Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in two bills, of which, as they both related to alterations in the criminal law, he proposed to explain the objects and details at the same time. By the first, it was proposed to introduce an important alteration in the law respecting the sending 1163 threatening letters, by assimilating the punishment for those letters when they meant to extort money or other valuable things, by charging an attempt to commit a certain offence, with that of charging with the offence itself. As the law stood at present, the sending of a threatening letter charging with the offence itself, was punishable with the loss of life, but the sending such letters charging an attempt to commit the offence, was only a misdemeanor. Now, without entering into any detail upon the subject, it was enough to say that, in a moral point of view, the attempt and the offence were alike infamous; and the danger from a charge of either was to be equally apprehended. Recent instances of a failure of justice in the administration of the law had rendered some alterations requisite; as last summer, a man who was morally guilty, was obliged to be discharged, from a defect in the law to meet his case. The next bill was intended to facilitate the granting free pardons by the Crown. At present, a person receiving pardon was not restored (according to the law phrase) to his "credits and capacities"—or in fact, was not a free subject, unless his pardon had passed the great seal. Now, this was a most expensive process—so expensive, indeed, that it was out of the reach of ordinary persons; and hence, many were deprived of a right to which they were indubitably entitled. By the spirit of the English constitution, every man who had satisfied the justice of the country, by a pardon, ought to be restored to the same situation as he was in before he committed any offence; but by the practice of the law, this restitution to "his credits and capacities" was not complete, unless under the sanction of the great seal. Many instances of injustice must have taken place under this law; for the number of pardons under the great seal bore no proportion whatever to those under the king's hand. By the exclusion from "credits and capacities," the lawyers understood that a man could not be a competent witness in a court of justice—a most serious exclusion, as the House would see. The effect of this bill would be, to give to all pardons under the king's sign manual, when countersigned in the usual way by a secretary of state, all the effect of a pardon under the great seal. It required but little argument to recommend this alteration in the law, as not only the injustice, but the inconvenience of the present practice were notorious. 1164 Suppose, for instance, a man was sentenced for some slight shade of felony to an imprisonment of six months, and that, in the mean time, his evidence became of the greatest importance in the prosecution of a capital offender. The man's credit possibly was not impeached by his offence; but he could not be produced as a witness, without the expensive and tedious proceedings of a pardon under the great seal: and possibly he would be wanted under circumstances which did not afford time for going through that process. In such cases, there was a possibility that justice would be altogether evaded. So also with respect to the pardoned convicts of New South Wales. What could be more galling, upon a man returning with the king's pardon to his native country, than to find that, because he was a thousand miles off, and had not had his pardon passed under the great seal, or could not afford to do so, he was still unworthy of credit in a court of justice? The fees upon a pardon under the great seal were very high; and properly so, for so solemn an act. The bill would also go to place persons whose sentences had been commuted in the full enjoyment of all their rights as free citizens. So when a capital convict had fulfilled his commuted terms of seven years transportation, he was to be restored to all his "credits and capacities." No maxim was more just, than that when a man had complied with all the conditions of the law, he was entitled to all the protection of the law. This being the first object, the next was, to supply a singular omission in the present law with respect to clergyable offences. The effect of the privilegium clericale in law, formerly was, that, after a conviction upon certain felonies, persons, not clerks, were restored to their rights, after being branded upon the left thumb; but this infliction upon so odd a part of the person being found inconvenient, the punishment was changed to burning on the fleshy part of the left cheek, as near the nose as possible. More lately, however, the enlightened spirit of civilization had disused these barbarous inflictions altogether, and a slight fine and imprisonment were now accepted, in lieu of the burning in the thumb; but so far as regarded the expiation of the offence, the individual was not restored to his rights, as he would have been by being burnt in the hand. It was therefore important to establish some general principle in punishment, by making 1165 a certain degree of punishment an expiation of a certain offence, and a restitution to all rights, without its being referred to any other punishment of which it was the substitute, but as deriving its sanction from a substantive enactment. By a recent act, the punishment of whipping of females had been abolished, and fine and imprisonment had been awarded in its stead; but still, though these stood in the