Sitting of 13 August 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Composition of Tithes (Ireland); Bankrupt Laws Amendment; Turnpike Tolls.—Read a second time:—Civil List Payments.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MEATH, from Cavan and by the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Rametton, and Leighton Bridge,—for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery.

COMPOSITION OF TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord Teynhamsaid, that he had a petition to present against the Bill for the Composition of Tithes in Ireland, which stood for a third reading on the Orders of that Day. The petition was from Sir William Brabazon of Brabazon-park, in the county of Mayo, a gentleman of considerable consequence in that county, and who, he believed, on this occasion spoke the sentiments of a large portion of the landed gentlemen of Ireland. The petition prayed for the abolition of tithe in Ireland, a prayer in which he fully concurred. Tithe, he observed, must be considered as national property, and, as such, the legislative authority of the nation had a right to apply it for national purposes. Indeed, this principle had been acted upon on more than one occasion. At the Reformation, the tithes were transferred from the Catholics to the Protestants; and, on several occasions, there had been, in England as well as Ireland, a frequent transfer of church property from ecclesiastical to lay uses. As to the Bill before the House, he would admit that his Majesty's Ministers had no other resource but to pass it; but to say that they would settle the tithe question in the attempt to transfer it from the tenants to the landowners, was more, he believed, than any one who knew the state of Ireland would venture to assert. In fact, place tithes where they would, the question had come to this, that if collected at all, it must be by the aid of the King's troops; and if Ministers determined upon that course, he would say, that in a mere pecuniary point of view, the collection would cost three times more than the value of the thing collected. Such an attempt would remind him of the threat made by Louis 14th to the Algerine ambassador, that he would send a fleet and army, and totally destroy Algiers. The ambassador asked how much it would cost his Majesty to carry his threat into execution; and on being answered, that it might be a million of money, he replied, that if his Majesty would agree to pay half that sum, he would undertake that

1337
not a house in the place should be left standing. In the same feeling, he (Lord Teynham) would say, that on the score of expense, it would be much cheaper for Government to pay the tithe than to employ troops to collect it. He knew that the Bill before the House would pass, but let it. It would do no good, and he was sure that, next Session, the Table of the House would be covered with petitions, praying for the total extinction of Tithes in Ireland.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble Lord had more than once, in the course of his remarks, stated that this Bill would be utterly useless. If that were so, where was the use of the remonstrances that were heard against it?
Lord Teynhamrepeated that he did consider the Bill useless, and that it would be impossible to enforce the collection of tithes in Ireland without the aid of the military power. If the right reverend Prelate were of opinion that an army should be so employed, let him put himself at the head of it, and if he consulted Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he would find where his bones would probably lie in that event.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount Melbourne,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that as the measure was one of importance, he felt it necessary to say a few words upon it. The object of the Bill was to declare the illegality of those party processions in Ireland which had so frequently disturbed the peace of that country, particularly in the north. These processions had for a long time been a cause of alarm to the country, and precautionary measures on the part of Government; they had frequently been attended with riot and tumult, and often ended in bloodshed. Their avowed object was the commemoration of former events, yet it was evident that they were got up to serve the purposes of the present time. They were calculated by a large display of physical force to cause alarm in the minds of peaceable men, and indeed were greatly injurious to those who were engaged in them, as they led to excesses of various kinds, and kept up party feelings and animosities, which every friend of order should wish to see at an end. When meetings of this kind, or indeed large assemblages of any kind were held, and the
1338
parties conducted themselves peaceably, it was perhaps the more prudent course not to interfere with them; but experience had shown, that however peaceably some of those meetings had been conducted at times, their general tendency had been of a contrary character; and when, as was the fact, it was found that advice and remonstrance had, year after year, been thrown away, in the endeavour to put a stop to them, it became the duty of the Government and the Legislature to step in and prevent them in future. In wishing to put an end to those party processions, he should not, he hoped, be considered as being opposed to the principles of the great revolution which they were ostensibly held to commemorate. He would then also deprecate the charge of having in this measure, aimed at any one class of men in particular. The Bill extended to party processions of any kind; its object was to prevent tumult, and to strengthen the hands of the executive in preserving order. An objection had been made to the Bill when it was first introduced into the other House, that it then being the end of June, and the Bill being intended to prevent, amongst other meetings, those which were to be expected in the succeeding month of July, it would find men in a state of excitement, in which they might be tempted to a breach of the law, and that, under these circumstances, it would not be prudent to make it immediately operative. Whatever might have been the force of that objection at the time it was urged, it could be of no weight at present, for the period of the meetings alluded to had since passed away, and a quiet time had now arrived when no such excitement could be alleged as an argument against the measure. Under these circumstances, he thought the present time was a very proper one for the passing of such a measure. He, therefore, moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not rise to make any serious objections to the Bill; on the contrary, he concurred in its principle, and only wished that its provisions had been extended to all processions and to all large assemblies of all classes of his Majesty's subjects from which any disturbance of the peace might be apprehended, as well as to the processions of the Protestants of the north of Ireland. He regretted the introduction of the Bill in its present shape on this ground; and the more so,

