The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Lord ALTHORP moved, that the House at its rising
this night, should adjourn till Wednekday Nest. The ad-
journment, he stated, was in accordance with the usual
practice ; and he conceived they would not be showing
fitting respect to his Majesty if they did not now agree
to it.

Mr. HUME thought they would best show their respect
to his Majesty by going on with the business of the country.
Mr. WASON had a motion, but could not think of
pressing it after what had fallen from the Neble Lord.

Lord ALTHORP again stated that touch was tie prac-
tice, and

Mr. HUME consented to withdraw his opposition.
Mr. LITTLETON otAvelved, that the authorities in
the places enfranchised under the Reform Bill were roost
anxious to ascertain their duties ; and asked if Gnvern_
meta proposed to take any speedy means of instructing
them?

Lord ALTHORP replied, that no rim,. would he los.t
in forwarding copite of the Act, and giving all necepaty
information.

CORN LAWS.

Mr. RUNT postponed his motion about the Cern
Law■ till the 19th of July, and gave notice tl.t he would
also, on that day, move for certain return. returns respect •
ing flogging in the army.

Mr.—WASON postponel hi. motion to the 3d of July.
IRISH REFORM BILL.

On the motion that Vie Hume resolve itself into a
Committee,
Mr. HUME asked if it Was in the contemplation of
Government to proceed against General Dunn upon tl e
charges preferred against him, and submit his conduct to
judicial inquiry? He understood this officer was now in
the country, and had lately been presented at Court.
Lord HOWICK said, the charges against General Dar-
ling had been laid before the law officers of the Crown in
June, 1630. Their opinion was quite exculpatory of
General Darling, consequently no proceed ngs were in-
stituted against him ; and Lord God•rirh hal not deemed
it advisable, since he came to office, to in►titute any
proceedings.
At the request of Mr. Stanley, Mr. RUTHVEN post'
poned his Instruction to the Committee, and the Howe
resolved itself into a Committee of the whole Heu,e.
On the first clause being read,

Mr. STANLEY observed, that it might be, convenient
for him to explain the extension of the frarcise to which
Government had been induced to agree. They proposed
to extend the franchise to all leaseholders of a lease for
twenty-one years who were actual eccuniers, and who
had a bone fide interest of 101. a year. At first,
when men compared the qualification as in England
and Ireland, this might appear too great an addition
to the advantage already conceded to Ireland; but when
they considered the smallness of the fr..ehold interest in
Ireland as compared with England, and the nature of the
leasehold interest iu Ireland, they were led to believ, that,
by admitting these leaseholder., they might extend the
constituency without dimini,hinz its respectability. They
were encouraged in this proceeding, moreover, with the
hope of promoting real leasehold tenures, and oiseourag-
ing fictitious freeholds, which were created by the nomi.
additionrneaglerded.
ef
felt
te to
thatth ethterm
hado already
3leraeras4wich grantedw as
tanlaengye
advantages to Ireland, as compared with England, with
respect to the qualification ; but he thought the circum-
stances of the case fully justified them iu this further de.

parture.
Mr. O'CONNELL was grateful for the extension, and
was, therefore, unwilling to offer any opposition; put he
begged to suggest the propriety of altering the term from
twenty-one years to twenty years. There were in Irel ind
upwards of '700,000 acres in the possession of the Church,
and much more than 200,000 in the pc.Ases-slion of the
College. Here leases were gives at a smell rent—the
fines being the real remuneration for the use of the land ;
and the greatest term was twenty-one years. Now, the
lessee was seldom an occupier, and he could not underlet
for twenty-one years; for thereby he would lose his legal
remedies. He could not sue on the covenants ; for he
would in fact convert the tenant into an assignee. Ths
Right Hon. Gentleman would see, that by persistinz in
the twenty-one years he would exclude a most valuable
constituency.
Mr. STANLEY reminded the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman that nin►teen years had been formerly pro.
posed ; but it was then said the term was ten still, anal
that nothing less than fourteen years would let is the ac-
tual occupier of the Bishops' lands. New, if this cv, re to go
on, he really knew not where they stt.p.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the change to twenty years
would produce the great advantage of giving the oc-
cupying tenant an interest in the laud.
Sir J. NEWPORT approved of the twen:y-ene years'
lease.

Sir R. PEEL protested against their being called upon
to decide without notice upon such an important question.
oatinhilt
another.
better
p reLvoenrdtedAbLyTtlhieopßrePse
ntht opurgophot fsition trbaiu,,dbwy
Mr. LEFROY believed that fraud would be still prac-
tised, and he also thought that the number of voters would
be diminished, instead of increased, for if leases fur twenty-
one years were made the means of voting, if the holder
of one of these leases died, the intermit would be divided
among his children, in which case no one would lieve a
vote. He believed, too, that the reluctance of the Irish
tenantry to register their votes—a reluctance which they
felt because they did nut wish to admit their possession of
such an interest, would be another C. 111361 of diminish.
ing the number of voters.
Mr.- O'CONNELL said that the supposition of the
lion. and Learned I.l.letnh-r as to the estate being d vided
among the tenant's children at the Owith of the t-nant,
was only an additional reason for inserting th, clause. If
the holding of such an estate wow,' en :10.. the limiter to
vote, the tenant would take care to do th,t which el men
ought to do—he would make a will, end thus secure time
passing of the estate into the hands of mne person by
whom the right of voting could hm• exercised. T.,e clause,
therefore, would hive the advantage of incliicirie. rai-n to do
what was prudent, viewed even as priv mna tr.
Mr. O'FARRELL th,iiight the proposition vt the R•glit
Hon. Gentleman would add to the number awl 11 1e
spectability of the constituency- of lie and ; arid
qto
fully
P
Ate. therefore,.
i 3
give it hissy 'a''
o
ass, and wh„
Sir R
instead of 21 years, as theme were !natty tenant., of
Church property of 111,411
y h. rield lessee or
20 n';vetot(thie eta] iyinent of the franchise.
r'2
GRATTAN rejoievd to heal the pri:itpolel t
s:tietio
be a but;rm J. t

