The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

THE SUN,

coveries of the remains of Nineveh, by any pecuniary
grant, and if so, to what am elm? - --
The CHANCELLOR of she EXCHEQUER said he
had written to Mr. Layerd, menteetting e suin Le prepuce
to Parliament, but he had not yet received any reply from
that gentleman.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. EWART having presented a large number of
petitions against the punishment of death, proceeded to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish it, remarking
that if he were not convinced that the feeling of the
country was against it, he should not have troubled
the House with the motion. Every day, however, con-
vinced the people more and more of the impolicy of
continuing this law upon the statute-book, and the feel-
ing in the country against it was stronger than some
Honourable Members were disposed to admit.
They were at a crisis on this subject—the time had come
when the question must be settled. The number of
murders had unfortunately increased; but unlike others,
he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that
their institutions had produced no effect. He held it to be
true that death by the law did not deter from the com-
mission of murder. But suppose they had aoolished
capital punishment, would not his Right Hon. Friend
(Sir George Grey) have attributed the murders that
had taken place to the repeal of the law? Now, he
entertained a contrary opinion ; he attributed the
murders that had taken place to the public executions
that had preceded them, to the hardening of these who
had witnessed such exhibitions, and the teaching of them
to look upon human life with less respect than before.
As on former occasions on which he had submitted this
question to the House, he should on the present avoid any
allusion to the theological part of the subject. He
looked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of
our religion. The question was one, he considered, of
expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon
that ground. Upon that ground Viccaria, an eminent
writer, who first converted him to the opinions he held,
urged the necessity of abolishing the punishment of
death. Then the last report of the Commission on
Criminal Law, stated it as its opinion that all punish-
ments rested alone upon social necessity. He held that
social necessity justified the abrogation of the punishment
of death. They had appealed in this matter to the fears
and prejudices of the country. His Honourable Friend
had said that attempts to murder had increased, for
the five years ending with 1846, as compared with the
five years ending in 1831, the number being in the
f. atiler 1,099, and in the latter but 451.
He also said that there had been an increase of rape, arson,
and poisoning, and attributed this to the abolition of the
punishment of death with respect to these cases—that the
abolition of the punishment had caused an increase of
crime. He denied that ho had taken a true test. In
order to have rendered his argument logical he should
have gone further and demanded the renewal of
death punishments in respect of these cases.
But he took a fallacious test—he took only four cases
out of 20, which he should have taken, and which he
(Mr. Ewart) was prepared to show had fallen in num-
ber though the death punishment had been abolished.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated that
there was an increase in the number of cases since ca-
pital punishment was repealed for rape, but the fact was,
that previous to the repeal, persons hesitated prosecuting
for rape, and indicted for the minor offence of an as-
sault. The returns laid before the House showed a
great diminution, instead of an increase, in those crimes
which ware previously punishable by death. For five
years previous to the abolition there were 259 execu-
tions, and for the first five years afterwards only 99 ;
while the number of offences in the former pe•
riod were 12,000, and in the latter 11,320.
To show that they could safely do without capital punish-
ment he would simply mention that the returns before
the House went to show that whenever they had miti-
gated the law, the experiment had proved most success-
ful. It would not do now for the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department to rise in his
place and meet this motion by saying simply that the
murderer deserved his punishment, the Right Hon.
NBvaasrojtlllestliwijaabs bleoounnd th,t.ogrporuonvde tohta. tlepunishment
gi:ti‘,e of
expediency,death
and not as a system of terror. Ile, however, could
urge many reasons why capital punishment
should be done away with. In the first
place, it was an uncertain punishment. The excellence
of a punishment consisted in its certainty, and to make
this punishment certain they must Ise prepared to
execute every criminal, convicted of the crime of
murder. He apprehended, however, that no advo-
cates for capital punishment were prepared to go
that length. Considerable sensation had recently
been excited upon this subject by the execution of two
criminals, between the extent of whose crimes there was
a very material difference. Ho alluded to the unfortu-
nate woman executed at Bristol and the notorious cri-
minal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there
not to have been a distinctieu between these
two criminals?—(Hear, hear.) Even the staunchest
upholders of the necessity of capital punishment
admitted the inequality of the punishment in eases like
those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore,
that, with a due regard for public feeling, the Right
lion. Baronet could not execute in all cases of murder.
Then he lost the advantage of certainty in the punish-
ment, while, on the other hand, if he adopted this
measure the punishment would be made certain.—
(Cries of "Hear, hear.") No one could deny that
public executions had a demoralising tendency.
