Mr. Martin could not make up his mind to the total abolition of the punishment of death; but if such a measure were to be adopted, it should at all events be carried slowly into effect. He had, therefore, heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement with great satisfaction. The Solicitor General said, he should be sorry if the measure of his right hon. friend should be construed into a prelimi death. He believed great alarm would be excited in the country if it was understood that this was only a preparatory step to that measure. Whatever might be the opinions of enlightened persons, the country at large was not prepared for the abolition of capital punishments. If the measure was found to work well, then the House might go a little further. would attend to the Departmental Bill as [ well as to that for which he had that evening moved. While, however, he admitted the great obligations which the country owed to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had already done, and while he was anxious not to urge him beyond a wholesome speed, being satisfied, on the contrary, that to outrun the public feeling, or to create an alarm out of doors, would be most pernicious to a system which could be ad-nary for abolishing the punishment of vantageously supported only by public opinion-he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not at once determined to go further. But although the right hon. Gentleman had postponed the consummation for which he (Mr. Spring Rice) wished, he was persuaded that he had not postponed it indefinitely; but that his object was, to approach it by degrees and with caution. On one point, however, in the proposed measure, he would take the liberty of remarking. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain the capital punishment as applicable to the forging of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange. Now, in his opinion, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes stood on different grounds; and however grave the offence of forging Bills of Exchange, it was not to be compared to the offence of forging Promissory Notes, which passed at once, and without difficulty, from hand to hand. He confessed, therefore, that he should think the right hon. Gentleman's Bill more perfect if it removed capital punishment from the offence of forging Bills of Exchange. He wished that the discussion had come on earlier, that he might have entered more into the question. Mr. Alderman Thompson would not acknowledge any difference in the offences of forging Bank Notes and Bills of Exchange. Immense sums were employed in London in the discount of bills, and every protection ought to be given to them against forgery. Mr. Trant thought, the country would be disappointed on learning that a greater mitigation, or rather the total abolition of the punishment of death, had not been proposed. He declared that were he a juryman, and had to give his verdict on a man who had been guilty of sheep-stealing, he would rather commit the minor crime of perjury, by giving a verdict contrary to his oath, than, by condemning the man, be accessory to what he considered nothing short of the crime of murder. Mr. Benson was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as the state of feeling in the country would allow him. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which being done by Mr. Peel, it was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Monday, the 26th of April. HOUSE OF LORD S. Friday, April 2. MINUTES.] The Suits in Equity Bill was read a second [who said that seeing by the Votes of the of the state of the Court of Session Fee Fund, established by the 50th Geo. III. cap. 112, from the 21st June, 1821, to the latest period. Petitions Presented, Against the Renewal of the East Indis Company's Charter-By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Pudsey, Bowling, and Bierley; from Stanningly and Alverthorp:-By Lord HOLLAND, from Swannington, in the County of Derby:-By Lord AUCKLAND, from Hunslet, Gomershall, Soothill, and Shipley-By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Arbroath, for the holding of the Assizes for the West Riding of the County of York, at Wakefield:-By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Henley, Shepley, and Dalton, for the Amelioration of the Criminal Code:-By the BISHOP of London, from the inhabitants of the Tower District, and from Spratton, and Creaton:-By the Earl of CHICHESTER, from Lewes, and by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Warrington, for the removal of Disabilities from the Jews:--By the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Jews inhabiting the West of London, Chatham, and Rochester. [The noble Duke said he warmly supported the prayer of these Petitions.] By Lord KING, from the Jews inhabiting the Southern District of London; and by the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Jews of Portsmouth. For inquiring into the Corpora from Dissenting Congregations at Southport, and North laws to Ireland :--By the Earl of DARNLEY, from John Lawless. ward a bill on that head in the course of the present Session? The Lord Chancellor replied, that he had no intention to propose a measure of the kind at present, and the reason was, that the Amendments suggested by the Real Property Commissioners were SO tion and Crown Lands of Ireland:-By Lord KING, from Thomas Flanagan. Against Suttees By Lord AUCKLAND, Meols:-By Earl GoWER, from Dissenting Congregations at Shelton, Burslem, Lane End, Lane Delph, and New-much connected with each other, that castle-Under-Lyne. And for the Extension of the Poor- it was hazardous to legislate on one point until they had a general view of the whole, and this had been suggested by the Commissioners themselves in their first Report. But the noble Marquis might be assured that he would pay every attention to the subject. GREECE.] Lord