Turner, Esq., Dingle Head, Liverpool -Robert Theakstone, Esq., BoothJames Hardy Wrigley, Esq., Southport-Edward Gibbon, Esq.

My Lord Judge,-The grand jury of this assize for the county palatine of Lancaster desire to make the following presentment to your lordship: -In the charge, with which your lordship opened this assize, you directed the attention of the grand jury to those acts of violence which occupy a prominent place in the calendar. You informed them that it contained "thirty-five cases of cutting, stabbing, and wounding, by which eight persons had come to their deaths." Your lordship concluded your charge by directing the attention of the jury to those means of prevention which might be wisely adopted to check the growth of crime. The grand jury have carefully borne in mind both parts of your lordship's charge. They find that the acts of violence to which your lordship directed their attention have been of an aggravated description. A large proportion resulted from quarrels commenced within the walls of licensed public-houses, after drinking prolonged for hours, and indeed until it had produced a brutal frenzy. After savage blows struck in the house-sometimes producing severe injury-the combat has been renewed in the yard, or the adjoining road, or the street, and in some cases an unmanly use has been made of knives-stubs with dangerous bleeding or immediate loss of life, or blows and kicks have been given with such barbarity as to cause death. In cases where the grand jury had not before them evidence of the commencement of the quarrel in a particular public-house, it has been clear that the parties had been infuriated with drink. The grand jury desire emphatically to express their opinion that, apart from the moral mischief which the excessive use of intoxicating drinks occasions in families and in society, all the poisons sold to malefactors, or wantonly or carelessly used, cause far fewer deaths than the unregulated sale of beer or spirits. The chaplains of our gaols have for many years called the attention of the magistrates of this county to drunkenness as the chief source of crime. But the magistrates have only a very limited power over beer-houses, inasmuch as they cannot limit the number of licenses; and their

291

discretion as to the suspension or removal of the license of public-houses is subjected to embarrassing restrictions. It is especially to be regretted that the law does not enable the magistrates to secure the personal residence of the licensed victualler in his public-house. The grand jury nevertheless suggest that in all cases of intoxication causing any breach of the peace, the police should be directed to ascertain, and report to the justices in petty sessions, what were the houses in which the several parties had been permitted to obtain drink in excess. They would urge that the justices should pursue these inquiries, so as to impress on all who are entrusted with the sale of intoxicating liquors that they become parties to disorder, to much moral mischief, to breaches of the peace and acts of brutal violence ending in homicide, by permitting drink to be taken in excess. They therefore frustrate the intentions of the Legislature -that the license should be held on condition of co-operation with the justices of the peace to prevent the abuse of intoxicating drinks, and should be withdrawn if this condition were not fulfilled. The grand jury conceive that the justices in petty sessions may be strengthened in the discharge of such duties if, from this assize, their attention be called to all those cases of violence caused by intoxication, and commencing in public-houses, which have been sent for trial by your lordship, and that they be requested to consider whether they should take such measures with respect to the licenses of such publicans as may issue in their suspension or removal. Some such immediate exercise of the authority of the justices, followed by a vigorous and persevering administration of the law, has become indispensable. The grand jury, however, feel that if these efforts were successful they would leave untouched the mischievous influences of beer-houses, kept by a ruder class of persons than the licensed victuallers. Either, on the one hand, the sale of beer and spirituous liquors may be safely made an open trade, both without reference to the character of the dealers or to any guarantee for their good conduct; or, if such a trade cannot be suffered without control, then the security which the Legislature has required from the licensed victuallers should be rendered thoroughly effec

tual,

tual, and extended to beer-houses. Such security should be sought, not only in the provisions of the statute, but also by an administration of the law, prompt, earnest, and free from personal or party favour or interest. The present law neither effectually promotes wholesome restraint, nor is it consistent with an unfettered trade. It is administered by two classes of functionaries, on two conflicting and ill-defined principles, so as to cause a confusion most injurious to those who are supported by manual labour, and to become a fruitful source of crime. The grand jury are of opinion that the laws as to the sale of intoxicating drinks in beer-houses and public-houses should be assimilated, and that authority administering the law should be made uniform, and should be such as to secure a prompt, pure, and faithful enforcement of the intention of the Legislature. The grand jury venture to say that no graver question of domestic legislation awaits the action of the executive government. The grand jury cannot conclude this presentment without expressing their earnest concurrence with your lordship as to the supreme importance which you attached to all the moral means for the prevention of crime afforded by the religious bringing up of our youth, by private example, and in efficient schools. They likewise desire to rejoice with your lordship in the marked success which has hitherto attended the institutions, of late created, for the reformation especially of females and of juvenile offenders. They would further urge that the associations of "patronage," which aid the reformed adult prisoner, on his discharge, to obtain an honest livelihood by work, deserve confidence, and that an immediate extension of such societies is rendered desirable by the practical abolition of the punishment of transportation.

'J. P. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH,

Foreman.'

We must not terminate this hasty summary without one word in relation to the Royal Commission which has been occupied in Scotland in an inquiry into the license system of that country, and especially into the operation of

Lord Kennaird's, or Forbes M'Kenzie's Act. The inquiry itself was originated by the publicans, and for some time resisted by friends of the Act; but eventually the fears entertained of the partiality of a parliamentary committee were removed by the appointment of a Royal Commission, who should take evidence on the spot. From the reports which have reached us we fear the change will not be much better than the original suggestion. The commissioners have apparently arrived at foregone conclusions, and we shall not be at all surprised if their report turn out unsatisfactory. The integrity of the law will not be maintained by the strict adherence of its supporters, for the inquiry has presented the strange anomaly of leading temperance men recommending a relaxation of its provisions. It is curious how the fear of some small defeat leads to a sacrifice of principle-insuring future loss for some problematic present gain. would surely have been better to lay before the commissioners some distinct and definite suggestions involving a principle upon which those advancing the suggestions believed legislation in regard to the trade in strong drink should always proceed.

It

The great case which has almost entirely concentrated popular interest, that of Dr. Smethurst, is not without its suggestive points. It is very doubtful whether scientific evidence' has not been pushed to the utmost verge of safety, and it is a grave question for legal and social reformers how far a man's life should be perilled upon the speculations of a chemist or the theories of a physiologist. Actual facts alone should constitute the basis upon which a criminal conviction should rest. But the still more important question is suggested by the case alluded to, Ought not provision to be made to allow the possibility of a new trial in criminal cases? No doubt many considerations may be advanced on either side of the argument, but it does appear anomalous that while in a civil case errors on the part of a jury may be corrected, that a verdict in a criminal trial must be final and conclusive, whatever its circumstances or obvious impropriety.