The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
LAWS RELATING TO GAMBLING.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the evidence
taken before the Select Committee appointed to consider
the laws relating to gambling, should be presented from
time to time for the use of the House, but that it should
not be delivered until further orders.--Agreed to.
PROPERTY OF FELONS.
The Duke of RICHMOND then proceeded to call
the attention of his Noble Friend at the head of the
Council-office to a circular, dated the 2d of September,
1843, which was signed by the Assistant-Secre-
tary to the Treasury, and which had been sent
to the different clerks of the peace of the United King-
dom. He had no wish to throw any impediments in the
way of the Government, or to impute, blame to any one ;
but he thought it much better that all communications
from the Government to the magistrates, especially on
matters relating to the administration ofjustiee as regarded
criminals should be made through the medinm of the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department. Had such a course
been adopted in the present instance, the irregularity of
which he had now to complain would not, in all pro-
bability, have occurred. Their Lordships were aware
that the property of all convicted felons was forfeited to
the Crown, and no doubt the Treasury were as anxious
to get as much as they coud from that source. It should,
however, be recollected that the country gentlemen of
England had to pay half the expenses of these prosecu-
tions out of the county-rate, and to maintain the criminals
in gaol ; and he thought that, at all events, the county
should be reimbursed the expenses which they had in-
curred, from the forfeited property of criminals before
the Crown seized it, leaving the residue, after the pay-
ment of those expenses, to the Crown. However, he
admitted that by law the Crown was entitled to all the
property of convicted felons. He was well aware that
this letter was only a letter of advice, but magistrates
would scarcely be inclined to think that the Lords of the
Treasury would offer the bad advice--the paragraph in
this letter recommended that the justices should make
a return of all moneys taken from prisoners by the Go-
vernor of the gaol. To that he did not object. The go-
vernor of every prison was bound to take an inventory of
all property found on the prisoners, and he thought there
could be no objection to that inventory being transmitted
to the Treasury • but there was another direction in the
letter to which he did object, and that was, that in cases
in which there was reason to suppose that the prisoner
was possessed of property other then that found on his
person, the magistrates were required to cause inquiry to
be made at the residence of such prisoner, or in any
other place frequented by him, in order to ascertain
particulars as to the value of such property which was
to be returned to the clerk of the peace, and included in
his return to the Treasury. He (the Duke of Richmond)
contended that such a requisition was illegal; a constable
entering a place to make such inquiry would be liable
to an action for trespass. .low was he to know
to whom the property belonged ? He had no right
to look over partnership belonged
; and if such
inquiries were made, be (the Duke of Rich-
mond), as a visiting magistrate, should feel it his duty
to inform every prisoner that; up to the moment of his
conviction, he had a perfect right to assign over his pro-
perty, or dispose of it in any way he might think proper.
He hoped the Government would withdraw this letter,
or, at all events, amend it. The Noble Duke concluded
by moving for the production of the letter.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE had no objection to the pro-
duction of the letter. The Noble Duke had correctly
stated, that, by the common law of the land, the goods of
convicted prisoners were forfeited to the Crown; and,
until a few years ago, a regular return of such goods was
made. Some very strong instances have arisen in which
the property of prigoners had fallen into other persons'
hands, and had been retained by those persons. One
was at Brighton, when forty Sovereigns were taken