The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-25 00:00:00

OUR CONTEMPORARIES•

THERE is no truer maxim than this, that punish-
ments by their excessive severity impede instead
of promoting justice. If the professional lawyers
who preside in criminal courts were not merely to
control the proceedings and to explain the law,
but to pronounce judgment upon the facts proved
and to award the punishment, there would pro-
bably be little difficulty in obtaining the services of
men willing enough to administer a code of law
however Draconian. But when the people them-
selves administer the law as they do, where trial
by jury exists, they prefer to pronounce a verdict
of acquittal rather than incur the responsibility of
subjecting a criminal to what appears to them an
excessive punishment. The penalties attached to
particular crimes must be approved of by
common opinion, or means will infallibly be
found to evade the fulfilment of obligations
which are considered too onereus. The annals of
criminal courts furnish conclusive proofs of the
truth of these principles. It was long, indeed,
before lawyers and legislators could be brought to
the opinion that the penalties attached to crimes
might be too severe ; but since they have acknow-
ledged the principle, experience has shown that
leniency, instead of ercouraging crime, has only
rendered punishment more certain.
The case of JAMES MURPHY; who was tried on
Thursday last before Mr. Justice BYLER for at-
tempting to murder MARY ANN JENNINGS,
furnishes an excellent illustration of the
principle to which reference has been made.
It appears that MURPHY was a fruit salesman in
Covent-garden. He had been in the habit of con-
sorting with a young barmaid—JENNlNGS—with
whom be was desperately in love. About three
weeks before the 29th of October last Miss
J&NNINGS broke off the courtship, which was
evidently a severe blow to MURPHY ; and about
half-past 10 o'clock on Sunday, the 29th, MURPHY
met his sweetheart, and insisted upon her coming
with him. This being refused, he pulled out a
razor, and, while the girl's friend ran for aid,
dragged her across the road, threw her down, and
with the razor which he had taken from his pocket
began cutting her across the face. " When he threw
me," she told the Court, "he said he would
"do for me ;' and I said, For GOD'S sake, JEN,
" don't kill me, forthe sake of my poor mother !'"
She was rescued, and taken to the Charing-cross
Hospital. Her story was amply confirmed by the
young woman who was with her, and by a barman
and two policemen who came to her assistance.
As to the facts, therefore, there could be no possi-
bility of doubt.
The only point in dispute was the intent with
which MURPHY was acting at the moment when
he made the attack. It is obvious that the
Judge had some misgivings as to the course which
the jury might take, for he reminded them that
whilst "the prisoner's life was not in any danger
" under the present state of the law," the case
was must important both to him and to the public.
To the prisoner it was important, because "an
" attempt to commit murder was • much more
" serious offence than an attempt to do grievous
" bodily harm," and the punishment was much
more severe. To the public it was important, be-
cause " when two courses were left to a jury, it
" behoved them not to attempt to slur over a crime,
" whatever it might be." It is true that the
facts were undisputed, and that the Judge suc-
ceeded in persuading the jury to return a verdict
against the prisoner of attempting to murder the
woman. But surely any one who has watched
the state of public opinion as to capital punishment
of late years, and who remembers the various cases
which have tried the nerves of the Home Snots-
TAR; must admit that, unless the old law had
been changed, the possibility of obtaining the con-
viction of MURPHY for the more serious offence
would have been doubtful. Assume for mo-
ment that if MURPHY had been convicted of an
attempt to murder his sweetheart he would have
been executed. It is difficult enough even when

(THIS DAY.)

