Charge of the cavalry

to make an impression or to escape; in fact, they were in the power of those whom they were designed to overawe, and it required only a glance to discover their helpless position and the necessity of our being brought to their rescue. As I was at the time informed, this hopeless state of things happened thus. A platform had been erected near the center of the field, from which Mr. Hunt and others were to address the multitude; and the magistrates, having ordered a strong body of constables to be in readiness to arrest the speakers, unfortunately imagined that they should support the peace officers by bringing up this troop of yeomanry at a walk. The result of this movement, instead of that which the magistrates desired, was unexpectedly to place this small body of horsemen, so introduced into a dense mob, entirely at the mercy of the people, by whom they were, on all sides, pressed upon and surrounded.

The charge of the hussars, to which I have just alluded, swept this mingled mass of human beings before it; people, yeomen, and constables, in their confused attempts to escape, ran one over the other, so that, by the time we had arrived at the end of the field, the fugitives were literally piled up to a considerable elevation above the level of the ground. I may here, by the way, state that this field, as it is called, was merely an open space of ground, surrounded by buildings, and itself, I rather think, in course of being built upon. The hussars drove the people forward with the flats of their swords; but sometimes, as is almost inevitably the case when men are placed in such situations, the edge was used, both by the hussars, and, as I have heard, by the yeomen also; but of this latter fact I was not cognizant; and believing, though I do, that nine out of ten of the sabre wounds were caused by the hussars I must still consider that it redounds highly to the human forbearance of the men of the 15th that more wounds were not received, when the vast numbers are taken into consideration with whom they were brought into hostile collision Beyond all doubt, however, the far greater amount of injuries arose from the pressure of the routed multitude. [This account was written after these occurrences had been much criticised.]

This unnecessary and indefensible action of the troops has been generally disapproved of since; but it received only praise from the government at that time, as will appear from the following letter of the Prince Regent to the home secretary, within whose charge the matter lay. My Lord :

409. The sec

(August 19,

1819)

The Prince Regent commands me to convey to your lord- retary of the Prince Regent ship his approbation and high commendation of the conduct to Lord Sidof the magistrates and civil authorities at Manchester, as well mouth as of the officers and troops, both regular and yeomanry cavalry, whose firmness and effectual support of the civil power preserved the peace of the town upon that most critical occasion. His royal Highness entertains a favorable sense of the forbearance of Lieut. Col. L'Estrange in the execution of his duty; and bestows the greatest praise upon the zeal and alacrity manifested by Major Trafford and Lieut. Col. Townsend and their respective corps. I have the honor to be, etc.

II. EARLY REFORMS

The punishments for crime were, at this time, more severe in England than in Russia. This attracted the attention of the emperor of Russia when he visited England in 1814. He is said to have explained it by the greater personal freedom of Englishmen. As men were more free to do what they would, they must be all the more severely punished when they did wrong.

tions of the

In England, where every man enjoys so much freedom of 410. Observaaction, the execution of the laws must necessarily be severe, Russian emin consequence of the difficulty of imposing adequate restraints peror (1814) on the early transgression of them. As you cannot, therefore, interpose obstacles to the commission of crime, the only remaining check is to punish it severely when committed. In Russia we can interfere to prevent the commission; severe punishments, therefore, are not so essential.

411. Report of a com

mittee of the

The defense just given for the savage laws for the punishment of crime in England was not satisfactory to many enlightened men; nor was there any other sufficient reason why the laws of England should remain more harsh and cruel than those of any other country in Europe. The following report from a committee of the House of Commons, made in 1820, gives a list of some of those which it was proposed to repeal or to reduce in severity.

In considering the subject of our penal laws, your committee will first lay before the House their observations on House of Com- that part which is the least likely to give rise to difference of mons (1820) opinion. That many statutes denouncing capital punishments might be safely and wisely repealed has long been a prevalent opinion. It is sanctioned by the authority of two successive committees of this House, composed of the most eminent men of their age, and in some measure by the authority of the House itself, which passed several bills on the recommendation of their committees.

