1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ef76d4bed48f3087d37642de3d0f6aef.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=vEnzbPDQCaJRvIrbs70F763FTom01gpVIIpIStWLqQnItavorqSR9SWHwPVms67d3bkfzpH43rX9k-JGXJVr3bj3NpUAoqP-KgCmFKsxjrzgoqvSeE7LSRBvThIPuONW%7ECQ6Azme-itzvA5pg2eGO1e5Jddlu5Q8EB%7EqeIspfPeVJHczQs5yZnCYdfEAI0ATP3gfoXmQYjWwbLQuW8ljWpUxZFzUWO0G5x79M%7Eh5RE%7ERsFQ7aBI-hlEKEX9IRmuCk6vqRycHcBkq9C9SGpry3PdSOswUpoPvKx549qL4Y3kKpZc2PBdASj2xOQD-VTfrXpRRJWvzvOkW2FBwDxImhg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
061cdc4bc5e724415f8ddd40a5e3024d
PDF Text
Text
&
THE ROYAL COMMISSION
and the
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Eeprinted from "The Sooial Science Review.”
BY
THOMAS BEGGS,
F.S.S.,
Honorary Secretary to the Society for the Abolition of Capital Tunishment.
SOCIETY FOR THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Samuel Gurney, Esq., M.P., Treasurer ;
Thomas Beggs, Esq., Charles Wise, Esq., Eon. Secs.
William Tallack, Secretary.
OFFICE : SOUTHAMPTON STREET, STRAND, LONDON, W.C.
��THE
ROYAL COMMISSION AND
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
THE
By Thomas Beggs, F.S.S., Honorary Secretary to the Society for the
Abolition of Capital Punishment.
There is much, doubt whether the Royal Commission appointed
by Her Majesty in the last Session of Parliament, will be able
to report during the present year, and it is impossible to
conjecture what that report may recommend, or the results
to which it may lead. From the known sentiments of several
members of that Commission, it may be inferred that several
alterations in the present law will be suggested. In all
probability it will be the aim of the Report to relieve the
Home Secretary from the discharge of duties which must
have become intolerable to himself, and which in many
instances give so little satisfaction to the public. There may
be an attempt at a classification of the crime of murder into
those of the first and second degree—discriminating those which
have been the consequences of deliberate design from those
which have been the result of sudden impulse, or temptation;
and it is possible that the substitution of private for public
executions may be recommended. It may also report in favour
of a Court of Appeal.
Something will be gained by the
adoption of any or all of such expedients, but they can • only be
looked upon as steps towards the attainment of total abolition.
Much will depend upon the public opinion out of Parliament,
as well as the senti-ments of those who sit within it j and it
is therefore proposed in the present paper to discuss some
of the more important points pressing for consideration.
It
is desirable to inquire, what is the real issue involved, and
to separate from it all that is irrevelant, or that is only
remotely related to it. To this end it may be necessary to
look at some of the principal objections to the punishment
of death, and then to examine how far these objections are
likely to be met by any of the alterations to which reference
has been made.
One of the principal objections to a death penalty is, that
it provides the same punishment for all gradations of crime.
�4
There is no offence against human law which presents so
much difference in the shades of guilt—so far as men are able
to judge of motive and to appreciate the force of circumstances
acting upon the human will. In the case of Annette Myers,
who was condemned for shooting a soldier, who had first
seduced her and then tempted her to a life of prostitution to
supply him with means to gratify his vices, and in that of
Palmer, there is as wide a distinction as can possibly exist
between two offences of the same kind. They were both
cases of murder, and both were punishable by death. In the
case of the poor girl, the prerogative of mercy saved her from
the gallows. It would be easy to find cases within the pre
sent century where that prerogative might have been just as
properly exerted—and probably the unusual and somewhat
romantic character of the crime for which Annette Myers was
condemned, had much to do with exciting that public sym
pathy which preserved her life. An instance is on record of
a working man who perished on the public scaffold at Not
tingham, and whose case furnished as good a plea for a mer
ciful interposition on the part of the crown. The wife of this
man was seduced from his home. He followed her to the
house of her seducer, and begged her to return, promising to
forgive all. She refused; when in a fit of desperation he
took up a table-knife and cut her throat. What is there of
guilt in such a case when compared with that of the Man
nings 1 There can be no defence for a law thus indiscrimina
ting in its awards but that which was given by the ancient
lawgiver, and which justified the death penalty for all of
fences—that the smallest crime merited death, and there could
not be found a heavier punishment for the gravest offence
against the law.
