The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-12 00:00:00

nishment for offences connected with the persOnal secu-
rity of the Sovereign. Now the state of the law at pre-
sent, confining himself to treasonable offences directed
against the personal security of the Sovereign, was upon
an ancient statute of Edward M., which'it was pro-
vided that it was treason to compass the death of the
Sovereign. That compassing the death of the Sovereign
must he accompanied .by some . overt act, such
as 'a direct attempt against the life of the
Sovereign. That where there was constructive treason
he did intend to enter. But as far as the personal
security of the Sovereign was concerned, compassing
the death of the Soverei,!:n, accompanied by an overt act
is made treason by the statnte of Edward 111. At
a subsequent period, so recently as the 36th Geo. 111.,
chap. 96, in consequence of an attempt made upon
the life of his Majesty. The statute was passed
which made it treason to compass the death or
destruction of the Sovereign, op-the infliction of any
bodily injury to the Sovereign tf nding; 'to death and de—
slruction, or the maiming of the Sovereign. There was
-no charge until' the year 1799. If the indictment was
proved of a charge of treason, it was necessary to try the
prisoner with all solemn practices of the law. That sta-
ff passed in the reign of George 3d. In the year
1799 an attempt was made on the life of George the
Third, by a person of the name of llatfiela, a conviction
took place on the ground of insanity. The form
of proceeding was under the Act of William
By the Act of 1800, in case of the offence of compassing
the death of the King, accompanied by some overt act,
the form of trial was dispensed with, and the trial made
the same 'us in cases of ordinary murder and malicious
shooting. But if the offence was committed under the
statute of the 36th George 111., and was that of compaSs-
.......

big the wounding of the Sovereign, there was no power
of dispensing with all the solemnity of a trial for
high treason, and the person must be arraigned under
that statute. What he proposed was,' that, in the second
case, as well as the first, the proceedings should
be of the ordinary description, known to the ordi-
nary cases of tise law, and that it should not be
necessary to go through ail the formalities described by
Mr. Erskine in the trial of Hatfield. Immediately after
the trial of Hatfield those formalities were dispensed with.
and he could not help thinking after the experience they
had had in the repeated attempts upon her Majesty,
from which the intention to kill or wound her Ma-
jesty might be fairly inferred, the investing those wretched
criminals with the dignity of traitors, and making
the charge against them with all the solemnities of high
treason, almost tempted them to commit the crime for the
sake of the sort of dignity with which it invested them. Ail
that he proposed to do was thae where there was an attempt
to wound the Sovereign as well as. in the other Act
passed after the trial of Hatfield, the prisoner should
be tried by the ordinary trihueals of the country
as fur an ordinary charge, and that all these
formalities should be dispensed With. In this
they were acting on the same principle.; as those
hich had induced them to decide in the case of
Francis, after full consideration, that notwith-
-standing his life was forfeited to the laws of the
country, yet it would not be for the public interest
that he should be executed. However heinous was his
attempt, yet acting in accordance with the commands "of
their most graCioirs Sovereign, they applied the same
considerations to his case as they should have applied to
a case of common crime. They had, therefore, in a
Csbitict Council, reviewed all the evidence taken against
him (Francis). They had resolved not to come to eny
decision upon a matter of such importance without having
an interview upon it with the three Judges in whose
presence the prisoner had been tried, and with the law
officers of the Crown—the Attorney-General and Soli-
citor-General—by whom that prosecution had been con-
ducted. The result of that conference was an unanimous
opinion, upon a review of the whole of the particulars
of the case, that it was not advisable, in that instance,
that the capital sentence should be carried into execu-
tior. The opinion of the Judges was found to be in pre-
cise conformity with that of the law officers of the Crown,
• by whom the prosecution had been conducted. Under these
circumstances, he thought the House would be of opi-
nion that they had taken a more effectual. security
against the repetition of such an offence, than if they
were to depart from the usual course of proceeding. it
was not necessary. for him to enter into a detail
of the reasons which ' indeed • them to come to that deci-
sion, it would be, he thought, sufficient for him to point
out that the law officers of the Crown had advised the
adoption of such a egorSe. 'i'he Bill ihe proposed Would
also provide for other offences besides • those which
bore the name of high treason. The Bill would subject
to severer punishment than could be at present applied
all the e el&nees which were connected with the discharge
of fire-arms, or attempts to annoy her Majesty, even
where the ease did nut amount to high treason.
