The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1810-05-02 00:00:00

membered well the state in Which that worthy

mind-was, up to the day of trial, all which lime he
persisted in his intention; but when the day ar-
rived, his resolution was overcome, and he confeasrd
to him, that, great mile considered the injury to
society, in abandoning the criminal to impunity,
yet he•could not answer to himself for being a party
in procuring his condemnation, though the mercy
of the Crown might afterwards remit the punish-
ment. Such was the way in which a man, far above
the weaknesses which might interfere in most cases,
decided upon the principle of severity of punishment.
Stich was the way in which all men would decide, in
cases where there was no proportiou between the
crime and the suffering attached. But it would he
right toconsider what the party abort to commit the
crime would think ; would they not recollect those
instances—would they not calculate upon the feel-
ings
.of human nature? But it was unnecessary to
contend soy farther; all writers of all nations had uni-
formly agreed that the certainty not the severity of
punishment, was that winch contributed most to
the prevention of crime. The Hon. Gentletnun
had stated, in the course of his speech, whit ap-
peared to him to make against his own argument,
which was the inclination of the jury to mercy,
even in eases where their conviction' led them ro
suppese the prisoner guilty. 111 such cases lutes
did they get out of the difficulty ? often by perjury ;
a perjury unjustifiable iii itself, but resorted to in
the hope of justification from the motive. This
was. a circumstance which the Legislature should
consider well ; the relaxation of those moral
obligations should never be encouraged or en-
fo►ced by the Legislature, as, in a•manner, they
were in cases of extraordinary severity. Bet the
lion. Gentleman had' •asked n hat punishments
should they substitute, if they were to do away ca•
pital punishments in the instancra provided by this
bill? Surely this was a point which his Hop. and
Learned Friend had not left in obscurity ; if the
lion. Gentleman had attended to whet he said on
first proposing the alteration, or if he had read the
Bill itself, he would have found that a punishineut
was provided, and that was transportation or im-
prisonment. at the discretion of the Judge, to be
regulated by the circumstances of the case. As to
solitary imprisonment, it ntigbt, perhaps, in some
instances, be beneficial to society ; it might have a
tendency to deter by its example, and to improve,
by its nature, the person upon whom it was
inflicted. He did think, alter a long nod care-
ful investigation of the criminal code of this
country, that it was too severe ; that, if carried
into effect, it would shock the minds of all men ;
even of those who contended for its reintiin-
ing in its present state ; lie, therefore. agreed
with his lion. and Learned Friend, that they
should take away the capital punishments from
many of the crime.; and lie hoped that he would
persevere in his career of humanity, without any
farther obstruction, until he had succeeded in
ameliorating the laws, adapting them more closely
to the scale of' justice, and giving them activity,
effect, and certainty, by giving them moderation.
Mr. D. Gun's- said, that he agreed with the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman iu many of hie pro-
positions, but he could not help thinking, that hie
career of humanity was undertakes. in too extensive
a sense. Ile wished that he had limited and con-
fined it more, sud if he had done so, he 'should have
been happy to contribute to forwarding his object,
leveled of obstructing it, as he now felt it his duty
to do. It was often his lot to contend for a middle
course, though he was aware that it was nut the
way to make any splendid figure in the House, or
out of it ; he preferred utility to splendour. That
the laws of England were too severe in some eases
was a proposition to which he must anent ; but,
though in some, they were not so in all, nor perhaps
in as many as the Hon. and Learned Gent. was dis-
posed to contend. In the words of the lion. and
Learned Gent. i. nature had set her limits to punish-
inents;"but it could not be said that the hewed Eng-
land in every instance transgressed those limits. lie
agreed that that which was called the erhitole! part
of punishment, should, in merry instances. be more
hutted, and that though perfection was sot a point
which they could ever hope to reach, they should
endeavour to approximate as much as possible to-
wards it in that, as irs every other minim Hr al-
lowed the truth of the obaerrwtinu, which the lion.
Baronet had uitle.that the certainty of the punish.

