The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-31 00:00:00

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

On the motion of Mr. EWA 11T, the House went into a
Committee on the Punishment of Death Abolition
On the question that the preamble be agreed to,
Sir R. PEEL, concurring in several parts of the Bill,
thought there was one crime from which the punishment
of death was removed by this Bill, which he thought
would be attended with some evil. He alluded to the
offence of stealing in a dwelling-house. He would admit
the propriety of relaxing in the extreme severity of the
law in the ca,e of sheep and cattle stealing, as the law
was seldom enforced as to the capital punishment in those
cases ; but he thought the case of horse-stealing was (M..
ferent. It was an offence easily committed, and to liras
great temptations were held out, by the facility a icy
which the horses might be disposed of; and he slid cv.-
tainly think that the remission of the capital punishment
in the case of horse-stealing would be an encouragement
to the offence. But he rose chiefly for the purpose of
pointing out the risk to the security of property, particu-
larly in the metropolis, by the remission of the capital
punishment in cases of stealing in a dwelling-house.
Lord ALTHORP thought it would be exceedingly ob-
jectionable to have punishments in our statute 'cooks which
were very seldom enforced, as was the case at present
with that against the crime of stealing in a dwelling-
house. If there was any personal violence offered, that
might be a reason for enforcing the severity of the law,
but in cases where no such violence was off: red. a lighter
punishment ought in his opinion to be awarded. Under
these circumstances, he was disposed to try the saxperiment
of remitting the capital punishment of stealing in a
dwelling-house when not accompanied with violence.
After a few words from Mr. HUNT and Mr. J. WEV..
LAND,

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that in the course of a long
experience, he had seldom known cases of the kind men-

tioned in the Bill followed by an infliction of the punish-
ment of death. He therefore thanked the Hon. Gentle-
man for having introduced this measure, as nothing cool,'
be more objectionable than to have our statutes nominally
denouncing punishments which were not enforced. It
served to hold out perfect impunity to particular offences.
After a few words from Sir R. INCUS and Mr. STE-
PHENSON (which were not heard in the gallery),
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said the simple prin-
ciple on which this Bill went was, that all great severity
of punishment did not tend to diminish crime. The ex-
perience of the ablest Judges and lawyers, and the most
intelligent jurors, went to show that where the punish-
ment was beyond all proportion severe, as compared with
the act fur which it was inflicted, it had in general the
effect of allowing the criminal to escape altogether ; fur
when men found that the life of the party who stole to
the value of 61. or 71. from a dwelling-house must be
forfeited if he were convicted, they
sect., ants reeling was so general, that many wile
allowed to escape who would be subject to punishment if
the law had fixed that at less than the punishment of
death. Under these circumstances, he thought it was
desirable to try the experiment of fixing a punishment
more proportioned to the offence in the public opinion,
by which prosecution would be more certain, and the ends
of justice better answered.

