and through it the mercantile credit of the country, were in danger from the payment of old notes, and fractional sums, how ever he might blame the Bank for their improvidence, he should have felt it necessary to protect the country from the consequence of this imprudence.

Lord Castlereagh said, that if the measure had been brought forward simply for the convenience of the Bank, or for the support of its credit, it would have been unfit that it should have been disposed of in the way now proposed. But they might be assured that the credit of that body was so high, that there would not have been any necessity to have interposed between the Bank and its creditors, except for public convenience. The hon. and learned gentleman had fairly said, that the question before the House was a balance of inconveniences; but he trusted the facts would support the measure proposed. To-morrow or the next day the dividends would be in a course of payment; and if the measure were not carried through as fast as the forms of parliament would admit, notice would be given to all holders of notes of an early date to carry them for payment. He hoped, however, that the House would concur in speedily carrying the

measure.

Mr. Tierney affirmed that this was one of the most important measures that could be brought before parliament; and if one thing surprised him more than another, it was the extraordinary composure with which the proposition had been received. Of this he gave several instances; but,

said he, necessitas suprema lex, and it was necessary to examine how the question of the issues stood. It was in 1817 that the notices were issued under which the payments were made, and the drain had gone on without answering any other purpose than to enable the chancellor of the exchequer to make a speech, to say that cash payments were virtually resumed. In the last year he had brought in a bill for continuing the Restriction act; and at that time he saw with his eyes wide open the drain which was then going on more rapidly than at any time since, yet took no step to stop it. What was the time when this alarm first came upon him? Why, no sooner than this day at twelve o'clock. For his own part, till yesterday, he should no more have thought of the committee making such a report, than of their doing the most improbable and extravagant thing in the world. The House at large were in the dark from knowing too little; he, on the contrary, was in a difficulty from knowing too much, as a member of the secret committee, and was continually afraid of letting some of his knowledge out. But to mention a fact that was no secret: what had been the conduct of the Bank? Their whole object, it was said, was, to resume cash payments. They lived in the hope of it, and the delay was misery. It was not, however, to such a degree as to induce the Court of Directors to come to any resolution on the subject; and so quiet were they, that no conversation had taken place between the governor and the chancellor of the exchequer for the last three months.

What

What was the reason for so rapidly passing this measure? Why, merely from a mysterious recommendation from the committee, that the adoption of such a measure was necessary to enable the Bank to resume cash payments at some time-it was not stated when. It was said, on the part of the Bank, that they did not ask for this measure. But it was for the House to consider whether it would allow, upon such a suggestion, all its usual forms to be suspended, of the necessity for which it had no evidence what

ever.

Lord A. Hamilton conceived the measure to be only a continuance of the system of restriction; with this difference, that when such a measure was proposed before, some grounds were stated for it, and these grounds were discussed, but at present it was to be carried without any discussion of its merits.

Several members spoke on each side of the question on this de. bate. At length,

The Chancellor of the Eschequer said, that when the proper time arrived to enter upon the details of this subject, he should be prepared to show that there was no inconsistency whatever between the principle of this bill, and the principle which governed his other arrangements on this subject. He only regretted that the measure had not been earlier introduced. The fact was, that hopes had been entertained last year that the state of exchange might have come round, and obviated the inconveniences complained of.

The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Bank Restriction acts, leave was given to bring in the bill. The House having resumed, the bill was read a first and second time, committed, and reported. On the motion that it be read a third time, Mr. Gurney made several observations tending to disapprove of it.

In fine, the bill was passed.

CHAPTER

SIR

IR James Mackintosh, on March 2, in rising to address the House of Commons concerning the system of Criminal laws, began with noticing some concessions made by the noble lord (Castlereagh) which would tend much to narrow the grounds of difference between them, in so much as both were agreed that the state of the criminal law in this country called for investigation, and that a select committee would be the proper course to pursue in it. Proceeding then to the narrower question, which was a comparison between the noble lord's system and his own, he proceeded to show that in accordance with the usage of the House, he should propose that the House itself should nominate separate committees; whereas the noble lord proposed that the committee which had been named, should again nominate three committees. Sir James found no difficulty in giving his own proposition the superiority to that offered by the noble lord.

He next inquired into the examples which the House of Commons afforded him by their former proceedings, and he began with that of 1750, when, in consequence

of the alarm created by some spe cies of crimes, a committee was appointed "to examine into and consider the state of the laws relating to felonies, and to report to the House their opinion as to the defects of those laws, and as to the propriety of amending or repealing them." The persons of whom the committee were then composed were Mr. Pelham, Mr. Pitt. Mr. G. Grenville, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. C. Townshend, and Sir Dudley Ryder. The first resolution in which these distinguished persons agreed, was, "that it was reasonable to exchange the punishment of death for some other adequate punishment. A bill was brought in, founded on the resolutions of the committee: it passed this House, but was thrown out in the House of Lords. In 1770, another alarm, occasioned by the increase of a certain species of crime, led to the appointment, on November 27, of another committee, of which Sir Charles Grenville, Sir William Meredith, Mr. Fox, Mr. Serjeant Glynn, Sir Charles Bunbury, and others, were members. That committee was occupied for two sessions with the subject, in the second of which

they

they brought their report to maturity. It passed the House of Commons, but was thrown out by the House of Lords.

