shopkeepers in the neighbourhood of the scene of execution were heard to say, that worse than a murder had been committed, and that they should like to see the Home Secretary treated in the same way; and I am acquainted with one person who was robbed to a large amount in the following year, but who was deterred from endeavouring to detect the thieves, merely by the impression left on his mind by this circum

stance.

"Within Newgate, amongst the mass of prisoners awaiting their trials, a sentiment of ferocious anger and desperate recklessness was created, such as, if frequently aroused and generally prevalent, would be the cause of innumerable and horrid crimes."

The striking example afforded by a public execution is insisted upon by the advocates of capital punishment, as most beneficial. Let them peruse the following facts:

Having taken great pains to ascertain the feeling of the mass of spectators at each execution, during the three years to which these pages relate, I am able to assert positively, that, in every case but one (executions for murder inclusive) the assembled crowd sympathised with the criminal, and expressed feelings of compassion towards the dying person, and of hatred towards the law and its principal executioner, the judge of the fourth and fifth trials. The case of exception was that of Esther Hibner, hanged for destroying a parish apprentice by repeated acts of cruelty. On that occasion the assembled crowd shouted bravoes, and clapped their hands as the woman was launched into eternity.'* On every other occasion the sympathy and anger of the crowd were expressed by such cries as God bless you!' 'Shame, shame!'

"If the late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. assisted at a condemned sermon in Newgate for the purpose of instructing himself, it were to be wished that, with a similar view, he would attend a few executions in front of the gaol. Whoever will undergo the pain of witnessing the public destruction of a fellow-creature's life in London, must be perfectly satisfied, that, in the great mass of spectators, the effect of the punishment is to excite sympathy for the criminal, and hatred of the law.

"From the reports of thieves and other criminals, whom I questioned on this point, not occasionally, but whenever an opportunity occurred during three years, I feel assured that a considerable portion of the crowds which assemble to witness executions in London, consists of thieves. From all I could learn, I am inclined to believe, that the criminals of London, spoken of as a class, and allowing for exceptions, take the same sort of delight in witnessing executions as the sportsman

A similar spectacle occurred at the execution of Bishop and Williams, in December, 1831, for burking an Italian boy. The populace received the prisoners with shouts of exultation, and at the moment of their death gave "three cheers." It is difficult to conceive a scene more dreadful or more disgusting. To feast upon the last agonies of a fellow-creature, however guilty, to enjoy his despair, to add bitterness to the dregs of the fatal cup of which he is about to drink, and to spurn all feelings of mercy, because he has himself shown none-these are the results of such exhibitions, even in their most justifiable shape. What value can the rude and ignorant set upon human blood, when they see it daily poured out like water, and when they behold thousands regarding with satisfaction, nay with delight, the extinction of human life?.

One would

and soldier find in the dangers of hunting and war. suppose that the practice of crime, as a trade, furnishes, by itself, sufficient excitement; but, perhaps, the state of constant alarm in which criminals live, renders them callous to ordinary excitements, and creates in them an appetite for some excitement, which would be painful, instead of agreeable, to people in general. Be this as it may, nothing can be more sure than that the sight of an execution is considered a treat by most habitual criminals of the metropolis; and that there is hardly a regular thief in London who has not frequently gone out of his way to be present at executions. This statement may be abundantly confirmed by examining the officers of the city police.

"From inquiries made of the boys confined in the school-yard of Newgate; or rather, I ought to say, from having overheard the conversation of the boys amongst themselves, I am satisfied that every public execution creates some criminals. Every execution in front of Newgate is attended by some boys not yet criminals, apprentices, errand-boys, and children on their way to and from school; and though, unfortunately, I neglected to keep an account of the number of cases ascertained by myself, I am confident that few Old Bailey Sessions pass without the trial of a boy, whose first thought of crime occurred whilst he was witnessing an execution. Not less, I venture to say, than a dozen boys have assured me that they were led to become thieves by attending executions.

