Page images
PDF
EPUB

parliament on a subject that concerns human life, will pass away with an unreformed House of Commons; and better men in better times will deem it a great and honourable duty to make the laws of England worthy the character of an enlightened and Christian nation.-Morning Herald, Monday, April 9, 1832.

Discussion in the COMMONS upon the Committal of Mr. EWART'S Bill Remarks.

Mr. EWART, having at length redeemed his pledge of bringing on the discussion of the principle of his Bill for abolishing the penalty of death in the cases which we have already specified, has met with that support and success which the enlightened cause that he advocated so well deserved.

Our readers will recollect that the Bill was read a second time on a former day, on an understanding that the discussion was to be reserved for the Committee; and the result of that discussion, by which the Bill was carried unscathed through the Committee, not only affords a present advantage to the friends of rational justice and humanity, but is, we trust, an augury of future greater, and more decisive triumphs, which will have the effect of utterly destroying that spirit of barbarism which pervades and deforms our laws, and renders our whole system of criminal jurisprudence unworthy the civilization of the age.

It was a striking proof of the progress which enlightened principles of penal legislation have made of late, that even Sir Robert PEEL remitted his anxiety for the preservation of cruel and ineffective laws, so far as to give up the punishment of death for cattle and sheep-stealing, though he was still inclined to think, that horse-stealing was too serious a crime to be punished in any other way than by taking the life of man. It is, indeed, a serious offence against property, and so is stealing privately in a dwelling-house-another

crime for which he would retain the penalty of death. But to punish such offences equally with murder, is no less impolitic than unjust.

The moral distinction between the offence of theft in any shape, and crimes of violence and blood, is evident. The unperverted instincts of the illiterate peasant teach it, as well as the learning of the philosopher. To confound, by positive laws, crimes which are, and ever must be, distinct in their nature, is to confuse, as far as legislative acts can confuse, the moral perceptions of the people. A code in which death is the predominant punishment, cannot fail to have demoralizing consequences. It is calculated to shock or brutalize the feelings of man. It cheapens human life, and sets the dangerous example of shedding blood, for comparatively trivial causes. If even such a code were more effective than one of a temperate character to protect property we ask Sir Robert PEEL if that protection would not be bought too dear at the price of blood, and by the destruction of those feelings of reverence with which men ought to be ever taught to regard the inestimable gift of life?

There never has existed an inhuman code of laws in any country in which, under its influence, murder has not become of more frequent occurrence than under a rational and moral system of justice; nor need we wonder, when the legislature itself consecrates in its laws the example of revenge!

But sanguinary laws, besides encouraging ferocious habits in the people, are, as a protection to property, notoriously the most ineffective. We have, more than once, given our reasons for this opinion. We shall now content ourselves with adverting to those of others. The Courier of last evening, following the line of argument on which we had previously relied, has the following judicious passage, in reference to stealing in the dwelling-house:

"We do not agree with Sir Robert PEEL that the abolition of 'the punishment of death for stealing in a dwelling-house, unaccom

❝panied by violence, will tend to the increase of the crime. The inappli⚫ cable severity of the law, as it now stands, has directly encouraged 'crime, by the uncertainty to which it has given rise, in the mind of ⚫ the criminal, of any punishment at all resulting from the commission ⚫ of his offence. The feelings of society are so strongly opposed to the deprivation of life, excepting in cases of the most palpable necessity, ⚫ that moral and religious scruples deter many persons from prosecuting: 'Juries, avoiding their oaths, refuse to convict; while Judges shrink 'from giving sanction to the execution of the penalty which the law 6 prescribes.'

[ocr errors]

The English Chronicle and Whitehall Evening Post says

Sir Robert PEEL still doubts whether the punishment of death 'ought not to be retained for horse-stealing, although it is so repug'nant to the Christian feelings of the country, that it is seldom carried into effect, and remains in the Statute-book for scarcely any other 'purpose than to deter humane and conscientious persons from prosecuting, lest they might, perchance, be accessory to the guilt of blood; for, as long as the execution of a sanguinary law is dependent upon 'judicial caprice, it is impossible to say when its dormant severity may ⚫ not be awakened, and the public feeling shocked by the destruction of • the selected victim. Sir Robert PEEL still objects also to the repeal of the penalty of death for the offence of privately stealing in the dwelling-house; because he thinks property so circumstanced cannot 'be sufficiently protected by any minor punishment.-How is it pro'tected by the existing law? The punishment of death hangs over the 'head of the offender, and yet the crime increases. If that be his 'proof of the efficacy of the punishment of death for stealing in the 'dwelling-house, the sooner it is got rid of, the better.