evhieh the Ili2ht lion. Gentleman had made, and tau
honvinced that it would improve the state of Ire and.
He
ad no doubt that the giving the franchise to this dass of
enants would induce them to keep up an interest of tbe
equirel amount, and would thus perpetuate a respectable
class of Isodholders.
Sir J. NEWPORT also strongly approved of the pro-
position.
Colonel PERCIVAL should also support it, but he
thought that the recommendation of the Hon. Baronet
near Lim ought to he adopted, and that the term should be
fixed at 20 instead of 21 years.
Mr. STANLEY had no objection to make the change
now required, from 20 to 21 years, and as he had been
accused of yielding to the Hon. and Learned Member for
Kerry in granting this franchise at all, he now informed
the Hon. Baronet opposite, that the Hon. Baronet might
consider the 1 resent question of the 20 years as yielded to
him, so that he must take one yielding as a compensation
for the other.-- ( A laugh.)
Mr. RUTHVEN said, that as the Right Hon. Secre-
tary had gone so far, perhaps he would go further, and
m ,ke the term 19 years, as it was known there were very
many most respectable persons who held leases of that date.
Mr. STANLEY did not feel that, because he had
yielded twice, he should yield a third time, and he must
trerefore decidedly decline the recommendation of the
Hon. Member.

Sir E. SLIGDEN objected to the omission of some

words in the clause, the consequence of which he said
would be that of a person who held the freehold might
lease it out at a pepper-corn rent, and the tenant would
have the right of voting on account of the possession, and
the landlord who held no more than a hare legal title to it,
having parted with all his beneficial interest would
also be entitled to vote.

On this objection a long conversation ensued, in which
Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Knight took part with Sir E.
Sudden and Mr. Stanley, Mr. Crarnpton and Mr. Lefroy
expressed their doubts whether the consequences appre-
hended would follow.

Mr. STANLEY was not inclined to object to the in-
troduction of the words, bat he recommended that the
amendment should he postponed, as it would be inserted

hereafter.
Mr. HARDINGE suggested that the amendment might
he now introduced, and struck out afterwards if good
reason were shown.
This proposal was concurred in, and the alteration waa
made.

Mr. LEFROY complained that the opponents of the
Bill had been taken by surprise by the concession to the
Hon. Member for Kerry.
Mr. STANLEY thought that the Hon. Member bad
nst much reason to complain that he hal Rot been taken
into the confidence of Ministers.

11r. LEFROY observed, that they certainly had not
hi 4 confidence and he die! not Want theirs.

Mr. DAWSON objected to the proposed change, inas-
much as it would tend to make the Bishops of Ireland po-
litical agents by giving the tenants of church lands a right
of voting.
Mr. O'CONNELL was of opinion that the temptation
to Irish Bishops to interfere in politics would not be so
great as formerly, and that the fears of the Right Hon.
Gentleman were entirely chimerical.
Sir E. SUGDEN thought that the change was meant
as a boon to the Bishops, who would be able at least to
use their influence with their tenantry.
After a few words from Colonel PERCEVAL the
el inse was agreed to.
The Committee then proceeded to the second clause.

Mr. 0 CONNELL said that it was his intention to
take the sense of the Committee on the clause relating to
the 40s. franchise in fee and to the 400. franchise for
three lives.
Mr. SHAW wished to know whether it was intended,
by the clause under consideration, to make any alteration
in the mode of registration, so as to prevent persons regis-
tering as 501. freeholders from voting after they might
have ceased to be freeholders ?

Mr. STANLEY said, that it was his intention to regu-
late the mode of registration in such a way as to show at
all times the real constituency.
The clause was then agreed to.

The question having been put upon the third clause,
Mr. WALLACE suggested a verbal amendment, to
render that part of the clause more clear which was in-
tended to prevent an elector for a borough ftom voting
also for the county.

Mr. STANLEY said, that the clause seemed to him
sufficiently secure from misconstruction as it stood at pre-
sent. It was taken verbatim from the 24th and 25th
clauses of the English Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the reason for which the
electors of towns in England were excluded from voting
for the county was to protect the agricultural interest...—
That reason did not apply to Ireland, as there were in that
country no manufacturing interests, from the preponder-
ance of which the agricultural interest could he injured.
Loral LTHORP said, that the obj-ct of the clause was
merely to prevent a man from having two votes for the one
property.
After a few words from Mr. PRAED, the clause was
agreed to.
The question was then put upon the fourth clause.

Aftergotoe conversation on verbal amendments,

Mr. LEFROY moved as an amendment, that after the
words " clear yearly value of not less tha❑ 101.," should
be inserted words confining the franchise to such persons
as should have a beneficial interest of the clear yearly value
of 101 over and above all charges, except King's taxes,
church cess, and parish rates.

Colonel CONOLLY seconded the amendment.
Lord ALTHORP should certainly oppose the amend-
ment.

