Star. — London, England, 1821-05-24 00:00:00

I be what viNs called a conscientious Tory, he would ask him only to look at the difficulties and restraints ' udder Which he would nt once lay all his own prin ciples and political operations? There might he cases, and indeed he could very readily conceive such cases, where a Government might not think, it politic to in dict the most gross libels, although they were plainly indictable and sure of conviction. But who were to exercise the discretion in such cases? A Bridge street Society ?—(llear,hear).—A feW Lawyers, un known to the Public, bent on taking care of the funds of that Society, by turning them into parch ment, reckless of the wishes, the opinions, or the principles of those wo had subscribed them ?— (Hear, hear).—Were A`ch men, or was the Attor ney-General to exercise that discretion, and to take, that responsibility attached to political power, which many had looked upon as being too heavy for any individual whatever to bear? NOW, however, such persons as these, under the shadow of a name -44 The Co:lstitutional Association"—but in reality only deriving consequence from the names of some of the subscribers, were to usurp this power with out affording any security or responsibility whatever. He had said that some most worthy and respectable persons were to be found amongst the number of those who furnished the funds to this Society.— He believed that every one of these had been drawn in and deceived, under the idea that the prosecutions mere to be directed against a particular class of of principally those relating to religion. It was very natural that they should feel anxious to punish such offences; and he, for one, looked upon them with disgust, as far as the contempt he felt would allow him. But even upon the policy of such prosecutions there was much to be said. He would much rather see offences of that nature liable to prosecutions by the Crown, than by such an associa tion as this. The distinctions in peculiar sects, and the range allowed by the law to theological inquiry and disputes, created difficulties which ought to be subject to the experience and legal knowledge of the law authorities. Among the subscribers, there ap peared the names of forty Peers of the realm, who were the Judges in the last resort. There was no case, and particularly in cases of libel, in which they might not in the last resort, be called upon to exercise the judicial character—(llear, hear). If the subject had struck those Noble personages in this light, he was sure their names never would have appeared in such a place. He had thought it his duty to mention this circumstance, hoping that the House and the Pifblic would altogether discountenance the Society. He did not think there was any remedy against it, ex cept putting it down. Counter-Associations to pro secute writers on the other side would only be a temporary and ineffectual remedy, and the end would be, if both were persisted in, to destroy political dis cussion altogether.—(H ear, hetri). A Message came dcw•n from the Lords, stating that their Lordship* had agrcud to the Timber Duties and other Bills. RESCUE OF PRISOWERS. Mr. BENNET I', pursuant to notice, moved for leave to bring in a Bill fur the better preventing the rescue cf pri,oners. By the common law of the land, a person rescuing another was subject to undergo the punishment attached to the crime of which the per son rescued was accused ; but then the rescuer was entitled to his Clergy; and theiefore, however atro cious the crime of the accused, the rescuer was only subject to be punished for misdemeanour. Now, he should propose, to make all attempts at rescue, even before commitment, a punishable offence. t was possible that a Police Officer might be assaulted and beaten in a dreadful degree, yet Lord Ellenborough's Act would not tttach to him, unless he was wounded with a sharp in,trittneat. Here was also a case in which a Police Officer might be so beaten as to die of his wounds, and yet the offender escape with a attdict of Manslaughter; and, as the law now stood, a Police (nicer might be so beaten as to bring him to Oct verge of the grave, and yet the person who thus assaulted him escape on an indictment for an assault, with a punishment of a twelve months im prisonment at most. These cases, he considered, sfiould be remedied ; and he would now ask leave to bring in a Bill with that view, under the title of " A Bill for the better preventing the Rescue of Prisoners." The SOLICI'f Olt-GENER AL would not oppose Ore Bill being brought in, though he considered the Hon. Member wrong in the opinion lie bad formed, that a man rescuing a felon would only be guilty of a misdemeanour. Ile considered the law different. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. CRIMINAL LAWS. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH then moved the Or der of the Day for the House going into a Com mittee on the Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill. On the question for the SPEAKER leaving the Chair, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, it was with reluctance he opposed the motion; but although he' was alive to the feelings of humanity which had introduced the present Bill, his public duty compel led him to resist it. It was, however, a satisfaction to know that this question would be discussed upon general principles, and totally unconnected with all party feeling—Wear, hear). The only question here was how we could best consult the feelings of huma nity as connected with the safety of the Public. This Bill originated out of a Report of last Session on the state of the Criminal Laws, and he could not, there fore, on this occasion, forbear to ad ver t t o t h at Re port ; and he must take the liberty of saying, that nceone could possibly look at that Report and not see that it was a partial one, founded principally on the evidence of persons who were decidedly hostile to capital punishment. The whole evidence taken be fore the Committee was of that complexion ; as per sons, feeling different sentiments were not ready to give evidence, and would not voluntarily appear be fore the Committee to state their sentiments, unless forced to do so. He had also to complain that the Report was not drawn with proper care; for, after having stated that a Bill had passed the House on the subject of privately stealing, that was correct : it then went on to state that two other Bills bad passed the House for repealing the Statute for privately stealing in a dwelling-house to the amount of forty shillings. Now, no such Bill had passed the House, nor did the law of England know of any such of fence as privately stealing in a dwelling-house to the amount of lofty shillings. Again, it stated, that a Bill had been passed regarding privately s;ealing on board of ships in navigable rivers; no such Bill could have been passed, because the law of England _.~ - -~ knew no suck crime as privately itealing on naviga ble rivers. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman also adverted to an erroneous statement in the Re port of the conduct of a Jude at Chelmsford, in not having recommended a criminal _capitally convicted for a first offence to mercy; now, on inquiry, it ap peared that so far from being a first offence, there was eight indictments against him at that Session. He mentioned these circumstances to prove the inaccu racy of the Report, and argued therefrom that it was not deserving of implicit confidence from the House. He must now look to the Bill of his Honourable Friend, which went to take away capital punishment for the first forgery, in every instance, except as re garded the notes of the Bank of England. Thus, then, capital punishment would be taken away for the forgery of a will, a forgery most easy of accom plishment, and by which whole families might be ruined. So also as regarded the forgery of marriage registries, by which whole families might be bastar dized or disgraced. The forgeries also of transfer of stock would escape, though for thousands in amount. He knew it would be said, that anciently the punish ment of death did not attach to forgery—true it aas that it did not ; but a punishment almost as severe as death did attach : for, by the Statute of Elizabeth, a person convicted of forgery was to make restitution to double the amount, his goods and chattels were to be confiscated, he was to be imprisoned and to stand in the pillory, to have his nose slit, and to be branded; and thus the law continued till the reign of George H. when the present law was enacted. The crime of forgery had much increased, and a law was enacted making it a capital offence. The reason was, because the Statute of Elizabeth was not aipplitable. The Bill was passed for only five years ; but in the course of a year a new Bill became necessary, and as the law was found to be effectual, it was made permanent. He had in favour of the present system experience of nearly a century. He would ask, what was the ground for the alteration of the law ? and it appeared to him that an irresistible case should be made out. But all that the present preamble said was, that the existing law was ineffectual. That he de nied ; and though some cases of private forgery might go unpunished, still the law on the whole was effectual. By the present Bill, transportation for a certain number of years, or for life, would follow upon conviction. But transportation was hardly re garded as a punishment; and in many cases the con vict had been known to thank the Jadge for the sen tence of transportation. In many cases, a man in tent on the commission of a forgery, would say, I may succeed without' detection, and afterwards live in affluence; and if detected, the punishment at the worst is but transportation. At present, the crimi nal was aware, that in the case of detection there was no hope of impunity. As the law now stood, it. ap peared to him to be much more efficient than under the proposed change. But it was said, that besides transportation, there was the alternative of imprison. ment and hard labour ; but that punishment had never been found effectual for the prevention of great crimes: and all the objection to transportation, ap plied with additional force to the substitution of im prisonment and labour. He was aware that in other countries the punishment was not so severe. But the laws and customs of those countries were diffe rent from ours; and by a system of Police that would never be tolerated in this country, many crimes could be prevented. His present remarks were confined to the Bill now before the House, and he should move that the Bill be committed that day six months. _ _ _ Mr. E. BUXTON had listened with pleasure to the fair statement of the Hon. Gentleman, and he was pleased to find there was no insurmountable dif ference between the Hon. Gentleman and his Hon. Friend. He admitted that transportation was no punishment at all ; but there was another secondary punishment, and that was the hulks. He would also maintain that