Chapter V: Part 5

“On my arrival in the great metropolis, I applied to people in the painting way, and immediately got into employ. But business not long agreeing with my inclination, and having formed an acquaintance with some extravagant young men, by whom I was led into all manner of vice and debauchery, I soon found the last farthing of my little pittance expended. In this condition, deserted by my companions, and in a strange country, I determined to relieve myself on the highway. I accordingly provided myself with pistols, and without the least concern or apprehension of danger, proceeded to Finchley Common. Perceiving a post-chaise, I made up to it, and with a discharge of one of my pistols, demanded them to stop. My success in the first attack tempted me to proceed, so that before midnight came on I had robbed several carriages and horsemen, and upon the whole had collected a considerable booty. I returned to London with great satisfaction, and finding out my old companions, informed them I had just received a large sum of money. They congratulated me on my good fortune, and readily took me again into their party. I observed myself advertised, and an exact description of my person and dress in all the papers. It was therefore my first care to change my clothes and make every alteration in my person I could possibly devise, and it was my fortune to escape undiscovered. My own excess and that of my companions soon reduced me to the last shilling; at length, dreading the consequences of a detection, I determined to seize the first opportunity of leaving the kingdom. America presented itself to my imagination, and I readily believed it would turn out most to my advantage. Hearing of a vessel bound to America, I made application to the master, Captain John Robertson, who took me into his service: but not having money to provide myself with such things as were necessary for the voyage, I indented myself to him till such time as I should pay him twenty-four pounds Virginia money, and then was to have my full liberty. Soon after my arrival in Virginia, Captain Robertson having taken in a freight for England, consigned me over to one Mr. Graham, of James’ Town. But as it never was my intention to remain longer with the captain than suited my convenience, I immediately quitted the service of Mr. Graham, and travelled up the country through Maryland, till I arrived at Philadelphia. From thence I went to Amboy, and got employment in the painting business; but hearing there was better encouragement at New York, I made the best of my way to that city, where I received better wages, and remained very well satisfied for a considerable time. Upon hearing of the riots at Boston, the restlessness of my disposition would not suffer me to remain any longer at New York, and meeting with a companion, we agreed to set out together for that place, and I cannot deny being very active in those riots, particularly in sinking the tea, and insulting the friends of Government. When I heard of the armaments raising in Great Britain against America, and the expectation of a British fleet at Boston, I thought it advisable to leave the place, and therefore took the opportunity of a vessel and went to North Carolina, where meeting with another vessel bound to England, I got leave to work my passage home, and arrived at Liverpool in May, 1775. As soon as I had landed, having no money, I enlisted into a recruiting party, and received twenty-six shillings, with which in a few days I deserted, intending to go to Shrewsbury. In my way between Warrington and Holmes Chapel, I broke into a little shop and stole several handkerchiefs, &c. By the time I left Shrewsbury my money was nearly exhausted, upon which I broke into a shop and robbed it of a quantity of halfpence and about five shillings in silver, and I made off in the night for Birmingham. Soon after I arrived at Birmingham I purchased a pistol and several picklocks, and after pilfering a number of shops, I left Birmingham and took the road to Coventry. In my way to that city I broke open a house in a little town a few miles from it, where I stole a great quantity of handkerchiefs, &c., with which before daylight I reached Coventry.

“On my arrival at Coventry I met with another recruiting party, into which I also enlisted. I received half a guinea earnest, with which I absconded in the morning. I went to a hedge a little way out of the town, where I had secreted the handkerchiefs, and set off with them on my return towards London. I continued in London almost four months, where I got into connexion with some women of the town, which led me to commit a number of street robberies for my support. I also broke open a house at Kensington, and committed several robberies upon the outskirts of London.”

Here follows a detail of other fraudulent enlistments and felonious offences committed by him in various parts of England. He then comes to the great crime which brought him to the scaffold:—

