GENERAL HISTORY. 



Ill 



them ? With respect to the al- 

 leged fact, that privately stealing 

 from the person had been more 

 frequent since the repeal of the 

 capital punishment annexed to it, 

 he denied that the mere increase 

 of committals proved that this was 

 the cause, since it might be attri- 

 buted to the general increase of 

 crime, and also to the fact, that 

 since the alteration of the law, 

 persons were less averse to prose- 

 cute. The lord chief justice, whose 

 authority had been so much re- 

 ferred to on this head, had given it 

 as his opinion that the crime was 

 increased before the passing of 

 this act. Many instances might be 

 adduced to show, that in conse- 

 quence of the rigour of laws, men 

 were never prosecuted upon them. 

 This was remarkably the case with 

 regard to the punishment of death 

 enacted against bankrupts secret- 

 ing their effects : although the of- 

 fencewaswell known tobe extreme- 

 ly common, there had been only 

 four prosecutions of it within half a 

 century. Sir S. made some remarks 

 on the maxim quoted by a mem- 

 ber, " Nolumus leges Anglice mu' 

 tariff' and showed how defective 

 the laws would have remained, 

 had it always been acted upon. He 

 concluded with the words of the 

 present master of the rolls, " that 

 when the law was such as to be no 

 longer executed from its repug- 

 nance to the manners and senti- 

 ments of the community, the time 

 was come to repeal that law, and 

 to substitute others more mild and 

 more effectual." 



The House then divided upon 

 the third reading of the bill, when 

 the numbers were, For it, 72; 

 Against it, 34. Majority 38. The 



bill was then read a third time, and 

 passed. 



On April 2nd, Lord Holland in 

 the House of Lords moved the or- 

 der of the day for the second read- 

 ing of the above bill. The short 

 debate which this motion occa* 

 sioned produced nothing new in 

 point of argument, except the 

 lord chancellor's question. Was it 

 an encouragement or a discourage- 

 ment in the eyes of a man of com- 

 mon sense to commit a crime, that 

 instead of being hanged if he com- 

 mitted it, he could at the most be 

 only transported i an argument, 

 lord Grenville observed, that if 

 good for any thing, amounted to 

 this, that it would be advisable at 

 once, for every ofience, however 

 trifling, to enact the law of Draco. 

 Lord Ellenborough on this occa- 

 sion pronounced a splendid pane- 

 gyric on the laws of England ; and 

 on a division, the bill was thrown 

 out of that House by 26 votes 

 against 15. All the ministers, law- 

 lords, and bishops present, voted 

 against the bill. 



On April 5th, sir Samuel 

 Romilly moved the commit- 

 ment of a bill to take away 

 corruption of blood as a conse- 

 quence of attainder of treason or 

 felony. The bill having passed 

 through the committee, sir S. R. 

 having moved that the report be 

 received to-morrow, proceeded to 

 state his views respecting this mea- 

 sure. There were many persons, 

 he said, who confounded corrup- 

 tion of blood, and forfeiture, where- 

 as no two things could be more 

 distinct. Forfeiture was always a 

 punishment inflicted for an of- 

 fence; corruption of blood was 

 a consequence of the feudal law. 



