causes which rendered the creation of such an office advisable, and the reasons that had induced his majesty's ministers to propose the bill. A long debate ensued, in which a number of members joined: Mr. Banks having moved as an amendment, that the bill be taken into consideration that day six months, a division ensued, in which the votes on the amendment were, ayes, 122; noes, 201. Majority against it, 79. The question for the second readingwas then carried without a division. It is to be observed that the support and opposition to the bill for the most part coincided with the distinction of members as ministerial and antiministerial.

The order of the day for going into a committee on the bill was moved by lord Castlereagh on February 15th. After an amendment for putting off the committee to that day fortnight had been negatived, the House went into the committee, and various clauses were agreed to. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on that day sen'night.

On Feb. 22nd, the consideration of the report was accordingly resumed; and after a further debate of no great length, a suggested amendment was negatived, and the report was agreed to without a division. The bill afterwards passed on to a law without farther opposition.

Sir Samuel Romilly, with that perseverance in his endeavours to amend the criminal law of the country which has done him so much honour, introduced to the House of Commons on February 17th, a bill which had twice passed

that House, but had been twice rejected by the House of Lords. This was a bill for the purpose of repealing the act which made it a capital offence to steal property to the amount of five shillings privately in a shop or warehouse. The principle, he said, upon which he founded his bill, was precisely the same as that which he had before stated; namely, the inexpediency of suffering penal laws to exist which were not intended to be executed. A demonstration of this inexpediency was found in the returns of the criminal courts of London and Middlesex during the years 1805, 6, 7, 8, 9, in which the number of persons committed for this offence amounted to 188, of whom 18 only had beeen convicted, and not one executed. This was a pretty accurate criterion to show that there was no intention of putting the law into execution; and the consequence was, that where some punishment was deserved, none at all was inflicted, and the offender escaped with impunity. The honourable and learned member then quoted with due encomium the following sentence from Mr. Burke's Observations on the penal laws. "The question is, whether in a well-constituted commonwealth it is wise to retain laws not put in force? A penal law not ordinarily executed must be deficient in justice or wisdom, or both. But we are told that we may trust to the operation of manners to relax the law. On the contrary, the laws ought to be always in unison with the manners, and corroborative of them, otherwise the effect of both will be lessened. Our passions ought not to be right, and our reason, of

which law is the organ, wrong." After some further remarks on the subject, sir Samuel proceeded to say, that he next proposed to introduce a bill relative to the common-law punishment in cases of high-treason. The sentence, as it stood, was most shocking and barbarous. It was, indeed, now never executed; but it was obligatory upon the judges to pronounce it according to the letter; and the mitigation of punish ment was left to the care, and its aggravation to the negligence of the executioner. He meant therefore to move for a bill to alter the punishment of high-treason; and another, to take away the corruption of blood as a consequence of attainder of treason or felony. He concluded his speech by moving, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of king William as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons privately stealing in any shop, warehouse, coach-house, or stable, any goods, wares, or merchandizes, of the value of five shillings; and for more effectually preventing the crimes of stealing privately in shops, warehouses, &c."

The solicitor-general, sir Wm. Garrow, then made some general observations on the principles of the proposed bills, and introduced several facts from his own knowledge of the advantage of the discretionary power vested in the judges. He did not mean, how ever, to oppose the introduction of the bills, which there would be future opportunities of examining.

After some remarks by other members, leave was granted to sir S. Romilly to bring in his three bills.

On March 26th, sir S. Romilly having moved the third reading of his bill respecting privately stealing in shops, &c. the attorney. general, sir Thomas Plumer, rose to express his disapprobation of it. He was well assured that the crime in question had increased; and the. opinions of all the judges, and of the recorder and common serjeant of London, that this bill would be found inadequate, weighed very strongly with him. He referred to experience respecting the effect of the act taking away the capital part of the punishment from the offence of stealing from persons privately, which was a great increase of crimes of that description, so that they were now openly committed by gangs of thieves in the face of day. This increase he attributed to the comparative mildness of the punishment of transportation, which to desperate offenders carried little terror in it.

Mr. Abercromby supported the bill chiefly on the ground of the discrepancy between the law and the practice, which was productive of various evils, of which the principal was, the necessity under which judges and juries so frequently laboured, of committing what had been called pious perjuries, because they could not in conscience and humanity enforce the execution of the law in particular cases. With respect to the experience referred to by the last speaker against abolishing a capital punishment, he cited the opposite experience in the instance of repealing that punishment in the case of stealing from bleaching grounds.

Mr. Wetherall supported the argument from experience, by the

authority of lord Ellenborough, who had declared, that taking away capital punishment from the crime of privately stealing from the person, had increased the offence to an enormous and alarming degree; and said, that to his opinion he should pay more deference than to the theories of all the speculativewriters collectively. He said, that upon the principle maintained in the bill, all the acts inflicting the punishment of transportation ought to be repealed, since it was well known that in 80 cases out of 100, when that was the maximum of punishment, the judge commuted it for a less severe penalty. It was the system of the law of England that a greater punishment should be affixed to crimes than it would be always necessary to inflict, leaving it to the discretion of the judges to diminish it, and he saw no necessity for altering it, while the judges were actuated by the feelings of tenderness and humanity. He deprecated the mischief resulting from discussions which would propagate among the people a notion of the cruelty of the laws by which they are governed; and should feel it his duty to resist the further introduction of an innovating spirit into our criminal legislation.

