ally came to town for that pur pose. In expectation of this event, government had thought it prudent to keep all the military in or near the metropolis, who had been summoned when he was arrested. The magistrates swore-in an additional number of constables, and every measure was taken to preserve the peace of the city. The friends of sir Francis also, apprehending that the slightest commotion or violence manifested by the populace would draw upon them the collected and prepared military and civil force, impressed, by every means in their power, on them the prudence and propriety of guarding against every appearance of tumult. All the streets from Piccadilly to the Tower, through which the procession was to pass, were crowded with those who meant either to witness or to join in with it. The hour at which it was known parliament would be prorogued was anxiously looked for; the most effectual methods were taken to communicate notice of this event with the utmost expedition from Westminster-hall to the Tower. At length the expected intelligence arrived: parliament was prorogued; and sir Francis Burdett was again free. The immense multitude on Tower hill pressed forward to catch the earliest glimpse of him. Several minutes elapsed after the prorogation had been made known to the governor of the Tower, but the baronet did not appear:-such of his friends as were nearest the gates inquired respecting the cause of his delay. They were informed he had left the Tower, and proceeded by water. At first they were incredulous; and some were inclined to suspect that it was meant still to detain him. At last they were reluctantly convinced that of his own accord he had crossed the river, and was probably by that ime far advanced on his road to Wimbledon. Discontent and dissatisfaction began to appear among the multitude: they had assembled, in the expectation of a show and a procession, in which their favourite public character was to appear; they had been led to understand that the procession was planned and arranged with his knowledge and approbation, and that he had consented to proceed in this public manner from the Tower ;-no intimation had been given to them that sir Francis had changed his mind : the disappointment came upon them quite unawares :—that it did not lead them to acts of violence and fury, says much for their moderation and good sense; that it did not make an impression permanently disadvantageous to sir Francis Burdett proves the strong hold he had on their good opinion. Had it not been strong, it must have given way to the feelings excited by such a great and sudden disappointment, which could not be traced to any rational cause. Sir Francis Burdett offered an explanation and defence of his conduct, which was not perfectly explicit and satisfactory. Few of his thinking friends will censure him for not demeaning himself by becoming the puppet in such a ridiculous piece of pageantry as the procession was; but for not hazarding the peace of the metropolis he can lay in no claim. There was much greater probability of disturbance from a disappointed multitude-(many of whom suspected that some foul play of government was the cause of their disappoint ment) ment)-than if he had joined the procession. With respect to that part of sir Francis Burdett's explanation, which rests on the necessity which he supposes to have existed of giving the popular opinion an opportunity to display itself, it is very futile, and wears much the appearance of an after-thought. The popular opinion was sufficiently well known-it did not require to be brought forward again. Besides, this explanation does not unfold his reason for not joining in the procession: he wished the popular opinion to be made known, and therefore he acquiesced in the plan of a procession in which he would appear; but when the people were collected, as the object of his wish was accomplished, he did not consider himself bound to perform his promise! Surely this is weak, and not very creditable. But the strongest ground of blame is still to be stated. In order to show how popular he was, he acquiesced in a plan, by which an immense concourse of people were assembled his popularity being thus shown, he disappoints the multitude, and thus runs a risk, both of lessening his own popularity and of endangering the lives of his partiIt is said, that on reflection his friends approved of his behaviour: they might, and probably did, so far as regards his not joining the procession: a little reflection would convince them that the dignity of their representative was thus maintained; and it is not unlikely that by pursuing the same train of thought they would see the whole plan of the procession in its true light: but it is not easy to see how any reflection could ap plaud or justify him for holding out the promise of doing that sans. : which they were convinced would have been wrong if actually done. As the actions which sir Francis Burdett brought in consequence of his arrest and imprisonment are not yet decided upon in the courts of law, it does not properly fall within the province of our present volume to enter into any detailed account of their nature, or of the pleadings which