Commons Sitting of 19 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Final Registry of Electors; and Summary Conviction of Juvenile Offenders.—Read a second time:—Registration and Marriages Acts Amendment.—Read a third time:—Concealment of Births; Wills; Highway-rates; and Turnpike Roads Act (Ireland).

TRAVELLING ON THE SABBATH.
Mr. Dunlop Mr. Dunlop moved the third reading of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill.
Dr. Bowringconsidered the House bound, in justice and consistency, to reject a clause which had been introduced into this Bill, prohibiting traveling on the Lord's-day.
Mr. Dunlophad letters from all quarters of the country in the vicinity of the railway approving of the clause, and it was not fair for hon. Gentlemen to oppose it, simply in order to carry forward a speculative opinion of their own. He had been twitted by the hon. Member for Bath with using pounds-shillings-and-pence arguments on a former occasion, but he had done so, because he considered such arguments would have more weight with that hon. Member, and those with whom he acted, than any others he could have used. But travelling on Sunday was hostile to the feelings of the people of Scotland, and was there any justice or any wisdom in violating the prejudices of a whole people? This rail-road was an undertaking in opposition to all the coaches and other carriages passing in the same direction, and by the old law those carriages were prevented from travelling on Sunday. If, then, the clause was omitted, a great injustice would be done to those persons to whom those carriages belonged; and he therefore hoped, that as the clause had received the approbation of the people of Scotland, and as its omission would be an act of injustice to many, the House would not reject it.
Lord John Stuartsaid, the clause had only been carried in the Committee by a majority of one. He had then opposed it, as he considered its insertion an act of gross injustice, and peculiarly injurious to the poor, and he trusted the House would now reject it altogether.
Sir Andrew Agnewhad received petitions from the constituents of almost every Member in the House in favour of the principle on which the clause was founded. These petitions expressed a strong feeling on the subject, and the rejection of the clause would alarm the prejudices of the people of Scotland, who were most strongly opposed to travelling on the Lord's-day.
Mr. Wakleyasked, did the hon. Member for Wigtonshire believe that he could, by an Act of Parliament, make the people more moral? The idea was an insult to the religion which they professed; and the clause could only be considered as levelled against the working classes, who were to be prevented from travelling by means of this great improvement on the former mode of conveyance. The hon. Baronet could not prevent the people from using their feet, and there would be no use in preventing them from travelling by a railroad. Beasts might be tortured in carriages on
900
the Sabbath, but this quiet mode of conveyance was to be denied.
Mr. Finchsaid, that if the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury were good for anything, they went to establish that there was no necessity for statutes of any kind for the prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the clause was directed against the poor, but its object was to give them one day's rest in seven; and he could assure the House that nothing would more irritate the feelings of the people of Scotland than the omission of the clause.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that there had been so many appeals on the subject, that it was highly necessary that they should be understood. First, an hon. Member had got up and insinuated that which he knew it would be unparliamentary to state openly. The insinuation of the hon. Member for Ayrshire with respect to his (Mr. Roebuck's) religion, was totally uncalled for. What was the meaning of that insinuation? A man of high feeling, of Christian charity, of common honesty, would not make an insinuation when he dared not make a direct assertion.
The Speakerthought the hon. Member must feel that he was using language not quite Parliamentary.
Mr. Roebuck: I bow to your decision, Sir. The language was too strong for this House; but it was called for by an insinuation that ought not to have been made in it. Those, continued the hon. Member, who opposed this clause in a Railroad Act, were said, by insinuation, not to have a proper reverence for the Christian religion—that was the meaning of the insinuation. Now, he asserted distinctly and broadly, that the Christian religion had nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath. The Sabbath Day was the Saturday kept by the Jewish religionist; and the Sunday, which had no reference to the 4th Commandment, was not contemplated at all by the 4th Commandment. The Sunday was an ordinance that had grown up by mere custom. He held in his hand, and he was determined to push this question to the utmost, a tract written by Archbishop Whateley, who quoted Archbishop Cranmer. He hoped that was authority enough for Gentlemen opposite. Now, what said Archbishop Cranmer:—"Know ye not, good children, that the Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath Day, and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we Christian

901
men in the New Testament are not bound by such commandments of Moses's law-concerning differences of times, days, and weeks, but have liberty and freedom to use other days for our Sabbath days, thereon to hear the word of God and keep holy rest; and therefore the Christian liberty may be kept and maintained. We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday, as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we must obey." What was the meaning of that assertion? Why, that the 4th Commandment, like the other portion of the Jewish law, was abrogated by the Christian creed, and was no law for us. Archbishop Whateley, no ordinary authority, distinctly laid down that rule, and said that, on the Sunday—which was a mere day of commemoration, and not ordained, not commanded in any way by the Christian religion—we keep our holy rest. Now, he would go somewhat farther. He wanted to know by what rule and by what Christian guide those men were led who insinuated those individuals were not Christians who opposed the introduction of such a clause into a Bill of this kind. He held in his hand the code of the Christian faith, and he would quote that reverend book, and he would from it take his rule and his Christian charity. He was about to read, with all due deference, a portion of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In the 14th chapter of that epistle, St. Paul spoke thus—" Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation. For one believeth that he may eat all things, and those who were weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the Lord, he eateth not, and giveth not God thanks." Another verse was this:—"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother,
902
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Again, "Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify one another. For meat destroy not the word of God; all things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man which eateth for offence. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything wherewith thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is mace weak." He would read one verse more, and then have done "Let us, therefore, not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." That was his rule. He would say that, no particular day having been specified, it was not the duty of the Legislature to interfere and enjoin the observance of any given day, and thereby "put a stumbling-block in their brother's way." In his opinion it savoured more of Christian charity; and, above all, of Christian humility, for every man to take care of his own conduct, to square his rule for himself, but not in any arrogance of special command to compel another to do that which he would be unwilling to do himself. Who, he would ask, had set the hon. Members on the other side up as judges of this question? He saw nothing to distinguish them from other men—at least nothing of excellence. But the hon. Member for Ayrshire had said the people of Scotland liked the clause, and he would ask if the law commanded them to travel on the Sunday? Was there anything in the Act of Parliament to insist upon their going upon the railway on that day? Were they not able to show their peculiar faith by staying at home? Why did they not begin nearer at home if such enactments were to be carried? Why not stop the Greenwich railway or the Greenwich steamers? They dared not. It was well known that to do so was absolutely beyond the power of Parliament. He respected the people of Scotland, but he did not admire their manner of keeping the Sabbath. He would again assert, that any ascetic observance of the Sabbath was unwise, and that forcing the conscience of any man was not only unwise,

