not one of the most insignificant of those that hastened the depravation of the morals of that once glorious Rome. Do we find that those who have seen Russia in its present state, discern more vice, more robberies, more murders now than before the time of Elizabeth? Do they not on the contrary find more virtue, more corrected vice? But if we wish to have a more clear and satisfactory proof of its sufficiency, let us look to Tuscany. We shall there find that the criminal records bear witness to the truth of the assertion, that lenity is the best corrector of vice; every one must have heard of the effect-the greater crimes almost disappeared; the lesser ones diminished.

But against us, many will bring that thread-worn argument of this doctrine having been from the beginning, and having been continually prevalent. From the beginning it was not; for Cain had a mark set upon him, that none should kill him: and by whom and upon whom was it placed? By God, upon a murderer. It was indeed ordained by God, against the Jews, that for certain crimes they should be stoned, but this nation was stiff-necked and obdurate of heart. Besides this, theocracy can be no rule for democracies and monarchies : guided specially by the hand of God, every crime in that nation, was a crime against him, and hence its magnitude was increased ten-fold. The Romans, besides, as above stated, adopted a contrary plan. It is therefore evident, that it has not been universally prevalent. But even if it were so, what then?-What nation on the face of the earth has not always joined with its ideas of God the passions of men? The obdurate and vindictive Jews made their God passionate, revengeful, visiting the sins of the father on the third and fourth generation.'--The

Such was the explanation this people gave of one of the most beautiful and reassuring passages in the Old Testament-Exod. xx. 5. Where God promises that he will support the generation of the wicked to the 3d and 4th generation, but of the good to thousands.

loose and cunning Greek painted his Jupiter and celestial court as lewd and treacherous-the proud though noble Roman, as vicious, but as one who with his nod shook the heavens and the earth. Has not every nation sacrificed human victims to their false ideas of God?-The Philistines, the Druids, the Hindoos, the Carthaginians, the Romans sacrificed their citizens to their angry idols. Shall we then from these early and popular errors, argue that God is but man in vice? Certainly not: then why bring this as an argument to impugn doctrines no less consonant with reason than even the goodness of God?

Some will pretend, because these laws have had the sufferance of our ancestors, that we, bowing to their superior wisdom, should not presume to touch, what (from mere rottenness perhaps) would crumble at the approach of a meddling finger. According to this kind of doctrine, man should bow to the errors of childhood, and because, when a child, he learnt to read well, he should preserve as well as the reading the trembling at going in the dark along a passage or into a neighbouring room; for what are those ages when our ancestors lived, but as it were an infancy to our present boyhood, when we are to be occupied in rubbing off those smaller imperfections, which, though not displeasing in childhood, now disgrace the state entering into manhood. Those who absurdly maintain, as we have heard many, the perfect wisdom of our ancestors, injure instead of augmenting their reputation.-Let us give them that merit which certainly they deserved, of applying, according to the best of their judgment, a remedy to whatever evil appeared in the frame of our constitution; but do not let us pretend, that they either had an insight, almost infinite, into the causes and effects in the policy of law, or that they had a foresight, worthy of any being but man, that could, enable them so to form their laws, that at one moment they might serve to stop a broken lane and at another the portal of the

edifice of our constitution. They did not expect that their laws would not want revision, any more than the laws of their forefathers, for they must have well perceived the absurdity of such a proceedure, which would, if every generation had followed it, have left nations in the hands of a king, wielding a rod for a sceptre, and applying it perhaps in the same manner, as did the first British father to his refractory children. It was not by following this line of conduct that they gained the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act.

