Page images
PDF
EPUB

the petition, in which the Jurors state their reluctance to convict where the consequences would be the unnecessary shedding of human blood: and it forms so remarkable a contrast, with what his Lordship had stated on the same point (when he himself, in the previous session, in presenting the same petition in the COMMONS, stated it to be both ably expressed,' and worthy of attention on account of 'the reasons it contained,' as well as the authority of the petitioners,'-see page 80,)—it forms so remarkable a contrast, that we think it right to give insertion to the following passage from the Mirror of Parliament :

6

[ocr errors]

'I must say (continued Lord BROUGHAM) that if there be any course likely to prevent the legislature from interfering, it appears to me that it would be this, where individuals take the matter ' into their own hands, and out of that of your Lordships. If the ' law be defective, as I am bound to think to a certain extent it is, ' and if it be necessary that in that respect it should be amended, ' as I admit it ought, and I have no doubt it will be—I say, that 'the only manner in which that law ought to be so altered and 'amended is, by the interference of those who have the right to 'interfere the King, Lords, and Commons of England; and until 'that period arrives, I say, these individuals have no right to con'travene the law, but, in obedience to their oath, they are to find 'the person Guilty or Not Guilty, according to the evidence, and 'that the prisoner thereupon must be liable to the consequences ' of his act, under the law as it at present stands.'*

* What a contrast, too, does this speech of the Lord Chancellor form with the following extract from an article in the Edinburgh Review for 1827, attributed to the pen of Mr. BROUGHAM, when a writer for that Periodical :

[ocr errors]

'The Judges and the parliament would have gone on to this 'day, hanging by wholesale, for the forgeries of bank-notes, if 'Juries had not become weary of the continual butchery, and resolved 'to acquit. The proper execution of laws must always depend, in

[ocr errors]

great measure, upon PUBLIC OPINION; and it is undoubtedly 'most discreditable to any men intrusted with power, when the

governed turned round upon their governors, and say, "Your 'laws are so cruel, or so foolish, we cannot, and will not act upon them."-Edinb. Rev. vol. 45, p. 76.

[The part which the Lord Chancellor took in this debate was so unexpected by the public, that it created a topic of considerable interest, as may be seen on reference to the Newspapers, both Whig and Tory, of the day. The subjoined extracts, from the Morning Chronicle and the Standard, are particularly deserving of attention.-ED.]

Strictures of the Public Press upon Lord BROUGHAM'S Speech in reference to the London Jurors' Petition.

REMARKS, from the Morning Chronicle.

If Jurymen had acted on the principle recommended by his Lordship, all we can say is, that blood would still be poured out like water in this country; for the higher ranks clung to sanguinary punishments so long as Juries would convict.

But is it so clear that a man who, as a juror, is instrumental to the execution of a sanguinary law—a law which outrages all the best feelings of our nature-is in no respect himself guilty? In this case, the man who, in obedience to a decree of the Inquisition, subjects the victim to horrors at which humanity shudders, is guiltless. In most countries, the laws have been the means for working oppression; and the oppression has been only mitigated by the repugnance of virtuous and humane men to give effect to them. To this repugnance we are chiefly indebted for the ameliorations which have taken place in society. We suspect they were under a safer guidance than the casuistry of the Noble and Learned Lord.-Morn. Chronicle, Wednesday, Sept. 7, 1831.

REMARKS, from the Standard.

The Morning Chronicle has with characteristic ability handled that part of Lord BROUGHAM'S speech in which he inculcated the duty of Jurors aiding to put men to unmerited disgrace and death, because they are sworn to give a true verdict. We shall therefore leave this part of the subject in

[blocks in formation]

the hands of our Contemporary, and proceed to the fallacies of the Lord Chancellor that are more obvious, and therefore more within our power to expose. The Noble and Learned Lord, by way of discharging the question of all religious difficulty, triumphantly interrogated the House as follows:

4

'He would ask any Noble Lord who heard him, to point out in 'what part of Scripture he found a warrant for the punishment of ' death in cases of murder, and a prohibition of that punishment * in other cases? He was well aware of the permission which the Scriptures gave for the infliction of the punishment, for he had

⚫ often quoted it; but where was the prohibition to be found?'

