warded it to Dolgelly; and then all the carters positively refused to cart it to the gaol. It was then taken to the residence of the under-sheriff who, after considerable difficulty, induced one of his labourers to carry it to Dolgelly. A somewhat similar case occurred in New Zealand a short time ago. The tradesmen all refused to build the scaffold or make the coffin, or even to sell the material required for these purposes. No one would admit the hangman to their house; nor could he get food or lodging. So he returned to Blenheim, and refused to carry out the execution. The sheriff telegraphed to Wellington, asking that another man might be sent. The reply came that a man could not be found in time. The sheriff at last found a tramp, who undertook and carried out the work. In 1830, the inhabitants of Florence testified their horror at the death punishment by closing their shops and deserting the streets on the occasion of an execution, and, since that date, no execution has taken place in Tuscany. In France, within the last few years, certain modifications have had to be made in the carrying out of the sentence of courts-martial. The rifles intended for the firing party are now prepared in the presence of three officers, and only ten out of the twelve guns are loaded with ball cartridge. The rifles are then chosen by lot, and, as each marine draws his number, he selects a gun from the rack. It has been found that the unconquerable dislike to slaying a fellow man has been somewhat overcome by loading two rifles with blank cartridge, as each man flatters himself that he may be lucky enough to avoid shedding the blood of his comrade. If we are asked to account for the unwillingness of jurymen to convict in capital cases, it is not hard to do so. Those who are called upon to serve as jurymen are aware of the fact that innocent persons have, on many occasions, been made to suffer under a penalty intended to fall only upon the guilty; and they realise that the penalty of death, once inflicted, removes it out of human power to make reparation for mistakes made and wrongs committed. And who can blame the man who hesitates before committing himself to a verdict which would, probably, be attended with unalterable consequences? That innocent persons have been made to suffer, or have been in danger of suffering, owing to mistakes made in the jury-box, no one will attempt to deny. The following are a few of the many cases which might be quoted to demonstrate this painful fact:-So far back as the year 1836 a man named Edmund Galley was tried at the Exeter Assizes, for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. The sentence was afterwards commuted to one of imprisonment for life. He was sent out to Australia, and for forty-three years-as testified by the leading Sydney journal-lived a blameless life. Quite recently events have transpired which go to prove his entire innocence of the crime for which he was punished, and the Home Government has sent him a free pardon. In the year 1865, Baron Martin sentenced an Italian named Pollizioni to death, in London, for murder. He told the prisoner-" I am as satisfied as I can be of anything" that he had inflicted the fatal wound on the deceased. Yet in a few weeks Pollizioni received a free pardon from the Government, and another man was convicted for the murder. At the trial for the murder of Police Sergeant Brett, at Manchester, a few years back, a man named Maguire was found guilty, and sentenced to death. There were eight witnesses against this man, and both the Attorney-General of the day and Mr. Justice Mellor were imposed upon by their testimony, for an alibi was afterwards so conclusively proved that Maguire was released. In the year 1877, in London, the two Stauntons and Alice Rhodes were found guilty of wilful murder. The judge remarked, in passing sentence-" After a long, patient, painful, and anxious inquiry you have been found guilty of a crime so black and hideous that I believe, in all the records of crime, it would be difficult to find its parallel." Yet, within a few days after sentence of death had been passed, a court of inquiry was held at the Home Office, which led to one of the prisoners being set at liberty and the others being sent to penal servitude; the sentence of death being remitted on the advice of the judge who had sentenced them. In August of the same year, three men were found guilty of rape, the judge expressing his full approval of the verdict. Yet the innocence of these men was afterwards so satisfactorily proven that they were released, with the concurrence of the judge who was so sure of their guilt at their trial. About four years ago, a young man named William Habron was sentenced to death for the murder of a policeman, at Manchester. Within fortyeight hours only of the time appointed for his execution, the sentence was commuted to one of imprisonment for life. In the year 1879, Charles Peace was condemned for the murder of a Mr. Dyson, near Sheffield, and just before his execution he confessed that he was the murderer of the constable at Manchester, and that he was in the court at the time when sentence of death was passed upon the innocent man who so nearly suffered in his stead. Habron was at once set free, but only to find that his father had died of a broken heart during his incarceration. In September last year, two men, Charles Frost and Edwin Smith, were discharged from Millbank Prison, London, after serving two years, it having been proved to the satisfaction of the Home Secretary that they were innocent of the crime for which they had been condemned. Instances of such miscarriages of