The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-05 00:00:00

offences against the person, it was proposed that all cast s'
of poisoning, stabbing, and wounding with intent to do
bodily harm, or with intent to murder, the punishment
should be death. In cases of poisoning, shooting, drown-
ing, though no bodily harm should ensue, the punishment
was to be transportation for life, or not less than fifteen
years. The Bill also referred to a newly-discovered crime,
that of sending a letter or parcel loaded with some deto-
nating substance, and this was to be punishable with trans-
portation for life. Attempts to cause abortion were to
be visited with a like punishment. The next case was
that of arson ; and with respect to this offence it was
almost impossible to induce any jury to convict unless
life had been endangered. Public opinion appeared to
have laid down the law in this case, and the Legislature
would act wisely in following it. Another crime was burg-
lary, or stealing in a dwelling-house, an offence of very
frequent occurrence, and a mere act of burglary was to
be made punishable with transportation for fifteen years, but,
supposing the entrance to be effected in numbers, or to be
effected with violence, the punishment would be transporta-
tion for life ; and if accompanied by attempts to murder,
death. To obviate the difficulty, of which every one was
aware, of it being left to the jury to say what was day and
what was night, it had been thought better to fix the usual
hours of repose, and to say that night should continue from
nine o'clock in the evening to six in the morning, and that so
far as regarded the time acts done within those hours, at any
time in the year, should be burglary. The offence of stealing
in a dwelling-house, when aggravated by putting the inmates
in bodily fear, was to be punished by transportation for a
term of not more than fifteen years, nor less than ten. With
regard to the crime of piracy, even if attended with vio-
lence, it was only to be punished by transportation for life,
except in cases of attempts to wound or maim. In allotting,
however, punishments for various degrees of offences, it was
impossible to deprive the Judges of the discretion which had
hitherto been vested in them ; for if they determined that, in
all cases where a certain offence was made out, a certain pu-
nishment should necessarily follow, it was certain that in three
cases out of four they would shock the feelings of mankind.
That discretion, then, being necessary, he thought that it
was hest reposed in the Judge who tried the cause and saw
the demeanour of the witnesses. He was, however, far
from being of opinion that the Judge should give the
final decision ; because many things might subsequently
come to light which would be proper for the considera-
tion of the Secretary of State. The taking away the life
of a fellow-creature was a matter of very grave consi-
deration—a step which ought not to be taken without a
deep sense of the responsibility which it involved. It was
not, in his opinion, a punishment which should be inflicted
necessarily in every case of the violation of the law in which
that punishment was provided. He remembered a case in
which his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst)
had tried a person for stealing a lamb, and in which the
jury found the prisoner guilty ; it therefore became the duty
of his Learned Friend to pass the sentence of death, which
was, however, subsequently commuted to transportation
for life. Thus a young man, he believed, had been
transported for life for an offence of that nature in conse-
quence of the law then existing in respect to capital pu-
nishment. In the county of Cumberland he had himself met
with a similar instance a short time after, when, for a tri-
vial aence, he had been obliged to pronounce sentence of
death, but had subsequently addressed a strong recom-
mendation for mercy to the Secretary of State. In answer
to that application it hod been inquired of him what pu-
nishment he should deem sufficient ? and he bad replied,
two months' imprisonment. The man, accordingly, was
imprisoned the that period. Most of the Judges re-
volted against the duty which the Act of Parliament
enforced on them in that respect, and some alteration
was necessarily the consequence. But a practice had
now arisen of which none could approve ; he meant
that of recording sentence of death.—(hear.) Formerly
the course was for the Judge to put on the dreadful cap
and pronounce the awful sentence twenty times a-day—a
course which could produce no other effect then to raft
the prisoners less sensible of their -4uilt anal less appre-
hensive of punishment ; but that had been succeeded by
another practice which was very objectionable. In ail
cases where the sentence was not intended to be car-
ried into effect it was to be recorded in the registries
of the Court. He had digressed thus far, for the pur-
poso of showing the advantages of simplicity in the
criminal law—the necessity that conviction sfiould be
certain, and that parties should not he deterred from pro-
secuting in coneequenee of the severity of the punishment.
There were several ether cases in which the punishment
of death not having been practically enforced would now
be abolished by these Bilis. He might be excused, .in
conclusion, for expressing his sincere feeling upon this oc-
casion that there never was a Sovereign mere anxious than
his late Maj-sty—(Hear, hear)—t a employ the utmost
e iency consisleet with public justice in all cases that were
I brought hefore him.