Mr. SHAW supported the amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the Amendment '26
Against it 15:2
Majority -1•26
The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Wednesday next.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the House going into
Committee on this Bill being read,
Mr. LEFROY rose and objected to the principle of
this Bill. Although it might not appear at first sight, its
object—be might say its exclusive object---was to prevent
Orange processions. They had only to look at the terms
of the Bill to perceive that it applied especially to the
o,ange party. He was not averse to these processions
being put an end to with the good will of the Orange-
men ; but not to cut them off by the rough edge of the
law. This Bill would produce the very evil it was in-
tended to prevent ; it would encourage animosity, dissatis-
faction, and party spirit ; and would tend to alienate
those on whom the Mini-try might shortly be compelled
to place their sole dependence for the preservation of Ire-
land.—(He;:r, hear, frsni Colonel Conolly.) The time
chosen for the introduction of this Bill was peculiarly ill
judged. Tile Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to forget
that the greater part of Ireland was in rebellion ; or it he
remembered it, it seemed to draw him to the conclusion
that this of all others was the fittest time for insulting the
only loyal portion of his Majesty's subjects that still re-
mained true to the principles of obedience to good Govern-
ment. The only object of the Bill appeared to him to be
to force these peaceable and well disposed men into the
ranks of the great agitator of Ireland. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be
committed that day six months.
Colonel PERCEVAL seconded the motion. He could
call this Bill nothing but a gratuitous insult and outrage,
committed against the most respectable portion of the
pulation of Ireland. He trusted, nevertheless, that, how-
ever provoked, the Protestants would still maintain their
character for loyalty and devotion to their Sovere;gn, in-
stead of (as the Government seemed to wish) throw.
ing themselves into the arms of those who were
shouting for a repeal of the Union. He begged, however,
to be rightly understood. He bad, during all his life,
been opposed to these processions. For twenty years he
bail succeeded, in his own county, in preventing these pro-
cessions ; but, nevertheless, to this atrocious measure—to
this unjust aggression on the rights of the people—he
would give his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. STANLEY said that the speech, of the Hon.
Member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval) was a decisive proof
of the necessity of the measure, and that no other
measure than this would be sufficient. The combination
betweea the Protestant Member for Sligo and the
Catholic Member for Kerry was another proof of the same
fact. The Hon. and Learned Member for the University
of Dublin had given his opinion, that the Bill was calcu-
lated to point out the processions it was intended to
put down. If, however, the Bill affected Orangemen,
and these processions alone, it was because they alone kept
alive by their processions those feelings of a religious ani-
mosity which it was the object of the Bill to put down.
Before this Bill was brought in, the Orangemen were de-
termined to come forth in great numbers, on July 14th,
to insult their Roman Catholic brethren—(No, no)—and
overawe the administration of the law.—(No, no, and
hear, hear.) He had taken down the words of the Hon.
Member for Sligo, and lie had stated that the Orangemen
were to display their physical force on that day. He had
m wished that the meetings should have subsided of
themselves, but now they were again rising up in de-
fiance of the law. They were not, however, new. In
1930, General D,Arcy reported that the Orange proces-
sinns in Ulster had been more numerous than they had

I een for many years before, and If not put down,
serieus evils must be expected. The report was
made to the Government of the Duke of Northum-
berland, and that processions hail a manifest tendency
to keep alive religious dissension. In 1831, also,
the Orange processions were again numerous, and
were held in defiance of the law. The first letter be
received on entering office contained the description of the
destruction of a village in open day, in Armagh, by an
Orange procession. The Orangemen challenged the Ca-
tholics to fight, as gentlemen challenge each other. Per-
th s, who went thus forth armed and insulted the people,
were the primary cause of the bloodshed that occurred.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to two charges,
elven by Judge Jebb in Armagh and Donegal, in 1830
and 1831, to 'how what was the legal character of these
processions. The Judge stated the processions were not
unlawful in themselves, but in the present aspect of the
times, prudence must be consulted. The commemorations
formerly praiseworthy and meritorious, were under these-
changes and circumstances, dangerous, and led to bloods
shed : they were, therefore, not legal. The processiont
were described by the Judge to be illegal, whatever 'nigh
be the intentions of the parties, if they were likely to lead
to injury, outrage, and bloodshed. If that were a cor-
rect opinion, the Magistrates were placed in a difficult
situation, when they had to decide on these prudential
considerations, whether these processions were legal or
not. The necessity of the enactment then arose from
this difficulty ; and it was intended as much to be a guide
and protection to the Magistrates themselves as a preven-
tion of outrage on the part of the part of the people. The
Bill would not interfere with any of the ordinary and
peaceful processions of the people. The Dorkey Queen
might be crowned as usual at Dublin. The Bill was con-
fined to religious processions calculated to excite irritation
in tither classes of the people. The Hon. Member for the
University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy) asked why did not the
Ministers le,tielate to put down Police' Unions and other
illegal assemblies? 'Why, so the Ministers would, if the
Hon. and Learned Member would bring forward legal
proof of the illegality of their assemblies. He was happy
to say that the outrage committed by numerous parties of
Whitefeet, to which the Hon and Learned Member had
alluded, were fast diminishing. The Hon. and Learned
Member could not mean that they were to be put down by

new laws. If they were illegal already they would be
suppressed. He admitted that the Political Unions were
dangerous to the Government; in his opinion, however,
the hest way to get rid of these Unions was to let them
dissolve of themselves. That the Orangemen would not
do. With them the experiment had been tried, and it
had failed. The Orangemen were said to be very loyal ;
he would put their loyalty to the test, by calling on them
to obey the legislature. He knew the Protestants and
Orangemen were distinct, and that the latter were only
the last embers of an expiring and bigetted faction, who
would preserve order in their own way, but would allow
nobody else to do it. He meant to apply these remarks,
not to all th 4 Orangemen, but only to the lower classes of
them, who were so ignorant that they could easily be ex•
cited to outrage.
Colonel PERCEVAL exp'ained, that he had not sail
the Orangemen were to meet to overawe the Government,
or to insult their Catholic countrymen.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the speech of the Right
Hon. Secretary had shown that the Bill was totally unne-
cessary. He contended that the law at present was suffi•
cient to punish outrages; but the Government had not
taken any means to bring those to justice who had violated
the law. Those processions were already illegal, accord-
ing to Judge Jebh, and it was only necessary to make the
Magistrates do their duty. This law was intended to
establish a bad precedent in Ireland that might hereafter be
applied to England. The Government had encouraged
the Orange Yeomanry, by increasing the number of h.m
from 17,000 to 30,000. The Hon. Member entered into
a history of processions in Ireland, and contended that
Orange processions were not, till very lately, looked upon
with jealousy by the Catholics. If the Government put
down the processions, it could not put down the sprit
which dictated them ; and if it suppressed them on
particular days, they would take place at every marriage
and every burial. The people could not he stopped, and
they would only be irritated by the processions beinr, sup-
pressed. In conclusion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
would cordially support the amendment.
Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the Bill.

Mr. J. GORDON would support the amendment. As
long as Political Unions were suffered to exist, it was most
unjust to attack the Orangemen.

Mr. SHAW insisted that the manner in which the
Right Hun Gentlemen had introduced this measure wit;
hut a mode of exciting violent feelings in one party while
he professed to put them down in another. He contended
that this was an absurd and unjustifiable measure directed
a,4a:nst a few comparatively peaceable Protestants in the
North of Ireland.

