible
Institution? Certainly not; it was never originated by
our Saviour or any Disciples of the religion he taught.
No establishment of this kind existed till the time
of Constantine—a time when the Church, the religion
of Christ, had lost much, very much, of its pristine
purity ; when, in fact, errors of the grossest and most cri-
minal descript.on had crept in and sullied the b auti:ul
faili taught by our Lord and his disciples. Was an esta-
blishment, then, such as ours is, and established under such
auspices, to be unquestioned—to he considered infallible?
Christianity is not a mere name ; there surely is something
substantial in it ; some real happiness and hero& in it; tf
not, away with it altogether. But what substantial
blessings were derivable from the present estab ishment;

or rather, what dreadful curse., were not ? It generated
ill will, heartburnings, and deadly hated. If an appalling
demonstration of thi• were wanting, look at unhappy Ire-
land—(Hear)—there is proof demonstrative. Nor were

these deadly feelings generated by our established c,tirch
in Deland alone: they exis.ed to a very great degree in
this country.—(Hear.) T. e N ble Lord and his H n.
Colleagues might by possibility imagine that they cou d
carry on this detestable and mischievous system a few
years longer here: they certainly m.ght for a short .pace,
a very short space ; but so strong was the general feeling
of irritation in this country in relation to this system, and
in opposition to tithes—a feeling which wis moreover on
the increase—that he was quite satisfied that the system
must undergo considerable alteration. The Reform Bill
would be of very little or no service to the people, who
expected so much from it, if it were not applied to
the removal of the intolerable burdens which now
ground the nation to the dust; he entreated the Govern-
ment to show their consistency with their former profes-
sions, by restoring to the oppressed people that property
which to all intents and purposes was so indisputably
their own. He denied that this compulsory maintenance
of the establishment was any *here laid down in the
Gospel ; but this principle was eminently calculated to
destroy the pure fabric of the real Christian faith. He
repeated, the present system was wholly incompatib e
with Christianity. The present system admitted those
who were obsequious and subservient, but carefully
excluded the conscientious and scrupulous. The most
pious and learned I erson could not find encourage-
tnent in this system; he had but to refuse to swal-

low the Athanasian Creed and other points of doe-

trine, to he totally excluded.—(Hear, hear.) It watt
a melancholy fact, that the worst of persecutions
were religious ones, and generally were promoted by
the priesthood of different persuasions. Who persecuted
our Lord? The Jewish Priests. Who persecuted the
earlier Chriteians? The Pagan Priests. Who perse
cuted the Protestants? The Catholic pries.lied, who in
their turn were persecuted by the Protest ,nt priesthood.
But it would be said that this persecuting spirit did not at
present prevail among the Protestant priests of this
country. A very good reason; they had not altogether
the power of persecution. But let the Protestant pries!.
hood of the country become as powerful as they were be-
fore the time of Qu en Bess, and let their temporalities he
fiercely attacked, and he for one would not answer for
them. It was his opinion, and it was that of Bishop
Warburton, that corruption was inseparable from the pre-
sent Church Establishment. He would ask, what was the
question asked when a Bishop was to be appointed? He
never had the appointing of one, and he could not say ;
but perhaps he would guess right if he said that the ques-
tion asked was not who was the best man in the sight of
the Lord, but who was the most able and willing to support
the existing administration. The establishment was said to
lie right. If it were, religious liberty could not be wrong.
The ground of its being right was, that it was the best way
to everlasting life. Very well ! why, then, compel others to
walk therein ? But Archdeacon Blackburn spoke the
truth when he said that when a clergy were attached to
doctrine, their religion was that of an order of men who
would be naturally interested, who would support the
system established, and be enemies to all reform in it. No
one would say that the Clergy of the present day wished
for any species of reform. That had been proved. Were
th.y found strenuous advocats fir the Reform Bill ? No !
nobody would say that they were. if they had been Re
fermers—if they bad done their duty as disinterested per-
sons, and persons desirous of improvement—it they have
raised up their voices against plunder—the people of
England would never have been plundered as they had
hero. Their interested spirit was well known. Was it
not as notorious as the sun at noon-day, that livings were
advertised for sale, and that they were publicly bought
and sold as if in a public market ? For what purpose
did young persons enter into the ministry ? No one
could say that it was through the love of the Holy Ghost.
The same motive induced them to take orders that indexed
young men to enter into the army, the navy, the legal, or
any other profession. It was nut necessary to say what
that motive was. As Dr. Hartley said, they teach the doc-
trines of men, and are merchants of the earth. Whilst Bishop
Warburton says of them, that our gandees had found at last
their way into the church, and the only wonder he ex-
presses is, that they were so long about it. They had got
in, and nothing could drive them out hut what had been
' had recourse to in the time of Henry VIII. They would
come to that at last ; and he hoped that the revolution
was at hand which would drive them out again. When
he looked to the places in the Church—when he considered
the pensions and sinecures that were everywhere lavished,
it seemed to him that they were all created, all destined
for the grandees—for the Aristocracy. The certainty of
emolument was a motive for the remission of duty. What
need the parson care ? He could say to his flock, it is
no matter to you what my life is; my conduct is nothing
,o you, nor are the doctrines I profess ; if you don't like
them you may stay away ; but the tithes are mine, and
you must pay them ; that's all I want. The certainty of
emolument was the cause of this. He would ask were the
Protestant Clergy more zealous—did they study the
Scriptures with more ardour—were they more useful and
more worthy than the Dissenting Ministers ? There was
not a single .Memher of that House that could say yes.
Dissenting Ministers were, moreover, better loved by their
ongregations, though they were supported by voluntary
contributions. It Dissenting Ministers were as useful and
as well loved by their flocks as the Protest int Clergy,
why then should there he an establishment supported at
such an immense expense? The Hon. Member then read
several extracts from the works of high church dignitaries,
to prove that corruption and the present church establish-
'neat were inseparable. - He would then proceed to point
ut to the House, by referring to Acts of Parliament, that
the revenues ot the church were subject to legislative
enactments. The ehurela was called a national church ;
if so, it orght to be at the diep,.sal of the nation. But it
wail just as much at the disposal of the tuition as the Bank

