The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-10 00:00:00

THE LIVER l'ool, STANDARD.

punishment, and insured the certainty of disproportion between
punishments and offences. Still the whole system was discre-
tienary, except- in this and one or two other cases, if it was
right to take away the judge's discretiOnary power in this par-
ticular case, why not extend the principle, further, and carry it
into the whole of your criminal administration ? If it was wren.,
generallv speaking, to- deprive the judges of a discretion, why
this single exception to the rule ? He entreated, the noble. vis-
count opposite to bring 'in a bill to alter this law. if the noble
viscount sire disposemtolollow tip= ie.course_marked out by a
distinguished predecessor in office (Sir R. Peel), with respect
to the ameutlment of the criminal law, he. would do an act of
important service to the country, at the same time. that,he would •
thereby elevate his own character. lie felt the inure anxious
to call, the noble viscount's attention to the subject on account
of the returns that had been presented with reference to the.in-
crease of crime of late years. Within the last 20 years crime
had increased in the proportion of three.to oue.aecomparedavith
preceding years. In 1812 the number of offenders committed
was 60(X); iii 18.32, 29,030 were committed. Ite the seven years
ending in 1818, 130,0(1) persons were 'committed for trial; in the
seven year ending iu 1632 the number. was 421,003, The in-
crease in the amount of crime was not confined to particular dis-
tricts—it was the stone in the agricultural as in the manufactur-
ing division of the country—in the metropolis as in more remote
places. The increase was not sudden, but progressive, from
1812 up to the preseilt time. He directed the noble viscount's
attention to the subject, in order that the noble lord 'might in-
vestigate the returns, and see whether they contained any fal-
lacy, or that, if they proved to be correct, an inquiry might be
entered upon as to the causes of the evil, with a view to ascer-
tain iu what manner it could be checked.
Lord ne eaou uN a said the noble and learned lord complained
of a harsh and unjustifiable exercise of the prerogative with re-
spect to the clause inflicting transportation for lite.
LordLYN On et:ST said teat the noble viscount was mistaken
,his interpretation of what had fallen from him (Lord Lynd-
hurst.) 'IN hat he said was, that to enforce the transportation
clause:. in-themanner resorted to was_a_harsh and unjustifiable
administration of the criminal law.
Lord Ivimmoueste -did not see that the, noble and learned
lord's explanation altered the case. The power to transfer the
law rested with the Secretary of State, anu if its administration
were harsh and unjustifiable the fault was his. The principle
which those who had called for an alteration of the law hau
in
view—the object which they wished to effect—was to deter from
crime by making the punishment more certain; for it had been
well ascertained that when very severe punishments were award-
ed, the sympathy of the public frequently prevented them from
being carried into execution. 'With respect to the conviction at
the Carnarvoushire assizes, to which the noble and learned lord
had alluded, the punishment in that case was mitigated, pre-
cisely according to the recommendation of the noble and learned
lord; and lie believed that not a single recommendation had
been forwarded by any learned judge to which a due degree of
weight and consideration had not been given by.the office over
which he had the honour to preside. He admitted that the
law, as it now stood, in some degree diminished the power
which the judge. formerly possessed, with respect to the cases
that were tried before. hint; but still application could be made
to the Secretary of State, and the knowledge which was im-
patted, ..ta_ that_ functionary _with reference- to_ the _p re vioue cha-
racter of the offender—the information which he received—the
list which might be, forwarded to him of the previous con-
victions, if any,of the criminal, enabled those to whom re-
ference was made to decide upon the application better than
a judge could do during the hurry and bustle of the assizes.
The noble and learned lord had referred to two cases of a very
different kind, one in which a comparatively slight offence was
severely , punished, the other in which a grave offence was
passed over lightly. Now, the, argnment
_of the noble _earl
Learned lord was precisely that which was formerly urged
against the penalty of death iu a great variety of cases, namelys--
the uncertainty of that penalty being carried into execution.
