Lords Sitting of 6 September 1831

MINUTES.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill; the Candle Duties' Repeal Bill; the Assessed and Land Taxes Receipt Bill, and some private Bills. Commissioners, the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Duke of RICHMOND, and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
The Bishop of Londonpresented Petitions, praying for an Amendment in the Beer-Act, from the Magistrates and Clergy of Manchester and Salford, two from the Magistrates and Clergy of certain districts of Gloucester, and one from the inhabitants of Islington. Some of these Petitions stated that nothing less would do than to put these Beerhouses under the control of the Magistrates, both as to license and good conduct, in the same manner as other public-houses.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellspresented a Petition from part of his Diocese, to the same effect. The petitioners stated the demoralizing effects which had resulted from the Beer Act, of which he had no doubt their Lordships were fully aware, from the readiness with which those noble and learned Lords who were members of his Majesty's Government had listened to the suggestions that had been made to them on the subject, He therefore, hoped that one especial amendment would be made in the Bill, which was, that these beer-houses should be placed more under the control of the Magistracy. The calumnies that had been thrown out against the clergy for their interference in regard to this Act were unworthy of an answer. It was their duty narrowly to watch the effect of the measure, and to get the proper amendments introduced.
The Petitions to lie on the Table.
Viscount Melbourneproposed that the receiving of the report of the beer bill should be postponed for the present, and in

1169
the meantime he would take leave to throw out certain suggestions for the consideration of their Lordships. It had been proposed that these houses should be closed at certain specified hours; but it ought to be considered, that town and country were in a different situation in this respect, and that an hour which would be too early in town would be too late in the country. In order the better to enable their Lordships to understand this matter, he would state how the law had of late stood as to the ordinary public-houses, licensed by the Magistrates. Before the passing of the Act 3rd George 4th, cap. 77, the shutting up the houses at stated hours was left to the discretion of the Magistrates, who took upon themselves to decide at what hours public-houses should be shut in their several districts, under the provisions as to disorderly houses. The Act 3rd George 4th appeared to be founded rather on a suspicion of the Magistrates, and to limit rather than extend their discretionary power. It was there stated as a duty on the Magistrates, to take care that public-houses should not be kept open at a late hour in the night, or early in the morning, except for the reception of travellers. So the law stood from 1822 till the Act of 1828, which gave the Magistrates a discretionary power to interfere with such publicans as kept disorderly houses, and said nothing as to hours. Some Magistrates, therefore, thought that they had no right to interfere as to the hours at which a house was kept open, being of opinion that, under this Act, these houses might be kept open at all hours. Other Magistrates thought that they had still a right to interfere under the clause relating to disorderly houses, being of opinion that a house kept open at improper hours was to be considered a disorderly house. But in the new law nothing was said about hours, but only applied to persons wilfully keeping disorderly houses. Now he suggested to their Lordships whether it would not be better to revert in this respect to the Act of 3rd George 4th, cap. 77, and leave it to the Magistrates at their discretion to settle the hours at which public houses and beer-houses should be shut, of which hours the Magistrates might be bound to give due notice. This he threw out merely as a suggestion.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad no objection to the Magistrates deciding on the hours, but at the same time he thought
1170
that as to public-houses, they had the power, and ought to exercise it, of inserting in the license an obligation on the person to whom it was granted, to comply with the directions of the Magistrates. But there was this difference between the public-houses and the beer-houses that it was requisite that the public-houses should be licensed by the Magistrates, while the beer-houses were licensed by the Excise, and the Magistrates had not the same control over them.
The Earl of Harrowbydoubted whether the noble Secretary's proposed Amendment would answer his own object, for different opinions as to their power to interfere in the particular of hours might still prevail amongst Magistrates. If, therefore, the noble Secretary reverted to the provisions of the old law, it would be necessary to introduce an amendment; and if the hours were left to be settled by the Magistrates, an ultimate hour ought to be fixed by the Act. Then, as to Sundays, as the law at present stood, public-houses were to be shut between the hours of ten and one o'clock, and between the hours of three and five. By the former law they were directed to be shut during the time of morning and afternoon service. That appeared to be better than naming the hours, for the time of service might be different in different places; and then, under these words, it might be imperative on the keepers of public-houses to shut their houses between six and eight o'clock in places where evening service was performed in that interval.
The Marquis of Salisburythought the Magistrates had always the power to interfere as to hours under the words respecting disorderly houses. But if a doubt existed it ought to be removed. But there could be no fixed rule as to all houses, more especially as to the hours of Divine Service; and it would be better to leave the matter to be settled by the Magistrates. He would ask the noble Lord, whether the taking of sureties should not be placed in the hands of the Magistrates with respect to persons keeping these beer-houses, as with respect to those keeping public-houses.
