sins, who might have lived to repent and reform." As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."* Man, on the other hand, persists in declaring, that the wicked shall not live, to have an opportunity of turning, and that not even the experiment shall be tried, to ascertain if his life can be spared with safety.

Another point urged against us has been, that the punishment of death cannot have brutalized mankind, because, after ages of its infliction, the world has gone on in civilization. As well might it be said, that drunkenness and other gross vices are productive of no evils, because society has advanced in refinement. The notion supposes, that civilization cannot be retarded, without being destroyed; that nothing can tend to brutalize any part of mankind, without making savages of the whole race. That the punishment of death has been resorted to since men emerged from barbarism, no more proves its necessity or use, than the adoption of any other bad practice would prove it to be good. Surely, the existence of any thing is no evidence of its excellence; neither does it follow, that whatever continues in a refined state of society partakes of the general improvement. "The monstrous propositions, that knowledge makes us cruel, and that the arts render us ferocious," (which our opponents have invented,) do by no means result from the needless infliction of such a punishment as death, which only shews, that, however true the observation of the poet,

Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes

Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros;

and that, however much the acquisition of knowledge may tend to expand the benevolence of the heart, barbarous customs will long continue to disgrace refinement, which tolerates them indeed, but does not give them birth.

Our objection to the punishment of death as irrevocable, has been met by the assertion, that the same may be said of every other. To a certain extent, this is true; for what has been done, cannot be undone. But there are some injuries for which no compensation can be made; such is the deprivation of life. The same cannot be said of imprisonment or transportation. Our opponents have, indeed, shewn, that the injury inflicted; even by these, cannot be fully compensated, but it may in a great degree. The law itself recognizes the principle of compensation for injuries of a like kind, as in cases of actions for false imprisonment. What we say is, that its want of remissibility is a great objection to death as a punishment, and that imprisonment or transportation is, in that respect, far preferable. We do * Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

not mean, that if death were absolutely necessary, and the two other punishments totally useless, that the quality of remissibility should induce us to choose the latter; but, looking to the general qualities of these several punishments, this in particular is a strong recommendation. For, though our finite capacities render us liable to unavoidable errors, and though such errors will no doubt be rectified here. after, we should nevertheless, as far as we can, shun the danger of committing, what Blackstone so justly calls, "an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without pos sibility of redress!"

As substitutes for death, we proposed imprisonment and transportation. But imprisonment, it is "boldly" said, has failed,➡ perpetual, in America; limited, here. It was not, however, perpetual imprisonment that failed in America, but the penitentiary system, and that only from neglect; for, at first, when properly attended to, its success was great.* Here, likewise, so far as it has failed, it has been from bad manage ment only; and prisons, ill conducted, will certainly not answer their end. In Tuscany, Holland, and Denmark, imprisonment has succeeded, and that proves, that it may be made effective. It has been also said not to excite that necessary terror, which is inspired by death; and, in support of this assertion, appeal has been made to "official papers," without specifying any; and to the evidence of "officers and jailers," without naming one. This deficiency we will supply. Sir Nathaniel Conant, in his Evidence before the Police Committee, on the 1st May, 1816,+ says, "that the criminal, having experienced the miseries of a jail, is afraid of going in again; that the worst of them hate the restraint; and that, though they are free from labour, and fed, they have not those licentious occupations and strong liquors, that are necessary to their idea of happiness."

Townsend, the Bow-street officer, in his Evidence before the same Committee, on the 7th June, 1816, at which time he had held his situation thirty-four years, says, "I do not know what the Penitentiary-house may do, for I know very little of its regulations yet; but I will take upon myself to say, that the confining a person for five years, will be more punishment than ten executions. Lock a man up for five years, it is any thing, and every thing. I do not know what its rules may be; but I know, to an old thief, it would be dreadful, day after day."

T

As to the fear which death is supposed to inspire, in addition to the evidence already cited on that subject, we have to state,

* Montagu's Collection, Art. Clarkson, p. 50.-Roscoe on Penal Jurisprudence, 88, et seq.

+ Minutes of Evidence before the Police Committee in 1816, p. 41. Idem. p. 253, 267.

that the Rev. Mr. Ruell, chaplain of Clerkenwell, and Messrs. Newman and Brown, formerly keepers of Newgate, were examined before the Select Committee on Criminal Laws in 1819, chiefly respecting the effect of executions on the spectators, prisoners, and convicts, and they all agree, that executions have no effect upon spectators, and very little upon convicts themselves, or their companions in prison.*

In the Quarterly Review,† there is the account of a man at Vienna, in 1819, who, after enduring solitary confinement for two years, solicited death, and was led to execution. Such evidence as this gives but slight indications, either that death is feared, or imprisonment despised. That criminals are seldom absent from gaol long, only shews, that imprisonment is ineffective, when badly managed, and forming part of an erroneous system; as to its abstract efficiency, it proves nothing. The preponderance of crimes liable to imprisonment, over those that are capital, arises merely from the greater facility of their commission, and frequency of temptation, not from the difference in the punishment. The picking of pockets was as common a crime when capital, as it has been since. No doubt, there are men to be found, who would risk their liberty without hesitation, though they might be unwilling to place their lives in jeopardy; but, that this is not the case with a large proportion of criminals, is shewn not only by the evidence above quoted, but also by the fact, that the number of capital convictions in England and Wales, from 1805 to 1818, was more than 7000.‡

