HC Deb 07 February 1812 vol 21 cc700-3
Sir S. Romilly

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 39th of Elizabeth, which constituted it a capital offence, punishable with death, in soldiers and sailors found begging in the streets. The hon. and learned gentleman conceived there could be no objection to remove from the statute book an act of this nature, which went to inflict a capital punishment on persons of this description, who were wandering or begging about the streets, without a pass from their commanding officers. The law had not, to be sure, been acted upon since the 16th of Charles, which last statute continued it, nor would the House deem it expedient to continue acts which, in the present times, never could be acted upon. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his work referring to this statute, had said, it was "a disgrace to the legislature." Being on the subject of the penal laws, he would take-this opportunity of stating, that it was not his intention at this moment to bring forward any of the bills which he had formerly done. In so refraining, he had not in the least altered his opinion as to the necessity of amending the criminal code, nor was his perseverance or patience exhausted. He wished not to weary the House by bills which, from what had transpired, there was no chance or probability of passing the other House. He trusted, however, that the prejudices which now operated would subside, and in a little time be so removed as to afford him the opportunity of persevering with effect. Perhaps in the next session he should bring the subject again under the consideration of the House. He then-moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 39th of Elizabeth, against lewd and wandering persons pretending to be Soldiers or Mariners.

Mr. Frankland

rose to second the motion, and went into some detailed observations upon the act which it was intended to repeal. He maintained that Mr. Justice Blackstone had not asserted that the law in question was a disgrace to the legislature, but that it was a disgrace to the statute book, and the distinction, he contended, was an important one. Since the time of Blackstone, however, that act had been virtually repealed by the 32d of the King. The hon. member argued upon the necessity of the act at the time it was provided, and read the preamble of it, which stated that divers lewd, immoral and dangerous persons, contemning all religion, did wander up and down the country, weaponed and in troops, in the guise of soldiers and sailors, disgracing those honourable characters; that divers heinous murders and other offences were committed by them, and that unless some provision was enacted by the legislature to prevent those enormous evils, the consequeuces to the community must be dreadful. This, he continued, was the state of the country at that time, and in a similar state almost every country in Europe was at the same period; armed banditti infested the public roads; and the act in question was to be considered rather as a legislative declaration of war against persons of desperate practices, than an act of parliament. The hon. member then entered into the precise objects of the act, and the miserable necessities of the times which called for its enactment. He thought it did not disgrace the statute book, but was one of necessary but mild coercion; yet he willingly supported the motion of his hon. and learned friend for its repeal.

Mr. Lockhart

thought the hon. gentleman had misconceived his hon. and learned friend, whose argument went to the disgrace of having such a statute on the books in the present state of society.

Sir S. Romilly

observed that the hon. gentleman seemed to have a veneration for the statute of Elisabeth. But this was not the only statute of that queen which most be considered a disgrace, for there was one he could refer the hon. gentleman to which made it a felonious act in any person found in the company of the persons denominated Egyptians. There was another, which made it felony to commune with the Devil. The inflammatory language of these acts was borrowed from her predecessors, Mary, and Henry the eighth. With respect to the statutes, he had looked into them as narrowly as his abilities would allow, and he would assert that the 16th of Charles continued this act, for it expressly said, "it shall be continued till parliament makes some other law on the subject." The hon. and learned gentleman thought men's lives should not be subject to such laws

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.