Lords Sitting of 17 July 1820

IONIAN ISLANDS.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose to move for the production of certain papers relative to some recent transactions in Parga, and the general administration of affairs in the Ionian islands by Sir T. Maitland. Although there was no reason to believe his motion would be opposed, the House would permit him to enter a little into the subject, with a view of showing the justice and propriety by which general Maitland's conduct had been marked. It would not indeed be difficult to show that he had rendered a service, and an essential service, to his country. It might be curious to trace the misrepresentations which had been circulated with reference to his government to their origin. At first those misrepresentations related only to the provisions of the treaties concerning Parga. The censure did not extend to the present high commissioner; but pamphlets had been since published, some with and some without names; and a review also had appeared, which, affecting to blame those pamphlets, gave additional force to the calumnies the contained. For the character of the officer in question he might well be supposed to feel great esteem, and no small regard for his person; and therefore he trusted their lordships would excuse his taking this opportunity of vindicating that character from unjust aspersions. The statements which he alluded to branched into a variety of accusations; the first of which was, that he had neglected his duty in making an improvident bargain for the people of Parga; secondly, that he had expended large sums of money; thirdly, that he had adopted a system of impolitic and oppressive taxation, by which an insurrection had been produced; and, lastly, that he had assumed an exorbitant power, which he exercised oppressively. Now, with regard to the provision in the treaty of Paris, as it respected Parga, he wished those who formed such decided opinions on the subject had adverted to it with a little mote care. The
486
island of Parga was occupied as a military station, on one condition only, of attending to the benefit of the people. We came to no agreement with the Pargui-notes, and came under no obligation to them. This was the statement of general Campbell; no one indeed, who knew how Parga was placed at the conclusion of the treaty of Paris would deny that fact. It was then stipulated, that Parga should be restored to the Porte; and indeed the expediency of keeping it in our own hands was only to be maintained by a total misrepresentation and mis-description of that island. It was without any port, and its means of subsistence were all derived from the coast of Albania. It could not have been defended against a strong force without new fortifications, and at least a regiment of men. The subjection of vessels coming to it to a quarantine of 40 days would have rendered its foreign intercourse most inconvenient. Now, what was sir T. Maitland's conduct? He was either to make a convention with Turkey for securing the privileges of the Parguinotes before he gave up the island, or obtain a guarantee for their future security. In effect, the strongest stipulations were made for their protection and good government; and arrangements made by which those who chose it might retire. But then it was complained that an incorrect valuation had been made, and that the Parguinotes had not been justly dealt with. It was not however, usual to let individuals set a final valuation on their own property. Three commissioners had been appointed, who were conceived to be well qualified for the task, and they had named the sum of 280,000 l., whilst the agent for the Turks estimated the value at 56,000 l. only. After a deduction of 33 per cent, which was the established regulation in the West Indies, sir T. Maitland secured to the Parguinotes payment of the sum of 150,000 l. He himself had the most accurate information that the Parguinotes were entirely satisfied with the arrangement when first made. As there was not a sufficient quantity of Spanish dollars, a part was paid in gold, and there was no truth in the story of base money having been introduced. Many cases occurred of claims amongst the Parguinotes, and of debts and mortgages, 700 of which cases had been decided in three weeks. He would not read the authentic documents which he had in his possession with reference to these circumstances, but they

487
contained a body of irresistible evidence. The papers already produced clearly proved that sir T. Maitland was not drawing on the British treasury, but that he was carrying on all the purposes of his commission from the military funds. By the treaty of Paris we were pledged only to maintain the troops stationed in the Ionian islands; but, from an improvement of the revenues, sir T. Maitland had been able to pay the whole Mediterranean staff. That officer looked forward to a yet greater augmentation of the revenue, and he did not wish to see the convention settled till the amount of its produce could be ascertained. It had been urged, that the new system of taxation was extremely onerous—that it impoverished the rich and oppressed the poor. The fact was, that since the constitution of the Ionian states, sir. T. Maitland had imposed but one new tax—that upon olive oil, which had, he believed, the effect of increasing the produce on every proprietor's estate. Again it was said, that this was done without consulting the whole senate, and under the sanction of a committee only. Now no person had ever manifested a greater respect for the forms of the constitution, or a stronger disposition to maintain them. With regard to the charge of