The evil consequences of a law dealing out the same
punishment to offences so variable in their delinquency, are
seen in our daily experience. In some cases a false sympathy
is created for the condemned, and after the judge and jury
have decided upon the case, and the Home Office have con
firmed the decision—the public take it up—put the case under
another trial—go into the evidence, and demand a reversal of
the verdict, or a mitigation of the sentence. No one who is
�5
acquainted "with the conduct of our criminal courts will
hesitate to deprecate a course like this. If appeals from the
decision of a criminal court have to be made, they ought to
be made to a tribunal, capable of sifting evidence, and not
to public opinion, which at all times, but especially in periods
of excitement, is incapable of looking at facts with judicial
eyes. It is only in cases of condemnation to death that
these interferences are made.
In cases where the severest
secondary punishments is inflicted, any interference is exceed
ingly rare. It is the inevitable result of the death penalty
that the public will sometimes think it too severe for the
crime committed, or will be alarmed at the prospect of
executing a man who may possibly be innocent, and therefore
the excitement and the interference.
Although the cases
where men have gone to death with strong protestations of
innocence, whose guilt admitted of no reasonable doubt,
are numerous, still an uneasy feeling will always pervade the
public mind when such declarations are made by men upon
whom the door of earthly hope has closed for ever.
This is not the greatest evil. The worst part of it is in
the sympathy which gathers about the murderer when any
doubt of his guilt affects the public mind, or where there are
mitigating circumstances in the case—a sympathy which seems
to absorb all horror, or even recollection of the crime. In
the case of Annette Myers, whatever the nature of her pro
vocation, however gross the wrong and the insult to which
she had been subjected, she had provided herself with a
pistol, sought out the man, and deliberately shot him. She
had in an instant sent a guilty man to his account without
time for preparation, and this consideration seemed to weigh
heavily upon her in the condemned cell, for there she called
with much bitterness of feeling—“ Oh, what has become of
his soul1?” It would be impossible to censure the feeling of
commiseration which sprang up for this distressed but guilty
girl. But it is not for the welfare of society that we should
allow a sympathy like this to efface all horror of the crime.
In some quarters she was looked upon in the light of a
Roman heroine—as a sort of Lucretia, who had done a
praiseworthy act in avenging her own shame. A reverend
�6
gentleman, in a public meeting, declared—“It requires all my
Christianity to check me from saying that I honour the
woman.” What can be expected from the uneducated and
the vulgar, when men of education and position thus allow
their feelings to overrun their sense of propriety ? Is not this
teaching indirectly that there may be and are circumstances
which justify an act of vengeance even to the taking of
human life? The fault is in the law. Had this unfortunate
girl been condemned to a severe secondary punishment, there
might have been some feeling of compassion, but no sound
mind would have found an apology for the crime. “ The
safety of human life depends,” as Mr. Bright expressed in
the last debate, “upon the public reverence for life,”—and this
reverence cannot be created or preserved by public exhibitions
of death, nor by maintaining a law which by its very severity
creates a sympathy for those who commit murder.
Another case presents in a still stronger light the evil
complained of. On December 31st, 1841, a man of the
name of John Jones, who sometimes 'bore the name of Moore,
a shoemaker, murdered his sweetheart, Mary Hallam, the
daughter of a respectable labourer at Mansfield, in the county
of Nottingham. He was executed on March 23rd, 1842. He
was a man of unsteady habits, and gave way to violent
fits of passion. The girl declined his addresses, and he said
that if he did not have her no one else should. After he
had inflicted the first wound, which was not immediately
fatal, she begged for her life; but seeing him resolved, asked
for time to pray. He said that he would pray for both,
and then completed his purpose. The wounds were inflicted
by a shoemaker’s knife, and her throat was cut barbarously.
