The Warrington Examiner. — 1872-12-07 (Warrington, Cheshire, England)

THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  At the meeting of the Wycliffe Parliamentary Debating Society on Monday evening, the Speaker (Mr. R. Roberts) in the chair, Mr. :Neild (Oxford) brought in a bill providing for the abolition of capital punishment. The hon. gentleman remarked that it was frightful to look back upon the penal code of England, and observed that he might almost say every page of the statutr; book smelt of blood. The question of capital punishment effected us, ho said, both socially and religiously. Socially—because it was an outrage and a disgrace to the morals of the people, as these savage exhibitions were proved to be mere revolting failures; and religiously, because it was in direct disobedience to the Sixth Commandment, which said, "Thou shalt do no murder." True, capital punishment was now carried out in private, but if it was unfit for the public to witness, could it be right that such a law should exist in a Christian country. He cited instances of the best eitizEms of the country petitioning the Home Secretary to prevent executions being carried out, and stated, on the authority of Chief Baron Kelly, that in the present century 17 persons had been sentenced to death, and eight were hung. Could it be right that such a responsibility should exist? He expressed his belief that hanging did not deter men from committing murders, and that in many instances criminals looked forward to death as a happy release from their misery, rather than a punishment for their offences. In many cases of murder, which he cited, he said they wanted a worse punishment than death—imprisonment for life with hard labour, the most frugal fare, and a free use of the " cat " on the anniversary of the crime. He also argued that the giving and taking away of life appertaMed exclusively to God; and that being fallible' we should not punish with death, wh3n, if wrong, we had no power of reparation. Mr. C. BURGESS (Brighton) seconded the motion.  Mr. ARMSTRONG (Carlisle) moved that the bill be read "this day six mouths." In defining the meaning of the word "murder," he quoted Blackstone to prove that a person of sound memory, who unlawfully killed anyone with "malice aforethought," either expressed or implied, was guilty of murder. The speaker expressed his opinion that hanging was fit punishment for the man who committed murder under such circumstances. He denied that capi'al punishment was less severe than imprisonment for life, and stated that if the law in question-were expunged from the S,atute Book, a post-office clerk who happened to steal £5 out of a letter would receive as severe a punishment as the man who had committed murder.  Mr. J. R. Youivci (Hull) seconded the amendment. He did not think that imprisonment for life would be sufficient punishment for murder; but the use of the "cat" would be a valuable addition to capital punishment. In case of murder, it was mere affectation to study the feelings of the culprit. The Rev. G. S. REANEY (Huntingdon) supported the bill, and remarked that the arguments brought against it were of a blood-thirsty character. When they inflicted the punishment of death, they should remember what it was they were doing. He defied any hon. member to tell him what the punishment of death meant; and maintained that hanging did not repress crime. He attributed the verdicts of insanity, which were returned by juries in trials for murder, to their repugnance to hang men for that crime, and stated that the brutality and influence of the present law was bad.  Mr. TODD (Peterborough), in supporting the Bill, argued that when the nation hung for murder, they were taking the life of a man with malice aforethought. The safety of the nation compelled them to punish criminals, as well as to endeavour to reform them; but they could not be said to be doing that when they took a man's life away. In Tuscany, where capital punishment had been abolished, the crime of murder had decreased by 30 per cent. during the past 25 years, compared with a corresponding period when that law was enforced.  The discussion was taken part in by Messrs. Hope, Burgess, H. Roberts, and J. Duckworth, after which the amendment was carried by 15 votes to 12. The Bill was therefore lost.  On Monday evening the debate on disestablishment will be resumed, after which the Government motion deprecating any refcrm in the House of Lords will be brought on.