point, selected from the returns two distant periods of ten years each; consisting of seven years of peace, and three of war: in the first period, which he selected from the earliest of those returns, the number of capital convictions amounted to 329: in the last, which he extracted from the latest, to 1,402. The result of the comparison was, that our present penal code was at direct variance with the old law. He should next proceed to state the number of offences made capital, and the times at which they were made so, contrasting them with their present amount; beginning with the reign of King Edward III., and embracing a period of four hundred and fifty years. In the first one hundred and fifty years of that period, under the Plantagenets, from Edward III. to Henry VII. only six offences were first declared to be capital, in addition to those already declared so by the statute law, at the commencement of King Edward's reign. Under the Tudors, from Henry VIII. to Elizabeth only 16; under the Stuarts, from James I. to Charles II., only 30; and under the Brunswicks, up to the present day, 156: so that more offences had been made capital under the Brunswicks alone than under all the Houses of Plantagenet, Tudor, and Stuart together! These documents were important, inasmuch as they forcibly contrasted the humanity of our ancestors in legislating on these subjects, with the barbarity of our present criminal code; they were important, as they established the good policy of manifesting a tenderness for human life; they were important, as they tended to refute a calumny industriously propagated in regard to the object of his honourable and learned friend, which had been characterised as an attempt to overthrow the old law in order to carry into ef

fect a new theory: but it now appeared, that the new theory was at least as old as the Plantagenets, whereas that old law had grown up in the last century! It was a melancholy and dreadful consideration, that many persons were living at this moment, at the time of whose birth only sixty offences were capital, yet who had seen, in the short space of time allotted to the span of human life, that number quintupled; who had seen laws inflicting the awful penalty of death enacted by dozens and by scores, and levelled, not only at the most atrocious crimes, but even at the most trifling offences? Of those acts, passed at one and the same time, one was operative for maliciously shooting at a man, and another for shooting at rabbits; another for cutting down young trees, and another for cutting down the heads of fish-ponds. These were not the effects of ancient wisdom, but of our own times. The mischief was, that our present system was at variance with the old law of England, and equally so with natural justice. The evidence of history, and the old lawgivers, had determined, that as there were different shades of guilt, so also there ought to be different gradations of punishment. Human reason and general feeling suggested the same idea, the proof of which was observable in cases of execution for murder, where the approbation of the crowd at the penalty, whose infliction they were assembled to behold, is visible and ardent, although not loud; the expression of their pleasure being restrained by the extremity of distress endured by the offender. But suppose a case of forgery; the reception the same crowd would give to the victim of the law would be very different; their feelings would be of a very contrary nature. The severity of

the law had raised up in this State, a power which abrogated law itself. In other countries, the whole office of executing the law devolved upon the crown, or upon many sets of officers appointed for that particular purpose: one set of them arrested the individual; another conducted him to prison; another procured and arranged the evidence: but to do justice to our criminal enactments, we should require a spy in every house, and a police-officer in every street. Surely those deficiencies of the law might be much better supplied by securing the cordial co-operation of the public; whereas, at present, the whole public was combined against the law. Prosecutors were repugnant to the permitting their prisoners to escape; but they were reluctant to proceed against them also. Witnesses felt a bias in their favour; juries commiserated them; and even the judges shared the same sentiment for judges were but men, and had the feelings common to the human breast. Even Ministers themselves militated against the operation of the penal laws; for it would ill become him to tax those with inflexible adherence to a stern and sanguinary system, who had permitted him to intrude upon their privacies, to exert his humble efforts in favour of individuals whom a word or fortunate suggestion might vitally serve, and to make an appeal in behalf of those over whose devoted heads the vengeance of the law impended. But, after all, what did this amount to? Why that we, who for centuries had made it our proudest boast that we were governed by law and not by will, were, by the interposition of those criminal laws, and their administration, manifestly and indisputably governed by will. Every one who heard him certainly must know, how many fraudulent circumstances

VOL. XII. PART I.