After this he kept on his knees some time and prayed to
God to have mercy on two unfortunate lovers. He made
no attempt to escape, and confessed the crime. After his
confinement he behaved in the most decorous manner. He
won upon the good opinion of the gaol chaplain, and he
was visited by the Bishop of Lincoln. It does not appear
that he expressed any contrition for the crime, but seemed
to pass away with triumphant certainty that he was going
to rejoin his victim in heaven, He was visited by some
�pious and benevolent ladies of Nottingham, some of whom
declared that he was a child of God if ever there was one,
meaning, it is presumed, that his state of religious feeling
after condemnation had wiped away all transgressions. The
same lady sent him a white camelia to wear at his execu
tion.
Of course great crowds gathered at the execution,
multitudes coming in from surrounding towns and villages;
Mansfield, Newark and Derby supplying a large per centage
of the strangers present at the scene.
The crowds came thronging in from six o’clock in the morning.
It would be well for those who contend for the deterrent
influence of death punishment to mingle with such crowds.
The expression was almost universally, one of sympathy with
the man about to suffer. The painful part of it appeared to be
this—that the offence seemed to be entirely lost to the minds
of those who were conversing about his fate. A horrible crime
had been committed. A poor girl had been barbarously
murdered; the supplications for her life, as well as those she
made for a few minutes’ time, that she might prepare for
death by prayer, were disregarded. Her bereaved family were
left with stricken hearts to mourn the loss of a daughter by
a violent and sudden death; and yet all this seemed to have
passed away from the minds of those who had come to see the
murderer die. He was looked upon by many as the victim of a
misplaced and unrewarded affection, and the sufferings of his
victim were wholly disregarded. One man was heard to say
to a companion, who seemed to be his son, I wish you and
me were as ready to die -as he is.” Similar extravagances were
committed, so far as the treatment of the criminal was con*
cerned, by benevolent visitors, in the case of Cook, who
murdered Mr. Paas, and afterwards attempted to destroy the
body by burning it.
By the way, the wretched man Jones was fondled, caressed,
and flattered by a number of indiscreet persons, injury would
be done to himself. Such treatment to a man whose hands
were reeking with a foul murder, were calculated to nourish
that vulgar, but profound egotism, which was the most marked
feature in his character, and little calculated to awaken that
humility which is essential to true peniterce. An intense
�8
egotism is the characteristic of all great criminals. In the
case of a man who has consummated an irregular and criminal
career, by the commission of a murder, it must be highly
injudicious to inflate the mind by false hopes, either temporal
or eternal. The result of such attentions as were paid to
this man, were calculated to produce a display of ostentatious
penitence, or to create a self confidence ill-suited to his position.
The highest aspiration of the guilty, ought to be that taught
in the prayer of the publican, 11 God be merciful to me a
sinner.”
On the public mind outside, the effects were
equally deplorable. To some, by the extraordinary attentions
paid to him, he was raised into a hero or a saint, and made
almost an object of envy among his own class.
There is another "case of more recent date, that of Joseph
Castle, who was executed in 1860, for the murder of his wife.
His own confession made it clear that the crime was deliberate.
After his condemnation he was petted much in the same way.
His conduct was brutal and sensual throughout—and in his
last moments he manifested no concern for the poor woman
he had murdered, nor in fact any true penitence. He was
eager for his meals, and anxious to secure all the indrdgences
the prison rules allowed, and the gaol authorities were lavish
in their attentions. It is the doom of death which surrounds
these men with all this factitious interest. What they say
and do becomes an object of inquiry, and their daily state of
health is looked for more greedily than is a royal bulletin.
