The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-13 00:00:00

.iONDON,--lI,UESJ.AX EVEN -ENG. JAN U Alt Y la, 1857.

LTY AMENDMENT SOCIETY.

TREATMENT OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.

A meeting of this society WWI held yesterday evening
—Lord Stanley, M.P., in the chair.
After the preliminary business had been disposed of,
The Secretary (sir. Hastings) read the following letter
from Lord Brougham :

" 13rougham, Jan. 8, 1857.
"My dear Hastings—lt appears to me very important
that the attention of the society should be directed speci-
ally to the c.)mpiaints, not by any means groundless,
which have lately been made of some things connected
with the administration of the criminal law. Of the
change required in the law itself I have more than once
made mention; but I now refer to certain matters in the
administration of it. I shall at present only mention one
of them, but it is really of great importance generally and
permanently, although at this time, from accidental cir-
cumstances, it possesses peculiar claims to our attention.
Surely some arrangement ought to be made for giving
the Home Department more regular and effectual assist-
ance in the exercise of that most important and difficult
and most delicate office of remitting or commuting pu-
nishments ordered by the sentences of courts. It is not
interfering with the high prerogative of mercy to regu-
late the manner in which it shall be exercised. The
prerogative would remain, whatever checks we might
impose upon the advice to be tendered. Nay, the very
department to which assessors might be appointed would
be at full liberty to disregard their recommendation, as
the sheriff is in the writs of inquiry executed by him
with his assessor. But there is a case more closely resem-
bling the one in question, where the royal prerogative in
criminal, as well as in civil causes, is in substance
touched, though not in form. The Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council hears and determines those causes;
and though its recommendations do not bind the
Crown, and may be wholly disregarded, yet I question
if any instance can be found, even before that tribunal
was established, certainly there has been none since,
of any other judgment being given by the Crown than
sec rding to the report of the committee. But lam sure
I never dreamt that when we were forming the court,
with powers far more extensive than the former pes-
sessed, there was any encroachment made upon the pre-
rogative. It well deserves to be considered by one of our
committee in what way this kelp should be provided for
the department. Several plans have suggested them-
selves, but it, is manifest that here, as in so many other
branches of our inquiries touching the amendment of the
law, the want of a minister of justice will be sure to meet
us at each step, and that the creation of such an office
would probably supply the defect complained of. There
have been some cases lately in our criminal courts de-
serving of serious attention, on account of the erroneous
views taken by juries, and not perhaps sufficiently
checked by the bench. But without more full and accu-
rate information than I have been able to obtain as to
the facts, I do not even wish to state my doubt and diffi-
culties.—Believe me, sincerely yours,

"'H. BROUGHAM."

The SECRETARY then read a report presented by the
Criminal Law Committee on the paper read at the pre-
' ceding meeting by Mr. Hill, in reference to the means of
freeing a country from dangerous criminals. The commit.
tee were of opinion that some alterations in the scale of
punishment were necessary, and that a more vigorous
administration of the criminal law would render the com-
mission of acts of violence, robbery, and aggression mat-
ters of rare occurrence. They thought the late increase in
the number of crimes of a violent character attributable
in some degree to the disbandonment of the militia, which
had thrown on the country 70,000 men without adequate
means of employment ; but the root of the evil was, in
their opinion, to be found in the worse than useless sys-
tem of short imprisonments. The committee were
opposed to Mr. Hill's recommendation, that all persons
who could not show how they subsisted should be
liable to imprisonment, thinking that it might lead to
great abuse. They were also adverse to the renewal of
the transportation system, if by that phrase were meant
the establishment of a new penal colony, and were
convinced that all the advantages which attended a
penal settlement abroad might be better secured in one
at home. They did not think the ticket-of-leave system
had as yet bad a fair trial.

After reading the report,
Mr. HASTINSZ moved that it be adopted and printed,
and further moved the adoption of the following resole•
tions, embodying the substance of its recommendations

"1. That the 4th section of the 11th and 17th Vic-
sap. 99, ought to be repealed, and that terms of impri•
sonment equal to the former terms of transportation
should be adopted in place of the periods of penal servi-
tude laid down by that section."
"2. That courts of justice ought to be empowered to
inflict, at their discretion, one of such terms of imprison-
ment on any offender convicted of simple larceny, with-
out any proof of previous conviction of felony."
"8. That it is not expedient to establish a new penal
oolony, or to renew the former system of transportation ;
but that it is highly desirable to encourage the emigra-
tion of reformed criminals after they have passed through
a proper period of punishment and protection in this
country to such colonies as may be willing- to receive
them."