1339
as he knew that many noble friends of his, Members of that House, and also many hon. friends, Members of the other House of Parliament, had left town under the belief that the Bill would not be pressed in this Session. He threw out this for the consideration of the noble Lords opposite, particularly as there would be ample time for the passing of such a measure in the early part of the next Session, before it could interfere with the return of those kinds of processions against which it seemed to him to be principally directed. He did not think the measure expressive enough to extend to all kinds of processions which it was desirable to put down. He had seen many processions in Ireland in honour of the memory of William 3rd, but they were conducted with good order, and without any bad feeling towards those who differed from the persons who formed the processions. At the same time, he did not mean to say, that meetings of that kind, tending to a breach of order, should not be prevented. He, himself, was a party to a proclamation issued by a late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to put down meetings tending to a breach of the peace. He therefore could not, on principle, oppose such a Bill as this, if it were properly extended, and introduced at a fit time. He should wish the noble Lord to withdraw it for the present, and introduce it, making it more extensive, the next Session of Parliament.
The Marquess of Lansdownremembered the very active part which the noble Duke had taken in preserving the peace of Ireland on the occasion to which he had alluded, and he gave him full credit for the same intention at the present moment; and if he thought that the present Bill was as partial in its operation as the noble Duke seemed to consider, he should willingly ask his noble friend at the head of the Government to defer it, or indeed would oppose it altogether; for he would admit, that any appearance of acting against only one party in the present excited state of Ireland would be extremely imprudent; but if the noble Duke would look at the provisions of this Bill, he would find that it equally included processions of all descriptions. The preamble stated that—"Whereas great numbers of persons be longing to different religious denominations, and distinguished respectively by various emblems expressive of party feelings and differences, are in the practice of meeting
1340
and marching in procession in Ireland upon certain festivals and anniversaries and other occasions," &c.; and then the Bill proceeded to enact, "That from and after the commencement of this act, any body of persons who shall meet and parade together, or join in procession, for the purpose of celebrating or commemorating any festival, anniversary, or political event relating to, or connected with, any religious distinctions or differences between any classes of his Majesty's subjects, or of demonstrating any such religious distinction or difference, and who shall bear, wear, or have amongst them any fire-arms or other" offensive weapon, or any banner, emblem, flag, or symbol, the display whereof may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity between his Majesty's subjects of different religious persuasions, or who shall be accompanied by any music of a like nature or tendency, shall be and be deemed an unlawful assembly, and every person present thereat shall be and be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall, Upon conviction thereof, be liable to be punished accordingly." It was clear from this, that the measure was not directed against any one particular class of men exclusively, but was general in its application to all classes. He, therefore, thought that it did not come within the first objection made by the noble Duke. As to the second he would say, that if he thought that any intimation had been given that the measure would not be proceeded with in the present Session, he would most readily accede to the noble Duke's suggestion of postponing it; but in the communication made to him by his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley), in whose department this more immediately came, it was most distinctly said that no such intimation had been given. The delay took place only till the particular period of excitement to which it was supposed to refer should have passed over.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he was under the same impression as the noble Duke, and so were several of his friends, that the Bill would not be proceeded with during the present Session. He was unwilling to talk of distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, and the less so, as he had been favourable to the measure passed with respect to the former; but he must say, that the Catholics with, he would admit, many splendid exceptions, had broken faith with those who had sup-

1341
ported their cause. He thought that the present Bill would be taken by many in Ireland as pandering to the morbid feelings of the Catholic party, and not dictated in the spirit of fairness as a measure equally affecting all parties. The Bill alluded to persons coming armed to those processions, and seemed as if directed against one class of men. He was not an Orangeman, and never had been, and probably never should be, but he must say, that the King of England was as much indebted for the defence of his Crown to the Orangemen of Ireland as to any other body of men in the Empire, for certainly there was no class of men who had shown more loyalty. It was unfair, then, to bring-in a parliamentary measure which seemed to be chiefly directed against them. It looked as if the Government were truckling to men who had rebellion in their hearts, and the subversion of all order in their dispositions. He would, on these grounds, express his hope that the Bill might be deferred.
Bill read a second time.

