The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-01 00:00:00

THE SPEAKER.

Lord ALTHORP said the address to his Majesty agreed
to last night, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to
confer on the Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton some
signal mark •f his Royal favour for his services during the
six Parliaments he had filled the office of Speaker, was
presented to his Majesty this day, anti his Majesty had
commanded him to say, that he would comply with the
request of the House, but as he could not do so without
the assistance of Parliament, he recommended them to
adopt such measures as were necessary for that purpose.
The Noble Lord having laid his report on the table, moved
that to-morrow the House resolve itself into a Com-
mittee to take the King's most gracious reply into con-
sideration.—Agreed to.
Mr. STANLEY moved that the Irish Reform Bill, with
the Lords amendments thereon, be taken into considera-
tion to-morrow, and that they be printed—Agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. S. RICE, the Exchequer Bills
Bill and the Sugar Duties Bill were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed to-morrow ; and the Consoli-
dated Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Friday.
Lord ALTHORP put it to an Honourable Member
opposite (Mr. Sadler) whether, at the present ad-
vanced period of the Session, and at a time when
so many Members were absent, he thought it ad-
visable to bring forward the resolutions respecting the
labor of children in factories, of which he bad given notice
for this evening. As the resolutions could have no effect
as law, and would only be a declaration of opinion, it
would be hardly right to endeavour to obtain that opinion
when so many Members of the Committee that had sat on
the same subject were absent.
Nr. SADLER said the subject was of very great iru-

Sir F. BURDETT brought forward his motion relative
to the state of the sewers of the metropolis. The present
system, by which a variety of local Boards were entrusted ,„/L..
with the management of the sewers in districts, was ex-
tremely defective. It was important to the health of the dr;
cammunity that the system should be wholly abolished, and
all the sewers be placed under one Board of Managernent. 4>r
In several parts of the town there were no sewers at all,
though large sums were levied for the purpose. Ire bt-
lieved the revenues for that purpose exceeded 200,000/.
which, according to the opinion of scientific men, was quite
sufficient properly to drain London. The Hon. Baronet
then referred to a letter which he had received from one
of his constituents who possessed property on the Vaux-
hall road, where the state of the sewers had become such
a nuisance as considerably to deteriorate that property,
and on applying to the Commissioners no notice was taken
of it. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, that the
House should direct Mr. Telford to make inquiries anti re-
port on the present state of the drainage of London, and
also to point out if any better plan could be adopted.
Lord ALTHORP admitted that the subject was one of
great importance, and one in which inquiry ought to have
taken place; but he thought it would be better that that in-
quiry should proceed from the Government than from the
House. He thought, however, that arrangements should
be made with the local authorities, in order to throw as
little expense as possible on the public.
Mr. WARBURTON thought there should not only be
surveyors appointed by the Government in order to survey
and report upon the whole system, but that Government
should also appoint a Commission to inquire into the
present state of the sewerage in the metropolis.
Mr. HUME said, if the whole system bad been
under one Board, even since 1800, the whole of the
Metropolis would have been properly supplied with
sewers at one third of the expense incurred since that
time. He hoped the Noble Lord would include in the
commission the whole of the laws relating to that subject.
Mr. WARRE said that Mr. Telford's survey had been
mentioned, and he wished to know if it would be laid
before the House this Session.

Mr. SPRING RICE was afraid it could not
be prepared in time. Government were anxious to
have it made public as soon as possible, and would
bring it before the House at the earlist opportunity.
Mr. C. PELHAM concurred in the plan proposed by
the Hon. Baronet.
Sir F. I3URDETT fully concurred in the suggestions
thrown out by the Hon. Member for Middlesex. He
would withdraw his motion, and leave the subjt•et entirely
in the hands of Government.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

CANADA.
Mr. HUME moved for copies of papers relative to the
Established Church, and the Administration of Ju4iee
in Canada.—Ordered.

Civic LIST.
The Report of the Committee on the Civil List and Ci-
vil Government charges was brought up, the Resolutions
agreed to, and leave given to bring in a Bill.
TITHES' COMPOSITION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, the House resolved
itself: into a Committee on the Irish Tithes' Composition
Bill.

The first clause baying been 1% ad by the CHAIRMAN,
Mr. LEADER expressed himself opposed to the measure.
The CHAIRMAN called his attention to the first clause
of the Bill, as being the question before the House.

Mr. LEADER complained of not being permitted to
declare his sentiments on a measure so important to Ire-
land. He conceived that, under the circumstance, he
should be justified in moving that the House be counted.
Mr. STANLEY expressed a hope that be would not
adopt a course that must itnpe;ie the progress of the public
business.

