wished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether it were true, as reported at the west end of the town, that the hon. Member for Windsor had resigned the situation that he held under the Government? and next, whether it were the intention of the noble Lord to bring forward the civil contingencies that evening?

said, that he should not answer the first question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and, with respect to the civil contingencies, he said that it was not his intention to proceed with them that evening.

wished to ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), whether it was his intention to proceed with his Registration of Voters Bill on Wednesday next?

said, it was riot his intention to proceed with the bill on Wednesday. He should, for the present, postpone it for a fortnight, and he should take care that Gentlemen, on both sides of the House, should have ample notice of the time when he intended to bring it forward.

rose, he said, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the case of a breach of privilege. He could not have supposed it possible, that any occasion could have arisen on which he could have felt justified in attempting to occupy their attention on a matter that was merely personal to himself; but when he was made the object of misrepresentation, as gross and unjustifiable as it was calculated to prejudice him out of doors, he had no other means of defence left to him but to throw himself on the kindness and indulgence of the House. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that on Friday last, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire had thought fit to make some re- marks savouring, as he thought, to use the hon. Member's own expression, of an election clap-trap, which affected both his noble Colleague and himself; and, on that occasion, he himself had stated that whenever the Corn-law should be under discussion, he should be prepared to meet it, and that the interests of Lincolnshire would not be neglected by his noble Friend or himself; and he further said, that from whatever quarter the subject was presented, he should, when called upon, be found to do his duty, to his constituents, and to the public. These were, he believed, the precise words, and the only words that he had used. The House would, therefore, judge of his surprise upon reading the Morning Chronicle of the next morning; and, although he did not wish to say anything Unpleasant, it was a paper that seemed disposed to misrepresent, more or less, all Gentlemen on his side of the House, except the hon. Member for Leicester; but, he said, to his surprise, he found himself reported to have made these observations:—

"Mr. Handley approved of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned the Corn-laws, and said, that when the proper time came, he should be quite ready to second the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the various details of this important subject."

submitted to the hon. Member—

suggested, that it would be better lo have the paragraph that had been complained of read.

having been present when the hon. Member spoke on Friday night, could confirm the accuracy of his statement as to the words that fell from him on that occasion, and also say, that the paper did not contain a report of his words; but totally misrepresented him. But admitting such to be the case, he put it to the hon. Member whether he had not served his object in giving publicity to his denial, and refuting the charge that had been made against him. He put it to the hon. Member whether he would take up the time of the House in bringing editors or printers before it. He would submit to the hon. Member, that at a time like the present this should not be done. He trusted that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the vindication which he had now so amply obtained.

declared that he was perfectly surprised that his hon. Friend below him should have brought forward this matter. Humble as he was, he had been often very much misrepresented, and yet he never had the presumption to intrude upon the House on any occasion. He could not suppose that any one would believe that theMorning Chroniclewould intentionally misrepresent the hon. Member. It was evidently done through mistake. He must say that it really appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman seemed to desire to make an electioneering speech; for he had not contented himself with correcting the mistake of which he complained, but he had in very formidable terms declared his opposition to her Majesty's Government. He did not think that, in correcting an error, the hon. Member should have shown a bad example to other Members; because other Members might, on the eve of an election, deliver themselves of electioneering speeches, by making similar motions.

said, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member behind him, when he talked of his not having had the presumption to introduce such a subject, he could only say that it was not his good fortune to be possessed of the hon. and gallant officer's modesty. The hon. and gallant Member might get a meeting of his constituents at the "Cat and Gridiron," or any where else, on any evening he pleased; but the hon. and gallant Member would find it a tedious and difficult matter to go through the constituency of Lincolnshire, in order to set himself right with them. The hon. and gallant Member might moreover have so many strong and overwhelming claims upon his constituents, as to induce them to overlook such a dereliction of duty as he was represented to have been guilty of. He could tell the hon. and gallant Member that he did not, and he thought he might add that the House did not, participate in the feelings which had induced the hon. and gallant Member to interfere on the present occasion. He had, according to the forms of the House, concluded with a motion; but as he was quite satisfied that the only reparation he could obtain, at all commensurate with the injury done, had now been afforded, he begged leave to withdraw it, thanking the House for their patient attention.

, in reply to a question proposed to him by an hon. Member on the Opposition benches, said that he did state the other night that he would be prepared on Friday next to state the amount of duty that he proposed to fix on corn. He should be ready to do so.

said, that on Friday night, previous to the House going into Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of fixing the duties on sugar, he meant to propose a resolution, by which the sense of the House might be taken in opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman; and he would take an early opportunity of apprising the House of the words of the resolution.

understood the noble Lord would propose a resolution in opposition to the proposition of his right hon. Friend.

meant to propose a resolution, by which the sense of the House might be taken in opposition to the proposition of the Goverment.

hoped, that in the resolution, words would be introduced declaring against this country having anything to do with slave-grown sugar.

said, he could not consent to the clause as amended. He thought it would be a most dangerous act to abolish the punishment of death in cases where persons were convicted of setting fire to her Majesty's dockyard in time of war.

entirely concurred with the noble Lord's objection. When a similar proposition was made to the House, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) opposed it on the same ground, and the justice of his view with regard to the paramount necessity of protecting the property of the Crown was, he thought, confirmed by the attempt which was made, two months afterwards, to set fire to one of her Majesty's dockyards.

also took the same view. He approved of the mitigation of crimes to which capital punishments had been hitherto applied, but he thought if the Legislature, from motives of mistaken clemency, were to proceed much farther, they would make a most fatal inroad on the security of life and property in this country.

