He to decide whether the extreme penalty of the law should be carried out. thought the time had come when in this country, at least, some other penalty might be substituted for the death punishment. There were countries, such as Sicily, where society was so organized that the extreme penalty might with advantage be retained. These were the countries in which the capital punishment was rarest, and yet where murder was most common; but in England the punishment of imprisonment might with advantage be substituted. In conclusion, the hon Member said he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. J. W. Pease.) reporters rested with the Home Office. | Home Department by leaving it to them He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) happened to hold the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, and in that capacity it was his duty to be present at the execution of two men in Newgate in December last. He was told that the admission of reporters rested with the Sheriff, and he gave directions that orders for admission should be sent to all daily papers published in London, though only three availed themselves of them. In his opinion, the Press should always be admitted to executions. If executions were to go on at all, they should not be conducted in a hole-and-corner fashion, and the public ought always to be represented by the reporters. The present state of the law was extremely unsatisfactory, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department had a very difficult task to perform in regard to persons convicted of murder and left for execu- MR. CROPPER thought his hon. tion. Ho (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was sit- Friend the Member for South Durham ting at the Old Bailey in 1879, when an (Mr. J. W. Pease) had, by his facts and American sailor was tried for murder. arguments, exhaustively proved his case. This man had come ashore, after being There was, however, one argument which paid off, with a considerable sum of his hon. Friend had left out. It seemed money in his pocket. He met a prosti- to him (Mr. Cropper) that when the sentute, who made him very drunk, and got tence of death was carried into execution all his money away from him. The man, they often punished rather for the reunder the influence of anger, stabbed sults of the crime than for the crime the woman. There was no doubt about itself. The crime was often greatest in the offence; but the question was whe- cases where there was no fatal result; ther it was murder or manslaughter. and they often waited, for instance, to The jury, without any recommendation see whether a crime was murder or a to merey, found the prisoner guilty of savage assault. If the person who had murder, and he was executed. That been attacked chanced to recover, if he seemed to him to be a case in which the were in the hands of a successful doctor, Prerogative of the Crown might have or had special strength of constitution, the been with advantage exercised, although, offence did not amount to murder, and having formerly said in that House that yet the crime must have been the same he thought such questions should be left on the part of the criminal. In such a to the unfettered judgment of the Home case a man ought to be punished for his Secretary, he did not like to say any-crime and not for its results. He would thing on the occasion. Representations admit that the sentence of 20 years' were, however, made by the American penal servitude was as sad a one as that Consul to his right hon. Friend the then of death; but contended that in a civilSecretary of State for the Home Depart-ized and Christian community like their ment Sir R. Assheton Cross); but the right hon. Gentleman did not think proper to interfere. He Mr. R. N. Fowler) mentioned that as a case which showed how difficult it was to discriminate in cases that were left for execution by the Judges. He did not believe that the infliction of the death punishment in that particular case did the smallest good. They imposed a very difficult task on the Judges and the Secretary of State for the own it was well gradually to do away with extraordinary occasions for exercising the extreme punishment of death by inflicting in its place the penalty of a long sentence of imprisonment. MR. WARTON said, the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. J. W. Pease, had mixed up with the dry question of capital punishment a number of other considerations not at all applicable to it. He (Mr. Warton) did not think this was a tics, as he rested his case on the Divine question as to the first or second degree command, which was older than Chris of murder. He did not say how far tianity. God was acquainted with the such a classification would be right or human heart, and He knew by what wrong; but he thought the necessity for means men were deterred from crite. such a classification arose, to a great ex- He witnessed a public execution sorre tent, from the circumstance that the years ago, and he believed the thousar is Judges had explained away the old who were present were really horrit 1 words "malice aforethought." They by what they saw. If the punishment had also laid down the principle that all of death were abolished, a burglar whe cases of homicide were prima facie mur- was surprised in the act of committing der. Of course, it was impossible to a burglary might, in order to effect his dispute that Judge-made law, because it escape, be tempted to commit the alhad been laid down so long; but he tional crime of murder, thereby putting might observe that it was in conflict it might