that the Speaker spoke his own sentiments, not those of the House. He mentioned the word wants, and recommended, that the affair might go no farther, but that the motion might be withdrawn. of those who seemed solicitous to treat both with illiberality and contempt. He said, that the Speech was not only justifiable in point of fact, but might have gone to greater lengths, without incurring any just grounds for censure. However confident some of the gentlemen who spoke latterly in the debate might be, that this country was in a flourishing and prosperous condition, he begged leave to differ from them; the contrary would, nay, must inevitably be the case, if the American war should continue another campaign. It was, therefore, well said in the Speech, that the nation was "labouring under burthens almost too heavy to be borne," and perfectly right, as applied personally to the King, to remind his Majesty of the true state of this country, and the generous efforts of parliament to relieve him in such a season, as the most powerful recommen Mr. Fox spoke in justification of his motion. He said, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ellis) had given, what he should call the watch-word; which had been followed by the Attorney General. He observed, that those gentlemen had founded their argument for withdrawing the motion chiefly on the speech not being the sentiments of the House; whereas the contrary was the fact, and the Journals gave evidence of it. But, however, if those gentlemen and their friends thought differently, as the framer of the motion, he was ready to come to issue on that point with them, and doubted not but he should prevail. He was satisfied that the House would never consent to their own degradation in future to frugality in the expendation and disgrace in the person of their Speaker, nor would ever submit to contradict on a Friday, what they had approved on the Wednesday immediately preceding. He said, among the many censures, and more numerous insinuations, thrown out against the Speech, it was said not to be grammar. He should not enter into nice grammatical distinctions, or trouble himself or the House about a choice of words, or elegancies of expression; but he was sure, if the Speech was not grammar, it abounded in good sense, which was of infinitely greater value, and conveyed the true, unbiassed sense of the House, and of every man on either side, till he was bought over to a sacrifice of his principles and conscience. Mr. Rigby still adhered to his former opinion, and justified his conduct on his right to deliver his sentiments freely on every subject arising in that House, or out of it, if it was a matter properly cognizable there; but he disclaimed the least intention of making any personal reflection on the Chair; and moved "that the House do now adjourn." Governor Johnstone observed, that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had somewhat lowered his tone. He thanked the Speaker for his speech, and applauded his firmness, iu not accepting of any compromise short of immediate reparation, notwithstanding the threats and soothings that had been alternately held out and employed to induce him to recede, and by so doing, sacrifice the dignity of that House, and his own honour, to the desires diture, and œconomy in the management of the bounty they were then conferring on him. He contended, that the situation of this country was truly dreadful; that America was lost, he feared, beyond the power of recovery; nay, he might venture to say, was irretrievably lost; and called upon any, the most confident, on the other side of the House, to rise and contradict him. Lord Ongley objected to the Speech, chiefly on account of the word wants; he insisted it was the Speaker's own sentiments that perhaps he spoke what he felt himself, but he was satisfied they were not the sentiments of the House. He was totally of a different opinion from the hon. gentleman who spoke last. He was satisfied the nation was great and powerful, and abounded in such resources as would render her a match for all her foreign and domestic enemies, whether in America or Europe; and that her situation was such in every respect, as to forbid her to make any concession unbecoming her dignity, or short of her constitutional supreme rights over all the dominions of the British crown, Sir George Savile said, he must condemn in the severest terms the indecent and unparliamentary language which he had heard for the first time, since his entrance into parliament. He was witty on the logic employed by the opposers of the motion, who argued through the whole course of the evening that the Speech was not the sense of the House, because the House had the very day it was spoken de clared their most warm and hearty approbation of it. This might be a ministerial way of drawing conclusions; perhaps experience had long since taught them, that the sense of the House, as declared by a majority, was not its genuine sense; but the very contrary of what it would have been, were the members who composed it at liberty to give their suffrages according to their judgment and consciences, and not according to their interest. Mr. Alderman Sawbridge observed, that some of the leading members on the other side wished to have the matter smuggled; but if that should be the case, and the question for adjournment should be carried, he did not see how the Speaker could occupy that chair a moment longer with propriety or reputation. He said, that the hon. gentleman near him on the floor (Mr. Fox) was perfectly right in observing, that the Speech contained the sentiments of the whole House, if the individuals who composed it had not been bought over to adopt those of other people. He was satisfied that this was not only a general truth, but was supported by particular facts. He was certain that many attempts had been made to bring over gentlemen