As, however, the increase to be derived from raising the duties would not be available to the full extent this year, he might find it necessary to take a vote of credit for 850,000. instead of 395,000. Mr. Baring concluded by moving resolutions authorising him to make the proposed additions to the taxes.

The proposition laid before the house therefore, did not go to impose any new tax upon the public, but was framed on a practice which seems to have prevailed formerly of putting a per centage on exist ing duties. The budget was not much opposed by any party, and was certainly approved of highly by the supporters of the government, not only in the house of commons but in the country generally. Mr. Hume, although he had heard many financial statements, thought this the most clear and satisfactory he had ever heard, but at the same time he objected to the mode of meeting the deficiency, and proposed instead to tax the descent of real property from 1 to 10 per cent.

The proposal of the chancellor of the exchequer was also censured as unjust by several of the representatives of the agricultural interest. Mr. Goulburn with practical foresight, doubted, whether the increased duties on customs and spirits, would yield the additional income which Mr. Baring expected. Sir Robert Peel suggested, that perhaps the 10 per cent on assessed taxes might act as an inducement to people to reside abroad. He wished the postage duties had been raised from a penny to twopence. After an uninteresting discussion, Mr. Hume's amendment was lost by a large majority, and the resolutions of the chancellor of

the exchequer were carried without a division.

On the 5th of March, Mr. Ewart brought forward his motion for the abolition of capital punishment. He quoted largely from criminal statistics, and endeavoured to prove from the returns which had been furnished to him, that in a given period since 1837, a larger number of convictions had taken place than in a corresponding period before the abolition of the punishment of death. The executions before the abolition were eighty-five, and after the abolition only twenty-five, being a diminution of sixty. Yet, after the abolition of capital punishments, the convictions increased in a stated period from 1,536 to 1,788. Thus, in consequence of the mitigation of the law, convictions had become more certain. In twenty-six years, ending with 1835, the executions for murder were fifteen yearly, and the proportion of persons convicted were twenty-five. In three years, ending with 1838, there were only seven executions yearly, a diminution of more than one half; but the convictions amounted to twenty-nine. In twenty-one years, before 1830, the executions were thirty-eight, and the proportion of convictions eighteen. In eight years, ending with 1838, the executions were seven, but the proportion of convictions were thirty-two.

Mr. Ewart proceeded to argue, that above all, capital punishment should not be retained in the case of murder. The man who committed that dreadful crime, did so either from calculation made be forehand, or from the impulse of the moment. If a man committed murder from calculation, it was clear, that the penalty of death

had not the power of restraining him, because he had calculated all results, and proceeded wilfully to commit the act; on the other hand, if he acted from impulse, he overlooked the consequences, so that in both cases capital punishment was ineffectual. It had been often said, continued Mr. Ewart, that before the punishment of death was abolished, some efficient substitute should be prepared -but that was a consideration which ought not to interfere with the great principle in question. Imprisonment and transportation to the penal settlements were substitutes, and were as effective punishments as any which existed in foreign countries.

Lord John Russell was unwilling to enter into a discussion against the arguments in favour of the abolition of the punishment of death, because, when capital punishments were more frequent, he had entertained the opinion, that the number of capital crimes constituted by our penal code ought to be diminished, and he could not but allow, that his own feelings had been very much in accordance with those persons who proposed to abolish the penalty of death. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ewart) had argued, that the crime of murder being often one of calculation, its very existence showed that the laws were not effectual. But that argument might be used with reference to any species of crime. The real question was, whether a number of persons, besides those who actually committed the crime, were not deterred from committing it by the existence of the punishment of death.

Sir Stephen Lushington agreed with the noble Lord that nothing could be more detrimental to the

due course of justice than that the house should agree to a resolution that capital punishments ought to be abolished without taking any steps towards legislating on the subject, leaving the Home-office to carry out the laws under the ban of an expressed opinion of the house. He advocated the abolition of the punishment of death, because he was decidedly of opinion, that a diminution of crime would ensue in consequence of the greater certainty of obtaining convictions. During the last twentyfive years, the criminal laws had been greatly mitigated, and the experiment had been attended with signal success. Since the punishment of death for forgery had ceased, that crime had become of the rarest occurrence. The reason

was obvious-every offender was prosecuted, and every witness spoke the truth without hesitation, for he was no longer terrified with the idea of consigning a fellow creature to the gallows.

