said, he rose to state his view of the conduct of the Government on this subject, but not for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Bill; on the contrary, he was disposed to agree with the main features of it. A pamphlet had been published purporting to be a speech delivered by Earl Grey upon the measure, and upon looking at the speech he was happy to find that the noble Earl had expressed views similar to those which he had himself advocated for so many years on this subject. With respect to the conduct of the convicts in the colonies, he thought one very important point was their treatment when, after their period of imprisonment here, they were sent to the colonies. The present system was a recurrence to that of the ticket of leave, and it was a great improvement upon that which was in contemplation two or three years ago. His doubt, however, was, whether the power left to the convicts under tickets of leave to change their masters, was not liable to great abuse, and whether, notwithstanding the regulations of the Colonial Office, there were not many evils connected with the present system. Upon that subject he found that Sir W. Denison took the same view as he himself took; and, approving of the system under the present Bill, as a return to a modified system of assignment, he trusted the Government would take into consideration the propriety of limiting the right of convicts to change their masters. Another point was the propriety of diffusing convicts, and of extending the sphere of their distribution; but in recommending attention to those points, he had no wish to impose convicts on any colony without the consent of the colonists. The blame of such a course entirely rested with Earl Grey, who, whether as an opponent or friend of transportation, had done more against it than any other person. For his part, he thought it desirable that transportation to New South Wales should be revived. The House might not be aware of the great number of persons who, being in a state of destitution here, were desirous of emigrating to the colonies, and on that account he objected to the summary manner in which Earl Grey had put an end to the colony of North Australia, which had been sanctioned by his immediate predecessor. He had no further observations to make, and he rejoiced that the ground of difference between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was now so slight. Eminent as were the abilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, there was no matter in which he was better versed than the management of this important subject.

said, that as no opposition was offered to the third reading of the Bill, he would confine himself to the suggestions which had been made by his noble Friend, without entering upon the general subject of convict discipline. He allowed that in matters of this kind, it was necessary for the Government to feel its way, and to be guided not only by the experience it had acquired, but by the opinions of men on whose authority reliance might be placed. With regard to the limitation on the power of assigned servants to change their masters, some further correspondence on the subject had taken place between Sir W. Denison and Earl Grey, and additional modifications had been introduced, in accordance with the opinions expressed by Sir W. Denison, though they did not go the whole length of his recommendations. It was not intended to return to the system of assignment, which had produced so many evils; but the principle of assignment was valuable, and care would be taken to guard against the mischiefs to which the old system had led. With regard to the treatment of convicts at home, he begged to say that it was intended to do away with the hulks at Portsmouth, and to erect a convict barrack on shore. Returning to the treatment of convicts abroad, he quite agreed with his noble Friend that it was extremely desirable that the convicts should be dispersed as widely as possible, and also that as many of our colonies as possible, in which the labour which they could give would be found useful, might be induced to receive convicts. He was certainly anxious that New South Wales should take convicts again, if the consent of the colonists could be obtained; but he feared that any attempt on the part of the Government to press that subject now on the attention of the Colonial Legislature, would defeat its own object. He thought that if a number of free emigrants were assisted to emigrate to that colony, the Legislature might be induced to receive convicts again. With regard to North Australia, he could only repeat what he had said last year, that it was to be peopled by exiles and emancipists from Van Diemen's Land, who were to be induced to keep together by grants of land. With respect to emigration, he would not now enter into the question, but he thought it was very desirable not only that the convict population should be mixed with a free population, but also that the convict population should be as small as possible in comparison with the free. Emigration during the last year to North America had been unprecedented even from this country. He thought that the application for a grant to assist such emigration would defeat the objects which they had in view; for in that case the emigrants who would be inclined as heretofore to send money to their relations in England to follow them, would retain that money in their pockets, and throw upon the Government the expense of such further emigration, and probably a smaller emigration would ensue than would otherwise have taken place.

expressed his satisfaction at the attention which had been devoted to this important subject by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by his noble Friend the Member for Hertford. He still doubted, however, whether the second stage of convict discipline should not be carried out in one of the colonies abroad, instead of maintaining a large convict establishment at home for that purpose. With regard to the Bill before the House, he was only sorry that its principle was not carried further; and he hoped that another Session would not pass without seeing a central board established for the government of prisons generally, instead of being confined, as it was by this Bill, to the prisons of Millbank, Pentonville, and Parkhurst.

feared that plans for the reformation of prisoners were viewed with much too sanguine an eye. His opinion was, that all plans for the reformation of crime had been as unsuccessful as they were expensive, and that if one-tenth of the expense which they cost were applied to the prevention of crime, it would answer infinitely better. He hoped that the attention of Government would be directed to the bringing forward of some remedial measures in the shape of education, and he would suggest the practicability of passing an enabling statute, empowering parishes to rate themselves for the purpose of introducing an improved system of education for the juvenile portion of the community.

referred to these prisons being constructed of wood and iron causing the danger of conflagration, and he hoped the authorities would turn their attention to the point. As to the prison of Portland, there was a strong opinion in the neighbourhood, and he thought it operated injuriously on the labouring population, that the work in that prison was not of a laborious character, and that the food supplied to the prisoners, in proportion to the work they did, exceeded in quantity and quality what was absolutely requisite. In other prisons, where the treadmill was introduced, the labour of the treadmill was severe; but in the prison of Portland, where they worked in gangs, it did not follow that an equal amount of food was requisite for their support.

said, that in his opinion there would be no real improvement in prison discipline until they had a better mode of classification for prisoners for the next class of offences to transportable crime. He approved generally of the Bill before the House, with the exception of the last clause, which embodied in one general provision the regulations of Parkhurst, Pentonville, and the other public prisons. In his opinion, they should be provided for by distinct regulations.

believed it was in vain to pass penal statutes so long as there were 34,700 beershops in the country where drink was consumed on the premises. It was the excise on malt that led in a great measure to the establishment of these beershops, with which it would be difficult for the Government to deal so long as that tax existed.

said, that the incorporating clause would effect no alteration in the regulations of the different prisons.

Bill read 3°. Bill passed.

moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

objected to the Bill as taking powers to purchase ground for the purpose of forming separate burial grounds for paupers. It appeared to him to be an offensive and ungracious provision.

hoped that this would be the last of the annual Bills on this important subject. The consequence of the system was, that the enactments of the poor-law became spread over so large a number of statutes as to become complicated and incomprehensible. He trusted that next Session the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board would be prepared to avail himself of the valuable reports upon the law of settlement which were now upon the table of the House.

was also opposed to these continual renewal Bills. He hoped that the present measure would be strictly confined to the renewal of existing provisions.

said, that next Session it would be his duty to draw the attention of the House to the question of the law of settlement, which, as was well known, was intimately connected with the important question of the area of rating. But he had another reason for confining his demand this Session to a mere renewal of present provisions. It was well known that a Committee of the House of Lords was sitting this year, and investigating the whole question of poor-law assessment and the area of rating, and until the report of that Committee it would be premature to bring in a permanent measure. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to a proposition for continuing for a year longer the present system of union charges. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had stated that occasion was taken of these annual Bills to introduce a great number of new provisions into the poor-law. No doubt the inconvenience of the magistrates, having to look through numerous statutes in order to arrive at the law for regulating poor relief, was great. But the hon. Baronet would see that as new circumstances arose, the necessity for new provisions became apparent. For instance, the visitation of the cholera last year had rendered necessary some such provision as that in the present Bill, with regard to burials. There then was a clause for making assaults committed on poor-law officers punishable by imprisonment, with hard labour, in the same way as assaults on peace officers were punishable, the necessity for which had been only brought to his mind by a most violent assault recently committed upon a poor-law officer by a vagrant, who first attacked him with a heavy stick, and having knocked him down, bit, and kicked him; and upon the man being taken before a magistrate it was found there was no power to punish him by the infliction of hard labour. Therefore, it was with regard to these, as to many other provisions, they could not be enacted until the necessity for them arose. With regard to the burial clause, he hoped the hon. Baronet would excuse him from going further into that subject until they got into Committee, when he should be happy to give any information that might be required.

House in Committee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 struck out. Clause 3 agreed to.