of parts on his side of the House, and to cause a defection among them from the true interests of their country. It might be easily imagined from what he said, that he did not mean himself, for he was not worth gaining. As to the others, though it had been the fashion to brand all opposition with factious and interested motives, he presumed, a stronger instance of the contrary could not be given, than that they withstood every offer that had been made. It was their integrity that kept them on that side of the House, not any desire of thwarting or embarrassing government, merely for the pleasure of doing so. The idea was preposterous, and though it happened to be the case in some instances, where, he was sorry to say, the persons tampered with, had not the resolution to withstand the temptations, but had fallen; that circumstance, in his opinion, reflected the higher honour on those who remained behind firm and incorruptible. Sir George Yonge said, if the motion of adjournment was carried, it would not be safe for the Speaker to remain an instant longer in his present situation; that he would on all future occasions lie at the mercy of his enemies, and be liable to disgrace whenever he performed his duty, if the faithful discharge of it happened to contradict the opinions of those who were able to command a majority in that House. The effect of an adjournment would be a negative on the motion of approbation, and would virtually charge the Chair with delivering a falshood at the bar of the other House, and of course imparting his own sentiments as the genuine sentiments of the body he was supposed faithfully to represent; which, in fact, if true, was an offence of a very heinous nature. He therefore trusted, that the Speaker would not recede, but would persevere with a spirit and firmness suitable to the important seat he occupied. Mr. Solicitor General Wedderburn said, he wished the affair might be suffered to pass off without taking the sense of the House upon it. Mr. Rigby said, if it was the sense of the House, he was ready to consent that the motion of adjournment should be withdrawn. He had no intention of driving the Speaker from the chair; nor, if he were ever so desirous so to do, was he of power or consequence enough to effect it. He maintained the right of private opinion, and freedom of speech; he meant no more from the beginning; and, as a member of that House, in so doing, he presumed, he had not exceeded his duty. The motion of adjournment was then withdrawn, and the question being put on Mr. Fox's motion, it was carried without a division, almost unanimously. As soon as the motion was carried, Mr. Serjeant Adair moved, "That the Thanks of this House be returned to Mr. Speaker for his said Speech to his Majesty," which was likewise agreed to. Debate in the Commons on the Bill for the better Securing Dock Yards, &c.] May 13. The House went into a Committee on a Bill" for the better securing and preserving the dock-yards, magazines, ships, vessels, stores, warehouses, goods, and merchandizes, being the property of private persons within the kingdom of Great Britain." Sir Charles Bunbury moved to fill up the blank with the words "benefit of clergy." Mr. Combe. Whoever reads your statute book, and sees how many crimes are punished with death, which are much less heinous than burning of ships, I am surprized any gentleman should not think it high time to put to death such dangerous incendiaries. It is true, John the Painter | was hanged for burning Portsmouth dock, because there is an act of parliament that makes it death to burn royal docks; but there is no act of parliament to hang men for burning merchant ships or warehouses; for if John the Painter had burnt all the ships and warehouses in Bristol, he would not have been hanged; and I must think the example of death full as proper in one case as in the other. Sir William Meredith. I agree with my hon. friend, that no greater crime can be committed than the wilful setting fire to merchant ships, which may endanger not only lives and property, but public safety. I should think this crime, above all others, fit to be punished with death, if I could suppose the infliction of death at all useful in the prevention of crimes. But, in subjects of this nature, we are to consider, not what the individual is, nor what he may have done; but only what is right for public example and private safety. heroes and martyrs inspire good men in a good cause, the abandoned villain feels in seeing a desperado like himself meet death with intrepidity. The penitent thief, on the other hand, often makes the sober villain think this way. Himself oppressed with poverty and want, he sees a man die with that penitence which promises pardon for his sins here, and happiness hereafter; straight he thinks, that by robbery, forgery, or murder, he can relieve all his wants; and if he be brought to justice, the punishment will be short and trifling, and the reward eternal. Even in crimes which are seldom or never pardoned, death is no prevention. House-breakers, forgers, and coiners, are sure to be hanged; yet housebreaking, forgery, and coining, are the very crimes which are oftenest committed. Strange it is, that in the case of blood, of which we ought to be most tender, we should still go on against reason and against experience, to make unavailing slaughter of our fellow creatures. A recent event has proved, that policy will do what blood cannot do. I mean the late regulation of the coinage. Thirty years together men were continually hanged for coining, still it went on, but on the new regulation of the gold coin, ceased. This event proves these two things; the effi Whether hanging ever did, or can, answer any good purpose, I doubt: but the cruel exhibition of every execution day is a proof that hanging carries no terror with it. And I am confident, that every new sanguinary law operates