The man whose hours are fixed, becomes an object of pity to
the gaol officials. It is the duty of the chaplain to awaken
him to a sense of his condition, and prepare him for the world
he has to enter. If there are circumstances in his case of an
exceptional or extraordinary kind—he becomes an object of
interest to a number of pious and kind people outside. The
lesson taught to the multitude loses its impressiveness and its
power, and that solemn awe which ought to be present at the
punishment of a great criminal, is overwhelmed by other
feelings. Change the doom of death to that of penal servitude,
or any other equivalent, and he becomes at once an ordinary
criminal. As soon as the respites for Hall, Townley, and
Butler left the Home Office, the interest in them ceased. No one
�9would dare to assert that Victor Townley, doomed to penal
servitude for life, receives more than his deserts,—and more
than the law ought properly to inflict in any case, where a
man invades the life of another. In the case of Roupell, he
perpetrated a crime as flagrant and as heinous as any forgery
ever committed. This punishment to a man of education and
position, and who had once occupied a seat in the British
Parliament, was perhaps more severe than even death. He
passed away to commence his life-long punishment, without
any of that maudlin sympathy being drawn out, which in all
probability would have followed if the statute book had still
retained the death penalty for the crime of forgery. It is
therefore necessary to devise a punishment that will meet the
national sense of justice—and divest atrocious criminals of
the terrible interest with which their position as death doomed
men is invested, and which will prevent those interpositions
with the administration of the law which are so often made,
to the injury of public morality, and the lowering of the
dignity of the judicature in the eyes of the people.
These interferences with the law have the tendency to
embarrass both judge and jury, and to throw a difficulty in
the way of the Home Secretary, In fact the Home Office
has become a court of appeal. Without being constitutionly
judicial in its character, it is called upon to exert judicial
functions. The recent cases are pregnant with much instruc
tion. The Home Secretary has been in one case, that of
Hall, compelled to yield to an expression of opinion outside
in the correctness of which he could not acquiesce. It is
known that under the pressure of great excitement the mur
dered woman was traduced to the affliction of her surviving
relatives, in order to establish the plea urged on behalf of
the convicted man. In the case of Jessie Maclachan again,
an old decrepit man whose years and physical infirmities would
seem to preclude the possibility of his having committed the
crime, of which she was accused, was brought under a cloud
of suspicion, in order to make out a case in her behalf.
All doubt of her guilt was removed by her confession after
the respite had been granted.'
These are some of the gravest objections to the punish-
�10
ment of death. The escape of the guilty is favoured. But
besides this there is an amount of feeling created in relation
to atrocious criminals, where the popular voice would approve
the sentence, which leads to inflame the passions and dete
riorate the morals of the multitude. It is not only that
scenes of cruelty and death are demoralizing in themsp,1 yes,
but the discussions and descriptions given in the public press
are calculated to do mischief. The town of Nottingham will
supply another example.
On May 18th, 1844, a man of
the name of William Saville murdered his wife and three
children under particularly atrocious circumstances. He was an
idle and dissipated man, known among his vicious companions
as “ liar Saville,” and one of his former employers stated that
his fellow-workmen often said that he ought on account of
his fierce character to be called savage. In consequence of his
bad conduct and neglect, his wife and three children had to
go to the workhouse. Saville then formed an attachment to‘ a
servant girl of the name of Tait, residing at Badford, a
village three miles from Nottingham. It is supposed that
he wished to get his wife and children out of the way, in
order that he might marry this woman. Be that as it may,
he went one day to the workhouse and took out his wife
and children for a walk, the three children being respectively
of the ages of seven, five, and four. He took them to a retired
place in Colwick wood, and there murdered them by cutting
their throats with a razor. He placed the razor in his wife’s
hand to favour the idea of suicide, but it was found to be his
own razor, which she was not likely to have had in her
possession, but he was seen leaving the wood over a stile,
by a milk-boy, who identified him after his apprehension.
This crime created great excitement. There was no doubt of
his guilt, no palliation for so horrible a crime The public
indignation was most intense, and the crowd assembled to
witness the execution was greater than ever known at any
previous one. At the execution a horrible scene took place.
Almost immediately after the drop fell, some commotion took
place in the crowd, and a number of people were thrown
down the steps leading from the street in which executions
take place to oue of much lower elevation. The result was
�11
that some sixteen or seventeen persons were killed, and fifty
or sixty more or less maimed for life. By some it was
supposed that the panic was created by a body of pickpockets
from Derby, who had done it to avail themselves of the
confusion to follow more easily their vocation.