The meeting then proceeded to discuss the resolutions
separately.
Mr. E. WEBSTER moved as an amendment to the pro-
position of Mr. Hastings that the report be simply re-
ceived, and printed for circulation, without the resolu-
tions, and argued in favour of the establishment of a new
penal colony in which new inducements to reformation
should be held out to convicts.

Mr. ELLIOTT, who seconded the amendment, con-
tended that there was no possibility of reforming har-
dened criminals without sending them to a penal colony.
Mr. A. PI3LLArr, M.P., objected to the report on the
ground that it drew no,distinction between reclaimed
and unreclaimed criminals, and observed that reforma-
tion for the mass would be impracticable until adequate
provision had been made for the employment of criminals
on their release from confinement. He saw no reason
why an improved system should not be adopted without
a recurrence to transportation.

Mr. F. HILL thought that sufficient facilities existed
for employing criminals in this country, either in agri-
cultural or in manufacturing operations. The only
material difference between the committee and himself
related to the nature or degree of evidence which ought
to be required in courts of justice for the establishment
of guilt. He admitted that that was a question which
required to be well discussed, and that it would be an
evil to make any change that would not meet with ge-
neral concurrence. He did not desire anytking that
would endanger the free institutions of the country, but
it must be remembered that freedom to the criminal was
practically slavery to the honest man. (Hear, hear.)
Adverting to transportation, he strongly condemned the
renewal of it in any form, and argued that the best
course would be to increase the accommodation to pri-
soners either in this country or on some island adjacent
to it.

Mr. J. DILLoN thought it ought not to be assumed that
none of the colonies would receive criminals under any
circumstances, and expressed strong disapproval of the
lenient treatment of criminals.

Mr. HASTINGS, in replying, said be thought the ob-
ject of the committee would be attained by the printing
and circulating of their report. _ .

Lord STANLEY said he might, perhaps, as chairman,
be allowed to make a few remarks. The debate had,
practically, turned on the subject of transportation.
['hat subject divided itself into two distinct questions :
first, what they were to do with the criminals while they
were under punishment ; secondly, what they were to
do with them after their term of punishment had ex-
pired. As regarded the first of those questions, he be-
lieved there was a vary general agreement amongst all
who had considered the matter, that while a criminal
was actually undergoing his sentence it was in all re •
spects better to retain him here than to send him
abroad. Under the former arrangement there was no
possibility of his mixing with the home population,
because he was kept secluded ; there were plenty of pub-
lic works upon which he might be employed; they saved
the expense of his passage ; they had a more effective
superintendence than could be obtained on the other side
of the world, and which was a consideration that ought
not to be entirely neglected ; there was a better climate
here than in most places abroad where public works
could be usefully executed. The real difficulty was met
with when they came to consider the other question—
what they were to do with those whose strictly penal
term had expired. It seemed to him that there were only
three courses which could possibly be adopted. The first
was to send the criminals to colonies which were already
occupied; the second to found new colonies expressly for
the purpose of receiving them; the third, to keep them
in this country, with tickets of leave, or without them.
As to the proposition to send them to colonies which
areceivel wereto g readeatl
h ercriminals,aye s pp eaoip
eal ednd.
d,
Thent hoa t
se
awonlaoes n
mai
snat
nsexpedient ofeont
tc
eowrnht
sai
eci
nnh t t be
the
to
e
iwd
ee
rae opfaforcingr
stehtetremt oelado s v
rs oh.
ichltwwoausldof?ecilegaiveiditlhfeerwe
convicts. The reception of a few would not meet the
case ; it would, at the utmost, only postpone for two or
three years the Adoption of the remedy which must be

