Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

a great deal of property, must be taken from felons, which is never afterwards accounted for. The practice which generally prevailed, and with which every Gentleman in the House must be familiar, fully illustrated this observation. A man was,-suppose, arrested for stealing a jacket; he was tried and found guilty. At the time of his arrest the constable took all his clothes; and when the prisoner was found guilty, inquired of the Court how he should dispose of the property of the felon in his possession? The Court would not allow it to be given to the felon, and a portion of it was sometimes given to the prosecutor, upon his complaining that though the clothes did not belong to him, yet he had lost a good deal of property. After having passed through his period of imprisonment, the felon was turned out upon the world without, perhaps, a coat upon his back. Now, if some plan were adopted for preserving his property for him, this evil would be in a great degree remedied. In the Bill which he had submitted to the House he had endeavoured, as far as possible, to introduce the principle of Sir Samuel Romilly's Act. A principal object contemplated by this measure was, to provide that when a felon was possessed of property at the time of his conviction, such property should be available to make good the loss sustained by the party robbed and the public, in his prosecution in the first instance; and that, finally, the residue be reserved for his own use, or be applied to the maintenance of his children and family. It would be for the Committee to consider how much of it should be apportioned to go as a compensation to the party robbed; and how much should be apportioned towards relieving the County-rate for the expenses incident to such prosecution. He, however, had no hesitation in saying, that he thought a person found guilty of felony, who had 1,000l. in his pocket, which sometimes happened, ought to be obliged to pay the expenses of the prosecution; and in that way relieve the county in which he was convicted to that amount. In order to make the mode of administering the law in this respect intelligible, he would detail the facts of a case which occurred within his knowledge. A young apprentice robbed his master of twenty sovereigns; on search being made, a 207. note was found in the prisoner's box. At the trial, the master proved distinctly the fact of the robbery

being by the agency of his apprentice, and that twenty sovereigns were stolen from him, but admitted that the boy's father had given the boy a 201, bank-note when he put him apprentice. The constable, after the conviction, produced the note, to which, or a share of which, the master laid claim, and now applied to the Court, but was refused any portion of the 201. note, which was pronounced to be forfeited by the due course of law, and was taken by the Sheriff. Here the prosecutor had been put to an expense of 71. 16s.; and he should like to hear a good reason offered by any lawyer there, why these costs should not be first paid out of the forfeited note, and the residue apportioned to make a partial restitution to the man robbed? The next defect of the Law of Forfeiture which he proposed to remedy was this; suppose a child, say of tender years, the son of a gentleman of fortune, to be convicted of a felonious stealing of a few apples, and sentenced to a short imprisonment; he was debarred by the conviction from all right to inherit his father's property; whilst the old felon, after returning from a long transportation, was enabled to inherit it; those who were transported having, by a special Act, their right of property secured to them. The whole of the Law of Forfeiture required to be amended; and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read and sent to a Committee of the whole House, in order to be examined in its details. He concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time.

Mr. Roebuck concurred with the hon. Member, that it was desirable to amend the law as regarded the forfeiture of the property of persons convicted of felony. It was very well known, however, that the Criminal-law was undergoing revision before a Commission composed of very competent persons; and he had no doubt, that they would be able greatly to improve it, and make it more systematic than it was at present. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would not be proper to proceed with a partial enactment. He thought, that it was much better that definite rules should be laid down for the whole law, than that they should proceed only on particular points. The hon. Member, however, had not proposed to put a stop to the forfeiture of the property of convicted criminals, but merely recommended a different distribution of

it. He certainly objected to leaving the disposal of their property to the persons proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would not object to intrust the power to the Judges of Assize; but he would not consent to rely upon the discretion of the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. The Judges were above suspicion from their situation, and in consequence of the eyes of the public being constantly upon them; but this was not the case with the Magistrates. The Bill would not do away with the forfeiture, but only proposed a different appropriation of the property forfeited. The principle, that there should be no forfeiture on conviction be thought was good, as the present state of the law led to an inequality in the punishment. He thought that it would be much better to have a Bill in a single clause, stating that there should be no forfeiture, than adopt the measure of the hon, and learned Gentleman.

