The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-09 00:00:00

the proportion of convictions had been greater.
Now, he thought if such was the general re-
sult, and, without too moth relying upon the re-
turns, if they saw that such was the general tereleeey
of these trials, he thought he might say it was more
importarat for the prevention of crime, that they should
have a law by which a great proportion were convicted,
than a law by which a small proportion were convicted.
—(Hear, hear.) The great object was, that a person
convicted of crime should be punished ; and whether
by the punishment of death, or by transportation for
life, if there were a certainty, or nearly a certainty, of
punishment, they were likely to prevent more crime
than if they made it a lottery, and said that one,
or a number, ten, twenty, or thirty should be executed,
and the rest should go scot-free.—(Hear, heat.) The
disposition of the human mind wit, character was to
take the chance of acquittal, which was a considerable
chance, and run the risk of execution, rether teen incur
the probability, the very strong probabi it y, of banish-
ment or severe imprisonment as the result of the crime.
It seemed to him, therefore, with respect to the crime
of rape, that they ought now to take away the punish
meet of deatie—( Hear, hear.) At the sane. time it
was one of those crimes respecting which, if they re-
garded particular instances of it, if they regarded
the atrocity and violence with which it was committed—
looking at it as a conviction for a moral offence, there
was no offence for which he thought the House, or the
country generally, would be more ready to say ex-
treme punishment ought to be inffeted. But,
looking at a question of this kind, with re-
spect to the effect of the criminal law, they
roust consider what the criminal law was to
be and what it could be. They could not make
the criminal law—they did not pretend to make it
reach moral offences, according to the degree of moral
guilt, as a divine power affixed to any moral crime
the moral penalty which ought to attach to it. That
was beyond their power, end if it were in their power,
there was not only this offence but others to which they
could not affix such penalties. They could not affix
such penalties to many offences to which the indignation
of our moral feelings would say that they
ought to be affixed. They could not, for
instance, affix it in the case of slender. In
the case of slander, for instance, a young and inno-
cent woman might have her whole reputation de-
stroyed, even her life endangered—the peace of her
family destroyed—her innocence unjustly tainted—the
greatest possible injury, and from the most malicious
motives, might have been inflicted on her ; and yet
when they appealed to the law, it was merely a case.of
slander, to which pecuniary damages only were affixed.
Were their moral feelings satisfied by such a verdict ?
No. Was the law wrong ? No. But it was one of
those cases which was beyond the law and above the
law, the punishment of which must be left to the feelings
of mankind, to the conscience of the offender, and to the
retribution of eternal life. Still he doubted whether there
were not certain cases of the offence of rape, which
were deserving of the punishment of death. On that
question he consulted Commissioners of the Criminal Law,
and persons engaged in the administration of the law, how
they would mark the distinction, where they woul I draw a
line between offences of rape to be punished with death,
and those not to be so punished, and he had never been
able to obtain a clear definition. It had been supposed
that is offences perpetrated by more than one person,
when no consent could be supposed, the punishment
of death ought to be inflicted. At the same time, when
he considered the wide chasm which separated the punish.
meet of transportation from the punishment of death,
the wide gulf there was between the two, he must own
that he was not satisfied with the distinction that bad been
made. lie had stated the case as it appeared to him, be.
cause there was no subject on which he bad had so much
doubt, and it was not until he had obtained the opinions
of the Judges, and seen the results of the convictions of the
juries, and he considered well all the circumstances which
he had stated, that he had come to the decision that the
prevention of the crime was more likely to be accom-
plished by the infliction of the punishment next to death,
than by continuing the punishment of death itself. At the
same rime, he thought it was an offence that should be
visited with no light punishment, and he would propose, as
a substitute for the punishment of death, the punishment
of transportation for life, or for not a less period than 15
years. He also proposed, instead of the punishment of
death, to inflict the same punishment on persons guilty of
the other offences mentiened in the same clause of the
Act. He believed he had stated the nature of the three
Bills which he proposed to bring in. He was not
prepared to make any alterations respecting the
Act of 1837, the first of Victoria, with regard
to attempts at mut der or burglary attended with violence.
He did not mean to say that there were not several offences
from which it might not be right to take away the punish.
merit of death, but he did not intend to do so by the Bill
which he proposed bringing in, and he would rather argue
those questions on the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
Bill than now. He had stated to the House, when for-
merly speaking on the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
8.11, that it would be expedient that some general view
should be taken of the whole subject of our criminal law,
more especially of that part of it relating to the punishment
of transportation and imprisonment, in the infliction of
which there was no method cr uniformity ; but he had
found, on looking over the Acts, that they were so compli-
cated and confused, that it would be imprudent in the
Government, without further information, to bring in BTUs
on the subject. He proposed at some future period of the
Session to bring in Bills for that purpose, not, however,
with any intention of passing them doting the present Ses-
sion, because he thought it better that subjects of that kied
should be fully canvassed throughout the country in order
to afford those capable of forming an opinion,
an opportunity of communiceting with the Govern-
ment cr Members of Parliament on the subject—( Hear)._
as the utmost deliberation ought to be used in effecting al-
terations in the laws upon such a subject. Great progress
had been made of late years in ameliorating the extreme
severity of our laws, and the great evil at present existieg
was the uncertainty respecting the punishment to be in-
flicted. He was of opinion that they ought not to relin-
quish any one of their chief punishments. He thought
they ought to retain the punishment of death for certain
and gross offences, and those only when there were no
mitigating circumstances. The next great class of pun-
ishment, transportation, lie thought, ought also to be
retained. He had heard of nothing to con-since him why,
as fir as regarded England and Ireland, that punishment
ought not to be kept up. With regard to the last class of
punishments, imprisonment, an experimeat on the subject was
in the course of operation, and they had before them the re-
sult of the experiment from several p'aces. Rsgard ought to
be had to another punishment tallith was not now inflicted
in common Courts of Law, &though the punishment it-
self was actually constantly suffered by criminals ; he
meant the punishment of hard labour in the dock yards of
the country, but to which the punishment of transportation
was frequently commuted by the Secretary cf St rte. He
thought they ought to maintain that punishment, but they
ought not to leave it entirely to the Secretary of State to
say what criminals should be transported, and what crimi-
nals sent to,hard labour in the dock-yards.—(Hear.) lie
thought the punishment ought to remain, but it should be
a punishment by Act of Parliament, and not a punishment
inflicted by the person holding the office of Secretary cf
State, sometimes on the recommendation of the
Judges, but often by the advice of the Super-
intendent of the sdock-yard. He would not enter
into further a.gument on t'm subject, as the ques-
tion was not touched by the Bill which he now pro-
posed to introduce. He should, therefore, m.;ve for
!ewe t i bring in a Bill to do away with the punishment
of death in certain cases.--(Cheers. )
Mr. KELLY would be doing great injustice to the
Noble Lord, and acting in a manlier little consoeant to
his own feelings and opinions, if he hesitated to express
the great gratification which he felt at the statement of
the Noble Lord, and if he was compelled to admit that
that gratification was not altogether unmingled with
die-
appointmeat, he meet scarcely set, how much he re
gritted bring compelled to make that admission.
Still those who thought as he did could not but entertsie
great satisfac'i in at the views which had teen taken by the
Governmeat on that questien. The Noble Lord in ad-
verting. to the Bill he had the honeur of introducing into
that House suggested matter which he hat listened to with
surprise. The Noble Lord had stated that by the BPI he
had introduced he went too far; that he had called upon
the Legislature to do more than could! e safely attempted ;
but when the Noble Lord suggested to the House that he