So long as they continued capital punishments, not only
would they have the demoralising spectable of the scat-
fold, but they would have the accounts, in all the
pomp of circumstance, from the first beginning.
of crime to its last ignominious expiation, re-
corded by their liberal press, which narrated
all those demoralising circumstances, and thus produced
the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the
religion of the people; and so long would they throw
around the assassin that morbid degree of interest
which now always attached to him. Under the present
system, instead of leaving the criminal to
d well on those motives for repentance which
his position was calculated to awaken, they
diverted his mind from that wholesome exercise,
by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignomi-
nious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital
punishments to be objectionable in that they inflicted on
the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had in•
flitted on his victim. But there was another great ob-
jection, and it was that when once capital punishment
was inflicted it could not be recalled; it was beyond
compensation, and if once executed the criminal was
placed beyond the pale of repentance. Capital pu-
nishment had been abolished in Belgium and
in our own possessions in the West Indies, and
during the best years of the Roman Republic capital
punishment had never prevailed. He felt
strongly that the principle which he was
advocating was gaining hold on the people
of this country.—(Hear.) A greater number of
the clergy were daily coming over to his views ;
he had the opinion of several Recorders of
large towns, of three English Judges, and
of two Irish Judges in favour of the repeal of punish-
ment by death; and he thought the day was not far dis-
tant when the efforts to repeal that ignominious and
demoralizing punishment would be successful, and when
the people of this country would call on that House to
wipe from its statute book the spirit of revenge, and to
leave unfettered the exercise of the merciful precepts of
our holy religion.
Lord NUGENT seconded the motion.
Sir GEORGE GREY believed that the time was yet
far distant when they could with safety dispense with
the extreme penalty of the law in cases of the crime of
murder.—(Hear, hear.) It should, he considered, be
borne in mind, that since the year 1841 not a single per-
son had been executed, unless for the crime of murder.
—(Hear.) In one observation which his Hon. Friend
gave expression to he entirely concurred, namely, that
this question did not rest upon theological grounds. He
was convinced that there was nothing in the written
word of God which precluded the State from inflicting
this punishment, if deemed necessary for the preserva-
tion of human life; but it was said that there was
nothing imposed on rulers, as a moral obliga-
tion, to deprive persons of life even in cases
of murder. Now if that were right, as well might it be
said that the State had no right to transport persons,
nor to deprive them of their liberty, for the purpose of
gratifying a vindictive feeling. The only justification
of Government in inflicting the punishment of death
was to be found in its object to protect life, and that
protection was in a great measure afforded by the terror
which the punishment of death inspired. If the State
had no right to inflict severe punishment, where, he
would ask, was the safeguard of society? He appealed
to his Hon. Fri, nds whether he did not think it neces-
sary for the protection of human lite and of property.
that there should be a power in the hands of the Go-
vernment to impress terror on the minds of persons who
might otherwise have recourse to the commission of the
most enormous crime. He believed that the punishment
of death tended to inflict terror, and to keep down, to a
gnat extent, the crime of murder. Ile was not prepared
to say that men who committed the crime of murder
ought to be put to death recklessly, but the punishment
of death doubtless operated to diminish the crime.
The Honourable Gentleman referred to Belgium for
an example of the effect of the absence of capital
punishment. He also stated that in the best times of
the Roman Republic, there was not capital punish •
ment, and murders were infrequent ; and further, from
the relaxation of our own criminal law to the pre-
! sent time, that crimes had diminished. Whatever
result might appear from the returns of last year with
regard to burglaries, the effect had been that there was
an increase of the crime since the relaxation of the law
with regard to its punishment. It was argued that, in
consistency, the same regard ought to be extended to
the protection of property as of life, if' the infliction of
capital punishment was justifiable and productive of be-
neficial effects in repressing crime. The fact, however,
was, that aggressions ou property were not regarded in
the nowt light, and when capital punishment was in-
fl:cted, juries found the parties accused guilty of the
minor offence, to avoid its infliction. In the case of
steep-stealing, nut one in a hundred of those tried for the
offence had been executed, and the uncertainty of the
punishment operated in removing the check upon the
commission of the offence, which the certainty of the
punishment w onld d prevent.id attroach
h Theto
murder,
cuerrdtear, in ty
although of de a Intl
as a punishment
some cases, where
there were mitigating circumstances,
the sentence was not carried into effect. The ordinary
rule was, that the law was allowed to take its
penalty
course, and the criminal and the pthuabliocffehndadear hadnassutro-
ance that death was the
incur. The lion. Gentleman offered a certain punish-
wpoayserthtye
case of a poor woman who,_
punish-
ment, but did not state what it
thet ly
as
pressure T he
There
ef
case as that it was right to recommend the party for
and distress, had deprived her child of lite. In such a
mercy, not, however, that such an act could be justi-
fied, but it might be considered to be perpetrated with
mitigating circumstances. The pamphlet upon which
the lion. Gentleman relied to sustain his own statements,
erect to impugn his, led his Hon. Friend into error. Ca-
pital punishments had beeu withdrawn from those of-