Lord Suffieldrose to move the second reading of the Bill for abolishing the 1040 punishment of death for house-breaking. In doing so, his Lordship stated, that he had several alterations to make in the Bill, which would make it more efficient without departing from the views of the authors of the Bill. They would only extend the principle. He had understood, that there would be no opposition to the Bill in this stage, and he, therefore, would not, at present, trouble their Lordships with any observations. He would only observe, in order to set the principle of the Bill in a clear light, that it was intended to abolish the punishment of death for house-breaking, the law ordaining which, might almost be said to have fallen into desuetude. In 1826 and 1827 there was only one execution for house-breaking, and of those tried for that crime, fifteen per cent were acquitted. To show the effect of the punishment, he would remark, that in the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, there was a change in the policy. It was thought fit to carry the law into more rigorous execution, and in those years twenty-seven persons were executed, but what was the consequence? Why, in the three years following, more than thirty per cent were acquitted. In 1831, the policy again changed. Of 517 persons convicted of the offence, only one was executed. In 1832, 583 persons were convicted, and nine were executed. He would further observe, in a recommendation of the Bill, that it had been amply discussed in the other House; but there had been no division upon it, and, therefore, it might be said, to have been sent up to their Lordships' House by the unanimous concurrence of the other House.
§ Lord Wynfordhad certainly given the noble Lord to understand, that he would not oppose the second reading; but he did not expect, that the noble Lord would take that opportunity to prejudice the House by making a long statement. He certainly should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he must set the noble Lord right as to this punishment. The Reformers of the law had purposely left the punishment of death attached to the offences of burglary and stealing in a dwelling house, and the reason was this:—as soon as there was light enough to sec a man's face, the breaking ceased to be burglary; but between day-light and people rising to their business, there elapsed, at one period of the year, a great 1041 many hours; and it was to give honest and industrious men a full and effective security during these hours that the punishment of death was left attached to stealing in dwelling-houses. It was never intended that it should be at all times carried into execution, but it was intended that it should be a full security to all against the offence.
§ The Bill read a second time.