The Sun. — 1848-03-15 (London, England)

BRIGHT—There was another case of the murderers of Lord Coventry's gamekeeper; and even at the last assizes, several murderers were respired, in consequence of the general feeling of the public against punishment by death. He was not calling in question the justice of exercising the royal prerogative in these cases; he looked on every respite that issued from the Home-office as a further indication of the power of the people upon the subject. Even with respect to the most recent case in whieh,the prerogative had been exercised, he had only that morning received a letter from the brother in-law of the murdered soldier, who declared that among the friends of that unhappy man there was the strongest feeling that the last punishment of the law ought to be averted from the culprit, and that they were most ready to sign a petition to the Crown, praying for a mitigation of the penalty.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, it was clear that it was quite impossible for the Government to carry out the laws. It was in the power of any single juror to defeat the law; it was in the power of any humane individual to arouse so much public feeling in any particular case as to place any Home Secretary who carried out the law in an awfully responsible post • tion. But the argument which weighed with him most upon this subject was the necessity for strengthening the public reverence for huma❑ life and its inviolability. Did capital punishment weaken or strengthen that feeling of reverence?—(Hear, hear.) lie believed it was most important that Parliament should abandon this punishment rather than that juries and the people should themselves virtually put a termination to the practice. Mr. F. O'CONNOR having bad considerable experience—(Loud laughter)—in the operation of the criminal law, was desirous to offer a few observations. It was his conviction, in opposition to what had been just said, that the public would never tolerate the practice of acquitting murderers clearly convicted upon the evidence of witnesses, merely because of the punishment to which the I party might be subjected. As far as the punishment of death went, it seemed to him that great reforms were already being made. There was now, in the power to convict of manslaughter, an opportunity of ending a man guilty under circumstances of extenuation. But whilst regarding with sympathy the fate of the murderer, let them take care they did not render the life of the public less secure. With regard to what had been said in favour of secret executions, he hoped the country would never again hear of such a proposal. Mr. G. THOMPSON extolled the motives of those who petitioned this House in favour of the measure now proposed for their adoption. He contended that no one not possessed of the infallibility of judgment, solely vested in omniscience, should dare to wield the sword of omnipotence. Mr. DRUMMOND observed that the argument derived from the fallibility of human judgment mi.;ht, to more or less extent, be directed against the infliction of any punishment whatever. He contended that there was no fear so effectual for the repression of great crimes :as the fear of death. He strongly deprecated the mawkish sentimentality which had been growing up on this subject, and which was encouraging jurors to violate their oaths and to abandon their duty to God and man, by a preposterous sympathy with all the rogues who were brought before them. Mr. NAPIER said that every portion of our law, as it existed, manifested the tenderest care for the life of man, the utmost caution that, without the clearest evidence of deadly crime, no life should be sacrificed; but the existence of such crime being proved to the judgment of those called upon to try offences, there could be no real doubt that the Divine Word delegated to man the punishment of crimes committed against man, and that this punishment might be extended to death in those eases for which Divine and human law assigned that last penalty. Mr. BROTHERTON, who spoke amidst loud cries of " Divide," protested against the question being argued .a the ground of expediency. He contended that as