The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-30 00:00:00

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY moved the third reading
of the Abolition of the Punishment of Death Bill.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL would feel it his duty to
oppose the third reading ; and, in doing so, it Would
not be necessary to go into the entire question. The
subject had been under the consideration of Parliairent
in 1837, and they had recommended certain alterations
which had been carried into effect. He objected to the
Bill, more especially because it was stated that it was
intended to pave the way for the total abcS
Won of the punishment of death.—(Hear, bear.)
It they were to take the question in a more limited view
as to what offences the punishment of death was to be
applied to, they would then have the offences which were
particularly defined by the Bill in question. It had been
argued that it was not desirable any longer to affix the pu-
nishment of death to offences against property, but that it
wits desirable still to attach it to serious offences against
the person. Therefore, in every ease which included
danger or injury to life, where robbery was accom,
panted by blows and violence ; burglary, if accompanied
by violence ; setting fi,e to a dwelling or
other house, in which persons were at the time
or setting fire to ships ; all these being offences
which seriously affected life, were punishable with death.
The consequences of that alteration in the law had been
a very great decrease in the number of persons against
whom sentence of death had been pronounced, be-
cause forrealy,wirii respect to many of these, especially
burglary, the definition was by no means accurate ;
the consequence as he had observed, was that there had
been a great decrease in the number of persons con-
ticted. With regard to one class of oirencet, he
meant attempts at murder, he could not see suffi-
cient reason for taking off the punishment of death.
(Hear, hear.) In two cases since 1837 that sentence
had been executed. One case had occurred during the
time he was Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment. It. was this. A persen who had for snsae time
been leading a dissolute and disorderly life, in order to
provide himself with means for continuing his course of
disorderly conduct, determined to murder and rob a fa
'per, who t as considered to be possessed of money,
as he returned from market. He accordingly
placed obstacles in the road, over which the farmer's
horse fell, and when he had fallen the man
who had been concealed near the spot rushed out
and shot the farmer with a pistol, inflicting a most
dangerous wound upon him, from which however, the
Harmer ultimately recovered. Here was not only an
intention to murder, but, in addition, a most dan-
gerous wound had been inflicted. The other was
a case in which poison had been administered,
the effect of which had been to endanger life, although
the person had ultimately recovered. He did not think
that either of these cases called for, any instigation of
punishment.—(Hear, hear.) A great alteration had
been mane in the law relating to capital punish-
fe vow", no ma UM see cuaL. obouni be so
soon called upon to mitigate the capital punishment
which had been proposed to be inflicted by those laws.
They had had but a short experience of their effect.
Their was no ev;dence to show that Juries were
unwilling to convict, nor was there any re-
turn except for one year of the number of
offenders. They had not had sufficient experience of
the great change which Parliament had made in 1837.
They had then reduced the number of offences to which
capital punishment was applicable from between three
and four hundred, to between forty and fifty, of
which thirty were under laws which had formerly ex-
isted—(Hear, hear)—and he did not think Parliament
had had sufficient experience on the subject to induce
them to adopt such a sudden alteration. There had been

. some discussion in Committee regarding other offences,
.and he must confess that he had not been convinced by
that discussion, although the Committee had decided in
. favour of the present Bill. One of the offences so dis-
cussed was that of setting fire to her Majesty's dock-
yards. Now although he thought there might be cer-
tain classes of that offence from which the punishment
of death might with propriety be taken away, yet still
there ware certain classes of that offence to which the
punishment of death was properly applicable, inasmuch
as the offence certainly partook of the character of high
treason, where the intention was to destroy the resources
of the State. The next class of offences which had beet,
discussed in the Committee was the offe .ce of rape.
Now he would confess lie felt great difficulty with re-
gard to that offence. If the proof were such as to con-
vince a Jury that the offence had been committed in its
most atrocious form, then he must say that he thought
the offender merited the punishment of death.—
(Cheers.) There might, however, in some of these cases
be some circumstances of mitigation ; he should there-
tore wish that the attention of Parliament should be
called to the subject, with the view of introducing some
revision, so as, if possible, to make two classes of
offences, of which only the highest should be liable
to the punishment of death ; but where the
offence preserved its most atrocious character—where it
was committed, by violence upon a person entirely inno-
cent ; be thought it was not only attended with th';
highest degree of guilt, but showed a settled kind of
brutality in the person committing it, as justly sub-
jected the offender to capital punishment.—(Cheers.)
He did not believe it advisable that Parliament should le-
lax the law in relation to this latter class of offences ;
nor did he believe that under such circumstances there
was on the part of Juries in the country any disinclina-
tion to convict. If the offence were one of r ire occur-
rence it might be advisable to make some alteration,