of England was,_(A laugh.) He had lately beard in
that House a great deal about the sacredness of church
property, and about the inviolability of vested rights.
When people were thus talking. they did not speak of the
church, but of the clergy. If they constitu►ed the church,
then would he be obliged to give up altogether his argu-
ment. The church was not a parcel of men in black
gowns, but it consisted of a vast congregation. The
people constituted the church, and the property that was
called church property belonged to the people. He would
now refer to the 27th of Henry VIII., whereby the reve-
nues of all monasteries that did not exceed 2001. a year
went to the Crown, for the honour of God and for the
wealth of the realm. It would be curious to trace out
where this property was now that had been vested in
Henry VIII. The result of such an investigation would
he, that it bad passed from the hands of that King into
the Aristocracy of his day, and that from their hands it
had passed down to their descendants of the present time.
By the 32d of Henry VIII., and by the Ist of Edward
VI., the revenues of all convents, colleges, and ho.pitals
were vested in the Crown. By those Acts their revenues
were swept. away. He would not insult the understand-
ing of the Howe by saying what was then the subject of
legislation would again become the subject of it. It was
evident to every body that the revenues of the church were
swept away by the reformation, and, of course, by legisla-
tive enactment. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to
the 3d of William and Mary, and to the 40th of Geo. 111.,
to prove that tithes were by theta matter of legisla-
tion. By an Act passed in the reign of the last Monarch,
the stipends of curates were regulated according to the
number of their flocks. What would noblemen and gen-
tlemen say if the legislature interfered with the stipends of
their stewards and bailiff, and regulated them ? Though
it bad not interfered with them, it bad, in the above in-
stance stepped in and regulated the pay of curates. The
emoluments of priests ought to be considered in the light of
stipendiary pay. That it was so considered had been de-
cided by the judges of the land. In the case of a cler-
gyman, the judges had decided that his emoluments were
like the half-pay of an officer ; that he could be declared
insolvent, and that his emoluments, like the half pay of
officers, should go to pay his creditors. lie would now
conic to his last proposition :—'• That the greatest part,
If not the whole of those revenues (those of the Church)
ought to be appropriated to the relief of the national
debt." Up to the time of the Reformation, the Clergy
were exclusively entitled to only one-th;rd of the tithes. The
tithes were originally divided into three parts ; one part
was fir the repair, &c of churches, another for the support
of the poor, and the third part was for the use of God's
servants. H .w, he would ask, came the revenues of the
Church in .o the bands of Protestants ? They came into
their hands from the Catholics, from whom they were
taken by Act of Parliament, consequently they were thus
liable to legislative enactment, and ought to be still consi.
dered to be so. What did the Noble Lord mean to do ?
Would he sponge our the national debt—would he put
down the army—would he put an end to sinecures ? The
Noble Loid would do none of these things, and as long as
they were left, it was useless to quarrel with the Miiiister
for not redwing taxation. Of what cons•quence was
it whether the nation paid 47 or 49 millions in taxes?
If the Noble Lord would appropriate the public property
to public purposes, then the national creditor mig!.t be
paid, the people relieved, and the whole nation ren-
dered prosperous. It would, hosever, be beyond the in-
genuity of man to continue the present system much
linger. The Hon. Mem.ier concluded by expre-sing his
hope, that at least the House would give tam credit for
sincerity ; but vvhetb-r it did or not, he had the satis'ac-
tion of knowing that lie had done what he conceived to
be his duty. He then moved the following resolution :
" That the Church of England, as by liw estiblished,
is not recommended by practical utility ; that its revenues
have always been subject to legis ative enactments ; and
that the greater part, if not the whole. of those revenues
ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation."
Mr. COBBETT seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP said that the House, he was sure,
would not expect him to answer the speech of the Hon.
Meml,er for 13iie.htan.—(Loud cheers.) He would only
observe, that the Hon. Member had stated that he wis a
Dissenter, and he must say that he was a member of the
Church of England. The question, th.refore, as to
whether that church were good or riot was one on which
they might very properly differ. The Hon. Member said
his motion was twist important. In th it he could not
agree with the Hon. Member, for he could not conceive
that it possessed any practical utility. He would not de-
tain the House—(Cheers)—by going into a discussion of
a polemical question, that might be very proper for dis-
cussion in another place; but it was a ques ion into
which it was not fit fur him to enter there. He should
only say, that he would meet the motion with a decided
neeative.—(Cheers, calls of " question," and of " with-
draw.")