lieu of branding on the thumb as punishment, yet it did not serve its office as to the restitution of rights: for a woman so punished was not a competent witness in a court of justice. Here was an absurdity in the law which loudly called for amendment. In God's name, when parties had expiated their offence by fulfilling the sentence of the law, why should any exclusion remain against them? It was, therefore, provided by this bill, that wherever a party had undergone the punishment awarded by the court for any offence, he was then restored to all his rights, credits, and capacities, in as full a manner as if no offence had been committed. The third object of the bill was, to remedy a most extraordinary anomaly in the criminal law, as it affected a clergyman. It was scarcely credible, that at this day a clergyman convicted of a clergyable felony, should be dismissed altogether the first time, and encouraged by impunity to commit more. In a note to Blackstone it was stated, "that if a clergyman commit a capital felony, he may be hanged like any other subject—if a larceny or misdemeanor he may be punished; but, if a clergyable felony, he must the first time be dismissed harmless." Now, bound as he was to protect the clergy, he did not feel himself called upon to except them from the consequences attending their misdeeds, more than any other class of men. The present was the fittest time to legislate, when there was no particular case before the House. It was desirable to equalize the law towards all parties. There were many other parts of the criminal law which called for amendment and reform; but let the House make a beginning. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the two bills.
§ Mr. Brightsaid, he highly approved of the measures which the right hon. gentleman had proposed, and which were urgently called for by the state of the criminal law. He wished to know whether the pardons to the convicts in New 1166 South Wales would have a retrospective effect; as much disturbance had arisen a short time ago from a misunderstanding on this head.
Mr. Secretary Peelreplied, that the cases to which the hon. member alluded had been provided for by a bill which he had brought in last session; so that it was unnecessary to make these pardons retrospective.
§ Mr. Brightnext asked, whether the act would extend to cases where pardons had been already imperfectly granted to persons in this country?
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that all cases wherein pardon under the sign-manual had been granted, should receive the benefit of this act.
§ Mr. Lockhartthought the right hon. gentleman entitled to the thanks of the country, for the praise-worthy reforms which he was about to introduce into our criminal law. It was certainly most desirable that the quantum of punishment to every given offence should be as definite as possible; but, at the same time, care should be taken, that the granting of pardons was not dispensed so widely as to bestow an impunity to offenders. Considerable difficulty prevailed at present, as to the extent to which pardons from the Crown might be carried; as it appeared, in some cases, that the pardon had been given in plea for all offences committed antecedent to the date of that pardon, though such offences were distinct from that in which the mercy of the sovereign was extended. He advised a delay in the bill until information was obtained, as to the mischief which was likely to arise from that practice.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that a similar suggestion had been made to him by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, and he had no objection to put off the discussion until the necessary information could be obtained, with respect to the benefit of clergy. That was an obsolete and complicated system of punishment, and it was his wish to get rid of it altogether. The more simple the law was rendered, and the more defined the punishment of each offence, the better. It was in that spirit that these bills were conceived.
§ Mr. Spring Ricerecommended an extension of the principle of these bills to Ireland.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he thought this a fit opportunity of alluding to a disgraceful 1167 practice which prevailed at some of the police offices, of passing the prisoners, many of whom stood charged with common assaults, manacled through the streets from the offices to the prison. This practice, not to say any thing of its injustice, was most unbecoming. In some of the office, the magistrates, much to their credit, had the prisoners conveyed in hackney coaches, but in others the contrary practice, notwithstanding its obvious indecency, continued to prevail. He wished to know whether the right hon. secretary could not give some relief under such circumstances. It appeared to him, that caravans might be provided for the conveyance of those persons.
Mr. Secretary Peelassured the hon. member, that the subject had not escaped his attention. He had considered whether or not a caravan ought not to be procured, for the conveyance of prisoners from the police office to the gaols. But he had ascertained that the keeping up of such a conveyance would be exceedingly expensive; for, from the distance of the offices from each other, it would be necessary to have a caravan for each. As to the indecency of passing prisoners manacled through the streets, he concurred in all that the hon. member had said. In fact, be had sent to inform the different magistrates, that it was his wish that the prisoners should be passed in hackney coaches.