Holland, seeing the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to put a question to him on a subject in which the public took much interest. The noble Secretary, at the beginning of the Session, had stated that the negociations relative to the Settlement of Greece were so far advanced, that he hoped soon to be able to lay the papers on the Table. What he wished to ask was, whether any unforeseen delay had occurred? and if there had, whether the delay was on account of mere matter of form or not? The noble Secretary must be well aware that this was a matter in which the public felt a great interest, and therefore it would be desirable that he should mention at what time he expected to be able to lay the papers on the Table. The Earl of Aberdeen could not exactly fix on a time when he should be able to produce the papers; but he had hopes that he should be able to do so soon after the holidays. The noble Earl stated in reply to a further question from Lord Holland, that as to the cause of the delay, there were some points still to be settled; but the three Powers were acting in com⚫plete concert. AMENDMENT OF THE LAW.] The Marquis of Lansdown wished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, relative to the projected Amendments in Law Procedure. In one of the reports of the Real Property Commissioners, they had suggested some most valuable regulations relative to fines and recoveries, the levying and suffering of which were attended with great delay and expense, and hazard. Among the bills brought into the House for carrying into effect the legal improvements, he did not perceive that there was one on the point which he had mentioned; and he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether he had it in view to bring for ALGIERS.] The Marquis of Clanricarde, seeing the noble Foreign Secretary in his place, wished to ask him a question on a subject of considerable importance. Their Lordships were aware that the French were preparing an expedition against Algiers, and he was desirous to know whether the Government of France was in communication with our Government on the subject of that expedition? The Earl of Aberdeen replied, that the two Governments were in communication on the subject, and that Ministers had not observed any indisposition on the part of the French Government to afford the most satisfactory explanations. EAST RETFORD WITNESSES' BILL.] The Marquis of Salisbury rose to move the third reading of the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill. It had been so much the practice to pass bills of this kind under similar circumstances, that he thought it would pass as a matter of course, and therefore he had not given long notice before he brought in this Bill. He certainly had no intention to smuggle it through the House, for he had not anticipated opposition, especially from the noble Lords opposite. Now he understood that a noble Lord (Holland) on the opposite side meant to oppose it on account both of its principle and its provisions. He had, therefore, thought proper to inquire into the practice of their Lordships' House, and he found that it had been the practice to pass bills of that kind, under similar circumstances, for nearly a century. It had happened in three instances lately, and it would be impossible to get the witnesses to attend to give evidence in a case of this kind, unless they were indemnified from the conse quences of criminating themselves. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lords who so ably supported him in the Penryn case would assist him now, and he must say that the noble Lord's opposition came rather late, when it was reserved for the third reading of the Bill. He had moved that witnesses in this case of East Retford should be examined at the Bar of their Lordships' House, and he considered it absolutely necessary so follow up that motion with the bringing in of this Bill to indemnify the witnesses, who could hardly be called upon to answer questions tending to criminate themselves without an indemnity of this description. In so doing, he had only followed the usual practice of their Lordships' House in similar cases. This had been done in the Shoreham case, in 1771, and afterwards in 1782, and in the late cases. But he had thought it his duty to look farther back, and he found that the principle and practice were referred to in an Address of this House relative to the famous case of Ashby and White. It was there stated, that the elective franchise was incident to the freehold, or founded on custom, and constituted a civil right which this House could not take away without an examination of witnesses at the Bar, that the parties who might think themselves aggrieved might have an opportunity of defending themselves and their property. This, then, was evidently the practice of this House for a long time, and was founded on the principle that the House ought to be peculiarly tender in meddling with private property; and that, therefore, every possible opportunity ought to be afforded to the persons affected by a bill like the East Retford Bill, to express their dissent, and to defend themselves and their rights. So peculiarly delicate was the House in meddling with matters of private property, that they had no less than sixteen Standing Orders relating to that particular subjeet. The noble Lord, he understood, meant to contend that there was no reason for examining witnesses at all; but if they did not examine witnesses they had no other alternatives than to throw out the Bill, or condemn the parties unheard, and without allowing them an opportunity to defend themselves and their property. If they did examine witnesses, then, in order to be able to do so with effect, they must pass this Bill of Indemnity. As to the expediency of the thing, he thought that the experience of former precedents was in favour of the Bill in that view, and it was certainly