Commons Sitting of 27 May 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Marsland, from Stockport, praying for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, from the Radical Club of Reading, complaining of the harsh treatment inflicted upon Mr. Henry Vincent.—By Mr. O'Connell, from various places, against Lord Stanley's Registration Bill—By Colonel Salwey, from Monmouth, for a reduction of the Duty upon Sugar; and from Egham, against Church Extension.—By Mr. Brotherton, from various places, against the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Sergeant Jackson, from Wicklow, against the system of National Education in Ireland.—By Sir R. Peel, from Troubridge, against the Rating of Stock in Trade; and from the Presbytery of Angus, against the Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Ecclesiastical matters.—By Mr. B. Smith, from Norwich, against the Constabulary Bill.—By Mr. Finch, from a Dissenting Congregation in Walsal, against Church-rates; and from various other places, against the Copyright Bill.—By Sir J. Duke, Mr. Hume, Mr. Wakley, Colonel 6. Langton, and others, from Boston, Brentford, Blackburne, Bath, and other places, against Church Extension.

IMPRISONMENT OF MR.F.O'CONNOR.
Mr. T. S. Duncombepresented a petition from a large meeting held in Bridworth, in Yorkshire, in which the petitioners stated that Mr. F. O'Connor had been sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in York Gaol, on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. The petitioners stated, that Mr. O'Connor was subjected there to the same treatment as burglars, felons, and reputed murderers. They
648
stated that he is obliged to lie on an iron bed, without any sheets to cover him, or a pillow to repose on. That he is obliged to undergo many menial offices, such as cleansing his own utensils—that he is not allowed to receive any visitors, and that while suffering severely from rheumatism, he had not even the luxury of a wooden seat, but was obliged to sit on a cold stone. The petitioners believed that this harsh treatment would tend to destroy his life, and they also stated, as their belief, that this was almost the first instance of a person convicted of a political libel being so severely dealt with. They stated, that when Sir F. Burdett was imprisoned for a like offence, he was allowed to supply his own food and bed, and to receive the visits of his friends; and that Mr. Leigh Hunt, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Montgomery the poet, had had the same indulgencies while they were allowed to reside on the debtor side of the prisons. The petitioners prayed that the House might institute an inquiry into the subject—and that Mr. F. O'Connor might be removed from the felons' to the debtor's side of the prison. If any of her Majesty's Ministers were present, I should certainly ask them if this treatment were fair, or allowed by law.
Sir E. Knatchbullsuggested that the hon. Member should take the earliest opportunity of putting the question he had referred to. The case was certainly a most harsh one.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was a gross violation of the law to treat Mr. O'Connor in that way. Imprisonment did not imply torture, and really it would appear that this gentleman had been subjected to the greatest torture. He thought the hon. Member ought to take some further step.
Sir E. Knatchbullhoped as soon as the matter was stated to the Government that they would interfere and prevent the necessity of Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdhad seen the Marquess of Normanby on the subject that day, and be understood that some steps would be taken, but he believed that nothing short of removing Mr. O'Connor from the prison would effect the object.
Petition laid on the table.

TREATMENT OF MR. O'CONNOR.
Lord John Russellhaving subsequently moved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Juvenile Offenders' Bill,
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, as it regarded

