Commons Sitting of 26 February 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of MR. RUTHVEN, an Account of the state of the Currach of Kildare; and the same of the Phœnix Park, Dublin.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, a detailed Account of all Expenses incurred in his Majesty's Dock-yards, in each of the years from 1820 to 1832; of the Number of Commissioned
1144
Officers in the Royal Navy on the 1st of January, 1828; and the same on the 1st of January, 1833; and the aggregate Amount of their Half and Full Pay at that Date.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, a Copy of the 25th Report of the Charity Commissioner's.—On the Motion of Colonel LEITH HAY, the Number of the Excise Officers in Scotland, and their Salaries for the year ending 5th January, 1833.—On the Motion of Mr. GUEST, an Account of the Exports and Imports of Iron, from the year 1830 to the present time: also an Account of the Copper Sheets and Bolts used in his Majesty's Dock-yards of Woolwich and Portsmouth, and of the Expense incurred in manufacturing the said Copper Articles, during the years 1830, 1831, and 1832; and the same Account of Iron used in his Majesty's Dock-yards of Woolwich and Portsmouth.—On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE EVANS, an Account of the Number of Convicts, and the Expense incurred by the Convict Department in Ireland.
New Writ issued. For Dover, in the room of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, who made his Election to sit for Manchester.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Town of Cambridge, against the House and Window Taxes. By Mr. PHILPOTTS, from Gloucester; by Mr. J. JOHNSTONE, from the Presbytery of St. Andrew's, Dunse, and Fordyce; by Mr. THICKNESSE, from Wigan and Standish; by Mr. JAMES YOUNG, from Cootehill; by Mr. EWING, from two Congregations in Glasgow; by Mr. OSWALD, from Ayr; by Admiral FLEMING, from Ardrossan and Dennie; by Mr. BAILLIE, from Nairn; and by Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, from Urquhart,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. M. PHILLIPS, from Diseworth; by Sir R. B. PHILLIPS, from seven Places in Wales; by Mr. C. S. FORSTER, from Walsall, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. ROBERT N. SHAWE, from Eye, against the Duty on Malt and Hops, and against the Assessed Taxes.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Inverary, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By Mr. J. JOHNSTONE, from Leslie and Anstruther-Easter, against the present System of Lay Patronage in the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD, from the Midland Political Union of the Working Classes, condemning the total disregard of the Misery of the Working Classes in England and Ireland in his Majesty's Speech, and the Address of the House of Commons; and for the Abolition of the Taxes on Bread, Sugar, Tea, Malt, Hops, Tobacco and Soap.—By Mr. BLACKSTONE, from Fanrick and Kilburnie; by Mr. OSWALD, from the University of Glasgow; and from the students of the Andersonian Institution, and Portland Medical School of that City; by Admiral FLEMING, from Danby; by Mr. CAVLEY, from Perth; by Mr. OLIPHANT, from Elton; by Mr. A. ROPER, from Diseworth; by Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Tralston; and by Mr. MAXWELL, from Pollockshaws,—against Slavery.—By Mr. R. A. OSWALD, from Newmibus Ayr,—against the Coercive Measure (Ireland); for the Abolition of all Sinecures, for the Vote by Ballot, and the Repeal of the Septennial Act.—By Mr. BELLEW, from Kirmockbridge, against the Arbitrary and Unconstitutional Measure proposed for Ireland.—By Admiral FLEMING, from Denny,—for the Better Regulation of Church Patronage.—By Mr. MURRAY, from the Incorporation of Merchants of Leith, in favour of Borough Reform in Scotland.—By Mr. HAWES, from St. Mary, Newington, for a Reduction of the Standing Army, and Abolition of all Sinecures, Pensions, and useless Offices—By Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Paisley, against Nocturnal Legislation.—By Mr. HODGES, from Ashhurst, Kent, against Tithes,—By Mr. PRYME from certain Christians in Dublin, that Persons who object to taking Oaths from Religious Motives may be relieved from the necessity of doing so on any occasion.

HIGHWAYS.
Mr. Portmanrose to move, pursuant to the notice which he had given, for leave to bring; in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Highways. The subject was one of very great importance, and he should, therefore, with as much brevity as possible,

1145
State to the House the nature and extent of the proposition which he meant to bring forward. The manner in which road surveyors were chosen at present was objectionable, and, therefore, instead of their being selected by the inhabitants of a district, and afterwards approved of by two Magistrates, he purposed to empower the vestry of each parish to nominate their own surveyor, without any reference to any superior authority. This he thought would be a desirable improvement; but he, at the same time, intended that the several parishes comprised in a district should be allowed the option of electing the same individual if they should think fit to do so. Should the arrangement be found to work advantageously, other improvements might afterwards take place. Another point respecting which alteration was proposed in this Bill, was the mode in which funds were raised for the purpose of keeping the highways in proper repair. This was done at present by the imposition of various and distinct rates, which occasioned great uncertainty in the amount; but for those rates he proposed to substitute a highway-rate, founded upon the Poor-rates. There was another important change which he contemplated effecting, a change which had not only the sanction of the hon. member for Wigan, but also that of the Committee that had sat upon the subject in the last year. That change related to the altering, diverting, or stopping up of highways, and he meant to include footways as well as carriage-roads. Where a public highway or thoroughfare became useless, or was not worth the expense of being kept up, he intended that, on the decision of a majority of a vestry meeting being obtained, the surveyor would be at liberty to stop it up, reserving, however, to any party who might be aggrieved by the circumstance the right of appeal to the Sessions. He believed that the plan would prove satisfactory, not only to the Members of that House, but to the country generally. So far from meaning to limit this power to the majority of a vestry meeting, it was his intention to extend it to individuals, on their consenting to take upon themselves the whole responsibility of the expense; and, in cases of appeal, it was proposed, in order to prevent vexatious opposition, to subject the appellant, in the event of his failing to bring the matter to a decision, to any costs that might be incurred in consequence. By
1146
the law as it stood there was no appeal, and therefore this would be a great improvement. He further proposed, that the accounts of the surveyors should all be sworn to, and that they should subsequently undergo inspection by the auditors or way wardens. His next proposal might perhaps give rise to some difference of opinion, but he still considered it to be a most desirable amendment of the law. He proposed that the roads for the distance of 100 yards on either side of county bridges should be kept in repair by the respective trusts ratione de jure, but he did not mean to oblige these trusts to contribute anything towards keeping in order the carriage way across the bridges themselves. If the House should concur in deeming this Bill a desirable measure, he intended that it should take effect from next October, and that the appointment of the surveyors should take place at the same time as the election of overseers. He also intended that the labour and materials necessary for keeping up all public highways should be obtained by contract in the ordinary way. The hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Wilksseconded the Motion, and said that the measure would remove many of the abuses and difficulties now experienced, and that assimilating the highway rate to the Poor-rates would tend to simplify the matter exceedingly. The hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for the pains he had bestowed upon the measure.
Leave given.

