Star.
London, England, 1814-04-26 00:00:00

serious nature. He was far from convinced by the
Learned Gentleman, to-whom he had attended with
much respect. • His chief 4eason seemed to be the
ineonveniencies attending the arrangement of pro-
perty in the view of conveyances, on account of old
attaints. He observed, that he-had not laid stress
upon the argument, which he (Mr. Yorke) thought
an exploded one, of the hardship and injustice of
making children suffer for parents' crimes. If we
were now enacting
.a law to make children suffer in
their liberty, or their own acquisitions, for a father's
treasons, we might be fairly called unjust. That,
however, was not the case. The question was, wile.
then the crime was such as made the present punish-
ment politic ? As he understood the Learned Gen-
' tleman, it rested on the feudal system, and not on its
being a part of the punishment, as a penal law. This
distinction he could not understand. Ir might be said
so ut forfeiture; that it was not punishment, but a
consequence of it : —yet it had been considered as
much a part of the punishment as death ; and so had
corruption of blood. There was no sound distinction.
Lord Coke bad stated, that if the wife of the attain'.
ed person lost her dower, and their children their ho-
nours and inheritance, it was because it was neces-
sary to increase the fear of committing crimes that
bought such fatal consequences on those who were
most-dear to them. Why, then, should the principles
of the old law be now altered or departed from ?-;
Was there any particular grievance*ow to complain
of ? It must appear to every man of candid mind as a
slur cast upon the long and benevolent reign of our
present Sovereign, to say that there was now any,
particular occasion to introduce such an alteration.—
,Afterithe ref olutions in America and Frame, and the
rebellion in Ireland, had set the minds of many men
adrift, he did not think it a proper time to relax the
severity of the law. in cases of high treason. When
lewae recollected too, that both in this country and
..such barbarous murders had lately been
committed As had been unknown and unparalleled for
the last 150 years, he did not think it a time to dimi-
nish the punishment of mu: der. As to treason, al-
though he hoped that late events would display more
conspicuously the excellence of our constitution, yet
we were tuna() expect a'goiden age to take place int-
nicliately, or suppose that vie were living in Arca-
dia. When he conceived the circumstances which
might arise from our superabundant population, he
'thought it possible that some men might yet be found
to entertain the idea of such crimes, and that the exist-
ing punishment might have a salutary effect in •re-
pressiffg them, as persons might, from vanity as well
as affection, be deterred from bringing the penalty
of corruption of blood on their whole families. He
concluded by moving an amendment to the first
clause, which went to prevent the operation of the
bill extending to cases of high treason, petty treason,
and murder.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, he perfectly
agreed with the right Hon. Gentleman respecting the
antiquity oF the law ; but he seemed to have been in-
fluenced ia his defence of it more through ia anti-
quity that from any other motive. It might be as
ancient as any other parts of the law of England, and
like every ether old institution, it was tainted by the
times in which it originated. It was not more ancient
than the law of !seine: fortes et dares, and the whole
train of those feudal barbarisms. He could not un-
derstand what was meant by cages of necessity being
said to exist fcr the continuance of this old law any
more than others which had been repealed. There
WAS certainly no other reason for repealing the act
which authorised the burning of women, and of per-
sons called heretics, than that a more enlightened
period of society should not be disgraced and stained
by such sanguinary laws—there was only this ne-
cessity, that the eyes an I hearts of the people should
not be shucked by witnessing the execution of such
barbarities. We were told that his Majesty's reign
had been 'signalized by mildness. What inference
was to be drawn from this ? Because his Majesty's
reign had been humane and lenient, were the House
not to catch any of that humanity and lenity, or to
give it a legal body and sanction ? This was a very
singular interence. For his own part he would nut
give a silent vote on the subject so vastly important
to the body of Scotch landholders, whom he repre-
sented, and to Scotland at large. The law propust d
to be repealed was totally unknown to the ai:ciela
laws of Scotland. Corruption of Blood incases of
treason was first made to apply to Scotland, in the
seventh year of Queen Anne, and the reasons for it
were ably and Lally detailed. by BishOp Burnett, as
honest and sincere a man as ever existed. '1 lie law
was to expire after the death of the Pretender of
that period, on whose behalf an invasion had the
year before been attempted : it was only introduced
As a temporary act, and every extent of it beyond
the period of actual danger, was a breach of faith
to Scotland. Yet, in 1743, this provision was again
extended for as long as the Pretender should live ;
this law then, which was avowed to be only tem-