649
prison discipline, he begged to put a question to the Under-Secretary of the Home Department as to the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, which had been fully detailed in the petition which he had presented this evening. This was the first case in which a person convicted of a seditious libel had been treated with all the ignominious punishment of felons. It was treatment which had never been experienced by such persons even in the worst days of Toryism —even in the days of Pitt and Castlereagh. Why had not Sir Francis Burdett been so treated, or Mr. Edmunds, or, to come to later times, why had not Sir John Hobhouse been so treated when he was convicted of a libel? The question he wished to ask was this— whether the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor was under any orders from the Government, and if not, whether it would be discontinued?
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, he was glad the question had been asked, for an erroneous impression had gone abroad that Mr. O'Connor was so treated by direction of the Government. Now, he begged distinctly to state, that the Government had issued no orders whatever as to the manner in which the sentence should be carried into effect. If there had been any additional severity in the treatment of persons lately convicted of libels, it arose from the provisions of the act for regulating prison discipline. Orders had, however, been sent by the Secretary of State to the governor of York Castle, directing certain relaxations, but to that communication no answer had as yet been received.
Mr. Warburtonbelieved that the treatment which political offenders at present underwent was owing to the state of the law upon the subject. A bill had been brought into that House several months ago for the purpose of changing that law. Which, however, had not yet passed the House of Lords; and he should say, that he did not feel that her Majesty's Ministers had shown that attention to the subject which it merited. It was his opinion, that under the existing state of that law, the Government could not interfere in the treatment to which political offenders might be subjected; but they had the power of removing them from one gaol to another, in which there might be a less severe discipline. He would ask, why her Majesty's Government should refuse to avail themselves of this power? At any
650
rate, why did they not take means to pass the bill, which had already received the sanction of that House, in order that new regulations might be adopted for the purpose of mitigating the present severity of the law? While on his legs, he would allude to the treatment Lovett and Collins had been subjected to. When that subject was brought before the House, there was a uniform expression of opinion, including the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, that as those parties had under the existing regulations been subjected to more severe discipline than it was imagined political libellers could be subjected to under the existing law, the parties should be released from the remainder of the term (three months) they having been imprisoned nine months. The course her Majesty's Government took was, after the expiration of another month, to send down an order for the release of these two prisoners, if they would enter into recognizances for good behaviour for a period of twelve months after the expiration of the term of imprisonment to which they had been sentenced. Ho considered that was an illegal demand on the part of the Government, and the parties of course rejected it. He hoped her Majesty's Government would take means to expedite the passing of that bill, in order that her Majesty's Justices of the Peace and the Government together might be enabled to frame such regulations for the treatment of that class of offenders as would be more in accordance with former practice.
Mr. Humesaid, they now understood from the Under-Secretary that the treatment Mr. O'Connor received was owing to prison discipline. He wished to ask whether two days before the removal of Mr. O'Connor certificates had not been sent to the Government from two eminent medical men, stating that he were removed to York Castle and so treated his life would be endangered, and whether these certificates had not been utterly neglected? It seemed to him that the Government exhibited a cool indifference and an utter disregard of the feelings of the community, and he could assure them that they were estranging those who were anxious to be their friends. He hoped some explanation of the matter would be given.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, two questions had been put to him—the one by the hon.

651
Member for Kilkenny, and the other by the hon. Member for Bridport. He should first answer the question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, with reference to Mr. O'Connor. It was perfectly true that the Government had received the medical certificates to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that those certificates set forth that Mr. O'Connor was not then in a fit state of health to be removed. Those certificates had at once received attention, and Mr. O'Connor's removal was inconsequence delayed. At a subsequent period Mr. O'Connor was placed in the custody of the marshal of the Queen's Bench prison, who was a responsible officer, and who had the power to decide whether that gentleman's health was in such a state as to admit of his removal to York. The result was, that the marshal sanctioned the removal of Mr. O'Connor from London to York, and had given the Government to understand that there was, in his opinion, no good ground on the score of ill health to render it necessary to delay his removal for a longer period. As to Messrs. Lovett and Collins, their case had been fully brought under the consideration of the House by the hon. Member for Bridport, when the Prisons' Bill was under discussion. On that occasion he had admitted, and he still adhered to his admission, that he thought the punishment which those persons had received was more severe than there had been reason to anticipate it would be when they were first confined. He had also borne his testimony to the exemplary manner in which those persons had endured their punishment, and he had given his sanction and support to the alterations which had been proposed in the Prisons' Bill, which gave the Secretary of State the power of allowing the visiting justices to frame such rules as they might deem necessary to meet the case of this class of offenders. It was said that that bill had been unnecessarily delayed, but such was not the case, for it had only left that House on Thursday last, and he could assure the hon. Member for Bridport, that there was every disposition on the part of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department to forward that measure as fast as possible. His noble Friend shortly after Easter had recommended the remission of the remainder of the sentence which had been passed on Messrs. Lovett
652
and Collins, and he had done so on the condition that they should enter into their own recognizances to the amount of 50 l. He was not aware that there was anything illegal or unusual in that condition, nor did he think that it was an unwise precaution. There certainly were precedents for such a condition, and it had appeared to his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, that it was a fair course to require those persons to enter into their own recognizances when they were to receive a remission of a portion of their punishment.
Mr. Briscoewas very much surprised to hear that the regulations of York Castle compelled persons imprisoned for political offences to associate with felons. He trusted that such regulations would be speedily put an end to, because such a mode of treatment, instead of acting as a punishment, would excite the indignation of the country.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there was this view of the question which he wished to submit to the House. It was the duty of the judge to apportion the punishment to the crime, and he was the responsible person. Now they took away that power entirely from the judge, if by these prison regulations they left it in the hands of other parties to say whether the imprisonment should be mere restraint or actual torture; the judge was no longer the responsible party in such a case. He merely gave the duration of the punishment, and it was for the visiting justices to say whether the imprisonment was to be insufferable or not. He remembered hearing the Member for Southampton stating, that his experience of prison discipline was, that any man who came out of the prisons of England after two years' imprisonment had his health materially impaired and his life considerably shortened. At that time he really thought the hon. Member was mistaken, but he now believed that it was perfectly just. They had taken the punishment out of the hands of the judges and lodged it in that of the visiting justices. He did not know that it would be much better if left in the hands of the Government. It should be laid down and defined by the law so that the judges should in open court award the punishment due to any offence, and if the punishment were cruel it should be awarded before the bar and the country. There could be nothing so hideous as that treat-