thought the noble Lord was bound to show that a further diminution of the application of capital punishments would have the effect he apprehended before the committee could be expected to share in those apprehensions. Did the hon. Gentleman who opposed the clause mean to say that protection to life and property had been in a degree taken away by the humane enactments that had already passed, abolishing nine-tenths of our capital punishments? He, on the contrary, thought that taking away the life of a fellow-creature did not tend to the prevention of crime;—this was his conviction, founded on long and close observation. He admitted it was essential to the public safety that the property of the Crown should be effectually protected, but life should not be sacrificed as a punishment for its destruction, any more than for the destruction of private property; or, if any difference should be made, it ought to be for a severer punishment for those who destroyed the property of poor and helpless individuals. As to the moral effects of an execution in public, a shocking spectacle that took place since they last met must have proved that the approach of the punishment of death would have no terrors for a desperate individual, and that the ignominious ceremonies of the gallows were merely treated by the mob as exhibitions to be laughed at. These brutalising scenes had no certain effect but to harden the hearts of criminals and spectators, and knowing this to be the fact, he thought it high time that they should now be altogether done away with, and, therefore, he gave his most hearty concurrence to the clause, and he thought that the noble Lord was bound either to join them in agreeing to the clause, or to prove that the punishment of death was a protection to life and property.

said, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had made a mistake in calling capital punishment the strongest arm of the Jaw for the prevention of crime. The question was, was it the strongest arm of the law? In his opinion that arm of the law was in reality the stronger which acted with a more speedy and certain result, and undoubtedly secondary punishments being inflicted with certainty when capital ones might be evaded, the former were more likely to terrify offenders, and to prevent the commission of crime. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman talked of the necessity of the present statute to prevent persons from setting fire to dockyards, but the recent attempt proved that the present law did not prevent that crime. Why was it that capital punishments did not check crime? Because they were generally regarded as too severe, according to the calculations of men of human- ity, and this feeling was now becoming universal with the public. If, then, the legislature continued to brutalise society by accustoming it to ignominious capital punishment, a hardened class of men would still be created, who seeing human life destroyed by the law, would also disregard the destruction of human life themselves. In fact the spectacles of capital punishment would make criminals value their own lives less, and would in some degree familiarise them with the commission of murder. The right hon. Baronet said, if this clause were adopted, what punishment would remain for persons convicted of setting fire to ships in the face of an enemy? Why this would be high treason, and the crime would come under the statute providing for that offence. His opinion was, that the punishment of death ought to be altogether abolished, but in the case supposed by the right hon. Baronet, it would be still punishable by capital punishment under the present bill. He trusted the House would continue to legislate in that spirit of humanity that distinguished the present day. Thus the efficacy of the secondary punishment being certain, would be increased. And the nature of the highest degree of secondary punishment was by no means light. They had heard in the evidence of medical witnesses that prolonged periods of imprisonment tended to the death of the criminal, for they were in effect sentences of death, though the period of their execution was spread over a long period of time. The abolition of the present capital code would prevent the horrible possibility of the execution of innocent men. They had heard of the recent case of a wretched man, who died with every appearance of contrition, but at the last solemn moment solemnly calling upon the God who was about to judge him that he was innocent of the crime for which he was just going to be executed. He would not dwell upon the circumstance, that the judge before whom that man was tried procured more convictions than other judges; but when the fact of this probability got abroad that a man was more likely to be hanged if he were tried before one judge, and would have a better chance of escape if he were tried before another, it must induce criminal men to venture on a sort of game of hazard, calculating the chance of escape on the possibility of being tried before one judge rather than another, and so attack- ing or sparing life according to the impression made upon them. One great reason, then, for abolishing the punishment of death should arise from the defectiveness of tribunals, through the fallibility natural to man. Let the House lessen the danger attending this fallibility, and judges would at least escape the responsibility of sentencing, by mistake, innocent men to death. And as, upon the showing of other hon. Gentlemen, the effect of the mitigation already enacted had not been to augment but to diminish crimes, he thought that justice as well as humanity encouraged them to proceed in the work of bloodless legislation. The Acts of Parliament awarding capital punishment must be mitigated—indeed they had been already greatly modified by the humanity of judges and juries.

hoped the clause would pass into a law. He entirely concurred with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, and differed from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford. However he did not concur in the apprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, with respect to some recent cases, especially that of Misters. He (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) was convinced that that criminal, though persisting in declaring his innocence to the last, was guilty of the crime for which he had been indicted. He was at Shrewsbury at the time of the trial, though not professionally, and there was no doubt on his mind that Misters was properly convicted, if not properly executed. There could be no doubt of the justice of the verdict; but in cases of that kind the sympathy of the public went with the sufferer, and not with the law; for if Misters had been sentenced to transportation for life, instead of to hanging, no one would have protested against the severity of his doom. The fact was, the punishment of death threw a sort of sanclity around the memory of the sufferer who was suddenly sent into eternity, and in the contemplations associated with the awful transit from this life into the other an interest was naturally created in behalf of the criminal. But such feelings would end with the capital punishment, and in most cases the operation of the law would be supported by the concurrence of the public.

said, if the legislature con- tinued capital punishments, it would also continue that uncertainty which now gave a hope of impunity or acquittal to a criminal; whereas secondary punishments contributed to deter of. fenders by their certainty. From these feelings of humanity, and other causes which had been just alluded to, it appeared that executions, on the contrary, tended to a greater number of acquittals in subsequent cases. He begged leave to read to the House an interesting document drawn up by Mr. Wrightson, which would explain the relative effects of capital and secondary punishments. The hon. Gentleman read the following document:—

"PROOFS OF THE TENDENCY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TO PRODUCE IMPUNITY.

