necessarily be drawn up, and in the hesitation which juries would entertain in consequence.-Under all the circumstances he thought the present system better than that proposed to be substituted. Mr. Canning conceived the whole system of our laws to arise from certain circumstances, which from time to time, had pressed upon the notice of the legislature, and seemed to render the enactment of such laws necessary. If anyone had found its way into the code inflicting too severe a puuishment for a crime, which, from its frequency at the time the act was passed, might seem to call for such severity, it did not follow that such a law should be continued in force to the end of time, or at charge, he had nothing to do but to abstain from stating that the robbery took place in a dwelling house, or that it amounted to 40s. in value. It was an exaggeration therefore to say, that the present law led to perfect impunity. It had been said that the law induced witnesses to perjure themselves. This was all imaginary, and he was sure that no practical man would state that as his opinion. He allowed that juries might occasionally be inclined to indulge a latitude in valuing the articles which were the subject of a prosecution. This was exclusively censurable, but what followed? Perfect impunity? By no means. The criminal was subject to the same punishment as he would be were the offence made a charge-periods when the crime had ceased to be able felony. To take away one descrip- frequent. If the hon. gent. had proposed tion of punishment would not lead to a a Committee to revise the whole system greater certainty of punishment; and he of our criminal laws, he should then have was persuaded that no one who was con- approved of the observation of his hon. versant with the administration of cri- and learned friend (the solicitor-general), minal law would contend that the terror and have thought it would not be well of capital punishment, however surely in- thus to risk shaking the whole system of flicted, did not deter from the commission our laws. It was clear that a discretionary of crime. He instanced several cases in power must still continue to be vested in which criminals had speculated on their the judges, and the question before the crimes being only transportable offences. House was not, whether they should exBut it seemed the dread of a capital pu- tinguish that power, but how far it might nishment was to operate on a prosecutor, be proper to limit its range. No man could on witnesses, on the jury, on every body say it would be extinguishing the power but the individual tempted to commit the to impose limits to its range. The whole crime. Was that a rational supposition? amount of the change went to take from The theory of his hon. and learned friend them the power of dispensing life or death, was directed against the whole system of and to that he could see no objection. discretion in criminal law, and if adopted Whether or not the existence of the punishin one case must be adopted in the rest. ment of death were absolutely necessary, He admitted that it would be very beau- it could not prevent the commission of the tiful if the law could be so contrived, as crime. The opinions of the various high that a precise punishment should be pro-law authorities appeared to be paired, he posed for every individual offence, without leaving any thing to the discretion of - those by whom the law was administered. But although this would be very beautiful, it would be wholly impracticable. All that could be done in practice was to have generic description of crimes. The peculiar circumstances of aggravation on the one hand, and of extenuation on the other by which every individual case was marked, as they could not be foreseen, could not be embodied in the law. Let any one try his hand at such a particularization, and he would soon find the impossibility of it. Even could it be accomplished, so far from insuring a certainty of punishment, it would give the criminal the greatest opportunities for escape, both in the mode in which the indictment must might therefore be justified in forming his own. His hon. and learned friend (the solicitor general) had said it was strange that the severity of the punishment should produce so great an effect on all but those on whom it was to be inflicted. The illregulated mind of a hardened sinner inflamed by the prospect of gain, would, from the unfrequency of the inflicting of the punishment denounced by the law, more readily brave the danger thus incurred, than a well regulated mind would risk the possibility of condemning a man to death unjustly. It had been said that though the capital punishment was seldom inflicted on such offenders, they did not escape transportation and other punishments, This was true, after conviction the parties did not wholly escape; but in the two previous stages there was the chance of death, or of total impunity. It would be desirable to remove from juries any temptation to perjury, however benevolent their motives might be; and it would be better not to persevere in a system affording such facilities for escape, but doing away the severer punishment increase the probability of the offenders being visited by the lesser. In acting thus, they would run no risk of shaking the whole system. No dread of innovation could be felt equal to that which might have been entertained when the law was made, after it had been seen that in the course of a century the crime and the punishment were so seldom found together. did not believe the felon would commit an offence from an idea that that circumstance would screen him from punishment. If such inconveniences arose from the conduct of prosecutors