tuent would have a tendency to prevent
then the certriuty should be condmici
proper degree of severity. To Imes
atroc►ous otfences, which he did nut 'ink

he would give one instance of a crime
thought should still continue to be pun
tally; that was in the case of sheep-steno
vast numbers that were fed upon I,
mons could not otherwise be protected,
formed a very great part of the upe
the people ; for this reason he was of opt
sheep-steeling should still be punished •
As far as it was possible to ascertain the
punishment, it would be of use to do so.
not have interposed to stop the Hon. w
Gentleman in his career, if he had not mode too
general an application of the principles upon which
he set out. A certain degree of arbitrary or distil.-
tiouary punishment must exist at all times; mud as
it must exist, he thought it could not be rested be
well any where us in the Judge. He did not isi.g
for an unlimited discretion, neither did he at.li for
too narrow a one. In the narrow rod circuinveneed
state in which the human faculties were hound up,
it was necessary that it should be so. For his put
he was favourable to what, perhaps, many *wild
condemn him for, that was this opinion, that the
whole system of reformation would be Aritcarried
on by detail. He respected the laws of Envi„,d
much, bat he would never lit his respectearry Mrs
SO far as to oppose useful alteratious and &dewy
reform*.

ti,leept'sayegtei tonir irrre morn-
b his
l'iVottel.cit!irai
rein
dc,ounssipdaernt
01
ing the criminal julispredeuce of the ...my,. Th,..
observations of Dr. Paley had been coMmemed up-
on, mud objections raised against them, for the pur-
pose• of introduciug this nevi aytem. Bat, melees
the system intended to be introduced were such,
that the law could be carried iuto execution invan..
ably and inflexibly, the Hon. Gentleman het a
plied Iris arguments in vim. Those Cradle:um!:
who supported such daztrine, had already assumed,
that a system might be establishesl without dis-
cretilen. .Therefore, it was a necessary come-
garner, if a law were to be executed with-
out discretion, that it most he iavinialrle seed
inflexible. One of the testate:es alluded to in
support of this utibject, was the case el a pee-
ve) killed in a duel. That was a case oot
cruel, because attended with those circumstances
clutch sepurieted it from the ordinary coarse aide-
cisions upon offences of that description. lithe
law had been inflexible, either that esee could not
have been so decided, for the geeerality of those of-
fences were not eo punished, or it must have been
treated with the same lenity as the others,
attended with eircumstancea completely different.
Now. if discretion were set aside, supposing the pu-
nishment inflicted in that case to be right, then,
according to the system of his Hon. Friend, all•
others, however different in circumetanees, meet
be generalized with it. This would certatulto •
be generalizing the cases; but eireinustaticts,
being iniattended to, justice, in his opinioteiwoug
be rendered partial. With respect to ditcieholi.
it arose out of the nature of things; it (night be
an inconvenience, but it was one mankind emit.
submit to ; for unless laws were made so sppli-t
cable to every case, that they might be tended in.
variable stud inflexible, it could always exist float
necessity. Mv,, might its well talk of dinging
what was fluid, while remaining fluid, into sera. •
or turn what was moist into what was dry, as bind
down discretion by rules. Another instance had
beet' urged in support of this new system of crimi-
nal jurisprudence. It had been alleged, that is
the case of a man being tried for stealing torte
shillings in the dwelling-house, as the law now
stood, courtt Leon and execution because
the town was •iespected of having ••ore:noted mut.
der.' Accordingly, it Wei argued, that the punish.
merit of death was inflicted, not because a the
crime for which he was tried, but Because et se-pi-
ClOsi of murder, a crime for which he was not tried.
In other Cases the j • hinted was remitted though
the law had made it capital, and therefore th .
un-
certainty was complained of, mud the punishment
was condemned, when it is as enforced on act:omit of
circumstances. In addif to the case where the
punishment was inflicted through a stispiciem of mar.
der having hert4perpet reed, they hod cited another,
where the saineeffect resulted, because the offender
had suborned witnesses. Certainly there was some-
thing iii the argument ; it was a saying, ether last
feather bleeks the horse'. hack;" 90 far it might bre
that the last thing which was put on would
increase the weight, but no one could say that the
horse's back was broken by a feather. Circum-
stances were not the crime, hat they would veer
form a consideration of the crime. 'wired, it
might be exemplified by one of the most ride
colossi; instances, where a maw runs away with a
halter ; this might be a circumstance not &see-
ing of (heath, but it happened there was • horse
at
the other raid. What mischief could possibly erne
out of the present system of law ? for the
coition might be adopted in particuler instaecoe
and the advantage of the terror in all cares. Sol'-
posing a man were condemned, the alliantaiN
might extend in two ways. when he was trial for
the crime and condenneed for the circussodancee.
But that Was a Cabe not likely to hewn. If all
question were proposed in that /louse.
mud I
were inked whether he was for war or for rtliCV
why that WWI a question he coeld not avert
because it depended on circumstance-.
war or peace, uitiversally. he might i for Li
then; but ink hint as to' any particular ((Jr
peace, he would he enabled to give a 'II"'
answer ; hut the difference merely re hutted fr.
his being put in possessionof the cite umelaiii:
He really wondered at the arguments eln. li I'
been alleged by his llnnourahle fin ;.'e 01.
he was cmcideristily snrprised hew he
r.
iindersialid the uhservatines of Mr.
hail imputed to Obit eminent writer, et •'•
never bad meant by any expreicion
in his writings, m.ottle. thst it was l.'s el
the law should ; Hut be known. Th. re 0.:!
noaterial dietioetion to be taken between ells e'
knowing the law, and not kenning that the 1
would be ermined nitre execution ; fear.
keener the ks,. inal yet reiPain ri In' ••
it WOlll4l Of woeILIS Lora be Carried
Arid ill this case the execution ),
itio:fht
but the terror gerMral ; and it was the select
pretested the renaniission of the •. I :••

