The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-24 00:00:00

trine avowed which is not more abhorrent to huma-
nity than to every idea of sound and dispassionate
policy. What ! if the crime for which a man hris
been tried and convicted does not in any view of it
deserve death, is he to be hanged because on a se-
cret investigation it does not appear to those who
are the dispensers of his fate his character is that
of an upright and virtuous man ? If men were to
be hanged for bad characters we might dispense
with the bulks, and transportation, and imprison-
ment, and the tread-mill, and secondary punish-
news altogether. Again, if it be inhuman and un-
just to hang men for certain offences, of which
they have been legally convicted according to
the rules of evidence in open Court, and in
judicial manner, is it right or just to hang them
for allegations of bad character not proved accord-
ing to the rules of evidence in open Court, not
coming under the cognizance of the Jury who re-
turned the verdict, and only inquired into by a mode
of proceeding arbitrary, inquisitorial,' and extra-
judicial ? The Evening Paper to which we have
alluded also says, " With respect to the law, we
fully agree with our contemporary that there is
something inhuman in the destruction of life for
offences of such a character ; and we also feel that
the practice of destroying life for other offences than
murder, or robberies committed under circumstances
of brutal atrocity, is attended with no good result
in the way of example. The proof of this is, that
the crimes in question have not increased with the
comparative rarity of executions. This fact alone
ought to make capital punishments even less fre-
quent than they have been of late years, and to in-
duce the Legislature to amend the law." There is
as much admitted here as we can require in favour of
the view which we have taken of the subject. It is
the instinctive testimony which the better feelingsof
the writer bear to the injustice as well as the in-
expediency of the system, the practical applica-
tion of which he had in the former passage a'-
tempted to defend. He condemns both the law and
the practice, and we do no more. He says it is in-
human to destroy life for offences of such a descrip-
tion as Widget and Broach are sentenced to be ex-
ecuted for to-morrow morning, and we say the
He says that the practice of taking life for
other offences than murder, or robberies committed
u•uler circumstances of brutal atrocity, is attended
with no good result in the way of example, and we
say the same. He says the crimes in question have
not increased with the comparative rarity of execu-
tions, and we say the same. He says this ought to
make capital punishments even less frequent than
they 1 ave been of late years; and here also our
opinions coincide. Now is it clear, from all this,
that the two convicts, who have neither committed
murder, nor robberies of brutal atrocity, nor any acts
of violence whatever, should perish on the scaffold
for their offences, or that they should not ? If our
contemporary answers the question in the affirmative,
he certainly draws a most extraordinary conclusion
from such premises. It is, in fact, one of the most re-
markable instances of the non-sequitur in argument
which has ever fallen under our observation. If,

same.

indeed, sanguinary laws may be carried into exe.
cution, simply because they happen to remain on the
statute-book, although public opinion and all en-
lightened legislators have long since pronounced their
condemnation, and called for their repeal, then would
a Government be justified in drawing forth an obso-
lete statute of blood, either through motives of
caprice or cruelty, as a snare to human life. Object
to it, and the answer is, it is the existing law, and,
therefore, the Executive Government may make it
an instrument of inhuman destruction, if they be so
minded. But will an enlightened Government rea-
son in this way ? or, if any Government reasons in
such a way, will an enlightened public approve of
their argument, or respect their decision ? As to
sheep-stealing, it no more deserves death, in either
a moral or social point of view, than stealing an ass
or a pig, neither of which are capital offences by our
law; and yet asses and pigs are as well protected from
depredation as, in the circumstances of things, it is
possible for such animals to be. But the man who is
to suffer has stolen a few sheep. True ; but if be had
stolen twice us many asses, or three times as many
pigs, his punishment though severe, would not cut
him off in his sins, nor deprive him of the chance of
becoming afterwards a useful and industrious mem•
her of society. Our contemporary speaks of the
other man as a burglar. We understood he had
been convicted under the Act which makes it death
to steal to the amount of five pounds in a dwelling-
home. This is a very different offence from burglary
—but if we were misinformed, and the man has
been found guilty as a burglar, his offence must
have been one of those constructive burglaries in
which no actual violence is committed, and to say
that " he only wanted the physical energies of the
common burglar to become a murderer," is one
of the strangest modes possible of constructing an
imaginary foundation on which to build a saeguinary
inference. Is the doctrine of constructive burglary or
constructive murder a whit better than that of con-
structive treason, so justly exploded from our law ?
Our contemporary says, as a reason why sheep-
stealing is not punished with death in France, that
there is in that country a " horror of crime against
unprotected property." What has created it ? is it
sanguinary laws, or mild ones ? And what has de-
moralised the people of this country so as to make
property so very insecure ? Our contemporary will
know how to answer both questions when we tell
him that the English criminal laws punished up-
wards of 320 offences with death, while under the
Code Napoleon there were but six capital crimes.
What argument, then, of morals or policy, is there
for the sanguinary spectacle of to-morrow morning?
Morning Herald.
A Morning Paper, noted for pandering to the
ignorance and the passions of the multitude, took
occasion yesterday to pour out some of its venom
against the Pitt Clubs. The anonymous slanderer
seems to forget of whom the Pitt Clubs are com-
posed ; that they comprise a large mass of the
wealth, learning, intelligence, and loyalty of the
kingdom ; that to these Clubs belong, as classes,
the Peer, tile Member of Parliament, the divine,
the country gentleman, the lawyer, the soldier,
the merchant, hundreds of whom assemble annually
through the country to perpetuate the memory of
the Pilot that weathered the storm—of one tvho,-by
his undaunted firmness and his unrivalled talents,
preserved Old England from becoming a mere
provioce of France. The writer carefully omit-
ted to remind his readers of .what be must
well know, that under this anniversary banner
tie soundest principles in Church and State
have been for years -past fostered and stimu-
lated; and he as usual misled his ignorant
readers by quoting Mr. Pitt's speech in favour of
Reform at a time when the tranquil state of affairs
was such that no mischief could reasonably be ap-
prehended from moderate Reform, conveniently for-
getting to add that Mr. Pitt, as an experienced
State man (with the example of the horrors of the
French Revolution before his eyes), afterwards
formally abjured the " green fancies of his youth"
for Reform. lie was one who profited by expe-
rience : he did not consider history as an old alma-
nack. The writer adopts the stale device of put-
ting a number of silly questions and remarks about
Mr. Fitt into the mouth of a foreigner. No
foreigner who has sojourned in England for a
fortnight but what would be ashamed of owning
himself so ignorant of the history of William
Pitt and the eventful periods in which he lived as
this writer represents the imaginary personage
to be. The foreigner might not know, but this
Journalist knows full well, that the war in which
Great Britain was engaged during the time of
William Pitt was one either of safety or extermi-
nation to her ; be knows well enough that all the
respectable portion of the Whigs were at first cla-
morous for the war, and joined the Administration ;
but that, soon after their secession from office with
the Prime Minister, having unfortunately for the
cofattile ry obtaineda the whole power in consequence
..
lately so basely death
of
that great man,deserted,they made
whom they
had
i repeated efforts,
in the true spirit of pusillanimity and cowardice,

