appeared at the bar, and presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of London, in Common Council assembled, against the Bill for the removal of Scotch and Irish Paupers. The Petition was read on the Motion of

, who said, that in supporting its prayer he was sorry not to see in his place the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill, against which the Petition was directed, but he hoped the noble Lord would not persevere in it. Many of the Irish poor were employed about London, and if the parishes there were compelled to send them to their native land, it would occasion very considerable expense. No provision was made against their return, and the consequence would be, that they would get a passage in a caravan or a mail-coach, and a steamboat to Ireland, with the advantage of a pedestrian excursion to bring them back. As to punishing these people, as he understood was proposed, who came here honestly to earn their bread, that was what he never would consent to. But he believed that the Irish Pauper was too cunning not to escape through the meshes of the law. At present he raked together a little money in various places, and carefully concealing it, whenever he could get no more he got himself sent back to his own country at the public charge. In 1816 he had sent great numbers of them to prison, and they had been sent home, but they had soon found their way back. Already the expense occasioned by these Paupers bore very heavy on many parishes in the city, and he hoped that the House would not pass a Bill which would increase their burthens.

thought, that the parishes about London, which had the benefit of the Pauper's labour, should pro- vide for his maintenance or his removal. That was the just principle of our Poor-laws. To send these Paupers by caravans to Liverpool cost more than to convey them by the mail, and he did not know why the different counties lying between London and Liverpool should bear a large proportion of this expense when they had never derived any benefit from the Pauper's labour. The charge ought to be defrayed by the parishes in which they worked.

thought the present system injurious. The Irish labourer came to this country, and underworked the English labourer, and when he was tired of stopping, or could gain no more, he got. passed back to his own country, taking care to conceal his money or obtaining a bill for it which was paid in Ireland. He would say, that the best way would be, not to interfere with them, and as they found their way here so let them find their way back. An English Pauper could get no relief in Ireland, and he would treat the Irish Pauper in England as the English Pauper was treated in Ireland.

brought up a Message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker, and for which see the Debate in the House of Lords [page 986].

then said: I am confident that I shall be acting in concurrence with the unanimous feeling of the House, if I proceed immediately to move an Address, expressive of the deep regret of his Majesty's faithful Commons at the intelligence just communicated, respecting the indisposition under which his Majesty is labouring, and conveying to the foot of the Throne the earnest prayer of the House of Commons that his Majesty may be speedily restored to health. The Address I shall propose will, in addition, merely pledge the House to take into consideration, with the least practicable delay, the means which may enable his Majesty to provide for the attachment of the royal signature to the public instruments that require it. Perhaps it may be convenient to state that the bill for effecting the object in view will originate in the House of Lords, and it will therefore not be necessary to move immediately that the Message be taken into consideration. I beg to move "That an Address be presented to his Majesty, to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message—to assure his Majesty that his faithful Commons have heard with the deepest regret that his Majesty is labouring under severe indisposition, and that they earnestly pray, under the favour of Divine Providence, that his Majesty may be speedily restored to health—to assure his Majesty that this House will, with the least practicable delay, proceed to the consideration of such measures as may enable his Majesty to provide for the temporary discharge of that important function of the Crown referred to in his Majesty's most gracious Message."

said, I beg to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; and in doing so I consider that I adopt a proceeding by no means inconsistent with my deep impression of the great importance of the Motion. The course we have to pursue is, I believe, unprecedented. We shall derive no light upon it from the practice of former times, in either House of Parliament. I deem it consistent with the last part of the Address, which expresses the determination of the House, speedily to provide for supplying the defect in the discharge of the Royal functions, in the way best adapted to the exigencies of the public service, to state that we ought to take those steps most cautiously and deliberately, and in a manner best calculated to prevent any rashness on our part from being drawn into precedent. I wish to abstain, for obvious reasons, from making a single remark not necessarily called for; but all must be aware of the danger, in cases of this sort, that may arise from rashness of proceeding, and the necessity of never adopting a course which hereafter may be employed in a manner which, while adopting it, we are far from contemplating. When driven to a necessity like that which now unfortunately exists, we must guard, most scrupulously against the possibility of a door being opened which our successors may have cause to wish had for ever remained closed.

brought up and laid upon the Table, by command of his Majesty, Papers relating to Greece. In moving (he said) that they do lie upon the Table, I feel it my duty, as the House has bad no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the contents of the Papers, not only to abstain from any discussion upon them, but from all reference to them. It may be convenient, however, to state shortly what are the transactions to which they refer. They may be divided under three heads: First, Protocols from the date of the signature of the Treaty between this country, France, and Russia, on the 6th July, 1827, to the 14th of the present month: Second, Protocols of Conferences which took place at Constantinople, between the Ministers of the Allied Powers and the Porte, from the period of the signature of the Treaty to that of the departure of the Ministers of the Allied Powers from the Turkish capital: and Third, documents relating to three transactions, not immediately connected with the execution of the Treaty, but still growing out of it, and which Parliament expressed a desire to have an opportunity of inspecting. Those three transactions are—The Convention concluded at Alexandria by Sir E. Codrington, for the evacuation of the Morea; Papers relating to the blockade of the Dardanelles by Russia, and to the circumstances connected with it; and documents regarding the raising of the Greek blockade at Patras and other places. I feel it my duty also to state, that the expectations entertained by his Majesty's Government, that his Royal Highness Prince Leopold would become the Sovereign of Greece, have been disappointed, and that he has signified to his Majesty's Government his determination to relinquish the trust he had undertaken. All the papers connected with the acceptance of the trust, and with its resignation, will be presented to the House in the course of a few days, and until the House is in possession of the requisite information, it will be much better for me to abstain from making any observations.

said, that he had heard without the least surprise what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, for, from certain tokens that he had observed, and certain documents he had seen, he was prepared to expect it. He would, for the present, abstain from further observations, as the papers were not in the hands of hon. Members. The documents laid on the Table, as the House would see, were very voluminous; but if the short account which he had read was to be relied on, the documents were much more voluminous than the questions settled by them were either important or numerous. It was his opinion, that those questions would be found within a narrow compass; narrow, however, as it might be, he thought perhaps that the most advantageous course was, not to raise any discussion, until the House had time to consider the information laid before it.

wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if those papers contained any information relative to the sums which this country might be called on to pay by any guarantees it had entered into connected with those transactions?

wished also to ask a question, relative to the difference between Prince Leopold and the Allied Powers—it was said that there were some points of difference between them on the subject of a loan—some bartering about money. Rumours of that nature were injurious to the honour and character of the illustrious personage in question, and, therefore. it was material that the matter should be set right with the world. It was also said, that the proposed territorial limits of Greece formed matter of dispute. Now, he wished to know which of these, or whether it was on both, that the difference arose, that brought about the unfortunate termination of those negotiations?

said, he laid the documents on the Table of the House, and in doing so he conceived it was proper to state what they were, but strictly to avoid any comments upon them until they should be in the hands of hon. Members. He thought he was bound to observe that course in fairness to the House, and to the parties interested, he being now acquainted with their contents, and other hon. Members not having that advantage. As to the questions which had been asked, he should willingly reply to them, but in doing so he wished to avoid all discussion. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Aberdeen, he had to state, that full information would be found in those Papers respecting the pecuniary engagements of this country, arising out of the negotiations to which the papers he had just laid upon the Table of the House referred. The noble Lord opposite inquired whether differences respecting loans, or a disagreement relative to the proposed territorial limits of Greece, formed the grounds on which the negotiations were broken off. On a former occasion he stated, that all the great points had been settled, which, up to that time, had been raised between the Allies and Prince Leopold. He understood since, however, that points of difference arose which were of a pecuniary nature. The Prince's resignation, however, was also connected with other questions. The House, he repeated, would be in possession of the Papers before four-and-twenty hours, and then, but not until then, he should consider that they were in a condition to discuss the question.

was desirous of knowing whether it was information recently received from Greece that decided Prince. Leopold in breaking off those negotiations?

said, that in the communications between Prince Leopold and his Majesty's Government, his Royal Highness stated, that in despatches received from Greece, he certainly had received information which had decided his conduct on the matter of his resignation.

, adverting to what fell from his noble friend behind him, in which the resignation of Prince Leopold was spoken of as 'unfortunate,' confessed that he considered it as anything but unfortunate. He should rejoice in any- thing calculated to promote the honour and glory of that illustrious personage, but he could not help considering it an excellent thing that his resignation enabled this country to avoid the entanglement which the acceptance of that Sovereignty might eventually have brought about.

again recommended the postponement of any further discussion until hon. Members were in possession of the papers.

explained—he used the term 'unfortunate' in the usual way in which that term was applied to ne otiations terminating unsuccessfully.

to present a Petition from British Settlers and others resident at the Cape of Good Hope, praying for a Representative Government. After calling the attention of the House to the importance of the question which the Petition raised, the respectability of the parties petitioning, and the obligation there lay upon the Legislature to protect the inhabitants of that colony from the effects of arbitrary power, he proceeded to say, that he considered the arbitrary imposition of taxes as one of the most objectionable exertions of arbitrary power. The Petition which he held in his hand was from British Settlers, who desired to carry with them to the colonies where they settled, the privileges which were the boast of their native country; and which they were accustomed to enjoy before they left it. In order to convey to the House a just view of the feelings of those colonists, he would call attention to some of the sentiments expressed by the petitioners. They expressed themselves deeply grateful for the benefits already conferred upon them: for example, the Trial by Jury, and other privileges enjoyed by Britons—they thought they should best show their just appreciation of those benefits by seeking to attain the full blessings of the representative system—an object for which every class in that colony were equally anxious. In those sentiments he fully concurred, the more especially when he recollected how many British colonies of less importance already enjoyed the benefits of a representative system. When the inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope turned their attention to the other side of the Atlantic, they perceived numerous colonies enjoying a representative system perfect in all its parts; it was, therefore, exceedingly natural that they should desire to possess that which others in a similar situation had long enjoyed. He did not call upon the House to institute any proceeding immediately for the purpose of complying with the prayer of the petitioners; but he hoped that it would, at some future, and not very distant time, take it into serious consideration; and that when the time came, whether soon or late, his Majesty's Government would do all in its power to prepare the inhabitants of that colony for those privileges which they so earnestly desired to obtain, and which it was as much for their advantage, as for that of the mother country, should be conferred upon them. It was indisputable that much misgovernment had prevailed at the Cape; whether that was owing altogether to the vices of our own colonial system, or to the institutions of the Dutch, who originally settled there, and their peculiar customs and usages, he would not undertake to say; or whether those evils might not arise from both causes, it was not for him to determine. Of this, however, he was perfectly assured, that the only cure was a representative government. There was one reflection, at all events, which naturally presented itself on an occasion like the present, and it was of a very gratifying character—namely, that English settlers, wherever they went, carried with them a love of English institutions.

felt, that he should be wanting in respect to the noble Lord, and in that due attention to the colonists which he wished at all times to manifest towards them, if he did not state a few of the considerations which rendered the establishment of a representative system of government at the Cape of Good Hope extremely inexpedient. The Petition, the House would perceive, came from only a portion of the colony, and from that portion, too, in which slavery did not exist—and that made a material difference—indeed there was no country where slavery existed in which the expediency of introducing a representative legislature might not most seriously be doubted. The state of that colony, with reference to population and civilization, ought also to be taken into account. Its extent was nearly equal to that of the United Kingdom—about 600 miles long and 300 wide. The colonists amounted to only 119,966 souls, of whom the slaves amounted to 31,000, the free blacks to 35,000 and the whites to 53,996. A population so scattered, and so circumstanced, could but poorly exercise the privileges and powers of representation. Again, the whites were divided into Dutch and British, and if they had a Legislature, that body would be divided into two parties—the Dutch party and the British party—and thus one of the most important benefits of representation would be counteracted. Then the House, he hoped, would not lose sight of the difficulty which Parliament had always experienced in its attempts to ameliorate the condition of the slaves wherever a colonial legislature existed, and until something satisfactory could be done for the slaves at the Cape of Good Hope, he should be unwilling to see a representative government established there. Something had been said in disparagement of the successive governments at the Cape of Good Hope; but he must take leave to say, that the Hottentots would not have been put upon the same footing with the colonists if the Cape had up to this time remained in the hands of the Dutch. Another objection to the introduction of the representative system was, that were it once established, all the power would speedily centre in the hands of those who resided in and near Cape Town, for those who resided at a distance would never think public affairs worth such a journey. Finally, he assured the House, that if he could persuade himself that a representative government would be at all likely to promote the true interests of the settlers at the Cape, he should be amongst the first to propose and recommend it; but he felt assured, that when hon. Members weighed the reasons which he had urged, they would see the expediency of not acceding to the prayer of the present Petition.