653
ment awarded to Mr. O'Connor. It was not in consequence of any approbation of the conduct which placed Mr. O'Connor in prison that he spoke, but comparing that gentleman's treatment with the manner in which Sir F. Burdett had been treated, he could not help raising his voice against the injustice. That was a subject which could not rest—the nature of punishments must be defined, so that in awarding them the judge should do so in the words of the law.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had pointed out the real evil of the present system, which was the variable nature of the punishment, it being different, according to the different localities where it was enforced. There was a constantly shifting responsibility: even in the conveyance of Mr. F. O'Connor to York Castle, he was not conveyed under the authority of the Government or the Judge, but under that of the Marshal of the prison in which he happened to be. The Home Office did not consider itself responsible, nor could the visiting magistrates alter the rules by their own power. It was scarcely credible that a gentleman condemned for a political offence—a gentleman of acute feeling—one who had lately been a member of that House— should have been condemned to perform the most menial offices. That must have been far more wounding to Mr. O'Connor's feelings than anything which he could conceive. He hoped that the expression of opinion on this subject which had taken place—participated in, as he was sure it had been, by gentlemen opposite—would have its effect, and that the bill would speedily be passed for establishing a simple and plain remedy, which at least might prevent such cases for the future.
Sir George Stricklandthought it was not fair to throw on her Majesty's Government the responsibility of a transaction which rested entirely with the Judges, and the visiting magistrates. The magistrates were, he was convinced, men of honour; many of them he personally knew to be men of humanity also, but in this instance they certainly had made a great mistake—arising, perhaps, from their excessive zeal to carry out their new regulations. It was right, however, that a public investigation should take place, and he hoped that when the magistrates heard what had passed on the subject, they would, find an immediate remedy.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, it did certainly appear to him objectionable, that persons convicted of the same offence should be treated differently. It could not, however, be expected that the Judge should be able to sentence with any equality or uniformity, when the prison discipline varied in different counties. This showed the necessity of establishing some uniform system of prison discipline throughout the country. Mr. O'Connor had been made to perform offices which he ought not to have been called upon to perform, and which to a person in his situation of life would be extremely irksome and injurious. He thought the punishment of this individual had been far more severe than he ought to have received.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that in the medical certificates which had been first forwarded in regard to Mr. O'Connor, it was stated that he was suffering from inflamation of the lungs, and that he could not in consequence appear before the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. O'Connor's health was so bad that he could not appear without danger before the court, and yet on the day after he had received his sentence, and after the exertions which he had made in his defence, he was removed under the authority of the marshal of the Queen's Bench Prison, and placed in York Castle in a cold cell, where there was only a stone to sit upon. Now suppose the inflamation under such treatment had returned, and that life had been destroyed, who would have been responsible for that loss of life. Would not the Government have been held guilty? If an inquest had been held upon the body, and if the jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter or of murder—and he had no doubt that the one or the other verdict would have been returned—against whom he would ask, would that verdict have been given? He hoped this case would be a warning to hon. Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House, who had last year voted in a body in favour of all the restrictive clauses of the Prisons, Bill, while hon. Gentlemen opposite had voted in a body against them. For himself, he thought they ought to have a full report as to the state of the prisoners in York Castle, and they would then see who the persons were who were to blame for the severity which had been practised; they would then see whether the blame