Sir R. PEEL said, that the very great increase of crime
of late years rendered this subject of great delicacy, and
one which could not be looked upon without anxiety.
Secondary punishments were much relied on by some, but
in the way in which they were now inflicted, they would
fall far short, in most cases, of being an effectual check
on crime. Suppose a man intrusted with the property of
another, should make away with it, that man, in general,
perhaps, would be a man of good education. Now to send
such a man out as a convict, and have him apprenticed out
to a settler, probably an ignorant man, would not in his
opinion be the proper way to dispose of him. Suppose
Fauntleroy, for instance, if he had been sentenced to a se-
condary punishment and transported, and suppose that, of
the 300,0001. or 400,0001. of which he defrauded others,
he could reserve some 30,000/. or 40,0001. for his fultre
use—what would be the result when he got out to New
South Wales? Why, he might lead a life of learned leisure—
for he was a man of learning—and be exempt from all per-
sonal restraint; and it was probable that in three or four
years the Government would be teased with applications
for the remission of the remainder of his sentence. In
that case would not the law be defeated? Then it had
been suggested that, as a secondary punishment, parties
should be exposed to infamy, by being compelled to work
and to exposure in the public streets. He, for one, could
not concur in the propriety of that kind of punishment
There was something so revolting in that sort of exposure,
that he was sure it would beget a sympathy for the crimi-
nal rather than a proper feeling in the justice of his punish-
ment. He had also heard of solitary confinement being
mentioned as an effectual secondary punishment. Those
who thought so were, he apprehended, not well acquainted
with the operation of that sort of confinement o❑ some
men. It was a fact, well known to those conversant with
prison discipline, that a solitary confinement of six weeks
would have the effect on some men of rendering them in-
sane for the remainder of their lives. He should there-
fore pause before he gave to a Judge the power of inflicting
such a !punishment at his discretion, when it was probable
that at the time, he was not at all acquainted with the
way in which it would operate. Under these circumstan-
ces, he thonght they ought to pause before they resorted
to secondary punishments which experience had shown
were not very effectual. He was disposed to go along
with the supporters of this Bill in diminishing the severity
of punishment, where it could be done with a reasonable
hope of decreasing crime by that means ; but there were,
as he had before stated, cases in which he could not con-
cur in the removal of the capital punishment. By the
Bill it was proposed that stealing in a dwelling-house,
where it was not accompanied with violence, should not
he punishable with death. Now he would suppose that a
plan was laid to rob a house in concert with some of the
servants of the owner; that servant might so arrange,
that the robbery could be effected, and to a large amount,
without rendering any violence necessary, though the par-
ties might be prepared to use it if occasion should require;
yet by this Bill such criminals would escape, while thole
who used any violence, though they might steal to the
value of only a few pounds, would be liable to suffer death.
He owned that he did not thing that the security of pro •
perty would be increased ; on the contrary, he thought it
would be greatly diminished by such a change in the law.
Mr. GODSON (as we understood) defended the
changes proposed by the Bill.
Mr. P. BUXTON said, that in many instances prose-
cutors were unwilling to come forward, as had been ob-
served by the Right lion. Baronet, on account of the ex-
pense and the loss of time, and criminals in consequence
escaped. But there was another class of persons to whom
the Right Hon. Baronet had not adverted, and to whom
those circumstances did not apply, who were anxious to
evade the law ; he spoke of jurymen. He had, upon a
former occasion, shown that they frequently brought in
verdict* contrary to the facts of the case, fur the purpose
of saving the lives of prisoners. Their fedings were so
strong, that they did not hesitate to violate their oaths for
tie purpose of sparing human life. He should support
the present measure, because it was calculated to remedy
that evil. _ .

•
Mr. W. WYNN thought that they would be as litilvNe
Is their ancestors, who had awarded the same punishment
for lifting up a h tied by a bit of string., or bleaking a
cvrleilordodwistainiacdtiaohnstarnadcti:giasasiitfiacialticion article frourwith repeat
it,
as ditfilloisi :
m
a case ofmost atrocious robbery, if they did not make a

.31, -

,-. .
. eltnei.,whish should, and those crimes which should root,
1,:k00 iisiterrapitally. It was desirable that the punish
."=..., attlt-shonld remain with reference to certain offences com-
,V,JrniOed during the night, but that it should not extenil to
Aatb'ik Saine offences when perpetra•ed in the day. t'iill
re.pect to horse-stealing, he thought that a limitation
;should be put to the exportation of That anima!, by w .ich
the offence !night be greatly checked. Particular orts
might be named from which alone horses should be, ex-
-1 1
ported, and a book might be k,pt, in which a descliptloo