not very fitting that they should by a side wind destroy a practice which had prevailed for such a long series of years. But he had heard that it was the intention of the noble Lord to contend that the examination of witnesses was not necessary in this case, because this was not a disfranchising or a disqualifying bill, but merely a bill to extend the franchise to the Hundred of Bassetlaw. He did not mean to say that he was much of a lawyer, but looking at the common sense of the thing, he thought that it was a very different matter for a person to have an elective franchise, which he exercised as one of a hundred, or one which he exercised as one of a thousand. Upon the whole he thought the examination of witnesses in this case was founded on principle, practice, and precedent, from which their Lordships ought not to depart; and if witnesses were to be examined, it was necessary to pass this Bill. The Lord Holland did not mean to accuse the noble Marquis of attempting to smuggle the Bill through the House, but he regretted that the attention of the House had not been more prominently directed to it in an earlier stage, although he freely acquitted the noble Marquis of an attempt to take the House by surprise. noble Marquis had said that his opposition had come rather late; and he admitted that he ought to have urged his objections when the Bill was brought in, or on the second reading, and if he had done so, it would have been so much more for the advantage of his argument; but, unfortunately, his attention had not been called to it. The noble Marquis had supposed many grounds for his opposition to the Bill, and had endeavoured to upset them, apparently much to his own satisfaction. The noble Marquis had started many hares, but he had not started the real game, which he would find too strong to deal with. His objection was not so much to the principle of the Bill, nor to its provisions, as to the time, the manner, and the circumstances. The bill with reference to which this Bill was brought in, was called a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Borough of East Retford, and he maintained that the examination of witnesses at their Lordships' Bar would be not only useless, but be attended with injury to the public. mons to come to a decision. That eviThe matter had been examined in an dence was brought regularly before a comElection Committee of the other House-petent tribunal (a Select Committee of the the proper tribunal appointed by law for the purpose-and there was no petition either for or against that bill. The precedents mentioned by the noble Marquis did not apply in this case, for it was one in which there was no necessity for the examination of witnesses to prove the preamble of the bill, and therefore no occasion for a bill to save the witnesses from the consequences of criminating themselves. There were three species of bills usually brought before Parliament one sort of bills dealing with Private Property, another sort called bills of Pains and Penalties, and a third sort having for their object some advantage to the community, and called Public Bills. In the cases of the two first of these kinds of bills it might be necessary to call witnesses to prove the allegations in the preambles to the bills; but this was a bill of the third description, or a public bill, in which there was no necessity for calling witnesses to prove the preamble; for, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble Marquis, he maintained that this was not a bill in the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties. He denied that the measure for the disfranchisement of East Retford partook, as was contended, of the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties. It disfranchised no individual by name, and as an individual, its effect merely was, to extend the franchise-it left all who were already in possession still in undisturbed enjoyment of their rights--it only increased the number of those on whom the right was conferred; that certainly would diminish the value of the right, considered merely as a source of profit; but as a trust, which it indisputably was, that view of the question could not be recognised. Neither in the frame or nature of the Bill did it partake of the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties-if it did, the House, in its merciful consideration, would have recourse to those wise and safe forms from which, in no case affecting rights or property, did it ever depart. A most material objection to the Bill then before them was, that it pre-supposed the insufficiency of the evidence upon the Disfranchisement bill; and in his apprehension, it was scarcely an expedient proceeding to declare that evidence insufficient which had enabled the House of Com House of Commons), and he conceived that the evidence then produced would suffice at their Lordships' bar. He asserted that the Bill in question was not a bill of Pains and Penalties, and he did so upon the broad principle that the elective franchise was not a right or a property, but a trust, subject to abuse; and which the Legislature might alter, revoke, modify, or transfer, as it thought proper. If in doing so it produced any consequences injurious to individuals, it would be perfectly competent to them to come before a Parliament whose doors were never closed against those who had real grievances to complain of. The bill respecting Shoreham incapacitated individuals, and was so far different from the East Retford Bill; but he attached no great importance to the precedent, and would not trouble their Lordships with any notice of it; but there could be no doubt that it did inflict punishment upon some individuals, and therefore was in part a bill of Pains and Penalties-it was a bill for putting an end to the fraud, hypocrisy, and corruption of a set of men desiring to assume a plausible appellation-calling themselves a