a man reading an ill-written letter, or looking at very distant objects,—who fancies one word or object and then another, till at last he is satisfied what the real one is. He, therefore, is often apparently in great error when he first speaks; and, though nothing be said by others, he goes on correcting himself. It would be well if clairvoyants said nothing and had nothing said to them, till they felt themselves certain.

Another point to be attended to is, that these effects come slowly like the movements excited mesmerically beyond the patient's sight, and which also are often incorrect at first, like clairvoyant thoughts, as Dr. Elliotson has remarked (supra, pp. 55 and 212, and vol. i., p. 423); and therefore full time should always be allowed for the results, as Dr. Engledue says in the account of his equally wonderful case of clairvoyance (supra, p. 269); and Dr. Elliotson in regard to movements, in vol. i., p. 423, and supra, p. 55.

A drawing of a house was placed behind him, and he at last correctly described it as a house of two floors and four windows. The half-length portrait of a preacher in a gown was placed behind him, and at last he correctly stated that it was a half-length portrait of a man with a strange tunic, and his hair drawn down at the sides, though he once fancied he saw a crown upon the head. When asked what sort of eyes they were, he instantly replied, "There are spectacles and large ones too ;" and this was all correct. Another drawing was placed behind him, and he at once correctly said that there were two lines of words beneath it. With two drawings he failed, and would not consider them long enough to judge accurately. A large portfolio was placed before him, and he said it contained only a piece of paper doubled together, and of a certain size, and placed in a certain part,—in all which he was perfectly correct. But the following trial astonished every one. Two lines were enclosed between two leaves of paper, and these were put into an envelope. He did not read the whole, as he did two lines through a doubled pocket handkerchief at Dr. Elliotson's, but he named two words of the whole, and declared he would stick three pins into each. On taking the leaves out of the envelope and opening them, it was actually found that he had named the right words, and stuck three pins accurately into each. Lastly, a book was presented to him, enclosed in three sheets of paper, and he read aloud the words Le chemin de fer, which were upon the cover. The words were not at all discernible through the envelopes, and the sensation in the company was extraordinary.

This we will firmly vouch for to our readers, that there is not the least attempt at deception or unfairness: and we beg them to compare Dr. Engledue's case of clairvoyance recorded in this very number.

THE ZOIST.

No. VII.

OCTOBER, 1844.

I. The Punishment of Death.

GREAT and important have been the changes in our criminal law during the past thirty years. But how numerous the struggles ere humane and enlightened principles obtained an ascendancy! Till the year 1812 a law existed, constituting it a capital offence for soldiers and sailors to be found begging in the streets. Ten years were occupied by Sir S. Romilly in attempts to abolish capital punishment for the crime of shop-lifting, notwithstanding he brought forward the fact that in the year 1785 there were ninety-seven executions for this offence in London alone. There was a time when the common pick pocket-the man who filched from his neighbour's pocket property to the amount of five shillings-was hanged; and this law was not repealed till the year 1808, when Sir S. Romilly brought forward his first motion for the reform of the criminal laws. Again and again, year after year, did this humane statesman, prompted and assisted by that great and good man, Mr. B. Montagu, introduce measures for the purpose of blotting from the statute book those bloody and inhuman laws which had so long disgraced it. He met with constant opposition. Lords Eldon, Liverpool, and Ellenborough were the peers who most strenuously resisted all attempts to improve the system of criminal legislation. They opposed his efforts because they introduced "an innovating spirit into the criminal legislation." On one occasion, in the year 1811, when four bills were introduced for the abolition of capital punishment for stealing to the value of five shillings in shops,-for stealing to the value of * Porter's Progress of the Nation, volume for 1843. VOL. II.

X

forty shillings in a dwelling house, or on navigable rivers, and for stealing from bleaching grounds: Lord Ellenborough said, "These bills went to alter laws, which a century had proved necessary, and which were now to be overturned by speculation and modern philosophy;" and again, "He trusted that laws, which a century had proved to be beneficial, would not be changed for the illusory opinions of speculatists." Lord Eldon said, "Hang them! hang them! for it is so nominated in the bond." The Christian bishops supported the same views. These bills were consequently lost.

Even in the year 1819, when Sir J. Mackintosh, after the death of his friend, Sir S. Romilly, moved the appointment of a committee "to consider so much of the criminal law as related to capital punishments, and to report their observations and opinions to the house," the motion was only carried by a majority of 19 in a house of 275 members! On the report of this committee similar bills to those just now referred to were introduced, but they were lost; and it was not till several years after, that the punishment of death was abolished in these cases. At this period petitions were pouring in from all parts of the country, praying that consideration might be given to the subject,-public feeling was loudly expressed,—and juries seemed determined to resist by their verdicts the severe enactments of the laws. Influenced by the pressure from without, and by Sir J. Mackintosh and his friends from within, Sir R. Peel in 1823 introduced several bills for the purpose of abolishing capital punishments in fifteen distinct offences. This statesman has received considerable praise for his exertions in this direction, but it should be remembered that his efforts were not original-they were not the result of a philanthropic impulse, but like all the other measures he has brought forward during his senatorial career, they were forced upon him by others, and he merely caught the "spirit of the age," and lent his little aid towards the embodiment of the wishes of the million. For with regard to those bills how stood the fact? Behold the humanity of Sir R. Peel! Behold a specimen of high, lofty, and benevolent statesmanship! The punishment of death was to be abolished in fifteen offences,-but the offences were obsolete, or of so unfrequent occurrence that these bills did not tend much to ameliorate the severity of the criminal code. For two years preceding the passing of these bills there were only four convictions under their enactments! What a boon then was this! In the three years preceding this legislative effort there had been 153 executions, and in the three years following this legislative effort there were 223 executions.

