tions of the republic were annihilated by the imperial power, it was not lawful to put a Roman citizen to death for any crime; and we cannot learn from history that offences were unusually prevalent during that period; but we do know that when executions became frequent, Rome was the receptacle of every crime and every vice. It must, however, be confessed, that we have not sufficient information to determine whether the frequency of capital punishments was the cause, or the effect of this depravity.

The

Modern history affords us two examples which deserve to be attended to in this discussion. empress Elizabeth, of Russia, soon after she came to the throne, abolished the pain of death in all her extensive dominions; her reign lasted twenty years, giving ample time to try the effect of the experiment and Beccaria speaks with enthusiasm of the consequences it had produced. I have not been able to procure the regulations by which this change was effected, but as I believe the knout (an infliction more cruel than a speedy death) was preserved; I do not urge this example as having the same weight it would have, if milder punishments had been substituted. Three years after Elizabeth had ceased to reign in the north of Europe, her great experiment was renewed in the south. Leopold became grand duke of Tuscany, and one of his first acts, was a declaration (rigidly adhered to during his reign) that no offence should be punished with death; he substituted a mild system of graduated punishments, and though I do not think they were

very judiciously chosen, yet the consequence was, an immediate decrease in the number of offences. We are informed, that during a considerable period, the prisons were empty, and no complaints for atrocious offences occurred; and he himself, after an experiment of twenty years, declares, "that the mitigation of punishments, joined to a most scrupulous attention to prevent crimes, and also great dispatch in the trial, together with a certainty and suddenness of punishment to real delinquents, had, instead of increasing the number of crimes, considerably diminished that of the smaller ones, and rendered those of an ATROCIOUS NATURE VERY RARE." This passage is extracted from the introduction to a code which he gave to his people, in the year 1786: four years afterwards, he was called to the empire, and the further course of his noble experiment was interrupted. How far the old system was re-established, I am not accurately informed, but some travellers represent, that the new state of things forms a contrast very much in favour of the Leopold code. These instances, I think, turn the scale of argument as it applies to the authority of example; if we can rely on that of Tuscany (and it seems perfectly well authenticated), it proves the inefficiency of capital punishments, in great, as well as smaller offences, and it is of more weight than the united practice of all the nations of the world where the punishment is retained, but where it has never been found effectual to repress the prevalence of crimes.

The third and last argument I have heard urged,

is nearly allied to the second; it is, the danger to be apprehended from innovation. I confess, I always listen to this objection with some degree of suspicion. That men who owe their rank, their privileges, their emoluments, to abuses and impositions, originating in the darkness of antiquity, and consecrated by time, that such men, should preach the danger of innovations, I can well conceive; the wonder is, that they can find others, weak and credulous enough to believe them. But in a country where these abuses do not exist, a country whose admirable system of government is founded wholly on innovation, where there is no antiquity, to create a false veneration for abuses, and no apparent interest, to perpetuate them. In such a country, this argument will have little force against the strong reasons which assail it. Let those however, who honestly entertain this doubt, reflect that, most fortunately for themselves and for their posterity, they live in an age of advancement: not an art, not a science, that has not, in our day, made rapid progress towards perfection. The one of which we now speak has received, and is daily acquiring improvement; how long is it since torture was abolished? Since judges were made independent? Since personal liberty was secured, and religious persecution forbidden ? All these were, in their time, innovations as bold at least, as the one now proposed. The true use of this objection, and there I confess it has force, is to prevent any hazardous experiment, or the introduction of any change that is not strongly recommended by

reason. I desire no other test for the one that is now under discussion, but I respectfully urge, that it would be unwise to reject it, merely because it is untried, if we are convinced it will be beneficial. Should our expectations be disappointed, no extensive evil can be done; the remedy is always in our power. Although an experiment, it is not a hazardous one, and the only inquiry seems to be, whether the arguments and facts stated in its favour, are sufficiently strong to justify us in making it. Indeed, it appears to me that the reasoning might, with some propriety, be retorted against those who use it, by saying-" All punishments are but experiments to discover what will best prevent crimes; your favourite one of death has been fully tried. By your own account, all nations, since the first institution of society, have practised it, but you, yourselves, must acknowledge, without success. All we ask then, is that you abandon an experiment which has for five or six thousand years, been progressing under all the variety of forms, which cruel ingenuity could invent; and which in all ages, under all governments, has been found wanting. You have been obliged reluctantly to confess, that it is inefficient, and to abandon it in minor offences; what charm has it then which makes you cling to it in those of a graver cast? You have made your experiment; it was attended in its operation with an incalculable waste of human life; a deplorable degradation of human intellect; it was found often fatal to the innocent, and it very frequently permitted the guilty to escape. Nor can you complain

of any unseasonable interference with your plan that may account for its failure: during the centuries that your system has been in operation, -humanity and justice have never interrupted its course; you went on in the work of destruction, always seeing an increase of crime, and always supposing that increased severity was the only remedy to suppress it; the mere forfeiture of life was too mild; tortures were superadded, which nothing but the intelligence of a fiend could invent, to prolong its duration and increase its torments; yet there was no diminution of crime; and it never occurred to you, that mildness might accomplish that which could not be effected by severity." This great truth revealed itself to philosophers, who imparted it to the people; the strength of popular opinion at length forced it upon kings, and the work of reformation, in spite of the cry against novelty, began. It has been progressive. Why should it stop when every argument, every fact, promises its complete success? We could not concur in the early stages of this reformation; perhaps the credit may be reserved to us of completing it; and I therefore make no apology to the general assembly for having so long occupied them with this discussion. In proposing so important a change it was necessary to state the prominent reasons which induced me to think it necessary; many more have weighed upon my mind, and on reviewing these, I feel with humility and regret, how feebly they are urged. The nature of the subject alone will, however, create an interest sufficient to promote inquiry,