903
but unjust. The people of Scotland would not be injured by the rejection of the clause—it still left them their now uncontrolled will in the worship of God according to their consciences, and they should, therefore, abstain from uncharitably forcing the consciences of others.
Mr. Laboucherehoped the House would not suffer itself to be drawn into a theological discussion, as if there was one place more unfit than another for such a discussion, that place was a popular assembly. Although there had hitherto been nothing said by hon. Gentlemen on either side calculated to give personal offence, he, nevertheless, thought it was desirable that the matter should not proceed further. If he should see any Bill brought in, having for its object the prevention of compulsory labour on the Sabbath by those who conscientiously objected to work on that day, he was prepared to say he would not offer any opposition to it; but, as he considered that the tendency of the clause under the consideration of the House would be to alienate the respect of the people of Scotland from their English neighbours, he felt himself bound to vote against its insertion in the Bill.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that although many persons professing the Christian religion differed in opinion with regard to the divine obligation of keeping holy one day in seven, yet he believed the most lax theologians were agreed in allowing those to observe it who chose to do so. The arguments made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Bath ought to induce him to bring forward some measure, not only for the repeal of the Act of Charles 2nd, but all other laws which had been enacted upon the subject.
Colonel Thompsonwould recant everything he had ever said upon the question, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would produce a shadow of authority or precedent from the book in which they professed to refer as a rule. He happened to be able to enumerate all the instances in which the subject was at all mentioned; or if he was wrong, he was open to correction. It was commemorated that Paul preached on the first day of the week, and that the disciples broke bread. Was there the slightest evidence of a wish to hinder any man from doing the like? It was stated that on the first day of the week the early Christians made a collection for charitable purposes. Was there any thing in the omission of the clause, to interfere with the power of doing
904
this? And it was further stated, in an abstruse and mystical book, that an apostle was "in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." Was there the slightest tendency to interfere with the right of private judgment on this point either? These were positively the only ways in which the subject was ever mentioned, and upon such grounds did hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to shut our railroads. There was no use in saying the clause was only to extend to Ayrshire; if there was any doubt of what was intended yesterday, there was none to-day. Among the papers of the House was the Bill which it was proposed to extend to England. The preamble ran, Forasmuch as nothing is more acceptable to God than the true and sincere worship and service of Him according to His holy will, and "that the holy keeping of the Lord's-day is a principal part of the true service of God." Suppose a Catholic Member had brought in a Bill stating "that the practice of auricular confession is a principal part of the true service of God," would not hon. Gentlemen have seen that this was a begging of the question? Members on his side of the House, by the same right by which their fathers resisted the one proposition, resisted the other. They stood here to maintain that it was a mere wilful imposition of man's invention, without a shadow of authority from the book professed to be appealed to; which was a great deal more than could be said of auricular confession. There was another reason against the course adopted by the other side. It was setting up a false and fictitious standard of morality, and entailing on the country all those evils which were the consequences. We were continually told, that all men who came to be hanged, confessed to having begun with Sabbath-breaking. He had no doubt that in Mohammedan countries, all men who, by their crimes, were brought to the punishment of impalement, confessed to having began with breaking the fast of Ramazan. Burthens were laid on men too heavy to be borne, and thus an artificial crime was created in men's minds, and their consciences, accustomed once to break through the artificial bound, proceeded rapidly to break through others. Was this the way to legislate for public morality? He hoped the House would show its sense of such proceedings, by resisting the attempt to establish an arbitrary and fictitious imposition.
Lord John Russellthought the House was going beyond its usual line in

905
atempting to prohibit travelling on a particular railroad on the Sabbath, while it was allowed on all the turnpike roads in England and Scotland. He did not think the House was prepared to go the length this clause contemplated; but if it was, the question ought certainly not to be brought forward in a way which affected a particular railway. The fairer way would be to make it a separate and distinct question. For these reasons he should vote against the retention of the clause.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the clause amounted to an absolute prohibition of travelling at any hour on Sunday in Scotland; and although he disapproved of many of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he felt the clause to be most unnecessary.
The House divided on the retention of the clause: Ayes 83; Noes 115: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Houldsworth, T.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Houstoun, G.

Ashley, Viscount

Hughes, Hughes

Attwood, M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Balfour, T.

Jackson, Sergeant

Baring, H. Bingham

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Baring, W. B.

Jones, Wilson

Bateson, Sir R.

Lefroy, Anthony

Beckett, Sir J.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Bonham, R. Francis

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Broadwood, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Maclean, Donald

Buxton, T. F.

Maule, hon. F.

Cartwright, W. R.

Maxwell, John

Chisholm, A. W.

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mosley, Sir O., Bart.

Clive, Viscount

Palmer, George

Compton, H. C.

Patten, John Wilson

Crewe, Sir G., Bart.

Perceval, Colonel

Estcourt, T. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fector, J. M.

Polhill, Captain F.

Feilden, W.

Pringle, A.

Finch, George

Richards, John

Fitzroy, H.

Richards, Richard

Foley, Edw. Thomas

Ross, Charles

Forster, Charles S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Sandon, Viscount

Gordon, hon. W.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Goulburn, H.

Sheppard, T.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Sinclair, Sir George

Greene, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey, Sir G.

