208 KEPORT— 1875. 



life and of a high vahie upon property. This principle was strongly impressed 

 upon the penal laws, which came down from former times. Assaults and injuries 

 to the person, and even homicide, were purged by tines, oflences against property 

 v\-ere punishable wilh death. 



The elements cf social life have imdergone great changes, and the relative value 

 of life and of property has been reversed. 



Penal legislation has followed slowly in the wake of these changes, and the 

 severity of penalties against property has been mitigated. 



The question is raised, whether the changes in penal legislation have been com- 

 mensurate with the change in the relative value of life and property. 



Two propositions are submitted : — 



i. Assaults and injuries to the person are of the nature of offences against life. 



ii. Imprisonment is of the nature of a penalty levied upon human life. It is a 

 partial confiscation of human life. 



Notwithstanding the recent changes in criminal law, offences against the person, 

 in large classes of cases, are punished by penalties levied upon property. 



On the other hand, oflences against property are punished by a confiscation of 

 some portion of human life. 



This paper is limited to the consideration of offences against propeiiy. 



A summary of the returns given : — In the year 1872-7;J the number of sentences 

 to either imprisonment or penal servitude for offences against property was 

 30,G03. 



The average daily prison population of all county and borough prisons, and of the 

 so-called '' Convict Prisons," was 27,19:j. It is estimated "that of these nearly 

 one third are sentenced for offences against properly without violence. 



Thus the result is arrived at, that the protection of property in England and 

 Wales involves the confiscation of human life to an extent equal to the entire 

 lives in constant succession of from 8C00 to COOO men, women, and children. 



It is admitted that if the existing method of punishing offences against property 

 could be proved by experience to be indisptn.'-ablc, then it ought to be adhered to. 

 But unless such evidence could be adduced there is a strong presumption in favour 

 of pimishing offences against property by penalties levied upon property, and not 

 by penalties levied upon human life. 



Experience is strongly in favour of every change which has been effected in 

 the direction of more merciful legislation. 



The abolition of capital punishment for oflences against property was a depar- 

 ture from the principle of the old law of the extremest kind. Other changes have 

 followed. Nevertheless there has been a concurrent decrease of those forms of crime 

 the penalties against which have been continuously mitigated. 



There has been at the same time a constant decrease of severity in the sentences 

 passed by exercise of the discretionary power vested in judges and magistrates. 

 This passing of more lenient sentences is conclusive evidence that in the opinion 

 of the judges, and of the whole magistracy of the country, the past changes in the 

 law have worked satisfactorily. 



The same general conclusion is supported by the testimony of Mr. Samuel Eed- 

 grave in the report for 1858, published in 1859. 



Three cases within the personal knowledge of the writer adduced in illustration. 



The same conclusion corroborated strongly by a return published by the Bank 

 of England of the number of forged notes presented for payment before and after 

 the abolition of capital punishment. 



It is not contended that the decrease of crime is directly and altogether the result 

 of the decrease in the severity of punishment. But m the face of all this evidence 

 it is contended that the amount of crime is largely detennined by other causal 

 influences, and not mainly by the severity of punishment. 



Whatever those other causal influences may bo, no pretension is made that their 

 force has been accurately measured. It will be impossible, therefore, to adduce proof 

 that the limits of safety have been reached within which crime may be eflectually 

 controlled, and punishment be still further mitigated. 



In one way the mitigation of penalties has to some extent contributed to the 

 lessening of crime. It has brought the law more into accord with a natural sense 