"If the convictions for the following crimes, from the year 1810 down to the end of the year in which the law was mitigated in each case, had been in the same proportion to the commitments that they have been since, they would have exceeded the actual number convicted

by 215 for Forgery.

—103—Horse-stealing.

—237—Sheep-stealing.

—363—Stealing in dwelling-house.

—29—Coining.

—423—Housebreaking.

—1,101—Robbery.

—1,064—Burglary.

—393—Attempts to murder, &c.

—168—Arson and other wilful burning.

4,096 Total.

"The total number executed for the above crimes from the year 1810 down to the mitigation of the law was 1,242, so that every execution appears to have produced rather more than three acquittals. The executions for each crime separately were as follows:

If we compare the number executed for each crime with the additional number who would have been convicted if the juries had convicted in the same proportion 'before' as they have done 'since' the mitigation of the law, we shall arrive at the impunity produced by capital punishment in each particular case as follows:

"Forgery.—The executions were 221, and the impunity produced 215; so that every execution led to nearly one acquittal.

"Horse-stealing.—Executions 68, impunity produced 103; so that every execution led to more than one acquittal.

"Sheep-stealing.—Executions 74, impunity produced 237; so that each execution led to three acquittals.

"Stealing in a dwelling-house.—Executions 52, impunity produced 363 so that each execution led to seven acquittals.

"Coining.—Executions 13, impunity produced 29; so that each execution led to two acquittals.

"Burglary.—Executions 308, impunity produced, 1,064; so that each execution led to three acquittals.

Robbery.—Executions 268, impunity produced 1,101; so that each execution led to four acquittals.

"Attempts to murder, &c.—Executions 101, impunity produced 393: so that each execution led to nearly four acquittals.

"Arson, &c.—Executions 104, impunity produced 168; so that each execution led to more than one acquittal.

"Housebreaking.-—Executions 55, impunity produced 423; so that each execution led to seven acquittals.

explained, and repented his opinion that a farther mitigation of the capital code would be dangerous to the safety of life and property. As for the case of Misters, his noble Friend near him had been on the grand jury which found the bill against the prisoner, and it was quite impossible to come to any other decision, so strong was the evidence they had received. Great modifications had already been made in the punishment of forgery, stealing from dwelling-houses, sheep-stealing, horse-stealing. He rejoiced at the mitigation; but if this were extended to the malefactor who set a house on fire, or committed murder, or wounded with intent to kill, a most dangerous encouragement would be held out by the House of Commons to the desperate characters who infested the country.

supported the clause, contending that the uncertainty of capital punishments encouraged desperate characters.

proposed the following addition:

"That in cases of rape, and of unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing any girl under the age of 10 years, whenever either of the said offences shall be committed by any two or more persons, and such person or persons shall be convicted of either of the said offences, such person or persons so convicted shall be subject to the sentence of death, and shall suffer death, as in and by the said statute of the 9th year of the reign of his late Majesty George 4th is provided."

said, that that was a clause of great importance and very difficult to deal with. The offence of rape was the most atrocious crime in some cases, while in other cases, although the offence might be in a legal sense committed, no one would think of inflicting the capital punishment. He had devoted a great deal of his attention to the question to see if he could define a particular species of this offence, for which it would be right for the safeguard op society still to retain the capital punishment; but he had altogether failed in the attempt, and had come, therefore, to the conclusion, that it would be better to take away the punishment of death in all cases. He did not think the amendment now proposed would be of any avail; for it would still leave the offence undefined. Suppose a common prostitute violated without her consent by three or four men that would be rape in construction of the law; but no judge would leave that man, if convicted, for execution. He thought, therefore, that if they changed the law at all, they should abolish the punishment altogether.

thought, that hon. Gentlemen should consider this question very seriously before they came to the conclusion which the hon. and learned Gentleman recommended by his example. What punishment would they think the ruffian deserved who should ill-use one of their daughters, or any one dear to them. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said, that long imprisonment was lingering death, and much more cruel in its effect than hanging? Would it not be more humane, then, to punish with speedy death than to protract the suffering of a culprit? He thought it would be better to let the law remain as it was; but if the House would not go to that extent with him, let them at least concur in the amendment of the hon. Member for Warwick.

could not consent to the remission of the punishment of death in such cases. He would rather have it left to the discretion of the judges as to whether or not there were any circumstances calling for any deviation from the ordinary course.

deprecated the system of leaving too much discretion, in case of life or death, in the hands of the judges. Such a system was apt to produce an impression on the mind of the public that a prisoner was left for execution, not because he was guilty, but because such or such a judge had tried him. He could not agree to the doctrine that in legislating for this offence they should proceed on those vindictive feelings which might naturally be supposed to actuate the relatives of the injured female. Prevention, not vengeance, should be the primary object of the House; and the best method of preventing the offence, and of saving the feelings of relatives, was to make conviction and punishment more certain. The committee would recollect the case of the gipsies, who, about four years since, were convicted of robbery, accompanied with great personal violence, near Monmouth, and sentenced to transportation. Their innocence was afterwards clearly proved, the real criminals being detected, and they were brought back at the expense of Government. If the conviction of these gipsies had taken place a few years further back, they would have been executed, and what, then, would have been the feelings of the jury, the judge, and all parties whose duty obliged them to take part in the proceedings? Though lengthened imprisonment was calculated to produce death, it had this advantage, that it left time for full inquiry and examination.

thought the case under discussion was one of those which with the greatest propriety might be left to the discretion of the judge. He defended the character of the excellent and upright judge, who had been attacked that night by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. In the case alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he was one of the grand jury, and he believed no one could have been present at the trial without agreeing that a clearer case was never made out.

