The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-24 00:00:00

CRIMINAL LAW.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that on rising to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish
the punishment of death in cases of forgery, which
he should follow up by moving for leave to bring in several
other Bills with respect to the criminal law, he thought
it due to the House and the country to state the motives
that had induced him to bring forward the subject in the
present state of the public business, and which, when there
were so many measures before the House that require great
consideration, he should have been most willing had he
thought it consistent with his duty to postpone a
question relating to the consideration of the criminal
Hear, hear.) The adoption of the course like-
wise seemed to be indicated by the appointment of the
Commission, with respect to the civil and criminal law of
the country appointed some years ago, It was the inten-
tion, on the appointment of the Commission, that they
should consider—first, of the propriety of revising the
whole of the unwritten criminal law on the one
side, and of revising the whole of the written crimi-
nal law on the other, and, finally, they were to consi-
der the expediency of consolidating the whole. The Com-
missioners undertook this labour, and went through a con-
siderable degree of examinations, more especially with re-
spect to the unwritten law regarding thefts. One of those
examinations was exceedingly valuable, as showing the va-
rious decisions in the common law on the provision
with respect to thefts.—(Hear, hear.) It soon ep-
peered that in order to make a digest of the whole
of the unwritten law, and also to make a digest of the whole
of the written law, would hardly be done without at the
same time endeavouring to bring them into a snore regular
and methodical shape. That question led to most im-
portant and intricate questions. Seeing the time which
must necessarily elapse—seeing the great importance and
the great intricacies of the questions thus raised, and which
had changed the whole body of the criminal law as it ori-
ginally prevailed, and as it had of late been interpreted
—(Hear, hear, hear)—the Commissioners had their atten-
tion directed to the present state of the criminal law
with a view to its reform, and the consequence of their at-
tention being so directed was, that a report was presented
to Parliament in the course of last Session, in which the
Commissioners stated, that in their opinion there were
many offences now capital from which capital punishment
ought to be removed, and that capital punishment ought to
be limited to a small number of offences. With that opinion
it seemed to him essential that they should not continue an-
other year without bringing under the consideration of Parlia-
ment such amendments as could be made for the present,
without waiting for the total reform and digest of the
whole unwritten and written law. 'That opinion was very
much strengthened by the present state of the execution of
the criminal law in respect to certain offences. It was the
opinion of Dr. Paley, and which for a certain time pre-
vailed, that it was expedient to draw into the
criminal net a great number of offenders, and then to select
a few of those only for punishment. But the impolicy, and
injustice be might likewise say, of that mode of proceed-
ing was, he believed, fully demonstrated by Sir Samuel
Romilly, when he undertook, to his immortal credit, and
the great advantage of the country, to bring before Par-
liament the question relative to theimprovement and re-
form of the criminal law. —(Hear, hear.) Without
dwelling very long upon opinions not now entertained, he
would state to the House one or two reasons .v'hy he parti-
cularly thought the course formerly adopted was most in-
expedient, and likewise unjust. It was the object un-
doubtedly—no man now doubted it—it was the object of
capital punishment, not to satisfy the purposes of divine jus-
tice, or to inflict human vengeance, but to deter and pre-
vent crime.—( Hear, hear.) But that purpose was not
at all answered, when you say that out of a very great
proportion of offenders only certain victims should be
chosen for the execution of the criminal law, without defin-
ing the aggravated circumstances of the case. If it were
a question of the exercise of the privilege of mercy,
there were certain circumstances that occurred to every
mind why the privilege of mercy should be extended.
As, for instance, where offenders were drawn accidentally
into the commission of crime ; where persons had a good cha-
racter ; where they had not been .guilty of any offence be-
fore ; where they had been misled by others ; or where there
was reason to suppose that they were not the most guilty
in the commission of the offence. There were various other
grounds of mercy which would occur to every person, the
most simple as well as the most learned. If they were to
say that they would not extend mercy to a certain number
of cases to which the penalty of death was affixed by the
law, but that they would choose out of a very great number
of offences those of an aggravated nature, on which they
would inflict capital punishment, it was not known, and it
could not be known, either to the persons committing
the offences or to the country in general, what those
aggravations should be, so that offenders should be deterred
from such crimes. He would give two or three instances,
in order to show the great disproportion between the number
of persons sentenced to death under the present laws and
the number executed. In 1835, the whole number con-
demned was 523 ; but the number executed was only 34.