Viscount Melbournewould consider that point.
Lord Suffieldthought, that care ought to be taken that gambling for money should not be allowed to prevail in these houses. The people ought to be made to under-

1171
stand, that gambling for money was unlawful; but he would not wish that it I should be stated in the Bill what particular games were unlawful. It would be much better to leave that to the discretion of the Magistrates. He was surprised to hear that a charge of hypocrisy had been preferred against those who had contended that gambling ought to be prevented among the lower orders, merely on the ground that this practice prevailed among a portion of the higher ranks. There was nothing that so much depraved the heart and morals as this vice. The bad effects of it was seen even in high life, among those who were addicted to it, and the effects were much worse among the lower orders, who were more liable to be driven to theft and depredation. Among the higher orders the gambling was carried on in private houses, and because these could not be got at, that was no reason why the poor should be permitted to gamble at public-houses. They might carry it on in private houses as well as the rich; but he certainly thought, that gaming ought to be put down in these public-houses and beerhouses.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsobserved, that some Magistrates certainly did think that they had no power, under the present law, to interfere with public-houses as to the hours at which they should be shut, and therefore it would be a most salutary provision to introduce into the Act a clause which should define the powers of the magistracy with reference to these houses.
Lord Tenterdensaid, if there were any doubts as to the powers of the Magistrates in that respect, the doubts ought certainly to be removed, but after conferring the power on them to shut up these houses at particular hours, the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the Magistrates. He had no objection to apply the same rules to the public-houses and the beerhouses; but there was this difference between them, that the licenses for the public-houses were subject to the control of the Magistrates, while the licenses to the beer-houses were not.
Lord Teynhambegged to suggest, that the hours of shutting should be so regulated that the poor man might get his beer when his work was done.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the beer-shops ought to be put on the same footing, he presumed, as gin-shops or public-houses.
1172
The motion for postponing the receiving of the Report agreed to.

PETITION OF THE GRAND JURORS OF MIDDLESEX RELATIVE TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
The Duke of Sussex The Duke of Sussex rose, pursuant to notice, to present to the House a Petition on one of the most important subjects that could come under their Lordships' consideration; and were it not that he was aware that he should be assisted by several of their Lordships as well as by the Government, and particularly by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who had presented a petition to much the same effect to the House of Commons in the course of the last year, he should almost sink under a sense of his own inadequacy to do justice to the cause of the petitioners. The petitioners prayed, that their Lordships would take under their consideration the present state of the Criminal Law of this country, with a view to its revision and amendment; and to disconnect the punishment of death from crimes affecting merely the rights of property, but unaccompanied with violence and bloodshed. The petition was signed by no less than 1,100 individuals, who were all liable to serve as Grand Jurors for the county of Middlesex, and seven of whom had actually served as foremen in that capacity. Many of these were merchants and people of large property and of ninety-one of them the property amounted to no less than 20,000,000 l. sterling; so that their Lordships might be assured that they were people of respectability and consequence. The petitioners stated, that their own private feelings of humanity had at various times caused a struggle within themselves, lest, by finding persons guilty, they should be accessory to a judicial murder; and that this feeling sometimes induced Jurors and others to give what was vulgarly called a slip to the law, and that criminals, from this cause often escaped the hands of justice. He had heard that many of the petitioners had suffered severely from the crime of forgery, and yet had felt themselves compelled to refrain from prosecuting, because they would not be accessory to inflicting the punishment of death; and they had not only refrained from prosecuting, but had actually themselves assisted the criminals to escape the vigilance of the law, and to leave the country. It was not his intention at present to enter upon a long detail

1173
of particulars. He meant only to propose that the petition should be read, and that it should remain on their Lordships' Table; and, having done so, he would leave the subject in their Lordships' hands, trusting with confidence that their Lordships would pay a due regard to the prayer of the petition, and take this most important subject into their most serious consideration. He had likewise great confidence that the subject would be taken up by the present Government, for it was most fitting that it should be taken up by those, by whom a proper and efficient measure would be most likely to be prepared and passed. He had great confidence in his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who had himself presented a similar petition to the Commons; and he had also great confidence in his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and in the other noble Lords who composed the Government, and fully trusted that they would pay proper attention to the subject. He was anxious that the matter should be taken up by Government, rather than by any private individual, as the Government was the most likely to act with the proper prudence and caution, as well as the best effect. He was not prepared to say, that the punishment of death ought to be entirely done away; but yet, when he saw the state of our own law on the subject, and that, as Sir W. Blackstone had