That there are cases where the death of the offender is necessary, is not what we mean to deny-Murder is a crime so heinous, so horrible, and one so above the reach of any other punishment that we think in this case, death necessarily should follow death. Some, however, have doubted, amongst others Beccaria, whether we should not inflict death in the case of conspiracy against the country and in the case of rebellion. This case at first seems to admit of doubt. It is said that the welfare of a whole nation depending on the stability of its government, and that an attempt to disturb it not injuring one but many, should induce us to inflict death, in order to deter others more quickly; thus cruelty to one being indeed mercy to the many whom it deters, and proving the welfare of all whom it saves. In cases of anarchy, in cases where all law is laid aside and the appeal is made only to the sword; there, as right and wrong have indeed nothing to do with the question, we cannot pretend to talk of the right of death-since no right is acknowledged but in cases, where the laws yet have sway. Where the sovereign yet rules over a willing people, we think that death would be useless and hence unjust; for would not perpetual imprisonment answer every purpose, if the majority of the nation was against the disturber of its peace? and if it was not so, it would not be the decapitation of one or many, that would fulfil the purpose of the weaker side.

But after thus having attempted to show the injustice, impolicy, and absurdity of the present distribution of the penalty of death, the question will naturally be proposed, how can we change them to advantage? This we cannot better answer than by referring to the speeches and conduct of Sir Samuel Romilly; a man, who, whatever those may say, whose foolish pride is flattered, by the opportunities afforded them from the vagueness of the application of our Penal code, to use arbitrary power, is certainly not a rash disturber of the old and good constitution; but a man whom every patriot must revere, every Englishman venerate. He has begun to stamp the sandy and unsettled deserts of our criminal law with footsteps, that may guide those who follow him in the cause of humanity. Going upon the sound maxim of our ancestors, he has begun the reform in those parts which most called for the healing hand, and instead of going upon vague theories and loose ideas, he attempts the remedy of the evil by gaining the clue of experience, in the smaller crimes, to guide him through the labyrinth of various opinion and to give us an opportunity of learning by our success in these cases, whether we may adopt the same conduct in others. He is a man undismayed by dif ficulties, unmoved by wanton opposition, or, we should fear, the might be disgusted by the strange perverseness he has met with in many members of our parliament. Some laws, which he condemned, have been abrogated-and though the others, which he proposed altering, have been retained, still we will not despair, seeing them in such able hands but that in time he will gain not only this point, but also pursue the career he has so well begun.

The history of his proceedings in this subject can be told in a few words.-The first of our unjust and obsolete statutes that he attacked was that of Elizabeth (8 Eliz. c. 4.) which rendered the picking pockets capital; of which he obtained the repeal, and which by 48 Geo. III. c. 129. was made a felony within clergy, and punishable with transport.

ation or imprisonment. He next, in the same manner as the last, but not with the same success, sought the repeal of 10-11 Will. III. 12 Ann, and 23 Geo. II, which make the crime of privately stealing in a shop to the amount of 5 shillings, and in a dwelling-house, or ship, or navigable river to the amount of 40 shillings, capital felonies. What could be the intention of the opposers of this motion? the same reasons as induced them to coincide in the first should have led them to join in the repeal of these; especially as it is a notorious fact, stated in the returns of the secretary of state, that during the space between 1802 and 9, 1872 persons were committed to Newgate on these statutes and that only one was executed. He was twice defeated, once by a majority, we think of 2, in the house of Commons, and in the next Session by the house of Lords. Not disheartened by this, Sir S. Romilly immediately after proposed, (upon petitions from many bleachers stating that from the enormity of the punishment of death against those who stole linen from a bleach-field, they could get none punished, as both jurors and judges dismissed the guilty with impunity,) the repeal of the act 18 Geo. II. c. 27, where this offence is made a felony and since that, he has gained the abrogation of the law, 39 Eliz. c. 17. inflicting the punishment of death on soldiers and sailors who are found begging without testimonials of their discharge. This has been till now the ca- reer of this distinguished lawyer, which we hope he will pursue unmoved by the false cry of alarm for the constitution, raised by some. We hope indeed he will not stop here, but if he finds, of which we make no doubt, that vice diminishes, and does not, as these snarlers pretend, increase, that he will continue, and gradually reduce our criminal law to a form for which we may need no longer to blush in the presence of foreigners who inquire into the administration of our justice, and who till now have continually reproached us with its sanguinary nature.