and juries, might not the end of the hon. gentleman be answered by increasing the amount necessary to constitute a capital offence. It was easy to bring forward instances of prosecutors being unwilling to subject an offender to a punishment so severe; but it was not so easy to bring forward those instances when persons disposed to commit such an offence had been deferred by a dread of the punishment. Prosecutors were ready enough to come forward with statements, but those who had been tempted to offend would keep their secret for their own sakes. The 1,800 cases mentioned to prove the defective state of the law, went to establish its perfection, as in all those cases the severity of the sentence had been ameli orated, and the appropriate punishment inflicted. This proved at least that the execution of the law was not so much too severe. It should seem that the severity was rather in the amendment, as its object was not to get rid of severity of punishment, but merely of severity of denunciation. The effect of the bill would be to make the offence more frequent, and he cautioned those who might be disposed to support it, lest in consequence it should become necessary for them again to have recourse to the legislature, and not only revive the law, but put it in execution. Sir S. Romilly replied at some length to the imputations which had been thrown on his conduct. One hon. gent. had sup The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree in the justness of the criticism passed upon the speech of his learned friend (the solicitor-general), by his right hon. friend who spoke last, in the proposition put by the last speaker. He argued from the case of the hardened offender against the scruples of an humane juror; but it was not the hardened offender they wanted to deter, but those who had not, perhaps, been actually guilty of any offence. He denied that the opinions of legal men were poised upon the practical good consequences of the law as it now stood. It was unsupported by the authority of one single judge or magistrate, or the hon. gent. who brought the subject forward would have strengthened his own opinions by stating that circumstance to the House. He did not think the bill would have a tendency to prevent the commission of the crime; if he did he should think it a good bill. He did not know that there were any rea-posed he wished for the introduction of sons for believing that more persons were something like the French police, and anodeterred from prosecuting than from com- ther a something like the French Revolution, mitting the offence by dread of the punish- and then an appeal had been made to his ment. His right hon. friend seemed to humanity for the sake of those millions think it a most extravagant idea of the so- who might fall in consequence of the suplicitor general's that those likely to offend posed changes he might cause. He hoped were as likely to dread the punishment, as gentlemen would not oppose the bill bethe juries who decided on their case, from cause they might differ from him in sentithe difference between the mind of a hard- ment upon other things. He wished them ened sinner and a well regulated mind. to consider what the law is at present, Was it only the hardened sinner on whom what the proposed amendments were, and the severity of the punishment could be only judge the bill from its individual wished to produce an effect? Was it not merits. It was not, as had been said, equally to be wished that those who were founded on theory, but on practice. House not hardened might be deterred from com- robbing, he had asserted, had considerably mitting such offences. And might not increased for some years past. that effect be supposed to result from the one had thought proper to deny. He severity of the punishment. The pro- could only impute this increase to the cirsecutor and the juries might be affected cumstance of the law not being enforced. by the severity of the punishment, but he It had been said to disprove that, that This no mockery. The individuals knowing this, For the bill........ 31 33 Majority against the bill.......... -2 Abercromby, Hon. J. Bernard, S. Grenfell, P. Romilly, sir S. Leach, J. Lemon, J. the prosecutor not wishing to cause the death of the offender, might prosecute him for a minor offence. It was not proper that it should thus depend upon an obscure individual whether or not a man should be tried for his life. In those cases where the hon. gent. opposite thought the offence the greatest, that of servants robbing their masters, the parties oftenest escaped.-He knew of instances of that nature. He knew too that juries in many cases doubted where no doubt would exist, if they were not averse to punish with such excessive rigour.bers -A year ago a woman was tried at the Old Bailey for stealing a 101. note from her master. She had stolen nothing beside, except the box in which it was enclosed, which was worth but a penny. The jury convicted her of stealing to the amount of 39s. and thus sunk the capital part of the charge. Many similar cases might be found in the recent session papers. Juries ought not thus to be led to slight their oaths. Judges had also been thus influenced; they had frequently carefully avoided asking the value of things in order to shun the capital part of the charge. He denied that the system had been of so long standing as the solicitor-general had asserted it to be. In support of this he cited lord chief justice Hale. Dr. Paley, to whose authority the solicitor-general attached so much importance, spoke of the certainty of punishment as being more likely to deter men from the commission of offences than severity. He wished the laws to have effect, as those who from their irregularities were most likely to offend might thus be restrained.