were connected with almost all the bankruptcies that now took place; and after a most careful examination, it had been declared, on the highest authority, that of the bankruptcies which occurred, by far the greater number were of a fraudulent description. He had looked back to the operation of all the statutes enacted on this head since 1805, and he could not find a single instance of punishment under them, although their infringement was daily and notorious. The fact turned out to be, that the penalty was so severe, that the Legislature were deterred from inflicting it; and thus a law, whose violation had ruined many a fair trader, could not be put in force from the severity of its enactments. As to forgery, last year only two persons had been punished for committing it: How had it happened that, under statutes so fruitful in victims to their severity, there had been this paucity of punishment? because of the general reluctance that it should be punished with death. Cardinal Wolsey once declared that juries had an instinctive appetite for blood; and that had they sat, they would have found Cain guilty of the murder of Abel. This had some reference to what he should now advert to. Two men

were lately tried by a jury for forgery; and although there was not a shadow of doubt as to their guilt, they were acquitted; two others were next tried by the same jury, for the minor offence, and were brought in guilty. In another case of privately stealing two L.10 notes, and many others of a smaller amount, making together L.100, a jury found the of fenders guilty of stealing to the value of 39s., on which principle L.100 was rather less in value than L.2. Was it not better that the law should be altered, than that men should be obliged absolutely to perjure themselves

M

to correct this glaring defect in the penal code? The integrity of a jury was not a matter of slight importance. It was upon the justness of its verdict that the whole case depended. He had documents to show that a prisoner in a capital case had double the chance of escape to that of a prisoner charged with a minor offence. Every individual more or less had certain natural chances of escape from punishment: he might be suspected, and yet escape; he might be tried, and yet escape; and for his argument, it was of no consequence whether the chances were 2 to 1, 20 to 1, 200 to 1, or 2,000 to 1; but considering them only as 5 to 1, these chances were multiplied tenfold by the reluctance of the prosecutors to prosecute, making it 50 to 1; the chance against the conviction of the jury was double, making it 100 to 1; and it was 1000 to 1 that the criminal was not executed after all. The House would perceive, by a consideration of these premises, that it was five to one that the individual was charged, fifty to one that he was prosecuted, a hundred to one that he was convicted, and a thousand to one that he was executed. The effect of this notorious fact upon the minds of the criminals was dreadful; they were urged on to commit the most enormous crimes as it were by the love of hazard; this was their stimu lus, and would continue to be so un less some radical change were made in the criminal law of the country. With respect to the effect which an execution was supposed to have upon the minds of the criminals, he could assure the House that it was next to nothing; and if any gentleman would expose his feelings to the pain of seeing one of these dreadful exhibitions, the truth of his assertion would immediately appear. It was evident, therefore, that something ought to

be done. The documents before the House clearly demonstrated that crime was daily increasing. Feeling, therefore, as he did, entertaining the firmest persuasion that any delay in the revision of the criminal code would be a national grievance, he gave his hearty support to the motion of his honourable friend for a committee.

Several members having each addressed a few observations to the House, Mr Wilberforce rose and said, he felt that it was almost unnecessary for him to trespass on the attention of the House, after what they had already heard upon this important subject; and he feared that any observations of his, in support of his honourable and learned friend's motion, would weaken the effect of those arguments by which he himself had pressed it upon the House. He could say with truth, that in his long experience of that House, he never had heard a more able address, a more splendid display of profound knowledge of the subject, with such forcible reasoning from the facts which that knowledge had called forth. It was that kind of reasoning which was most calculated to convince-reasoning deduced from facts and from long experience. He not only derived great pleasure from what he had heard, but also from what he had not heard, in the course of discussion, from not hearing those arguments, or rather those objections, against alterations of, or inquiry into, old laws and customs, which had been so vehemently urged at former periods. It was a pleasure to him to find that which every man acquainted with life must have seen, that the opinions of prejudice faded before truth, like the dusk before the more perfect light of day. He remembered once to have heard opinions urged against alterations of sanguinary laws,

which were urged with as much apparent fear as if the person proposing those alterations were about to introduce the horrors of the French revolution. He had heard opinions at that time which any man would blush to hold at the present day. No such objections were, however, made on this occasion; and the only one to the motion of his honourable and learned friend was, that it would be better to refer the matter to the committee proposed by his noble friend (Lord Castlereagh.) His noble friend had said he would not go into detail on this question. It was also his (Mr Wilberforce's) intention to abstain from it: that detail would come better in the committee on the gaols; but it was not necessary to go into it at present. The question of secondary punishments had been decided; there was no difference upon it: if then the object was to aim rather at removing the cause of crime, the examination of our laws, with a view of seeing where the punishment of death could be avoided, might be safely gone into. It had been said, that our laws had not been made all at once, but had been the result of gradual legislation. That was the fact, but it argued nothing against his honourable and learned friend's motion. Our penal laws were certainly the result of gradual legislation, because, when a crime was found to exist, it was conceived to be a much easier mode of checking it, to enact a severe statute against it, than to stop and inquire into its cause, or to look for a more lenient way of preventing it. It was thought to be a safe way of checking the crime, to fix the penalty of death in the statute-book against its commission. But that this was a most erroneous mode of legislation experience had taught; and it should be recollected now, that this method would not do for those with

