code, which no time, no circumstances, could justify; which could be palliated only when they grew up beneath the shadow of the darkest barbarism, or of the most unlimited tyranny. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND seconded the Motion.

Anticipated Discussion on the Second Reading of Mr. EWART's Bill, for repealing the punishment of DEATH in certain cases.

The Second Reading of Mr. EWART'S Bill for abolishing the punishment of death for the offences of horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, cattle-stealing, and privately stealing in the dwelling-house, was fixed for this day.

We could wish that a measure, which goes to substitute corrective punishment for an exterminating one in certain offences against the rights of property, had been of a more comprehensive character, so as to include in its beneficial operation a greater number of the cruel enactments of our law; but we prefer a reform of even a small portion of our barbarous code to none at all, provided it be a reform that goes to the root of the evil in the particular cases to which it is applied-an amendment in principle, and not a mere alteration in degree.

Let us take the instance of 'privately stealing in the dwelling-house to the value of forty-shillings, no person being put in fear.' This was only simple larceny by the common law, subject to a minor punishment. It was first made a capital offence by the 12th ANNE, cap. 7; an Act which was passed soon after the inhuman rage for creating new capital felonies had begun to manifest itself in the English legislature, in subversion of the principles of the ancient and wholesome COMMON LAW. The enlightened Sir Samuel ROMILLY-whose persevering efforts, to restore dispassionate Justice to that authority which blind and unreasoning Vengeance had usurped, will cause his name to go down to future ages among those of the benefactors of mankind-brought a Bill into Parliament, to repeal the

punishment of death for this offence; which Bill passed the House of Commons, but was thrown out in the Lords.

But although that House stopped the progress of the Bill, as they did some other Bills of ROMILLY to improve our Criminal Code, it could not stop the progress of that spirit of civilization which causes the human mind to revolt more and more from punishments of blood. So the stealing of forty shillings in the dwelling-house remained a capital offence; but the severity of the law operated more as a protection to criminals than a repression of crime. Humane and Christian people declined to prosecute, rather than be accessory to what they justly regarded as judicial murder ; and those who had less regard for human life, were frequently baffled in their efforts of revenge, by the pious perjuries' of Jurors, who hit upon the contrivance of evading the capital part of the Statute, by finding property stolen, of any amount, to be under the value of forty shillings. Thus it has happened that a person at the Old Bailey has been indicted for stealing a ten-pound note of the Bank of England; and the Jury, through a horror of shedding human blood, and yet not wishing to let the offender escape without some punishment, have found the ten-pound note to be of the value of thirty-nine shillings. By such a verdict the offence was reduced to a simple larceny-just as if the Statute of the 12th ANNE did not exist-and the offender, instead of being strangled on the scaffold, might be transported for seven years.*

* Upon the subject of perjured verdicts, the late lamented and truly estimable Lord SUFFIELD, to whose exertions for the mitigation of the penal law his country is deeply indebted, made some remarks which ought to be preserved. He was then speaking in his place in parliament in support of Mr. LENNARD's Bill (to remove the punishment of death from the crime of house-breaking), the charge of which, in its passage through the Upper House, he undertook, and faithfully as well as ably fulfilled. Adverting to this, the Noble Lord observed, that

Such a state of the law often induced Juries to violate their

Then came Sir Robert PEEL as a reformer of the law. What ROMILLY would have changed in principle, he thought it sufficient to alter in. degree. The former would have repealed the punishment of death for this offence altogether -the latter weighed the life of man against a little pelf, and came to the conclusion that the price of human blood might, without any great danger to the State, be raised by the amount of three additional pounds sterling beyond what the legislative calculators of Queen ANNE's reign had fixed it at. This alteration, not having excited any extraordinary alarm in the House of Lords, passed into a law; and the minimum price of human extermination was enhanced from 40 shillings to 100 shillings.

Not long since, a person was tried at the Old Bailey for stealing large sums in the dwelling-house. The evidence was such as made it clear that he had stolen five hundred pounds, or nothing. The Jury found that he had stolen

under the value of five pounds!

Whatever Divines and moral Statesmen-who have more horror of perjury than murder-can say, such violations of a Juryman's oath will often be committed while our criminal laws remain as they are, and civilized men are less shocked

6

(

• oaths. That he (Lord SUFFIELD) held in his hand a list of five hundred and fifty-five perjured verdicts delivered at the Old Bailey in ' fifteen years, beginning with the year 1814, for the single offence of stealing from dwellings, the value stolen being in these cases sworn ' above forty shillings, but the verdicts returned being "to the value of 'thirty-nine shillings" only. If required, he would produce the name ' of every one of these five hundred and fifty-five convicts, and shew the value proved to have been stolen. It deserved remark, that ' when the legislature raised the capital indictment to five pounds, in 'June, 1827, the Juries at the same time raised their verdicts to four pounds nineteen shillings; thus still keeping it low enough to save 'the offender's life. This had happened under the one head of steal❝ing in dwelling-houses.'-(See Lord SUFFIELD's Speech in the House of Lords, reported in the Morning Herald of August 3, 1833.) -Vide ante, Notes at p. 168 and 174.

at finding a verdict against evidence, than at being accessory to the shedding of human blood.