justice have also occurred in the colonies. On February 16, 1859, five persons were executed at Hobart Town, Tasmania. Previous to the execution, one of them signed a statement to the effect that a woman named Sarah Robinson, who had been committed on the unanimously expressed opinion of a jury that she was accessory to the murder for which he was to suffer, was in no way concerned in the matter, and at the following sittings she was discharged by proclamation. In the month of July, 1859, a girl named Mary Stack was brutally murdered at Cleveland, Tasmania. A verdict of "wilful murder" was returned, at the coroner's inquest, against two innocent persons, referring to whom the local press said: "There is little doubt that they are the guilty parties, and if so the awful punishment for their crime is inevitable to them." Three years afterwards a criminal, named John Hailey, was executed at Launceston for the murder of Mr. Wilson, at Fingal. Before his execution he confessed that he was the murderer of Mary Stack. In December, 1859, in the same colony, three men were condemned to death for shooting two contables; but before the execution one of them confessed that he alone had inflicted all the wounds, and the Executive, in consequence, commuted the sentences of the other two. In the year 1876, a Roman Catholic Missionary told me that, within the previous ten years, two persons in Australia had made death-bed confessions to him of their guilt of crimes for which innocent persons had been executed. In the year 1872, a man named Halligan was incarcerated in Pentridge Stockade, Victoria, having been convicted of highway robbery. In 1875 events transpired which left no doubt as to Halligan's innocence, and the Government ordered his immediate release from prison. A somewhat similar case occurred in the same colony in 1875, an innocent man having undergone two years' confinement before the mistake was discovered. In June 1879, and in the same colony, a man named Henry Hardy was discharged from prison in Victoria after serving * * Hailey also confessed that he had bribed an old gaol companion to give false evidence against the two innocent persons above mentioned. four years, it having been shown after careful inquiry that the offence for which he suffered was committed by another man* I am of opinion that, as a rule, the fear of death is not present at the time when capital offences are committed. Criminals who offend in this direction may fairly be divided into two classes.— (1) Those who commit the crime under the influence of strongly excited passions; and (2) those who take such precautions before they commit the deed that they expect to escape detection and the consequences of their act. With neither class can any threatened penalty have any deterrent influence. But if it be a fact that some criminals do, before hand, calculate the probable consequences of their actions, then, from examples daily brought under their observation, they must realise that they have much better chances of escaping the capital penalty than all other forms of punishment. That cases have occurred in which criminals appear to have realised this would seem to be shown by the following case: J. M. Addeman, Secretary of State for Rhode Island, relates that two brothers planned a murder, and waited till their victim got into Massachusetts (where the law of capital punishment exists), and murdered him there, because they thought conviction would be less certain. I conclude this division of my subject by calling attention to the fact that, in England and the Colonies, the position that Capital Punishment, as an example, is likely to act as a deterrent has, practically, been given up by the abolition of public executions. * In addition to the above well-authenticated instances, there is reason to fear that Wiggins, of London (1867), Hayes and Slane, of Durham (1873), and two of the three men executed at Leicester, in 1877, were hanged by mistake. ALFRED J. TAYLOR. (To be concluded in our next issue.) A SAGA OF FRITHJOF AND INGEBJORG. BELE, King of Norway, had a daughter Ingebjorg, the fairest of maidens, and a fast friend, Thorsten the Thegn. Thorsten had a son, Frithjof, strongest of men. These two were bred up together in the home of the sage Hilding. They grew, and loved each other. Belè and Thorsten died, and were buried side by side. Belè had two sons, Helgi, the blackhearted, and girl-face Halfdan. Frithjof, coming to them, demanded Ingebjorg, their sister, to wife. Helgi refused. Ring, King of the North, also demanded their sister. Helgi again refused. Halfdan bade him, in jest, to come and fetch her. Ring invaded Norway. Frithjof, being called to aid the brethren, again demanded Ingebjorg in marriage, but, in the meanwhile, desiring to see her, violated the Temple of Baldur. Halfdan consented, but Helgi once more refused, taunting him with sacrilege. Frithjof, in atonement, goes to demand tribute of Joul Angantyo, but returning finds his homestead burnt, and Ingebjorg wedded to Ring. By a mishap, he burns the temple of Baldur, and, condemning himself to a life-long exile on his long ship Ellide, sweeps the Northern seas. Desiring to see Ingebjorg once more, he comes to the palace of Ring in the guise of an old man, but is by him compelled to reveal himself. The saga deals of the honour and continence of Frithjof and Ingebjorg, of the self-sacrifice of Ring, and the good hap of the lovers. Still, Heedless alike of good and of ill, Sits Ingebjorg by the fire in the hall: But sometimes musing as in a dream, And sometimes wincing as I deem: And ever and aye she pines away, Paler and paler day by day. |