The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

name we did not catch.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
Deanery of Bangor against railway travelling on Sunday, also
one from the same place against the opening of beershops on
Sunday.
Lord VIVIAN presented a petition against the grant to
slaynooth.
CONFESSIONS OF CRIMINALS.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM wished to call the attention
of their Lordships to a written statement that was made by the
murderer, who was lately executed at Aylesbury, to the chap-
lain of the gaol there, the Rev. Mr. Cox, which statement he
refused to deliver up to the magistrates on their requiring
him to do so. He (Mr. Cox) told them he had no objection
to make a private and confidential communication to them re-
specting it, but refused altogether to make a disclosure
in open Court. Now, he (the Duke of Buckingham) wished
to know from her Majesty's Government whether the chaplain
of the gaol was authorised to withhold such a statement from
the magistrates on their requiring him to deliver it up?
The Duke of WELLINGTON had no authority from the
Government to make any answer to the question ; but, con-
sidered that, unless in a ca-e where the life of the minister
himself was in danger or in cases of high treason, the common law
forbade him to make any disclosures of a confession made to
him under such circumstances.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that as the
chaplain had, as he understood, made the communication
known to the Secretary of State, and the judge who presided
at the trial, that it could no longer be looked upon as a pri-
vate communication.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that it was no private
communication, as it had been made in the presence of a third
vereon, the governor of the gaol.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that by the law of England there
was no protection given to the minister of any religion with re-
spect to such a confession. It was over and over again
ruled that they were bound to disclose it. Even in a case
where a confession had been made to a Roman Catholic priest
under such circumstances, he was compelled to disclose it.
The Bishop of EXETER said that it was a portion of the
liturgy of the Church of England, and the liturgy of the
Church of England was recognised as a portion of the law of
England, that if a clergyman saw a sick man, on whom he
was in attendance, was labouring under compunctions of con•
science, it was his duty to ease the conscience of the sick man,
and to use that confession to further the ends of public justice.
The Noble and Learned Lord was mistaken in the supposition
of the case to which he had referred. The case was not that
of a Popish priest, but of a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, and it was not tried before Justice Buller but before Mr.
Justice Wilson ; and there was another case of more impor-
tance than this, which hail been decided by Mr. Justice
Parke at Nisi Prius, according to the principle which the
Noble and Learned Lord had advocated. After that trial he
(the Bishop of Exeter) had communicated with the Learned
Jud :e, and on reference to the decision of Lord Ellenhorough,
which was taken en the Northern Circuit, they had ascer-
tained that Lord Kenyon, on a subsequent occasion, stated that
he should have refused the evidence on which Lord Loughbo-
rough had decided. He trusted that the Noble and Learned
Lord would not think him presumptuous in stating this opinion.
It was not his own, but that of the high authorities to which
he had referred, and he had made those observations in order
that the ends of public justice might not be prevented.
Lord STANLEY said that the confessions made by per-
sons under conviction, at the hour of death, or in the very
extremity of life, could further no ends of public justice.
Whether the clergyman who attended the person in these un-
happy circumstances had acted wisely or otherwise, it was
clear that the confession would further no ends of public jus-
tice. The confession was made to clear the conscience, and
conduce to the future spiritual welfare of the individual con-
cerned, and could' in no way act as a confession might have
done in furthering the ends of justice. The publication of a
confession was of value only with a view to this end, or to
satisfy a prurient curiosity, and he (Lord Stanley) conceived
that no one would think that publicity was necessary for that
pursose. The chaplain in this case could reveal the contents
of the confession to such Versons as he thought fit It was a
question of discretion on his part ; and if the visiting magis.
trates were dissatisfied, they had the remedy in their own
hands. They had the power of removing him. Ile (Lord
Stanley) would venture to say that, under such circumstances
as those connected with the present subject, there was no case
to call for the interference of the Secretary of State to force
the chaplain to give up possession of the document.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the Noble Lord who had
just spoken, and thought the clergyman had exercised a sound
discretion. It was no part of the duty of the Secretary of State
to interfere in such cases as that brought under the considera-
tion of the House, or to bind magistrates as to the particular
interpretations that should be given to points of law. The
question. whether clergymen were bound to disclose confessions
made before trial under a pledge of secrecy, did not arise in the
present instance. This was a case, and he would not speak on
that point, in which a confession made after conviction was
required to be given up. This case, he would state, they ought
not for a moment to suppose, that an after confession was re-
nisired either to satisfy the public or the jury. The public
ought to rest satisfied with the verdict. There were three
parties to a verdict, the jury, the judge, and the coroner, and if
these were satisfied with the guilt of a criminal, no confession
was necessary after that. But if juries were to
be told to speculate upon confessions being made
after trial, instead of carefully weighing evidence, great
evils would arise. If a jury had any doubts whatever they
ought net to convict. it ought to be known, that juries
ought only to convict upon evidence, and should have no
doubt at all. They ought to be told, that they ought not to
speculate on confessions, which were worth so very little, that
they were sometimes resorted to by criminals in order to
allow their accomplices to escape.
The Marquis of NORM AN BY agreed with the Noble
Lord who had preceded him in the view of the question
he had advanced. There was another point to which he
wished to make reference, while this business was before
the House. It was respecting letters sent by persons under
sentence of death. Their Lordships knew that the prison au-
thorities had the power of opening letters, but it never was
!opposed that they had the power of furnishing for publication
such disgusting and blasphemous letters, as two which had
recently appeared in the ',ebbe prints, addressed by the con-
vict Hocker to two unfortunate females ; every sentence of
which ought to have been buried in oblivion. He hoped at
least that the Secretary of State would, if he did no more,
give his counsel and advice to prevent the recurrence of such
disgraceful proceedings.
Lord DENMAN concurredwith the Noble Lord who had
just spoken, and said that after a verdict was given by a jury
the public had no right to doubt its integrity, but, should
doubts at any time arise, the throne of mercy was open to be
S 1 t • qw-
-1 He hoped the public mind would give up its ex•
riosity, in respect to publications containing such dis-
!tails as those which had been referred to. He did
since the prisoner, who was a man of wealth and

~,,, _.‘ cur
. ,s r 771 -gusting de
.....—,.....,- ~..:,_. ---'---• not See.th
, -
(........
s- :----,...k i.,7Y
14,41 A s