porary, was of such a violent and injurious nature
ills to be totally unfit for what Lords Somers and
!Cocks described to Burnett as good time:. Such
'laws were adapted only to alarming exigencies, and
ought to be abolished when the dangers against
which they were intende4 to operate, no longer
existed. The burthen of the proof that there was a
necessity for the old law rested with those who wished
to perpetuate it. The rue innovation was made in
the 39th of George 111. the year 1799. Those who
supported the modern statute, (that of 1799) in his
humble opinion, acted against the original inten-
tion of the Legislature. lie was only anxious to sup-
port the established law against what he conceived to
be an innovation. He held both the law of cor-
ruption of blood and that of forfeiture, in abhorrence
—the latter had found its way into the codes of most
nations, the former was peculiar to England, and
',tent to inflict a heavy punishment on the innocent,
while it could have no effect on the guilty. if a
•man were to imagine a bad Utopia—a place where
'more misery could be known than was experienced
an this world, the principle of this law would be, that
on which his plan must be founded—that of inflicting
the greatest punishment en the innocent, the least on
guilt. To suppose that law, like that under the
consideration of the Committee, would have the effect
of deterring-a man from the commission of a crime;
to irnaginealw this law, through which a person un-
born, might some nifty or a hundred years after the
crinainars decease, miss an estate which he might
ova:vise have gained, was, M entertain a,ttexpectation.
more wit 4 and extravagant by kW ever bow dreamt

by the wildest sethistslwhile forming visionary schemes
of Government. No stronger case was necessary to
shew the impropriety of continuing this law, than
that which ad Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
'brought forward ; where through corruption of blond
an estate was lost to the children of an officer in his
IMajesty's army who had been engaged in suppressing
the rebellion, in which his relation was concerned.—
.This hardship had been endured to maintain the beau-
tiful theory that the corrupted blood of a traitor could
not be a channel for the transmission of any property.
•For this the children of an officer who had devoted
his life to the cause of loyalty were to he made beg-
gars, as if it were not enough that their unfortunate
parent should draw his sword against his kinsman,
and probably be placed in the distressing situation of
unconsciously depriving his relation of life.—(Hear.)
Could it be thought that it was no hardship for the
children of such an officer to go on their knees to beg
that bread which, but for this law, they might have
claimed as their right. He did not wish to asperse
those through whom the bounty of the Crown was ex-
erted, but he would despise shit man who did not
'feel it la degradation to be compelled to implore that
bounty. To be placed in this situation was revolting
to the pride of an Englishman—to those feelings
which had made this country what it now is, and
shot, he trusted in Goo, it would ever remain. The
,limitations which had been set to the operation of this
law, proved that it had been considered as an innova-
tion on the established system. It had been condemn-
ed by Lord Somers in 1708, by Lord Hardwicke in
1744, and a time more favourable for its repeal than
the prisent could never be expected to arrive. 'At a
period when, as had truly been said, all were united
in gratitude to Aamictoro Goorfor those stupendous
events which had assured our safety and repose, it
would be well that they should proceed to abrogate
the ancient severity of those laws, which might be re-
lased—to remove the brand and remnant of civil con-
vulsion—to. do away that miserable absurdity which
only served to furnish a subject for ineectiee and cri-
ticism, to those who opened cur Statute, ook in order
to abuse it. He concluded 14 pronouncing an ani-
mated eulogy on the conduct of the Emperor Alex-
ander,
-and expressing a hope that the happy change
effected through his firmness, would be productive of
important domestic reforms, affording as it did the
fairest opportunity for attaining them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL ( Mr. Serjeant
Shepherd) felt it to be an awful moment in which he
first addressed that House. He contended that those
great authorities which had bi.en referred to-had not
been disposed so take away corruption of blood.
This had been assumed, from the limitations as to
time set to the operations of the law on that subject
in cases of treason. It was, however, to be remem-
bered, that they had proposed no such lis&tation in
cases of felony ; and he though: it wovldbe a great
libel upon them to suppose that they were disposed
`to shew more indulgence to the traitor than to the
felon. In this respect, therefore, the argument of
the last speaker completely failed. From a variety
of circumstances he contended, it was clear that. this
measure had been considered to he one, that it was
important to uphold. The law of corruption of blood
was very ancient. This in itself was no reason why
a law that' was found injurious should not be altered,
but he held that the antiquity of a law was good reason'
why it should be much considered before it was altered.