GREEK LOAN CONVENTION.
Earl Greyrose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He stated that a Convention had been entered into between the Three Powers who had interfered in the affairs of Greece, and who, by this Convention, had agreed to offer the throne of Greece to a European prince, and to guarantee a loan, which was to be negociated for the purpose of enabling the executive there to carry on the duties of the government. The object of the present Bill was, to enable his Majesty to carry that Convention into effect, so far as his Majesty was concerned. He did not think it necessary for him to enter at any length into the discussion of the circumstances under which this Convention had been made; neither did he feel called on to say anything on the policy of the original interference. That interference had been made, and then the only question was, whether assistance should be given to the Greeks, and in what manner that assistance could be best afforded. He thought no one would deny, that after the part we had already taken in this matter, and after the struggle which the Greeks had made on their own behalf, we were bound to do all we could for them, consistently with our own interests, and the faith we owed to our allies. The negotiations which had been entered into to place
1342
the present king of the Belgians on the throne of Greece had failed. He regretted that it had, because he thought that that prince possessed every qualification for the high station which had been then offered him. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he was convinced that that was the best arrangement that could have been made, and he believed that all those who had had the best means of judging of that matter were of the same opinion. The same principle of policy which had originally induced the Three Powers to attempt to place Prince Leopold on the throne of Greece, had induced these Powers to establish on the throne of that country, in conformity with the powers with which they had been invested, the Prince Otho of Bavaria. On a former occasion, he had heard that the choice of the person was open to Much objection. He admitted that, it might be objected to the choice of Prince Otho, that it was an undoubted disadvantage that a minor should be placed on the throne of that country. He admitted, that some objection on that account might be urged, although he did not think that any strong objection would be put forward on the score of the prince's religion. If, however, such objections were made, he could only say, that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, and looking round among all the princes of Europe, he believed that this was the only choice left to the Allied Powers; for he did not know among the other princes any one to whom equal if not superior objections might not be urged. Considering these things, he was induced to hope that the arrangement now made would prove beneficial. It was generally known, that from the beginning the king of Bavaria had shown a particular interest in the struggle, by which it was hoped that the Greeks would be rescued from the domination of the Turks, and that feeling became a strong recommendation to place on the throne of the country one of his sons. It was agreed among the Allied Powers to offer the throne to Prince Otho, and that offer had been accepted. For the purpose of rendering effectual what had been done, this Convention was made. The object of this Bill was to enable his Majesty to give the guarantee of this country to a loan to be raised for the government of Greece. Every one must be aware, that a government could not be established in Greece

1343
without such an assistance. The loan was proposed to be recognised on the same terms as had been proposed by the former administration. The loan proposed was 60,000,000 of livres to be equally divided between the Three Powers, each of which was to be liable only for its own quota. This sum was to be advanced by instalments, with securities upon the revenues of the country for the payment of the interest, and for the accumulation of a sinking fund to discharge the principal itself. If the interest on the first instalment was not paid, its amount was to be deducted from the second instalment whenever that should come to be demanded. He believed, that if the government was once settled, there would be no difficulty whatever in its finding a perfect adequacy of funds to meet these engagements. If, however, it should not be able to do so, all that Great Britain would render herself liable to pay would be a sum of 800,000 l. They thought that under all the circumstances this country would not hesitate to take upon herself the possibility of such a burthen. By the arrangement now entered into, the Volo and Arta were made the boundaries of the Greek empire, and for that a compensation of 500,000 l. was to be given to the Turkish government. That arrangement was, he was happy to say, effected to the complete satisfaction of the Turks. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he felt this was not the time for discussing the question of Greece, and of the policy to be pursued with respect to it, though he doubted whether it would be beneficial to the commerce of England; but he could not help expressing his feeling that there were some objections to one part of the arrangement. On a former discussion, a noble friend of his had stated the objections which existed to the choice of Prince Otho, and he believed it would appear from the protocols, that in the course of the negotiations, it was determined that in case the prince selected should not be approved of by this country, we were not to be bound to assist in making the advances; but as soon as the prince selected was approved of by the Government, he admitted that the engagement was binding on us. Under these circumstances he had nothing to say against the present
1344
Bill, now that the selection of the Prince was approved of. One part of the papers to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships was, what he thought to be an oversight of the noble Earl. By one of the articles of the Convention (the 14th) it was stated, that 'His Majesty, the king of Bavaria, shall lend his assistance to the Prince Otho in raising in Bavaria a body of troops, not exceeding 3,500 men, to be employed in his service, as king of Greece, which corps shall be armed, equipped, and paid by the Greek state, and be sent thither as soon as possible, in order to relieve the troops of the alliance hitherto stationed in Greece. The latter shall remain in that country entirely at the disposal of the government of his majesty the king of Greece, until the arrival of the body of troops above-mentioned. Immediately upon their arrival, the troops of the alliance already referred to shall retire, and altogether evacuate the Greek territory.' A protest had been entered against this article, declaring on behalf of France, that it was conceived in terms in which the true meaning could not be meant to be expressed, for that it never could be meant that French troops were to be at the disposal of a king of Greece, and that it was only the intention of the Allies to sanction arrangements that the king of the French might enter into with the king of Greece on the subject of those troops. From that protest he inferred, that it was the intention of the king of the French to enter into a separate treaty from his Allies with respect to the French troops. The protest was against the terms of the protocol of the 3rd of February, 1830, by which no troops of any foreign power should be allowed to enter the Greek state without the consent of all the other Powers. He was sure that no miserable quibbling would be used as to the word "enter;" and if that was the case, he thought some alteration was required in the arrangements, for noble Lords must see that the protest of the king of the French was opposed to the spirit of the protocols.
Earl Greythought that this arrangement and settlement of the new state would be an advantage to the commerce of this country. That objection, however, if made at all, ought to have been made on the question of the separation from Turkey. That separation having taken place, it must be agreed that such a