of their marks, &c. should be entered. Execution for
that offence very rarely occurred. He recollected butl one
n London. That was the case of Probert ; and he suf.
tered for former crimes rather than for stealing the horse,
since the offence was committed under the least aggrava-
tion that it was possible to imagine. It was necessary
that the law should he altered, when they saw witnesises,
jurors, and judres, all combining to deprive it of its selves
rity. The law would be lieu r administered if a lighter
and more certain punishment were affixed to certain
crimes. He thought that the brand might lie introduced
Iseneficially. A culprit would carry that stain with him
is whatever country lie went ; and the fear of such a
disgrace would operate as a preventive of crime.
Mr. G. LAMB said, that with regard to the crimes
contemplated by this B:11, there had latterly Lean, in gene-
neral, no increase. Horse and cattle stealing, which was
generally effected by gang., and not by isolated individuals,
was not so prevalent as it had been. With respect to pri-
vately stealing, there had been some increase, but not a
very material one. Those who looked to the pipers that
were laid on the table would perceive that the increase was
very small indeed. As to female malefactors, there was no
increase. Indeed, since 1829 there had been a positive
decrease, and it roust, he consolatory to the House to know
that the female portion of society wia in a sound and
wholesome state.—(A laugh.) With respect to abolishing
the punishment of death for stealing above the value of
Si., he had, when his Hon. Friend brought in the Bill,
doub•ed the propriety of such a measure. He, however,
was now of opinion that such an alteration was advisable.
That was the only crime on the statute-book, the punish-
ment of which depended on the criterion of value, and he
thought that it had better be removed. The Right Hon.
Bart. had adverted to the aggravated crime of servants
robbing their masters. But still let them bring forwatd
whatever case they would, the capital punishment de-
pended on the stealing over the amount of 51., although a
robbery of less amount might be attended with circum.
stances of greater atrocity. He agreed with the Hon.
Member for Weymouth, that nothing could he more dis.
gusting than the shifts to which jurymen were obliged to
have recourse, for the purpose of lowering the value of pro-
perty stolen to a certain sum ; and therefore the system
ought to be altered. It had been suggested, that by raising
the value to 1001., and awarding capital punishment only
to those who stole to that amount, the difficulty which
juries now felt in convicting would be removed. But he
o ejected to this, because he (lid not think that, in any case,
the value should be the criterion of punishment. If they
sholiehed the punishment of dealt in every case except in
threw where the public feeling went along with them, lie
did not think that they would be going too f ir. He was
ready to vote for the whole Bill.
Mr. SHAW dill not recollect any instance in Ireland
where horse-stealing had been capitally punished. He
thought the best and safest course was to Adopt a smaller
and a more certain punishment (ban was at present receg-
ni eI. He should support the Bill.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL had paid great attention to this
subject, and he was of opinion that the measure now pro-
posed would be found beneficial. If was an error to sup-
pose, that when these laws were first framed it was not
intended that they should be carried into effect. If they
looked to the reigns of Queen Anne, of George I. and 11.,
And the earlier part of the reign of George 111., they would
find that the punishment under those laws was rieor-
ously enforced. But the change which hail since been
effected in public feeling, rendered an alteration ne•essary.
Horse-stealing had, for a great number of years, been
rarely punished capitally. He recollected but one in-
stance. The prisoner was convicted at Staffird ; but he
had no idea that the criminal would be left for ixecution,
and he heard of his fate with absolute horror. He did
not approve of the idea of branding criminals. Such a
mark would effectually prevent them, however reformed
they might become, from mixing in society.
Mr. LENNARD said, that the observations made by
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite pointed to a great defect
in our mode of legislation—namely, that of cl iseing a va-
riety of crimes, differing in degree, under one common de•
nomination. For instance, in burglary, it seemed absurd
that he who entered a house armed at night, prepared to
commit murder, if necessary, in the execution of his pur-
pose, should come under the same class of offenders as