This was never proved ; but if it was the case, it shows
another instance of crime being committed at the foot of
the gallows—of which there are so many on record. This is
not the fact however, to which the case points. A gentleman
who took much interest in the humbler classes, embraced the
opportunity of mingling among them on this occasion, for
purposes of observation.
A letter of his is preserved, and
the following quotation may suffice. “ I wish our legislators
who insist upon maintaining capital punishment, could have
been present this morning. It has made me sick with horror
and shame. I do not refer to the horrible disaster which has
ended in the destruction of so much life, for that I did not
hear of until two hours after the execution—but to what
took place among the crowds coming in at an early hour in
the morning to witness the execution. The crime was bad
enough—but the people seemed turned into savages. Indians
round the stake to which one of their prisoners is pinioned
could not exult with more wild ferocity in the tortures they
inflicted, than these people did in imagination over what they
would do to torture such a wretch if he was given up to
them.
I heard one group of women relating to each other
what they would do to punish him, and the devices were
certainly ingenious, but made me shudder,—the prevailing
opinion was that hanging was much too good for him.”
It will be said that much of all this feeling was the
effect of the crime and not the punishment, and there is no
doubt much truth in that. Ko doubt, whatever, had been the
nature of the punishment the popular indignation would have
been fierce and loud, especially among women, at the murder
of a neglected wife, and innocent children ; but by those who
have studied the habits, feelings and opinions of the humbler
classes, it will be at once acceded that it is most impolitic
to gather them in large crowds under such circumstances. By
communion with each other these natural feelings of indigna
�12
tion and rude desires for vengeance get stimulated. In truth,
the passions are inflamed from which acts of violence arise.
The hour of death concentrates in that brief space of time all
passion and indignation which under other circumstances would
gradually consume itself away. In the case of the execution
of the pirates—and in that of Muller—it may be fairly doubted
whether the riot and demoralization which have been so vividly
described, are the worst results of such exhibitions; probably
the savage vengeance which is brought to its culminating point
at the time of an execution, but which is in some cases left
unsatisfied, leaves behind it more dangerous elements. The spec
tators are gathered from the vicious and depraved of all
classes—the uneducated—the rough and the brutal—those with
morbid tastes and inclinations. A spectacle of death, and a
lesson of vengeance can only render more inveterate their own
evil desires. Those only who know nothing of the crowds
who hasten to such spectacles can say a single word in
favour of the example of the gallows. By some imperfectly
understood law of sympathy large assemblages of people are
affected by almost simultaneous emotions of grief, anger, and
fierce passion. It is therefore unwise to gather them in crowds—
where they may be excited to strong sympathy for a murderer,
or to gloat over his punishment.
Private executions may at first sight appear to remove some
of these objections. The evils would not seem to be much alle
viated—so long as a large portion of the press have an interest
in finding aliment for the lovers of sensation, so long will the
morbid appetites of the people be fed by reports of the daily
conduct of the criminal. The accounts of the executions, with
their ghastly accompaniments would find their way out, and the
apparent mystery by which they were attempted to be con
cealed, and would add to the interest in the minds of the
people.
Whether death punishments are deterrent or otherwise does
not admit of positive demonstration, but it is worthy of grave
consideration whether men led to the commission of a great
crime ever think of the consequences at all; or if they do,
whether they do not flatter themselves with the notion that
they had laid their plans with such care and circumspection
as to escape detection or conviction. It is no novelty in the
�13
an rials of criminal jurisprudence to find cases like that of the
man Wane who was lately executed at Chelmsford for murder.
He said—“ I had the thoughts on me for months that I must
do it, and I struggled with them over and over again, but it
was no use, they were too much for me.”
There is one part of this subject which must not be passed
without remark. An objection has been raised that death
punishments operate as a deterrent upon the criminal classes,
and that chaplains and governors of prisons state that it is
only the fear of death which in many instances prevents the
warders and attendants being murdered. Now, it so happens
that it is not the criminal classes that produce the
murderers. What we understand by the criminal classes are
those who systematically follow a course of crime and fraud.