having established a monopoly of the corn trade, he had in the first instance put an end to a monopoly that before existed; but commercial intercourse was not there quite so free as it was in some other places, and Parga was actually threatened with famine by means of a combination of merchants in Corfu. It was for this reason that corn was ordered to be purchased at the public expense, and this system was to continue till the same danger should have ceased. The effect merely was to raise the price a little higher than it formerly had been. He now came to another charge—that of imposing local taxes; and the whole of this resolved itself into an impost for the purpose of finishing a canal in Cephalonia, which was approved by every landed proprietor and merchant in that island. Every attempt had been made, however, both there and in the other states, to excite revolt, and to produce false impressions with regard to the objects of the British government. At Santa Maura these attempts had been actively and pertinaciously made, and he had received some information respecting them from the very best sources of intelligence. One of these—the eldest son of a principal inhabitant, who had re-
488
presented Santa Maura in the assembly of the Ionian islands—described the insurrection to have been caused by a person who had long been employed in endeavours to interrupt the tranquillity established by the British government; that it did not last above one day, and was raised chiefly by a false alarm that many of the inhabitants were to be conveyed to the West Indies. It was in fact brought about by much the same means as those used in fomenting disturbances nearer home. sir T. Maitland had throughout shown a respect for the constitution and for the privileges of the inhabitants, which had not been shown by the Russian government. The civil government of the Ionian islands, including even Malta, formed no longer any charge on this country, and we were also on the point of obtaining a reduction in our military expenditure. Their lordships were aware that he was too nearly related to the officer whose conduct he was vindicating to deal in panegyric. Had he been more distantly connected, he might have been more able to do justice to his merits. He felt, on this occasion, that he had certainly said nothing more than was strictly due, and that there was not the slightest foundation for any of those calumnies which had been so unceasingly and so extensively circulated; His lordship concluded by moving for copies of certain correspondence that had passed between the British government and commissioners of the Ionian states.
Earl Bathurstremarked, that the whole administration of sir T. Maitland was deserving of the highest credit: a most important and delicate trust had been committed to him—a trust of a peculiar nature, and in the discharge of which he could derive no benefit from past experience. This, however, he had executed with the utmost temper, ability, and moderation. There was no governor in the, various colonies and dependencies of Great Britain who had acted in a more upright, honourable, assiduous, and prudent manner. He now wished to offer a few words as to the conduct of his majesty's government, which had likewise been much misrepresented. Whenever the subject should be fairly examined, it would appear that the British government had never exercised its protection more liberally or more scrupulously. The whole error of those who censured our proceedings in that quarter, arose from an idea that we had any option to exercise.

489
But the truth was, that we had originally no right to retain possession of Parga, that we were under no obligation to retain it, and that we never engaged, on occupying it, to keep it under our protection. In the treaty of 1815, the Ionian dependencies were described, and Parga was expressly excluded from the stipulations made respecting them. He knew that it had been confidently reported some time ago, that one of sir J. Campbell's officers had entered into some engagement with the Parguinotes with regard to their becoming a dependency on this country; but as he knew that no such instructions had ever been sent to sir J. Campbell, he had requested an interview with that officer, who was too ill to meet him, but who had sent what might be looked upon as a death-bed declaration, in which he stated that he had never authorized any officer to give the Parguinotes reason to believe that they would be taken under our protection. It was a mere occupation on our part, and stood on the same ground as our occupation of Egypt in a former war. Egypt also belonged to the Porte, and when we drove the French out of it, it was because their possession was contrary to our belligerent interests, and showed that the Porte was itself either unwilling or unable to exclude them. But when peace arrived, Egypt was restored, and the case of Parga was quite analogous. As to what might be supposed due to the people of Parga, on its cession, he must say that it would have been quite unusual to grant them three or four years for the sale of their property; but of what use would the delay, if granted, have been to Parga; for who would have purchased property of that description? By the arrangement actually made, Ali Pacha had been induced to purchase it, and at a better rate than could have been secured by any other stipulation. The only additional ground on which the cession had been blamed was, that Parga had surrendered to us, and that we ought therefore to have retained possession of it. Those, however, who knew the situation of the place, well knew what must be the difficulty of defending it.