655
rested with the Government or not. He contended that a bill ought at once to be brought in to place the different prisons in the hands of the Government, for he must say, that the visiting justices were not the persons to whom they ought to be intrusted. The justices of the peace were not responsible to any one; but if a Minister of the Crown mis-conducted himself, he could be questioned as to his proceedings in that House. He trusted they would in a short time hear from the Government, that in the case of Mr. O'Connor such a relaxation in the mode of his treatment had taken place as justice and common humanity required.
Mr. Aglionbyfelt some degree of hesitation in bringing the subject forward until the rules and regulations of York Castle were laid before the House. He begged to suggest to the noble Lord, that when those rules were laid on the Table, there should also be a return setting forth whether any, and what relaxation had taken place in respect to Mr. O'Connor; for the House and the public had a right to know if that Gentleman was still kept in the department of the felons, and was subjected to the same degrading severities with that class of criminals. Mr. O'Connor's offence had been similar to that of Mr. Stephens. Why should their punishments differ, merely because they had gone to different prisons?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, no individual in the country would more deeply regret than himself that the statements as to Mr. O'Connor's treatment should be found correct. He had felt it his duty to prosecute Mr. O'Connor for libels which he considered highly dangerous to the peace of society. If these statements were correct, certainly Mr. O'Connor had been treated with a severity not contemplated by the Judge. But he believed it would be found that the law did not justify this treatment, because the law made that distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, which the complaint was, had been overlooked in this case.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdwished to state, that on Mr. O'Connor's arrival at York Castle, he wrote a letter to him (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd), informing him that the gaoler had stated he would be treated as a felon, except that he might wear his own clothes. He returned an answer, that this statement was too vague for him to act
656
upon, and that he must have some more specific allegations. Mr. O'Connor then sent a long account, in the shape of a petition; which, though rather informal, contained statements undoubtedly very powerful; and he thereupon had waited on the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department on the subject, in the presence of the Attorney-general, who yielded not even to the hon. Member for Cockermouth, who also was present, in a strong feeling that such treatment ought not to be persevered in. That feeling was shared by the noble Marquess, who, not till then, had received full information of the case—and immediate steps had been taken to afford redress, which, however, should all the statements of Mr. O'Connor be found correct (and he believed they would be found mainly so, for they were written in a most fair and candid spirit), he much feared would not completely be afforded to Mr. O'Connor, unless it was by doing that which certainly the Government had the power of doing, removing Mr. O'Connor either to the debtor side of York Gaol, or to some other prison, as in Mr. Vincent's case, who had been removed from Monmouth Gaol to the Penitentiary. He would just add, that the statements of Mr. O'Connor cast no blame on the prison authorities, who, he admitted, had only acted under the regulations which were established, and also spoke highly of the surgeon of the gaol.
Order of the day read,

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
Sir Eardley Wilmot Sir Eardley Wilmot moved, that the House should then resolve itself into a Committee on the Juvenile Offenders' Bill.
General Johnsonwas opposed to the principle of the measure, and he moved, that the House should go into Committee on the bill on that day six months.
Sir G. Stricklandthought that the bill would sanction great severity towards children. It would also strike a fatal blow at the trial by jury, and take it away in those cases where it was most wanted. He also objected to the punishment of whipping, as it was not stated how long, or with what instrument, or at whose discretion, it was to be inflicted. He therefore felt it his duty to second the amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.
Sir E. Wilmotsaid, that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in his opinion as to the severity of the bill, and his objections