1345
boundary should be given to the new state, as would prevent future collisions on that subject. The protest of the French Minister was, as it appeared to him, a mere matter of form. By the literal interpretation of one of the articles of the Convention, it appeared that the foreign troops now in Greece, which were, as everybody knew, French troops, were to be at the disposal of the king of Bavaria. Such a right to command French troops, there had been no intention to confer; and the protest was only a saving of the honour of France, that her troops should be under the direction and management of her own lawful authorities. It was intended, in fact, that on the arrival of the Bavarian troops, the French troops should evacuate the country, which he was sure they would do with the most perfect good faith. The substance of the Convention was satisfactory to all parties, and this protest had only been put in to save the French honour.
Bill read a second time.

FORGERY.
The Lord Chancellor,having moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Forgery Bill, observed that the law had been inoperative for the last few years, for the punishment of death had deterred many persons from prosecuting, believing that such a punishment was much too severe for offences committed against the statute. The law had not originally visited parties convicted of that offence with the dreadful penalty of death. By the 8th and 9th of William and Mary, when for this offence a heavier punishment was first inflicted, the forging of Bank notes was made a capital felony, and at different periods forging other instruments was visited with a similar punishment, until it might be said, that nearly all instruments being forged, the punishment of death was inflicted. For many years after the offence was first made capital, the law was conformable to the practice, and the punishment was almost invariably inflicted on the conviction of the criminal. For thirty years after that Act had passed, in the greater number of cases of conviction, the sentences were carried into execution; and where it was not, it was owing to some very peculiar circumstances, which induced the Crown to extend mercy. Of late, scarcely any person had been executed for forgery. A denounce-
1346
ment had gone forth against the severity of the law, and it might almost be taken as a general rule now, that no one had suffered, whilst in former times no one escaped. Did the punishment deter persons from committing the offence? It was notorious that many persons had an aversion to prosecute, on account of the severity of the sentence; and parties who were immoral enough to commit the crime, to administer to their own luxuries or extravagance, heedless of what misery and wretchedness it entailed on their victims, frequently committed it in the expectation that they might escape. They would run the risk, because they saw the uncertainty of the punishment overtaking them, for the reasons which he had stated. When their Lordships found that many persons in their cool moments were averse to so heavy a punishment, who did not recommend the alteration of the law from any sudden impulse of humanity, though that was a feeling which was creditable to the breast cherishing it—when their Lordships discovered that many of these persons who recommended the abolition, were the best able to judge of the matter as it affected the interests of the community, when merchants, bankers, and others who dealt in bills and paper securities, strenuously sought to abolish the punishment of death for the offence of forgery, he believed their Lordships would not lend an indifferent ear to such suggestions. When their Lordships found that there was an unwillingness to prosecute on the part of those who suffered from the crime being committed, they would certainly not be averse to an alteration of the law on the subject. It had been said, in addition to parties who had suffered from offences of this nature being unwilling to prosecute, that juries were likewise averse to give verdicts of guilty; and thus the criminal escaped. His own opinion was, that what had been asserted respecting juries being unwilling to pronounce verdicts of guilty, was much exaggerated. There might, and undoubtedly was, an unwillingness in juries to convict, but that was not so material as to the necessity of altering the law, arising from the aversion which prosecutors, and even witnesses, felt to come forward in cases of this nature. He had in his hand some returns, to which he would now call the attention of the House; and he thought it would be seen that his argument was borne out by facts. In the