but under all the circumstances he did not think it ad.

visible to do away with the punishment of death. He
was, therefore,sof opinion, that the present Bill ought not
to be adopted during the present Session—(Cheers)—
end in saying this he did not wish the Hon. Gentle.;
men in the House to suppose he should be ready to
support a similar Bill next Session.—(Cheers.) A
great alteration had been made- in the criminal law in
1837. and they had not yet had sufficient experience
of that alteration.—(Cheers.) With regard to the
particular offence of setting fire to the dock-
yards, perhaps it might be advisable to make
some alteration in the law on that subject during the
next Session, but with regard to attempts at murder,
aggravated cases of great violence on the person, he
thought those eases should be still subjected to the pu-
nishment of death. He would not now go further in
considering the subject, but he thought that hardly
sufficient attention had been paid to the question as to
how far certain classes of the community were affected
icy it. Much was said of the feelings of the Jury, and of
the effect of executions upon those who went to witness
there. No doubt those arguments were entitled to some
consideration—(Hear)—but there were two classes of
the community to whose conduct and condition they
must pay particular attention. Ono was that class of
persons who were predisposed to crime, and with where
the chief consideration before they committed a crime
was whether, if detected, it would be attended with
severe punishment. He thought with regard to such
persons that the knowledge that death would be in
flieted had considerable weight.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) The other class was that of persons
eho were obliged to pass through untic,quf.nted aid ue-
.prirtected places, or who lived in ituittions which from
S.,A(F'e ,xpo,,el them olor- I the vioknee of
peopl”. He thought the L ,gis!ature was bound
to prot‘:•et tbo:se in_.ople, and he thought that, without
the 'mishit], nt of death, they could not prwect those
Persons.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it was delusive
to give fainter colours (as had lately been very much
the custom) to the crimes of persons condemned to
death. It ought not to be forgotten that it was the
(Lay of Parliament to neglect nothing that was neces-
sary for the protection of innocent persons, who were
eleeLeet to cie,, ;eel teieei t!eer
ii tr, ;I),•reiof f?,
tee ;
period of the Session it could handy be expected that
the other House of Parliament should be able to go

~'''/ it

fully into the consideration of it this year. He should '
therefore rfrovo that the Bill be read a third time this
three ramtaig:
BURittlAt coincided b all that had fallen
from tl e Noble Lord, and after the speech they had
just heart, he did not feel it neceseary to' trespass long
on the attention of the House. He should Say, how.-
et er, did not think the time had yet coma far
making any seridilif illterations in the law as regarded
the punishment of death. lb particularly approved of
what had fallen from the Noble Lori with regard to
the preservation of female chastity. lie thought that
the honour of women should be carefully guarded. and
he hoped that the House of Commons would not with-
draw the protection which the law now gave on the
subject. _