Stanley, Edward

Grimston, Viscount

Stormont, Viscount

Halse, James

Sturt, Henry Charles

Hamilton, Lord C.

Verner, Colonel

Handley, Henry

Vesey, hon. T.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Vivian, J. E.

Hardy, J.

Welby, G. E.

Hastie, A.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hope, hon. James

Wilks, John

906

Wilson, Henry

TELLERS.

Wodehouse, E.

Agnew, Sir A.

Wyndham, Wadham

Dunlop, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Angerstein, John

Lynch, A. H.

Anson, Colonel

Mangles, J.

Bagshaw, John

Marsland, Henry

Baines, E,

Methuen, Paul

Ball, N.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Barclay, D.

Morrison, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Barron, H. W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Belfast, Earl of

O'Connell, J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

O'Connell, Morgan

Blake, M. J.

O'Conor, Don

Blunt, Sir C.

Oliphant, L.

Bowes, John

Ord, W. H.

Bridgman, H.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pattison, J.

Browne, R. D.

Pechell, Captain

Brownrigg, S.

Pendarves, E. W.

Buller, Charles

Philips, M.

Buller, E.

Potter, R.

Bulwer, Edward L.

Roebuck, John A.

Butler, hon. Pierce

Rolfe, Sir R.

Callaghan, D.

Russell, Lord John

Campbell, Sir J.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Sanford, E. A.

Clay, W.

Seymour, Lord

Clive, Edward Bolton

Smith, R. V.

Codrington, Sir E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Strangways, hon. J.

Crawford, W. S.

Strutt, E.

Crawford, W.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Denison, John E.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Denistoun, A.

Thompson, Colonel

Divett, E.

Thornley, Thomas

Donkin, Sir R.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Duncombe, T.

Tulk, C. A.

Dundas, J. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Ellice, E.

Villiers, Charles P.

Elphinstone, H.

Vivian, J. H.

Evans, G.

Wall, C. B.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Ward, Henry George

Ferguson, Sir R.

Wason, R.

Fitzsimon, Christopher

Wemyss, Captain

Fort, John

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Grate, G.

Whalley, Sir S.

Gully, John

White, Samuel

Hawes, B.

Wilbraham, G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Williams, Sir J.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Howick, Viscount

Wortley, hon. J.

Hume, J.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Hutt, W.

Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.

Jervis, John

Young, G. F.

Labouchere, H.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord G.

Wakley, T.

Leveson, Lord

Bowring, Dr.

Clause rejected.
Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Roebuckhoped the noble Lord would slate how he intended for the future to carry on the Government business. Would it not be much the better way to take one bill and go through with it.
Lord J. Russellapprehended that the course proposed by the hon. Member would be a very inconvenient one for the House to adopt. He thought it most desirable for the House, both as a deliberative assembly, and more especially as an assembly representing the people, that when a bill was once introduced, particularly if a bill of any importance, time should be allowed for its becoming generally known to the country before it was carried through its later stages. Important modifications and changes were made in almost every Bill from the information derived from bodies of the people, or from individuals, after the circulation of the bill. It might be very desirable for the House, immediately after deciding on the principle of a bill, to go into Committee upon it, but it would be highly objectionable for the House, after the bill had gone through a Committee, to proceed at once to the third reading. It was essential that some time should elapse after a committee on a bill and the receiving of the report, in order that the country might be aware of the alterations made in it in committee.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the House should adopt the natural hours of doing business. They were the only legislative body which turned the night into day. Although the practice might give the younger orators an opportunity for display, it killed those who exceeded the age of sixty. He had heard it argued that such hours were necessary for the sake of Members connected with commerce. That could only be true of such among them as resided in London, for others were enabled to leave the towns in which they lived and their business too. With regard to members of the bar, he would say that the practice might be beneficial to a few gentlemen in extensive practice, such as the Attorney-General; but the Irish barristers left their business and their country to attend their duties.
Conversation dropped.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
The Order of the Day being read for a Committee on
908
the Bill for abolishing the punishment of death in certain cases,
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he had given notice of a motion for the purpose of extending a mitigation of capital punishment to all cases less than the crime of murder. Having been one of those who during a series of years had taken a deep interest in all that concerned the national character and the national habits, he had paid much attention to this subject. In the present state of society the punishment of death might be abolished altogether. He was sorry to say, however, that the law of this country had long been in a barbarous state with reference to capital punishments. In other countries there was less capital punishment than here. In France and Prussia, where the united inhabitants amounted to 50,000,000, in the year 1834 there were but seventeen executions, whereas in the same year in England and Wales, with a population of only 15,000,000, there had been thirty-four executions. The effect of the rarity of executions was not injurious. Crimes had diminished with the decrease of executions. The returns from France for the last five, as compared with the five preceding years, showed a diminution of persons committed for trial in the proportion of three to two. In Belgium, for the years ending with 1829, the executions had been seventeen and the trials for capital offences forty-five, but since that period a great dislike had been manifested by the people of that country against the frequency of capital punishment, and for the four years ending 1834, the returns were, executions none, trials forty-one, which so far from an increase, showed a positive decrease of crime. He need not call the attention of the House to the many cases in which capital punishment had been abolished in our own country since 1829. He was glad that we had now no more of the detestable exhibitions of hanging in chains, and that we looked more to refining the habits of the people. But he would ask whether society was less secure now than it was before 1829? We had been told, indeed, that, some few crimes had increased, and among them that of stealing sheep. But the amount of crime on the whole since 1829 was on the decrease. There had been a slight decrease in the last year only, but on looking back to a period of years we found a diminished amount, and since 1833 the

