ministers of the most opposite principles. In conclusion he intimated, that he considered his resolution, if adopted by the House, as nothing less than a pledge to parliamentary reform. The marquis of Londonderry in reply, defended the conduct of parliament on the usual grounds, and deprecated the indirect and covert style, in which Mr. Brougham had attempted to entrap the House into the approbation of his scheme of reform. The noble marquis then went also into the details of the public establishments, to show that the numerical increase of public officers, during the last thirty years, was not so great as might be supposed; and argued, that from the rules of previous examination, and of promotion from length of service, which prevailed in most of the public offices, and from the necessity of personal service imposed upon colonial officers, the numerical increase of public functionaries had added little or nothing to ministerial influence. Mr. Bennett made a few observations in praise of Mr. Brougham and his resolutions; while Mr. S. Wortley, and Mr. Peel, threw out some desultory remarks in favour of the opposite side of the question. Mr. Brougham's motion was lost by a majority of 216 to 101. The disfranchisement of Grampound in the preceding session, had given Yorkshire the election of two additional members to future parliaments. A bill was now introduced for dividing that county, so that two members might be returned by the West Riding, and two by the North and East Ridings, jointly. This measure was keenly opposed by all who were locally connected with He did Lord Archibald Hamilton, very early in the session (on the 20th of February), moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, upon the royal burghs of Scotland. He referred to the reports lying on the table for proof of the numerous abuses existing in those burghs, which, he insisted, were of such a nature, and of such magnitude, as to call for a speedy cure. not propose any general remedy: for the course, which ought to be adopted, would vary according to the different circumstances of each particular place. The great source of mischief, however, was the absurd prerogative, with which the magistrates of Scotch burghs were invested that of electing their successors; and the removal of this stumbling block, was essential to improvement. The outline, which he wished to see followed in changing the political constitutions of these corporations, embraced four principal propositions :-1. Το restore the guildry, and to allow the guildries to elect the dean of guild and a proportion of the town council. 2. To throw open the corporations to all persons of property, or renting houses to a certain amount, and allow them to clect their own deacons, without any interference-to allow such deacons to elect a proportion of the council. 3. To admit these two proportions to elect the remainder of the council annually; and the whole council to appoint the magistrates. 4. The magistrates to go out of office every one, or two, or three years, but to be capable of re-election. The lord advocate opposed the motion. He maintained, that the existing abuses in the Scotch burghs might be remedied, by imposing new checks on the expenditure of the public funds by the magistrates; and he further argued, that to change their constitution was, in truth, to effect covertly, a reform in parliament. The latter position was undoubt edly true: and it showed accurately, what were the substantial merits or demerits of the labours which lord A. Hamilton had devoted to this important subject. The motion was, after a very languid debate in a very thin House, rejected by a majority of 81 to 46. At a subsequent period of the session, the lord advocate himself introduced a bill prescribing a variety of new regulations with respect to the expenditure of the income of Scotch burghs. It was enacted without much opposition. They who disliked it, did so, rather because it was a trifling, than because it was a mischievous meaIt did not go to the root of the mischief; it merely plucked off a few of the poisonous leaves. VOL. LXIV. sure. [G] CHAP. V. Sir James Mackintosh's Motion respecting the Criminal Law; Opposed by the Attorney General-Law to extend the Punishment of Hard Labour-The severity of the Laws increased against Receivers of Stolen Securities for Money, Manslaughter, &c. -Mr. Martin's Bill against the Improper Treatment of Cattle-Alterations in the Bankrupt Laws-New Marriage Act; totally altered in the House of Lords; difference of the Principle of the Bill as passed by the Commons, and of the Bill as it finally passed; keen Opposition to it in the House of Lords-Alteration of the Law relative to the Composition of Scotch Juries-Mr. Abercromby's Motion for inquiry into the Conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, with respect to the Public Press-Nature of the Charges against the Lord Advocate -His Defence-Letters of Mr. Hope and Mr. Menzies, on the Subject of Mr. Abercromby's Charges-These Letters Voted to be a Breach of Privilege-Subsequent Proceedings towards Mr. Hope, and Mr. Menzies-Remarks on this Affair. MIR JAMES MACKINTOSH did SIR not attempt, in the present session, to carry through parliament any specific measure for the improvement of our criminal code, but limited his efforts to obtaining from the House of Commons, a pledge to take the subject into serious consideration. On the 4th of June, he proposed a resolution: -"That the House would, at an early period of the next session, take into its serious consideration the means of increasing the efficacy of the criminal law, by abating its undue rigour in certain cases, together with the proper measures for strengthening the police, and making the punishments of transportation and imprisonment effective for the ends of example and reformation." With respect to this resolution sir J. Mackintosh said, that he attached little value to any peculiar form of expression in which it might be couched: all that he wished was, to get a determination generally in favour of the principle, and to have that determination recorded in the journals. After expatiating with his usual elegance and felicity of illustration, on the topics that are com monly urged in favour of the mitigation of our penal laws, he laid much stress on the results of a comparison of the criminal code of France with our own. The entire number of capital offences among us was, he said, 223: in the French code it was six. These six were the following:-High Treason, which was technically defined in terms different from those used in this country; Murder, which was well defined; Arson; Forgeries of