The law of corruption of blood had been recognised by
the Legislature time after time: It had been recog-
nised in a great variety of statutes, by the exceptions
from it which they had been made to contain ; this
'be considered to be almost as strong a recognition to
it as re-entering it. It had been recognised beyond
all doubt, in the 9:11 of Henry 111. (the Magma
Charta of Henry III.), and he hoped the House
would pause before they altered that which, founded
in common law, had been recognised in Magna
Charm, and over and over again, up to our own
time—the last period at which it was recognised, be-
ing about 15 years ago. It might be said that this
law did not punish the convicted traitor, but his de-
scendants. 'They could not but- be sorry that the
sins of one should be visited on another ; but know-.
ing as they did the' constitution of human nature,
knowing that men who neglected all moral duties,
careless even of their interests, were sometimes awake
'to what might be the fate of their descendants, such
laws became necessary. He would have men absta;
from crime, front a semse of duty ; but where this
WAS not sufficiently strong, he would borrow aid from
their regard for their posterity, and bring their best
aff:ct ions (as far as it could be done), to reprove their
worst passtons. He %sighed it therefore to continue
over the criminal in terrorem, and to protect in parti-
cular cases his-family by escheat.
Sir S. ROMILLY, in reply, complimented the
last apeaker on the manner in which his opposition
had been given, but he had expected the Learned
Gentleman would have thought it necessary to shew
the propriety of the punishment. The case ttf the
officer who had been mentioned made strongly against
the law. On that occasion the estate had been taken
from his descendants, because a private individual its
skied on the escheat because of a failure of heirs. If
this law were necessary, why was it not made the ge-
neral law of the land ? At present it was not the law
of the county of Kent. Why were the murderers of
that county entitled to more indulgence then those of
any other This, he thought, proved the Solicitor.
General was mistaken with respect to the antiquity
of the law—but what signiOed its antiquity If the
law punished innocence instead of guilt, it mattered
not whether it was enacted by one set of barbarians or
another. Mr. Justice Blackstone had disapproved ot
it. . In the last chapter of his Commentaries, when
speaking of the advantages which had flowed from
the Revolution, among others he had mentioned this,
" that it opened a prospect that corruption of blood
would be entirely done away by one general and un-
distinguishig law." He enlarged on the cruelty and
injustice of this statute ; no wish to change the
general system of the criminal laws ; but where he
thought they might be altered for the better, he should
continue to offer those suggestions which he thought
would be of service. No time could.be fitter fur work-
ing such reforms than the present. Europe had lung
enough given her attention to scenes of carnage and
desolation. A bright prospect now opened before
her. la had been said, bethe greatest poet, perhaps,
of which this or any other country can boast, that
Mewae
Hay %imams nee sew renown's than ware' •
and at many such triumphs he hoped to be present
in that How. Then it wad his hope that vKVKICS

would be gained for which shouts of exultation %you)
ascend to H ERVEN, uninterrupted by the groans of •
the dying now, and the lamentations °vet the dead.
' The Learned Geatlernan had said, the power of the
Crown bad not been harshly exercised in modern
times. In one instance he (Sir S. Romillyj thought
it had ih that case which he had motioned when
bringing the subject forward. and %Oriel' be would
now repeat. He then restated the cioc of the womaa
who was convicted of amurderin 17!47.: An Inquisi-
tion had been issued from the Crown to tiskr an
estate which had belonged to her, after it had hewn
purchased by a Mr. North, who paid a full prree for
it to another person who bough it under similar cir-
cumstances. The proprietor fortunately discovered
that it was held of a mesne Lord, desired to tra-
verse. The Crown opposed this, but the Vice-Chan-
cellor gave permission, and irhad been sent down to
the last Assizes, but the trial bad been put off. he be-
lieved by the Chown. What was men singular in
this case was, that the woman convicted of the tam-- •
der was the informant in this case. It was on WWI
of a person convicted of murder that these proceed-
ings were instituted on the part of the Crown, and
may now be taken from the last purchaser, because
it was held this was a wise law.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, Mr. North
hid purchased the estate, perfectly aware of the title
set up to it by this woman and her son. He had
purchased it, knowing that she could not prosecute
on account of corruption of blood, and the Crown had
iraerfered to save her and her family from the conse-
quences of that corruption of blood. This at least he
was informed Was the.case.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY thought the Learned
Gentleman must have been misinformed. • If such
were the circumstances of the case, they' had been
kept a secret up to the time at which the subject was
publicly discussed in a Court of Justice.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, the statement of the
Solicitor General only Varied the person, the abuse
and injustice complained of still remained against the
law of Corruption of Blood. It was supported only
by a 'letter of Cicato's, which had been proved to be
spurious, and by a modern writer on the law of for. •
feiture; who• twenty years after had changed his sen.
timents on the subject.