The prohibition is to be found in the sixth commandment, which says to all men, to sovereigns as well as to subjects, Thou shalt not commit homicide.' Such is the strict translation of the words employed, and not as our Old Testament version gives it, Thou shalt do no murder ;* nor yet as it stands in the New, Thou shalt not kill :'the Hebrew verb n signifying strictly to commit homicide, and not always homicide with malice, which is the interpretation of our English word murder; nor the mere act of killing, which may be applied to the destruction of animals as well as man. So much depends upon the right understanding of this one word, that we hope we shall be acquitted of pedantic affectation in fixing an exact translation.

The sixth commandment, then, forbids the commission of homicide; it forbids it without qualification-forbids it to societies as well as to individuals; and Lord BROUGHAM may as well pretend that political bodies can qualify or repeal the first commandment, or the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth-in short, the whole decalogue, innocently, as that they can qualify or repeal the injunction of this commandment. Surely Lord BROUGHAM will not pretend to say that, though atheism may be connived at-though idolatry may be legalized-though the sanction of marriage may be made light of—he will not pretend to say that the commandments forbidding atheism, idolatry, and adultery,

are therefore abrogated, or the prohibition nowhere to be found.'

The Lord Chancellor, indeed, cites against the authority of the sixth commandment, the authority of Leviticus; but does his Lordship remember the commission of the legislator of Leviticus?-or rather does he recollect that the Almighty was himself the author of the Levitical law, of which Moses was merely the mouthpiece?

Taking, therefore, our ground upon the Old Testament, we say that the rule is universal-Thou shalt not commit homicide.' To this rule there are indeed, first, the exceptions of the Levitical law, which inflicts death, chiefly for crimes of impiety, and for abominations connected with the prevailing depravities of the neighbouring pagans, which, therefore, were inducements to apostacy as well as substantive crimes; second, the Noachid precept, which enjoins the shedding of the murderer's blood, that the blood of those who are not murderers may be spared.-Standard, Wednesday, September 7, 1831.

REMARKS, from the Morning Herald.

When Mr. (now Lord) BROUGHAM presented, in the House of Commons, the petition of the Jurors of London, praying for an efficient reformation of the Criminal Code, with a view to the abolition of capital punishments for all crimes against property, he gave it his decided and unqualified approbation and support.* He saw then nothing in it to cause him to read a lecture to Jurors on the violation of their oaths; but a great deal to make their opinion, on the necessity of a revision of the law, worthy the serious attention of the legislature. Is it possible that the air of the House of Lords can have so improved the acuteness of his faculties, as to enable him to perceive blemishes in that petition, which he was incapable of perceiving ten months

* We have inserted Mr. BROUGHAM'S Speech at P. 80.-ED.

ago? We know there are many memorable instances of the strange changes which can be wrought upon the moral perceptions and opinions of men by the influence of an aristocratic atmosphere; but as it is impossible to believe that the great intellect of Lord BROUGHAM can be swayed by the circumstances which enslave inferior minds, we must content ourselves with stating the fact which we have above alluded to, without pretending to divine the cause.

** Certain it is, that on the 19th of November last, Lord BROUGHAM presented to the House of Commons a petition signed by the same parties, and couched in precisely the same language, as that which His Royal Highness the DUKE OF SUSSEX has, with an unostentatious sincerity of manner, which does him the greatest credit, presented to the House of Peers.

6

On that occasion Lord BROUGHAM introduced the subject by saying, he had a petition to present which he felt greatly honoured by being intrusted with, and to which he begged the particular attention of the House. He described the petition as one very ably and clearly expressed;' and having stated the prayer of the petition, and informed his hearers of the class of persons by whom it was signed, and who had practical experience of the inefficacy of sanguinary laws, he proceeded to say- the petition was worthy the attention of the House, on account of the reasons it urged, but more ' especially on account of the authority of the petitioners; for who were so competent to speak of the scruples of Juries as they who had felt those scruples?'

[ocr errors]

Lord BROUGHAM having concluded, Mr. WARD, then one of the Members for the City, rose, and bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners;-after whom Sir Thomas (then Mr.) DENMAN* got up, and emphatically declared

*Now, Lord DENMAN, whose duty it is, as Chief Justice of England, to advise THE KING IN COUNCIL upon the execution or commutation of the sentence of death, when the Report of the RECORDER of London is taken into consideration.-ED.

« EelmineJätka »