resorted to at last. The alternative lay between founding
a new colony for criminals, and providing for them at
home. As to the former, it was surrounded with diffi-
culties. In the first place, it would be absolutely neces-
sary to exclude free settlers from any penal colony. A
new penal colony must be exclusively penal ; otherwise
the free settlers would gradually strengthen in influence
till they became the majority, and prevented any further
importation of criminals. Even, however, if free settlers
were excluded, a similar result would ultimately arise.
The convicts who were sent out would have children—
' for of course women would be sent ; and in 30 years
there would be a new generation, consisting of persons
who, being themselves innocent, would object to the im-
portation of criminals as strongly as settlers who bad
gone out from England. (Hear.) Besidee, there was the
practical question, where were they to find such a place
of transportation as would be required I (lien.) As to
selecting a small South Sea island, that was out of the
question. A large area would be required, for a very
considerable number would have to be sent, and one, if
not the principal, object of sending out criminals would
be to put them in a place where there would be almost
unlimited space for all. Three situations had been named
—one the northern part of Australia, another Vancou-
ver's Island, the third Hudson's Bay. Now, to every
one of those locations there was some grave objection.
As to North Australia, there was, in the first place, the
certainty that, whatever the distance might be, the cri-
minals who were lodged there would, when allowed a
certain degree of liberty, find their way sooner or later
to the other Australian settlements. In the next place, it
must be recollected that the whole of Northern Australia
was between the tropics, and that the settlement of Port
Essington, which was founded there, was given up because
the climate was found to be unhealthy. In fact, all ex-
perience showed that in low-lying lands thus situated
the European race degenerated, and its labour was un-
profitable. With regard to Vancouver's Island, he
thought the neighbourhood of the Californian diggings,
and the feelings of the inhabitants of the United States,
were conolusive objections to its beingselectecl. The same
objections did not, indeed, apply to Hudson's Bay ; but
then he believed it would be found that a subsistence was
only to be obtained there by hunting, the climate offering
insuperable objections to the keeping of stock and the
cultivation of land. These considerations, it seemed to
him, disposed of all the localities which had been men-
tioned as available. In this state of things the only
alternative left to them was to try and make the best
of detention at home. On this subject he would remark,
in the first place, that he d:d not think the ticket-of-
leave system had yet had a fair trial, much less was
responsible for the whole of the outrageous crimes which
had been recently perpetrated. A large number of
men had been discharged from the militia ; regiments of
the line which had returned home, on being re-
duced, had naturally got rid of some of their worst cba-
racters ; and owing to those two causes there was no
doubt a larger criminal population than there would
have been under other circumstances. But, in the next
place, he did not think the principle on which the ticket-
of-leave system was framed had been fairly carried out.
As he understood that system it Was implied that the
residence and occupation of every man having a ticket of
leave should be known, so that if there were merely a
strong suspicion that any such person was getting his
living dishonestly, he should on that ground alone be
called to account. The principle of the ticket-of-leave
system should be applied with much greater strictness
than it had been. Now he would just point out one or
two means by which he thought the existing evil might
,be alleviated. It struck him as a great misfortune that
in their prison discipline there was no provision for an
intermediate state between actial seclusion in prison and
absolute freedom of life out of doors. (Hear.) Th.e man
who left prison was bewildered by the new state of things
in which he found himself. Moreover the men who were
the best behaved in prison were often the worst behaved
out of prison—and for this reason, that they were the
men most susceptible to any influences, whether
good or bad, which were brought to bear upon them.
The man who was docile when subject to good influences
was equally docile, perhaps, when placed in contact with
his old companions. (Hear.) He thought, therefore,
that one evil which required to be corrected was the
sudden transition froma state of absolute prison seclusion
to a state of absolute freedom. He was also of opinion
that more consideration ought to be given to the recom•
mendation of Oapt. Maconoohis, that the length of a
man's imprisonment should be made to depend to a cer-
tain extent on his own labours. Another question arose,
namely, whether, taking into consideration the state of
employment in this country, and the extreme difficulty
of sending criminals abroad, it would not be practicable
to provide continued employment for those who
were willing to accept it on public works, er
otherwise, after their discharge from gaol. It was, he
thought, a reproach to the state of the law that a ticket:
of-leave man should be compelled to come before a police
magistrate, as had been the case recently, and say—
" What am I to do I No one will give me employment."
(Hear.) He would conclude by saying that, though they
did not pretend to see their way out of all these difficul-
ties, the should at least warn the public against trying
vain and fancied remedies. It was better to know that
the problem remained unsolved, than to put trust in some
imaginary solution, which was sure to break down at last.
On a show of hands the amendment was adopted, and
the meeting adjourned till that day week.

