During the first session of his parliamentary career, Sir Samuel Romilly confined himself principally to questions of law, and seldom addressed the House, except in committee; but in the beginning of 1807 he took a more prominent part, and made his first great speech in favour of the abolition of the Slave-trade—a speech, which at once placed him on a level with the most successful orators of the day. In this subject he had always felt deep interest. From his earliest youth he had expressed the warmest indignation against this infamous traffic; he had translated, with a view to publication, Condorcet’s pamphlet against West Indian slavery, and, at the beginning of the French Revolution, he had written an eloquent paper against the Slave-trade, and had transmitted it to his friend Dumont, from whom he trusted it would pass to Mirabeau, and would remind him of the importance of the question, at a time when a comparatively slight effort would have settled it in that country for ever. These previous efforts had produced no effect; but he had afterwards the satisfaction of belonging to the ministry to whom the honour was due of abolishing the slave-trade, and of thus preparing the way for putting an end to slavery itself. This ministry were soon after dismissed from their offices, for not sacrificing their opinions in favour of Catholic emancipation to the lamentable and persevering prejudices entertained by George III. on that question, prejudices adopted by his son and successor, to the infinite detriment of his dominions.
On the dissolution of parliament which followed, Sir Samuel Romilly, having procured for himself a seat for Wareham, lost no time in re-introducing a measure, which had been rejected in the former parliament, to enable a creditor to obtain the payment of his debts from the landed property of persons dying indebted. With a view to prevent opposition, he had confined the operation of his measure to freehold estates only. The bill, however, even in this modified form, met with the greatest opposition. Its introduction by Sir Samuel was ascribed to “his hereditary love of democracy;” it was denounced by Canning, “as the first step of something that might end like the French Revolution, and as a dangerous attack against the aristocracy, which was thus to be sacrificed to the commercial interest;” and it was finally rejected by a considerable majority. Rather than give up his object entirely, he determined to make another concession to the prejudices of his opponents; and a few days after the rejection of the measure, on introducing a second bill on the same subject, he limited its operation to the landed estates of traders. This expedient succeeded; the aristocracy, caring little what became of traders’ estates, suffered the bill to pass both houses without the slightest opposition, and it received the Royal assent in August, 1807. After the lapse of seven years, he made fresh attempts in favour of his original bill, but in vain. It was indeed carried by the Commons, in 1814, by a majority of nearly two to one; and again in the same house, in the two succeeding years, without the slightest opposition; but on all these occasions it was as regularly rejected by the House of Peers. The original measure, including copyhold as well as freehold estates, has recently become part of the law of the land.
During the vacation of 1807 Sir Samuel Romilly prepared some of those reforms in the criminal law, by which he is most known to the public. For many years he had been intent on this subject, and had made it his particular study. During repeated visits to the continent, he never missed an opportunity of attending any important trial; and for the sixteen years during which he attended the circuit, he had been in the habit of noting down whatever appeared to him worthy of observation in the criminal courts. Shocked at instances of judicial injustice, which thus fell under his notice, he had secretly resolved that, if it should ever be in his power, he would endeavour to provide a remedy for such gross abuses. The principles of his intended reforms were contained in his answer to Dr. Madan. He held that the prevention of crime is more effectually accomplished by certainty than by severity of punishment; that to approximate to certainty of punishment, it was necessary to mitigate the severities of the penal code; that, unless this were done, there would still be an indisposition on the part of the public to prosecute, of witnesses to give evidence, of juries to convict, and even of judges to put in execution the sentences they had themselves passed;—that all these were so many chances of escape offered to a culprit, operating rather as encouragements than as checks to crime. These doctrines, then so new, although now received as axioms, made but few converts at first; and it was not till they were again brought before the public in the House of Commons, in 1808, that they attracted some of that attention to which they were entitled. One of his first bills, which repealed the punishment of death for stealing privately from the person to the amount of five shillings, passed both houses with but little opposition; but, as the number of prosecutions increased in consequence, it was alleged that the crime itself had increased, and that all similar reforms would be attended with similar mischief. Romilly urged in vain that, when the measure was under consideration, he had foretold that it would produce an increase of prosecutions; and that this, far from being an argument against the mitigation of punishment, was the best proof of its efficacy. In vain did he defend his principle, with the varied stores of his knowledge, with the most powerful arguments, and with the eloquence of deep conviction. The mature reflections of above thirty years’ study and experience were treated as the rash innovations of a wild theorist. The effect of government circulars was too seldom counteracted by the attendance of his own political friends; no party advantage could be gained from such enlightened labours; there was no large and powerful body in the country to second his efforts; and when, at length, after unremitting perseverance, he occasionally succeeded in carrying a bill through the Commons, it was rarely permitted to pass through the ordeal of the Upper House. But these efforts were not thrown away. His views, ably and diligently supported by Sir James Mackintosh and others, have since been confirmed and acted on even by his political opponents. The credit which was due to him who had sown the seed has since been claimed by those who reaped it; but the harvest is not lost to the public.