On Clause 4,

wished to know whether it might not be wise to extend the provisions of this clause previous to bringing up the report. It often happened that there were persons in the lunatic asylums who were possessed of some small property of one description or another, and at present there were no means of applying that property to the maintenance of the lunatic. He suggested that the machinery of the county courts might be made use of to apply such property to the support of the lunatic. The case was this: A person was in a county asylum under a certificate of insanity, and the overseer had to pay money for his support under the order of committee of the asylum. He thought that upon such a foundation the overseer might make application to the judge of a county court to proceed against the property of the individual. Under the present system the dividends often went on accumulating for 20 or 30 years, and a considerable sum was perhaps eventually inherited by a relative of the lunatic, which ought to have been applied to his maintenance while in the asylum.

was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion. The question was surrounded with difficulties, but it should have his careful consideration.

Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 5 to 9.

then proposed, as a substitute for Clause 2, which had been struck out, a clause empowering the guardians of any union or parish to contribute towards the enlargement of existing burial grounds, or towards the providing of new ones. Under the law as it now stood, persons dying in workhouses must be buried in the parish to which they were chargeable, except when a request had been made in writing by the deceased, or the husband, wife, or next of kin, that the body should be buried in some other burial ground; and it often happened that the guardians had to take the body to some distant parish, eight or ten miles off. This had been found most inconvenient, especially during the visitation of the cholera last year, and proposals had been made by the guardians of several unions to this effect. Subscriptions had been entered into in many parishes for the enlargement of existing burial grounds, or the formation of others, which though separated from the parish churchyard would be consecrated and supplemental to it; and these guardians were anxious to be allowed to contribute to the fund so raised, in order to obtain the means of burying the poor who might die in their respective workhouses, without being subjected to the inconvenience to which he had alluded. But on looking into the law it was discovered that there was no power to authorise them to do so; hence the necessity for this clause.

objected to the burial of persons who might have the misfortune to die in the workhouses in burial grounds apart from those in which other persons were interred.

objected to the vagueness of the clause, and suggested that it should be worded in such a manner as to provide that the inmates of workhouses should be interred in the ordinary parochial or general burial ground.

promised to consider the point before the report was brought up, and so to alter the clause as to meet the very natural objection which had been urged.

Clause agreed to, as were three other clauses.

House resumed; Committee report progress.

Report to be considered To-morrow.

, after presenting a number of petitions from Brighton, Bristol, Glastonbury, Shrewsbury, Falmouth, Liverpool, York, and other places, praying that the punishment of death may be abolished, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish that punishment. He should not feel authorised to renew, year after year, a Motion on this important subject, unless he had been impelled, and supported, by two considerations: first, a constantly increasing conviction on his own part of the justice and expediency of the proposition; secondly, by the manifest tendency of public opinion in favour of an alteration of the law, which became stronger and stronger every day. On former occasions, when this subject had been argued, figures had been triumphantly appealed to by parties on both sides of the question; but, as it had been justly observed, statistics might, like mercenaries, be made to fight on either side; and the result, in the present instance, might be described as a drawn battle. The general result, however, on the whole view of the question, and for a series of years, was, he believed, in favour of the abolitionists. This fact, however, could not be denied—that the mitigations of the punishment of death which had taken place, had not added to the danger, perhaps they had even increased the security, of society. On this occasion, he would not take a statistical view of the subject; but, by evidence of facts and opinions, endeavour to show that the present system was inconsistent with what Beccaria and Blackstone laid down as the great object of all punishment—the certainty of its infliction. He would begin with the first important stage of a criminal's trial, the verdict of the jury. It was allowed that the only case in which capital punishment continued to be practically inflicted, was for the crime of murder. Now he believed that any one who consulted the returns laid before the House, would find a great predominance of acquittals in cases of murder; especially for insanity, under which plea the jury sheltered their aversion to capital punishment. But he would not draw inferences—he would give facts. The first case he would mention was one which occurred on the 22nd of February, 1849. At the Newcastle assizes, Jane Mitchell was then indicted for the wilful murder of her illegitimate child. The murder was clearly proved against her; the jury deliberated for an hour and a quarter, and they then returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy. The Judge inquired, "On what ground do you recommend her to mercy?" The reply of the jury was, "From our objection to capital punishments." Another case occurred at Devizes, on the 9th of August, 1849, when Rebecca Smith was indicted for the murder of her own child. The case was clear; the Judge was decidedly of opinion that the prisoner was guilty, and the jury said in their verdict, "It is our painful duty to pronounce the prisoner guilty, but we strongly recommend her to mercy." The Judge inquired on what ground, when the foreman answered, "That she may have time to repent." In this case the jury were clearly of opinion that the prisoner's life should be spared, to give her time for repentance. On the 10th of January, in the present year, Sarah Drake was indicted, at the Central Criminal Court, for the murder of her own child. The verdict of the jury was "Not guilty:" the reason they assigned for that verdict was, that the prisoner was at the time in a state of temporary insanity. Now, he (Mr. Ewart) knew it to be the opinion of those who attended at the trial, that the verdict on that occasion was founded on the objection the jury entertained to capital punishment. He believed he might safely add, that such, if asked, would be the opinion of the learned Judge who tried the case. These instances had occurred only within the past year. He forbore to turn his view back to former years, or to take any doubtful cases. But he had not only these facts. He had, in his support, the opinion of Judges themselves, that such were the facts: and that juries, under the present state of the law, found verdicts of acquittal contrary to evidence. Several of the Judges declared their opinion before the Committee of the House of Lords on Criminal Law, appointed on the Motion of Lord Brougham, that juries would not find a verdict of guilty in cases of murder, from their objection to capital punishment. Mr. Justice Coltman acknowledged that, under the present system, "many guilty persons escaped." Mr. Justice Perrin, a Judge who justly enjoyed the highest reputation in this country as well as in Ireland, versed in the criminal law of Ireland, said, "he was convinced that in many cases of murder, when juries had either acquitted, or had not agreed to a verdict, the apprehension of taking away life had been the cause; and that, had the punishment been short of death, convictions would have taken place." Again, Baron Alderson, though himself still in favour of the retention of capital punishment, acknowledged, speaking of certain cases of murder, that "it is a bad thing to have verdicts continually given in the teeth of the law and of the evidence." They had here three Judges acknowledging that juries would not follow the facts, but found verdicts against those facts, chiefly in consequence of the infliction of the punishment of death. The Recorder of the borough of Birmingham (Mr. Hill, a gentleman honourably known in that House, as well as generally for his character and talents), uttered these words before the Committee of the Lords: "Such was the growing dislike to the punishment of death, and such the reluctance of juries to be parties to its infliction, that he believed many a prisoner would rather incur the chance of being convicted and hanged on a capital charge, than the comparative certainty of imprisonment if tried for a minor offence." Supported by these facts and these opinions, he (Mr. Ewart) maintained that the first instrument of our criminal law, the jury, was enfeebled in its effects by the uncertainty of its action; and that such uncertainty arose from the retention of the punishment of death. But he would now take the operation of this law on the minds of the Judges themselves; and again summarily recall to the attention of the House, what they and other competent persons had recorded as their own conclusions on the subject. Undoubtedly the opinion of the greater number of the Judges examined before the Committee of the House of Lords was in favour of the retention of capital punishment; but of the whole number of English and Irish Judges, no less than five recorded their objections to it, and three out of these five their willingness that it should be abolished. Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice Coltman, and Mr. Justice Perrin, gave strong reasons for its abolition; and Baron Richards and Chief Justice Wilde expressly stated their objections to capital punishments. Before the same Committee other persons of great authority, and well acquainted with the working of the criminal law—among whom were the Rev. Mr. Russell, inspector of prisons; Mr. Rushton, stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool; Mr. Hill, Recorder of Birmingham; Mr. Serjeant Gaselee; Mr. Stephens, the head of the police at Birmingham; and Mr. Phillips—expressed the same opinion. He maintained, then, that the force of justice was weakened, not only through the mind and feelings of the jury, but through the mind and feelings of the Judge. Here, therefore, you have two of the very instruments of justice deprived of their full power; or rather influenced by a power at variance with that very law with which they ought to be in harmony. Nor was this all. There were occasional conflicts of opinion between physicians who were called to speak to the sanity or insanity of prisoners, and the Judges on the bench. It was now admitted by medical men that there was such a disease as moral insanity; but on that point a difference of opinion not unfrequently took place between the Judge and the medical witnesses. It was an admitted maxim of law, that cuilibet in arte suâ credendum est. If this principle were true, the testimony of the physicians ought to be received; yet it was sometimes rejected by the Judges. He maintained that such circumstance tended additionally to shake the certainty of the law, and thereby to increase the frequency of crime. But if they ascended a little higher, they would find that this uncertainty affected the decisions of the Home Office itself. No one could be more convinced than he was of the purity of the motives which influenced the present Home Secretary, or that the inclination of that right hon. Baronet was to lean towards the side of mercy; but it did happen that cases were sometimes determined at the Home Office, by which the public was perplexed to conceive on what ground one criminal was reprieved, while another was capitally punished. With regard, for instance, to the case of Annette Meyers, it had been asked not only last Session by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), but by others, why, if she was reprieved, other persons, who did not appear to have been more guilty, had been allowed to suffer capital punishment? Public attention had been more recently called to the case of Charlotte Harris, who was tried for murder at Bridgewater on the 4th of August, 1849. The jury found her guilty, the Judge concurred in the verdict, and he believed no doubt could be entertained of her guilt. She was sentenced to death; delay was occasioned by the peculiar state of the prisoner, and, after being respited for a time, she was finally reprieved. He did not know whether the Home Secretary could give any explanation respecting that case; but it appeared to him that capital punishment had taken place in many cases which were not of a more atrocious nature. Here he would interpose a question on which he much desired an answer from the right hon. Baronet. Can you ever execute for a capitally-punishable crime, having for a certain time (he would say for one year) delayed the capital punishment? He should probably put this question more strongly ere he closed. Under all these circumstances he maintained that uncertainty of punishment was engendered by the existing law; and that a more moderate, but certain, punishment would more effectively diminish crime, than a sanguinary but uncertain punishment. Let it further be remembered, that this uncertainty would go on increasing. Every year added to the more humane and enlightened feelings of the juries. Every promotion to the Bench increased the probability that the feelings of Judges would undergo a similarly mitigating influence. If this, then, were the position of events and probabilities, he was anxious to know on what grounds the Government would defend the maintenance of the present system. On a former occasion the right hon. Baronet had founded his opinion of the propriety of maintaining capital punishments upon a certain indefinite idea of their occurrence which he seemed to suppose existed in the minds of persons likely to be criminals; but it could not be supposed, if the uncertainty to which he (Mr. Ewart) had referred, continued to exist and to increase, that any fixed idea of a connexion between crime and capital punishment could abide in the minds of the population. Another argument used by the right hon. Baronet was, that public opinion was on the whole in favour of a continuance of capital punishments. Now, he would undertake to say, that in no town in the kingdom could the right hon. Baronet assemble a meeting at which resolutions favourable to the maintenance of such punishments would be carried, or in which counter resolutions could not be passed by an overpowering majority. He thought, indeed, some of the scenes which had taken place at different executions, had filled the minds of the people with a degree of horror which disinclined them more than ever from the continuance of the punishment of death. [The hon. Member here read a description of the execution of Sarah Thomas, at Bristol, in April, 1849. The account stated that the convict refused to leave her cell on the morning of her execution; that when force was used to remove her she resisted violently; and that she was dragged by several men up to the scaffold, where she struggled and shrieked in a dreadful manner.] A scene of the same kind was enacted at Glasgow in January last, at the execution of a Mrs. Hamilton. It appeared that she fell into violent hysterics shortly before her execution; her strength being exhausted she remained in a state of almost unconsciousness on a couch in the condemned cell; and she was executed in a state verging on insensibility. Such occurrences were calculated to shock the feelings of the whole community, and he was not surprised that they increased, rather than lessened the desire for the repeal of the punishment of death. He knew many persons were of opinion that the evils of public executions might be avoided by having recourse to private executions; but he was entirely convinced that private executions would never be endured by the people of this country. In the first place, they were contrary to the genius of the constitution, and the habits of the people. In the next place, it must be remembered that even if private executions were allowed, the Government could not exclude from them the members of the press. The public would therefore read accounts of what they now saw; and the effect produced by the painful description of these private executions, would be the same as was now produced by public executions. In fact, the prohibition to witness the sight, the vetitum nefas, would excite and sharpen public curiosity; and every detail of horror would be read by all, instead of being seen only by a few. He (Mr. Ewart) would conclude this portion of his speech, by repeating, more distinctly, a question which he had already put to the right hon. Baronet: How was it that if a capital execution were delayed for two or three years it could not be executed? For he thought it would be admitted that if a capital punishment was deferred for that space of time, it would be almost impossible to inflict it. Punishments not involving the loss of life, might be postponed for a lengthened period: still they might be carried into effect. It was not so with the punishment of death. How came it then that there was this result, caused by time given for deliberation, in the one case, and not in the other? He believed it arose from this: that capital punishment was founded on the principle of revenge. The law placed itself in the position of a person acting on the impulse of the moment, and then did that deliberately, which could only be justified when done on the impulse of the moment, and in self-defence. But when the law took up the case of the prisoner, the impulse was gone, and the necessity of self-defence was gone; consequently, when time for reflection was given, reason took the place of vengeance, and the sentence could not be carried into effect. But we were here met by those who argued, not in his opinion religiously so much as theologically, in favour of retaliatory and revengeful punishment. They took their stand upon one solitary yet disputed text of the Old Testament. But if we were to adopt this mode of reasoning from isolated or partial texts of Scripture, we might palliate, though we could not justify, any excesses. Such a mode of reasoning would extenuate the savage enthusiasm of the Anabaptists of Munster, and the cold and formal cruelty of the Puritans of Connecticut. We appeal, not metaphorically but literally, from the "letter which killeth, to the spirit which giveth life." We derive from the tenor of the Gospel two principles: the condemnation of the spirit of revenge, and the encouragement of the spirit of repentance; and both these principles we believe to be against the punishment of death. Your system perpetuates the principle of revenge; the same principle in substance as was formerly identified with the rack and with the wheel:—