The motion was agreed to.

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord Ellenborough Lord Ellenborough moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, and stated that he had several
490
amendments to propose in the committee, the printing of which he intended to move for, with a view to their discussion on the re-commitment of the bill. He thought the clauses might be so worded as to remove the objections made against them as they now stood, and he hoped that every noble lord who took an interest in the measure would attend the committee.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that from the respect which he entertained for his noble friend, he could easily conceive that the bill might, after it had gone through a committee, prove much less injurious to the morals and religion of the country than it now appeared to him calculated to be in all its clauses. He must at the same time say not-content to the motion for going into a committee.
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that if the bill was to have a retrospective operation, nothing should induce him to vote for it. It would go to overturn numberless settlements, to revive suits which had been decided, to set aside wills and revoke administrations. As the bill now stood, its retrospective effect would extend over a period of seventy years, and marriages solemnized during that period might by possibility be made null and void.
The Earl of Liverpoolagreed with what had fallen from the noble lord, but at the same time thought that the Marriage act required alteration. To him it appeared that the simplest law was the best, and he should rather be for granting more facility than for interposing any obstruction in contracting marriage. Every new regulation, however, should be prospective only; and although there might be past cases in which hardships must be sustained, it could not be said that there was any injustice in leaving parties to the provisions of the old law.
Lord Hollandalso thought that the law required alteration, and that the proper course was to go into the committee. Those who held that the bill should be retrospective would likewise have the opportunity of submitting a proposition with that view. His own conviction was, that as the law now stood, it was as bad as it could be.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that one of the most objectionable clauses he had ever seen in any bill was that which provided, that because the bans had been irregular, it should be left to the judge to decide whether it was a bona fide marriage

491
Such a provision would inevitably lead to a degree of profligacy of which it was difficult to form an estimate. He doubted much whether any judge could be safely invested with this discretion; and if all cases of marriage by licence were to fall within the same clause, it would be much better to abolish marriage by licence altogether.
The Earl of Westmorlandthought, that if the act had not a retrospective operation, no good would follow from it.
The House then went into the committee, and several new clauses were proposed by lord Ellenborough.

CRIMINAL LAW.
The Marquis of Lansdown,on moving the order of the day for the third reading of the Privately Stealing bill, said, that there were three bills before the House in the same stage, for the amendment of the criminal laws of the country He had selected the one just read by the clerk as the first for their lordships' consideration, as he was apprehensive that it would meet the most serious opposition. With that apprehension on his mind, he should state the grounds by which he felt that the bill was recommended to their support. It was but justice to their lordships to say, that he was persuaded there was not a member of the House who would wish to continue in their full severity any part of the penal laws which were not attended with beneficial effects. They were now to consider the propriety of repealing a bill which had remained for a considerable time a dead letter on the Statute Book, and which, instead of assisting, prejudiced the course of justice, by deterring prosecutors from taking that part which they ought in order to bring criminals to account. He knew of no test by which they could judge of the efficacy of penal laws, except the experiment, whether, on the whole, they had contributed to repress crime, and whether they had met with the concurrent feeling of the community? Looking, therefore, at the present measure in this view, he was confident when he asserted that the law ought to be repealed—that, owing to its severity, it had been hardly executed during the last 60 or 70 years, nay, even as far back as it was possible to collect facts with any certainty—that its severity had so far armed judges, prosecutors, and juries against it, as to render it almost impossible to obtain a conviction under it. In the great-
492