observed, that there was one point of view in which the question had not been looked at. In cases of robbery and violence, rendering the offending party liable to death, there was often an inducement to commit murder us a mode of getting rid of the chief, or perhaps the only, evidence. To do away with the punishment of death, therefore, would be to remove one very frequent cause of murder being committed.

cited some cases to show the unwillingness of juries to convict persons indicted for commiting one offence in company; and also a case in which two men, after having been tried for a rape and acquitted, were tried for murder; and the prejudice which the former charge excited against them procured their conviction, and they were executed; but circumstances afterwards transpired which showed that they were innocent of the murder. He was one of the counsel in the case, and he had no doubt of their innocence. He should support the clause as it stood.

said, if the House looked to the moral enormity of the offences proposed to be exempted from the clause, there could be no doubt that the more atrocious cases of the kind were as deserving of death as any crime; but if they looked at the great object of prevention, he was convinced that the commission of the offence would not be so effectually prevented by the present state of the law. The noble Lord, in allusion to one of the cases mentioned by Mr. Godson, said, that in one, where the crime had been perpetrated by three men, the judge had suggested that the Crown should interfere. In subsequent instances of the kind other judges had pursued the same course. This being the state of the case, and being likely to continue, he must express his opinion that merely retaining the punishment of death on the statute book, when that punishment was not likely to be inflicted, could not tend to prevent the offence, though it might operate to prevent conviction. He should vote against the amendment.

If the House was of opinion that the punishment of death in ordinary cases of rape should be done away with, inconvenience might arise from making any particular and specific exceptions. As to the distinction that had been drawn with respect to the possibility of reparation in one case, and of the impossibility of such reparation in the other, he did not attach much weight to that argument. He could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that they should reflect what their own feelings would be if any member of their families were suffering a grievous injury of the kind alluded to, or that they should bring their own indignation into play upon their legislation. The main consideration was what course should be taken which, upon the whole, was most calculated to prevent offences. If the House concurred in doing away with the capital punishment, he did not think they ought to enter into the specific circumstances, as to the perpetration of the offence by one individual or by many, for he considered that steps of prevention, not the moral enormity of the offence, should form the principal element of their legislation. He was not, however, satisfied of the policy of remitting the capital punishment in cases of rape. He could conceive cases where the offence was committed by members of the higher classes of society, for the gratification of the most brutal passions, where, if the punishment was remitted, public indignation might be so great that the House would find it expedient to retrace its course. Their object should be to carry public opinion along with them. He approved of the plan of gradually abolishing severe punishments. He would retain capital punishments for murder, for attempt to murder, and for rape, an offence which he considered involved not only the highest criminality but the greatest personal in. jury that could be sustained by that class of society the most likely to suffer, because they were the weakest, and who were therefore the more entitled to protection. The general argument against capital punishments was, that their effect was lessened by awarding them too indiscriminately. He thought that might be the case with respect to cases not marked by deep moral guilt. He did not think that the crime of rape was of frequent commission in this country, or that the expectation of acquittal by juries under the present law had been very frequently fulfilled. He admitted it to be a question of great difficulty, but, looking at the great criminality of the offence, and the irreparable injury inflicted on the victim, he was not prepared to remit capital punishment.

said, there were no capital convictions which so little satisfied the public mind as those for rape, or in which doubts were so frequently expressed of the guilt of a prisoner after his execution. It was a great hardship to throw upon a judge the responsibility of the discretion which was at present given him. The Legislature should take that responsibility on themselves.

was altogether opposed to the clause. He advised his hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment, and the question could be taken on the clause itself.

consented. Amendment withdrawn.

said, there could be no second opinion as to the atrocity of the offence, or as to its being deserving of the most severe punishment. The only question to be considered was, as to the alleged repugnance of juries to convict. For his own part, he could not find that any repugnance existed which was likely to prevent a verdict of "guilty" in cases of attempt to murder which had been supposed; for, in the year 1839, the number of persons committed for trial for offences of that kind were thirty-four, out of whom twenty-two were convicted and twelve only were acquitted, whilst in the same year there were forty-six persons committed for trial for murder, of whom as many as thirty-three were acquitted, and only thirteen convicted. On that account he did not think it necessary, on the point involved in the clause, to alter the present law.

had hoped to have the noble Lord's concurrence, especially after having heard him say that the enormity of criminality was not to be considered so much as the best means of deterring the evil-disposed from its perpetration. He with equal regret and surprise, perceived that principle was lost sight of in the speech of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth. The principle of all punishment should be to prevent crime. The clause exempted all attempts short of murder from capital punishment. The question then was, whether the abolition of capital punishment left society with a sufficient protection. The knowledge that the capital punishment would not be inflicted, would in his opinion, prevent the commission of murder, while the knowledge that it existed for the attempt to kill as well as the act itself, would be no doubt, in most instances, an inducement to the crime. Therefore, there was all the protection possible for society in the clause, while the capital punishment was inflicted for murder. But there was another ground in favour of the clause—namely the uncertainty of conviction, and the uncertainty of execution. Of forty-five indictments preferred for the crime in question during the last three years, only twenty procured a conviction; and of this twenty only two were executed—or one in ten. Therefore it was clear, that certainty of conviction and certainty of punishment was not obtained under the law as it stood; and the natural inference followed, that the ends of punishment were defeated. And yet the case was not where there was the greatest difficulty to get juries to convict. He, however, believed, that from henceforward the law in this respect would be still more inoperative, in consequence of the practice of framing indictments with two counts—the capital and the minor—introduced in 1837, and the inclination juries had always manifested to acquit on the one, and convict only on the other—the lesser offence of aggravated assault. He was of opinion, however, that to suffer the punishment of death to remain for the offence, would be to create uncertainty in the minds of men, and thus lead to the commission of crime without the certainty of conviction. It was on those grounds that he proposed the clause.