ANOTHER BRITISH SUBJECT ARRESTED
_ .

IN PRUSSIA.

We have to make an announcement to our readers of a
most humiliating nature, and calculated to fill them with
renewed indignation at the low estimate in which the Bri-
tish name and the rights of British citizenship are held at
this moment by tho despots of Europe.
Our readers will remember that, for some time past, a
controversy has been carried on in the columns of this
journal respecting the rights of those of our fellow-citizens
who have acquired by naturalisation the rights of an Eng-
lish subject. Legally speaking, there can be no doubt
whatever as to these rights. They are plainly enough de-
fined by a distinct law ; and, moreover, the certificates
granted to all the naturalised subjects contain a clear spe-
cification of the privileges conferred upon them. The Act
to Amend the Laws relating to Aliens contains the follow-
ing precise statement :—" And be it enacted that, upon
obtaining the certificate and taking the oath hereinafter
prescribed, every alien now residing in, or who shall here-
after come to reside in, any part of Great Britain or Ire-
land, with intent to settle therein, shall enjoy all the
rights and capacities which a natural-born subject of the
United Kingdom can enjoy or transmit, except that
such alien shall not be capable of becoming one of her Ma.
jesty's Privy Council, nor a member of either House of
Parliament, nor of enjoying such other rights and capaci.
ties, if any, as shall be specially excepted in and by the
certificate to be granted in manner hereinafter mentioned."
This is surely sufficiently plain ; and it is further con-
firmed by the formula of the certificate itself, which runs
to the effect that the petitioner is admitted "to the full
rights and capacities of a natural-born subject, except the
capacity of becoming a member of the Privy Council, or a
member of either House of Parliament."

Strong in these stipulations of the law, our naturalised
fellow-citizens hitherto have fondly believed that, except
the two cases specially mentioned, they enjoyed equal pri-
vileges with ourselves. They thought they were entitled
to all the rights of British subjects ; and they laid the
flattering unction to their soul that, in case of any attacks
on their personal freedom in stranger countries, they might
rightfully claim the protection of the English authorities.
This illusion has been sorely disturbed by a recent circular,
emanating from the Home-office. A stereoytyped letter has
been sent round, at the order of Sir George Grey, inti-
mating to every naturalised subject, that " no certificate or
act of naturalisation places him beyond the lawful power
and control of his country, unless he has received from the
Government of such country a certificate of denationalisa-
tion, or been formally released from his original obligations
as a subject or citizen in some other legal way." We need
not say what consternation this circular—which is the
most flagrant contradiction to English law—has created
among the numerous naturalised British subjects in this
country. A subsequent circumstance, however, has even
added to the panic. A gentleman, duly possessed of a cer-
tificate of denationalisation, nevertheless received the
Home-office letter, informing him that, in the event of his
travelling out of England, he became divested of his qua-
lity of English citizen ! And when he demanded an ex-
planation from the proper quarter, he was favoured, as
one of our correspondents informs us, with another com-
munication from the Secretary of State,
"intimating that,
in spite of his double certificate of naturalisation and de-
nationalisation, he is a British subject at home only, and
not abroad 1"
These suspicious circumstances made it apparent enough
to us that something wrong must be lurking behind this
official letter-writing. Having fresh in our memory the
case of M. Tarr- kidnapped by the Austrian soldiery, and
obtaining freedom only through the unceasing exertions of
the English press—we considered it a duty to attempt lift-
' jug the veil from the Home-oiUce correspondence, and to

discover whether, perchance, it had connexion with some
shameful event, similar to the illegal arrest of M. Turr.
We grieve to say, from the investigations wo have made,
that such appears unfortunately to be the case. Sir Gew
Grey's circular seems to be nothing less than a clumsy
attempt to decline all interference in the case of a natura-
lised British subject who was recently arrested iu Saxony,
and handed over afterwards to the sbirris of the King of
Prussia, and is suffering at this moment in a Prussian dun-
geon—awaiting trial before a court-martial, front which
he will, perhaps, receive a sentence of death !
Our readers will be startled at this announcement. Un-
happily the details are such as to leave no doubt of the
gravity of the case.

