The Sun. — 1866-05-02 (London, England)

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 Parliament from its importance, and had been frequently described 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 retained 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 punishment was most desirable, as it was calculated to prevent persons committing murder, at which they would not hesitate 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 degree 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 deterrent influence on any one inclined to heinous crimes. The Bishop of OXFORD thought that private executions 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.