As a general position, the propriety of repealing such statutes seems scarcely to have been disputed; respecting the number and choice of them, different sentiments must always be expected. Your committee have not attempted a complete enumeration, which much time and considerable deliberation would be required to accomplish. They selected some capital felonies, for the continuance of which they cannot anticipate any serious argument, and which seem to them to serve no purpose but that of encumbering and discrediting the statute book. Various considerations have combined to guide their choice.

Sometimes mere levity and hurry have raised an insignificant offense or an almost indifferent act into a capital crime; in other acts the evil has been manifestly and indeed avowedly temporary, though it unfortunately produced a permanent law. Where the punishment of death was evidently unnecessary at the time of its original establishment, and where, if it was

originally justified by a temporary danger, or excused by a temporary fear, it has long been acknowledged to be altogether disproportioned to the offense, your committee conceive themselves warranted in confidently recommending its abolition.

But they have also adverted to another consideration. If in addition to the intrinsic evidence of unwarrantable severity in a law, which arises from the comparison of the act forbidden with the punishment threatened, they find also that the law has scarcely ever been executed since its first enactment, or if it has fallen into disuse as the nation became more humane and generally enlightened, your committee consider themselves as authorized to recommend its repeal, by long experience and by the deliberate judgment of the whole nation. . .

It has sometimes been said that the abolition of penal laws The desirabilwhich have fallen into disuse is of little advantage to the com- ity of repealing obsolete munity. Your committee consider this opinion as an error. laws They forbear to enlarge on the striking remark of Lord Bacon, that all such laws weaken and disarm the other parts of the criminal system. The frequent occurrence of the unexecuted threat of death in a criminal code tends to rob that punishment of all its terrors, and to enervate the general authority of the government and the laws. The multiplication of this threat in the laws of England has brought on them, and on the nation, a character of harshness and cruelty, which evidence of a mild administration of them will not entirely remove. Repeal silences the objection. Reasoning founded on lenient exercise of authority, whatever its force may be, is not calculated to efface a general and deep impression. The removal of disused laws is a preliminary operation which greatly facilitates a just estimate and (where it is necessary) an effectual reform of those laws which are to remain in activity. . . .

The statutes creating capital felonies, which the committee have considered under this head, are reducible to two classes. The first relates to acts either so nearly indifferent as to require no penalty, or, if injurious, not of such magnitude as that they may not safely be left punishable as misdemeanors at common law. Of these your committee propose the simple repeal. They are as follows:

alty which the

committee proposes to repeal

Laws carrying Against gypsies remaining within the kingdom one month; the death pen- against notorious thieves in Cumberland and Northumberland; against persons being armed and disguised in any forest, park, warren, highroad, open heath, common, or town; unlawfully hunting, killing, or stealing deer; robbing warrens; stealing or taking any fish out of any river or pond; hunting in his Majesty's forests and chases; breaking down the head or mound of a fish pond; being disguised within the mint; injuring of Westminster Bridge and other bridges.

Offenses which the committee

proposes to

The second class consists of those offenses, which, though in the opinion of your committee never fit to be punished with death, are yet so malignant and dangerous as to require the highest punishments, except death, which are known to our laws. These the committee would make punishable either by transportation or imprisonment with hard labor, allowing considerable scope to the discretion of the judges respecting the term for which either punishment is to endure.

Taking away any maid, widow, or wife; acknowledging or procuring any fine or recovery; helping to the recovery of stolen goods; maliciously killing or wounding cattle; cutting punish by im- down or destroying growing trees; bankrupts not surrenderprisonment or ing; concealing or embezzling; cutting down the bank of any transportation river; making a false entry in a marriage register; sending threatening letters; destroying banks in Bedford Level; personating out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital; maliciously cutting serges; harboring offenders against the revenue act, when returned from transportation. .

instead of

death

On the three capital felonies of privately stealing in a shop to the amount of five shillings, of privately stealing in a dwelling house to the amount of forty shillings, and of privately stealing from vessels in a navigable river to the amount of forty shillings, the House of Commons, though not the House of Lords, have pronounced their opinion by passing bills for reducing the punishment to transportation or imprisonment. . . .

The same committee collected evidence from a great many persons connected with the criminal courts to show