as an encouragement to commit capital offences; for, it is not the mode, but the certainty of punish-cacy of police, and the inefficacy of hang. ment, that creates terror. What men know they must endure, they fear; what they think they can escape, they despise. The multiplicity of our hanging laws has produced these two things: frequency of condemnation, and frequent pardons. As hope is the first and greatest spring of action, if it was so, that out of twenty convicts one only was to be pardoned, the thief would 66 say, Why may not I be that one?" But since, as our laws are actually administered, not one in twenty is executed, the thief acts on the chance of twenty to one in his favour; he acts on a fair and reasonable presumption of indemnity; and I verily believe, that the confident hope of indemnity is the cause of nineteen in twenty robberies that are committed. But, if we look to the executions themselves, what example do they give? The thief dies either hardened or penitent. We are not to consider such reflections as occur to reasonable and good men, but such impressions as are made on the thoughtless, the desperate, and the wicked. These men look on the hardened villain with envy and admiration. All that animation and contempt of death with which ing. But, is it not very extraordinary, that since the regulation of the gold coin, an Act has passed, making it treason to coin silver. But has it stopped the coining of silver? On the contrary, do not you hear of it more than ever? It seems as if the law and the crime bore the same date. I do not know what the hon. member thinks who brought in the Bill; but perhaps some feelings may come across his own mind, when he sees how many lives he is taking away for no purpose. Had it been fairly stated, and specifically pointed out, what the mischief of coining silver in the utmost extent is, that hanging Bill might not have been so readily adopted; under the name of treason it found an easy passage. I, indeed, have always understood treason to be nothing less than some act or conspiracy against the life or honour of the king, and the safety of the state; but what the king or state can suffer by my taking now and then a bad sixpence, or a bad shilling, I cannot imagine. By this nick-name of treason, however, there lies at this moment in Newgate, under sentence to be burnt alive, a girl just turned of 14; at her master's bidding and slipped it under her cloak; the shopman saw her, and she laid it down: for this she was hanged. Her defence was, (I have the trial in my pocket) "That she had lived in credit, and wanted for nothing, till a press-gang came and stole her husband from her; but, since then, she had no bed to lie on; nothing to give her children to eat; and they were almost naked; and perhaps she might have done something wrong, for she hardly knew what she did." The parish officers testified the truth of this story; but, it seems, there had been a good deal of shoplifting about Ludgate; an example was thought necessary, and this woman was hanged for the comfort and satisfaction of some shopkeepers in Ludgate - street. When brought to receive sentence, she behaved in such a frantic manner, as prov ed her mind to be in a distracted and desponding state; and the child was sucking at her breast when she set out for Tyburn. she hid some white-washed farthings behind her stays, on which the jury found her guilty as an accomplice with her master in the treason. The master was hanged last Wednesday; and the faggots all lay ready, no reprieve came till just as the cart was setting out, and the girl would have been burnt alive on the same day, had it not been for the humane but casual interference of lord Weymouth. Good God! Sir, are we taught to execrate the fires of Smithfield, and are we lighting them now to burn a poor harmless child for hiding a white-washed farthing? And yet, this barbarous sentence, which ought to make men shudder at the thought of shedding blood for such trivial causes, is brought as a reason for more hanging and burning. It was recommended to me not many days ago, to bring in a Bill to make it treason to coin copper as well as gold and silver. Yet, in the formation of these canguinary laws, humanity, religion, and policy, are thrown out of the question. This one wise argument is always sufficient : : If you hang for one fault, why not for another? If for stealing a sheep, why not a cow or a horse? If for a shilling, why not for a handkerchief that is worth eighteen pence, and so on? We therefore ought to oppose the increase of these new laws; the more, because every fresh one begets twenty others. When a member of parliament brings in a new hanging law, he begins with mentioning some injury that may be done to private property, for which a man is not yet liable to be hanged, and them proposes the gallows as the specific, infallible means of cure and prevention; but the Bill in its progress often makes crimes capital, that scarce deserve whipping. For instance, the Shop-lifting Act was to prevent bankers and silversmiths, and other shops, where there are commonly goods of great value, from being robbed; but it goes so far, as to make it death to lift any thing off a counter with an intent to steal. Under this Act, one Mary Jones was executed, whose case I shall just mention: it was at the time when press warrants were issued on the alarm about Falkland's Islands. The woman's husband was pressed, their goods seized for some debts of his, and she, with two small children, turned into the streets a-begging. It is a circumstance not to be forgotten, that she was very young, (under 19) and most remarkably handsome. She went to a linen-draper's shop, took some coarse linen off the counter, Let us reflect a little on this woman's fate. The poet says, "An honest man's the noblest work of God." He might have said with equal truth, that "A beauteous woman 's the