In 1836, the number of persons condemned to death was
494 ; while the number executed was only 17. With respect
to certain offences, the punishment which had taken place
was in great disproportion to the convictions. With respect
to murder ; for instance, 25 persons were convicted in 1835.
One of these was pardomed in consequence, as he recollec-
ted, of some informality in the indictment. Three were
transported for life, and 21 out of the 25 were executed.
But with respect to burglaries 193 were convicted and sen-
tenced to death, but only one was executed ; and with re-
spect to the crime of shooting, with intent to murder or
maim, 60 were convicted and only two were executed ; as
to larcenies 202 were convicted and no person executed.
With respect to burglary, it appeared from the returns
that since 1832 there were three persons executed for
offences of that nature. In 1833, one was executed ; in
1834, one ; and, in 1835 one also, for the offence of bur-
glary. He submitted that the great disproportion between
the number executed to those who were sentenced to death
was too great ; and he instanced the case of burglary as
showing that a beneficial effect on the public mind did not
result from the present state of things—(Hear)—besides, it
placed in a very painful situation the judges of the
land, and the
.Secretary of State, who were obliged to
administer a law which generally was not carriedinto effect,
except in some few cases, where it was expedient to enforce
it, even so far as the extreme penalty of death. One of the

cases to which he had referred was brought before the
King in Conned, and it appeared that the circumstances as
detailed at the trial, were that the accused was a professed
housebreaker, that he was a sort of master of arts, who taught
youths the science of burglary, that tools and instruments were
i'oiind in his possession calculated to effect an entry into houses,
and that lie kept a school or fan:ily for that purpose.
The second person executed was similarly situated, and it
appeared that he had committed burglaries on three fol-
lowing nights—in one case in the house in which he had
been before employed as servant. The third offence, where
execution followed was that of a man who was engaged in
burglary with a gang who broke into a house armed with
weapons, and being resisted they attempted to force their
way, but were repulsed ; they returned, however, and in
the course of their breaking in, inflicted several blows
of a severe nature on the family of the House.—( Hear.)
The circumstances of these three cases were widely
different, and he (Lord John Russell) would defy any
one to say that it could have been beforehand the
intention of the law, as regarded any one set of circum-
stances,saccompanied
that
there was that they could be taken as forming the ground-
work for the infliction of capital punishment.—(Hear.)
When the judges thought that the crime was so aggra-
vated
it s
byilo theukl
b circumstancese
visited
‘,i t
hb a whichpi
ta l
punishment,i .a
t
no doubt that they made the best use of their discretion, and
in such cases the Secretaryof State could not interpose,for they
could not find sufficient grounds for the extension of m3rey.
But at the same time, in respect both to the Judges and
the Secretary of State, men's opinions differed as t.) the
circumstances which should call for capital punish nent,
and, therefore, it was exceedingly difficult to deter-
mine the punishment which should be infficte 1, in
cases of burglary, for the crime was of such a nature, and
the circumstances connected with it were frequently so
varied, that amongst the many persons found guilty of
burglary some had been ordered for six months impri-
sonment ; and in cases tried by the Central Cri-
minal Court, some were sent to prison for
twelve months, some for six • months, and some even for
three.—(Hear.) This embraced the first objection that
he made to the present state of the law—its extreme uncer-
tainty of infliction, and the difficulty, or he might say.
the impossibility, of saying by the Judges vs ha !
were the circumstances which should agg,•avat
this crime to a capital offence.—(Hear, hear.) But
. ,
there was another objection to capital punishment so
inflicted—it was not in such cases calculated to impose