909
decrease in the number of crimes amounted to twelve per cent. He perceived that his hon. Friend, the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Handley),had given notice of a motion for retaining the punishment of death in cases of burning agricultural produce. He wished to know why agricultural produce was to be guarded with greater rigour than any other property? It might be said that the particular species of crime had increased, but he contended that in a case of this vast importance we ought to look to general and not to merely temporary or local results. If they referred to the returns, they would find that the increase of crime was confined to offences against property, for as society advanced and property accumulated, the temptation and the facilities for abstracting it increased. Crimes against the person, however, had diminished. He was aware that the noble Lord only proposed to retain the punishment of death for certain offences against the person, and to abolishit in the instances of offences against property. He (Mr. Ewart) could not agree with the noble Lord in thinking this limitation satisfactory. The noble Lord could only proceed on the principle of wishing to render punishment certain, and he was sure that if the noble Lord continued the punishment of death in any case but murder, the difference between the verdicts of the juries and the words of the law would be as great as it is now. The crimes to which the noble Lord still proposed to continue the punishment of death had long ago ceased to be capitally punished in Prussia, Belgium, France, and Austria. The Code Napoleon certainly retained it in cases of burglary, though with very considerable limitations, but in 1832, capital punishment for burglary was abolished in France, and this alteration in the law was not attended by any bad consequences, but had met with the approbation of the country, and he believed of the law officers of the crown, in France the jury had the power of recommending a mitigation of capital punishment in particular cases; he knew that the noble Lord objected to investing juries with that power, although he himself did not see the force of those objections. The noble Lord retained capital punishment in eight cases. He knew that there was a very strong opinion entertained with respect to the propriety of inflicting the punishment of death in cases of rape.
910
But in all the places to which he had referred, the punishment of death was not inflicted for the commission of that crime, and this lenity in the law was not found to be attended by any bad consequences. The crime was so difficult and so uncertain of proof, that there was the greatest difficulty in bringing the jury to convict, but if the punishment of death were taken away, he trusted that the same obstacles would not exist. Then, as to infamous offences, it had not been found that this species of crime, punishable as it was with death in this country, was visited by a certainty of punishment. In the countries, however, to which he had referred, they left persons convicted of those offences to suffer a long terns of imprisonment, and to the powerful verdict of overwhelming popular opinion against them. Another reason why murder only should be punished with death was, that by the continuance of capital punishment in other cases an inducement was given to a criminal to put an end to the testimony against him by the absolute destruction of the person he had robbed. The robber would feel while he plundered his victim the strong temptation which the law put in his way to remove him altogether, and thus get rid of one chance of detection; while if the punishment of death for the offence were abolished, it would be an inducement to him to spare his life. It might be asked what substitute he should be willing to propose for the punishment of death. In all countries it was admitted that imprisonment for life was a much greater punishment than death itself. It was more enduring, and the invaluable testimony of Mr. Alderman Harmer before the Criminal Law Commissioners went to show, that in the opinions of criminals themselves imprisonment for life was a heavier punishment than death. The Legislature ought not to pronounce a punishment which could not be carried into execution, nor should a punishment which was irrevocable be decreed by any but an infallible judgment. Neither ought the people to be habituated to scenes of blood and he could appeal in testimony of that opinion to the late exhibitions which had taken place, which probably sent away more criminals than went there. People went there smoking their pipes, and indulging in language most inappropriate to an occasion so solemn. In conformity with the dictates of humanity, no less than

911
with those of sound policy, several despotic countries had diminished the number of capital punishments. Russia had mitigated the severity of her code very much of late years. In Tuscany more than fifty years ago the number of capital crimes had been much diminished. In Austria capital punishment was now only permitted to a certain extent; and should England, the freest country in the world, refuse to follow such an example, especially after the adoption of it had been found to produce the very best effects in the United States? The same results had also been produced in barbarous countries, wherever an effort had been made to mitigate the severity of their law. This had been the case in Morocco. It had also been the case in India, where, under the auspices of the late Sir James Mackintosh, and of the present Sir Charles Metcalf, a milder code had been introduced, which had at once refined the barbarism and improved the morality of the people committed to their care. He therefore called upon the House to extend the mitigatory provisions of the noble Lord's Bill to all cases short of actual murder; and in making his present motion he had the consolitary conviction of knowing that he was but responding to the general feelings of the country at large. He concluded by moving as an amendment that it be an instruction to the Committee on this Bill to abolish capital punishment in all cases save those of actual murder.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment, and observed, that the executions which had recently taken place in the metropolis and in Glocester had a tendency to entice individuals to the commission of crime rather than to deter them from it. He was inclined to go further than his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool was inclined to go on this subject. He had come to the conclusion that the law ought not to execute anybody. In a visit which he had made to the prison of Ghent he had seen 980 individuals all sentenced to capital punishment, but all under going a commuted punishment; and he had been informed by the governor of the prison, who was an old military officer, that he had found that the diminution of the number of capital punishments in Belgium had mitigated the ferocity and diminished the amount of crime in that country.
Lord John Russellwas very unwilling to enter upon this discussion, because both the hon. Member for Liverpool who moved,
912
and the hon. Member for Middlesex who seconded, this amendment, had treated the proposition which he had laid before the House, as if he had called upon it to increase rather than to diminish the number of capital punishments. The proposition, which he had laid before the House was for the decrease of the number of capital punishments; for of thirty-seven offences which were now capital, twenty-one were made capital no longer by his bill, whilst in the sixteen other cases circumstances were stated under which the capital punishment would be much restricted. He made his proposition in that shape, because he considered that it was more likely, when so framed, to carry with it public opinion, and so mitigate the severity of the law, than it would be if he had made it in the still more mitigated form proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member had hardly disguised from the House what his object was; indeed, his argument had gone to the full length of asserting the necessity of abolishing capital punishment altogether. The hon. Member for Middlesex had been still more frank; for he confessed at once that such was the object which he had in view. The two cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded—namely, that of the late execution in the metropolis and that of the execution at Gloucester—were both cases of execution for murder, and for murder of the most aggravated description, in which no sympathy could possibly be excited so as to throw its colours over the fate of the offenders. In such cases his hon. Friend contended that there should be no capital punishment. He must say, that he thought the Legislature of the country would not be acting in accordance with the general sentiments of its inhabitants, if it acceded to a proposition which abolished the punishment of death in case of murder. He believed that if Parliament were to pass a law abolishing capital punishment altogether, and if offenders whose crimes excited the abhorrence of the public were not to be capitally punished, there would be a reaction of public opinion in favour of capital punishments. Parliament would be compelled to retrace its steps, and offences which were now no longer capital would again be capitally punished. Such a revulsion of public feeling would be a great misfortune. He thought that the taking away of capital punishment from all offences which were offences against pro-