The idea of criminals being so often in prison, that it "almost amounts to perpetual" imprisonment, is extremely odd. Perpetuity approximately tantamount! How metaphysical! Is there not an immense and obvious difference between continued imprisonment for a long period, and being, during the same time, often at liberty? It is too clear to require illus tration. The reason why a life of industry is not preferred to one of crime, is not because the latter is the happier, or because imprisonment has no terror; the reason is, that they who have once lost their characters, are criminal afterwards from necessity: they cannot starve, and are, therefore, compelled to steal. The supposition, then, that they pursue that course which is the most delightful, is an insult to the fallen, who are compelled to follow the steps of vice, by exclusion from the paths of virtue.

That imprisonment is no example, because it is not seen, is a verbal misconception. Example does not necessarily import, Evidence annexed to the Report from the Select Committee on Criminal Laws, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 8th July, 1819, passim.

+ No. 47, pp. 237, 238.

The number was 7176; see before-cited Return of June 5, 1818.

that those on whom it is meant to operate, should see it with their own eyes. The great and good of former times and other countries are examples to the rest of the world, though their talents and virtues are before us only by narration. Besides, death is no more an example, even in the sense of our opponents, than any other punishment, except to the comparatively small number present at an execution, on whom the best informed say it has no effect. To the rest of the nation, no punishment can furnish an example, except through the medium of verbal or written accounts. Imprisonment, with an annual whipping, would be a lasting example; death furnishes but one, which is soon forgotten. That the hope of escape from prison would prevent reformation, and lead to murder, is an idle fear. With proper care, escape might be rendered impossible; and to imagine, that a man fettered and imprisoned, cannot be prevented from committing murder, is sheer absurdity.

Transportation has been also said to have “notoriously failed." For short periods, we admit it has not succeeded; but for fourteen years, or for life, the case is otherwise. Vickery, the Bow-street officer, who had been seventeen years in the police, in his evidence before the Police Committee on the 15th June, 1816, objects to transportation for seven years, but recommends it for fourteen. Mr. Harmer has given similar evidence in support of transportation for life.* In the evidence given before the Committee on Gaols, into which we have not room now to enter, there is strong recommendation always to make transportation perpetual. Its terror, then, may be seen in the cases of the women above cited; and if it did not deter others from crime, it would, at least, remove from society a great portion of such as are actually criminal.

That imprisonment and transportation are more efficient punishments than death, is evident from the following

TABLE,+

Shewing in what proportion per cent. Capital Crimes increased in Six Years more than Crimes not capital.

Increase of Capital Offences more than transportable Offences 28

more than Offences punished by Imprisonment 11 more than Offences punished by Whipping and Fine 65 more than Offences of all kinds, subject to a less

punishment than Death

......

18

* Evidence annexed to Report of Committee on Criminal Laws, 1819. + The numbers of the Sentences in this Table are taken from the before. cited Parliamentary Return of June 5, 1818.

Here we see, that though crimes punished by imprisonment and transportation, are, from their nature, (as more easy of commission n and presenting more frequent temptations,) greater in positive amount, yet that they increased in a much less ratio than those punished by death, notwithstanding the great defects which at present exist in our prison discipline and transport system. How much more benefit, then, might we not expect, if they were thoroughly reformed, and made as efficient as they might be!

But, as our opponents are so confident in their objections both to imprisonment and transportation, it may, perhaps, not be considered sufficient to shew, that those punishments may be made effectual, without giving some idea of the course proposed for that purpose, We will, therefore, just hint, in what manner we conceive they should be resorted to in practice.

a

For those atrocious crimes, which are either dangerous to the state, or to the persons or habitations of individuals, and which argue such deep depravity, that their perpetrators can never more be trusted in society, we would recommend imprisonment for life; varied, according to circumstances, by personal chastisement in public, low living, hard labour, and frequent or constant solitude. Thus restrained, and thus corrected, they could not repeat their offences, their punishment would be severe, and their example at once striking and permanent. Ever to restore such men to liberty, would nei ther be mercy to them, nor justice to the public. As their infamy would exclude them from all honest occupation and society, they would have no enjoyment in the world, but from such sources as would tend to produce an increase of their guilt. The public, too, have a right to expect, that they should no more be exposed to danger, from those whose hearts are depraved, than from those whose minds are disordered. But, while punishment is kept in view, religious instruction should not be forgotten. That they should daily receive and, when released from bondage by the hand of death, instead of the condemned sermon, which now precedes an execution, a funeral discourse should be pronounced at the interment of every criminal, descriptive of his past career. In some such way, down to the last moment, the consequences of guilt should be kept before the public eye; and they who had injured society, by an example of crime, should, on their departure from the world, in some measure counteract its effect, by leaving behind them a lesson of virtue.

For offences of less enormity, we would propose, in the first instance, imprisonment,-varied in its duration and attendant circumstances, according to the nature of the case. By 2 A

VOL. 111. PART II.