"Clavos trabales et cuneos manu

Gestans ahenos; nec severus

Uncus abest, liquidumque plumbum."

At the same time you arrogantly, and, as we deem, somewhat impiously, endeavour to circumscribe within bounds assigned by law, the illimitable spirit of repentance. Permit me to apply on this occasion the words of our great moralist Johnson himself in his lifetime an opponent of capital punishment:—

"Shall then no fears awake, no wishes rise,

No cries invoke the mercies of the skies?

Inquirer, cease: petitions yet remain,

Which Heav'n may hear, nor deem religion vain."

With these words I close; never so convinced as I am now that the knell of this last vestige of barbaric punishment is now being sounded throughout the land; never so convinced as I am now that the reform which we support is founded on sound (because on certain) principles of punishment, on the lasting interests of humanity, and on the genuine spirit of the Bible.

Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the Punishment of Death."

, in seconding the Motion, said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ought to convince hon. Members who looked to the proceedings in that House for the last few years. The results of the reforms which had already taken place were so beneficial that they ought not to despair of carrying out this object, for it should be remembered that Her Majesty's Ministers never carried out a reform unless they were compelled to do so. Those, too, who said that the discussions on that subject in that House had not been productive of benefit, were quite mistaken. In no question had the result of deliberation been more evident than in the question of the punishment of death; and on the same ground he was convinced that a little more time would entirely remove the punishment of death from our code. It was a source of great satisfaction to those who had been in any way assisting in forwarding this work, that they could look back with pleasure to the progress of the question; and that in no instance had the benefit been greater than in the instance of the Army and Navy. Historians would scarcely credit the language which had formerly been used in this House for retaining this barbarous practice. There were instances in which verdicts of acquittal had been awarded by jurymen in order to avoid the infliction of death. From 1840 to 1844 the number returned as insane was 23. From 1845 to 1849, the number was 48, arising from the unwillingness of jurors to be par- ties to putting their fellow creatures to death. In the last year no fewer than 16 individuals had been found as insane from the same cause. In the Army, formerly, hundreds of lashes were inflicted; but now the Commander-in-Chief had reduced the punishment to 50, and had expressed a hope that he should see flogging altogether abolished. If they looked back to the number of crimes for which death had been formerly awarded, it was a disgrace to the age that sanctioned it; but as civilisation increased, and crime did not increase, it was a strong inducement to agree to a total abolition of the punishment of death. He believed that many of these acts of murder arose from sudden ebullitions of passion, without consideration of the consequences. He might advert to a number of cases in corroboration of what he now stated; but, knowing that there were Gentlemen who were anxious to express their opinion, he should consider himself as having done his duty in seconding this Motion. Life had been given to man by the Creator, and man ought not to take it away. The more that life was held sacred by the Government, the more likely was it to be preserved by the people. He desired to see a punishment which gave rise to such painful scenes as had been mentioned by his hon. Friend entirely abolished; and he was anxious that people of all classes—and especially those who were generally the spectators of such scenes—should be familiarised with the idea that life was given by the Creator, and that man had not the power to take it away. He wished to add that, under the administration of a humane Secretary of State, the present law might be almost wholly inoperative; for a humane and discreet man, entertaining such opinions as he held, and believing that public executions tended to promote crime, might be unwilling to carry out the law in its full severity.