till
1.111
rev.
riga.

crime: hat
e,„l, a r eiV4
OVer 111010 Int"
• t
rite whuiti &tar
lashed KIVA
*ling. Thll1Ixe
saute
large e".. the I
• Mad they why
ibtesualwr u
Wah
1111 441
I with Berth. oleo
ere
I certainty r 4 th
0. Ile shouLti
ived (ion,
Les
• otter

ureic), of u,.e was the object of all laws, and
intimidation was the 'Beaus; for punishment was
indicted only for the purpose of producing intuni•
demi'. His lion. and Learned Friend had also ob.
that-where thirty men were convicted of the
pros crime, and only three of them executed, that
the law WAS useless as to the twenty-seven.—
Why, he WU.; suprised how amon could work him-
self up into such a confusion of arguateut. What,
was the terror of the law nothing ? Did nut the
executioo of the three midate the others, and
thereby prevent the commission of crime? The
whole of this question turned upon one considera-
tion, whither, instead of the system we now have,
whereby the terror is general, and the puuishineet
restricted, from the exercise of discretiou in the exe-
cation of the law, another could be adopted,
where the law could be executed invariably
sod inflexibly. To accomplish this object, re-
course ought to he had to definition, und it might
be extremely difficult to define, where the descrip-
tion was unavoidably general. Things, when token
iielividually, might be distinguished, but that would
wet be describing the species, for a description of
the species, which would be sufficient for knowing
the kind, wherever it was to he found, would not en-
able us to do the same individually. A circle, when
presented to the eye, was obvious, so was an elipsis,
an oblong, and every other figure differing Irons is
straight line. lint under n general description of
obese fignres, it would he dillieelt to distinguish
others, is hick approached to several, and did Out
belong to either; end yet, when they came before a
person, he might know them ; at the
untie time he would find it by no means easy to de-
fine or describe them. He might know the dif-
ference of indieul nal periwig when before him, from
a variety of circutustaisees; their tallness, their In-
nis thin, or being fat; but how to lay down the
proportion of these qualities would not be very
easy, so as to give definition. So with respect to
other animals, the same difficulty would exist in
attempting a definition of them individually. How
would his lion. Friend describe homicide I. To be
sure a distinction might easily he drawn between
excusable homicide and murder. Every one per-
ceived a difference between the act of a man who
tilled another for his parse, or way-laid him through
revenge,.and that of a man who accidentally, or jus..
tifiably took away his fellow-creature's life. But how
would his Honourable Friend distinguish in some
eases of manalaughter. which ho called justifiable
murder? Suppose he (Mr. W.) were asked, whe-
ther, in the case of two men who had been toge-
ther in a public house, and in the course of their
conversation had quarrelled, when one of them,
neatly provoked, took up the pewter pot and
killed the other, would that be murder or man-

