Fourth objection. The theory here alluded to, is farther objectionable in this, that it makes familiarity with the punishment essential to its efficacy, and therefore recommends those punishments, the example of which is the most lasting, and, as it were, constantly before the eyes of the public, as the most salutary. On the contrary, those punishments are the best which require the least previous familiarity with objects of guilt and misery to make them formidable, which come least into contact with the mind, which tell at a distance, the bare mention of which startles the ear, which operate by an imaginary instead of an habitual dread, and which produce their effect once for all, without destroying the erectness and elasticity of social feeling by the constant spectacle of the degradation of the species. No one would wish to have a gibbet placed before his door, to deter his neighbours from robbing him. Punishments which require repeated ocular inspection of the evils which they occasion, cannot answer their end in deterring individuals, without having first operated as a penance on society. They are a public benefit only so far as they are a public nuisance. Laws framed entirely on this principle, would convert the world into a large prison, and divide mankind into two classes, felons and their keepers!
Maxim fourth. Those punishments are the best which produce the strongest apprehension, with the least actual suffering or contemplation of evil. Such is in general the effect of those punishments which appeal to the imagination, rather than to our physical experience; which are immediately connected with a principle of honour, with the passions in general, with natural antipathies, the fear of pain, the fear of death, etc. These punishments are, in Mr. Bentham’s phrase, the most economical; they do their work with the least expense of individual suffering, or abuse of public sympathy. Private punishments are, so far, preferable to public ones.
General inference. There ought to be a gradation of punishments proportioned to the offence, and adapted to the state of society.
In order to strike the imagination and excite terror, severe punishments ought not to be common.[[66]]
To be effectual, from the sympathy of mankind in the justice of the sentence, the highest punishments ought not to be assigned to the lowest or to very different degrees of guilt. The absence of the sanction of public opinion not only deadens the execution of the law, but by giving confidence to the offender, produces that sort of resistance to it, which is always made to oppression. The ignominy attached to the sentence of the law, is thus converted into pity. If the law is enacted but not enforced, this must either be to such a degree as to take away the terror of the law, or if the terror still remains, it will be a terror of injustice, which will necessarily impair the sense of right and wrong in the community. But if the law is regularly carried into execution, the effect will be still worse. In general, all laws are bad which are not seconded by the manners of the people, and laws are not in conformity with the manners of the people when they are not executed. This is the case at present with a great proportion of the English laws. Is it to be wondered at that they should be so? Manners have changed, and will always change insensibly, and irresistibly, from the force of circumstances. The laws, as things of positive institution, remain the same. So that without a constant, gradual assimilation of the laws to the manners, the manners will, in time, necessarily become at variance with the laws, and will render them odious, ineffectual, and mischievous—a clog, instead of a furtherance to the wheels of justice.
NOTES
FUGITIVE WRITINGS
THE FIGHT
First republished in Literary Remains, vol. II. p. 193. For another account of the fight and, more particularly, of the journey home, see P. G. Patmore’s My Friends and Acquaintance, III. 41, et seq. The fight (between Hickman, the ‘Gas-man’ and Bill Neat) took place on Dec. 11, 1821. For an account of Tom Hickman (who was thrown from a chaise and killed in the following December) see Pierce Egan’s Boxiana, where particulars will be found of all the ‘Fancy’ heroes referred to by Hazlitt in this essay.
PAGE [1]. ‘The fight,’ etc. Cf. Hamlet, Act II. Sc. 2. Jack Randall’s. Cf. vol. VI. (Table-Talk), note to p. 202. ‘The proverb ... musty.’ Cf. Hamlet, Act III. Sc. 2. [2]. Jo. Toms. Joseph Parkes (1796–1865), the Radical politician, at that time articled to a London solicitor. ‘So carelessly,’ etc. As You Like It, Act I. Sc. 1. Jack Pigott. P. G. Patmore. ‘What more felicity,’ etc. Spenser, Muiopotmos, st. 27. Tom Belcher’s. Tom Belcher (1783–1854), a younger brother of the better known prizefighter, James Belcher, kept the ‘Castle’ tavern in Holborn. ‘Well, we meet at Philippi.’ Cf. Julius Cæsar, Act IV. Sc. 3. [3]. ‘I follow Fate,’ etc. Cf. Dryden, The Indian Emperor, IV. 3. [4]. Tom Turtle. According to the author’s son (see Literary Remains, II. 201) this was John Thurtell (1794–1824), afterwards notorious as the murderer of Weare. ‘Quite chap-fallen.’ Hamlet, Act V. Sc. 1. Martin. Jack Martin, known as ‘The Master of the Rolls.’ Mr. Richmond. Bill Richmond, presumably, the veteran coloured hero, who had recently taken to teaching the art of boxing. ‘Where good digestion,’ etc. Macbeth, Act III. Sc. 4. [5]. ‘Follows so,’ etc. Henry V., Act IV. Sc. 1. ‘More figures,’ etc. Cf. Julius Cæsar, Act II. Sc. 1. ‘His dream,’ etc. Cf. Othello, Act III. Sc. 3. ‘Seriously inclined.’ Cf. Ibid. Act I. Sc. 3. [6]. ‘A lusty man,’ etc. Cf. Canterbury Tales, Prologue, 167. [7]. ‘Standing,’ etc. Henry V., Act III. Sc. 1. ‘He moralised,’ etc. Cf. As You Like It, Act II. Sc. 1. ‘A firebrand like Bardolph’s.’ 1 Henry IV., Act II. Sc. 2. ‘Loud and furious fun.’ Cf. ‘The mirth and fun grew fast and furious.’ Burns, Tam O’Shanter.