confinement, with hard labour, was an adequate ptinisLment. The argument of the Hon. Gen tleman was, that the Ministers of the Crown had not done wrong; and, therefore, felons were to he hung. —He was aware that prevention of crimes was the only test by which the proposed amendment on the law could be tried ; but it was wonderful that not the smallest allusion to that test had been made by the Hon. Gentleman. The question was, had the present system been effectual for the prevention of the crime. On the subject of capital enactments, not only the utmost liberty, but licentiousness of legislation, had been permitted. In the year 1818, 107,000 persons had passed through the prisons of this kingdom ; did that shew anything like a suc cessful law? At present there were in London from eight to 10,000 livenile delinquents, living by theft, and at a future day doomed to supply the gibbet with victims. During the last twelve years crime had multiplied four-fold. All foreigners were struck with the enormity and frequency of crime in this country. With a population much greater, and a Police much more vigilant, the number of crimes was much less in France than in England. Would not any impar tial man ask how long the present system had been tried? Was property safe, he asked ? Certainly not. Had crimes multiplied? Certainly yes. Was that a proof of the excellence of the law ? But it had been said, that though in some cases, as in that of larceny, while the punishment had been dimi nished, the crime had increased. But in all other crimes, where no kind of mitigation had taken place, the same increase had taken place, and that increase not being confined to larceny, could not be brought as an argument in the present case; but it had been said, in the case of larceny, if you diminish the pe nalty, you will increase the convictions; that had ac tually taken place, and was an argument in favour of the mitigation of punishment. In the case of fraudulent bankruptcies under the old law, scarcely any convictions took place, from the severity of the punishment. In the case of the convictions for lar ceny, he was entitled to deduct from the number all who would not have been prosecuted, or, if prose cuted, would not have been punished, from the seve rity of the old law. Two experiments had, at the same time, been made in criminal legislations. In the one case the transition had been made from 1 lenity to rigour, in the protection of the Excise, as to the forgery of stamps. The Solicitor of the Excise had stated to the Committee, that the system of lenity had been more effectual than that of rigour, I and that the number of prosecutiOns had been re duced one half. Formerly, ont of twenty-one pro secutions, nineteen had been convieted ; and, upon the present system, out of ten prosieetttral, only three •had been convicted. Such had been the evidence of Mr. Cox, who way neite- an enthusiast nor a phi lanthropist, but a plain natter-of-fact man. In the opinion of that Gentleman, the severity of the law only tended to' protect the fraudulent tradesman.— He had heard that the Board of Excise had come to a resolution in favour of abolishing the punishment of death, except in cases where violence had been used. In the year 1807, the persons concerned in bleaching grounds applied for a mitigation of the law, and succeeded, in their application. In the County of Lancaster, while all other crimes had in creased, in the five years preceding the abolition of the old law, the number of convictions had been thirty-eight, and in the five years succe,ling the mi tigation of the law, the convictions had been only nine. A - similar result had taken place in the North of Ireland. These facts afforded a very clear proof of the effect of the abolition of capital punishments. —The cruel enactments in the time of George the Second had been so far lions accomplishing their object, that some of the more severe of them had been abandoned, and then the desired effect had been produced. He ss ould challenge any man to shew him a period distinguished for the rarity of crime and severity of punishments—(!dear, hear). — Henry VIII. put to death 72,000 persons for robbery, making an average of six a day, Sundays included ; ' and a lawyer of that day having mentioned to a friend that he had seen twenty thieves hanged, added, that while so many had been hanged, he was surprised that p many thieves still remained. In the time of Eli zabeth, a cotemporary author, having mentioned the number of thefts, said, that the simple country-folks would rather lose their property than prosecute, from the severity of punishment. Alfred, who abolished all capital punishments, except for High Treason, used to say, 4 , that a child with a purse of gold about its neck, might walk from one end of the realm to the other." In the State of Pennsylvania, a law, abo lishing capital punishment, had been passed for five years, against the opinion of all the Judges. The ex periment succeeded so well, that the law was made permanent, with the approbation of the same Judges who had formerly opposed it. In the State of New York; the horse-dealers applied for a law, making horse-stealing a capital offence. In a short time they found it necessary to apply to the Legislature for the repeal of, the law—(lkar).