arising from any of our present institutions, to inquire into the causes of them, and to suggest a remedy, notwithstanding the reproach of being an innovator which he may incur from those who have an interest in perpetuating abuses; and, above all, he should be a man incapable of being swerved from his duty by the threats of power, the allurements of the great, the temptations of private interest, or even the seduction of popular favour; and who should constantly recollect that all the toil, the pain, and the fatigue of his office must be his own, and all the advantages which are to result from his labours must be for the public. These are the qualifications which, in my opinion, you ought to look for in your representatives. Perhaps it is not prudent in me to state them. Perhaps in this enumeration I have been pronouncing my own condemnation; and in pointing out to you what is requisite in a member of parliament, I have only been reminding you of what is wanting in myself. Of this you are the judges; but, whatever be the consequence, I shall rejoice in what I have done; for this I can with perfect sincerity declare, that I may be elected by you is only the second wish of my heart. The first is, that Bristol and other places of popular election may send to parliament able, honest, disinterested, and patriotic members. Gentlemen, amongst the qualifications which are, in my opinion, requisite in a member of parliament, I have not said that he should be determined, under no circumstances, to accept an office under the Crown. I have not said so, because that is so far from being my opinion, that I think there are circumstances in which it may be his duty to accept such an office. I should be sorry to be misunderstood by you upon this subject, and I am glad of this opportunity of avowing what my opinion upon it is; and, indeed, in appealing to my past conduct, I have told you that was my opinion, since I formerly myself held an office under the Crown. If a man barters his principles for office, if in office he acts upon different grounds from those which he professed to act upon before he obtained it, and if his official conduct is a constant violation of those rules which he had, when in opposition, prescribed for others, there are no terms which, in my opinion, are too strong or too severe to stigmatise such political apostasy; but if in office his views and his principles are the same as when he was in a private station, he deserves, in my opinion, no reproach for accepting it; and if it be, as I conceive it is, the duty of every man to use all the means which

he possesses of being useful to his fellow-citizens and his fellowcreatures; and if, by accepting office, he may become eminently useful to them, it is his duty to accept it. In enumerating what is in my opinion requisite in a member of parliament, I have omitted to say that he ought to be a friend to toleration, and an advocate for religious liberty to persons of all persuasions, but more especially to all descriptions of Christians, and that he ought to be a zealous supporter of that which is I think truly called Catholic emancipation, as being of vital importance to the security and happiness of this country, and which consists only in removing disabilities and disqualifications to which the great majority of the people of Ireland are subject, only for professing and adhering to that religion in which they sincerely believe, and in which they have been brought up by their fathers.” 1

On the eighth day of the election, Romilly, seeing the numbers against him, retired from the contest, without condescending to take any notice of the "many very mean election tricks" that had been practised against him by his opponents' supporters. A few days later he wrote to the Mayor of Bristol: "From your friendship and kindness to me, you will, I am sure, be glad to learn that I have found here [Eastbourne] Lady Romilly and all my children in perfect health, and that I am at this moment surrounded by countenances as happy and as much delighted as they could have been if I had returned covered with the laurels of Bristol." 2

In November the Duke of Norfolk offered Romilly a seat in parliament, and assured him that he would be left to act and vote as he thought proper. As the purchase of seats had been made illegal by statute, he accepted the offer, and was elected for Arundel (December 21).

No sooner did he take his seat than he moved (along with his motion as to the Shoplifting Bill, already referred to) for leave to bring in bills to alter the punishment of high treason, and to abolish the penalty of corruption of blood. In the former his object was to do away with the horrible disembowelling and quartering; in the latter, to prevent the infliction of suffering on the innocent for the act of the guilty. The solicitor-general, among others, declared his intention to oppose the bills, and

gave reasons which showed that he had not considered the sub

ject and had not grasped the mover's aim.

! Memoirs, vol. iii, pp. 56–58.

S

On March 17 the

a Ibid., p. 65.

bills were brought in, and on April 9 the measure to alter the punishment of high treason was discussed; the opposition that had been threatened was duly made. Some opponents confessed, in truth, that they would not have voted for such a severe law originally; but as they found it established, they were against altering it. In the course of his reply to the resistance offered and to an amendment that had been proposed, Romilly observed: "Although in my humble efforts to improve the penal law I have hitherto uniformly experienced opposition, I cannot but confess that I feel some disappointment and much mortification at the resistance to the bill now before us. I had flattered myself that at least in this one instance I should have secured your unanimous concurrence. I certainly did not foresee that in an English House of Commons in the nineteenth century, one voice would have been heard in defence of a law which requires the tearing out of the heart and bowels from the body of a human being, while he is yet alive, and burning them in his sight." 1 And he concluded with the following words, which ought surely to have moved all but those hopelessly afflicted with asinine obstinacy: "I call upon you to remember, that cruel punishments have an inevitable tendency to produce cruelty in the people. It is not by the destruction of tenderness, it is not by exciting revenge, that we can hope to generate virtuous conduct in those who are confided to our care. You may cut out the heart of a sufferer and hold it up to the view of the populace, and you may imagine that you serve the community; but the real effect of such scenes is to torture the compassionate and to harden the obdurate. In times of tranquillity you will not diminish offences by rendering guilt callous, by teaching the subjects to look with indifference upon human suffering; and in times of turbulence fury will retaliate the cruelties which it has been accustomed to behold." 2

