Page images
PDF
EPUB

than a month. Mr Frankland Lewis only moved an amendment in the preamble, by which it might be stated, that the delay was to enable the Bank to make the necessary reduction in the amount of their notes in circulation. Mr Canning opposed the amendment, as implying a reason which did not exist; and, after some discussion, it was negatived by 88 to 21. Mr J. P. Grant then moved, that the period of resumption, instead of 5th July, 1819, should be fixed at six weeks after the meeting of the next session of Parliament. This being objected to by Mr Vansittart, Mr Tierney moved the 20th of March next, which, however, was negatived by 88 to 27.

On the 19th May, after a short conversation, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

The bill having now gone through the ordeal of the House of Commons, had not much to dread in its passage through the Lords. When, however, its commitment was moved by Lord Liverpool on the 26th May, a debate of considerable length ensued. The only novelty consisted in the prominent part taken by Lord Grenville, who reprobated the principle of the bill more forcibly than any of its former opponents. Even at the commencement of the last war, he thought it a matter of great impolicy to acquire, not a facility of supplying the wants of the country, but to burthen it with a dreadful difficulty, to which its resources could not be equal but by the greatest sacrifices. Satisfied as he was then, and confirmed as he was now, that there never had been a more fatal measure than the commencing and continuing the suspension of cash payments to which he alluded, he looked with the greatest anxiety to the time when we should be again free from that clog. He was one of those who fondly credited the promise, that all restriction should cease on the 1st

July next. He confidently believed that Parliament had given the country a sacred pledge, which nothing but the most urgent necessity, such as a general failure of the Bank at least, could tempt them to forego. He considered the measure as a mere boon and mark of indulgence to the Bank of England, to pay their creditors in notes depreciated five per cent below the nominal value. He was confident that the principal, the sine qua non cause of all our calamities, arose from the extensive issue of bank paper, and the ruin consequent on the depreciation of that issue. To that, more than to any other cause, must thousands in every rank of life, in the highest circles of commercial and agricultural enterprize, and the lowest sphere of laborious earnings, attribute the sufferings they had so grievously experienced. To that was to be ascribed the tears and wants of families reduced from comfort to dependence, and the distress, which, embracing all orders, from the highest to the lowest, had almost ground to destruction the middle classes of society. The pretence now urged for a farther suspension had never before been heard of. Because foreign princes were raising loans in their own countries, the renewal of cash payments in this was to be farther suspended! He denied that the late loan in France of fifteen millions had produced the effect attributed to it by the noble Earl: neither the raising of that sum, nor indeed of any sum in the present year, could have had the effect of altering the exchanges, or of raising the price of gold, at least to the extent asserted; for it was notorious and obvious to the most superficial, that where payments were to be made by one country to another, they were made in that commodity which it best suited the interest of the country paying to send. The proportion paid in gold was exceedingly small,

and could have no effect on the coin required for circulation. The measure was also opposed by the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Lauderdale, and Lord King; and when it came to the vote, Lord Lauderdale moved that the restriction should expire in six weeks after the meeting of the next session of Parliament. The amendment was negatived by 22 against 9. The Earl of Lauderdale protested against the second reading. At the third reading, on the 27th, he moved a new preamble

to the bill, and afterwards, that the restriction should continue till either gold or silver should be made exclusively a legal tender of payment, or the relative value of these metals properly adjusted. Both amendments were negatived. Lord Holland moved, that the restriction should cease in the event of gold falling to 31. 17s. 6d. an ounce, which was also negatived. Lord Lauderdale protested against the rejection of his amendments. The bill was read a third time, and passed.

CHAPTER V.

LEGAL REFORMS.

Sir Samuel Romilly on the Act against privately Stealing in Shops.-Sir J Mackintosh on Bank Forgeries.-Cotton-factories' Bill.-Chimney Sweepers Regulation Bill.-Conviction of Offenders' Bill.-Alteration in the Game Laws.-Mr Taylor's Motion respecting the Northern Circuits.-Lord Erskine on Arrest, without Indictment, in Cases of Libel.

NOTHING does more honour to the present spirit of the British public and of its legislature, than the active exertion bestowed upon questions, not connected with the power and influence of the country and of its rulers, but with the concerns of private life, and the general well-being of society. This attention is not directed only to the brilliant and conspicuous members, but, with a great preference, to the meanest and most outcast portions of the social system; those whom the pride of a former age was wont to trample under foot. It has extended, even in a peculiar manner, to those whom the world and its law had hitherto placed beyond the pale; who, having committed offences against society, were considered as its natural enemies, to be crushed in whatever mode might be deemed most efficacious. It was now inculcated, that justice ought no longer to wear a vindictive aspect; that the severity of former enactments ought to be softened; that not vengeance, but the security of society, and the reformation

of the criminal were to be the objects in view. Questions may arise whe ther, as often happens to human inexperience, some of the arrangements made with these benevolent views may not tend to defeat the very objects for which they were intended. When our leisure admits, we may perhaps attempt to point out some such. One thing, however, seems certain, that some diminution of the punishment of death, so indiscriminately inflicted by the early law of England, is indispensably called for. Even supposing the ancient rigour eligible in itself, modern humanity refuses to execute it; the law is rendered nugatory, and the criminal escapes altogether. To remedy this evil has, both in the present and preceding years, been the study of several eminent statesmen, who have justly merited the esteem of the public. Some elements of faction may have mingled with their zeal; and some may have been tempted to extend the popularity thus acquired by other less legitimate methods. Generally speaking, however, we find on

such questions a laudable confusion of parties and political antipodes often ranged closely by the side of each other.