slaughter? He could not say ; he could not answer
such a question without knowing sLeeiramititaanees.
He remens tered an instance, some years ago, where
a man Ming provoked in a shop, immediately went
over the way, and returned with a knife, and then
swore, that if any one provoked him as before,
be would run the knife into them. They quar-
relled again, iknd he did stab the other in the belly,
and his lioWils came out: Hoe would that be?
Why, hi felt at the time, and he knew now what
his nptuiou would have been ; but, if lie recollected
tight, the Jury acquitted him. Bat the whole of
these. and all other cases, inert rest upon the cir-
cumstances Which attended them. If the system
of definition were introdnced, a single hair might
save the offender. A great deal had been said of
cruelty ; bat that, like crimes, could only be pu-
nished according to circumstances; and his Ho-
nourable Fnend wns one of those who intruded
to ',import a law being made to punish cruelty.—
This was a kiod of anomaly in his conduct, for
these it was intended there should be nothing like
definition; indeed it was a subject which did not
admit the least definition, but was to affect the
lower orders only, and be left to arbitrary decision.
h is Honourable Friend was therefore at variance
with himself and the doctrine of his present argu-
ment. To have precise definition was impassible ;
the questioti must still be left to juries, it was im-
possible to work by machines entirely; there were
machinct in this town to make pens, and yet they
did not mike good prim: nor could they cause the
law to operate perfectly, it would be found an
incompetent machine. it was an erroneous eon-
eeptiti if any OUR supposed Dr. Paley had un-
dertaken to defend all the laws of this country, nor
did he himself intend to advance any suds propo-
sition. But he would again assert, crimes might
he very well described as they fell under tacertain
species; but when they came to be individually
considered, they might be widely different. They
might so far differ, that no description would de-
fine, for often the common definitions were only
founded upon comparison, and so it might be said
of his drawing a long or a short straw. He
was induced to behold all plans of innovation
with cousideralde jealousy. In these times he
lilt more inclined to do so. He did not men
any disrespect to the name of his Honourable
Friend, or that of oily other person.. He knew no
names ; bat he under.tood there was a society
e•taldished for the purpose of doing away capital
punishments. In observing upon this subject, he
might be thought-int...1...A1M with the principles he
had imhilied in consequence of the French revolu-
tion. Indeed lie was full of that revolution; for it
was above them, and beneath them; it was without
them, and within them, and every where around
then. lie could not but recollect, the French
entertained these . plans; there was a society in
that country, for the purpose of doing away ca-
pita! punishments; but they began by putting
their King to death.—(A latigh.).—They. perhaps,
determined dpon that transaction as the Agate of
their former codes of criminal jurisprudence. He
roust 4004 he entertained cousidentble suspicion
of all societies in this country, who attempted
innovations and improvements of the laws of
the land. This system was intended to over-
turn that of Dr. Paley ; but he trusted the
Hosea would pause before they permitted so con-
siderable an alteration. In .respect to the num-
ber of Penal Laws, that circumstance did net prove
*tie severity, for, tinder the prerent system, the
punishoienis might he few, as Dr. Johnson well
ob,erred in Scotland, alien some one, to convince
him of the cheat pnesti of eggsowid, there were no many
fora penny," that was not conclusive of their being
rheapi for though eggs might be many, pen. e
VIE ght few." The Right Hon. Gentleman con-

eluded by apologizing to the Houle rot taking up
90 much of their Clone ; but he lied been led to state

his sentiments upon this subject, because he had I
termed his opinion in deference to those who were
of all others perhaps most competent to joke of
the expediency of this measure, he ineaut the
Judges; and he believed the whole of them disap-
proved oldie alteration intended by his Honourable
Friend, in the Criminal Law of the land.
The MASTEIL of the RuLts said, thst the object
of the repeal of those laws was ct rt only most de-
sirable. The question to be considered was, whe-
ther the means of attaining that object would be
efficacious ? Nobody could deny what had been as-
ted by an Ilan. Gentleinan on the opposite side,
(Mr. Windham), namely, that capital punishment
was very seldou► inflicted fur the commission of
those crimes, the law respecting which occupied
their present consideration. Ile considered this as
a strong proof of the error, either of the law, or the
practice; and one of those must be inherently
wrong; whether they were both is, would after-
o Kr& appear. He conceived that the unfre-
quency of inflicting the extreme punishment,
was certainly a practice of most commend-
able nature. if the Judge dispensed with the
law which commanded tt.e►r infliction, it was a

breach of duty of which neither Mouse coruplaitred;
and which would appear, on the contrary, to be
countenanced by such authorities; the practice
then ►hould be considered most beneticial, it wa.