657
could only apply to the details, and not to the principle of the measure. The House had already decided that the bill was an improvement on the former system, inasmuch as it gave a summary jurisdiction in certain cases to the magistrates. The object of this bill was simply to provide for the time between commitment and trial, in order that boys of eleven or twelve years of age, when brought up for some petty offence, might have a chance of being reclaimed. It was true that the bill said they were to be sent to a common gaol, but unless they were subjected to such imprisonment, magistrates had no power over them at all. As to the private whipping, that might be dispensed with. His object was, to stop a boy of fourteen years of age from being sent to gaol, to be ruined for life. Let him have a tribunal by which he could save him from that degradation. It was only three weeks since, that a boy had been convicted, in order that the judge might have the power of sending him to the Penitentiary.
Mr. J. Jerviswould support the motion for going into committee, though he objected to the principles of the bill; and he did not see how any alteration could make it meet his views. These offenders would be tried in the absence of the public, in the absence of the press, and in the absence of the salutary check of the bar. There would, in fact, be nothing but hole-and-corner decisions. These circumstances, of themselves were sufficient to induce him to oppose the bill.
Mr. Barnebysaid, that no one could be more opposed to the principle of the bill than he was, but he thought it would be unfair to the promoter of the bill, after the House had decided in favour of the principle of it, to refuse to allow it to go into Committee.
Colonel Woodthought it would be a mere waste of time to go into Committee upon a bill, to the whole of the clauses of which every hon. Member who had spoken, had expressed himself opposed.
Sir E. Sugdensaid he should vote against the committee. The object of the hon. Baronet seemed to be, to provide for the punishment of young offenders, and also to provide, after their conviction, for their improvement and reform; so far he was disposed to support the measure; but he must object to that part of the plan which placed the extent of the im-
658
prisonment of the culprit, or his punishment in other respects, within the breast, not of the judges and the jury who had tried the criminal, but in that of the magistrates, who were not cognizant of the merits of the case. The effect of the second clause was to throw upon the counties that expense to which they were not prepared to submit. To the first clause he should offer his opposition if they went into the committee upon the bill, and if that clause were defeated upon a division, he confessed he should be of opinion there was an end to the whole bill.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, the principle of the bill was, in his opinion, unobjectionable. He should, however, feel disposed to improve its various details. The object of the whole appeared to him to be the reconciliation of our different enactments upon the subject of felony by juvenile offenders. The principle of the act was, that when a child should be accused of felony, he should not be compelled to hold up his hand to the bar upon being arraigned, after the manner of a felon, and that the usual jury on such occasions should not be charged with his deliverance, but that his case should be subjected to a domestic tribunal, especially entitled to take cognizance of the offence. The more plausible objections to this bill and its principle were, that it had a positive tendency to abolish that birth-right of Britons—the trial by jury. There was not within those walls an individual, nor out of the profession, who had all along entertained a higher respect for the institution of trial by jury, but he would remind the House, that already the Legislature had departed from that principle in all its strictness; and had sanctioned, in cases of misdemeanor, the adjudication of the case by the magistracy at the sessions. The House ought to be informed of the glaring anomaly that subsisted in our enactments upon the subject of theft. As the law stood, if a boy stole apples from off the tree, it was merely a case of trespass; whereas, strange as it might appear, if he took the apples up from the ground within the orchard, the offence amounted to felony. Such a a state of the law was totally irreconcileable to common sense and sound reason, and calculated to bring its authority into disgrace. What he wished upon this subject was, to see adopted some summary