--Many rested their ap probation of the Criminal Law on its antiquity. Such would be surprised to learn, that the present Penal Code was a modern innovation on the common law. king Alfred abolished all capital punishments, as unfit for Christians ; and the Danes, while they al tered all the other laws of Alfred, retained the pau city of capital punishments. Even William the Con queror, who was described by a monkish chronicler as loiing the stag as if he had been its Esther, abo lished all capital punishment in England. The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to quote the opinion of Sir E. Coke, and of Justice Blackstone, as to the modern date of the present Criminal Code. Within the last century, 100 capital statutes had been added to the law, and for every year of that century a capital enactment had been made, and all of them passed sub site/din. Mr. Burke was used to mention, that as he was leaving the House he had been , )pped by the Serjeant, and upon pleading haste, was told he could not be long detained, as the business was only to make a certain offence felony without benefit of clergy. The late Sir William Meredith, having gone up stairs to write a letter, was interrupted by an obi Gentleman reading some papers. Upon asking what it was, he was told by the Gentleman, that having had g very great quantity of his turnips stolen, be had obtained leave to bring in a Bill, making the stealing of turnips a felony without benefit of clergy. That was the mode in which the Penal Code had arisen. The Solons and the Lycurgi of England, were names obscure and unknown. While the law was administered with moderation, it would have the support of the people, but as soon as the punish. ment exceeded the offence, popular feeling turned in favour of the criminal. In many cases it was impos sible for religious men to prosecute. While the people were allowed to be most humane, by a singular ano maly the laws were most severe. The Learned Gen tleman here quoted the opinions of the most expe rienced Police Clerks, and that of Mr. Harmer, that the object of the law was defeated by its severity.— Many of the witnesses who had been summoned be fore the Committee had declared, that but for the severity of the law in many cases, they certainly would have prosecuted. That feeling had been par ticularly strong in the case of forgery. That had been the opinion of witnesses taken from all classes of society, who never could have combined to im pose upon the House. It was upon evidence of this nature that Mr. Dryden, the most forcible and argu mentative of our Poets, relied as a principal proof of the truth of a doctrine the most interesting to man kind. The lines appeared to him most striking: - " Whence Is it, Maya's! that men unskill'd in arts, In various ages, and of various parts, Weak, strong, unlearn'd, and wise; or how, or why, Should all conspire to cheat us. with a lie?" —lt was to him a matter of great satisfaction that all these different witnesses had arrived at the same con clusion. The most eminent professional men had been of the same opinion; such as Lord Coke, Lord Ash burton, Lord Clarendon, and Blackstone. Under the present system, he could prove perjuries to an almost incredible extent, and these arose from a wish to save the life of the criminal. In suppott of this, the Hun. Member read a number of extracts from the Sessions Papers. He knew a case in which a £5O Bank note had been declared upon the oath of twelve men, tc be worth 9s.—and, in another case, a Bank note-oi the same value, had been found to be of the value of 4s. 10c1. The Magistrates of levensey• tried a mass capitally for stealing a pair of leather breeches. They were much shocked ; and one wished to dis charge the culprit ; and another wished to insert the ward Not before the word Guilty ! They went to a man learned in the law, and at his house was the Chief Baron of the day ; and he, by way of joke, said, he saw no way of getting out of the dilemma but by bringing in the man guilty of manslaughter ! --(Laughter).—They returned in triumph; and if he was not much misinformed, the records of that an cient and sagacious borough sheaved to this day that 'a mail had been found guilty of manslaughter for stealing a pair of leather breeches !—(A laugh)._ Another equally strange conviction might be found, that of a man who was tried for returning from trans portation (a capital offence), and who was convi cted of petty larceny I —(Lood lauglaer).—The Hon. Gem, tleman contended that policy as well as hure ae e ty dernanded the repeal of calaal punishments; and asked what would be the effect produced u,.,, 11 t h e public mind by those pious or humane perjmi es ._ (Hear, hear)—when twelve men on their oaths con victed an accused person, and, in ten minutes after , sought to defeat the ends of that conviction ?(Dear), He called on any one, who regarded the inestimable value of Trial by Jury, to say whether they would lessen the sanctity of an oath brcontinuing the seve. rity of the laws so as to make it a duty of humanity to bring in' verdicts contrary to fact, in order to save the life of the criminal? The Police of this en otar t was a disgrace to us; and the almost impunity h a early offences was an inducement to the continterna in the path of crime. They ought to diminish the temptations held cut to commit crime. He had v o sited the ieceptacles for juvenile delinquents, ond l i d blamed Government for having entirely neglected the reformation of the young offenders. He had visited eight men before their execution ; and he found be them that they teem led on front crime to crime, till at last they . foil - cited their lives to the laws of she country. There was one passage in Lord Cokis %yolks, which, consider iog who Lord Coke was, and considering that he had never been very remarkable for humanity, would, he thought, have some w e i g h t with the House. His werds we , e these—" Howls. mentable a sight is it to beheld s o many cha st e n men and women strangled at that accursed tree, the gallows. If a man could see, collected together i t a field, all who suffer in a year, the afflicting sight would make his heart bleed to pity and comps aloe The inference which he drew from these reflections WAS this: " The consideration of a preventive Hier is worthy the attention of Parliament, and blessed he who may ley the first stone of the work—more bleael he who shall continue it—and most blessed of all be who shall complete it to the benefit of his country and the glory of GOD f'—( Hear )—This had been said by Lord Coke 200 years ago, but still he was sorry to say that the first stone of the great work reinained to be laid. He then restated his objections to the present system, condemned the penal code as afford ing impunity to crime, and holding out the most tre mendous inducements to perjury. It was supported by the names of Mi. Wyndham and Dr. Paley, bat it was opposed by a long list of practical iaen—aa experience was against it, and he might add, thatit was distinctly at variance with the spirit of the Clisis tian religion, which teaches, that " we should net desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his iniquities and live:'—([he lion. Gen tleman sal down amid load cheering). Mr. BRIGHT eulogized the eloquence of the last speaker; but he was not prepared to say that the crime of forgery, in the present artificial state of so ciety and trade, should be made les: punishabletban with death. Forgery was not a crime induce. by poverty and ignorance; it was a crime of edocatiew and of commerce; and they were called upon to pro tect the interests of their neighbours, and the coun try at large. He quoted the evidence of Sir A.Mac donald (the late Chief Baron), to shew that du:iesre. quired the strongest possible proof Ireane they uould convict for forgery. He was not defendlog ti,ewfwie of our Criminal Law, but he took his stand us the most important of our commercial crimes. They must not look at the passions or affections of men, but ought to consider that they were legislating for the whole of the community. If they followed the advice of the Committee, there was no s.pe,ies of crime for which they must not alter the punishments. There might be oppres•iee enactments and sangui nary punishments ; but he must look at what was fit for the genius and present situation of the people of England. Mr. J. SMITH repeated the evidence he liadgiven before the Committee, that many bankers had been deterred from prosecuting for forgery, on account of the extremity of the punishment. He had known forgeries committed by the ;ioost ignorant, illiterate, and artless beings. lie instanced the caseof an Irish man, who was reprieved for uttering forged notes. He visited the man, who told him that he received ss. each for passing forged notes; but he failed ut terly in convincing the man that he had committed any offence. The thing of all others that would in duce him to support the measure was, the fact that Juries were, in many instances, perjured in the ver dicts they returned. Mr. It. MARTIN said, the opinions of the country were against this Code of Laws; and he thoughtthat they should stop short before it came so far as that Juries would not convict for forgery, on account of the severity of the punishment. He contended, that there was a great inaptitude in prosecuting for for gery. He himself had raised a man from a state of indigence to be a Collector of the Revenue. That man forged on him (Mr. Martin) for two thousand pounds. He directed him to be indicted for a crime that would not affect his life; but the indictment was laid capitally, and he (Mr. Martin) made the man, who was to have proved the offence, forfeit his re cognizance. Thus he had himself aided in compound• ing a felony!—(hear.) Dr. LUSHINGTON said, the offence of forging wills was very rare; for in fourteen years there had been but three instances, and in all these cases, not one of the individuals had been prosecuted. Wed those three cases occurred that very day, in which one brother forged a will to disinherit his elder boa' ther ; and he saw a letter, in which the latter said— " Let me have the property, and I will not prosecute the offender!" The destruction of wills was as grief' ous as the forging of them, but there was no punish menthad for it—and yet in fourteen years there h ad been exactly three cases of will s bei ng de s troyed. It was therefore clear that the severity of the punish ment did not diminish the frequency of the crime.-- He stated the case of a boy, between fifteen and siz • teen years of age, who passed the 01 Bailey whilea man was being executed for forgery. He had hitherto maintained an unblemished character; he was cierk in a counting-house, on the other side of Blackfriars . • bridge; he went home that day an d com mitted i,ioniisniltitteed, and it Great interest was made to save it was at last saved, oti a certificate from the Ordi nary of Newgate that lie was not in a fit state to re. ceive the Sacrament. sheered the in adequac y of capital punishments to prevent crime. A li: the had been last week committed °lra merchant i e been a capital offence. Ile who advoca t ed City, which he would have punished, ~ifeditthl:tAdkinno; "at . r , . - S ..