enim sanctius, quid omni religione muni- The only other class of offences was that of forgery, on which he was certainly not prepared to bring in any bill to alter the law; and he thought the hon. and learned gentleman had laid too much stress on what he had stated as the au- d e of f cord on which doubt might arise.-On the subject of increasing the efficacy of secondary punishments, it might be observed, that at present we had transportation to Botany Bay, but that from change of circumstances in the colony, it was now extremely difficult to make a punishment of sufficient severity. As to the hulks, though abuses might have heretofore existed, he was, from a full consideration of the subject, assured, not alone that these abuses had ceased, but that such a system of punishment, operating in confinement and labour on the public works, had, as far as it went, a beneficial tendency. There were at present 3,000 persons confined in that way. Considerable improvements had taken place in the management of our gaols; but though the efficiency of the tread-mill was acknowledged, yet it was not a species of punishment to be applied for fourteen years. There was another species of secondary punishment which he thought might be very efficacious to the suppression of crime; namely, a combination of hard labour and expatriation to some of the colonies, the Bermudas for instance, where public works were carrying on. With that view, it was his intention to propose a bill which would get rid of banishment, as the law now stood, and substitute expatriation and hard labour in some of the colonies. He had now stated the various points on which he differed, and on which he concurred, with the hon. and learned gentleman. He had stated his intentions so far as they agreed, either to originate measures, or to concur in those which the hon. and learned gentleman might propose. As, however, there remained others on which they disagreed, it was his intention to propose the previous question on the first resolution, leaving it open to the hon. and learned gentleman to propose, if he thought proper, separate measures for those parts of the question on which they differed. Mr. Fowell Buxton rose, amidst loud cries of "question!" He observed, that the lateness of the hour alone prevented him from replying at length to the speech of the right hon. secretary. All he should then say was, that that speech had greatly disappointed him. He contended, that the recorded pledge of the House could be most imperfectly redeemed by the measures proposed by the right hon. gentleman, under the operation of which there would not be saved one human life in the course of ten years. He hoped his hon. and learned friend would not withdraw his motion on the subject of larceny in dwelling-houses. He had hoped and believed, that his majesty's ministers would have gone further than, from their declaration of that night, they proposed to go; and, relying upon this hope, he had dissuaded many persons from petitioning the House on this very important subject. Mr. Scarlett said, he could not concur with his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, as to the impression which the speech of the right hon. secretary was calculated to make. It was with great satisfaction that he had heard that speech, and he could not but rejoice, that the efforts to ameliorate our criminal code, which had been so long and so strenuously made, had at length succeeded, and that his majesty's ministers not only acceded to the principle, but proposed to sanction a series of measures in conformity with that principle. He could not, however, agree with the right hon. gentleman's reasoning with respect to the discretion vested in the executive power as to the punishment of death. If that were admitted, it would apply to every crime. He had not seen the resolutions of his hon. and learned friend before that evening. He was ready to support any measure which went to the mitigation of the punishment for forgery; but he did not see the necessity, because he did not see the advantage, of the House being at that time pledged to any specific mode of mitigation, the principle being already admitted. For his own part, he was desirous of having an opportunity of saying, upon each resolution, whether he would adopt the previous question or not; and his hon. and learned friend must not think that, because he did not approve of every part of his resolutions, he was, therefore, unfriendly to their principle. He rejoiced that the day had at length arrived when those principles which his late la mented friend, sir Samuel Romilly, had long endeavoured to introduce met with the general concurrence of the government. His majesty's minister had confessed himself a convert to the opinion, that severity of punishment was not the most expedient method of repressing crimes; that punishment ought to be consonant to the feelings and sympathies of mankind; and that those feelings ought to be enlisted on the side of the administration of justice. The Attorney General observed, that even the sweeping resolutions of his hon. and learned friend would be inefficient to their proposed object. How did his hon. and learned friend propose to meet the case of larceny in cottages left unprotected in the day time, to which the existing law affixed a capital punishment? He complained that his hon. and learned friend had taken the House by surprise, in not having stated previously the specific nature of his motion, even to his own friends. The House, he thought, would require some notice before they would consent to adopt resolutions, each of them involving topics that would require separate discussion. Mr. R. Martin begged leave to suggest to his hon. and learned friend, that if it was his intention to follow up his resolutions with bills, it would be injudicious to risk the fate of those bills by pressing the resolutions to a division. Many members who would vote against the resolutions might vote for every one of the bills. If, however, his hon. and learned friend persisted in dividing the House, he would vote with him. Sir J. Mackintosh, in reply, said, that he would trespass but a few minutes to explain the part which he should take with respect to the resolutions. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, in rejoicing that the principles of his late lamented friend, sir S. Romilly, had been adopted to any extent; but he would have rejoiced still more, if they had been adopted more extensively; for, with the exception of one bill, the whole appeared to him to be a delusion. The conduct of his majesty's ministers upon this subject reminded him of an expression of a friend of his, with respect to another person, that he was a great friend to general principles, but had an exception for every particular case. With respect to the first resolution, he would ask, how often had the House of Commons voted for the very measure to which it pointed? Would the right hon. gentleman advise the House to undo what it had done? To retrace its steps and forfeit its pledge to the country? In proposing the resolutions, he only wished to take the sense of the House in a popular way. The question was precisely the same as if he had moved for leave to bring in a bill; at the utmost, it only went to add another stage to its progress, and it was absurd to talk of such a thing as an irrevocable stage, the bill being as liable to be thrown out in one stage as in another. He should certainly persist in taking the sense of the House upon his first resolution. If the previous question were carried upon that, he should only put the other resolutions, for the sake of recording his opinion upon the Journals of the House. He should not take upon himself to introduce any other measures for amending the criminal code; because he must foreknow their fate. If the right hon. gentleman had the skill to induce the House to retract its solemn pledge given last year, he felt that, as a humble member of parliament, he could not resist such an influence. The previous question, "That the question be now put," being put, the House divided: Ayes, 76. Noes, 86. Majority against sir J. Mackintosh's motion, 10. The previous question was then put on the other eight resolutions, and negatived. Martin, H. Newport, sir J. Normanby, visc. O'Callaghan, J. Osborne, lord F. Palmer, C. F. Philips, G, Philips, G. H. jun. Price, R. Poyntz, W. S. Ramsden, J. C. Rice, T. S. Ricardo, D. Ridley, sir M. W. Robarts, A. Campbell, hon. G. P. Nugent, lord Carter, John Cavendish, H. Chaloner, R. Colborne, N. R. Denman, T. Duncannon, visc. Ebrington, visc. Ellice, E. Evans, W. Fergusson, sir R. C. Foley, S. H. H. Folkestone, visc. Frankland, R. Grattan, J. Griffith, J. W. Gordon, R. Grant, G. M. Hobhouse, J. C. Handley, H. Hume, J. Knight, R. Lennard, T. B. Lloyd, sir E. Robarts, G. Scarlett, J. Robinson, sir G. Smith, J. Smith, W. Smith, hon. R. Stanley, lord Tennyson, C. Tierney, right hon. G. Tynte, C. K. Vernon, G, V. BULL-BAITING AND DOG-FIGHTS.] Mr. R. Martin moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit Bull-baiting and Dog-fights. Mr. Brougham said, he was a friend to the principle of any measure calculated to put an end to animal or human sufferings; but it was an objection to the present bill, that it did not go far enough. It aimed at the prevention of sports which formed the amusement of the lower orders, but did not interfere with those in which the more wealthy and powerful classes indulged. He would ask whether fishing, grouse-shooting, hare-hunting, horse-racing, fox-hunting, and other diversions of the same kind, were not every whit as cruel as those against which the bill was levelled? When on a former occasion it had been urged that if the latter animals were not destroyed, they would overrun the earth, the late Mr. Windham had said, that that was a poor argument as regarded fishing. There was a sound as well as a ludicrous way of treating this subject; but it was enough for him at present to take an objection to it, because it tended to draw a distinction between the lower and higher classes of his majesty's subjects, with respect to amusements in which there was equal cruelty. He therefore gave notice of his intention to oppose the bill in every stage. Mr. R. Martin said, that the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman was most absurd. It was as much as to say, that if five hundred persons were cast upon a rock on a desolate island, and all could not be saved, the attempt should not be made to save any of them. Mr. Peel objected to the motion, because it belonged to a class of subjects which he did not think fit for legislation in this manner. Mr. John Smith said, that so far as dog-fighting was concerned, he would vote for the bill. He understood that, in the very neighbourhood of the House, amusements, as they were miscalled, of the most gross and brutal kind were carried on. Such proceedings ought to be discouraged; and the motion of the VOL. IX. hon. gentleman should have his voice, even though he stood alone. He Mr. W. Smith was happy that his hon. friend had introduced this subject. hoped it would be successful, because he was convinced that a bill of this nature would be advantageous to the character of the lower classes of Englishmen. The practice of bull-baiting, dog-fighting, and badger-baiting, did not, whatever might be said to the contrary, add to the real courage of Englishmen. But it tended to keep up and extend a brutal ferocity, which was not advantageous to the country in any point of view. The argument which was founded on the impropriety of interfering with the amusements of the poor, while those of the rich were left untouched, would, if examined, be found fallacious. The pain which animals suffered in the one instance, was incidental and unavoidable, and the rich man would be better pleased if he could prevent its