OFFENCES IN IRELAND.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that he had given notice of a Motion with reference to the return ordered on the 14th instant, respecting the number of persons committed for trial for offences in Ireland, to add the words "distinguishing Roman Catholics from Protestants;" but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rice) had told him that his Motion was incorrect. This, however, was not the case, for had not similar returns been made some time since with respect to the counties of Kilkenny, Mayo, and the Queen's County, in which the identical distinction was made for which he now sought? The Protestant were distinguished from the Roman Catholic delinquents in those returns, and he therefore could not see what difficulty there could be in supplying the informa-

1147
tion that he required. The right hon. Gentleman had stated to him that prisoners were not classified according to their religion, but, as there were clergymen of both persuasions in attendance at the different gaols, all that he desired could be obtained from them. In bringing forward this Motion, his object was, and he had no hesitation in avowing it, to show that the imputations which had been cast upon the Irish Protestants were unfounded, and that they had not been mainly, or at all instrumental to the disgrace which now attached to their country. If the distinction for which he sought was made it would be seen that neither the crime, anarchy, nor confusion existing in Ireland was attributable to the Protestants. He had been informed by a noble Lord who was likely to know the fact that such a return had been made out for Longford; and if a little trouble were taken, he had no doubt that the information to which his Motion was directed could be obtained. He would avail himself of that opportunity to notice a statement which he had read in a newspaper of yesterday, in which a noble friend of his was most unjustly and unwarrantably attacked. His noble friend was accused of having forgotten an atrocious murder which had been committed by a Protestant at Dundalk. But not only was there no truth in the statement to which he alluded, but it was a gross and discreditable libel, calculated to prejudice the individual who was about to stand his trial upon the charge. That individual, it was perfectly true, was a Protestant, He was a native of Scotland, and a glazier by trade, and, so far from committing murder, he merely stabbed a man with his "putty-knife," after he had himself been knocked down and ill-treated. He was an inoffensive respectable man, of the name of M'Creath, and was on his return home after finishing his day's work, when he was beset by a party and knocked down, and it was in self defence that he used his putty-knife, an implement of his trade which he usually carried about him. The hon. and gallant Officer deprecated such statements as calculated to prejudice a man on his trial for life, and declared that the whole statement was a tissue of misrepresentation. The hon and gallant Officer concluded by moving that the words "distinguishing Roman Catholics from Protestants" be added to the return ordered on the 14th instant.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that having been personally alluded to be felt it necessary to offer a few observations. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, he still entertained the opinion, that such a return as that for which the hon. and gallant Member had moved could not be obtained, for they all knew that parties were not required by law to state the religion to which they belonged. No return that was not certain could be useful, and it was very obvious that certain information was not to be obtained in the present instance. But there was another, and not a technical, ground on which he must resist the present Motion, and that was, that it would be manifestly invidious and unjust in its tendency. It could promote no real good, and would, in all probability, have the effect pf raising an unfair and unjust impression against that class of persons who formed the great majority in the chronicles of crime in Ireland. Crime for the most part was committed by the poor, they being most open to temptation, in consequence of their poverty: and as it was well known that the poor of Ireland belonged chiefly to one religion there could be no great occasion for the return now asked for, and therefore he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his Motion.
Mr. Peasedeclared that he should also resist the Motion. Party spirit had long been the bane of Ireland, and party spirit it was that had reduced that unhappy country to its present awful condition. He therefore hoped and entreated that the House would not countenance party measures, or agree to a Motion that would have the effect of easting a stigma on the religion of any portion of their fellow subjects.
Motion withdrawn.

POOR LAWS FOR IRELAND.
Sir John Tyrellwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and in doing so, he should take the opportunity of making one observation. The question he wished to put was, whether his Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to introduce any measure into that House, to afford a legal provision for the poor of Ireland? The observation with which he wished to accompany this question was, that it could not but appear strange to all men who observed the course of parties in that House, that whilst

