HL Deb 27 January 1819 vol 39 cc119-24
Lord Holland

said, he held in his hand a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London, in common council assembled, relating to the present state of the criminal law of the country, which was evidently deserving of the most anxious attention of their lordships, it being a subject that loudly called for legislative consideration. The petition did not come from visionaries, or merely speculative men, but from men of business, men immersed in the commerce of London, and in the every day habit of attending to those subjects which must be materially involved in any consideration of the criminal law of the country. Amongst those also who petitioned were men who formed an important part of the magistracy of the country, and who were in the constant practice of those duties which were essentially connected with the administration of the laws. These considerations more peculiarly rendered the petition deserving of their lordships consideration. That the subject itself was one of the greatest importance could scarcely admit of a doubt; nor could he imagine any reason why they should not enter into the consideration of the criminal code, with a view to render it more consonant to the general feelings, unless they were to deem that a valid argument, which was, in truth, a most whimsical one, namely, that the code was to be upheld by the continual breach of its enactments—which was the every day practice. The petition truly stated the reluctance of prosecutors to come forward, of jurymen to convict, and of judges to punish to the extent of the law. And could it be for a moment contended, that the mere terror of punishments which were rarely inflicted could have any effect in preventing the commission of crimes? Did not, on the contrary, the alarming increase of offences prove the utter uselessness of continuing punishments of which the state of the public feeling did not allow the application? He was aware, that a reference by analogy to the practice of other countries was not always a wholesome argument; but he might be allowed, with regard to the present subject, to observe, that in a neighbouring country, France, previous to the revolution (the horrors and bloodshed of which were so often lamented by persons who forgot to notice the great amelioration in the condition of the people, and the improvement of their moral state in consequence of that event), the punishment by law for the minor offence of stealing in a dwelling-house was death, and that death aggravated by the torment of the rack. The effect of this severity of punishment was, that the masters, acting with that humanity which became them, would not prosecute servants for stealing their property; and the consequence of this was, that in scarcely any house in France was there any security for property. Either by the constituent assembly or the national convention this law was abolished, and a comparatively light punishment substituted, which improvement of the law had been transferred to the Code Napoleon, and still remained a part of the law of France. What had been the consequence? Persons who would have before shrunk with horror from prosecuting servants for theft, had since done it without reluctance; and the offence of stealing in a dwelling house was now scarcely known throughout France. This was a striking example of the efficacy of substituting mild but certain punishments, for those of a severe or sanguinary cha- racter; which, from the circumstance of their being so, were seldom inflicted. In moving that this petition should lie upon the table, he certainly did not mean to take up the subject to which it referred for the purpose of pressing it upon the consideration of the House. The task had fallen into abler hands. He trusted, however, that no long period would elapse, before some effectual steps would be taken, not for the purpose of rashly innovating, but in order to make those practical reforms in our criminal code which the state of the public feeling undoubtedly called for; and that we should no longer be left to protect our property with weapons which we could not and durst not use.—His lordship then presented the petition, which was read by the clerk at the table, and was couched in the same terms as the one presented to the Commons, and which will be found at p. 81.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the petition, or making any objection to the discussion of so important a subject, when it should come before the House. The present, however, was not the time for discussion, nor did he mean to enter into it. Were he to say any thing upon such a question, it would be necessary to say a great deal. He wished, therefore, to refer it to another opportunity. What he wished to call their lordships attention to now was, a mere matter of fact. Upon such a subject it was necessary to know how facts stood. It was necessary to consider how far the increase of crimes might have arisen in the last and preceding years, in consequence of the transition from war to peace, and the circumstances naturally attending such a change. They should look to former corresponding periods of war and peace, to know whether the same effects followed from the same causes. There was certainly no period in their history completely analogous to the present. There was no preceding war in which the military and naval establishments were so large. This was to be borne in mind, when computing how far the same changes arose from the same causes in other periods. Documents quite satisfactory could not, it was true, be consulted, for until within a few years no general return was made of convictions and punishments. It was in 1805, when he had the honour of being secretary for the home department, that such re- turns were first made, and they were afterwards regularly transmitted by all the judges to the home office. Though there was not previously any information of this kind respecting the country at large, it might be had with respect to capital convictions and punishments within the city of London since the year 1749. These returns included the worst species of