We are informed that the British subject in question is
M. Ziepel, formerly holding the office of Assistant-Judge,
as well as that of Lieutenant of the Prussian landwehr at
Halberstadt, but since 1819 a resident partly in this coun-
try, partly in one of our Australian colonies, and for years
a naturalised English citizen. Dating the popular move.
meets of 1849, when the Prince of Prussia and his despotic
confederates were about to overthrow German liberty and
to disperse the national Parliament at Frankfort, M.
Ziepel— faithful to his duties as a free man, and faithful,
too, to the then existing Constitution of his country—ap-
pears to have acted in conformity . with justice and law,
and opposed the efforts of the absolutist conspiracy. When
the cause of dynastic reaction proved victorious, he
came to England, and acquired here, in due form, the
right of British citizenship, and, with it, the claim to
a full protection of his personal liberty abroad. After
some years of residence in English Australia, he lately
returned to England, with the intention of definitively
settling here. Shortly after his arrival in London,
however, he started on a visit to Saxony, there to em-
brace an aged mother and to bring over a bride to the land
of his adoption. At Dresden he was recognised and arrested
by the police, handed over to the authorities of the next
Prussian frontier town, Halle, and from thence conducted
as a prisoner to the Prussian fortress of Magdeburg. There
he is still in chains ; and, as far as we are informed, accused
of a heavy catalogue of so-called " crimes," which are to be
judged by the tender mercies of a Prussian military tri-
bunal—M. Ziepel, on account of his former quality as a
lieutenant of the landwehr, being " still considered as
belonging to the Prussian army I"
We shudder at the thought of what may be the issue to
the unfortunate traveller of those military procedures. A
few years ago that sanguinary sot, the King of Prussia,
cause.' several privates of the landwehr, who had been
mixed up with the movements of 1849, to be shot on his
very birthday fete. Even should M. Ziepel escape with
life, still—if the hand of Great Britain be denied to him
—it is incalculable what sufferings may be imposed upon
the luckless captive.
In presence of a danger so imminent, we would awake
our Government to a sense of the duty imposed upon it of
securing without delay the release of our fellow-citizen.
It is not now the time to inquire whether the latter has
acted prudently in venturing so close to the Prussian
frontiers as Saxony. The point at issue for us is alone that
he has a right to expect to be saved by us from the fate
which the ruthless persecutors have prepared for him. The
case in his favour is clear and unmistakeable. A natural-
ised alien, who is " admitted to the fall rights and capaci-
ties of a natural-born subject," (right, legally, to be pro-
tected by Great Britain, even had he ventured to step into
the very territory of Prussia herself. But M. Ziepel is far
from having done so! He has merely ventured into Saxony,
a kingdom the acutest inquisitors of which could not
scout out any matter for accusation against him. Yet he
was arrested by the Saxon police, and treacherously
given up to the vengeance of Frederick William IV. It
matters little to us that the Court of Dresden has a treaty
•f extradition with that of B !Ain. That treaty may have
power over subjects of Prussia and Saxony ; but it cannot
be advanced as a right of violating the sacred character of
a British subject. If naturalised Englishmen are hence-
forth forbidden to enter every country that has treaty of
" extradition" with some other despot, the whole Conti-
nent of Europe would soon be shut against them. This
assumption reduces their rights of citizenship to a perfect
farce, inasmuch as it would be a very questionable benefit
to purchase the privileges of a British citizen with such an
onerous clause affixed thereon.

We refrain to-day from further remarks. We content
ourselves for the nonce with the statement of the facts,—
hoping that the voice of popular indignation which was
raised when M. Turr was in the fangs of the Austrian
police, and which again made itself heard when Mr. Morris
Moore had his personal liberty jeopardised by the Berlin
police, will once more call aloud for the rescue of another
of our fellow-citizens from the claws of the Prussian
tyrant.—Morning Advertiser.