1149
much of their time had been employed in high-flown discussions about Ireland, and benefits withheld, and benefits to be bestowed, there had not been, from any one of the zealous speakers on the question of Ireland, a proposition for the introduction of the Poor-laws into that country. Indeed, he believed that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was opposed to their introduction.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the question was one which he should feel little difficulty in answering. Before any one resolved that Poor-laws ought to be introduced into Ireland, he must resolve what description of Poor-laws was necessary, what should be their extent, and on what principle they should be founded. As to the observation which the hon. Member had made, he surely must know, that there was no question on which all parties were more divided among themselves than that of the Poor-laws, and that was especially the case with the Members from Ireland among whom the difference of opinion existed, without reference to political or to religious sentiments. The difference of opinion, in fact, was that which all honest and consistent men might conscientiously entertain, when trying to form a satisfactory judgment on so important a subject. Under these circumstances, he did not think it matter of blame to the Ministers, that, among the multitude of affairs to which they had to direct their attention, they had not been able to bring before the House the subject of affording a legal provision for the poor of Ireland. He thought, indeed, that if there was one subject of blame more to be feared by the Government than another, it was that of bringing in measures for the relief of the poor, crudely prepared, and brought in for the sake of catching at popularity, rather than from any well-grounded confidence of their excellence, or any firm and settled conviction that they were right, both in principle and details, and were calculated to produce benefit to the people at large. After having thus expressed his opinion, he should only add, that his Majesty's Government were not, at this moment, prepared to bring in a measure for giving Poor-laws to Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the question relative to the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland was a most important one. The hon. member for Essex had done him injustice when he stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) was opposed to the introduce-
1150
tion of any system of Poor-laws into that country. He was opposed only to such a system as would give food to a man in perfect health, and capable of working, and would interfere with the carefulness which ought to enter into the management of every person's affairs, and with the natural affection that subsisted between children and their parents. he, however, had no objection to a system which would make provision for the blind, the lame, the insane, and those incapable of work—to a system, in short, which would relieve and not increase the poor of Ireland. Dr. Doyle was a decided advocate of the Poor-laws, and the majority of the Catholic clergy took the same view of the question. They beheld the misery and wretchedness of the poor in Ireland, and, anxious to afford them present relief, they consulted their feelings rather than their judgment, and did not take an enlarged view of the subject. He should be happy to introduce one sort of Poor-laws, and would make the attempt at once, if the hon. member for Essex would pledge himself to give his assistance. Dr. Doyle had suggested the application of the ecclesiastical revenues for such a purpose. Would the hon. member for Essex assist him in carrying that suggestion into effect. They were now about to reduce ten Bishoprics in Ireland. He was willing to consent that the amount of the revenues of these ten Bishoprics should be applied for the benefit of the poor. Or they might take the other part of the suggestion of Dr. Doyle. Dr. Doyle proposed, that those revenues should be devoted to the promotion of public works, whereby employment might be afforded to the poor. The scheme was worth trying by way of an experiment, and it would afford a great relief to those parts of the country which were at present heavily assessed to furnish the means of carrying on public works. Half of the whole rent-roll of the county of Kerry was mortgaged for Countycess. The right hon. Secretary was right in saying, that no political or religious feeling was mixed up with the question of the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, as a proof of which he might mention, that his opinions upon this subject coincided with those of the hon. member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval), with whom he seldom agreed on questions connected with politics or religion, for he had the misfortune to differ on one of those subjects, and was

1151
bound to differ on the other. In conclusion, he must declare, that it would be wrong to lend the authority of Government to a proposal for introducing a system which would change all the relations of society in Ireland.
Subject dropped.

ARMY RETURNS.
Mr. Humesaid, that he wished to obtain certain Returns relating to Colonels of regiments, in order to show that many of them derived very considerable advantages from their appointments, advantages which, in his opinion, exceeded the limit of propriety. Many of the offices they held were almost sinecures, and perhaps if the duty of clothing their regiments was excepted, were perfect sinecures. He could not think, that such a system was advantageous, or that it ought to be persevered in. He would move for a Return of the name and rank of every Colonel now commanding a regiment, stating the date of each commission in the army, the date of his first appointment to the command of that or any other regiment, the rank held at the time of such first appointment to a regiment, the number of years on foreign service with his regiment, or on the staff at the time of such first appointment to a regiment, distinguishing each period of service; also, whether he holds any other and what civil or military office or appointment, the date of each such appointment, and stating the pay of his rank, the salary, pay, and emoluments derived from each office or appointment, and from the regiment he commands, so as to exhibit the annual sum derived from the public. When these Returns were laid on the Table, the House would be able to see what were the pensions and sinecures enjoyed by some of these Gentlemen, and would have an opportunity of comparing those advantages with their services, and of ascertaining whether these revenues and pensions had always been conferred as the reward of merit. The House had been, for several years past, voting large sums of the public money under false pretences. He did not wish to criminate individuals, or allude to particular cases; but, as it was clear that the Executive Government either would not or could not controul these improper appointments, it therefore was the business of the House to interfere, and stop the remunerations, if it could not prevent the promotions. He was
1152
sure, that when the Returns were laid upon the Table, the House would be convinced, that high honours and considerable emoluments were bestowed, but not as rewards for meritorious services.
Sir John Hobhousehad no objection to the Return, part of which, indeed, the hon. Member might find if he looked into the Army List. There were some parts of the Return now asked for, which it might be difficult to obtain, but which he would endeavour to procure, though to do so he must make a personal, rather than an official application to the individuals themselves.
Mr. Humesaid, that with regard to the Army List, though he might procure there some of the information he wanted, he did not know that he was entitled to speak upon the authority of any information except on that officially communicated.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he should wish Returns of Naval Appointments to be granted, for he should then be able to show that some of these appointments which the right hon. Secretary opposite had stated would amount to but 4,500 l., did, in fact, reach the amount of 6,700 l. a-year.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the advantages enjoyed by the officers of the Navy, to whom the hon. Member alluded, did not equal those possessed by officers of the same rank in the army, and it was in some degree, to equalize them, that these appointments had been granted.
Returns ordered.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Metropolis, praying for a change of the Laws with regard to the infliction of Capital Punishment. The petition was signed by 5,330 persons. The petitioners stated, that in their opinion, the severity of punishment ought to be diminished, and its certainty increased. At present the infliction of punishment was but a lottery, and the chances of escape were between 300 or 400 to 100 in favour of the prisoner. The law, therefore, instead of being a terror to evil doers, had become a matter of little importance. In consequence of the severity of the law, there was a general conspiracy to prevent the infliction of the punishment it awarded. If the severity of the punishment was relaxed, prosecutions would increase a hundred fold. He thought that capital punishments ought to