“One night being in conversation concerning the American war, the importance of His Majesty’s fleets and dockyards was the argument, and it was with satisfaction I heard every one agree that the safety, the welfare, and even the existence of the nation depended on them. I endeavoured to keep the conversation up as much as possible, and the more it was canvassed, the more evident was the truth of the former conclusion. It is amazing with what force this conversation kept possession of my mind. In the night I had a thousand ideas, and all tended to show how important would be the event in favour of America, provided these dockyards and shipping should be destroyed. The more I considered, the more plausible was the undertaking. I spent two days in the contemplation of this malicious design, and promised myself immortal honour in the accomplishment of it. I beheld it in the light of a truly heroic enterprise, such as never would have been equalled to the end of time. I was persuaded it would entitle me to the first rank in America, and flattered myself with the ambition of becoming the admiration of the world! I set off for Portsmouth to inform myself of the particular situation, as also of the materials and stores with which these magazines were composed. I took account of all the ships of war in the harbour, their force and the number of men. I also took a plan of the fortifications unnoticed by the sentinels, the number of guns mounted on them, and their weight of metal. From hence I went to Plymouth, where I found things in much the same situation. My next care was to visit Chatham with the same circumspect attention, and in which I conducted myself with the same success. From hence I went to the yards at Woolwich and Deptford, and in both places informed myself of everything material. Having spared no labour in perfecting this general survey, I formed a design of going over to America to lay my plans and observations before the Congress, as well as to procure their sanction to the undertaking. After a deal of argument with myself, I at length resolved to proceed to Mr. Silas Deane and Dr. Franklin at Paris. I re-examined all my plans, threw my observations into proper order, and secreted them in a private part of my clothes to prevent an accidental discovery; and having made every other necessary preparation for my departure, I made the best of my way to Canterbury and Dover.

“I hired a small sailing boat to take me over. I embarked with only two hands, and in less than nine hours landed at Calais without any further difficulty. I made my way pretty readily and expeditiously to Paris, sometimes taking the advantage of a carriage, and sometimes walking on foot. My first inquiry at Paris was to find out the lodgings of Mr. Silas Deane. I called upon him at two different times, but did not meet with him at home. I at last saw him on the _Pont Neuf_ in Paris. He treated me at first with great caution and indifference, but finding my solicitations very earnest, he desired I would meet him the next morning at his lodgings. I called on him at the time appointed, and was conducted into an elegant apartment, where he was waiting for me. To make myself of as much consequence as possible, I informed him that I had a plantation in America; that I was an utter enemy to Great Britain; that I had contrived a scheme which, if properly carried into execution, would effectually destroy the power of the Ministry, and throw the kingdom into the greatest confusion, if not into the hands of America. He expressed great surprise at my conversation, and desired me to give him an explanation of my meaning. I laid before him all my plans, and he at length seemed satisfied that it was practicable, and gave me a letter to a friend in London to supply me with money; and as soon as my pass was procured, I set off for Calais, and arrived at Dover, which place I immediately left, and took the road to Canterbury and Chatham. Here I spent two days in making some fresh observations on the ships and dockyards, after which I set out for London, in order to take road for Portsmouth.

“I arrived at Portsmouth on Thursday evening, the 5th of December, 1776, and immediately began to lay down a plan of operations. I concluded that in so large a place a number of fire engines were kept, and that on the first alarm they would fly to the assistance of the dock, and perhaps extinguish the fire before any considerable damage could be done. To prevent this I thought it would be necessary to set the town on fire at two different parts, imagining that the surprise and consternation which it would naturally occasion would prevent people from giving assistance to either, till the flames had made such progress as not to be got under. In the morning I applied at two houses for lodgings, one of which was occupied by Mrs. Boxell. I agreed with her for them. I left my bundle with her and said I should return in the evening. From hence I went to a public-house, refreshed myself, and engaged also for a bed. My next care was to visit the dockyard. My first intention was to set fire to the hemp-house, in which I secreted myself behind a large mow or bundle of hemp, supposing there was no danger of being discovered, although a number of men were employed in different parts of the building, under which I placed my combustibles, and intending to go in about two hours afterwards to set it on fire. But lest this should not take proper effect or be extinguished before it could communicate itself to other parts of the yard, I thought it would be more effectual to set fire to some other store-house also. In walking round the yard I observed the rope-house open, into which I went, and having gone all over it up stairs and down, I pitched upon a room containing a parcel of ropes and some hemp, which I thought a very proper place to set on fire. I went away and returned with two quarts of the spirits of turpentine, some gunpowder, and some touch-paper which I had previously made. I drew the cork from one of the bottles, and having prepared a train of hemp soaked in the spirits, I filled the neck of the bottle therewith, which I placed among the ropes, and covered it over with a quantity of refuse hemp which I found lying about. I placed the bottle upon its side, and put the train of hemp into a paper of dry gunpowder, and having covered the whole lightly over with hemp, I sprinkled the remaining spirits of turpentine upon the whole. I now pulled out my pistol tinder-box and endeavoured to strike a light in order to set it on fire; but the tinder being either damp or badly burnt, would not take fire. The attention with which I was endeavouring to light my match prevented me from observing the time, and therefore when I had found it impossible to strike a light, and was preparing to go to my lodgings, I found myself locked into the house. I was a little uneasy upon this occasion for fear of raising suspicion, particularly as I should be obliged to appear again to light the matches, which I had now failed in. I went from one end of the building to the other, which was of a prodigious length, and tried every door I could find, but all was fast. I went up stairs very gently for fear of being heard, intending to make my escape from one of the windows; but this I also found impossible. I then went back to the door at which I came in, and knocked for a considerable time. At last a lad came up and asked who was there. I told him I was a friend, and had come into the dockyard out of curiosity, having never been at Portsmouth before, and while I went up stairs to see this great building somebody had locked up the doors. I therefore begged he would let me out. He went away to call some other person, who directed me to a certain door in the building, at which he said I might let myself out. In order to allay their suspicion, I appeared to be very ignorant in every respect, and asked them a number of simple questions, for I very much expected to be taken into custody.