Mr. Stephen said, that his hon. and learned friend, the mover, so far from discarding practice for theory, or wishing to innovate, was desirous to restore the law to its original state in which it existed a century ago, before an experiment had been tried which had failed of its purpose. The strongest argument he had heard against the bill was the opinion of the judges, which was entitled to all due re

spect, yet it might be remarked that there was a propensity in all professional men to resist every deviation from established usages. The consideration which most weighed with him in supporting the present measure was, the advantage of introducing certainty into the feelings which pronouncing the awful sentence of the law should excite in the criminal himself and those who witnessed his fate, and which must be rendered quite vague by the fore-knowledge that in not more than one case in twenty the sentence was carried into execution. The hon. gentleman also adverted with energy to the necessity juries were laid under of trifling with the solemn obligations of an oath, to evade, under the direction of the judge, the severity of the law.

After several other members had spoken, with a repetition of the former arguments, sir S. Romilly made a concluding reply to the objections that had been advanced against his bill. He said, he was perpetually termed a theorist, but it was upon fact alone that he had rested, and his opponents were the real theorists with their general arguments. Thenumber tried for the offence in question from 1749 to 1771, was 250, of which 109 were convicted. But in the last five years, out of 188 tried, the convictions were only 18; and how could this difference of proportion be accounted for, except from the unwillingness of juries to find the property stolen to be of the value required by the act? Could any stronger argument against an existing law be conceived, than that crimes increased and multiplied under

them? With respect to the alleged fact, that privately stealing from the person had been more frequent since the repeal of the capital punishment annexed to it, be denied that the mere increase of committals proved that this was the cause, since it might be attributed to the general increase of crime, and also to the fact, that since the alteration of the law, persons were less averse to prosecute. The lord chief justice, whose authority had been so much re ferred to on this head, had given it as his opinion that the crime was increased before the passing of this act. Many instances might be adduced to show, that in consequence of the rigour of laws, men were never prosecuted upon them. This was remarkably the case with regard to the punishment of death enacted against bankrupts secreting their effects: although the offencewaswell known to be extremely common, there had been only four prosecutions of it within half a century. Sir S. made some remarks on the maxim quoted by a member, "Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari," and showed how defective the laws would have remained, had it always been acted upon. He concluded with the words of the present master of the rolls, " that when the law was such as to be no longer executed from its repugnance to the manners and sentiments of the community, the time was come to repeal that law, and to substitute others more mild and more effectual.”

The House then divided upon the third reading of the bill, when the numbers were, For it, 72; Against it, 34. Majority 38. The

bill was then read a third time, and passed.

On April 2nd, Lord Holland in the House of Lords moved the or der of the day for the second read ing of the above bill. The short debate which this motion occa sioned produced nothing new in point of argument, except the lord chancellor's question. Was it an encouragement or a discouragement in the eyes of a man of common sense to commit a crime, that instead of being hanged if he committed it, he could at the most be only transported? an argument, lord Grenville observed, that if good for any thing, amounted to this, that it would be advisable at once, for every offence, however trifling, to enact the law of Draco. Lord Ellenborough on this occasion pronounced a splendid panegyric on the laws of England; and on a division, the bill was thrown out of that House by 26 votes against 15. All the ministers, lawlords, and bishops present, voted against the bill.

On April 5th, sir Samuel Romilly moved the commitment of a bill to take away corruption of blood as a consequence of attainder of treason or felony. The bill having passed through the committee, sir S. R. having moved that the report be received to-morrow, proceeded to state his views respecting this measure. There were many persons, he said, who confounded corruption of blood, and forfeiture, whereas no two things could be more distinct. Forfeiture was always a punishment inflicted for an offence; corruption of blood was a consequence of the feudal law.

If the latter was intended for a punishment, it would be punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty, and that sometimes at the distance of half a century. Corruption of blood prevented a man from being a link in tracing a pedigree from one remote relation toanother. Could it be asserted that at thepresentdaythis extravagant subtlety and refinement should enter into the penal code of this country? Justice Blackstone had in many parts of his Commentaries expressed himself hostile to this practice. Further, the law was unequal in its operation, for in Scotland it was made to apply only to cases of treason by the act of queen Anne, and in England the county of Kent is excepted from its operation. Should such an anomaly be suffered to continue? Mr. Yorke, in opposing the motion, avowed that he was one of those who were prejudiced in favour of our ancient laws, at least so far, as not to acquiesce in any alteration of them until some strong case was made out to convince him of its necessity. He further made some remarks on the atrocity of the crime of treason, and the use of holding up the terrors of the law against it.

Some other members who spoke on the question tooksimilar ground, not without strictures on the apparent intention of the hon. mover to alter the whole system of our criminal laws. Some of them supported the bill as far as it went to do away corruption of blood in cases of felony, but would not agree to its abolition in cases of

treason.

Sir S. Romilly, in his reply, ob

served that he had been accused of having a system; which was true, if by having a system it was meant that, enacting or repealing one law, you considered the effect it would have on other laws. It had however, been objected against him in another place, that he had not proceeded more systematically; so impossible was it for one who indiscreetly set himself up for a legislator to provide against all objections. He made some farther remarks on the inconsistency of the present law; and to the argument which had been advanced, that upon his principles we ought not to punish the guilty at all, because their fate affected their relatives and friends, he observed, that it did this only indirectly and inevitably, whereas corruption of blood punished the innocent directly and voluntarily, and the guilty only by means of a distant sympathy. And why not carry this reasoning a little further, and inflict actual punishment on the relations, as had been formerly done.

In conclusion, the House divided, when there appeared, against receiving the report, 55; for it, 43. Majority 12. The bill was therefore lost.

Still zealous for his humane object, notwithstanding disappointments, sir Samuel Romilly, on April 9, moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on a bill for altering the punishment in cases of conviction for high-treason; which being complied with, and the clauses of the bill being agreed upon, he moved that the report should be received on the 12th.