-It had been said, that he had the authority of the judges against him. The judges generally had expressed no opinion upon it; but their known practice in screening through motives of humanity, the culprits before them from the capital part of such offences, was an evidence in favour of such alteration as he now proposed. He had never said that no discretionary power should be held by the judges, but he had said that that power ought to be as circumscribed as might be. The frequency of executions took away from their effect, and rendered them more cruel. No one could witness the ceremony of passing sentence of death upon criminals, and hear the solemn prayer with which it concludes, without being affected, were it not considered as being an idle form. Not one-tenth part of those thus sentenced to death being executed, it almost degenerates into a solemn Wharton, J. Wilberforce, W. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 2. Mr. [MIDDLESEX PETITION FOR THE RI LEASE OF SIR F. BURDETT, &c.] Byng presented the following Petition, unanimously agreed to at a numerous meeting of the freeholders convened by the sheriff, at Hackney, on the 26th of April. "To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the Freeholders of Middlesex, agreed to in full county this 26th day of April, 1810. "Sheweth; That we have observed with concern, that in the cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, bart. your House assumed and exercised a power unknown to the law, and unwarranted by the constitution. "Your Speaker's warrant has been executed by military force; an Englishman's house, his sanctuary, has been violated; and the blood of unoffending citizens has been shed in the streets. 66 Against the existence, as well as the exercise of this power, we solemnly protest-a protest the more necessary, because your votes in its support are entered on your Journals-not so the Letter of sir Francis Burdett to your Speaker, denying you such jurisdiction. "In the early part of this reign, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, the rights of this country, and of the nation, were repeatedly and grossly violated by the House of Commons. At length the law triumphed. After a struggle of nearly 20 years, the House abandoned the pretensions they had arrogated, and expunged from their Journals all their declarations, orders, and resolutions, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom.' that the Petition be again read by the clerk. It was read accordingly. After which the right hon. gent. again rose, and said, he was sure, that, from the conduct he had observed on a former day, when a petition was presented to that House (from the electors of Westminster,) containing expressions so strong and so reprehensible, the House would not consider him as indisposed to entertain a petition coming from any individual or class of his Majesty's subjects, if couched in terms at all consistent with the respect due to the House. However convinced he was that the petition upon that occasion contained some expressions that ought to have been omitted, he did not object to let it lie on the table. He trusted the House would see from that instance, his earnest wish to recommend to them every possible forbearance, consistent with the maintenance of their own dignity; but when he considered the language of the present Petition, he conceived it impossible to consider it in any other light than that of a delibe"We view with jealousy and suspicion rate and unparalleled insult to the House. the shutting up sir F. Burdett in prison, He did not conceive that the object prayed when the attention of the nation is directed by this Petition was of itself a sufficient with anxiety to his intended motion for a cause to warrant its rejection. But he Reform in the representation of the people would appeal to the House upon this plain in your honourable House; that House in question, whether there was any member which the traffic of seats has been avowed, who heard this Petition read, that did not in the case of Mr. Perceval and lord Cas-conceive it to be rather an experiment to tlereagh, to be as notorious as the Sun at noon day;' a practice, at the mention of which, in the emphatic language of your Speaker, our ancestors would have startled with indignation.' "You have, during your pleasure, deprived the citizens of Westminster of their share in the representation of the public at large, of the exertions of a faithful servant, in whose ability, firmness, and integrity, they pre-eminently confide. "We, therefore, pray you to follow the example of your predecessors, to ex'punge all your declarations, orders, and resolutions on the subject, as tending to 'the subversion of our liberties,' and to the introduction of a military despotism, and to recall sir Francis Burdett to the service of the country in Parliament, that he may there enforce that plan of Reform which last session he so powerfully recommended, and which, in our opinion, is absolutely necessary for the stability and honour of the throne, and the safety and well being of the people.