oaths acquit thofe who were manifeftly guilty. But a stronger proof can hardly be required than this comparifon affords, that the prefent method of adminiftering the law is not, as has been by fome imagined, a fyftem maturely formed and deliberately established, but that it is a practice which has gradually prevailed, as the laws have become lefs adapted to the state of fociety in which we live."

The latter part of this paragraph appears to contain the fundamental error which perverts the reafoning throughout the pamphlet. They who rightly confider the criminal law of England, do not view the prefent method of administering it as a system perfect in itself. The fyftem contains one grand pervading principle, which is to provide every poffible fecurity for life, fame and property to all, with the fmalleft poffible privation of general liberty to individuals. For this reafon, the acts of men have not been fpeculatively reftrained, but when a known mal-practice has become dan gerous to the community, a law of commenfurate severity has been framed to reftrain it. While the evil continued at its heighth, the law was ftrictly executed, but when the fleam of crime ceased to fill that particular channel, the law ceafed to be exerted with the fame rigour againft cafual, uncombined, or lefs daring offenders.

But the learned writer feems to tank, that when fuch ftatutes have produced the end for which they were first defigned, they ought to be repealed; for fo he argues the cafe, as applied to the Acts of which he was endeavouring to procure the repeal. Returning to the tables before mentioned, he shows that, from 1749 to 1771, two hu red and forty perfons were convicted at the Old Bailey of fhop-lifting and other offences of the fame nature, of whom 109 were executed, and that within the laft feven years, there were committed for trial, for ftealing in dwelling houfes, and fhoplifting 1872 perfons, of whom only one was executed.

"In how many instances," he adds, "fuch crimes have been committed, and the perfons robbed have not proceeded fo far against the offenders as even to have them committed to prifon; how many of the 1872 thus committed were difcharged, because thofe who had fuffered by their crimes would not appear to give evidence upon their trial: in how many cafes the witneffes who did appear withheld the evidence that they could have given: and how numerous were the instances in which juries found a compaffionate verdict in direct contradiction to the plain facts clearly eftablished before them, we do not know; but that these evils muft all have exifted to a confiderable degree, no man can doubt.”

Pursuing the train of reflections arifing from this remark, Sir Samuel Romilly in another part of his pamphlet enquites,

"What danger could there poffibly be that we fhould leffen the power of inflicting punishment on crimes of moft dangerous example, accompanied with circumftances of heinous aggravation, by ftriking out of the ftatute books the acts which inflict death for the offences of privately stealing to the value of five fhillings in a fhop, of stealing forty fhillings worth of property in a dwelling houfe, or of ftealing cloth from bleaching grounds?"

and in treating on the inutility and impolicy of the laws he wishes to abrogate, he says,

"It is taken for granted that in each clafs of capital crimes, there are fome inftances to be found which require the restraint of capital punishment. Let us take, by way of example, the crime of privately ftealing in a fhop to the value of five fhillings. It is the opinion of many, that no infance ever occurred of that crime which rendered it a fit fubject of capital punishment. The circumftances, indeed, which induced the legislature to make this offence capital, the facility with which it may be committed, and the fuppofed neceffity of protecting by fuch feverity induftri ous tradesmen in the exercife of their calling, make it hardly pof, fible that it fhould be committed ur.der any peculiar aggravations. The legislature has in this cafe marked out what the policy which fuggefted the measure induced it to confider as aggravations that the theft was committed privately, that it was in a fhop, and that the ting ftolen is of five fhillings value." What, to follow the fpirit of the law, can poffibly be confidered as aggravations? Are they that the fhop was very much frequented, and was crowded with customers; that the theft was committed with fuch extraordinary address as to elude the utmost vigilance; or that the property ftolen was of a value very greatly beyond that which is mentioned in the statute? Surely no perfon can contend that any one of thefe circumftances can make fuch an alteration in the offence, that with it the crime fhould be punished with dea h, and without it, fhould be fubjected to a lighter punishment. Leaft of all can the value of the property tolen be fuch an aggravation; becaufe the law was intended to atford a protection to tradefinen, in inftances where they could not exert a fufficient vigilance for their own protection; but in articles of confiderable value, they are bound to exert that vigilance."

On the first of these three extracts, it is worth while to obferve, that much of the statement contained in it, and much of the reafoning and illuftration which immediately follow it, had before been ufed by the late Henry Fielding (the cele

brated

་་

brated wit,) in a pamphlet publifhed more than three-fcore years ago, called an Inquiry into the caufes of the late increase of Robbers," and by a Barrifter, named Wife, who wrote a fubfequent pamphlet on the fame fubject. Thefe authors wrote, indeed, not with a view to induce the legifla ture, through falfe pity and ill-timed fentiment, to repeal the laws already in being, but to urge them to give more effectual power for the fuppreffion of crime; and to perfuade judges and juries not to let the guilty efcape, through inconfiderate lenity, but to feel a juft compaffion for a fuffering public, whom it was their duty to protect. Whoever duly confiders the ftate of fociety in the metropolis, to which the two principal acts in quellion apply, for nearly a century after they paffed, will not wonder that they were made; and whoever confiders rightly the fluctuating state of fociety will be anxious that they fhould not rafhly be given up.