Mr. MACNAMARA fAt it to be his duty to his con,
stituents, to prevent so mischievous a Bill from proceeding
in any stage when there was such a thin attendance of Irish
Members.

Mr. STANLEY said that the fault was not his that
there were so few Members in attendance. If the lion.
Gentleman (Mr. Leader) decided upon adopting the course
to which he had alluded, it only remained for him to
withdraw the motion for that evening.
Mr. LEADER intimated his determination to move that
the House he counted in case the Right Hon. Secretary
proceeded with the Bill.
After some observations from Lord ALTHORP and Mr.
WALLACE,

Mr. STANLEY withdrew the motion, when the Home
resumed, and the Chairman reported progress pro forma,
and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow (this day).

FORGERY BILL.

The order of the day having been read,
Sir T. DENMAN rose to propose the third reading of
the Forgery Bill. The Learned Gentleman observed, that
on a former occasion a similar bill had been rejected by
the House of Lords ; but it appeared to him that that
result was only the delay of a question, which ought to be,
and he was convinced would be, settled as soon as possible.
The punishment of death now affixed to the crime of for-
gery, had not the effect of checking that offence. The
severity of the punishment prevented prosecutors front
coming forward ;,it deterred witnesses from appearing, and
evert turned judges aside from the stern peformance of their
painful duty, It bad been asserted, that prosecutors were
not, on account of the severity of the punishment, deterred
from preferring indictments. He should answer that as-
sertion by referring to a petition which had been presented
to Parliament, and which emanated from a large body of
the merchants and bankers of London, in which the peti-
tioners declared, that in consequence of the difficulty of
procuring convictions, they found it useless to prosecute;
that their property was in consequence rendered insecure,
and they prayed that such an alteration should be made
in the law, as would secure to that property a due degree
of protection. Again, it was said, that jurors in case of
forgery were not unwilling to do their duty strictly.
In answer to that assertion, he would call the atten-
tion of the House to the petition of 1,100 jurors of
the city of London, who had petitioned Parliament
ou this subject. In that petition those 1,100 ju-
rors expressly stated the difficult and delicate situa-
tion in which they were placed, when cases of forgery, in-
ro'v n; the lives of individuals, came before them. It was
undoubtedly most desirable that forgery, as well as every
other crime, should be provided against. So said the
p iblic ; but their opinion was, that it should not be met
by the penalty of death. By a late Act, the punishment of
death for the forgery of deeds and certain other documents:
except wills, was commuted, and ha could not see any
good reason for not extending that principle, as was in.
tended to be done by the present Bill, to forgeries of a
different species. The Learned Gentleman, to show that
prisoners, whose offences brought them within the liue of
capital punishment, depended on the merciful feelings of a
Jury for acquittal, in consequence of the fearful nature of
the penalty, instanced the case of a man (Lavers) whom
he had, about a month since, been sent down to the Old
Bailey to prosecute. The criminal had obtained 1,1001.
from the Pay-office (on account of a deceased officer) by
means of a variety of sham documents. On examining
the evidence, he ssw that the charge of forgery could not
be substantiated. When this was intimated to the
prisoner, he immediately pleaded guilty to the minor
charge ; but be understood, that as respected the capi-
tal charge, however strong the evidence might have been,
he would have pleaded not guilty. Again, a case oc-
curred, not long since, when a servant of Mr. Pollock
was indicted for robbing his master. The prisoner was
found guilty of stealing under the value of 5!. When
quitting the dock, he used very abusive language to the
learned person who presided at his trial. " I wish," said
he, " that that old judge had not told the jury so touch
about the effect of stealing under the value of al., for
then I should have stood a chance of acquittal, and secur-
ing life and liberty." Here it was evident that the cer-
tainty of the infliction of a secondary punishment was
strongly felt. Secondary punishments, transportation for
instance, were, he contended, beneficial. He thought that
the secondary punishment of transportation might be
rendered more effectual, if, where convicts en cur colonies
ecquired property, they were obliged, as far as possible, to
make restitution out of that property to those whom they
had injured. 'the principle upon which this Bill pro-
ceeded had been approved by that great man, Dr. John-
son, who, in one of the papers in The Rambler, hail
forcibly pointed out the cruelty and absurdity of the exist-
ing system. That the fear of the extreme penalty did not
deter from the commission of this crime, might be in!erred
from this circuneetance,—that a man named Davies, who
was one of the jurors on the trial of Da Dodd, and line
also who was very active in jirosTiring, the convicti,,, of
that unfortunate individual, did i iinsdi, with that m-lan-
choly example before him, commit forgery, and expiated
the crime by a public ex. cution. He tru,t,d the House
would agree to this Bi 1, He intended to introduce a
clause to extend the principle of the Bill to S eel Ind and
Ireland; and another for the purpose of making convic.