Mr. O'Connell hoped that his hon. friend, the member for Bath, would not persist in his objections to the second reading of the Bill, as it might be greatly amended in Committee. It was generally admitted, that it was desirable to alter the law respecting the forfeiture of felons' property, as it at present led to the infliction of unequal punishments. He had no hesitation in saying, that the law on that and some other points, was in a most anomalous state. In all other countries, a man on conviction had to pay the charge of his trial out of any property he might have; but in this country, the charge fell on the county-rate, and thus the expense of the trial had to be paid by innocent persons. He would have the property of criminals got at in all cases, whether in their own possession or in the hands of trustees. From such property the expenses of the trial and the cost of maintaining the prisoner should be deducted, and the residue should go to his family, or be returned on his discharge. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted, that the machinery of the Bill was objectionable, but he thought that it might be amended in Committee. He should prefer a wholesale amendment of the law; he would have the law in such a state that every man could readily understaud it; but if he could not get a code, he would get the next best thing, namely, an amendment of the law in detail, to as great an extent as possible,

Mr. Wynn regretted very much, that, when Bills like that under consideration were brought forward, the law advisers of the Crown were not present. He regretted that they could not have the attendance of one of those learned gentlemen, but surely the other ought to have been present. In consequence of making such constant changes in the detail of the Criminal-laws many difficulties had arisen. It, therefore, was desirable that great cantion should be used. It was easy to say, that this or that part of the law was defective and wrong; but the difficulty was in finding an adequate remedy. The whole of the Criminal-law was under the revision of a Commission; and it would be much better to wait for a general measure than proceed by detail. If there was any probability of such a measure being brought forward during the present Session, he would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw his Bill. At any rate, this measure appeared to him to require a great deal of consideration.

Sir Samuel Whalley did not think, that the forfeiture of a criminal's property should be made a part of the punishment. The property, in, the first place, should be like that of a bankrupt's; and should be made to go, as far as possible, in compensation of the wrong done. He thought, that compensation should be given to others besides the prosecutor; for if that limited principle were acted upon in cases similar to that of Fauntleroy, where many persons were cheated, great injustice would be done. He supported the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Aglionby fully agreed with hon. Members, that the Bill should be allowed to go before a Committee; but he was decidedly opposed to the proposition of the hon. member for Marylebone, for placing felons' and bankrupts' property upon the same footing, inasmuch as it would be an inducement for prosecutors to press evidence, in order to secure a conviction. Forfeitures were relics of the feudal times, when escheats went to the lord, and should not be tolerated at the present day. He trusted to see them no longer disgracing our Criminal Code.

Mr. Hughes Hughes, seeing there was no intention of opposing the second reading of this important Bill, which should have his best support, would only make one remark, or rather suggestion, to the hon. and learned member for Knares

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Aglionby seconded the Motion. Lord Howick was unwilling to offer opposition to a Motion of this kind, but he did hope, that when the hon. Member considered the circumstances, he would consent to withdraw his Motion. The hon. Member had adverted to the Commission now occupied on the state of our Criminal-law. The Report of that Commission might soon be expected; and he would ask, whether, under these circumstances, the House would proceed to legislate on a portion of the Criminal-law until they had the advantage of the inquiries now going on? He would admit, that the offences to which the hon. Gentleman's Motion related ought not to be punished with death; and, in fact, no such punishment was now inflicted for them. He believed the hon. Member could not name one instance, of late years, in which the punishment of death had been inflicted for any of those offences. On the ground of humanity, therefore, there was no urgency in the present case, for there was no fear that any life would be sacrificed under the present state of the law from any delay of the proposed Bill. There was another Motion for another change of the law, which stood for some day after the recess; so that it appeared they were not to wait for that report, which would assist their deliberations, but were to go on thus to amend the law in detached parts. He did hope, that the hon. Member would wait for the result of the inquiry now going on. He did not ask him to abandon his Bill, or to put it off indefinitely, but to wait for the Report of the Commissioners, which could not now be long delayed.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.] Mr. Ewart, pursuant to his notice, moved for leave to bring in "a Bill for abolishing capital punishment in cases of letterstealing, and returning from transportation, and in certain cases of burglary." The hon. Member said, that within the last few years the punishment of death had been taken away from seven offences which theretofore were capital: much of this was owing to the great and praiseworthy exertions of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth. By returns which had been laid before the House, since that change had been made in the law, the number of commitments for those offences in London and Middlesex had decreased, as compared with the same length of time before the change, and the number of convictions aud punishments had increased, as compared with the number of commitments. This was perfectly in accordance with all that experience had shown of the statistics of crime,-that where the extreme severity of punishment had been changed for a milder, but more certain punishment, crime had decreased. There was no reason why it should not be so in the cases of the crimes to which his Motion referred, in all of which he thought the punishment of death much too great for the crime. It might be said, in objection to his Motion, that they ought to wait to ascertain what would be the Report of the Commissioners who had been appointed to consider the state of the Criminallaw; but he thought that might be too long; but, at all events, he did not think, whatever might be the nature of that re-kind were hardly dealt with. When a port, it ought to affect a case of this kind. Our Criminal-law had heretofore the character of being unchristian, inhuman, and, in many instances, barbarous in its punishments. Much of that had been removed; but much still remained; and the cases to which his Motion referred were of that class in which the severity of capital punishment ought to be removed.

