Alt-Heidelberg: Heidelberg College magazine — 1906

Seite: 39 22
Zitierlink: i
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/alt_heidelberg1906/0023
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen
facsimile
22

„ALT-HEIDELBERG"

XXXIX. 1906

they could if consorts were counted in and several Hon.
Members interjected rash statistics. The Debate was
brought to a close by speeches from two Hon. Members
of the Lower House (Heidelberg and Sydney). When
a division was called, keen excitement was evinced on
both sides of the House, and after a recount had twice
been demanded, it appeared that there were eleven votes
for and against the motion, and the President gave a
casting vote in its favour.

At the third Debate held on March 20 th it was
proposed that "Capital Punishment should be abolished".
The Hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan spoke of ethics,
evolution and environment. Sin was its own punishment.
Crime was lunacy. The ill-doer could be evolved from
evil. The Clerk of the House protested that this view
was impractical. Punishment must be deterrent. The sur-
vival of the unfit was a growing danger, why put the
murderer in a glass case? The Hon. Member for Ta-
vistock preferred a stone cage. The Hon. Member for
Eastbourne upheld Capital Punishment as an old insti-
tution. The Hon. Member for Sydney declared that no
man had the right to take a human life. The Hon.
Member for Glasgow would not like to meet a murde-
rer at large. The Hon. Member for St. Leonards quoted
the Ten Commandments. The Hon. Member for Epsom
thought a life sentence worse than execution. The Hon.
Member for Heidelberg (Lower House) pointed out that
sometimes the wrong man was hanged. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Bombay rose unsteadily and fired a Latin quo-
tation : —

Sincerum nisi vas, quodcumque infundis acescit.

The Hon. and Gallant Member was brief but apt. The
Hon. Member for Wimbledon told a story of a school-
boy who made the excuse that he was predestined to
tell a lie and found that his Headmaster too was pre-
destined to give him a double — dots and dashes. In his
reply the Hon. Proposer claimed to be on a higher
plane than his opponents, a remark which evoked loud
expressions of dissent. The motion was rejected by 23
votes to 13.
loading ...