To some of them the idea occurred simply through witnessing the struggles of a dying thief; to others it was suggested by thieves, with whom they were led to form acquaintance by the excitement of the occasion, and who took advantage of that excitement, to speak, with success, of the enjoyments of a thief, and his many chances of impunity. And one grown man, of great mental powers and superior education, who was acquitted of a charge of forgery, assured me that the first idea of committing a forgery occurred to him at the moment when he was accidentally witnessing the execution of Fauntleroy."

It is sometimes urged, as an argument in favour of retaining the punishment of death, that although it may be true that the denunciation of it may have little effect upon the hardened criminal, it can never be known how many of those who are subject to temptation may have been restrained from crime by the wholesome terrors of the halter

What's done, we partly may compute,

But know not what's resisted.

It would, perhaps, be allowable to answer an argument like this, which is based upon simple assertion, by a simple denial; and to reply, that as it is not proved that the fear of death has operated to deter from crime, in any particular case, we may presume that it is productive of no such effect; while, on the other hand, in the case of every capital conviction, its inefficacy is apparent. But that inefficacy is capable of being shown by much more satisfactory reasoning. Every day's observation must convince us how ready men are to place themselves in situations

where their lives and liberty are in peril; and how lightly, even for the smallest advantage, they will run the risk of much greater danger than a criminal (considering the various chances that exist in his favour) undergoes. Do we not daily see men, with the fullest knowledge of the consequence of their actions, shortening their lives by vice and intemperance? In fact, the idea of death is one which is with difficulty forced upon the attention of men, unless the approach of it be near, and the danger imminent. It is the law of his nature to regard it as the condition of his fate; and the contemplation of it, from its vague certainty, if we may be allowed to use the expression, loses all power of troubling his repose. There can be little doubt, that the same feeling is extended to the death denounced by the law; the idea of which is never, so to speak, realised to the mind of the criminal, or of the person about to commit a crime. It cannot be doubted, that there is much truth and nature in the following dialogue between Mr. Wakefield and a prisoner, "who was within an ace of being hanged for coining:"

"Q. Have you not often seen an execution?--A. Yes, I have, very often.

Q. Did they not frighten you?-A. No. Why should it ?

Q. Did it not make you think that the same would happen to yourself? A. Not a bit.

a

Q. What did you think then ?-A. Think! why I thought it was shame!

'Q. Now, when you have been going to run a great risk of being caught and hanged, did the thought never come into your head, that it would be as well to avoid the risk?-A. Never.

66

Q. Not when you remembered having seen men hanged for the same thing?-A. Oh! I never remembered any thing about it; and, if I had, what difference would that make? We must all take our chance. I never thought it would fall on me, and I don't think it ever will.

'Q. But if it should?-A. Then I hope I should suffer like a man. Where's the use of snivelling?"

In addition to the "facts relating to the punishment of death," Mr. Wakefield has collected some curious information on collateral subjects; as the "police of prevention," "nurseries of crime," receivers of stolen goods,"" detection," &c.; and he has likewise commented at some length upon the system of appeal, as he terms it, to the King in Council, still pursued in the case of capital convictions at the Old Bailey. In his observations on the "police of prevention," he insists upon the necessity of more efficient arrangements for the purpose of preventing notorious thieves from being at large, and for breaking up the establishments in which criminals are harboured. Speaking of the persons dismissed from Newgate, he says, "If the laws were efficient, all