notes of the bank of France and government securities; Coining; and Theft, under some of the following circumstances:-that it be done in the night; that it be perpetrated by two or more men; that the parties are armed; that a house is broken open, or entered under the cover of legal authority; or that arms be either used, or threatened to be used. Under the French code, a seventeenth part of the offences specified were capital. Under the English code, about a seventh were punishable with death. In France, there was no transportation, and about fourfifths of the punishments inflicted consisted of imprisonment and hard labour. In England, the number of transportations were about one-fourth - the punishments by imprisonment and hard labour amounted also to one-fourth. The mean amount of the English population during the period to which his calculations referred, he would take at 11,000,000. The mean amount of the French population, during the same period, might be estimated at 27,000,000, being about two and a half to one. Such being the number, it appeared that the convictions in England in the first five years after 1811, were double those which had taken place in France, being five times as many according to the number of the people. In the second series of five years the convictions in England quadrupled those in France, amounting to ten times the number in proportion to the population. In France, the average number of convictions, in the first three years, was 294. The average number in the last three years, 303, being a variation of only nine. In England, the average number at the first-mentioned period was 349. In the latter it had risen to 1,249. This increase, though part of it might be ascribed to the distress under which the pear people had groaned and continued to groan, he argued, was also caused in part by the character of our penal code. The situation of France, twice invaded, the disbanding of a large army, and the horrors of a thirty years' war, would have led them to expect a different result. That France had escaped the fatal increase of crime which had been witnessed in England, must therefore be ascribed partly to her improved criminal code. In this country, from the year 1805 to the year 1809, which was considered a period of prosperity, when the chancellor of the exchequer was in his Paradise, and, issuing paper, dreamed that it was wealth, the convictions had increased from 339 to 549. As this was before the peace, it could not be ascribed to the pressure of misery under which, he would not deny, the people had since groaned. When two systems produced such opposite effects when under the one crime had decreased, whilst under the other it increased rapidly, there must be in the one something to be approved, and in the other something to be condemned. There was also this striking contrast in the criminal laws of France and Englandthat the former were intended to be carried into effect, while the severe decrees of the other were in most cases dispensed with. This, in itself, was an objection which ought to be fatal to the system. It was a defect opposed to the practice of all civilized nations, opposed to all reason, and justly condemned by all experience. It was not then too much to infer, that under such a system crime could not be effectually checked nor adequately punished. With respect to the system of police, sir James Mackintosh observed, that the principal object of police should be to repress disorder; the next, to detect crime. To repress disorder, it would be necessary that more effectual means should be adopted; but he should object to means derived from too great a restriction of human action, which he would call tyranny; and in the detection of crime, he should deprecate as much as possible a system of espionage, by which he believed a nation lost more than it could gain on the score of morality -for such a system was in itself a more fertile source of crime than any other. The most effectual means, in his opinion, for the detection of crime, would be, the mitigation of punishment. If the laws were more mild, no stigma would attach to the discovery of crime: the hearts of men would go with its detection; and we should have that information given voluntarily, and from the best of motives, which was now extorted from the worst of vices. If it were wished to make the informer and the prosecutor appear less odious, let them not conduct to the gallows; let not death to the accused follow the accusation, and we should then have crime discovered, and its punishment approved; instead of, as was now the case, crime studiously concealed, and its punishment looked upon as wanton severity. With respect to transportation as a punishment for crime, he considered it in a variety of cases in which it was at present inflicted, unnecessary and impolitic. There were, however, two classes, to which he thought it applicable. The first was, that of incorrigible offenders, whom exertions could reclaim. Such persons, undoubtedly, ought to be no banished from the society of which they were unfit members. The next class consisted of persons of a description exactly the reverse. He would suppose the case of a man who had fallen into a crime, of which, perhaps, he might be disposed to repent, but, in consequence of which, there was no hope of his resuming his former place in society. Such a man might be properly sent into a new society, where he might return to those moral practices from which he had fallen. To such persons transportation might be applicable, but then it should be to a colony established on different principles from that of New South Wales. The Attorney-general declared, that he could not consent to a motion, which cast a censure on the whole of our criminal law; and which was the less necessary, as no specific measure was to be founded upon it immediately. The course which had been pursued by his hon. and learned friend, was truly singular. He had first of all proposed the appointment of a committee to take into examination the whole state of the criminal law. Such a committee was accordingly appointed, and subsequently presented a report, recommending that in particular cases capital punishment should be abolished, and a secondary punishment substituted in its stead. Upon that report certain bills were introduced with a view to carry the recommendation into effect. The house adopted some of these bills, but rejected others; and yet his honourable and learned friend now said, that the House had, on that occasion, adopted the same principle indirectly, which he called upon it by his resolution to adopt formally at present. The proper |