S. LUS HI NGTON said that be concurred in
the opinion expressed by his Noble Friend the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, that it was the bounden, duty of
that House to give nil possible protection to the sub-
jects of this country against the commission of great
crimes—(Hear)—and he should still more strongly
concur with his Noble Friend if he had shov n
by references either to past experience, or the
records placed on their table, that the oourse formerly
pursued when the gallows teemed with victims, tended
to give protection to life and to preserve the inhabitants
of this country from the contamination of crime.—
(Hear, hear.) .11, agreed with his Noble Friend in
principle, but he differed with him wholly and entirely
as to the manner in which they were to cffict the
refection of life. He was not one who felt what had
been cailed a false commiseration for sufferers, but he
was one who felt for the population at large, and he
was desirous of ensuring to them, by all possible means
founded on past experience, a greater protection than
they had hitherto acquired. If his Noble Friend had
fogy considered the subject of capital punishment—it
his Noble Friend had leisure and time to digest the
ver; returns laid on the table of the House, and if he
had „am;acd the consequences of abstaining from
capital p„niahmen,: in cases of rape, he would not have
expre,sed opinions which 9"id be shown to be erroneous
by a single sentence. It was thi;—that while that crime
was not punished with death, 'the rh,:mber of convic-
tions was immeasurably smaller than it s been before.
--(Hear, hear.) He was not about to tsins;,le the
Ilousci. With- long dibeussior.s as to the principle of the
Bill, but .he would trespass on their attention with a
few details As to this very crime of rape, let the
House see what the effect had been, and judge what was
likely to be the most efficient pro ection for the females
of this country. He found that, beginning with the four
years ending in 1884, the convictions were eight per
cent. upon the number tried for rape. In the four
years ending the convictions were 12 per cent.
upon the number tried, During the last year in which
the punishment of death had de facto been abolished,

the number of convictions were 29 per cent.,
and not a single life was forfeited upon the scaffold.
The number of convictions for the attempt to commit
rapes were, during the first four years, 61 per cent., the
next four years 60 per cent, and the last, 60 per cent
also This showed that it was not the severity of the
punishment, but- the certainty of infliction which pre-
vented the increase of crime, for in 60 cases out of 100,
where the minor offence was prosecuted, the offender
was actually punished in 60 cases out of 100, but where
Vie offence was capital, the convictions had only been
17 out of 100. He claimed to be the advocate of pro-
tection to females. If these tables were thoroughly un-
derstood, and well digestedi he pledged himself to prove,
taking a series of years, that the same principle had
triumphantly vindicated their success from the
earliest hour of crime down to the present moment.
He trusted, in a matter in which life and death were at
stake, the House would not think him impertinent it
he gave them the results of robbery of various kinds.
He found in the three years ending 1803, 1,342 were
committed, and 19 executed. In the three years ending
1836, 1,052, and ive elsetsted, and in the last year,
1839, the capital effence haviet been done away in
various instances, the number committed had fallen
from 1,848 to 8,80, and not a single life had been sa-
crificed on the scaffold. He wa; not the advocate tuf
the man who offended azainst the laws of him country,
and committed great offences, but this he would sLiy,
!hat however great his guilt, he could not agree to sa-
crifice 11;s life, unless that sacrifice were for the public
good,-(Hear.) At the present moment one-third of
the offences which had been formerly visited with ca-
pital punishment were done away with, and where
twenty-four lives were formerly sacrificed, not one was
taken away now.—(Hear.) Was not this protection
and was it not also carrying the great principle into prac-
tical effect ? It was. Had not the prophecy of his de-
ceased friend, Sir James Mackintosh, been verified to
the greatest extent?—and he thought, therefore, he
had a right to ask what made the Noble Lord, doubt
the efficiency of the law on the present occasion ?
( Hear, hear,) In former years, when the punishment
of death was visited upon numberless cases, the convic-
tiorra were not ten in a hundred. Now, he would
take next the commitments end convictions from 1834
to 1839, and he found that from that period they had
prosecuted for the minor offence, though it was a
matter of perfect notoriety—and he stated
this in the presence of those who he believed could