“I went to a public house to refresh myself, and from thence to my lodgings, at Mrs. Boxell’s. I went to bed and slept till about five o’clock in the morning of Saturday, the 7th of December, when I struck a light and got up. My first business was to mix up proper combustibles to set that house on fire, and the public-house I had before taken lodgings at. The sulphureous smell occasioned by the flammable articles brought up Mrs. Boxell, who in a violent passion burst open the door, asked me whether I was setting the room on fire, and insisted upon my leaving her house, saying she was sure I could have no good design. Finding her in earnest, I thought it most prudent to quit her lodgings without entering into further dispute, which could only tend to injure my business; so I took my bundle and walked almost two hours round Portsmouth Common to seek for another lodging. Observing a house in North Street which seemed to answer my purpose, I went in and agreed for a lodging, saying I was going a little way out of town, but should return in the evening; in the meanwhile desired the woman of the house (Mrs. Cole) to take care of my bundle.

“My next object was to accomplish the business in the dockyard. I went first to the hemp-house, and after waiting a safe opportunity, got into the room where I had left the materials, struck a light with my pistol tinder-box, and lighted the candle which I had before placed in the tin case under the hemp. I since find that this machine did not take effect. Having, as I thought, effectually completed my business here, I directed my steps towards the rope-house, and after waiting almost two hours, I took an opportunity of lighting the match that communicated to the gunpowder, which I believe took effect in about an hour and a half. The instant I had finished I quitted the dockyard, intending to go immediately to set fire to both my lodgings; but meeting a person near the dock gates who knew me when I worked at Titchfield during the time I was making my observations, and seeing him look at me very steadfastly, and recollecting at the same instant the affair at Boxell’s, I ran very precipitately out of town without giving myself time to call for my bundle, dreading an information, and the consequence of being taken into custody. When I had gone a little way out of town, I overtook a cart going from market, and in order to make more haste and be less observed, I prevailed with the woman who drove the cart to give me a lift, telling her I had to go to Petersfield that night, and would make her any satisfaction. I travelled all night without intermission, and arrived upon Kingston-upon-Thames about eleven o’clock on Sunday morning, where I stayed upwards of three hours to refresh myself.

“On my arrival in London, I concluded myself out of danger, and began to ruminate on my plan for the destruction of Plymouth; and arrived at Plymouth, and went with a design to visit the dockyard; but to my great surprise found the guard stricter, and the admission of strangers objected to, occasioned, as I was informed, by the burning of Portsmouth dock, which was supposed to have been purposely set on fire.”

He then enters into a detail of his attempt at Plymouth, where he could do nothing effectually owing to the vigilance of the sentinels. He thereupon turned his mind to Bristol:—