MIL FOESTEE, 11. P., AHD THE BILLDFOHD REFORM MEETING.
Mr. Forster, the hon. member for Bradford, is
the subject of two articles in the Times, the Ana dealing
with his acceptance of the office of Coder Secretary of State
for the Colman, and the second with his reform speech to
his constituents. The Times thinks very highly of Mr.
Gosebee, but objects to Mr. Forster that his oratory wants
the style which a university education would give, and
which prevents a man from being too easily utiafied with
his own efforts. Both recruita are of extreme politics,
but nobody supposes the government will conform its
opinions to theirs, and it is just possible that, as with
Lord Palmerston's cabinet, the more radical the appoint-
ment of Berl Russell's subordinates the more eonserrative
may be the action of his government. The office of Vier
President of the Board of Trade ought to be abolished alto-
gether, on the simple ground that there is not work enough, or
the President alone ; and the presence of the teder•Secre•
WY of State for the Colonies in the Commons can only be
defended on the ground that its head is in the other House
of Parliament. Both hos. gentlemen must be content, at
say rate, to remain silent for a while, and keep their opi-
nions in abeyance, and it is satisfactory to think that
office will cure them of most of their peculiar views, and
that they will quit their official position with ideas
very differest from those with which they entered it.
As to Mr. Forster's reform speech, be does sot suggest
one single good thing reform is to do. The Tuna would
be only too glad to see all sides and all clause seriously at
work apon this subject of reform, but it cannot close its
eyes to the great probability—net to say the certainty—
that the first propositioo will be fetid to the ministry that
makes it. The proposer of reform has • halter round his

neck.
The port thinks it iv not going too far to assume for
certain that any measure answering to the expectations
which Mr. Forster has allowed to escape from his
lips would be either rejected or materially modified.
Practically, what Mr. Forster propoes is to place tke
conservatives in office with an ulterior object in view.
He takes the House of Commons to be a political
chess-hoard. This, however, is a greet mistake. The
conservatives would have the pme in their bands, and
they could only lose it by consummate folly. They would
do precisely what the country required ; they would take
the very course the liberals era now expected to passe ;
and they have no longer any traditions to impede their

ProffrosL
The Herald says the speech is nothing but a bid for
place. It is one long gushing declaration of implicit coo.
fidenee in the new Premier and bis colleagues. The
appointment of !dr. Forster to a subordinate office would
not commit the government to any policy, and in the
extreme dearth of talent in the liberal ranks it could
not find • more promising recruit. For the particular
office in connexion with which his name is mentioned
recent occurrences disqualify • man with hie 'prong
fanatical opinions, but some place may doubtless be
found in which be could display those business powers with
which kis friends credit him, sad learn to grow ashamed of
the crude absurdities in which he has been wont to indt
at public meetings.
The Telegraph invites the attention of timid politiciass,
trimmers, and waverer' to the Bradford meeting, and to Mr.
Forster's excellent speech. It is thoroughly in accordance
with the hon. gentleman's nature that he should so frankly
proclaim, on the eve of his se:eerier' to office, the exact
quality of hie political creed, and that he should repeat
with increased emphasis his promises of zudoue labour in
the canoe of reform. The Ituesell•Glacletone ministry is
this enabled to ascertain the presise character of its new
ally ; and by surnmming him it gives another guarantee of
its own sinoardy.

THE CHURCHWAHD coNrawcr.
The Daily News remarks that it is satisf *dory to fled
the principle of the c mud of parliment over nubile con-
tracts vindicated by our courts. It is obvious that any
other decision than the one which has been given in the
Churchyard °sae would have abrogated ell it. powers of
effectually restraining the application of the national funds.
If contracts involving large permeate for a long term of
years might be inbreed aphid g worriment, whatever the
opinions and votes of the House of Commona, there would
cease to be any means by which that body could control
public expenditure ; and as contractors adapt their arrange-
moots to the understanding that in dealing with the go-
vernment they are only dealing with en agent whose under.
takings are invalid until coofirmed by his principal, the
' decision is no hardship to them.
The Post points oat the evil resections.s of a different
rendering than Vast which has been given of the contract.
If If.r. Churehward hai been employd by the govern-
ment, notwithstanding the refusal of parliament to appro-
priate any sums of money for hie payment, the govern-
ment would have been acting in direct antagonism to the
legislature. The House of Commons, on the one aide, as
the guardian of the public purse, weed by formal mole- ,
I tion have decanted that a certain individual should non any
longer be paid for services which he had been be the habit '
of rendering; whffe, on the other, the government
would lave continued to repels at his heads the discherge
lof those duties, knowing their inability to offer in return
any remoneestion. To adopt such a course would, an the
Chid Justice said, have been derogatory to the mown.
The Herald takes the side of Mr. Chnrchward very
warmly, lisebrieg that if tie precedent set by the present
goeumesst is their dealings with Mr. Chorchwartl te to