1153
be abolished except in the case of murder or arson. He wished to know whether the House thought they ought indirectly to encourage murder by giving to it the same punishment as the violation of property in some instances received. The law against burglary, in particular, he thought far too severe. In fact, it encouraged murder, because a person committing a burglary would be tempted to take away the life of a fellow-creature, when that was probably the only chance he had of escaping capital punishment. That was the result of such indiscriminate severity. Uncertainty of punishment tended to the same object. Where five or six hundred persons were sentenced, and only fifty were executed, the uncertainty afforded a strong inducement to criminals to try the lottery of escape or punishment. The petitioners had considered this subject attentively, and wished now to bring it under the consideration of the House. Most of them were men of experience, who spoke from their own knowledge of the inefficacy of the present law. He had no hesitation in terming that a sanguinary law which consigned several classes of offenders to extreme punishment. In America there were only one or two crimes—murder, he believed, and arson—which were punishable with death; yet it was well known that laws there were more efficient for all the useful purposes of society than in this country. He gave his most cordial support to the petition, which was read as follows:—
"Humbly Showeth—That your Petitioners are deeply impressed with the opinion, that the efficacy of criminal laws depends less upon the severity of punishment than the certainty of infliction; and that laws, which cannot be carried into execution without shocking the feelings of society, and exciting sympathy for the offender, are contrary to reason, inconsistent with morality, and opposed to the interests of justice.
"That the criminal laws of England are of a character so vindictive and barbarous as to be utterly incapable of uniform execution; and that, consequently, under the present system, the lives of men depend less upon the precise and express provisions of the law, than upon the temper, feeling, or caprice of a Judge, or Secretary of State; whence it arises that all the Assizes and Circuits throughout England afford examples of
1154
inequality of punishment and practical proofs of the arbitrary discretion exercised in the selection of victims for the altars of sanguinary justice.
"That the excessive severity of the law operates to the total impunity of a great proportion of offenders, by deterring humane persons from prosecuting, and by holding out a temptation to Jurors to violate their oath, rather than be accessary to judicial murder—while almost all the capital punishments now on the Statute-book are innovations upon the temperate and wholesome principles of the ancient Common Law of the land, which had ever been admired for its humanity and wisdom by the greatest legal authorities, and is coeval with the noblest and best principles of the English Constitution.
"That your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honourable House to take the Criminal Laws into your consideration, and, in accordance with what the true interests of justice, as well as of humanity, require—to introduce such a thorough and efficient Reform of the Criminal Law as will render it more auxiliary to public morals than to private vengeance, and, by a judicious system of prison discipline, afford that protection to property of which all persons may avail themselves, without purchasing it by the sacrifice of human life."
Mr. Peasecordially supported the prayer of the petition. In his opinion, it imported much to the character of a Christian Legislature and a Christian nation to wipe off the stain of severity of punishment. The system, as at present existing, was at variance with the principles of the Christian religion. Why should a man convicted of murder, for instance, be executed within forty-eight hours after the sentence? Why should be, in so short a space, be called into the presence of Omnipotence, when the points of law on which his fate depended were often so doubtful as to require hours of discussion before the Judges could decide? He was sure that if more time were given, and the public mind allowed to dwell on the nature of the offence and the state of the criminal, that all feelings of revenge would give way to those of humanity and justice. The great object of punishment was terror and reform. The uncertainty of punishment removed the terror; and capital punishment, when it was inflicted, precluded the possibility of reform.
The Solicitor Generalconcurred with the views of the hon. Members opposite, but thought they had forgotten how much had already been done. Even in the last Session of Parliament, the punishment of death was abolished in cases of cattle-stealing, and horse-stealing, in some cases of forgery, and in coining, which till then was considered as high treason. He admitted that the law, in respect of capital punishments, was capable of still further improvement, notwithstanding the many amendments recently introduced. He had attended to the subject, and he was of opinion that capital punishment should not be inflicted unless in cases of violence. The hon. Member, he thought, went too far in the principles which he laid down; and he would put it to him whether, if attacked by a robber, he should not, in defence of his life and property, take the assailant's life? If, then, a private citizen had the right in such a case to take away life, why should not the State, for the general good, have the same? He wished, however, not to be understood as opposed to all mitigation in the law as it then stood; but he wished such improvements to be effected by cautious and gradual means alone. The petition, however, seemed to have been drawn up by a person who had been asleep for the last ten years, and, therefore, knew nothing of the late changes.
Mr. Lennardcould assure the House, that the petitioners had not forgotten the conduct of the Government, but had, on the contrary, at their meeting, dwelt with great satisfaction on those of their measures which mitigated the criminal code. The present petition was one out of the thousand proofs which would be given to Parliament of the growing dislike and disapprobation of the people to the severity of our criminal code. He was ready to go to the length of saying, that no crime against property, unaccompanied by violence to the person, ought to be subject to the punishment of death. Robbery was still, however, a capital offence. ["No" "no" from the Solicitor General.] He still thought he was right; but, however that might be, he was quite sure that sufficient attention had not been paid to the efficacy of secondary punishments. It was that which carried terror to the evil-doer, as was proved by the examples in America, from which that House
1156
might take a lesson. And he hoped the present Session would not be allowed to pass without a more general application of secondary punishment. He hoped that steps would be immediately taken to render the criminal code more in accordance with the feelings of the country.
Mr. Robinsonwas of opinion that the certainty of the infliction of a minor punishment would be much more effectual for the repression of crime than the uncertainty, in many cases, at present attending the execution of the sanguinary penalty of death. He hoped to see the severity of the criminal code still further relaxed.
Mr. Lambwas happy to inform his hon. friend that the subject of prison discipline and secondary punishments was under the consideration of Government. A gentleman had been sent out to America to investigate the system of secondary punishments, and the state of prison discipline established in that country, and to report thereupon to the Government. When the report was made, he considered that the Penitentiary would afford an ample opportunity for making experiments on the American plan, if it should be thought advisable so to do, without building a new prison. He was ready to express his concurrence in the general prayer of the petition; but he thought it would be better, instead of abolishing the punishment of death by a general law, to treat every crime separately, and to see what effect was produced in each particular instance by the relaxation of the extreme penalty of the law. It was by gradual and cautious legislation that they could best mitigate the code without endangering the security of life and property. He did not mean to undervalue the alterations which had been made: on the contrary, he felt on the whole that they had been improvements. At the same time he must say, that he had, in his official capacity, received several remonstrances against some of those alterations. He believed, that they had had a good effect, but he mentioned the circumstance for the purpose of impressing on the House the propriety of dealing with this subject with moderation. At the same time he was ready to declare, that they ought not to stop in their course of improving the criminal code until they could fairly say, that the penalty of death was attached to no crime which did not