“Very much vexed at my disappointment, I determined to make the best of my way to Bristol; and as I was disappointed at Plymouth, resolved to destroy Bristol entirely and all the shipping. I arrived at Bristol on Monday, the 13th of January, and spent the whole of Tuesday, the 14th, in acquainting myself with the shipping, upon which I intended to make the first attempt, supposing, if I had any success, they would communicate the flames to the whole town. About midnight I proceeded with all my materials towards the quay. I got on board the _Savannah la Mar_, a Jamaicaman, and placed a quantity of turpentine, rosin, pitch, &c., round the mizen mast, to which I set fire. I then went on board the _La Fame_, another Jamaicaman, which lay at a little distance, in which I also placed a like quantity of combustible matter, and set fire to it. I then proceeded to another part of the quay, and got on board the _Hibernia_, an Irish trader, in which I placed a like quantity of inflammable materials, and a quart bottle of spirits of turpentine, to which I also set fire. I then broke open a warehouse belonging to a druggist, in Cypher Lane, supposing there were large quantities of oils and spirits of different kinds, which would occasion a dreadful fire in that part of the town. I set fire to a box in the middle of the warehouse, which I supposed would soon communicate to all parts of it. Having, as I thought, effected my business very complete, I walked almost four miles out of town, and stayed till near eight o’clock in the morning; but not perceiving anything of the fire, I returned to see whether it had taken effect, which I could do without suspicion, as I supposed people would see that I had just come into town. I went to the quay, where I observed one vessel, the _Savannah la Mar_, was much burnt; but the fire in the other two had gone out without taking effect. I also found I had miscarried in Cypher Lane, where the box of combustible matter had burnt out without doing any damage, which I thought very extraordinary, as I made sure of burning all that part of the town by this means. I was mostly vexed at the miscarriage among the shipping, as I found a strict watch was to be kept up in future which rendered all future attempts upon them impracticable; I thought of one scheme, however, which I had some hopes of succeeding in. Observing a vast number of barrels of oil upon the quay, situated very near a line of ships, I contrived the ensuing night to convey a large quantity of combustible materials amongst them, to which I set fire, hoping by this means to burn all the ships that lay near: but herein also I found myself disappointed; my matches went out without effecting the intended mischief, though greatly to my mortification. About two o’clock the next morning I proceeded to my new business, having the evening before fixed upon a number of warehouses, which I supposed, as it was now Sunday morning, would not be frequented, and therefore little danger of the fire being discovered till it had taken proper effect. I laid matches in upwards of a dozen warehouses, which I supposed would take fire before daylight, and from their number and situation be impossible to be got under, so that I promised myself I had accomplished the destruction of the whole town, or at least that part of it which was of most consequence. With this persuasion I left Bristol about six o’clock in the morning, and walked about three miles out of town, when turning round, I thought the whole element was in flames, so dreadful was the appearance it had at that distance, which tempted me to return to be an eyewitness of the destruction I had wrought. On my nearer approach the flames seemed to abate; but I found the whole city in consternation and terror; though my scheme had not answered my full intention. My matches had only taken effect in Quay Lane among the warehouses of Mr. Browne, bookseller, which occasioned a dreadful fire in that part of the town: in every other part I found my endeavours had failed. To compensate for this, I determined to make a fresh attempt on the Sunday night, and made every preparation for that purpose. Between one and two o’clock on Monday morning I set about this business, but was prevented by the vigilance of the watch raised by the inhabitants of the city, to patrol the streets, which obliged me to decline anything further that night. I made several fresh attempts the Monday and Tuesday nights following, but the patrol were too vigilant to allow me time to proceed. I therefore left Bristol, finding it impossible to complete my design.

“I now determined to make the best of my way to Paris, to acquaint Mr. Deane with my success, and I reached Calne, where observing a haberdasher’s shop, kept by one Mr. Lowe, I broke it open, and stole therefrom twenty pounds, some muslin, &c. It was to this little town that Mr. Lowe, whose shop I had broken open, and Mr. Dalby, keeper of Andover Bridewell, had both traced me. Mr. Lowe had got a description of my person from his wife, who observed me take particular notice of the shop, and concluded the next day that I had committed the burglary. Mr. Dalby had heard of my going through Andover, and finding I answered the description of the person advertised in the papers for setting fire to Portsmouth Dock, he set out in pursuit of me, and took me at this town, in whose custody Mr. Lowe found me on his arrival shortly after. I was taken before the Hon. Sir H. P. St. John, Knt., who committed me to Odiham Bridewell on suspicion of breaking open Mr. Lowe’s house; but Government having notice of my being in custody ordered me to the New Prison, Clerkenwell, to be examined before Sir John Fielding, relative to the fire at Portsmouth. Nothing appearing sufficiently strong against me to prove guilt in this particular, I was remanded back to New Prison, in order to be conveyed to Salisbury to take my trial for breaking open Mr. Lowe’s house; but my being decoyed into the trap set for me by Mr. Baldwin, to whom I disclosed the whole of my proceedings against Government, has brought me a death which the enormity of my crime deserves; but which, through sincere repentance, I hope will be forgiven as I forgive Mr. Baldwin and all the world.—James Aitken.”

A debate in Parliament on the subject of Jack the Painter and his offences led to a speech by Sir William Meredith against capital punishments, which was so remarkable for being uttered at that terrible penal period of our criminal jurisprudence, that I cannot refrain from inserting the whole of it here. The occasion was this:—On the 13th of May, 1777, the House of Commons sat in committee on a bill for the better securing and preserving the dockyards, magazines, ships, vessels, stores, warehouses, goods, and merchandizes, being the property of private persons within this kingdom.

Sir Charles Bunbury, M.P. for Suffolk, moved to the effect, that persons found guilty of offences against which the bill provided should not be punished with death.