be, the only evidence of his with the grander maxim of our law as guilt out of the way; whereas, at preto the presumption of innocence. Neither sent, he was deterred from doing so by did he care for the trifling arguments the fear of being hanged. They were that had been urged about statistics and told that penal servitude for life was expediency, or as to whether the punish- equally deterrent. If so, how did n ment was deterrent. The question they happen that men convicted of murder had to deal with on the present occasion were very anxious to receive that punishwas whether it was right or wrong for ment instead of death, and that their the State to take human life under any friends besieged the Home Office, and circumstances. Dismissing all the petty did all they could to get the capconsiderations to which he had referred, tal punishment commuted? The Ca at the present moment there were only punishment was intolerable, because it three crimes punishable by death-ended hope; the other was endura l», namely, high treason, murder, and burn- because it admitted hope. Moreover, ing of the Queen's ships. Practically, the promoters of the Bill had forgotten therefore, this question was narrowed to to consider the case of warders and the infliction of death for murder. The others in charge of prisons. If capital hon. Gentleman opposite ought to be punishment were abolished, what ad met in the same serious spirit in which tional punishment could be inflicted on he had argued the matter. An appeal a murderer who killed his warder? A had been made to Christianity, and he murderer might kill 100 warders with (Mr. Warton) trusted they were all impunity, for he would know he coul Christians; but it should be remem- not be subjected to any further punishbered that there had been three religious ment, because the penalty of death Fal dispensations in this world, and that the been abolished from sentimental consicontrast was not always between Chris- derations. In their interests, then, the tianity and the Judaic law. There was death penalty should not be abolise à a time of great importance in the history for they would be exposed to constant of the human race when all the inhabit- danger in the event of such a step being ants of this world had been destroyed by taken. the Flood except the chosen few in the Ark. MR. ANDERSON said, that he had A principle was then laid down which heard without any surprise the speech was far wider than any Judaic law. When just made by the hon. and learned Metathe human race was starting again, so ber for Bridport (Mr., Warton'. It was to speak, from Noah, God laid down not surprising that he should go back the great principle-" Whoso sheddeth to the time of Noah and the Ark, ko man's blood, by man shall his blood because he was really such an antediluvian shed." Men affected to be wiser than God, their Maker, who laid down that principle. For his own part, he was content with the Divine notion of human justice, as it was shown in these words at that most important crisis in the history of our race. He did not care to argue this question from statisMr. Warton Conservative in all things. He was, however, surprised that the hon. and learned Member should bring forward the Divine command which he 11 quoted as an ordinance binding in al future time, and one binding in pars ticular on Christians, for that was not a very strong argument. Christians, f.r the most part, he (Mr. Anderson) thought, | quite true that the United States did. believed that their milder creed was in- retain capital punishment to a large tended to supersede that more ancient extent; but they had a distinction, which one. At all events, they had no proof we had not, of the different degrees of that that command was intended to last murder; and it appeared to him that in perpetuity. It might be a very suit- that was a reform in their Criminal Law able thing for the earlier state of their which they were at least ripe for, if they civilization to have a cruel ordinance of were not prepared to go to the full length the kind, but yet be very unsuitable to which his hon. Friend proposed. He the state of civilization they had now thought it would be worth while for the arrived at. The only other argument Government to pass a short Act to estabthe hon. and learned Member had ad-lish that distinction, without waiting duced was as regards the warders. He for the codification of their Criminal Law, had asked for a solution of the question which was a great work, and could not of what was to be done with a man who, be done quickly. It might be said that having been imprisoned for life for although they passed death sentences murder, and having no fear of capital they did not carry them out; it was left punishment, killed his warder. On that to the Secretary of State for the Home subject he (Mr. Anderson) might men- Department to decide whether they would tion the case of Rhode Island, which had be carried out or not. That was, to his abolished the capital punishment in 1852, mind, an intensely unsatisfactory modo but had re-established it 20 years after to of dealing with the question, and he was the very limited extent of inflicting it on very sure it must be as unsatisfactory to murderers who, while undergoing life im- any right hon. Gentleman who had to prisonment, murdered their keepers. The do it. He remembered that a few years law in Rhode Island, therefore, was to ago there were two persons lying in carry out the death punishment not for Glasgow prison both under sentence of one murder, but for two. That was some death at the same time. One of them answer