said, he should feel it his duty to take the same course with regard to this Motion as he had upon former occasions, and ask the House not to consent to entertain a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries had expressed a desire to hear the grounds upon which, on the part of the Government, he should resist the Motion. The grounds upon which he asked the House not to consent to a Bill to abolish the punishment of death were, that he believed that the punishment of death, as a part of the penal law, was indispensably necessary for the interests of society, and imperatively demanded by a due regard for that protection and security to human life which the community had a right to demand from the Executive Government and the Legislature. It must be borne in mind that in the discussion of the question, they were not dealing with the former criminal code of this country, which inflicted capital punishment in many cases for crime of a comparatively venial character. Since the year 1841, not one person had suffered death in this country for any other crime than that of wilful and deliberate murder. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, contended that there was no right to take away the life which God had given, even for the sake of the protection of society. On this point he must be allowed to hold a totally different opinion. Would the hon. Gentleman venture to contend, that if a person attacked him with the intention of taking his life, he would not be justified, according to the laws of God and man, not only in defending himself, but in that defence of taking the life of the person who assaulted him? Did it not follow, then, as a necessary consequence, that it was justifiable where the necessity existed, for the protection of society, to inflict capital punishments for the purpose of preserving innumerable lives? He believed the preservation of life was the result of the maintenance of this punishment; and it was his firm conviction, founded upon increasing experience, that the abolition of the punishment of death would be followed by an increased destruction of human life. It was said, he knew, that the punishment had no terrors for criminals. Here again, judging from his experience, and from the opinions of persons most competent to form a judgment, he must express his conviction that death was the most dreadful and terrible to offenders of all the punishments that could be inflicted; and it was properly reserved for that crime to which it was now practically restricted, namely, the crime of wilful and deliberate murder. On this part of the subject he would call the attention of the House to the following passage from the observations of Mr. Redgrave, upon the Criminal Tables for the year 1849:—

"There has been no execution since 1841, except for murder; of the above nineteen persons convicted last year of this offence, fifteen were executed, the crimes of several being marked by circumstances of peculiar atrocity. Five of these persons were females, one for the murder and rob- bery of her mistress, one for the murder of her husband by poison, who was also charged with and confessed the murder of her two adult sons, and the attempted murder of a third; one for the murder of her infant by poison, suspected to have been the eighth or ninth similar offence; another for the murder of her husband by poison; and the fifth was (with her husband, who was also executed), convicted of a deeply-laid plan of murder and robbery. Of the other males, one was convicted of murder, who was also charged with a second murder, and the attempted murder of two other persons, in furtherance of extensive forgeries and fraud; one was convicted of the murder of four persons, and robbery; one of the murder of his mother; one of the murder of his child; one of the murder of a young girl, supposed from motives of revenge; another of the murder of a female, the motive not being made apparent; and three of separate cases of murder in connexion with burglary and theft."

Yet it was in cases such as were here described, that the hon. Gentleman asked the House to take away the punishment of death, and to proclaim comparative impunity to all persons disposed by any of the motives which influenced human nature to commit such crimes. It was said, in the next place, that it was an uncertain punishment. He contended that it was far more certain than any secondary class of punishments. Some reference had been made to the duties of the Home Secretary in these cases. He could assure the House that the duties of the Home Secretary in these matters were of an anxious and painful nature. But it was assumed that whether a capital sentence was carried into effect, or not, depended upon the individual character of the Secretary of State, and that if a person of a benevolent disposition held the office, he would supersede the law altogether, and refuse to carry such sentences into effect. Now, according to his views, he could only say that he should be grossly violating the trust reposed in him if he allowed the mere feelings of benevolence to interfere with the execution of the law; and therefore, in all cases, the sentence of the law was carried into effect, unless, after communication with the Judge, and a full consideration of the circumstances, there appeared good reason to justify a commutation or revision of the sentence. The hon. Member had said that the sentence could not be executed after a long period, referring, probably, to the case of the woman who was found to be enceinte, and whose execution was therefore necessarily respited. Of course, it then became a question whether, after a considerable interval, the effect of the punishment would be the same, and whether, with a view to the object for which it was to be inflicted, it was necessary or expedient then to inflict it. The cases referred to, however, were strictly exceptional cases, and such as, in his opinion, tended to uphold rather than weaken the law. But it was said vindictive feelings should not be allowed or encouraged in the execution of the law. On the other hand vindictive passions and feelings were inherent in human nature. Suppose, then, that an atrocious murder were committed. The hon. Gentleman had very truly observed that a crime of this nature was never committed in this country without calling forth feelings of execration and abhorrence from the great body of the people. The people saw the course of justice maintained, and the party arrested, it might be, by their exertions in aid of justice; they knew there would be a fair trial before a jury, and that if the fact were proved, the law would inflict adequate punishment. The general feeling of the community, therefore, was satisfied. But suppose the capital punishment were abolished, and it was known that murder, however atrocious in its circumstances, would not be followed, upon conviction, by execution; why, then, private revenge would take the place of legal punishment, and death by personal violence would result. Under strongly excited feelings this would be the inevitable consequence, especially when it was known that the life of the party who thus gratified private revenge would be spared. He might multiply arguments upon the question, but he confessed that none of the reasons he had heard advanced in support of the Motion had any weight in inducing him to alter his opinion upon the point. He would, however, briefly refer to the opinions of the Judges who had been examined before the Committee, as the hon. Gentleman had stated that two or three of them were hostile to the continuance of the publishment of death. On this subject he would refer the hon. Gentleman to the ninth paragraph in the report of the Committee. He would there find it stated that the Committee scarcely found any difference of opinion upon the subject, and that almost all the authorities agreed that for offences of the gravest kind, the punishment of death ought to be retained. The chaplains of Pentonville and Newgate had expressed similar opinions in their last reports. It was said, however, that public opinion was altogether in favour of the punishment being abolished. He denied that statement. The expressed opinion might be in favour of abolition, because, no doubt, it was easier to get up a meeting to ask for abolition, than one to say, "by all means let it be maintained." In cases of murder, however atrocious, there would never be found a single individual, or a body of individuals, to ask for the sentence to be carried into execution. Such a thing was happily never heard of, while it was well known that the law would be carried into effect; and therefore he asked the House not to be induced to believe, by petitions for abolition generally, or by the applications in individual cases, or by resolutions at public meetings, that the general feeling of the country was in favour of capital punishments being abolished. He had himself strong reasons to know that such was not the case; and he believed that great terror and dismay would be spread through the country if it were known that murder might be committed without death being inflicted as a punishment upon the criminal. For these reasons he should ask the House not to consent to the introduction of the Bill.

