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

EVEN NO DITION.

abolition, on what grounds won d it be attempted to be
maintained? They had abslis .'capital punishment
in other eases, in obediencet3:l emends of the public
voice. Did Hon. Gentlemen think for a moment that
the public would not be more disinclined to executions as
they became more rare ? The less frequent they be-
came, the more intolerant would the public be of them.
Besides, the punishment was now less needed : they
h!tel.an improved police—an improved system of prison
discipline ; and, above all, the benefits of more general
education. These were so many safeguards to person
and property—so many securities against outrage and
violence ; then why not consent to do away with capital
Punishments—why, above all things, retain it in the case
of murder, that was virtually the only case in which
at was now retained? Now, that crime was committed
in either of two ways : it was committed either upon
calculation or was an act of impulse. If upon calcu-
lation, capital punishments could not act as a preven-
tive, because that punishment had been duly calculated
in the mind of the individual. On the other hand, sup-
pose the deed was committed from impulse ; the party
there altogether overlooked the punishment—over-
looked the consequences of the case : and again,
execution in such a case was not a pre-
ventive. It might be said that he ought not to
come forward to abolish capital punishments without
being provided with a substitute That was an argu-
ment which could not be maintained, for they kid the
system of solitary imprisonment and transportation to
penal settlements ; besides, other punishments could be
immediately substituted. It might also be objected
that if they abolished this punishment, they must sub-
stitute a more severe punishment in its place, and it
might be argued that Juries would be loth to convict
where the punishment was more severe than any second-
ary punishment now in force ; but, in his opinion, Ju-
ries would convict whatever the punishment were, so
that it was not death. The ho:ror of that punishment
arose from its being irrevocable ; it could never
he recalled, supposing it were to be found out af-
terwards that a mistake had occurred. By mi-
tigating the laws, the public opinion would be
against the criminal as well as against the crime. The
maintenance of capital punishment was the maintenance
(
t tajle old principle of revenge, the lex talionis, not
"I accordance with the system of repentance
and reform on which they were now acting. They
were not acting consistently in continuing the punish-
meat of death—it was in direct contradiction to the
Dew sYstem. How could they expect the people to
turn away from scenes of violence and bloodshed, while
they set legalised examples of violence before their
eyes—humanize' their punishments, and they would
humanize the people. The people who had been dis-
used from scenes of punishment and violent death ei,culd
be loth to enter into scenes of violenc eand outrage_
they would have received such impressions in favour of
humanity, that they would &brink from the perpetration
of deeds of violence, and thus they would give an ad-
ditional guarantee not only for the execution of justice,
but for the good order, the peace, security, and tran-
quillity, and also for the kindliness and benevo-
lence of the people. Impressed with these
feelings, he called upon the House to agree
with him, and resign the awful attribute of disposing of
human life to Him who gave it.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Member concluded by moving that it was expe-
dient to abolish the punishment of death in all cases.
Mr. HAWES seconded the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was most ready to pay his
tribute of respect, both to the motives which actuated
the Hon. Member in bringing forward this resolution,
and the ability with which he done so—(Hear, hear)
--but in so doing he must state, with the object the
Hon. Gentleman had in view, he had not taken the
proper course to effect his views, by moving a resolu-
tion upon the subject. In a matter of such great im-
portance, the proper manner would have been to have
taken the ordinary course of asking for leave to bring in a
Bill, so that the matter might have received the grave at-
tention of the House. If the Hon. Gent. succeeded in his
legislation, he would have attained his end, but if the Bill
were thrown out there would have been a regular
decision of Parliament upon it. But if the resolu-
tion were carried in so thin a House, while
the hands of the Judges and of the executive
would be considerably weakened—(Hear, hear)—while
in fact no real step had been taken—the resolution
would remain on the books to be pointed out,but neither
the Judges nor the Executive would feel themselves
bound to depart from the letter of the law. With
respect to the motion itself, he certainly was very un-
willing to enter into a discussion generally, against those
arguments which had been adduced in favour of the abo-
lition of capital punishment. Long previous to that
time he had thought that the punishment of death
should be very much diminished, and capital crimes in
our statute book greatly lessened.—(Hear, hear.) He
received those notions while sitting as a member of a
Committee presided over by Sir James M'lntosh, and
again in another presided over by Sir Samuel Romilly ;
but with regard to the effect of the statistical details,
they were so far consolatory that they showed the House
that in what they had hitherto done they had not acted
imprudently—that the crimes for which the punish•
Tents had been lessened had not increased, and

