The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-06 00:00:00

to provi; in his place -in Parliament, ‘,,hat Lerd
Brougham, some years ago asserted, whet, he de-
dared that it was only the corrective power exercised
by the Lords which prevented the wars of heeislatien
.from being overlayed with the cnd!ess blundering and
absurdities of the Commons. The most remelt pra..-
tical proofs of the bungled manner in which the Le-t
gislative process is but too often carried oi, in I).e 1
Lower House, have been extracted by Lortrlynd-
hurst from the Ministerial Bills for the Reform of t'
Criminal Law, brought in by Lord John Russell and
Sir John Campbell, her Majesty's AVorney-Gelierel,
the latter of whom is desirous of confiroing the ad-
vantages of the most important of these Oili to the'
English side of the Tweed. from which we wits` in •s;
fel. that he is either a very unpatriotic Scotcbmno or
has has a very poor . opinion of his own legislatint.T
It is not a little gratifying to ourselves to perceiv
that the great and true principlf: of reform in our penal
code, for which we have contended during several yearst
past, was, on Tuesday night, fully recognised as the!.
sound and proper one, and adopted as such by Leedl
Lyndhurst, than whom no man of more luminous intel-
lect or more eminent legal abilities ever wore the judicialj
ermine. That principle Lord Wynford, whose talentsl.
as a judge or a senator we by no means wish to under-Ai
rate, does not yet understand, otherwise he could not,.
have supposed he was taking the best means of pla -4,
tecting property or repressing even a heinous species of,'
crime, by contending that rick-burning should still coil.
tinue to be punishable With death—a mode of punish-y
ment which has signally and notoriously failed of thel.
intended effect—and for the reason alleged by Lord
Lyndhurst. Let those who still entertain, in spite of
the practical lessons of experience, a bigotted attach-4'
ment to the use of the gallows, as a source of moralising 4
influence, hearken to what that most distinguished multi
experienced judge states. He says that "when he hadJl
the nonour of tilling the office of Chief Baron, he oftenN
tried cases of arson, and he found that in almost all'.`;
instances of the sort, the case against the prisone 7
depended upon circumstantial evidence—to any person'
having experience in criminal matters he need hardly i
observe, that few things were more difficult than to ,
induce a jury to come. to the conclusion of proved '
guilt, where they had to draw their inferences from a,
variety of minute facts, and when human life was at*."
stake. His Lordship added that "upon that ground, as!'
well 'as upon others distinct from it, he would support
the proposed alteration of the law in regard to arson."
.For our own part, we think, as we have said more than lik'
once, that the reasoning which leads to the conclusion 1
that rick-burning ought not to be punishable with death,
is equally valid against the punishing several other
crimes with death to which Ministers propose that the
capital penalty shall still apply, and for which crimes
the Criminal Law Commissioners recommend that the
sentence of blood shall, if possible, be invariably
carried into execution : a Draconic recommendation,ll
which, if acted upon, would, .considering the numberh
of capital offences which Ministers still allow to remaintl
on the statute-book, pluck from the regal prerogative
pt
its brightest jewel—the saving mercy, which during :.
the late reign was so beneficially exercised in regard
to the cases of capital convicts reported personally to
the King in Council by the Recorder of London. Ist
it preparatory to acting upon this impolitic and cruel ,
recommendation of the Commissioners that Ministers
have brought in a Bill to abolish the privilege of the ~
City of London in so reporting by the mouth of itse
Recorder all capital cases tried within its jurisdiction
to the Sovereign in Council ? If so, the clemency ,-
which so eminently distinguished the reign of ‘Villiai)o
IV., will not throw its mild radiance over that of;i:
Queen Victoria. This Bill, on which we made some ..
anticipatory comments last week, Ministers arc hur-
ryingthrough Parliament with a degree of preci-
pitancy which forms a striking contrast with the -,i
gentle slowness which has. marked the progress of the Ji
" nine Bills," or that one nest-egg of reform in the
civil department of the law, which the Whig Attorney-1
General has been so long hatching, as to induce ii
a very strong belief that it will turn out an addled egg,;
at last. .• We mean the Bill for the abolition of arrest"'
for debt. The maxim of the celebrated Beccaria that
" it is the certainty and not the severity of punishment
which deters from crime, we have frequently brought I
under the public notice, with abundance of facts and"'
II
statistical proofs to substantiate the soundness of thcV,
principle. The same principle, we have said, has beenti
recognised and adopted by Lord Lyndhurst, who ex-
pressed pressed himself, in reference to it, in the following
terms :—" He felt (he said) perfectly satisfied that..
