Lords Sitting of 6 August 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord WYNFORD, an Account of the Suitors' Fund, and of the Interest paid in each year, for the last three years, on the Interest of Money lodged in the Court of Chancery, with the existing Charges on these Funds.—On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Exports from this Country to Hayti, and of the Imports into this Country from Hayti, for five years, up to the latest period to which the Account can be made up; and also, an Account of the price of Sugar for three years before the Revolution in St. Domingo, and for three years subsequent to that event.
Bills. Read a third time:—Labourers Employment.—Read a second time:—Sugar Duties; Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Lord AUCKLAND, from Athy; by the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from the Members of the Irish Bar attending the Leinster Circuit; by the Earl of GOSFORD, from Kildare, Rathangan, and Thornton Rust; and by Lord HOLLAND, from Newtown Limirady, and Cootehill, against the Punishment of Death.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Clergy of Huddersfield, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from the Prisoners confined for Debt in the King's Bench Prison, for a Revision of the Law between Debtor and Creditor.—By the Duke of LEINSTER, from Tacumshane, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Minories and from Halifax, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill;—and from the Provincial Synod of Argyle, against; and by Lord HOLLAND, from three Places in England, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).

AMENDMENTS IN THE CRIMIINAL LAW.
Lord Wynford, adverting to the Bill which remained in their Lordships' House for a second reading, the object of which was the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, observed, that he did not mean to offer any opposition to the progress of the Bill, being of opinion, that the experiment ought in the present state of public feeling, at least to be tried, to ascertain whether the crime of forgery could be adequately checked by any punishment short of death. The Bill which had lately passed this House for the abolition of capital punishment in the cases of stealing cattle, and substituting that of transportation, was an experiment of the same kind, and he was desirous that the alteration made by the Bill should have a fair trial, as well as that made by this Bill to which he referred. But at the same time he was anxious that the fullest information on the subject should be laid before their Lordships, and with that view he meant to submit a Motion to their Lordships for some Returns which he hoped would be assented to. Their Lordships, would, perhaps, recollect that in 1808, Sir Samuel Romilly introduced a
1134
Bill for the abolition of capital punishment in the case of privately stealing in dwelling-houses, and that the Bill received the assent of Parliament. One of his Motions was, that there be laid before this House a Return of the Convictions for the offence mentioned in Sir Samuel Romilly's Bill, for three years before and three years after the passing of the Bill. He believed that it would turn out that after the passing of that Bill, the offence had very considerably increased. It had been said in support of taking away the capital punishment in cases of stealing in a dwelling-house, forgery, stealing cattle, &c., that the Judges themselves had often exclaimed against the cruelty of the sentence. He had good reason to believe that this allegation was not well founded. The Judges had no reason to exclaim against its cruelty, for they always had it in their power to recommend the prisoners to the mercy of the Crown whenever they thought that the Royal mercy was called for; and he wished, therefore, that such statements should be corrected. Even under the Bill lately passed, when a Judge sentenced a criminal to transportation for life, he might recommend to the Secretary of State to mitigate even that sentence in cases where it might appear too severe, and no doubt the Secretary of State would attend to the recommendation. Another Return which he wished to have laid before their Lordships referred to a Bill which had been brought in by Sir Robert Feel, appointing the punishment of transportation for second larcenies. For the same purpose of having the fullest information on their Lordships' Table, he would move for a Return of the number of convictions that had taken place under that Act since it had passed. He moved, therefore, that there be laid on the Table a Return of the convictions for the offence of privately stealing in a dwelling-house in the years 1805, 1806, 1807, and the years 1809, 1810, 1811; also a Return of the number of convictions for second larcenies for which sentence of transportation had been pronounced since the passing of Sir Robert Peel's Act.
Earl Greyhad no objection to the noble and learned Lord's Motions, but he did not think that the Returns would afford conclusive evidence of the object which the noble and learned Lord had in view. The number of prosecutions and convic-

1135
tions before and after the passing of the Acts to which the noble and learned Lord referred, might depend on circumstances distinct from the passing of the Acts. The papers moved for by the noble and learned Lord, might, however, be useful, as affording matter for future consideration, but would have very little bearing on the subject of this Bill. As to the alterations which had taken place in the Bill lately before this House, in regard to the abolition of capital punishment for stealing cattle, &c., he had concurred in some of those proposed by the noble and learned Lord. But it was a mistake to suppose, that in passing sentence of transportation for life, substituted for the capital punishment, all discretion was taken away from the Judge. The Judge's discretion remained as before, and even that might be mitigated by the mercy of the Crown. If there was any impression to the contrary, he believed it would turn out to be entirely erroneous.
Motions agreed to.