:;

.t
-

tions more certain. This latter datum would render it
unnecessary to set forth the forged instrument ; under its
provision it would be sufficient if it were stated generally,
as was the case in indictments for larceny. The Learned
Gentleman concluded by observing, that had his late illus-
trious friend, Sir James Mackintosh, whose loss they all
deplored, been in existence, he had reason to know that
be would have gone to the full extent of this Bill.
Nothing, in his opinion, was more honourable to the cha-
racter of that great man, than that he had, with reference
to the improvement of our criminal code, pursued the
footsteps of the venerated and lamented Sir S. Rornilly.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that when recently a revi-
sion of the criminal code took place, which was effected
by a Right Hon. Friend of his (Sir R. Peel), capital pu-
nishment was continued, with reference to murder, rape,
forgery, cattle-stealing, and burning. It was supposed at
the time, and the question then underwent much conside-
ration, that the alteration then proposed and agreed to
would be final. The Attorney-General had told them
that the late Sir James Mackintosh was favourable to such
a measure as that now brought forward. If, from his
knowledge of that learned personage in private life, the
Attorney-General was enabled to come to that conclusion,
he, of course, could say nothing in opposition to it. But
so far as a public demonstration of sentiment went, be had
reason to believe that Sir James Mackintosh coincided in
the classification of offences as contained in the revision of
the criminal code to which be had alluded. He could not
help stating his conviction that Sir James Mackintosh was
of opinion, after the fullest consideration of the subject,
that the criminal code, as then settled, laid down the
maximum of the relaxation of the criminal law of this
country. The cases that were to be dealt with in that re-
vision were naturally divided into two classes—those which
affected the person, and those which affected property.
Murder and rape, appertaining to the former, were, of
course, as the most atrocious offences, still kept within the
pale of the highest punishment. Burglary, too, which
could not be committed without a most serious breach of
all that was sacred in the social systent, and arson, were
placed in the same division. Cattle-stealing was also dealt
with in the like manner. And here be might observe,
tl a- one of the moat humane, and learned, and. philan-
thropic men this country had ever produced—he meant
Dr. Paley—kad assented to the propriety of this punish-
ment in cases of cattle-stealing, on account of the ease
with which cattle might be abstracted, and the immense
quantity of property of that nature which was left unpro-
tected. Forgery also was continued a capital offence under
the altered law. But although in the commission of for-
gery every safeguard to property was broken down,—
though it was generally committed under circumstances
the most revolting and treacherous,—yet it was sought by
this Bill to do away capital punishment with reference to
such a crime. The alteration made in the law relative to
cattle-stealing, he strongly condemned. Some of the most
able and learned men on the bench had stated that the new
Act placed them in a very difficult situation. It was quite
clear that cases of cattle stealing might occur where a re-
laxation of the law, at the discretion of the Judge, would
be most proper. But no discretion was now left to the
Judge. In every case the sentence, under the new Act,
must be transportation for life. The modern pedants in
legislation had taken away all discretion from the Judges,
and the least culpable, as well as the most atrocious offen-
der, received the same punishment. The Learned Gen-
tleman then proceeded to expiate, at some length, on the
dreadful consequences of forgery, and went on to say, that
this Bill, instead of checking that crime, would have the
effect of letting such enormous delinqueuts as Fauntleroy
escape that punishment which was justly metited by the
magnitude of their offences. That feeling of aversion to
the punishment of death in cases of forgery was not of an-
cient existence, nor in accordance with old and high au-
thorities, legal and moral. It was, on the contrary, of green
growth, and of perfectly modern origin. The doctrine on
which this measure was founded was not to be met with
in those authorities which were generally revered and
looked up to,—it was a doctrine for which we should
search in vain in the works of Mr. Locke, or in the
writings of Addison, and the other moralists and lumina-
r'es of the Augustan age of English literature. It was not
a doctrine advocated by that great philosopher of morals,
Dr. Johnson ; on the contrary, in the letter which Dr.
Johnson addressed to Lord North on behalf of Dr. Dodd,
then under sentence of death for forgery, that great writer
rested the propriety of mitigating his punishment on a
totally different principle, namely, the disgrace and injury
which the execution of Dr. Dodd would entail on the
clerical body, of which he teas a distinguished member. It
was a doctrine not to be found in the writings of the mo-
ralist, Paley, or in the disquisitions of our great jurist,