913
perty and the continuation of it in all cases where an atrocious offence was committed against life or person,—he thought, he repeated, that that was a manner by which public feeling would be conciliated, by which juries would be led to convict offenders, and by which public opinion would be made more in accordance with the due execution of the law. With regard to what had been said on the religious, and philosophical, and practical bearings of the question as stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, he would only say for the present that he declined to enter upon those topics; but it appeared to him that the hon. Member would have a fairer chance of accomplishing his own object by accepting the proposition which was then before the House, and by leaving his own views to work their way in accordance with public opinion, than he would have by proposing at present the abolition of the punishment of death altogether. It was quite another question whether in the present Bill the Government was proceeding too far, or not far enough. He was of opinion that they ought not to abolish capital punishments. The hon. Member for Liverpool, in the course of his speech, had quoted the example of other countries, but he must say, that with the exception of Belgium he did not think that capital punishment had been abolished in any of them on any extensive scale. During the last year there had been fifteen cases of capital punishment in France, even with the power which the jury had of doing away with the capital part of the offence by bringing in a verdict of "guilty with attenuating circumstances." During the last year the total number of persons executed in all the counties of England and Wales was seventeen. He was quite aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool meant nothing unfair to his Majesty's Government, but he had dealt out rather hard measure to it when he mentioned that thirty persons had been executed in one year about three years ago, when the number last year was only seventeen, and when it was not likely to exceed seventeen persons this year, even if it reached so high. He would not address the House further upon this subject; it was one which ought rather to be left to the discussion of public writers, and to the effect of popular opinion in future times. What he now proposed to do was to make the law in accordance with the feelings of the public at large and with the opinions
914
of the judges who were now charged with the administration of it. The best course therefore, which he could take, was to meet the spirit of our law, and the humanity of the country. One word more, and he had done. With respect to the late executions and the scenes which had then occurred, he agreed in most of the observations which had been made upon them, though he must say that great exaggerations on that subject had appeared in the newspapers. Those scenes excited in his mind the same feelings of disgust which they appeared to have excited in the minds of other hon. Members. They were not, however, the effects of the executions—they were owing to the want of sufficient religious and moral instruction in the people who witnessed them. He was sure that, if his two hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Liverpool and Middlesex, had attended those executions, their feelings would have been very different from those of the multitude which witnessed them. In conclusion, he repeated that it was not the immediate consequences of the execution which had produced the spectacles they so much deplored, but the want of sound, moral, and religious instruction among the people.
Mr. Fowel Buxtonreturned his sincere thanks to the noble Lord and to his Majesty's Government for what they had done towards mitigating the severity of our criminal code. The House was then assembled for the purpose of discussing this question, whether, the last remnant of the sanguinary code of this country regarding the crime of forgery should be abolished altogether. In the whole course of the noble Lord's speech he had not observed a single argument in support of the necessity of inflicting capital punishment in those cases where murder had not been committed. He was sure that the House, or, if not the House, his hon. and learned Friend near him, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), would recollect the time when it was held that none but a visionary or an enthusiast could suppose that the security of property would be increased by mitigating the punishment inflicted on those who violated the law respecting it. That doctrine once held so wild and fantastical, was now proved to be accurate and sound by practical demonstration. He was not afraid of any revulsion of public feeling incase the law was still further mitigated. Two experiments re-

915
specting forgery had been tried. The one was the proces of diminishing that crime by rigour, and the other by mitigation. In the first instance all persons convicted of forgery were treated with Bow-street mercy, not a single wretch being allowed to escape. At one assizes no fewer than nine persons were found guilty of this offence, and every one of them was put to death. In the metropolis alone, twenty years ago, a greater number of persons were executed for forgery than for all other offences, throughout England and Wales; but did this inexorable severity put down the offence? It was well known that it did not. It was, however, impossible to go on with this wholesale slaughter of victims, and consequently, in nineteen cases out of twenty the capital punishment was not inflicted. It had been said in opposition to those who advocated the abolition of capital punishment in cases of forgery that the inevitable effect of such a step would be the destruction of trade and commerce; but he would defy any one now to say that either had been injured by the mitigation which had taken place. He could not help saying that all such predictions were sheer nonsense and folly, and this he could prove by a reference to the last three years. In 1833 the number of convictions for forgery was 213, while in the last year it did not exceed 179. This, he thought, was con-elusive in favour of the abolition of the capital punishment, the more especially as all other descriptions of crime had, during the same period, rather increased than diminished. While the capital punishment was inflicted there was a reluctance to prosecute. But now that was not the case; and what was the consequence? Why, that the law was put rigorously in force in almost all cases, and that the number of offenders had greatly decreased. Being persuaded that the removal of the extreme penalty of the law would be advantageous in every point of view, not only with regard to forgery, but all other offences, he certainly should give his support to the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool.
Mr. Brothertonconsidered the punishment of death not only contrary to sound policy but opposed to the principles of true religion and right reason. By the divine law no human tribunal was, in his opinion justified in taking away the life of a man for any crime whatsoever, and he could, if it were necessary, adduce reasons to justify the view which he took on this
916
subject. He admitted that the only way to benefit the people was by giving them proper moral and religious instruction, but. he could not believe that any good could be derived from a barbarous system of punishment, which tended rather to encourage than to repress crime. The part of the criminal code of this country which related to capital punishment was against the divine creed, and he, well knowing that he could demonstrate this, should give his vote for the amendment.
Dr. Bowringwished to have the punishment of death abolished in all cases: far he was convinced that the spectacle of an execution depraved the mind more than it deterred from the commission of crime. There were parts of Italy in which the punishment of death was very rarely inflicted, and other parts in which it was frequently and rigorously exacted. Tuscany, where death was seldom inflicted, had purer morals and a more virtuous population than any other portion of Italy. He looked upon the desire for severe punishments as nothing else than a desire for vengeance, and the most humane laws were those which were the most efficient for the prevention of crime. Holland was the first country which tried the experiment of diminishing the punishment of forgery. The experiment had been in every way successful in that country, and the success of a similar experiment in England ought to encourage them to proceed further in the path on which they had entered under such excellent auspices.
Mr. Roebuckwished to guard himself from erroneous impressions in the support which he was about to give to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool. The exception which it contained justified, or appeared to justify, the infliction of capital punishment in cases of murder. To that part of the amendment he could not agree. The prevention of the offence, not the torture of the offender, was the object of punishment. Now, the prevention of crime was only to be attained in three ways. First, you might instruct your people so as to induce them not to commit crime. Secondly, you might have a police so regulated as to prevent them from committing it. And thirdly, you might have punishments to repress it when it had been committed. He hoped, nay, he was sure, that the noble Lord thought that there was something beyond the mere punishment of the criminal. In order to prevent the people from committing crime,

