William Jennings is executed at Chelmsford.-COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

We have received a letter from a correspondent, relative to the case of Jennings, who was executed last week at Chelmsford for arson, and respecting whose guilt we expressed doubts, with the hope of inducing further and more searching enquiry before the sentence of the law was carried into effect. But, though few of those who attended to the particulars of the evidence were satisfied with the verdict, Lord MELBOURNE, whose mind appears so constituted as to be, with great difficulty, at any time, brought to doubt of the infallible judgment of any human tribunal, where sentence, under all the formalities of law, consigns a fellowcreature to the scaffold, was so well convinced of the prisoner's guilt, that he thought no further enquiry requisite ; and so the law took its course.

Now that the man has suffered, all that human power can inflict for real or supposed guilt-now that he is gone before a TRIBUNAL that shall judge the Judges of mankind, and that no discussion of the merits of his case can have any influence on his doom-we do not think it necessary to follow our correspondent into the details of the evidence for the prosecution, which he has collected from his own observation of all that passed at the trial; but we cannot but express our concurrence in the conclusion which he has drawn-namely, that the accused was found guilty upon evidence which, taken in the abstract, would justify little more than suspicion ; but which, explained by its collaterals, did away, in a great measure, with the suspicion that would otherwise attach. The fact is, the man had committed a larceny in a dwelling-house; and his anxiety to conceal the proofs of one crime, caused him to act in such a manner as to make him fall under the suspicion of having a guilty connection with the other. It is true, either of those crimes is punishable with death by our law, which is more prolific of

capital punishments, beyond all comparison, than any now known to the civilized world.

But it was not for larceny that Jennings was executed, but for arson. The theft which he committed, it is not now the practice to punish with death, unless some atrocious personal violence be committed, although the sanguinary law remains unrepealed. The stolen property found on the prisoner was stated to have been of the value of £25.

At the late Assizes for Bedford, two men were convicted of a burglary in the dwelling-house and shop of a silversmith, by which they swept away property to the amount of £620. They were experienced thieves-they had come down from London with some others for the purpose-they had made their entry into the house, and managed the plan, as well as details, of the robbery in the most expert and scientific 'manner,' shewing a high degree of professional skill' in this line of depredation; and yet their case was not considered to be so aggravated a one as to make it proper to shed their blood, and the sentence of death was commuted to transportation for life.

Now, let us suppose there had been no other charge against Jennings but the robbery in the dwelling-house, the same Government that shewed mercy to the Bedford burglars, would surely not have withheld it from him: he could not consequently have been hanged for the crime of which he was guilty; and he was therefore hanged for a crime of which we believe him to have been wholly innocent.

The numerous instances which have occurred, in former and in modern times, of the fallibility of human judgment in determining cases which involve the question of life or death, and the fatal errors with which the practice of our criminal justice has been stained, induced us, some time ago, to propose that, to diminish the chances, at least, of such irreparable mistakes, there should be a Court of Criminal Revision, to which all persons convicted of capital crimes, on circuit or in town, should have their cases referred for

ultimate decision, of right, on simply demanding an appeal. Such a Court would supersede the anomalous, secret, irresponsible, and inquisitorial tribunal which the Secretary of State holds at his pleasure, and in which he decides upon human life or death, without any known or certain rules. A Court of Criminal Revision (leaving points of law still to the fifteen Judges), under a competent and responsible authority, and with a regular procedure, appears the more requisite, when we recollect that the Secretary for the Home Department is a CABINET MINISTER, involved in political cases, and seldom or never trained to that exercise of the intellect which would qualify him for an office essentially judicial.

Did not Lord MELBOURNE decline to interfere in the case of Ewen, who was hanged for arson at Chelmsford last winter, though strong and, to many, convincing proofs of innocence were tendered?-Was not Dyke rashly executed about the same time on Penenden Heath?-Who can therefore doubt the necessity of a regular Court of Criminal Appeal?-Morning Herald, Thursday, August 11, 1831.