garded as such by the public, whom opinion re-
specting the law was very different ; they looked
upon the law as most seriously erroneous. So much
of the execution of the law depended upon the
people, that their concurrence in the propriety, or
repugnance to the existence of the law. should be
the chief considerations attending the discussion
of the present subject. Juries were selected from
the people and not from the Judges, and they were
to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the ac-
cused ; their opinions, therefore, with respect to
criminal law, were those to which the must serious
attentien should be given. If the law titer:fore
was not approved of by those upon whom its
execution depended, the consequence would be,
that there wmilit be no •xecution„of the lax at
all. But there appeared t.r he •at g•tderal, vett-
federney against those la“e, for the Juicy took
care in their sirch. i to ex;:lude the cvit:ii .part

of the punishaguit, for the crimes to winch those
laws alluded ; or if the Judges conc.ltved that
the infliction of the extreme punirtitnent was very
unfit, and moderated their sentence Jeeordingly,
the King's Witmen also acquiesced in U. too great
severity of such a pianishinent for such offences.—
It would be well if the mode of intimt.lation whit
it had been said the present laws field.ot„ would
be efficacious io preventiiii.; crime ; it would
then be advisable to continue those laws
in their primitive utichangeuble state ; but
such an effect couktnever attend such a iueasure.
He wished to know whetlwt it was the opinion of
Gentlemen that the laws should b. so framed, that
men should either get rid of them-, or their con-
sciences, by adhering to cleats Lie concluded by
observing, that a law was efficaitious in proportion
to its certainty ; where uncertaitity was increased,
efficacy was diminished. Ti.. object of the repeal of
these laws was the substitution of those which would
more effectually prevent crime. 'the punishment
to be indicted, in conformity to the present laws,
for crimes, compared with that punishment, most
trivial, was death, which should either be entirely
remitted or put into execution; the remission or
the ex.-cution would be attended with most mani-
fest disadvantages. Here there was a remedy to be
applied to this great error in the laws. lie conceiv,
ed that both the law and the praCtice required al-
teration. He would agree to the bills of his Hon.
Friend, because his experiment was one which might
he very fairly tried, end carried along with a high
probability of success.
The Arroavart-Gsosast. said, he could not
agree in the opinion, that the exigence of the pre-
sent laws prevented the prosecution of offenders ;
neither prosecutors, witnesses, or juries, were under
the influence of intimidation, or were obstructed in
their designs of bringing a criminal to justice. by
the fear of the execution of a punishment open the
guilty, too severe and sanguinary. Many offenders
had been executed, in consequence of committing
crimes, of the nature to which these laws referred ;
their punishineat was proportioned to their crime.
Many, also, who hail been found guilty, were, with
equal propriety, sentenced to suffer ponishinents
of less severity ' • but, by the power of intimidation,
many mischiefs were prevented. The innumera-
ble instances of the efficacy of terror, in preventing
crime, were tint visible to the eve, and were there-
fore accounted inconsiderable. With regard to the
privately stealing in a dwelling-house to the value
of forty shillings, he did not conceive that it was
always necessary to inflict capital punishment
for the commission of such an offence. lie knew
that many deserved to suffer the severest punish-
ment, who bad entered, by force, the cottage of
the indigent labourer, and deprived him of the
means of subsistence, and plunged his family logo
extreme poverty. When he found a law in exist-
ence, he always looked to its nature and efficacy in
remedying evils. if no evil could b: pointed out
in the law as at present administered, it ought not
to be altered for the sake of mere speculation. lie
had formerly practised in the Courts of Criminal
Justice, and hall sat on the Bench,l'hut, during
his experience, he had never known an instance
arson. which the Jury bad been deterred, by
the consideration of the severity of the punish-
ment which would follow • verdict of convic-
tion. He had certainly heard that prosecutors
had through humanity iuterfered for the pardon of
the convicted; lint rto such thing had occurred
within his knowledge, as the perjury either of wit-
ness or juryman, from the circumstances of the pious
panic which had been ascribed to them. But who
were those by whom the laws could be most clearly
expounued, by whom their effects could be mast
satisfactorily ascertained ? Certainly those Judges
who had been in the constant habit of dispensing;
justice; who had before their eye, every day, the
consequences resulting from those laws. The ques-
tion before the. House was one of most grave im-
portance. and contained so great a portion of the
lass of the realm; that the most mature delibe-
ration should be given to it. He would ask
those who cued out a!,diust the great severity of the
I pcmishoseutss whether they were not aware that