admitted, that the colonists of the Cape were not at the present moment prepared for representation, but he looked forward to the time when they would be capable of appreciating and exercising that privilege, and every other to which those who were accustomed to live under the British Constitution were accustomed. If the noble Lord were not to follow up the Petition by a motion to carry its prayer into effect he should oppose it, but he should be most happy to co-operate in the measures necessary to render the Colonists fit to enjoy the advantages which they sought.

said, that the statements in the Petition presented by the noble Lord from the Cape, were equally applicable to all the colonies under the care of the Crown; a similar vicious system of government existed in all of them; and it was not possible to remove the grievances complained of but by granting the prayer of the Petition, and thus giving the colonists some control over their taxation and expenditure. These colonies were peculiarly situated. They had no independent local legislatures of their own, nor were they represented in the Imperial Parliament; but were under the immediate patronage and control of the Crown, by whom the taxes were levied and revenues appropriated. They presented, indeed, a practical example of the effects of taxation without representation. The colonists themselves had no control whatever over their expenditure, and though the produce of the taxes raised in the colony could not by law be appropriated to any but colonial purposes, yet that wise provision was evaded by the creation of new and useless offices, with high salaries attached, the payment of which was charged upon the colonial revenues. The revenues of the Crown colonies, he considered himself justified in asserting, were ample to provide for every necessary expense; but insufficient to provide also for the payment of extravagant salaries to governors, judges, and custom-house officers, which absorbed the whole amount. The current and necessary expenses had been, therefore, left to be provided for by votes of that House; and hence the complaints, that these colonies did not pay their own expenses. He contended that those colonies actually did pay their own proper and necessary expenses; but they could not pay in addition those heavy salaries, unnecessarily charged upon them. They were already taxed beyond all reasonable limits, not for their own wants, but for the benefit of those who were provided for at their expense. The colonial statements laid before the Finance Committee afforded a striking comparison of the relative taxation and expenditure of the two classes of colonies, viz.: those having independent local legislatures, and those under the paternal care of the Crown. Among the latter class the colony of Trinidad figured as a solitary example of an extravagant expenditure, sustained by enormous taxation. By the means of heavy imposts, levied exclusively upon the planter, that colony had hitherto not only paid all its expenses, but had saved from its surplus-revenue a sum of 60,000l. accumulated in the colonial treasury. The local authorities, however, (by whom he meant the placemen and pensioners of Trinidad, who are not planters, and did not personally feel the weight of taxation), were then projecting the erection of unnecessary public buildings and colonial palaces, which would not only absorb this sum, but would entail for years to come a continuance of the present burthens upon the colony. The local authorities, (who might be termed, to borrow an hon. Baronet's simile, the birds of prey who fed upon the vitals of the colony) were, he was informed, by means of intrigue and clamour, embarrassing and distracting the good intentions of the new governor, trusting thereby to throw its affairs into such confusion as to oblige him to give up in despair the task of cleansing that Augean stable, The subject, however, he had reason to believe, was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who (he was happy to take this opportunity of stating) had, in every communication he had had the honour to hold with him upon this most important subject, evinced an earnest and anxious desire to investigate and correct the abuses of our colonial system. The task was Herculean, but he trusted, as there existed the desire, so the means of reformation would not be wanting. He should state, that during the short period in which the right hon. the member for Liverpool held the seals of the Colonial office, a ray of light beamed upon this unfortunate colony. The energetic measures of reformation which he had time only to commence, and which gave a promise of brighter days, ceased however with his removal from office. That event was much regretted by the colonists, who began to congratulate themselves in being under the control of a Minister who was both willing and able to carry his beneficial plans into effect. Should, however, the just expectations of the colonists be disappointed, and another season be suffered to elapse without any alleviation of their sufferings, he should feel it his duty, early in the ensuing Session, to bring their case under the consideration of the House.

expressed his regret that the right hon. Secretary had not stated out of what materials a representative government could be formed.

complained of a practice which had existed for a long time in the Colonial Department, of sending out men of broken fortunes to occupy situations in the colonies, by which many serious evils arose to the colonies themselves. He thought that if the names of all persons appointed to colonial situations were inserted in the Gazette for some time before they went out, the evil might be avoided, because a means would thus be obtained of coming at a correct knowledge of the character of the parties, and of their fitness for the appointments. He did not mention this as arising out of any appointments which had been made since the right hon. and gallant officer came to the head of the Colonial Department, for, to do him. justice, he believed that since then no persons had been sent out who were not properly qualified for the situations they had, to fill; but the subject was one to which he thought it necessary to call the right hon. and gallant officer's attention.

did not think, that the right hon. and gallant officer had given very satisfactory reasons why the prayer of the Petition presented by the noble Lord should not be complied with. The complaint of the petitioners was, that British subjects, who had been accustomed to live under the free institutions of their own country, should, when they went out to settle in a colony, be at once brought under the dominion of arbitrary power. The nature of that government exposed it to great abuses, and the result was, that wherever it existed the improvement of the colony was greatly retarded. This had been as strongly illustrated in the Cape of Good Hope as in any colony he could name. The hon. and gallant officer had said, that he did not think this colony would be fit for a representative system of government whilst slavery existed; but he begged to ask him, when did he expect that slavery would cease there? When would that portion of the inhabitants be free? When would they be fit for a representative government? The right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, removed the period of freedom to an indefinite time. The right hon. and gallant officer's next objection was, he thought, as little satisfactory as the other,—namely, that of the distance to which the population was scattered. Now in the Canadas it was well known the inhabitants were scattered over a vast extent of country, and that was not found to be a serious objection to the establishment of a representative government. When the Floridas were ceded to the United States, they were at once incorporated into the national union, with a representative government, the distance at which many of the inhabitants were scattered from one another being no obstacle, because arrangements were easily made for meeting in the most central part of the state. It was at present a just cause of complaint, that England was taxed to pay for the expenditure of colonies which would willingly support themselves, if allowed to do so under a representative system; but instead of this, large sums were annually drawn from the pockets of the people here to meet expenses which we ought not to be called upon to pay. Give the colonies a representative system, and they would willingly pay their own expenses; though they would not pay such large salaries to governors and other officers as were now paid for them by the people of England. What was the situation of this very colony of the Cape of Good Hope? It had been for years left under a tyrannical government: he did not allude to any one individual in particular, but the nature of the government was arbitrary, and it could not be denied that it had been grossly abused. But what had been the effect of the public opinion, to which the right hon. and gallant officer had alluded? Public opinion was, no doubt, very powerful here, through the Press, which sent forth what passed in that House to the world. Without such publicity, the House would be a nuisance to the country. As it was, he did not say it was of much benefit, but without the Press it would be a nuisance—a body which would have only to register the acts of Government; but even here, with all the advantages of publicity, how far had that gone to remove the evils which were complained of with respect to the Cape of Good Hope, during so many years in which Lord Charles Somerset was governor, and while Lord Bathurst was at the head of the Colonial Department? It was of little or no use in correcting the evil. He must say, that a mere reliance upon the expression of public opinion would not be a sufficient guarantee to the colonists against the evils of an arbitrary form of government, or supply the check which a representative system would have on the executive power. It was, he must also contend, a libel upon Englishmen to say, that they were rendered by a difference of climate, unfit for a free constitution, or unworthy of enjoying it. He must again express his regret at hearing that there was to be no representative system in the colony until slavery was removed, and the population so condensed as that their representatives might come together without much inconvenience, which was putting off freedom for ever.

concurred in the general principle, that a representative form of government would be the best for the colonies, where circumstances permitted; but at the same time he fully agreed with; the right hon. and gallant Secretary, that that system could not at present be adopted for the Cape of Good Hope without great danger to the best interests of that colony. He admitted that the government should be for the benefit of the many, and not for the few; but he did not think, that that end would be obtained by a representative form of government at the Cape. If he could believe that it would have the effect of producing better regulations with respect to slaves—that it would improve the condition of the Hottentot population—he would most readily consent to it; but until he saw some disposition evinced by the colonies which had representative governments to improve the condition of the slaves,—until he saw in them a disposition in the strong to protect the weak,—he should object to any extension of a system, particularly where slave population existed, which he had reason to believe would not produce those effects. He thought therefore that it would be better to leave those colonies which had not representative systems in the hands of Government, which was responsible for the measures which it adopted, rather than give them to those over whom we could have no efficient control. He was glad of that opportunity of expressing his gratitude to the right hon. and gallant officer for the measures which he had adopted for improving the condition of the Hottentot population. He had opportunities of knowing the situation in which that race were at the Cape, and also of knowing the effects which had been produced by the measures to which he alluded, and how greatly they had relieved that race from the gross oppression under which they had so long suffered. He would not, at the present moment, go into details upon the nature of that oppression, but were he to describe the miserable condition in which the Hottentot population were kept, he was sure the House could not hear it without indignation and abhorrence. He would repeat, then, that as long as he saw no measures adopted to put an end to slavery—as long as he saw an unwillingness in colonies with representative governments to improve the condition of their slave population—so long should he feel it his duty to oppose any extension of the representative system in our colonies, and the removal of the powers of government from the hands of those who were responsible to Parliament for its exercise.

in explanation, begged to say, that though he had the good fortune of having had the opportunity of carrying the measures for improving the condition of the Hottentots, to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded, into full operation, yet it would not be doing justice to others if he did not state that those measures had been commenced under the government of Lord Caledon, and were afterwards acted upon to a considerable extent by General Bourke.

was decidedly of opinion, that free institutions ought to be given to the settlers at the Cape, and to all other colonists, as soon as they were fit to receive them, and capable of appreciating their value. He by no means understood the noble Lord as recommending the immediate adoption of a measure such as the petitioners prayed for—all he urged upon the consideration of the House was, the necessity of speedily turning its attention to the subject, and taking such preliminary steps as might forward the object in view. There could be no doubt that flagrant abuses had existed in that colony, but they were not chargeable upon the present government—which was not to blame. There had existed a most scandalous carelessness with respect to colonial functionaries. Not long since a person was sent out as Chief-justice of Newfoundland who contrived to swindle the people of that colony out of a very large sum; and an Attorney-general was sent to the same place, who, though a person of better character, was totally unfit for the office.

, in moving that it be printed, said, he was sorry to learn that an improved system of government at the Cape was to be postponed until slavery should be abolished.

wished the House to analyse the composition of society at the Cape. The number of females was 55,000, males 64,000; from those deduct the Slaves, the Dutch, the Hottentots, and the persons under age; and the number of British colonists capable of exercising the elective franchise would be found exceedingly small.

observed, that persons of Dutch descent, resident at the Cape, were as much British subjects as any men could be born in any colony.

said, he had a Petition to present, which, as he considered it of peculiar importance, he would solicit the attention of the House to circumstances which, in his opinion, imparted to it considerable weight. It was a Petition signed by Bankers, and none but Bankers; they were residents of 214 cities and towns within Great Britain; there were 735 individual signatures of persons who were either Bankers themselves or Directors of Joint-Stock Banking Companies. At an average of three-and-a-half partners to each firm, there were 233 firms consenting to that Petition; if the names, then, were added of those whose consent might be implied from the fact of their partners having signed it, it might be asserted that upwards of 1,000 Bankers had signed the Petition. The total number of Bankers had been estimated at from 2,000 to 2,400, therefore they had actually the names of one-half of the Bankers; and that they had not more was not owing to a majority of the body being favourable to a continuance of the punishment of death. Of those who refused their signatures, several gave some such reason as this—that they had signed other petitions in another capacity; some of them declined on the ground of their being junior members of firms, and from considerations of delicacy towards their seniors they were unwilling to give expression to their own opinions; others declined from other motives, which had nothing to do with a desire to continue the punishment of death; and here he would observe, that amidst all the petitions against that punishment they had not one in its favour. With the present Petition the Bankers of London had nothing to do. The Bank of England declined to support the Petition, and some who took a lead amongst the London Bankers also declined to support it; but he believed, if the sense of that body could be ascertained, it would be found that the majority was in favour of abolishing the punishment. He understood that his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, would that night present a petition to the same effect from the bankers of Ireland. Having now called their attention to the grounds upon which he thought the Petition entitled to great consideration, he should (remembering that a discussion upon the question generally was to take place that evening) not trouble them further than to move that the Petition be brought up.

