nature. But it was the system under [bolical act of high treason, the taking away which those crimes had been committed, of the life of the sovereign of these realms, that he sought to modify. He thought it would not be punishable as murder, as the was impossible not to feel that the time offence of murder, great as it was, would had at length arrived when some further be merged in the higher crime of treason. abolition of capital punishment should take If, therefore, he were to include the crime place. Before he called attention to the of high treason in the scope of his bill, kind of offences in respect to which he the result would be this-that while the now proposed to abolish capital punish- murder of a subject was punished with ment, he might remark that out of the death, the murder of the sovereign would 180 descriptions of crime in which the be punishable only with transportation for punishment of death had been abolished life. Such a state of the law would be by the bills that had been passed at the absurd in the highest degree. The only instance of the noble Lord opposite, in way in which he could have avoided such not one single instance had that amelio- an anomaly would have been by the inration of the law been attended with any troduction of a clause in his bill including increase of those particular crimes; on the as punishable with death all attempts upon contrary, in the great majority of them a the life of the sovereign, and of course considerable diminution had resulted. He the actual murder. But he had a conregretted much that the motions that had scientious objection against visiting any been brought forward by the right hon. crime whatever with the punishment of and learned Gentleman, the Member for death, and he therefore could not introthe Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), duce any such clause into his bill. These and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. were the grounds, added to the opposition Ewart), when the measures to which he which he must have expected from her had alluded were under consideration, had Majesty's Government, which induced him not met with the sanction of the House, to except the case of high treason. He but he trusted that the principles which felt that it would be extremely desirable they advocated in common with himself, to extend the operation of the abolition would soon obtain both in that House and law to Ireland. He knew no reason why in the country, and that full effect would any difference should exist between the be given to their humane and benevolent laws of the two countries with respect to intentions. He (Mr. Kelly) did not now the punishment of death. He had, therepropose such an extensive alteration of the fore, wished to extend his bill to Ireland, existing law as in former Sessions had ay, and to Scotland; but he had found been advocated by those hon. Gentlemen, that there were doubts whether the mabecause as it appeared to him that the jority of the Members connected with Iresense of the House, and, perhaps he should land would agree to it. He had held add, the sense of the country, having been communications on the subject with several declared against the abolition of capital influential Irish Members, and he had now punishment in all cases, it would be use- every reason to believe that he should less for him, at the present moment, to have been supported by them in such a attempt to press, in opposition to that proposition, but unhappily that communiopinion, so general and extensive a mea- cation was too late to enable him to make sure. For this reason, the abolition which the necessary alterations in his bill withhe proposed in this bill did not extend to out endangering its passing through the the case of murder. He had certainly in- Legislature at this period of the Session. tended to include within the operation of For this reason, and this reason only, the this bill these numerous and grievous of- present bill would not apply to Ireland; fences which came under the denomin-but, upon the sanction of the House being ation of high treason; and, as his opinion pronounced upon his bill, he should be was still unaltered, he felt it due to some happy to bring in a bill extending the hon. Members of the House (who he was whole provisions of the present measure to most proud and happy to say agreed in his Ireland, and if he received a like assurance opinion) to state the reasons why he was from Members connected with Scotland, compelled to except from his bill the case to Scotland also. It had been objected of high treason. It might not be known to his bill, that he ought not to abolish to the unprofessional Members of the the punishment of death without the sub

from a repetition of his crime, and others from following his evil example. There were many heinous offences which, by the law of England, were not punishable at all. The law did not profess to punish according to the amount of moral turpitude. The crimes of seduction and adultery, for instance, crimes which disgraced and tortured families, and produced incalculable misery to persons, and mischief to property, were wholly unpunishable by the criminal laws of this country. If he needed high authority for his views on this subject, he could appeal to that of the noble Lord opposite, who when he brought in his series of bills for criminal reform in 1837, thus addressed the House :

of Death. individuals, except in so far as the danger | If it were the only object of punishment, which might possibly arise out of the riots or if it formed any material part of punthemselves. The other cases were rape, ishment, to inflict vengeance upon the unnatural offences, and violating the per-offender, according to the moral evil he sons of children under ten years of age. had committed, he was willing to admit, Then there was the offence of shooting at, that there was no manner of difference bewounding, or otherwise injuring with an tween the crime of a man who had atintent to murder, or, in other words, at- tempted unsuccessfully, and him who tempted murder, accompanied with great attempted successfully to murder another. violence. Upon this there was a great But surely the time was past when the diversity of opinion. Three more offences degree of moral guilt was to form any might be classed together:-burglary, consideration in the amount of punishwhen attended with any violence and dan-ment awarded by a human tribunal. The ger to life; highway robbery, attended only object of the legal and judicial punwith like violence; and piracy, when ac-ishments of men was to deter the offender companied with attempts to murder or violence. The 14th and last offence to which his bill applied was arson. For all these offences he contended, that the punishment of death should be abolished. He did not think that he should deal fairly with the House, if he attempted to to repeat any of those general observations applying to the whole system of capital punishments, which had been so ably urged on former occasions when that subject was under consideration; and, therefore, he should content himself with a few incidental remarks. He would come to that offence concerning which he had heard the strongest objections from those with whom, both in and out of the House, he had privately communicated, and concerning which, with the exception of rape, a great difference of opinion prevailed namely, an attempt to murder, attended with danger to life and great bodily injury. It had been put to him by those to whose intellect and perfect knowledge of the subject, and to whose great ability and experience, he paid the greatest deference, and for whom he entertained the highest respect. "Can there be any difference in the guilt of a man who shoots at another from behind a hedge and grievously wounds him, intending to murder him, and leaves him for dead, because he does not kill him, and because through the skill of the surgeon his victim is restored to life?" He would meet that question, fairly and openly, and if he failed to satisfy the House that upon principles which were recognised and admitted by all, there was no necessity for capital punishment in the case of an ineffectual and unsuccessful attempt to murder, then he would no longer hope for the sanction of the House to the bill he was about to introduce, at

