move the punishment of death, he knew of cases of piracy in which such atrocities had been committed, that he could not but think that those who were guilty of them ought not to be suffered to remain in this world. The hon. and learned Member then alluded to the case of Abraham Thornton, and put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether if, in a case of rape, the woman was driven by mental anguish to commit suicide, he would content himself with punishing the criminal in the same manner only as a common pick pocket.

Mr. Serjeant Jackson confessed that his objection to removing the punishment of death for attempts at murder had been completely removed by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he, therefore, should support that clause. He was happy to hear that the feeling out of doors was against the infliction of the punishment of death.

to be as severe as the punishment of death, for he would desire to ask the hon. Gentleman-Do you know what the punishment of death is? Have you any means of judging what it is? Death was a great change, a change it might be for good, no doubt; it was a great and a good change to the good and to the wise and to those who were passing to their society. It was a change that must always excite sympathy and to a certain degree conciliate regard from those who were destined to tread the same unknown path. Therefore, when they were told they were trying to excite sympathy in favour of the criminal, he answered that nothing could excite half the sympathy occasioned by the infliction of the punishment of death upon a criminal. He was regarded as one about to appear at that terrible tribunal they all looked to, and must of necessity have his crime forgotten for the time by those who must shortly follow him. Mr. Wakley entreated the hon. and Therefore, he said, a Christian Legislature learned Gentleman to consent to some of before it inflicted death, should have no the modifications proposed by the Secredoubt what the effect of that infliction was.tary of State. He believed it would be They had the portal of the grave partially unveiled, and as far as it was unveiled, he declared he was astonished that a Christian legislator could consent to defeat the object of this measure. He concurred with the hon. Member for Wigan, that the support given to the bill showed that a Christian spirit had at length passed into our legislation, and he trusted before long they should be able to say, not with Judge Hale, that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England, but that it was its inmost principle, its vivifying soul and spirit, and that this punishment would be so separated from it, and with results so triumphant, that they should feel amazed to think of its infliction. He, therefore, begged to express his thanks to his hon. and learned Friend for this great step in this great course, and he trusted he would persevere until the cause of humanity prevailed, and (for this bill would not entirely do so) until he had wiped off the stain which now disgraced a Christian Legislature.

Sir C. Grey would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman the propriety of modifying some of the clauses, so as to be secure of carrying some part of his bill. He put it to him whether he thought he should be able to carry his bill in its present state? With regard to the subject of

acknowledged by all acquainted with the other House of Parliament, than in its present state it would not pass that House. He himself thought that in aggravated cases of rape the existence of power to inflict the punishment of death ought to be retained. He thought the feelings of the House were taking a wrong direction on the subject. The learned Serjeant, in a very pretty and poetical speech, had expressed great sympathy for the murderer, but was none to be felt for the murdered? If the condition of the murderer, prepared as he was, was dreadful, what must be the case with the murdered, sent, as he was, into the presence of his Maker without one moment's preparation? He believed that there existed among juries an unconquerable aversion to convict in cases where capital punishments were inflicted. The editor of a morning paper had said he would not convict in a case of rape if capital punishment were to follow, that is to say, that he would commit perjury rather than convict. What were they to do with these sort of persons, as they might, and he believed some of them would, from a mawkish sentimentality, refuse to inflict any punishment? The hon. Gentleman then alluded to the case of Gould, who had been brought before him; there was no breach in the chain of evidence, and

that although he had no doubt of his guilt,
yet if his verdict were to consign him to
death, he would not convict him. He
knew not how to legislate for such persons
as these.
He was no lawyer, and he
thought justice would be better adminis-
tered if there were fewer of them; for
their minds were so disciplined and in
structed to deceive, that jurymen, at the
conclusion of a case, were scarcely able to
know what were the facts submitted to them
to decide. He should like to know what
was the distinguishing feature between
murder and manslaughter-he imagined it
was merely in intention-that the crime
consisted in the intention and not in the
result, and he would ask the hon. Gentle-
man if he was inflexible on retaining the
clause in its present shape, and that in no
case the attempt at murder should be pun-
ished with death? He thanked the hon.
and learned Gentleman for bringing for-
ward the bill, which he thought would be
of advantage to the country.

wished to put a question to the noble
Marquess, the President of the Council,
relative to Mr. Cranstoun, Lord Core-
house, lately one of the judges of the
Court of Session in Scotland. He had
not the honour of being personally known
to that eminent individual; but he, in
common with many of their Lordships in
that House, had often heard him with ad-
miration, when pleading at their Lord-
ships' bar; and he would say, that a more
acute, a more able, or a more profound
advocate, never adorned the profession to
which he belonged, and to which he was,
in every respect, an honour.
The same
talents which he displayed at the bar that
highly-gifted individual carried with him.
to the bench. If there were any necessity
to adduce a proof of the high estimation
in which Mr. Cranstoun was held, he had
only to refer to a fact that was well known
to their Lordships. It was proposed in
the time of the late Lord Liverpool to re-
duce the burden of their Lordships' judicial
duties, by appointing a person for the pur-
pose of hearing and deciding appeals from
Scotland; and on that occasion all who
were consulted, as if by common consent,
pointed to Mr. Cranstoun as the individual
best calculated to fill that very high
and responsible situation. Unfortunately,
during the last Session of Parliament this
eminent individual, in consequence of ill
health, was obliged to retire from his
situation as one of the judges of the Court
of Session. Previous to that event, a bill
had been brought into the other House of
Parliament for regulating and augmenting
the retiring salaries of the judges of Scot-
land. That bill passed into a law; but
there was no provision for extending any
of the benefits of that measure to the dis-
tinguished individual to whom he referred.
This was entirely different from the prac-
tice which had usually prevailed in similar
cases. By the 6th George 4th (the last
bill for augmenting the salaries of the
judges of England), provision was made,
not merely for those judges who might
retire in future, but for those who had
retired before the passing of the act; and
those eminent men Sir John Richardson
and Sir William Grant, though they had
left the bench several years before the
passing of the act, received the benefit of
its provisions. Another act of Parliament
passed in 1813 (the 53d George 3rd),
conferred a similar benefit on judges of