could not see the justice or the propriety of permitting the man who deliberately attempted murder to escape the severest punishment that could be inflicted by the law. He could not comprehend the distinction between the attempt, with the intention to kill, and the successful issue of that attempt, and he should therefore oppose the clause.

supported the clause, because he believed that capital punishment should be reduced to the minimum consistent with the safety of the public.

objected to the clause being debated on the ground of expediency rather than on that of morality. He could not agree with the principle that the sole end of punishment should be to deter from crime. Those who argued that because juries would not convict for capital crimes capital punishment should be abolished argued from one abuse to another. In his opinion, such a circumstance was not sufficient to justify the alteration proposed in the law. He would give the public a stronger and a higher sense of the obligation of an oath or a declaration, and then there would be no more preference on the part of juries of theoretical opinions to the dictates of conscience. He called on the House, therefore, not to prostitute the law to the theoretical scruples of juries, and he should, under the circumstances, oppose the clause.

was surprised at the charge made against juries by implication in the observations of the hon. and learned Mover of the clause. He, in a twenty years' experience, had known very few instances of indisposition on the part of juries to convict upon sufficient evidence, and it was to the judge the interposition in favour of the prisoner was chiefly owing, when reason for it existed. He did not concur in that or in the other argument on which the clause was grounded, and he should, therefore, not support it.

thought the House should not lightly recognize the principle, that the object of the law was the punishment, and not the prevention, of crime. He declared it to be his opinion, that man had no right to take the life of man, and that the sacred precepts as strongly condemned the executioner as the murderer.

said, that the prerogative of the Crown had been always sufficient to provide for secondary punishment when it was shown to be necessary, and therefore there existed no good reason for the abolition of capital punishment. Supposing the case of a man who, having been convicted of wounding with intent to murder, perpetrated a second offence of the same nature against his gaoler. How would the lion, and learned Gentleman deal with that case? The highest secondary punishment having been inflicted for the first offence, the law could inflict no additional punishment for the second. On the ground that there were many cases which could not be properly dealt with if the punishment of death were abolished, he was willing to leave that punishment on the statute books, trusting for any necessary mitigation of it to a wise exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

thought, that the apprehension of death was a powerful motive to deter men from the commission of crime, but in inflicting it he would distinguish between such as were perpetrated for the sake of gain, and such as were the result of violent passions, visiting the latter much more severely than the former.

could not understand upon what principle they distinguished between murder and an attack with intent to murder. Would they keep the prisoner waiting for his trial till they ascertained whether the victim would die? Would they try a man to day for the minor offence, when the next day his crime might be murder? He should certainly vote against the clause.

said, that he could not agree to that clause either. The law as established four years ago drew a distinction between burglary with violence to the person, and many offences amounting to burglary which were comparatively of a trifling nature, but all of which had been indiscriminately punished with death. The consequence was, that in more than 300 cases of all that had occurred the punishment of death had not been inflicted, and, indeed, there were very few in which it had. Within the last year seven persons had been tried for that offence, but of them four had been convicted—a sufficient proof that this was not one of that class of offences in which juries had exhibited a reluctance to convict. He need not enlarge upon the heinous nature of the offence—breaking into a house in the dead of the night and committing violence upon the inmates. At first the abolition of the capital punishment might not increase the amount of crime, but he was by no means sure that they could reckon upon that as a permanent effect. Times might come when distress or other causes might produce a great deal of crime, and when, in order to arrest the course of that crime, it might become necessary to inflict the punishment of death. He had heard nothing to persuade him that the fear of death was not likely to deter men from the commission of crime—of course, if the punishment was not to be inflicted it would not deter, but, if it were, the argument that it would not deter men from committing crimes seemed to him a refinement incompatible with all their experience.

agreed with the noble Lord as to the heinous nature of the offence, and should be the last man to make any proposal which, in his opinion, could diminish that protection which the community had a right to expect from the law; but he proposed this measure because it would rather increase than diminish that protection. He would not repeat the arguments which he had before urged, and which had not been answered by the noble Lord; but he begged to point out to the noble Lord the evidence of a determination on the part of the people to make considerable advances on this subject: that was to be found in the decision which had taken place to-night, when the whole weight of the Government had only been sufficient in rather a full House to obtain a majority of 122 over 110. He entreated the House to consider whether by continuing these punishments it would not increase and extend crime.

believed that there had been no execution during the last three years for this kind of offence, and the consequence was, that juries were willing to convict, acting upon the belief that the capital punishment would not be inflicted.

believed that juries paid a little more regard to their oaths than the hon. Member gave them credit for. His objection was as strong to this clause as to the one which preceded it. Midnight burglary was one of the most heinous offences, and he could not understand how this mistaken philanthropy would afford the community protection against it.

said, that, in his support of this measure, he was actuated by no false philanthropy—but he was convinced that, by making men accustomed to blood, they also made them more regardless of shed- ding it; they made them brutes, and then they complained that they were brutes. The noble Lord opposite had given no answer to the remark of the hon. Member for Wigan. The question was, not what juries ought to do, but what they did do? Had the noble Lord never heard of juries finding that 7l. 10s. 6d. of the current coin of the realm was less than 40s.; because, if the sum were above that amount the crime became capital? Many such instances had occurred, and would again, unless the degree and nature of punishment were adapted to the state of feeling in the community. Numerous executions did not prevent crime; let the House look to the result of the amelioration of the law which took place in 1833 as to burglary. In the six years ending December, 1832, fifty-six persons had been executed for that crime; and in the six years ending December, 1838, three persons had been executed; and during the former period there had been 5,199 committals, whilst during the latter there had only been 4,621. And the same was the effect throughout the whole catalogue of crimes. He agreed in the observation of the hon. and learned Member, that if the independent voice of the House had been taken on a former clause it would have been carried, but the votes of the Treasury bench had turned the scale.