Very few murderers are from such classes—Palmer, Bush, the
Mannings, Townley, Hall, Wright, Mullens, and many others,
were not criminals in that sense, and only became so by the
committal of the offence for which they suffered. Those who
lead a life of crime content themselves with depredations upon
property. This notion of a deterrent upon the criminal classes
is most probably derived from the strange and savage threats
in which practised thieves will indulge. They often say to an
officer who has captured them, that if it was not for the law
they would kill him.
Too much importance must not be
attached to utterances like these, which after all mean little
more than a mere angry defiance. The criminal classes—those
trained in crime—have their own way of calculating chances ;
they throw their all into a lottery, which presents blanks and
prizes.
They are usually men of some degree of physical
daring, but of no moral courage.
It is a part of their daily
occupation to brave the dangers of detection; but they are too
much accustomed to measure consequences, to incur unnecessary
risk. If there were anything in the argument, it would appear
much more likely that they would endeavour to destroy the
officer who first detected them than the one who was ap
pointed to detain them in prison.
In the latter case, from
the discipline of our prisons, it would' be all but impossible
for a criminal to murder his gaoler and escape. But in
the other case, the chances are somewhat in his favour. Sup
�14
pose a man. to be detected by a policeman or other person in
the act of burglary or robbery from the person. There is the
temptation to destroy the only witness of his offence from the
fact that it is more difficult to convict a man for the crimp, of
murder than for any other offence. The chances of escape are
as three to one. Mr. Francart, an avocat at Mons, in a
speech made at Liege, makes use of a fact corroborative of
the experience of practical men in this country.
He is
speaking of the impunity which is afforded to the murderer
from the difficulty of securing convictions.
This speech was
made at Liege, 29th November, 1863 :—
il Let another result of these researches be mentioned; in
eight hundred and twenty-six cases of assassination, murder,
poisoning, &c., there have been twenty-three executions,
that is to say, about one execution for thirty-six crimes.
2Economiste Beige, made this remarkable comparison. In the
decennial period from 1835 to 1844, it was estimated that
about thirty-five thousand colliers worked in the interior of
the mines; there were two thousand and thirty-five victims,
of whom one thousand one hundred and seventy-five were
killed. The risk of death was then one in thirty for the
collier; it was only one in thirty-six for the assassin.
“ That signifies, adds ‘ VEconomiste ’ with much reason, that
it is more dangerous with us to expose one’s-self to the
fire-damp than to the guillotine.”
“I should admit with ease, as may be imagined, the efficacy
of the punishment of death, if the author of every crime
against which it is in force, might consider it as almost certain
that he would be discovered* arrested, condemned and executed.
But when I see that he may hope for such chances, first of
escaping from all pursuit of justice, then of being acquitted,
often for want of sufficient proofs, and lastly, of not being
executed, I say, that the criminal has every reason to regard
the menace of death only as it appears to the collier who
descends into the mine, and, in general, to every one liable to
a certain extent to lose his life in consequence of the profession
that he exercises; it is nothing more than a remote danger,
the ordinary risk of a trade more or less dangerous.”
The argument of Mr. Francart would of course only apply
�15
to cases where the murderers had entered into calculations of
their chances of escape. It could not apply to cases like that
of Jones, which has been cited in this article, or that of Hall
of Birmingham. It could not apply to cases where the murder
was committed under sudden impulse or provocation.
But surely the people who urge this objection of danger
to warders and gaolers—overlook what is done at Broadmoor
Asylum. In that establishment there are above four hundred
and fifty inmates, about four hundred men, and from fifty to
sixty women. They are nearly all persons who have committed
murder, but who have been respited during Her Majesty’s
pleasure, on the ground of insanity. There is this large number
of criminal lunatics, and if they are really such, a most
dangerous class. Many of them no doubt will have strong
desires to escape, and as it is the character of the class to
be artful and cunning beyond that of sane men, they will
be adroit in their attempts to do so. It is only necessary to
adopt the same system of precaution and restraints in relation
to the murderer, whether pronounced sane or insane. From
the known capabilities of the human mind, it may safely be
inferred, ceturis paribus that what a man has done once, he
will be liable to do again. It would therefore follow, that the
protection of society demands that the man or woman who
has committed murder, should be prevented from repeating the
offence. If the arrangements carried out at Broadmoor be fully
considered, they supply in great part an answer to the inquiry
so often raised, what is the. substitute you would recommend,
if you abolish Capital Punishment?