Sir Stephen Lushington concluded by moving as an amendment upon Mr. Ewart's motion, that leave should be given to bring in a bill which should have for its object the abolition of capital punishment.

Mr. Ewart had no objection to withdraw his motion, as the amendment would fully meet his views; his principal wish having been to bring on a discussion on this matter, and test the opinion of the house concerning it.

Mr. Goulburn said, it appeared to him, that by the adoption of the principle proposed, an inducement would be held cut to the robber to commit murder, when the penalty attached to both crimes was precisely the same. The distinctions between crimes would be de

stroyed, and one of the most natural feelings of mankind would be violated-one inculcated from the highest authority-that when blood had been shed blood should be shed in return. He was induced to coincide with the views of the noble lord (lord J. Russell) not from any desire to maintain a sanguinary code of laws, but from a firm conviction that by removing the punishment of death from the crime of murder, the greatest possible risk would be incurred, not only of encouraging the commission of that crime, but perhaps of creating its repetition under circumstances of a considerably aggravated nature.

Mr. Hobhouse said, in his opinion the question was, not whether murder merited the punishment of death, but whether the taking away of a man's life was the best and only means of preventing that horrid crime. That the crime of murder did merit the highest degree of punishment, he did not for a moment question, but he greatly questioned the effeet produced by public executions upon the minds of all those who whether by accident or by choice, became the spectators of those bloody scenes.

Mr. Brotherton said, the Mosaic law had been quoted in support of this vindictive and retaliatory punishment, but the same law said, if an ox should gore a man or a woman, the owner of the ox should suffer death.

Sir R. Inglis was not one of those who were disposed to take away the life of one human being more than was necessary for the protection of others. The hon. member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) had referred to the words of the sacred scriptures, and it must

be owned, that whatever construction might be put upon those words, and though the Almighty did not personally inflict the punishment expressed by those words, yet it could not be denied, that in the code which he had prescribed, there was such an infliction of the punishment of death as must for ever exclude from censure any legislation which should make it the foundation for their laws. The house on a division refused leave to bring in the bill by a majority of 161 to 90. The tone of the discussion however was certainly calculated on the whole to encourage Mr. Ewart and those who agreed with him to persevere in their endeavours to mitigate still further the severity of our criminal code. Accordingly on the 23rd of June, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of death, except in the cases of murder and high treason. He admitted at the same time, that the law at present existing provided no efficient or adequate secondary punishment for the prevention of crime; but it did not follow from that admission, that the punishment of death should be needlessly or wrongfully inflicted.

In his opinion, there was no insurmountable difficulty in estab lishing a good system of secondary punishment in this country preparatory to the transportation of offenders to foreign lands-a system by which the most hardened might be reformed, instead of being turned loose upon the world to mingle with their old associates in crime. His bill was calculated to cut down the number of offences for which the law now decreed the punishment of death from fourteen to four. A few years ago the number of capital offences

was 200, and although they had been reduced to fourteen no increase had taken place in that description of crimes which had ceased to be capital.

If it were conceded, that the object of legislation was not punishment of the guilty, but to deter others from the commission of crime, he thought he should be able to convince the house, that attempts at murder ought not to be punished with death. The dread of the law was supposed to operate upon the man who attempted to commit murder ex vi termini, and who expected to succeed. Would it not then have an equal if not a greater effect upon him who attempted to kill with less determination of purpose? As long as a man was punishable by death for murder, so long would there be security afforded by the law against attempted murders.

