to be prosecuted criminally for that offence. So that the commissioners of excise have, if they think the enormity of the case demands it, the means of such punishment without the aid of any particular statute for that purpose. The fact is, that the most serious offence against which the revenue has to guard, is a combination between the trader and the officer by whom the duty is charged. Against that there can be no certain protection. When once the officer is in collusion, who alone has the charge of the duty, it is only by the check of the superior officer, who may come in by chance and detect the offence, that the most extensive fraud can be prevented continuance. It is the practice of the board of excise, and also I believe of the other boards, to make periodical returns to government of those who are under imprisonment; with an account of the circumstances of life of the prisoner; the cause of the imprisonment; his conduct, age and family. These particulars are constantly so reported, and orders are given from time to time for the discharge of such offenders without payment of the penalties incurred, where it is thought that the person has been sufficiently punished by the length of his imprisonment. There is, therefore, under the laws inflicting pecuniary penalties, not only the means of punishing a man by imprisonment who commits offence against the revenue with out property to pay the penalty, but there is likewise a discretion which may be, and always has an been, exercised to prevent that punishment from going too far ; and I cannot see that any improvement can be made on this system, which is at once calculated to secure the revenue, and to provide a due measure of punishment for revenue offences, either by the exaction of a proportionate penalty, or by such length of simple imprisonment as may answer the same end. P. Colquhoun, LL.D. examined. Are you a magistrate for the city of Westminster, and how long have you been a magistrate? I have upon the whole been nearly forty years in the magistracy, and have acted as a magistrate for Middlesex, Westminster, and the adjoining counties of Surrey, Kent and Essex, for the last 27 years; I resigned my situation as a police justice in January 1818. During this period have you had general experience of the administration of the criminal law and the effects of punishment on convicted persons?The situation I held as a police magistrate, both in the eastern and western part of the metropolis, for so many years, certainly afforded me opportunities of attending to the administration of the criminal law, and its effects in regard to punishment. What has been your experience with respect to these laws on different offenders, in cases where the 'punishment has been rarely inflicted?-My experience has led me to draw this conclusion; namely, minor offences now subject to the punishment of death. And when the law is executed in these cases, do you think there often prevails a general disapprobation ?-It appears to me that, generally speaking, the public mind revolts at the infliction of the punishment of death on crimes not of an atrocious na namely, that the punishment should be such as would answer the ends of justice; and that the sentence of the laws should be invariably (except in extreme cases) carried into execution. My opinion on the subject of capital punishments for minor of fences remains unaltered; they operate powerfully in preventing convictions, and send back upon society many offenders, by acquittals, to renew their depredacious crimes, have you observed tions on the public. * Have you observed a consider able repugnance to prosecute in certain classes of crime which are made capital by the law of England? Very frequently, in ture. With respect to the most atro any reluctance to prosecute?-I scarcely recollect any instance in atrocious crimes accompanied with violence. examined. You are a partner in the house of Lubbock, Forster and Co. ?— I am. Have you any experience of the effect of the severity in any of the criminal laws, as deterring prosecutions or preventing convictions?—Yes. somuch that I have in some in- Edward Foster, Esq., Banker, stances been obliged to threaten imprisonment to prosecutors who have refused to enter into recognizance; and I have reason to believe, that crimes in several instances, not of atrocious nature, but when the punishment of death attaches, are never brought under the review of magistrates at all. And when such prosecutions take place, it is well known that where the law is considered as too severe, juries frequently return verdicts greatly under the value of the property stolen, that the capital punishment may not attach to the crime committed. Which is the class of crime to which you allude?-The crimes to which I allude are forgery, shoplifting, larceny, burglary without entering the house, horsestealing, cattle-stealing, sheepstealing, frame-breaking, housebreaking in the day time, high way robbery with acts of violence on the person, and various other Will you be so good as to describe to the committee what that experience is ?—I certainly, in general, might say, that I have heard of several cases, but I will only mention those I can authenticate. The first I should men tion is a case of forgery where the criminal was in custody, but the prosecutor being unwilling to prosecute, on account of the offence being capital, a hint was given, that the best way to avoid proceeding would be to destroy the instrument; in order to do this, another person was introduced to the magistrate, as a 2 A 2 friend friend of the prisoner, desirous of seeing the check, which being shown to him he snatched it away and threw it into the fire; this was done with the connivance of the prosecutor, as I said before, because the offence was capital; had the offence not been so, there is no reason at all to believe the prosecutor would have connived at such a scheme. What was the station and occupation of the prosecutor? Very respectable. Another was a forgery to a very large amount, 1,500l. the forger and the utterer were both in custody and actually committed for trial, but no prosecution did actually take place; this was entirely because the offence was capital; had the punishment been ever so severe, short of death, no endeavour would have been made to save the offender; there were no particular circumstances that called for mercy, and it was merely on account of the offence being capital. Would not the prosecutors, if that had not been the case, have thought it their duty to use every exertion in their power for the conviction of the party?-Certainly. The committee understood you to intimate, it was an aggravated case of forgery ?-There were no extenuating circumstances. I have another instance, which occurred not long since in a public institution, which was lately robbed and the criminals apprehended, and when a meeting was holden to consider the propriety of prosecuting, a magistrate, a man of great discretion and judg ment, stated to the rest of the committee the duty of prosecuting very forcibly and properly, but when he had done so he asked what was the value of the goods stolen, whether it was more than 40s., that if it was he would have nothing to do with the prosecution; this sentiment was universal in the meeting, and it was only on the officer of the institution whose particular business it was to prosecute, undertaking that the indictment should be laid under 40s. that the prosecution did take place. From your experience as a banker, do you believe that a great many prosecutions for forgeries are prevented, from the circumstance of its being capitally punished?