The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-22 00:00:00

that was not to be expected in a Prince. Be was
constrained to remain in the country by the Bill, and
the same fcars which dictated the provision as to the
two Ladies were not applicable to him.
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that his observa-
tions against temperance had been misreported, at which
the Marquis of NORMANBY expressed his satisfaction.
Their Lordships adjourned till Thursday.
The Commons met at 12 o'clock, as had been agreed
t), and after some discussion, read the Poor-law Com-
mission Continuance Bill a third time, after a division
of 74 to 16. The Bill was passed and sent up to the
Lords.

The Commons got through a number of other Bills,
for which we refer to our report.
Mr. PIGOT withdrew the Irish Cess Bill, and Lord
MORPETH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regulate
Municipal Districts in Ireland, and provide compensa-
tion in certain cases for the loss of corporate offices.
The House adjourned a little before Four to meet
again at Five, but at Five there were not Members enough
to make a House, and therefore they adjourned till this
day.

We must remind our Contemporaries and the
public that the single reason on which taking away
the lives of criminals can be justified is the public
welfare. To accompliO, that, and nothing but
that, the greatest good of the greatest number, is
the sole reason for establishing a Legislature for
making laws and having a sovereign authority.
Such being the very principle of the existence of
the Legislature, all Members of both Houses are
bound to consider the effects of their enactments on
the public welfare, as far as human reason can
grasp that mighty and almost infinite subject.
If any person asserts that this is a trite truism,
.which need not be stated, we beg to refer them to
the discussions on the Bill for Abolishing the
Punishment of Death, and they will find that so
far from the pi inciple being ever present to the
minds of our legislators and our public journalists,
there is nothing but sentimentalism, referring on
the one hand to the culprits, and on the other to
the injured parties. Nay, they will find the Times
abuse the Herald for a .sentimental regard to the
lives of culprits, and in the same breath de-
nounce the abolition of the punishment of death
out of a sentimental regard to the protection of
women.
There can be no doubt that the protection of
women, as far as possible, from harm, and the pro•
tection of every individual of the society is coinci-
dent with the public welfare, but it is as much mere
sentimentalism to resist the abolition of the punish-
ment of death on that ground as to propose the
abolition from a regard to the lives of the crimi-
nals, who have as much right to the protection of
society, while in the performance of an honest or an
innocent action, as virtuous women. That mere
protection from outrage, unless that protection be
coincident with the supposed public good, is not a
sufficient justification of law, is evident from
this, that the Legislature is very often justified in
the eyes of the majority of society, if not in the
eyes of the whole world, as in the cases of the
Manchester massacre, the attack on the Birming-
ham people in the Bull-ring, and in the continual
impressment of seamen, in committing or sanc-
tioning outrages quite as gross as those for which
death is inflicted as the punishment. On the sup-
position that these and many similar outrages, in-
cluding the taking away lives at the gallows, are for
the public welfare, they are justified and applauded;
whence we infer that if it were supposed to be for
the public benefit, that the rape of the Sabines
should be again practised, the women would be re-
quired, like the seamen, to submit with a good grace.
It being established, that the desire to give pro.
tection to one class of society, is not sufficient to
justify a law, we shall make a few further observa-
tions on the law for punishing certain offences with
death, and on Mr. KELLY'S Bill to abolish that
punishment, solely with a reference to the public
good.
It is alleged, in justification of the punishment
of death, that it operates as an example ; yet the
Globe, one of the journals which. defends the in-
fliction, only a few days ago recommended that the
punishment should be inflicted in the secrecy of a
gaol, where nobody but the executioners saw it,
wholly depriving the punishment of all influence
on the population. This would make it a gratuitous
crime. The suggestion to dress up a figure like
a man, and let it dangle on a gibbet, while it in-
jured no person, would be of some efficacy as an
example, and would be more beneficial than the
plan of the Globe. But all experience has demon-
strated that the punishment of death does not ope-
rate as an example. The more .cruel it is made,
the more it brutalizes and hardens the hearts of the
people, and the more mischievous it becomes.
The justification of committing this outrage
on criminals, namely, that it is beneficial
as an example, has been completely de-
molished by modern experience. The very
crimes for which it is now proposed to retain the
punishment, are every day becoming more frequent
and offensive, though rarely or never pardoned ;
while other offences that were liable to the punish-
ment, such as horse stealing and forgery, have di-
minished since the punishment of death for those
offences was abolished.
If the punishment do not deter from crime, as an
example, of what use is it ? It cuts off an often
der. But the Globe councilled secret executions,
because of their pernicious effects when public.
Whether public or secret, an execution is a bad
example. The legislator rays, " I may take a life
to promote the public welfare—a thing I can
scarcely measure." The murderer says, "I, like
the legislator, may take away life for my own ad-
vantage, which I can appreciate." The populace
reason like the law-maker, substituting their own
for the public good ; and criminals, to attain their
ends, reason themselves into a conviction that it is
expedient to take away life. The law-giver
sets the fashion, and villains follow it. His
conduct is a pernicious example, and to its ef-
fects in brutalizing the people—making them
familiar with the principle of taking life for a
supposed advantage—we may trace the murders
that are now daily committed. If lie were to pro-
mulgate the great principle that life is sacred, the
people would adopt it. If he committed no mur-
der on the gallows, there would be none committed
by individuals.
We are all doomed to die, and by using death

as a punishment the legislator invests an in•
evitable event with continual terrors, and
strengthens the general apprehension of death.
Now, as such an apprehension pervades society,
and continues in many cases for several years
—whatever increases it must be a far greater evil
than the prevention of a few crimes is a good,
supposing that to be the effect, which we deny, of
an infliction of death as a punishment.
On these grounds we are decidedly opposed to
putting people to death as a punishment. At the
same time the consideration of the public welfare
does not allow us to assert that now wholly to abolish
the punishment would be beneficial. Men's minds
must be prepared for it. We do not feel confident,
if murderers were not put to death, that some cases
would not arise of individuals revenging the death of
a relative by murdering the inurdtrer. A long as a
general opinion prevails that whoso sheddeth man's
blood by man shall his blood be shed, the lawgiver
may dread, should he abolish the punishment of
death for murder, that he might encourage the ex-
ercise of private vengeance, and substitute a kind of
LYNCH law for the present practice. Oo such
questions the opinions and morals of society must
be considered; and between condemning the punish-
ment of death as an abstract proposition, and abo-
lishing that punishment in all cases, there is an es-
sential and wide difference.
On this, as on all questions of policy, we are
for deferring to public opinion: The Standard
takes a different view, and strikes at the root of all
representative government, by propounding me-
thods " of holding people to the observance of the
laws, against their will." But in a representative
government, the laws are the expression of the will
oand there is no power of constrain-
ifltic people,
tlii,mtolobey a law of which they do not ap-
prove. The law is, in fact, a mere dead fora),
separate from their will. If its vitality depend on
the life they breathe into it, those who under-
take to alter the form must consult their opi-
nions. Now, because we have strong doubts
as tile public opinion concerning the punish.
'rent of death, we are not very strenuous ad-
vocates fur hastening on the abolition law, while
individually we entertain very strong and very de-
cided opinions that the employment of that punish-
grievo
't in any case is a us injury to society.

mew

It is a remarkable feature in the history of this
country, and highly honourable to the industry and
enterprise of the people, that almost every great
and public work or undertaking for the benefit of