requested the House to suspend its judgment till the facts were fairly before them.

said, it had been his intention to make a specific motion to have the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown, on which the Government had come to a resolution relative to the 4½-per-cent duties laid before the House; but understanding that it would be more convenient to submit a motion on that subject at some future time, giving a proper notice, he should only move for a copy of the Minute of the Lords of the Treasury under the authority of which the Customs Duty on the Sugar sent to England in payment of the 4½-per cents had not been paid since March, 1828.

seconded the Motion. He could not avoid taking that opportunity of expressing his extreme satisfaction at the vigilance of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, who had with great patience exerted himself in attracting the attention of the House to this subject, which he considered as of vital importance. It was of importance not only as regarded the disposal of the duties of the Customs without the sanction of Parliament, but as involving on the part of the Crown-lawyers a claim for a more arbitrary and monstrous exercise of prerogative—in which light, perhaps, his hon. friend would not regard it as so important—than had been known since the accession of the House of Brunswick to the Throne. It was such a violation of constitutional principles that he should think he did not discharge his duty to the public if he did not support his hon. friend. If the Ministers did not give notice of their intention to bring in a bill, before the close of the Session, to limit and restrain the prerogative on this point, he should consider it his duty to move a Resolution to that effect on the motion for the House to go into a Committee of Supply. If the Crown were advised to stand on the extreme of its prerogative, nothing more could be done but that, following its example, the House must stand on the extreme of its privileges, and withhold the supplies by a motion of adjournment. If his hon. friend would turn the matter over to him, he would endeavour to bring it before the House and the public in a plain and intelligible shape.

then moved "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to lay before the House an account of the proceeds of the 4½-per-cents during the last ten years, how they were appropriated, the balance that was paid into the Exchequer, the deficiencies (if any,) and how they were to be made good." The hon. Member said, it was impossible that his hon. friend could regard the subject as of greater importance than he did. He should be very happy, as he had much other business on his hands, and his taking up this was turning over a new leaf, to resign it into the hands of his hon. friend. At the same time he could assure him that he would give him all the support in his power.

thanked his hon. friend for abandoning the subject to him. His hon. friend, however, would excuse him if he did not bring forward the subject in exactly the same form as he (Mr. Hume) would have done. His motion would be a Resolution something to the effect of what he had already stated.

rose to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the important subject on which a Petition was presented to the House on Thursday, and which concerned the credit, the interest, and the prosperity of the country. He was then glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government not to infringe that system of neutrality it had always acted on towards Spain and the new States of South America. The right hon. Gentleman had then stated, that if it ever were proved to him that Great Britain had interfered to restrain those new states in the exercise of their belligerent rights, he should feel himself bound to give them protection against any operations directed against them from the points we had prevented them, from attacking. The right hon. Gentleman had then stated, however, the reasons why he did not believe that this country had ever laid any interdict, or intended to lay any interdict, on the warlike operations of those States. The reasons assigned by the right hon. Baronet were rather inferences than facts, and they were all derived from the circumstance that there was no correspondence between Mr. Canning and the South American ministers on this subject in the Foreign Office. This might, perhaps, be accounted for by the fact that the agents of the South American government were not recognized till 1826. The first official document of the Mexican and Colombian ministers was dated July 19, 1826. The right hon. Gentleman had the other evening read the copy of a despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Dawkins, our minister, who was on his way to the Congress at Panama. This despatch, which was signed by Mr. Canning, he appeared to consider as quite conclusive of the question. For his own part he had never denied that Mr. Canning had expressed himself to Mr. Dawkins in the terms specified. The belligerent rights of the South Americans Mr. Canning had never questioned: all his argument was,—all that he attempted to prove was,—that actuated by the very best motives as a man and as a statesman, Mr. Canning had so interfered as to produce the impression on the part of the Mexican and Colombian States, that their meditated attack would give displeasure to the British Government. Circumstanced as they were, with no friend but England, it was scarcely possible that such interference could have failed of its effect. He could now produce documents which in his opinion would sufficiently demonstrate, that the kind of interdict he described had been actually imposed. In fact they proved that the kind of interference which had taken place would warrant the South American States in claiming the support that they required, and which the right hon. Gentleman had said he would be willing to give, if a case could be made out that would justify the concession. In quoting the official memoranda in question he begged leave to say that he had no ambition whatever to fire shot for shot, but merely desired to assist in ascertaining the best course for the prosperity and honour of the country, which they were both influenced by an equal anxiety to promote. The extracts from the official correspondence which he alluded to were taken from the archives of the Chancery of Mexico. The first document he would quote was an extract from the correspondence of General Michelana and Senor Rocafuerte, and it gave this account:— "The 13th of October, 1824, General Michelana, in a conference with Mr. Canning, acquainted him that the Mexican government thought it indispensable for the security of the independence of Mexico, (pour arrondir son indépendence,) to wrest Cuba from the Spaniards. Mr. Canning replied, that the question was a very grave one, because it was connected with the almost inevitable probability of a slave insurrection, an event which the British Government could not tolerate, not only from motives of humanity, but as it affected the safety of the British West-India possessions, and all their commercial interests. General Michelana wrote, in consequence, to Mexico; but before he could receive an answer, an advice reached him, that the preparations for the expedition against Cuba, under the orders of General Santa-Anna, were rapidly advancing at Campeachy, he thought it was his duty to provoke (provoquer) a declaration from Mr. Canning, 'of the opinion which would be entertained by the English Government, in case the Island of Cuba should separate herself from Spain.' To obtain this object he had a conference on March 2nd, 1825, with Mr. Planta—the result of which was thus described. "Mr. Canning being ill, and Mr. Planta not being able of his own authority, to give the reply sought for, Mr. Planta advised General Michelana to write a memorandum on this subject, as well as upon the other points in discussion. General Michelana complied with this advice; and on the 4th of March, addressed to Mr. Planta a memorandum which must exist in the British. Foreign Office, and in which the question before mentioned was proposed, accompanied with extensive developements upon the necessity of uniting Cuba with Mexico, &c. &c. No answer was given to this memorandum." By this time the information of Mr. Canning's interview with General Michelana on October 13th, 1824, had reached Mexico, and the government alarmed at the communication, though it had received authority from the Senate to attack Cuba in conjunction with Colombia, thought it necessary to desist. On the 20th of February the government informed the Chamber of Deputies of Mr. Canning's opinion, and the Chamber fearing, as it said, serious inconveniences, set aside the authority given by the Senate to the executive government. Orders were sent to General Santa-Anna, who was preparing to attack Cuba by a coup de main; having embarked part of his force, and prepared a proclamation inviting the people of colour in Cuba to join his standard, and offering liberty to such of them as did. The General immediately abandoned the expedition. A copy of the proclamation which had been printed, fell into the hands of Mr. Canning, who expressed considerable displeasure at it, which induced General Michelana to write immediately to General Vittoria, the president, earnestly entreating him to avoid all further ground of complaint, by not prosecuting the expedition; and that letter, he had reason to believe, was shown to the first British representative who was accredited to Mexico. The account of General Michelana's conduct then added "General Michelana, being recalled to Mexico, took leave of Mr. Canning, on the 17th of June, 1825, and in this conference, Mr. Canning told him, amongst other things, 'That the British Government would openly oppose itself to Cuba becoming a possession of the United States or France; and would not see without displeasure, any attack on it from Mexico or Colombia, in the hypothesis that the expedition would be accompanied with a black insurrection, which, from the nature of things, appeared inevitable, and which the proclamation of General Santa-Anna had further encouraged.'" In his opinion that amounted to a prohibition of an attack on Cuba, for the very nature of its population would always make such an objection tantamount to a prohibition. The population of Cuba consisted of 500,000, of whom 150,000 were black slaves. How was it possible, he would ask, for a General to land in Cuba, and prevent an insurrection in a society so constituted? What had been contemplated by the Mexican General was perfectly allowable, and could not be considered otherwise than lawful as a mode of warfare. Our own Government, when we invaded North America, had on the same principle called upon the blacks to take up arms, and 500 who joined us were formed into a regiment. Spain also had acted in a similar manner without scruple. In its late attack on Mexico, it had invited the people of colour to join the Spanish Standard. He did not mean to contend that it was not right in us to prevent the Mexicans from attacking Cuba, but the same motives which influenced our conduct towards them then ought to induce us to declare them exempt from the danger of an attack now from any point of Cuba or Porto Rico To show that such a mode of warfare was not unknown to the Spaniards he would read an extract from a despatch of the Mexican minister for Foreign Affairs: It said "the Captain-general of Puerto Rico has undertaken against us a war of banditti, which has already caused many misfortunes to the department of Maturin, and is occasioning more to Venezuela. Cisneros, Centeno, Arixabala, the Castilles, have been protected by him, and by the instructions which Arixabala has given up to the government, it appears that he offered them aid, and ordered them to devastate the country which they might occupy. The Castilles engage to insurge the people of colour. Will it be just if the British Government does not put an end to so many calamities, and which will destroy the commercial relations of the country, if there should be a war of colour? The Duke of Wellington surely will not be indifferent to the injury done to British commerce by permitting Spanish obstinacy to perpetuate this state of things." At the time when the British Government interposed to prevent the attempt on Cuba and Porto Rico, there was not a ship of war in the possession of the Spaniards in that neighbourhood to protect them, and there were but 1,400 regular troops for their defence, while Mexico and Colombia were well appointed in military equipments, and could command several ships of war on the seas abandoned by the enemy. He contended, therefore, that nothing but the apprehension of incurring the displeasure of Great Britain had put an end to the contemplated attack, and this was confirmed by the documents already quoted. He would, however, read another extract: The conviction was so strong on the Mexican government of the attack on Cuba being interdicted under pain of incurring the displeasure of the British Government, that in the year 1828, when the Mexican government was anxious to get rid of such a dangerous neighbour, Mr. Roccafuerte, the Mexican minister, was ordered, as a preliminary measure "to make the British Government acquainted with the necessity imposed on the Mexican government, of carrying the war into Cuba as a measure of safety, if the expedition from Cuba, then preparing, was not stopped or relinquished." M. Roccafuerte had a conference with Lord Dudley on the 23rd of February, and Lord Dudley avoided the answer, or, as it is in the original Spanish, "eludio la requesta." He thought that if there had been no expressed wish on the part of our Government to prohibit the attack, the Earl of Dudley would immediately have said, you may make the attack if you like. Why did not the Ministry state explicitly that they would not interfere, if interference was not intended? As it was, no express release had been obtained until two months since. The Mexicans were then, for the first time told, as was the English public by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that they might attack Cuba if they saw fit, without any interference on the part of England. But times and circumstances were now no longer the same as at the former period; and now neither the Mexicans nor the Colombians had the means of attack. He was of opinion that these documents were sufficient to prove, that Mexico considered herself interdicted by England from attacking Cuba. That the United States had interfered to prevent the attack was proved by the minute of a conversation held between Count Nesselrode and Mr. Middleton, the American minister at St. Petersburg, in August 1825. In that minute the interference was distinctly stated and the reason assigned for it was the necessity of preventing any other power than Spain from obtaining possession of Cuba, in order to prevent the equilibrium in the West-Indies from being destroyed. As a corroboration of what he had advanced he would advert to what had occurred between the Colombian minister and Mr. Canning. The documents to which he should refer had all been taken from the archives at Bogota. The first extract he would read was from the correspondence of Señor Hurtado the Colombian minister at our Court. "In 1825 the government of Colombia and Mexico, having in concert projected an invasion of Cuba, the Colombian minister consulted the British Government to know whether the invasion would be permitted. Mr. Canning signified his displeasure on November 24; he asked Señor Hurtado, if it were true that Colombia and Mexico were preparing to invade Cuba, and after receiving for answer, that he thought it not probable, Mr. Canning expatiated on the inconveniences which would result from it to England. On the 24th of December, 1825, Señor Hurtado informed the British Government, "that the government of Colombia could not continue to see with indiffer- ence the enemy retain a possession at which it might continually collect armaments, and thence direct expeditions against Colombia and her allies; and that, for her own security, and the protection of her own commerce, intercepted by the frequent cruizes and captures made by the privateers of the Islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, it found itself obliged, in concert with the government of Mexico, to assume the offensive, and procure the necessary means and forces to make themselves masters of these colonies." Mr. Canning replied to the Colombian minister, "That he did not doubt the said States, as belligerents, had a right to attack their enemies, and capture their possessions;" but he added, "at the same time, they ought to remember, that this warfare might be very prejudicial to England, by causing an insurrection of the blacks, and by the pretext it affords other nations to interfere in the affairs of Cuba, and perhaps forcibly occupy the Island." The Colombian minister, in a despatch which he held in his hand, stated, that "the government of Colombia, in consequence of the unfavourable information it thus received from its minister, felt with keen regret, that it could not proceed with a project which, at that season, was so advantageous, from the good spirit which then reigned in the Island of Cuba, in favour of independence, as well as from the circumstance that Colombia was prepared with all the necessary means for its accomplishment." 'This shewed that Colombia and Mexico were entitled to the protection they now claimed at our hands. But he would shew from documents that Colombia considered the measure as necessary to her happiness and her safety. Colombia and Mexico did not seek protection against the arms of Spain, but against that harassing warfare which was a continued demonstration of attack. The next document he should quote was a note from the Colombian minister for Foreign Affairs, dated Bogota, September 14, 1829, and addressed to the envoy of that Republic at the British Court; M. Joze F. Madrid. It said, "the government of Colombia," in the year 1825, was making preparation in concert with the government of Mexico, to invade the island of Cuba; and it is indisputable that having, as they then had, means and resources, and sustained by the opinion which prevailed in that colony (Cuba) in favour of its independence, they might have executed the project, if not to have obtained at the instant complete success, at least to have occasioned powerful commotions in various parts of the Island, which would have ultimately put in peril the Spanish power established in it, as had occurred in various other parts of America: but it sufficed that Mr. Canning had intimated to the government of Colombia, "the desire of Great Britain, that the invasion should not be persevered in, for the government to desist immediately from its further progress." That desire was sufficient, for the person who expressed it was Mr. Canning, the only European statesman who was favourably inclined towards them. But the note proceeded, "In the year 1827, the Liberator being at Caraccas with ships and disposeable forces, had also projected to invade the Island of Puerto Rico, then entirely defenceless, and from whence they (the people) had asked for, and expected our assistance; but his Excellency being informed by the minister, Mr. Cockburn, that this attempt would not be agreeable to the British Minister, the project was abandoned. In deference, therefore to the desires of this power (Great Britain), Colombia has thus seen frustrated the plans of her government for plucking from Spain her remaining possessions in America, and for securing at once the tranquillity of the country." The English envoy also declared, that the expedition he saw preparing would be disagreeable to England, and on this subject he had an authority in the assertion of a General officer who wrote at the Caraccas, February 21,1827, and who said, "The expedition is given up; Mr. Cockburn has induced General Bolivar to relinquish it, as it would not be agreeable to England. General Bolivar is much annoyed, but not displeased with Mr. Cockburn, who has made the representation in the most friendly manner." Mr. Cockburn indeed, he could assert on the best authority, had always conducted himself so as to enjoy the esteem of the Colombian government. In conclusion, the gallant General contended, that the conduct and language adopted by British statesmen had actually amounted to an interdict against attacking Cuba. That imposed, he further contended, a moral obligation on Great Britain to protect Mexico and Colombia from being attacked by Spain from that island. Having afforded protection to Spain against these States, we had acquired a right to interpose in their behalf with Spain, and to inform that power that we could not suffer the present state of things to be continued. He was sure that such a course would redound not more to the honour than the profit of England. He apologized to the House for having taken up so much time, but having the information he had laid before it in his possession, he was bound, he thought, not to allow the subject to remain at the unsatisfactory point at which it had closed on Thursday evening.

could assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had no recollection whatever—and he was in the Foreign-office at the time of the projected attack on Cuba—of any language, written or oral, of Mr. Canning, which warranted the inferences of the Mexican and Colombian ministers. He recollected, indeed, a conversation which he had with M. Michelana on the subject; but he thought it right to request of that gentleman to put his statement in writing, in order that it might be laid before Mr. Canning; and from that day he had never heard another word on the matter from Mr. Michelana.

was sorry that his hon. friend had renewed the discussion on this subject, and he was confident that the hon. Member and the representatives of the States of Mexico and Colombia were not consulting the true interests of those countries, by wishing to fasten on England an engagement to enter into a defensive alliance with them against Spain; an alliance which no Minister of this country ever contemplated, and which, he repeated, it was injurious to the interests of those States for their representatives to insist on, through any construction put on the correspondence of Mr. Canning. There never, indeed, was anything clearer than that Mr. Canning had not, by any language in any public document, interdicted Mexico and Colombia from the fair aggression of belligerents against Spain, and that he had not entered into any obligation, either formal or moral, to assist those States against Spain in consequence of their refraining from their contemplated attack on Cuba. What, however, had his hon. friend done? He had produced no authenticated document from the Foreign-office—no paper bearing the signature of Mr. Canning; but he had read to the House the memoranda of a series of conversations which the Mexican and Colombian ministers are said to have had with Mr. Canning; but memoranda of conversations which that minister never saw, and which he had not, by his signature, acknowledged to be genuine. The hon. Member, however, said, that the reason why these documents were not to be found in the Foreign-office arose from the circumstance of the ministers of the new States not being at that time formally received in this country, or acknowledged by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Whether, however, they were ministers or agents, there could not be the slightest doubt, that if any such admission as that attributed to Mr. Canning had been made in these conferences, some notice of it would have been found in the Foreign-office, and had any such document been found, its validity would have been acknowledged, though the ministers of those States were not at the time recognized. In the discussion on a former evening, he had stated distinctly, that although Mr. Canning declared an invasion of Cuba, in the manner and under the circumstances of that contemplated by Mexico, would be displeasing to Great Britain, still no interdict of any kind whatever had been laid on either Mexico or Colombia from prosecuting the war, if they thought proper. When General Santa Anna had assembled about 700 men in the province of Yucatan and issued his proclamation, this country and the United States of America did protest, as they had a right to do, against the attempt to conquer Cuba through an insurrection of the slaves; but they did not attempt to restrain the fair use of the Mexicans' rights as belligerents, when exercised according to the acknowledged rules of war, against Spain. His hon. friend said, however, that Mr. Canning advised the Mexicans not to invade Cuba. Why, at that time the New States of America were not recognised by this country; but even if they had been, he expressly denied that Mr. Canning adopted any other course than that of expressing the dislike of this country to that mode of warfare which the States seemed disposed to adopt. It was with great reluctance that he referred to any unpublished official documents, but he had already, on a former occasion for the special reasons be had then stated, referred to the letter of Mr. Canning to Mr. Dawkins, to which no answer had been or could be given. Mr. Canning is supposed to have promulgated the interdict in 1824; yet when writing to Mr. Dawkins shortly afterwards, (and he would quote the passage at length to set the question at rest, as far as that could be done by Mr. Canning's authority). Mr. Canning said, "You will see how earnestly it is desired by the United States, by France, and by this country, that Cuba should remain a colony of Spain. The British Government, indeed, so far from denying the right of the New States of America to make a hostile attack upon Cuba, whether considered as the possession of a power with whom they are at war, or as an arsenal from which expeditions are fitted out against them, that we have uniformly refused to join with the United States in remonstrating with Mexico and Colombia against the supposed intention, or in intimating that we should feel displeasure at the execution of it." Then followed the passage which he quoted the other night "We should indeed regret it, but we arrogate to ourselves no right to control the military operations of one belligerent against another." This was the clear and express language of Mr. Canning at the very time when the hon. Member supposed he was interdicting the invasion. He would state, also, one other fact, which was convincing on the subject. In the year 1826 Mexico and Colombia, so far from thinking themselves interdicted, actually determined on fitting out an expedition to blockade the Havannah, and it was announced at the same time, that the President of Mexico meditated the collection of a body of troops, to be inarched from various places, in order to co-operate with the blockading squadron for the reduction of Cuba. At that time Mr. Canning was informed of the expedition, and the British minister wrote to him, communicating the nature of the expedition, and asking for instructions. In answer to the demand for instructions on those points which were likely to arise with reference to the interests of England, Mr. Canning replied, that it was necessary for the writer to make a division somewhat more distinct than he had made, before he could answer his questions; but not one word was to be found of surprise at the communication, as there naturally would have been had any interdict existed as to the invasion of Cuba. That fact could not, at such a moment, have been passed over in the instructions for the conduct of the British agent, if such an interdict had been ever put forth by Mr. Canning.

said, that the blockade was prevented.

—the blockade was prevented by internal dissensions among the States, but not by the interference of England. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating his former declarations, that there was no obligation, either moral, or imposed by treaty, on Great Britain, to protect. Mexico from attacks on the side of Cuba; and he protested against the reception of unauthorised memoranda of conversations in the discussion of a question of this kind, for the purpose of establishing a claim to a defensive alliance, which never was contemplated by any member of the Government of this country.

intimated an opinion that it was only in March last that Mexico received permission to invade Cuba.

repeated, that the South American States knew they were at liberty to do so throughout the whole period, and that in 1826 they showed a disposition to act on that opinion. Some stress had been laid on the supposition that Mr. Canning advised the Mexicans not to invade Cuba. He denied that Mr. Canning did so; but if he had, he (Sir R. Peel) was prepared to contend, that at the time when Mr. Canning was endeavouring to prevail on Spain to recognise these States, he had a perfect right to advise the Mexicans to abstain from offending Spain by an attack on Cuba.

saw no inconsistency between the statements of his right hon. friend and the documents produced by the gallant General, although they proved to demonstration that Mexico and Colombia, in deference to the feelings and wishes of Great Britain, had abstained from the course they had previously determined to pursue. He would be one of the last to say, however, that the deference then paid to the wishes of this country bound it to any defensive alliance. God forbid, that he should argue anything of the kind. All he wished to impress on the House and the Government was, that the conduct of Mexico at that time gave her a claim now on our interference to put an end to a state of things prejudicial to the prosperity of Mexico, and of all the States of Europe. By that interference at the present moment we should confer a benefit on commerce, on humanity, and even on Spain herself. But he begged to be distinctly understood as disclaiming the idea of recommending the employment of force to support our interference. He never had thought of recommending that, and if he had been so understood on Thursday evening, by his right hon. friend, he begged leave to correct that misinterpretation of the words he had used. He was also bound to say, that he felt satisfied with the general tenor of his right hon. friend's answers in explanation on this subject, for he was sure that if it were in his right hon. friend's power, he would put an end to a state of things that was so injurious to our commerce.

begged to ask in what manner the sum of 1,695l. was disposed of to the Dissenting Clergymen. The sum was so small that it could do good to a very few, and he feared it brought benefit merely to those who distributed it.

replied, that many of the persons in question were in great distress, and that the money was distributed among them with the utmost impartiality by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor.

was of opinion that the payments might be gradually discontinued.

expressed his hope that a new commission, composed of men of diligence, and who had a taste for the subject, would be appointed. The present commission had been guilty of the grossest mismanagement. Many of the printed records were full of errors; and among them he particularly instanced "Rymer's Fœdera."

wished to know on what authority a charge was made at the Tower for inspecting the Public Records?

said, that the fees on that account were of very old date, and that there had been no increase in them.

considered them as prohibitory of information.

adverted to the items of 190l. for the Penitentiary, and asked why such a sum could be required? There was also an item of 25l. for stationary for the Lottery Office, although the Lottery was abolished.

also expressed his surprise at the item for the Penitentiary, which was nearly a third of the amount of the expense of Stationery for the Office of the Secretary of State.

observed that, by an error in the mode of abolishing the establishment of the Lottery, persons who had held situations in that department were pensioned on the Consolidated Fund. He knew one person who had retired on a pension of 300l. who also held an office of 1,200l. a-year.

observed, that he had himself thought the item for the Penitentiary large; but, on inquiry, he found that many of the prisoners were exercised in writing. The 25l. was expended in clearing off the various accounts of the Lottery Office.

objected likewise to the item of 150l. for the Office of the Hackney Coaches, Hawkers, &c. The Board only met, upon the average, three times a week, and sat for one or two hours at a time; yet here was an expense for stationery a fourth as great as that of the Secretary of State's Office.

ob- served, that a variety of books, as well as stationery, were required for the Hawkers' Office.

