had made of lowering the duty on various articles of consumption, especially in the instances of glass and paper. The trade in those articles, which had previously been in a state of progressive diminution, was now rapidly increasing; but with the present small balance of income in hand, which for the current year he had shown could not be calculated at more than 384,000l., it was obviously impossible for a minister in his situation to propose any speculative reduction of taxation.

Some discussion, or rather conversation, as usual followed in the House, upon the close of the chancellor of the exchequer's statement, in which several members proposed their various financial or economical nostrums for the benefit of the country; but we do not find any thing in their suggestions of sufficient interest to extract.

It will have been seen from the speech of lord John Russell in the debate on the address to the queen, that almost the only measures of legislation of which it was thought necessary to press the immediate enactment, were certain bills which had been introduced for the improvement of the criminal law of the country. It is with an account of these that we shall conclude our history of the present session. It will, perhaps, be thought, that the most important part of the business of it, is not that which occupies the greatest space in our historical abstract. Of the debates which fill our preceding pages, a large portion, it will be seen, had little other object than the expression of party feelings or abstract opinions; and ended in no practical legislative result. On the other hand, measures of the most important nature in their bearing upon the real

interests and convenience of the

community, are often passed through all their stages in both Houses, with so little discussion or agitation; that a large part of the community are not aware that any change has taken place in the law at all, till they feel it in its beneficial operation.

Our readers are aware that in 1833, a royal commission was issued for the purpose of inquiring how far it might be expedient to reduce the written and unwritten criminal law of the country into one digest; and to report on the best manner of doing it. A report was made on this subject in 1834; and while the commissioners were occupied in carrying, in some degree, their own recommendations in respect of it into effect, they were further called upon by government to state their opinions on the subject of the employment of counsel by prisoners, and on the punishment of death. In their second report, which was made in 1836, this was done at much length. One result was the bill which was passed in the preceding session for allowing the assistance of counsel to prisoners in criminal cases; another was the introduction in the present one of a series of bills having for their object the abolition in many cases of capital punishment.

This important subject had been brought before the House of Commons on the 23rd March by lord John Russell, who justly observed, that if it were thought right that a change should take place in the law on this head, it should as little as possible be delayed. The noble lord began by discussing the general doctrines advanced by Paley on the use of severity in criminal punishments; but his remarks on this part of the subject were neither very new or very luminous. The statistical details of his speech are of more interest. He stated, that in 1835, the whole number of capital condemnations was 523; but the number executed was only 34. In 1836, the number condemned was 494; of whom 17 only were executed. In certain offences, the punishments bear a remarkable disproportion to the convictions: there were twenty-five persons convicted of murder in 1835; of these, one was pardoned in consequence of an informality in the indictment; three were transported for life, and the other twenty-one executed. But in the same year of 193 persons sentenced to death for burglary, one only was executed; sixty were convicted of the crime of shooting with the intent to murder or maim, and only two were executed; and of 202 cases of capital conviction for robbery, no one was carried into effect. Since 1832, there have been but three executions for burglary. Lord John Russell detailed the particular circumstances which seemed to render severity necessary in these cases; but he observed they were widely different in themselves; and that as men's minds might be expected to differ much upon the circumstances of aggravation which call for capital punishment, it was placing both the judges and the secretary of state in a very painful position to leave the decision of the life or death of a fellow creature so wholly to their decision. Moreover, such a state of things necessarily gave a character of great uncertainty to the operation of the law; and rendered it less calculated to inspire that salutary dread in offenders which was the object of criminal

punishment. Where so large a proportion escape, the offender naturally hopes that it will be his own luck to do so.

Judging from the effect of what had already been done in the abolition of the punishment of death, in certain offences, Lord John Russell observed, that there was no reason to apprehend, that i had increased the commission of them. He took the instance of the crime of forgery, which, with the exception of the cases of the forgery of powers of attorney and of wills, was now punishable by transportation only. The number of persons committed for this offence in the three years previous to 1833 was 155; and in the three following years it amounted to 210. In the first instance only 58 per cent. were convicted; in the latter period the number convicted was 71 per cent. From this it appears, that there is no great increase in the number of offences, while the number of convictions is materially increased; and the reason of this last effect is ascribable to the diminished reluctance to prosecute now that the offence is no longer capital.