Mr. COBBETT—The Noble Lord said the House
hardly expected him to answer the speech of the Hon.
Member for Brighton. No, nor did I either.—(A laugh,
" Question," " Withdraw.")
Mr. HARVEY acknowledged that he too was a Dis-
senter and a Non.Conlormist ; but though he was pre-
p 'red to support the Lbstr .ct proposition made by the
Hon. Member, he could not agree to all its terms. The
Han. Member had rather prejudiced the question, by di-
rectiog his arguments to the abuses of the church, instead
of limiting himself to the peat principle of compelling
Dissenters to s ,Pport an established church; which being
at variance with all spiritual tree tom, was a fur and open
snhject for investiaation. The Hon. Member had rather
dwelt upon the administration of the church, than upheld
the great principle of toleration. He could not say that
the church was altogether opposed to practical uti ity, for
that would imply that it had been of no utility at all
tim,s, to which he could not agree. He should like to
hear the principle of exonerating the Dissenters from pay-
ing to the church, and he had hoped thst the Noble Lord
would at least have acknowledged the principle that the
Dissenters ought not to pay. He subscribed to the latter
part of the proposition, but not to the former ; and he
trusted the Hon. Mover would withdraw the motion, as to
negative it might place the Non Conf.rmists in an im-
proper light.-_('•' Question," and " Withdraw.")
Sir ROBERT INGLIS would express his utter dissent
from all the words of the proposition of the Hon. Mover.
He would make only one observation on the system of
sermon and speech of the Rm. Member.—(Cheers and
laughter.) The Hon. Member admitted that he was a
Dissenter, and he attacked those who in that House could
not appear to defend themselves. He attacked them on
account of their temporalities, and he attacked them also
on their spiritual practices and motives. 'll2e Hon Mem-
ber was, he believed, not only a Dia'enter, but a licensed
preacher among that body ; and it was hardly fair in him
to attack the ministers of the Church of England as to
their motives, when they could not come into that House
to defend themselves.—(Cheers.) He felt that time House
had exdressed its opinion by so decided a majority, that it
was unnecessary for him to trespass on its time.—(Ques-
tion, and withdraw.)

Mr. AGLIONBY was friendly to the latter part of the
proposition, out not to the first part of it, arid bad no tither
course but to oppose it.—(Loud calls of " Question.")
Mr. O'D WYER, after waiting some time, obtained a
hearing, and proposed an amendment to this effect:—
" That the revenues of the Church of England have
always been subject to legislative enactments, and they
ought to be appropriated to their origin tl institution."
Mr. HARVEY objected to the amendment, as imply-
ing something to which no Protestant Dissenter could
agree.—(Hear, and louti cads of " Question.)"
After a few words from Lord ALTHORP, recommend-
ing the House to divide first on the amendment, and after-
wards to negative the original motion, the amendment was
withdrawn, and the original motion was negatived without
a division. Some voices called out " the Ayes have it,"
alter the Speaker had been decided ; but
The SPEAKER said they were too late, for not one
" Aye hot been uttered when he put the question.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to provide for the trial of petitions complaining of
general bribery and corruption in cities anti boroughs
sending Members to Parliament. The Noble Lord ex-
plained the objects of his Bill shortly, but the noise in the
[loose pievented him front being heard in the gallery.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether the parties
were to be exposed to all the expense of the Grenville Act,
as that would be a bar to justice in many places in Eng-
land, and particularly in Leland ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observt d, that when petitions
were frivolous and vexatious, the parties presenting them
would be saddled with the costs ; when they were other-
wise, the expense would he defrayed in the same manner
as the expense of other Pat liamentary Committees. With
respell to the question of the Hein. and Learned Gentle-
man opposite, that be never contemplated imposing upon
the Members of that House such an oath as had been
mentioned, it might be very well to require an elector to
!Mare upon oath whether he had or had not been bribed,
becatt,e that was a matter of fact to which he could at
once sped( ; but not so with a Memb-r of Parliament,
,or at an election many acts might be done of which he,
probably, would tie more or less cngiiizant, but they might
not appear to his mind t, amount to bribery ; and there-
ore, in calling upon a Metnber to take such an oath, it
was requiring hint to swear to a matter of opinion, and
nut of fact.

