trifling thefts. In the following year, he succeeded in passing four bilis through the Commons. One only,—concerning thefts in bleaching grounds,—— obtained the concurrence of the Lords. He ventured to deal with no crimes but those in which the sentence was rarely carried into execution: but his innovations on the sacred code were sternly resisted by Lord Eldon, Lord Ellenborough, and the first lawyers of his time. Year after year, until his untimely death, he struggled to overcome the obduracy of men in power. The Commons were on his side: Lord Grenville, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Grey, Lord Holland, and other enlightened peers supported him but the Lords, under the guidance of their judicial leaders, were not to be convinced. He did much to stir the public sentiment in his cause but little, indeed, for the amendment of the law.1

Mackin

His labours were continued, under equal discouragement, by Sir James Mackintosh.2 In Sir James 1819, he obtained a Committee, in opposi- tosh, 1819tion to the government; and in the follow- 1823. ing year, succeeded in passing three out of the six measures which they recommended. This was all that his continued efforts could accomplish. But his philosophy and earnest reasoning were not lost upon the more enlightened of contemporary statesmen. He lived to see many of his own measures carried out; and to mark so great a change of

1 Romilly's Life, ii. 303, 315, 325, 333, 383; iii. 95, 233, 331, 337; Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, ii. 119.

2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxix. 784, &c.

opinion that he should almost think that he had lived in two different countries, and conversed with people who spoke two different languages.'1

Sir Robert Peel was the first minister of the crown who ventured upon a revision of the criminal code. He brought together,

Sir Robert
Peel's cri-

minal law
bills, 1824-
1830.

within the narrow compass of a few statutes, the accumulated penalties of centuries. He swept away several capital punishments that were practically obsolete: but left the effective severity of the law with little mitigation. Under his revised code upwards of forty kinds of forgery alone, were punishable with death.2 But public sentiment was beginning to prevail over the tardy deliberations of lawyers and statesmen. A thousand bankers, in all parts of the country, petitioned against the extreme penalty of death, in cases of forgery: the Commons struck it out of the government bill; but the Lords restored it.1

Revision of criminal code, 18321860.

With the reform period, commenced a new era in criminal legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with philanthropists in undoing the unhallowed work of many generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint, secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences connected with coinage: Mr. attorney-general Denman exempted forgery from the same penalty,-in all but two cases, to which the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart ob

1 Mackintosh's Life, ii. 387-396.

2 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 66.

3 Presented by Mr. Brougham, May 24th, 1830; Hans Deb., 2nd Ser., xxiv. 1014. Ibid., xxv. 838.

2

tained the like remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In 1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the entire code. While its labours were yet in progress, Mr. Ewart, ever foremost in this work of mercy,—and Mr. Lennard carried several important amendments of the law. The commissioners recommended numerous other remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord John Russell, in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell short of public opinion, which found expression in an amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by a majority of one :3 but has since, by successive measures, been accepted by the legislature,-murder alone, and the exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that from 1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for crimes which had since ceased to be capital.5

While these amendments were proceeding, other wise provisions were introduced into the criminal law. In 1834, the barbarous custom of hanging in chains was abolished. In 1836, Mr. Ewart, after a contention of many years, secured to prisoners, on trial for felony, the just privilege of being heard by counsel, which the cold cruelty of our criminal

1 In 1833, 1834, and 1835.

2 Second Report, p. 33.

3 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxxviii. 908-922.

4 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100.

5 Report of Capital Punishments Society, 1845.

jurisprudence had hitherto denied them.1 In the same year, Mr. Aglionby broke down the rigorous usage which had allowed but forty-eight hours to criminals under sentence of death, for repentance or proof of innocence. Nor did the efforts of philanthropists rest here. From 1840, Mr. Ewart, supported by many followers, pressed upon the Commons, again and again, the total abolition of capital punishment. This last movement failed, indeed; and the law still demands life for life. But such has been the sensitive,—not to say morbid,-tenderness of society, that many heinous crimes have since escaped this extreme penalty: while uncertainty has been suffered to impair the moral influence of justice.

punish

ments.

While lives were spared, secondary punishments Secondary were no less tempered by humanity and Christian feeling. In 1816, the degrading and unequal punishment of the pillory was confined to perjury; and was, at length, wholly condemned in 1837.2

Transportation.

In 1838, serious evils were disclosed in the system of transportation: the penal colonies protested against its continuance; and it was afterwards, in great measure, abandoned. Whatever the objections to its principle: however grave the faults of its administration,-it was, at least in two particulars, the most effective secondary punish

This measure had first been proposed in 1824 by Mr. George Lamb. See Sydney Smith's admirable articles upon this subject.— Works, ii. 259, iii. 1.

256 Geo. III. c. 138; 1 Vict. c. 23. In 1815 the Lords rejected a Bill for its total abolition.-Romilly's Life, iii. 144, 166, 189.

ment hitherto discovered. It cleansed our society of criminals; and afforded them the best opportunity of future employment and reformation. For such a punishment no equivalent could readily be found.' Imprisonment became nearly the sole resource of the state; and how to punish and reform criminals, by prison discipline, was one of the most critical problems of the time.

The condition of the prisons, in the last century, was a reproach to the state, and to society. Prisons. They were damp, dark, and noisome: prisoners were half-starved on bread and water,-clad in foul rags, --and suffered to perish of want, wretchedness, and gaol fever. Their sufferings were aggravated by the brutality of tyrannous gaolers and turnkeys,-absolute masters of their fate. Such punishment was scarcely less awful than the gallows, and was inflicted in the same merciless spirit. Vengeance and cruelty were its only principles: charity and reformation formed no part of its scheme. Prisons without separation of sexes,-without classification of age or character,-were schools of crime and iniquity. The convicted felon corrupted the untried, and perhaps innocent prisoner; and confirmed the penitent novice in crime. The unfortunate who entered prison capable of moral improvement, went forth impure, hardened, and irreclaimable.

Such were the prisons which Howard visited; and such the evils he exposed. However inert the legis

1 Reports of Sir W. Molesworth's Committee, 1837, No. 518; 1838, No. 669. Bentham's 'Théorie des Peines,' &c.; Dr. Whately's Letters to Earl Grey; Reply of Colonel Arthur; Innes on Home and Colonial Convict Management, 1842.