crimes. If their lordships looked to the period of the American war, it would appear that in the year 1777, the capital convictions in the city of London were 63; in 1778, 81; in 1779, 60. It was remarkable, that the increase of capital convictions and punishments at that period, commenced with the peace, and went on progressively increasing for a few years after, and then began to diminish. In 1780 they were 84; in 1781, 90; in 1782, 108; in 1783,175; in 1784, 153; in 1785, 151; and in 1788, the diminution was considerable. For the four first years after the peace, the greatest number of crimes, compared with the smallest number during the war, was as three to one, and the smallest number in the same period after the peace, as compared to the greatest during the war, was as two to one. If they took the war of 1756, they would find the same result. In 1759, the capital convictions were 15; in 1760, 14; in 1761, 22; in 1762, 23; and in 1765, 41. He did not state these facts for the purpose of drawing from them any general result, or with a view of embarrassing the subject, but, while attending to the facts of the petition, it was necessary also to consider how far similar causes operated at various periods of the same nature. When the subject came under their lordships consideration, it would be worth while to attend to these facts, and to be apprised of the correct state of them.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion under the present circumstances. It was a most important subject, and he should be glad that an opportunity were given of taking such an extended view of it as that alluded to by the noble earl. The principle laid down by that noble earl did not appear to him sufficient to account for the late extraordinary and unprecedented increase of crimes. It did not by any means commence with the peace, but went on progressively, from time to time, during the war also. Its progress was not therefore to be looked for exclusively in the transition from a state of war to peace. There were other circumstances to be considered, though he was not now prepared to state them; but he felt confident that the increase of crime could not be referred to any single principle. It arose from weight of taxation, from the fluctuation of property incidental to war, and from the manner in which that war was supported. It was the conviction of the magistrates, that the crimes so prevalent at the present day did not belong, in any great degree, to soldiers and sailors; they were rather surprised how few could be traced to them. Crimes, it was true, might be committed by others, influenced by the state to which the families of soldiers and sailors were reduced; but the great number of juvenile offenders could not be accounted for upon any such principle. If there was any class of culprits upon which the interference of the legislature could produce a powerful and lasting effect, it was with respect to them. Their great increase was a most remarkable feature in the depravity of the present times; and it arose, he had no doubt, principally from the state of the prisons. This was not to be attributed to the keepers, but to the insufficient means of managing such places properly, and the want of machinery to conduct them with any beneficial results. They thus became schools of vice, and hence arose the present systematic and improved education in crime. It could not be accounted for, except in a very slight degree indeed, upon the principle of a transition from war to peace. Besides, the noble earl spoke of the years immediately succeeding the war of 1756 and the American war; whereas, they were now in the fourth year after a peace, with crimes rapidly on the increase. [The earl of Liverpool said, he gave the returns for 1786 and 1787, four years after a peace.] The years 1786 and 1787 might bear out the noble lord's statement. It was not however merely of the increase that he now spoke, but of the immense mass of crime that existed altogether. It would be found that the convictions had increased from 3 or 4,000 to 13,000 in the course of twelve years. This was not to be accounted for on the solitary ground suggested by the noble earl. It was of the highest importance to ascertain, what the causes were, and to find whether they were such as it was within the reach of the legislature to remove. As such was the object of the petition, it should have his warmest support. To innovate rashly; to change long existing laws without sufficient reason, was unwise and impolitic; but when crimes had increased to such an unprecedented degree, it was right to consider whether they might not be diminished by some change in the present penal code of the country.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he had not stated the transition from war to peace as the only cause of the increased crimes, but as one which he considered very material. He, however, still contended, that the increase, with respect to the late war, was proportionally similar to that which had taken place in former wars, and on the conclusion of peace.

Lord King

alluded to the report before their lordships relative to the means of preventing the forgery of bank-notes, and observed, that if they wished to put a stop to the lamentable effects of forgery, they must remove the cause. There were very few instances of the forgery of country bank-notes, while executions for forging Bank of England notes were numerous. The reason was, that the competition of country bankers occasioned a vigilant attention on the part of each house to the state of its notes. If many forged notes were suffered by country bankers to get into circulation, it would affect their credit. Hence they were constantly on the watch. But the Bank of England, having no competition, did not feel the necessity of the same vigilance. The only remedy for this was, either to return to cash payments, or if that was not to be, to allow the bankers of London to issue one and two pound notes, in which case, from the competition, great vigilance would be used, and forgery become much less prevalent.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.