Mr. YORKE could not agree to the inference that
had been drawn from the aliedgecl authority of the
author of 64 Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture."
Mr. PRESTON observed, that the law of escheat
had been introduced by William the Conqueror. One
case which might happen had not beet mentioned. It
was that of a man who might be convicted of treason
and attainted, but afterwards receive a pardon. A.c•
cording to the principle of corruption of blood, his
children could not inherit his property. Again, sappo.
-sing a man in such a case to die with a pardon in his
hand, and that be had two children, the one bona
before his death, and the other after ; the oldest child
dying without issuse, the other could not inherit the
property-

Mr. LOCKHART supported thd Amendment.
The Committee then'decided on the Ansendmast-.
For Hie Atneedment, 42....Asatost it, K.—Majority, S.
Mr. yOR,KE then moved, as an Amendment, that
the crime of high treason should be exempt from the
provisions of the 13111. This was agreed to withal;
a division.
the Amendment, that Petty Treason should
also be exempted from its enactments, HUM CIHICINIUS. •
ensui.d. in which Mr. BATHURST and Mr. W.
SMITH participated, alter whicuthe Committee 4
vided, and the Amendment was carried.
The Bill was ordered to be reported.
HIGH TREASON PUNISHL INT mu.
The House having resolved itself into aCommitteo
on this Bill— ' -
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved that that part
of the punishment which. ordered .that the bbely of
the ci iminal should. be dragged on a hurdle—
Mr. YORKE& alter a few words in a low tones
moved as an amendment that the words" afterwards
beheaded" stand part of the Bill.
Sir S. ROMILLY thought that the effect of
exhibiting such a shocking spectacle to the people
would be very pernicious.
The amendment was then carried.
Mr. WHITBREAL (on the other clans, of the
Act being read) could not help expressing his stir. •
prise at his Hon. and Learned Friend making no
objection to the disgusting words of the last clause.
For himself, he protested agtinst it.
Mr. YORKE could not help noticing the espies.
sive tenderness of the Hon. Gentleman to the cnmi.
nals, without any notice of the atrocious nature of the
offence, or of the number of sufferers that there might
be in effecting the horrible purposes of the criminal.
Hear, hear, hear.)

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY repelled with indig.
nation the imputation of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
that all the mercy on that side of the House was re-
served for criminals without any sense of the atrocity
of their crimes. He would have the Right Floe.
Gentleinan know, that •in all the alterations in the
laws of the country which he (Sir S. Romilly) pea-
posed, his only object was the prevention of trims.
Mr. YORKE denied having any intention of' line
pining to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman .Who
had just spoken, any such feeling as he had dis.
avowt.i. He paid some high compliments to the
chatacter and abilities of the Hot. and Learned Gen-
tleman, to whom he had not alluded, itt those words
of which he had taken notice. -
Me. WHITBREAD could not belt again ex-
pressing his disgust at the enactment. the Disgust.
lug spectacle now contended tor was of a piece with
the judgment which could order the dead body of
Will.ams, during the late horrid murders, to be car-
ried about. by svay, as it was said, of appeasing the
public. The public were not in that case sh-cked
with any horrid exhibition beyond the death:ot the
cnminais.
A few words followed from Mr. YORE% Mr. BA-
THURST. and Mr. W. Smarm, aftet which the Report
of the Committee was ordered tie be received.
The Crown Land Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.
The Simple Contract Debt was read a second
time, on the moti.iu of Sir S. ROJAILLY,
Mr. Stricant IIEkT having notified his intention
of opporting tile Bill, it was agreed that the denote
should take place on the motion for its Committee in
Friday tutu.
toad PALMERSI'ON presented a return of the
effective strength of the Militia and Regular Force:.
OpicTed lobe of the table,—Adjovrned.
•