The

such persons should be apprehended on leaving the prison, and sent to some penitentiary as notorious thieves. What becomes of them? Leaving the prison, generally pennyless, they go straight to their well-known haunts, where, either by notorious thieves like themselves, who as such ought to be in confinement, or by publicans or others, who as harbourers of such thieves ought to be in prison, they are supplied with a loan of money for their direct and immediate wants, and with information as to favourable opportunities of clearing the debt, by means of robbery." But, after all, to what does Mr. Wakefield's scheme amount? thieves and their patrons may be imprisoned, but they cannot be detained in durance for life; and Mr. Wakefield does not pretend, that, when they are again let loose upon society, they will not again resume their vocation. Measures, to be truly preventive, must go much further than this. The causes of crime are want and ignorance, neither of which can be removed by a six months' imprisonment. Before crime can be prevented, the people must possess the means of maintaining themselves; and must be taught that they will be happier and better when depending upon their own honest industry, than when subsisting by crime. But to such a state of society we can only hope, in this country, to approximate very remotely. Something, however, may still be accomplished, by the reformation of the individual offender; for, notwithstanding the assertion of Mr. Wakefield, that "the number of cases in which man, woman, or child, once a thief, is always a thief,―are so vague, as to be undeserving of notice," maintain that reformation is one principal object of criminal legislation. The opinion expressed by Mr. Wakefield, is also contradicted by numerous facts, both in this country and in the United States, to which we shall take an early occasion to refer more particularly.

we

In connexion with the subject of the Reform of Criminals, we may mention the want of an institution for the reception of offenders, and more especially of juvenile delinquents, on their release from prison. A large proportion of the boys discharged from Newgate, according to Mr. Wakefield, immediately resort to the houses of receivers of stolen goods, or of persons interested in persuading them to resume their predatory occupations. To preserve them from this temptation to crime, until better habits are formed, is an object of the highest importance. It frequently happens, also, that a prisoner, on his discharge, is absolutely destitute of the means of subsistence. Under the pressure of want, it is almost certain that he will again resort to theft, unless some assistance be afforded him for the obtaining of honest employment. Without question, an institution devoted to the protection of these outcasts, would prevent the commission of innumerable second offences.

We have said, that Mr. Wakefield occasionally displays his ignorance, with a very confident air. Let the reader judge. In speaking of receivers of stolen goods, we find the following novel information:

"A slight improvement of the law was made by a bill lately introduced by Mr. Peel, which enacted, that any one found in the possession of stolen goods within a fixed period of the time when the goods were stolen, and unable to account for such possession, should be considered as the thief, and liable to the punishment of stealing to the amount of the value of the goods. But that this provision has done little towards diminishing one of the greatest temptations to robbery-the facility of converting stolen goods into money-is proved by this unquestionable fact, that no thief, however young or inexperienced, finds the least difficulty in disposing of stolen goods. This law has the same effect on the receivers, as the establishment of the new police on the thieves. It renders the receiver's trade somewhat more difficult, and obliges him to take new precautions."

Some further reasoning upon the practical effect of the new law is added. All this is very ingenious, had there been any foundation for it; but, unfortunately, Mr. Peel never introduced such a bill, nor could it ever have been even contemplated. At common law, the presumption is, that a person found in the possession of property recently stolen, is the thief; but the idea of such an enactment as that mentioned by Mr. Wakefield could have never occurred to the framers of Mr. Peel's bills. We do not quarrel with Mr. Wakefield for his ignorance of the laws, but we have a right to expect that he will not impose it upon the public as knowledge.

Among the modes suggested by Mr Wakefield, the following, for the suppressing the offence of receiving stolen goods, appears to us to be, in principle, extremely reprehensible. After recommending the adoption of a better police, he says, "I venture to suggest, that one officer of such police ought to reside constantly in each of the London prisons, and especially in Newgate, for the purpose of obtaining information on all these points, and exclusively charged with that service. Nothing would create such dismay amongst the criminals, whom it is so desirable to root out of society; and, I speak of my own experience of the quantity of information that would be obtained in this way, when I express a belief, that such a measure of espionage might be made the means of diminishing crime to an extent which I abstain from estimating, for fear of startling those who have never reflected on the importance of measures of prevention." That a system, the basis of which must be deception, should be favoured by Mr. Wakefield, is not matter of surprise; but it would be marvellous, if any man of proper feeling and