there were minor punishments, and whether those
punishments were not most frequently substituted
in the piece of extreme? What was to he acquired
by the repeal of those laws ? The power of trans-
po►tetion ? Why that power existed. The power of
substituting any other punishment ? That also ex-
isted. Why thim should those laws be repealed, if
nothing was to be gained by the repeal, lint that
which would appear beautiful to the eye ? He dis-
claimed the idea of agreeing with the proposal of
such a speculation. Ile therefore gave his opposition
to the Bills.
Mr. Mosaic said, that he had been in the
habit of attending the Courts of Criminal Justice;
and hail seen, that not only the witnesses, but the
jury, were guilty of perjury, for the purpose of
saving the prisoner from the punishment to which
his conviction would have doomed him. It would

...—.. -
be unnecessary to state the consequences, ii such a
relaxation of the laws were allowed. He would ad-

mit such pious perjury, such amiable weakness in
private life, hut he could not alloy► it to creep into
the Courts of 3ititice. The Attorney-General had

•
spoken to the feelings of the House,• in draw-
ing a picture of the sutierins of the cottvger
from depredations; but the circumstance was
by un means relevant to the question before the
House.—The crime of breaking into a cottage and
plundering therein, was not connected with the ease
of privately stealing. He considered the fal.e oaths,
which were taken upon the occasions to winch he
alluded, were au evil sufficient touccasiou the repeal
of these laws. _ _ •

The ArroaNEY.Geseast. explained.
Mr. Fassixt.sgu said, that if thoss laws were
so notoriously incompetent, lie woutlered.that
Magistrates (lid not come forward und labotir fur
the removal of them. Why did they not say, ae
have seen many melancholy instances, where the
prosecutor and the witnesses, in a case of criminal
prosecution, were guilty of perjury, ami commit-
ted the crime for the purpose of saving the life of
the accused. No such complaint as this was made;

*lathe contrary, the first law opinions in the king-
dom appealed to be unanimous in their sentiment.
with respect to it. luthis new system, there were
l
new punishments, as it was said, ejusdeas giroteris;
this was considered as an argument of unanswer-
able weight in favour of the repeal, but it was
out, the nature and weight of which he could
unt see. The military•code, all over the earth,
Was a power of inflicting the extreme punish-
ment, or any other that the Court thought
tit ; and how many deserters were punished with
death? Not one out of ten thousand. The
Criminal Laws of this country resembled the
alp.ve ; for the power of punishing in another wan-
ner thin by taking away life, was possessed by the
Courts where those offences weie tried. Was it in-
cumbent upon those Courts, because they had the
power of punishing with death, to execute that
power upon all occasions? A man walked along
the suburbs, and sat*, in the window of a horse, a
blundeibuss and a rattle ; if hr asked the owner.

