The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-01 00:00:00

last night were regularly set out and reported,
but ha found that not only a great part of what
Hon. Members said was reported, that nitich of
what they did say was omitted, and that a deal
of what they did not say was given.—(Laughter.)
He found a great deal of what he himself said
was omitted. Now, it might be a matter of not
great importance to the editor of the Times
what he (Mr. John O'Connell) said in that House, but
to himself it was of some importance that he should be
tolerably correctly reported, for he had a constituency to
whom he was responsible for his conduct. He had
observed that the speeches of the Irish Members
were not done the same justice to as those of English
Members. He complained that that was unfair. He did
not know whether the other Irish Members in the House
would longer submit to that practice; but he (Mr. J.
O'Connell) for one would not do so. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by charging the proprietors, printers, and
editors of the Times, and all concerned, with a violation
of the order of the House, and by moving that the
printer of that paper be called to the bar of the House
to answer for his conduct.
Mr. SCULLY seconded the motion. _

The SPEAKER said he could not put the motion, in-
asmuch us the Hon. Member had not given the name of
the printer.—(Laughter.)
Mr. JOIIN O'CONNELL here hurried out of the
House, and returning in a few moments with a news-
paper in his hand, said the name of the printer was John
Joseph Lawson.—(Laughter.)
The SPEAK FR put the motion that John Joseph
Lawson be called to the bar of the House to•morrow.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR did hope the Honourable Gen-
tleman would spare the time of the House.
If any Member had a right to complain of his
speeches nut being impartially reported, he himself had
that right, but he did not think it worth his while to
complain to the House on a matter of that kind.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, considering the 'cir-
cumstances under which their debates were reported,
that the gentlemen who were engaged in that business
had a mere permissive right to report the proceedings,
which was clogged with some disadvantages, he hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would not do anything to cast censure
on the repDrts of the debates in the public journals. He
(Sir G. Grey) himself was not in the habit of reading the
debates; he generally contented himself with reading
those admirable summaries of the proceedings of the
House which of late years had been given in the public
journals, and which contained a most fair and impartial
resume of the debate.