Amidst all the changes which have prevailed within the laft forty years, there is none more remarkable in the hiftory of fociety than that which has taken place with refpect to the reigning crimes. The tales of intrepid highwaymen, with which we used to be alarmed and delighted while children, have no reference to the criminals of modern days. Jack Rann and Jack Shepherd have left no fucceffors; the ele gant and accomplished Duval is as unlike to any thief of modern times as he was to Robin Hood; and Turpin, if we reafon from any thing these days afford, is as fictitious a perfon as any of the heroes or enchanters treated of by his namefake the archbishop. Why? The improvements of travelling, the facility of depofiting money in one place, and drawing it in another, without the danger attending intermediate carriage, the fafety derived from guards and patroles, the improved police, and many other circumftances, have totally extinguifhed thefe fhining lights of furtive heroifm. The highwayman, as defcribed in the memoirs of thefe adventurers, and as depicted in Gay's burlefque opera, no longer exifts. The probable profits of his depredations would not afford him a horle, a good coat and clean linen, and therefore, the only victims of the law against highway robbers, at this day, are the lurking footpad, and the wretch who obtains money from the timid, by threatening to charge him with crimes from the very name of which nature recoils. In the early part of his Majefty's reign, the ftreets of London were infefted with daring gangs whofe audacity of attack was not limited to folitary foot-paffengers, but who affailed companies and plundered coaches. From thefe pefts fociety is now released. Many a man remembers the time when every highwayman, foot-pad, fhop-lifter and pick-pocket,

tried

tried at the Old Bailey, was defended by counfel, the fees, together with thofe of the Solicitor, being paid from a common fund. The receptacles for ftolen goods publicly maintained, and the fchools for training young thieves, are not fables of mere idle invention. To wage war against this commonwealth of villainy, it was neceffary to poffefs extraordinary power, and to exert uncommon vigour. This may account for the large proportion of criminals of a certain clafs who were executed in former times, and for the ftatutes of which the policy is now fo much queftioned. Thus, it may have occurred to thofe who denounced the punishment of death against the culprit who privately ftole in a fhop, that he who, in the midst of a crowd of customers, could perpetrate his crime with fuch dexterity as to escape all obfervation, must be a confiderable proficient in the thieving art; and very probably an inftructor of those who were to follow him as profeffors. The altered state of things, now that the robber within is not protected by a gang without; now, that he is not intrenched and guarded against the execution of procefs; nor aided during his detention, at his trial, and even at his execution, (fhould that be deemed neceffary) by his daring affociates, feems to render it very right that the number of perfons who fuffer death fhould be materially diminifhed, and it is not neceffary to fuppofe fupineness in the judges, or perjury in the witneffes, or the jury.

But, it may be faid, this ftatement ftrengthens the arguments of Sir Samuel Romilly. If the law has done the duty affigned to it, why not repeal it? Why leave a needlefs flain of blood on the Statute Book? Surely this is proceeding with witlefs celerity. The fate of things which has been, may be again. The paucity of executions at this day, has other caufes befide the mitigated nature of crime. Many men who are taken up for robberies in the prime of life, willingly avoid the danger and difgrace of a trial by entering into the land or fea-fervice, where they would not be received if their crime had been fixed by a conviction. Many women are tran'ported to the Colony of New South Wales, although their offence might be vifited by a higher punishment. Lenity is fhown, because the ftate of fociety proves, that extreme feverity is no longer neceffary. But Thould a great portion of the army and navy be difbanded; fhould new combinations among criminals call for prompt and effectual exertion, what fhould be faid of thofe legiflators, who, upon grounds merely fpeculative, had crippled the adminiftration of juftice, and deprived the public of the benefit to be derived from a few falutary examples? Every

man

man knows the laws applicable to his own particular profeffion or purfuit; thieves are not lefs acute, nor lefs inftructed than honeft men; and they who would, without hefitation, become acceffaries in a fingle felony, will paufe, and make many objections before they affift in one, which promifing fmall gain, would incur a forfeiture of life. Therefore, if the law were altered, the combinations would probably revive, and fhop-lifting, instead of being the practice of individuals, would be the refult of a confederacy in which the offender would be defended, and purfuit prevented by

numbers.

Here we must paufe for the prefent. It may feem strange to bestow two articles on fo finall a tract; but the vast importance of the fubject must once more plead our apology. (To be concluded in our next.)

ART. V. Anecdotes of Literature and Scarce Books. By the Rev. William Belse, Tranflator of Herodotus, c. Vol. V. 8vo. 8vo. 464 pp. 12s. Rivingtons. 1911. .

A LTHOUGH we are not able, for obvious reasons, to expatiate in the commendation of our fellow-labourers, we are compelled by juftice to obferve, that in the progrefs of this work there is far from any decrease of intereft, or failure of curious information. We are of opinion, that this volume will be found fingularly ufeful to collectors, and from the variety and number of biographical notices, muft alfo be acceptable to the general reader. We fhall, however, fatisfy ourfelves with exhibiting an analysis, with fome fpecimens of the additional volume, and leave our readers to pronounce fentence upon its merits.

The volume commences with a defcription of the rare and curious books on the fubject of canon and civil law, a dry and lefs interesting fubject, as the author frankly confeffes, but which was certainly an indifpenfable link of the chain, as they fill an important fpace in the hiftory of early typogra phy. Dry, however, as the fubject may be, fo many entertaining communications are interfperfed, that but little apology was neceffary; and amends are fufficiently made by the following mifcellaneous remarks on vellum paper, &c.

"The invention of vellum has been ufually, though erro neously, afcribed to Attalus, king of Pergamos, now Bergamo, from which circumftance, according to the authority of Jerom, came the Latin word pergamena. "Unde et pergamenarum no. men adhunc ufque diem tradenti fibi invicem pofteritati fervatum est." Jerom. Epift. Select. edit. Lanifii-Paris. 1613. From which also doubtless came the French word parchemin, and our parchment.

S4