1157
deserve that punishment. With respect to the sentence of transportation for life, which was now in many cases passed instead of the sentence of death, he was of opinion that it was one which should always take effect, unless in the event of some decidedly mitigatory circumstances appearing'. It was almost impossible to define the exact degree of violence which deserved death: but, at the same time, he wished to remind the House that the Secretary of State had the right of investigating each case, and of mitigating the punishment when the crime was attended with comparatively little violence. He was not prepared to say, that he would abolish capital punishments in case of burglary; committed, as it was, at night, it almost necessarily led to the chance of murder, and required to be punished accordingly. There were, however, distinctions in burglary, and he did not desire to see the capital punishment extended, for that reason, to all offences of that nature.
Mr. C W. Wynn, agreed with the hon. under Secretary of State, that the crime of burglary deserved the severest punishment which the law inflicted. It was a crime of the most serious nature; and being perpetrated for the most part at the dead of night, it was not only calculated to excite the greatest terror, but also to lead to murder; and more especially in cases where resistance was offered. He was not, however, opposed to mitigation of the criminal code; on the contrary, he thought that there were many cases in which a milder punishment might be safely substituted for that of death. There were even cases which now came under the class of burglaries which ought not to be visited with extreme severity; for instance, a person merely lifting the latch of a door, and entering an outbuilding, and stealing above a certain amount, was guilty of burglary. But it was most desirable that there should be a classification of crimes, and that those of very different magnitude should not be placed together. He agreed also with the hon. under Secretary, that nothing but strong mitigatory circumstances should ever induce the Home Office to commute, for a milder punishment, the sentence of transportation for life, now attached to offences formerly punishable by death. It was well known that there were sheep-walks in Wales
1158
extending several miles, and the sheep were not very carefully guarded. As a Magistrate he had had cases of this nature repeatedly brought before him. A peasant, from distress, stole a sheep from the flock, with a view of providing food for his family. Surely, there were mitigatory circumstances in his case, in comparison with that of a man who stole the whole flock of sheep for the purpose of selling them. There should be a classification of offences, then, as regards cattle and horse-stealing, though all alterations of this sort should be made with the greatest caution.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that he could not admit the analogy between a man shooting a robber in his own defence, and the State taking away the life of the offender. The law, as a tribunal, could not be influenced by fear. Its object in punishing a criminal was to prevent a recurrence of the crime, and, as far as possible, restitution to the individual or the State. For his own part he would go so far as to say, that no crime should be punished with death, because, by death, they took away all means of reform or restitution.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought, that there were certain crimes to which society, in justice to itself, was bound to affix the penalty of death. It was a most dangerous doctrine to maintain that the Legislature had not the power of inflicting death. Society had a perfect right to act for its own protection; and the security of life and property often depended upon the terrors of capital punishment. At the same time he admitted, that it would be right to define, more accurately than was at present done, the crime of burglary. The penalty of death ought not to be attached to crimes which were not attended by violence or terror. He was of opinion that a general inquiry should be instituted into the nature and extent of our system of punishments; he was for a further mitigation of the criminal code, which was the most sanguinary in Europe; and, on that ground, he supported the petition.
The Attorney Generalrose lest his silence might be misunderstood. He would yield to no man in his desire to mitigate the severity of the criminal code; but he hoped that all further relaxations would be attempted upon practical and not theoretic grounds. He was ready to

1159
admit, that there were many cases with respect to which a milder punishment than was now applied ought to be inflicted; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the under Secretary for the Home Department, that the most judicious course would be to deal with each case separately.
Mr. Rotchcomplained of the state of some of the prisons, particularly Newgate, which was a disgrace to the country. He himself, as one of the bench of Magistrates, had made several unsuccessful attempts to classify the prisoners, but the confined state of the prison rendered such a classification impossible. He, however, expected very little to be done towards the prevention of crime until the resolutions of different Committees of that House respecting prison discipline were carried into effect. Those resolutions, he was sorry to say, were generally neglected throughout the country. There were 1,200 prisoners for example within that small space, and the city of London, which had lately had an opportunity of increasing it, neglected to do so.
Mr. Ewartapproved of the conduct of Government in sending out a gentleman to America to examine into the state of prison discipline in that country, and took the present opportunity of expressing his abhorrence of the barbarity of the existing game code.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES (ENGLAND).
Mr. Walterpresented a Petition on the subject of tithes from the Inhabitants of Wokingham and its Vicinities. It might recommend the object of the petitioners to the favourable consideration of the House, when he assured it that they did not wish to infringe in any manner the just rights of the clergy, nor to divert to foreign or unbecoming purposes the funds to be raised out of an equitable commutation of tithe; of which system, however, as it now existed, they earnestly prayed the House to undertake the immediate extinction. He could further state, that in no communication which he had ever had, whether with members of the Church of England itself, or with Dissenters, had any disposition appeared to despoil the Church of a fair equivalent for its present revenues. The most difficult topic connected with this question was, the possession of tithe by laymen and by lay Corporations; and, upon this head
1160
the petitioners complained, that in many places, where the tithes extended over some thousands of acres, and were in possession of private individuals or Corporations, all that the incumbent of the living received was an antiquated stipend of 30 l., or 40 l., or 50 l., a-year. The petitioners submitted, that it would be no more than just to enforce that old law which might still exist in statute, though not in practice, of enforcing an adequate maintenance for the vicars and resident ministers out of those impropriations, which were so mal-appropriated. The rest of the petition was so temperate and rational, as to entitle it to the utmost attention of the House.
The Petition was laid on the Table.

