The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-11 00:00:00

4

LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1847.

The Commons met at Twelve.
The second reading of the Edinburgh and Perth
Railway Bill was postponed for a week.
Sir W. Bannoti moved the second reading of the
Arrest for Debt (Ireland) Bill, the object of which was
to assimilate the law of arrest in Ireland to the law in
England, by abolishing arrest for debts under 20/.
Mr. MONAHAN opposed the motion, as interfering
with the rights of property in Ireland.
Mr. SHAW paid a high compliment to the Solicitor-
General for Ireland, fur the manner in which he had
conducted his opposition to this 13111, and would support
him in such opposition.
Mr. M. MILNES supported the Bill, as did Mr. Sman-
MAN CRAWFORD.

Mr. GROGAN trusted the Bill would be withdrawn.

A short discussion ensued, which ended in the with-
drawal of the Bill, after an assurance on the part of Sir
G. GREY, that the subject was under the consideration
of the law officers of the Crown, and a short consultation
between Mr. LAnoncirEnz and Sir H. W. BARRON,

The Drainage of Lsnd Bill passed through Committee.
On the motion for bringing up the report on the landed
propTrty (Ireland) Bill, various amendments were
proposed by Viscount NEwRY and Lord COURTENAY,
which wero negatived without a division, and the
further consideration of the report was postponed to
Friday.
The Loan Bill was read a third time and passed, and
the House adjourned.

We yesterday stated our reasons for agreeing with
the Home Secretary "that public opinion, so far
from being in favour of the entire abolition of the
punishment of death would be greatly shocked and
outraged by the remission of that punishment." One
of the few cases in which it may not only safely be
retained, but in which the great majority of the
people would in the strongest manner object
to any alteration in the law, is that of wilful,
deliberate, and cold-blooded murder, when the
criminal coolly and with premeditation deter-
mines on depriving a fellow-creature of his
existence, and hurrying him from this world
without a moment's preparation for the awful
change. There are, however, many cases, which
although, in the eye of the law, they may be re-
garded as wilful murder, yet so closely approach the
line of demarcation between that o&nce and the
snore mitigated one of manslaughter, that a jury
would be fully justified in bringing in either verdict.
There is no crime for the punishment of which so
wide a discretion is allowed to the presiding judge
as that of manslaughter. He may sentence the de-
linquent to the highest secondary punishment known
to the law, transportation for life, or to a mere nominal
fine, or a few hours' imprisonment only. That extraor-
dinary power is conceded in order to provide a due
and fitting penalty for cases of the worst description.
The Right lion. Baronet truly stated' to the House,
that although the punishment of death might still be
inflicted in some other cases, yet, in point of fact,
there has not been a single execution since 1841
except for murder. He might have added, that many
persons convicted of murder had had mercy extended
to- them, and their sentences mitigated when-
ever there appeared any favourable circum-
stances, showing that it had occurred in the heat cif
blood, consequent upon sudden provocation, and
ha 4 not been deliberately planned with malice afore-
thought; and in every such case the commutation was
received with approbation. It was received with
approbation by those who had a conscientious ob-
jection to the punishment of death in every in-
stance, and also by those who conceived its reten-
tion necessary for the well-being of society. Such
a case was that of the man SMITH, who was
pardoned the extreme penalty, last, summer, for the
murder of his fellow servant at the Guildhall Coffee-
, house; and such we conceive to be those of the un-
fortunate men, WELCH and AlmnEws, who were
convicted at Newcastle within the last fortnight, and
who are now lying under sentence of death, and are
to expiate their respective offences upon a scaffold on
Wedneshy, the 17th instant. In either of these cases
we believe that justice would have been satisfied, and
the majesty of the law vindicated, had the juries taken
the more lenient view.

In the case of WELefr, it appeared that the pri-
soner and the deceased had been drinking, that sub-
sequently a quarrel ensued, that blows were struck
on each side, and that IVEr.cti had been knocked
down twice during the progress of the scuffle ;
that PROUD, the man who lost his life, kicked him
while he was down, and that subsequently, but be-
fore there was time for his blood to cool, Wzr.cir
struck PROUD with a knife which he unfortunately
had in his pos,ession at the time of the quarrel, and
inflicted a fatal wound. Now it has been decided
in the KING V. KRSSEL, reported in 1 Carrington and
Payne, page 437, and in several other cases, " that if
parties at the commencement attack each other upon
equal terms, and afterwards, in the course of fight,
one of them in his passion snatch up a deadly weapon
and kill the other with it, it would be manslaughter
only." Now here the quarrel had been commenced
upon equal terms, the parties had fought, and the
prisoner had been worsted in the encounter, and had
actually been kicked when lying on the ground.
The weapon, too, was unfortunately at hand, and the
provocation was such as to excite the unfortunate man
to the highest degree; and although we do not
venture to affirm that the jury were not justified in
returning a verdict of guilty of murder, yet we do
not hesitate to say, that it would induce many to join
the ranks of the abolitionists if the sentence were
carried into execution. _ _ _

In the case of MATTHEWS, it appeared that there
had been unfortunate disputes between the English
and Irish labourers at work on the railway, the
English complaining that the Irish used to work un-
der wages. The deceased man, DANIEL HIVES, had
been drinking on the day of his death, in consequence
of which another person was sent to assist him. It did
not appear in what manner the quarrel had
originated, but the prisoner and his companion,
HUGHES, %lb() had a stick in his hand, were seen run-
ning away, closely pursued by HivEs, whose face was
bloody from a blow he had received. After running
away for a considerable distance, trying to escape,
blArriiEws turned and stabbed HIVES in the thigh,
which severed his femoral artery, and caused his
death in a few minutes. From the evidence of Cap-
tain Parrs, it appeared that the deceased was in a
very excited state, and eager to get at the other par-
ties, who did all in their power to get away. In this
case also, then, although the jury were warranted in
their finding, there appears to be a total absence of
that
cool premeditation which would alone justify the
execution of the criminal.
,Most sincerely do we hope that both cases may re-
ceive the most attentive consideration from the
authorities, and that if, upon due investigation, they,
or either of them, should be considered worthy of