Sir, I am sensible of the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman must have felt in attempting to address the House, after speaking upon it on several former occasions, and therefore I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has given us another statement, almost another edition, of the speech which I have more than once heard him deliver before; but I am disposed to think that notwithstanding the statement he has made to the contrary, the subject which we are now to discuss is gaining ground in the public mind, and though it should not at present make much progress in the House, out of the House numbers of men whose opinions are entitled to great weight, are of opinion that the time is come when capital punishment might be safely abolished. I am glad that the discussion has taken a turn which has not always been adopted by the House; I am glad that, so far, the question of statistics has been almost entirely let alone, and also the theological part of the argument; and I am quite certain that if no Member will introduce the statistical or theological branches of this question, Parliament will sooner, and with less difficulty, come to some final conclusion upon it. For the sake of argument I will not adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, that society has no right to take away human life. To bring the question to a more narrow issue, I will admit that society has the right; the question then will be, is it politic and expedient that capital punishment should continue? In discussing this question we are too much disposed to look at the past, because, putting men to death is an ancient custom, and has prevailed for thousands of years, and we have grown up in the belief that it would not be safe to abolish it. The right hon. Gentleman said that only one crime is punishable with death in this country. He must be aware that within the last ninety years, since the accession of George III., the criminal code of this country had increased to the number of not less than 240 capital offences. At the beginning of the reign of that monarch, about forty offences were punishable with death. It was found that this brutal system was erroneous, and it was within the last thirty years that capital offences have been brought down from the number of 240 to 1. For ninety years past, Parliament has followed no guiding principle upon this question; the Government and both Houses of Parliament have legislated in the dark, at one time hanging men for what they now get three months imprisonment, and making the laws sanguinary to a degree unknown to any barbarous nation on the earth. But let not Parliament suppose that, our fathers having wandered in the dark for the last hundred years, we have just now found conclusively that it is right and politic to inflict the punishment of death for this one offence. I should like to know whether we are less secure now than we were thirty or forty years ago, on account of the greater mildness of our punishments. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture of what would happen if the death punishment were abolished; he might have drawn a more dreadful picture fifty years ago; and precisely the same picture he has drawn, has been constantly drawn at that table by the Gentleman occupying the position he now occupies. There is not the slightest reason for believing that we are not now, in our persons and property in this country, more secure than we were during the time these sanguinary punishments were so mercilessly inflicted. We have not only the experience of this country, but of other countries which never pursued the barbarous course which we had. I wish the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks on this subject next year, would acquaint himself with some particulars with regard to other countries to show that human life and property are less secure than they were when capital punishment was in vogue. We may point to many experiments. In Tuscany, Belgium, and Pussia, and I believe in the empire of Russia, capital punishments are practically abolished. In the State of Ohio, the third State of the American Union, a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment has revived the assent of the Senate. The State of Michigan has abolished the penalty of death. In the State of Massachussets, also, I have it from a Member of the Senate, there is every probability of the abolition of capital punishment being carried during the present year. But there are other cases—there is one remarkable case quoted by Sir J. Mackintosh, who was Chief Justice of Bombay for seven years, from 1804 to 1811. Sir J. Mackintosh, having mentioned the number of executions that had taken place previous to his arrival, goes on to say—

"During the seven years I have been in office, no execution took place, and this small experiment took place without any diminution of the safety of the lives and properties of the 200,000 inhabitants."

The right hon. Gentleman argues that its abolition in this country would occasion crime. I want to know the grounds on which he makes that assertion. I want to know, if the abolition of capital punishment caused no increase of crime in Bombay, where the Christian religion is not influential in producing morality, why it should increase it in this country, which is not a heathen but a Christian nation? But I come now to the great question—does hanging deter from the commission of crime? I ask the attention of the House for a few moments while I recite a few facts having a bearing on this view of the question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that part of the united kingdom which has given him and his predecessors the greatest pain in connexion with this question is Ireland, and that for many years past—as long, in fact, as the memory of man—public executions have been frequent in that country. I have two or three cases by me which prove clearly that any man who relies on capital punishment as a means of putting down murder, relies upon that which will not serve him, either in fact or argument. In 1844, at the spring assizes of Nenagh, four men were hanged for murder. Such an execution taking place in a small town should, according to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, have produced a terrific sensation. But in a week another murder took place on the high road, close to the town. Within the six months following, there were in the immediate neighbourhood sixteen murders, and sixteen attempts to murder, and fifty-two cases of firing into dwelling-houses. I state this on the authority of the magistrates of the North Riding of Tipperary, and it fully proves that public executions have no effect in deterring from crime; for here four men were publicly executed together, and immediately following there was—not a decrease, but—an increase of crime. In 1846, there were three men hanged at Nenagh for conspiracy to murder; and I find from the newspaper reports that the bodies, having been given to the friends of the criminals, a procession took place on the following Sunday, and the funeral was received with every demonstration of respect by the people. But there was another case, occurring in 1843, in which a man, of the name of Moylan, was hanged, and it appeared that both his father and his grandfather had met with the same fate. They were all tenants on the estate of the late high sheriff of the county; and I state this remarkable and horrible fact on his authority. And, more, when this man was questioned about his impending fate, his answer was, "What matters it, in two moments all will be over." Another case occurred at the spring assizes at Limerick in this year, 1850. Two brothers, named Gavin, were hanged in that town, the one 17, and the other 19 years of age. They had murdered a man who had seized their father's goods for debt, and cast him into gaol, where he died. This was clearly a case of vindictive retaliation—one of those which the example of capital punishment was intended to prevent. Now, I have it on the authority of a gentleman who communicated with the priest who attended these young men on the scaffold, that they had lived next door to a man named Fogarty, who had been hanged at the previous Limerick assizes, and they told the priest that having seen Fogarty die so resigned, they were perfectly satisfied and willing to meet the same fate. This appears to me to be a case clearly proving that on the class on whom an influence is principally contemplated, capital punish- ment has no effect. Take, again, the case of the poisonings which have been so frequent in England during the last few years. Nothing can be more horrible. I scarcely know or recollect anything in the long and dark catalogue of human crime more dreadful than the poisonings which have recently taken place in this country. But is there any proof, or any reason for thinking, that hanging these criminals has produced a salutary effect in deterring others from the crime? Look at the class of persons by whom it is committed: generally the most ignorant and insensible. Look at the causes which generally lead to this particular crime. Sometimes it is done from a sudden outbreak of temper, sometimes from an absorbing desire of acquiring money, sometimes from lust, and sometimes from jealousy; but I think that if we look at what is the general character of the population of our rural districts, where, I am sorry to say, the crime appears to prevail more than in towns, we must come to the conclusion that capital punishment is not likely to have upon them the effect which is intended by this House. But there is one view of this question which I think fatal to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and which was touched upon by my hon. Friend, and that is the extraordinary inequality of this punishment. The right hon. Gentleman says that all punishments are unavoidably uncertain, and that if we take the case of transportation or imprisonment we should find them uncertain, because they are subject to commutations and to inevitable accidents. No doubt about that; but that, I think, opens up another view of the question. If you sentence a man to transportation, you may, and you often do, reconsider and remit the sentence; but when you have hanged a man, he is beyond the power of chief secretaries or judges. The fact that you can never carry out even secondary punishments with certainty, is, in my mind, in itself a strong argument against capital punishment, which, besides killing a man, brands not only himself but his family with a stain which will never wear away. I want to bring this inequality strongly before this House, because I think this is the proper place to argue the question. But don't let it be supposed that I bring any charge against the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, because I know very well that, except, perhaps, the criminal himself, there is no man who feels more distressed at the occur- rence of capital punishment than the right hon. Gentleman. Still, at the risk of giving him some pain, I must ask him and the House to listen to the cases which I am about to quote. On the 13th of August, 1849, Mary Ball was hanged at Coventry for poisoning her husband by putting arsenic in his gruel. The next case was that of Rebecca Smith, hanged at Devizes, on August 25, 1849, for poisoning her infant child. The next case was that of Charlotte Harris, who was not hanged, but who was found guilty on the charge of poisoning her husband. The right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason for the respite in that case, that the woman having been pregnant at the time of trial, was respited until the birth of the child, and that then to have hanged her would have failed of the good results generally expected from the example of executions. Take, again, the case of Mary Anne Hunt, who murdered her mistress, but, being pregnant, was saved. But she was not married; so it appears that a woman has only to commit one offence, and finding herself in the condition of pregnancy, may commit murder, and having been respited for six months, will be ultimately saved, because the right hon. Gentleman thinks that no good to public morals could result from her execution. I mean to say that this is not in accordance with any of those principles by which punishments ought to be influenced. It is playing fast and loose with the law—with this great question, and with the lives of those unfortunate criminals who happen to come within the influence of the law. The case I have mentioned just now, that of Mary Anne Hunt, has an exact parallel in that of Sarah Thomas, who was hanged at Bristol. There was no difference in their crimes. Both murdered their mistresses, and as it appeared, at least in the Bristol case, under the temptation of sudden anger; but one woman was hanged under the most awful and appalling circumstances, coaxed out of her cell by the clergyman, or dragged out by the policeman, brought out screaming to the scaffold, and executed before thousands of persons, while the other was respited, and ultimately had her sentence commuted. What difference was there between the two crimes? Nothing; but the difference in the punishment was enormous, between being put to death and not put to death—in fact, the greatest difference in the world. I will not dilate on the case of Annette Meyer, which has al- ready been touched upon by my hon. Friend. I have reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman would not defend the course he took at that time, although I upheld him in it, and think that he ought to have gone a step farther, and have come down to this House and asked it to allow him to commute the sentences of all persons, or to allow the law to be altered in as far as regarded the crime of murder. George III., who was looked upon by some people as an honest and just king, is reported to have exclaimed, when asked to pardon Dr. Dodd, "If I save Dr. Dodd, I have murdered the others." Well, the right hon. Gentleman has saved that one woman; what is to be said about the others? But such reasoning, although tolerable in the time of George III., would not do at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman did right to save that woman; but he should then have come down and asked for such changes in the law as would save him from the necessity of putting any person to death. But there is another and most important point in which this question must be viewed. Many persons are acquitted who ought to be convicted, and the fact of their being brought to trial for the crime of murder, brings about their acquittal, because it is beyond all doubt that of late years, while this question has been progressing in the public mind, many persons, not considering the guilt of the prisoner, but knowing that if he is convicted his fate may be the gallows, have in their capacity of jurors found a verdict of acquittal, while the evidence pointed to one of guilty. Juries often recommend to mercy, even when there are no grounds. The right hon. Gentleman is applied to; but Home Secretaries, like other men, are not always in the same humour or the same temper. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, if I was Home Secretary myself, I would say the same. There is no man, however wise or impartial he may be, who when called upon to decide such questions, is always in the same humour or the same temper; and the right hon. Gentleman himself, although he might possibly be more willing to sacrifice his own life rather than to give a wrong decision in a case of this kind, yet he will not deny that from our constitution, in fact, from the weakness of our human nature, no man is altogether free from influences such as I have described. The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was wrong in saying that the Home Secretary decides, and that the matter is a lottery whichever way it goes. He says that he refers it to the Judges, and very proper that he should do so; but there are twelve Judges on circuit, one going to one place, and one to another, and some of them are, or may be, what are commonly called hanging Judges. We have certainly known some Judges who were less favourable to capital punishments than others; and one can easily conceive that if the right hon. Gentleman makes his appeal to one of those Judges, the chances are ten to one more in favour of the prisoner, than if it were made to one of those Judges who uphold capital punishment. A Judge of the land once said to me when I was discussing with him this question, that we never should take the opinions of Judges on capital punishment, because that if we had, we should still be hanging for sheepstealing and forgery as we were a few years since. Judges are in fact the creatures of a system, and that which they have seen done at every assize, they think right and necessary, and that such should be continued. There is still another point which must be considered in looking at this question, that not only the guilty but sometimes the innocent are convicted and suffer. The right hon. Gentleman will bring to mind the case of Michael Howard, hanged at Limerick in September, 1847. This case came under the cognisance of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and I believe that there is no man who takes more care and pains in examining into the cases. Howard was hanged in September, and died with calmness and resignation, declaring his innocence to the last. We are apt to suppose that none of these dying declarations of innocence are true; but I suspect that many more of them are true than those who have the execution of the law are willing to admit. However, to show that he was innocent, his cousin, Michael Howard, was convicted, in the spring of 1848, on the testimony of the same witnesses, who were then discovered to be perjurers. The discovery was fortunately made in time, and Howard was respited just two days before that fixed for his execution, and he was set at liberty by the Earl of Clarendon. But one man was hanged, and another was convicted, on this perjured evidence, and the latter was within two days of being hanged; but the witnesses, who were Crown witnesses, having been detected, the Earl of Clarendon, of course, suspended the execution, and ultimately set the pri- soner at liberty. In the spring of 1850, several persons were convicted at Limerick of perjury and a conspiracy to convict the innocent. It is notorious that, under the difficulties which the Irish Government finds in getting evidence, even when the guilt is beyond doubt, they have employed witnesses of the most atrocious character; and it was on such testimony that the first Howard was hanged, and the second placed within two days of execution. Take another case, that of Anne Merritt, the woman recently convicted in London of poisoning her husband. The jury found her guilty, and the Judge sentenced her to be hanged, believing that the execution would take place. On what ground was she sentenced? On the opinion of a medical man, who appears to have given a rash or unscientific opinion, and which was afterwards strongly contradicted by the opinions of others of the same profession. In that case, the proof was at length so strong, not of her being innocent, but of her not having been proved guilty, that the right hon. Gentleman very properly commuted her sentence. What is to be done with her I do not know; but the case shows that capital punishment is most dangerous, because there are so many accidents that may affect the proof of guilt. Another case is that of Denny, convicted of the murder of his child in a hayloft, by stabbing it with a cobbler's awl. [Sir G. GREY: He was not hanged.] True, the right hon. Gentleman says he was not hanged, because it was proved that the child had not died from the cause imputed.

