The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-11 00:00:00

tIVERPOM, avAnTsn NIVOIONA,

kogrior Maisiorm of Pogoi for OA riot
tugged yooorday, ip thp Courtrhousa, beforo ,1i,t0,t4444304
Recorder,

The following' gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury c
Ric tin. MOON, Esq., Tithebarn-street, merchant, Foreman.
Wm. Alexander Brown, Grecian-terrace, merchant.
Daniel Buchanan, Northumberland-terrace, broker.
James Bateson, Shaw-street, broker.
Thomas Brown, Netherfield-road South, broker.
Robert Lewin Bolton, Gambier-terrace, merchant.
Richard Bryans, jun., North John-street, merchant.
Thomas France Bennett, Lodge-lane, agent.
George Wm. Bovde, Stanhope-street, corn merchant.
John Bibby, Springfield-street, merchant.
John Wilson Carter, Erskine-street, corn merchant.
Christopher James Corbally, Falkner-street, merchant.
Woodhouse Crompton, Mill-street, merchant.
H ugh Craig, Percy-street, merchant.
James Judson, Monument-place.
John Marriott, Beechby, cotton broker.

Thomas M`Teer, Chatham-street, merchant.
Francis Maxwell, Fenwick-street, corn merchant
John Rowlinson, High Park-street, broker.
William Joseph Myers, Aigburth, merchant.
Israel Barned, Rodney-street, banker.

William Blain, Beech-hill, corn merchant

The CLERK of the PEACE having read the royal proclama-
tion against vice, profaneness, and immorality,

The- RECORDER. proceeded to deliver the charge to the
grand jury. He was happy to inform them, upon looking
over the depositions in the various cases, that they would
not find them encumbered with difficulty. There was one
case, in which William Williams and Patrick Roach were in-
dicted for having stolen a quantity of wheat: On looking
over the depositions he (the learned Recorder) was not
satisfied that there would be sufficient evidence to justify
them in finding a bill against Roach, nevertheless that
was a point entirely for their consideration. He should
allude to another case, which, though free from difficulty,
was accompanied with many circumstances which were
quite alarming. It was against a woman named Agnes
Weir. who was indicted for stealing a large quan-
tity of books and paper, some of which belonged to Messrs.
Moss, the bankers, and others to an attorney. The prisoner,
it appeared, was placed in a confidential situation with these
parties, and she had, in a most abandoned way, got hold of
most valuable papers and books without limit, and sold them
as waste paper. Many of these papers were valuable docu-
ments, and vouchers of the very last importance. He men-
tioned this to show how particularly careful merchants and
others should be as to whom they admitted into their offices
and counting-houses at an early hour in the morning. In
another ease, a man named Tempest, an attorney's clerk,
had stolen away volume after volume of books, and having
taken them to grocers and chandlers, sold them there as
waste paper. These cases were pregnant with mischief, and
they showed how dangerous it was to allow people an unli-
mited range over premises without check. The learned gen-
tleman then alluded to the fact that many of the prisoners
came out of gaol quite indifferent as to the punishment they
had received, and immediately returned to their old prac-
tices. We had the benefit of a very excellent police, and
when that police was established,' he expected crime would
have decreased ; but crime had not decreased. The police,
however, were not to blame, nor were magistrates or judges
to blame in their administration of the law. The difficulty
arose from there having been no secondary punishment yet
found out to deter crime. Capital punishments were done
away with, , transportation was become very difficult,
government, for some reason or other, checking it as
much as possible, and consequently they were driven to
imprisonment. But imprisonment merely, unless it was
combined with something else, would not check crime. In-
dustry in the gaol was unfortunately very imperfect, and a
state of idleness, of all others, was found to encourage crime.
The learned recorder then commented upon the heavy bur-
dens which frequent prosecutions of the same persons
imposed upon the country, and attributed them to the ab—
sence of some mode of secondary punishment, yet undisco-
vered, capable of producing reformation. lie quoted .Sir
Matthew Hale to show that the same evil existed in his
day, and trusted the jury would not consider these remarks
improperly introduced. He saw no remedy for the increase
of crime, but the adoption of some judicious and effective
mode of secondary punishment. Indeed, if the past system
prevailed, of regularly going in and out of gaol, the burdens
of the country would be increased, and crime not diminished
in the least. The Grand Jury were then dismissed to their
labours.

SHOP LIFTING

Elizabeth Morgan and Mary Forslzaw were charged with
taking two pieces of print from a shop. They both pleaded
guilty. The case was one of common shop-lifting. The pri-
soners were young girls. They were sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment and hard labour.

STEALING HAIR,

James Murphy was indicted for having stolen 181bs. of
hair, in a bag, the property of Thomas Thornely, a man who
kept a marine store in Addison-street. He had afterwards
sold the hair for 9s. The case was altogether uninteresting.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to six months'
imprisonment and hard labour.