Mr. LAMBERT deeply regretted the opposition of his
H ot, and Learned friend the Member for Kerry, by whom
he expected the measure would have been received with
that gratitude which it really deserved. He was surprised,
taro, that his Hon. and Learned Friend should have imagined
11 that opposition he couid reconcile parties who never
could be united. But let not the Government hesitate—
they would deserve and obtain the thanks of their country
if they persevered in their endeavour to overturn in Ire-
land every supremacy but the supremacy of the law. He
hoped that this Bill might be passed with the greatest
rapidity, in order to prevent the effusion of blood which
he anticipated would otherwise take place on the 12th of
July.

Sir R. BATESON said there was no danger that there
would be any blood shed on the 12th of July, if the
Orangemen were left alone.—(A laugh ) He protested
against this Bill as too partial.
Sir EDMUND HAYES wished to know why the
Right Hon. Secretary called the Orangemen an expiring
faction, when it appeared that their cumbers had increased
trebly within the last year ? He insisted that they were the
only body on which the Government could depend in case
of emergency.
Mr. M.O'CONNELL was of opinion that this Bill was
as likely to be inefficient as it was indiscreet, and he should
therefore vote against it.
Colour! CONOLLY had strong and insurmountable ob-
jections to this measure.
Mr. HENRY MAXWELL bad been instructed to pre-
sent the petition of the Orange Lodges of Ireland against
t re 8.11.

Captain JONES thought the Bill would be productive
of the ino3t injurious effects in the north of Ireland.
Mr. A. LEFROY opposed the Bill.
The House th.-n divided amid lound cries of question--
For the Amendment
Against it llO
Majority for Ministers -81
On our return we found the House in Committee on
the Bill.

On the question that the preamble be agreed to,
Mr. PERCEVAL, amid loud cries of 4 Go on," must,
at that hour of morning, take leave to move that the
Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
After some conversition and repeated cries of " Go on,"

Mr. STANLEY was not disposed to divide the House
on the Hoo. Member's motion, provided that it was under-
stood there would be no discussion on the Speaker's leav-
ing the chair to go into Committee at a subsequent period.
With this understanding the CHAIRMAN reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday
next.

The Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half past Three o'clock till
Wednesday.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Juys 25.

The LORD Cl/A XCELLOR took his seat at Frye o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. HUME, Lord STANLEY, Lord ASHLEY, and others,
brought up the Portman Market Bill, and two other pri-
vate Bills.

The Marquess of SLIGO presented a petifon from
Rallyrohe, in Mayo eouaty, in favour of the new plan of
education in Ireland.
Lord SEFTON presented a similar petition from the
Dissenters of Liverpool.
? Several Bills were forwarded a stage.
Lord GLENGALL moved for a return from the Con-
stables of Police of the number of outrages committed i❑
certain southern counties of Ireland within the last three
months,—Ordered.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY presented several
petitions front Sunderland, against the Sunderland Duck
13:11.

The Sale of Beer Bill was read a first time.
The Bishop of EXETER moved for returns relative to
Irish Education, as did also the Earl of WICKLOW, which
were respectively ordered.
Earl GREY presented a petition from Heading, praying
their Lordships to take into consideration the revision of
the Criminal Code.

Lord RADNOR presented a petition from York against
the renewal of the Bank Charter without inquiry.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition
from Horsham, praying for a revision of the Criminal Code.
The Duke of SUSSEX presented a similar petition from
the clergy, bankers, merchants, and others of the county of
Lancaster ; the signatures amounted to 1,000 and up_
wards.

Lord HOLLAND presented a similar petition from
Warrington, in Lancashire, He was glad to find that

opinions so consistent with religion, philosophy, and prin-
ciples of good policy were gaining ground.
Lord CANIPERDOWN presented a siwilar petiti,n
from Wakefield.

Lord DINORBEN presented a similar petition, as al,o
did the Duke of LEINSTER.

Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar petition from
Kingston-upon-Thames, and expressed himself strongly in
its favour, the punishment of death being often inflicted
most unnecessarily and inexpediently.
The Marquess of CLEVELAND presented petitions
from Olney and Beverley to the same effect.
Lot.' BELHAVEN gave notice that on Thursday next
he will present a petition from tire General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland on the subject of the Irish
system of education introduced into Ireland.
On the motion that the whole House do resolve itself
into a Committee on the Anatomy Bill,
Lord TENTERDEN felt himself called upon to express
is dissent to this Bill. If he were to consult only his own
feelings, he should vote for the Bill, as it would relieve
him and his brother Judges from the performance of a
most unpleasant duty. The principal objection he bad to
the Biil was, that there was no secondary punishment
known to and sanctioned by the law, which could operate
to terrify ill-disposed persons from the commission of
crime. The Noble Lord who had just addressed their
Lordship bad adverted to the United States of America,
but that country was in a situation so different from ours
that we ought not to follow her example. He wished to
see some secondary punishment selected, and its utility
confirmed by experience, before he consented to take away
altogether the punishment of death. If any secondary
punishment of that nature could be discovered, a Bill like
that upon the Table should have his hearty concur-
rence ; but it would be, in his opinion, extremely dan-
gerous to alter the law till some such punishment was
found. He hoped certainly to see some more efficacious
secondary punishment proposed ; but he was afraid, if
this measure were passed, that such a hope might be
disappointed. If the measure were postponed, the
natural and strong desire to find such a punishment would
• continue; but if it were passed, and the whale question
settled before such a punishment were found, the de-ire
would die away, and he was afraid that no such punish-
ment could then be discovered. To protect property was
one great business of legislation. For that chiefly men
associated together; and he could not yield to the
doctrine, which he had sometimes heard, that it was con-
trary to their feeling of duty towards human beings,
to take the measures which were necessary for the
protection and security of property. In the argument
which was sometimes stated against taking life he could
not agree, though he admitted that the necessity for doing
that ought to be clearly made out. The object of the
present Bill was to put an end to the punishment of death
for stealing in a dwelling house to the value of 51. The
offence of stealing in a dwelling-house was first made
capital in the reign of William 111., and then it was made
capital to steal to the amount of 40s. The Act stated
that disorderly persons were induced to plunder the
property of their masters and others by the be-
nefit of clergy; and to deprive such persons of this
advantage, the Act was passed to deprive such per-
sons of the benefit of clergy. After a considerable time,
the Legislature was induced, by the alteration in the value
of property, to make the sum 51. He believed the
temptation to steal would lie greatly increased if the pu-
nishment were to be abolished. It was correctly said that
the punishment was rarely inflicted, and therefore that it
ought to he abolished. That it was rarely inflicted he was
glad to know, and whatever complaints, therefore, were
made of the severity of the law of England wane wet e made
as to the mede in which it wag administered. The corn-
plaints were not directed against the administration of the
law, but against the law itself. Though the law, there-
fore, was severe, the mode of administering it necessarily
alleviated much of that severity. Whatever doubts other
people might have, lie had none, that, when a man was
ahle to say positively that he should not suffer death for a
certain crime, that he would have less repugnance to com-
mit it than when he must say, as at present, that though
he might escape yet there were great probabilities that hP
might be punished with death. The object was to prevent
crime, and that he thought was accomplished by this appre-
hension. It was said that the prosecutors would not prose-
cute on account of this severity. He believed that to be not
correct. Another branch of thisßill was to abolish the punish-
ment of death for stealing horses. That was made capital so
long ago as the reign of Edward VI. The stealing of sheep
was not made capital till the reign of George I. Certainly
since that time the offence had decreased ; but he did not
attribute this altogether to the law, but to the greater
ease of tracing such property and caution in buying it.
The Noble Lord next adverted to the practice which he
said formerly existed, of the Judges telling the Jury to
find the value of the property stolen different from what it
really was, and said that such a practice no longer existed.
The Judges were anxious to press upon the Jury the ne-
necessity of finding the value of the article, according to
what it would be worth if sold. It was said that proses
cutors abstained from prosecuting nut of humanity; he
knew that such professions were made, but he did not be-
lieve they were always well founded ; for
many prosecu-
tors acknowledged that it was to save themselves trouble.
Ma Ladphip concluded, by recommending, as we under-
stood, that the Bill should be postponed, with a view of
finding some satisfactory substitute for the punishment of
death, before that punishment was abolished, and the No-
ble Lord declaring himself willing to lend his aid in at-
taining that object.
[The Noble Lord was not audible below the bar, and
the above is only a conjectural outline of what we believe
his Lordship said.
The Earl of ELDON said he had not had much expe-
rience in criminal courts ; but for twenty-five years he
had been the individual who had advised his Majesty as to
the infliction of the punishment of death, and he hoped be
had discharged that duty conscientiously, as he was sure
he had with much assiduity. He never went to the King
with the Recorder's Report in hip hand, without having
carefully read every case it contained, made an abstract of
the whole evidence, and considered the effect of that evi-
dence, and its bearings in each particular case. It was no
easy task to find an appropriate secondary punishment, for
that had employed his thoughts and attention for twenty-
five years, and he never could find what he considered a
proper secondary punishment. He must state to their
Lordships, that according to his experience the fear of
death did very often operate to prevent the commission of
those crimes against which it was directed. He remem-
bered a particular case, that the Judges having fe.und a
great number of horses stolen, had declared that on the
next circuit they would leave every man for execution
who was found guilty of that offence. He believed that
between that and the next circuit not one horse was stolen
in all England; so that the Judges were saved by that
fact from putting into execution the di nunci rtion
they had previously made. Many crimes of the same de-
nomination differed so touch in circumstances, and were
so different in degrees of guilt, that the Legislature bad
been compelled to make a sweeping law to embrace them
all. He need not go further than the subjects mentioned
in the Bill, to find an illustration of this fact. One part
of the Bid related to horse-stealing; and he remembered
two cases of horse-stealing which would explain what he
meant—one was the case of a man who stole a horse in
the neighbourhood of London, and afterwards sold it to
some person near the Small- pox Hospital, who killed it.
That horse, it was proved on the trial was, not of the
value of five shillings, except to be killed. The Crown
extended its mercy to the man, and it certainly would
have been a hard case if the law had been suffered to take
its course. In the same report was another case of a
man convicted of stealing a horse eight or nine miles from
London, in the county of Essex. On this man's trial

it was proved by those who traced his progress after
stealing the first horse, that before he reached
Lusdon he had stolen nine horses more. Not only
was he guilty of all these offences; but it was also proved
On his trial that there were found on him the keys of all
the turnpike-gates within six miles of London. These
two cases were very different, and he was not able to find
out how one law, one punishment, could be made to ap-
ply to such different cases, though they came under the
same denomination. The same difficulty was found with
respect to forgery. Suppose a man was to forge a check
upon him fur 101., be should as soon think of hanging
hina,<elf as hanging the man for that single offence. But
forgery might be committed with some most aggravated
circumstances ; there might be great breaches of confi-
dence...--a person might be intrusted with powers of at-
torney and might defraud all his customers—a man might
du as Fauntleroy did, forge all the names of the customers
I for whom he was trustee, and might take out of the pockets
of those customers, in a few months/ 250,0001. or
:300,000/. ; and to say that such a man was not to be
punished with death, out of respect for human life, was
cirrying the doctrine too far ;: and in that he could
riot agree. If a man was to steal Si. in his dwelling-house
he would prosecute, in the confident hope that the capital
punishment would not be inflicted ; otherwise be would
feel
miserable at the thought all his life. But suppose 51.
were stolen from a cottager in his dwelling-house, the
crime very different, for this might be every
shilling
he
e wouldh
d be
in
the world, and more, perhaps, than he
could collect again by ten years of industry and frugality;
and yet how could a secondary punishment be found with
a
to each of these two cases? He
a general name applying
rook credit to himself for placing at the head of the Court
of King's Bench one of the very best men in the land, and