Mr. Lennard was surprised to hear the noble Lord say, that no capital punishment had been inflicted for any of the offences alluded to for some years, for he believed that, in the very last year, one person had suffered death for stealing a letter. He thought that those hon. Members who brought forward measures of this

Motion was brought forward, as in the case of the late Sir James Macintosh, to effect considerable alterations in theCriminal-law, he was told, that that was wholesale legislation,-that in such cases the House ought to proceed with caution, and go to alterations in detail; but now, when hon. Gentlemen came to individual cases, they were told to wait for a Report which

Mr. Philip Howard said, in a com

might recommend a general revision of alterations too far, and getting beyond the our code. This was hard upon those length which the state of public feeling gentlemen, who only undertook this trou-warranted, they might endanger important ble as the Government had delayed what principles by producing a re-action. the public expected they would turn their minds to, a total revision of the Criminal-mercial country, the security of the law. He agreed, that the offence of steal- conveyance of letters, was one of great ing a letter ought not to be visited with moment. Considering the amount of capital punishment; and as to returning property transmitted through the mefrom transportation, he thought, that to dium of the Post-office, the breach of punish that offence with death was, beyond trust, and difficulty of detection, great all measure, too severe; and the more caution should be observed, and no light particularly, as no distinction was made as penalties inflicted upon those depredators to the offences for which the parties had who usually plundered the letters of the been transported, whether it was only one poor-the hard-earned savings of the for which transportation was the highest widow and the orphan; because the wily punishment, or one the more heavy pun-villains well knew that the needy and unishment attached to which had been com-protected could with difficulty recover the muted for transportation.

loss, or prosecute to conviction. From the loss of letters, cases of intense misery had occurred; and when the House considered, that many charitable institutions mainly owed their support to remittances sent in letters, it would be felt humanity was not merely on one side. To repeal the present law, without the substitution of rigorous penalties, would not be a public benefit.

Mr. Hughes Hughes said, he was happy to inform the House, and it would be highly satisfactory to the friends of hu

Mr. Spring Rice observed, that they had reason to be greatly obliged to the right hon. member for Tamworth, for the great improvements which he had been the means of effecting in the Criminal-law; but it was rather hard, that the whole merit of the changes which had taken place should be transferred to that right hon. Baronet, when, as the House must recollect, so much of what he did had its origin amongst men whose political principles were the same as those of the pre-manity throughout the country to learn, sent Administration. Did they forget the labours of Sir James Macintosh and others in the great work of ameliorating our criminal jurisprudence? Then it was not to be forgotten, that the improvements most sought after were actually those which the present Government had themselves introduced within the short period which elapsed since their accession to office;for example, the law relating to forgery had undergone a most salutary change; and the laws relating to the coin had been under the consideration of the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, while Attorney-General; and efforts were being made, and to some extent had been made with success, to place them upon a footing of simplicity, clearness, and certainty. Thus much he thought it necessary to say, in defence of BUCKINGHAM BOROUGH those to whom some portion of the im- ACT.] Sir Harry Verney presented a petiprovement ought, in fairness, to be attri- tion from the borough of Buckingham, buted, though a disposition to do otherwise complaining, that a noble proprietor of had, in the course of the present discus- land included in the present limits of the sion, appeared to prevail. As to the pre-borough had erected buildings of small sent Motion, he must beg to observe, that value since the Reform Act, whereby he the House ought to proceed most had obtained a command over a considercautiously, lest, by carrying individual able number of votes. The hon. Baronet