At this period, 1826 and the two following years, Sir R. Peel carried several important bills. So that there were 223 human beings hanged according to law in the interval between the first and second attempt of Sir R. Peel to ameliorate our criminal code. From the year 1820 to 1830, there were between 7 and 800 executions; and yet about the year 1828, Sir R. Peel "made it a matter of boast that he did not constitute any new capital felonies, and pointed out an instance in which he had abated the capital punishment by increasing the sum constituting it a capital offence to steal in a dwelling house, from forty shillings to five pounds, and by widening the technical description of a dwelling!" Let it be remembered that this was said in the British House of Commons, eighteen years after the speeches and efforts of Sir S. Romilly in the same place; between twenty and thirty years after the first glorious and memorable exertions of Mr. Montagu; and five years after Sir J. Mackintosh proposed, in a series of resolutions, that it was expedient to abolish the punishment of death in cases of larceny from shops, from dwelling houses,for horse, sheep, and cattle stealing,-for forgery, &c.; all of which proposals Sir R. Peel opposed, and in contradistinction brought in his bills referring to obsolete offences! Let not the men of expediency be classified with the great, the good, and the wise. Let not the upholders of a bloody penal code be confounded with the men who advocated through a long life the adoption of measures prompted by benevolence and justice. Let not history place Sir R. Peel by the side of Montagu, Romilly, Mackintosh, Wilberforce, &c. Let him not be considered the "great improver of our criminal code"-but rather to a limited extent the expounder of other men's opinions and benevolent aspirations-in fact, a labourer in the vineyard which other men had planted, and which, but for his opposition, they would have brought to perfection.*

And yet Sir Robert Peel estimates his own labours so highly, that he says

"I think I may claim some credit to myself for having done more towards the great and important object of improving and consolidating the criminal statutes of this country, than any other individual who has gone before me." Criminal Law Consolidation Bill, February 22, 1827.

In 1823, he introduced several bills for the purpose of abolishing the punishment of death in fifteen obsolete offences!

In the previous year, 1822, he declared that our criminal law "was the most perfect in the world." "The fact that the system of this country is the most perfect system of jurisprudence in the world, imposes upon us the necessity of observing great caution in approaching it for the purpose of making any change." March 27, 1822.

In the following year, 1823, the Criminal Law is not perfect. "I am ready to allow that the Criminal Law is not perfect." May 21, 1823.

In 1830, Sir R. Peel brought in his Forgery Bill. Again that horrid word "death" occupied a prominent position. In the three preceding years there were no less than fifteen persons executed for this offence. Again did the friend of humanity, Sir J. Mackintosh, move that the capital punishments be struck out of the bill. Sir R. Peel opposed the motion.

In 1832, Mr. Ewart carried a bill abolishing the punishment of death in cases of horse-stealing, sheep and cattlestealing, and larceny in a dwelling house. Sir R. Peel opposed the bill. And yet in the three years preceding the passage of this bill, there were executed for

Horse-stealing.
Sheep-stealing

Larceny in a dwelling house 6

In 1833 and 1834 other bills were passed abolishing capital punishment, and soon after this Lord John Russell introduced bills which placed our criminal law on a much more humane basis; so that the crime of murder is now almost the only crime for which the death-punishment is awarded. Mr. Redgrave says: "The magnitude of the recent changes in the criminal law will be strongly exemplified when it is stated, that had the offences tried in 1841 been tried under the laws of 1831, the eighty capital sentences passed would have been increased to 2,172."

The number of persons executed in England and Wales only, from the year 1805 to the year 1841, was 2,190,-and of this number only 384 were executed for murder. So that in thirty-seven years there were 1,806 persons executed for offences, for which we now imprison for a few months, or transport to the penal colonies for a few years.

On a former occasion we directed attention to the irrational course pursued by the criminal jurists of the present day. We are again anxious to refer to the subject, because it is only by constantly enforcing the consideration and application of correct principles that we can hope for the ultimate removal of this blot from our criminal code. During the last twelve months several criminal cases have occurred, and several judicial murders have been perpetrated; and in accordance with our previous declaration we shall select one or two cases for the purpose of illustrating the practical importance of our science-its civilizing and humanizing ten

In 1826, he said a man was not to be hanged if he stole forty shillings from a dwelling house,-but he was to be hanged if he stole five pounds; and he lessened the number of executions by "widening the technical description of a dwelling." Original and humane lawgiver!