The fact is, the very idea of that dreadful penalty prevents 'humane, considerate people, in this, as in many other cases, from 'prosecuting. Many a man allows a dishonest servant to escape, ' when the law has left him no alternative, but either to decline pro'secuting, or hang him. A moderate punishment, by the certainty of its infliction, would be a more efficient check to crime, and, of course, ' a more efficient protection to property.

‹ Did he never consider, that to punish the offence of stealing in 'the dwelling-house equally with murder, is an inducement to thieves to • add the latter offence to the former, whereby they get rid of witnesses, and do not expose themselves to any greater punishment, if ⚫ convicted? We are glad to see the more firm and decided part

[ocr errors]

'which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Geo. LAMB, took on this occasion, than when Mr. EWART first introduced his Bill. The country is also greatly indebted to Mr. F. BUXTON, Mr. Cutlar FERGUSSON, Mr. LENNARD, Mr. SHAW "(the Recorder of Dublin), Mr. J. CAMPBELL, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. HUME, Mr. CRAMPTON (the Irish Solicitor-General), and some other Hon. Members, for giving to this important and enlight. ⚫ened measure their firm and intelligent support.'

Morning Herald, Friday, June 1, 1832.

Committal of Mr. EWART's Bill in the LORDS.-Lord WYN. FORD'S' Amendment,' depriving the JUDGES of the discretionary power to mitigate punishment.

The DUKE OF SUSSEX, Lords HOLLAND and SUFFIELD, the Bishop of CHICHESTER, and various other Peers, presented numerous petitions, praying for an amelioration of the Criminal Code. Lord HOLLAND, in presenting the petition from Warrington, spoke in its support, and declared that the terms of the petition were supported by the great bulk of the people; and that a revision of the Criminal Code was called for by all the principles of 'philosophy, religion, and sound policy.' Lord SUFFIELD expressed the great gratification he felt, that there was a Bill now before them for the amelioration of this Code.

It was afterwards moved, that their Lordships go into Committee, for the purpose of taking into consideration the Punishment of Death' Bill [Mr. EWART's]. Lord TENTERDEN and Lord ELDON, it will be seen, entered into extended comments and elaborate criticism of the Bill. The latter Noble Lord contended that the fear of death operated more powerfully in the mind to prevent crime, than any other sort of punishment. His Lordship also urged that, before the capital punishment was repealed, they should know what were the secondary punishments. Lord DACRE supported the amelioration. Lord WYNFORD, at much length, opposed the Bill, and the Lord Chancellor powerfully supported it.*

[ocr errors]

* It was in this stage of Mr. EWART's Bill in the Upper House, that Lord WYNFORD, having been disappointed in his efforts to preserve the penalty of death, endeavoured to spoil the Bill,' by making the new law more severe in the generality of cases than the old capital law had been, when mitigated by the discretionary power, which the

The growing disinclination of the public to the infliction of death punishment, at least to the almost indiscriminate infliction of it, which has long been peculiar to the legislation of this country, is not likely to be arrested by the discussion which took place in the House of Lords last night.

It is true that Lords ELDON, TENTERDEN, and WYNFORD did their best for the law as it stands. Even left to themselves, their speeches would have done no great harm; for, the question has been discussed too often, and is understood too well, to allow their opinions to pass for more than they are worth. But, accompanied with the able commentary, of the Lord Chancellor (BROUGHAM), they sink into utter

6

JUDGES hitherto possessed, of lightening the sentence, according to the degree of crime. How did the Learned Lord accomplish this? By proposing an Amendment,' by which the minor penalties should be all cancelled in Mr. EWART'S Bill, and the extreme penalty alone retained. This extreme penalty was transportation for life. By this Amendment,' the JUDGES on Circuit are deprived of the power of passing any lighter sentence, however light the offence; and, in order to relieve themselves of the imputation it brings, they are often compelled to publicly cast the odium on the law. But the reader must remember it was Lord WYNFORD'S legislation-not Mr. EWART'S.

In the following session of parliament Lord LYNDHURST, (see Debates in the Upper House, May 7, 1833), forcibly pointed out this 'anomaly,' by which the discretionary power was removed from the JUDGES, to the inquisitorial office of the HOME SECRETARY, where the new law had been enforced in a degree that was, said his Lordship, 'harsh and unjustifiable;' for, that out of three hundred convicts thus doomed to transportation for life, the Home Secretary, Lord MELBOURNE, had mitigated the sentence in only ten cases. We hope that Lord LYNDHURST, whose speech we had great satisfaction in hearing, will persevere in getting this 'anomaly' removed; and, that he will otherwise lend his great talents, in the legislature, to procure a mitigation of other irrationally severe Statutes, which, as a JUDGE, he has given many proofs that his nature shrinks from administering. (See an article in our second volume, taken from the Morning Herald, of May 3, 1833.)-ED.

« EelmineJätka »