The Express.
London, England, 1850-03-08 00:00:00

se nimble as he is expensive, and that he is in sit
respects worth his money in the field. But whether
these storing ipialities of the British soldier may not
be obtained, The wanted, in a shorter time and at a
less cost than keeping Ali peemswat y 139.000 of
'these saes, most of them in oobaise, where they have
no enemy to °combat save the climate. and a great
properties actually reaming about, aid consequently
Iwith their genies lost to the state for this time—
these are points well worthy of cossideratios.

Two years have prod since the first important
inroad was legislatively made upon the right of
Trial by Jury. The 10 St 11 Victoria, dup. 82.
'commonly known by the name of the 'larvaeOffeaders Act, deprived the children of the poor of
their only protection against magisterial caprice,
stupidity, or ',ricketiness. Its easetinants may be
summed up briefly thus : that whereas hungry and
homeless children are much give* to appropriate
unlawfully the crumbs whisk fall from rich men's
tables, and whereas it is a bore to be obliged to hear
their story, or to pay for their keep until it shall be to
the convenience of the Great Unpaid to tremble at
quieter sessiens—it is therefore expedient that any
two gentlemen, who may happen to hold the cem-
mission of the peace, may order wild friendless and
audeferded outcasts tra,be flogged or imprisined, as
unto their said worships shall seem fit.
The pretence for positing this-pi:lid and oppreezive
lavi was the reformation of offenders, and the saving
jueimile offenders from the contamination of associating
with the other inmates of primal. As for the solicitude
expressed for the benefit of the victim clue, we know
pretty well what that moans. It was always for the
benefit of the working man that the priceof his loaf was
raised. And it is the self same influence that parades its
'pi-drivel philanthropy in both mess. It is the spirit of
landlordism that alternately craves power to exact,
and power to punish at its own unbridled will
But why should not the delinquencies 4 the poor be
judged as fairly as those of the rich? Why should
not equal opportunities be afforded for defence or ex-
tenuation ?Vi is the sense or decency of guarding
the string and wealthy from the possibility of injus-
tice, and Bulging the mast helpless and destitute poe-
tise of the community to be dealt with as the squires
in each parish please? Is it because they are poor,
or because they are young, or because they are
powerless to resist the face of secusation, both from
their youth and their poverty, that the sons and
daughters of the poor are to be consigned to &tribunal,
alike incompetent and irresponsible? We would as
soon draw lot' fora decision on a question of crimi-
nal evidence as abide by the judgment of an average
bran of country justices of the peace. And the un-
fortunate arraigned would of operas much rather stand
the hazard of the dir, for then they would have a
chance of crape, whereas now, *Wee certain circum-
stances, they have none.
And now it would appear that, emboldened by the
success of their late encroachment oo the principle of
jury-trial, the landlord party in parliament m. ditate
a further step with the same benevolent aim.,
A bill has already punt' a first and second
reading far the further extension of the power
of summarily dealing with all cases of poly larceny,
where the magistrates think fl: to surmise that the
accused is under 16 years of age. The stammering
boy or timid girl who may have incurred the seep,-
cion of any retainer of Sir TAreshon, or Mr. Lock-up,
may be cast into a gaol for three whole months, at
the summary direrttion of those worthies, should
bill now pending pass into a law. At present no
individual can be so dealt with whose age exceeds
14. Bad enough in principre and practice even as it
stands—what would it be were another leaf added
to the statute ?

