The Glasgow Chronicle. — 1847-04-07 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

ABOLITION OF DEATH PUNISHMENTS.  A public meeting of the inhabitants of Glasgow, opposed to death punishments, was held in Nelson Street Chapel, on Tuesday evening, for the purpose of comi. dering the propriety of memorialising her Majesty in favour of a reprieve to Elizabeth Yates, who was recently convicted of child-murder, before the High Court of Justiciary at Edlnburgh. Amongst the gentlemen on the platform, we observed John Cooper, Esq., Andrew Paton, Esq., William Caird, Esq., Mr Ebenezer Anderson, Mr Brown, Mr Good. tic. Mr Paton was called to the chair by acclamation. The Chairman in a few introductory remarks stated, that he observed from the newspapers that her Majesty's Government had anticipated the object of the meeting, by granting a reprieve to the poor woman who was recently condemned to be executed at Edinburgh. It would not he necessary therefore to memorialise her Majesty on the subject, but as they must all feel grateful to her Majesty and the Government for the prompt humanity vtLich had been displayed in this instance, a resolution would be submitted to the meeting thanking them for what they had done. Several gentlemen would likewise address them on the general subject of capital punishments. (Applause.) Mr E. Anderson. after explaining the manner in which the meeting had been originated, said he could not believe there was a human being in the meeting who did not rejoice that the woman about whom they had met was not to be put to death. (Hear, hear.) He believed, in the absence of all authority for taking away the life of a human being, that they would regard that government as guilty of sin against God, and of wicked cruelty, which allowed a human being to be executed for any crime whatever. He did not find in the New Testament a single word which enjoined, authorised, or permitted the taking of human life on any pretence; which be considered a sufficient and unanswerable argument that there should be no punishment of the kind to which he had referred. After reading and highly commending an article which appeared in Monday's Argus in reference to this subject, he concluded by proposing the following resolution :—That the Committee be instructed to convey to her Majesty and her4dvisers the grateful sense entertained towards them by this meeting, for the promptitude with which they have granted a reprieve to Elisabeth Yates. Mr Good seconded the motion in a short speech. The resolution was then put to the meeting, and agreed to unanimously. Mr Caird proposed the next resolutions, which were as follow :—(1.) That it is highly inhuman and unchristian for man, in any case, to shed the blood of his fellow-man as a legal punishment. (2.) That the infliction of the punishment of death has been found to brutalise the nation, and not to diminish crime; and good effects having followed its partial abolition, it ought to be entirely abolished, and punishment of a Christian, corrective and reformatory, character substituted. Mr C. supported the resolutions in a very excellent speech, which was frequently applauded: Mr Brown seconded the resolutions, in a very able  manner. Mr Handrettie opposed the resolutions, and proposed the following amendment:—" That this meeting consider, that, under certain circumstances, public executions may be done away with, but that they cannot see any reason why they should admit the slavish doctrine that life should not be taken away under any circumstances." Mr James Adams replied to the statements of the previous speaker. Several other individuals afterwards took part in the discussion; but on the motion being put to the meeting, it was carried by a great majority, only four or five hands being held up against it. A vote of thanks was then given to the Chairman, and the meeting separated.