Baring objected to the item of 1,200l. for Stationery for Chelsea Hospital.

said, that there were many objectionable items in this Grant. There was the Royal Military Asylums, 295l.; the Commander-in-Chief's Office, 225l. Then there was the Army Medical Board, 700l. while the Adjutant General's Office was only 380l. There was also 120l. for the Insolvent Debtor's Court—the only Court that was allowed the expense of Stationery. All these subjects demanded inquiry.

, adverting to the intended Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for an instruction to the Committee on the Forgeries' Punishment Bill, wished to ask, what course the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to pursue. He suggested that it might be a preferable course simply to move an Amendment in the Committee.

thought that it would be better to move an instruction to the Committee.

said, that when instructions were given to a Committee, it was generally to do that which they would not have the power to do without those instructions; but the instruction which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to move was, to do what the Committee had the power to do without such instruction, and therefore would restrain their power, as showing the prior judgment and opinion of the House.

bowed to the opinion of the Chair. The only object for which he wished to move an instruction to the Committee was, to give full and fair notice on that sole point on which any important difference was likely to occur. He would, however, relinquish that course, and would move an amendment as soon as the House should go into the Committee on the bill.

said, that he should, according to the suggestion of the Speaker, proceed to act in that Committee as he should have done, with respect to the instruction he was about to move, in the House itself; and as there had yet been no full debate upon this great measure, he hoped the Committee would excuse him, if he considered himself in the same situation, now that they were in Committee, as he should have considered himself if he had brought on this discussion upon the motion for the second reading. In making the observations that occurred to him upon this subject, he should confine himself, as narrrowly as possible, within the limits of the question before the Committee? but at the same time he must declare, that it was impossible to consider that question, without considering the general principles of legislation, and especially those principles which were more peculiar to this important class of offences. It was needless for him to enter into the history of the various parliamentary controversies in which, since the time when that great man, Sir Samuel Romilly, first brought the subject under the notice of Parliament, they had often been engaged.—He could not compare—or, rather, he could not contrast—the temper and opinions of these two periods without a strong feeling of exultation, which he had no language adequate to convey as powerfully as he was affected by it to the House. He remembered reading of those times when the most ancient, the most barbarous punishments were resorted to without reprobation, and when even the lifeless remains of those who had been no worse than adventurers in the troubled sea of politics were exposed to the perpetration of every horrible indignity; when Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, and Wallace of Scotland, were insulted in this manner, because they had been noble enough to stand up bravely in defence of the liberties of their country. He recollected the time too when the most respectable men in the country, both as statesmen and as lawyers, were against that for which he now asked, and would have contended as boldly for the preservation of those old and barbarous modes of punishment, the worthless remnants of barbarous times, as for that of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. Yet, he was happy to say, he had lived to see the day when these opinions were changed, and when a Minister of the Crown came forward to state that he was desirous of mitigating the severity of capital punishment, as far as the general safety would permit. The object of all punishment was, to protect the life and property of all, at the expense of the least possible degree of suffering to any of the members of society. Such was the prevailing opinion of the men of the present day, and strongly did it contrast with the opposing temper of past periods. How different were the modes of thinking in the barbarous times of Edward 1st, when severity was universally adopted, and in these more civilised periods in which we saw Ministers and Statesmen asserting their title to glory by their disposition to assist in mitigating the old severity of the law. "Prisca, juvent alios; ego me nunc denique natum jactabor." It appeared to him as if he had lived, in the short compass of a life, through two different ages, opposite and contrasted in character. When he considered the small beginnings with which that intrepid, that wise, and magnanimous man, Sir Samuel Romilly, entered on his career of legal reform—and when he recollected that at the distance of between ten and twenty years from the death of that noble-minded man, the bar of the House was crowded with petitioners who entreated the House not to be satisfied with the propositions of a liberal and reforming Ministry, for that the people were ripe for better things, and were desirous of them—he almost thought that he lived in two different countries, and conversed with people who spoke two different languages. It was needless for him to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman or his admiration of the conduct that right hon. Gentleman had pursued; he had achieved by his reforms, and by his plans for further reform, a title to fame, which no transient measure of political skill, however splendid or dazzling, could ever confer; he had placed his name among those law-givers who had reformed the Penal Code, and who had therefore been among the most signal benefactors of mankind. He bestowed not these praises grudgingly or reluctantly—they came from his heart, and he trusted they would be so considered. He now begged to call the attention of the Committee to that which was of such great importance in the petitions. He was well aware, from the twenty years' experience he had acquired in that House, that the words of petitions were not always so important as they sounded, but in the present case, there was no qualification, whether with regard to the character of the petitioners, or the station they occupied in society, that was wanting to give them a claim to the highest degree of importance. Their interest—their supposed interest—their long-believed interest—that which had long been their cherished and guarded interest and right, they now freely gave up—they begged it might be taken from them; and when they appeared at the bar of the House with such a request, he certainly did conceive that they came there under circumstances different from those of most other petitioners. He had had the honour of presenting the petition of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, signed by a large body of the clergy—of all the different sects of Protestants, and of the Professors of the University. There was a fact of considerable importance with respect to the meeting at which that petition was agreed to. A gentleman of high talent and character, and an old friend of his, Dr. Baird, the Principal of the University, was urged to take the chair at that meeting, and he declined to do so because the petition did not go far enough, as it did not pray for the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases but murder and murderous attempts. It was such a fact, connected too with the language of the petition, which showed that the House was behind the country—not the country behind the House, in the progress of extended and liberal notions on this subject. To the Edinburgh petition there were attached the names of seventeen out of eighteen Bankers in a city in which the principal trade was banking, and these petitioners, like all the rest, prayed the House to deliver them from the pretended protection—but the realdanger—of capital punishment. His hon. and learned friend and colleague, who was not then in his place, had presented the petition of 700 Bankers in England, who all urged the Parliament to deliver them from those laws against Forgery which, from their undue severity, palsied the arm of public justice, afforded security to the forger, and endangered the property of the honest man. There were three sorts of petitioners—he would not undervalue any one of them, but undoubtedly their petitions ought to be received differently. There were some who complained of grievances affecting only themselves; there were others who complained of matters in which they had a public interest; but there was a third class, whose petitions were entitled to the greatest weight, for they came forward to support a great public principle, apparently against their own immediate interest. The Bankers of Edinburgh, of Glasgow, and of all the towns of England, had respectively petitioned, and had complained of the continuance of that punishment, which, while it endangered their property, destroyed the facility and ease with which the law ought to be capable of being applied for their protection. The last kind of petitioners were those whom he now called to the bar of the House as witnesses in his behalf, and that Member of Parliament would be a most hardy man who should venture to dispute the evidence of 1,000 such men on such a subject. These persons must be the prosecutors and the witnesses, in accusations of forgery, and if they were not also jurors the jurors were taken from the class of men to which they belonged, and they must, be butter acquainted with the sentiments of jurors than any Members of the House. They told the House, as the result of their experience, that they believed that the present law was an encumbrance, not a protection. So odious was it to them, that they would not prosecute offenders, and yet it was to men of that class that the Government affected to say, "we know your interests better than you do yourselves." The Government was in error—it was blundering when it affected to say to such a body of men, that they claimed that which, if granted, would materially involve their security and endanger their property. The people were too humane for these laws, and if the Legislature did not determine to rebarbarize them, it must give way to the demanded reforms. Among the petitioners were three eminent bill-brokers, one of whom discounted it was said, twenty-two millions of negociable paper-money annually; and he understood, though he of course could not know the fact, except as he was informed of it, and did not therefore vouch for it, that if the three were taken together, they discounted fifty millions annually of negociable securities. It would be a waste of his voice and of their time to make any thing more than a bare allusion to such a fact. His proposition was only to return to the ancient system of our laws, which England only began to deviate from in the 18th century. At that time a false and exaggerated notion of the value of severity spread over Europe. The first change made in the law was with respect to the crime of Forgery. Whenever this country had been the object of severe or hostile remarks among the people of the continental nations, that fact had been selected against us as a proof that, as blinded worshippers of Mammon, we neither valued blood nor justice, but would sacrifice both without remorse to the preservation of our wealth. Such severity as ours was sought for in vain in the laws of France—in the laws of Holland—in the laws of Prussia—in the laws of any country or place in Europe, from Hamburgh to Naples, from the North to the South; in none of which had it been found necessary to cement the right of property by blood, or to secure negociable paper by a law of so barbarous a kind. The repeal of this law would be no novelty. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the law of France—he was mistaken in what he had said of it; the two cases in which forgery was there punishable with death were those of the forgery of the paper of the Treasury, stamped with its stamp, or of the negociable paper issued by the authority of the government. From a return made in the year 1828, it appeared that there had been only two cases prosecuted to a capital conviction—they were cases in which the prisoners were accused of contrefa÷on des billets de Banque; so that, in those instances, the forgery was of paper, not merely permitted, but authorised by the Government. These were the only two cases of prosecution for that crime which had occurred between the period of promulgating the Code Napoleon and the year 1828. But even these were acquitted; so that, whatever was the letter of the law, it was never executed. Those acquittals could be imputed to nothing but a popular prejudice against the laws; for it was impossible to believe that the cases should have been wholly unsupported by proof. In looking over the French returns he found that there was but a small number of forgeries, and yet the punishment never exceeded hard labour for life. The crime was sometimes punished by imprisonment, and sometimes by imprisonment with hard labour for a number of years. France was a country that was not to be blotted out of the book of experience of mankind. We knew it better than any other foreign country, and though the negociable paper property of France was not as large as that of this country, yet it possessed a great and flourishing circulation, which it protected, without the effusion of blood, against those dangers which were supposed likely to fall upon this country if we made this projected experiment in the laws. In the penal code of France the forgery by a public officer, in his official duty, was punishable with hard labour for life—a circumstance which showed most strongly the nature of the code. That code was in force in Holland; and from Hamburgh to Naples there was not a single country in which paper-money was protected by the punishment of death, except the British dominions. The advocates of capital punishment were bound to show that the most important interests of society would be endangered by the alteration of the punishment; for, to show a mere inconvenience was not sufficient for the purpose. The burthen of proof did not lie on the men who argued for the abrogation of these laws, but on those who contended that the evil was so great, there were no other means of preventing it but by capital punishment. Unless that absolute necessity was proved, he contended that all other executions for the offence were, in the eye of morality and religion, positive murders. In the year 1826 there was a return of nine persons who had been sentenced to death in France. No favourable circumstances appeared in their various crimes, but they all had recourse to the Cour de Cassation in appeals upon technical difficulties. The delay thus occasioned afforded the opportunity of investigating their cases, and they were found innocent, and every one of them was pardoned on the avowed ground of their innocence, without any blame being attached to the judge, the jury, or the government. If, in such a country, and with such Judges as France possessed, these errors were committed, the knowledge of them ought to induce us to avoid inflicting those punishments which, whenever inflicted in error, did an irreparable wrong. A French gentleman, who had bestowed great attention on this subject, had said, that no one at Rome or Naples dare give any assistance to the execution of the laws, for such was public justice in those countries that it did not at all stand well with the public. Whatever tended to produce a schism between the execution of the laws and the feelings of the people did great injury. If equal punishment were inflicted on unequal crimes, gross, scandalous, flagrant, notorious injustice must be the consequence; and it must be a fault in every system of legislation, if it did not confine the highest penalty to the greatest delinquency. The punishment by imprisonment was divisible—different portions might be applied to different degrees of criminality; but there was no divisibility in the punishment of death. The feelings of the present age did not allow of the barbarous aggravations of death practised by our ancestors, and we hanged alike the sheep-stealer and the parricide. As long, then, as this system of equal visitation for unequal guilt continued, we were the authors of the most crying injustice. If our ancestors inflicted more than mere death by adding the cruelty of torture, at least they had the excuse that they thereby observed something like a scale of punishments. He thanked God that that barbarous custom was abolished, and since now it was impossible to inflict more than death for the greatest crimes, our only resource was to inflict less than death for offences of minor aggravation.—The various existing and authentic tables of crimes and punishments showed the difference between a sound and a degenerate administration of Criminal Law. During the last seven years only twenty- four persons had been executed for forgery, while the whole number of persons convicted of that crime was 217—so that every offender knew that, even after conviction, there were eight chances of escape to one of suffering. The result was widely different in cases of murder; in the last seven years there had been ninety-nine convictions, and no less than eighty-eight executions, indicating a perfectly sound state of jurisprudence; for the Crown had exercised its prerogative of mercy only in a few cases, which by their mitigating circumstances well deserved it. In France, with a population of thirty-one millions, in the year 1825 there had been 110 executions; of those ninety were for murder, or murderous offences, and twenty for all other crimes. This indicated a just execution of the law—an application of the last punishment to a class of offences that naturally required it, and to which it ought to be confined. The population of England and Wales, on the other hand, was twelve millions and a half, and in the year 1825 there were eleven criminals executed for murder and murderous offences, and thirty-nine for all other crimes; hence it was obvious that a great deal more blood was shed by the law in the defence of human property, than in the protection of human life. It was an ancient and venerable maxim of religion, and it ought to be so of law, "Whoso spilleth man's blood, by man shall his blood be spilled;" and this maxim was well observed in France. In England the proportion of persons charged with capital crime to the whole population was as 1 to 160,000, while in France it was as 1 to 450,000, so that France, with more than double our population, appeared to have only half our crime. What did he infer from that? It seemed to afford testimony against the morality of our lives, but it was, in fact, nothing but an impeachment of the wisdom of our law. It would require but little trouble and examination to establish that the difference between the two countries in this respect was owing to the difference in the administration of the law, and not to any difference in the disposition to criminality. Indeed he might state, that it had been proved that the people of this country did not deserve this stigma of comparatively greater criminality, and that its appearance only arose from our mischievous legislation having annexed the last punishment man could inflict to a much greater number of offences than was done by the legislature of France. The execution of the law, he must observe, had undergone some surprising revolutions; and Sir Matthew Hale made it a matter of boast, that in his time in England every judgment was executed; yet 150 years after the death of that great Judge, the multiplication of capital punishments had produced a directly opposite result; and England at this moment was distinguished from every other country of Europe by uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The effect had been, he was ashamed to say, to introduce into the kingdom a system at variance with the first principles of free government—he meant that none of the facts or circumstances on which the life or death of man depends, were ever known to the mere spectators of those public proceedings and solemn trials, which seemed to be decisive of his fate. The life or death of a man in the city of London depended upon the investigation of his conduct by a secret body, unknown to the public, unknown to the criminal, and who might be able, for any thing that could be shown to the contrary, to explain the very fact for which, unexplained, he was borne to execution. The first question to be asked was, is the primary punishment peculiarly adapted to the offence of Forgery? He put it to any man accustomed to watch the springs of human action, whether he was of opinion that the mere fear of death operated upon forgers? They were commonly persons of some education, holding a respectable station in society, and who, having got into difficulties by love of ostentation, and an indulgence in prodigality, were determined to make a bold throw in the game of life, and to risk all upon a single hazard—aut cito mors, aut victoria lœta. The sting of death was not the bare loss of life, but the circumstances of dishonour and disgrace attending it. Those who fought so bravely and so frequently in the last war had exposed their lives to greater danger than the most abandoned and reckless criminal, but they had marched into the field without reluctance, encouraged by a sense of duty, and incited by a love of their country's glory. The boldness with which the peril was incurred might be equal in both cases, though in the one it was the minister of crime, and in the other of the noblest virtue. It was a mistake of lawgivers and tyrants (who sometimes affected to be lawgivers), when they thought they deterred from crime merely by investing the punishment of death with terror. Martyrs and heroes had incurred the penalty, however dreadful it might have been rendered, for Heaven had fixed the bounds beyond which disgrace could not be inflicted. In contemplating the suffering, the mind turned with detestation from the author of the punishment, while it watched with pitying veneration the agonies of the sufferer. The philosophic criminal might even imagine that at least there was something dignified in dying well, and that part of the infamy of his punishment would be compensated by the firmness of his endurance. For these reasons he thought the punishment of death ill adapted to prevent the crime of Forgery; and it was to be recollected that it was not mere justice, but manifest, signal, and conspicuous justice, that was to satisfy the public. Hence it might be laid down as a maxim, with very few exceptions, that the acts for which the punishment of death should be applied, should not only be in the highest degree dangerous to society, but attended with circumstances of violence and blood, leaving a deep impression on the mind, and reviving indignation at the offender on the recollection of his crime. He did not mean to undervalue the guilt of Forgery, but he contended that, according to the general feeling of mankind, it was not that species of crime which, by subsequent reflection upon its circumstances, recalled a sense of the justice of the punishment. He now came to the proposition he intended to offer by way of Amendment. He proposed that Courts of Justice should have power to inflict imprisonment and hard labour for a term of not more than fourteen years, giving them also the power to inflict solitary confinement in cases absolutely requiring it: he would give Courts the power to transport the prisoner to any place, to be named by his Majesty and his Privy Council, beyond seas, for a term not exceeding fourteen years; and lastly, he would arm Courts, in cases of rare occurrence, requiring more than usual severity, with authority to inflict both punishments, the one to follow the other. He proposed these alternatives, in order that there might be many degrees of punishment, as there were many degrees of guilt; and as it was an experiment, he was desirous that it should be made in a manner best fitted to ensure success. Another amendment would be, that the power existing in Colonial governments, under certain circumstances, to remit the punishment, should be taken away in cases of Forgery, and that no sentence should be remitted but by the decision of the King in Council. It had been said, that if this experiment failed, a return to the old system would be impossible. But what did that assertion prove? If there were any foundation for it, it showed that such was the abhorrence now entertained of the infliction of capital punishment in cases of Forgery, after the experience of its inadequacy, that a future Parliament would find it impossible to re-introduce it. It might be said by the right hon. Baronet, that the time was not yet come when it would be fit to make so great a change; but he (Sir J. Mackintosh) would ask, in reply, where was the danger, if the House endeavoured to quicken the pace of Ministers upon this subject? The House of Commons, speaking the sense of the people of England, might very properly urge the members of the Cabinet to increased speed: and, although it was very possible that ere long Members would have to return to their constituents, they might very fairly urge, that if they had erred, it was in favour of the cause of humanity, and to prevent the commission of crime. The House would err in deference to the general testimony of all who were best acquainted with the subject, and who, in the petitions, had given the same evidence that they would have delivered upon oath. When the question was discussed in 1822, the case of the forgery of wills had made a great impression adverse to a change in the law; a return had been made of all the convictions since that year for the forgery of all instruments; it appeared that there were only ten cases of the kind, and was it worth while to preserve the severity of the law for their sake? Important changes of opinion upon this subject had already occurred. He recollected that when he (Sir J. Mackintosh) proposed, in 1821, to lessen the punishment for the forgery of marriage registers, it was vehemently opposed, on the ground that it opened the door to the fabrication of evidence of marriage, legitimacy, and the transmission of property; yet, only a short time since, the right hon. Baronet had reduced the crime to a misdemeanour, without opposition. The real question was, whether there was any great danger in endeavouring to ascertain by experiment whether this country could have its property protected without a considerably greater severity of punishment than was known in any other State of Europe? Even if his Amendment should be adopted, the punishment for the crime of Forgery would be more severe than it was at present upon the Continent. He thought that there would be no such danger, and therefore he should conclude by moving, as an Amendment upon the original Motion, to leave out the words "suffer death" for the crime of Forgery, and to insert in lieu thereof, "transportation beyond the seas, for life, or for fourteen years, or seven years, or im- prisonment and hard labour, or solitary confinement, as to the Court may seem proper."