That is not the case. The case was only supported by a single witness, and the Judge said that the verdict had been very unsatisfactory to him, and that an acquittal would have been much more satisfactory.

I took the case merely as I found it in the papers. It is quite clear that the man was tried, and that twelve men found him guilty, and there was not one word on the face of the proceedings to lead to the conclusion that the sentence would not be carried into effect. If, then, a man is to be tried and convicted on the evidence of a child of eight years old, and that in this case there had been a hanging Judge and a hanging Home Secretary, in all probability that man would have been hanged. I said early in the course of these observations, that we had no right to be guided by the past history of these transactions in this country, because we blun- dered on from one case to 240 cases of capital offences, and now, in trying to find our way back, we are getting down to one capital offence again. But this question should be stripped of its traditions. Our Government has always been blind and ignorant in its treatment of criminals. Howard the philanthropist, writing in 1775, showed how much we were behind the people of other countries in this matter. Speaking of Amsterdam, he says—

"He learned with surprise that in the whole of that populous city there had not been a single execution for ten years preceding his inquiry, and that for a hundred years the average had not been more than one per annum. Amsterdam then had 250,000 population to London's 750,000, yet in London executions had been frequent. Sir Theodore Janssen made a table, in 1772, showing that, in 23 years (1749–71), 794 persons were sentenced to death at the Old Bailey, of whom 678 were hanged, or 29½ per annum; the rest died in gaol, or were transported or pardoned. So in London there were ten times as many executions as in Amsterdam, allowing for difference of population."

Now, I should like to know whether murder has been less frequent in England or Ireland than on the Continent of Europe, or in those States of America where capital punishment has not been thus recklessly inflicted. There is another case mentioned by Howard, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have not shown him any secondary punishment. I think such a demand on his part is little less than childish. We have already found secondary punishment for 239 sorts of crime, and why should it be impossible to find one for the only capital crime that remains on the Statute-book? On this point Howard, writing in 1793, says—

"In Denmark he found that imprisonment for life, with annual whipping, which had been substituted for capital punishment, was dreaded more than death; and, since it was adopted, had greatly diminished the frequency of murder."

