Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY,…

News
Cite
Share

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY, MAY 1. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. Sir. EWART having presented a large number of petitions n-gamst the punishment of death, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish it, remarking that if he were not con- vinced that the feeling of the country was against it, he should not have troubled the House with the motion. Every day, however, convinced the people more and more of the impolicy of continuing this law upon the statute book, and the feeling in the country against it was stronger than some honourable members were dis- p<w€d to admit. They were at a crisis on this subject-the time bad come when the question must be settled. The number of murders had unfortunately increased but unlike others, he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that their institutions had produced no effect. As on all former occasions on which he had submitted this question to the House, he should on the present alfoid fitiy allusion to the theological part of the subject. He looked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of our reli- gion. The question was one, he considered, of expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon that ground. To show that they could safely do without capital punishment he would simply mention that the returns before the House went to show that when- ever they iiitd mitigated tne law, the experiment had proved most micvessful. He could urge many reasons why capital punishment tstwm'd be done away with. In the first plèce it was an uncertain pun aliment. The excellence of a punishment consisted ill its cer- truity, and to make this punishment certain they must be pre- pared to execute every criminal convicted of the crime ot murder. He apprehended, however, that no advocate for capital punishment was prepared to go that length. Considerable sensation had re- cently been excited upon this subject by the execution of two cri- minals, between the extent of whose crimes there was a very material difference. He alluded to the unfortunate woman exe- at Bristol and the notorious criminal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there not to have been a distinction between these two criminals ? Even the stanchest upholders of the neces- sitVot>a..U"! {1_yrt;Hpl merit in cases like those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore, that, with a due regard for public feeling, the right lion, baronet could not execute in all cases of murder. Then he lost the advantage of certainty in the punishment, while, on the other bund, if he adopted this measure the punishment would be made certain. No one could deny that public executions bad a demoral- ising tendency. So long as they continued capital punishments, not oniy would they have the demoralising spectacle of the scaffold, but they would have the accounts, in all the pomp of circumstance, from the first beginnings of crime to its last ignominious expiation, recorded by their liberal press, which narrated all those demoral- ising circumstances, and thus produced the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the religion of the people; and so long would they throw around the assassin that morbid degree of interest which now always attached to him. Under the present instead of leaving the criminal to dwell on those motives Itir repenranee which his position was calculated to awaken, they diverted his mind from that wholesome exercise, by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignominious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital punishments to be objectionable in that they inflicted on the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had inflicted on his victim. But there was another great objection, and it was that when once capital punishment was inflicted it could not be recalled it was beyond compensation, and if once exe- cuted the criminal Was placed beyond the pale of repentance. Capital punishment had been abolished in Belgium and in our own jjossessions in the West Indies, and during the best years of the Roman Republic capital punishment had never prevailed. He leit btrongly that the principle which he was advocating was gain ing hold on the people of this country. A greater number of the clergy are daily coming over to his views he had the opinion of several recorders of large towns, of three English judges, and of two Irish judges in favour of the repeal of punishment by death and he thought the day was not far distant when the repeal of that ignominious and demoralising punishment will be successful, and when the people of this country would call on that House to wipe from its statute book the spirit of revenge, and to leave un- lettered the exercise of the merciful precepts of our holy religion. Sir George (iRKY opposed the motion, feeling the strongest con- viction that the time was far distant when the infliction of the ex- treme penalty of the law in cases of guilt could be dispensed with. Many of Mr. Ewart's arguments, he remarked, applied to a period ailteictieiit lo 1841, since which time no criminal had suffered the punishment of death but for wilful and deliberate murder. He maintained the necessity, although it might not be capable of actual demonstration, for the of human life, of throwing around it that tenor which was entertained of the punishment of death, and which being entertained had a deterring effect. He denied that the crime of murder had increased, as Mr. Ewart had assumed on the contrary, taking a series of yearsj murder was the or.iy crime that had lIut materially increased. Sir George then eiiamined the statistical arguments of Mr. Ewart, drawing very different conclusions from the oftlcial returns, to which, however, lie did not attach much value, preferring to take a common sense View of the question, and he asked the House whether it could be affirmed that the time had arrived when capital punishment could be abolished for murder and for high treason, no substitute being suggested which would afford an equal protection to society. He admitted the evils arising from public executions, which furnished Of strong objection to capital punishment; but whilst it was retained public executions were unavoidable. Air, BRIGYIT supported the motion. He thought it was a fair ii'ference that if hanging had tailed to put down minor crimes, it must fail to check a crime which in most instances was committed 1-,0111 the impulee of intense passion, and the deterring effect of any punishment must be small with respect to such a crime. The !'(Ted of punishment to deter from crime in general, he thought, was greetly overrated, and the principle of meting out punishment in exact proportion to offences was an erroneous one. He en- larged upon the demoralising incidents of public executions, which, as ancient examples proved, aggravated the ferocity of a people. Mr. Bright adduced various cases illustrating the inequality and iiisufficiency of capital punishment, and the repugnance to it not only of juries, but of public opinion generally, which, he contended, was ripe for this amendment of the law. ill r. I) r in a few pithy sentences, opposed the motion, u well as bn" E. Bt-XTOK. Air. BKGTHEKHJN supported the motion, Sir George STKICKLAKD hoped to see the day when capital pu- nishments could be abolished; he had, many years agu, at the bar. been impressed with the imjieiiectiou of human tribunals, believing that many innocent persons had been executed, (Vitonci THOMPSON recommended, ad a preliminary to the abo- huoti ci cap.ial piiiiiiLtnent, the preparation and improvement-of some secondary punishment, and trying its effect in crimes inferior ill gravity to murder. Lord NUGENT, in supporting the motion, insisted that the burden of proof was with its opponents, who must show, first, that capital punishment had a tendency to abate crime, and, secondly, that crime could not be equally well encountered by another form of punishment. He complained that Sir George Grey had omitted to notice the fact that the great majority of the judges had given an opinion in favour of the remission of capital punishments. Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 51 against 25. For Mr. Ewart's motion, Pryse Pryse, John Williams against it, John Evans, David Morris, Sir J. Owen, David Pugh, R. Richards, Col. Watkins. After the transaction of some business, the House aajourned at nine o'clock. ————

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY,…

CLERGY RELIEF BILL.

Advertising

WHO IS MR. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

THE MAY MEETINGS—THE BAPTIST…

CARDIFF.

NEWPORT.

COMMITTEE OF SUPP"-Y.-N iVY…