1347
seven years ending in the year 1830, there had been 217 capital convictions, and only twenty-four suffered death. In but seven years, therefore, only about one in nine had been punished to the extent of the law. Now, when they came to look at the committals, and compared them with the convictions of another period, partly embracing the same time as the preceding return, it would be seen how many had escaped altogether. For the period of nine years, ending in 1828, 708 persons had been committed, charged with the capital offence, and 334 were acquitted, or about one-half of the parties who had been tried. If these numbers were compared with the numbers for the first period who were tried for the minor offence, it would be seen how much more certain was the latter as respected conviction—and, consequently, punishment. Of 558 tried for the minor offence, only fifty-seven escaped conviction. Instead of there being only one-half convicted, as the numbers of those committed for trial on the capital charge showed, there was not one in ten escaped of the persons who were committed for trial on the minor offence. It would be endless to go into facts connected with these proceedings. Taking the year 1821, there had been 1,108 persons committed, charged with capital offences against the person and property, and out of this large number only eleven escaped. Two or three years back a noble friend of his had introduced a bill repealing the law which made it a capital offence to steal from a bleaching-ground, before which period not one person in twenty committed for the offence was convicted; but, since it had been made a clergyable offence, not one-half committed escaped. These things proved that a punishment might be much too severe—thwarting justice, instead of supporting it. The punishment of death had been denounced in cases of forgery. Sentence had gone forth against it. He did not now advert to the feelings of the public upon the question, for the minds of men had been long made up on the subject—not the feelings of the hour or the day—not opinions taken up at random, or seized at a moment of excitement—but he adverted to the opinions of men who were immediately interested in the matter—men who were alive to what affected them—and who had, equally with all classes of the community, denounced the law as it now
1348
stood. When he had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, he presented a petition, signed by 264 country bankers, against the punishment of death being inflicted for forgery, and these represented 735 members of firms—or nearly 1,000 provincial banks. Now it had been said, that the law had been expressly framed for the protection of the dealers in paper currency, but these petitioners did not deem it of that character: and, be it recollected, they were influenced by no wild theories—no fantastic speculative notions of legislation, taken up to-day on slight grounds to be abandoned to-morrow—but they viewed the matter coolly, as tradesmen having a large capital at stake—as dealers in paper currency. They looked upon the law as a most ineffectual means of protection, and wished it to undergo a great alteration. The law had been denounced, and sentenced, and condemned, not only by the country, but twice by one branch of the Legislature. What chance was there, after the House of Commons had passed two bills, denouncing the law as it now stood, and proposing a milder one, that prosecutors, and witnesses, and Juries, and Judges, should carry it into execution? What probability was there, he would ask their Lordships, now that the House of Commons had twice passed a bill abolishing the punishment of death for forgery, of Juries convicting, or Judges sentencing, under the present law? He trusted that their Lordships would not, after a bill had twice passed the other branch of the Legislature, again reject it. He now begged to move, "That the House do resolve into a Committee on the Bill," and said, he had some verbal alterations to make in it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the present Bill. He was anxious, as experiments had been made with other measures relating to alterations of the law as to offences, to see the experiment now proposed made with the Bill on their Lordships' Table; and he most sincerely hoped that the experiment would be found to answer. The House would only be performing its duty in subjecting the matter to trial, for if the experiment did answer the expectations formed upon it, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it would be most cruel and wicked to inflict the punishment of death for a crime, were it not necessary to secure