917
the Legislature ought to educate them. Until we had done that, every pain we inflicted was a stain upon ourselves. He supported, then, the principle of this motion, but he regretted that it did not go far enough.
Mr. O'Connellfully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member who last addressed the House. He would go to the full length of abolishing the punishment of death in all and every case, not even excepting that of murder. No man, or society of men, had the right to take away life. The experience of the past would justify the Legislature in taking the course now proposed, for public opinion had gone fully with them in all the improvements they had made by a mitigation of the severity of our criminal code. Look at the press at all sides, and in every part of the country, and it was in favour of a still farther extension of clemency in our criminal code. He had only one other remark to make—with reference to what had been said by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home-department, of the conduct of the crowd at the late execution in London. He fully admitted that conduct was bad—nothing could be worse, but was there not to be found some extenuation for it in the horribly brutal conduct of the wretch who was about to suffer, who had got himself into the confidence of an unsuspecting woman, and savagely murdered her for the lucre of gain, and who throughout the whole of his subsequent conduct showed no feeling of remorse, or appeared to have any feeling whatever of religion? He was glad to see a disposition prevailing in this as well as other countries to abolish the punishment of death in all cases. He hoped the feeling would become general throughout society, and that at no distant day the principle would be generally admitted, that no man ought to take the life of another.
The Attorney Generalrejoiced that the public voice went with the Legislature in those ameliorations of the criminal code—by which the punishment of death was about to be taken away from three-fourths of those offences to which it had before been applied. He had no hesitation in giving those measures his support, for he had no apprehension that the abolition of the capital punishment would in any of the cases here mentioned lead to the increase of crime; but he was not at all prepared to do away with the punishment of death in every case. The public mind was not at all prepared for such a change, and
918
he had little doubt that there would be a general exclamation through the country against it. He had presented several petitions on the subject, some from the city which he had the honour to represent; but though they all prayed for the abolition of capital punishment in every case save that of murder, none of them went beyond it. He certainly was not prepared to go further. The time might arrive when that could be done with safety, but he did not think it bad yet arrived. If the capital punishment were allowed to remain, as he thought it ought, in cases of murder, it should also be extended to cases where attempts were made to commit murder, for he could easily imagine cases where the intention of the party attacking to take away the life of another, might be defeated by the strength of the party attacked, or by the speedy attendance of medical aid, or a variety of causes not at all connected with the intentions of the assailant. Now cases of that kind were not distinguishable in any moral point from the crime of murder itself, and he therefore would not in such cases abolish the capital punishment. Now with respect to burglary the state of the law on that subject was a disgrace to the country. Under the existing definition of burglary a person in a frolic breaking a pane of glass after midnight, or a schoolboy stealing a penny bun, might be held to be burglars, but his noble Friend's Bill remedied that defect, and left the definition open to no misconstruction. He felt bound under all circumstances to vote against the amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool.
Mr. Wysesaid, the whole question to be decided was, whether the punishment of death for murder was efficient in preventing the commission of the crime by others? The experience of all countries where the experiment had been tried had shown, that where the laws were most severe and sanguinary, there crime most prevailed. The only effective mode of preventing crime would be to educate the people so as to lessen the disposition to commit crime. There were many punishments more severe than that of death, and where a more severe substitute could be supplied the capital punishment would not be justified.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that whichever way they looked at the question, it was one of difficulty; but if the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) were pressed to a division, he most vote for it. He fully concurred with