In the last number of Meliora, a publication which has
obtained a reputation for its advanced opinions on most social sub
jects, this objection—for it really assumes that shape—appears in
a report of the last Social Science Congress. It is stated “that
it is doubtful whether one of the real questions at issue has
attracted the full share of attention it deserves.” And again
that “there would seem to be less difficulty in obtaining the
abolition of Capital Punishment, than in providing a substitute.”
This is an instance of common place reasoning, and the writer
has obviously not considered the propositions he lays down.
It ought to be known by the writers in Meliora, who have
�16
as yet, an unpopular but correct principle to advocate, that
it is usual for objectors and opponents to ride off upon issues
which are only remotely connected with—or which are totally
irrevalent to the main, issue. It is often honestly done—and
not intended for that purpose, but whatever be the motive,
it succeeds in creating a diversion, and delays the acceptance
of the truth embodied in the major proposition, or great
principle enunciated.
Thus the men who came forward to advocate the anti
slavery cause, on the broad, plain and intelligible ground
that it was a crime against God to make a commercial
article of a man-—like a horse or a pig—were met very often
by the plea that it would be dangerous to liberate all the
slaves; or by thequestion—What do you propose to do with
all those slaves unused and unfit for freedom, if you carry out your
doctrines of abolition ? It was of course a matter of sound
policy, and wise statesmanship, to consider well what should
be done to put the slaves, which the infernal system of
slavery had degraded, in the pathway of civilization and im
provement. It is a question which prudent men would not
neglect, but it did not affect the main issue.
The first
principle was to decide whether it was right or wrong for
man to hold property in man. All questions of policy,
expediency and precaution, were subordinate to the settlement
of that question ; and in fact it was absolutely necessary in
that, as it is in all other cases, to settle the principle
before the questions of policy could be entered upon. First
establish whether the slave - is properly held in bondage, and
then it will be much easier to decide what is the duty to
him when his chains are struck off. It is the misfortune
of all movements that the details are mixed up with prin
ciples, and men are accustomed to reason from the tail to the
head of a series of propositions rather than in the logical way.
Another instance may be named. A number of economists,
among whom is Mr. Cobden, have protested against the
increase of our armaments on the ground that such increase
was unnecessary and mischievous.
There was a principle
enunciated, and the answer would have been to show that
the increase was necessary. In how many instances was the
�17
to a,in question. evaded, and in how few was it ever met 1
But it was attempted to show the danger of disbanding the
whole army and navy, throwing upon society a large body
of men who had been trained to the use of arms, and who
by that training had been rendered unfit for any other
pursuit.
Not to multiply illustrations—abundance of which are at
hand—the Alliance movement, of which Meliora is one of
the organs, is a case strictly in point. The Alliance advocates
a Permissive Bill which seeks to give power to every
municipality, on the petition of two-thirds of the rate-payers,
to pass a local law, to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks,
on the ground that such traffic is productive of crime, poverty,
and a host of social evils. The question is a simple one
enough, and before a single step is taken—it is necessary to
ascertain whether this allegement against the traffic be well
founded, and then whether such power ought to be plaeed in
the hands of the people. It is simply absurd to discuss details
until this principle be settled. But what are the advocates
of the Permissive Bill called upon to do ? They are drawn
away upon a number of minor issues, and at York, one of their
ablest advocates, occupied nearly all the time allotted to him,
as one of the speakers, at a public meeting, in chasing through
a number of fantastic mazes the fallacies uttered in the House
of Commons in a recent debate—it would seem just as reason
able for the advocates of Prohibition, to be expected to show
what is to be done with all the interests engaged in the liquor
traffic, before an assent is given to their first principle—as to
ask what is the substitute for the gallows.