have already taken place. It may however be proper to state briefly the nature of the actions, and the point to which they were brought at the close of the year 1810. Sir Francis Burdett has brought three actions:-one against the speaker of the house of commons, for issuing the warrant for his arrest and imprisonment :-one against the sergeant-at-arms, for executing the warrant generally, and for breaking open the outer door in the execution of it :-and the third against earl Moira, as the person who kept him in custody in the Tower. When sir Francis sent formal notice to the speaker and sergeant-at-arms of the actions he was about to commence, the house of commons, after a good deal of deliberation and discussion, ordered the attorney-general to defend them. The plea of defence in the cases of the speaker, earl Moira, and the sergeant-at-arms so far as the action against him is generally for executing the warrant, is, that the warrant being issued by the au thority of the house of commons was a legal warrant, and therefore rendered the arrest and imprisonment legal. But it is evident that, supposing the legality of the warrant to be proved, the legality of the mode of executing it remains to be decided. The first, or the general general question must be decided by the judges, after hearing the pleadings on both sides :-the particular question must probably go before a jury. Sir Francis Burdett's counsel, therefore,, were anxious that the question respecting the mode of executing the warrant should come on first. The attorney-general, on the other hand, contended that the general question ought to be decided before the particular one.-Lord Ellenbo. rough and the other judges coincided with the attorney-general, upon the obvious and strong ground, that as the quantum of damages (if any are given) against the sergeant-at-arms for breaking open the outer door must greatly depend upon the legality or illegality of the warrant he was executing, the general question of the legality or illegality ought to be decided in the first instance. Here at present the case stands. CHAPTER XII. Remarks on some other Proceedings of Parliament-Bill brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly to amend the Criminal Law-attempts no Innovation; but only to bring back the Practice to what it was-The Laws objected to enforced when first made and long afterwards-Statement of the Number of those convicted and executed under them, from the Year 1749 to 1772; from the Year 1802 to 1808-Absurdity of the Principle on which the present Practice rests; its bad Consequences-Examination of the Ground on which is is defended-Opinions of Earl Grey and Mr. Roscoe on Peace with Bonaparte; on the Terms likely to be obtained; on the Hatred of Bonaparte to this Country-Comparative Danger of Peace and War-Duty of the People and of the Government in this Crisis-Report of the Committee on the Mode of auditing the Public Accounts-General Remarks on the Session of Parlia ment, and the State and Conduct of Parties-Death and Character of Mr. Windbam. LTHOUGH the examination of the evidence respecting the expedition to Walcheren; the charges that were brought forward against ministers, founded on that evidence; and the proceedings re-, lative to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, involving in them the discussion and consideration of Af the Cvidence the privileges of parliament, were the most prominent and striking topics of debate in the house of commons: yet there are other points, springing either from mo tions and speeches made there and in the house of lords, or from the reports of committees, that amply deserve our notice. Some of these affect the character and real wel fare fare of the inhabitants of this country, as much as the subjects we have already discussed, although they passed off with less noise and attention, being more calculated to interest the cool thoughts of the few, whose judgement is stronger than their feelings and passions: others, though of inferior moment and importance, yet from incidental circumstances derive a just claim to our consideration. The first in importance are the clear and judicious views which sir Samuel Romilly opened respecting the imperfection of the criminal law of England. That part of the speech of earl Grey which relates to the possibility of making peace with Bonaparte may be reckoned next in interest. Besides these, the report of the committee on the public expenditure requires to be briefly stated and ex amined. The object of the motion of sir Samuel Romilly was to repeal certain acts of William III. Anne, and George II. which make the crimes of stealing privately in a shop, goods of the value of five shillings;, or in a dwelling-house, or on board a vessel in a navigable river, property of the value of forty shillings, capital felonies. The general ground on which he brought forward his motion was, that these acts were very seldom enforced; and that many serious evils resulted from this cause. By many persons it was supposed that these and several other laws were never meant by the legislature to be regularly enforced, but were placed in the statute books merely as objects of terror, the