The fault was not to be traced to the measure. of -last session,
but to the state of the law at large. The noble and learned
lord called on him to turn his attention to the amendment of
the crhnival law. If he could discover any means that would
more effectually provide for the due punishment of different
degrees of crime, if he saw any means for the attainment of
that object, no man would be more ready. than he-was to carry
such pans into execution, and to give to the country the
benefit of them. The noble and learned lord lied alluded to the
increase of crime. That was a most important subject; it re-
quired a-more deep, a more profound, and a more enlarged
discussion than he was prepared to give to it ou the present
occasion. The question of the criminal law was a most intri-
cate one. The noble and learnd lord well knew that the argu-
ments connected with it were of a metaphysical character, and
the science of mind, if it were a science, was one of the Most
uncertain, and at the same time the most curious, that ever was.
presented for investigation. He again admitted the subject which'
the noble and learned lord had introduced to be most impor-
tant, but, with reference to the alterations which, had been
made in the law, he must say that no system could he effectual
if its course were interrupted by perpetual agitation and per-
petual condemnation, coming also from those whose opinions
must have very great weight, peers of Parliament and judges of
the laud.—(llear, hear.)
Lord LYNMICItST, said that, to show the inequality of the
law, lie had instanced' two cases—in one instance, an indivi-
dual condemned for a minor offence was sentenced to trans-
portation for life; in the other, the person who was next tried,-,
and who was convicted capitally, was sentenced to one year's
imprisonment and hard labour. The question was, what was
the practical effect of the new system, as compared with the
old? Formerly, the Judge, in' case of conviction, made his re-
marks in the margin of his notes of the trial, and stated the
punishment; but now he must send. up to the Secretary of
State an account of the proceedings, which, from the number
of cages, would often be impossible. The noble lord had said
this was anew system, andthat time ought to be giyen to see
what effects would be produced by it. He did not complain of
as a new system, but as an anomaly, contrary. to all sound

principles of 'law.
The Lord CHANCELLOR said, that in consequence of whaf
had occurred between himself and the noble. and learned lord,
he had inquired whether it was in the contemplation of his no-
ble friend to send a circular to the judges containing instruc-
tions.for those learned persons to transmit the ealenaars, with
their remarks, to the Home-office. That he understood wou!d
he done; and he conceived that such a course would obviate
much of the objection. of the noble and learned lord.
Lord LytiDlicitsrr said he was very happy to hear that such
a proceeding was in contemplation.
the Loan CHANCELLOR observed that it-was but fair, in
the absence of .the noble and learned lord, the late Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, (Lord Wvnford,) who had prevailed on
their lordships to adopt the amendment to which allusion had
been made, to state that he had deferred•to the opinion of the
noble and learned lord, although he had; at first entertained a
different sentiment. He was. the.• more inclined to take that
course, because the proposition was.. backed by another legal•
authority equally high,—he meant the late Lord Tenterdeu.
After a few words from a noble lord, which did not reach the
gallery, the petition was laid on the table.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar petition from the inha-
bitants of Lisburn. His lordship expressed his opinion, that-
the severity of punishment occasioned a.repuguance on the part
of juries to convict in capital cases. It was a well-known fact,
that there was a greater number of acquittals when the. crime
had capital punishment annexed to it than iu cases- where the
p,nalty was less severe. If they compared the number of per-
sons acquitted of the same species of crime, at different periods,
they would find, that in proportion as the punishment 'became
more merciful, the acquittals had diminished.
Lord SueeiELD presented a petition front the inhabitants of
Londonderry and its vicinity, praying. that the prisoners charged
with felonious acts might be allowed counsel to plead for them.
In cases of high treason counsel was allowed to appear for the
prisoner, but whether such a plan would be eventually bene-
ficial to prisoners, in cases of felony, he would not attempt to
decide.—Adjourned.

that the petitions against his return were neither frivolous nor
vexatious.
Mr. O'CoNNELL wished to know whether the.stamp duty on
advertisements was to be altered with respect to Ireland; and if
so, what alteration was to be made.
Lord Ail:none was understood to reply, that a reduction of Is.
was proposed to be made in the advertisement duty in Ireland.
Mr.isnsixssoN said, that in rising to give notice of his inten-
tion to submit a motion for the repeal of the house and window
tax, he wished to know. what Were the precise intentions of
government with respect to those taxes.
