The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-08 00:00:00

THE CASE OF PAUL AND STRAHAN.

Mr. H. SHERIDAN asked Mr. Secretary Walpole
whether it was his intention to recommend to her Majesty
that Sir John Dean Paul and Mr. Strahan, the late bankers,
should be pardoned, on the ground that they had already
been puhished to the extent demanded by the laws of the
country ?
Mr. WALPOLE—I have to request the attention of the
house to the question which has just been put to me, and
to the answer which lam about to give. The question has
been put to me in a form which would lead to the inaccu-
rate impression that Sir J. Paul and Mr. Strahan have
already been punished to the extent demanded by the laws
of the country. These questions are of the most painful
character to one who fills the situation which I have the
honour to hold—(hear, hear)—but as it has been put to me
I had better answer it instead of requesting the permission
of the house to refuse to answer it, as under ordinary cir-
cumstances I should have done. I had better answer it,
because great mistakes have occurred with reference to the
subject, and also in order that the house may be made aware
that Parliament itself is partly the cause of the complication
which exists with respect to it. By the law under which
Sir John Paul and Mr. Strahan were tried, and which still
exists unrepealed, the offence of which they were convicted
--that of selling securities deposited for safe custody with
them and appropriating the proceeds to their own use—‘was
punishable by transportation for not exceeding fourteen
years and not less than seven years. These unfortunate
gentlemen were tried in October, 1855 ; and they were con-
victed under that law, not of one single offence, but I must
point out, without any wish to press unduly upon them, of
a series of offences which was the cause of misery to hun-
dreds of people, equal to any which they have suffered from
the punishment inflicted on them. (Hear, hear.) It is
true that Parliament has since, unhappily, sanctioned
another law—the Fraudulent Trustees Act—without repeal-
ing the old law, which enacts for precisely the same offence
a punishment of not exceeding three years' penal servitude,-
or not less than two years' imprisonment. It was under
these circumstances that I was pressed to say whether an
entire remission of their sentence ought not to be granted to
these gentlemen. My first duty was to inquire what had
been the practice of the Home-office with reference to
recommendations to be made to the Crown where punish-
ments of a graver nature had been relaxed by subsequent
statutes. I am speaking in the presence of three of the
ablest men who have filled the office of Home Secretary, and
they will confirm me when I say there is no instance in the
records of the Home-office of any person tried and con-
victed under a particular law being held entitled to a miti-
gation of punishment in consequence and on account of
any subsequent legislation. Perhaps I may be permitted
to say that most extraordinary representations have been

made, sometimes by persons high in rank and position,
attributing to me that by a prejudiced view of the case, and
by a severe administration of the law, I had imperilled the
lives of these prisoners, and destroyed the mind of one of
them. Such representations, totally unfounded as they
were, ought not to have proceeded from such a quarter.
(Hear, hear.) The question is whether, under these cir-
cumstances, the law being complicated by subsequent legis-
lation, and the principle of the Home-office, founded on
good reasons, being such as I have stated, there is any
ground for my recommending, not a mitigation—for that is
not asked for—but an entire remission of the sentence. I
wish to point out to the hon. gentleman and to the house,
and through the house to all persons who may take an in-
terest in matters of this kind (in fact, they must interest
the whole community) that in ordinary cases where a series
of gross delinquencies have been proved it is not usual to
limit the punishment to the maximum of one offence ; but
for the interests of justice very often to add another punish-
ment to begin when the first expires. Placed under such
circumstances, I have no means of judging, except by con-
jecture, what the courts would do; but I have thought it
right to consult the highest authority in the land, and I
am informed by him that it is reasonable to consider the
subsequent law as virtually repealing the former law, and
as entitling the parties to some mitigation, though not
stating what. it ought to be. (Hear.) Now, it is my duty
to lay down a rule with regard to the future and with re-
gard to the past. With regard to the future, it will be in
the power of the Court to say whether, when a serious and
grave offence has been committed, the punishment shall
or shall not be the maximum described by the Act,
or whether the punishment shall be cumulative,
I have, therefore, no difficulty with regard to the future.
But, with regard to the past, I must endeavour to lay down
a rule, party by conjecture, as to what would have been the
punishment awarded supposing the second statute had been
the statute under which these gentlemen had been tried.
The only conclusion to which my mind has arrived is this,
that if I can lay down some rule I ought to do so ; that in
laying down that rule I should take special care to draw no
distinction between those convicted under the statutes—
(cheers)—and that on behalf of myself and of every one
who may hereafter hold the office which I have the honour
to hold I should request most humbly, respectfully, and
earnestly the support of the house with reference to the
discharge of the duty that devolves upon that office. I hope
that the house will at least feel confident that, without any
partiality on the one hand, or any prejudice on the other,
I shall endeavour to take care that justice is properly ad-
ministered, and discharge to the bast of my ability this
mcst delicate, difficult, and painful duty. (Cheers.)
ARMY COMMISSIONS.
On the motion of Sir DE L. EVANS, a return was
ordered of the Treasury minutes relative to increasing the
remuneration of the officers of the army, and the impossi-
bility of doing so until they shall be relieved from the
necessity of purchasing their commissions on the 20th day
of July, 1857 ; the 13th day of March, the 21st day of June,
1858 ; and the 21st day of January, 1859.