Christian Society-whose object was, to get possession of the borough and bring it to the best market. The bill in that case was to throw the franchise into the neighbouring hundred. The bill, in the emphatic language of Lord Chatham, was a bill having two objects-one of which was, to transfer the elective franchise from the Banks of the Ganges to the English county of Sussex. On account of the mixed nature of the bill, it was considered a bill of Pains and Penalties. In that case evidence was considered necessary; but in the bills introduced in the Cricklade or Aylesbury cases, there was nothing which could warrant their being justly considered as bills of Pains and Penalties. From the notion, indeed, conceived of the double object of the New Shoreham bill, the same course was followed as to evidence in other cases. In the Aylesbury case two petitions were presented, one for and another against the bill, but the course taken by the House in that case was, that the counsel and witnesses in favour of the bill were ordered to withdraw, and the counsel against the bill were heard in the first instance. If the measure to which to examine witnesses they never would have got through the Union question. Nay, further, in Ireland, Peers were deprived of sitting and voting in Parliament, and many boroughs received compensation for the loss they sustained, but no one dreamt of proposing to prove the preamble of the Bill, depriving them of these rights. When that most weighty act was under consideration, no witnesses were examined; but on this trifling matter, the most scrupulous formality was to be observed. The present differed altogether from the common-law rights possessed by freeholders-it was much more to be considered in the light of a trust conferred by a charter. There was also the measure of last year with respect to a large body of freeholders in Ireland, the present bill had reference were a bill of Pains and Penalties, there could be no doubt that the course proposed would be the proper and legitimate course. For the duty of the House would be, to see that the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill were proved. The House acted in some sort in the capacity of a public prosecutor, the onus probandi lay upon it, and it was bound to prove the preamble before it inflicted punishment. In a question of property, likewise, the same course was to be pursued, and for simiAs the persons by whom the privilege was enjoyed held it, not as a property, but as a trust, there could be no question that they stood quite in a different relation from those who came before their Lordships as liable to injury-of men whose right of voting was not, as from a bill of Pains and Penalties. Then, if it should appear-as no doubt it did, from the evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons-that the electors of that borough had been guilty of polluting at its source the other branch of the Legislature-had done all that they could to lower its character and impair its authority-the Parliament, that is, the King, Lords and Commons, were entitled to pass a bill, not for disfranchising those electors so much as for preventing the abuse of the trust reposed in them; and they were entitled to pass that Bill without its being subjected to the incidents of a private bill, or fettered with the forms of a judicial proceeding. The Crown itself had often been limited and regulated, and even transferred from one person to another, and from one family to another, without any examination of witnesses. It would not, he presumed, be denied that that was a vested right, quite as much as any right of election; and it scarcely was expected that the Duke of Savoy would be called to the bar of that House, and heard by counsel, and his witnesses examined, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was a Papist or a person of an arbitrary disposition. When that great and important trust was made the subject of legislation, who could raise a doubt that the Parliament possessed full right to legislate upon the petty and miserable trust which formed the object of the bill under consideration? At the period of the Scotch and Irish Unions, many individuals were deprived of their franchises, and yet no judicial proceedings were instituted-no witnesses were examined: had they begun in the case of corporations, held in trust, but existed by common law. Those men were disfranchised without any evidence being heard at the Bar: on the contrary, their petition to be heard was refused. He owned that his consent to that measure was wrung from him only by his sense of the great benefit of the measure which accompanied it. But that measure of disfranchisement was passed without examining any evidence. Besides, the practice against which he was contending opposed itself to all moderate and gradual reform-for a few of those who might oppose themselves to such reforms might, by interposing objections, and insisting upon strict formalities, create such delays as would defeat any plan of reform. He could not help repeating an often-repeated maxim of Lord Bacon's, that "Time was the greatest of all innovators." The duty of Parliament should be to afford every useful and safe benefit to the innovations of time, by adapting its proceedings to the growth and progress of society, and the altered situation of the country; and if anything could add to their Lordships' motives for such adaptation, it was the necessity which existed that that particular House should interpose and remove any impediments to that wise and salutary reform which time and circumstances demanded; which it was to advance, and which, if they impeded, their duty would lose much of its beneficial effects, but ultimately none of its force. The great Lord Somers had said, that there were some things so plain and evident that they did not admit of legal proof, yet they formed very frequently the best possible |