The Sun. — 1864-06-22 (London, England)

MADAME RACHEL—AII that can enhance and preserve the charms of woman, youth and beauty, grace and elegance.-47A, New Bond-street.  JURIDICAL SOCIETY,  A meeting of this Society was held on Monday in the Society's chambers, St. Martin's-place, Trafalgar-square, Mr. Clarke in the chair. The paper for the evening was read by Mr. F. WORSLEY, entitled " Certain propositions for the Relief of the Home Secretary from his present reeponsibility on the conviction of a person for murder, and to substitute an improved procedure." The paper stated that in most criminal offences the judges had a discretionary power in awarding the punishment to be inflicted on the prisoner, except in cases of murder. Even in that crime there were degrees of moral culpability. The power of altering the sentence rested on the supreme power, by whom convictions for murder used formerly to be referred to the Cabinet Council, who found they were totally incompetent to review the facts elicited on the trial of a person for murder. Instead of endeavouring to devise some better tribunal they shifted the responsibility on to the shoulders of one of their own members, the Home Secretary, which was in point of fact going from bad to worse. What choice had they ? Nothing between the judicial and the executive. The execu• tive had failed, and the judicial was the better tribunal for formally retaining the prerogative of mercy. But it might be said, if you would not cast it upon an executive officer's shoulders, would you endeavour to cast it on the shoulders of one judicial functionary ? His first proposition was, that on a trial for murder at the assizes, or at the Central Criminal Court, two judges of the superior courts should preside. Second,—On conviction of the prisoner judgment of death should not be immediately pronounced, unless both the judges agreed that the verdict was proper, and that such judgment should follow. But if the said judges did not so agree, or agreed that a sentence of penal servitude for life be pronounced, it should be competent for them to pass such sentence. The third point was, that the judges should have power to adjourn the sentence to the last day of the assizes, but that both judges should preside at the passing of the sentence of death. Fourth,—On the prisoner being called upon to receive sentence of death, that he should be allowed either personally or by counsel to state the grounds of fact for mercy to the court ; and it should be incumbent on the judges to take into consideration such grounds of fact, or any petition laid before them, and it should be competent to them to adjourn the passing of the sentence of death for the consideration of the said facts or petition. Fifth,—The sheriffs should not execute the sentence of death until ordered by the Home Secretary. Sixth,—lf the said judges, or either of them, report to the Home Secretary that an inquiry should be made into the sanity of condemned prisoners, the Home Secretary should cause such inquiry to be made by competent persons, and upon their certificate of the insanity of the condemned prisoner the Home Secretary should grant an order for his removal to a lunatic asylum. Mr. LAWRANCE was strongly opposed to death punishments, and fully concurred with the suggestions made by Mr. Worsley, which, he believed, were too limited• The prerogative of mercy did not now exist in the Crown, but in a Government  official. Mr. J. 0. GRIFFITS was also favourable to the abolition of the punishment of death, and he con. curred that no trial for murder should take place unless in the presence of two judges, and that two judges should be present when sentence was passed; and if one was of opinion the sentence of penal servitude should be carried out, that the sentence of death passed by the other judge should not have its effect. He suggested that in case of murder a plea of nat guilty should be always entered.  " Mr. E. W EBSTER strongly opposed the propositions of -Mr. Woreley, urging that the multiplication of judges would render conviction difficult and uncertain, and assuming that death punishments were necessary for the prevention of crime, he would leave the whole responsibility on the jury. He was strongly favourable to the right of appeal in criminal cases. Mr. C. H. HOPWOOD objected to the introduction of a second judge. After some further conversation, thanks were voted to Mr. Woreley for his paper, ana the proceedings were brought to a close.  - -75 "Z ri( STAMPED:....Sd.