to 1.. s --utiVUSLI

for the minor offence were matter of perfect notoriety
for the major offences committed, he found the convic-
tions were 60 per cent, during the whole period. He
would not weary the House with the contents of that
invaluable book, which had been laid on the table by the
Noble Lord (J. Russell). Out of his own words would
he convict him, and compare the three or four
years preceding for the effect of this, not at
any particular period, but on the average number of
years. For the crime of arson during the whole period,
from 1835 to 1837, and thence to 1839, in the first
period there were 129 committed, and 15 executed ;
and in the next period, 102 committed, and 2 executed ;
and in 1829 there was no execution. Now if it were
argued against him the number of offences prevailing
in this country, and that they had been accustomed to
execute the law with a severity which rendered the
offence less frequent, be asked was that the truth ?
Was it the fact adth respect to murder or with respect
to forgery ? Precisely the reverse. He then said,
go'ng by those principles, the soundness of which his
Noble Friend would not question, and as the result of
experience, they had a perfect right to legislate
with entire confidence, and that if they passed this all
the same happy and beneficial results would occur as had
resulted from their previous legislation. Ho knew not
that he had any other argument to combat, because he
had not to wage war with those who entertained the
notion that guilt should be punished for guilt's sake.—
( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had alluded to the
effect of the fear of death. No man who had deiibes
rated on the subject would question that the fear of
death must have a certain effect on all human beings.
But the question was not whether the fear of death per
se did not operate on the mind in deterritig from crime ;
but whether, when they balanced against it all other
considerations and remembered its uncertainty, it pro-
duced the effect which a more certain punishment would.
The question was, would the fear of death operate as
a preventative of crime ? They knew from past expe-
rience that it did not. He would be•glad to see the
Bill pass, because it would put an end to those dis-
gusting exhibitions of human beings expiating their lives
upon the scaffold, and they would be also relieved from
all the mighty and gangrenous evils arising from these
public exhibitions ; for if his Noble Friend had said
they deterred minds not yet hardened from the com-
mission of offences, they most certainly doubly hardened
offenders who were proceeding in the same career, and
prepared them for the perpetration of perjury and mur-
der. It was the nature of mankind to be less afraid of
what was constantly acting before them, however hor-
rible it might be. Let not Hon. Gentlemen who op-
posed the measure charge its supporters with a false
iturnanity. All they sought was to carry their princi-
ples into effect to the fullest extent. The principle
upon which they acted was protection to the whole
community, so that instead of having nominal punish-
ments, and 17 persons convicted out of every 100 com-
mitted, they would have a certainty of punishment,
which would go far to put an end to these offences.
The Earl of DARLINGTON regretted he could
not support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Ipswich, and there was scarcely a sentence that
had been uttered by the Noble Lord opposite, in which
he did not concur. He was glad to find that the pu-
nishment of death, in certain cases, had been done away
with. They all recollected the csse of the man Dawson,
who was hanged at Cambridge for poisoning the horse of
Lord Foley, under circumstances which were quite hor-
rible to reflect . upon—( Hear, hear.)—more especially
when it was known that he was merely an instrument
in the hands of those others who had employed him.
He was no advocate for sanguinary punishments, and
he r jo:ced in the alterations of the criminal code, which
had been effected by Sir R. Peel, and subsequently in
1b37, by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell)
But could any one say that in the last three or four years
there was a single person executed who did not deserve
the punishment ? There were some cases of attempt
to murder in which the attempt was atrocious as the
complete perpetration of the crime. It was admitted
with respect to rape that there was great difficulty of
proving die violence, but the power to punish with
death should be left for those cases in which it was
proved. The Hon. and Learned Member for Ipswich
proposed to abolish the punishment of 'death, without
proposing any substitution in its stead. For these rea-
sons he should oppose the Bill.
Mr. HUME said that it w;45 acknovvledged that
crane !eel h:-en dirl,inished since the mitigation of the
criminal code.—(Hear. hear.) No one denied that the
persons alluded to deserved punishment. But in every
case in which the mitigation of the law had taken place
there had been a dirninutian of that particular ole,ss of
crimes. He entreated the House to pass the Bill.
Mr. KELLY said that if he thought an incre.se of
er:nie would be the cons, quence of his Bill, he would
it. But he e.,,v; certain the effect
at cc cry reitiotion of the criini-

. .
;,i • t't 4i'":jr! roti;',l,(l,•d
the 1-louf..e that out of 180 descriptions of crime, in re-
spect to which the law had been mitigated, in no one