Page:History of New South Wales from the records, Volume 1.djvu/345

 IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 235 Burke spoke of this atrocious proceeding as '^a melan- choly circumstance^^ — language he might have used had he been speaking of someone who had fallen down stairs and broken his leof. No one in his day could use the a mcian- language of invective with more effect ; but on this occasion cumstance. he contented himself with a very mild remonstrance. He asked the House whether it would not be right to abolish a mode of punishment liable to such perversion, and intimated at the same time that if no man would take the matter in hand, he would bring in a bill for the purpose. But no bill was brought in for the purpose either by him or by any other Nothing member. The Attorney-General said in reply that he would require to consult the Judges before he could interfere; but the result of his consultations, if any, was never seen.* If Burke was disposed to be silent on the subject of reform, he was equally reserved as to the moral effect of such a system of punishment on the masses. He saw clearly enouffh, no doubt, that under the debasing influence of Effect of ,,.,.,.. 1 -,, 1 . Ti» exhibitions. public exhibitions, men had become not only indifferent to suffering, but had learned to look on it as a source of amuse- ment. Had it not been so, such a scene could not have been witnessed in the streets of London. But it would have been useless to raise any question as to the moral result of an established system. It was the settled conviction of society that exhibitions of the kind were necessary in order Article to deter people from committing crime ; just as the practice of mutilating and branding offenders was retained for centuries under the belief that it was the best means of producing a good moral impression on the multitude. Educated as he was under such influences as these, it is not to be wondered at that Phillip brought with him to • The pillory was not finally abolished until 1837. A bill for its abolition was rejected by the Lords in 1815 on the motion of Lord EUenborough, who said that the subject required consideration and ought to be referred to the Judges. '*He talked about the antiquity of the punishment both in England and the rest of Europe, and said that it was mentioned by Fleta and Ducange ; and as usual declaimed against innovation. " — Romilly, vol. iii, p. 189. Digitized by Google