whom we had to deal. They looked not to the enormity of the crime, but to the chance of escaping the punishment; and in this gambling with life they were encouraged by the number whom they daily saw condemned to, but who were, with very few exceptions, redeemed from the highest punishment of the law. Was then the system to be continued which this very principle brought into action? If not, there was the very best reason for a committee. He begged pardon for taking up so much of the time of the House, but could not avoid expressing his opinion in favour of his honourable and learned friend's motion, from a conviction of its necessity. He also should express the pleasure he felt that this important question of the laws of England had fallen into the hands of one who was so well qualified to take it up in the able manner in which it had been introduced by the late honourable member (Sir S. Romilly), whose loss all must equally lament. He feared that the committee of his noble friend (Lord Castlereagh) would necessarily omit a great detail on many important points, from the complication of the subjects which it embraced. He would mention New South Wales, for instance, which, in his opinion, was of sufficient importance to demand a separate inquiry.

Mr Canning made a few observations, after which Mr Scarlett rose, and began by complimenting Sir James Mackintosh on the able manner in which he had brought his motion before the House. Had that individual, (Sir S. Romilly,) whom all in common with him deplored, been yet alive, he would have had the satisfaction to witness, at the present moment, the triumph of humanity over prejudice, and also would have had the satisfaction to consider that he had been the chief instrument,

under Providence, in achieving it. The principles which that lamented statesman had been the first to propound to the House, though once most vigorously and vehemently disputed, had been that night complimented by men of all parties. The first bill which Sir S. Romilly had introduced into Parliament, contained the remarkable preamble, that the excess of severity did not prevent the commission of crimes; he introduced the bill with that preamble, in order that his sentiments might be recorded in this sanctuary of legislation; and the consequence of it was, that though the bill was passed, the preamble was rejected. In laying down that principle, he had gone far beyond his age and generation, and it was only by perpetual efforts, by sometimes passing one law in one session and another in another, that he so far enlightened the public mind, and improved the public opinion, as it was at the present moment enlightened and improved. It was consoling to reflect, that the very last action of Sir S. Romilly's public life, was to get that very preamble passed, which, on its first introduction to the House, had been so rudely rejected; and that he had the satisfaction to see recorded, as the sentiments of the Commons of England, his favourite principle, that excess of severity did not prevent crime. The opponents of this measure had said, that Sir S. Romilly's bill did not accord with the expectations which had been raised regarding it. On this point he was happy to state that they were far from being rightly informed. Nobody indeed expected that the crime of privately stealing from the person would immediately be lessened by the new enactments; and yet it would be found that, if the comparative increase of crimes were taken

into consideration, it had suffered considerable diminution. For instance, the convictions for privately stealing from the person in 1811, were 85; in 1817, 257: the convictions for burglary in 1811 were 76, and in 1817 were 374; from which any person might see, that if the comparative increase of crime were considered, the burglaries had become more, and the private stealings from the person less numerous. He had not now to contend for the propriety of altering the enactments of certain obsolete laws, as that was universally granted; the question now before the House was, which of the two committees was best. He thought that Ministers ought not to be now coming to the House with motions for committees, to inquire into the state of the gaols; but that they ought, on their own responsibility, long since to have come forward with remedies calculated to remove the evils and miseries which had given rise to such a general complaint. The prisons were, it was true, connected with the Criminal Law of the country; but if these two subjects were joined together, it appeared to him that all ideas of classifying the prisoners, all ideas of enacting those rules which would make a prison the school of morality, would be entirely omitted. The continuance of the obsolete punishments enacted by the laws, or of those punishments which, though inflicted by the Legislature, were seldom or never inflicted by the Executive Government, was well worthy of their serious attention, because he had no hesitation in saying, that it multiplied in the prisoner's mind the chances of escape, the chances of mercy, and every other accident on which a culprit could calculate. Let then your prisons be the dreadful dungeons which they are repre