Star.
London, England, 1821-06-22 00:00:00

CRIMINAL LAWS.

The Marquis JCLAK SDOWN, on the second
reading of the Bill to amend the Law applicable to
Stealing in Dwelling-houses, stated, that as the Law
stood, it was punished with death. That penalty was
considered too severe, and in several instances per-
sons had neglected to prosecute, because they knew
conviction must lead to capital punishment, and
Judges and Jurors were frequently induced, under
this idea, to redace the property stolen below the
value of 40s. The Noble Marquis concluded by
mov
Theing the second reading.
LORD CHANCELLOR was adverse to the
Bill. Ile knew how dangerous it was to alter the
Criminal Law. In some cases of stealing in the
dwelling-house, no person could say the punishment
ought not to be death. The Noble and Learned Lord
alluded to the case of entering a poor man's cottage,
and compelling him to discover the little property
he may have been working for all his life, and to
which he looks as the only worldly assistance he can
receive in sickness or old age.
The Earl of CARNARVON contended, that the
utmost difficulty had been found to get Juries to
convict, or Judges to capitally punish for these light
offences. But these scruples would be done away
by enacting, as by this Bill, the next severest punish-
ment to that of death, and that was transpcntation
tor life. As long as our laws were so severe, they
never would answer the purpose expected from them ;
namely, capital punishments. In 'numerous instances
had individuals, and himself among others, abstained
mom prosecuting for offences, legally capital, but
not morally so.
Lord SIDMOUTH said, the knowledge of the in-
crease of crime, was founded upon the known in-
crease of prosecutions; and while these increased,
executions had diminished. The numbers now exe-
cuted, compared to those of 1749, were as one to IS.
He defended the law from the character and accu-
sation of being too severe. There had been instances
of confidential servants robbing their masters for
years; and was it to be said that no capital punish-
ment should attach to such an offence? The frame
of society could not hold together without protection
of property. It was, therefore, idle to talk of making
no offences capital, but such as threatened, or in
which great violence had been used. The robbery
of navigable rivers was easy to be carried on, the
conveyance being so handy that immense property
might be conveyed assay in the night time. The
Thames Police uiscovered a most extensive rob-
bery of silk ; the persons were brought, some of
them, to capital punishment; and since then, the
instances of that offence had been rare. Feeling, as
he did, the sacred duty of protecting as much as
they could, the property of his Majesty's subjects,
he must object to these Bills.
Lord CALTHOItPE did not think that these Bills
cast any slur on the administration of justice in this
country. He thought they would correct many in-
consistencies in the present state of the Criminal Law.
For this reason he should support the Bill.
Lord KING said, the uncertainty of the punish-
ment was the greatest encouragement to, and the
greatest cause of the increase of crime. It would be
much better to enact specific and fixed punishments
for particular offences. There did appear to him to
' be a determination not to allow of any reformation
• of the Criminal Laws, or in the Police.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN replied ; and con-
tended, that those crimes to which the punishment of
death attached, increased more than double in five
years, while those to %%hich it once attached, hut had
been abolished, decreased in a similar proportion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, they had for-
gotten all along that transportation most certainly
followed after respite and reprieve from death. It
therefore was • not the uncertainty of punishment,
but the uncertainty whether death or transportation
would follow conviction, that increased crime. Last
winter street robberies were common ; but on the
certainty of the punishment of death ensuing after
condemnation, the offence became for a time scarcely
known—(icar, hcar).—The House then divided—
For the second reading of the Bill - 17
Against it
Majority

The Bill was consequently thrown out.—Adjourned
110USR OF COMMONS.

The Sheerness Lands Dill, and the Navy Property Bill, were
read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
The Report of the White Herring Fishery Bill was received,
and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, as wa4
the Irish Transfer Bill.
The Land Tax Commissioners Names Bill, was ordered to be
read a third time on Tuesday.
The Customs Duties Bill was read a second time, and com-
mitted for to-morrow.
The Scotch Malt Duty Bill was committed. Report to-mor-
row.—The Scotch Distillery Drawbacks Bill also went through
a Committee. Report to-morrow.
The Isle of Mad Bin went through a Committee.—Report
to-morrow.
On the Order of the Day for committing the
CONSOLIDAIED FUND BILL,

Mr. GRENFELL objected to the Bill being com-
mitted in the absence of the Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer, and in so thin a House. He was desirous
of putting a question to the Right Honourable Gen-
dorm, as to the state of the Consolidated Fund;
he had this day been informed that the deficiency for
the present Quarter would exceed £9,000,000.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said he would postpone the
order for the present.
The Fur Trade Regulation Bill was read a third
time and passed.
On the o:der for the second reading of the Ap-
propriation Act,
Mr. CREEVEY objected to this Bill being read a

Pits 1: SEVEA-PPNr X

second time, whilst some of the Supplies still re-
mained to be discussed; he also objected to this Bill
being read a second time in so thin a House; he
hoped it would, for the present, be withdrawn.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did

not desire to hasten the passing of the Bill; he only
desired it to go one stage towards the Committee,
that the blanks might be tilled up.
Mr. CREEVEY hoped some days notice would be
given to the Committee.
The SPEAKER reminded the Honourable Mem-
ber, that at present none of the blanks were filled
up ; there was not a single item of supply in the Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time, and com-
mitted for Wednesday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. GRENFELL again wished to call the atten-
tion of the House to the subject of the as rears of this
Fund, and'to recommend a step to be adopted, to
get rid of this arrear altogether. In the present state
of the Fund, he challenged the Right Honourable
Gentleman to deny, if lie cou'd, than we were, at the
end of every quarter, owing to this arrear, in such
a state, that we could not pay the public creditor
without the aid of the Bank of. England ; and if the
Bank was to withhold its good will on these occa-
sions, the public creditor could not be paid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
fended the present system.
Mr. RICAItDO considered it a stigma on the
country, that, at the period at which the dividends be-
came due, Government, instead of having money in
hand to pay them, should be under the necessity of
borrowing seven or eight millions of the Bank. It
should be recollected also, that, in the altered situa-
tion of the Bank, they, like other bodies, were sub-
ject to vicissitudes and panic. He would only for a
moment imagine that, at the time of paying the di-
vidends, the Bank, influenced by panic, should re-
fuse to make this advance, w hat would the Right
Honourable Gentleman do in such a case, and how
would he raise the sum required ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the Bank were engaged to make these advances.
Mr. GRENFELL read the Act, that the Bank
might if it chose. •
The House then went into a Committee.

Mr. GRENFELL again wished to ask the Right
Honourable Gentleman how he would act in case the
Bank should, on any futu're occasion, refuse to make
the advances required ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
he should, in such a case, find no difficulty in pro-
curing it from other quarters.
• The House resumed, and the Report was ordered
to be received on Monday.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from cer-
tain individuals in Staffordshire (Shopkeepers), com-
plaining of the injury they sustained in their trade
by persons travelling from place to place, and at-
tending on market days, to sell goods and wares not
of their own manufacture. •

Colonel WOOD hoped his Honourable Friend
would not propose any measure on this subject with-
out due consideration. In some of the cowl's in that
part of the country with which he was best acquainted,
if the inhabitants did not obtain what they wanted
from these travelling dealers, they would not be able
to get them at all.
Mr. Lill LETON said, he had done his duty in
presenting the Petition.
After a few words from Mr. M. A. TAvLon, the
Petition was received, and ordered to be printed.