Mr. Combe, of Earns Hill, Somerset, M.P. for Aldborough, Suffolk, thereupon thus expressed himself:—

“Whoever reads your statute book and sees how many crimes are punished with death, which are much less heinous than burning of ships, I am surprised any gentleman should it think not high time to put to death such dangerous and wicked incendiaries. It is true John the Painter was hanged for burning Portsmouth Dock, because there is an Act of Parliament that makes it death to burn royal docks: but there is no Act of Parliament to hang men for burning merchants’ ships or warehouses; and if John the Painter had burned all the ships and warehouses in Bristol, he would not have been hanged. And I think the example of death full as proper in one case as the other.”

The Right Hon. Sir Wm. Meredith, M.P. for Liverpool, thus eloquently replied to Mr. Combe:—

“I agree with my hon. friend that no greater crime can be committed than the wilfully setting fire to merchants’ ships, which may endanger not only lives and properties, but public safety. I should think this crime above all others fit to be punished with death, if I could suppose the infliction of death at all useful in the prevention of crimes. But, in subjects of this nature, we are to consider not what the individual is nor what he may have done, we are to consider only what is right for public example and private safety. Whether hanging ever did or can answer any good purpose, I doubt; but the cruel exhibition of every execution day is a proof that hanging carries no terror with it; and I am confident that every new sanguinary law operates as an encouragement to commit capital offences; for it is not the mode but the certainty of punishment that creates terror. What men know they must endure, they fear; but what they think they can escape, they despise. The multiplicity of our hanging laws has produced these two things, frequency of condemnation and frequency of pardons. As hope is the first and great spring of action, if it was so, that out of twenty convicts only one was to be pardoned, the thief would say, ‘Why may not I be that one?’ But since, as our laws are actually administered, not one in five is executed, the thief acts on the chance of five to one in his favour; he acts on a fair and reasonable presumption of indemnity: and I verily believe that the confident hope of indemnity is the cause of nineteen in twenty of the robberies that are committed. But if we look to the executions themselves, what example do they give? The thief dies either hardened or penitent. We are not to consider such reflections as occur to reasonable and good men, but such impressions as are made on the thoughtless, the desperate, and the wicked. These men look on the hardened villain with envy and admiration. All that animation and contempt of death with which heroes and martyrs inspire good men in a good cause, the abandoned villain feels in seeing a desperado, like himself, meet death with intrepidity. The penitent thief, on the other hand, often makes the sober villain think this way. Himself oppressed with poverty and want, he sees a man die with that penitence which promised pardon for his sins here and happiness hereafter: that he thinks, that by robbery, forgery, or murder, he can relieve all his wants; and if he be brought to justice the punishment will be short and trifling, and the reward eternal. Even in crimes which are seldom or never pardoned, death is no prevention. Housebreakers, forgers, and coiners, are sure to be hanged; yet housebreaking, forging, and coining, are the very crimes which are oftenest committed. Strange it is, that, in the case of blood, of which we ought to be most tender, we should still go on against reason and against experience, to make unavailing slaughter of our fellow creatures! A recent event has proved that policy will do what blood cannot do: I mean the late regulation of the coinage. Thirty years together men were continually hanged for coining; still it went on, but, on the new regulation of the gold coin, ceased. This event proves these two things: the efficacy of police and the inefficacy of hanging. But is it not very extraordinary that, since the regulation of the gold coin, an Act has passed making it treason to coin silver? But has it stopped the coining of silver? On the contrary, do not you hear of it more than ever? It seems as if the law and the crime bore the same date. I do not know what the hon. member thinks who brought in the bill; but perhaps some feelings may come across his own mind when he sees how many lives he is taking away for no purpose. Had it been fairly stated and specifically pointed out what the mischief in coining silver in the utmost extent is, that hanging bill might not have been so readily adopted: under the name of treason it found an easy passage. I, indeed, have always understood treason to be nothing less than some act or conspiracy against the life or honour of the king and the safety of the state; but what the king or state can suffer by my taking now and then a bad sixpence or a bad shilling I cannot imagine. By this nickname of treason, however, there lies at this moment in Newgate, under sentence to be burnt alive, a girl just turned of fourteen. At her master’s bidding she hid some whitewashed farthings behind her stays; on which the jury found her guilty as an accomplice with her master in the treason. The master was hanged last Wednesday, and the fagots all lay ready—no reprieve came till just as the cart was setting out—and the girl would have been burnt alive on the same day had it not been for the humane but casual interference of Lord Weymouth. Good God! Sir, are we taught to execrate the fires at Smithfield, and are we lighting them now to burn a poor harmless child for hiding a whitewashed farthing? And yet this barbarous sentence, which ought to make men shudder at the thought of shedding blood for such trivial causes, is brought as a reason for more hanging and burning. It was recommended to me not many days ago to bring in a bill to make it treason to coin copper as well as gold and silver. Yet in the formation of these sanguinary laws humanity, religion and policy are thrown out of the question. This one wise argument is always sufficient. If you hang for one fault, why not for another? If for stealing a sheep, why not a cow or a horse; if for a shilling, why not for a handkerchief worth eighteen pence; and so on? We therefore ought to oppose the increase of these new laws; the more, because every fresh one begets twenty others.

