amined, the greater part of them will prove to be no exceptions at all. The very exertions which on the near approach of death they find it necessary to make, in order to screw their courage to the sticking place, is the most convincing evidence which could be afforded, of their apprehension of an event which they pretend to regard with such perfect indifference. By most people, however, it is admitted that capital punishment may be an object of terror if sparingly used, but that the laws of this country so frequently enforce it, that like an overstrained spring it has lost all its efficacy either on criminals or the public; and that, at most executions, the feeling excited is adverse to the laws, and favourable to the sufferer. That the first emotion which arises in the mind on such an occasion should be that of commiseration for the culprit is perfectly natural, and that the feeling we have just mentioned has lately been in some instances loudly expressed, is indubitable. By whom, and by what means, and for what purposes, this clamour was raised and has been continued, it would not be difficult to trace, and somewhat instructive to explain. As usually happens, however, in violent ebullitions of popular passion, it owes its existence either to entire ignorance or gross perversion of the facts on which it pretends to be founded. It is believed by many, and those too whom one would expect to be better informed, that six or eight persons are executed at the door of Newgate at the beginning of almost every week throughout the year, besides hundreds who suffer in the course of the spring and summer assizes in the country. For the correction of such an error we shall quote the following documents from the Appendix to the Report. The first is a table, which will be found at page 196, of the number of capital convictions and executions in London, from the year 1700 to 1755 inclusive. In 1700 the convictions were 21, the executions 8. 1703. 9. 1. 1704. 6. 1.

1701. 14. 3. 1705. 19. 8. 1709. 10. 1. 1713. 28. 11. 1717.35.11. 1721.26.11. 1725. 15. 8. 1729. 14. 5. 1733. 9. 3. 1737. 12. 0. 1741. 11. 5. 1745. 8. 4. 1749. 12. 0. 1753. 9. 7.

1702. 8. 4.

- 1706. 11.

2.

0.

1710. 17.
1714. 28. 11.
1718.25. 5.
1722. 19. 12.
1726.22. 13.
1730. 7. 3.
1734. 7.

1738. 15.

1742. 12.
1746. 4.

1.

8.

6.

0.

The second is a table (page 136) of the number of capital convictions in London and Middlesex, from 1749 to 1818 inclusive. In 1749 there were 61 convictions and 44 executions.

The third is a table (page 132) of the total number of persons who have been committed, capitally convicted, and executed, in England and Wales, between 1805 and 1818 inclusive. In 1805 there were committed 4,605, capitally convicted 350, executed 68.

1806. 4,346. 325. 57. 1808. 4,735. 338. 39.

1810. 5,146. 476. .67. 1812. 6,576. 532. 82. 1814. 6,390. 558. 70. 1816. 9,091. 890. 95. 1818. 13,567. 1,254. 97.

1807. 4,446. 343. 63. 1809. 5,330. 392. 60. 1811. 5,337. 404. 45. 1813. 7,164. 713. 120. 1815. 7,818. 553. 57. 1817. 13,932. 1,302. 115.

It will now be seen how groundless the invectives are, which have been directed against the late supposed actual or comparative increase of executions. The fact is exactly the reverse of that which is assumed; and since the year 1750, executions have decreased in the exact proportion in which convictions have augmented. The difficulty no doubt is, to discover whether the decrease in the number of executions has been the cause of the increase of crimes. Had R 3

the

the increase of capital punishment invariably produced a diminution of convictions in subsequent years, or had a diminution of capital punishment produced an increase of convictions, the point would have been as satisfactorily established as the nature of the case will well admit. But a reference to the tables just quoted will shew that this result does not regularly happen. We are aware that in this department of policy, there are a greater number of circumstances to disturb the usual course of events than in almost any other. A distressed or agitated state of the country may have a tendency to increase crimes, though the terror occasioned by executions may greatly tend to reduce them; and on the contrary, the favourable state of all these may tend to diminish crimes, though the decrease of capital punishments would otherwise have increased them. As we have no desire to suppress any facts which bear upon so interesting a point of controversy, we have thought it our duty to insert the preceding tables as we find them, whether they may ultimately prove favourable to our opinions or not, and to leave those who examine them at full liberty to judge of them for themselves. To us it appears that the result of these tables is, upon the whole, hostile to the principles adopted by the Committee on the Criminal Laws, and that a great mitigation in punishment, especially if continued for several years together, has so generally been followed by multiplication of crimes, as to afford a strong presumption that a connexion subsists between them. A marked instance of this seems to occur in the years 1746, 7, 8, and 9, when no executions took place. It was towards the latter part of this period Fielding published his pamphlet on the late increase of robbers,' and accordingly we find that in 1750, when the course of lenity then adopted may be supposed to have become fully known to offenders, the number of convictions is double to that of the year before. In that year 9 were executed, and 8 in 1751, and the evil was again reduced. But by far the strongest confirmation of it, and indeed that upon which our opinion in this matter principally rests, is afforded by the experience of the last fifteen or twenty years. In 1805 the executions were to the convictions as 1 to 5, and in 1818 as 1 to 13, and in this short period the number of commitments and convictions has increased threefold. The Committee on Criminal Laws seem to have shewn satisfactorily, that this increase has not arisen from any temporary rigour on the part of prosecutors, nor do we think it can by any means be altogether accounted for from the circumstances of the times. The diminution of capital punishment appears to us a much more powerful cause than either; knowing, as criminals do, that this diminution has been produced by the reasoning and declamation which have during that time been so unremittingly directed against it. Mr. Harmer has remarked