Mr. F. Kelly said, that it was his opinion that the punishment of death should be taken away in all cases except high treason and murder; and such being the case, he thought it his duty to submit his opinions to the committee and to the House, and he hoped the bill would pass in its present state. He should endeavour to advert to the argument of the hon. Gentleman on the receiving the report. He firmly believed that if the sanction of the House should be given to the bill, it would not meet with any serious opposition in the other House.

The remainder of the preamble and clauses of the bill agreed to. House resumed.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, July 16, 1840.

MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time:-Convicted In

fants; Education. Petitions presented. By the Bishop of London, from va

rious places in his Diocese, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Lord Kenyon, from Bradford (Somerset), Wellcombe, and other places, against any further Grant of Money to Maynooth College. By the Earl of Haddington, from Whittingham, in favour of the Scotch Benefices Bill.-By the Bishop of Exeter, from

Exeter, against the Grammar Schools Bill.-By the Mar

quess of Westminster, and Lord Stanley (of Aldersley), from the Inhabitants of the Township of Clive, various places in Chester, and other places, against the Weaver Churches Bill. By the Duke of Richmond, from Liverpool, against the Beer Act Amendment Bill.

of George 3rd, which applied to Scotland, on the character of Mr. Cranstoun. On a similar benefit was extended to judges the contrary, the most sincere feeling of who had retired before the act was passed. respect was entertained for the services of He did not on this occasion ask the that excellent individual, and of admirareason of this difference between the mea- tion for his great talents. His knowledge sures to which he had alluded and the last was not restricted or confined to his emibill, nor did he mean to make any com- nent legal acquirements, with respect to plaint. He should merely confine himself which the noble and learned Lord was so to the expression of a hope that, by de much better instructed to speak than he priving Mr. Cranstoun of this additional was, but it extended to every species of emolument it was not intended to pass any information. Mr. Cranstoun was, indeed, slight on him, nor in any way whatsoever distinguished for universal knowledge. to express any disparagement of his ser- He combined those rare qualities with high vices, his knowledge, or his abilities. He legal attainments. At the bar he was an pressed this question on the noble Mar- able and eloquent advocate; and, finally, quess, because the noble Marquess was for a period of 18 or 20 years, he was one of intimately acquainted with this eminent the most eminent and distinguished judges individual, because he had had a peculiar that had ever been known in the northern opportunity of knowing and appreciating part of this country. When the bill was his distinguished abilities, and because he introduced for the purpose of regulating possessed the means of judging accurately and new-modelling certain matters conof his eminent services. nected with the Court of Session, it was intended that the proposed increase of allowance should be granted to him. That, however, was prevented by the omission of a particular clause. But the Govern ment had the satisfaction and gratification of knowing that Mr. Cranstoun had retired upon an honourable independence, attended by the respect, the esteem, and the sincere approbation of all those who knew him. He trusted that he might be permitted, for the purpose of showing that Government were not insensible to the merits of this excellent man, to read a paragraph from a letter written by Lord J. Russell, who was at the time at the head of that department which was immediately connected with the administration of justice. In that letter, which he held in his hand, Lord J. Russell said, "I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret that abilities of so high a character should be lost to the country, and that the administration of justice should be so suddenly deprived of those services by which the public has been so long benefitted." These were the sentiments of Lord J. Russell on the retirement of Mr. Cranstoun from his situation, and the same feelings of regret which were there expressed were, he believed, felt by every class of society.

The Marquess of Lansdowne was not only perfectly willing to answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, but was extremely obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the opportunity which it afforded him of stating his concurrence in the character which he had so justly given of this eminent individual. For no person, nei ther the noble and learned Lord nor any other individual, could feel more deeply than he did, if there was the possibility of any shadow of a doubt, or of a particle of misunderstanding existing in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, or in the mind of that eminent person, on the subject to which the question referred, that the matter should be set perfectly right and that doubt completely dissipated, and that he was enabled to do in the most distinct and decided terms. Because, though he was not himself officially consulted, or officially a party to the transaction of which the noble and learned Lord spoke, still, from the sincere feeling of respect which he bore to Mr. Cranstoun, whom he had known all his life, and he was proud to have known him from the earliest period, he endeavoured to make himself fully acquainted with the nature of the transaction and all its circumstances. He would not enter into those circumstances, because the noble and learned Lord had said that he did not rise to make any complaint on the subject. But the result of that inquiry he could truly declare was, that, in the whole proceeding,

Lord Brougham said, that in point of strict justice to Mr. Cranstoun, he could not allow this opportunity to pass without making one or two observations. His genius, talent, and ability were such that