“When a member of Parliament brings in a new hanging law, he begins with mentioning some injury that may be done to private property, for which a man is not yet liable to be hanged, and then proposes the gallows as the specific infallible means of cure and prevention; but the bill in its progress often makes crimes capital that scarce deserve whipping. For instance, the shoplifting act was to prevent bankers and silversmiths, and other shops where there are commonly goods of great value, from being robbed; but it goes so far as to make it death to lift anything off a counter with an intent to steal. Under this act, Mary Jones was executed, whose case I shall just mention. It was at the time when press warrants were issued on the alarm about Falkland’s Islands. The woman’s husband was pressed, their goods seized for some debts of his, and she, with two small children, turned into the streets a-begging. ’Tis a circumstance not to be forgotten that she was very young (under nineteen), and most remarkably handsome. She went to a linendraper’s shop, took some coarse linen off the counter, and slipped it under her cloak; the shopman saw her, and she laid it down. For this she was hanged. Her defence was (I have the trial in my pocket), ‘That she had lived in credit, and wanted for nothing, till a press-gang came and stole her husband from her; but, since then, she had no bed to lie on, nothing to give her children to eat, and they were almost naked; and perhaps she might have done something wrong, for she hardly knew what she did.’ The parish officers testified the truth of this story; but it seems there had been a good deal of shoplifting about Ludgate; an example was thought necessary, and this woman was hanged for the comfort and satisfaction of some shopkeepers in Ludgate Street. When brought to receive sentence, she behaved in such a frantic manner, as proved her mind to be in a distracted and desponding state; and the child was sucking at her breast when she set out for Tyburn.

“Let us reflect a little on this woman’s fate. The poet says:—

“‘An honest man’s the noblest work of God.’

He might have said, with equal truth, that

“‘A beauteous woman’s the noblest work of God.’

“But for what cause was God’s creation robbed of this its noblest work? It was for no injury, but for a mere attempt to clothe two naked children by unlawful means. Compare this with what the State did, and what the law did. The State bereaved the woman of her husband, and the children of a father, who was all their support; the law deprived the woman of her life, and the children of their remaining parent, exposing them to every danger, insult, and merciless treatment that destitute and helpless orphans suffer. Take all the circumstances together, I do not believe that a fouler murder was ever committed against law than the murder of this woman by law. Some who hear me are perhaps blaming the judges, the jury, and the hangman; but neither judge, jury, nor hangman are to blame; they are but ministerial agents. The true hangman is the member of Parliament; he who frames the bloody laws is answerable for all the blood that is shed under it. But there is a further consideration still. Dying as these unhappy wretches often do, who knows what their future lot may be? Perhaps my honourable friend who moves this bill has not yet considered himself in the light of an executioner. No man has more humanity, no man a stronger sense of religion than himself: and I verily believe that at this moment he wishes as little success to his hanging law as I do. His nature must recoil at making himself the cause, not only of shedding the blood, but perhaps destroying the soul of his fellow-creature.

“But the wretches who die are not the only sufferers; there are more and greater objects still: I mean the surviving relations and friends. Who knows how many innocent children we may be dooming to ignominy and wretchedness? Who knows how many widows’ hearts we may break with grief, how many grey hairs of parents we may bring with sorrow to the grave?

“The Mosaic law ordained that for a sheep or an ox four or five-fold should be restored; and for robbing a house, double;—that is, one fold for reparation, the rest for example; and the forfeiture was greater, as the property was more exposed. If the thief came by night, it was lawful to kill him; but if he came by day, he was only to make restitution; and if he had nothing, he was to be sold for his theft. This is all that God required in felonies; nor can I find in history any sample of such laws as ours, except a code that was framed at Athens by Draco. He made every offence capital, upon this modern way of reasoning:—‘That petty crimes deserved death, and he knew nothing worse for the greatest.’ His laws, it is said, were not written with ink, but with blood; but they were of short duration, being all repealed by Solon, except one for murder.