rose and said, that if he had expected, when he came into the House that evening, to find the question of forgery treated as a party question, and as one by which the fate of a Ministry might be decided, such an impression would have been removed by the great, not to say lavish, encomiums bestowed on his humble exertions by the right hon. Gentleman. But he entered the House with no such impression, knowing, and he rejoiced at it, that the time was at length come when they could consider all the questions connected with the criminal law of the country, as no party questions, nor be liable in discussing them to have their attention diverted from the sound reasons which ought to determine their conduct, and from the interests of those classes for which they were called on to legislate. He wished to defer to the views of the right hon. Gentleman and the great body of the petitioners; and if he had been compelled to adopt a conclusion different from theirs, he could assure them that it was after deliberate consideration that he had attained to the honest conclusion, that it would be better to preserve the punishment of death for forgery than abandon it. He had no motives to make him wish to differ from them, and he had no previously-formed theories which he was anxious to support. From the right hon. Gentleman's general doctrines respecting the punishment of death he did not dissent; but he wished to state his opinion, with the reasons and the facts on which it had been formed, on the question whether the punishment of death ought to be preserved or abandoned. There were no reasons, that he knew of, nor any circumstances in his situation, why he should not be ready to adopt the views of the right hon. Gentleman. By the bill which he had introduced into the House he proposed to meliorate one part of our criminal code, and his course had uniformly been towards the mitigation of its severity. When he came into office, seven years before the present period, the criminal law of Great Britain exceeded in severity the criminal codes of every other part of Europe, and he had then thought it ought to be meliorated. He made it, since he had been in office, the great object of his ambition, not to set the example of meliorating this code, but to follow the example previously set by others. He had found, however, that the habits and usages of the country were adapted to and formed on the severity of our code, and he found it necessary to proceed in the mitigation of this severity with great caution. He thought it advantageous to continue the severity of the law in its letter, but gradually to meliorate its practical application. The bills he had introduced into Parliament, consolidating the criminal laws, had, in part, abandoned capital punishment; but he looked forward to a time when the criminal law, after the consolidation of its different parts had been carried into effect, should be again brought under consideration. When that was the case, the House might, with propriety, take the question into consideration, whether further mitigation of its severity should not be attempted. In his views he had adopted the recommendation of the committee over which the right hon. Gentleman had presided, and had endeavoured first to simplify the law, with a view to its mitigation afterwards. What he had done to consolidate the law was not to prevent the whole subject being hereafter brought under review; and when the simplification was complete, a further mitigation of its severity might be found expedient. If he resisted, at that time, the proposition to abolish the punishment of death for forgery, he must appeal to the course he had pursued, and to the practical application he had made of the law, to show that he was not attached to that punishment. He had not contented himself with a bare expression of his opinion on this point; he had, by the advice he had given to the Crown, carried those opinions into active operation. He found that in the seven years previous to 1822, when he came into office, the number of executions, in England and Wales, was 731, while the number of executions since 1822—that is up to December, 1829—was 433, showing a considerable diminution. The number of executions in London and Middlesex in the former seven years, was 192; in the latter seven years, or during the period that he had been in office, it was 120, showing a diminution of seventy-two. He was afraid that this diminution could not be laid to the account of the diminution of capital offences, as they had been rather on the increase. Perhaps, indeed, the mitigation of the severity of the laws might have encouraged and facilitated prosecutions, and so more capital crimes had been prosecuted, but he did not believe that the diminution of executions could be accounted for by the diminution of capital offences. He thought that the House, when it took the subject into its serious consideration, would pause before it gave its consent to abolish the punishment of death for forgery; and he wished first to state the reasons, and afterwards the facts, which ought to be well weighed by hon. Members before they consented to abolish the capital punishment for this crime. With respect to the crime itself, there were many reasons, such as the magnitude of the gain which might be acquired—the facility of committing the crime, the difficulty of detection, and the temptation to commit it, which marked it with peculiar characteristics, and made it deserving of especial consideration. As an illustration of the magnitude of the sums to be obtained, he would refer to the case of Fauntleroy, the amount of whose forgeries was not less than 353,000l. The Bank of England was answerable for forgeries committed by this individual through a series of years, and actually paid a sum of 353,000l. Looking to the temptation, he would observe, that it came across a man overwhelmed with distress, who, by the mere presenting a draft at a banker's, might be relieved from his difficulties, and find himself suddenly in the midst of prosperity; and then, if he did succeed, there was the difficulty of detection. In this crime there were none of those revolting circumstances which alarmed mankind. There was no confederacy necessary. The criminal did not need to disclose his guilt to any particeps criminis; there was, consequently, an extreme difficulty of detection—the draft was paid by a banker's clerk, who might, perhaps, be induced, in a case of need, to cancel it or to deliver it up. Then the signature might be so well imitated, that no precaution could detect the forgery at the moment. No vigilance, therefore, could guard against it; and when it was once committed there might be no remedy. No receiver, too, was necessary, as in the case of many other crimes; and the property, when once obtained, could not be made evidence against the criminal. But even the crime itself might be committed by an innocent man, and a man ignorant that he was committing a crime, A man presented a draft at a banker's; it was paid, in the hurry of business, over a crowded desk; the person who presented it might not be the forger, but somebody whom he had employed. The real guilty party might escape, if the stake were large enough, to the continent; he might leave the country; but even if he did not do that, the difficulty of detection was very great. It depended obviously on a question of personal identity. The clerk who paid the draft must, in the first instance, recognize the man who presented it; and if he were only some ignorant and innocent agent, he must find out and identify his employer. Thus, it was a question of double identity; and that must be decided, before the guilt could be brought home to any person. When he recollected, therefore, the magnitude of the gain—the great temptation—the difficulty of the detection, that there were no confederates necessary, and no violence to alarm people, as in a burglary or murder; coupling all these circumstances with the large properties concerned, he thought they invested this crime with a peculiar and exclusive character—a character which belonged to no other species of crime against which the Legislature had to guard. Before the House resolved to abolish the punishment of death, the Members should be well convinced that they could find a more efficacious punishment, such as that recommended by the right hon. Gentleman. The House before it came to such a Resolution, would pause, and it would deliberate long before it adopted the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not by any means undervalue the public sympathy in giving force to laws, or rendering them nugatory; he adverted with all due respect to the opinions of the petitioners, but he did not find them conclusive against his view. The petitioners, generally speaking, were not the persons most interested in the question, though, if he looked only at individual interest, he must be silent. If a regard to that were all the arguments he could urge, he must abandon the defence of the law—but if it could be made out that the apprehension of the punishment of death prevented the commission of the crime—if public morals were protected by the fear of this punishment—if without that punishment there would be a great increase of the offence—if these things could all be made out, then there would be very strong, and, indeed, very powerful reasons for maintaining the punishment. If it could be shown that the fear of death did operate to prevent the commission of the crime of Forgery, and if property were defended by it—which was not immaterial—he conceived that they would not be justified in abolishing it. If he could also show, that those who petitioned against it were not the parties most interested, he thought the House would have good reasons for withholding its assent to the prayer of their petitions. The chief petitioners in favour of the measure most interested in it were the country and provincial bankers, but the direct and immediate interest they had in it was not to be compared to the interest of the bankers of London. London was the great centre, and mart of all money transactions, and very few bills of exchange, drawn or negociated through the whole country, but found their way to London. The danger of Forgery, therefore, was ten-fold greater in London than in any other place. Since the abolition of the small notes also, the number of Forgeries committed on country bankers had considerably diminished. Forgeries of 5l. notes, and of notes to a large amount, had never been so frequent as of the 1l. and 2l. notes. It might, at first view, appear as easy to obtain 50l. or 20l. for signing a name as 1l. or 2l.; but it was to be remembered that the large sums caused the notes to be examined. The small notes also were taken by a different class of persons—they were passed among the working classes, who had not time nor skill to examine them or to detect the Forgery. Moreover, generally, the 5l. notes were made payable in London; and if they were once paid, the London banker was responsible for the sum. As to cheques, which were the great instruments forged, the country bankers hardly used them. They were not acquainted with cheques as they were used by the London bankers. Besides, in their narrow circle, every person who drew cheques was known, and Forgery was there much more difficult than in London. He believed that the forgery of a cheque in any provincial town, except Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and one or two others, was hardly known. Thus, in estimating the interests of London and Country Bankers in this question, those of the latter would be found to be comparatively small. The argument in favour of the principle he was opposing was this, and he wished to state it fairly. The severity of the law, it was said, defeats its own object; it prevents prosecutions, it leads, when criminals are prosecuted, to their acquittal, it enlists in their cause the sympathies of juries, and the sympathy of the public, and leaving a prosecutor without hope of obtaining a conviction, gives him an interest in avoiding a prosecution. He admitted the existence of a reluctance to prosecute, but he believed that it was not always wholly dictated by conscientious motives; other motives, mingling with the conscientious motives, did deter people from prosecution. There was the great expense of the prosecution, and the chance of the criminal escaping. When a man had been defrauded of 80l. or 200l., he did not always see the necessity of expending 80l. or 100l. more in prosecuting the criminal, without a chance of recovering his property. It might only be regarded, according to a vulgar saying, as throwing good money after bad; and, therefore, prosecutions were abstained from on account of the expense, as well as on account of conscientious motives. To illustrate this he would observe that the country bankers had proposed to the Bank of England, in cases where the forged bills of the latter were paid to the former, to give the Bank of England all the information in their power if it would prosecute, or even to be at half the expense; but when they found that the Bank would do neither they declined to prosecute. He could not allow, therefore, that all the reluctance proceeded from conscientious motives; and he could not admit, that if the law were altered as to severity that there would be no reluctance to prosecute. He was sorry to fatigue the House with details, but he hoped that the Members would give to the following facts their deliberate attention. The argument was, that the reluctance to punish the parties with death prevented individuals from prosecuting and juries from convicting. It was difficult to determine the cases not prosecuted. Individual instances were, no doubt, known, but he hoped the House would not draw a general conclusion from isolated facts. He would compare the cases abandoned by prosecutors, after commencing the prosecution for Forgery, with the prosecutions abandoned for some other crimes. Selecting the seven years between 1823 and 1829, inclusive, he had examined the question in reference to six other capital offences; that was, he had taken the charges preferred on six capital offences, and the number of prosecutions abandoned on them. These were murder, burglary, highway-robbery, horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, and offences under Lord Ellenborough's Act. On these six capital offences, the number of offences charged in the seven years was 8,392; and of these 1,054 had not been prosecuted, or the abandonment of prosecutions amounted to one-eighth of the whole number of charges. The number of charges of Forgery during the same period was 383, and of these fifty-three cases had not been prosecuted. There was, therefore, about one-eighth of the prosecutions for this crime, as of the former class of crimes, abandoned. There was no greater number abandoned in Forgery than in murder and other crimes. The acquittals were of more importance, in his view of the matter, than the abandonments of prosecution, for they had in them less of what was vague and uncertain. Taking the capital crimes before mentioned, he found that the number of them charged in the seven years he had already alluded to was 7,328, and of these the convictions were 4,850, so that the proportion of convictions to charges was as two to three. There was one third acquitted. The proportion of acquittals for Forgery was not greater. It might be said, indeed, that several of the crimes he had selected—such as sheep-stealing and horse-stealing—were, like Forgery, condemned by the general sentiment, and therefore that the acquittals under them would be as numerous as those under the charge of Forgery, and from the same cause. To avoid this imputation, he would take the case of murder, and see what proportion the charges and acquittals bore to each other. The charges for murder, in the seven years, were 479, and the convictions were only 99; so that the convictions were to the charges as one to five. There were in the same period 2,760 charges of Forgery, and the convictions were 1,790; so that the House would see that the convictions were more numerous in proportion for Forgery than for murder. The latter was as five to eight, the former only as one to five. He contended from this view, that the law had not been so inoperative, as some hon. Members supposed and that it had, in fact, protected property to a very considerable extent. He thought, therefore, that the punishment of death had checked the crime of Forgery, and was thus a protection to public morality. The parties most interested in the question of preventing Forgery were the London Bankers, and Bank of England, and he would advert to the magnitude of the property they had at stake. He would first take the case of the Bank of England, and the House would see if the punishment of death might not be necessary for the protection of its property. The number of Stock Accounts, in the Bank of England, was not less than 300,000. It paid in the course of one year, not less than 400,000 drafts, and there were not less than 1,000 transfers of Stocks made in its books daily. Before they came to any determination on this subject they ought to look to the state of criminal prosecutions for Forgery at the present moment. And first he would beg the House to look at the number of prosecutions instituted by those establishments most exposed to suffer from Forgery. The prosecutions, then, of the Bank of England since the withdrawal of the 1l. notes had been gradually on the decline. Bear this in mind, therefore, when the question of altering the law was to be considered, that in an establishment which had 300,000 accounts of Stock—which paid 400,000 checks every year, and which had 1,000 transfers of stock every day, there had been only two prosecutions for Forgery at the last assizes, while up to the present moment there was not a single prosecution pending for the next assizes. This was the state of crime, with reference to this great establishment, under the present law of punishing Forgery by death. He had felt it his duty to make very minute inquiries with respect to the practical operation of the present system, in the case of the great London Bankers, in order that he might come to some positive conclusion whether the infliction of the punishment of death tended to the promotion of morality, or of the reverse. It might be necessary to state, that in London there had been formed, in the year 1825, an association for the purpose of protecting Bankers against Forgery, by an immediate prosecution of all those accused of that crime. This association was composed of thirty-six of the most eminent London Bankers. They have a secretary and a solicitor, and to them, he apprehended, it was the practice to commit the conduct of the prosecution. The members were, of course, bound to communicate any offence in the way of Forgery, of which they became cognizant. He believed there were two instances of a departure from that practice. He would not name them; but ordinarily, he understood, it was the practice for the members to communicate to the secretary and solicitor the commission of any Forgery which came to their knowledge.