FACTORY REGULATIONS—CORN LAWS.
Colonel Torrenspresented a Petition from Bolton, in favour of the Ten-hours Limitation Factory Bill, and also praying that no children under the age of nine years be employed in factories. He observed that many persons were apprehensive that limiting the hours of labour could not but have the effect of increasing the expenses of production; but he would offer to such persons, as the best consolation, the assurance, that the repeal of the taxes on bread would more than compensate them for any increased expenses of production.
Colonel Williamssaid, that though he was not connected with the town of Bolton, he had been requested to support the prayer of this petition. He considered this practice of overworking children to be attributable to the avarice of the masters, and he hoped that some means would speedily be devised for putting an end to the grievance.
Mr. Fryerdenied, that the avarice of the manufacturers had anything whatever to do with the question. The excessive labour of the children in factories was occasioned by the Corn-laws, and other such impositions on the labour of the people. When those taxes were repealed, he would cordially support any measure for diminishing the hours of labour from sixteen to ten, but, until that was done, any alteration would increase instead of amending the miseries of the labouring classes. The people of England had long called for a repeal of the Corn-laws; and he could tell the House that if they were not shortly repealed within the walls of Parliament, they would be so from without.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondeprecated the tone in which the hon. Member spoke. When the hon. Member talked of what the people would do out of doors, he ought to have recollected, that the question of the Corn-laws was one which could never be disposed of in such a manner without endangering a very serious change in the constitution of the country. It was a question at least fully equal to the comprehension of the hon. Member, and one which, unless he was much mistaken, would require the consideration of talent fully as great as the hon. Member could boast of. For his own part he did not think the poorer classes would be at all benefited by any change; but that was a point which he would not then discuss. As to the subject which formed the matter of the petitions before the House, he could only say, that he had always given his support to Mr. Sadler's Bill for reducing the number of labour hours to ten, and would continue to support any hon. Member who might take upon himself to introduce a similar measure in the present Parliament. Formerly it was stated, that the children in factories were only obliged to work twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and even that was deemed an excess; but it now appeared, on the confession of the hon. member for Wolverhampton, that sixteen was the number of labour hours—a confession which he thought ought to gain over many supporters to the contemplated measure.
Mr. Humeconsidered the question before the House as one of principle, and he wished hon. Members would treat it as such. The taunt that had been thrown out against the hon. member for Wolverhampton was not deserved, for the fell sure that the hon. Gentleman dealt fairly with the subject before the House. For himself, he repeatedly heard the masters of factories accused of wanton cruelty. They were called brutes, as if they took pleasure in inflicting punishment. He heard this accusation of cruelty with regret, and did not think they deserved it. They were also charged with avarice, and that was by some assigned as a cause for their severity. Now, he would ask one question—were the ordinary profits of capital increased by the exercise of severity? If not, avarice could not be the cause of severity. He did not think that home competition obliged master manufacturers to have recourse to harsh treatment; in
1162
his opinion, the chief cause lay with the landholders, and with that House, which legislated for them. To prove this, he would just state that a cotton-spinner in France paid only 33 s. per quarter for his wheat, whilst the cotton spinner in England paid 55 s. The consequence was, that the English cotton-spinner, to make up for the difference of 22 s. was obliged to exact twelve or fourteen hours labour from children, instead of ten hours or less which would be only required if the price of corn was lower. This was the plain cause of the distress of master-manufacturers, as it was of their exacting so much labour from those they employed. Let this corn monopoly be reduced, and not only the distress of the manufacturers would be alleviated, but also the hard treatment which factory children undergo would be put an end to. The consequence of doing away with the corn monopoly would not be to reduce the price of corn in this country, but rather to raise its price in other countries, and thus put the English manufacturer on a footing with the foreigner, and enable the former to compete with the latter on equal terms. If hon. Members had not their judgments clouded by a fear of seeing the price of corn lowered, they would have seen to what cause the harsh usage of factory children ought to be attributed. He entirely agreed with the hon. members for Bolton and Wolverhampton, that if food was allowed to be cheap, the distress of manufacturers would be decreased, and the complaints against the severity they exercised over the children they employed, would be no longer made.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonbegged to state in explanation, that in the remarks he made he had not the slightest intention to throw any odium on the masters of factories.
An Hon. Membersaid, that he agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that the outcry against master-manufacturers was unjust; and he besides considered that it tended to prejudice the public mind against them. While he made this avowal, he begged also to say, that he did not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex in attributing the distress of manufacturers to any foreign competition. The masters of cotton factories had little or no competition with France. The competition lay at home, between the towns of Lancashire and Glasgow, and other neighbouring Scotch towns. Let this competition be