Blackstone, but it was reserved for the pedantic and ab-
surd soi-disant philanthropists,—the smelling-bottle and
white-pocket-handkerchief gentry of the present day, to
discover such a doctrine—to hunt out such a principle, and
to apply it practically to the Legislation of this country.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON was anxious to take that last
opportunity to express his entire and cordial approbation
of the principle of this Bill, and that the provisions had
been extended to Scotland. He begged to remind his
Hon. and Learned Friend opposite (Sir C. Wetherell) that
the Bill imposing transportation for life on all persons
found guilty of stealing cattle, without any discretion being
left, as formerly, in the hands of the Judges, and which
Bill his Hon. and Learned Friend had so justly ridiculed,
was not the Bill as passed by the House of Commons, but
was the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords,
with the absurd and unlawyer-like amendment there in-
troduced into it by his Hon. and Noble Friend Lord
Wynford.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.") So
far from this Bill taking away the protection, as his Hon.
and Learned Friend had contended, at present given to
Bank Stock property, it was the object of this Bill to
afford that property due and real protection.—(Hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that the
writers of the Augustan age of English literature, the
writers in the reign of Queen Anne, did not sanction or
countenance the principle on which this Bill was founded ;
but the Hen. and Learned Gentleman should recollect,
that it was impossible for them to do so, as the crime of
finery was not then punishable by death, and was not
made a capital offence until the reign of George 11. when
an Act was passed for that purpose. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman said that he would find no such doctrine
im that promulgated by this Bill laid down in the writings
Or. Johnson. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
looked into The Rambler, he would find princip'es advo-
sated there completely in accordance with those of the
supporters of this Bill. The Hon. Member here read a
long extract from the 104th number of The Ramb.'er,
which, he contended, was as strong a quotation as could
be adduced from any author, in favour of abolishing the
13 •
unishment of death for offences such as those contem-
plated by this Bill. With reference to the crimes of bur..
glary, murder, arson, and rape, they were offences attended
with violence, force, and terror, which made them proper
for severe punishment; but he at the same time thought
that the law with respect to burglary ought to be amended,
and more accurately defined.
Sir E. SUGDEN deeply regretted that a measure of so
great importance as that now before the House should have
been brought forward at so late a period of the session, and
when there was not, he was sure, now more than forty
Members present—nay, indeed, at one period during the
present discussion there had not been twenty Members
in the House. He would beg to deny the assertion, that the
measure of his Hon. Frien7r, the Member for Tamworth,
OR this subject was paused without discussion, for the
measure had been most elaborately discussed. Na man
was more anxious than he (Sir E. Sugden) was to get rid
of capital punishments, but still there was much matter,
in dealing with the subject, for careful consideration. Tor
opinion of the late Sir James Mackintosh, who had given
much attention to this subject, had been re'erred to in
the course of the present discussion ; but he remembered,
on the last occasion that this question was before the
House, that learned individual stated his opinion to be,
that the crime of forgery of wills ought to he punished
capitally, and he (Sir Edward Sugden) wanted
to know whether any circumstances had occurred to
change the opinion of the Government, by whom the
measure was stow proposed, and with whom that
late Right Hon. Baronet bad acted. He feared
that the abolition of the punishment of death in this crime
would rather tend to its increase, and that it would be
found that forgeries would be carried on upon speculation,
and by joint companies or partnership concerns, in the
same way as the extensive robberies hail of late years been
effected by capitalists; be said capitalists, because great
sums of money were expended in planning and making
preparations for a single robbery, and who took no part in
the actual commission of the crimes themselves, but had
the means of affording a temptation to others to commit
the offence. It was not his intention to oppose this Bil',
though he certainly thought the Noble Lord opposite (Al-
tliorp) was taking upon himself a very great responsibility
in making thus change. He must add also, that it had
been stated, and that statement had reached him (though
he begged to he understood as not tnaking it from any
connection with the body to which it referred), that great
fears were entertained by the Bank of England, that if
this Bill were to pass into a law, they would not be able to
carry on their business with any security. He (Sir E.
Sugden) thought so too.
Mr. HOME, Lord ALVIORP, and Mr. KEARSLEY ta se
together.
Mr. KEARSLEY rose to order, and move! that the
House be counted.