On the 25th February, Sir Samuel Romilly moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 10th and 11th of William III. as took away the benefit of clergy from persons convicted of stealing to the amount of 5s. in any shop or warehouse. The identical bill for which he was about to move, had passed the House of Commons four times; twice in that Parliament, and twice in its predecessor; and, on the last occasion, he might say unanimously; not a single word having been uttered in opposition to it. It had always, however, been stopped in the other House. He began with observing that the law, in its present state, had for some time back been completely a dead letter. From 1805 to 1817, a period of 12 years, 655 persons had been indicted for the offence under consideration. Of these, only 113 had been capitally convicted, and of those 113, not one had been executed; 365 of the 655 had been found guilty by the juries before whom they were tried, of simple larceny, by which the capital part of the charge was taken away. It was evident, therefore, either that these 365 persons had been improperly charged with a capital offence, or that the juries, influenced, no doubt, by feelings of humanity, had, in 365 cases, violated their oaths. He would also mention how the case stood with regard to the act making it capital to steal to the amount of 40s. within a dwelling-house. Within eight years down to 1816, no less than 1097 persons had been tried for this offence. Of these, 293 only had been capitally convicted, and not one had been executed. In 1816, 131 more persons had been tried, of whom 49 had been capitally convicted, and one (whose

VOL. XI. PART I.

case was accompanied by circumstances of great aggravation) executed. So that, of 1228 individuals tried, 342 only had been capitally convicted (the juries either acquitting the 886, or finding them guilty of stealing to a less amount), and only one person executed! Was this a state of the law which it was desirable to continue? In these cases the principle was, to enforce the law only in cases of pecu. liar aggravation. There were other cases, as fraudulent bankruptcy and forgery, in which it was the principle always to put the law in execution, unless under circumstances of peculiar extenuation. The consequence then was, that although not a year passed without a number of fraudulent bankruptcies, there had been, in the course of 85 years, only four capital convictions for this offence. In forgery, the vast multiplication of cases had at length induced the necessity of abating somewhat of the original rigour. A discretion in this respect was lodged with the Bank of England, which, he believed, was judiciously and humanely exercised. But the consequence was, that the uncertainty of punishment which this occasioned, destroyed all the advantages that might be supposed to result from the severity with which the law was generally enforced. The fact was, that forgeries had greatly increased. Nothing could be more certain than that if the sanction of the law was insufficient to prevent the crime, it was calculated to produce the worst effects. There was not only the loss of lives, but the deterioration of moral feeling, which such exhibitions were calculated to occasion.

The motion of Sir S. Romilly being seconded by Mr J. Smith and Sir J. Newport, leave was given to bring in the bill.

At the third reading of the bill, on the 14th of April, the Attorney-Ge

neral moved an alteration of the preamble, which set forth, that extreme severity was calculated to obtain impunity for crimes. To this principle he did not object, but he objected to the consequences of such a declaration of it. It might mislead men into a supposition that punishment ought to be proportioned to the precise degree of moral turpitude. He contended, that severity ought to regard not only the moral turpitude of the offender, but the pernicious consequences of his offence. There were crimes which might be committed with a degree of moral depravity, far short of that which prompted offences of a venial character, but which on account of the consequences, merited next to murder, the greatest of all crimes, the severest punishment. He objected also the clause referring to the change in the value of money, which seemed to establish the principle that every part of the law connected with such a variable circumstance should likewise undergo an alteration.

Sir S. Romilly could not agree to an amendment, which went to expunge the very principle of the bill, a principle founded on long experience. He mentioned an instance which had taken place at the last Old Bailey sessions, in consequence of a belief which had gone abroad that pardon was never to be extended to servants who had stolen from their masters. A person of the name of Milwood was tried for having stolen property to the amount of several hundred pounds from his master. The evidence was conclusive, and the jury convicted him, but they found him guilty of stealing to the value of 39 shillings. Could any man doubt that the jury, in this case, returned such a verdict in consequence of the statement in the newspapers, of the resolution of the judges that death should follow upon a verdict of guilty of stealing to the value of 40 shillings?

He did not mean to blame the jury, although he could not adopt the language of Judge Blackstone, who had pronounced such verdicts, "pious perjuries." The jury were driven to the dreadful alternative of acting in opposition to the awful oath they had taken, or of handing over a fellow-being to the last punishment, for a crime which had not been regularly connected with such a punishment. The change in the value of money appeared to him equally an unquestionable ground in reason for the alteration.

Mr Wilberforce warmly supported the measures of Sir S. Romilly, passing at the same time a high panegyric on the benevolent exertions of Mrs Fry in reforming the class of female prisoners in Newgate. The amendment was then negatived, and the bill passed. When, however, on the 3d June, it was brought before the Lords, it experienced the same inauspicious fate as before. Being opposed by the Chancellor, it was negatived without debate and without a division.

A still more important subject was brought before the House by Sir James Mackintosh. The great and in. creasing number of convictions and executions for forgeries on the Bank had excited a deep interest throughout the nation. Public opinion was shocked by their frequency, and called loudly for some remedy. Such was the task undertaken by this eminent statesman. On the 25th February, he moved for an account of the prosecutions for forgery for 14 years before and 14 years after the restriction of cash payments at the Bank in 1797, and also for the number of convictions and executions at each period. After a short conversation, the amount was ordered, both with regard to the forging of notes, and the counterfeiting the coin of the realm.

These accounts being laid before the House on the 21st April, Sir J.

« PreviousContinue »