Mr. BROTEERTON said, with regard to the real
question before the House, he really thought the Times
was a moat accurate paper indeed ; he was sometimes
quite[surpriscd to see !hell accuracy, with which it
gave the debates. There was another paper, how-
ever, which he could not say so much for, and
that other paper was the Daily News, which
had represented him to have stated in the
House that his last election cost him 4,0001., which was
wholly untrue. The fact was he had been elected five
times for Salford, and on no one of those occasions had
his election cost him a penny piece.—(Hear, hear.) He
made a practice of never paying anything for his elec-
tions, and he knew most of his friends disbelieved the
report, and he did not care much about it.—(Laughter.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said what he complained of was
that the speeches of Irish Members were not given fully.
The Right lion. Baronet being an English Member had
nothing to complain of in that respect, but he com-
plained that much of what he did say was entirely
omitted, while a great deal of what he did not say
had been put in.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
If the House wished to get rid of the rule to which he
had directed attention, let them abrogate it at once ;
but so long as it existed, let the House see that fair play
was done to Irish as well as English Members. For the
present, however, he should withdraw his motion; but
it the offence were repeated, he should not deal with it
so lightly.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BERKELEY suggested that the Hon. and
Learned Member had better send his speeches to the
papers, instead of making them in the House.—(Hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn.
MR. LAYARD'S DISCOVERIES.
Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to ask the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of her
majesty's Government to assist Mr. Layard in his dis-
coveries of the remains of Nineveh, by any pecuniary
grant, and if so, to what amount?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had written to Mr. Layard, mentioning a sum to propose
to Parliament, but.he had not yet received any reply from
that gentleman.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. EWART having presented a large number of
petitions against the punishment of death, proceeded to
move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish it, remarking
that if he were not convinced that the feeling of the
country was against it, he should not have troubled
the House with the motion. Every day, however, con-
vinced the people more and more of the impolicy of
continuing this law upon the statute book, and the feel-
ing in the country against it was stronger than some
Honourable Members were disposed to admit.
They were at a crisis on this subject—the time had come
when the question must be settled. The number of
murders had unfortunately increased; but unlike others,
he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that
their institutions had produced no effect. He held it to be
true that death by the law did not deter from the com-
mission of murder. But suppose they had abolished
capital punishment, would no; his Right Hon. Friend
(Sir George Grey) have attributed the murders that
had taken place to the repeal of the law. Now, he
entertained a contrary opinion ; he attributed the
murders that had taken place, to the public executions
that had preceded them, to the hardening of these who
had witnessed such exhibitions, and the teaching of them
to look upon human life with less respect than before.
As on all former occasions on which he had submitted this
question to the House, he should on the present avoid any
allusion to the theological part of the subject. He
looked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of
our religion. The question was one, he considered, of
expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon
that ground. Upon that ground Viccaria, an eminent
writer who first converted him to the opinions he held,
urged the necessity of abolishing the punishment of
death. Then the last report of the Commission on
Criminal Law, stated it as its opinion, that all punish-
ments rested alone upon social necessity. He held that
social necessity justified the abrogation of the punishment
of death. They had appealed in this matter to the fears
and prejudices of the country. His Honourable Friend
had said that attempts to murder had increased, for
the five years ending with 1846, as compared with the
five years ending in 1831, the number being in the
farmer 1,099, and in the latter but 451.
He also said that there had been an increase of rape, arson,
and poisoning, and attributed this to the abolition of the
punishment of death with respect to these cases—that the
abolition of the punishment had caused an increase of
crime. He denied that ho had taken a true test. In
order to have rendered his argument logical, he should
have gone further and demanded the renewal of
death punishments. In respect of these cases
that he took a fallacious test—he took only four cases
out of 20 which he should have taken, and which he
(Mr. Ewart) was prepared to show had fallen in num-
ber though the death punishment had been abolished.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated that
there was an increase in the number of cases since ca-
pital punishment was repealed for rape, but the fact was,
that previous to the repeal, persons hesitated prosecuting
for rape, and indicted for the minor offence of an as-
ssult. The returns laid before the House showed a
great diminution, instead of an increase, in those crimes
which were previously punishable by death. For five
years previous to the abolition there were 259 execu-
tions, and for the first five years afterwards only 99 ;
while the number of offences in the former pe-
riod were 12,000, and in the latter 11,320.
To show that they could safely do without capital punish-
, meat he would simply mention that the returns before
the House went to show that whenever they had miti-
gated the law, the experiment had proved most success-
ful. It would not do now for the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department to rise in his
place and meet this motion by saying simply that the
murderer deserved his punishment, the Right lion.
Baronet was bound to prove that punishment of death
was justifiable on the ground of legislative expediency,
and not as a system of terror. He, however, could
urge many reasons why capital punishment
should be done away with. In the first
place, it was an uncertain punishment. The excellence
of a punishment consisted in its certainty, and to make
this punishment certain they must be prepared to
execute every criminal convicted of the crime of
murder. He apprehended, however, that no advo-
cate for capital punishment were prep ired to go
that length. Considerable sensation had recently
been excited upon this subject by the execution of two
criminals, between the extent of whose crimes there was
a vary material difference. He alluded to the unfortu-
nate woman executed at Bristol and the notorious cri•
minal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there
not to have been a distinction . between these
two criminals?—(Hear, hear.) Even the staunchest
upholders of the necessity of capital punishment
admilted the inequality of the punishment in cases like
those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore,
that, with a due regard for public feeling, the Right
lion. Baronet could not execute in all cases of murder.
Tewohamesnhne6 lost the advantage of certainty in the punish-
ment, while, on the other hand, if he adopted this
measure the punishment would be made certain.—
(Cries of "Hear, hear.") No one could deny that
public executions had a demoralising tendency.
So long as they continued capital punishments, not only
would they have the demoralising spectable of the scaf-
fold, but they would have the accounts, in all the
pomp of circumstance, from the first beginnings
of crime to its last ignominious expiation, re-
corded by their liberal press, which narraied
all those demoralising circumstances, and thus produced
the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the
religion of the people; and so long would they throw
around the assassin that morbid degree of interest
which now always attached to him. Under the present
system, instead of leaving the criminal to
dwell on those motives for repentance which
his position was calculated to awaken, they
diverted hs mind from that wholesome exercise.
by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignomi-
nious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital
punishments to be objectionable in
pingtrhestattetrheyniunmflibcteerd on
f
the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had in.
flirted on his victim. But there was another great ob-
jection,it was that when once capital punishment
inflictsailidde it
ecould f noten once
be
executedrecalled ;t h
ei t
criminalw as bey
was
placed in Belgium and
pu-
nishment had
beyondatl the pale
abolishedofrepentance. Capital pu-
possessive;
thein RtheemalnVensetputdiciesc,eraitnedl
rc veiled. He felt
punishment
the principle which he was
' strongly that
hold en the people
our
advocating was gaining
thoevn best
had
ed years
Of this country.--(Lioar.,