The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-10 00:00:00

DRAINAGE ACT.

Mr. BAILLIE gave notice, that in Committee upon
the Drainage Act, he should move a clause, to the
effect that no owner of land should receive any advance
of money under this Act over the amount of 1 2,0001.,
unless he could produce a certificate from the Commis-
sioners that all the sums previously received had been
properly and judiciously expended.
THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. HUME moved for the abstract accounts of the
amount expended for the buildings of the British Mu-
seum, including alterations, fixtures, and furniture, in
each year from its establishment under the Act 26 Geo.
11. (distinguishing alterations from buildings, and for
the purchase of houses and ground), so as to exhibit the
total expenditure for the same up to the 31st day of
December, 1846; of the atm,unt expended oa the esta-
blishment of the British Museum in salaries, wages, ap-
pointments, household expenses, officers' residences, rates
and taxes, and all other items of expense, in each year, from
the establishment of the Museum under the Act 26
Geo. 11, so as to exhibit the total expense of its main-
tenance to the 31st day of December, 1846 ; of the
amount expended in each department of the Museum,
for the purchase of manuscripts, prints, printed books,
maps, music. antiquities, coins, and medals, objects of
natural history (zoological, botanical, fossil, and mine-
ral), in each year, from the establishment of the
Museum under the Act 26 Geo. 11., under each
department respectively, so as to exhibit the total
amount of expense of the various collections up to the
31st clay of December. 1846, distinguishing the amount
paid from Parliamentary and other funds ; of all the
amounts Fsid under Acts and Votes of Parliament for all
buildings, collections, and other expenditure for the
British Museum, in each year from its establishment
under the Act 26 Geo. 11., so as to show the aggregate
amount paid for that institution from public monies, up
to the 31st day of December, 1846.—Agreed to.
ABOLITION OF PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

Mr. EWART presented petitions from a public meat-
ing held at Exeter Hall, signed by 13,000 persons ;
from Liverpool, signed by the magistrates of the borough
and the most respectable inhabitants ; from Exeter,
Southampton, Belfast, and other places, in favour of the
total abolition of the punishment of death.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Liverpool
to the same Affect. _