to the question of the hon. and the general public believed to be absolearned Member. If it were absolutely lutely guilty of murder; the other was necessary to meet the case referred to, a boy whom the general public believed the example of Rhode Island exactly to be guilty of nothing more than mandid $0. When the Returns men- slaughter. Yet, strange to say, the tioned by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. nan got a reprieve, whom everyone Peaso) were produced to the House, he believed to be guilty; while the poor (Mr. Anderson) must say he rose from boy, whom everyone believed to be the perusal of them with the very painful comparatively innocent, was hanged. conviction that among all civilized na- That was what happened under this tions-that was, nations who enjoyed unsatisfactory system of leaving it to European civilization-this country was the unfortunate Secretary of State to the least merciful to its prisoners. The decide in these matters. Everybody bestrange fact was that those countries lieved that a great mistako had been that had been most merciful had not made in the matter, and it might happen shown any desire to go back in their to occur again. As to the question of legislation, and had not found that hanging being a deterrent from crime, murders increased under such legislation. he found that the accounts from some of In Denmark, in 10 years there had been the States where they had imprisonment 107 prosecutions for murder, 92 con- for life really gave a most dreadful devictions, 21 death sentences, but only scription of the effects of the latter one execution. As regarded Germany, punishment. There was no doubt that Lord Odo Russell had written to say if it was given to a criminal to decide that there had been only one execution whether he would have the death senthere in 10 years. In Sweden there had tence or imprisonment for life, he would been only three executed in 10 years, choose the imprisonment, because life because the King disliked capital punish-was sweet; but he believed that, in not ment; and as for Belgium, the King absolutely would not sign a death warrant at all, and, therefore, there had not been a single execution in that country since he came to the Throne. It was a few cases, the prisoner would afterwards say that he had made a mistake. In the State of Wisconsin, in which the system of life imprisonment had prevailed since 1853, they spoke of the in He describable horrors and agony incident | before any alteration of punishment. to the punishment, and that past experience told them that of all the young men in prison, one-half would be insane in 10 years, and the whole of them would be insane in less than 20 years. If that was really a necessary result of imprisonment for life, it was a far more terrible punishment than the capital penalty. So great a punishment was it found to be that in some of the States they had changed it for long, but defaite, terms of imprisonment; and in some States, such as Iowa and Illinois, they had gone further, and said that it was necessary to provide some relief, even to long definite terms, by giving to the prisoner whose conduct for one year was thoroughly good, one month's mitigation, for two years' good conduct, two months' mitigation, and so on, so that for six years' good conduct he | got 21 months' mitigation, and for every subsequent good year he got no less than six months struck off his term. That showed that in these States the people felt the necessity of giving some small glimmering of hope even to the worst of their criminals. He entirely gave his support to the Bill. He thought they had arrived at a time when they ought, if not to take the lead of civilized nations, not to be so thoroughly behind them as they now were in the treatment of their criminal classes. He believed that to modify their punishment in that way would have a wholesome effect on their juries. There would be a certainty of conviction in cases of murder that did not exist at present, from the unwillingness of juries to convict, and that certainty would be the best deterrent against crime. SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, he had not had the advantage of hearing the whole speech of the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. J. W. Pease), though he had heard sufficient to enable him to testify to the great ability of that speech; but the speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), who seconded the Motion, pointed much more strongly to an alteration of the Criminal Law than to the abolition of this capital punishment. Now, upon that point he (Sir Henry Holland) entertained a very | strong opinion. He thought that an alteration of the law of murder should be made at the earliest opportunity, and Mr. Ander soit The degrees of murder should be cars. fully defined and a clear line drawn ba tween murder and manslaughter. The capital punishment should only be attached to the first or highest degree of murder; and if this were done there would be no difficulty, even if there were now-which, however, he was not prepared to admit-in obtaining proper convictions. The hon. Member for Gasgow (Mr. Anderson spoke of this as an increasing difficulty; but he Sir Henry Holland), from his own observation could not agree in that opinion. believed juries, as a general rule, då their duties in these cases honestly and conscientiously. But if death was only inflicted in cases of first degree of mur der public opinion would not be offen l. 1. and the punishment would be approved. But there was another point to be considered before capital