club; and I intended to make stools of it of good order and law were caught, was it for my poor, sick children." Such was not right that they should be punished as the feeling on the judge, after having examples, out of mercy to others, to deter heard all the heart-rending circumstances, them from committing similar offences? that he instantly and rapidly said to the Such, then, was the character of the case prisoner" I hope your appearance here which had been alluded to. There will be of no detriment to you hereafter— were to be seen deep-laid plans, and the it ought not to be-you have suffered effects of widely extended corruption. much already-go hence, and bless the Those who had the care of the property laws which have enabled the judge to ex- had been corrupted to abandon their duty ercise some discretion on your case:- towards their masters, and the law by Gaoler, discharge the prisoner!" What which they had been tried had said that would have been the situation of the judge the offence was capital. They had been had there been any written scale of law tried before as conscientious and as intelwhich must be applied to such a case?-ligent a judge as ever sat on the bench Would not any further punishment than this poor man had already received have been too much? This case applied to ninety-nine out of every hundred; yet there were instances in which it was advisable for the security of society to exert the utmost rigour of the law. He could not but lament that the present motion had been brought forward; yet knowing the high and honourable mind of his learned friend, he felt convinced that it had been the result of honest conviction, not from a mere desire of making complaint. He meant not to impute any thing like blame. He lamented that any such motion had been introduced into that House, for there were persons out of doors who might think that there was much ground for complaint. His hon. and learned friend had told them, that he verily believed a recent occurrence would not have taken place, had the Bill proposed by him succeeded, alluding to the conviction and subsequent petitioning in favour of those persons who had stolen a great quantity of silk on the river Thames. He however, differed from his hon. and learned friend in such opinion. He admitted that it would be most horrible if the letter of our penal code were to be abided by in every instance, for there were many cases where to inflict the punish ments prescribed by the statutes for the offence would be little short of the most barbarous cruelty. It was now death for stealing on a navigable river to the amount of 40s.; and there were many cases where it would be acting mercifully by society to inflict the punishment to the utmost letter of the law-cases which developed regular plans and deep-laid conspiracies; which formed some of a series of depredations that were carried on daily and nightly to the apparent disregard of all law. When the ringleaders in such violations

(Mr. Baron Thompson), one in whom it might well be said that all could behold the perfection of a judge. After a patient trial, which lasted three days, they had been convicted. On that occasion the assistance was had of all the persons eminent in the law; and the learned Recorder of London, as was customary, had lain a minute report of the case before the sovereign authority. In the privy council every circumstance of so important a case was minutely canvassed; and the anxiety of the royal mind on all occasions to render judgment in mercy was well known. Indeed, the anxiety of the royal mind to save the life of that unfortunate criminal on whom sentence of death had been passed could only be known to those who had witnessed its effects, and it was difficult to communicate even a faint idea of that anxiety. He had heard the late Recorder (Adams), speak with great delight and enthusiasm of the excessive anxiety of his majesty to save the lives of criminals; and for that purpose he would repeatedly question as to the law and the circumstances of the case, and all in favour of the criminal. But what was to be done when a desperate gang were brought before the tribunal of justice to answer to the violated laws of their country? Was there no difference between the measure of their guilt-their capability to do injury to society, and that individual who might have committed a similar offence for the first time from absolute poverty, and without having been in concert with any one? But it was said respecting the robbery on the Thames, that the jury had afterwards petitioned his royal highness the Prince Regent for a mitigation of the punishment-a proof of their notions of its unnecessary severity. Some of the criminals had families-others, wives-and others, fathers or mothers dependent on

purpose of doing away that prejudicial impression which might be made on the public mind, had the statement gone forth to the world without some ob. servations being made upon it.

Mr. Frankland, alluding to the remark of the hon. and learned mover, that this country was reproached by foreigners for the barbarity of its criminal code, observ