Mr. C. W. WYNN wats happy to have it in hispova

to agree with the Noble Lord opposite upon a question of
that nature. With respect to what had fallen from the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, relative to unsuc-
cessful attempts at bribery, he confessed that he was un-
able to unoerstand how the circums anee of the attempt
being unsuccessful made the act more or less an offence, as
regarded the individual endeavouring to commit it. But,
on the other hand, it would certainly form no ground for
disfranchising the place in which suck unsuccessful bribery
might have been attempted.
After a few words from Mr. WASON, leave was given
to bring in the Bill.
Mr. W. ROCHE, after some observations, which were
wholly inaudible, moved a Select Committee to investi-
gate charges made against the Irish Government, of using
undue influence at the late election for Limerick ; and
also to investigate similar charges made against Thomas P.
Vokes, E.g., Chief Magistrate of Police in the county of
Limerick, and Richard Kenny, distributor of stamps for
that county and district. The Hon Member, at the same
time, presented a petition from certain inhabitants of
Limerick, being electors of that city, setting forth the
charges above stated, and praying for the investigation
thereof.—(Hear.)

Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE contended, that the Hon.
Member opposite bad laid no sufficient grounds for the
appointment of a committee; and he should certainly
resist it; fory a appointment of such a committee would
amount to pronouncing a sentence of condemnation upon
the conduct of the Irish Government. The Hon. Mem-
ber had said that he made a sufficient case, by merely
presenting a petition from certain individuals, who were
no doubt respectable ; hut that fact did not constitute evi-
dence sufficient to substantiate all their statements.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the case for the motion
was, that Major Vokes had interfered most improperly
with the Limerick election, and that Mr. Kenny had done
the same. To that, be contended, the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had given no answer.

Mr. STANLEY affirmed that the conduct of the Irish
Government had been perfectly impartial, during the whole
of the election ; and read two letters, one from Major
Yokes, and the other from Mr. Kenny, in which both
gentlemen denied the interference imputed to them.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL,
Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE moved for a Select Com-
mittee to investigate a charge of undue interference on the
part of the Irish Government in the late election for
Limerick ; also to refer to the said Committee a charge
of a similar nature against Thomas P. Yokes, Esq., chief
magistrate of police for the district of Limerick, and
Richard Kenny, Esq., stamp distributor for the same
district.

The motion, as we understood, was negatived without
a division.

Mr. COBBETT moved for a return, stating the names
of the Commissioners of Stamps, of the S ilicitors of
Stamps, of all under officers and clerks, and other persons
in that department ; stating the annual sum which each
of the said persons rec ives as salary or pay ; also stating
the names of retired commissioners, solicitors, clerks and
other p-rsons in the said department, and the sums which
each of the said retired p.raons reeetves annually ; also stating
the names of all the distributors of stamps, coua•y by
county, in England, Wales, and Scotland, awl stating the
salary or sum that each distributor annually receives for
his services

Lord ALTHORP observed, that the nature of the
return would require an investigation of about five hundred
and twenty cases, and he was anxious therefore, to ascer-
tain the object of the motion of the Hon. G ntlem in, on
account of the enormous expense which it would lead to.
COf3RE 17 observed, that the returns could be
made in a very short period. He had given notice of a
motion for the 24th instant, by which he should be
enabled to show that the rich entirely escaped this tax, and
that t.,e whole burden fell upon the poor
Lord ALTHORP wished that the Hon. Member had
stated some Parliamentary Rround for making such a re-
turn as that for which he had moved. In order to make
out his case, the Hon. M-mber for Oldham ought either
to have proved that more persons of one p rticular class
were exposed to the operation of the tax ti‘an of another,
or he ought to have shown that the burden of the tax fell
ucon improper persons. He had done no such thine, and
therefore he (Lord Althorp) should oppose the return.
After a few observations from Mr. O'Cormxtt. (who
stated t at the annual amount in question was quarter of
a rribion), fr •rn Mr. Coaarcr in .eply, and from Lord
ALTHORP. who stated that the sums in question amounted
to 140.3831., the qu.tcion wa• negatived without a division.