1349
men's lives or their property. After the Legislature had repealed the law which made it a capital offence to steal in a dwelling-house, where people generally kept their most valuable property, it would be inconsistent to keep the punishment of death for other offences, such as some which the present Bill included. He rather doubted some of the conclusions come to by his noble and learned friend, as to the returns to which he had adverted. His noble and learned friend seemed to forget that, with respect to many of the minor cases which he had quoted, two indictments were generally prepared, and if the party charged did not think fit to plead guilty to the minor offence, the capital charge was gone into. This would have some effect as to the numbers in the returns. Judges were in the habit of telling persons charged that, if they pleaded guilty to the minor charge, the capital charge would not be gone into. He hoped it would turn out, that the view which he had taken of the subject of capital punishments was a narrow one, but he could not help believing that the perspective of the gallows deterred many people from committing crimes, who would rush into the commission of offences, when they learned that the only punishment was transportation. When the returns, for which he had a few days ago moved, were upon the Table, he should have an opportunity of making some comparative calculations, which he thought would bear him out in his opinions. He should be sorry to see the law extend the milder punishment of transportation for all cases of forgery; for instance, he thought that exceptions ought to be made in cases where wills were forged. He had witnessed in the Court over which he had the honour of presiding a most ruinous effect of an alteration in a will. The alteration was trifling, and managed most dexterously, so that, until the document was held up to the light it could not be detected. The party who purchased the property supposed it was a tenancy in fee, whereas it was a tenancy for life, and he was completely ruined. The party who had been guilty of the forgery, had substituted the one word for the other. He need not urge to their Lordships the extreme importance of wills, and how necessary it was that they should remain unaltered, how much the welfare of many parties depended on that; and yet, by the Bill,
1350
such a crime could only subject the parties to transportation. He wished that an exception in this respect should be made, and he should, therefore, submit to their Lordships, when in Committee, an amendment to that effect, and should also propose that similar alterations should be made in this Bill as were, at his suggestion, introduced into a former Bill, the object of which would be, to deprive the Judges of any discretionary power as to the sentence to be awarded on conviction; and he was the more desirous of doing this, that the cases would be tried at sessions, so that any Recorder would be enabled to inflict any punishment he pleased within the scope of the Bill. Such an alteration would not interfere with the power of the Crown in respect to the extension of mercy. Their Lordships knew that that prerogative could not be taken away but by express words in a Statute, and none such had been introduced into this Bill. It would still be open to his Majesty to extend that mercy in all cases he might please; the only difference would be, that sentence of transportation for life must first be pronounced, and the execution of that sentence would depend on only two persons—the one the Secretary of State, who had to give consideration to all the cases which occurred throughout the kingdom, and the other his Majesty; whereas, if the Bill remained in its present state, Magistrates would be acting on different rules, and awarding different degrees of punishment for the same offence, thus rendering the operation of the law variable and uncertain.
The Marquess of Lansdownhaving some years ago, proposed to their Lordships to pass a bill founded on the same principles as that under consideration, he could not be expected to do otherwise than give his full and cordial assent to it, and express the sincere satisfaction he felt in thinking that a bill to abolish capital punishment in cases in which it had been found practically inefficacious, and revolting to the feelings of prosecutors, jurymen, witnesses, and all who were concerned in carrying it into effect, was at length to be passed. He rejoiced that, after three years had elapsed since the former decision was pronounced, this House had been brought, by a consideration of the subject, into a different frame of mind. He was unwilling to add anything to the arguments stated by his noble and learned friend, but he

1351
felt bound to say, that the course which he should have wished to pursue when he brought the subject under the notice of the House three years ago, he wished to be pursued on the present occasion—namely, to proceed to abolish the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, with the exception of certain cases, to which the arguments did not apply with the same force as to the rest. In that Bill, which their Lordships thought went a great deal too far, and, consequently, rejected by a large majority, it was provided that its operation should not extend to forging a power of attorney relating to the public funds, and to the forgery of wills. He certainly was not aware of any instances of the commission of either of those offences in which a disinclination had been evinced to prosecute, or give evidence against, the accused. Both of them generally involved consequences very different from those which resulted from ordinary cases of forgery, affecting the whole property of an individual—tending to degrade, perhaps ruin him, and to convert a course of prosperity into one of misery—requiring too, for the exertion of them, a degree of premeditated contrivance and guilt singularly calculated to remove the scruples which in other cases existed against carrying into effect the execution of the law. All these circumstances, afforded strong ground for the exception of these two offences from the operation of the Bill, and the continuance of the punishment at present attached to the commission of them. He was not disposed to urge any opinion of his against the weight and authority of that of his noble and learned friend. He was unwilling to urge it against what might be the feeling and opinion of the House; but if the noble and learned Lord opposite should move an Amendment on the subject of the forgery of wills, he should support the noble and learned Lord. Though anxious for the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases, he would rather that that end should be arrived at as the result of experience, than as a consequence of any general principle.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad, in conjunction with a noble and learned friend of his, opposed the Bill to which allusion had been made by the noble Marquess. Though his opinions had not changed since that time, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the present measure, but he
1352
must be allowed to add, that exceptions ought to be made as to the punishment to be inflicted for those offences which had been particularly referred to as offences to which the arguments in favour of the abolition of capital punishment did not apply. He had no doubt that if some amendment were not made in the law as it respected powers of attorney, relating to the public funds—some amendment of the description proposed by his noble friend, so as to give some security to the Bank of England for that species of property—the Legislature would be under the necessity of adopting arrangements in relation to those instruments which must prove of the greatest possible inconvenience in the transaction of public business, and which must be injurious to those engaged in the transfer of funded property. He hoped, therefore, that Amendments of the kind proposed would be introduced.
House went into Committee.
Lord Wynfordhaving, at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, agreed to postpone his Amendment respecting the forging of wills and powers of attorney, to the bringing up of the Report, moved that the punishment for forgery should be transportation for life, and that it should be made imperative upon the Judges to pronounce sentence accordingly.
The Lord Chancellor, in reference to the proposed exceptions, admitted that the forgery of wills might be exceedingly detrimental to families, and was a most grave offence; but he held the opinion, that in the existing state of public feeling, the punishment of death in these cases would not operate according to the intentions of its advocates, as an efficient protection of the rights of property.
Lord Hollandwas decidedly opposed to the infliction of the punishment of death for any offences, the commission of which was unattended with violence. He had given his assent to the second reading of the Bill, and the reasons which induced him to assent to the Bill at that stage were still as strong on his mind as ever, and were as applicable to the cases which the noble and learned Lord would except, as to any of the other clauses of the Bill. These reasons, in fact, were as strong against the exception as they were in favour of the general measure. No one could deny, that forgery was a great crime, and, in some cases, as injurious to society as burglary, or even murder; but that was