-Signed, in the name and on the behalf of this Meeting." Mr. Byng then moved that the Petition do lie on the table. Mr. Mellish rose, to signify, that although he should second the motion of his hon. colleague, he did not feel himself bound to support the Petition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved try how far the forbearance of the House would go in the sufferance of language such as it contained; or whether it could have any other object than to insult, when it went to a direct and a declaratory censure, from the mere authority of the petitioners, upon the conduct of that House, in exercising its authority towards the person named in the petition, by committing him to confinement for a violation of its privileges. Upon that part of the Petition which commented upon the manner in which the officer had proceeded in executing the order of the House, he should at present forbear to say any thing, as any error or irregularity on the part of that officer in executing the warrant committed to him, might be a question for the future consideration of the House. But the Petition, in other respects, was totally different from the style and language of petitions presented to Parliament. It did not appeal respectfully to the authority of the House. It did not ask for any revision or reconsideration of the circumstances of which it complained; but the petitioners protest against such an exercise of the privileges of the House, and charge it with | objectionable, and which ought to have assuming and exercising powers contrary been omitted; but for his part, he thought to law. The measure which the peti- that Petition was couched in such terms as tioners urged might take place at some the House of Commons ought not to retime, if the wisdom of Parliament should ject. The present Petition, though not deem it fitting. But was the language of couched precisely in the same words, was a petition, from any class of subjects, to pretty much in the same manner, and in charge that House with assuming illegal his mind ought not to be rejected for the privileges, or to dictate to them how they sake of a coarse word or phrase hastily should act in the exercise of their rights adopted. He thought it the duty of the and privileges? There was nothing in the House of Commons to throw open a wide Petition which approached in any degree door for petitions, instead of evincing a to the character of a respectful appeal to disposition to reject them upon the mere the authority of Parliament. It did ap- ground of a vulgar or objectionable word. pear to him, therefore, that considering When he considered how the House of the language in which a former Petition Commons was composed, and the opinion was couched, considering the language generally entertained by the country, of held out of doors to depreciate the cha- the state of the representation, if someracter and authority of that House, and thing was not done to reform that repre seeing in the language of this Petition a sentation, the House must expect to find proof that the forbearance of the House the language of petitions not very flatterfrom time to time served but to encourage ing. The present petition he did not think new insult, it was high time that a line such an-one as ought to be rejected. should be drawn somewhere, and the pre- There were several petitions received besent was a fit occasion for that purpose. fore by the House, containing expressions He therefore submitted to the discretion full as strong, and yet they were not reof the House, whether the present Peti- jected upon that account; and so long as tion, for the causes he had stated, ought these abominations were suffered to exist, not to be rejected. of which the people complained, in the present state of the representation, so long would it be impossible for that House to command respect from the people. Mr. Alderman Combe said, he understood the Petition was unanimously voted by a very numerous and respectable body of freeholders; and as he did not know to what consequence its rejection might lead, he should vote for its reception. Mr. Calcraft hoped, as it was his intention to vote for the reception of this Petition, he might be permitted to state the grounds for that vote. The hon. member who had just spoke, had said the Petition was unanimously voted by a very nume rous and respectable meeting of freeholders; but it did not therefore follow that the House should receive a Petition couched in improper and offensive language; and such language would determine him to oppose the reception of such a Petition, however numerously, unanimously, or respectably it might have been voted. He did not, however, view the present Petition in the very objectionable light stated by the right hon. gent., and should therefore vote for its reception. The right hon. gent, had professed his own unwillingness to adopt any step that might have the appearance of impeding the right of petitioning that House; and he instanced his forbearance in the case of the Westminster Petition, in which he stated that there were many expressions highly Mr. D. Giddy agreed that the doors of the House ought to be opened widely to receive the petitions of all who chose to apply to them in a regular and proper manner. All the argument on this head, however, must fall to the ground, the moment it appeared that any application of the kind was not really a petition, but a paper by which it was sought, in a covert manner, to insult the House. The petitioners, in this case, had dressed up as a petition, a paper, not by which they expected any redress of grievances, but by which they presumed to dictate to the House what they chose to think right. As to any reform, or rather to an alteration in the constitution of that House, he had no hesitation in declaring his opinion, that it would not tend to the advantage of the people. He objected, therefore, to gentlemen taking that for granted which had not been proved, and was not conceded to them. As to the words of the petition, they were disrespectful in the highest degree. It did not contain such a prayer as the petitioners could, by possibility, expect to be granted; and to al low it to lie on the table would only lead |