1811 J 
bability, that this was intended as a ridi- 
cule on the Augustine manner of defining 
free will in the schools. But Mr,.Steeveus 
tells us “that Shakespeare could not mean 
to ridicule a circumstance of which it 
was hardly possible for him to have the 
least knowledge. “ Ife spent his time,” 
this commentator, informs us, ** better 
than in reading scholastic trash.” As 
Shakespeare’stibrary however consisted 
of little else than trash, surely scholastic 
trash, which was the most faslionable 
kind of trash, would not be excluded. 
He has, in fact, numerous allusions to 
those learned disputes of which Mr. 
Steevens imagines it scarcely possible 
for him to have the least knowledge. 
And the trash of the schools may without 
any undue partiality be deemed at least 
as edifying as the trash of Marlowe, 
Heywood, Decker, and Middleton, 
For I have ever verified my friends, 
Of whom he’s chief, with all the size that ve- 
rity \ 
Would without lapsing suffer. 
Act V, Scene 2. 
Dr.Warburton, whochanges “ verified” to 
“narrified” without necessity or propriety, 
has taken occasion from this passage to 
oliserve “that Menenius, the present 
Speaker, and Polonius, in Hamlet, have 
much of the same natural character; the 
difference consisting in this accidental 
circumstance, that the first was a senator 
in a free state, and the latter a courtier 
and minister toa king.” But the resem- 
blance is wholly imaginary ; Menenius is 
aman of sense, of sagacity, and wit, ap- 
‘proaching indeed at times to buffuonery. 
Polonius is a compound of weakness, 
conceit, and formality, verging on do- 
tage; swelling with ideas of his own im- 
portance; * fuil of wise saws and modern 
instances.” ‘The power of exciting 
mirth is perhaps equal in both; but we 
are diverted with the wit of the one and 
the foily of the other. Both are eha- 
‘yacters of humour; but Polonius diverts 
us by a display of the incongruities of 
his own character; and Menenius by 
exposing in a lively and striking manner 
‘the follies and incongruities of others. 
. ——me ~~ 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
: SIR, 
tes following passages in the debate 
on the second reading of Sir Samvel 
‘Romilly’s Bill on Stealing in Dwelling- 
houses, March 25, appearing to me to 
be particularly striking, 1 strall beg the 
Yavour of you to insert them in your 
Publication as soon as may be cunver 
Capital Punishment for slight Offences. 
feeling 2 
415 
nient. I have taken them from the 
Morning Chronicle of March 30. 
“ Mr, Edward Morris said that he 
could not help relating to the louse, 
the case of an unfortunate woman, 
tried for stealing above the value of 
five shillings. We waS present at the 
trial. From many circumstances \it 
was obvious that it was a first offence, 
and every person in court wished her 
acquittal. ‘The jury watched the tes. 
timony very narrowly, to see if any 
thing could be laid hold of in her fa- 
vour. Lord Kenyon told the jury that 
they were not to take any of the al- 
leviating circumstances into considera- 
tion in this verdict, whatever palliation 
there might me, and the ‘woman was 
found guilty. Lord Kenyon proceeded 
to pass the sentence of the law. When 
the woman heard the sentence of death, 
she fell lifeless to the ground. Lord 
Kenyon, who was endowed with great 
‘sensibility, instantly called out, “* My 
good woman, I do not mean to hang 
you. Will nobody tell the poor woman 
that she is not to’be hanged?” This 
case made a great impression on him. 
self, as well as every one present.. He 
had frequently heard the same noble 
lord pass sentence not on the prisoner 
before him, but on the law.” 
‘© Mr. Percival agreed that it would 
be an important improvement on the 
law, if judges were not compelled ta 
pass sentence of death on those who, 
at the time of passing sentence they 
should be of opinion, did not deserve 
a capital punishment.” ‘ He could 
not agree, however, to the suggestion 
of his honourable friend (Mr. Frank- 
land,) that an option might be given to 
prosecutors to lay their indictments ca. 
pitally, or not, as they chose. If this 
were the case, no offence would be Jaid 
as of a capital nature, unless from some 
improper feeling on the part of the 
prosecutor.” 
Does not the last sentence strongly 
shew that the opinion of the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer is that the people at 
large, are, generally speaking, much 
against the punishment of death for 
offences? Else why, does he suppose 
that no offence would be laid as of a ca~ 
pital nalure, unless from some improper 
That, by far the greater nun- 
ber, ave against this punishment I am 
well convinced, and most sincerely wish 
success to the present endeavours of 
Sir Samuel Romiily and his supporcers. 
A Constant Reapre. 
To 
