cellor a less effective officer than he was at present. It might be depended on as certain, that men in general were not very ready to do what others would do for them. The lord chancellor would therefore, in a short space of time, be in a different situation from that in which he had been for many years. In seeking a person to fill that situation hereafter, the first lawyer would not be sought out, but the first politician in the country. If the chancellor were to excel as a politician, and be admirable as a debater, he would naturally think that he might safely leave the decision of causes to persons with more legal skill, but less ability as debaters. But a great objection to the bill was, that it did not leave any more time to the lord chancellor, for the decision of causes in the court of chancery, than at present. It was intended that every, part of the business which was to be transacted by deputy should be open to appeal. To whom? To the chancellor himself. It could not be supposed that there would be fewer appeals from the vicechancellor than from the master of the rolls at present. A multiplication of appeals would thus be created; and this was a great evil, from the additional expense and delay which it occasioned. There was one argument against the offices of chancellor and speaker of the house of lords being vested in the same person, which was deserving of notice. In all appeals to

the house of lords from the lord chancellor, the lord chancellor was of all persons the last who ought to sit in that house as the presiding and most efficient judge. He concluded with moving as an amendment, that the bill be taken into consideration that day six months.

Mr. Stephen said that the evil complained of had been admitted to amount to almost a denial of justice; he must, for his part, declare, that in many cases it was fully equal to a denial of it. There were at present before the house of lords 273 appeals, of which one had been depending twenty years, seven for eleven years, 39 for sever years, and 77 above five years. From a calculation made in 1810, the average number of appeals decided annually was 10; and on that principle, what with new appeals, it would take forty-six years before the whole could be disposed of. This denial of justice was dreadful; yet it had been known to that house for two years, and no proposal had been made to apply a remedy. It was said, Why not separate from the duty of the lord chancellor some of the particular branches of his present business? There was no such character as an idle judge. All the other courts were in arrear, as well as the house of lords, though the judges were of all men the greatest drudges in business. was not so in former times. Matthew Hale had leisure to follow his various studies and amusements. Fortescue, in his work "De laudibus legum Angliæ," had said that judges did not sit more than three hours, from eight, to eleven in the morning; and passed the residue of their time in reading the law and studying the scriptures: so that they led a contemplative rather than an active life. What a contrast did this cha racter present to lord Ellenborough! In fact, the number of judges remained the same, though the business had increased out of all proportion. The business of the court of chancery had greatly increased, notwithstanding the insinuations

It

Sir

thrown

thrown out to the contrary. The amount of the property in litigation had arisen in the last century from one million to twenty-five, and had increased seven millions since 1800. The number of orders had more than doubled since lord Hardwicke's time. Mr. Stephen hoped gentlemen would perceive the evil of delay, and think of applying some remedy to this evil, where it existed in the greatest degree.

Mr. Canning wished to preserve the office of lord chancellor in this country in all the plenitude of its power, and splendour of its authority. He believed in his conscience that it was most essentially important to the constitution that it should be so preserved. He thought that it was one of the highest prerogatives of the sovereign, that he could choose a man from the profession of the bar, and give him rank and precedence above ducal coronets. This high prerogative, however, like all other, would be exercised with a responsibility to public opinion; and although the crown might make whom it would lord chancellor, yet it would never will to make any man a chancellor, who, in the public eye, was not conceived to be fit for that high station. He was not imputing any negligence to lord Eldon, when he said, that if this bill should pass, a time might come when all the business of the court of chancery might be thrown upon this new officer and the master of the rolls; and that in future times a lord chancellor might be chosen merely from other considerations, unconnected with his legal knowledge or ability, to preside in the court of chancery. This bill might, therefore, lead to the destruction of the high office of lord chancellor, which he conseived to be, as it now stood, an 1818.

office of the greatest importance, as well in a constitutional point of view, as with regard to the admi nistration of the important duties of the court of chancery. He, therefore, could not support a bill which appeared to him so ill calculated to remedy the evil it professed to obviate, and which threatened to produce still greater evils.

Sir S. Romilly strenuously opposed the bill, contending, that if it were passed it would effect a complete change in the character of future lords chancellors; and that the country would never again see such men as Somers, Camden, Hardwicke, &c. He denied that the business, strictly so called, of the court of chancery had increased since the year 1750. The number of suits had not increased. Undoubtedly causes were now heard at much more considerable length than formerly; and he lamented that a kind of invitation was held out for hearings and rehearings, equally injurious to the clients of that court and to the public at large. To the bill before the house, offering, as it did, the grossest indignity to the individual who might be appointed to fill the situation designated in it, he could never consent; and he was sure that the general sense of the profession was with him.

The solicitor general gave his opinion in favour of the bill, and against the amendment. He in sisted on the necessity of providing justice for the subjects of the realm, now exposed to many inconveniences by the delay in the courts of law.

The second reading was carried by a large majority.