stated, there were 160 crimes punishable by death, without the benefit of clergy, he could not help being astounded, and was convinced that such a system ought to be altered. In some cases the punishment of death might be necessary, but at the same time he could not help concluding, that the certainty of punishment would be much more efficient than its severity; and that in many cases other punishments, such as imprisonment, might be substituted with advantage for that of death, and then some means might be adopted for the reformation of the criminal. If this could be done with advantage, then it must be wise and prudent that it should be done; and now, when we professed to act on the principles of civil and religious liberty, it was high time that something should be done in that matter. He would only further add, that this was a most powerful petition, and remarkably well calculated to draw attention to the subject. It was signed, as he had stated, by 1,100 persons only, and the reason why it was not more
1174
numerously signed was, that the signatures of none were admitted except of those who were liable to serve on Grand Juries. Had it not been for that circumstance, it would have been signed by many thousands more, and particularly by the people called Quakers, none of whom had signed this petition, but who were ready to a man to come forward in support of its principles. This was not the time to enter into the merits of the subject; he would therefore leave the petition in the hands of their Lordships, trusting that his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and the rest of the members of the Government, would take the subject into their consideration. When the proper time came, he would state more at large his opinion on the subject, and support, with all his power, any proper measure that Government might think fit to propose, with a view to carry into effect the object of the petitioners. This was not a novel subject to him, for he had frequently and deeply considered it, although, not having before had any petition of this kind intrusted to him, he had not troubled their Lordships with a statement of his opinions. He, however, felt a great pride in the confidence that had been reposed in him by the present petitioners, although he should refrain from saying anything, further on the subject at present, lest he should overcharge it. He would, however, read to their Lordships a comparative statement of the number of persons committed for capital offences of late years in this country, as compared with those committed for capital offences in France. In 1825, 1,036 were committed in this country for capital offences; and in France 134. In 1826, in this country, 1,203 were so committed; in France 150. In 1827, there were so committed in this country, 1,529; in France 109. In 1828, there were so committed in this country, 1,165; in France 114; and in 1829, there were so committed in this country, 1,385; in France 89. He would proceed to read the petition. His Royal Highness read it accordingly as follows:
"To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled—
"The Petition of the undersigned Inhabitant Householders of the City of London, liable to serve as Jurors—
"Humbly Showeth—That your Petitioners

1175
view with deep regret the excessive and indiscriminate severity of the Criminal Laws, which annex to offences of different degrees of moral guilt the punishment of Death, and confound the simple invasion of the rights of property with the most malignant and atrocious crimes against the person and life of man.
"That the recent Acts, passed with the professed intention to amend and improve the Criminal Laws, have not remedied the evil of which an enlightened community have the greatest reason to complain, but have still left those laws a disgrace to our civilization, by retaining the opprobrious distinction of being the most sanguinary of any in Europe.
"That Christianity, common reason, and sound policy, demand that the laws which affect the liberties and the lives of men, should proportion the punishment to the offence, and not teach cruelty to the people, by examples of vindictive legislation.
"That where public opinion does not go along with the laws, the persons who suffer under them are regarded as the victims of legislative tyranny or judicial caprice, and not as criminals, whose doom has been pronounced by the voice of dispassionate justice.
"That the criminals executed in this country are selected out of a far greater number sentenced to death, and where the practice condemns the law, the law ought to be altered, that criminals might suffer the punishment of their guilt by the authority of defined Statutes, and not by the uncertain and capricious rule of judicial discretion.
"That in the present state of the law, Juries feel extremely reluctant to convict, when the penal consequences of the offence excite a conscientious horror on their minds, lest the rigorous performance of their duty as Jurors should make them accessory to judicial murder. Hence, in Courts of Justice, a most unnecessary and painful struggle is occasioned by the conflict of the feelings of a just humanity, with the sense of the obligation of an oath.
"That witnesses also are very frequently reluctant to give evidence, as well as Jurors to convict, lest they might bring upon their consciences the stain of blood; and thus criminals who, under a more rational and considerate Code of Laws, would meet the punishment due to their crimes, escape with complete impunity.
"That for these reasons, your Petitioners humbly pray your Right Honourable House to take the Criminal Laws into your consideration, for the purpose of the revision and amendment of the same, by drawing a distinction between the simple invasion of the rights of property, and crimes of violence and blood, and by abolishing the penalty of Death in all cases in which the Legislative power cannot justify, in the eyes of God and man, that last and dreadful alternative—the extermination of the offender.
"And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.
"[Signed by the different Foremen res-
1176
pectively of seven successive Old Bailey Grand Juries of 1830, and by upwards of eleven hundred Merchants, Traders, &c., who either have served, or are eligible to serve, as Jurors.]"