He did not think he could do better than read to the
House this new class.. of uflnces, against which it. was
proposed b provide. He proposed, that after the
passing of this Act, if any person discharge, or at-
tempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at, or near
the person •of the Queen any gun, pistol, er other de-
scription of :fire-arms, or any other arms what-
soever, although the same should not contain
any explosive or destructive material ;
„cr should
discharge, or attempt to discharge, any eXplOsive
substance or ani4gaial- at. or ,near the person of
the Queen ; ur it' soy person strike, or attempt to strike
the rerson of the Queen with any offensive weapon,or,
by any other means whatsoever, oe. wilfully throw or
attempt to throw any substance whatsoever. at
or on the person of the • Queen, with intent.
in any • case aforesaid to injure the person,
of the Queen, or with intent, in any of the aforesaid
cases to break the public peace —he proposed that
every such person so offending should be subject
to certain punishment, not of undue severity. He
thought that this law would derive great efficacy;
from public opinion. He proposed that a party so ot-
fending—that was, intending to hurt her Majesty wil-
fully, or annoy her, should be subjected to the
same penalties which applied to offences of larceny:
—that was to say parties so offending should be subject
to transportation fur a period not exceeding seven
years. But he proposed that the party should be
subject also. to another punishment which he thought
much more worthy of the offence, and much more calcu-
lated to repress it, viz., that there should be a discre-
tionary power to imprison for a given -period, and to ins
ffict personal chastisement.—(Loud and general cheets
ilia%) With dais punishment he thought those
miscreants would not be incited to the offence by being
made the objects .of that disgraceful and stupid sympa-
thy which some people felt for offenders of that descrip-
tion. Let it be known to the world that if men could be
actuated by base and malignant motives, to endeavour
to prevent the Sovereign from enjoying in peace and
tranquility the rights and privileges of' her station,
the punishmentinfficted for such detestable acts would be
severe personal chastisement. He confidently hoped that
without calling in aid extreme severity, the provisions
of file law which he was %bout to introduce, would effectio
ally prevent the:repetition of such attempts. They
had notguard against attempts on her Majesty's
Crown, but agi'lat miscreants who committed an offence
with scarcely an assi;;b'=i?le motive. The law had never
:,sv. that any being in the
contemplated the possih;
form of a man could find an; satisfaction in firing
a pistol at a young lady—that ...141.Y. a mother—
that• Lady the Queen of these realms and it was
monstrous that that Lady should not be to the
same protection as the meanest of her subjects.—(He:."-)
lle hoped the House would respond to the proposition
that a new security should be given to her Majesty.
They knew that her Majesty might repose with the
grc atest confidence on the affections% of her people ;
what they had to guard against was the designs of
these wee:wheal miscreants—designs which were calcu-
lated not only to disturb her Majesty's peace, but
the peace of any loyal subject of the- re alm. The enact-
ment which he proposed trenched upon no principle of
English jurisdiction, impose no undue severe pu-
nishment—he was sure that the measure which
he proposed would' meet with the unanimous ap-
proval of that House, and that every Member would
retire from his Parliamentary labours with the hirah
Satisfaction of thinking that he had, by his vote, contribu-
ted to that security and that tranquillity which the
Sovereign bad a right equally with her subjects to enjoy..
The Right Hon. Baronet then moved for leave to bring
in a I ill for providing for the further security and pro-
tection alter Majesty's persnn.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he rose-to express his cordial
assent to the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He
entirely agreed, 'that when new mischievous crimes were
committed, it was desireable that the law should be
made adequate to meet those those offences. The Right
Honourable Gentleman, as ho understood, did not
propose at all to alter the law of treason, or the
offences which cause under that description.
In fact, they had not then to deal with phets and coespi-
racies for the purpose of overturning sh' State.
With respect to crimes of that kind, certain seciSsities
had been provided by the law, and were fitly pro-
vided, and with regard to one of them, indeed,
the power of being defended by Counsel had been since
extended to persons accused of felony of an ordinary Ha •
ture. But the offence with which the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet proposed to deal was new in its kind. It did not spring
from any political psssions, but, as stated by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, from some base and malignant passim),
to injure the person of the Sovereign. When they saw
offences of this description committed so frequently as
they had seen been committed Within two years, it was
a case when the law should be altered,- and in which
means • should be provided to bring those persons
to trial speedily, and without those solemnities fitly pro-
vided for crimes of a much graver nature as respected
the State.—(Hear, hear.) With -regard to ordinary
cases of treason; there was great difficulty in ascer-
taining whether they were the result of a conspiracy,
but the offence for which the present remedy was pro-
vided was committed In the face of day, and must be
committed in the presence of many persens. He
agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman that it was
right to meet such offences with a new law,
and he also agreed with him as to the kind of punishment
he proposed to inflict —(Hear, hear.) As they were
offences of a base and degraded being, a base
and
,degraded species of punishment could be most
fitting, appeared to them.—(Bear, hear.) It was
hard to know their motives. Ile could not conjecture
how any person could be tempted to interfere with the
ordinary recreations of the Sovereign. and deprive
her Majesty of that fair - exercise to which she
was entitled—(Hear, hear)—and as they knew she was
exposed to those attempts more than others, he
entirely fig( cd that it was time to have such
a remedy provided as would put an end to
such attempts, and be effectual in stopping
that love of notoriety from which they were
supposed to proceed.—(Hear, hear.) When it was
found they were treated with the punishment
they properly deserved, he trusted that in future
,years they would nut have the pain of wit-
nessing. crimes, not only distressing to them, as giving
pain eel alarm to the Sovereign, but as they were
clearly disgraceful to the nation.—(Cheers.) .
Nr. HUME trusted that the House would maul-