-No doubt of it. Do you think to the amount of one half? I have no doubt of it; probably more than that. Basil Montague, Esq. examined. I hope I may be permitted to call to the attention of the committee, the practice_now_prevailing with respect to the effect of severe laws in forgery, by which I see, day after day, that capital enactments are used as engines to induce persons to confess themselves guilty of the minor offence, without any trial at all, upon a confession obtained under circumstances, which, except upon a plea of guilty, would not be evidence. There is another crime of great importance in this commercial country; I mean the crime of concealment and embezzling property, the frauds in bankruptcy; bankruptcy; it is scarcely possible to imagine the extent of these crimes. I published a tract sometime since, in which I explained, that there were regular houses where people could be procured at a per-centage, who had old bill stamps and old deed stamps, upon old paper, to any amount, to prove debts under commissions, all of which involve capital offences in the bankrupt; I suppose there is scarcely any person who has seen so much of this species of capital felony as myself, and I am satisfied, that it is carried to such an extent as to set the whole law at defiance. I beg on this subject to refer to my examination before a committee of the House of Commons on the bankrupt laws, on the 11th of February 1818, in which I endeavoured to explain the state of the law, and its inefficacy in respect to this crime; I stated, and I repeat the act, 5 Geo. II, passed in the year 1732, since which time there have been, I conceive, at least 38,000 bankrupts; for taking the average from 1732 to 1786, at 250 a year, the number of bankrupts during those years will be 13,200; the actual number of bankrupts from 1786 to 1805 was 16,200; taking the present average to be 800 each year, which is much below the number, that will be 3,200; the total sum from 1732 till 1810 was 32,600; supposing the average from 1809 to 1819 to be 700 per annum, which I believe is below the mark, there will be 6,300, making the total number 38,900; I believe I have taken each of the averages much below what they ought to be computed. During this time, that is for near a century, with nearly 40,000 bankrupts, I doubt whether there have been ten prosecutions; I believe there have been only three executions; and yet fraudulent bankrupts and concealments of property are proverbial, are so common as to be supposed almost to have lost the nature of crime. With respect to bankruptcy, may I beg to refer the committee to the examination of sir Samuel Romilly, which will be found before the bankrupt committee, in page 51, where he states, "The nation, however, has been so far from adopting this severe disposition of its government, that it scarcely ever happens, that persons can be found who will institute prosecution for felonies under the bankrupt laws. Very numerous instances might, I believe, according to information which I have received from various quarters, be laid before the committee of creditors, who have deliberately resolved to allow bankrupts, by whom they had been grossly defrauded, to enjoy complete impunity, because they saw no other alternative than such impunity, or the certainty of shedding their blood. That men should feel great repugnance to put a human creature to death for such an offence cannot surprise those who have reflected what the nature of the crime really is. Whatever the language of the law may be, or whatever national expediency may be thought to require, the great mass of mankind never can be brought to regard as highly criminal that which is not to a great degree immoral; and when it is considered, that by our our law a bankrupt is made such against his will, it is evident that the only immorality of one who has secreted none of his property, but who does not surrender to his commission, is, that he withholds from his creditors the information and assistance which he ought to afford them, to enable them to recover his effects and to apply them in satisfaction of their demands; and even this immorality may find some extenuation in the disgrace to which he must be subjected and in the danger to which he is exposed; since, however honestly he may have acted, and though every thing he has in the world be given up to his creditors, yet if he do not obtain his certificate he may be imprisoned for life, by any one creditor who will prefer gratify ing his resentment to any benefit he might derive from the commission. That a man has not fortitude enough to encounter so much shame and such a risk may be culpable; but who can upon calm reflection say, that it ought to be punished with death. The crime of withholding property from the creditors is indeed much more immoral; but even this, in the case of one who has been made a bankrupt without his own concurrence, amounts in reality to nothing more than the not paying (to the extent of the property withheld) debts which it is in his power to pay. That this is criminal cannot be denied; but that it should be expiated by the blood of the offender, confounds all notions of justice and destroys all gradations of guilt; it is very dishonest, but it is not more dishonest in an obscure tradesman than in the heir to a title; and yet for this dishonesty, while our law hangs the tradesman, it suffers all other such debtors to enjoy complete impunity; nay, it not only leaves them unpunished, but it suffers them, in defiance of their creditors, to enjoy and to squander in gaol the substance which ought to be applied in the payment of their debts; for there is no process by which, in the case of persons not subject to the bankrupt laws, copyhold estates, property in the public funds, or money lent upon security, can be taken by creditors in execution." I beg also to refer to my own examination before the committee, in which I state as follows: "I submit to the committee, that the legal sanction is in this case opposed by the moral sanction; the amount of the moral guilt of the bankrupt is the non-payment of his debts, or the non-delivery by him of his property to his creditors. Of the immorality and impropriety of this no doubt can be entertained; but I conceive that there is scarcely any person in this intelligent community, who will think that a man ought to be put to death for the non-delivery of his property; particularly, when it is remembered that the offender is not the only person to blame; there must be a feeling in the community, that the imprudent confidence reposed by creditors is not wholly exempt from censure. It appears to me that the religious sanction also is in this case at variance with the legal sanction. Our religion is daily inculcating upon us mild ness |