occurrence; but, in the other instance, the degree of pleasure in the spectator was proportioned to the quantity of suffering which was inflicted on the animal. If the conduct of those who pursued such pastimes were examined, he believed it would be found that their proceedings during the night were just as cruel and as lawless as they were throughout the day. Sir M. W. Ridley could not agree with the hon. gentleman, that dog-fighting or bull-baiting had such a tendency to render men savage and ferocious. In his younger days he had witnessed some of these exhibitions; and as they had not made him ferocious, he thought they would not have a different effect on the people in general. Such subjects as these he considered to be far beneath the dignity of legislation. If the House entertained such questions, they would next be called on to provide a fit punishment for the slaying of cock-chafers and the destruction of flies. Mr. R. Martin wished to know whether leave would be given him to bring in a bill merely to protect dogs; and whether, if he withdrew his motion now, he would be allowed to bring it forward at a more advanced period of the session? [Cries of " No, no."] Mr. Fowell Buxton expressed a hope that his hon. friend would not be prevailed upon to withdraw his motion. The same arguments had been urged against his former bill, the effects of which were 2 F found to be so salutary. As to the tendency of such sports, he could state the case of a boy, who, from attending at dog-fights, and mixing with the society there, became perverted in character, and lost to every useful purpose in society. He was less fortunate than the hon.baronet opposite, for his morals were corrupted. Mr. Brougham wished to ask his hon. friend, whether he had ever taken the trouble to analyse the component parts of the company at a horse race? The House then divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 47. HOUSE OF LORDS. appeared to him impossible that the true meaning of the standing order could be such as was contended for yesterday. It evidently applied to cases where parliament were about to restrain trade by some additional statutory regulations. Now, the object of the bill which he had brought in was not to restrain trade, but to throw it open. He might infer from the history of that standing order, that such was the intent and meaning of the House in adopting it, as well as of the hon. gentleman who was the mover of it. It was true, in common parlance, if a person said he would take away certain restrictions, it might be affirmed that he was regulating_that_to which those restrictions applied. But such was not the feeling of the House when the order of June 20 was proposed. How did the matter stand with respect to this particular case? Some years ago, the House had, by a particular bill, imposed certain regulations on the silk trade, and those regulations they were now about to remove. Surely that could not justly be called regulating a trade, but taking away all the regulations. If the house intended to extend the Spitalfields act to every part of the country, that would be impos Thursday, May 22. AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND.] The Marquis of Lansdown said, he would beg leave to ask the noble earl opposite, whether any communication had been made to him of any treaty, convention, or stipulation for the military occupation of Switzerland by the Austrian army. He was not enabled to state that such an arrangement had been concluded; but it was reported throughout the country that such was the case, and even that the treaty was signed in March last. It coulding new restraints; and, in the language not escape their lordships, that this was a question of the highest importance to the affairs of Europe, and one on which it was particularly necessary the House should be informed. The Earl of Liverpool said, he had never even heard of the report to which the noble marquis alluded, until within the last half hour from the noble marquis himself. After that, it was hardly neces sary for him to say that he had no know ledge, either personal or official, of any treaty, convention, or stipulation, of the nature stated by the noble marquis. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 22. STANDING ORDER RESPECTING BILLS ON TRADE.] Mr. Huskisson said, he had given notice yesterday that he meant to call the attention of the House this evening, to the objection which had been taken against proceeding with any bill intended for the regulation of trade, unless the subject were first referred to a select committee, in conformity with the Standing Order of that House, agreed to on the 23d of June, 1820. After the best consideration he could give the subject, it of parliament, regulating the trade. There the order would apply. But what was there in this bill to regulate trade, when, by it, all regulations were to be removed? On examining the Journals, he had found, that in the very week after the adoption of this standing order, there were half a dozen bills in progress through the House, all of which went to regulate trade; one related to the bounty on salt, another to the stamping of linen, &c.; none of which were previously referred to a select committee. The old standing order was a very different thing. It directed, that no bill for regulating trade generally, should be brought before the House, until the subject had been considered by a committee of the whole House, and their report had been made thereon. What situation, then, would they be placed in, if the interpretation now sought to be given to the order of 1820 were correct? Why, after a committee of the whole House had examined a question, and reported that certain alterations were necessary, it must be again referred to a select committee, to inquire whether that which had been agreed to by the committee of the whole House, was or was not proper. They had, for instance, a committee on trade. |