1163
checked by an Act of Parliament limiting the hours of labour in factories. This was the only way to put a stop to the severity of masters towards children.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodcould assure the House that no one had a greater objection than he had to the Corn-laws. They were founded, he believed, on false principles, and had been and were the source of infinite mischief. He must be allowed however, to remind his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that it was easier to discover the mote in another's eye than the beam in a man's own. His hon. friend charged an hon. Member (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) with having a bias in favour of land. Now, perhaps, the hon. member for Middlesex had a similar bias in favour of money. Certain it was, that as the value of money had increased in this country, the relative value of land had fallen. The remarks of Members on all those subjects should be treated with candour and generosity. As to the question before the House, he did not deny that those poor children who were employed in factories were cruelly overworked, but let not that be charged on the masters. It was necessity—a grievous necessity—which obliged the masters to grind down those they employed. It was a stern necessity, like that which, in the language of the poet, had once existed in a town besieged.
"Love, strong as death, retains its might no more, And the pale mother quaffs her children's gore."
That it was which induced the parents of those poor children to sell them to this worst description of slavery—to that toil which produced not comfort, but misery. If the hours of labour were restricted, it might be that the children now employed in factories would not derive sufficient for their subsistence from their labour, and in that case they would have to go to the parish for relief. Nevertheless he (Mr. Attwood) was friendly to a Bill limiting the hours of labour, for he considered such a Bill was founded on principles of real political economy.
An Hon. Memberobserved that very strong imputations were brought against the master-manufacturers, which he believed were stated for the mere purpose of making an impression. Several attempts were made during the course of the last summer to prejudice and stimulate the public to make cause against the manufacturers; and, amongst others, he might instance the public entry into Manchester,
1164
of Mr. Sadler, Mr. Oastler, and other gentlemen, preceded by flags and banners, from one of which ropes were dangling, for the purpose, as was expressed, of hanging the masters. Now, this was a most improper method of proceeding, and to add to the effect of these processional placards, a speech was made at the same meeting, wherein it was stated, at the last day the masters would hear these awful words—" Depart from me, ye cursed." Now, he must say, this was very improper, and he seriously objected to the excitement of such prejudgments as he had witnessed, with respect to the question of infant labour.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that he was apprehensive lest the same strain of invective should be used in that House, in debating the question, that was used out of doors. He hoped the matter would be discussed dispassionately by hon. Members; and he begged to state, that he was personally acquainted with many great manufacturers, who desired nothing more than that the question should be brought before the House. He lamented that any portion of the wealth of the Aristocracy should arise from, or that any part of the National Debt should be laid on, the bodies of unfortunate children.
Mr. Sheppardsaid, that he had made it his duty to inquire among the great manufacturers of the West of England, and he had found that no such exaggerated abuses existed as those so repeatedly mentioned of late. It would surprise those manufacturers very much to find themselves brought before that House as if they were criminals. He trusted that when the question was discussed, those clauses of the Bill would be modified that tended to interfere with the fair profits of the manufacturer. He admitted, that factory children were subjected to much hardship, but it was greatly exaggerated.
Mr. Charles Langdalewas surprised to find, that the cause of working children so hard was by some solely attributed to the Aristocracy. He deprecated the attempts at casting odium on that body, for such attempts were most unjust and unfounded. He contended that if the Corn-laws were repealed, many persons would be thrown out of employment, and the manufacturers would lose their very best customers.
Mr. O'Dwyeragreed with the hon. Members that spoke on each side of the question, for they all confessed, that there

1165
was in the matter ample room for Legislation. He did not think that the masters of factories tortured the infants they employed wantonly and gratuitously. They did so, because by so doing they were enabled to put ten or fifteen per cent more into their pockets. The value of such an argument he left to the House.
Petition to lie on the Table.

JUDGES CHAMBERS.
Mr. W. Tookepresented a Petition from the Incorporated Society of Attorneys, Solicitors, Proctors, and others, practitioners of the law, not Barristers, praying the House would provide better accommodation for attorneys and others, whose vocations compelled their attendance at Judges' Chambers. The hon. Member observed, that at a period when improvements were taking place in every branch of the institutions of the country, the accommodations for the highest legal officers were totally overlooked; and it would scarcely be believed that the Chief Justice of England was compelled to transact all the important business which came under the denomination of chamber business in a room only eight feet high, twenty feet long, and twelve feet wide. The late member for Penryn, whom he regretted not to see in the present Parliament, presented a petition last Session on the subject. It was agreed on all sides that some better accommodation for the Judges was absolutely necessary; but the matter was put a stop to on the plea of economy—certainly, in this instance, unadvised economy. Though the subject might at first sight appear trivial to hon. Members who were not acquainted with the important affairs which came before the Judge in his chambers, he would beg to observe, that the public would derive considerable advantage if the prayer of the petition were granted, as the attorneys and solicitors would be enabled to accelerate the progress and settlement of the suits intrusted to them, by being able to bring them, in many cases, before the Judge, and by being allowed to settle them on motion before that functionary, which, from the confined and inconvenient nature of the place where they were obliged to attend, it was, at present, impossible for them to do.
Mr. Humesaid, that the accommodation which the hon. member for Truro wished for, was perfectly requisite as he had stated, and he would suggest a way
1166
of providing it without costing the public a shilling. There was paid out of the Suitors' Fund of the Court of Chancery, every year, a sum of 45,000 l. to the Masters in Chancery. Now, if the 4,000/. and 5,000 l. which were annually paid to those officers for doing little or nothing, were reduced to 1,300 l. or 1,400 l. there would be sufficient gained in one year to provide for the convenience which the hon. Member's petition prayed for. Let any man go to the ill-contrived and confused chambers allotted to the Judges, for the performance of their important private duties, and then compare them with what ought to be, when it was reflected that 7,000,000 l. of the public money had been spent on public buildings alone, within the last few years. He would at once declare that they were unfit for the transaction of business, and equally unfit to administer justice in.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MILITARY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose to present a Petition from members of the Political Union of Birmingham, complaining of the interference of the Military Force during the late elections, and praying the House to declare all elections null and void which took place under the control of the military force. He would only say, that he had seen gross cases of interference on the part of the military. He had seen bodies of Infantry clear the streets, and troops of Cavalry ride up to the hustings, while the polling was going on, and where no breach of the peace had been committed, or any act which could warrant such conduct. He had seen good and peaceable persons attacked by the ferocious soldiery, and honest electors cut down by the cavalry, and die of the wounds which they received. He hoped that the House would do its duty, and protect the rights of the people of England from such uncalled-for and unconstitutional interference; but if that House refused to interfere, he hoped that the people of England would protect their own rights. He trusted, that the people of England would remember, that if their Representatives in that House refused to protect their rights, they could bear arms in their own defence. He hoped that if the House did not do its duty now, the electors would, on the next occasion when they were called on to exercise their rights come up to the hustings with loaded

