Report of the Bullion Committee, which, he maintained, was founded in error; namely, that the Bank of England had increased its issues between June 1804 and 1806whereas it was proved by documents, that, during that pe riod, the issues were diminished.

The art of Lauderdale compared the present state of the paper currency with former depreciations, contending, that the same cause, namely, an excessive issue of paper, would infallibly produce similar effects to those produced by that means in the reign of William III.-to the depre ciation of assignats in France-and to what had been witnessed in every one of our colonies. In consequence of an excessive issue of paper, the coin disappeared, and the paper became depreciated-an evil which was only cured by linriting the quantity of paper.

Lord Holland observed, that the very same arguments that were now used, by those who contended that the paper currency was not depreciated, were used in France, to prove that assignats were not depreciated.

Lord Redesdale contended, that bank notes were in a different situation from assignats, being issued on securities which must be paid in a certain and short period, and in payment of which the bank notes were returned.

The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that the assignats were issued on the best security in France, namely, the land, and, whilst they did not exceed the amount of that security, remained at par with bullion; but as soon as it was known that more were issued than could be taken in payment for the land, then they began to fall in value, until at length they sunk to nothing. So by the Directors of the Bank of England increasing the issue of bank notes, for which cash was not to be had, the Bank paper had be come depreciated, whilst the Bank Proprietors had gained the enormous profit of 21,000,000l. since 1797.

Lord Redesdale admitted the cause of the depreciation of assignats, but contended that the assignats were issued by Government for provisions, for the armies, and other articles, without any prospect of their being returned, whilst the notes of the Bank of England were issued on securities, in payment of which they must be returned within a short period. The Bank notes were merely similar to as signats before their depreciation.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 29.

Mr. Byng presented a petition from Upper Holloway, and Mr. Mellish one from Kentish Town, in favour of the Highgate Archway.-Ordered to lie on the table.

A person from the Bank presented an account of the Bank Notes in circulation at different periods since the year

1718.

BILL FOR THE BETTER PREVENTION OF ROBBERY IN

DWELLING-HOUSES.

Sir Samuel Romilly moved the second reading of the Bill for the better prevention of Robbery in Dwelling-houses.

Colonel Frankland said, that last session three Bills had been brought in to alter the penal laws of the country, all of which Bills were lost; one in that House, and the other two elsewhere. Added to these, now two more were brought in, shewing a manifest disposition in the framer of them to change the whole system with respect to compound larceny. His learned friend had certainly given the public his sentiments most explicitly on the subject, and he believed his perseverance arose, not from pertinacity, but conviction.-' He sincerely believed, that he thought his proposed alteration would tend to promote the happiness of his country. If, however, his learned friend, in pursuance of a high authority which he had quoted, wished to leave some niemorial behind him of his assiduity in his profession, he ought rather to have selected for his labours that branch of it in which he was particularly conversant. There was not a Magistrate in the country but had more practical knowledge of that system which he proposed to alter than his learned friend himself, though, perhaps, not by any means so skilled in the practice of the Courts. Great care should be taken in meddling with those laws which had been long established, and which interwove themselves with the manners of the country, and in some degree formed the national character of the people. There was not a nation in the world in which the pilfering propensity was less frequent than in this; and this was a circumstance the more to be remarked, because of the vast personal property we possessed. Commerce had by its consequences tended to VOL. II.-1811. 3 R

produce an amazing display of wealth; and every shop exhibited a rivalry which should most excite the craving appetites of the passenger. What had happened of late to call for these Bills? What Magistrate, superior or subor dinate, had made representations on the subject? Not one. On the contrary, he knew that many Magistrates, high in office, and of sound judgment and long experience, had opinions against the change proposed. He believed this change was now attempted simply because the present system did not accommodate itself to the received opinions of a certain class of persons in the kingdom. There was a vast difference between the original enactment of laws, and the repeal of them. Some of these laws now proposed to be changed had been established for above half a century.Men's minds were made up on them, and familiarised to them; so that any alteration now would only go to unsettle the opinions of the people, and produce mischief rather than benefit. As a proof of this, the very knowledge that the repeal was discussing in that House made many suppose that the repeal had actually taken place, and that the opinion of the Parliament gentlemen (as they expressed it) with respect to the law, was widely different from what they had been taught to suppose, This unsettling of the popular opinion could have no possible good effect. The honourable gentleman contended, that the principles of the present Bill went to overturn the system of Criminal Law which had so long prevailed in this country, and which had hitherto produced so many practical good effects. If the new system proposed by his honourable and learned friend were allowed to take place, he was convinced it would be attended by the most pernicious and fatal consequences. The doctrine meant to be inculcated was, that prosecutions were not sufficiently numerous, because people were backward in bringing them forward, the punishments being so severe,, as, in most cases, that of death.— But he believed this was more in idea than reality. It had been advanced, that Juries acquitted-that Judges miti gated-and Kings pardoned; and all this because the punishment of death was so prevalent for almost all felonies; but he thought the latter part of this doctrine destroyed the former; for if Juries did not convict, how could Judges mitigate, or Kings pardon? He was assured in his own mind, that the Magistrates of the different counties must have as good a knowledge on this subject, as his honour