their Lordship!s had heard whit he said on the subject of
.furies, and be concurred with him, that juries generally
did their duty. Before, then, they altered the law, let
them settle what was a proper secondary punishment.
As fpr himself, he could never find one that was sans-
factory.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see that the capital
denunciation could be dispensed with consistently with the
prosecution of enormous crimes, and the mitigation in
proper cases ought to be left to the Crown, whose mercy
was never withheld where it ought to be extended. Let
their Lordships consider that a robbery of 101. might be
worse to some poor people, than a robbery of 10,0001. to
some of their Lordships. If their money to a large
amount should We drawn from their banker's by a forgery,
it might put their Lordships to an inconvenience for two
or three weeks, but if a poor man were robbed of 1001. in
the same manner, the loss to him might be ruin, and he
might not be able to accumulate so much again in fifty
years. He implored their Lordships to settle first the se-
ise:id:3.l-y punishment, and till then to continue to trust to
the mercy of the Crown, leaving the law unaltered.
Lord DACRE admitted it was desirable that they
should have in view the secondary punishments to be sub-
stituted for the capital, hut they might endeavour to adopt
punishments similar to those which were in operation in
America, in the Netherlands, and in France, as had been
suggested by his Noble Friend below him. The number
of instance in which capital punishment was denounced,
but not inflicted, rendered the denunciation ineffectual by
way of prevention, and yet it often rendered people un-
willing to prosecute. In the years 1826, 7,8, 9,
30, and 31, there had been 933 capital convic-
tions for sheep. stealing, and of these only 14 of the
culprits, or about 1-14th per cent., had suffered.
As to the two instances of horse-stealing mentioned by
the Noble and Learned Lord, he admitted that was a case
in which the discretion of the Judges might be properly
I exercised, and he did not wish to deprive them of all die-
, cretionary power. But then it ought to be considered
that these statutory enactments of sanguinary punishments
were passed in comparatively barbarous and ignorant
times, and in those times they might have been attended
with a considerable effect ; hut such punishments were
not now consonant to the feeling of the people, and there-
. fore they could net be executed, nor operate as a preven-
t tive. Their Lordships would find from the returns, that
in all those crimes to which this Bill applied, the propor-
tions of executions, as compared with the convictions,
was so small, that the denunciation would have little effect
on criminals by way of prevention, while prosecutions were
diminished. and Bills ignored owing to that denunciation.
If the punishments were milder the prosecutions would
be more certain, and also the convictions and punishment.
In order to show the effect of such a mitigation,
he might refer to the report of Manfredi, as to the
effect of the system followed by the Grand Duke Leopold
of Tuscany. There it appeared that certainty of prosecu-
tion and conviction had increased with the mitigation of
the punishment, and that crimes had, in consequence,
gradually diminished, and that, subsequently, when a
different system was adopted, an increase of crime had
followed the incteased severity of punishment. In the
same manner he was of opinion that the passing of this
B 11 would have a tendency to diminish crime.
Lord WYNFORD had telt a strong inclination to vote
for going into a Committee on this Bill, but he was very
much struck with the arguments of his Noble and Learned
Friend, whit called upon them, in the first place, to settle
the secondary punishments. In America they had the
greatest difficulty in finding a proper secondary punishment.
They had not even a proper piece of transportation, and
criminals were wandering up and down in America in dis-
grace, after having been discharged. He was anxious
to repeal capital punishments, except in cases of enormous
crime ; but still they ought to settle the secondary punish-
ment before they altered the law. Transportation had
now terrors. On the contrary, crimes were sometimes
committed with a view to transportation. On the first
circuit which he went as a Judge, a man was tried before
Mr. Justice Holroyd for a theft, and it appeared that he
had committed it solely for the purpose of getting himself
transported, and he was acquitted fur want of the ani-
mus furandi, and so was disappointed. It was the
fault of this Bill that it looked to the diminution of the
punishment of the guilty rather than to the protection of
the innocent. Horses and sheep were a kind of property
that was very much exposed, and it required the protec-
tion of the terror of capital punishment. If the punish-
ment of death were too frequently inflicted, that would
have been an imperative call for alteration ; but the argu-
ment was the other way. We had not, and could not
have, so efficient a preventive police as that which existed
in some other countries ; and therefore it was necessary
that our legal code should be more severe; and yet they
had lately heard of a case in France, in which a man, by
way of mitigation, was sentenced to 15 years bard labour.
The LORD CSANCELLOR did not mean to occupy
their Lordships' attention long; but after the opinions
which he had always advocated in another place, he could
net allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words.
That this subject was one of the greatest importance no
one could doubt; and it was as little doubtful that it was
surrotmded with a great deal of difficulty. But the dif-
ficulty ought not to deter them from discussing the sub-
ject, and adopting such amendments as could be adopted
on sound principles and in consistency with the pub-
lic interests. He coneratulated the House on the
moderation which had been displayed in the discus-
s ons on this subject, both in this and the other
House. It was certainly a subject in reference to which
all party feelings ought to be discarded. He had listened
with the greatest attention to the arguments of his Noble
and Learned Friends, and if he could have agreed with
them that the denunciation of death had a tendency to de-
ter people from committing crimes, lie would have thought
that the law might not be altered. But he must say that
his opinion as to its deterring people from the commission
of crime differed from their opinions. He did not know
any law, human or divine, that forbad the taking the life
of man for committing enormous crimes. Sonic perms
had an objection to the infliction of capital punishment for
any crime but murder, because the Scriptures had said—
"He who shetideth blood, by man shall his blood be
shed." But then the Scriptures did not say that in no
other cases should death be inflicted ; but only that in that
case at least, death should be inflicted. But well-informed
and well-regulated minds must be aware that death might
be the penalty for other enormous crimes on the same
principle that murder was punished with death. What was
it that justified the putting a criminal to death for murder
It inflicted a great and irreparable injury on the murdered
man anti his family, but still they had no right to
take the life of the murderer merely as a punishment
for the crime. The only principle on which the putting
the murderer to death was justifiable was, that the com-
mission of such an enormous offence might thereby 'be
prevented as much as possible. The punishment was re-
sorted to, because it was the best security against the com-
mission of the crime that could be adopted; and upon the
seine principle the penalty might be applied for other atro-
cious crimes. Then the only question was, the efficacy of
the denunciation; and if he could agree with ha Noble
and Learned Friends that the denunciation in the cases to
which this BPI applied had the effect of repressing crime,
he should be disposed not to alter the law. But his ob-
jection was, that the punishment had been so long de-
nounced without being executed, that the denunciation was
inoperative ou the criminal. Under existing circumstances
it must needs be an empty threat. Take the case of sheep-
stealing, for instance, and it appeared that in 1831, the
sentelice had been passed on 162 cases, and only one was
executed. In the case of horse-stealing, in the same year,
123 sentences had been passed, and not one was executed ;
and as to the stealing to the amount of 5/. in the dwel-
ling-heuse,loo capital sentences were recorded, and not one
ownalys eoxneecuexteed. execution.
that
~
Out
tieor there re S
of 1,108
I,loswets
capital
sentences,sentences
and
es for
crimes against property, only 11 bad been executed; so
that the criminal had 99 chances out of 100 in his favour.
For this reason, it was notorious that the denunciation
was a (lead letter, and had little effect on the crimi-
nal. But it had an effect on the prosecutor. He agreed
with his Noble and Learned Friend, the Chief Justice of
the King's Bench, that Juries generally did their duty in
administering the law as it stood, and as they were bound
by their (tithes to administer. But the denunciation had a
strong influence in deterring prosecutors and witnesses.
It might be that in some instances persons who ought to
prosecute held back, on the plea of humanity, when the
real cause was to save themselves expense and trouble;
but in many caves, it was beyond a doubt, that prosecu-
tors and witnesses were deterred by the severity of the
denunciation. In the case of forgery, for instance, a pe-
tition had been presented to the House of Commons not
long ago, which might be considered as expressing the
opinion of one thousand country bankers in England, pray-
ing for the abolition of the punishment of death in cases
of forgery—not on the ground of humanity, although they
were humane men, but solely ors the ground that without
that abolition their property could not he adequately pro-
tected. They found it itnp,issitile, in the existing state
of the law, to get people to prosecute, and when prosecu-
tions were instituted by themselves or others, they found the
greatest difficulty in getting evidence and conviction. The
petitioners, therefore, spoke from their own experience,
when they declared that the existing law was found in
operative and ineffectual. But then it might be asked
why, if the small number of cases in which the sentence
,vas executed rendered the law inoperative as to the crim-
inal, did not the same reason render prosecutors willing to
come forward ? The reason was simply this :-.The