then said, that he should not proceed farther with the bill at present. He had introduced it with no other intention than that of ameliorating the criminal laws of the country, and he thought it due to the many hon. Gentlemen who had supported him to say that, had it not been opposed in its principal clauses by the whole weight of the Government, he should have been enabled to carry it. But when he found the public opinion, and the opinion of so many hon. Members in the House, were opposed by the whole power of Government, it would be vain for him to continue, and he felt that he would best consult the convenience of the House and the interests involved in the bill itself by not proposing to carry it further that evening. The noble Lord had himself brought forward a bill for the amendment of criminal punishment, in which in some cases capital punishment was abolished. Should the noble Lord go on with that bill with the expedition which he had it in his power to command, and use that influence which would show a prospect of its being carried immediately, he should not further trouble the House with his present bill. Although the Government would not thus go the length which he could wish, they would still do much. He should beg leave to move, that the Chairman report progress.

begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was from that the Ministerial side of the House that the bill had been supported, and that it had met its opposition from the other side. He hoped that, under some Government, a bill carrying out the full principle of the hon. and learned Member, would be made the law of the land.

said, the hon. Member had mistaken him, if he thought that he was not conscious that he had received the warmest and most effective support from the other side of the House. He felt that if the bill, or any similar bill, should ever be brought into that House, it would be at least supported by a great majority of those who sat on the other side of the House.

I cannot but think that it was my duty, as a Member of the Government and as Secretary of State, taking a great part in the administration of the criminal laws, and who had some part in the amendment of the criminal laws, to state my opinion of the general propositions made by the lion, and learned Gentleman which to me went to justify me in supporting them, after the best judgment I could form upon them. In so far the hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to complain of me. He has no right to complain either of my influence upon the Gentlemen of this side of the House, for the support he had received was from this side, while my views were supported by Gentlemen opposite. But this question has, in fact, been as fairly debated in this House as it could be expected. It. is my intention to go on with the bills which I have introduced, and as the hon. Gentleman will not proceed with this further at present, I shall lose no time in going on with mine. I understand that the chief points of the bill have been agreed to.

said, it would never have entered into any other person's head than that of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, to think of this bill as a party question.

had resolutions to propose relative to the corporation of Manchester, which he wished to explain. A contest had been going on in Manchester with reference to the validity of the charter of incorporation, and he, although unconnected with the town, had been asked to arbitrate between the contending parties. He had consented to do so, when his attention was called to this bill, and it was suggested to him that the fairest mode would be, not to oppose the bill, but to get inserted in it clauses embodying the principle of his arbitration. In that way he had undertaken the clauses which he now wished to have inserted. In the first clause he should propose to confirm the charter of incorporation and the commission of the peace, and the grant of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace; and that the costs of obtaining or opposing such grants should be paid by both sides. The other clauses would be to grant compensation to three officers, the coroner, the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the town of Manchester. The only argument he had heard against the compensation to the coroner was, that the corporation had advertised for a coroner, and he was coroner previous to the Corporation Act being applied. It was said, that he was therefore out of the pale. The hon. Member further observed, that the Gentleman for whom he was desirous of obtaining compensation, had held the office of clerk to the magistrates for thirty-five years—under magistrates of all parties and politics, and he would still have been in that office, had it not been for the granting of the new charter of incorporation to Manchester. He could say much, too, were it necessary to do so, of the good private character of that Gentleman. He had it also in his power to say, that lawyers of considerable eminence had given a very decided opinion, that though these cases might not come under the Corporation Act, yet that they comprised the strongest claim to compensation. He (Mr. Patten) was anxious to set himself right with the hon. Member for Manchester, whom he then saw before him, with respect to what had been said of his having unnecessarily put himself forward in this matter, and meddled with cases which did not come under his province to interfere with. The fact was, that he was one of those to whose arbitration it had been agreed to leave the subject, the council of the corporation, as he understood, having agreed, should the decision be favourable to the claim, to give compensation. Indeed, he had been at last asked by both parties to bring the question forward, and had consequently done so. He therefore trusted the House would consent to the clauses he had to propose. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the two following clauses:—

"And whereas, questions are pending as to the validity of the charter of incorporation granted to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Manchester, in pursuance of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or of some subsequent act, be it declared and enacted, that the said charter of incorporation, and also the commission of the peace, and grant of a separate court of quarter sessions of the peace, issued or granted to the said borough, and all acts and proceed- ings done or had in pursuance thereof, shall be deemed good and lawful from the time of such grant, acts, and proceedings, and that all costs and expenses which have been incurred before the passing of this act in and about the obtaining, establishing, or opposing any such grant, act, or proceeding, or in or about the holding of any inquest by any coroner within the said borough, or all costs already incurred, or to be hereafter incurred, in or about the prosecution, conveyance, or maintenance of any persons having committed any offences within the said borough by the said corporation, or person or persons whomsoever, shall be paid and discharged by the council of the said borough, and out of a rate to be made assessed, and levied for that purpose by the council of the said borough, in the nature of a borough-rate or otherwise, as the said council shall think fit, which rate may be recovered in the same manner as any borough-rate is recoverable under the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or under any subsequent act framed for the amendment thereof, such costs and charges, without prejudice to any contract respecting the maintenance of prisoners, being ascertained and settled in each case by the recorder of tin borough.

