The Press. — 1856-08-16 (London, England)

SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE RECENT EXECUTIONS. SIR GEORE GREY seems to have been refreshing his mind after the fatigues of the session by a perusal of " Eothen." The author of that work informs us that on one occasion when his guide had misled him to the extent of a day's journey, it was seriously proposed to him by one of his Eastern attendants that the man should be put to death. The Englishman was at first fascinated by the novelty of the proposal, and reflected what an imperishable reputation for vigour he should acquire among his countrymen, were it once known that he had thus deliberately sacrificed a fellow-creature. He relented at last, yet not without certain secret regrets at having lost so good a chance of putting his character for decision for ever beyond dispute. It is possible that the Home Secretary, casting his eye over these said pages of " Eothen," may have come to the conclusion that Sergeant KIM/LAKE was a fool for his pains, and that when either a Government or an individual has an opportunity of that sort, it is the merest false compassion to waste it. To vindicate the vigour of the Executive, two criminals were put to death on Saturday last. The recommendation to mercy of the jury in the case of DOVE went for nought. Was it right so entirely to disregard the opinion of the twelve men who tried the case ? The medical testimony at the trial raised a strong presumption of the prisoner's irresponsibility, and the letter of Dr. Foams WINSLOW was stronger still " From my knowledge " of the conduct of juries," says the Doctor, " I feel convinced that DovE would never have " escaped the verdict of insanity, if the " question for their consideration had been of " a civil, and not of a criminal character." And he rightly quotes the case of Mrs. CumMING, who was unhesitatingly declared of unsound mind by a jury because she had a bad memory, and liked her cats better than her relatives. Men who have devoted their lives to the study of insanity have a right to be heard with attention when the sanity of a prisoner is in question. The great point, however, is, whether an English Minister can rightly disregard the recommendation of a jury, when that recommendation is based on grounds which can only be decided by specia 1 inquiry. There is a well known story told of ERSKINE, we think, that after taking a distinguished foreigner into the Houses of Parliament, and explaining to him the complicated forms of our constitutional usages, he next led him to one of the commonlaw courts, and told him that all our political institutions were but the machinery to place twelve men in the jury-box. If we commit the lives and fortunes of all the Queen's subjents, from the highest to the lowest, to the common sense of twelve ordinary men, it is very inconsistent not to listen to all they have to say. The greater includes the less; and if arty judgment has sufficient weight to condemn a  772  man to death, it is idle to say it has not sufficient weight to secure to that man's case a special consideration. In our opinion the Home Secretary should so far have listened to the recommendation, if only from respect to the twelve men who gave it, as to appoint a commission of lunacy doctors to report on the prisoner's state of mind. By their report his decision should have been guided. The wretched man's confession, his belief in the supernatural power of HARRISON, and his rapture at the thought that a crime at which humanity shudders would open to him the gates of heaven, are strong proofs of a mind positively diseased. The second execution was of the woman BROWN, convicted at Dorchester of murdering her husband on the 6th of July last. If the wmian's confession is to be believed—and it bears internal evidencJof probability—her husband came home one night very drunk, abused her coarsely, struck her several times, took down a horsewhip and laid it across her shoulders, and finally kicked her severely with his heavy boots. Suffering under this accumulation of ill-treatment, she snatched up a hatchet that was lying by, and broke his skull with it. Sir GEORGE GREY refused to entertain the question of a reprieve, and the law took its course. It is curious to contrast the case of this woman with that of JOHN PRIPSON, tried at Worcester, on the 15th July last, for the wilful murder of