659
but prudent mode of dealing with cases of juvenile offence. Why should a child, seeing apples upon the ground, and being induced to take them up, as shed from the tree, be compelled to go through the form of a trial, and hold up his hands with felons in the dock, upon being arraigned for a crime of such a description? Why not prefer the summary mode of punishing such trivial offences, under proper regulation, by a domestic tribunal. He could not see why the jurisdiction of such cases could not be safely intrusted to two justices at sessions. It was a painful reflection to think that, under the forms of law at this day, a child should be committed for ten or twelve weeks to a gaol, there to keep company with the lowest felons, to become schooled in vice, to be tried with them at the same bar, and, possibly, be condemned to expiate their trifling and inconsiderate offences by a period of incarceration with experienced villains, who took pains to instruct them in all the arts which might render them expert common thieves. He hoped the bill might secure the country from the growing evil of juvenile vice and youthful profligacy. So far it should, as respected its principle, have his cordial support, though he confessed there were in the bill deformities and defects which he should assist in attempting to remedy, if the House agreed to commit the bill.
Mr. Peasesaid, if the House were to suffer itself to be diverted from the serious consideration of the subject embodied in the bill before the House, they would ere long have reason to regret their imprudence. For his part he must acknowledge he felt a deep sense of gratitude to the hon. Baronet for the introduction of the bill under discussion.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, the state of the law of England was such, that the merest child was liable to all the tedious forms of imprisonment, commitment, and trial, for stealing a few peats from a peat stack. Such a state of the law was a disgrace to the jurisdiction of the country.
Mr. Benettobjected to that part of the bill before the House, which rendered it necessary that hereafter no petty sessions of the peace should be held for any purpose whatever within the walls of a public or of a private house. The bill would entail, in this respect, great expense upon the several counties, inasmuch as all such petty sessions must be held, even for the
660
trial of juvenile offences, or other matters, in sessions houses erected at the expense of the several counties.
The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 35; Noes 22; Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Adm. Sir C.

Marsland, H.

Aglionby, Major

Maule, hon. F.

Baines, E.

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

Packe, C. W.

Brotherton, J.

Palmer G.

Buller, E.

Pease, J.

Busfield, W.

Pendarves, E.W.W.

Campbell, Sir J

Rolleston, L.

Collier, J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Scrope, G. P.

Finch, F.

Stansfield, W.R.C.

Freshfield, J. W.

Verney, Sir H.

Handley, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodgson, R.

Warburton, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Wood, B.

Irving, J.

Yates, J. A.

Jackson, Sergeant

TELLERS.

Lambton, H.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Aglionby, H. A.

List of the NOES.

Benett, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Bridgeman, H.

Pryme, G.

Buck, L. W.

Salwey, Colonel

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Somerset, rt. hn Lord G.

Fielden, J.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Greenaway, C.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Williams, W.

Henniker, Lord

Wodehouse, E.

Lister, E. C.

Wood, Colonel

Litton, E.

Parker, R. T.

TELLERS.

Patten, J. W.

Johnson, General

Pechell, Captain

Strickland, Sir G.

House in Committee on the first clause.
Mr. Pryme Mr. Pryme moved after the words "hear and try," be added, "so that all juvenile offenders should be tried before a jury of six persons."
Mr. F. Maulesaid, such an amendment as that would do away with the principle of the bill; he could not support it.
Mr. Darbywas opposed to the bill, but he was more opposed to reducing juries, and he could not attempt to defeat the bill by a side wind. He must oppose the amendment.
Sir G. Stricklandwas opposed to the reduction of the juries—he was a Conservative so far—but he would prefer a trial by six jurymen to no trial at all.
Mr. Wakleythought the words "in open court," ought to be added, because he decidedly objected to these decisions and convictions being had in private.
Sir Eardley Wilmotwas sure the hon.

661
Member had never attended courts of justice, or he would not make such a suggestion. It was never intended that these decisions should take place in private.
Sir George Stricklandhad frequently seen persons turned out of court, and as the law was not defined on that point, he thought it would be advisable to insert these words.
Sir Edward Sugdenthought the suggestion of the hon. Member was calculated very much to embarrass the question. With respect to the amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge, he certainly should object to a small jury of six—the law provided that they should either have a jury of twelve, or reject the jury altogether. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.
The committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 6; Noes 29; Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Butler, hon. Col.

Williams, W.

Fielden, J.

Johnson, General

TELLERS.

Vigors, N.A.

Pryme, G.

Wakley, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Packe, C. W.

Aglionby, Major

Parker, R. T.

Baines, E.

Patten, J. W.

Bewes, T.

Pease, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Richards, R.

Brotherton, J.

Rolleston, L.

Buck, L. W.

Rundle, J.

Busfield, W.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Darby, G.

Warburton, H.

Handley, H.

Wodehouse, E.

Henniker, Lord

Wood, Colonel

Hughes, W. B.

Wood, B.

Lister, E. C.

Yates, J. A.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Marsland, T.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Maule, hon. F.

Buller, E.

House subsequently counted out.