them for bread. No man had a higher cases; for the utmost rigour was someveneration for the trial by jury than he times called for out of mercy to society. had, and for those who composed the He should not detain the House longer on juries of this country. Few men had seen the present occasion, as there would be more of the proceedings in criminal courts further opportunities to examine the prothan he had; but after thirty years' exposed bills of his hon, and learned friend; perience, he had not known six instances he had now addressed them for the sole where, had he been of the jury, he should not have felt himself bound to determine precisely as the jury had determined. But after they had brought in their verdict, they were, like other men, accessible to pity. The doors of the jurymen might afterwards be crowded by the daughters, the sons, or the mothers of those who had been convicted, praying their interference. They would admit the justice of the con-ed, that they expressed such opinion from viction-they would acknowledge the of- a knowledge of our criminal law, without fence of their relatives; but they would knowing how it was administered. Had add "you cannot wish them to expiate they seen the manner in which those laws their crimes with their lives-you cannot were administered, they never could have desire that they should be hanged; think, expressed such opinion. Adverting to the then, on our feelings for those who, we punishment of the persons convicted of believe, may be saved if you will petition stealing silk on the river Thames, he exthe Prince Regent. You will not refuse pressed the extreme regret that he felt at to sign this paper-life is valuable to the hearing his hon. and learned friend say meanest being that crawls!" Thank God! that the crime was aggravated by the few Englishmen could withstand such an value of the commodity stolen. With appeal as this! The Petition was signed respect to the general jurisprudence of the under those circumstances, and was for- country, every endeavour was made to warded to the fountain of mercy, where it govern strictly by the law, in spite of the would always have due effect if a fair case difficulty which existed in doing so; nor were made out. While assisting the were those extraordinary interpositions judges at assize, it was once unfortunately usual which in despotic countries were his duty to pass sentence of death on six habitual. He hoped the new parliament individuals, some of whom he could not would apply itself diligently to this subleave for execution, and of course no such ject, that it would consider the actual siorder was left. But such feeling towards tuation of the country, and that it would the unhappy individuals could not be com- allow the continuance of that kind of dismunicated to them. The consequence cretion on the part of the judges, from was, when he was about to leave the town which so much public benefit had hitherto the carriage wheels were beset; and there been derived. were loud prayers, calling on him "for God's sake not to leave the criminals for execution!" It was ascertained that those who were offering up the petitions so fervently, were actually the prosecutors; and they admitted the offence, and the justice of the sentence, but said that the poor men's lives ought to be spared-for life was valuable. Such had ever been the case, and if the judges were not so to run a race of humanity with the prosecutors, their carriage wheels would be so obstructed that they would be unable to move. It had the happiest effects, it communicated mercy to those who merited it, while the law was to be called into action against greater offenders. The severity of the law was not too much for some

Sir S. Romilly, in reply, expressed his hope that he had not been so misunderstood by the House in general, as he was sorry to observe he had been by his two honourable and learned friends, who had attributed to him many propositions which were by no means his, but which he considered to be as mischievous as they considered them. He wished particularly that his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, would take the trouble of informing himself more correctly as to his opinions, and he would find that they were as opposite as night and day to those which he had ascribed to him. His hon. and learned friend seemed to imagine that he was not disposed to allow the judges any discretion. Now really if his hon.

that he was so in good company. It was no new doctrine, nor one of his making, but might be found in the works of a very learned man, sir Henry Spelman, who in a celebrated passage had affirmed long since," that as all other things had grown dearer, the life of man had grown cheaper." And he must still contend, that value was certainly to be considered as an aggravation. What he had stated, was not from any wish to take up the time of the House, but to set the hon. gentlemen right, by whom he had been misrepresented or misunderstood.

The Solicitor General, in explanation said, that he and his hon. and learned friend agreed as to the propriety of car

in the case of the silk stealers last year on the river Thames. He must also allow, that his hon. and learned friend in his clause, left discretion enough to the judges.

and learned friend had paid the slightest attention to the proceedings in parliament on this subject; if he had read any of the unauthenticated accounts of those proceedings if he had examined any of the bills which he had had the honour to introduce into the House, he would have been sensible of the misconception under which he was labouring. He could not help regretting to see every misrepresentation of his sentiments caught at and applauded by those who might have been better informed on the subject. Had he in the slightest degree censured the condemnations of the persons convicted of stealing silk on the river?-quite the reverse. And yet, to what other purpose than to induce it to be believed that he had donerying the sentence of the law into effect so, was the panegyric on Mr. Baron Thompson, in praising whose talents, learning and character, he could vie with his hon. and learned friend, or with any man in that House? He, by no means accused his hon. and learned friend of a wish to misrepresent him. He was sure that he had no such intention; but such was the case. The fact was, that he had adduced the case to show, that although the jurymen had no doubt of the guilt of the criminals, they entertained a doubt of the propriety of a punishment evidently so dissonant to their feelings. In proof of this he would read the Petition which they had addressed to the Regent on the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman here read a part of the Petition in question. -Reverting to the misconceptions which were entertained of his object, he observed that among them was the absurd supposition that he was desirous of getting rid of all punishments whatever. All that he contended for was, that it was worse than useless to allow punishments to remain on the statute book which were too severe to be enforced. Such a practice led to a relaxation of the law itself. It had been the universal opinion of all wise and reflecting men, that the certainty of a mild punish-stituting into the cases of those unfortunate ment was better calculated to repress guilt, than the slight chance of one more severe. The hon. gentleman near him had accused him of holding strange opinions on the subject of capital punishments. He did not, as the hon. gentleman had conceived, set up the humanity of foreigners at the expence of that of the English nation. And with respect to another point, that of taking value into consideration, in estimating the quantum of punishment, he must say if he was wrong in this,

