140 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



tice of not inflicting the punish- 

 ment denounced by the law, came 

 every day before the public and 

 underthe inspection of parliament, 

 and yet no fault had been found 

 with it. There was no disposi- 

 tion to censure the judges or his 

 majesty's advisers for not putting 

 the law in execution. It did 

 therefore appear to him to be most 

 clear, that in the public opinion 

 the laws appeared too severe in 

 their punishments. It was wrong 

 in any country, that the laws 

 should be in direct opposition to 

 public opinion; but it would be 

 particularly improper in this coun- 

 try, where offences were tried by 

 a jury, and where laws contrary 

 to the general opinion were not 

 likely to be well executed. In 

 fact, there appeared to be an uni- 

 versal confederacy in this country 

 against the criminal law as it now 

 stood. He approved of the bill 

 proposed by his honourable and 

 learned friend : he thought it 

 better qualified than the present 

 system for preventing crimes, by 

 rendering punishment more cer- 

 tain. 



Mr. Canning said, that the 

 question before the House, wasnot 

 whether they should extinguish 

 the discretionary power of the 

 judges, but how far it might be 

 proper to limit its range. The 

 whole amount of the change went 

 to take from them the power of 

 dispensing life or death ; and to 

 that he could see no objection. It 

 would be desirable to remove from 

 juries all temptation to perjury ; 

 and, by doing away the severer 

 punishment, increase the proba- 

 biUty of the offenders being visited 

 by the less. 

 The Chancellor of the Exche- 



quer observed, that the number of 

 cases mentioned to prove the de- 

 fective state of the law, tended to 

 establish its perfection, as in all 

 those cases the severity of the sen- 

 tence had been ameliorated, and 

 the appropriate punishment in- 

 flicted. This proved at least, that 

 the execution of the law was not 

 so much too severe. It seemed 

 that the severity was rather in the 

 amendment, as its object was not 

 to get rid of severity of punish- 

 ment, but merely severity of de- 

 nunciation. The effect of the bill 

 would be to make offences more 

 frequent; and he cautioned those 

 who might be disposed to support 

 it, to beware, lest in consequence 

 of it, it should become necessary 

 for them again to have recourse to 

 the legislature, and not only re- 

 vive the law, but put it in execu- 

 tion. 



Sir Samuel Romilly, in the 

 course of a reply to the principal 

 objections to the bill, insisted 

 chiefly on the point, that house 

 robbinghad considerably increased 

 for some years past, which he 

 could impute only to the circum- 

 stance of the law not being en- 

 forced. 



On a division of the House, the 

 numbers were, for the bill, 31. 

 Against it, 33. 



Sir Samuel Romilly, nothing 

 discouraged by the rejection of his 

 bill by so small a majority, three 

 days thereafter moved for a return 

 of the number of persons com- 

 mitted throughout England and 

 Wales, in the years 1805, 1806, 

 1807, 1808, and 1809, both at 

 assizes and petty sessions, stating 

 the crimes with which those so 

 committed were charged — the 

 number against whom no charges 