begged pardon for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman; but although he was a member of the association, he never understood that it was binding on them to make any communication to the secretary or solicitor, unless they thought proper to do so.

said, he did not wish to mention names, but he had been assured of the fact on very good authority. Returning, however, to this association, he found, by returns which he had received, that at the Clearing Office of these Bankers there were paid, on the 13th, 14th and 15th of the month of May, bills and checks to the number of 45,800, and the money value of this amazing number of drafts and bills, all of them liable to Forgery, amounted to 10,095,000l. But this was not all—he found that four of the banking houses, whose members belonged to the committee, liquidated demands upon paper, and therefore liable to Forgery to the extraordinary amount of 500,000,000l. in the year. Now, by the returns from the secretary of the Committee of London Bankers, he found, that in 1827 there were nineteen Forgeries committed, and that the amount of the Forgeries was 7,000l. In 1828 there were sixteen Forgeries, and the amount was 15,000l. In 1829 there were twelve Forgeries, and the amount was 2,500l.; and in the present year, up to the latest time at which the return could be made out, there were only four Forgeries, and the amount was 658l. Coupling, therefore, the fact of there being at the present moment no Forgery under prosecution by the Bank of England, and that the prosecutions by this society of the Bankers of the Metropolis were gradually diminishing, he thought they ought maturely to consider how far the present law had proved sufficient for its end, before they abandoned the infliction of the punishment of death, and substituted for it a secondary punishment, which was expected to operate more effectually to the prevention of crime. He confessed he had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman that satisfactory explanation of the nature and effect of secondary punishments which he expected from him with reference to this subject. The men accustomed, as forgers generally were, to all the comforts and many of the luxuries of life, were not likely to be influenced so much by the fear of the punishment of transportation and imprisonment, as of death. They were, by their habits and education, placed in a situation which prohibited the beneficial exercise of the system of secondary punishments. In many cases the Government had tried the effect of secondary punishments. It had imprisoned men for seven years, and what was the consequence? Why that the low diet and the languor produced by solitary confinement had given rise to a mortal and infectious disease, which the most eminent physicians ascribed, after the most minute inquiry, to purely moral causes, to the languor of long and solitary confinement, coupled with the prison diet, which, as a fit punishment, was allotted them. It was observed, indeed, by Sir Henry Halford, when giving his evidence to the committee who sat on this subject, that punishment by solitary confinement and low diet, acted with a double force on those whose previous habits were far removed from such privations. But, in addition to disease, there was another evil to be guarded against. It not unfrequently happened, that the languor of solitary confinement led to some of the most formidable aggravations of insanity, Then came the question of whether this insanity was feigned or real—whether the sufferings were pretended, or the result of the situation and previous habits of the criminal—so that, under any view of the case, the infliction of long solitary confinement as a secondary punishment, presented numberless difficulties. Then came the question of the infliction of hard labour. Now, with every disposition to make the criminal suffer by the infliction of hard labour, it not unfrequently happened that his previous habits of life precluded the possibility of putting that portion of the sentence in force. It was frequently impossible to inflict such a punishment. But supposing he did send a man of education to the hulks at Dept-ford or Chatham; after he had been there for two or three years, suffering under the eyes of the public, what security had the Executive that the public sympathy would not be as much awakened in his favour, and the public prejudice as much directed against the infliction of hard labour, as it is now against the taking away the life of the offender for the same crime? What certainty had he that the public and prosecutors would not shrink as much from inflicting the punishment of solitary imprisonment or hard labour, as they now do from that of death? The infliction of secondary punishments, such as hard labour, low diet, and solitary confinement, had been tried for ten years, and it had been found impossible to continue it, for the consequence always was, that they were compelled to alter the diet of the prisoners, and to give a kind of nutriment, which, as was observed by an hon. Member (Colonel Davies) the other evening, when he had not an opportunity of answering his remarks, rendered the situation of the convict an object of envy to the agricultural labourer, whose honest industry would not procure him any sustenance of the same description. It was said, however, that they might transport offenders of this description to New South Wales, and keep them to hard labour there. Independently of the power which a man of education must always exercise among such persons as he would be compelled to associate with in New South Wales, it was scarcely possible to guard against other peculiarities of the situation of a person committing Forgery. A man who was guilty of that crime, seldom or never failed to secure a considerable sum of money. He might even escape discovery long enough to accumulate a very large sum, and it must therefore be taken into calculation, that when detected and subjected to punishment, he might employ a portion of his gains for the purpose of effecting his escape. In truth, if the infliction of secondary punishments, such as imprisonment or confinement to the hulks, were to' be had recourse to in such cases, he for one had no confidence in being able to prevent a forger from finding the means of escape. For these reasons, which he had thus candidly avowed, he had no confidence in secondary punishments producing the end all had in view—the prevention of crime—unless they made them so severe that the mind of the prisoner would be affected—the public sympathy awakened for his sufferings, or his constitution prove inadequate to the support of the sentence. On these grounds, therefore, he submitted the question to the impartial and unbiassed decision of the House—premising only that his decided opinion, supported by many years' experience, was in favour of the law as it stood, and expressing, as he did, his conscientious conviction that the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition would not tend to the repression of crime. He must oppose the Amendment.