As an experiment, the law of 1847 has notoriously
failed. Toe number of committals of juvenile
offenders, u has been clearly shown by Mr. llerjeant
ADAMS, in his charge to the grand jury of Middlesex,
has greatly increased since its provision' came into'
eneration. Instead of lessening the number of youth-
ful prisiners in our gaols, the effect of giving tin-
checked scope to magistiatis has been to swell the
crowd deplorably. Corporal punishment, the infal-
lible the urce of arbitrary and intemperate tribunals,
has been made use of most anscruoulonsly ; but all to
no purpose. Tee wrongfully condemned have gat e
forth tainted by contact with the ruffisnism into the
midst of which they have been temporarily flung ;
and the vicious, warned by experience of the impels.
demos of perpetrating small them, are found return-
ing, after a brief interval, charged with more serious
offincer, for which, because they are more serious, on-
esgacious legislators have decreed that they shall
have a fairer trial, and ten times a greater chance of
escape.
A very excellent pamphlet by Mr. Witthroat—
entitled, "Is Trial by Jury worth keeping ?"—we
c .mmend to the careful perusal of every person
who takes an interest in this painful but important
subject. It is perfesrly clear, that if the Lew crusade
against the legal liberties of the poor be not resisted
promrly and peremptorily, an additional source of
clue distrust and hatred will be implanted which it
may be difficult to eradicate hereafter. To measure
crime by a tariff of prices which the things purloined
will fetch at the pawnbroker's, is to resuscitate in all
its iniquity the ancient distinction between the upper
and the lower ranks of society, in matters where the
law should be administered indifferently and without
respect of persons. A gentlecou's son, who is detected
in an attempt to cheat one of his clas;fellows, is with-
drawn from school, and sent abroad for a year
or two, until the elderly female gossips of the family
have ceased to talk about the matter. " Poor fellow !
He wae, after all, so well disposed in every other par-
ticular. It would be cruel to remember—almost ill-
natured to believe—him actually guilty of petty lar-
ceny." But the hungry widow's child who has been
caught filching a loaf from a baker's cart,or snatching
a bundle of faggots from the loosened pile—" the
young scoundrel! he must be taught how he dares to
rob; let him be kept in a prison for two or three
months, and flogged every now and then by the
hangman, until he faints."
We have received many communications on the
subject, to which want of space and time alone have
hitherto prevented us from adverting. But we shall
certainly Lot allow the question to drot"; and we
hope that parliament will never suffer itself to be in-
duced to sanction any proposition for the further ex-
tension of irresponsible jurisdiction in criminal mat-
ters. There is no conceivable reason why trial by
jury should not be abolished in cases of burglary or
forgery, if it may be dispensed with in cases of lar-
ceny. Indeed there is much tem reason; inasmuch
as the gravity of the offence and the amount of public
attention it is sure to excite, =natant* no trivial
guard against those abuses of judicial authority
which are apt to occur in regard to more common-
place offences.

Tae beet moral law is that which springs from
universal assent, and the beet punishment is that
which universal custom and opinion inflict. In
heinous crimes this is not seltsufficient. It re-
quires the prison, the judge, and the executioner
to carry it out. But there are portions of the moral
code which society can enforce to the utmost, almost
without an effort, and without even procedure or sen-
tence. In such a way is the moral code which con-
gers@ the relations of the sexes carried out. The law
whisk guise that coanexion is the opinion of society,
whisk is armed with its own peculiar and effectual
made& In support of the moral law of opinion
uses that of religion.
We know of no cue in which statute or legislative
easements have been made to come in aid of social
judgments and penality, where harm snd injustice
have not come of them, whilst no advantage has ac-
crued. Such enactments are oily tolerable when
they keep price with, and do not golnyond opinion. U
they do, they defeat themselves. Whilst If they
merely substitute a statutory prohibition for a Local
one, they disarm social reprobation, and make the
thing a matter of law, which had better been left cam
of cone fence.
There is no one, who has considered the gulden
which suggests these remarks, them arriage via a
deceased wife's sister, but must desire that fl bid
never been discussed. Morally and rel' van
both dictate, not to encourage such m /111
at the same time, as the prohibition of them
cannot be so strongly and s° clearly based, as to war-
rant the punishment of those who conscientiously
and freely contracted them, prohibition in such
cases would be idle, and punishment unjust and cruel.
As to the religious question, it may be argued front
this till doomsday without being °occlusive. And
when this is the ease, it is against the very funda-
mental principle of protestantum, as well as against
every liberal feeling, to decide upon it dogmatically,