The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-05 00:00:00

able to the extinction of the present extreme penalty
of the law. It was announced that a similar meet-
ing will be held to-night, to be presided over by Mr.
Humm, M.P., at which, we doubt not, they will come
to a like decision. Though we cannot coincide
in the extent to which these gentlemen are prepared
to mitigate the criminal code, nor in the soundness
of their proposition, nor in the arguments by which
they support it, that the punishment of death is "inde-
fensible on the grounds of policy, morality, and re-
ligion," still it must be conceded that their resolutions
reflect the highest honour upon their feelings of
humanity. The pure and benevolent motives which
govern their proceedings must necessarily engage a
large portion of public sympathy, and naturally and
in the most agreeable manner predispose every one
seriously to weigh every species of information which
may be elicited in support of the cause which they
philanthropically espouse. These meetings can do
no harm, and may be productive of much good. In
the discussion of the interesting topic of capital
punishment, a review of our criminal code in general
is necessarily introduced : in this way many crude
deformities and unnecessary severities, by which it is
at present characterised, come to be analysed, and,
by a seasonable exposition of them, the path is cleared
for reformation.
Any spontaneous effort to diminish the ten-
sive powers of punishment conferred by law,
slith a due regard to existing circumstances, and a well-
established recognition of improved morals throughout
the community, cannot be too highly lauded. It
must not, however, be overlooked, that the task is one
of extreme difficulty, demanding the nicest powers of
discrimination. The difficulty consists in determining
the point to which relaxation can be suffered, in pre-
cise consonance with the level to which civilisation
has raised the humblest classes of any particular
society. We are not without the hope that we may
hereafter attain to a pitch of civilisation when, con-
sistently with the protection of life in general, the
infliction of capital punishment may be safely dis-
pensed with ; and that inferior penalties may, by
reason of the universal prevalence of more refined
feelings of morality, and their social reaction upon
the minds of those who outrage the law, produce in
time the same preventive results which
_ secures by the u.s.d.o of the gal-
lows. But we cannot " lay the flattering unction to
our souls" that the existing phases of society would
warrant the State in depriving itself of the;power of
subjecting the authors of heinous crimes to condign
punishment.
It must be remembered, that those who take
the opposite view enter the discussion with great
advartages. Most specious and popular argument
lie IN ithin their reach, and of which they never omit
to avail themselves. The disputant can so inge-
niously arrange his premises that, if you once un-
warily admit them, there is no conclusion to which
he cannot drive you by force of abstract
reasoning. A well-turned sentence will often
cause a whirlwind of applause; but when
we come to test it by dispassionate reflec-
tion, we as often discover that approbation has
been injudiciously bestowed. Precisely such a sen-
tence was uttered last evening by Mr. C. GILPIN :
" Before man assumed the power of Omnipotence he
should possess the wisdom of Omniscience." This is
language that would captivate any popular audience.
Its value, however, is derived from the assumption
which is directly involved, and lies concealed at the
bottom, that capital punishment does not, for in-
stance, deter a man from committing murder. But
this is begging the whole question ; because, as-
suming, on the other hand, that man is deterred from
committing murder by the dread of capital
punishment, then, although we are certainly
neither all-powerful nor all-wise, yet it is
conceived we best exercise our limited power and
limited faculties, and work out the merciful ends of
PROVIDENCE, when we have thus, by virtue of our
laws, indirectly saved the life of an innocent man
from the murderous assault of either his avowed or
hidden enemy. Other examples of a like spurious
tendency are contained in the speech of Mr.
FREDERICK ROWTON. " When, however," observed
this gentleman, " life was publicly taken it was im-
possible that life could be held sacred." Though
life is not held sacred, yet the words quoted do
not prove that life is not better protected by the
existing law than it would, be without it. But this is
precisely the onus probandi that rests with Mr. Row-
TON. Again, " when the law was guilty of public
murder, where was the greater enormity of the
offence committed by individuals ?" This pseudo.
argument is vicious and dangerous in the extreme
Moreover, it is nonsensical. The law can•
not -

be guilty of murder. Rightly or
wrongly, as to the effect, the law proceeds
upon a good motive—the better security of life by
the force of stern example. Can the same motive be
assigned to the murderer ? These are speci-
mens of the fallacies into which the best-
intentioned men are apt to fall. But, whilst
we feel it to be our duty to guard the
public against being misled by such objec-
tionable methods of reasoning upon a most momen-
tous subject, we would hail with delight the day
when " swords shall be converted into ploughshares,
spears into pruning-hooks, and when man shall not
destroy in the whole of GOD'S universe."