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the subject was certainly of very great importance, and well worthy of the most profound consideration; but none of their Lordships were called upon to express any opinion on the matter referred to in the petition at present; and he should have hardly obtruded himself on their Lordships' attention, had it not been that he had been particularly and personally alluded to by his Royal Highness. No one was at present, however, called on to give an opinion on this, certainly not simple, but, on the contrary, very complicated and intricate question. That it was one which deserved the utmost degree of attention was undeniable. There was one thing mentioned in the petition, however, which had better, perhaps, have been mentioned in the other House, or anywhere else than in their Lordships' House, which was the highest Court of Appeal, not only in civil, but in criminal causes. After long consideration and practical experience, he had certainly been led to conclude that our Penal Laws were capable of much amendment in respect of the severity of punishments. But when the petitioners called for the abolition of the punishment of death, in regard to all crimes against property, if unattended with murder or personal violence, he felt himself called upon to declare, that he was not prepared to draw the line exactly in that manner; for nothing, in his opinion, could be less judicious than thus to class crimes which might be of a very different character, under the same denomination. Why was it that it was held right to put a murderer to death? Not, certainly, because it had been said in Scripture, "Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." They had no right to put even a murderer to death for any other reason than that it was expedient that he should be put to death. They had no other right nor warrant, either in reason or religion. The object was, to prevent others from committing the crime of murder; and as the comfortable existence of society depended on the repression of that highest crime, it was expedient to secure its repression by attaching to its commission the highest penalty. When a murder was committed, or any very great evil had

1177
happened, they had no right to inflict another great evil on the community by putting the offender to death, except that it was necessary that the second evil should be inflicted, because the good of society required that all means, even the severest, should be used in order to check the crime of murder. It was right, because no man could be safe unless the gravest offences were checked by the gravest penalties. But there were other offences which, although not of such great and direct injury to society as murder, yet had a very strong tendency to the devastation and subversion of society; and he was not prepared to say, that in all cases of that description, even although not attended with violence and bloodshed, the highest punishment ought to be dispensed with. They ought not to judge of these things simply upon the ground of vague feelings of humanity; for, in spite of all such feelings, if there was no other mode of preventing crimes which, although not attended with immediate personal violence, yet were of a description to lead to the subversion of society, then recourse must be had to the severest punishment. He wished, therefore, to guard himself from being understood that murder was the only crime for which death ought to be inflicted. There was no warrant in Scripture for the notion that murder was the only crime for which the punishment of death ought to be inflicted, and he asked the noble Lord, who seemed to intimate that murder was, by Scripture, the only crime to which the punishment of death should be inflicted, to point out the place where it was prohibited in cases of other crimes. It was, indeed, said, "That whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" but that was an injunction, and not a prohibition; and if the noble Lord would examine the Levitical law, he would find that ninety-nine crimes out of a hundred were made punishable by death. So, in cases of arson, and of robbery with great violence, almost all men admitted, that the punishment of death ought to be inflicted. He, therefore, was not prepared to draw the line so distinctly as it had been drawn by the petitioners, and he had guarded himself by a similar declaration when he presented a petition, to a certain extent similar to the present, in the other House. But the petitioners had stated facts which were of great importance. They stated that
1178
some of them had served as Foremen of Grand Juries, and that all of them were liable to serve as Grand Jurymen—that many of them were men of great property, and were engaged in commercial pursuits, which, in a particular manner, exposed them to severe losses from frauds, and especially from forgery, which was obviously the crime to which the petitioners more particularly alluded, and of which they were principally the victims. It was certainly a most important fact, that these persons came forward and told their Lordships that they could find no security against that crime in capital punishment. They said, that they were extremely reluctant to prosecute, but if they did not prosecute, that, to be sure, was their own fault. But then they said, that witnesses could not be brought to give evidence, and that Jurors could not be brought to convict; and then they might put their case simply on the ground, that practically the present state of the law had been tried, and had failed of its effect. That was the most important part of the petition, although he was far from undervaluing their feelings of humanity, and had no doubt but that they were excellent men. But there was one part of their petition which, in his opinion, could not be sanctioned by their Lordships. He, at least, could not understand how honourable men, serving on Juries, could trifle with their oaths. The oath administered to the Jury in criminal cases was, "You shall well and truly try, and a true deliverance make, between our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence. So help you God." And yet they appeared disposed suddenly to forget their character of Jurors, and to erect themselves into legislators. In this character of lawgivers, they not only made a new law for them selves, but appeared to think that, in the face of their oath, they might be justified in giving a verdict against the evidence. How any honourable man could reconcile this to his conscience, he could not conceive. The Jury had no more to do than say, whether, in point of fact, the crime had been committed; and it was for the Judge to award the punishment: and he could award only that which the law had prescribed. He could not comprehend how it was possible for them to reconcile it to their consciences to pronounce a man not guilty, when the weight of evidence