disapproved of t,:e Bill, and called on the House to enter-
tain doubts upon its propriety, because its author looked to
the entire abolition of the punishment of death, that ap-
peared to him to be an argument alt Tether unworthy of
the Noble Lord in aquestion of such imp,..rtanee. It was true
that he, in common with many others, did look forward to
the entire abolition of the punishment of death, as one of
the greatest benefits that could be conferred by the Le-
gislnture on the community, and lie had no doubt the
time would come when the punishment of death would be
Looked forward to with al great horror Es t ;rture was at
the preera moment; but while he thus admjtte•-1 that he
looked forward to the abolition of the punishment of
death, he felt bound to say than any measure for its par-
tial abolition ought not to be looked upon with die.
approbaion. In introducing tie Bill to that House,
whr h had been real a second time, he c
upon the Howe to consider it on its rcer:ts ; if
the measure was good, he trusted it would be
p isacd, but if the provisions of th..t Bill were bad, then
he was cmitent that it should be condemned. But he felt
he might with confidence appeal to the Noble Lord himself
whether in any other dedaitnent of legislation a measure
had been discountenanced because those who supported it
west further than the party who had brought in the mea-
sure; if such was to be 'he case, what, he would ask, would
have become of that great measure of legisl rtion in which
the Noble Lord took so prominent a part ? In some of the
remarks of the Noble Lord he begged entirely to concur;
he agreed with him when he said that no Act of Parliament,
no course of Legislation, no operation t f the law could be

of a-1y effect unless the public voice went a'ong with i ,
and that observation applied particularly to the Criminal
Law ; not only would it be imprudent but mischievous,
unless the Juries by whom 'hc lam was administered con-
curred in the expeiiency and wi-dom of the law. Those
who were accustomed to the Courts of Justice felt the

effect of that even in civil ea3cs, and it was upon those