1353
not a sufficient argument. The great object which a legislative body ought to have in view was the prevention of crime; and when it was found, from long experience, that the punishment of death so far from protecting the community against the commission of forgery, rather held out a hope of escape from all punishment, it was their duty to attempt other means for repressing the crime. These means, in his opinion, were such alterations in the law as would insure an inferior punishment in all cases. If the punishment of death was sufficient to keep down the crime, then he would say, allow it still to remain on the Statute-book; but when the voice of the public was against it, and when it was found, that owing to this general voice, even great criminals escaped punishment altogether, there could be no doubt as to what course their Lordships should pursue. The crimes of highway men were, in some instances, not of so atrocious a nature as some cases of forgery—that, for instance, of Fauntleroy; but then the Legislature ought to recollect the feelings which were excited in favour of that unfortunate individual, and consequently the difficulty, or rather impossibility, of obtaining a verdict for inferior crimes of that nature. The law, in fact, as it stood, encouraged rather than prevented the crime—the simple question was, does the punishment of death prevent the crime, or not? If it do not prevent the crime, and at all events till the noble and learned Lord proves that the principle which applies to the general measure does not apply to his exceptions, he must oppose the insertion of the clauses.
Earl Greysaid, exceptions had been proposed by the noble and learned Lord, and the question arising out of it was whether there was any ground for it. If a feeling did not prevail against capital punishment for forgery of wills and powers of attorney; if there were not the same unwillingness to prosecute, nor the same reluctance on the part of Juries to return an affirmative verdict in these cases, then he thought that a distinction ought to be made. He was ready to admit that there was greater difficulty in forging wills and powers of attorney than in forging bills of exchange; but, at the same time, he must say that, however reluctant he was to oppose his noble and learned friend and another noble friend who had argued in favour of the entire Bill, still he was
1354
bound to state that he was in favour of the proposed exception. If hereafter it should be found that the forgeries of wills and of powers of attorney remained still the same, and that public feeling was decidedly against convictions in such cases then the Legislature would have the benefit of experience, and would be justified in repealing the capital penalty. The punishment of death ought never to be inflicted but in cases of great atrocity; and, provided inferior crimes could be repressed by milder punishment, the extremity of the law should not be resorted to. With that view of the question, and wishing as he did to try the experiment in all other cases, he could not withhold his assent to the exceptions of the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment agreed to. The House resumed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill, brought up from the Commons, being read,
Lord Wynfordopposed the Bill. He should be as glad as any one to find some means of putting down Bribery and corruption, but he was afraid that the present Bill would not have that result. He hoped, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord would postpone the measure till next Session.
The Lord Chancellorwas as much opposed to some of the provisions of the Bill as his noble and learned friend. In addition to that, many most important clauses which had been agreed to in a former Bill had been left out, and with the hopes of having these inserted in a new Bill, he would postpone the Bill till next Session.
Order of the Day discharged.

