HC Deb 07 May 1817 vol 36 cc257-66
Sir James Mackintosh

said, that, as the motion with which he should conclude would call for information that probably would not be refused, he should merely confine himself to moving for it, if it were not necessary, for the character of judicial proceedings in this country, that he should lay a ground for obtaining the documents he wished to see laid on the table of the House. The case to which he was about to call their attention had occurred lately in the city of London, and was, he presumed, known very generally to those whom he addressed, and to the public at large. A person of the name of Patrick Ryan, alias Brown, was convicted a session or two past, of highway robbery, at the Old Bailey; the date of the indictment he did not know, nor of the time when the report of the recorder was made to his royal highness the Prince Regent. It was not considered, he presumed, a case where the interference of the prerogative of mercy could be applied, and the sentence of death was carried into execution on Friday last. An attempt to effect the escape of her husband, by the wife, Mary Ryan, had been discovered, and for that offence, on the forenoon of the very Friday on which he suffered the sentence of the law, the wife was brought to the bar of criminal justice. He was not disposed to take up lightly any suspicion against the manner in which justice was administered, and he did not despair of finding a satisfactory explanation of this apparently unjustifiable act; but till he did receive such an explanation, he would not hesitate to say, that to cite a person under such circumstances to trial —to call upon a human being, a woman too, under all those agonizing feelings, to make a defence—to increase the already aggravated sufferings of her helpless condition, by arraigning her for such an alleged crime, was one, he must say, of the most indecorous proceedings, and perhaps savoured more of the character of inhumanity in the exercise of British jurisprudence, than had ever before been witnessed in this humane country [Hear, hear!]. It was, he might be told, strictly legal—the accusation was, and he believed it was fully borne out by the facts; but these admissions did not change its character, because in the prosecution of the offenc—in the time of bringing it forward, a course was pursued in direct hostility to the spirit and principle of all just law [Hear, hear!]. There existed laws in this and in almost every country, which, if carried into strict execution, were adverse to the dictates of justice itself, and therefore to enforce the one at the expense and in violation of the other, would be to convert that administration, which in its pure exercise was the school of humanity and best source of moral instruction, into an instrument of deep-felt odium and remorseless severity. To punish domestic affection—to destroy the ties and sympathies of private life—to discourage the manifestation of those endearing feelings, which operated more to the prevention of atrocious crime, than the whole code of criminal law—such a system could not be worthy of the jurisprudence of the country in which he spoke. Few persons had not read, without feelings of delight and admiration, the courageous affection of lady Southesk, who nobly risked her own life to save the still dearer life of her husband? Yes, that account could not be read without exciting emotions of reverence, of affection, of admiration; and God forbid that that which we admired and venerated in exalted life, we should stigmatize and punish as a crime amongst the humble and the friendless! But though it appeared to him to be contrary to the spirit of all just law to commence such a prosecution, that was not what he principally complained of. No: he complained that the prosecution was proceeded in after the pardon of the Crown was with held from the husband. He blamed those who, under these circumstances, pressed the matter to a trial. But this was not the worst part of the case. The unfortunate woman, who was in gaol with her husband—who saw him carried to execution—she was conducted to take her trial for a criminal charge before the corpse of that husband was cold [Hear, hear!]. At that moment, she was as incapable of proceeding upon her defence, of extenuating the offence alleged against her, or of proving her innocence, as if she were in a state of confirmed insanity. It was the same thing, whether she was dragged from a cell in Newgate, or from a cell in a mad-house. There could be no trial, because there could be no defence; and there could be no defence, because the woman was not in the possession of that natural capacity which the principles of all law positively demanded. He trusted he should not hear any thing of the character of the woman—with it he was wholly unacquainted, but of this he was certain, that the more unfortunate she was, the stronger was her title to the protection of that House. It might be said, that there was no fault in any quarter, and that the regretted event was the result of inevitable misfortune. He need not assure the House that he would be most glad to be so convinced. Candour, however, compelled him to say, that he was not to be satisfied in that view. The pro- ceedings in the case went to show, that this unseemly and shocking spectacle might have been prevented by a due foresight and vigilance. It was unnecessary to inform the House that the officers of the Crown had a right to stop criminal proceedings, not indeed capriciously but in the exercise of a sound and wholesome discretion. They had the power in the language of the law, to enter a noli prosequi in cases fit for the application. Was the present, then, not a case which, on the most imperative grounds, called for its exercise? He did not believe that there ever existed in this country an attorney-general that would have withheld its application, and most certain he was, that the good natured and humane man, who so recently filled that office, would, if informed of the circumstances, instantly have applied the remedy [Hear, hear!]. But supposing that, from the influence of some invincible ignorance this remedy did not suggest itself to the prosecutors, what objection, was there to postpone proceeding until the legal officers on the bench had communicated the circumstances to the attorney-general? It was said, in explanation of the proceeding, that as it was the last day of the adjourned session, to postpone the trial would have subjected the woman to a much longer period of confinement. That was very true, but a noli prosequiwould, in twenty-four hours, have released the wretched woman for ever. In this case she would have been able to have paid, as the best solace of her affliction, those rude honours to her unfortunate husband, according to the ancient usage of her native country, which it was her anxious wish to perform. Her fate had, indeed, been severe; and if ever she returned to her native country, she was not likely to spread that love for the laws of England, and that affection for its institutions, which ought to be generally diffused, and which in no country were more necessary or would be more beneficial [Hear, hear!]. Her story would not be confined to this country; it would be listened to over Europe, wherever we had a friend to feel shame, or an enemy to enjoy a triumph. The consideration that it would spread over Europe, and would be made a test of the excellence of our criminal jurisprudence or produced as a feature of our national character, was one chief reason, among others, why he had mentioned it in parliament; and he entertained the hope that a public declara- tion in this House would counteract the impression made against us abroad, and convince the world that its apparent inhumanity did not escape notice, and that the terms in which it was mentioned shewed it to be rather an exception from our judicial proceedings than a common specimen. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving,