said, he felt bound, from the very same arguments, to come to a different conclusion from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. It was said that the number of prosecutions by the Bank of England was daily diminishing, and that as there could be no such desire to avoid the infliction of capital punishments in the minds of the Directors of the Bank of England, that unflinching prosecutor, as was visible in others,—as they were free from any scruples on that point, that therefore, the offence of forging was not so often committed, and the law required no alteration, because it worked well for the protection of the bankers and the public. The right hon. Gentleman also contended that secondary punishments were not safe to rest on for security; and he contended that they were at all times of too unsatisfactory a nature to deter from the commission of crime. Now, that was just his (Mr. Brougham's) difficulty in this case. How was it that the law performed its office well? Why, because of this very secondary punishment, which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to demonstrate was inefficient and insupportable, and almost impossible to be executed. He would just beg of the House to look a little at the real state of the case. In the last seven years there had been 217 convictions for Forgery—that is, 217 persons sentenced to death, independently of those who were compelled to suffer minor punishments for minor offences of the same nature. And how many had been subjected to the unsatisfactory and ineffectual, and all but impracticable secondary punishments which the right hon. Gentleman describes? Why, of this 217, just twenty-four were executed: just nine, to one therefore, had been subjected to the secondary punishment alone. If, therefore, there was only one criminal hung out of every ten, the punishment of death, upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid so much stress, terrifies, not because it is certain, but because it is nine to one that the criminal escapes. The persons who commit Forgery are practical men, they are skilled in calculation: they know that one in ten is executed, and that the others escape. It is, therefore, ten to one, in the present case, in their minds, that, having committed Forgery, they may not, if detected and convicted, escape that punishment which the right hon. Gentleman says they so much dread; for if they do not look forward with anxiety and dread to the consequences of their crime, the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments' fails altogether. If men did not reason on the probable consequences of their crimes, if they had no foresight, no know- 'ledge of their possible effect, then must punishment as an example be altogether useless, and it would be better to get rid of it: if they did reason, if they did calculate, they must calculate, they must reason in the way he had described, even calculating the chances in their favour with a sanguine temperament, and they must be made criminal by the hope of escaping the punishment at present ordained for their offence. The question then is—and it. is not a new one—whether, if the chance of the punishment of death happening to one in ten, does not prevent the crime of Forgery, the certainty of the secondary punishment, which they also must calculate on, will not operate materially to influence those who are disposed to the commission of such a crime? It is well known that the men who generally embark in hazardous enterprises, such as those undertaken by the forger, are persons of a very sanguine temperament, and that they generally build very strongly on their good fortune, and take a very favourable view of the prospects under which they venture to commit such a crime. Ought the Legislature then to build up a fabric to encourage those sanguine temperaments, and hold out to the forger a prospect spread before him, a field of chances, in which there are nine to one in favour of his escaping with impunity from the fate which should await his crime? First, there is the chance that he will not be detected; secondly, there is the chance that when detected, he will, from motives of humanity, and because the persons on whom he has forged disapprove of the punishment of death, not be prosecuted. Next, then, is the chance that when prosecuted he may, from some flaw in the evidence, escape conviction; and lastly, there is the chance, that after having run through all this gauntlet, he will be landed in such a situation, that it is ten to one whether he does not escape capital punishment. This is the position in which those who commit Forgery feel themselves now, and these are the terrors which the right hon. Gentleman would have them to believe led to the gradual extinction of Forgery. One great difficulty was, to induce juries, under the existing law, to convict for Forgery. But the grand difficulty was, to prevail on prosecutors and witnesses to come forward. Even if prosecutors were callous themselves, which was rarely the case, they were surrounded by persons who were not so, and who would dissuade them from prosecuting, lest, in the event of a conviction, the Judge should happen to lean towards severity. Whether from one motive or another, therefore, prosecutors were disinclined to proceed; but principally, perhaps, because they felt that the reluctance of witnesses and jurors rendered it a matter of great difficulty to obtain a conviction. The grand difficulty however, was, to prevail upon prosecutors and witnesses to come forward, which was even much greater than getting jurors to convict, for when men were assembled together in the jury-box, placed in an elevated situation, before their assembled fellow citizens, and under the eye of a Judge, bound by the oath they had just taken, the effect of which circumstances was best known to those who most practised in courts of law—when their omissions as well as their commissions were carefully noted, their errors and their ignorance being equally subject to criticism and review—when men were so situated it was not so difficult to induce them not to give way to what was perhaps called their mistaken feelings, and not to act on those humane inclinations which would guide the conduct of every one of them, when acting as an individual, bound by no oath, and not exposed to public scrutiny. The Statute-book might be blackened or reddened as much as the Legislature chose, but it was merely waste paper if the enactments which it contained could not be carried into effect. It ought to be considered that there was no public prosecutor here, as in Scotland, and this he was free to confess seemed to him to be the root of much evil in all our criminal proceedings. But if prosecutors were with difficulty brought forward, the difficulty of bringing forward witnesses was still greater. Those who had been accustomed to attend the Assizes at Lancaster were alone able to judge of the difficulty of inducing persons engaged in mercantile pursuits, and residing in Liverpool or Manchester, to sacrifice their time and to travel fifty or sixty miles, in order to give evidence in ordinary cases. How much more reluctant they were to come when their object was, to establish the guilt of a human being who might by their testimony be doomed to death, it was easy to imagine. The true mode of forming any penal code was, to make the punishment a certain one, whatever it might be. No man would commit a crime, if he were absolutely certain that in the course of three or four months he would be prosecuted and punished. No man would ever forge a note for 1000l. if he were absolutely certain that, for that offence, he would suffer, not death, but two years' imprisonment. It was true that it was impossible to make the punishment of crime absolutely certain; but every effort should be made to approximate as nearly as possible to that result. To show how much greater the approach to certainty in the punishment of some crimes was, as compared with the approach to certainty in the punishment of other crimes, he would contrast the crimes of murder and forgery. Of 217 persons convicted of Forgery in seven years, only twenty-four had been executed; while of ninety-seven persons convicted of murder in the same period, eighty-eight had been executed. The right hon. Baronet had attempted to prove, that there was no more difficulty in obtaining convictions for Forgery than for murder, and he had referred to returns which shewed that in proportion to the number of prosecutions for Forgery, the number of convictions was greater than for murder. But that was plainly owing to the fact, that indictments for murder included two classes of offences, murder and manslaughter; so that out of the 400 and odd trials to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, it was possible that not above the ninety-nine convictions he mentioned were cases of actual murder. There was no offence known to the law in which so many distinctions were taken as killing a man; no crime concerning which there were so many difficult points, from all which circumstances there were just so many chances, that a man, on being indicted for murder, might be found guilty of manslaughter. That fact completely disposed of the argument raised by the hon. Baronet, on the supposition that convictions were as frequent in prosecutions for Forgery, as in prosecutions for murder. To shew that, the present law worked well, the right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Bank of England had only two prosecutions for Forgery in the last year. But why? Because the Directors of that company only brought forward cases in which they felt confident that they could obtain convictions. Their conduct had been unpopular in this respect, and they would now even withdraw after having commenced proceedings if they saw the least chance of being defeated. That the general impression throughout the country, on the part of those most interested in the question, was in favour of the abolition of death for the crime of Forgery, could not be doubted. The Table groaned with petitions to that effect. These petitions were suggested, not merely by the feelings of humanity, but by the dictates of good sense. They proceeded from persons to whom paper credit was the breath of their nostrils; they proceeded from persons who complained that the crime of Forgery went unpunished, and who declared that it would continue to go unpunished while it continued to be a capital offence. The cases of Forgery which the Bill exempted from the punishment of death were so rare, that, practically speaking, they were as nothing. The degree of improvement in the law, therefore, which the Bill was calculated to effect could not be rated higher than zero. Bank-notes, bills, and promissory notes were indeed frequently forged, but not. so bonds or deeds. He would make a concession to the right hon. Gentleman—he would allow the punishment of death to be inflicted for the Forgery of the Great Seal or for the Forgery of the Privy Seal: The fact was, however, that there was no reason for making any distinction whatever on the subject. Such were the opinions which he entertained upon this question—opinions which he had imbibed many years ago from his great and lamented friend, Sir Samuel Romilly—and therefore he had felt it his duty not to be altogether silent with respect to them. He congratulated the friends of humanity on the discussion of that night, and on the great progress that they were making in public opinion; and he congratulated his hon. and learned friend on the prospect that he would live to see the day, when this stain upon our Statute-book would be removed.

observed, that at that late hour he would trespass upon the patience of the House with but very few remarks. The law, as it at present stood, encouraged instead of discouraging crime; it was an encouragement to perjury on the part of jurors, grounded on a tenderness for human life. There was much to justify this tenderness. If he were told that a criminal would be subjected to some ignominious punishment, that he would be condemned to hard labour or transportation for life, he might be induced to spare no pains to bring him to justice; but the case was different when he knew that the result of bringing a criminal to justice might be putting him to death, and sending him to the awful tribunal of another world with all his guilt on his head. Let the House recollect that a petition had been that day presented in favour of abolishing the punishment of death for Forgery, signed by above 1,000 bankers. That was not like an ordinary petition. No object could be so important to such petitioners as the prevention of Forgery. Hundreds of millions of money passed through their hands; and they were therefore most deeply interested in the adoption of such measures as would guard them from loss; but they declared by their petition that in their opinion the infliction of death for the crime of Forgery was not calculated to effect that object. It was formerly said that the friends of the abolition of the punishment of death for Forgery were theoretical. Now, however it was distinctly stated by large bodies of practical men, that the punishment of death for Forgery prevented prosecutions and convictions, and thereby left their property unprotected. The difficulty of obtaining convictions, naturally prevented bankers from prosecuting; for it was obvious that there were many reasons to disincline bankers from letting the world know that Forgeries had been committed upon them, unless they could feel tolerably sure of being able to convict the persons by whom those Forgeries had been perpetrated. There were many other points on which it would be easy to dilate; but he would abstain from troubling the House any further at that late hour.

highly complimented his right hon. friend on the efforts which he had made, and was making to ameliorate the Criminal Code of the country, although he could not agree with him on the present question. His right hon. friend had stated, that country bankers were not sufferers by Forgery; but by the returns on the Table, it appeared, that there were more convictions for Forgery at the county assizes than in London and Middlesex. It was demonstrated that the severity of the threatened punishment did not check the increase of the offence. Though he was disposed to pay great deference to the opinion of his right hon. friend, he must vote for the abolition of the punishment of death. Was it not worth while to try the experiment of abolishing it? If the experiment failed, the public feeling would then be reconciled, however reluctantly, to the re-enactment of the capital punishment. In his opinion, the last and severest punishment that it was in the power of man to inflict ought to be reserved for offences of the greatest moral guilt.

was persuaded that, upon the whole, it was desirable to try what effect the abolition of the punishment of death would produce.

was of opinion, that if the law were once altered, it would not be easy to bring it back to its present state. Having more faith in the judgment of his right hon. friend than he had in that of a 1,000 bankers, he should vote for the Bill as it stood.

supported the Amendment.

gave notice that, on the bringing up of the report, his right hon. And learned friend would move that the punishment of transportation or imprisonment should be substituted for the punishment of death.