POPULATION RETURNS.
On the motion of Mr. BRIGHT,. a return showing the
population of each county and division of a county, and of
each borough, according to the census of 1851, the num-
ber of electors, &c , reprinted in June, 1858, was ordered to
be again reprinted, but with two additional columns, the
ono showing the population in each case according to the
census of 1841, and the other showing the computed pro-
bable population on the completion of the eighth year since
the last census—namely, on the 23d of March, 1859, the
computation to be made from a comparison of the most
recent and authentic materials in the hands of the Registrar-
General ; and, in cases where no other materials exist, the
computation to be made according to the ratio of the ascer-
tained annual increase or decrease,' as the case may be, be •
tween the population in 1841 and 1851; and the column
showing the number of Parliamentaryvoters in each county
and borough to be taken from the meet recent returns Which

exist, and to distinguish betwixt the number of "freemen"
in boroughs and of other electors,

' SUPPLY.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
That part of the Speech from the Throne requesting sup-
ply having been read,___ _

Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved that a supply be granted to
the Queen.

Lord J. RUSSELL -said the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other night that the
time at which the Reform Bill should be introduced—
(Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh")—depended upon two other
questions. One of those questions related to the naval esti-
mates. There could be no difficulty in calculating upon
what day the Government would be prepared to lay those
estimates upon the table, and the right hon. gentleman
could probably name upon what day they would be brought
under the consideration of the house.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I
cannot name a day, but I will ask my right hon. friend to
take care that no time shall be lost. The course intended
to be taken by the Government with reference to the bill as
to the representation had been communicated with perfect
frankness to the house, and I think that the question of the
noble lord must be taken to be answered by that state-
ment. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—It was in consequence of that state-
ment that I put my question.

The motion was then agreed to.
OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL.

Mr. WALPOLE, on moving the second reading of this
bill, said he had discovered that there was another day be-
sides those he had mentioned on Friday evening on which
particular forms of prayer were ordered to be used—
namely, the 23d of October, in order to commemorate the
day upon which the conspiracy during the siege of Dublin
was supposed to have been discovered—(laughter)—and ho
had therefore thought it right to include that day in this
bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD said the bill did not go far enough.
The Government ought, without further delay, to reform
the Book of Common Prayer, and put an end to those dif-
ferences on religious doctrine and discipline which caused
so much division in the Church of England. He asked
why should the clergy of the established church be pre-
cluded from preaching in dissenting places of worship ; and
why, on the other hand, should eminent dissenting minis-
ters be precluded from preaching in pulpits of the Church
of England ? For these reasons he thought the Govern-
ment ought to allow the house some time to consider the
provisions of this bill. He moved as an amendment that
the bill be read a second time that day week.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment. The
bill had only that morning been placed in their hands.
Members of the Church of England, who took a deep inte-•
rest in everything connected with the Prayer-book, ought
to have some time afforded them to consider the clauses of
the bill. Even if its principle had already been sanctioned,
and to a certain extent acted on, yet the Government should
allow some time for consideration of the details.

Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the house would not require
seven days to do an act of absolute common sense. (Hear,
hear.) Wore they to stop now to discuss the propriety of
abolishing such services as those for the execution of
Charles I. and the commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot
of Guido Fawkes ? The question did not require a delay of
seven minutes, much less seven days. (Hear, hear.) He
could not understand at all what his hon. friend and col-
league (Mr. Hadfield) meant. (Laughter.) The matters he
had referred to concerned only those who were members of
the Church of England, but his hon. friend always prided
himself on being a dissenter. (Hear, hear.) If the Church
of England chose to preach 24 hours every day it could be
nothing to him. (Laughter.) He hoped the house would
deal with the bill like men of common sense. The Govern-
ment had at last come to the conclusion that these services
were unnecessary, and he trusted the bill would be read
without delay. (Cries of " Divide 1")
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his amendment ; and
The bill was read a second time, to go into committee
on Friday.