"And whereas, by reason of a grant of a charter of incorporation to the borough of Manchester, the coroner for the county palatine of Lancaster, acting within the division of Manchester, the clerk of the peace for the said county palatine, and the clerk of the justices of the peace appointed under an act passed in the 53rd year of the reign of King George the 3rd, for the more effectual administration of the office of a justice of the peace, and to the other justices of the peace acting within the said division of Manchester, have been deprived of their fees and emoluments arising from their respective offices within the said borough, and it is expedient that compensation be therefore made to them in like manner as if they had been officers of a borough before the passing of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, who were removed from their offices under the provisions of that act; be it therefore enacted, that the said coroner, and clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices shall be entitled to have an adequate compensation, to be assessed by the council, and paid out of the borough fund of the said borough, for the fees and emoluments of their several offices arising within such borough, and that all provisions of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty relating to the claim of any corporate officer for compensation, on account of being removed from his office, and to the manner of securing and determining the amount of such compensation, shall apply, except as hereinafter provided, to the said coroners, clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices; provided always, that the statement to be delivered to the town-clerk by each such officer shall set forth the amount of the fees and emoluments in respect whereof he shall claim compensation during five years next preceding the grant of the charter of incorporation to the borough respecting which such claim is made, and that, in estimating the amount of compensation, each of the said officers shall be deemed to have held his office for the term of his life."

disclaimed any imputation against the hon. Gentleman of having brought these cases forward on frivolous grounds, and that was not what he rose to complain of. What he complained of was, that the hon. Gentleman should have paid too much attention to communications which had been made to him subsequently to the periods to which he had referred. He had presented many petitions to that House against these claims, and the strongest which he had presented had been drawn up by a gentleman who was of decidedly conservative opinions. The case was now in this state—its opponents were absolutely asked to be bought off by a sum of money to be paid by the ratepayers of Manchester, in order to prevent the corporation question from going before the House of Lords. He could not speak in too strong terms of the petition which had been got up by the anti-corporators, out of all the signatures to which only 6,000 had been found to be genuine. He considered, then, that the ratepayers of the borough would be very forgetful of what was due to themselves if they were to be led into paying the money which they were called on to pay by the clauses brought forward by the hon. Member. The ratepayers had had immense expenses to encounter, and they were now called upon to make further sacrifices by the payment of money in quarters in which they were not bound to pay it. He had lately been at Manchester, and he had not met with a single individual who did not deprecate the idea of such clauses as those now proposed to be inserted in the bill before the House. The borough of Manchester would rather go on as it now did, and remain without a court of quarter sessions, and he must confess he had rather see that alteration than that it should petition Parliament in favour of those claims; and it was worthy of remark, that one of the gentlemen with whom the hon. Member had been in consultation upon the subject was a gentle-man who was himself personally interested in the question, and ought not, therefore, to have ventured to give the advice he had. Besides, it was notorious, that the gentleman who claimed compensation as town-clerk of Manchester had, some years ago, when a bill had been brought forward in that House, the object of which was to give stipendiary magistrates to that borough, tried his utmost to have his own name inserted as clerk to the magistrates for life. That attempt was, however, rejected at the time, but it certainly was one which ought to be mentioned, in connexion with the present efforts to compensate that gentleman, as an additional argument against the propriety of doing so. With regard to the bill of the hon. and learned Attorney-general, they might throw it out if they thought proper to do so, for there certainly could not be supposed to be any particular desire on the part of the ratepayers of Manchester to have thrown on their shoulders expenses which would be the consequence of the measure. But the ratepayers were honourable men, and had no wish to throw upon others the burdens to which they would themselves be exposed. They would discharge their duties like honest men, but, he was sure, they would never consent to be bullied into an arrangement to which they had no right to be expected to consent. The gentleman who had had the door shut against him as coroner had no one but himself to blame for the position in which he found himself, and he had done himself great injury by the course he had since taken, by holding double inquests, and pursuing a Vexatious course. If all parties in the position of those who made these claims, were to come forward and ask for compensation, it would be establishing a precedent for all other towns which might hereafter find it necessary, that they should have their courts held more frequently than they were under their present system. Besides, if it was so necessary, that these officers should be compensated, why was it that some few years ago, the deputy-constable of Manchester had not been compensated when he was obliged to give up his office from infirmity, and was left in a destitute state? With regard to the charter of the corporation of Manchester, the judges had decided it to be a good one, and it would be most unjust to a great community such as that of the town he had the honour to represent, to attempt to saddle them with the consequences of clauses like those now proposed, and with the introduction of which the rate-payers had nothing whatever to do. With respect to what had been elsewhere said of a compromise having been desired on their part upon the subject, all he could say was, that the greatest misrepresentations had gone abroad upon the matter, and the council and the rate-payers had never entertained any such desire. He hoped, therefore, these clauses would be withdrawn, or if not, that the committee would reject them.

observed, that whereas it had been said, that the corporation had had nothing to do with the recommendation of these clauses, it was a member of the corporation, and a rate-payer, who had called upon him at his Own house, upon the subject of them.

asserted, that no member of the corporation had ever been authorised by that body to make any application to any one in favour of the objects of the hon. Gentleman's clauses.

said, that this was a public bill, and the object of it was to enable the borough, without having a gaol, to contract with the adjoining county for the maintenance of its prisoners. It gave the borough the power to do that, and to build one for itself if it thought proper to do so, providing for the rate which was to pay for it. But certain clauses were now proposed to be inserted in a public bill, which were intended only to apply to Manchester, and which would not apply to Birmingham, for instance, or to other places. He must, therefore, give such clauses his opposition. And he hoped the committee would let the bill pass in the shape in which he had introduced it, because it would thus allow the quarter sessions to proceed with the necessary business, and the counties of Lancaster and Warwick to be relieved from burdens from which they ought to be liberated.

