The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-11 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. of the Australian mails between England and Suez, is
case parties should tender for carrying the mails to Syd-
ney from Suez, via Point de Galle ?
Mr. WILSON said there was at present a contract
with the Penitisular and Oriental Company for the gicon•
veyance of mails to Australia, via Suez, and that con-
sequently if any chauge was made during that contract
that company would gain extra advantage. If any pri-
vate company was disposed to carry the mails to Aus-
tralia, via Suez, the Government would have no objec-
tion to avail themselves of the accommodation, making
no extra charge for the conveyance of letters so far as

ROUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY•)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.. _

Viscount DUNGANNON gave notice that on Thurs-
day nest he should put a question to the noble duke (the
Postmaster-General) with respect to the mails between
Holyhead and Kingstown, namely, whether any arrange-
ments had been made for the conveyance of the mails
between Holyhead and Kingstown by a larger and better
class of steamers. In the event of a negative answer
being given, he should take the liberty of calling their
lordships' attention to the subject.
CHAPELS IN BURIAL-GROUNDS.
Lord PORTMAN called the attention of their lord-
ships to a matter which was personal to himself. The
righ rev. prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), during a dis-
cussion that took place the other night with respect to
the consecration of chapels in burial-grounds, stated
that some of his statements were merely hearsay. This
hearsay had since been confirmed. The right rev.
prelate was quite right in stating that there was no
communion table in the chapel at Woolwich, and before
the Bishop of London did not require a communion
table at the consecration of chapels in burial ground.
His lordship then read a letter from the burial board at
Woolwich, which stated that communion had
not been celebrated when the chapel was
consecrated. (Hear.) It was, therefore, on no
slight grounds that he had made the statement he had
done, and which he had thus substantiated.