punishment was abolished which he (Sir Henry Hollan i' ventured to think had not been suffe ciently brought before the House. If death sentences were abolished the whole existing scale of punishments must be revised and modified. Murder, as the gravest offence, must receive the heaviest punishment. If the punishment of death was abolished, the only punishment that remained for murder was penal servitude for life. Now, if a man forged a will he was liable to that punishment. Would it be just and reasonable that he should star the same penalty as a murderer? Tra were also many other offences, far shirt of murder, to which the punishment of penal servitude for life was attach 1; and therefore, unless the whole sei's of punishments was re-modelled, puble opinion would not be satisfied. question had been, and always wou'l be, raised, whether the punishment f death was deterrent. He Sir Henry Holland) could not bring himself to bas lieve that it was not deterrent. It megk not be so in cases where acts of violes, e were committed in the heat of sudden passion or violent jealousy; but he be lieved that it might prevent a burglar, for example, from committing a murder to prevent detection. Again, what protection would there be for prison others if this extreme penalty were abolished? A man was condemned to penal servi tudo for life; what should hinder ha from murdering a warder if no greater punishment could be inflicted on him for | duties thus forced upon them; and he that offence? The hon. Member for hoped, that either by the establishment Glasgow referred, on this point, to the of a Court of Appeal, or of some other legislation of Rhode Island, by which tribunal, they might be relieved of that death was inflicted for the murder by a work. Moreover, however well they prisoner of a prison officer, although, in performed it, the result was not satisall other cases, the capital sentence had factory to the public, who could not be been abolished. But did not that fact made aware of the additional evidence show that death was deterrent? Why and facts which were brought before the should such a law have been passed, Secretary of State and influenced his except on the assumption-a very rea- decision. Upon the whole, he thought sonable one-that the fear of death that an alteration of the Criminal Code would prevent, and would alone pre- should precede any alteration in punishvent, the commission of these prison ments of the great importance proposed offences? The hon. Member for Glasgow by this Bill; and he would not, thereargued that imprisonment for life was fore, give support to the second reading. more deterrent than death, and he cited MR. MELLOR said, he heartily agreed the case of some Wisconsin prisons, in with those who thought that the law which prisoners became insane in 10 with regard to murder was most unsatisyears. He did not state whether the factory. It included not only murder prohorrors of this case arose from the con- per, or murder committed with malice dition of the prisons, or the treatment aforethought, but all sorts of construcof the prisoners, or from the effects of tive murder; and, if it were not that solitary confinement. But he (Sir Henry Judges and juries had very much alleHolland) could not accept that case, or viated the severity of the law, they would the case of any foreign prisons, as prov- have had a great deal of injustice perpeing the hon. Member's opinion to hold trated. He would have found it far good in this country. Here solitary con- more easy to bring his mind to bear on finement only lasted for nine months, the question before the House if they had and for the rest of the term of imprison- got before them the Revised Criminal ment the convict worked in the company Code, because then the various classes of other prisoners. Here, again, the of constructive murder would have been cells, the food, the treatment generally done away with. At the same time, he of prisoners had been greatly improved; must say he should experience much difand, lastly, no convict really suffered ficulty in supporting the Bill, for he felt penal servitude for life. As the House that it was not easy to come to a full was well aware, where a man had been determination upon the whole question. sentenced to penal servitude for life, his If, in the future, persons were to be case was brought up before the Secre- convicted of constructive murder, there tary of State for the Home Department would be a great deal to be said for after 20 years, and, in the great majority the Bill; but, applying the best judg of cases, the prisoner was then released. ment he could to the matter, he thought There was, he believed, no instance of a there were classes of crime for which life sentence being really worked out. they must keep the punishment of death. In all these points, then, their prison For murder by poison, which was a pecusystem differed from the system adopted liarly cruel and wicked crime, and for in some of the American States; and murder by explosions, in which the lives even admitting-which he was not pre-of unoffending persons were sacrificed, pared to do that in the United States men would be found to profer death to imprisonment, he did not believe that there were any such in this country. He would not now dwell upon what he considered a collateral question, though ono of very great importance, whether the appeal to the Secretary of State against sentences of death should be continued. Successive Secretaries of State had expressed their dislike of the very grave and responsible-as well as painful it was too early to say that the punish- |