execution of which depended upon the discretion of the judges. As the argument which is derived from the known intentions and established practice of our ancestors has great weight with many, and serves to protect and render sacred no inconsiderable number of foolish and hurtful prejudices, sir Samuel Romilly satisfactorily removes this plea, by proving, that when the acts he objects to, and others of a similar nature, were first made, and indeed long afterwards, they were regu larly enforced. The present prac tice which he wished to set aside is therefore an innovation; and those who oppose him must not only give up their favourite argument about the wisdom of our ancestors, but range themselves on the side of those who, if they do not introduce, encourage and support when introduced, deviations from their laws. It is no difficult matter to explain and trace the gradual softness and relaxations of the severe peral laws: they were enacted against stealing property of a certain value, but this value could not be designated unless by-money in the course of time, however, this money no longer represented nor could purchase that value: unless therefore the thing stolen was actually, and not merely nominally, equivalent to what the act originally intended to protect, it appeared just to exclude it from the operation of that act. But when once acts of parliament be gan to be construed and applied differently from their literal meaning, greater laxity would arise on other points; till at last they could scarcely be said to form part of the known and established law of the land. That these were not vague and imaginary speculations and conjectures, sir Samuel Romilly proved by a reference to tables of the convicts at the Old Bailey, and of the executions. These tables begin in 1749, and go down to 1772.~~ Du ring the first part of this period, between two-thirds and three-fourths of those who were convicted were executed; during the latter part, about one-half only were executed. Between 1772 and 1802 nothing certain is known on this subject; but from the latter year till 1808, regular tables have been printed, under the direction of the secretary of state: from these it is seen that a regular diminution in the proportion of those executed to those convicted took place till the year 1808, when, of eighty-seven convicted, only three, or one twenty-ninth part, were executed. The general conclusion is, that at the beginning of his present majesty's reign" the number of convicts executed exceeded those who were pardoned; but that at the present time the number pardoned very far exceeds the number of those who are executed." Of those who were thus convicted but not executed, it is difficult to ascertain how many were guilty of breaking the acts sir Samuel Romilly wished to repeal: but it may be collected from the tables of the first period, between 1749 and 1772, that 240 persons were convicted at the Old Bailey of shop-lifting and other offences of the same nature, of which number no fewer than 109 were executed; whereas during the latter period, between 1802 and 1808, there were committed for trial (the number convicted does not appear) for the crimes of stealing in dwellinghouses and shop-lifting 1872 persons, and of those only one was executed. These facts are amply sufficient to prove that the law on these points, as it stands in our statute books, is not the law of the land : and certainly, unless the advantages resulting from thus declaring 1810. one law and acting upon another are very evident and considerable, the laws in the statute books should be altered so as to correspond with their execution, and to bring them back to their original meaning and intention. The groundwork and principle of the grand argument of those who approve of the present practice is simply this; that the ac tions which fall under the cognizance of human laws are so various, and their guilt depends so much upon minute circumstances, that no fixed and regular punishment can be inflicted, though it may be adjudged by law. If the attempt were made, the inevitable and necessary consequence would be, that in some cases of offence, attended with extenuating circumstances, the punishment would be too severe; while in other cases of offence, attended with aggravating circumstances, it would fall far short of the moral guilt of the crime. It is therefore maintained, that the only method of making guilt and punishment commensurate in all cases, is for the law to denounce death, and for the judges to be vested with the power of substituting a milder sentence if they shall deem it proper. Nothing can be more erroneous and dangerous than the general principle upon which this reasoning rests. If pushed to its legitimate conclusion, it would approve and introduce a most sweeping and comprehensive law, by which death would be pronounced against all crimes which the most uncommon circumstances of aggravation could render deserving it, and leave the relaxation of this severe law entirely to the discretion of the judge. ` A still more striking proof of the erroneous nature of this doctrine will appear, when it is considered that it would justify fixing by law Q the |