Strangers were ortit red to withdraw. The House wai

counted, when it was found that a sufficient number of
Members were present to constitute a House. On our re-
admission into the Gallery we found
Mr. HUME addressing the House in support of the
Bill. He characterized the existing laws of this country
as too sanguinary, and expressed his sincere hope that ca-
pital punishments would soon be done away in many cases.
Sir F. TRENCH felt much pleasure in supporting this
measure.

After a few words from Sir CHARLES WETHERELL in
explanation, _ . _

Lord ALTHORP, in answer to the objection made by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for St.
Mawe's, that this matter should be brought on so late in
the Session, could only remark that the subject was not
new to, the House, but had frequently been di:cussed be-
fore, and even in the present Parliament. On the other
point to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had re-
ferred, he begged to state that he had not communicated
directly with the Bank of England on this subject, but he
certainly had heard that some influential personsconnected
with the Bank of England entertained fears with regard
to the effect of this measure. He (Lord Althorp) however,
had no such apprehension himself. :The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman opposite had referred to the case of Fauntleroy,
and he (Lord Althorp) now alluded to it for a directly
different purpose to that for which it had been brought
forward by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He (Lord
Althorp) now mentioned it to remind the House, that
even notwithstanding the heinousness and great morul
turpitude in that case, which certainly called for the se-
verest punishment of the law, yet in that case the feelings
of sympathy in this country were raised against the
punishment of death. He admitted the objection taken by
the Hon. and Learned Member for St. Mawe's--namely,
that Government were nit prepared with any good salu-
tary plan of secondary punishments; but this was a point
he had always been inclined to give his best attention to ;
and though the subject did not immediately come within
his official duties, he should continue to give it his consi-
deration. In his opinion, the punishment of death ought
only to be carried into effect in cases where personal vio-
lence and injury had been inflicted, and on that principle
he thought the feelings of the country were with him.
Mr. SADLER supported the Bill. He had himself
suffered from forgeries, but could never bring his mind to
prosecute, from a feeling of the consequences that might
ensue.

Mr. P. THOMSON could confirm the statement that
the severity of the punisment for forgery prey, nted the due
execution of the law. There had been cases within his
own knowledge, where bankers and others had allowed
forgeries to pass unpunished, owing to their repugnance to
do any thing that might make them incur the possibility
of beir.g obliged to prosecute capitally. As to whether
the BAnk of England had any objection to this measure,
be did not think that the Bank of England was the only
party to be consulted,—(Hear,)—or any other body of
men. He knew, however, that in the Bank there were
some gentlemen opposed to the punishment of forgery with
death.

The LORD ADVOCATE rose rather in the character
of a witness, to state that, from his experience in Scotland,
the extreme and unmitigated severity of the law rendered
it difficut to secure a conviction for forgery. By the com-
mon law of Scotland, death was attached to what were
called the graviora delicta; but the public prosecutor
might mitigate or restrict the charge, and not proceed for
a capital punishment. Formerly, the graviora delicta
were commonly prosecuted capitally ; but of late years it
had become a matter of extreme difficulty to convict for
forgery; and within the last four or five yea's, he and his
Learned Friends had found it necessary, in cases of clear
guilt, to restrict the libel to a minor charge, not affecting life.
He wou!d undertake to say, that in 19 out of 20 case.,
during the last six or seven years, the public prosecutor
had been obliged so to restrict the libel.
Mr. WYSE concurred in the extension of the law to
Ireland.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
RECORDER OF DUBLIN BILL.

On the motion of Mr. HUME, the order of the day was
read for the second reading of the Recorder of Dublin Bill.
Mr. SINCLAIR opposed the further progress of the
8111, which, he contended, was unjust, and ought not to
have been brought forward at this late period of the s,s..
sion. He moved, " that it be read this day three months."
Sir C. FORBES seconded the amendment.

Mr. WARBURTON moved that the House be counted,

The gallery was cleared,when it appe 'red there were only
28 Members present, and, consequently, the House ad -
journed at Ten o'clock.

LIST OF FORTY MEMBERS WHO WERE PRESENT
WHEN THE HOUSE WAS COUNTED. AT NINE
O'CLOCK.
Althorp, Viscount
Bernal, R.
Blake, Sir F.
Bouverie,
Capel, John
Carter, J. B.
Cramptan, P. C.
Denman, Sir Thos.
Ferguson, Sir R.
Ferguson, R.
Forbes,
French, A.
Graham,
Grey, Colonel

HalMurton,
Hawkins, J. H.
Horne, Sir W.
Hume, Joseph
Kearsley, J. H.
Kennedy, T. F.
Labouchere, H.
Macaulay, T. B.
Maberly, NV. L.
Morrison, J.
Penrhyn, E.
Russell, C.

Sibthorpe. C. D. L.
ISinclair, G.

Smith, R. Vernon
Strutt, E.
Sugden, Sir E. B.
Thomson, C. P.
Villiers, T. H.
Walker, C. A.

Warburton' H.
Wetherell, Sit C.
Wood,
Wrightson, W.
Wyse, 'l'.

1 Sadler, 'M. T.