Again Mr. Kelly called the attention of the house to the effect of the change in the law which he proposed, upon men under the excitement or temptation to commit murder. In nine cases out of ten attempts to commit murder were found to arise out of attempts to rob, or burglaries, or where persons were seized with sudden passion, and gave blows, or fired shot, or inflicted wounds. The present state of the law took away all inducement from a man, who having struck the first blow, and not having despatched his victim relented, and would not repeat the blow but for the sake of preventing detection and saving his own life. The tendency of the law as it stood was to make such a man complete the murder, because no difference was made between the cases where the murder was completed and where it was incomplete.

What had been urged respecting murder applied with peculiar force to the crime of rape. A punishment short of death held out an inducement to ravishers, to spare the lives of their victims. The same argument also applied to the crimes of burglary, piracy, and arson.

Mr. Ewart seconded Mr. Kelly's motion, and lord John Russell complimented him on the ability and eloquence he had displayed, but he was compelled to state that he could not offer his assistanee to the furtherance of his proposal for the abolition of capital punishments to so great an extent, being of the same opinion as the attorney-general, that the time for such a measure had not arrived.

Leave was given, however, to bring in the bill, and no serious opposition was offered to Mr. Kelly in carrying it through the first and second readings, but on the third reading lord John Russell again opposed it on the ground that society was not in such a state that the punishment of death could safely be dispensed with in the cases for which it was proposed to substitute some secondary punishment.

Sir Robert Peel was also opposed to further legislation on the subject, as it was not at all clear to him that the severity of the law as it stood was greater than the sympathy of the public warranted, and it was essential in any change of this kind, that the house should act in unison with the public feeling.

On a division which took place, the measure was accordingly thrown out by a majority of 78 to 51. A result which we cannot but regard with mingled feelings, for while we admit that death does not seem an unfit or disproportionate punish

ment for the crimes of burglary, rape, attempt to murder, arson and piracy, in aggravated cases, yet, nevertheless, when public opinion is divided so equally on the subject, the punishment remains on the statute book, but is really never inflicted under any circumstances. In the first place, there is a disposition on the part of the persons injured, not to prosecute offenders who are liable on conviction to be made so severely accountable, and there is also on the part of the witnesses a proneness to withhold their testimony, or at least to weaken its effect on the part of the jury likewise a tendency not to convict and on the part of the judges an indisposition to inflict the punishment which the statute imposes. In short, there is a sort of conspiracy among all parties concerned to evade the complete execution of the law, by availing themselves of any merciful prevarication in favour of the accused, or any trifling pretexts that may seem to justify a more lenient course. There can be no doubt that such a state of things must have a tendency to render the administration of the laws uncertain, and, consequently, to diminish their efficacy, and deprive them of popular sympathy and respect.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd rose on the 4th of February to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the present law of copy-right, but did not think it necessary to occupy the house with any observations in favour of the measure, as it had already been three times before it and had been as often sanctioned by its approval.

Mr. Wakley contended, that the hon. and learned sergeant had failed to show, that the effect of the present law had been to prevent the production of standard

or excellent works. What had been the practice when copyright had been really of less value than it was now? What had Roger Bacon or Shakspeare got for their works?

There were other incentives to authors besides the mere remuneration they received. The greatest works that had ever appeared in this country had been produced at a time when copyright had been of infinitely less value than it was now? What had Milton received for his "Paradise lost"? Milton might not have been so great a poet as others of modern date, but, without wishing to depreciate the talents or the labours of others, he would say, that if a law should be passed to diminish the present diffusion of publications, it would inflict the greatest possible evil on the cause of literature.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd said, the question was, whether an author having committed to paper the thoughts he had conceived and cherished in solitude, should have any property in them, or whether they should become that of the public, whether an author communicating his inspirations to the world should only demand of the public the produce of their immediate sale, or look at large unto posterity for the reward of works which might not obtain immediate attention from the public? Those were the principles on which they had to legislate, and on which every scholar and thinker had equal power of forming his judgment.

Mr. Warburton disputed the proposition, that an invasion of copyright in perpetuity was an invasion of private property. Literary property was private property only so long as the manu