Mr. Bathurst, as he was the only individual present of that body whose duty it was to advise the sovereign with respect to the infliction of capital punishments; and as so much had been said of the case of the persons who had been convicted of stealing silk on the Thames, begged permission to offer a few words on the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman had disclaimed any intention of imputing blame to the judge in that case in the discharge of his legal duty; but did he recollect that the opinion of a judge was also always taken with respect to the propriety of enforcing a capital punishment? The fact was, that the case in question was one of systematic depredation on the part of persons connected with the conveyance of a very large portion of the mercantile property of the port of London. Adverting to what his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, had said of the scrutiny which his majesty had always been in the habit of personally in

individuals, whose crimes had subjected them to the sentence of death, he observed, that the same description would have been strictly applicable to the conduct of his royal highness the Prince Regent on similar occasions. As to the address of the jurymen who had tried the silk case, he had no doubt that the hon. and learned gentleman knew the person by whom it had been drawn up. He did not believe the Petition to have been drawn up by the persons by whom it was

signed, nor by the hon. and learned gen- | the correspondence was indeed wholly untleman, but by some one of his friends.

Sir S. Romilly, in explanation, warmly, and upon his honour, protested that he knew nothing of the origin of the Petition. One of the jurymen had called at his chambers two or three days before the execution of the sentence of the law, to say that such an address had been sent to the Prince Regent, and to ask if any thing could be done to support it. His reply was, that nothing could be done, but that he had no doubt all proper at. tention would be paid to the subject. He had forgotten this affair until a day or two ago, when he applied for and obtained a copy of the Petition. He repeated, that he had not the most distant conception by whom the address was written, it was a very ordinary and ungrammatical production, by no means above the level of the powers of composition of a common tradesman.

Mr. Bathurst denied having asserted or insinuated that the hon. and learned gentleman knew any thing about the Petition. He certainly had understood that it was written by a gentleman in habits of intimacy with the hon. and learned gentleman, and who took a similar view of the subject under discussion.

necessary. There might be differences of opinion on many points occurring in the course of the correspondence; there might be a difference of opinion as to the policy of the Orders in Council, or the policy of repealing them, but he was satisfied there could be but one opinion in that House, approving of the conduct of government in rejecting the propositions of the government of the United States, or of the necessity of the vigorous prosecution of the war. The Address which he should have the honour to move, was confined to these points, and did not enter into any matter which was likely to lead to a difference of opinion. It became necessary to enter into some detail, which he would do very briefly. Early in May last, there being reason to apprehend that it was the object of the American government to instigate our cruizers to acts of hostility, in order, by means of them, to incite the people of the United States to call for a war with this country, instructions were sent out to our commanders on that station cautiously to abstain from any act of aggression. Instructions were also sent, that if war was declared by the American States, our commanders should immediately consider the war as comMr. Ryder was glad to hear the senti-menced and act accordingly, and that they ments which he had so often expressed on should blockade de facto the Chesapeake the question before the House, confirmed and the Delaware. The difference beby the Solicitor-General, who, it must between a blockade de facto and a blockade allowed by all, had more practical know- by notification was, that in the former ledge of the criminal law than any man case vessels could only be captured by the in parliament. In his opinion the circum- actual force employed, but in a blockade by stances attendant on the case of the de- notification all vessels going to or coming predators on the river afforded the most from the port blockaded, were liable, ample proof of the advantage of allowing after warning, to capture. It was incumthe law to remain on the statute book, for bent on the government, in this case, to the purpose of being enforced on proper resort to no other than a legitimate occasions. blockade, and that he did not consider a legitimate blockade, where the belligerent carried on trade with the port blockaded. That a blockade by notification was not therefore earlier resorted to arose from these circumstances; that there was a contract for the supply of flour to the peninsula from the American ports, great part of which flour remained in these ports; that our West India islands also looked to the American ports for supplies which they wanted; and that subsequently, in August, manufactured goods from this country, to the amount of 5,000,000l. were exported to America. To have resorted, therefore, to a blockade by notification, would have interrupted

