Lords Sitting of 14 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Road a third time:—Cruelty to Animals (Ireland); Masters and Workmen! Beet-root Sugar; East India Postage; Letters Patent; Municipal Rates; Central Criminal Court; Bills of Exchange.

FORM OF PETITIONS.
The Duke of Sussexrose to present a petition from the members of the Society of Friends in Ireland praying the Legislature to withdraw from the criminal code of this country the punishment of death. The petition contained a variety of observations in furtherance of the removal of that stigma from the statute-book, and the petitioners relied particularly upon the good effects which had been already seen, and which experience had witnessed in other countries where the punishment of death had been abolished, as affording strong grounds for the adoption of the same policy in this country. He ought to observe that the petition was not addressed in the usual words, but he believed that petitions from the Quakers, who entertained conscientious scruples on certain points, had been received similarly drawn up. The petition was addressed to the Peers of the United Kingdom, instead of to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; and instead of the word "humbly" the word "respectfully" was adopted in the prayer of the petition. He trusted that the petition of this numerous, influential, and respectable body would not be rejected on this point of form; and so important did he conceive its contents to be, that he should move that the petition be read at length.
The Earl of Shaftesburywas extremely sorry to raise any objection to the reception of the petition just presented by the illustrious Duke, and especially as it ema-

1905
nated from so respectable a portion of the community, but he was bound to say, that in point of form, it could not be received.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, he should certainly withdraw the petition and bow to the decision of the noble Earl opposite, who was so much better acquainted with the forms of the House than himself. He had, however, understood that petitions omitting the words "Lords spiritual and temporal" had before been received.
Lord Broughamwas extremely sorry that the petition was open to objection, and the more so, because it amounted to neither more nor less than that their Lordships never could receive the petitions of that amiable, and, as it was admitted, respectable body of the community, known as the Society of Friends. The language of [their petitions was not adopted from any want of respect to their Lordships' House, but was to be attributed to their conscientious principles, which restrained them from the use of such expressions as the forms of the House required. He (Lord Brougham) put it to the House, whether for the purpose of opening the doors to the petitions of the Quakers, the words "Peers of the United Kingdom" ought not to be considered to include the Lords temporal and spiritual.
Viscount Beresfordbegged to remind the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham), and he thought it ought to be publicly known, that by the adoption of the words "Lords of Parliament," instead of "Peers of the United Kingdom," the respectable body who entertained conscientious scruples, as suggested, would not be prevented from approaching this House by petition.
Lord Broughamadmitted the propriety of the suggestion, and if any doubt existed, he would, when an occasion presented itself, divide the House upon it. The words "Lords of Parliament" were amply sufficient to include Peers, spiritual and temporal.
Petition withdrawn, and conversation dropped.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS SUSPENSION.
The Lords held a conference with the Commons on the subject of the amendments to the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill, and it was reported, that the Commons persisted in disagreeing from clause A of the Amendments of
1906
their Lordships, and with the reasons had returned the Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he apprehended the only difference of opinion arose upon the clause introduced on the third reading of the Bill by the noble Viscount Opposite (Viscount Canterbury), which went to suspend its provisions as to certain clergymen who had served as Chaplains to the House of Commons and in whose favour addresses had been presented to the Crown, and which enabled the Crown to confer upon them dignities in the Church. When the clause objected to now by the Commons was moved by that noble Viscount, he (Viscount Melbourne) had stated the grounds on which he opposed it—namely, that it was a subject with which the Commons ought themselves to have dealt, and he should now, therefore, move that their Lordships do not persist in their amendment, for the reasons stated by the Commons.
Viscount Canterburysaid, that after the statement made by the noble Viscount on this subject on a former evening, he did not anticipate any success would attend the amendment he had moved, and which the House of Commons had rejected. The strong inducement to move the amendment grew out of the circumstance of his having been Speaker of the House of Commons at the time the services of those gentlemen had been afforded, and when the Addresses in their favour had been agreed to, and the answers from the Sovereign returned. He had therefore, felt himself bound to bring the matter under the consideration of their Lordships; and his only object now was to correct any supposition that he had interfered with the strict province of the House of Commons. All he had felt was, that in the Bill sent up, without any desire to delay or interfere with the intentions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it was but justice to reserve to her Majesty the right, under the advice of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, to confer the dignities promised by the late Sovereign. Having made this explanation, he trusted he had exonerated himself from any improper interference with the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and he begged to state, that he should now be the last man in the world to obstruct the further passage of this Bill.
The Commons amendments agreed, to.

REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
On the motion of Lord Denman, the Forgery Bill, the Robbery and Stealing from the person Bill, Offences against the Person Bill, Burglary Bill, Burning and Destroying Bill, Transportation for Life Bill, and Piracy Bill were read a third time with amendments.
Lord Broughamsaid, that before these Bills left their Lordships' House, he wished once more to remind their Lordships that it was only in consideration of the advanced period of the Session that it had been thought expedient to allow partial measures, such as these were, to pass at present, instead of waiting until the whole change which it was so desirable to make in the Criminal Law of the country could be conveniently made. It was under that circumstance only, that he could have brought his mind to agree to such restricted measures for the improvement of the Criminal Law as those that had just passed their Lordships' House. He had on a former occasion stated his desire to see the principle of these Bills extended to all offences, with the exception of murder, entertaining doubts whether capital punishment ought to be retained even for that. Nothing had given him greater satisfaction than to find that his noble and learned Friend on the opposite bench had come to nearly a similar conclusion, and he therefore entertained the hope that this salutary change in the Criminal Law would take place before long. Important alterations had been made in the details, though none in the principle, of these Bills. The extreme hurry with which they had been passed was greatly to be regretted, as certain oversights had occurred in consequence; but it was to be hoped, after the great pains that had been bestowed upon these Bills by several noble Lords, that such oversights would be few and immaterial. He would add, that he did not conceive there was any blame whatever to be attached to the framers of these Bills on the ground of the inconsistency which had been pointed out almost irresistibly a few evenings ago by his noble and learned Friend. There were inconsistencies, no doubt, between them and the existing law, but amongst themselves, taken singly or as a whole, they did not contain any discrepancy which could be said to be discreditable to those who had framed them.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to state, that
1908
when he made the observation alluded to, he was not aware of the correspondence which had passed between the Commissioners and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from which it appeared that the Commissioners had at that time pointed out the inconsistencies to which he had adverted.
Lord Denmanexpressed his gratification at the pains that had been taken with these Bills by several noble Lords, and the manner in which they had been received generally. The difficulty, as regarded the time for their consideration, would, however, have been less, had not his noble and learned Friend (Lyndhurst) been anxious to extend them further than in the first instance, it was thought right to do. There might be inconsistencies between them and the law as it existed at present, but it was nothing as compared with the monstrous incongruity of the present law, under which were convicted of capital offences twenty times the number of persons it was intended should suffer capital punishment. He had, however, to thank the noble and learned Lord opposite and his noble Friend near him for the present improved condition of these Bills.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that they were now, since they had been stripped of the inconsistencies and anomalies which he had pointed out, extremely valuable measures.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Government had been placed in the dilemma of being obliged to pursue one of two courses—either to allow the law to remain as it was, or to pass Bills which should of necessity contain, to a certain degree, incongruities, and of which he was fully aware when the Bills came before their Lordships' House.
Bills passed.