Now, I am no advocate for flogging for slight offences, such as soldiers getting drunk and committing acts of slight insubordination; but if it should be adopted as a secondary punishment, and should have the effect of deterring from crime, I think it would be infinitely better than the horrible exhibitions that are every year offered to the people of this country. I trust we shall not be charged, as were the opponents of capital punishments in past times, with being actuated by a morbid sympathy for criminals. I have not the slightest sympathy that would lead me to wish them less punishment than was necessary for the preservation of those who were not criminals. But it is this punishment that creates sympathy. You never have a man hanged who is not a hero with some portion of the population; and if he dies game, his memory is revered by his associates—the very class you wish to affect by capital punishments. We shall, perhaps, be told, that we are morbidly sensitive on this matter. It will be recollected that when in 1811 a Bill was brought into the House of Lords to abolish the punishment of death for robbery in a dwelling house, Lord Eldon solemnly warned their Lordships against "this spirit of newfangled legislation, this morbid humanity," and drew a picture of evils, doubtless urging that no man could safely leave his great coat in the hall of his house unless men continued to be hanged for that offence—for that was the question then being discussed by what is called the Upper House of Legislation. Now I hold that the present defenders of capital punishment are the legitimate successors of Lord Eldon. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman himself would have done had he been Secretary in 1811; but from the speech he has made to-night, I think he would have argued for the continuance of capital punishment for several offences on which it is not now inflicted, because every argument that can be used in favour of hanging for murder is equally strong in those cases in which capital punishment has been abolished. The present defenders of capital punishments would not now, perhaps, go as far as Lord Eldon, and make sheepstealing equally capital with, murder. Why? Because murder is now the only offence for which death is the penalty. Public opinion has reached that point, and the statesman would be hooted who would ask to go back to the old system of hanging. But these Gentlemen say that Scripture is in favour of the punishment. That was precisely what was said by the opponents of former changes. But if you found that the punishment of death was not sufficient to deter people from stealing in a dwelling-house, or cutting down trees, I ask you, in the name of common sense, how you can expect it to deter from the crime of murder—a crime generally committed under circumstances which render the criminal insensible to all deterring influences? Reflect on the state of excitement under which such crimes are generally committed, and then ask yourselves is it likely that any consideration of punishment is likely, in a majority of cases, to have a deterring influence? It is a delusion to suppose that any such considerations deter from crime; and it is high time that the Legislature should turn its attention to another portion of the subject, and try to stimulate the people to something good, rather than to horrify them by examples of capital punishment. I know precisely what course this question will take—precisely what has happened in other questions of a similar nature. We shall go on hanging people so long as people out of doors will submit to it. But the people do not appear to me to be so bound by what may have been done in the olden time as the official men in this House. They will by and by refuse verdicts, and I shall rejoice at such a result. I do not rejoice that men appointed to do a certain duty should abandon that duty; I regret that they should be placed in such a position; but, knowing how difficult it is to get official men and Parliament to take up this question, I fear that it is by the juries alone that the reform must be effected. When the punishment of death for lesser offences was under discussion, the late Sir F. Buxton declared that he himself knew of 1,200 cases in which juries had decided contrary to the facts; and then both Parliament and the Home Secretary took up the question. That is the course that will be taken in the present case; and I warn the Government and the Parliament to take it in hand before matters are pushed to such extremities. The right hon. Gentleman declares his opinion that it would create consternation throughout the country if the punishment of death were abolished. I should like to know on what grounds the right hon. Gentleman has founded that opinion. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the case that happened at Glasgow, that of Margaret Hamilton, and I ask him what he thinks of the current of public opinion in that case? The prisoner was charged with poisoning her sister-in-law, and convicted. But what followed after? First of all, she was recommended to mercy by the jury, and memorials were sent to the Queen and the Home Secretary from two public meetings in Glasgow, from all the magistrates and sheriff of the county, and a second petition from the same, and then there was a petition from the women of Glasgow, signed among others by the lady of the Lord Provost, making in all six petitions from Glasgow, besides which there were petitions from Earleston, Chapelton, Prestonpans, Lanark, Dundee, Bannockhurn, Kirkaldy, Hawick, from the city of Perth, with 1,300 names, and from Edinburgh with 7,165 names. The Edinburgh petitioners said—

"That the jury, on bringing in the verdict, recommended the prisoner to mercy, and in this recommendation your petitioners would earnestly unite. Your petitioners have nothing to urge in extenuation of the prisoner's guilt; yet the increasing abhorrence of the Christian public to the infliction of the punishment of death, for any offence, as alike ineffectual in the prevention of crime, repugnant to the feelings of humanity, and condemned by the precepts of the Christian religion, are, in the opinion of your petitioners, sufficient grounds for soliciting Your Majesty's clemency. Your petitioners would further adduce the recent case of Charlotte Harris, of Taunton, whose life Your Majesty was graciously pleased to spare, when under sentence of death, for a crime equally great with that of the present prisoner, Margaret Lennox, or Hamilton."

I do not know whether my hon. Friend detailed the horrible circumstances of the woman Hamilton's death, but I shall not expatiate on them further than to say that I believe she was insensible on the scaffold. There was there the clergyman and the Calcraft of Glasgow. I confess I never read these accounts of the clergyman and Calcraft performing on the same scaffold without feeling that if it were possible for the Apostles to witness such scenes, they would not recognise the clergyman as one of their descendants, or as a teacher of the religion which they taught. There is another case to which I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention, the Cambridge case, in which a young man and woman were hanged very lately for poisoning the sister of the woman. Petitions for a respite were sent up, one with 812 signatures from the men, and one with 1,400 from the women, of Cambridge, the largest number of signatures ever known to a petition from that town. But a letter I have seen says, that each dissenting pulpit in the town, for two Sundays previously, bore honest and faithful testimony against death punishment. What does the right hon. Gentleman think of such a state of things? Does he think it right that the public should be long so much at issue with the Government or the Parliament? Why, Christianity, as preached in these chapels, is directly at variance with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman supports; and I should like to know how there can be reverence for the law when such a state of things exists in Cambridge, and, as I believe, in every other considerable town in Great Britain. It would be easy to show that the idea that the infliction of the punishment of death deters persons from the commission of crime, is altogether fallacious. I have made out a table of dates of some of the principal crimes which have taken place lately, the result of which is some proof that no such effect takes place. I have taken the case of Rush at Norwich, that of Gleeson at Liverpool, and the Mannings in London. Now, I find that the trial of Rush commenced on March 29; there was great anxiety on the subject throughout every part of the country, and everybody was curious to know the issue, and there were speculations as to whether Rush would defend himself, how long the trial would last, and whether a man of such extraordinary character would be able to extricate himself from the difficulty in which his crime had placed him. The whole country was excited, and every newspaper had something to say each day in reference to "the murderer Rush." Well, at that very time, while the assizes were on at which he was to be tried, and on the very day before the trial—on the 28th of March, Gleeson committed a crime at least equal in atrocity to that which was charged against Rush. Again, the trial of Gleeson was fixed for the 22nd August. In like manner, we had long newspaper accounts of his state of mind, his appearance, his character, and his antecedents, and speculations as to what must be the feelings of Captain Heinrichson, on returning from his voyage, at finding that his wife and child had been murdered; yet while all this was exciting the public mind, the murder of O'Connor was perpetrated by the Mannings. So far, then, as the influence on the public mind of these exhibitions goes, it is undeniable that the trial of Rush had no favourable influence in deterring Gleeson; neither had the case of Gleeson any influence in deterring the Mannings. But, if it operated at all, it was with a contrary effect. It is the same with regard to murder as suicide. All writers agree that when an appalling suicide has been committed, it is often followed, and that very speedily, by others of a similar character. There is a class of persons who, from the peculiar constitution of their minds, are predisposed to such crimes; and amongst that class, the more you publish the fact of such crimes having been committed, the more you stimulate them to the commission of them themselves. I think I have satisfactorily shown to the House that the security of society is not less now than it was when scores and hundreds of human beings were hanged yearly in Great Britain and Ireland; and that in other countries where the punishment of death has been practically abolished, no such results as the right hon. Gentleman expects from it here have followed. We spend 10,000,000 l. annually and more, taking the Church of England and dissenting bodies together, in teaching the people morality and religion; and yet it is asserted by the right hon. Gentleman that notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the proof that perfect safety has followed the change in other countries, the most dire results are to be apprehended were that change made here. Why, Sir, if, after all our efforts, and all the money we have spent to inculcate morality and religion in the minds of the people, we have got no further than this—if that which has succeeded in Bombay, in Tuscany, Russia, Prussia, Belgium, in the States of Ohio, and Michigan, and Massachusetts, would, in consequence of the immoral state of our population, be unsafe to attempt here, it would be better that we should save this enormous expenditure of 10,000,000 l., and try some other means of improving the morals of the people. I have shown that the inequality of the punishment is dangerous and fatal to an impartial administration of the law; and I believe if it were proved in the same way that a similar state of things existed in regard to any other part of the law, Parliament would immediately interfere. I will not go into the horrible details which have been brought forward to show how worse than useless public executions are, nor will I go into the question of whether private executions should be permitted—a question which the right hon. Gentleman has judiciously avoided; for I doubt if it would be possible to propose, much less to carry out private executions in this country. The right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State defends capital punishments. I admit that capital punishments are the law, and as such he must, if he retain his office, carry out the duties of his office, and cause them to be inflicted; but I say that the right hon. Gentleman, holding the office he does, and expressing the opinions he has expressed, is himself the great hindrance to the abolition of capital punishments. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that he thought they might be dispensed with, I believe the House would gladly assent to a proposition for that purpose. I cannot, however, expect that he will, holding the opinions he has de- clared to-night that he entertains; but the right hon. Gentleman has a much greater responsibility attaching to him in this matter, than attaches to me or any one else, for he is in a position to continue the law or abolish it. He must not "lay the flattering unction to his soul" that he can throw the responsibility on the law, or on his office, or on the Judges who administer the law. He cannot escape from his own personal and individual responsibility in the case. If capital punishments be really necessary and right in this country, and in the state of society in which we live, of course he is absolved; but, if it be proved, as it has been in regard to the 239 crimes in which the extreme penalty has been abolished, that it is not, then I say he is involved in an awful responsibility in maintaining a law for taking away human life when the necessity for it no longer exists. An able foreign writer says, "That none can govern wisely who are acquainted only with the inferior part of human nature." But that is the principle on which the Government acts. They would deter men from crime by the exhibition of that only which is terrible and brutal. I believe that is a course which never will deter men from crime. But if the right hon. Gentleman would take another course, his office would be relieved from a responsibility so great and so awful that I wonder how any man can dare to retain it. The moral feeling of the public would then be no longer outraged by these brutal exhibitions, and Christianity would be advanced. What you want to teach the people is, to regard human life as sacred, and that man should not lift up his hand against his fellow-man; but to teach them that, you must first take from before their eyes an action of the law which shows them that the law does not hold human life sacred. I have been informed that at the first execution at a town in Ireland 60 persons fainted; at the next spectacle of the kind only a few persons fainted; and that now, so accustomed are the people to the sight, it is witnessed almost without a shudder. If you wish to teach the people to reverence human life, you must first show them that you reverence it yourselves. An old English writer, Chaucer, says of his "Parson"—