Mr. EWART then rose to bring forward the motion
of which he had given notice—namely, the total aboli-
tion of the punishment of death. Ile said that it was
now seven years since he had the honour of bringing
this subject before the attention, or rather before the
patience, of the House. In these years this subject ex-
cited a deep interest, but it had now assumed a far
deeper and greater interest. lie thought this was shown
partly in the number of petitions on the table, and
partly by the numerous meetings which had
been held throughout the country. At that time few
of the clergyeien of the Established Church had given
in their adherence to the principle of the total abolition
of the punishment of death, but now they had vast num•
bers who thought as they did, and who hxd not only
appended their names to petitions, but also appeared
at public meetings held for the purpose of advo-
cating the doing away with that punishment.
There was also a great difficulty in obtaining verdicts
from juries whi,tri involved the punishment of death.
Many instanc,s had occurred of this kind—instances in
which the guilt of the criminal had been clearly esta-
blished, but in which the juries refused to return
a verdict of guilty. He would not enter into
the theologiciul or theoretical view of the question. He
contended that nothing but necessity could justify
punishment by death. One of the must e nitient of
Italian writers had written upon this subject, he re erred
to the Marquis Becarria: the ground of his argument
was, that it was impossible to justify the in-
fliction of capital punishment, except upon the
ground of absolute necessity.—( Hear, i,ear.) Another
person who had also devoted considerable at; ention to
the subject of criminal jurisprudence—no less a personage
than the King of Sweden—had also a ritten upon
the subject to the same effect.—(Hear, hear.)
The question he put before the Reuse and the country
was, whether the infliction of capital punishment was
any longer necessary for the execution of justice. First
of all, he would prove that it was not necessary, and,
secondly, that it was positively injurious. It was quite
evident that punishment of death was unnecessary, from
what took place under the reign of Leopold of Tuscany,
while he need not remind the House of what
occurred under the administration of Sir James
Mackintosh in India, who abolished capital
punishment, nor need he remind them what happened
when Lord Mint() was in power in India, who also
abolished capital punishment. In both cases capital
crimes diminished, and the same result had followed the
abandonment of capital punishment on the pert of the
present Emperor of Austria. Why, when it was
moved to abolish capital punishment in cases of
cattle stealing and forgery, it was urged that it
would be dangerous to the country. (Hear.) But
how erroneous had this proved to be I The same
argument would apply with equal force when used in
reference to other crimes, which were formerly punished
by death, as a diminution rather then an increase in their
number had taken place, but virtu.illy they only retained
the punishment of death for murder. It was true, there
were two or three crimes which, accteeling to the statute-
book, were punishable by death ; but the punishment
was a dead letter—its living spirit only survived, for
capital punishment was only inflicted for the com-
mission of murder. But on what grounds did
they abolish cepital punishment for other crimes
and retain it only for murder ? The only argu-
ment was that there was some proportion between
the crime of murder and its punishment by death—that
a man who had killed another ought to be killed by the
law in return ; but, atter all, this was nothing better
than the law of retaliation, and would apply
with equal force to other crimes with respect
to which they had abolished the extreme punishment.
The punishment of " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth," had been abolished with respect to many
crimes; therefore there was no tenable reason that it
should be retained with respect to murder. Lord Bacon
described such a punishment as " that sort of retalia.
tory justice which is nothing more than civilised and
deliberate revenge." He would next proceed to deal
with statistics, the authenticity ..f which were undoubted,
in support of his argument, that the punishment ought tp
be abrogated. He proposed, first, to adduce statistics
relating to the period when corporal punishment was
abolished with respect to many crimes; next, the period
following it, and then he should compare them together
and show the result. Periods of distress frequently en •
gendered violent crimes, so that they could not ail be
attributed to the violent passions of mankind.
He merely made these statements to show Hon. Mem-
bers who were opposed to him on this question that the
increase of crimes to which he had referred was not to
be ascribed to the abolition of capital punishments, but
to the distress which prevailed. Ile should limit his
observations on statistics to a few returns mainly
bearing on the particular question involved in his
motion. The first return he would read to the House
was one made on the 22d of May, 1830. It showed
that in 1830, the year when the abolition of capital
punishments took place to a considerable extent, anti for
five years previous to it, the number of crimes
for which this punishment had been awarded was
greater than during the five years succeeding. 'Taking
again the fire years ending 1825, the five years ending
1830, the five years ending 1833, and the live years end-
ing 1840, in each of these successive periods, a
gradual decrease of crimes, for which capi-
tal punishment had been inflicted, was shown.
In proportion as executions had decreased, so had also
the crimes for which this kind of punishment was
inflicted decreased in extent. But there was after-
wards another return called for, at the sugges-
tion of an excellent friend of his whohad
written on this subject. It was dated the 29th
day of August, 1843, and showed a decrease of the
crime of murder, and a lessening of capital punish-
ments, from the year 1812 to the year 1843. In the first
six years of this period, when capital punishments were
more frequent than in the remaining years of the period,
the number of capital punishments was 124, and the con-
victions for murder 144; while in the latter six years, when
capital punishments had decreased from 122 to 50, the
crime of murder had also diminished from 144 to 121. But
there was another return which showed the effect of those
years in which all parties convicted of murder were exe-
cuted as compared with those in which fewest executions
took place. That return was macle on the 24th August,
1843, and showed that in those years where all parties
convicted of murder had been executed, the crime
of murder had increased from 239 to 270, and in those
years in which the punishment of death had decreased, the
crime of murder had also diminished from 268 to 222.
Now he would not overburden the House with further sta
tistics. But he would wish to refer to other couetries, to
France, Prussia, Germany, and Belgium; and he wished
particularly to refer to Belgium, as in that country