1179
preponderated against him. As a lawyer, as a Judge, and as a legislator, he could see no grounds on which any man could reconcile to his conscience such a course of conduct. If it was a crime to inflict the punishment of death in such cases, the crime was not that of the Jurors, but of the Legislature; and until the law was altered, the former were bound to act by it. It was impossible to conceive the extent of the evils, to which such an improper assumption of power must lead; one Jury man might say, he would not take the question of law from the Judge, but would decide both upon the law and upon the fact; another might say, he would not only decide upon the guilt of the prisoner, but would determine the quantum of punishment—a point which rested with the Judge alone. Again, another Juror might deem it proper to admit hearsay evidence, and many books had been written to prove, that such evidence ought to be received. And supposing such a doctrine to be entertained, what would be the consequence? Why, the Judge having determined that such admission was contrary to the law, the Juryman would say, "I do not think so, and therefore I am determined to convict the prisoner." In that position, according to his judgment, were the petitioners placed; for though an offence should be proved by ten or any other number of witnesses against a prisoner, and though that offence might subject the individual to the last and extreme penalty of the law, these Jurors were prepared to say, and not only to say, but to act upon, and defend the position—they who, in their capacity of Jurymen, had entered into a solemn compact with their King, their country, and their God, to decide upon the evidence, and the evidence alone—these Jurors would say, that they would not convict the prisoner, whose guilt had been proved:—and why? Because they were afraid, that if they did find him guilty, he might receive the punishment which the law has awarded as a proper atonement for his offence. If there were any course likely to prevent the Legislature from interfering, it would be this, where individuals take the matter into their own hands, and out of those of the Judges, and of the Legislature. If the law be defective, as to a certain extent it was, and if it be necessary that it should be amended, as it ought to be, the only manner in which that law ought to be altered and amended, was by
1180
the interference of the King, Lords, and Commons of England; and until that period arrived, those individuals had no right to contravene the law, but in obedience to their oath they were to find the person guilty or not guilty, according to the evidence, and the prisoner thereupon must suffer the consequences of his act under the law. Another person might take a different ground of objection, and say, as a suitor in the Court of Chancery did the other day, who came into that Court for advice about putting in his answer—that he was not enabled by his conscience to take the necessary oath required by law:—At length he asked if he were bound to take the oath? Yes, was the answer, and he was told, that if any guilt was occasioned by the taking of the oath, that must rest upon the shoulders of those who made the law, and not on those who were bound to obey it. If it be criminal for a person to commit a forgery, was it not criminal for another person, who was to sit in judgment on that forgery, to take an oath which, from the first, he intended never to fulfil? A Juryman should have his conscience void of offence, and leave the responsibility that arises from the operation of the law, which he has sworn to execute, on the shoulders of the Legislature. He had known men whose minds had been so strangely constituted on the subject of taking an oath, as to think they were justified in supposing that no man ought to be examined on oath, and they would rather have seen an innocent man hanged for a capital offence—aye, even for murder, than give evidence on oath, to bring the guilty man to condign punishment. If men chose to give up their property rather than prosecute an offender, they did so upon their own responsibility, though it was under a mistaken view of what was due to society; but as respects a Juryman, he was bound to act by the law, and according to the law, and no qualification, with which he might endeavour to fortify his mind, could be a justification for the nonfulfilment of it; he must act according to the law, and the guilt, if any, must be upon the heads of the legislature until that law be repealed. He was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject which had been brought under their notice by the noble and illustrious Duke, and while he was prepared to go as far as any of their Lordships in mitigating the severity

1181
of a severe and indiscriminate code of criminal legislation—and while he should be the first to hail any change in that respect, which should afford a proper and sufficient protection to property, with a less infliction of pain, he should be among the last who, until that period should have arrived, would be prepared to sanction the principle avowed by any individuals, be they who they might, who thought that they had a right to violate the law and the solemn obligation which their oath imposed upon them.
