American brethren, in the enlightened and humane repugnance to the wanton and useless shedding of human blood. We call it useless, as well as immoral and criminal; because there is no punishment so inefficient for the protection of property as the destruction of life, as the whole history of our criminal law proves.

We shall here adopt the sentiments expressed upon this important subject in an Evening Journal, the English Chronicle, as follow:

In our last publication appeared the Recorder's Report, without comment; ' but it is well worthy of the notice which we feel ourselves compelled to bestow 6 upon it. Our readers will have seen from that Report that thirty-five persons, capitally convicted under our sanguinary laws at the December and January ⚫ Sessions of the Old Bailey, were reported to the King in Council, and that His Majesty was pleased to respite the whole of them during his Royal pleasure, with ⚫ the exception of John Barrett and Henry Wells, who are left for execution on • Monday next.

Now the laws condemned to death those thirty-five persons, every one of 'whose lives might be actually taken on the scaffold, if the King's MINISTERS pleased to advise the Sovereign not to interpose the regal attribute of mercy, " but to "allow the law to take its course." That the lives o the whole thirty-five ⚫ individuals were not taken, is not the fault of the law; for nothing could be more ▪ legal than the wholesale homicide of all upon whom the Recorder had passed 'sentence of death. But there is something which the law has not taught man'kind, that prohibits what the law commands, and prevents the disgusting exhi⚫bition of such promiscuous judicial slaughter. What is this "something" that ' is more authoritative than the tribunals, and stronger than the law? It is the • power of enlightened Opinion, calling to its aid the morals of the Christian dispensation, and the instincts of morality.

'But powerful as this enlightened Opinion is, it is not all-powerful, or it would ⚫ not only forbid the wholesale acts of butchery which the law commands, but prevent the selection of particular victims to perish for offences, for which no'thing but a law of vengeance could dare to take human life. Such are the cases ' of the two unfortunate men who are ordered for execution on Monday next. They are the selected victims of a system which never ought to have existed, * and which our Whig Ministers, when out of office, denounced, as no less opposed 'to the interests of justice than to the dictates of humanity.

'Now we admit that the offences of cattle-stealing, and of stealing letters from the Post-office, are serious and grave offences. Be it so. Are there not serious ⚫ and grave modes of punishment known to our law, which are sufficient for the 'coercion of the offenders, and for the example to evil-doers, without taking life? Does the shedding of human blood prevent the recurrence of these crimes? ⚫ Not in the least. If the punishment of death were an effective example for the ' repression of crime, surely the practice of wilful and malicious burning would : before this time have been effectually repressed. There is hardly an instance ⚫ where a conviction has been obtained on such a charge, for years past, in which ⚫ execution has not followed. No matter how doubtful the evidence might be on which the conviction was obtained-no matter what circumstances of extenuation might have existed-the Government have been in every instance (with a rare exception or two) inexorable (and none more so than our present Whig Govern

'ment) to petitions for mercy, on the ground of either alleged innocence or exte'nuated guilt; yet, in utter contempt of these punishments of blood, the crime of ⚫arson has increased rather than diminished, affording convincing evidence that ⚫ the work of human slaughter by judicial process, of which our Statesmen and ' our Legislators are so fond, works no moral reformation.

⚫ We had hopes that, as now, and for some time past, the vindictive nature of ⚫ our criminal code has been universally reprobated; the Government would be 'glad to relieve themselves from the painful responsibility of advising His Majesty 'to allow the ferocious law to take its course against any offender whose crime I was not at least a violent one, and of the highest degree of malignity and 'danger; but those hopes have been disappointed:-Christian England alone, of ⚫ all the nations of Europe, and under a WHIG Government, punishes with death 'those offences, for which the two culprits are on Monday to suffer upon that 'scaffold where the Burkites so lately expired.'

Morning Herald, Friday, February 10, 1832.

Cases of Wells and Barrett resumed.

It is eminently deserving of public observation, that one of the crimes for which human life is ordered to be taken at the scaffold of the Old Bailey on Monday next, is one of the three specified offences contained in Mr. EwART's notice of motion for a repeal of the punishment of death, those offences being horse-stealing, stealing in the dwelling-house, and cattle-stealing.* It is for the last-mentioned offence that Henry Wells is doomed, within a brief number of hours from this time, to die by the hands of the executioner.*

Since writing the above, we have received information of a respite having arrived for Henry Wells, the cattle-stealer ; and, if our information be authentic, we presume that the King's adviserst have, upon reconsideration, been convinced

* It is also deserving of public observation, that for fourteen preceding years not an instance occurred of the KING'S MINISTERS advising an execution for cattle-stealing in London, upon the Recorder's Report.-ED.

+ Lord BROUGHAM was at this time, also, the Lord Chancellor, whose office it is, when the Recorder of London makes his report, to assist in advising the extension-or otherwise-of the Royal clemency. (See p. 118.) As to the very merciful inclination of His present MAJESTY, the reader may consult an article taken from the Morning Herald, of Tuesday, November 24, 1835, which will be found in our second volume. In the future page of history will be traced this characteristic feature of the reign of WILLIAM THE FOURTH.-ED.

that there are modes of punishment which, whether in the way of coercion or example, can be as effective in preventing the crime of cattle-stealing, as the taking the blood of the offender, if not a great deal more so.* But there is no reasoning which can lead them to this conclusion, which ought not also to convince them that the stealing of letters from the Post-office might be as effectually repressed by transportation for life, imprisonment to hard labour, or some other punishment of restraint and example known to our law, as by the barbarous spectacle which the horrid tragedy of the scaffold presents.†

* It has since been ascertained that the respite for Wells was procured through the persevering and commendable exertions of the UNDER-SHERIFF, now Alderman, Thomas WOOD.-ED.

†TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD.

SIR,

'As I observe that you are the unceasing advocate for ⚫ the revision of that part of our Criminal Code, which, without mercy, ' demands the life of man for what may be called light offences (when 'compared with the awful crime of murder), I beg to offer, in addition 'to the many forcible arguments which you, from time to time, have adduced, a fact which is of the most convincing and conclusive

'nature.

The circumstances of the fact are these:-A friend of mine sent 'a letter on Wednesday last to a relation in London, containing 'one sovereign; but it was never delivered. On hearing the circum⚫ stances, I determined on instituting an immediate enquiry. It ap'pears, however, that the determination was anticipated; and, lest it should be put in practice, I had a man dispatched to me, who had to walk about eight miles near midnight, bearing a message, begging me, in the most pressing manner, not to make any enquiries ⚫ about it, lest the affair might be strictly investigated; in which case, • if it was traced to the deliverer, he would certainly be hanged.

While, Sir, we admire the humanity which dictates such feel'ings of mercy, is it possible not to deplore, and cry aloud against the effects of laws which tend not to prevent, but actually to "encourage crime?—I say, encourage, Sir; for what but the dreadful demands of the law has prevented this enquiry? And what

The principal argument relied upon by Lord BROUGHAM, Sir James MACKINTOSH, and other strenuous opposers of Sir Robert PEEL's Forgery Bill, in 1830, was the inefficacy of the punishment of death as applied to that offence; and they argued, upon data which could not be disputed, that the excessive severity of the law, in a great measure, defeated its own object, and, instead of effectually protecting property from that sort of depredation, rendered it insecure. In support of that opinion, they had the recorded sentiments of one thousand bankers-the persons the most interested in the detection and punishment of forgery-besides the numerous petitions of clergymen, magistrates, merchants, members of the profession of the law-in short, the representatives of the commerce, the opulence, the education, and intelligence of the country.

Now, forgery, whether in a moral, a social, or commercial point of view, is quite as bad an offence as stealing letters from the Post-office. The former is a theft of more ingenuity than the latter, but not the less dangerous. We call it a theft—though, legally speaking, it is a fraud; but the end which the forger has in view is the same with that of the thief, though the means are different. A great many forgers escape without any punishment whatever, because

6

may ultimately be its consequences? Why, the man who purloined this letter, finding that no enquiries are made, may be 'emboldened by his apparent success, and most probably will repeat 'the offence, until he is so hardened in taking small sums, that he ' will not scruple at taking large, and eventually his life may become 'the forfeit.

6

It certainly is most evident that the law, as it now stands. 'is inefficient for the prevention of this offence:-hanging, as an 'example, is no preventive. Here is a striking instance—the man 'Barrett, just hung-the blood scarcely coagulated in his veins ‘and yet, with this example before his eyes, here is a man who dares the trial.

'I am, Sir, your's respectfully,

'Hoxton, Feb. 22.'

E. M."

people who feel the penalty of death to be too heavy for the offence, avoid prosecuting, lest they should bring upon their own consciences the guilt of blood:-others, whose guilt admits of no reasonable doubt, are acquitted, because Juries often take that course which is more favourable to life, than remarkable for any strict adherence to the legal deductions of evidence. So it happens, that for one offender in this way who suffers an extreme punishment, many suffer none whatever.

It is so with the offence of stealing letters-the capital law is no protection to the public, but the reverse. An offender is now and then convicted and hanged ;* but this offence does not decrease, because many dishonest persons who commit this crime, hope to be as fortunate as others, who have either not been prosecuted, or have escaped conviction upon a trial, contrary to all expectation, in consequence of the natural repugnance of Juries to be instrumental to the vengeance of laws that will have no compensation for wrong but a sacrifice of blood. Rightly was it said by Mr. Fowell BUXTON, in his admirable speech upon the criminal law in the year 1821

Whence, I ask, the lethargy, the supineness, the indifference to the prevention of crime, which marks our system? Here is the cause : -We rest our hopes on the hangman; and in this vain and deceitful confidence in the ultimate punishment of crime, forget the very first of our duties-its prevention.'

Morning Herald, Saturday, February 11, 1832.

The cause explained of Mr. EWART's Bill having been

postponed.

In shewing cause why the Royal mercy should be extended to Henry Wells, who was convicted of cattle-stealing,

* Letter-stealing has since ceased to be capital, (Vide 5 & 6 William IV, cap. 81). For this the country is indebted to the spirited exertions of Mr. EWART, who twice carried his Bill through the COMMONS-the first time in 1834, when, for reasons which need not at present be made public, it did not pass the LORDS :-Barrett was the last who suffered death under the capital law.-ED.-(See Note*, p. 273.)