919
those hon. Members who had urged that sound education would be the best preventive of crime, though he feared he might differ from some as to what sound education might be. In his opinion no education could be considered effective which was not a scriptural education.
The Solicitor-Generalbelieved, that the time might come when the visions of the hon. Members who would abolish the punishment of death in every case might be realised with safety to the community, but certainly the present times were not those in which such a change should be made. If at once they rushed into so complete an alteration in the criminal code they might do much mischief, which would be aggravated by the difficulty of retracing their steps. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and those who supported him on the occasion, had been placed in rather an invidious position by the course the discussion had taken; for any one who had heard that discussion would have imagined that his noble Friend had proposed some measures of additional severity, which it was the object of other Members to resist. Now, the very reverse was the case—in one respect at least. His noble Friend's proposition was this—that whereas capital punishment might now be legally applied to thirty-seven offences, it was expedient to remove that punishment in two-thirds of the cases. The hon. Member for Liverpool would take away the capital punishment from all crimes but one, but some of those who concurred with him so far would take it even from that one. He did hope that from the increasing education and intelligence of the community, death would be inflicted only in extreme cases; but he did not think it would be expedient or safe at present to remove that punishment in all cases.
Mr. Robinsondid not concur in the remark that the Legislature was in advance of public opinion, for public opinion went fully with the Legislature in all that it had done to ameliorate the criminal code. He thought it quite in consonance with the spirit of the Christian religion that the punishment of death should be abolished in all cases; indeed, the principle seemed to be admitted on all hands, and the only difference was as to the question of time, but he had heard no valid reason to show why the abolition of capital punishment might not be made with perfect safety at the present day.
Dr. Lushingtonhailed with great satis-
920
faction this measure for the mitigation of the criminal code. It was a subject to which for thirty years he had devoted his attention. He wished to see capital punishments abolished altogether. Crimes had become less heinous and aggravated in proportion as the criminal code was made less sanguinary. The effect of public executions was to deprave the public mind. He believed that there never was an execution which did not produce a future candidate for the hands of the hangman. He thought it unjust to the people of this country to say that if the punishment of death were abolished they would take summary vengeance, and appeal to what Lord Bacon called "the wild justice of revenge." There could scarcely be found an instance in which such an occurrence had taken place in this country. He believed, on the contrary, that in any amelioration which the Legislature carried into effect, the full sanction of public opinion and public feeling of the country would go along with them. When any particularly atrocious crime was committed—such as that which had lately excited the minds of the multitude in the metropolis—it was not found that a regard to justice actuated the public in their desire that the criminal should suffer, but that they were urged forward by a vehement wish to see a punishment inflicted heavy in proportion to the heinousness of the crime. He thought that the Government were entitled to great credit for their readiness in conforming to the general call for a remission of the punishment of death, and their fame would not rest on the fleeting popularity which might hail the change, but on the fact that they had brought forward a measure really useful to the country.
Sir Robert Inglisshould feel ashamed if he did not declare his reasons for objecting to the motion. This was no party question, and it never would be legislated on, he hoped, under any feeling of political bias. The House well knew that there was not the slightest chance, supposing that the instruction was carried, that the Bill could pass if framed in conformity with its principle. He certainly thought that those hon. Members who appeared so anxious that the instruction should be carried were purchasing at a cheap rate a character for humanity in the country, and that they were endeavouring at the same time to throw on the Government the odium of offering resistance to the motion. As to the arguments which might be ad-

921
duced in favour of the present system, be might point out the number of cases under the old Scripture dispensation in which the punishment of death was enjoined. He was unwilling to make the House a forum of theological discussion, and he should not, therefore, dwell on that part of the subject. He would rather refer to the arguments adduced by the Attorney-General, and request hon. Members to consider if the distinction brought forward by that hon. and learned Member, relative to what were called, in popular language, the accidents of crime, were not perfectly unanswerable. He must again repeat, that the support of the motion given by hon. Members opposite was, in his opinion, a cheap way of gaining popularity, and he should certainly vote with his Majesty's Government on the motion; and he would not go to a division without declaring that, in his opinion they had gone as far as they could in prudence attempt to go.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, that while the hon. Member for Waterford city was speaking, he had gone aside to consult a pocket Bible, which, like the hon. Member for Bath, he had brought in his pocket in consideration of the turn to biblical criticism the debates of the evening were likely to take, and moved moreover by the circumstance that the book did not make part of the works of reference contained in the library of the House—with a view, if he could have caught the Speaker's eye, to have corroborated that hon. Member's opinion of the extreme danger of taking the Mosaic law as the measure of what was necessarily to be punished with death in civilised nations. While looking for certain passages which he had in his recollection, his eye had glanced over other enactments of that code, which would answer his purpose as well. He found it written, that whoever ate "all manner of fat," of ox, or of sheep, or of goat, that soul should be cut off from his people. And whoever ate "all manner of blood," that soul should be cut off from his people. Under these circumstances, he would leave it to the House to say how far the assignment of capital punishment by the Mosaic code was authority which modern legislators must necessarily follow. There was a question on another subject quite distinct, which he would ask in hope that it would be taken up by others, either now or at some other time. Was there an intention in any quarter, to do away with the punishment of death for political offences? Many in
922
that House were old enough to have seen God's image sorely mangled, by decapitation and all kinds of barbarous processes, for what were termed political offences. The current of opinion was strongly running against such practices throughout Europe—and there was a natural anxiety to know whether this country was to be behind the rest.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienwas in favour of the motion. The state of one part of Ireland in 1831 was a proof that mild measures might be productive of excellent results. Outrages were then commonly committed which were punishable with death. The capital punishment was not insisted on, and in a month the district became tranquil.
Mr. Ewart, in explanation, wished to state that he had not expressed himself in favour of a total abolition of the punishment of death. He also desired to declare that he had not entertained the slightest intention of reflecting on the Government for their conduct respecting the subject before the House, but had given them credit for having done much good as far as they had gone.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 73; Noes 72: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Alston, Rowland.

Hodges, T. L.

Astley, Sir Jacob, bt.

Howick, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackburne, J.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Jones, W.

Buller, E.

Labouchere, H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Long, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Macleod, R.

Clerk, Sir G., bart.

Maule, hon. F.

Coote, Sir C.

Melgund, Viscount

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Dugdale, W. S.

Murray, J. A.

Dundas, J. D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Packe, C. W.

Farrand, R.

Parker, M.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Parnell, Sir H.

Fergusson, R. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fort, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Fox, Charles

Philips, Mark

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Philips, G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Poulter, J. S.

Graham, Sir J.

Price, S. G.

Grattan, J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Grey, Sir G., bt.

Rickford, W.

Halse, James.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Handley, H.

Ross, Charles

Hanmer, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Russell, Lord C.

Hastie, A.

Seymour, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Stuart, V.

Hay, Sir A. L., bt.

Tancred, H. W.