Leave was then granted to sir S. Romilly to bring in his three Bills.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, February 18. ADDRESS RESPECTING THE WAR WITH AMERICA.] The order of the day being read for taking into consideration the papers relative to the War with America,

Earl Bathurst rose and observed, that the correspondence on the table with the United States of America was very voluminous, but he had the satisfaction to state that he should not have to trouble the House at any length upon it. To enter at length into

called upon, therefore, to surrender our right of impressment; for that was the fact. If any regulation could have been resorted to, to serve as an adequate substitute for the exercise of that right, surely in the course of the last ten years, something might have been done. But during the whole course of that period nothing had been suggested by the American government that could in any way be equi

the supply of flour to the peninsula; the supply of our own West India islands, before they could make other arrangements, and the passage of our own manufactures. After the repeal of the Orders in Council, about which he should not now give any opinion, instructions were sent to Mr. Foster, founded upon that event; and upon intelligence reaching this country of the declaration of war by the United States, it was thought better to send in-valent to us to our right of impressment. structions to sir John Borlase Warren, to propose an armistice, in order that fresh causes of war might not arise out of the prosecution of the war, and in the expectation that a pacific result would be thus more advantageously brought about. The propositions made on the part of the American government, would be seen in the correspondence; and it would be observed, that there was in truth no difference between the propositions made by Mr. Russell here, and by Mr. Secretary Monroe in America. In each case we were called upon to suspend the exercise of the right of impressment, in order that some regulations might be suggested that should be an effectual substitute for it; but if they could not, then what was to follow? War was to follow; and then we were called upon to give up our ancient and undoubted right of impressment-a right hitherto exercised without dispute, and of the most essential importance to our maritime superiority, or we were told we could not be at peace with America This was the substance of both propositions. There was no assignable reason why the war should have been commenced by the government of the United States at the precise moment they chose (the grounds alleged for it being the same that had been urged for three months before,) except as a matter of convenience, and for the purpose of obtaining an expected immediate advantage. This advantage which they hoped for, was in intercepting our homeward-bound fleet from the West Indies, and for this purpose commodore Rodgers sailed immediately upon the declaration of war. By the judicious management of our force in that quarter, our fleet was protected, and commodore Rodgers returned disappointed to port. It was this disappointment which probably rendered the tone of the propositions made by Mr. Secretary Monroe more conciliatory than that adopted here by Mr. Russell; but still the propositions were in substance the same. We were (VOL. XXIV.)

On the contrary that government had shown a disposition, on various occasions, to obstruct, in every way, our recovery of our own seamen who had deserted. In the case of the Chesapeake, undoubtedly, blame was imputable to us; but how stood the case in its circumstances? Several of our men had deserted; the desertion being accompanied by acts of mutiny, they were demanded from the Chesapeake, and it was solemnly denied that any such persons were on board. Application was made to the American government, and after some time, the government denied that any such men were in the service. Application was again made to the officer commanding the Chesapeake, who declared, upon his honour as an officer, that no such men were on board. Yet, when the Chesapeake was boarded by the Leopard, these very men were found on board, and taken away by force, they having assumed different names, by order of the commander of the vessel, and no disapprobation of any part of the conduct of this officer in this transaction had ever been expressed by the American government. Upon another application to the American government they had declined to interfere, alleging as a reason our conduct with regard to the desertion of a man from the ship Constitution at Spithead. Yet how stood the case with regard to this man? It appeared from his statement that he was a native of Ireland, that he had been for several years in the British merchant service, that whilst belonging to a British merchant vessel, and being on shore, he was made drunk and carried on board the American vessel Wasp; that he stated himself to be a British seaman, and desired to be released; but this was refused, and he was, on repeating the demand, actually put in irons. He was afterwards removed on board the Constitution and kept in irons for some time; he contrived, however, to make his escape, but was pursued to a considerable distance, brought back, and tried by a court martial, and (2 P)