HC Deb 15 February 1819 vol 39 cc434-6
The Attorney General

, in moving the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on this bill, begged to be allowed to make one or two observations on the subject. He understood that he had been accused of having surreptitiously introduced into the bill the Abolition of Appeals of Murder—his original proposition being merely the Abolition of the Wager of Battle; and that he had also been accused of hurrying the measure through the House. The truth of those charges he utterly and absolutely denied. He might appeal to every hon. gentleman who was a member of the last parliament, whether, in giving notice on the subject in the last session, he did not distinctly state that it was his intention to propose the Abolition of Appeals, and of course the Wager of Battle as comprehended in them. He did not at the time of giving that notice, name a day for making his motion, because he knew that various opinions were entertained on the subject, and he wished hon. gentlemen to turn their minds to it in the interval between the dissolution of the last and the assembling of the present parliament. When, in the present session, he gave notice of his motion, he also distinctly stated that he intended to propose the Abolition of Appeals of Murder, and having brought in the bill on the 1st of February, he was so far from making any attempt to smuggle it through the House, that he delayed the further proceeding, on it until the Tuesday se'nnight after. It was his intention, if the House; went into the committee on; the bill, to propose several amendments, chiefly in the phraseology of the clauses, but one of a material nature. An hon. and learned gentleman had thrown: out a doubt if the appeal of treason was yet in existence. Unquestionably, the appeal of treason committed in this country had long ceased; still there might be some doubt with respect to treason committed abroad, although it must be considered as virtually abolished, since there was no court in which an appeal could be brought, unless by especial interference of the king. But, if the abolition of it was not expressly stated in the law books, he could have no hesitation in introducing it in this bill. Holding the official situation which he did, he felt himself bound to justify himself from the charges which had been brought against him; although he was persuaded that no hon. member on either side of the House could believe him capable of such conduct as that of which he had been accused.

Sir F. Burdett

perfectly acquitted the hon. and learned gentleman of all intention either surreptitiously to introduce a subject into the bill of which he had given no notice, or of endeavouring to hurry or smuggle the measure through the House. On the contrary, the hon. and learned gentleman had given more than the usual and necessary notice of his proposition. The hon. baronet said, that he wished to save one part of the law of appeal; namely, that which was made in cases of murder; and he intended, when the bill was recommitted, to submit an amendment to that effect. He admitted it would be a hardship to have any man liable to be tried twice for the same offence; but he considered the right of appeal in such cases necessary, as a protection against an undue exercise of the power of the crown in pardoning persons convicted of murder.

Sir James Mackintosh

said, he would have offered himself upon this subject on a former occasion, had he anticipated any serious objection to the bill; but he considered it so wise and so much called for a measure, that he did not imagine any individual would have opposed it. He would listen with pleasure to any argu- ments which might be offered in favour of the appeal in cases of murder; but he professed he did not see how any part of the law could be suffered to remain, without leaving a principle equally inconsistent with humanity and justice. The objections to the repeal of that part of it which applied to cases of murder, rested upon no better authority than the observations of Junius upon the case of the Kennedies.

The bill was then committed.