“An attempt was made some years ago by my honourable friend, Sir Charles Bunbury, to repeal some of the most absurd and cruel of our capital laws. The bill passed this House, but was rejected by the Lords for this reason: ‘It was an innovation,’ they said, ‘and subversion of law.’ The very reverse is the truth. The hanging laws are themselves innovations. No less than three-and-thirty of them passed during the last reign. I believed I myself was the first person who checked the progress of them. When the great Alfred came to the throne, he found the kingdom overrun with robbers; but the silly expedient of hanging never came into his head. He instituted a police, which was to make every township answerable for the felonies committed in it. Thus property became the guardian of property; and all robbery was so effectually stopped, that (the historians tell us) in a very short time any man might travel through the kingdom unarmed with his purse in his hand.

“Treason, murder, rape, and burning a dwelling-house were all the crimes that were liable to be punished with death by our good old common law; and such was the tenderness, such the reluctance to shed blood, that if recompense could possibly be made, life was not to be touched. Treason being against the King, the remission of that crime was in the Crown. In case of murder itself, if compensation could be made, the next of kin might discharge the prosecution, which, if once discharged, could never be revived. If a ravisher could make the injured woman satisfaction, the law had no power over him; she might marry the man under the gallows if she pleased, and take him from the jaws of death to the lips of matrimony. But so fatally are we deviated from the benignity of our ancient laws, that there is now under sentence of death an unfortunate clergyman,[13] who made satisfaction for the injury he attempted; the satisfaction was accepted, and yet the acceptance of the satisfaction and the prosecution bear the same date.

“There does not occur to my thoughts a proposition more abhorrent from nature and from reason than that, in a matter of property, when restitution is made, blood should still be required. But in regard to our whole system of criminal law, and much more to our habits of thinking and reasoning upon it, there is a sentence of the great Roman orator which I wish those who hear me to remark, exhorting the Senate to put a stop to executions. He says:—‘_Nolite, Quirites, hanc sævitium diutius pati, quæ non modo tot cives atrocissimè sustulit, sed humanitatem ipsam ademit consuetudine incommodorum._’

“Having said so much on the general principles of our criminal laws, I have only a short word or two to add on the two propositions now before us: one, as moved by the honourable gentleman (Mr. Combe) to hang persons that wilfully set fire to ships; the other, moved as an amendment by my honourable friend (Sir Charles Bunbury), is to send such offenders to work seven years on the Thames.

“The question arises from the alarming events of the late fires at Portsmouth and Bristol, for which the incendiary is put to death. But will an act of Parliament prevent such men as Jack the Painter from coming into the world, or control them when they are in it? You might as well bring in a bill to prevent the appearance or regulate the motions of a comet. John the Painter was so far from fearing death, that he courted it; was so far from concealing his act, that he told full as much as was true, to his own conviction. When once a villain turns enthusiast, he is above all law; punishment is his reward, and death his glory. But, though this law will be useless against villains, it is dangerous and may be fatal to many an innocent person. There is not an honest industrious carpenter or sailor who may not be endangered in the course of his daily labour. They are constantly using fire and combustible matter about shipping, tarring and pitching and caulking. Accidents are continually happening; and who knows how many of those accidents may be attributed to design? Indeed, the act says the firing must be done _wilfully and maliciously_, but judges and juries do not always distinguish rightly between the fact and the intention. It is the province of a jury only to try the fact by the intention; but they are too apt to judge of the intention by the fact. Justices of the peace, however, are not famed for accurate and nice distinctions; and all the horrors of an ignominious death would be too much to threaten every honest shipwright with for what may happen in the necessary work of his calling.

“But, as I think punishment necessary for so heinous an offence, and as the end of all punishment is example, of the two modes of punishment I shall prefer that which is most profitable in point of example. Allowing, then, the punishment of death its utmost force, it is only short and momentary; that of labour permanent; and so much example is gained in him who is reserved for labour more than in him who is put to death, as there are hours in the life of the one beyond the short moment of the other’s death.”

Mr. Henry Dundas, M.P. for Edinburgh, Lord Advocate, here spoke against the motion.

The bill was ordered to be reported, but it dropped.

The present law with regard to the burning in docks is this:—By the 24th and 25th Vic., c. 97, sec. 4, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously set fire to any station, engine-house, warehouse, or other building belonging or appertaining to any railway, port, dock, or harbour, or to any canal or other navigation, shall be guilty of felony, and liable to penal servitude for life, or not less than three years, or to imprisonment not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour and solitary confinement; and if a male under sixteen years, with or without whipping.

By the Act for the Government of the Navy, the 24th and 25th Vic., c. 115, article 30, every person subject to this act who shall unlawfully set fire to any dockyard, victualling-yard, or steam factory yard, arsenal, magazine, building, stores, or to any ship, vessel, hoy, barge, boat, or other craft, or furniture thereunto belonging, not being the property of an enemy, pirate, or rebel, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as is hereinafter (in the act) mentioned.