The main issue, so far as capital punishment is concerned,
rests therefore upon the expediency of retaining or abolishing
it. It would argue a great poverty of resources in a Christian
and civilized state to confess that we do not know what to
do with men if we do not hang them. We execute on the
average some dozen murderers in a year. Would there be any
great difficulty in sending them to Broadmoor for a limited
time to admit of proper scientific examination. If they were
pronounced of sound mind, put them to labour which would
be remunerative to the society whose laws they have violated—
�18
treat the sane murderer as Victor Townley has been treated.
If he be insane, let him be treated as Macnaughten is. In
either case he is under restraint; and surely the devices of our
prisons and asylums, which have had expended upon them
so much money, skill and labour, can protect society from the
return of the murderer, just as effectually as by hanging him
and interring the body in the precincts of the prison. Under
the present system it is a question whether some of the most
dangerous murderers do not escape from death and also from
restraint, o'wing to the growing repugnance to capital punish
ment.
It is not incumbent upon those .who seek the abolition of
the death penalty to find or suggest the substitute.
They
object to the penalty as not answering its purpose, and they
have proved their case. It is quite a supplemental matter to
design the substitute. It is a stale objection. In all debates
in Parliament, whenever a capital penalty was sought to be
abolished, the argument was used. There is no difference ex
cept in the form which the argument assumes. When Mr.
Thomas Fowell Buxton moved, May 23, 1821, for mitigating
the severity of punishment in certain cases of forgery, he was
met by the Solicitor-General, who pleaded for the retention of
the punishment of death on the ground of—(1) its necessity;
(2) that no efficient substitute had been provided. In the very
second sentence of Mr. Buxton’s speech, he thus refers to it.
“The Solicitor-General has stated that no efficient substitute
for capital punishment has as yet been discovered, and there
fore as yet the House is not in a condition to discuss that
species of penalty.” This was in 1821.
The death penalty has however been repealed in cases of
forgery, burglary, arson, and a host of other offences, with a
decided advantage, and a substitute has been found; and so it
will be in cases of murder, whenever public opinion is prepared
to abolish the office of the hangman. No one wishes to re
turn to the errors of a past and sanguinary jurisprudence,
Improved manners and milder laws have kept marching on
together, acting and reacting upon each other, and whatever
may be the report of the present Commission, the Abolition
of Death Punishment must ultimately be carried out in all
�19
civilized communities.
Jurists in all parts of Europe have
lost reliance upon punishment of any kind as a deterrent
from crime in any large degree, and this is the best guarantee
of progress in the amelioration of criminal codes. Wherever
fjiey are more severe than the temper of the people, they
lose their efficacy altogether, and promote the perpetration of
crimes they are intended to repress.
The following statement, made by Professor Thonissen, of the
University of Louvain, is worthy of attention.
“ In Belgium, as we shall see further on, all those condemned
to death received a commutation of the punishment from 1830
to 1833 ; and yet capital crimes were more rare there than
under the regime of the Low Countries, where the judicial
power constantly displayed an unusual severity.
“ After the revolution of September, during three years, from
1830 to 1833, the punishment of death was in reality repealed,
and, according to official documents which must inspire entire
confidence, the following results are arrived at:—
“ In 1830, the number of capital condemnations was two;
in 1831, nine; in 1832, fourteen, comprising four condemnations
by outlaw; in 1833, seven, comprising two condemnations by
outlaw.
“The adversaries of the punishment of death lay hold of
these results as a peremptory demonstration of the excellence
of their doctrine. Under the government of the Low Countries,
where out of one hundred and fifty condemnations, there had
been seventy-four executions, the number of capital decrees
reached, on an average, nearly fourteen per year for seven
provinces; while, under the regime issuing from the barricades
of September, in the absence of all executions, the number of
condemnations, for the nine provinces of the kingdom, had only
reached, on an average, the number of eleven.”
Printed by William H. Wabb & Co., 17, Featherstone Buildings, Holborn, W.C,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Royal Commission and the punishment of death
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Beggs, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 19 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from The Social Science Review. Printed by William H. Warr & Co., London. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1866]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5392
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The Royal Commission and the punishment of death), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Crime
Capital punishment
Capital Punishment
Conway Tracts
Death Penalty