Remarks on the necessity of Legal Reform.

It is some years now since we first endeavoured to prove, through the agency of the Press, the necessity of Legal Reform. In the field which both civil and criminal justice presented for improvement, we have laboured, at least, with perseverance, and not altogether unsuccessfully. It cannot fail to be in the recollection of our readers that we exposed the expensive and absurd fictions of the law-the sham pleas the redundant verbiage and technical barbarisms of special pleading-and, over and over again, called the attention of the public and of parliament to those gross and disgraceful defects in our system of Civil Justice long before the present Lord Chancellor's (BROUGHAM'S) memorable speech of six hours on the same subject, and before there

was in existence a Law Commission to investigate and report upon the state of the law, with a view to reform.

We could now, if it were necessary, shew, by reverting to what we wrote at that time, that we had pointed out many of the blemishes and absurdities in our laws which Lord BROUGHAM afterwards exposed, with his peculiar force and eloquence, in his justly celebrated speech. We mention this merely to shew that the view which we took of the state of those laws, which constitute the system of Civil Justice in this country, could not have been very incorrect, when it had the confirmation of so splendid and high an authority.

But we did not deal with the Civil Justice alone-we were also of opinion that the Criminal Justice of England greatly wanted reform-reform both in its principles and its practice. In that field of improvement, too, we have laboured. The fate which Sir Robert PEEL'S Forgery Bill, which we were the first to expose, met on the third reading in the House of Commons-the vast number of petitions presented then and since, praying for the effective amelioration of our Criminal Code-prove that PUBLIC OPINION has gone along with us in demanding the abolition of sanguinary law.

But it seems that we have not given, in all quarters, equal satisfaction. Not thinking it sufficient to confine ourselves to the discussion of abstract principles, we have taken particular instances, and illustrated the practice by individual cases. While labouring to improve a principle, we did not think it unworthy of the Press to try to save a life. We have contributed to the saving of some; and if we had been more successful, although an inhuman system would have been disappointed of some additional victims, justice would not have been defrauded.

It is impossible to treat of particular instances of the objectionable execution of the law, without sometimes touching on the conduct of the individuals to whom it is intrusted. We have had occasion, in this way to advert to Lord

MELBOURNE, and have thereby displeased the Courier, which has undertaken to become the schoolmaster' of the

Press, and, as if to verify Lord BROUGHAM'S adage, gives lectures de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis; the burden' of all which is, that every man that once becomes invested with ministerial power, becomes, from that moment, infallible and immaculate. It is a prudent, but not an English, motto, that power can do no wrong.'

The Courier says, that we return to the subject of capital punishments too often, and too fastidiously.' There is a story, we believe, in 'Joe Miller,' touching a clergyman, who, on being accused by some of his parishioners of having 'too often preached the same sermon,' told the remonstrants, he should not have occasion to do so any longer when they 'ceased to practise the same sins.'-So we assure our Contemporary, that if our observations on the Criminal Law, and the way it is sometimes carried into effect, give pain to him, and his patrons at the Home Office, we shall desist from them altogether, when men shall cease to be hanged for crimes that do not deserve death, or for crimes of which there are strong grounds to believe them innocent. Lord MELBOURNE himself did not, we are sure, accuse us of fastidious humanity in endeavouring to save the lives of the French ex-Ministers; but what were the crimes of any of those whom he has executed, compared with theirs?— Morning Herald, Saturday, August 13, 1831.

First and final attempt to carry into execution the new capital law of Forgery in the case of Calvert and Collier,—convicted at the Lancaster Spring Assizes, but their sentences postponed till the GOVERNMENT had had time to consider the subject.

It is with equal pain and astonishment we find that the law of forgery is, once more, about to be put in action. That law, as far as human life is concerned, has been in abeyance ever since the memorable decision of the House of Commons, in the month of June last year, against the punish