The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-27 00:00:00

punishment to the guilty, and to shelter the innocent from its
consequences. 'lt was not to excite any morbid"sensibility to-
wards those who had committed crime, but to do justice to-
wards those who had committed none, and who could not com-
mit any.
.The object of the Bill was especially to restore to
Scotland its ancient law, the law to which- it was attached; and
to carry into effect the intentions of the British legislature,
which had been twice held out to that country.
.He well knew
that in proposing any thing that appears to be approaching
to any alteration in the criminal law, he should have to encoun-
ter the bug-bear Innovation, but nothing of What was reasonable
in the objection to innoaation could apply to this Bill. His
tion had been recommended by the authorities of many worthies
who had gone fro M—who, thout:li they saw it would be tit and
proper to alter the general system, were aware that the time was
not then arrived to do it. Witbrespect to one part of the coun-
try, his motion would not be for innovation but for restitution,
it would be merely to place the law of Scotland as it had been
before the passing of an alien law to remove an anomaly which
was contrary to the nature, and might produce dangers affect-
ing the prosperity, of that country. Could that be called inno-
vation which was sanctioned-by the British' Parliament Of the
last century, and which was not carried into effect, merely be-
cause at that time there existed a competition for the Crown, and
the Act might have been attributed to a party, or to a fear of
consequences that might have been anticipated. The British
Parliament, however, did
_approve of-the principle, and left
such approbation on their statute Woks:: This law was the
remnant of an old system, to remove which would be to
render the laws consistent and uniform. Ile was sure
the Noble and Learned Lori on the Woolsack would not

urge against the Bill; the argument of antiquity, because,
within a few years that Noble and Learned Lord had rentoved
the most ancient relic of Briti;sh jurisprudence, which was more
ancient than the Woolsack, and even than the Crown itself—
the appeal of murder. The Noble and Learned Lord had done
this away. And why ?' Because -it was no longer suitable to
the times under which we lived, and because the, people of this.
country, to whom it was given; or rather by whorn it was taken
and made; had a better system in that protectien which the law
gave them. It was in the time of Henry VEll.•that the law
was-passed, which declared it to be politic and just to prevent
the commission of
We
by punishing the inntiecrit ftir the acts
of the guilty.- We had the authority of Bishop- Burnet to say,
that in the Act of Union it was intended to assimilate the law