Lord Aurtiolu,, whose veiny was very.indistinct, was under-
stood to say that it would be. better for. the right hon. member to
postpone his motion until the bill on that subject was brought in
oy ministers, -
Mr. 1-lusm also wished to know whether the windows of
schools were to be e.vnupted from the duty, The taxes in
question, .he believed, .pressed with extreme, severity on the
proprietors of, scientific institutions, and 11e hoped that minis-
. ters, when they considered the great importance of the case,
would consent to relieve them.
Mr. trCoNNs..l.l..begged to suggest to ministers the policy
of reducing the stamp duty on awards. This duty was now
20s. for every award, and the poor people in Ireland were
subjected to great inconvenience on account of the largeness
of its amount. Ile thought that there should be no duty-at all
on awards, but if one was
,considered indispensably necessary,
it should be fixed at 10S:sinstead of 20s.
Dr. Ltisnixozos agreed with the hon. member for Mid-
dlesex in the propriety of making some exemption with regard
to the windows of school establishments. He considered- the
proprietors of schools equally entitled to relief with those other
persons whom it was proposed-to exempt from the payment of
the duty, since cheap education was a point of paramount
importance to the country. -
Sir G. Gees( rose Os usk whether it was true that the Arch-
bishop of Cashel, who Objected to the reduction of the number
of bishops in Ireland, hau not been in his diocess for two years?
lie wished for information on this point; because, if the fact
were correct, any such opposition came with singular bad grace
from him. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Gour.aultN gave his most unequivocal denial to the state-
ment. ( Lbud cries of " Hear.")
Sir G. GREY expressed himself satisfied with the denial of the
right lion. member, and laid no doubt he had been misinformed
on the subject.
Mr. WYNN thought that before an hon. member put such
questions, it would be better to make some inquiries on the sub-
ject, for such interrogatories always had the air of an imputation.
Lord ALTHORP brought up a message from the Crown, stating
that His Majesty was desirous that an inquiry should be made
into the state of the woods, forests, and crown lands, with the
view, of rendering the revenue derived therefrom inure produc-
tive, and recommending the appointment of a committee to take
the subject into consideration.
Mr, Lefroy presented 21-petitions from various places in Ire-
land and England, against the Irish church temporalities bill.
Petitions of a. similar nature were presented by Lord Stor-
mont, Lord Ashley, Mi. Shaw, and Mr. A. Lefroy.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord ALTuoite moved the order of-the day for the second
reading of the above-named bill.
Mr. GOLILBURN said that he found it recited in the bill that
his Majesty had been graciously pleased to signify. that he had
placed at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the tempo-
ralities of the archbishoprics and bishoprics of Ireland. Now,
he had looked over the journals of the house without having been-
able to discover that any message had been sent from the Crown
signifying such consent.
ALT H. 0112.. admitted that no message had been. sent from
the Crown, but thought that the passages in his Majesty's speech
at the opening of the session—" Your. attention will also be di-
rected to the state of the. church, more particularly as regards:
its temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy ;" and " It
may,also be necessary for you to consider what remedies may be
applied for the correction of acknowledged abuses, and whether
the revenues of the church may not admit of a more equitable
and judicious distribution," justified the recital iu the bill.
Mt. C. WYNN said that the house ought to have some evidence
of-the-fart- which they were called-upon -to" affirni. It 'Might-lie
said that:this-was merely matter of form, but such forms-wore of
the greatest importance. Ile saw that he provoked laughter,
but it was no laughirm matter to be -thus disposing of the here-
ditary revenues of the Crown without its consent.
Lord ALI-tme said that his Majesty's consent had been sig-
nified en the first reading of the bill. He thought it very hard
that the right hon. gentleman had not pointed out this defect
when they raised the former objection, which government
yielded to. (A laugh from the opposition.)
Mr. C. -WYNN said that the hill was printed on Tuesday
morning, and proposed to be read a second: time on Thursday,
and in toe cursory glance which he gave to it. under those cir-
cumstances, it could not be excepted that he could discover all
the blunders in it. (A laugh.) He discovered one error which
was fatal. The error now brought to light certainly. had not
struck him, but it was not the less important.