Lord Tenterdensaid, that the petitioners ought to consider, that those who suffered death were very few in comparison to those who committed the offences which were by law punishable with death. With regard to that part of the illustrious Duke's address, in which he drew a comparison between the number of persons committed in this country and in France, he begged to be permitted to remark, that some reference ought to be made to the fact, that the difference in the number of offences against the law, was not so great as between the number of offences punishable with death. He also desired, that the good and respectable persons who had signed the petition should bear in mind, that the royal prerogative of mercy, was exercised with the greatest anxiety to mitigate the penalties of the law, and he must further declare, that the Judges were most desirous to recommend to the mercy of the Crown every case punishable with death, in which the circumstances would allow of such consideration. He was sure they felt the utmost anxiety and solicitude to discover any circumstances which could lead them to recommend a mitigation of punishment.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, in reference to the statement of the illustrious Duke, when he compared the extent of crime in England with that which existed in other countries, it ought to be remembered, that there was not in this country, and could not be, from the nature of our laws and Constitution a preventive police, such as existed in those other countries, which contributed greatly to check the growth of crime. A want of attention to this fact often led to erroneous conclusions.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of both the noble and learned Lords, with regard to the petition he had the
1182
honour to present, and he heartily congratulated himself, that he had been the instrument, which had brought forth such important observations. He begged to be permitted to say, that he had not pledged himself entirely to the contents of the petition, although he went a great part of the way along with the petitioners. He perfectly agreed with the opinion of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the Juror ought to fulfil the oath he took, and he also fully agreed with the remark of the other noble and learned Lord, that it was highly desirable not to alter or limit the prerogative of the Crown to interpose and prevent executions, particularly in the hands of the illustrious individual who now exercised it. He hoped the subject would be brought under the consideration of Parliament by his Majesty's Government, but he was aware that at the present moment their attention was wholly absorbed by another great measure. He trusted he might remark in reference to what the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had observed with respect to a preventive police, knowing the arbitrary manner in which a power of this kind was wielded in other countries, he should be very unwilling to sacrifice the liberties we enjoyed to possess such a security as that alluded to.
Lord Suffieldsaid, he agreed with most of the allegations contained in the petition which had been presented by the illustrious Duke. It appeared to him, that the two great principles which ought to govern the punishment of criminal law, should be certainty in the first place; and the punishment being graduated according to the nature of the crime, in the second place. The present system had the effect of making injured persons reluctant to prosecute, and Juries indisposed to convict. With regard to the unwillingness of Jurors he would add nothing after the eloquent exposition of their duties by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but of the effect of the law, in inducing persons not to prosecute who had sustained injuries, he knew an instance which had occurred within a few months, in which a person put up with a loss of upwards of 1,400 l. rather than prosecute, because that person knew the life of a fellow creature might be forfeited by his doing so.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the illustrious Duke appeared to misunderstand the remarks he had made on the

1183
subject of a preventive police, and seemed to consider that he (the Duke of Wellington) desired the introduction of such a system into this country; he had no such desire; so far from it, that he had stated, such an institution was not compatible with the institutions of this free country.
The Duke of Sussexbegged most earnestly to assure the noble Duke, he did not mean to say any thing of the sort. He certainly did not understand the noble Duke had recommended the introduction of a preventive police; his remarks were meant to apply to such a force generally.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REVENUES OF CANADA.
Viscount Goderich,in moving the third reading of the Canadian Revenue Bill, wished, as shortly as possible, to state the grounds on which he asked their Lordships to assent to his motion. In the year 1774, duties were imposed by the British Parliament on articles of various kinds imported into Quebec, for the purpose of forming a fund for the support of the Civil Government in Canada, and under the authority of that Act of Parliament, the money so levied was directed to be applied by warrant from the Treasury. At that period there was no legislative power exercised in Canada. In the year 1791, however, Parliament granted to the province of Canada a Constitution, consisting of two legislative bodies, and Canada was divided into two portions, Upper and Lower Canada. From this time the Legislative Assembly and Council formed, with the Governor, a complete legislative government, in whom was vested the right of imposing taxes and rates, to meet the exigencies of these provinces, with certain exceptions in respect to particular articles of trade and commerce, to be imported into them. In 1795, the legislative body granted in perpetuity the sum of 5,000 l. a-year, in aid of the funds appropriated towards the expenses of the civil government, which for a long time proved sufficient for the purpose. But at a subsequent period this sum became inadequate, and it was necessary for the British Parliament to vote money for the purpose of maintaining the civil establishments in Canada. The expenses of the government, however, had a natural tendency to increase, and at length they exceeded the sum voted by Parliament, and it then became necessary for that government to apply to this coun-
1184
