the very worshipful, but he would not say ancient, corporation of London printers. Those gentry had their favourites. His honourable friend was esteemed and hailed by them as a general patron of the London press. He thought the house ought to discard a sort of disgraceful objection to its proceedings, and maintain those rules and orders which have so long prevailed. For these reasons he should certainly give his vote against the motion.

Lord Folkestone agreed with the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Windham) in some of his positions, In what he had stated of the ve nality of the press, he believed that he was partly correct; and he also concurred with him in believing that the constitution had not grown better within the last thirty or forty years; but he did not think that the deterioration which had taken place within that time proceeded at all from the publica tion of the debates. There were times, indeed, in which he was al most ashamed of the debates being published. No later than yester day, questions had been argued on both sides of the house, merely an party principles, and as if the only object was the retaining of office by one set of men, and the displacing them by the other party. He believed that, on the present occasion, it was the general wish of the house that the inquiry should be public; and that such a course would be the most likely to secure, the confi dence of the public.

Mr.Yorke said he must, however, protest, as long as these standing orders continued in force, against the supposition, that there was any necessity for a member who should move the order, to account for the reasons which induced him so to

do. He had, however, no objection to state, that he had felt it his indispensable duty to move the order on the present occasion, from a consideration of the many gross misrepresentations and mis-statements, which went forth to the public last year, on a very impor tant inquiry before that house. It had been said, that the house was now to be considered as the grand inquest of the nation, and that they were in the situation of a grand jury. If that were the case, he would ask all those members, who, like him, had often been on grand juries, whether such a right had ever been set up or thought of, as a right of strangers attending at the grand juries for the purpose of publishing. their proceedings? In fact, no such persons ever were admitted. Such a practice must produce infinite in convenience and mischief; and if it were asked, why were not strangers excluded upon the inquiry last year? he must say for himself, that he did feel the deepest shame that he had not upon that occasion moved the standing order. He certainly should have done so, if he had been at all aware of the nature of the case, or suspected how it would have turned out. He thought that, under God, it was to the privileges of that house that the commonwealth owed its safety, and that if ever those privileges should be taken away, the constitution itself would soon be trampled under foot.

Mr. Tierney and Mr. Lyttleton spoke for the motion, as did Mr. Peter Moore, who entered into a vindication, of the editors of the London newspapers, as a class of meritorious individuals who did much to enlighten the public mind

Sir Francis Burdett then rose and said, he must subscribe

te

to many of the doctrines which he had heard, and which he only found fault with as inapplicable to the present situation of the country. If he could see in that house a body of gentlemen fairly and freely selected by the people, as the chosen guardians of their rights; if he could see no placemen or pensioners within these walls, and that no corrupt or undue influence could ever be supposed to operate on the minds of any of the members of that assembly, then, indeed, he should see no particular objection to the inquiry being conducted in secret, and the evidence being given to the public in the manner that was now proposed. Unfortunately, however, the house stood, in the eye of the public, in a very different situatiou. They stood under circumstances of great suspicion. (No, No, from some members on the treasury bench.) It had been considered by some that they were on their last legs. As for his part, he greatly feared that they had not a leg to stand upon.

The chancellor of the exchequer rose to order. He stated, that in his opinion it was highly disorderiy to assert that the house of commons had not a leg to stand upon. The speaker said, that it was highly disorderly for any member to say that the house of commons had lost its reputation and charac

ter.

Sir Francis Burdett continued. He had not made the assertion positively, as stated by the chancellor of the exchequer; but stated it as his apprehension. The house might recollect what passed in May last, relative to a minister negotiating for the purpose of bringing in a member of parliament in the most corrupt manner; and it was impossible for them to shut

their eyes against the opinion of the public upon that transaction. He felt it his duty, while a member of parliament, to speak the truth, and the whole truth, in that house; but at the same time he knew he must speak it in a manner agreeable to the order of the house, and conformable to those principles of common decency which gentlemen must observe in every assembly. It appeared to him that the evidence was given in the newspapers with great correctness, and that the debates were also given with considerable exactness and considerable ability. It appeared to him that the reports were much more likely to be correct, when, as in the present way, several different men were taking notes at a time. When he called upon the house to endeavour to stand well in the opinion of the public, it would appear as if he was less impressed now than he had been heretofore of the necessity of reform. He should, however, assure them, that this was not the case. The functions that the house had now to perform were very different from those of a grand jury. A grand jury determined on ex parte evil dence; whereas the house were now to hear evidence on both sides, and to come to a determination on conflicting testimony. In the present year, eleven or twelve thousand of our countrymen had been sacrificed, and it was fit that the public should be acquainted with every circumstance of these transactions. When the house resolved upon an inquiry, it was understood that it was to be a public one; and if it were now to be a secret one, he conceived it would be an insult offered to the public.

