§ Mr. Rotch, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill, said, that the object of it was so plain, that it would not have been necessary for him to say a word about it, had it not been for some observations that had been made on the opposite side of the House at the time of the first reading of the Bill. He admitted, that all the felons' property which fell into the management of the Government was properly administered, and the Report showed, that it was distributed with justice and due consideration. But when he saw, by the same Report, that not a hundredth part of this species of property was accounted for, he felt that there still remained much to be done. He found in that Report the sum of 3,192l. in the hands of Sheriffs; 2,533l. of which came from one individual, and yet, in ten years, he only saw 600l. of it accounted for. In Lincolnshire, for the space of ten years, he only saw 7s. 3d. accounted for; in the large county of York, for nine years not a farthing of this species of property was accounted for; and this he stated in the presence of the Recorder of one of the largest towns in that county, who could not deny the accuracy of the statement. In Wiltshire, for nine years, nothing was accounted for; but for one year he found the sum of 7l. accounted for. In Worcestershire there were Returns for two years, whilst for eight years no property of felons was accounted for. It was obvious that very large sums of money, and 715 a great deal of property, must be taken from felons, which is never afterwards accounted for. The practice which generally prevailed, and with which every Gentleman in the House must be familiar, fully illustrated this observation. A man was,—suppose, arrested for stealing a jacket; he was tried and found guilty. At the time of his arrest the constable took all his clothes; and when the prisoner was found guilty, inquired of the Court how he should dispose of the property of the felon in his possession? The Court would not allow it to be given to the felon, and a portion of it was sometimes given to the prosecutor, upon his complaining that though the clothes did not belong to him, yet he had lost a good deal of property. After having passed through his period of imprisonment, the felon was turned out upon the world without, perhaps, a coat upon his back. Now, if some plan were adopted for preserving his property for him, this evil would be in a great degree remedied. In the Bill which he had submitted to the House he had endeavoured, as far as possible, to introduce the principle of Sir Samuel Romilly's Act. A principal object contemplated by this measure was, to provide that when a felon was possessed of property at the time of his conviction, such property should be available to make good the loss sustained by the party robbed and the public, in his prosecution in the first instance; and that, finally, the residue be reserved for his own use, or be applied to the maintenance of his children and family. It would be for the Committee to consider how much of it should be apportioned to go as a compensation to the party robbed; and how much should be apportioned towards relieving the County-rate for the expenses incident to such prosecution. He, however, had no hesitation in saying, that he thought a person found guilty of felony, who had 1,000l. in his pocket, which sometimes happened, ought to be obliged to pay the expenses of the prosecution; and in that way relieve the county in which he was convicted to that amount. In order to make the mode of administering the law in this respect intelligible, he would detail the facts of a case which occurred within his knowledge. A young apprentice robbed his master of twenty sovereigns; on search being made, a 20l. note was found in the prisoner's box. At the trial, the master proved distinctly the fact of the robbery 716 being by the agency of his apprentice, and that twenty sovereigns were stolen from him, but admitted that the boy's father had given the boy a 20l. bank-note when he put him apprentice. The constable, after the conviction, produced the note, to which, or a share of which, the master laid claim, and now applied to the Court, but was refused any portion of the 20l. note, which was pronounced to be forfeited by the due course of law, and was taken by the Sheriff. Here the prosecutor had been put to an expense of 7l. 16s.; and he should like to hear a good reason offered by any lawyer there, why these costs should not be first paid out of the forfeited note, and the residue apportioned to make a partial restitution to the man robbed? The next defect of the Law of Forfeiture which he proposed to remedy was this; suppose a child, say of tender years, the son of a gentleman of fortune, to be convicted of a felonious stealing of a few apples, and sentenced to a short imprisonment; he was debarred by the conviction from all right to inherit his father's property; whilst the old felon, after returning from a long transportation, was enabled to inherit it; those who were transported having, by a special Act, their right of property secured to them. The whole of the Law of Forfeiture required to be amended; and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read and sent to a Committee of the whole House, in order to be examined in its details. He concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Mr. Roebuckconcurred with the hon. Member, that it was desirable to amend the law as regarded the forfeiture of the property of persons convicted of felony. It was very well known, however, that the Criminal-law was undergoing revision before a Commission composed of very competent persons; and he had no doubt, that they would be able greatly to improve it, and make it more systematic than it was at present. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would not be proper to proceed with a partial enactment. He thought, that it was much better that definite rules should be laid down for the whole law, than that they should proceed only on particular points. The hon. Member, however, had not proposed to put a stop to the forfeiture of the property of convicted criminals, but merely recommended a different distribution of 717 it. He certainly objected to leaving the disposal of their property to the persons proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would not object to intrust the power to the Judges of Assize; but he would not consent to rely upon the discretion of the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. The Judges were above suspicion from their situation, and in consequence of the eyes of the public being constantly upon them; but this was not the case with the Magistrates. The Bill would not do away with the forfeiture, but only proposed a different appropriation of the property forfeited. The principle, that there should be no forfeiture on conviction he thought was good, as the present state of the law led to an inequality in the punishment. He thought that it would be much better to have a Bill in a single clause, stating that there should be no forfeiture, than adopt the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. O'Connellhoped that his hon. friend, the member for Bath, would not persist in his objections to the second reading of the Bill, as it might be greatly amended in Committee. It was generally admitted, that it was desirable to alter the law respecting the forfeiture of felons' property, as it at present led to the infliction of unequal punishments. He had no hesitation in saying, that the law on that and some other points, was in a most anomalous state. In all other countries, a man on conviction had to pay the charge of his trial out of any property he might have; but in this country, the charge fell on the county-rate, and thus the expense of the trial had to be paid by innocent persons. He would have the property of criminals got at in all cases, whether in their own possession or in the hands of trustees. From such property the expenses of the trial and the cost of maintaining the prisoner should be deducted, and the residue should go to his family, or be returned on his discharge. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted, that the machinery of the Bill was objectionable, but he thought that it might be amended in Committee. He should prefer a wholesale amendment of the law; he would have the law in such a state that every man could readily understand it; but if he could not get a code, he would get the next best thing, namely, an amendment of the law in detail, to as great an extent as possible.
Mr. Wynnregretted very much, that, when Bills like that under consideration were brought forward, that the law ad-of the Crown were not present. He regretted that they could not have the attendance of one of those learned gentlemen, but surely the other ought to have been present. In consequence of making such constant changes in the detail of the Criminal-laws many difficulties had arisen. It, therefore, was desirable that great caution should be used. It was easy to say, that this or that part of the law was defective and wrong; but the difficulty was in finding an adequate remedy. The whole of the Criminal-law was under the revision of a Commission; and it would be much better to wait for a general measure than proceed by detail. If there was any probability of such a measure being brought forward during the present Session, he would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw his Bill. At any rate, this measure appeared to him to require a great deal of consideration.
§ Sir Samuel Whalleydid not think, that the forfeiture of a criminal's property should be made a part of the punishment. The property, in the first place, should be like that of a bankrupt's; and should be made to go, as far as possible, in compensation of the wrong done. He thought, that compensation should be given to others besides the prosecutor; for if that limited principle were acted upon in cases similar to that of Fauntleroy, where many persons were cheated, great injustice would be done. He supported the second reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. Aglionbyfully agreed with hon. Members, that the Bill should be allowed to go before a Committee; but he was decidedly opposed to the proposition of the hon. member for Marylebone, for placing felons' and bankrupts' property upon the same footing, inasmuch as it would be an inducement for prosecutors to press evidence, in order to secure a conviction. Forfeitures were relics of the feudal times, when escheats went to the lord, and should not be tolerated at the present day. He trusted to see them no longer disgracing our Criminal Code.
Mr. Hughes Hughes, seeing there was no intention of opposing the second reading of this important Bill, which should have his best support, would only make one remark, or rather suggestion, to the hon. and learned member for Knares- 719 borough, by whom it was introduced;—whether, after the various opinions he had heard expressed by hon. Members on the details of his Bill, it would not be better that it should be referred to a Select Committee above stairs than be committed to a Committee of the whole House, in which a matter of such nice detail could not be so well considered?
§ The Bill was read a second time.