But Romilly did not shrink from taking an active part on questions more generally interesting to the public, even though the avowal of his opinions might endanger his advancement in life. A remarkable instance of this kind occurred in the beginning of 1809, when the conduct of the Duke of York was brought before the house by Colonel Wardle. He was aware that to support this inquiry would not be less obnoxious to many members of the former government than to those then in office. It had been significantly intimated to him that the Prince of Wales would consider any attack on the duke as an attack on himself; and he felt under some obligation to the Prince for having formerly offered him a seat in parliament, which, however, he had declined. Such was his position; entertaining, however, a strong opinion on the subject, he resolved not to abandon his duty; and he spoke and voted in favour of the motion. He concluded his speech in these words: “The venerable judge[[5]] who took an early part in the discussion of this question has attested the sincerity of his vote by an affecting allusion to his age and infirmities, to the few inducements which the remainder of his life presented to him. I cannot say the same thing. Not labouring under the same affliction, and not having arrived at the same period of life, I may reasonably be allowed for myself, and for those who are most dear to me, to indulge hopes of prosperity yet to come. Reflecting on the vicissitudes of human life, I may entertain apprehensions of adversity and persecution which perhaps await me. I have, however, the satisfaction to reflect, that it is not possible for me to hope to derive, in any way the most remote, advantages from the vote which upon this occasion I shall give, and from the part which I have thought it my duty to act.”
[5]. Mr. Barton, a Welsh judge, who was then at the age of nearly seventy, and deprived of his sight.
These anticipations were afterwards corroborated by several persons, who told him, that after such a speech, he must give up all thoughts of ever being Chancellor. The public also felt that he had made a sacrifice in their cause. Thanks were voted to him in conjunction with Mr. Whitbread, Lord Folkstone, and some others, from the City of London, Liverpool, Carmarthen, Wiltshire, Bristol, Berwick, &c. &c.; and he was invited by the Livery of London to a public dinner, as a mark of approbation of his conduct. He declined, however, to accept the intended honour, and his answers to the addresses were drawn up with that unaffected modesty, and love of simple truth, which were so peculiarly characteristic of his mind. Instead of dwelling upon his own merit, he drew the picture of what would have been thought of him had he pursued an opposite course. “Seeing the case,” he said in his answer to the Livery, “in the light in which I saw it, to have acted otherwise than I did, I must have been base enough to have deserted my public duty upon a most important occasion, from the mean apprehension that to discharge my duty might be attended with personal disadvantage to myself. If there be much merit in not having been actuated by such unworthy motives, (which I cannot think, but if there be,) that merit I certainly may pretend to, &c.”
The course which he took in the year following on the imprisonment of Gale Jones, and the alleged breach of privilege by Sir Francis Burdett, was again at variance with that adopted by either of the two great parties in the house. The Opposition as well as the Ministry, and all the lawyers who took any part in the debate, concurred in thinking the paper written by Sir Francis Burdett a breach of privilege, and deserving of punishment of one kind or another; while Romilly maintained that the house had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. He did not dispute the right to imprison for a breach of privilege which obstructed their proceedings, but he denied the right and the policy of doing so for the publication of animadversions on matters already concluded. He urged that these latter questions “ought not to be decided on by the house, which thus constituted itself prosecutor, party, and judge, without affording to the accused the opportunity of even hearing the charges preferred against him; but they ought to be left to the ordinary tribunals, the courts of law.” These arguments, disregarded at the time, were amply justified by the events which followed. The folly of the course adopted was proved by serious disturbances, attended with the loss of life; petitions couched in the most disrespectful language were sent up, and inserted on the Journals; and the question of the privileges of the Commons came, in the first instance, before the courts of law, and was finally decided by the House of Lords. Invitations to public dinners were again sent to him, which he again declined; and addresses of thanks were voted “for the stand he had made in favour of the dominion of the law, against arbitrary discretion and undefined privilege.”
But it was not only in this way that the public showed how much they appreciated his integrity and independence. In 1812 he was pressed to allow himself to be put in nomination for several large constituencies; amongst others for Liverpool, Chester, Middlesex, and Bristol. At Bristol, his past political conduct was considered a sufficient guarantee for the future; no pledge was required of him, he was to be put to no expense, and it was agreed that he should be excused from personal canvas. On terms so honourable he consented to be put in nomination; and although a total stranger in the town, his reception was most encouraging, and there seemed every prospect of success. Nevertheless the common but dishonest maxim, of every thing being fair at an election, being acted upon by the opposite party, it was soon evident that he would not be returned; and on the seventh day he resigned any further contest.
Although his opinions were not as yet to receive the sanction of any large and popular constituency, he did not relax his efforts in favour of the rights and interests of the people. On being returned for Horsham, during the six sessions which this parliament lasted, we find him the same strenuous advocate for civil liberty and religious toleration in the most extensive sense of the words, at home and abroad; the same determined enemy to peculation and corruption, the same ardent and judicious reformer of the laws; “incapable on every occasion 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. All the toil, the pain, and the fatigue of his duties were his own; all the advantage which resulted from his labours were for the public.”
He spoke and voted against military flogging, the game laws, the punishment of the pillory, the poor laws, the law of libel, and lotteries; against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, Lord Sidmouth’s circular letter, and the employment of spies and informers; and against the persecution of the Protestants in France, and the Alien bill at home; in favour of Catholic emancipation, the education of the poor, and the liberty of the press. He was always a zealous advocate for peace; against the system of the corn laws, and all restrictions on commerce, and he was in favour of an extensive change in the representation of the people, of shortening the duration of parliament, and ensuring the free exercise of the elective franchise. He was also in favour of the promulgation of laws, of allowing counsel to prisoners, of giving compensation to those who had been unjustly accused, of greatly extending the rules respecting the admission of evidence; of introducing secondary punishments, and of instituting a public prosecutor; and all this not more for the sake of humanity towards the guilty, than for the great ends of justice, the prevention of crime, and the reform of criminals.