Mr. Sheridan replied; after which the chancellor of the exchequer said a few

For Mr. Sheridan's motion 80
Against it
Majority

166 86

On the 8th of February, a vote of thanks to lord Gambier was moved, and carried in the house of peers, though not without considerable opposition from a number of lords, who contended that the thanks of the house should be given, only on very signal and important victories; but that the services of admiral lord Gambier were of a different description, and called for no such reward. His lordship, as. our readers will recollect, had already been brought to, trial on charges exhibited against him by lord Cochrane, and acquitted. To institute some further inquiry, lord Cochrane, in his place in parliament, moved for a copy of the minutes of the court-martial by which the admiral had been tried: to prevent this, Mr. Perceval proposed as an amendment, that the word sentence should be inserted instead of the word minutes: this, after a warm debate, was agreed to by a majori ty of 171 to 19; upon which, the, minister taking advantage of the feelings of the house, moved the thanks of the house to lord Gam-, bier, for the zeal, judgement and ability which he evinced in the at.. tack on the French fleet, &c. : this was carried by a majority of 161

to 39.

On the 9th of February, the earl of Liverpool, without much pre-, face, moved for the grant of a pension of 2,000l. to lord Welling-, ten, for himself and his two next heirs. This motion, and a subsequent bill founded on it, were pass ed with scarcely any opposition The public at large were not so fully convinced of the high merits

their lordships, and a petition from the common council of London was presented to the house of commons, praying, that they would not law; and pass the said till into a upon the second reading of the bill, Mr. Whitbread and others protested against the measure, but. upon a division, it was passed by a majority of 106 to 36, and was finally passed triumphantly through its several stages.

In the house of commons, on the day just referred to, sir Samuel, Romilly proposed some alterations in the criminal laws of the country. He said, the indiscriminate appli cation of the sentence of death to offences exhibiting very different degrees of turpitude had long been a subject of complaint in this country, but it had still been increasingHe need only refer to those principles so universally and triumphant. ly established by Dr. Adam Smith, to prove this point. In his (sir S. Romilly's) opinion, nothing could be more erroneous or more mischievous than that particular punishments should be allotted to particular offences, and that the law. so laid down should not be acted on. He believed that, at this mo ment, not one out of six or seven who received sentence suffered the punishment annexed to it. There was not a more sanguinary code. than that of England in ancient times.

Fortescue stated, that in the time of Henry VI. more persons were executed for robbery in England in one year, than in France in seven years. In the course of the reign of Henry VIII. there were no less than 2,000 persons executed in this country; which was sufficient to show the sanguinary nature of our laws. In the reign of queen

Elizabeth,

Elizabeth, the executións amounted to about 400 a year. There were no returns showing the amount of those respited and executed from that period till the reign of George II.; but it appeared, that about that period they stood in a proportion of three to one. From the year 1749 to the year 1756, there were convicted in London and Middlesex alone 428, of whom 306 were executed, being about three-fourths of the whole. In the following years, of 64 convicted, 49 were executed; of 85 convicted, 63 were executed; of 276 convicted, 139 were executed; being in the proportion of about one-half. More recently, during his present ma jesty's reign, of 558 convicted, only 67 were executed, being in the proportion of only one-eighth. Of late years, out of 87 convicted, only 3 were executed, being in the proportion of one-twenty-ninth part. Murder was a crime, the perpetration of which was hardly to be excused; but if, for crimes of a more trivial nature, a milder sentence than that of death were allotted, there was every ground for believing, that instead of increasing, it would tend most effectually to the prevention of crime. It was not being too uncharitable to suppose that there was some presumptive evidence of guilt before a man was fully committed for trial; yet the returns showed, that in London and Middlesex alone, during seven years, there were committed, for stealing in the dwelling-house, 1,013, and for stealing privately in shops, 859, making together 1872 persons, of whom only one was executed. Some of these, no doubt, might have been unjustly accused, but the proportion must have been inconsiderable. The great bulk of these must have got off, in conse