"That there be laid before this House an account of the dates of the report of the recorder of London to his royal highness the Prince Regent on the case of Patrick Ryan, otherwise Brown, lately convicted of highway robbery at the Old Bailey; of the warrant for the execution of the said Ryan, and of the time when he suffered death: together with the dates of the finding of an indictment against Mary Ryan, otherwise Brown his wife, for aiding in an attempt to procure the escape of the said Patrick Ryan from prison; and of the trial and conviction of the said Mary on that charge."

Mr. Addington

thought he could give the hon. and learned gentleman that satisfaction on the subject of his motion, which he had expressed himself anxious to receive. It was impossible that any magistrate could have been so inhuman as to have brought this poor woman to trial on the very day on which her husband was executed, had not pressing reasons existed for doing so. It had only been done to save her from a more serious punishment, which would otherwise have resulted from the affectionate discharge of the duties of a wife, which had brought her under the sentence of the law. It was purely from a principle of humanity that she was put to the bar on that day, in order to save her from three months imprisonment, which must have followed the postponement of the trial till the next quarter sessions, and he might venture to say, it was fortunate for the poor woman that she had been brought up on that day. The secretary of state for the home department on hearing of some of the circumstances of the trial, caused the case to be immediately inquired into. This step was taken on Sunday, and the result of the inquiry induced him on Monday to recommend her to the Prince Regent, as a fit object of mercy, notwithstanding the lenity with which she had been treated by the court, who, he believed, had awarded the mildest punishment they had it in their power to inflict. The application of his noble relation had been successful; the poor woman had received a free pardon, and was now at liberty. This statement, he apprehended, would induce the hon. and learned gentleman not to press his motion. The dates which he called for, he believed he could furnish him with on the instant. He accordingly proceeded to state the periods at which the warrant, & c. were signed.

Alderman Atkins

assured, the hon. and learned gentleman that the magistrates considered seriously what method could be devised to prevent the trial, but found that it could not be done. Had the trial been postponed, it would only have been an additional confinement, which would in itself have been a punishment. He could assure the House, that no means were used on the part of the magistrates to provoke a prosecution, or to urge its activity. Her trial was conducted with every disposition to produce an acquittal. Her defence was conducted by a counsel who had much zeal, and his exertions made a great impression in her favour; but to the great disappointment of the court and jury, a verdict was necessary against her. Every comfort was administered to her in the afflicting situation in which she stood. The recommendation of the jury to mercy was received with heart-felt joy. All parties sympathized in her fate, and a liberal subscription was immediately entered into.

Lord Castlereagh

said, that, if the explanation of the right hon. gentleman did not go far enough to induce the hon. and learned gentleman to withdraw his motion, he thought the statement of the facts which judicially came before the worthy magistrate would have that effect. Nothing could alter the painful circumstances of the case—which were hardly felt more deeply by the individual herself than by the court before whom she was tried; but it evidently appeared, that it was a principle of clemency, and not of inhumanity, that brought the trial on at the time when it took place.

Sir S. Romilly

said, the case was not alone most calamitous to the wretched individual, but contributed to render odious and detestable the administration of justice, and he was sure that the House would feel greatly indebted to his hon. and learned friend for the opportunity of relieving the character of the country from the reproach. There was not, there could not be, any censure against the government. On the contrary, it had evinced great and prompt humanity. The magistrates who tried the case, also were wholly blameless; but he must consider the conduct and perseverance of the prosecutors highly censurable. There could be no offence in such a case; the helpless woman obeyed the law of nature. In the attachment and obedience that she owed her husband, the law recognized her in capacity to commit any crime, because it presumed her wholly under the husband's influence, save in the cases of murder and treason. What else could the jury have done under the circumstances? And here was an illustration of the mischief of those Jaws that place conscientious men in the situation either of violating their oaths or of wounding the most virtuous feelings of their nature. What was the emotion of the auditory that witnessed this revolting spectacle? There was not a person in the court whose heart did not rebel, and repulse the calamitous inhumanity, under the form of judicial proceeding. The prosecutors should have considered this, and not subjected the administration of public justice to such odium and detestation. It would have been easy for the magistrates to have suggested that no witnesses should be called. The fact was, there never had occurred in the history of the law of this country, a more disgraceful inhuman event than this.

