Star.
London, England, 1820-07-18 00:00:00

CItIMIN AI. LAtVS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, .he Jose to
move the second reading of the three Bills wl4ch had
passed the other House relative to the mitigation of
the severity of the criminal-law in particular cases.—
Vie first of these laws to which he begged leave to
call their Lordships' attention, was that which took
away capital punishment from the offence of pi-
s ately stealing in a shop to the value of five shillings.
• lie should briefly endeavour to state to their Lord-
ships the grounds upon which he thought the pre-
sent measure urgently called for. He should not.do
their Lordships the injustice to suppose that they
world be willing to.continue a law on their statute
books which was unnecessarily severe in its provi-
sins and inoperative in its effects. If, then, they
were of opinion, as he was convinced they must, that
such a law did not tend to assist, but to impede and
retard the cause of justice, he was persuaded they
Nvould readily assent to a modification of it. A law
that tended to deter prosecutors mist witnesses from
coming forward to give their testimony was a dis-
grace to the statute book ; and the sooner it was got
rid of the better. In fact, he would assert, without
fear of contradission, that the law had hardly been
acted upon at all for the last thirty or forty years.—
During that time, its extreme severity had armed, be-
sides the prosecutors and witnesses, the Judges them-
selves against it. Indeed, this was visible even iu
- cases where the cause of justice imperiously de-
manded that prosecution should take place. It was a
well autheeticated fact, that prosecutors acquiesced in
the depredations committed upon theni, rather than
they would allow themselves to give testimony incases
where the punishment was so disproportionate to the
offence. They could not be induced to subject a
fellow-creature to the loss of life under such circum-
stances, and were better pleased to forego the loss of
property, than to punish the delinquent with the last
infliction that the penal code could adjudge. To
chew that the law was to all intents and purposes
inoperative, it woul4 be only necessary for him to
advost to a short statement of facts which he held in
his hand. From the year 180$ to the year.lBlB, not
less than 3.52 convictions had taken place under the
law, bat not one execution. In London and West-
minster not more than one execution had taken place
under it during a whole century. There had been
only'one execration likewise in the Northern districts;
and out of .55 convictions in the Western counties,
no execution had taken place. In Lancashire, from
1793 to ISIS, them had been nine convictions and
no execution. It was quite sufticient to prove the
necessity of altering this law, that tradesmen, a class
of people whose habits rendered them peculiarly
acute and attentive to their own interests, were the
first to come forward and seek a commutation of it.
Shopkeepers were known to claim an exemption from
prosecuting under it, so sensible were they of its dis-
graceful severity. Two most repectable tradesmen
had stated, that they had frequently acquiesced in
thefts cornnrited upon their property from a reluc-
tance to prosecute the offenders, because their lives
must. be forfeited. Ile should then ask their Lord-
ships if, after such evidence, the evidence of per-
sons belonging to a class of r.sen who were known to
pay a keen attention to tier protection of their pro-
perty—he would ask their Lordships if, after all that
bad passed in the other Howe of Parliament, and the
final sanction of that House to the measure, they
could still be disposed to object to the partial repeal
of this law? Ile should detain their Lordships no
longer, but would move —e That the Bill be read a
third time," reserving to himself' the right of giving
explanations on the subject that might be necessary.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR expressed his regret
that the Noble Marquis had felt it his duty to intro-
duce this motion before their Lordships, who had
the opinions of the twelve Judges upon its general me-
rits. The verdicts of Juries under the law in ques-
tion, had not always met with the approbation of
the Judges. In former stages, these Bills had been
invariably opposed by that great and experienced
111 A ,-the late Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
Ring's Bench. It WAS slid' by the supporters of this
Bill, That it was hard to take away the life of an in-
dividual for stealing only to the value of five shil-
lings in a shop. But what did the. motion now be-
fore their Lordships profess to do? Why, it went
to exempt that person from capital punishment, who,
taking advantage of the owner of a shop, might enter
it, and take away property sufficient to ruin an in-,
dustrious tradesman. The existing law was never'
meant to protect persons of large, but of small pro-
perty. Ile should say that this Bill, by taking away
capital punishment from the crime of that person
rho should despoil a man of the whole fruits of a
life of industry, must operate most injuriously against
the-commercial welfare. He could not consider it
in any respect a wholesome proceeding. He .had
observed the Reports of the Recorder for eighteen
years, and was surprised to find so very little regret
expressed by Juries in giving verdicts under the law.
He was not disposed, however, to make any mate-
rial objection to the motion, yet he would say, that
it' shoplifting was to be held as a crime, their Lord-
ships ought to consider whether it would be prudent
to alter diatlaw which had so long existed against it.
Lord REDESDALE said, that to form an accu-
rati estimate a the law as it now stood,she best way
certainly "was, to consider only how many were de-
tensed from prosecuitng. by the severity of its opera-
-4i9; so a4o it was equally right to consider how

many were deterred from committing the crime by
the same severity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in the
*tent of the Bill heing.read athird time, he should
propose an Amendmera,areserving capital pun4h-
Mena, in cases of theft, where the.property stolen
should be above the value of ten pounds.
' Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but their
Lordships did nor divide on the motion, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed with the proposed
Amendment.

COMMUTATION OF PUNISIIMiNTT-FOR FELONICs BILL.
Lord REDESDALE objected to the clause in this
Bill for exempting persons with their. faces blacked,
or otherwise disguised, from capital punishment, in
cases where it is provided for by the existing law.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN urged the expedi-
ency of commuting the punishment to transportation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR adverted to several
clauses of the Bill, assenting to some of them and
objecting to others. It was, he said, consistent s ith
our syvem of jurisprudence to include the %Ili ions
cases of the slime offence under one common descrip-
tion of punishment, and it was left td mercy to inter-
pose in behalf of the offender, where the circum-
stances were such asto justify mitigation. He thought
the punishment ought to be suffered to continue in
cases of wilful depredation on grounds or planta-'
Lions where trees were rooted up, and other serious
injury done. Much valuable property might be de-
stroyed in this way, and the punishment ought to
continue, if perscins were not to be let loose to do all
the Mischief they could. He should not object to
an alteration being made in bankrUpt cases, because
from long experience he thought it necessaryt He
believed, for forty years not more than two or three
capital convictions had taken place in such cases.,
The statute of Geo. 111. which made it a capital fe-
lony to break dawn banks, ought still, be Was per-
suaded, to be continued in force. Incalculable mis-
chief might be done by the offence which that statute-
contemplates. A man's whole property might per-
haps be destroyed by it. He .decidedly objected to
the commutation of capital punishment in cases of
writing threatening letters. This Bill provided, that
capital punishment should take place only where the
letter contained a threatening demand for money ;
but, in his opinion, a threatening letter of any de-
scription, ought to subject the writer to the heaviest
penalty of the law. _ He knew of no greater source of
anxiety arid alarm to individuals and families, than I
threatening letteri. The" Noble and Learned Lord,
after a- few more observations, snggcsted to the No-
ble Marquis the expediency of postponing the third
reading of the Bill till to-morrow, that he might
have time to examine its merits more fully. - '
.The Marquis of LANSDOWN intimated his as-
sent to the suggestion, and said, that he thought
transportation for life quite a sufficient punishment,
in any of the cases mentioned by the Noble and
Learned Lord. The Noble Marquis then moved,
" That a Message be sent to the Lower House of Par-
liament for a copy of the Report of the Committee of:
1819, appointed to consider the laws relating to ca-
pital punishments." Motion agreed to.—Adjourned.