"No one now doubts, that it is the object of criminal punishment not to satisfy the purposes of divine justice, nor to inflict human vengeance, but to deter from the commission of crime."

That was the principle for which he contended, and in favour of that principle he had the noble Lord's admission; no, he would not say admission, for he did not regard the noble Lord as an opponent on this occasion; he had the noble Lord's high authority for this principle that the sole object of the law was not the punishment of the guilty, but to deter others from the commission of crime. That concession being made, he trusted that he should satisfy the House that the concession carried with it the necessity for the total abolition of capital punishment with respect to attempts to murder. It was unnecessary for him here to address himself to those who agreed with him that even for murder itself capital punishment should not be inflicted: but to those who conscientously believed that the punishment of death should be

nearly fractured his skull. The robber turned upon him, and would have killed him, but on his knees he prayed him to spare his life. The robber did so, and at the trial the prosecutor implored the court to spare the life of the robber, but in vain. The man was not only convicted and sentenced, but executed. If the law established no distinction between those who showed mercy to their victims and those who practised towards them the extreme of cruelty, what motive to be merciful could be expected to arise in the breasts of men engaged in the perpetration of a crime? In support of the views which he entertained upon the punishment of death, he could quote the authority of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, who in preparing a report upon the subject of the law in India, urged upon the Government in that country the very principle for which he had been contending-namely, that the punishment of death ought to be reserved for the crime of murder and the highest crime against the State. The right hon. Gentleman most justly said in the notes to that report:

the repetition of the crime, and that the fear of death and of incurring capital punishment did deter men from committing murder, he would say, if that were the case-if the fear of capital punishment did deter persons from committing murder, so long as that punishment was retained in the criminal code, security was retained likewise against attempts to murder. Still all the security which the law could give against attempted murder would remain. The slightest consideration would make this manifest. The dread of the law was supposed to operate upon the man who attempted to commit murder ex vi termini, and who expected to succeed. Would it not have an equal, nay, a greater effect upon him who attempted to kill with less determination of purpose? As long as a man was punishable by death for murder, so long would there be security afforded by the law against attempted murders. And let it be remembered what the effect of the change in the law which he proposed would be upon men when under the excitement or temptation to commit murder. In looking at the history of crime, in nine cases out of ten attempts to commit mur"But we are convinced that it ought to be der were found to arise out of attempts to very sparingly inflicted, and we propose to rob, or burglaries, or when persons were employ it only in cases where either murder seized with a sudden passion, and gave or the highest offence against the State has blows, or fired shots, or stabbed others. been committed. We are not apprehensive Was the successful and unsuccessful at- that we shall be thought by many persons to tempt to murder to be punished alike? have resorted too frequently to capital punishment; but we think it probable that many, Would they take away all inducement even of those who condemn the English stafrom a man, who having struck the first tute-book as sanguinary, may think that our blow, but not having despatched his vic- code errs on the other side. They may be of tim, relented, and would not repeat the opinion that gang robbery, the cruel mutila blow, but for the sake of preventing detection of the person, and possibly rape, ought to tion, and saving his own life? The effect be punished with death. These are, doubtof the present law was to make such a less, offences which, if we looked only at their man complete the murder, because no dif- enormity, at the evil which they produce, at the terror which they spread through society, ference was made between the successful at the depravity which they indicate, we might and unsuccessful attempt at murder. Upon be inclined to punish capitally. But, atrowhat principle of justice and humanity cious as they are, they cannot, as it appears were both to be punished alike? Could to us, be placed in the same class with murder. such a practice promote the safety of the To the great majority of mankind nothing is so dear as life. And we are of opinion that community? No; because it tended to make criminals more hardened and despe- the same footing with murderers is an arrangeto put robbers, ravishers, and mutilators on rate, and complete offences which other- ment which diminishes the security of life. wise they would not. He remembered There is in practice a close connexion between some cases which had come under his own murder and most of those offences which come observation. The following case was tried nearest to murder in enormity. Those offenin the county of York, he believed:-Aces are almost always committed under such young man was attacked on the highway and robbed. The person by whom he was assailed was a much more powerful man than himself, but in the course of the

circumstances that the offender has it in his power to add murder to his guilt.-They are often committed under such circumstances that the offender has a temptation to add murder to his guilt. The same opportunities, the same