of ſeverity. It is the ſentiment of an ingenious writer, who ſeems to have well ſtudied the ſprings of human action[1], that crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty, than by the ſeverity, of puniſhment. For the exceſſive ſeverity of laws (ſays Monteſquieu[2]) hinders their execution: when the puniſhment ſurpaſſes all meaſure, the public will frequently out of humanity prefer impunity to it. Thus alſo the ſtatute 1 Mar. ft. 1. c. 1. recites in it's preamble, “ that the ſtate of every king conſiſts more aſſuredly in the love of the ſubject towards their prince, than in the dread of laws made with rigorous pains ; and that laws made for the preſervation of the commonwealth without great penalties are more often obeyed and kept, than laws made with extreme puniſhments.” Happy had it been for the nation, if the ſubſequent practice of that deluded princeſs in matters of religion, had been correſpondent to theſe ſentiments of herſelf and parliament, in matters of ſtate and government ! We may farther obſerve that ſanguinary laws are a bad ſymptom of the diſtemper of any ſtate, or at leaſt of it's weak conſtitution. The laws of the Roman kings, and the twelve tables of the decemviri, were full of cruel puniſhments : the Porcian law, which exempted all citizens from ſentence of death, ſilently abrogated them all. In this period the republic flouriſhed : under the emperors ſevere puniſhments were revived ; and then the empire fell.
It is moreover abſurd and impolitic to apply the ſame puniſhment to crimes of different malignity. A multitude of ſanguinary laws (beſides the doubt that may be entertained concerning the right of making them) do likewiſe prove a manifeſt defect either in the wiſdom of the legiſlative, or the ſtrength of the executive power. It is a kind of quackery in government, and argues a want of ſolid ſkill, to apply the ſame univerſal remedy, the ultimum ſupplicium, to every caſe of difficulty. It is, it muſt be owned, much eaſier to extirpate than to amend mankind :
