|
stance, as it is not necessary. But, Sir, I cannot sit down without saying a few words in defence of that able person alluded to, now a great Magistrate, who has thought there is something in our constitution worth preserving. And sorry I am to hear that great and able writer has received any reproach or admonition in this Senate; and I believe the honorable gentlemen (Captain Phipps) is singular in his opinion upon this head; and I am glad to find there are no strangers in the gallery,* for his own sake, to hear what he said. But, Sir, I am of a different opinion from that honorable gentlemen; and I dare say the House will agree with me when I think that book one of the best that ever was written upon the laws of this constitution, and will do more honor to himself and this country than any that ever yet appeared; and I am sorry to hear him reproached even by an individual, when I am sure the greatest honor will redound to this country from that able performance.
Sir Richard Sutton. Sir, I do not think that the appeal for murder ought to be partially taken away; if you take it away from any part of the Dominions, you should take it from the whole. I am much against the measure, because I think it vindictive and cruel.
Mr. Charles Fox. I am for taking away the appeal for murder entirely, but I am not for taking it away in part. If the appeal is allowed, you take away the power of pardoning in the Crown. I look upon the power of pardon as much a right in the subject to claim, as part of the trial. Suppose a criminal should be tried and convicted, and he should appear to be out of his senses, in this case he is certainly not to be hanged, the pardon being the only mode of saving his life. Appeal for murder is the only instance in our laws in which satisfaction is allowed to the injured by the blood of another, as it may be compensated by a sum of money. I shall vote against this clause, because I think the Americans have a right to the same laws as we have.
Captain Phipps rose to explain himself with regard to Mr. Blackstone, and said, however he might have represented his performance, he was glad to find it was so well defended by the warmth of friendship; that he had heard, and was sorry to hear, that book had undergone some regulations with regard to its eligibility, which he hoped was not true. He sat down rather chagrined to find his opinion with regard to that work was singular.
Sir George Savile. Sir, the appetite of revenge is, like that of hunger, never to be satisfied. There are certain rights which we bring into society which we give up for the good of the whole; the passion of revenge seems to be under that description; and in this instance only the blood of another may be compensated by civil action. But I will not contend that to be a civil suit which ends in hanging, which the appeal for murder does when not compensated for; hut it is necessary that men should give up certain rights which they enjoy for the good of society at large. I would wish a fair and impartial trial to be secured, which I think is already done in the Colonies without meddling with the appeal for murder.
Mr. Skynner. Sir, I only rise to explain, that the appeal for murder may be reduced to a civil action; that there also lies an appeal in robbery and rape; and if the woman who had been injured, when the man was under the gallows to be hanged, should marry him, he would, by the ancient law, be saved, because all her civil right would be vested in her husband by that act, and therefore compensated for as such; by that act she vests those civil rights, which he had deprived her of, in him as her husband.
Mr. Wallace then, with leave of the House, withdrew the motion.
Mr. R. Fuller. Sir, I am the more convinced by what I have heard to day, that the whole law relative to the appeal for murder, ought to be repealed. I will therefore give notice, on some future day, when I shall make the motion.
Mr. Dunning desired to know whether his learned friend (Mr. Wallace) had made any provision against a faulty indictment.
Mr. Wallace said, he had not, as he did not think it necessary; that if the prisoner returned, he might there be indicted again.
Mr. Dunning said, so, then, it is intended that the prisoner may go over again if he chooses.
Mr. Wallace then offered a clause to limit the continuance of the Act to three years, from the first day of June, next; which was agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill, with the amendments, be engrossed.
A motion was made, and the question put, that such a number of copies of the Bill, with the amendments, be printed, as shall be sufficient for the use of the members of the House?
It passed in the Negative.
Ordered, That the Bill be read the third time, upon Friday morning next, if the said Bill shall be then engrossed.
FRIDAY, May 6, 1774.
The order of the day, for the third reading of the Bill, being read:
Mr. Dempster. I do not apprehend, Sir, that the Bill before you is at all adequate to the purpose intended; nor do I think that experience warrants the assertion, that a fair trial cannot be had in the Colonies. Surely, Sir, the bringing men over to England to be tried, is not only a direct breach of their constitution, but is a deprivation of the right of every British subject in America. I should have thought that a power of reprieve, lodged in the Governor, after conviction, would have been fully sufficient, without bringing men to England. Whenever murder is committed, it must inevitably go off with impunity; for whenever any person present shall find he is to go over the Atlantic as an evidence, to the detriment of his family and his fortune, there is no doubt but that he will evade the necessity of his appearance as an evidence. This, Sir, will be a means of subjecting the People of that country to assassination, in the room of legal trial; and the invariable consequence has always been, that when a fair trial cannot be procured, the revenge of the relations of the deceased will exercise itself in this kind of cruel assassination. I, perhaps, Sir, may be wrong in my ideas; but I have looked into the history of that country with care and circumspection, and it has inspired me with the highest veneration for those who were the first settlers; they emigrated when that Star Chamber doctrine was practised in this country. Oppressed as they thought themselves by the mother country, by the cruelty of those arbitrary laws, sooner than suffer themselves to be oppressed by tyranny, they choose rather to combat with tygers and Indians in America, than live in a place where oppression and tyranny ruled. It it no new thing, Sir, that they have refused to comply with the payment of taxes demanded from this country; this exemption is a very old demand of theirs, and supported by their charter. Imprisonment of two persons, who held this kind of doctrine, was made in the time of Sir Edmund Andrews, who was then Governor; and the Americans passed a law, declaring that this country had no right to tax; it is true, when that law came over here, it was rejected. Let gentlemen consider, that if we tax America at this present period, her trade and every thing else will decline. I think that Boston has the most merit with this country of any place I know; she is a most valuable ally, or a subordinate Colony; take it in either sense, her possession is inestimable; but I really fear very much, that the Americans are to be thus treated without the parties being heard. I do not like to see public liberty and the rights of persons infringed. There are two articles in this Bill, which 1 cannot blame the Americans for resisting; I mean that of the Council and the Judges being chosen by the Crown: the ancient way which their charter directed of chosing their Council, was far more eligible; they were men at a certain age, to which experience generally adds wisdom, that were elected Council; but this is a new system, that carries with it neither experience nor wisdom; and I think the change unnecessary, though not oppressive. I think the office of Sheriff is more oppressive, because he is an engine of power in the hands of the Governor; nor do I approve of taking away the town meetings; there is but one precedent of this kind to be found in history; but I could wish, on the present occasion, that a second had not been made. [He concluded
|