trusted, that the House would not pass the bill without providing compensation for the officers who would have lost their places by the incorporation of Manchester, and thereby carry out the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. With regard to the charter itself, the opinion of the judges had certainly been given, but it had not been given on the main question connected with that subject, which, be the fault where it might, in that he expressed no opinion, had never been brought before them. Let the com- mittee suppose for a moment, that the case before them had been that of an office in any other town, and the holder of it had been deprived of it by the operation of the Municipal Reform Bill, would not the officer, in such case, be entitled to compensation? Would it not be injustice then, to deprive an officer of a borough of compensation under a bill which carried out the principle of that measure? When a charter was granted which took away his office, would they deprive him of the power of bringing his action to try his right and title to compensation for his loss? That House would never, he was sure, reconcile itself to such an act of injustice, when it had allowed compensation in cases which arose under the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. If the corporation had wanted to avoid compensating the coroner, they should have made him, at least, a tender of continuance in the office he held. But, because, for sooth, the coroner of Manchester would not consent to ask the new corporation of that borough to continue him in his office, therefore, he was to be deprived of it, and without compensation ! He trusted, however, that the House would not pass this bill without including compensation in its provisions. It was said there was a coroner for Bolton, and a coroner for Birmingham also, but was that any ground why the coroner for Manchester should not be compensated because the other coroners were not? If so, the Attorney-general was bound to bring in a bill to provide for their compensation also, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman, or some other Member should do so, he would certainly give it his support. The hon. and learned Member concluded by urging on the committee the propriety of making no exception as to the cases included in the proposed clauses.

said, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to be discussing anything but the clause really under consideration; and, with respect to that clause, he thought it the summit of human impudence. It was neither more nor less than an offer of compromise by the parties opposed to the corporation of Manchester, and went the length of saying, that if the whole of their expenses were paid, they would terminate all further litigation, and this notwithstanding they had been defeated at nisi prius, in the Queen's Bench, and before the Exchequer Chamber. He trusted, however, that the House would not sanction a proposition at the same time so impudent and preposterous.

denied that there had been any decision by the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer Chamber, in favour of the charter of the corporation of Manchester, because the Judges had, in point of fact, decided nothing.

said, that the matter had been fully argued, both by his hon. and learned Friend and himself before the Exchequer Chamber, and that although his hon. and learned Friend had raised a score of objections, they were all over-ruled by a majority of the judges present. The parties, it was true, might appeal to the House of Lords; but their doing so would be fruitless.

would not say what the House of Lords might or might not do, but this he would say, that although the matter had been argued in the Exchequer Chamber, owing to the form of the bill of exceptions to the ruling of the judge at nisi prius, the judges in the Exchequer Chamber declined to give any opinion.

withdrew the first clause, and proposed to take the sense of the House on the second or compensation clause.

supported the claim of the coroner to compensation, and said, that if public officers, elected by the people for life, were to be deprived of their offices without redress of any kind, great injustice would be inflicted. If this were liberty, all he could say was, that the less they heard of it the better. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman who moved the clause, whether it would not be better to make distinct propositions of each case, and propose that of the coroner first.

said, he should be glad to adopt the suggestion, if he could do so, but he feared he could not.

said, that he was quite willing to entertain the case of the coroner, but with respect to the other cases, he would give them his strenuous opposition.

was perfectly ready to go seriatim through the case, and to commence with that of the coroner, provided the House allowed the clause to be read a second time.

knew nothing of the merits of the cases of these parties, but he thought the better way would be to introduce a general clause for compensation, and leave it to another tribunal to decide upon the claims of each party. This was the course adopted under the Corporation Reform Bill. At present, he was not in a situation to vote in either way.

said, in several cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the Treasury decided that the old coroner was not entitled to compensation.

said, that this was not only the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, but likewise of the Court of Queen's Bench. Although coroners were elected by the people, still, if they became incapable of discharging the functions of their office by any means, the Lord Chancellor had power to appoint additional coroners to assist them, who would not only participate in their duties, but fees. This might, before long, be the case in the instance of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. With respect to the clause, it applied only to the coroner of Manchester, and he wished it to apply to all the other coroners likely to be affected by this bill.

observed, that in those cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the magistrates were empowered to award compensation to the party sustaining loss by the arrangement.

again supported the claim of the coroner of Manchester, and said, that even if the Lord Chancellor were to exercise his power of appointing other coroners in Middlesex, he would not trouble the House with any claim for compensation.

wished to know what was the question before the House?

replied, that the clause be read a first time.

suggested, whether it would not be better to alter the clause in such a way as would enable them to take the sense of the committee on the individual claim of the coroner?

replied, that he was anxious to do so if he could, but he feared he could not, unless they allowed the clause to be read a second time.

said, that the hon. Gentleman might strike out from the clause everything except that which related to the coroner.

thought it would be better to drop the clause altogether, and bring it up in another form on the third reading of the bill.

said, he would endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, by making each claim a distinct clause.

said that, although he wished justice to be done to all parties, still he could not see why the coroners and officers of other boroughs whom the bill would effect, should not be placed in as good a situation as the coroner of Manchester.

had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, with respect to the clerk of the peace of Lancaster, his claim stood on peculiar grounds, and, therefore, he could not risk losing a vote in favour of it.

thought the better way would be to withdraw the clause, and propose one generally for compensation.

thought the committee ought to allow the clause to be read a second time.

said, if they proceeded in this way, the better course for the House to pursue would be, to reject any clause for compensation.