GENERAL HISTORY. 



[9 



Wj/cA lato is the organ, 'wrong." 

 After some further remarks 

 on the subject, sir Samuel pro- 

 ceeded to say, that he next pro- 

 posed to introduce a bill relative 

 to the common-law punishment in 

 cases of high-treason. The sen- 

 tence, as it stood, was most shock- 

 ing and barbarous. It was, in- 

 deed, now never executed ; but it 

 was obligatory upon the judges to 

 pronounce it according to the let- 

 ter; and the mitigation of punish- 

 ment was left to the care, and its 

 aggravation to the negligence of 

 the executioner. He meant there- 

 fore to move for a bill to alter the 

 punishment of high-treason ; and 

 another, to take away the corrup- 

 tion of blood as a consequence of 

 attainder of treason or felony. He 

 concluded his speech by moving, 

 " that leave be given to bring in a 

 bill to repeal so much of the act of 

 king William as takes away the 

 benefit of clergy from persons pri- 

 vately stealing in any shop, ware- 

 house, coach-house, or stable, any 

 goods, wares, or merchandizes, of 

 the value of five shillings; and for 

 more effectually preventing the 

 crimes of stealing privately in 

 shops, warehouses, &c." 



The solicitor-general, sir Wm. 

 Garroiu, then made some general 

 observations on .the principles of 

 the propoaed bills, and introduced 

 several facts from his own know- 

 ledge of the advantage of the dis- 

 cretionary power vested in the 

 judges. He did not mean, how- 

 ever, to oppose the introduction of 

 the bills, which there would be 

 future opportunities of examining. 



After some remarks by other 

 members, 'eavc was granted to sir 

 S. Romilly to bring in his three 

 bills. 



On March 26th, sir S. Romilly 

 having moved the third reading of 

 his bill respecting privately steal- 

 ing in shops, &c. the attorney- 

 general, sir Thomas Plumer, rose 

 to express his disapprobation of it. 

 He was well assured that the crime 

 in question had increased; andthe 

 opinions of all the judges, and of 

 the recorder and common serjeant 

 of London, that this bill would be 

 found inadequate, weighed very 

 strongly w ith him. He referred to 

 experience respecting the effect of 

 the act taking away the capital 

 part of the punishment from the 

 offence of stealing from persons 

 privately, which was a great in- 

 crease of crimes of that descrip- 

 tion, so that they were now openly- 

 committed by gangs of thieves in 

 the face of day. This increase he 

 attributed to the comparative mild- 

 ness of the punishment of trans- 

 portation, which to desperate of- 

 fenders carried little terror in it. 



Mr. Abercrumby supported the 

 bill chiefly on the ground of the 

 discrepancy between the law and 

 the practice, which was productive 

 of various evils, of which the prin- 

 cipal was, the necessity under 

 which judges and juries so fre- 

 quently laboured, of committing 

 what had been called pious perju- 

 ries, because they could not in 

 conscience and humanity enforce 

 the execution of the law in parti- 

 cular cases. With respect to the 

 experience referred to by the last 

 speaker against abolishing a capi- 

 tal punishment, he cittd the op- 

 posite experience in the instance 

 of repealing that punishment in 

 the case of stealing from bleach- 

 ing grounds. 



Mr. Welherall supported the 

 argument from experience, by tho 