1167
pistols to protect themselves. He repeated it, he hoped that if that House refused to do their duty to the people, the people would not forget theirs, but come to the hustings with loaded pistols and loaded rifles, prepared to protect their rights.
Mr. Spring Riceconcurred with the hon. member for Birmingham in one observation which he had made. He hoped, as well as the hon. Member, that the people of England would never forget their rights. But he protested against the observations made by the hon. Member, which seemed to mean—if, indeed, they could be said to mean anything—that that House neglected the protection of the rights of the people of England. He objected, likewise, to his observations, because they assumed, that in case of improper military interference, either by order of the Magistrates or any other persons in authority, the people had no remedy. Now, it was known to all, that the proper quarter was always open to such complaints, and that, when made, they were never neglected. There was therefore, a constitutional remedy for such offences, and he thought it would be better and more becoming in the hon. Member to suggest to the people that constitutional remedy, than to suggest to them that that House neglected its duty to the people, and on that account that they should go to the hustings with loaded pistols and loaded rifles in defiance of the law of the land. Such doctrines, and such advice, were calculated to do much mischief out of doors. He thought it necessary to make these few remarks, as none of his Majesty's Ministers were present; and he could not permit the remarks of the hon. Member to pass unanswered.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorewas not aware in what part of the country the elections to which the hon. member for Birmingham had alluded, and the circumstances he had stated had occurred, but he must say, that it would have been impossible, without the protection of the military, for the electors of Wolverhampton to have conscientiously recorded their votes in the late contest. The usual protection afforded on such occasions was through the instrumentality of the police, but if that was found insufficient, he must declare, that it was absolutely necessary that the electors should have the protection of the military. He trusted that the people of this country would never be induced by hints thrown out in that House, or by instigation elsewhere,
1168
to resort to those means which had been shadowed forth on the present occasion. He must also beg to add, with reference to the election to which he had alluded (Wolverhampton), that if the military had not been called out it was his full and firm conviction that not only would the peace of the town have been endangered, but that the scenes which had been already enacted at Bristol would have been again performed in Wolverhampton. He must also state that no praise could be too great to give to the Magistrates for their conduct on the occasion to which he had referred.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that in making the observations he had addressed to the House he had not alluded to the late election at Wolverhampton. [Name, name.]
An Hon. Member: As the hon. Member had said that such transactions had taken place, he ought in justice to mention the name, otherwise it would be impossible for Members to have an opportunity of contradicting his assertions.
Mr. Thomas Attwood: The place to which I alluded, in which the infantry charged the people, and the cavalry rode up to the hustings, at a time when no breach of the peace had been committed, was the newly enfranchised borough of Walsall, in Staffordshire.
Mr. Forstersaid, that as member for the borough of Walsall, he craved the indulgence of the House while he offered one or two observations upon the present occasion. He had heard with surprise the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Birmingham, and he was the more astonished to hear those remarks applied to the contest for the borough he (Mr. Forster) represented, as the whole facts and circumstances of that election must be well known by the hon. Gentleman, who had himself been present and of whom it might be said "quorum pars magna fuit." He (Mr. Forster) could state, that it had been announced by two persons deputed to attend at Walsall by the other candidate for the representation of that borough (who was no other than the son of the hon. member for Birmingham himself), that 100,000 men were to come from Birmingham to attend the election at Walsall. He could also state, that nearly 20,000 men did come headed and preceded by men in military uniforms, though belonging to no corps; that those men made an attack on the inn in which the electors in his (Mr.

1169
Forster's) interest were congregated for the night; that upwards of thirty persons were apprehended for the riot, and that great numbers of the electors in the popular interest had been seriously injured. It was true, that on the following day the military had been sent for, but not until the election had virtually closed. The mililitary had not, however been called in in sufficient time to preserve those who had voted conscientiously from injury, though happily they did arrive time enough to save the town of Walsall from the fate of Bristol. The Magistracy and authorities of Walsall and its neigh bourhood had on that occasion acted with great moderation, strict impartiality, and not only with a painful vigilance to preserve the town, but also the uninterrupted exercise of the elective franchise. He (Mr. Forster) was ready to try the merits of the question before any tribunal that the hon. member for Birmingham might choose.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwas prepared to come to the bar of the House to show that the whole of the disturbances which had occurred had originated in the interference of the special constables, who had themselves broken the windows, and had also attacked children, and thereby excited the irritation of the parents.
Mr. Humestated, that he had himself received a petition from Walsall to the same effect as that which had been presented by the hon. member for Birmingham and which he (Mr. Hume) had delayed in bringing forward until he was aware that the hon. member for Walsall was in his place. The petition staled that the military were in the town before the polling, so that the statements now made were somewhat at variance. He should now abstain from saying more than to state that he should present the petition with which he had been intrusted to-morrow.
Mr. Buckinghamsupported the prayer of the petition, namely, that all elections where military interference had been used should be declared null and void. Every Member knew, and each constituency must know, that the law provided for the removal of military to a certain distance from the place of election, in order that no such interference might take place; but the question now was, whether in many instances, such interference had been necessary; and he thought no person could deny that in Sheffield, on the late election, the interference was improper. In the case
1170
of Sheffield, before anything had transpired to warrant the introduction of a military force, the military were sent for, and were met ten miles from the town by the Magistrates, who ordered them to load; they did so, arrived in Sheffield, and were not ten minutes in the town when, without any interference with them by the people, they issued from the inn yard in which they were congregated and fired upon the people; a poor watchman on duty in the preservation of the peace was killed, several children who were passing by were wounded and innocent blood had been shed. It had been said, that constitutional means were provided for the redress of such grievances, but he begged to remind hon. Members that an inquiry at the bar of the House could not be instituted or carried on at an expense short of 2,000 l., and therefore, how, he would ask, could poor persons who were the majority of the sufferers on such occasions, proceed? He considered that prevention was at all times better than cure, and he hoped that when the subject of Vote by Ballot was brought under the consideration of the House, some provisions would be made for taking the poll at elections in such a way as to make the interference of the military unnecessary and unknown.
An Hon. Memberhad heard from persons who had been present the circumstances attending the military interference at Sheffield, and from what he knew he could say that if any such interference was justifiable it was at Sheffield, for by it the town had been saved.
An Hon. Memberbegged to be allowed as one of the Representatives for Ireland, to observe that the injurious effects of military interference at elections had been there felt, and that in the county with which he was connected, not only had the military been marched into the town, but brought before the Committee Rooms of some of the candidates.
The Petition to lie upon the Table.