to conclude a base and inglorious peace with
France ; be must be well aware that Mr. Pitt,
with unshaken firmness, scorned this unworthy
course so long as be lived ; and that after
the overthrow.of the Whigs, those who succeeded
to office, in the genuine principles of Pitt, and
guided by the same foresight, brought that con-
test to a glorious cause, and saved Great Britain,
aye, and all Europe, from the ruinous effects of
Gallic •domination. Away, then, with this gross
misrepresentation of the principles on which the
Pitt Clubs were forme I ! Amidst the pernicious
principles of the day, let the Pitt Clubs shine forth
is containing within themselves the bond of union
so much called for at this portentous crisis—let all
former differences be sunk in oblivion amongst the
adherents to these Clubs—let all those who have
weight and influence fail not to attend the meeting
on Saturday next. The evil days are fast approach-
ing—be united, be firm—remember that the cause
of sound religion, of true•loyalty tied attachment to
the liberties and institutions indigenous to our soil,
may for a time by supineness be endangered, but
that with firmness and constancy the good cause
must ultimately triumph, malgre the temporary
prevalence of bad feeling and the partial success
of the Revolutionary enemies of the State.—Morn-
ing Post.
The irruption of the Russians and Poles into the
Austrian territory was no doubt a breach of the neu-
trality of the latter power; and the only proceed-
ing which it remained for Austria to take in the
matter was, either to disarm both parties, and send
them back la• force into the territory which they
had quitted, er to disarm them and receive them as
friends. The former would not have been a very
hospitable courser of proceeding—the latter would
have been kind and Justifiable on every ground.
The Government of Austria, however, hates the
Poles, because it hates insurrection, disturbance,
and national independence—it fears Russia, and
loves her principles, because they are equally
opposed with her own to the spread of free-
dom and the independence of nations. A dif-
ferent course was therefore resolved upon, and in-
stead of treating the trespassing parties either as
friends or enemies, the avowed, and hitherto ob-
served, neutrality of Austria was given up—the Poles
only were disarmed—the Russians allowed a free
passage with all their arms, baggage, and ammuni-
tion—and what is still more astounding, the arms
of the Poles given up to them as theirs by right !
Now, whatever the writers on international law may
say, we do think that this is a proceeding which
demands the attention of the different European
powers, and which is wholly at variance with the
professed neutrality of Austria. She had a right to
disarm the Poles; but she had no right to disarm
them alone, unless she was determined to make her-
self a party in the contest now waging between
Poland and Russia—still less had she a right, after
receiving their arms, to deliver them up to the
Russians, and to retain the Poles prisoners of war.
It is true, indeed, that Poland has not yet been re-
cognized by the PO'wers of Europe as an indepen-
dent nation; but Austria, according to all recog-
nised law, had no right to ascertain who or what the
persons were who had violated her territory, for the
purpose of making distinctions. She had not taken
the part of the Poles—she had not taken the part
of the Russians : in the capacity of a neutral both
had the same claims upon her hospitality—the same
grounds to expect that they would be dis-
armed and sent out of her territory. Had
she been a belligerent partisan of either, the case
would have been different, and no one would have
had any fair ground for accusing her of partiality in
disarming either, and delivering up the arms of the
one party to the other ; but Austria has been
neuter, and she has now committed a grass breach
of neutrality, of which it behoves both the Govern-
ments of France and England to take notice. Lord
Grey, indeed, must have greatly altered his senti-
ments respecting Poland, and greatly forgotten the
principles of international law, if he does not re-
monstrate with Austria on the subject ; and with
regard to France, if she forgets the Poles in this
nstance, ten thousand curses are not too many to
FA upon her.—Morning Advertiser.