able and learned friend could possibly have, whose mind must, of course, be diverted to many other most important studies; and yet it was evident not any one Magistrate in any part of the kingdom had offered a thought on the subject, tending to wish to alter the criminal law, or divert it from the course in which it had been, so happily for the interests and welfare of the country, administered for so many centuries. He verily believed that the Bill which passed last year, and that was brought in by his honourable and learned friend, had already done much mischief-that larcenies had been immensely increased by it. Those persons who were ill disposed now met, and said to each other," I always understood that plundering and stripping a house in the day-time was a hanging matter; but now I find the Parliament gentlemen think otherwise, and we may now get off with only a trip to Botany-Bay;" they then described the nature of the country, the fertility of the soil, the salubrity of the climate, and the chance they might have of making their fortunes in the new world; and the consequence was, that larcenies had greatly increased, and that prosecutions had multiplied to an extent sufficient to gratify the taste either of his honourable and learned friend, or any other person whose appetite for them was not most enormous indeed. He read several questions which had been put on this subject to the Recorder of the City of London, and the answers of that learned gentleman; all of which tended to prove the truth of the argument he had advanced against this Bill. Other countries might enact laws of a more lenient nature than that of death, but it was in consequence of their being in a situation to be able to carry them into effect. In this country, where the wealth was extremely great, and the display of it much more so, temptations were held out to the indigent, the lazy, and the wicked, to possess themselves of that property belonging to others which fortune had denied to them; and unless the punishment for unlawfully taking it was severe, no man of property could be safe. It behoved the House to recollect, that with many hundreds of persons in this country, personal property was their only means; and this our ancestors had wisely guarded by laws, which from their severity should deter men from the attempt of taking it from the lawful owner. His honourable and learned friend might have argued his own mind into a belief, that the law in this respect, as it now stood, was too severe; but

he (Mr. Frankland) was, on the fullest and most mature consideration, of a contrary opinion; and so convinced was he that great practical evils would result from passing this Bill into a law, that he could not help conjuring the House, in the most earnest manner, not to depart from the wise system adopted by their ancestors, and the strict adherence to which had brought this country to its present state of prosperity, wealth, and grandeur; a departure from which could not, he feared, fail of being attended with consequences which every one would have the most abundant cause to deplore.

Sir John Anstruther said, that if he had the fears that some gentlemen appeared to entertain of this change as a dangerous innovation on our laws or political frame of government, he certainly should not support it, for it could not be supposed that either he, or his honourable and learned friend (Sir S. Romilly), could wish to disturb the frame of our government or of our laws. So far from this being a violent change in our laws, he considered that it would only be bringing back the penal code to the point from which it started. No man could look at our penal code as it stood upon paper, without horror. Most of the penal laws appeared not to be founded on any proportion of crimes and punishments, but to be passed with little observation, just as one particular crime happened at a particular period to be prevalent, or as a particular trade happened at one time to be more exposed. He must confess that those punishments were seldom inflicted, but still they were in the code. The remedy that naturally suggested itself was, that this penal code should be from time to time revised by the Legislature. The principle of punishing crimes of great enormity, was to deter others from the commission of them, by the example of the punishment. Nothing in those cases could be thought about the good of the individual; for the only good he could do, would be by the warning of his punishment. There were punishments, however, so barbarous, that we had not a right to inflict them, even to deter others from the commission of crimes. Common justice required, that punishments should be proportioned to crimes, and we had no right to act unjustly to one individual, to prevent others from committing crimes. In many of our punishments, those very circumstances which would seem a mitigation of the moral guilt, were an aggravation of the punishment.— When the temptation to commit the crime was great, one