Lord John Russell here stated, that in a recent case a man had been tried and convicted of forging a power of attorney. That offence was yet capital, but before the case came before the king in council, the Secretary of State received a communication in the name of a considerable body of the bankers of London, expressing their objections to capital punishment; and also another from the governor of the bank of England, stating, that though the bank directors did not think it their duty to interfere, they had no wish to press for capital punishment. Lord John Russell considered this as an encouragement to proceed in their course of mitigating the punishment; and particularly for doing it away in the two reserved cases in forgery.

The principle, as suggested by the commissioners, on which the noble lord proposed to proceed, was, that capital punishment should be confined to high treason; and, with some exceptions, to offences which consist in or are aggravated by acts of violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger life. Upon this ground it was proposed, that capital offences should be reduced to-1st, high treason; 2nd, murder; 3rd, attempt to murder; 4th burnings of buildings or ships; 5th piracy; 6th burglary; 7th robbery; 8th rape. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th kinds of offence were to be capital only when committed under circumstances, or accompanied by acts directly calculated to endanger life. Thus, the setting fire to stacks would no longer be punishable by death; the crime was no doubt a heinous one, but the seve

• We think it convenient to add the following list of offences still punishable with death by the recent acts for the amendment of the criminal law: 1. High treason. - 2. Murder.-3. Attempting to murder, by administering to, or causing to be taken by, any person, poison or other destructive thing.-4. Attempting to murder, by stabbing, cutting, or wounding, or by any means whatsoever causing to any person any bodily injury dangerous to life. - 5. Rape.-6. Unnatural offences.-7. Piracy, whenever accompanied with an attempt to murder any person.-8. Robbery of any person, accompanied with an attempt to murder the person robbed, by stabbing, cutting, or wounding. -9. Burglary (that is, housebreaking between nine o'clock at night and six in the morning), accompanied with any

rity of the punishment had only had the effect of deterring prosecutions.*

The abolition of the punishment of death for certain offences naturally suggests the inquiry as to the secondary punishments which are to be substituted for it. Upon this point Lord John Russell expressed considerable doubt whether the present system of transportation ought to be continued. In theory, it seems highly desirable to remove an offender to a great distance from the scene of his crime, that he may have an opportunity of beginning a new life under his altered circumstances. The accounts, however, of the practical working of the system are very unsatisfactory. The four or five thousand persons who are annually sent out to New South Wales are not absorbed by the population, but continue to form a large and separate vicious mass. Crime and vice consequently are lamentably on the increase in the settlement; and the continual importation of fresh cargoes of criminals threatens to aggravate these

attempt to murder any person in the house, or if any person in the house shall be stabbed, cut, wounded, beaten, or struck by the burglar.-10. Unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to any dwelling-house, any person being therein.-11. Unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to, casting away, orin any wise destroying any ship or vessel, either with intent to murder any person, or whereby the life of any person, lawfully being herein, shall be endangered.-12. Exhibiting any false light or signal, with intent to bring any ship or vessel into danger, or unlawfully and maliciously doing anything tending to the immediate loss or destruction of any ship or vessel in distress.-13. Every accessory before the fact to any of the above capital offences is punishable with death, in like manner as the principal felon.

une

evils indefinitely. Moreover, the punishment operates very qually on the convicts; it depends on the humour or temper of the masters to whom they are usually transferred, whether their situation should be one of indulgence and enjoyment, or of perhaps intolerable hardship. Nor is there any merit in the system on the score of economy; it costs the country from 350,000l. to 400,000l. annually.