the results of experience must lead to the conclusion!,
that severity of punishment did not repress crime, and 11.
that the most effectual mode of preventing crime was.
to combine moderate punishments with a strict and
steady administration of the law." In this Lord Lynd-
burst
takes a very different view of the matter from those
" philosophers' who advise that the sentence of death in q
1
every case that still remains capital, shall be invariably .11
executed. The learned Lord recommends a steady andfq
strict administration of the law when the punishmentstlj
to be enforced are moderate, and, of course, neither',.
revolting to the natural feelings of mankind, nor dis-.l
proportionate to.the offence. The Duke of Richmond 0"
took the same view of the mitigation of the punishmen:ili
of arson which Lord Lyndhurst did. His Grace putili
the question on its right footing when lie said that%
" the proposed change in the law respecting arson, soll
far from taking away any protection from farm-produce,li
would rather increase its security by removing objec- lii
;ions to prosecute." In this discussion the remarkable ,1
circumstance occurred, of similar sentiments being ex--
to
pressed, and strongly expressed, in regard to the miti-
gation of our criminal laws, by the Chief Justice andpi
two ex-Lord Chancellors of England, one of whom I
had also filled ti.e office of Chief Baron. We allude to .k
Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Brougham.ll
•I-lad we not lure the testimony of .the highest legalTll
• .i l
and judicial authorities in confirmation of the rectuml eo
of thoe opinions upon criminal law Reform which
we have humbly, but firmly and peisevetingly advo-ill
cated through evil report and good report, until we
~
have had tut; satisfaction to behold the " grain ol!•
mustard scar beeo;ele a goodly tree, adorning Out
earth where its wholesome principle takes root, aTI4I,
extending its branches toward; fleaven. It woui,l4
lead us to a length far greater then our space ivauldh
adthit, to review this discussion in all ii.es bearings,?!,
and to point out the passages which are particularly
deserving of public attention in the admirably rea-
soned speeches of the distinguished judicial chera?-)
tors, whose names we have mentioned. We camp:ok
however, avoid quoting a sentence or two from the';
speech of Lord Brougham, in which that Noble and‘
Learned Lord expresses doubts of the policy of the
punishment of de alb, even for the offence of nrurdcr.4
He said " his firm belief and conviction were that ca-
pital punishment had failed in all and every case—event ,
in those cases of murderfor, which alone it was justifi.l'
able, if justifiable at all—whether • the puni. binent ofl,l
death should be inflicted, even for murder, was ao opil
nion which had for a considerable time been discussed.''
Into the merits of that discussion he would not theol,
enter, further than that if the punishment of deaths'
should be retained, it should be for that crime only IV
yet, even for that he thought
.its teedency was .1 i
I
not the retention or the prevention of crime ; on
the contrary, it tended to brutalise the mind, au4
to prepare men fin- the commission of that verg
crime for which alone, if retained 'at all, it ought t 4
he continued." The brutalising effects of the. punish 4
ment upon the mind and habits of the populace weref
0
very recently seen in the cases of the criminals Pees 4,
.
worth and e3reenacre, whose s'rangulation upon thei,
scaffold seemed to aff.ird to the, assembled crowds stilli
more exquisite enjoyment and delectable pastime thanit
they could derive from a bull-bait, a fatal priz:-fight,l'
or any other brutal exhibition calculated to stimulate:`
the passions of the mob with strong doses of inhumanit
excitement. Pegswcrth's crime was attempted to beR
imitated inunediately after his execution in the efforts
made by the wretched Kearney to murder the Deputyl
Chairman of the India House with a knife. Green-
acre was scarcely cold in the grave when another atro.i
cious murder of a female shocked the metropolis—pro- i
trebly perpetrated by one who was a spectator of his al
execution, and was, to use Lord Brougham's words,ll
" prepared by its brutalising eff:cts on the mind for thelfri
commission of the crime !-- Morning !Jerald. LI

The Earl of Chesterfidd and Count Bathiany nrel
the proprietors of the Taglioni, which ha; for two da;s'
created the greatest sensation amongst the " Noble whips" 'of
the %%Tit.