a child would, who, after dark, should break a pane
t.i gin. 61.1.1 55,1 i a , 1 Ac. 1",..:., •..... r_-:-.4. ~7,
worthy the attention of Government, and he hoped
that something would be done to improve the laws,
by making t' .e punishments enacted by them bear
some proportion to the nature and character of the
ci inie. With respect to the particular crime which had
been alluded to principally in the course of the dehate,—
namely, the crime of stealing in a dwelling-house,—he
admitted there were cases of aggravation, such as were
stated by the Right Hon. Baronet ; but still it must be re-
collected, that the crime was not one likely to lead to per-
sonal violence ; and as be was averse to making the
amount of value a criterion in case of life, he should sup
port the Bill in its present state. With reference to what
had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet in regard to
secondary punishments, he thought the difficulty of mak-
ing them effective had been over-rated. In the case
of Mr. Fauntleroy, of whom it had been said, that
under any system of secondary punishments he would
be living in luxury, he would ask, could no law be devised
which should prevent that ? and, further, how could these
luxuries be obtained, when it was known that the commis-
sion of such an offence as that for which he suffered his
property would have been forfeited? He felt a great ob-
jection to the present law, on account of the large discre-
tion vested by it in the judge. Practically, the law was
exactly in the same state as if it were to be enacted that
the punishment for the crimes of horse-stealing, sheep-
stealing, and stealing in a dwelling-house, should be trans-
portation, but with a proviso that that the judge at his
discretion might increase the punishment to death. Would
the House consent now to enact such a law ? if it would
not, why retain a law which in practice did the same
thing ? Allusion had been made to the difficulty of find-
ing prosecutors. He believed that the Bill of his Hon.
Friend tended to remove that difficulty by making the
enactments of the law more conformable to the feeling
and humane spirit of the people of this country.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON expressed his approbation of the
provisions of the Bill. That the offences which it contem-
plated were formerly in almost all instances capitally
punished, was proved by this fact, that for thirty years
after the laws relating to those offences were passed, two-
thirds of the capital punishments that took place were fur
offences committed under them. But, sixty years after-
wards, those laws were so stronely opposed to the feelings
and sentiments of the age, that the executions for stealing
from the person. and stealing in dwelling-houses, &c , only
amounted to one-eighth of the whole number. He agreed
with the Hon. Member for Dublin, that the adoption of a
moderate, but certain punishment, was the only efficacious
mode for the prevention and repression of crime. He
would take from the Judges the very extensive discretion
which they at present possessed, which could only be done
by an accurate classification of crime and a just apportion-
ment of punishment. It had been observed by Dr. Paley,
" that the great beauty of the law of England was, that
it sa•ept into the net of crime every act that could possibly
be considered criminal." That doctrine had, however,
been completely demolished by Sir Samuel Romilly, who
forcibly pointed out the evils of our complex system of
criminal law. At present the Judge hail the option, in
many cases, of transporting felons for seven or fourteen
years, or of sentencing them to a short imprisonment. The
injudiciousness of leaving such a discretion in the power of
the Judge was clearly proved by a case which occurred in
Norfolk, and which was related by Sir Samuel Romilly.
It appeared that a robbery had been committed by
two p. rsons ; one of them was taken, and the other
escaped. The captured felon was tried bef re Lord Lough-
borough, and convicted, The Learned Judge did not
consider the offence a very heinous one, and he only sen-
tenced the convict to a few months' imprisonment. The
man who absconded afterwards gave himself up. He was
tried before Mr. Justice Gould, convicted, and sentenced
to seven years' transportation. What a source of reflec-
tion must it be for the little public amongst whom this oc-
currence took place, when they saw that, whilst the one
criminal was looking through the bars of his prison, the
other was on his way to Botany Bay, each being equally
guilty. He thought that the appointment of a public pro-
secutor, such as existed in Scotland, would be productive
of beneficial consequences.

