affording the only prospect of suppressing crimes, the laws, whatever they were, ought to be executed. Over this golden bridge the young man had no wish to retreat; and he replied: "No, no; it is not that. There is no good done by mercy; they only get worse. I would hang

them all up at once."

Eventually the bill was passed; but Romilly was forced to strike out the declaration of principle embodied in the preamble: “Whereas, the extreme severity of penal law hath not been found effectual for the prevention of crimes, but, on the contrary, by increasing the difficulty of convicting offenders, in some cases affords them impunity, and in most cases renders their punishment extremely uncertain."

His next legislation was in amendment of the Bankruptcy Law; and then, in 1810, he resumed his attack upon the penal code, introducing three bills to repeal the statutes of William III., Queen Anne, and George II., by which the capital penalty might be inflicted for privately stealing in a shop goods to the value of five shillings, or in a dwelling-house, or on board a vessel in a navigable river. It is difficult now to believe that these measures would be bitterly opposed by such men as Windham, an orator of genius, a scholar, and a gentleman; and by Percival, the Prime Minister. Yet such was the fact; and almost every member of the Government followed on the same side. Romilly had the satisfaction, however, of being supported by the eloquence of Canning and the authority of Wilberforce. Notwithstanding their valuable assistance, notwithstanding the strength of his arguments and the accumulated testimony of his facts, he was defeated. His first bill passed the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords; his second,

the Commons rejected; the third was postponed, and afterwards withdrawn.

The opposition in the Lords was led by the Lord Chancellor, Eldon, and the Chief Justice, Lord Ellenborough, both great lawyers, but men bred in a narrow school, and fettered by tradition and precedent. The strange argument was put forward that the punishment must not be abolished, because the crime against which it was directed had increased; which would justify a physician in continuing to administer a powerful remedy because his patient grew worse!

"I trust," said Lord Ellenborough solemnly, "your Lordships will pause before you assent to a measure pregnant with danger to the security of property, and before you repeal a statute which has been so long held necessary for public security, and which I am not conscious has produced the smallest injury to the merciful administration of justice. After all that has been stated in favour of this speculative humanity, it must be admitted that the law as it stands is but seldom carried into execution; and yet it ceases not to hold out that terror which alone will be sufficient to prevent the frequent commission of the offence. It has been urged, by persons speculating in modern legislation, that a certainty of punishment is preferable to severity that it should invariably be proportioned to the magnitude of the crime, thereby forming a known rate of punishment commensurate with the degree of the offence. Whatever may be my opinion of the theory of this doctrine, I am convinced of its absurdity in practice.

Retaining the terror, and leaving the execution uncertain and dependent on circumstances which may aggravate or mitigate the enormity of the crime, does not prove the severity of any criminal law; whereas, to remove that salutary dread of punishment would produce injury to the criminal, and break down the barrier which prevents the frequent commission of

crime. The learned judges are unanimously agreed that the expediency of justice and public security require there should not be a remission of capital punishment in this part of the criminal law. My lords, if we suffer this bill to pass, we shall not know where to stand; we shall not know whether we are on our heads or on our feet. If you repeal the Act which inflicts the penalty of death for stealing to the value of five shillings in a shop, you will be called upon next year to repeal a law which prescribes the penalty of death for stealing five shillings in a dwelling-house, there being no person therein—a law, your lordships must know, on the security of which, and the application of it, stands the security of every poor cottager who goes out to his daily labour (!). He, my lords, can leave no one behind to watch his little dwelling, and preserve it from the attacks of lawless plunderers. Confident in the protection of the laws of the land-[that is, their supposed readiness to hang a man for stealing a rush-bottomed chair!]-he cheerfully pursues his daily labours, trusting that on his return he shall find all his property safe and unmolested."

One stands lost in amazement at the absolute futility of the arguments thus elaborately put forth by a Lord Chief-Justice of England. Let the laudatores temporis acti reflect upon them, and the cause they were intended. to support, and admit that in some things we have improved upon our forefathers. But it should be added, for the further enlightenment of the reader, that the sole legislative achievement of this truculent judge was an act (43 Geo. III. c. 58) which created ten new capital felonies, and greatly increased the already "revolting severity" of our criminal code.

With infinite patience pursuing his labours in the cause of humanity, Sir Samuel Romilly, in 1811, carried two bills which abolished the punishment of death for stealing from bleaching grounds; and in the following

year, he persuaded Parliament to repeal the Act of Elizabeth, by which soldiers and mariners wandering about the realm without a pass were doomed to death. A pamphlet on the "Criminal Law," which he had published, produced a great impression on the mind of the public, and helped to create a feeling in favour of further reform. The esteem in which he was held for his high character, scrupulous integrity, and great powers was agreeably manifested by an invitation from a number of respectable citizens of Bristol to become a candidate for the representation of their city. Two of his opponents, however, formed a strong coalition against him, and as he refused to sanction any lavish expenditure for corrupt purposes, he was defeated. Through the kindness of the Duke of Norfolk, he was afterwards elected for the borough of Arundel.

In the new Parliament our undaunted reformer once more proposed the abolition of capital punishment in cases of shop-lifting. The Commons passed the measure, but it was again rejected by the Lords. Sir Samuel then rested for a while from a crusade which seemed almost hopeless. But he was not idle. I have carefully examined the votes he gave in successive sessions on the various questions brought before Parliament, and I am prepared to say that he on no occasion flinched from his duty, and on no occasion gave a vote contrary to the principles of truth, justice, and freedom. Few of his contemporaries can show a record so unstained. He was

a reformer before the day of reform, and on all subjects of foreign and domestic policy his views were in favour of enlightenment and progress. His efforts to promote the abolition of the slave trade never slackened, and Wilberforce had no more earnest or eloquent supporter. The

crime. The learned judges are unanimously agreed that the expediency of justice and public security require there should not be a remission of capital punishment in this part of the criminal law. My lords, if we suffer this bill to pass, we shall not know where to stand; we shall not know whether we are on our heads or on our feet. If you repeal the Act which inflicts the penalty of death for stealing to the value of five shillings in a shop, you will be called upon next year to repeal a law which prescribes the penalty of death for stealing five shillings in a dwelling-house, there being no person therein-a law, your lordships must know, on the security of which, and the application of it, stands the security of every poor cottager who goes out to his daily labour (!). He, my lords, can leave no one behind to watch his little dwelling, and preserve it from the attacks of lawless plunderers. Confident in the protection of the laws of the land-[that is, their supposed readiness to hang a man for stealing a rush-bottomed chair!]-he cheerfully pursues his daily labours, trusting that on his return he shall find all his property safe and unmolested.”

One stands lost in amazement at the absolute futility of the arguments thus elaborately put forth by a Lord Chief-Justice of England. Let the laudatores temporis acti reflect upon them, and the cause they were intended to support, and admit that in some things we have improved upon our forefathers. But it should be added, for the further enlightenment of the reader, that the sole legislative achievement of this truculent judge was an act (43 Geo. III. c. 58) which created ten new capital felonies, and greatly increased the already "revolting severity" of our criminal code.

With infinite patience pursuing his labours in the cause of humanity, Sir Samuel Romilly, in 1811, carried two bills which abolished the punishment of death for stealing from bleaching grounds; and in the following