upon seeing those instruments, how many men had
hr killed ? and the owner replied, l never used the
blunderbuss in my life ; was he, therefore, to put
it in the tire? The system of laws no;' in existence
was as well calculated as any that could he devised
for the prevention or the punishment of crime; if
the other system was carried, the manners and
the practices of the country should undergo a tote!.
change. In this country there was more tentptation
fur the commission of theft than in any other; tied,
of course, a greater necessity to guard 'Oust it.
In other countries the hand was watched while it
was acting ; in this, the systeM ivie, happy tOVITs
liherty, completely -diffeteat. Should the mode
observed in other couutries be adopted, and the
police be let in upon the amusements and
guities of England ? He had been where an
armed man came into ii ball room, observed the
1 particular manners of tae dancers, and if he
Paw any thing displeasing to him in the motions
of the company, he would insist upon their
turning partners in a different manner. Nothing
would be so pernicious as the nitroduction'of a
system of this kind. Where there was little pre-
ventive ,there should be much penal law. If this
sy.tein was adopted, the commercial system, the
manners, the lofty sprit, and the liberties of the
country, would be de.troyed.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Frankland) had been argots); against • sys-
tem which was never intended to be introduced by
bis lion. and Learned Friend (Sir Semite' Homilly)
who had introduced the Bill into the Home. He
ought to have considered the subject more fully be-
fore tie attempted to give en opinion ; he scold
find that, from the- reign of Queen Elizabeth,
capital punishmer.is had ibminished at least three-
fourths. In great cities, crimes were more twine-
roils than in country towns; at least they lied the
appearance of it; for the police were more active,
and a greater number of persons were brought to
trial. We have gradually opened our eyes to
the Penal Laws of- the country, and every marl of
• discerning mind must acknowledge that capital
punishments ought to decrease. He called on
them also to look to mirror punishments and of-
fences. Often was
sa MOO imprisoned Inc a small
offence, and when associated. he came opt a greater
criminal than when first sentenced ; and as the law
now stood,on a second indictment, the Jury would
convict,and the Judges senteace foe a crime, which,
by a former eenteuee, they had educated him to.
Suppose amen for the protection of his house had a
blunderbuss loaded, and a rattle affixed to his
dow, one to give alarm, and the other to oppose the
invaders. would it not be more laudable to spring
the rattle arid alarm his neighbours, than to tire off
the blunderbuss. without knowing the intention of
his assailant ? Could say man couscieutiouely say.
that the alarm was not the best mode? lie had
given this subj.et full consideration, and had
come to the conclusion, that it was necemary the
penal laws should be revised. The force of the
arguments of the • Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who brought the bill before them, were of that kind
that must convince every rational man of the good
the measure would produce. Ile thai.ked him
fur having brought it forward; his great mind alone
could have been capable of comprehending so
great • benefit, not only to the country hot to the
community at large. He felt hurt that the efforts
of the Hon. met Learned tivaleman (Sir Samuel
Rornilly), had not met the support which they so
much deserved. lie felt it au IIOCUIBbOBI duty on

. .
Parliament, that, as the country increased. cm..
lizatiou, the laws should become more lenient.
Under those considerations,tbe Bill should have his
full support.
The SoLimes-omgal. said, that, froM the
arguments that bad bleu used, it would Be'stip-
posed that the Act of the 19th of the present Slag
had been repealed. It.provided and made a dis-
tinction between the profligate criminal and the
one who was new to rite. This Act might not be
enforced. yet it was not a dead letter: and the
latter criminal was entitled to private imprison-
latent, where, by his reflectiob, he would be enabled
to purge his mind, and collie out pure. He knew
it from actual experience, at the place he first made
his academical debut. It was carried into execu-
tion ; and the man confined, and afterwards ace
gulped, did not feel the leaSt deprivation of dia.
racter. It had been found, that transporting fe-
lons had been a great evil •to the country, and
imprisoning them for a limited time was more in-
jurious. When a law remained on their books,
which would answer every thing' proposed- by the
measure under discussion, he could out vote for it ;
for allowing that it would be right that it should be
carried, it would take a length of time to put it
into execution. That the stealing in the duelling-'
know to the amount of 40s. Should he a capital •
punishment, he acknowledged had at one time
staggered him but he had conferred with profes-
aioual men, and found their sentiments quite dii-
ferent from the arguments of the lion. and Learned
Mover, (Sir 8. lierailly,) that prosecutors were
deterred from prosecuting, for fear the of
tenders would be liable to capital punishment.
lie own entered largely into the enormity of the
r:r4,ne of a mates imuse being broken into; and
ur4oe,l, that no punishment could be too great
for tie malefactor who attempted it, or carried it
iii:n execution. (Cries of Hear, hear./ He would
piave, that, although he thought the atrocity of
house-breaking so great, that no punishment could
he too severe far it ; yet those who were of a dif..
fereut opiniou, might prosecute a ithout making it
capital, by leaving out in the indictment, the
words .4 in the dwelling-house." Under all those
considerations, he would give his decisive negative
to the bill then under their discussion.