try to make up the deficiency. It must be quite obvious to their Lordships, that from the moment it became necessary to apply to Parliament for relief it acquired a power of control. In progress of time, however, the Legislative Assembly, feeling that the executive was, as regarded these funds, in some dependence on it, wished to appropriate those duties, which by the Act of 1774, were to be appropriated by virtue of the warrants of the Lords of the Treasury, and it applied to the British Government for its approval of this wish. As regarded the question at law, there could be no doubt whatever that the law imposed upon the Lords of the Treasury the duty of issuing warrants for the purpose of appropriating that money; but the obligations of the law did not remove the constitutional objections, which were made to that appropriation on the part of the Assembly, and a discussion ensued, which had the effect of placing the executive government of the colony, and the other branches of the legislature, in a state of constant collision. The result was, first to cause, and then to widen, the breach between the different branches of the legislature, when every principle of policy rendered it most desirable that the utmost harmony should exist between them. The subject, after various attempts to settle the disputes, was taken into consideration by a Committee of the other House, to which it was referred on the part of his Majesty's Government. This particular part of the question was examined at very considerable length by that Committee, which recommended that the money levied by virtue of the Act of 1774, should be laid out according to the approbation of the Legislative Assembly and Council of Canada, on condition that they would undertake to provide a fixed and permanent income for the Governor and the Judges. There could be no doubt, that it was of infinite importance that the Governor of the colony, representing his Majesty, and the judicial body discharging such important functions, should be rendered independent of the fluctuating opinions and feelings of any separate branch of the legislature; and therefore it was recommended, with much propriety, that whatever arrangement was made with regard to other persons, some mode should be fixed for the permanent and certain payment of the Governor and the Judges. The Report of that Committee was presented to the other House of

1185
Parliament in the year 1828. During the following Session the time and attention of Parliament were occupied in the consideration of a very great question, in which the country took a deep interest; and this circumstance precluded Parliament from taking any step towards getting rid of this difficulty. The warrants of the Lords of the Treasury were withheld, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee with respect to the Judges not having been complied with. A very embarrassing state of things followed. The Governor was placed in a situation of extreme difficulty; quarrels ensued between him and the legislative body, which continued through several years, and made the colony a scene of unpleasant contention. In the year 1830, his right hon. friend who succeeded him as Secretary of State, introduced a bill into the other House for the purpose of bringing this matter to a conclusion; and that bill, as first introduced, was to this effect:—it provided, that after retaining a given sum for the purpose of meeting certain specified charges, all the surplus money receivable under the Act of 1774, should be paid over to the Treasury, to be at the disposal of the Legislature. It was afterwards found out, however, that this was a very imperfect mode of settling the question, because it reproduced, or rather re-enacted, the very point in dispute. The alterations which were made, began by enacting that the whole sum should be placed at the disposal of the Legislature, provided a copy of the civil list was furnished; and they also contained an original proviso, that if such an arrangement, was not acceded to, then 20,000 l. should be returned. The arrangement still kept alive the point in dispute, and it consequently appeared liable to objection, and far from a satisfactory mode of settling the question. That bill, however, did not become a law; it was one of those measures which was interrupted in its progress by the demise of the Crown, and the dissolution of Parliament. The matter remained in this state when the Seals of the Colonial Department were confided to him. He would have been happy to follow the course chalked out by his right hon. friend; but on the best consideration he could give the question, after an attentive perusal of the correspondence, and after a conference with many persons extremely competent to form correct opinions, he became satisfied that the provisions contained in that
1186
Bill could not succeed, and he had then to consider what mode could be adopted, by which the matter might be amicably settled, without any derogation from the dignity of the Crown and Parliament of England, and, at the same time, without requiring from the Legislature in Canada any unreasonable concession. It appeared to him, that the best course would be, to apply to the case of Canada the same principle that had been just applied to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, namely, to place at the disposal of the Legislature there the revenues of Canada, and, at the same time, to have a Civil List, which the Governor was directed to prepare: he was authorized to receive and listen to any objections that might be made to it. That course was perfectly constitutional and reasonable; and he flattered himself that the provision would have been favourably received, and would answer the object for which it was intended; particularly as the Governor was instructed, that in the Civil List which he was to endeavour to obtain, in lieu of the duties which he was authorized to give up, he should insert the salaries of the Governor and those of the Judges, intending thereby to ensure by this arrangement the attainment of the two important objects he had explained to their Lordships. In the province of Upper Canada, this proposition was favourably received, and the Legislature there passed a Bill, in which a permanent provision was made for the payment of the salaries of the Governor, the Judges, the Solicitor General, and some other Officers. The Governor, by virtue of his instructions, accepted that Bill, and if the measure under consideration was agreed to, it would give effect to the law which the Assembly and Council of Upper Canada then passed. In Lower Canada, however, the Legislative Assembly did not accede to the proposition, not thinking it expedient to proceed at that time to the consideration of the question. They did not positively refuse, but they returned that answer. If he had considered that this proceeding on, their part, arose from any insuperable objections likely to be thrown in the way of the final adjustment of the question, he certainly should not have been disposed to include Lower Canada in that Bill; but being convinced that this answer was dictated by a variety of other matters, that had been in progress of angry discussion for a very considerable time, he had in-

1187
cluded Lower Canada, expecting a better disposition in a short time. Of course, if the province of Lower Canada did not pass an Act to give salaries to the Governor and Judges, as far as that province was concerned, the subject would remain in exactly the same situation as at present, and the House must ascertain whether any other mode could be adopted by which these difficulties could be removed. He hoped, however, that no such necessity would arise. That which was proposed ought to satisfy the Legislature of Canada. Without introducing anything unfit to be adopted, it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to further the welfare of both these colonies, which were most important on account of their geographical positions. One of the most essential objects at which their Lordships could aim, was, to secure a good understanding and perfect harmony between this country and her colonial possessions, which were in many respects essential to her strength and security; and if it were necessary to sacrifice some trifling interests, yet this object was of so much importance, that he should call upon their Lordships to sanction a Bill which would give contentment to Canada. He certainly should not be disposed to advise his Majesty to give his assent to the present Bill, until the Canadian Assemblies agreed to provide, in the manner he had pointed out for the expenses of the civil Government and the administration of justice; but he believed that that Assembly would do what was just and due to the mother country.