THE TRIAL OF ADMIRAL KEPPEL.

The trial of Admiral Byng, and, in a less flagrant degree, that of Lord George Sackville, had revealed the existence of a mode of prosecution fraught with danger in the hands of a weak or malignant administration. The means thus invented, were to throw upon the commander of an expedition which, from some cause over which he had no control, and possibly from the fault of Government itself, did not succeed, all the blame and penalty of the failure. Unlike the noble and friendly reception which Rome, in the days of its great and glorious contest with Carthage, gave to the defeated consul Terentius Varro, because he had not despaired of the Commonwealth;—a British general or admiral, however distinguished on other occasions, was to be met, on his return from any mischance, with opprobrium, criminal prosecution, and probably death. Fortunately for the constitutional character of England, and the dignity and independence of its military and naval service, this plan, when attempted for the third time, utterly and signally failed. Admiral Keppel was, indeed, not the man for such an attack, nor was the time of it suitable either. His own credit as a commander and a man of sterling worth, and his popularity, stood on the very firmest basis; and he belonged to the influential Whig party, which was then rising fast into power over a ministry as rapidly sinking under the disasters of the American War. Poor Byng had but his merit to protect him, and he perished; a better chance let Lord George Sackville off with his bare life; but Keppel had the public around him, and had not only the people in his favour, but also a giant band of personal friends. With such protectors as Rockingham, Burke, Fox and Sheridan, persecution might do its worst: he was invulnerable. The only thing to wonder at now is, the madness of a Government which could participate in such a prosecution against him. His trial is really a somewhat dull affair, as much from the certainty of his acquittal as from the prolixity of the details; yet it must be ever read with the deepest interest by all who advocate the free action and the fair latitude that should be allowed to every man who has to command the army or the navy of the British empire.

Before entering into the trial itself, it may be as well to give a short biographical sketch of the previous career of Admiral Keppel.

The Rt. Hon. Augustus Keppel, Viscount Keppel, of Elvedon, in the county of Suffolk, P.C., an admiral of Great Britain, and for some time First Lord of the Admiralty, one of the pre-eminent seamen of our naval history, was, like the unfortunate Admiral Byng, of aristocratic birth and descent: he was the second son of Sir William Anne[14] Keppel, K.G., second Earl of Albemarle, by his wife Anne, daughter of Sir Charles Lennox, K.G., first Duke of Richmond; and was the grandson of the famous friend and companion-in-arms of William III., Arnold-Joost Van Keppel, Lord of Voorst, whose aid to William in his acquisition of the throne at the Revolution was rewarded with the earldom of Albemarle, and other minor titles in the peerage of Great Britain. Augustus Keppel, the future admiral, was born on the 2nd of April, 1725, and entered the royal navy when thirteen years of age. He was a midshipman on board Commodore Anson’s ship, the _Centurion_, in his voyage round the world, in 1740. Of the dangers, distresses, and advantages of that celebrated expedition, he therefore had his share: in particular, at the taking of Paila, by Lieutenant (afterwards Admiral Sir Peircy) Brett. In 1741 he had a very narrow escape; for, having on a jockey cap, one side of the peak was shaved off close to his temple by a ball, which, however, did him no other injury. Having been appointed, while still in his teens, in the course of that voyage, a lieutenant, he, soon after his return, in February, 1745, took post rank as captain of the _Maidstone_, 40, and was very successful in capturing several French privateers; but on July 7, 1747, as he was giving chase to one, running too near shore on the coast of France, near Nantes, his ship was unfortunately lost: himself and crew were saved. Keppel’s picture, admirably painted by his friend, Sir Joshua Reynolds, represents him as just escaped from that shipwreck. Being soon exchanged, and returning to England in 1747, he was one of the court-martial on the trial of Captain Fox, of the _Kent_, who, for misbehaviour in the action under Admiral Hawke, was dismissed the service. After the peace in August, 1749, Captain Keppel sailed with a squadron, as commodore, to Algiers, to demand satisfaction or restitution for the treasure piratically taken out of the _Prince Frederick_ packet boat; and the matter was brought to a satisfactory and amicable conclusion. But another act of piracy, in the succeeding year, led him again to Algiers: he had a second audience of the Dey, and exhorted him to consider, that a great king, like His Britannic Majesty, was not accustomed to demand satisfaction in vain; to which the Dey made a defiant and spirited reply; but eventually concluded the business in friendly terms. In 1752, Commodore Keppel ably effected treaties with the States of Tripoli and Tunis, and returned with credit from the Mediterranean.