Sir James M. now said, that it was upon these precedents that he had formed, and that he brings forward, his motion. But he must first mention what his object is not, in order to obviate the misapprehensions of overzealous supporters, and the misapprehensions of desperate opponents. "I do not propose to form a new criminal code. Altogether to abolish a system of law, admirable in its principle, interwoven with the habits of the English people, and under which they long and happily lived, is a proposition very remote from my notions of legislation. Neither is it my intention to propose the abolition of the punishment of death. I hold the right of inflicting that punishment to be that part of the right of selfdefence with which societies, as well as individuals, are endowed. Nor do I wish to take away the right of pardon from the crown: on the contrary, my object is to restore to the crown the practical use of that right. The main part of the reform which I should propose, would be to transfer to the Statute Book the improvements which the wisdom of modern times has introduced into the practice of the law. One of my objects is, to approximate them: to make good men the anxious supporters of the criminal law, and to restore that zealous at tachment to the law in general which has distiguished the people of England among the nations of the world."

Having (said Sir James M.Y concluded my general remarks, Í will now enter into a few illustrative details. Among these, we shall take no notice of the least important articles, but go directly to those which constitute the main purpose of the eloquent speaker's address.

The real state of the case (said he) is, that in the first or highest class of felonies, the law has been executed in every case; that in the middle class it has sometimes been executed; and that in the lowest class it has not been exe. cuted at all. To correct this anomaly, so injurious, and so subversive of the great purposes of criminal jurisprudence, is the object that I have in view.

For the sake of clearness, the hon. and learned member divided the crimes against which our penal code denounces capital punishment into three classes. In the first, murder, and murderous offences, or such as are likely to lead to murder, such as shooting or stabbing with a view to the malicious destruction of human life, on which the law is invariably executed; in the second, arson, highway robberies, piracies, and other offences, to the number of nine or ten, on which, at present, the law is carried into effect in a great many cases. On those two divisions, he admitted, for the present, that it would be unsafe to propose any alteration. Many of the crimes comprehended in them ought to be punished with death; and he was persuaded that a patient and calm investigation would remove the objections of a number of well-meaning persons who are

of

of a contrary opinion. But looking from these offences at the head of the criminal code, to the other extremity of it, he saw a third class of offences, some connected with frauds of various kinds, but others of the most frivolous and fantastic description, amounting to about 150 in number, against which the punishment of death is denounced by the law, although that punishment is never at present executed. There can be no doubt that these capital felonies should be expunged from our Statutebook as a disgrace to our law, and as creating a false opinion, much more sanguinary than it has ever been rendered in practice. There are many more capital felonies of a similar nature, which are the relics of barbarous times, and which are disgraceful to the character of an enlightened and thinking people. For such of fences, punishments quite adequate, and sufficiently numerous, remain, which the wisdom of the legislature may order to be inflicted.

The debateable ground on this subject (Sir James Mackintosh goes on to say) is afforded by a sort of middle class of offences, consisting of larcenies and frauds of a heinous kind, though not accompanied with violence and terror. I do not propose, in any degree, to interfere with the discretion of the judges in deciding upon any crime to which the punishment of death ought, under some circumstances, to attach; but to examine whether or not it is convenient, upon the whole view of the subject, that death should remain the punishment VOL. LXI.

expressly directed by the law for offences, which, in the administration of the law, are never more severely punished than with transportation, either for life, or for limited periods. On this subject, he took occasion to pay an affecting remembrance to the late Sir Samuel Romilly, with whom he fully concurred in thinking, that the punishment of death ought not to attach by law to any of those offences for which transportation is a sufficient punishment. In this case, he joined his late friend in the conviction, that the balance of advantage is decidedly against the continuance of the existing system.

The House (said he) will still bear in mind that I do not call for the abolition of the punishment of death, but only in those cases in which it is rarely, and ought never, to be carried into effect. In such cases I propose to institute other milder but more invariable punishments. Nothing, in my opinion, can be more injurious than the frequency with which the sentence of death is pronounced from the judgmentseat, when it is evident, even to those against whom the punishment is denounced, that it will never be carried into effect. In all nations, an agreement between the laws and the general feeling of those who are subject to them, is essential to their efficacy; but this agreement becomes of unspeakable importance in a country in which the charge of executing them is committed, in great measure, to the people themselves. I know not how to contemplate, without serious apprehension, the consequences that [E]

may