er number of cases, the prosecutors preferred acquiescing in the loss of their property, rather than expose their consciences to the feeling of having visited on their fellow-creatures a disproportionate, cruel, and unjust punishment. He found by the returns, that from 1805 to 1818, 352 convictions had taken place, and only one execution. In London and Middlesex there had been but one execution during a whole century. In the Northern circuit, there were 46 convictions and no execution. In the Western circuit, for the last 50 years, there were 55 convictions and no executions; and in Lancashire, from 1779 to 1818, there were but 9 convictions and no execution. In addition to this, there was the evidence taken before a committee of the other House, in which the merchants, and principal shopkeepers of London agreed, speaking, without hesitation, not merely for themselves, but for all those with whom they had communication in clubs or otherwise, that the shop keepers, whose property the act was intended to protect, disclaimed such protection, and were anxious to be released from its burthen. Shop-keepers of the highest respectability, had stated cases in which they had submitted to considerable loss, being deterred from prosecution by the belief that the punishment was infinitely beyond what humanity and expediency required. Would the House reject such evidence? Would they pay no attention to the recommendation of a committee which had acted for a considerable time, and which had reported unanimously that the act ought to be repealed? Would they pay no attention to the other House, which had passed the present bill unanimously, and take upon themselves the responsibility of saying, in opposition to the sense of the whole country, who were most interested in the question, that a bill which was founded in humanity and justice, was not entitled to their lordships' favour and support?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble marquis had misunderstood him, if he supposed that it was his intention to oppose that bill in particular. At the sametime he considered it a matter of regret, that those bills were not brought forward when the House might have the advantage of the presence of the twelve judges, especially as they were said to have interposed mercy in so many cases against the verdicts of juries. In the former instances in which these bills were discussed, they

493
had the benefit of the experience and knowledge which distinguished that great man who had lately held the office of chief judge in the court of King's-Bench. Induced by his authority they had again and again rejected these bills. The present bill might possibly admit of amendment in the point to which he should now object; but while it appeared a harsh thing to condemn a man to death for stealing privately in a shop to the amount of five shillings, the present bill did not provide sufficiently against the loss of property to an amount which, though it could not distress some, might effectually ruin many shop-keepers. The act was not intended merely for the protection of men of large property, but also of men of small property, who could not so well protect themselves. It might, therefore, become an argument for their lordships' consideration, whether they would expose the whole fruits of an industrious life to the operation of such a measure as the present. It had been his painful duty to receive the recorder's report during the period of 18 years, and he could not say from that experience that there appeared to be much reluctance on the part of prosecutors to institute proceedings. He could say, indeed, that he was rather surprised, that so little regret was manifested by prosecutors in general, at proceeding on those capital charges. But if there was an apprehension in prosecutors, there would be as probably an apprehension in offenders, in subjecting themselves to the possibility of a capital punishment. He now spoke the sentiments of that great judge to whom he had before referred, that the apprehension of the capital punishment had deterred many from the commission of this offence. If, however, their lordships were disposed to make a merciful experiment, he should make no very strenuous objection. But if hereafter it should be found, that shop-lifting became universal, and that many persons were reduced to misery by this crime, he hoped it would be remembered that he had suggested the consideration, whether this law which had so long existed was not wise and politic. Having said "not-content" to the bill, he should feel no great anxiety as to the result. On the third reading he should propose an amendment, to provide that persons stealing to the value of more than 10 l. should still be subject to the capital punishment.
The bill was read a third time, and af-
494
ter the amendment was agreed to, passed. On the motion for the third reading of the Capital Felonies Repeal bill,
Lord Redesdaleobjected to the repeal of the punishment of death in the case of persons committing certain offences, being disguised by night. He stated that in the part of the country where he resided, he was obliged, conjointly with some of his neighbours, to keep up a police of six men at the expense of 200 l. a-year, to suppress deer-stealers on the borders of the forest. If the capital punishment, which now applied to persons going with their faces blackened and disguised, were repealed, the practice among these depredators would be universally resorted to.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, it would be remembered that deer-stealing would remain punishable for the first offence by fine, for the second offence by tranportation. Now the question was, whether the fact of persons blackening their faces was a circumstance of sufficient importance to warrant the punishment of death?