Lord WYN FORD did not object to the mitigation of
- - ••
.1 so ••- • •
perty. lie did not doubt that these Bills were such as ought
to pass, because they had received the approbation of the
Learned Judges ; but he could not help expressing his
deep sorrow that their Lordships-should not have the op-
portunity of judging for themselves whether the ejdnions of
those Learned persons, or of any other persons, were cor-
rect. If it were to ha to I 1 out to the world that the duty of
that House was merely to pass every measure sent up to hem
by the other House, the present was no doubt a fit and proper
cotn•se to be pursued ;hot if it were frequently pursued the
people would begin to think, most erroneously hehoew, that
the services of that house were of little value. There were
now no less than seven B on their Lordship's' table, t.l-
- to thy most important parts of the criminal law which
hrd been grassisle u, f,r centuries. In the regulation which
he lied formerly felt it his duty to issue, it had been far from
his intention to add to the severity of punishments ; but lie
had considered, and was still inclined to consider, that the
amonet of punishment should be left in a great measure to
the discretion of the Judge. For the alteration in that
respect effected by these measures he begged sincerely to
thank his Noble and Learned Friend. There was, howe-
ver, one offence to which he wished to allude—the grave
crime of arson—and upon which he must beg to differ from
bia Learned Friend as to the difficulty of getting a jury to
come to any conclusion. He should be anxious to find out
any grounds upon which he could consent to diminish the
punishment in cases of arson. lie would not trouble their
Lordships further at present, nor was it his intention to
offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that if he thought
that agricultural property could not be protected unless
the punishment of death were attached to the crime of
arson, he should be the last person in the world to consent
to its abolition ; but there were few persons who were not
aware of the difficulty which existed of getting juries to
convict in cases of arson.—(. Hear, hear," from Lord
Lyndhurst.) Ile agreed entirely in the principle of all the
measures which were now to be read a second time.
Lord LYND HURST begged, in reference to what bad
been stated on the subject of the punishment of death for
arson, to say at once that he entirely concurred in what had
fallen from the Noble Duke (Richmond), and entirely dif-
fered from the opinion expressed by his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Wynford). When he had had the honour
of holding the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Ex-
chequer he had tried many persons for arson ; and he was
sure that every one must have observed this—that nearly all
the cases of that description depended on circumstantial evi-
dence; and he would take upon himself to say that when a
case did depend upon circumstantial evidence, and it became
necessary to put facts together, in order to deduce a conclu-
sion, if the life of a man were at stake it was scarcely
ever possible to induce a jury to find him guilty. It was
not his intention on the present occasion to oppose any of
those Bills. He entirely concurred in the principle of them.
He would now direct their Lordships' attention to some of
those Bills, and the first observation which arose wits this
—that the few enactments which they contained, instead of
being included within one or two Bills, were spread over an
unnecessary large number of measures. When his Right
Hon. Friend Sir Robert Peel had directed his attention to
the subject of the criminal law, it had been his object to
consolidate the laws upon the subject ; and he had effected
that object in a Bill which was now the law of the land—
he meant the Bill for egeothaniosncousrlgitimdhattihntiaenplg the laws relative to lar-
ceny,ohenudr
ae
bd
laena and
Friendmoos offences ena cl
hle
as
dt
proper
law.p person,e;
to
His
cwhicho n
Rightsoli dcaotme liptrhoce:
laws. That step had met with the decided approba-
tion of the profession, and experience had proved the
great advantages with which it was attended. But now a
directly opposite course had been pursued. The subject
had been spread over nine or ten different Acts, and the
object appeared to be to diffuse the laws as widely as pos-
sible, instead of bringing them into one single compact
body. the different parts of which might be readily com-
pared. Undoubtedly to pass seven or eight Bills in one
Session on so important a subject as that of the amendment
of the criminal law was a remarkable circumstance. It
was calculated to create a greater impression on the minds
of those whose good opinion was indispensably necessary
to a Government titan to pass only one or two Bills. He
did not mean to insinuate that those were the motives
which bad influenced any of the originators of these mea-
sures. On the contrary, he believed that they were too re-
spectable to be influenced by any considerations of that
kind ; but, at the same time, he must say that it was not
a wise course to pursue to scatter the provisions of these
Bills over so wide an extent. When their Lordships ad-
verted to the measures, and compared one with another, it
would be found that they had not passed, and been conducted,
in the other House of Parliament with that caution, conside-
ration, and minute attention which the vast importance of the
subject required—(Hear)—and that might partially arise
from the very circumstance of which he had complained,
that the Bills had been discussed in that House as sepa-