Mr. GOULBURN said this was not a trifling question. Here
was a recital that the King had placed a part of his hereditary
revenues at the disposal of-Parliament, and he only asked' for
the'proof- of that fact. The noble lord had that night brought
down a message. from the Crown relative to the revenues of the
Woods and Forests. Why had he not-pursued the same course
in the case under consideration ? It was- a sound principle of
the-ronstitutton, which hattaliVays hitherto been acted on, that
Parliament could not deal with the revenues of the. Crown unless
the King had previously placed them at its disposal ; but now the
house of Commons was, called upon to act upon a false states
ment, and to establish a• dangerous -precedent. If it were suf
'ficient to tecitathat the King had placed any •portion of his reve-
.nues at the disposal of Parliament, without producing any proof
of the fact, what was to prevent any member from introducing a
bill which would deprive the Crown of a branch of 'its revenue ?
It ill became the noble lords-who, as • Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, was especially sworn to protect the revenues of the Crown,
to proceed with this -bill in the absence of any: proof that his
Majesty had consented to surrender the revenues which it would
deprive him of. He could not believe that the noble lord would,
upon reflection, wish the bill to be read a second. time, without
a message being brought, down from his Majesty. On. the last
occasion when fhe Crown gave up a portion of its hereditary re-
venues ministers brought down -a• message from his Majesty,
Stating that-he. haddone
,so with, -the approbationof the Archbi-
shop of Canterbury, and other dignitaries
,of the church. Now,
if a similar message. should be brought doWri with .respect to the
present bill, he bail no doubt it would remove many objections
which were now felt towards it.
Mr. STANLEY contended that that portion of the royal speech
on the opening of the session in which his Majesty tells his' Par-
liament that their " attention. will also be.directed.to tlie state
the church, more particularly as regatds its temporalities and
the maintenance of the clergy," sufficiently warranted their pro-
ceeding with the present bill. (Hear, and No.) He ;would offer
no opinion whether it might not be expedient to have a distinct
message from the throne in .reference•to the particular temporit-
lities affected by the bill before its details were discussed in com-
mittee; all he would affirm then was, that they without
violating any important form or principle, accede to the present
motion. He could not help observing, that this cavilling about
forms struck him as an indication of the reluctance of the oppo-
nents of the bill to deal with its substance. (Hear.). Else. why
should they have permittedthis . alleged irregularity to be now
six weeks or two mouths in existence without censure or, notice?
Sir IL PELL said that it was vain to attempt cont,,.ling the
fact that this was a great -oversight on .the- part of ministers.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord knew very well that the heredi-
tary revenues of the Crown- could, not be interfered with by Par-
liament without a message from. the throne authorizing them
(hear,) and indeed had himself proved that such was, the case
by only a feW minutes ago bringing down a Message in. reference
to the woods And forests. (Hear.) It was idle to assert that the
royal sanction was contained in the King's consent" bracket,
for that should be given in every measure proposing salaries.
(Hear, hear..):
Mr. GooLaintsi,' after repeating, his objections, put it to the
Speaker whether it would not be regular to permit the bill beinc,
read-a second time; :till the allegations of the- 16th section had
been confirmed by .a message from the King?
The SPEAKER-, ni• answer, said that he saw no- difference, so
far as the principle of the questiou was-concerned, in its being
applied to the second stage more than to the first reading. If it
' was not wrong to read the, bill a first. time without a message
• from his Majesty; it would not, as it appeared to hint, be wrong
' to read it a second time. As it was only in.committee that the
details-of a bill could be aitered, he conceived that the.present
stage might he now proceeded with, so as-to admit of any noes-
' sage or alteration before it went through committee.
After a few words from Mr. Wynn-to the same effect, the
question was put fromrthe- chair,•.that. the bill, be.then read a.
second time.
Mr. SuAw rose to move as an .amendment, that the bill be
read a second time that day six months. In doing, so he begged.
not to, be. understood as one •opposed to. the church reforms,
which time and circumstances might. have rendered expedient.
He brought forward, his amendment because. he conceived the
principle of the bill to be • obnoxious to two serious objections,
namely,, its violating the right of property„and its-tendency to
lower the character of the established clergy. And here -he
must observe,. • that- thought he, maintained that every subject
was bound to contribute towards the support of the established
church of the state, yet, under the peculiar circumstances.in
which Ireland was now placed, he, and he was confident the