in

in his evidence, that thieves observe the sympathy of the public. 'It seems (he says) to console them, and they appear less concerned than those who witness their sentence.' It not only consoles but emboldens them. Most of those who are tried for crimes are not persons who pay any attention to the letter of the law, but the administration of it, and finding capital punishment getting out of vogue, they are induced by the removal of that check to persevere in evil themselves, and enabled to corrupt others. Of all persons we have ever seen, criminals are the most acute in discovering arguments in their own favour, and in turning to advantage the sentiments and observations of others indicative of pity for their situation. While we express great reluctance to withdraw old or desperate offenders from capital punishment, we hope we have let slip no expression which can be construed into an approbation of its inconsiderate exercise. In those cases in which we might wish severity to be displayed towards the few, we are conscious of being prompted by no motive but that of compassion to the many; being well persuaded that punishment may be mitigated to so great a degree, that thousands may deplore it as the cause of their imperceptible deviation from innocence. The abolition or extreme restriction of capital punishment may therefore have effects more painful and deplorable than those of capital punishment itself, and not the less real, because it is impossible to specify the manner and individual instances of its operation. The result of it in this country seems however in some measure capable of being made apparent. Commitments have increased from 4,605, and convictions from 2,783, at which they stood in 1805, to the enormous number of 13,567 and 8,958, respectively, at which they stood at the period of the last returns. So far then, as the experiment has yet proceeded, it is a more severe, and not a more mitigated administration of the Criminal Laws, which it seems to countenance.

III. The third and last subject into which we proposed to inquire, was the best method by which the Criminal Law may be improved. Instead of adopting that plan of proceeding which the Committee appear to have done, and introducing a number of amendments one after another, we submit with great deference, whether it would not be every way more advisable at once to attempt a consolidation of the whole system.

We are aware of the suspicion with which such a proposal cannot fail to be received; but we can assure those who may be in any degree alarmed by it, that we are no friends to unnecessary innovation, and have not offered the opinion now expressed without deliberation, or acceded to it without reluctance. In doing this, we are anxious however to guard ourselves against being supposed to entertain any propensity to the introduction of theoretical principles

R 4

:

ciples into any portion of our jurisprudence. We wish for no new materials to construct a fresh Penal Code, but only a more convenient distribution of the old ones. The criminal law of this country is now spread over so many volumes, and the enactments on the same subject are in many cases so numerous, complicated, redundant and incongruous, that the time seems to have arrived when the legislature is called upon to make a strenuous effort to reduce it to a more intelligible and compact form. It must not be supposed, however, that such a measure is now broached for the first time. It is true indeed, that no serious step has ever yet been taken towards its accomplishment; but it is matter of historical record, that it was as distinctly contemplated 200 years ago as it can be at the present moment. Not to mention the appointment of Commissioners for the reformation of the canon law by 27 Hen. VIII. c. 15., and 3 & 4 Ed. VI. c. 11., it is stated by Lord Bacon, v. 2. p. 326. to have been announced by the chancellor in full parliament, during the 35 Eliz. that it was her Majesty's intention to amend the laws and it appears by the Journals of the House of Lords of the 23d of July, 1610, that it was part of the claim of the House of Commons, in the treaty with James I. for the abolition of the Court of Wards, That His Majesty be petitioned to appoint some to make a diligent inquiry of all the penal statutes of the realm, to the end that such as are obsolete and unprofitable may be repealed; and that 'for the better ease and certainty of the subject, all such as are 'profitable concerning one matter, may be reduced into one sta'tute.' We shall add nothing to diminish the clearness, energy, and comprehensiveness of the expressions here employed. Whether the subject was at all revived during the next 100 years, we do not know. It appears by the Journals of the House of Commons, v. 22. p. 71, that a Committee was appointed to consider the laws in being with respect to the punishment of criminals, and how the same may be made more effectual,' and that another was appointed in 1770, (Journals, v. 33. p. 27,) to consider of the criminal laws;' but it would seem that the first had no effect, and it appears by the volume last quoted, that the second contented itself with recommending the repeal of four obsolete and unimportant enactments. But these ineffective intentions of the government are not the only circumstances which afford countenance to such a cousolidation as that which we have mentioned. It is further supported by the recorded and concurring opinions of Bacon, Coke and Hale -names which, considering the extent of their capacity, and experience in business, ought to have greater weight than those of any three lawyers that ever lived in England. For the sentiments of Lord Bacon, we refer to his Dedication, to Queen Elizabeth, of his Elements of the Common Law of England, and still more particularly to the proposal made by him to James L. touching the

com