SEW.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Several petitions were presented against the punish-
ment of death.
Mr. E WART moved for a select committee to inquire
into the operation of the law imposing the punishment
of death. The objection to this punishment was
based on many grounds, and one was the uncertainty
attending its being carried out after a jury had
returned a verdict of guilty. That uncertainty
had greatly increased of late years, and was in-
creasing daily. The public feeling was louder
now against capital punishments than heretofore.
Juries were less inclined to return verdicts of guilty,
and judges were less inclined to pass the sentence than
formerly. In fact, he believed there was a strong feeling
existing against convicting females for infanticide • but
who should we protect but the innocent and the helpless ?
In many foreign countries the punishment of death had
been abolished and with success, and he thought he was
not asking too much in calling on the house to institute
inquiry into this mode of punishment, because it did not
pledge the house to any particular principle or opinion.
Some persons objected to this mode of punishment on
religious grounds ; but that was an objection he
thought need not then be entered on, and he
was opposed to discussing theological subjects in that
house. Punishment, to be real, should be an effective
punishment both on the criminal and in the repression of
crime ; it should be equal in its operation, not falling
severely on one criminal whilst another escaped, and
certainty which was the great principle of punishment
as much as publicity wa-s that of justice. The hon.
gentleman then proceeded to illustrate the want of
three essentials in capital punishment in this
country, as referring to the cases of murder that
had been tried and the manner in which the
criminals had been treated after conviction. In
the Horne Department the same uncertainty prevailed
with regard to the carrying out of capital punishment
as existed with juries and judges. The present Home
Secretary displayed on all occasions a kind and merciful
consideration to these unfortunate and unhappy
offenders which the house could not but admire. (Rear.)
It was not his conduct he (Mr. E wart) arid the
public complained of, but the system that permitted that
uncertainty, which he illustrated by the respite of Celes-
tina Somers, who was as guilty of murder as any per-
son who had ever been executed for that crime. (Rear,
hear.) The uncertainty of the punishment, as re-
garded the Home Department, was apparent when
they considered that Secretaries of State for the Hone
Department changed with political parties. They
might have this year a merciful Secretary, and next
year a severe one, who would let the law take its course.
Then as to the remedy. One suggestion was that private
executions would get rid of the evils at present attending
public executions ; but he doubted it, because the
members of the press would gain admission to the gaols,
and pander to the morbid tastes of the public by writing
and publishing minute details of every execution, which
would be greedily sought after and read by the public.
Another suggestion was occasional capital punish meats—
executing a man now and then for example. That
he considered bad, and he looked upon it as a species of
gambling with human life. He, and those who thought
with him, proposed that they should iuflicl; a secondary
punishment, but one which should be certain in its ope-
ration. Capital punishment had gone out of use in Tus-
cany, Bavaria, Switzerland, and almost entirely in the
United States of America, and in all these places the
change had been attended not with an increase, but a
diminution of crime. What he asked for was a corninit•
tee to inquire into the truth of the statements he bad
made, and to see whether a certain secondary might not
be substituted for an uncertain capital punishment.
There was another thing to be considered, and that was
that in a free country the weight of capital punish-
ment consisted not only of its infliction, but in the
pressure of public opinion. When they had the two
forces acting together, then might it be said that they
had a system of punishment acting in full vigour. In
the case of capital punishment, public opinion went
strongly in an opposing direction. A more lenient
punishment would carry with it not only the full
force of that punishment, in deterring crime, but
would carry public opinion with it. (Divide, divide.)
There was another consideration. Every one complained
of the false sympathy which existed in favour of criminals,
but it waa only in those cases where the punishment or
death was still retained. When forgery was punished
with death, the same sympathy was excited in favour of
forgers-33 in the instances of Dr. Dodd and Fauntle-
roy ; but since forgery, burglary, and other crimes which
formerly were punished with death • had been removed
from the category of capital offences, there was do
onger that sympathy in behalf of the criminals. He
appealed to the house to abolish that extreme
punishment, which experience proved did not deter
from crime, but which, on the other hand, enlisted
public sympathy on behalf of the criminal, and placed
him in a position of notoriety and importance. Those
who advocated the abolition of the extreme punish-
ment were not mere theorists, but practical men,
aid their doctrines were those of reason and experience,
as well as of humanity and religion. After some further
observations as to the opportunities which the sub-
stitution of perceteal imprisonment for the death pun-
ishment would afford to the murderer for repentance,
which was impossible when his mind was withdrawn
from the contemplation of the sanguinary crime he had
committed to the equally sanguinary fate that awaited
him, and the desirability of making our criminal code
more in accordance with the precepts and spirit of the
G espel, the hon. member concluded by submitting his
motion.

The Bishop of OXFORD, in explanation, said that
when he consecrated the Woolwich Cemetery he was
conducted to a table covered with red cloth, which he
certainly took for a communion table. Under the cir-
cumstances he did not think he had made any wilful
mis-statement. It was perfectly true that he had conse-
crated a cemetery at Newbury, in which he did not
celebrate the communion at that time—he was new in
office, and the rules for after guidance had not been laid
down, but his practice now was precisely similar to that
ursued in the diocese of Salisbury.
After a few words from other noble lords, the subject
dropped.

Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion, and remarked
that the object was not to do away with punishment but
o make it effective—not to screen criminals, butto bring
them more directly under the power of the law. Public
executions so fir lrom having a moral effect tended to
demoralise society, and the uncertainty of the punishment
prevented that sa:utary dread which it was the abject of
all punishment to establish. He referred to the exertions
of Sir S. Rsmilly, Sir J. Macintosh, Sir R. Peel, and his
hon. friend Mr. pwart, to humanise our criminal code,
and urged the house and the Government to take the re-
m lining step in the same direction, by abolishing the ex-
treme punishment in cases of murder. At all events, he
contended that it was a proper subject of inquiry, whe-
ther its retention had !sad the effect that was expected.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND had not the presumption to
endeavour to correct public opinion, or to suppose, wit's
the advocates of this motion, that until the year 1856
men never knew how togovern mankind—and seeing that
in all past ages, and in all countries, the punishment of
death had prevailed for great offences, it did appear to
him to be monstrous presumption in any man, or any
body of men, now to stand up and condemn all who lad
gone before them. The proposition was for a select c
mittee to inquire Lite the operation of the law imposing
the punishment of death. Now he should have thought
the operation of that law was simple enough. (Hear.)
The operation of the punishment of death was simple
enough, but if they would not let that punishment
act, that was, of course, a different matter. The hon.
gentleman objected to the introduction of the theo-
logical argumeut, but at the same time he talked of the
precepts, and practices, and spirit of the Gospel. He
declared that the infliction of the nunishment of death
was contrary to the spirit of the Christian religion, at
the same time that he appealed to the house to cast aside
the religious part of the question. ("No, no," from Mr.
Swart.) Taken on the religious ground, the sentence
was as plain as words could make it—" He that abed-
deth man's blood, by man shall his blood he shed."
(Cheers.) It was absurd to say that the Bible was the
religion of Protestants when they attempted to set aside
plain words that could not be controverted. (Hear,
bear.) It might be said that this was a Jewish text—
that it was not Christian—bat he remembered reading of
a man, esninent in the Christian church, who struck a
man with death for merely telling a lie—and who was so
hardened that when the man's wife came directly after
and repea'ed the lie, he struck her with death also.
(Hear, hear.) What would Exeter Bail say now if a
bishop of the church were to strike a man dead for
such a crime ? (Hear, hear.) But the hon. gentleman
called upon them to abolish the punishment of death
on the ground of its uncertainty. Now, what punishment
could be more certain than that of death he could not
conceive. But he supposed the hon. gentleman meant
that the punihmeat was not always carried into effect,
and therefore he proposed to establish for it perpetual
imprisonment. But was there any reason for supposing
that that would be carried into effect with more certainty
than the other? Those who advocated the abolition of the
extreme penalty alleged that public opinien was against
it—that juries would not convict for murder because the
punishment of death would f )Ilow. What was this but to
encourage juries to perjure themselves? This was their
religion, and now they would go on, and by putting an
end to the punishment of death altogether, promote civi-
lisation by encouraging the practice of the art of poison-
ing. What he objected to in reference to the present
s.t.ate of the law was that it subjected the Secretary of
State toconstant importunities,the moment a criminal was
condemned, for a remission of his sentence. Many years
7,e eigacriewhen Sir F. Buxton lived, he remembered that he
head t 7 ever met him but he had some scheme in his
condel!eedt tcefftsome scoundrel or other who had been
hanged. I one ase he d
he (Mr. Drummond
th asked n Sir F. Buxton,remem who was
, toe late Sir R. Peel, who was then
Secretary of State
whether he had
any
dourbestpite a condemned prisoner,
not the least" was the rvl of
the
man's guilt. "Oh
why
d interfere?"
be asked. Tire anti iver wadi '7ITI!
deavour to save the man's life."
ith
omwy
itu t;to tod en-
e
any man's duty to save a criminal from the punishment
duo to his crimes he (Mr. Drumna,,,,p
) cou,u not under-
stand. (Hear, hear.) Some time atter he met Sat F.
Buxton at Rome, trying to do the same thing with the
Pope, but he dpubted wbether his efforts With the
bead of the Catholic Church to persuade him that the
infliction of the punishment of death was anti-Christian
were very successful. When the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Walpole) was Secretary of St to for the lloune
Department a man committed a-murder in his (Mr. Drum.
mond's) park. He was convicted and sentenced to
death. A number of clergymen and gentlemen got up a
memorial to save the may, and asked hies (sfr. Drum-
mond) to present it to the Home Secretary. He asked if
the judge who tried the ease had been consulted ; the

answer was yes, but he took the same view that he (Mr. Drummond) did. He consequently refused, and after-
wards his right hon, friend t4anked him for having been
the means of saving him &bin most annoying inaportu-