§ Dr. Phillimorebegged to inform, the House, that he was a member of the committee which had been appointed to examine into the state of the prisons in the city of London; and that, in visiting the prison of Newgate on Monday last, he had received information that three men, of the names of Brock Pelham, and Power, who had been tried at the Old Bailey, and convicted of the crime of having seduced three unfortunate Irishmen into the commission of a capital offence, in counterfeiting the coin, in order to get the rewards for the discovery and conviction of such persons, had received free pardons and been dismissed from that prison. He now wished to know whether that statement was correct; and whether any objection would be made to the production of the judgment on which they were condemned, and the free pardon by which they recovered their liberty. He had heard that, on a previous trial for a similar offence, a doubt had arisen in the mind of the judge who presided, respecting the operation of the law in such cases, and a point was reserved for the decision of the twelve judges, who gave an opinion, that the person in question could not be executed; and, accordingly, he received a free pardon from the Crown. That opinion, it was stated, had influenced the officers of the Crown in the case of Brock, Pelham, and Power; and they had been discharged from custody. This was a matter which required explanation; for he could not conceive any thing more horrible in its consequences, than that such blood-hounds, who had been guilty of so enormous an offence, should be let loose upon society, and have the opportunity of seducing other persons into the commission of crimes.
§ Mr. Bathurstsaid, that the information which the hon. member had received as to the free pardon of these men was perfectly correct. The law officers of the Crown, how greatly soever they might wish such criminals to suffer the execution of the law, had found that they could not be brought to punishment. He was glad that this matter had now been agitated, as it was desirable that the public should know the ground on which these persons had been liberated. At the same time, he begged to state, that the law officers had been desired to take into consideration the necessity of introducing an act for amending the law in that respect With 616 respect to the opinion of the judges, on which these men had received their pardon, it did not exist in such a shape as to be laid before the House. This was all the explanation which he was enabled to give to the statement of the hon. member.
Sir F. Burdettcould not refrain from expressing his surprise that these villains had been suffered to escape from the punishment due to their crimes. He thought it impossible that there should not be a law in our criminal jurisprudence to meet such cases of blood money. It was highly expedient that the opinion of the judges on this subject should be laid before the House: and he hoped that the hon. member would insist on its being produced.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that a police officer of the name of Vaughan, who had first been prosecuted for the crime of being accessory to coining before the fact was found guilty. The point whether, as the law stood, a person could be so convicted, having been reserved for the opinion of the twelve judges, certain other persons who stood in a similar situation were also prosecuted for the same crime and found guilty. The case of the first of these persons, and not that of Brock, Pelham, and Power, came to be argued before the twelve judges who thought the facts charged did not amount to the crime imputed to him. Though the case of Brock, Pelham, and Power had not been argued before the Judges, it was exactly of a similar nature with the other, and it was deemed advisable that a pardon should be extended also to them. The person whose case had been argued before the judges had also been convicted on a charge of a different nature, of a conspiracy to procure the commission of certain crimes, but Brock, Power, and Pelham had only been convicted of the crime which he had already mentioned. He could say this much, that a more serious desire could not be entertained of bringing criminals to justice than was entertained in all these prosecutions. As far as he himself had been concerned, he would say that he had never in his life laboured with a more sincere desire of success in any case than he had done. The offence was enormous and could not fail of being held in the greatest abhorrence. The persons deserved to suffer the most condign punishment; but the law was defective, and, under such circumstances, they were pardoned.
§ Mr. Broughamwished to know if these 617 men had got a free pardon, or if any steps were taken to prosecute them for a conspiracy to procure the conviction of persons of certain crimes?
§ Mr. Bathurstsaid, it was not in his power to give any farther explanation on the case of these persons.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, the House had not been informed as to the manner in which this case came before the twelve judges. This was a most important point, and one on which the House ought to have information.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that on the trial of Vaughan, an objection had been taken on a point of law, and this point, the learned judge who presided at the trial, reserved for the opinion of the twelve judges. The opinion of the twelve judges, after hearing counsel on this point, was what he had already stated.
§ Lord Miltonasked if he was to understand, that the point had been reserved in the case of these three persons [No, from the ministerial bench]? Then he was to understand that the point had been reserved on the trial of another person, and that the case of these persons was so similar to that in which the twelve judges had given their opinion, that his majesty's ministers, without any point being reserved in their case, had advised a free pardon to be given to them. It struck his mind that they had acted rather precipitately in this case.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that it was considered the first decision decided also the second case. Under these circumstances, those whose duty it was to advise the Crown, thought it their duty to take care that the sentence of the law, in the case of Brock, Pelham, and Power, should not be carried into execution; for, under circumstances, they were of opinion that these men could not be legally executed.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that if, as the law stood, these men could not be executed, still it did not appear that they could not be prosecuted for conspiring to take away men's lives for money.