Mr. Ponsonby

said, the unfortunate woman had been indicted a considerable time before she was brought to trial, and great negligence was apparent in not applying to the attorney-general or the government to stay the prosecution, when it was known that her husband's death-warrant had been sent down on the Saturday before her trial took place. This was an inexplicable piece of negligence on the part of those who had the superintendence of the gaol. The poor woman might also have escaped by another mode: it was in the power of the magistrates to advise the prosecutor not to call witnesses, and thus the matter would have been put an end to.

Mr. Bathurst

observed, that if it was to be held out to the public and the world, that there had been an abuse of justice, and a case of inhumanity, he trusted all the circumstances would be accurately represented, and that foreign countries, to whom it was said the knowledge of the transaction would extend, might have the means of forming a correct judgment upon the matter. It would then appear, that the poor woman in question had been tried on the day stated, for being instrumental in attempting to effect the escape, not merely of her husband, but two other felons, by one and the same act. Her trial had been brought on when she might have traversed the indictment at her own desire, and by the advice of her counsel. The judgment on conviction was one month's imprisonment, and this punishment had been remitted by the clemency of the Crown. These were the plain circumstances of the case; and it should be recollected, that when the prosecution was commenced, it was uncertain whether her husband would be executed or not. He apprehended that the prosecutors could have pursued no other course, and that the period of the trial had been considered by her counsel as that which was calculated to prove the most favourable to her interests.

Mr. H. Martin

conceived that there would have been no difficulty in restoring the unfortunate woman to liberty without putting her upon her trial. If the prosecutor had declined to come forward, the witnesses might have been discharged from their recognizances. He should give his vote in support of the motion, not for the purpose of inculpating individuals, but to defend the character of justice and the decorum of judicial proceedings. However humble the person who had been the sufferer in the present case, he recollected no one that had created so much disgust, or been received with such disapprobation in the public mind. The woman certainly, with regard to her offence, was not in a capacity to be supposed acting under the influence of her husband, and was therefore legally subject to conviction. The motion threw no censure on the general administration of criminal justice in the country; but, on the contrary, if assented to, would tend to exalt and vindicate its character.

Sir James Mackintosh

, in reply, observed, that he had not, in bringing this motion before the House, directly or indirectly designed to impute any blame to government; on the contrary, he was much gratified with the very alert manner in which humanity had been extended to her, neither did he impute any improper motives to the worthy alderman and his colleagues. But while he said this, it was impossible for him to be silent when he contemplated such an unusual, detestable, and unnatural prosecution; and it was equally impossible not to blame the very institution of this prosecution, which was directly contrary to the spirit of all law. Odious in itself, it became infinitely more aggravated after the recorder's report was made. The magistrates knew on the Saturday that this poor man was to suffer the punishment of his crime, yet they took no pains whatever to acquaint his majesty's attorney-general of the horrible coincidence between the poor man's execution and his wife's trial. It was a matter of no moment where the poor woman sat during that detestable trial; whether it was beside her counsel, Mr. Barry (whose humane exertions on this painful occasion did him honour), or on the bench, the circumstance was still the same. The prosecution was, he understood, carried on at the instance of the city of London; and why had measures not been taken to prevent it coming on at all? Humanity itself might have told the judges to suggest to the prosecutors the propriety of calling no witnesses. He was shocked to hear the lenity of her punishment adduced as an extenuation of the highly aggravated transaction. The punishment itself was a matter of no moment, for the trial was a severe punishment. What a most appalling spectacle did she present while arraigned at that bar! But a few hours before she stood in the endearing connection of a wife, but at that bar she stood an unhappy, defenceless widow, with her orphan child at her breast; her heart wrung at that time with the most agonizing sensations, when she turned to the melancholy fate of her husband and looked on the wretched infant in her arms [Hear, hear!]. Good God! was it possible to conceive a situation more truly distressing? And was the House then to be gravely told, that the lenity of her punishment was an extenuation of the aggravated nature of the case? Imagination itself could not conceive a more horrible punishment than that inflicted on her by her being placed at that bar. The House might dispose of the motion he had made as they saw proper, but he should consider himself guilty of levity in withdrawing it, particularly because nothing had been explained in the slightest satisfactory manner. It appeared to him that his object would be defeated if he consented to withdraw the motion, because he wished that the House, by adopting it, should make a public declaration of their opinion, and hold up this fatal, this horrible transaction, as a warn- ing to all magistrates in future. On that account he was determined not to withdraw it [Hear, hear!].

Lord Castlereagh

intimated, that as the hon. and learned gentleman still wished for the production of the papers, he should not oppose the motion.

The question was then put and carried.