923

Troubridge, Sir T.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Vernon, G. H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Ward, H. G.

Young, G. F.

Wodehouse, E.

TELLERS.

Worsley, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Wortley, J. S.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, H.

Agnew, Sir A., bart.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Baines, E

Moreton, A.

Bannerman, Alex.

O'Brien, W. S.

Barclay, D.

O'Connell, D.

Barnard, Edward, G.

O'Connell, J.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, Morgan

Bewes, T.

O'Conor Don

Blake, Martin Jos.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Bodkin, J.

Parrott, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Captain R.

Buller, C.

Plumptre, John P.

Bulwer, E. L.

Potter, R.

Butler, hon. P.

Robinson, G. R.

Buxton, F.

Roebuck, J. A.

Callaghan, D.

Sanford, E. A.

Cayley, E. S.

Sharpe, General

Chalmers, P.

Stanley, W. O.

Chapman, M. L.

Strutt, Edward

Crawford, W. S.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Crewe, Sir G.

Thompson, Colonel

Denistoun, Alex.

Thornley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Grote, G.

Vigors, N. A.

Gully, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Halford, H.

Wakley, T.

Hall, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawes, B.

Wason, R.

Hindley, C.

Weymis, Capt.

Hume, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Jervis, John

Williams, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Lennard, T. B.

Wyse, Thomas

Lennox, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Ewart, W.

Lushington, Charles

Bowring, Dr.

Amendment lost.
House in Committee on the Bill for Abolishing the Punishment of Death in the Burning or Destroying Buildings and Ships Bill.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to having the punishment of death remitted in cases where any attempt was made to set fire to any of his Majesty's dockyards or arsenals. First, because a great loss of life might occur; and, next, because the public interests might suffer most materially by such attempts.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that there was considerable difficulty in the point, and the matter had been already considered in some measure by the Government.
Mr. Grotethought that if the punish-
924
ment of death was to be retained it would be better that it should be inflicted in private, as public executions were never attended with beneficial results.
Sir C. Burrellwas of opinion that private executions would be found a most dangerous expedient, as it might give rise to a belief that murders were committed under such a system.
Sir Robert Peeladmitted, that the recent execution was a most disgusting exhibition, and that such spectacles seldom produced any salutary effects, but still he thought it would be a most dangerous principle to permit executions to take place in private. There was one matter connected with the present system which he conceived extremely reprehensible, that of admitting persons to visit prisoners under sentence of death. He did not mean to say that persons whose object was to obtain information which might be useful to the Secretary of State, or those whom the prisoner might desire to see, should be refused admittance to him, but he thought that persons whose object was mere curiosity should not be permitted to visit a prisoner under such circumstances. When persons of distinction visited convicts under sentence for a serious crime it invested the culprit with the character of a hero. The publication of the details of conversations held on those occasions, with the history of the past life of the convict, was calculated to excite sympathy for his situation, and to raise him in the eyes of the vulgar. If, therefore, persons who had the management and control of prisons had not the good sense or discretion to prevent the growth of such practices the law ought to interpose to put a stop to them. If it were intended to rely on transportation and imprisonment as the principal means for repressing crime, it would be satisfactory to have some precise information as to the effects produced on the conduct and habits of criminals by the duration of those punishments; and he also thought the Judges should be empowered to add to the sentence of imprisonment, solitary confinement in cases where it might be deemed necessary. As regarded the police generally, it was admitted, on all hands, that it was very effective. With respect to a rural police, if the hon. Gentleman who spoke of it (Mr. Hawes) had any proposition to make he had better propose it to the House in the shape of a Bill. It was, however, a

925
matter for very serious consideration. It was not so simple an affair as persons would suppose. The populous and manufacturing districts were different from the rural with respect to the establishment of a police, and any attempt to fix it upon the latter would be open to much objection and obloquy. It was not his object to have the Bill postponed, but as it proposed to vest much discretion in the Judges, it would be well to afford the House an opportunity of ascertaining in what manner the system of secondary punishments would be likely to work, and by that means to enable them to exercise their discretionary power in the best manner possible.
Lord John Russellsaid, that a Committee on the subject had been appointed last year, by the Lords, which, after minute inquiries had come to certain resolutions, which were afterwards communicated to the magistrates of Quarter Sessions. They were recommended for temporary application, and were found to work well, and it would be desirable to wait, and see what improvement they were calculated to effect, in the system of prison discipline. As far as the experiment bad been made, it proved successful. There were complaints that some of the prisons were overloaded with military cases, but, on inquiry, it was found, that sufficient accommodation could be made for such cases in the barracks. The reports hitherto received from the magistrates were highly satisfactory; and, this being the case, it was better that Government should cooperate with the efforts which proved so successful than to endeavour to enforce any particular rules. With respect to the observations of the right hon. Baronet respecting recent circumstances relative to criminals under sentence of death, he fully concurred in them. He admitted, that some revolting spectacles had been exhibited, but he hoped that after what had occurred, means would be taken to prevent a repetition of them.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonin reply to the right hon. Member for Tamworth, would only say, that the discretion proposed to be vested in the judges was not greater than that which they previously possessed.
Sir Robert Peel, in explanation, did not mean to say that a wider discretion was vested in the Judges. His object was, to enable the Judges to exercise any discre-
926
tion with which they might be vested in the best manner possible; and to do this, it would be well that they had every information as to how the system of secondary punishment worked—as, for instance, what was the difference in the result of five years imprisonment, as contrasted with transportation; the various manner in which the different modes of punishment operated, in reclaiming males and females, and which were the results of those separate modes of punishment as applied to the younger and the older offenders.
On the preamble being proposed,
Mr. Goulburnobjected to it, on the ground of its freeing persons found guilty of setting fire to dockyards, arsenals, and military stores, from convictions which would render them liable to capital punishments.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 40: Majority 62.
The Bill went through the Committee.
The House resumed.
The other Bills for improving the criminal law went through a Committee,