The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

likely to produce such effects. While these were his
opinions with regard to the total abolition of punish-
ment, he was far from saying that he indulged
in hopes that the condition of society might not
be so much improved, and that the aver-
sion to shedding blood would so far gain
strength that at some future time, without danger to the
unoffending and the innocent, they might not entirely
abolish the punishment of death. He did not think
they were in that situation at present, and he was very
fearful that if they now abolished it the effect would not
be corresponding. He would put it to the Hon. Gen-
tleman and the House to consider what the peril would
be of making an unsuccessful experiment. The Hon.
Gentleman had stated that it was a great gratification
to him, as it was him (Lord John Russell), that, so far as
they had gone, the friends of humanity and the enemies
of capital pUnishments had no reason to regret it.
.But
if they were now to entirely abolish capital punish-
ment. and if some cases of atrocious murder
or provoking offence would follow, even after there might
be some revulsion in public opinion, and instead of has-
tening the entire abolition of capital punishment, the
opinion might prevail that they had gone too far,and they
might be induced to retrace their steps still further,
For these reasons he would not agree to the resolu-
tions of the Hon. Gentleman. He regretted very
much that he must come to the decision to oppose the
lion. Gentleman's wishes, and those of a large portion
of the community, but at the present time he did not
think it expedient to agree with them.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON regretted that
the Noble Lord thought it imprudent to assent to
the proposition of his Honourable Friend. He was
inclined to suggest, as an amendment, that leave be
given to bring in a Bill to abolish capital punishment
in all the offences in which it was at present in-
flicted ; and he should therefore move that as an
amendment. He would now address himself to some
of the arguments of his Noble Friend against the
motion. He was aware that there was a vcry con-
siderable body of persons who considered it contrary
to the law of God to execute for any offence—with
their theological doctrines he did not mean to grapple.
They must form their own judgment from their re-
ligious convictions ; but his argument to the House of
Commons would be of a very different and dis-
tinct character.—(Hear, hear.) His argument was,
that he knew of no reason for any punishment
save the prevention of offences and the reformation of
the offenders.—( Hear.) He was not the man to inter-
pose any argument against the lawfulness of capital
punishment. His Noble Friend had told the House
that in case of capital punishment there was a great
readiness on the part of the Jury to convict, and he (Dr.
Lushington) believed it to be one of the most calamitous
parts of the system, that if they displayed to a Jury the
most atrocious offence there was a disposition to convict,
whatever might be the evidence.—(Hear.) He had
the testimony of a most Learned Judge, who was very
conversant with the practice of criminal courts (Baron
Gurney) who told him that in Proportion to the atrocity
of the offence was the facility of conviction.—(Hear,
hear.) That was what weighed upon his mind, and it
was lamentable to think that, upon unfair and defective
evidence, the life of a fellow creature was too frequently
sacrificed. But although that might be the feeling of
Juries, it. was not the feeling of witnesses. No one
ever went up to give evidence in a capital case, who
did not, with very few exceptions, endeavour to weaken
and modify his testimony. He felt that the life of a
fellow man was upon the word he was about to utter, and
he wished to avoid having upon his soul the weight and
responsibility of the death of a fellow creature.
Such was the feeling that actuated their Judges.
Look at the responsibility of the Judges, and how could
they wonder at the caution they evinced ? They knew
that upon their summing up would depend the life of a
fellow-creature, and with laudable astuteness they sought
for points on which to impress upon the Juries the neces-
sity of abondoning their intention of a conviction.
Would they do so if the punishment were less than
death, and if time were given to investigate the case
fully and naturally ? No, they knew that the sentence
once pronounced was beyond human power of recall, and
feeling that, they endeavoured to escape the calamitous
result. He knew an instance in one single session at
the Old Bailey, where some men were capitally convicted
before Chief Justice Best, who afterwards received a
free pardon, it being ascertained that they were perfectly
innocent. He might multiply instances of that sort,
but he feared to weary the House. By the present
system they shut the door upon all chance of a revi-
sion of the sentence. His Noble Friend saidit was
necessary for the safety of the lives of the innocent
that the present system should be persevered in ; but
it indeed was a calamitous result if that were to be the
only alternative offered to him. When he first under-
took the investigation of the subject of capital punish-
ment, thirty-five years ago, the scaffold was deluged
with blood ; they had by slow, and very slow degrees,
and against strong and repeated opposition, from
time to time abolished capital punishments—(Hear)—
in a variety of cases ; and he would ask them had this
experiment failed, or had it not been crowned with the
most signal and beneficial success 2—(Cheers.) He
would ask them further, whether they bad not
gained the greatest point of all, namely impunity from
crime ? He knew the limits of their power and autho-
rity. The limits of their power, and the right and law-
fulness of everything they did, was the prevention of
crime and the reformation of offenders. If they
meant to fix a punishment corresponding to the guilt
of the offender's conscience, they outstepped the bounds
of their jurisdiction, and trespassed upon that
of Him who said, " Vengeance is mine." His
Noble Friend said there was a °hence of pub-
lic opinion going against them, but what was the
chance of 'that ? They had fought up against it from
day to day, and from hour to hour, and overwhelmed
the bankers and the merchants of London, which had
loaded the table of the House of Commons with peti-
tions of the insecurity of property, the multiplication
of forgeries without end, and tho destruction of
mercantile confidence, if the Bill were passed.