noblest work of God." But for what cause was God's creation robbed of this its noblest work? It was for no injury; but for a mere attempt to clothe two naked children by unlawful means. Compare this, with what the state did, and with what the law did. The state bereaved the woman of her husband, and the children of a father, who was all their support; the law deprived the woman of her life, and the children of their remaining parent, exposing them to every danger, insult, and merciless treatment, that destitute and helpless orphans suffer. Take all the circumstances together, I do not believe that a fouler murder was ever committed against law, than the murder of this woman by law. Some who hear me, are perhaps blaming the judges, the jury, and the hangman; but neither the judge, jury nor hangman are to blame: they are but ministerial agents; the true hangman is the member of parliament; he who frames the bloody law is answerable for all the blood that is shed under it. But there is a further consideration still. Dying as these unhappy wretches often do, who knows what their future lot may be! Perhaps, my hon. friend who moves this Bill, has not yet con Treason, murder, rape, and burning a dwelling-house, were all the crimes that were liable to be punished with death by our good old common law. And such was the tenderness, such the reluctance to shed blood, that if recompence could possibly be made, life was not to be touched. Treason being against the king, the remission of that crime was in the crown. In case of murder itself, if compensation could be made, the next of kin might discharge the prosecution, which, if once discharged, could never be revived. If a ravisher could make the injured woman satisfaction, the law had no power over him; she might marry the man under the gallows, if she pleased, and take him from the jaws of death to the lips of matrimony. But so fatally are we deviated from the benignity of our ancient laws, that there is now under sentence of death an unfortunate clergyman (Dr. Dodd) who made satisfaction for the injury he attempted; the satisfaction was accepted; and yet the acceptance of the satisfaction and the prosecution bear the same date. sidered himself in the light of an execu- | tually stopped, that (the historians tell us) tioner; no man has more humanity, no in a very short time a man might travel man a stronger sense of religion than through the kingdom unarmed with his himself; and I verily believe, that at purse in his hand. this moment he wishes as little success to his hanging law as I do. His nature must recoil at making himself, the cause, not only of shedding the blood, but perhaps destroying the soul of his fellow-creature. But the wretches who die are not the only sufferers; there are more and greater objects of compassion still: I mean the surviving relations and friends. Who knows how many innocent children we may be dooming to ignominy and wretchedness? Who knows how many widows hearts we may break with grief, how many grey hairs of parents we may bring with sorrow to the grave? The Mosaic law ordained, that for a sheep or an ox, four and five fold should be restored; and for robbing a house, double; that is, one fold for reparation, the rest for example; and the forfeiture was greater, as the property was more exposed. If the thief came by night it was lawful to kill him; but, if he came by day, he was only to make restitution; and if he had nothing, he was to be sold for his theft. This is all that God required in felonies; nor can I find in history any sample of such laws as ours, except a code that was framed at Athens by Draco. He made every offence capita, upon this modern way of reasoning, "That petty crimes deserved death, and he knew nothing worse for the greatest." His laws, it was said, were written not with ink, but with blood; but they were of short duration, being all repealed by Solon-except one for murder. An attempt was made some years ago by an hon. friend of mine to repeal some of the most absurd and cruel of our capital laws. The Bill passed this House, but was rejected by the Lords, for this reason, "It was an innovation, they said, and subversion of law." The very reverse is truth. These hanging laws are themselves innovations. No less than three and thirty of them passed during the last reign. 1 believe, I myself was the first person who checked the progress of them. When the great Alfred came to the throne, he found the kingdom over-run with robbers; but the silly expedient of hanging never came into his head: he instituted a police, which was to make every township answerable for the felonies committed in it. Thus property became the guardian of property; and all robbery was so effec There does not occur to my thoughts a proposition more abhorrent from nature, and from reason, than that in a matter of property, when restitution is made, blood should still be required. But in regard to our whole system of criminal law, and much more to our habits of thinking and reasoning upon it, there is a sentence of the great Roman orator, which I wish those who hear me to remark; exhorting the senate to put a stop to executions, he says, "Nolite, quirites, hanc sævitiam diutius pati, quæ non modo tot cives atrocissimè sustulit, sed humanitatem ipsam ademit consuetudine incommoderum." Having said so much on the general principles of our Criminal Laws, I have only a short word or two to add, on the two propositions now before us. One, as moved by the honourable gentleman (Mr. Combe) to hang persons that wilfully set fire to ships; the other, moved as an amendment by my hon. friend (sir Charles Bunbury) is to send such offenders to work seven years on the Thames. The question arises from the alarming events of the late fires at Portsmouth and Bristol; for which the incendiary is put to death. But, will an act of parliament prevent such men as John the Painter |