The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-02 00:00:00

BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, on rising to move the
second reading of this bill, said that he would ask of thoir

lordships to give the bill their most serious attention, as
the subject had excited the greatest attention in Parlia-
ment from its importance, and had been frequently de-
scribed in both houses. Mr. Ewart, in 1864, moved
for the appointment of a committee to inquire into
the subject, but his right honourable friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department promised that
if the committee were not proposed for, he should move that
a commission be appointed. That commission was issued,
and was composed of distinguished noblemen and gentlemen.
The inquiry was directed to two points, namely, whether
the punishment by death should bo retained, and, if so,
in what manner it should be carried out, and a great deal
of information was acquired bearing on the subject
with reference to foreign countries. The committee
consisted of twelve members, four of whom were
in favour of the abolition of capital punishment,
but the remainder were in favour of its retention in case
of murder. If their lordships came to the conclusion that
capital punishment acted as the strongest deterrent to the
commission of crime, then it followed that it should be re-
tained for the crime of murder. He considered that capital
punishment did act as a deterrent to crime, and he
was also of opinion that the infliction of capital punish-
ment was most desirable, as it was calculated to prevent
persons committing murder, at which they would not hesi-
tate if that punishment were abolished, because criminals
would naturally desire to destroy the principal testimony
that could bo adduced against the other crimes, as dead
men told no tales. He referred to Tuscany, where
capital punishment had been abolished under peculiar
circumstances, but it was a fact that crime had increased,
but in Franco no less than 25 executions took place
during the last year. The commission divided
the crime of murder into two classes. In the
first degree they considered that where murder, with
express malice and aforethought was proved, capital
punishment should bo retained. The second de-
gree excluded malice and aforethought, and in
these cases the commissioners recommended the
substitution of penal servitude at the discretion of the
judge before whom the case had been tried. He said that
ho proposed to introduce amendments into the bill.
The commission also recommend penal servitude instead
of death in cases of infanticide in certain cases.
The Earl of MALMESBITRY had doubts as to the
policy of private executions. He considered that a public
and infamous death was highly calculated to have a deter-
rent influence on any one inclined to heinous crimes.
The Bishop of OXFORD thought that private execu-
tions were regarded with greater horror and dread by the
criminal classes than public ones.
Lord ROMILLY expressed himself in favour of the
entire abolition of capital punishment.
Lord REDESDALE objected to the classification of
murder, and urged the absolute necessity of preserving the
punishment of death intact.
After some further discussion the bill was read a second
time.:

The Qualification for Offices Abolition' Bill passel
through committee, together with the Salmon Fisheries
(Scotland) Bill.
Tho Sale of Lands by Auction Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill and the Local
Government Supplemental Bill were read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills wer• read a third time and passed:—
Holyhead Water, and Neath and Brecon Railway
(Capital).

WORCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,

Sir J. PAKINGTON opposed the motion because it
would prejudicially affect several of his constituents. It
was proposed to convert the canal into a railway, at least
so it was supposed, but in the event of a promise being
given that such was not the case; he should not persevere
with his motion. He should move that the bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Mr. PRICE seconded the amendment.

Mr. BROMLEY, on the part of the promoters, said
they had already given an undertaking that the canal
should rot be converted into a railway, and they were
quite willing that the tolls should be modified.
After a short discussion, Mr. DODSON thought after
the intimation that had been given on the part of the
promoters, the second reading of the bill might be post-
poned in order to see that the alterations proposed would
meet the views of those who opposed it.
The suggestion was agreed to, and the further proceed-
ing with the bill was postponed for a fortnight.