that, such was the growing repugnance to the punishment of death, and such its diminution consequent upon that feeling, and upon legislative enactments, that the Corporation of the City of London had felt at liberty to discharge, as unnecessary, one of the two salaried executioners, whom, for a number of years they had been in the habit of retaining in their service. He trusted, indeed, that the effect of the present, and of similar humane propositions, which he heartily supported, would be, shortly, to render unnecessary the other of those personages as a regular servant of the Corporation; and that only occasional resort would be had to the services of such an officer of justice. Motion agreed to.

REFORM

observed, that if a large landed proprietor on property of a certain value, would give
possessing, as in this instance, 5,000
acres out of 18,000, could, under the Re-
form Act, erect tenements of small value
in a borough, for the purpose of obtaining
a command over votes, he would be en-
abled to swamp the place, and reduce it
to a nomination borough, The hon. Ba-
ronet read some questions put by the re-
vising barristers, and the answers, to show
that the buildings were not necessary, and
were erected for no other purpose than to
confer votes.

Sir Thomas Fremantle said, that the evil complained of by the petitioners, who bad been advocates for the Reform Bill, with which they were now dissatisfied, had arisen from seven large agricultural parishes having been added to the borough, No doubt buildings had been erected in some few instances, for the purpose of creating votes; but if that had been done on one side, it might be done on the other. If only five or six such buildings had been erected by a person possessing 5,000 acres of land, the evil could not be very great. He did not think it requisite to enter into the merits of the case.

Mr. Tennyson said, that he had always protested against that part of the Reform Bill, which added considerable districts to the smaller towns. It was evident, that the effect of such an arrangement must be to overwhelm the towns with the constituency of the neighbouring districts, In his opinion, in every case in which there could not be found in the borough a sufficient number to form a town constituency, the borough so deficient ought to have been put into Schedule A. In the case now before the House, it appeared, that there were 18,000 acres in the immediate neighbourhood of Buckingham that belonged to a noble Duke, against whom it was alleged that he had caused certain buildings to be erected on this his property, for the purpose of creating votes. That such advantages would be taken might have been expected. He had no doubt it would be discovered, that this was a practice which had been resorted to to a very great extent throughout the country. He might even say, that the Reform Bill, by adding the large districts to the towns, intended such an increase of the constituency. What other effect could it be said to contemplate, when, according to its provisions, the erection of any cow-house, or other ignoble building,

the occupier the qualification necessary to constitute him an elector? The effect of the Bill was an increase of the constituency precisely in the way described by the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Fremantle); if one individual made votes on the one side, no doubt some other individual would also make votes on the contrary side. He, however, begged to observe, that he could not be furnished with a better argument than that which arose out of the practice now complained of, in support of the proposition, which it was his intention shortly to submit to the House; and he trusted, that when the time came for him to make his Motion, that it would receive the support of the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) on the other side of the House, who complained of the creation of a dependent constituency. The Reform Bill was to his mind far from effecting all that it ought; and many who were its supporters compromised their opinions, anxious to secure a measure from which, at all events, a great deal of good was naturally expected. He, with such a view, had, he must declare, compromised his opinions with regard to the voters' qualification; that of scot-and-lot appearing to him to be the simplest, and the freest from objection. He was formerly opposed to the Ballot, but more recent experience had made a convert of him to the principle of Ballot; and he had reason to believe, that he was but one of many others who had been similarly converted.

Mr. Henry L. Bulwer really did not see how the House could possibly interfere, by way of enactment, to prevent persons from erecting buildings upon their land. The only way in which the House could counteract the evil of a creation of dependent constituencies was, by passing a measure to establish the Vote by Ballot. This was the sure method of getting rid of all the improperly preponderating influences.

Colonel Evans admitted, that the mere fact of building houses on property was what could not be objected to; but the building of houses for the express purpose of creating votes was as certainly a deviation from the object and spirit of the Reform Bill, and a revival, to that extent, of a species of the ancient corruption. The object of the Reform Act was to prevent the building of houses, for the purpose of overcoming the free and open constituencies. If they took a large district; and

.

« PreviousContinue »