criminal acted under a strong temptation, and calculates!
an his chances of escape, while the person who ought to
droseeute reviewed the matter more calmly, and often felt
unwilling to put iu the power of Juries to convict, or o
Judges to exceute. Another illustration might be takenf
front the case of the excise stamps. There had been many
prosecutions for the forging of excise stamps before 1806,
but in that year the forging of them was made capital,
and the prosecutions immediately diminished. After
showing by a variety of cases that a diminution of;prosecu-
lions bad invariably followed the increase of the severity
of time punishment, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded
to remark on the extraordinary reluctance which Parlia
ment had always evinced to lighten the penalty exacted in
cases which had been made capital. Sir Samuel Romilly,
to whose unceasing and never-to be forgotten exertions
for the improvement of the criminal code they were in-
debted for all that had yet been done, and for all that
was ever contemplated—Sir Samuel Romilly had not
lived to see any of his recommendations carried
into effect, for he believed that the repeal of
the law which indicted capital punishment for stealing
in a bleaching-ground was not repealed till the year after
that lamented man's death. It was a curious thing, and
illustrative of the nature of c ipital punishments, that in
the province of Ulster, where their Lordships knew there
were a greater number of bleaching-grounds than any-
where else in the three kingdoms, the total number of
committals for the offence of stealing in a bleaching-
ground i❑ the seven years before the repeal of the capital
punishment were sixty-one, and the convictions only
three, or one in twenty, while in the seven years after the
repeal, the commitments were thirty-seven, and the con-
victions seventeen, or nearly one in two. After observing
on the vast disparity between the commitments, the pro-
secutions, and the convictions in ever case of forgery, the
Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to show, that in that
class of offences which were held in abhorrence by the
public, and in which thelpublic feeling went along with the
punishment, few or none of the criminals escaped. In the
case of murder, for instance, during the last seven years
up to 1830, the number of convictions for ►nurder had been
ninety-nine, and the executions eighty-eight, while the
eleven whose sentences were not carried into effect, did not
escape from any repugnance to carry the la.v into effect, on
the part of the ex:cut.ve or the prosecutors, but in conse-
quence of peculiar circumstances in their case warrant-
ing the extension of mercy in their peculiar cases. He
thought this furnished a sufficient illustration of the folly
of continuing to persist in capital punishments when the
opinions of mankind were against them, and of the efficacy
of the law when these opinions were united in their fa-
vour. When forgery was first made a capital offence,
about thirty years after the Revolution, out of thirty-
eight sentences no less than twenty were carried into exe-
cution ; and in the same manner cattle and horse-stealing,
which was made a capital offence by the 14th of Geo. 11.,
was for a long time punished invariably by a strict execu-
tion of the sentence. Formerly, indeed, it was almost
proverbial, that a man found guilty of forgery would be
executed ; but new it was just as certain that he would not,
and he put it therefore, to their Lordships, whether in this
alteration of the feeling of the time it would be for the se-
curity of property, and the due administration of justice, to
permit the capital punishments to continue in the Statute-
book ? Hiving said so much, he was bound to make one
or two observations on a most important question—that of
secondary punishments. He fully agreed with the Noble
and Learned Lord the Chief Justice of the King's Bench,
that it was absolutely necessary to make secondary
punishments much more efficient, and to increase their
terrors to offenders. By a due modification of the
punishment of transportation, by rendering it more rigo-
rous to all grave offences, and by taking away from any
the hope of e.cape, he entertained a belief that secondary
punishments might be rendered perfectly effective for that
great object, the prevention of crime. It was stated, how-
ever, as an objection, that secondary punishments should
be rendered more effectual, and placed on a better system,
before they repealed the capital punishments. He would
admit the force of the objection if he was not prepared to
give it this answer, that as the severer law was never ex-
ecuted, secondary punishments, even in their deficient
state, were all they had to rely on at the present moment.
—(Hear.) On the whole, therefore, he thought he saw
abundant reason for asking their Lordships to consent to
the measure now proposed.
Lord SUFFIELD supported the Bill, and contended
that secondary punishments had in every instance the moat
beneficial effects in preventing the commission of crime
when they were brought into salutary exercise.
After a few words from Lord SUFFOLK in support of
the Bill, their Lordships went into Committee.
Lord WYNFORD moved, as an amendment, that the
di c etionary power should be taken away from the Judges
with respect to the cases in the Bill, and that transporta-
tion for life should be the inevitable consequence of con-
vict on