that they had not rendered less certain the inflic-
tion of punishment. While these statistical state-
ments proved thus much, he did not think that they
were enabled to infer from them that if they went on to
greater crimes, and more especially to the crime of mur-
der—he did not think that those details were sufficient to
satisfy the House that, if a change were made with regard
to that crime, the effect would be the same. It was to
be remembered that the crimes of sheep-stealing, lar-
ceny, &c., which formerly ,:ere punishable by death,
were looked upon by the people as of a comparatively
trifling nature, but that the crime of murder excited
the utmost horror in the public mind.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman used one argument'which hardly
bore him out. He said the crime of murder must be
one of calculation or of impulse ; and then he contended
that the existence of the crime of murder proved that the
present laws were insufficient. He did not think that
argument was in any way conclusive. The sime argu-
ment might be used with regard to any crime which at
present existed, even where the punishment was ex-
tremely slight. It might be urged that these crimes
being will continued, the punishment was insufficient,
but that certainly could not lead one to the supposition
that such punishments should be abolished.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had not proposed any
substitute by which the crime of murder might be at
once done away with, and yet, if the crime of murder
continued, the same argument might be used, that the
punishment had failed in its effect. The real question
was—and it was a most difficult question to decide—
whether a number of persons besides those who had
fully committed murders were deterred by the punish-
ment of death from committing them ?—( Hear.) Now his
opinion was (being favourable to the punishment of
death) that there were persons deterred by the fear
of the punishment of death, and that the number was
greater than if a milder punishment was affixed to the
crime. It was a matter incapable of proof; but they
knew that those who committed murder, knowing that
the punishment of death was affixed to it, could not
hope that their cases would excite sympathy, and that
the Jury would be deterred from doing their duty, and
permit them to escape punishment in consequence of
any disproportion between the crime and its punish-
ment. Take some of the atrocious murders that had
occurred lately—take the case of Greenacre—and he
would ask, was there any opinion in the public
mind that the punishment in his case was dispro-
portionate to his crime? There were a certain
number always opposed to the punishment of death ;
but, beyond these, was there any feeling that that
person had committed a crime for which the punish-
ment of death was extreme or disproportionate ?
(Hear, hear.) So far as he had been able to ascer-
tain it, such was not the feeling ; and the general opi-
nion was, that that person had been properly punished.
He admitted that the word murder in this law com-
prised offences of a very different character—(Hear,
hear)—and perhaps the law might be so altered as to
distinguish between cases in which there was actually
provocation and heat of blood, which certainly was a
very different crime from deliberate murder.—( Hear,
hear.) But there were murders arising from deep-
seated revenge, from very malignant passions—in the
hope of gain to arise from the execution of a
plot or conspiracy—to plunder and take away the life
of an innocent victim, and thus destroy the evi-
dence of their crimes. These were crimes which he
certainly considered were the most atrocious of which
human nature was capable. He would be glad if they
could come to the conclusion that society would be as well,
or better, for not taking the lives of individuals. But his
consideration for the safety of the lives of innocent
persons was sufficient to induce him not to assent to the
proposition, because, dreadful as might be the punish-
ment upon the guilty, they were bound to protect
the lives of innocent persons, and not expose them to
the danger which would arise from its abolition. They
had, in the course of no great number of years, made
very important changes with regard to the criminal
law, and its administration. By the last criminal tables
laid before the House, it appeared that in 1818 the
number of persons executed in England aed Wales was
97, in 1828 the number was 59, and in 1838 the num-
ber was only 36, being one-tenth of the executions of
1828, and one-sixteenth of those of 1818. That was
an immense change in twenty-two years in favour o f
humanity and improved legislation. When the Hon.
Gentleman stated that the spectacle of executions bru-
talized the human mind, he should have borne in mind
that the change in the number of executions had prc-
duced a great effect. When 120 executions took place
in one year, the people might have been brutalized
from being hardened and inured to scenes of blood,
but when they were reduced to a very small number
they were likely to produce a far greater effect—the
solemn award of death being only pronounced in cases
of very great crimes was likely to produce a correspond-
ing impression. The Hon. Gentleman said that the
persons who went to these executions were in the habit
of indulging in disgusting gaiety and reckless exhibition
of indifference, and that it was dreadful to see such
feelings exhibited ; but he (Lord J.
_Russell) could not
think that executions which occurred but seldom were