Earl Bathurstwas of opinion, that nothing could be more improper than to leave Judges to be provided for by an annual vote of the Colonial Legislature; and he thought that the noble Lord, before introducing this measure, ought either to have obtained the consent of the legislative assemblies of the Canadas to make a permanent provision for the Civil Government and the Judges, or he should have inserted into the Bill a proviso, to render it inoperative unless such an agreement was come to. He had no doubt that his noble friend had kept the object in view of having a proper provision made for the Governor and Judges, but he feared the measure would have the effect of placing the Governor in opposition to the Assembly, because he would be the party who was to accept or reject the Bill, am it might not be advisable always to give
1188
the Governor this uncontrolled power. Their Lordships would, however, recollect, that there was not much doubt with respect to the operation of the Act, 14th Geo. 3rd, which was to continue for upwards of twenty years. First, 5,000 l. was granted under it, then another 5,000 l. was required, and when an application was made to the Colonial Assembly for this addition, they said, "If you apply to us or additional votes, we surely have a right to know in what manner you are to expend it;" and they certainly had a right, such circumstances, to say they would object to any expenses which, in their opinion, were improper, and, upon this ground it was, that the circumstances occurred which his noble friend had described with regard to the Treasury warrant. The circumstances of the Civil List were essentially different from those which his noble friend had cited as precedents, and he (Earl Bathurst) considered it would be unadvisable to place the whole of this sum at the mercy of the Colonial Legislative Assembly, to be provided by annual votes, the consequence of which would be, the officers to be paid under it would look with some anxiety to the effect their conduct might have on the Colonial Assembly with respect to the receipt of their salaries. His noble friend had stated, that a fixed and permanent provision would be made for the Governor and Judges under this Bill: he had no doubt his noble friend thought so; but he (Earl Bathurst) could not consider it in that light, and he most decidedly objected to the Governor and Judges being provided for by an annual vote of the Legislative Assembly, which, he feared, would injure the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
Viscount Goderichsaid, if he understood the noble Earl correctly, he did not object to the Judges having a permanent salary, but to their being paid by annual grants voted by the Colonial Assembly. There had been very great difficulties in bringing this point to a satisfactory conclusion, and he must then say, that he did not feel the force of his noble friend's objection. If the Bill were passed without this clause, the question would remain just as it was, and he must say for himself, he had not the smallest intention of giving one party an improper control over another.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if this Bill was agreed to, the effect would

1189
be, that a fund would be provided ove which the government of Canada alone had control, and if it did not exercise the power to the satisfaction of the Government at home, the Treasury would have no control over it. The effect of the noble Lord's Bill would go to deprive the Legislature here of all the power it at present possessed. He did not see, if that Bill received their Lordships' sanction, what was to prevent the Canadian legislatures doing what they pleased with their revenue. He, therefore, agreed with the noble Earl, that some qualifying provision ought to be introduced into the Bill. It was a question whether some of the provisions of that Bill might not interfere with the independence and functions of the Judges of the land.
Viscount Goderichthought the administration of justice ought to remain as it was at present, but he certainly was of opinion, taking into consideration the increased expenses, that the legislature of Canada should possess a control over its own revenues, which he was certainly not disposed to think very objectionable in itself, nor likely to lead to the consequences which his noble friends seemed to anticipate.
Bill read a third time and passed.