The Earl of MELBOURNE saw no objection to tile
amendment, and it was therefore agreed to.
Some other amendments were agreed to pro forma, the
di,cussion on them being, at the suggestion of Earl GREY,
postponed.

The House having resumed,
The Marquees of NORTHAMPTON postponed till
\Vedas fay next, or Wednesday sennight (we coal not
hear which), the second reading of his Bill for securing
Ministers from the loss of their seats on accepting office.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a few minutes after
Eight o'clock, till Wednesday.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER.

A BILL

FOR ABOLISHING THE PUNISHMENT OF

DEATH IN CASES OF FORGERY.
Whereas, by an Act passed in the first year of his pre-
sent Majesty's reign, entitled, " An Act for reducing into
' one Act all such Forgeries as shall hereafter be punished
with Death, and for otherwise amending the Laws relative
to Forgery," it was provided, that if any person should,
after the commencement of that Act, be convicted of any
Forgery, or ether offence therein named or described, for
which he would at the time of the passing of that Act
have been liable to the punishment of death, he should n
suffer death for the same, unless the same should be made
punishable with death by that Act : and whereas, it is
exl.edient to abolish the punishment of death altogether
for offences of that ❑ature ; be it therefore enacted, by the
King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Common;, in this present Parliament assembled, and by
the authority of the same, that so much of the said Act
as enjoins or authorizes the infliction of the punishment of
death in any case whatever, shall be and the same is here-
by repealed; and that every person who shall, after the
passing of this Act, be convicted of any offence whatever,
which was made punishable with death by the said Act,
shall, at the discretion of the Court before whom such
conviction shall take place, be transported beyond the seas
for the term of such offender's life, or for any term of
years not less than seven, or be imprisoned, with or with-
out bard labour, for any time not exceeding four years,
nor less than two years; and it shall be lawful for the
Court to direct that such offender shall be kept in solitary
confinement for any portion or portiot.s of such imprison-
ment, as to the Court shall seem meet.

. And in order to prevent justice from being defeated by
clerical or verbal inaccuracies, be it enacted, that in all
informations or indictments for forgery, or in any manner
uttering any instrument, it shall not be necessary to set
forth any copy or fac-simile of such instrument, but it
shall be tufficient to describe the same in such manner as
would sustain an indictment for stealing the same, any law
or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. YOUNG, the tragedian, on retiring from
the stage, has, we understand, in the most complimentary
manner, presented to his friend Mr. COOPER, of Drury-
lane theatre, almost the whole of his varied and costly
theatrical wardrobe, as a testimonial of his sincere appro-
bation and esteem.

butLheAhPaOsß:ntE
his has
comnopt
li yetcompliments
ntmade s
tothealy engagements,
ilarecompany.pro.
mising to communic ite with them shortly, and expressing
a hope that his arrangements will give general satisfaction.
REFORM FESTIVAL.—To-morrow will be
a grand day to the poor inhabitants of the ward of Cripple-
gste Without ; a dinner to SOO Is to be given in com-
memoration of the passing of the Reform Bill; the tab'es
are to be laid in the extensive carriage galleries belonging
to Mr. DixoNT, at the City Repository, Barbican, who has
generously prod', red the use of his commodious premises
tsar the happy occasion. The fare is to be in the old
English style, and a day of harmony and jollity is antici-
pat,(l, Alderman WOOD has consented to preside at one
of the tables, and the two Common Councilmen of the
Ward at the others.—Morning Herald.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EXCISE,
MONDAY.--TIIE NEW DUTIES ON WINES.—The Ex-
'eke Commissioners, the lion. Mr. TREFUSIS, Mr. PLUN-
KET, and Mr. HARRISON., were occupied the greater por-
tion of the day in hearing and determining information
ta• insiee
ndtu ti,i4eys ot
the
ewpm7k,ewhichwwere imposed
exhibited by the Excise authorities, against divers Wine-
Mr. MAYow, the solicitor to the Ex-
merchants and licensed victuallers, for having neglected to
of WELLINGTON'S
ilAn, Lhteihneil:tetrxeattrpiaoanre.ixi
c;se, attended on behalf of the Crown. The defendants
were veverAlly amerced in double the amount of duty,

PRICES OF STOCKS THil
Rank Stock
3 per Cent. Red. 531.113i
3 per Cent, Cons.
11,6 per Cent.
Ditto Red
Nrew 3% per Cent.
3 per Cent. Ann. 1726 -
1 per Cent. 1826
Stink Long Ann. to expire
Jan. 5, 1860 116% 7-16
Oct. 10, 1869
Jan. 5, 1860
Jan. 5, 1880
April 5, 1880
Jan. 5, 1870

PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS
Austrian Bonds 9144
Belgian Bonds 73
Ditto Account
Brazilian Bonds 74
Ditto Account 45%
Buenos Ayres Bonds 24 3
Ditto Account
Chilian Bonds

Ditto Account
Columbian
Ditto Account
Ditto Bonds, 1824 121j%
Ditto Account
Danish Bonds 67
Ditto Account 66%
Greek Bonds. 2l

Ditto Bonds, 1825. 3044
Ditto Account 30%
Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent 26'
Ditto Account
._.

Ditto, 6 per cent n9V,
Ditto Account 29;
Neapolitan —