Mr. CANNINii stated, that he trusted the vote
which he should give that night, would not be
supposed to be influenced by the arguments of the
11311. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat
down ; in his (Mr. Ca ttttt nes) opinion, he had
argued the different points too widely ; for he
could not held that the system should be the •
same, however times might alter. if the Hoti.:•
and Learned Gentleman who brought forward the
present Bill, bud introduced a sweeping measure,
to do away the whole code of Penal Law*, the ar-
guments of the lion. and Learned Solicitor-General
aught be relevant ; but, in the present ivistwoces
they were completely irrtle vent. The Dill pro.
posed what was DOE only justifiable, but Practil
cable. It only went to diminish a discretionary power„„
which was then vested in the Judges. This the
Learned Gentleman would argue was doing nue.
thing ; but he would contend, it was doing a vast
'bill, fur it was putting the life of man out of
the discretion of his fellow-man.—(Aar, hear./
To the ill-regulated mind, the fear of an ignotni•
lIIOUS death might Sot deter the person in posses-
sion of it from committing enact whicifdwierveti
the punishment ; but to the well-regulated mind.
it would operate -differently. It would prevetlt hint
from probecaiting the culprit, for fear he 'night be
punished with death. The country gained nothing
by transporting ; he would rather it should lose, so
as the life of a subject was preserved. He was nut
desirous to grant a boon to the eulprit ; so far front
it, he wished him to be punished ; and, Whin con.
milting the crime, that he should know there were
not any means of escaping that salutary chastise-
ment. There was one question, Villich practical'
turn were not the best judges of, which wasp the
mode of leaving it in the power of jaries'
to say that au article stolen, although proved
to he of a greater value than 41 s. vet they should
return it guilty of stealing to the amount of
J9s." It was a perjury that ought to be pre.
vented ; and if there HAS one that the Omnipotent
Power could forgive, this was one ; for if perjury
could be amiable:in this feature alone it must be.
Perhaps perjury was too harsh a name for it. It
was mixed with mercy, and those refined genii...
means that brought this, country to its piesent ch.
vilizatiou. It *hewed that 'Englishmen would do
a little wrong to attempt
.the reformation of a fel-
low-subject. If it was a crime, it was of that
nature, the seraphs of heaven would look down on
earth, and, with • smile, erase the blot. lie con-
tended, that however light the crime might be, yet
Juries ought not to be put in the situation of being
enforced into any. The bill before them provided
against that law in the Penal Cotle, for which reason
he thought it ought to be adopted. (Hear! hear 11
They should •pproximaiet as nearly as possible, to
what was perfect, though they could not expect to
accomplish it. Of dime who were committed, it
was evident that but few were punished ; which was
• proof that there was something wrong. It was
right, therefore, to lessen the scale, in order to insure
the enforcement of punishment. Such an attempt
was not, as it had been termed, innovation ;—it was
revision and improvement. As to the danger of this
Bill leading to a greet and universal change in the
criminal jurisprudence of the country, he most say,
that he did not feel himself pledged by his vote 'iron
that night, to touch the hair of the Lead of soy
other law ; he only meant to give his vote on the
narrow question now before theta.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EICHIMUCIL said, that,
after the able arguments which had been already
urged, he should not trespass long, upon their time.
lie could not agree in the criticism of his Right
Hon. Friend upon that part of the Solicitor-Gene-
ral's speech which expressed an apprehension of
innovation. for such was to be dreaded, If, without
sufficient ground, they voted for the present Bill.
The question simply wes, whether it would have a
tendency to lessen clime ? If it had, he thought
thew should vote foe it; but if it had not, '
no other
surprised
practie

ground could Judd'', their support. He was.
to hear hss Right Flom Friend say,thistsillthe
eel authorities were so b.ilstsced, that he 'night take
his owo judgment. What was the feet with reaps et
to those authorities ? The fact was, that loot a ►iuylle
Judge or %gooses had sleclared himself to favour
.01 it. They were all against it, HI: laud uo btu-