JURIES (INDIA) BILL.
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of the Bill, the object of which he explained was to authorise the appointment by the local Governments of the Presidencies of the East Indies, of persons, not being British-born subjects, to be justices of the peace, under such regulations as existed by law, and to remove the disqualification imposed on natives by the Indian Jury Bill of 1826, which prohibited any but Christians from sitting upon the trial of a Christian on petty juries; and all natives whatever, from sitting on Grand Juries, No sooner was that exception

1355
introduced than it was repented of; for what was well meant and well intended—what would have been willingly received as a very great blessing—was converted by the exception into a measure which operated as a stigma upon a very large portion of his Majesty's Indian subjects. The present Bill only gave to the local powers the right to appoint whatever persons they might think fit to be justices of the peace; and to act on juries, under such regulations as the Courts might think proper. Of the introduction of trial by jury into our Eastern settlements, it was impossible to speak too highly; it had been adopted in the Island of Ceylon, under Sir Alexander Johnstone, and there it had operated most beneficially, tending to conciliate the natives, and to give them an interest in our Government and institutions. To render this boon fully effectual in the East Indies and to remove the disqualification imposed by the Bill of 1826, was the object of the present measure.
The Duke of Wellingtonfrom the knowledge he had of India, and from the perusal he had given to the documents on the Table, must say, that he had never seen a bill more calculated to do mischief than this. He was surprised that any Government should have thought proper to introduce such a measure into Parliament, contrary to the opinion of every person connected with that distant country, or acquainted with the administration of justice there. These Courts were originally established purposely to exempt his Majesty's British subjects from the jurisdiction of the natives of that country. Their jurisdiction was local, extending only a certain distance round the several towns in which they were established. The jurisdiction of Calcutta, for instance, was not more extensive than Hyde Park; and the natives whom it was proposed to call upon to assist in the administration of justice, generally reside outside the boundary purposely that they might not come under the jurisdiction of the court. The measure was then, useless, inasmuch as they could not be called upon to serve on juries in any one of these courts. He did not mean to say that there were not some opulent Gentlemen residing in that town; but the residents were chiefly the servants of Europeans, of clerks in the employment of the Government, and of persons who generally speaking, ought not to serve on juries.
1356
The Gentleman who brought this subject into the other House of Parliament, must know that in this country, as in all others, there were certain established qualifications for justices of the peace and for jurymen; and that no disqualification, in any part of the world, was equal to that of colour: that the white man had an influence which was not possessed by the black. This distinction prevailed most in those countries in which a liberal system of Government had been established, as in the United States of America, and the various states existing in the southern portion of that continent. Indeed, a term had been invented to designate it in Colombia, in which express laws had been made for the support and maintenance of the "albocracy." To enable the coloured natives of the East-Indies to receive from the Governor of Fort St. George or Bombay the power which this measure proposed to confer on them, appeared to him to be trifling with the administration of justice in that country. He was convinced of the utter inutility of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorwas sure that he need only remind the noble Duke of those who supported the Bill in the other House of Parliament, in order to satisfy him that he was in error in saying no person acquainted with India supported the Bill, and that individuals well acquainted with India did not anticipate any injurious effects from it; on the contrary they considered that it would be highly beneficial. Sir Charles Forbes and Sir John Malcolm were both gentlemen possessed of an intimate knowledge of India: the former from his employment in a civil, and the latter in a military capacity in that country supported the Bill. The noble Duke had greatly overrated the influence of colour. Doubtless that ought to have its effect; but in India, natives of respectability already discharged various functions connected with the administration of justice. It was before the Zillah Court, composed partly of natives, that even Europeans, in spite of their supposed superiority of colour, were in the first instance brought, preparatory to being judged in a Court composed only of Europeans. If the disqualification at present existing were allowed to remain, natives of respectability could not but feel themselves stigmatized. The most respectable merchants, not being native British-born subjects, were excluded from sitting on juries; while inferior persons, clerks

1357
and others being British-born could so sit; and the natives, however degraded they might be, or however they might have lost caste, provided they were Christians, and so qualified, could also sit and determine questions of property affecting their masters, while those masters were entirely excluded from sitting on juries.
The Earl of Rosslynthought it his duty to state, that a very considerable number of the servants of the India Company, resident in these jurisdictions, as well as a large number of persons still servants of the Company, and who were formerly residents there, had expressed themselves strongly opposed to this measure. He took blame to himself because he had a petition which he ought to have presented against this Bill; but he had no suspicion, that it would proceed further during the present Session. The opinion expressed in that petition, which was signed by both the civil and military servants of the Company, was, that this Bill ought not to pass at present; especially when the whole of the affairs of India were the subject of pending inquiry, and in respect of which, some arrangement must be made forthwith upon one general system. They therefore considered it to be extremely desirable that this partial alteration should not take place.
Bill read a second time.