"Christ's lore, and his Apostles twelve

He preached, but first he followed it himself."

And if we would teach men to reverence and respect the lives of their fellow men, the first and most powerful step we could take would be to abandon the halter and the scaffold, and to practise the doctrine we would inculcate upon the people.

wished to remark, in order to prevent misunderstanding, that he had felt it to be his duty, as Secretary of State, in doubtful cases of fact and evidence, to refer to the Judge who presided at the trial; but he had never intended to imply that any degree of responsibility in reference to the execution of the sentence rested with the Judge. The whole and undivided responsibility of advising the Crown to assent to the execution of the sentence rested, with the Secretary of State.

said, he had the misfortune to differ from the Home Secretary on this question. The right hon. Gentleman had asked if the State was not justified in taking measures to preserve innumerable lives; but the complaint was, that the measures taken in that direction were not such as they could in conscience support. He believed it perfectly possible to devise a system of secondary punishments that should be adequate to the prevention of crime, and that the certainty of passing a lifetime in seclusion and penitence without the possibility of escape would deter from crime more effectually than the scaffold. He had heard it alleged as a reason against the abolition of capital punishment, that there would be a probability or possibility of the relaxation of punishment. It appeared to him that when the public were once satisfied that a punishment should be substituted for that of capital punishment, they would insist at the same time that it should become an understood and irrevocable practice that under no circumstances, failing the production of fresh evidence, should any alteration or commutation be permitted. During the last three years the average annual number of persons sentenced to death was in Scotland four; and in Ireland, excluding the memorable year of 1848, it was from 25 to 30. He was not aware on how many of that number the sentence of death was carried into execution, but he believed it was comparatively small—19 had been mentioned; but from what class were those criminals taken? He apprehended they were taken either from a class who had had the advantage of a high intellectual and moral education, but had set at nought that education so far as to commit deeds of blood; or they were taken from a lower grade of society. It appeared to him that to the class of criminals who had had the advantage of education and intellectual training, the punishment of death had no terror. That was instanced in the case of the criminal Rush, whose atrocities were of the most frightful character; he, by some fearful perversion of mind, arrived at the certain belief that the change of existence which the scaffold brought to him would be the entry into glory in a happier state. There was a lower class of those criminals who in like manner were encouraged into a similar belief. He would allude to a case which occurred at Cambridge in the early part of this year, of a crime committed under circumstances of the greatest atrocity, and for which no sympathy was felt in the public mind. He observed with some surprise the state of mind into which the male criminal was brought in that case. The clergyman who attended him in his last moments produced such an effect upon the mind of the prisoner, that when he was about to be pinioned he declared that he would not be reprieved if any man would give him 10,000 l. He (Mr. S. Adair) would not speculate on the sincerity of those feelings evinced by criminals in their last moments, but he thought the law would do well to put an end to those wretched and miserable exhibitions, a course which he firmly believed would in no degree tend to impair the security which the law should throw around the life of every subject.

, in reply, would merely observe that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been less happy than usual in meeting the Motion, not from want of ability, but from want of argument.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 46: Majority 46.

then proceeded to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice: That the House, recognising the great principle that labour is the source of all wealth—that the people are the only legitimate source of power—that the labourer should be the first partaker of the fruits of his own industry—that taxation without representation is tyranny, and should be resisted; and believing that the resources of the country would be best developed by laws made by representatives chosen by the labouring classes, in conjunction with those who live by other industrial pursuits—that, in recognition of the above great truths, the House adopts the principles embodied in the document entitled 'The People's Charter'—namely, annual elections, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral districts, no property qualification, and payment of Members. He said, one way of putting an end to the crime of murder, which they had just been discussing, would be the placing our representative system on such a sound and satisfactory basis as that every person in the kingdom should be represented in that House. He begged to inform the House and the country, that however the opinions of the people on this question might be neglected now, simply because they were quiet when trade was good, as soon as that trade became bad, which would be at no distant period, the applications made to that House on the part of the people would meet with more attention than they did now, or than they had done on any former occasion. He admitted, with respect to the people of Ireland, that they attached no importance whatever to the Charter, or to any measure which that House passed for that country; but this was a period of calm in Ireland, and now was the very time for reconciling the people to the Government of the day, which it would be exceedingly difficult to do in times when trade became bad. In that House 105 Members sat for Ireland, representing 8,000,000 of population; Scotland returned 53 Members; whilst for England, representing no more than double the population of Ireland, they had 500 Members, being nearly five to one as to those who represented Ireland. He contended that the people of England were more enlightened, and more prepared now to receive the changes which he asked for than the people of any other country in the world. With respect to France, that country was not now a Republic, but a complete despotism. In France, at the present moment, the house of the President was surrounded day and night by soldiers with fixed bayonets; and the National Assembly, where the representatives of the people met to enact the laws, was always surrounded in like manner by soldiers with fixed bayonets, while that Assembly was sitting. France was now more of a despotic Power than it ever was before. Any newspaper, for instance, published in Paris, containing anything reflecting on the President, or the majority in the Assembly, was not allowed to pass free through the post. The House, therefore, had no right to look to France now as an instance why they should not give the people of this country greater power than they had at the present moment. He admitted his Motion was a kind of annual farce, constituted as the House was at present. In this country capital was the reigning monarch. The capitalists sitting behind the Ministry would support the Ministry in any measure which was antagonistic to the working classes. Did not that prove that the entire policy of the Ministry was based on the support they received from the capitalists of the country? This question interested every class of persons out of that House, and before he sat down some hon. Gentleman might perhaps get up and pro- pose that the House be counted; but let him (Mr. F. O'Connor) inform hon. Members that the people outside had no confidence in that House. Formerly, when the Charter was propounded to the House, monster petitions were presented in its favour; but on this occasion, he rejoiced to say that not a single petition had been presented in its favour. His only object was to make the rich richer, and the poor rich. He could not understand the conduct of the protectionists in refusing their support to the Motion of the hon. Member for West Surrey the other night for the extension of the agricultural franchise. They were for placing all power in the hands of that class, and yet to a man they voted against it. Look at the result of the present system. The West Riding of Yorkshire, Dublin, Cork, and Bath, for instance, each returned one Tory and one Whig, and they would find that a House thus divided against itself could not stand. What he desired to see was, that the land should be cultivated according to the national requirements, and not according to political patronage; and he was convinced that if the Charter were to become the law of the land, they would cease to import agricultural produce, and, in fact, become an exporting country.

Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.