Lord Redesdalesaid, his supposition was, that in all cases these offenders would go with their faces blackened.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that if it was known that courts would be in the habit of applying a higher punishment to deer-stealing when committed by persons thus disguised, as, for instance, that they would fine simple deer-stealers 10 l., and deer-stealers in disguise 500 l; or, for the second offence, sentence to transportation for seven years in the one case, and for fourteen years in the other, the effect of a superior punishment on that aggravation of the offence would remain.
Lord Redesdalesaid, the noble marquis pre-supposed that the offenders were detected. Now he was of opinion, that the class of persons he had mentioned did not care much for transportation.
Lord Hollandsaid, the noble baron seemed to have an extraordinary apprehension of these black-faced gentry, but it was to be hoped that his apprehensions as to their increase would be found groundless. When on a former occasion. a bill was introduced into another House to take away the capital punishment which attached to persons calling themselves Egyptians, the member for Kent rose to protest against it in behalf of his county, which he foretold would be inundated with gipsies. The noble lords near him could now tell the House whether Kent

495
was so inundated with gipsies of late years as to become uninhabitable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should wish the noble marquis to consent to the postponement of the third reading of this bill till to-morrow, as there were, in his mind, so many objections to it, that it could not be discussed without occupying much of their lordships' time.
This proposition having been assented to,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would, in the mean time, to save trouble, point out the objections which he had to some of the enactments. Among the offences from which the bill took away the punishment of death, were those to which capital punishment was affixed by the 9th Geo. 1, chap. 22, viz. the killing, maiming, or wounding of cattle, or the cutting down of trees in orchards or plantations. It did undoubtedly seem a hardship that so heavy a punishment as that of death should be affixed to the cutting down a single tree, or the killing or wounding a cow. But it was a necessary consequence of general descriptions, that all cases were included. It was impossible, by the means of language, to frame laws which should apply to all cases, without the exercise of the discretion of the judge. In the case of burglary, for instance—if a person passing Ludgate-hill broke a pane of glass and drew out a ribband, that was burglary. This would be thought too hard a case for the application of capital punishment, yet this offence was made punishable by death under the words of the same law, which was necessary to prevent the breaking into a house in the dead of night, finding the family, standing over them with pistols, and rifling the dwelling. It was impossible, of course, to administer such a law, without the interposition of mercy and discretion. Now, in the case before the House, if the bill passed in its present state, a person might root up or cut down whole acres of plantations, or destroy the whole of the stock of cattle of a farmer, without being subject to capital punishment. Persons would thus be let loose to do mischief far beyond the limits of many capital crimes. He could not, therefore, without hearing his objections removed, consent to this part of the bill. As to the clause which took away the punishment of death from bankruptcy offences, he had no objection to it. In the experience of forty years in the court of Chancery, he had only
496
known two or three parsons prosecuted for this capital offence, and he had no doubt there were cases in which, on account of the capital punishment, prosecutions had been prevented. As to the repeal of the 6th Geo 2nd, which affixed the punishment of death to persons breaking down the banks of rivers or sea-banks, when he looked to the state of property in Lincolnshire, where, by offences of this kind, mischief might be done, to which the robbery of a few pounds was not to be compared—when persons might be deprived of all their means of subsistence, he could not give his consent to it. As to the clause respecting the pulling down turnpike-houses, it did not appear to him material, as the pulling down turnpike-houses was a capital offence under another act. He came next to the clause respecting threatening letters, which took away the capital punishment unless the letter demanded money or a valuable consideration. On this he confessed he had great doubts. Nothing was more destructive to the peace of families, than the apprehensions which were kept alive by the malicious and secret threats of mischief. The clause which took away the punishment of death from persons destroying the floodgates or sluices on the great level of the fens, it would, in his opinion, be impossible for the House to take away, on account of the great extent of property thus protected. The last paragraph of the preamble referred to the act for punishing persons destroying certain manufactured goods with death. He could only say, that when he was in the habit of going the northern circuit, it was the general opinion that there was no possible security for the manufacturers in the North of England, but by the terror of that law.
The third reading of the bill was fixed for to-morrow.