Feb. 15.-On the question for going into a committee on the vicechancellor's bill, Mr. Leach entered C

inte

But of the number, 18 had been acquitted, and 113 convicted of larceny. It could not be said that it was intended that the law should only be carried into effect in cases of peculiar aggravation: for those circumstances of aggravation could not be in the contemplation of the law, which made no mention of them. If it was the amount of the pecuniary value which constituted the aggravation, this might at all times be fixed with absolute certainty by the legislature. The evils of unexecuted laws had often been detailed. The object of all laws was to prevent the commission of crimes; but this end could not be answered where the law was so constructed as to secure complete impunity to crimes. In the present instance there was a sort of conspiracy, a mutual understanding between all parties, the prosecutors and the crown, not to execute the law. He would cite a passage from the works of a writer who had been one of the greatest ornaments of his country and of that house, Mr. Burke, who, in speaking of penal laws, says: "The question is, whether in a well-constituted commonwealth it is wise to retain laws not put in force? A penal law not ordinarily executed must be deficient in justice or wisdom, or both. But we are told, that we may trust to the operation of man ers to relax the law. On the contrary, the laws ought to be always in unison with the manners, and corroborative of them, otherwise the effect of both will be lessened. Our pas sions ought not to be right, and our reason, of which law is the organ, wrong." The words of this admirable writer were never more applicable than in the present instance; for, without some extraordinary aggravation, who

there with nerves strong enough to contemplate the execution of this law, who would say that any one for stealing a ribbon or a piece of lace above the value of 5s. was deserving of death, if not guilty of some other offence? He did not believe that there was a single instance in which the sentence had ever been carried into execution. If there were any instance, it would be very desirable to know under what aggravations the offence had been committed; and it would also be extremely desirable that those aggravations which had been the foundation of the punishment, should in future be made the foundation of the sentence. This would relieve the judges from that responsibility in deciding on the fate of individuals from their own private judgement, which constituted the most painful part of their duty. He was himself satisfied that the effect of the law had been to increase the frequency of the crime. Laws, to be effectual, must hold out a terror to individuals. What terror could a law carry with it, when it was known that it was never put in force, but remained a dead letter on the statute book? He had, on a former occasion, stated, that no instance had occurred of the law against stealing to the amount of 40s. on navigable canals having been put in force. An aggravated case of this kind had lately happened, in which property had been stolen to the amount of some thousand pounds. This case had been cited against the principle of the bill for repealing that act. But could this be considered as a fair ground of objection? Because stealing to the amount of some thousand pounds is punished with death, is that a reason why stealing to the amount

of 40s. should be punished with death? He should, however, have congratulated himself, even if a law had passed to save the lives of those individuals. It was not likely that an instance of so aggravated a nature would soon occur again, and the effect of the execution of the sentence was to make persons dissatisfied with the existing law. The trial had lasted three days, and the jury had the fullest oppor. tunity to consider every circumstance of the case; yet, after their entire conviction of the guilt of the prisoners, they had joined in a unanimous petition to the prince regent, to spare the lives of those whom by the law they were bound to condemn. There could not be a stronger instance of the general repugnance in men's minds to the carrying of such laws into effect.

The next bill he proposed to introduce related to a part of the punishment for the crime of high treason, which was not at present carried into execution. The sentence for this crime, however, was, that the criminal should be dragged upon a hurdle to the place of execution; that he should be hanged by the neck, but cut down before he was dead; and that his bowels should then be taken out and burnt before his face. As to that part of the sentence which relates to embowelling, it was never executed now; but this omission was owing to accident, or to the mercy of the executioner, not to the discretion of the judge. In the case of colonel Wharton, concerned in the Ryehouse plot, this part of the sentence had been omitted, and a writ of error was brought by his son to reverse the sentence of attainder, which was allowed by the house of lords. It was argued that it was impossible that this sentence

could be executed, for that no one could survive the first part of it. But Harrison, one of the regicides, had held a conversation with his executioners after his bowels were taken out. It was proper to consider whether a sentence of this kind ought to remain upon our statutes, of no use to ourselves, but a constant subject of reproach to us among foreigners. In no very remote times this punishment had been actually inflicted In the reign of queen Elizabeth it was cited by a French writer as an instance of the cruelty of the English laws. Lord Bacon admitted the fact, but justified it by a comparison with the more cruel and barbarous punishments of other countries. In Barrington's conspiracy, out of fourteen persons condemned, seven were executed in this manner in one day; but the horror produced by the punishment reached the ears of the queen, who ordered that the remaining seven should be only hanged. In the last instance in which men's passions were ever much excited on these questions, the rebellion of 1746, Mr. Townley was cut down after he had been suspended six minutes, the executioner struck him several blows, and then proceeded to embowel him. The origin of this savage and disgraceful punishment was, he believed, in the reign of Edward I. who inflicted it on David prince of Wales for the resistance he had made to his usurpation; and afterwards repeated the same punishment on William Wallace, the noble defender of the independence of his country. Till the 30th of the present reign, in the case of women, the punishment for treason was being burnt alive, not only for attempting the life of the sovereign, or coining, but for petty treason.

Another