With regard to the two other offences included in Mr. EWART's motion, we would observe that Sir Robert PEEL, as has been shewn by the author of the Comparative View of the Punishments annexed to Crime in America and England,' under the appearance of ameliorating the law, actually introduced new capital enactments:-for instance, it was before Sir Robert PEEL's amended' law, only simple larceny to kill a sheep, with intent to steal the skin. He made it capital, as he also did in the cases of killing any bull, ox, cow, or heifer, with intent to steal the skin! If Mr. EWART succeeds in rendering those laws less cruel and revengeful, he will make them more effective.

We cannot conclude this article without quoting the following forcible and appropriate passages from the Liverpool Times:

The difficulty with which Mr. EWART and all persons pursuing similar ⚫ objects have to contend, does not arise from the strength of the arguments 'adduced against their views, but from the profound indifference with which ⚫ such questions are regarded. A law to make or abolish a capital felony pro'duces less interest in the British Parliament than a Turnpike Act, or a Bill to ❝ widen a street, or excavate a sewer. In the latter case, at least two or three ⚫ Members are interested, and their influence is always sufficient to secure the sup'port of that race of parliamentary jobbers which is ever willing to do one good ⚫ turn for another-that is, to assist others in cheating the public, on condition ⚫ they will return the favour when called upon to do so. But as nothing is to be gained, either in money, in praise, or in influence, by attention to laws, the 'immediate effect of which is not seen, and the ultimate consequence of which is 'seldom understood, the Criminal Law has always been left to the whim or caprice of individual members, and capital punishments have been accumulated 'to such an extent, that the law, if carried into effect, would be a greater curse 'to society than all the crimes that it is intended to punish. In the year 1830, 1,397 persons were condemned to death, and 46 were executed! Suppose the 'whole, or even one half, of the persons sentenced to die had been put to death, 'the law would have committed more deliberate murders in one year, than all 'the ruffians whom the country has produced, have perpetrated in the last twenty years; for it will not be maintained that the persons whom the law allowed to " escape, had really deserved to die; and if they did not, to have executed them 'would have been nothing less than murder.**

*We have at different times alluded to the unjust severity of our "Criminal Code:-we resume the subject on the present occasion,

Again

'Such questions as these will occupy much of the time of Parliament, when 'it is composed, as it soon will be, of men anxious to promote national rather than personal and party objects; and whatever, therefore, may be the fate of Mr. EWART'S Bill in the present Session, there can be no doubt that, with a 'little perseverance, he will be able to produce an amelioration in the Criminal 'Law, and to prevent it from continuing what it is at present-an object of con'tempt and neglect, when allowed to slumber; and of horror and disgust, when 'roused into activity.'

In the sentiments expressed in the above passages we perfectly concur. The criminal apathy which disgraces

merely for the purpose of exposing a certain gallant Member of the "House of Commons, who, did he entertain no other sentiments unpalatable to the people of England but the one to which we are about 'to allude, we think we may safely conclude that a reform in parliament, 'whatever it may do for the country generally, will have the effect of 'speedily expunging his name from the list of British senators.

A few evenings since, when a Bill was before the House on the 'subject of the punishment by death, Colonel SIBTHORP opposed it, ' and in the course of his observations said, "he hoped that, next year, the expence of transporting convicts to New South Wales would be 'lessened at least one-third, by the prisoners being consigned to the 'gallows, instead of transporting them to foreign countries !"-Thus, 'while the enlightened portion of the community, from one end of the 'kingdom to the other, are raising their voices in behalf of such mea6 sures as shall remove the public burdens from the lower orders of 'society, and consequently diminish crime, by taking away one of its 'prolific sources-viz., excessive poverty; while every humane man in the empire is lamenting that the Criminal Code of England is the 'most severe in the civilized world-those of the "old school" are straining every nerve to delay the progress of civilization and good 'government; and, not content with opposing every measure, having 'for its object the good of the people at large, are seeking to imbrue their hands in the blood of those wretches who are, in many cases, the victims of their own corrupt legislation !

'We trust that at the general election, which must succeed the 'passing of the Reform Bill, all candidates who possess sentiments in 6 any degree in unison with those of Colonel SIBTHORP, will meet with 'that rebuke to which they are so justly entitled, and be driven from 'the hustings, as men unfit to represent the feelings and wishes of a Christian people.'-Essex Independent, 1832.