The bill was none the less lost. Though Romilly's heroic efforts had proved unavailing, his perseverance and courage - which in another man might by this time have been broken-did not in the least falter. In the following session (March 23, 1814), he moved for and obtained leave to bring in the same two bills. In committee amendments were proposed and carried, which secured the retention of corruption of blood and forfeiture in the cases of treason and murder. Romilly, supported by Sir 2 Ibid., pp. 477, 478.

'Speeches, vol. i, pp. 461, 462.

James Mackintosh, held that corruption of blood was not a fit punishment for any crime whatever, as it was destitute of all the properties necessary in a penalty. As to the other bill, an amendment was carried to the effect that the head of the convict, after his execution, should be cut off. Romilly strongly condemned it. "I cannot think," he observed, "that any good effects are produced by the disgusting spectacle which is now exhibited, and which the right honourable gentleman desires to preserve, of holding up the bleeding head of the criminal to the view of the spectators. On the contrary, I believe that the worst effects are produced by it. We are so constituted by nature, that such spectacles of horror are seldom beheld by any persons with impunity." The bills were returned, with alterations, from the Lords (July 25). The latter proposed to abolish the effects of corruption of blood, except in the case of the attainted person during his life only, and in that of accomplices in murder. Romilly moved that these amendments should be accepted. In the Treason Bill the Lords preserved as part of the sentence that the body of the criminal, after he is dead, should be severed into four quarters. This he opposed, for "such horrible spectacles as that of mangling a body from which the vital spirit had just departed before a crowd of spectators tended only to deprave their minds, and to harden their hearts." 3

On May 4, 1813, he prevailed on the House to strike out certain rigorous clauses inserted in a bill for the relief of insolvent debtors (who, though willing to give up all their possessions, could hitherto be kept in perpetual imprisonment by their creditors), e.g. that a debtor giving a false account of his property should be punishable with death, and that the benefit of the measure should be limited to debtors who had already been in prison for six months. "If a debtor is to have the benefit of such a law," argued Romilly, "it is surely desirable that it should be before he has been long enough in prison to have acquired the habits and dispositions and maxims which are learned in those abodes of vice and misery, and while he may yet be restored as a useful member to the community."4 No other member seems to have been aware of the clause that created another capital offence"so little account in these matters is made of human life." The bill became law, July 10, but its execution having been delayed, 2 Ibid., pp. 18, 19.

1 Speeches, vol. ii, pp. 1-4. See infra, chap. ii. Memoirs, vol. iii, p. 147.

3

Ibid., p. 109.

Romilly presented to the House of Commons petitions from prisoners (November 11, 22).

Next he opposed (November 29), without success, the bill to continue the death penalty for breaking stocking and lace frames, on the ground that the causes which called it forth had already disappeared. He also spoke against the practice of flogging in the army.

The following year he obtained leave (March 31, 1814) to re-introduce a bill (the previous one having failed seven years before) for subjecting the freehold estates of deceased debtors to the payment of their simple contract debts; and it was afterwards carried in the Commons, but thrown out in the Lords.

Romilly now took a conspicuous part in the organisation of a meeting of the slave trade abolitionists (June 17). This produced a great effect on the provinces; and within a month over eight hundred petitions were presented to parliament against the slave trade. He also actively interested himself in the position and fate of Norway and Poland.

A motion for a commission to inquire into the fees taken in the courts was supported by him (June 28); he pointed out that illegal fees had been taken in the Court of Chancery for expediting causes. Soon afterwards he opposed, in a minority, Peel's Irish Insurrection Bill, which was to give magistrates in Ireland extraordinary powers, and pointed out there was no evidence of the facts stated as the grounds for bringing in the measure.

In reference to a motion before the House of Commons (November 28, 1814), he condemned the unconstitutional practice of continuing the embodiment of the militia in a time of peace; and moved a similar resolution the following year, when it was again rejected. He voted, in a minority, against the Corn Bill (March 3, 1815), as being "an extremely injudicious and impolitic measure," which indeed provoked riots immediately afterwards. At his instance a bill was introduced and passed (55 Geo. III, c. 49), providing for the issue of returns of criminals. His vigilance and energies never flagged in his anxiety to prevent irregularities and injustice and to promote liberty. He drew the attention of the House to cases of excessive punishment (April 17), moved or supported resolutions for appointing committees to inquire into the cruel conduct of colonial governors (June 2, 1815-June 11, 1816), urged the restriction of military punishments (June 21), supported