Of treason, and to preserve to the kingdom of 'Scotland an im-
munity from the law of forfeiture. and of corruption of blood ;
but there was so much difficulty in the way of this arrange-
ment, that it was then postponed, although with a perfect un-
derstandingahat Scotland should have this immunity. How-
ever in 17.08 or in 1709,, a :Bill was introduced, 'which con-
tained a clause fOr extending the consequences of attainder
to Scotland. Anil,how was it received? It produced a
strong debate in which Bishop Burnett stood up, and on
the ground of justice and of prudence, besought their Lord-
ships not to adopt this clause. In the valuable records left
by that Prelate of what then took place in the. House, he
stated that the venerable Earl Cowper, who presided, and
many other Noble : Lords, were agreed as to the justice
and propriety of rejecting this - clause ; but . they saw the
danger of doing so at that period, when there was, or when
it was foreseen that there would shortly be a competitor for the
Crown, and the Bill, in consequence, after a long debate and
many divisions,. passed the House. A' protest against, it waie
however, entered on their Lordships' books, and that protest
was signed.by no less than twenty-two Peers, of which number
there were thirteen out of the sixteen Peers of Scotland. The
r
Bill then went down to the other House, and'how was it there
? There,' Bishop Barnet states, was 'a hard struggle
to throw out the clause, and that struggle was successful. The
. House of CommonS not only threw out the clausee--they were
'not contented with merely so 'doing—but they added another
clause to the Bill, extending to England as well as Scotland,
this exemption from the attaint of blood. Their Lordships of
that day did not .think it • wise .to treat with contempt a Bill
brought up by the Commons. They were not childish enough.
to tell the House of COmniorat'that they did not speak the sense
of the people they represented ; they did not say to that people
" No, though your hopes arc great, they shall he blasted—
although your prayer is recommended by the House of Com-
mons." No, the Ilouse of Lords acquiesced in the clause the
House of Commons had passed. They did, indeed call for a
temporary suspension of it during the life-time of the Pre-
tender, because they feared the attachment of the people of
Scotland to that doctrine—which he would call a blasphemous
doctrine—the doctrine of Jure Divino, which was now known
by its smoothest name of legitimacy ; but which, if it had been
acknowledged, would have deprived us of the blessings of the
House of Brunswick. During the rebellion in Scotland, this
law was exercised with great severity ; but about thirty years
after the period of the passing of site Bill to which he had al-
luded, there was another rebellion in that country, and there
was then a competitor for the Crown. What was then
done ? Was it moved to make this law perpetual ?
No, it was merely moved to continue it during the lives
of the sons of the Pretender, on the principle that if it were
necessary in One case it was necessary_ in the other. In
1744 the question was again brought forward, and although
it was then hardly contested, the objectionable clattses were
passed. At that time, however, Lord Hardwickesanctionedthe
principle of the Bill now before their Lordships; almost all the
objections against that Bill were at the present moment done
. away with. He thought he had proved that, in good faith to-
wards Scotland, and in sound policy, the passing of the Bill
was rendered necessary. But if all'those'arguments in favour
of it did-not exist, on the grounds of general principles, of hue
manity, feeling, policy, and prudence, he 'thought their Lord-
ships bound to adopt it. He knew it had been said that pro-
perty ng
of the law—an offspringeby-the-by, as
old as aiiasspaahreenoffp
t:arni
and that property is only held by favour of.
the law. He knew also it was sometimes said that all puniehment*
mustmare or less affect innocent people—that they must nt any
rate suffer in theit feelings. But this was the imperfection of hu-
man punishment, and surely could not be taken as a principle
on which to act. He knew, also it was argued that in cases of
murder and forgery, and some other crimes, there was a stigMa
on the children of those who committed the crimes which did
not rest on the children of persons guilty of high treason ; and
that therefore, as there would not he. hereditary infamy, there
ought to be hereditary poverty., But such a principle was most
unjust ; a sense of moral justice itself made it odious, and any
law must be impolitic that was contrary to moral justice. He
believed that the laws of forfeiture' had caused more rebellions
than they had prevented. France, whera it was in its state of
wildest anarchy, refused to adopt such a system as would con-
sign to infamy and to poverty innocent and unoffending men ;
and the Government of the Bourbons, with all their boasted le,
gitimacy, would never be secure, because under that Om ern-
, merit the nation was composed of two parties, those who had
bit and those who had gained. Under those circumstances, he
• would move the second reading of the Bin.
Lord COLCHESTER said that ilie Bill of the Noble Lord
went to repeal a law lie had. proposed 26 years ago, and since
that period he had not seen any reason to alter hie mind. The
principle of punishment for high treason was in all ages and
countries the same ; and men disposed to endanger a State
ought; in his opinion,- to be restrained by every law that could
touch their feelings and their hearts as well es their interests;
and nothing, could more effectually du this than the dread of
involving a whole race in infamy and rniefertune. Parliament
had thought proper to unake,that law perpetual which formerly
applied. only to the period of the lives of the Pretender and the
Pretender's sons. Now the Noble Baron (Holland) Noll4ht to
sweepeiway at once this law, which lie (Lora Colchester) con-
sidered necessarea As lie could not agree in the principle of
the Bill now before the House, he wawa meet, as an amend-
ment, that it be read this day six months,
The Earl of HOSEBERRY was of opinion, that there were
very many reasons why their Lordships should pass the Bill
brought forward by the Noble Lord (Holland) • above all
because a pledge had been formerly given by
this country
to another, which was broken only upon certain grounds
which did not now exist. The authority of Bishop Burnet
might be quoted to thew the necessity for annulling the ob-
noxious laws at some period or another, and•that authority was
very strong. lie could not conceive how a doubt could exist
as to the injustice of taking away from any person those rights
to which he would tie entitled but for the crime of another.—
But although their Lordships determined to continue those laws
in this country, lie would appeal to their justice against conti-
nuing them in ,4cotivid, where they were always opposed, and
never consented to, except for a season.. He would appeal to
their Lordships in confidence, and ask whether, under present
circumstances, any mats would come forward to propose to Par-
liament, or any Parliament be so.unjust sad so impolitic as to
Pass such laws—laws which v
heads visited d crimes a the guilty
upon the
of the innocent.his pinion, therefore, the
Bill was a just and a proper one, anti he would support it.
Lord MELVILLE said, the, Noble Load had tbunded his
Bill, in a great'degree, on a supposed breaeliof faithavith Scut.