Mr. CRANIPTON said, that the cruelty which charac-
terized our statute law formed no part of the common
of the land, and that the only object which would justify
the severity of our criminal Il,s,3—namely, the diminution
of crime,—had not been attained in this country.
Mr. HUME was most happy to find that this Bill was
about being passed into a I itv. The example of the
United States of America should long ago have taught ui
a wi,e and practical lesson on this subject. There they,
executed, except in cases of murder; and the
milder pusishruents which were substituted in the sti'act
w that of death, had been found to produce much better

effects than the severer laws which existed in this country.
fle did not think that secondary punishments had got a
fair trial in this country. He was sure that if secondar)
punishments were more strictly enforced in New South
Wale,,,--that if, instead of its being in the power of the
Governor there, or of persons in the Colonial-office at
home, to liven to applicitions on the part of convicts, and
to commute, or to remit, their sentences, every intl.-
eithisl transported for seven or fourteen years to New
South Wales was certain of being kept to hard labour for
he whole of that period,—he was sure, be repeated, that
if such a system as that were acted upon, secondary punish-
ments would in most cases, be found abundantly sufficient,
and that the punishment of death might be almost alto-
gether dispensed with.
Mr. E\VART concurred in the praise which the Hon.
Member for Middlesex had bestowed on the American
system, and expressed his hopes that in a short time we
should follow the example of America, and in a great de-
gree abolish the use of capital punishment.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to draw the attention of the
Under Secretary of State, who was not in the House
when he made his former observations, to the manner in
which the Governor of New South Wales exercised his
power as to the remission of second try pranishments in that
colony. Instead of persons who had been brought up in
a respectable class of life being at all entitled, when trans-
ported to New South Wales, to he treated in a way dif
ferent from that in which other convicts were treated, it
appeared to him, that if any thing they should be sub-
jected to a still severer punishment.— (Hear.) He was
convinced that nine out of ten of the "gentlemen" con
viers who were sent out there, escaped in a great degree
the punishment due to their offences, and the result was,
that transportation had little or no beneficial effect what-
ever. If Government put an end to such a state of things,
and if it took care to exclude no individuals from punish-
ment except fit and proper objects for mercy, he was quite
certain that the secondary punishment of transportation
would be found in most instances to be amply sufficient.
II • hoped the attention of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Althorp) would be directed to this point.
Mr. LAMB said, that the matter to which his Hon.
Friend referred more properly came under the jurisdiction
of the Colonial-office. He, for one, did not think that
transportation to New South Wales was a punishment at
all fitting for persons who had moved in the rank of gen-
tlemen. Such persons, it might be supposed, were, gene-
rally speaking, possessed of acute feelings, and to them it
must be a refuge and a solace, instead of being punished at
home, where they were stung with shame and oppressed
with disgrace, to be sent out to a distant colony- like New
South Wales. He thought it would be a much better plan
to have such persons punished at hotre,—(Hear, hear,)—
and he was of opinion that at all events when sent to New
South Wales, they should be treated precisely like other
convicts.
The Bill then went through Committee, and the House
having resumed, the Report was ordered to be received
to 11101701 V.
KING'S COUNTY ASSIZES BILL.
Lord TULLA3IORE moved the committal of this Bill.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL moved that it be committed to a
Select Committee upstairs.
Mr. CRAMPTON seconded the Amendment.
Lord TFLIAMORE opposed the Amendment, and
supported the Bill.
Mr. CRAMPTON said that the necessary consequence
of removing the assizes to Tullamore would be, that the
King's county would be put to the expense of building a
Court-house. If the petitioners, however, were prepared
to make out a case, they ought to have the opportunity.
Mr. H. GRATTAN could not support the prayer of
the petition.
Mr. A. BARING thought it would he far better to
adapt the law of Ireland to that of England, where the
Lord Chancellor and Judges decided where the assizes
should be held. This House was the worst tribunal for
deciding the point, where there was a wrangling, not on
the justice of the case, hut individual interests.
Aster some observations from Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Leader, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Ponsonby, Sir
M. W. Ridley, Mr. Rutliven, and Mr. R. Grant, the
House divided,
When there appeared--
For the original motion
Against it 3B
Majority against the amendment —l2
On returning to the gallery, the House was in Com-
mittee on the Bill.
The House resumed, when the report was brought up,
and ordered to be received on Friday next.
COLONIAL SLAVERY COMMITTEE.
Lord ALTIIORP stated to the House that the Com-
mittee to consider the important question of colonial
slavery was to consist of the following Members, whose
of the impartiality exercised in the selection :---Lord J.
Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Sir J. Graham, Sir G. Murray,
Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Burge, Mr. W. Evans,
Lord Sandon, Lord Howick, the Marquess of Chandos,
Mr. A. Johnston, Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Holmes,
Dr. Lushington, Mr. Baring, Mr. F. Lewis, Lord Ebring-
ton, Mr. Carter, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Hodges, Mr. Ord,
Mr. Fazakerley, and Mr. Alderman Thompson.
EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD-ADVOCATE moved that the House
should resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Sir W. RAE objected to the change proposed by the
Bill, on the ground that it would cause the interests of
poor suitors to be neglected. The Learned Gentleman
concluded by moving as an amendment that the Bill be re-
ferred to a Select Cotnnrittee, alleging that the subject had
not yet been fully investigated.
The LORD-ADVOCATE supported the Bill, and ob-
jected to the amendment on the ground that there had
been already sufficient inquiry. It was rather singular
that his Hon. and Learned Friend should objet to the
measure on the ground of a want of inquiry, who had
made, while he was in office, many greater alterations in
the courts of late in Scotland without any inquiry whatever,
Mr. PRINGLE supported the amendment.
Mr. HUNT spoke a few words in favour of the orig
na! question.

