GENERAL HISTORY. 



[61 



be read a third time, the Attor- 

 ney General said that he wished 

 the terms of the preamble were 

 changed. It asserted, that the 

 bill was founded on the principle 

 that extreme severity was cal- 

 culated to obtain impunity for 

 crimes. The consequences of 

 such a declaration might mislead 

 men into a supposition, that pu- 

 nishment ought to be propor- 

 tioned to the precise degree of 

 moral turpitude. Severity, how- 

 ever, ought to regard not only 

 the moral turpitude of the of- 

 fender, but the pernicious conse- 

 quence of his oifence. The se- 

 cond proposition on which he 

 founded his opposition to the 

 preamble, that by declaring the 

 change in the value of money to 

 be a reason for altering the law, 

 it pledged the House to alter 

 every other law that was con- 

 nected witli such a variable com- 

 modity. He in consequence pro- 

 posed certain alterations which 

 would rectify these defects. 



Sir Samuel Romillt/ could not 

 accede to the amendment, because 

 it would expunge the very prin- 

 ciple which made the bill both 

 necessary and proper. There 

 was an indolence of legislation in 

 modern times which suffered acts 

 to be passed founded on no dis- 

 tinct principle at all. He was 

 anxious to conform to a moi'e 

 reasonable standard by stating in 

 the preamble the precise charac- 

 ter of the bill. It was a truth of 

 universal notoriety that the fear 

 of the punishment of death fol- 

 lowmg conviction, had often pre- 

 vented prosecutions for privately 

 stealing, and had thus afforded 

 entire impunity to the crime. As 

 to the second ground of objec- 



tion, could any one preterid that 

 five shillings was now the same 

 sum as in the reign of king Wil- 

 liam ? This was undeniably the 

 standard assumed in the act ; and 

 hence a change in the act was 

 necessary. On these grounds he 

 would press the preamble as it 

 now stood. 



Mr. Wilbeiforce gave his full 

 and cordial support to the mea- 

 sure proposed by his honour- 

 able and learned friend. He 

 thought that if himself or any 

 other member had any thing with 

 which to reproach themselves, 

 it was their not having exerted 

 themselves in endeavouring to 

 render the penal code of this 

 country less bloody than it was 

 at present. He was of opinion 

 that the entire penal code ought 

 to be revised, that punishment 

 ought to be proportioned to the 

 crime, and their united effects 

 ought to tend to the grand object 

 of free and just legislation — that 

 of adopting all possible means of 

 preventing crime, and of checking 

 it in its early stages. He hoped 

 the Statute book would be looked 

 over, and that such alterations 

 would be made in the penal code 

 as were suited to the present 

 times, and to a hberal and en- 

 lightened policy. 



The amendment was then put 

 and negatived ; after which the 

 bill was passed. 



On June 3rd Lord Holland in 

 the House of Lords moved the 

 second reading of this bill. 



The Lord Chancellor said, that 

 the bill, together with its princi- 

 ple and object, had indeed been 

 frequently and amply discussed 

 in that House, as well as in an- 

 other place. The opinions which 



he 