He had lately asked a most eminent banker what the
effect of that Bill had been ? There is nothing of forgery
known in the city of London.—(Cheers.) Such was
now the determination to prosecute, that not an indi-
vidual who offended but was prosecuted, and every
person was ready to come forward as a witness—the pu-
nishment being divested of its former revolting character.
They make an experiment upon the good feeling of the
people of England, who had long upheld them in those
contests, and who now experienced infinite benefits from
the abolition of capital punishments so far as it had
gone. A. great number of families had been, in this
sense, driven from the neighbourhood in which they
live ; for was there an execution now in a country
town for any offence, the effect was to make all the
respectable families quit the neighbourhood for fear of
being horrified by the disgusting scene. He would
warrant they would have the support of the people
with them. Let them be aware they did not
fall into their ancient fallacy—that the atrocity of
the offence was the cause of punishment—
let them keep their eye upon that which would prevent
it. He believed a great many murders were com-
mitted under circumstances over which the party had no
control. A burglar might commit it without previous
intention for his own protection—it might be com-
mitted for motives which it would be impossible to
account for, and over which he had no control. All
this depended on a totally different question, and upon
that he would to God the House would look with
more serious attention to the prevention of crime—
(Hear, hear)—he meant the educaton of the people,
and the impressing upon their minds the great doctrines
of the Christian religion—the peat obligations they
had to perform, and the certain consequences
here and hereafter of a deviation from these sacred
commands. In his opinion, he said it without the least
hesitation, much more might be done by training up the
people to prevent the perpetration of crime, for, after all,
punishment went but a small way for its prevention
His Noble Friend had spoken, and he was glad to•
agree with his Noble Friend on one point—as to the
dreadful effect produced by the frequent spectacle of a
public execution—all agreed the public mind was bru-
talised and degraded by them ; but said his Noble
Friend, the number being diminished, the mischief was
diminished also, but he (Sir S. Lushington) said
that in consequence of the rarity of executions, the
number who attended them would be greater ; and
the mischief attending them now, when they were
but a twentieth part of the number they formerly were,
would be greater than when, instead of six executions
annually there were 120. What was the case of an exe-
cution in the country now ? The lowest order came from
one end of it to the other (and none but the lowest
order, except a few who might be attracted by morbid
curiosity) and were familiarised with the sight of blood
—with the last scene of human suffering, and that feel-
ing which for the protection of mankind God had spread
upon the face of death. Remember the last execution
in London, and what had happened a few days after ; a
woman brought a complaint of having been violated, and it
was proved that on the very morning of the evening on
which she complained the atrocity had been committed
she had been to witness an execution, and what was the
result of it? Having witnessed an execution on the
Monday, she committed perjury the next day. He
said if these persons had depraved minds by witnessing
such scenes they became more depraved, and if per-
sonst with pure minds attended them they became
defiled. There had been instances of persons who had
attended an execution the first time—and one within'
his own knowledge—that of a youth who up
to that
time had '
borne an unimpeachable character, but who
having witnessed an execution for forgery, committed
the offence within forty-eight hours afterwards—of so
little preventive effect were they. Were they the last
words he had to address to the House, they were these,
that the prevention of crime depended on the certainty
of punishment, and so long as human life was at stake,
the ordinary feelings which operated on every man
would conduce to defeat this end. He would address
himself to the honour of every iudividual in the House,
and ask, if be was sitting as a juror, he would not require
stronger and more complete evidence where the life of
a fellow-creature was at stake, than where transporta-
tion or imprisonment was the punishment of crime, and