Sir
G CLERK objected to the constitutio❑ of the for.
trier Committee, and supported the proposition fur further
inquiry.

Report to.

Toe Bill then went through Committee.
morrow (this day).
THE REFORM (IRELAND) BILL
was committed, pro forma, to be taken in further eons
deration on Monday next.

PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Mr. BARING moved the order of the (1,,y for the se-
cond reading of this Bill. He would take the discussion
on the next stage, and hoped the House would agree to
the present motion on that understanding.
111 r. LENNARD gave his hearty support to the Bill of
the Hon. G ntleman, so far as it went to take away a
privilege which it was neither useful nor creditable to the
House to retain. But he was disappointed that the Bill
did not extend to Peers as well as to Members of the House
of Commons. It ought to be made to do so. On all for-
mer occasions, when the House of Commons relinquished
a I,rivilege, the House of Peers did the some. It was
well known that f ,ruierly privileges of Parliament and of
Peerage extended to the lands, the goods, and the domes-
tics of Peers and Members of the House of Commons ;
by degrees, these privileges had been restrained at the
same time in the case both of Peers and Members.
He thought a similar course should be pursued on the
present occasion ; for he was sure, that so long as the
present law of arrest continued, by which a poor trades-
man might be dragged away from his family and impri-
soned, no class of persons ought to claim an exemption, or
be privileged to defraud his creditors with impunity. He
hoped what he was saying would not be construed into any
approval of the present law of arrest. He thought the
present state of the law in that respect most objectionable,
and he hoped that it would be soon changed ; but while it
was suffered to exist, he thought all persons ought to he
equally affected by it. He therefore hoped the Hun. Gen-
tleman would consent to give his Bill greater extension, so
as to include Peers as well as Members of that House.
After a few words to the same effect from Mr. Hum'
and Mr. RL'THVEN, the House divided.
For the second reading
Against it
--34
Majority
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Friday.
Adjourned at Half.past Two o'clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, MAY 30.
The Earl of SHAFTESBUKY took his seat, as Speaker,
a little after five o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. BERNAL and Mr. SCHONSWAR, and others from
the Corntuon.,, brought up several private Bil:s, which
were read a first time.

CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE NAVY BILL.
Oa the motion of Lord AUCKLAND, this Bill as
read a third time and passed.

REFORM.

The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from Wadi-
burn, signed by 8,353 inhabitants, praying their Lord-
ships to pass the Reform Bill, without curtailment of its
essential provisions.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a similar petition
signed by the High Sheriff of Berks, but adopted at th.