Accordingly it was proposed to abridge the number of cases visited by the punishment of transportation, but to agravate its operation in those which continued subject to it. No person should be transported for less than ten years; it having been found, that the effect of a shorter period was to make the criminals insolent and unruly. The next period should be for fifteen years, and the last for life. A certain hour of labour in the chain-gangs was to be allotted to all the prisoners, and indulgences dispensed to them according to their good conduct. These, were however, merely suggestions on the part of the noble lord, who did not in the present session bring in any general measure, with a view to carry them into effect.

No opposition whatever was given to the passing of the bills through the Commons; but we have seen that it was not till almost the very eve of the prorogation (July 4), that the second reading of them took place in the House of Lords. It was moved by lord Denman, who alleged, in support of them generally, the same facts and arguments which had been employed by lord John Russell in the other house. Lord Lyndhurst gave his full support to the principle and object of them;

only pointing certain inconsistencies and anomalies of detail, which were afterwards rectified. The measures were likewise warmly advocated by lord Brougham. He said, indeed, he was disposed to go much further in the abolition of capital punishments, than was proposed by the present bill. He gave it as his opinion, founded on much thought and long observation, that the punishment of death bad altogether failed in the accomplishment of those objects which alone could justify its infliction. He was strongly inclined to question the propriety of awarding it at all; as he conceived the spectacle only tended to brutalise those who witnessed it. The noble and learned lord went on to say, that the efficacy of punishments, generally, was, in his opinion, unsatisfactory. He was not frantic enough to think of abolishing them altogether; but experience did not prove that the punishment of one offender had the effect of deterring those who witnessed or heard of it from the perpetration of the same offence. There was, he observed, another mode of prevention far more effectual-he meant a paternal government, superintending the education of the people, the encouragement of good habits; and, above all, the spread of infant schools. Lord Brougham declared, that if these were as universal as the public had a right to demand; and as it was the bounden, paramount, imperative, and sacred duty of the government to make them-it was his firm belief, founded upon every hour's experience, and by every day and night's reflection fortified and rooted still deeper in his mind, that they might look forward with confidence towards a general and effectual mitigation of the criminal code.

It might have been remarked, that if the noble and learned lord's anticipations were realised, a reformation of the criminal code would be the least urgent of the duties resulting from the change; for the code itself, whatever be its enactments, would become a dead letter. The objection which he alleged of the brutalising effect of public executions deserves consideration. It is of somewhat recent discovery, but may not be, therefore, the less founded in truth. We may observe, however, that it is not so conclusive against the employment of the penalty at all, as it is against the publicity of its infliction. Among the amend ments to the measure which were made by the lords was one changing the term of imprisonment from five to three years; and another limiting the term of solitary confinement to a month at one time; and to not more than three months in the same year. Another amendment took away the capital punishment for offences against the riot act. When the biils so amended, returned to the Commons, Lord John Russell said he would give no opinion on the wisdom of the alterations; but as it was important that they should pass into law that session, he moved that they be agreed to; which was done without opposition.*

We must here record an important alteration, which was

• A bill had already passed both houses for the abolition of the punishment of the pillory; the infliction of which, we believe, had already been virtually superseded by the uniform usage of our courts of law. It may, perhaps, be doubted whether a measure for the re

vival of the penalty, under certain circumstances and restrictions, would not

made this year in the civil law of the country in respect of the forms to be observed in the execution of wills. The master of the rolls, lord Langdale, brought the subject before the House of Peers, on the 23rd of February, in a very able and luminous speech. The general object of the proposed measure was to collect the provisions of several statutes relating to wills into one act of parliament; and to make, at the same time, such modifications of these provisions as should afford additional securities for the prevention of spurious wills, and additional facilities for making genuine ones.

The noble and learned Lord then explained various points in which the existing law seemed to require amendment. He proposed to allow the owners of copyholds and customary freeholds to dispose of them by will, which at present they could not do. As the law stood, a person could only bequeath such real property as he was possessed of at the time of making the will; but he would enable the testator to dispose of any he might acquire subsequently to the execution of the will. At present, no person under the age of twenty-one, could make a will; it was intended to give the power of disposing of personal property to those who were passed the age of seventeen. With respect to witnesses, the bill would enact, that in all cases the execution of the will must be attested by two; whether the property