quence of persons declining to pro secute; of the jury not finding bills; and, in some instances, that though the facts might have been established, the juries hesitated on account of the severity of the sentence. To these causes might also be attributed the fact, that, by the returns from other counties throughout the kingdom, the number of persons committed in 1806 was 3,426, of whom only two were executed; that in 1807 the number committed was 3,492, of whom only one was executed; and the number in 1808 was 3,748, of whom not one was executed: so that in two years, out of 7,168 persons committed, the law was executed only on one indi. vidual. He asked, if a law so inconsistent, so repugnant to every principle of justice and humanity. that it could not be executed, ought to exist in a country like this? His object was to contribute to the comfort and accommodation of every judge and of every jury in the kingdom, and even to relieve from sensations of regret and uneasiness the king himself. Let the Statute Book show, that there was not any good, that there could not be any good in such a system. Who could for a moment suppose the present system to be adequate to the suppression of crime, when informed, that of 7,000 persons committed for trial, only one had been executed? He should be happy to believe that this individual was the only guilty person accused of an offence deemed capital by our existing laws, but human belief could not carry him that length. Our law, as it now stood, the honourable and learned member contended, instead of operating as a preventative, was a manifest cause of the commission of crimes. This he knew to be the concurrent opinion of the judges

and

and others who went the circuit. It was impossible that persons could be led to respect the law by knowing that, as it stood, by violating it they must escape punishment. In his opinion, the mere violating of property should not be esteemed a capital offence, where there was no violence offered to the person, or where there was not some act committed which was in its nature calculated to prove detrimental to commerce. With this view he should move to repeal the acts of king William, making it a capital offence to steal 5s. privately in the shop; of queen Anne, making it capital to steal 40s. in the dwellinghouse; and of George II. making it capital to steal value 40s. in a navigable river or wharf. The certainty of punishment following conviction of an offence, was unquestienably the most efficacious mode of preventing the commission of erime. If certainty belonged to all the punishments prosecuted by law, even though such punishments were of the very slightest kind, they would tend greatly to the effectual prevention of offences. No man would commit an offence but from the prospect of some good to be thence derived to himself. If he were therefore certain that punishment would assuredly follow, the slightest punishment would be perfectly sufficient to deter him from offending. There was nothing he disliked so much as leaving every thing to the discretion of judges. It would be better to have no laws at all, than to leave the degrees of punishment to the arbitrary discretion of the judges. So differently were the minds of men constituted from the difference of

their habits, nay of their reading, that one man's judge might think the first offence entitled to be

regarded with pity; another, to deter from the repetition of it, that it should be severely punished. One might think the novelty, another the frequency of an offence, arguments for a more or less severe punishment. A striking circumstance occurred on the Norfolk circuit. Two men had been guilty of stealing some poultry. One of them was brought to trial; and on account of his good character, and because it was his first offence, he was sentenced only to a few months imprisonment. The other person accused presented himself at the next circuit, where a different judge presiding, he was sentenced to seven years transportation, and, at the very moment he was preparing to undergo this sentence, met his associate, who was then discharged from his confinement, and once more restored to liberty. The honourable and learned gentleman was sorry to advert to living judges: but he could not forbear noticing another case which lately occurred. A gentleman had killed another in a duel, in Ireland: and when tried for the offence, the judge laid it down that the crime did not amount to murder. Another gentleman was then in this country who had fallen into a similar misfortune; and trusting to this decision, he went over to Ireland, and voluntarily surrendered himself to take his trial. A different judge presided on that occa sion, who defined the crime to be murder; and, in consequence, the unfortunate gentleman was sentenced to be executed; and ministers thinking that it would have a dangerous tendency to extend mercy to him, the sentence of the law was put in force. The severity of the law, too, had a most mischievous effect, in inducing juries and others to disregard the oaths by which

they