LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 20 February 1868)

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for carrying out Capital Punishment within Prisons, said, it was not necessary to make any lengthened statement; but that he ought to apologize to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) for taking out of his hands a subject with which on former occasions that hon. Gentleman had dealt with great credit to himself. There was no doubt the hon. Gentleman would not resent the intrusion, but give his support to the Bill, which was just the same as that introduced last year. He might perhaps say with reference to the subject adverted to by the hon. Member opposite who had sat on the Commission, that he was as anxious as the hon. Member himself, to legislate on the law of murder; but the greatest difficulty had arisen amongst lawyers as to what was a sufficient definition in order to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; therefore he had confined himself at present to bringing in a Bill which had hitherto not been fully discussed, but probably it would be better to take the discussion on the second reading. As the Bill had been printed before, in the same form, he trusted the House would allow it to be introduced.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he thought that Commissions on Capital Punishment had raised questions of great importance, and he feared these Commissions were likely to supersede the action of the House. This was a matter on which mankind at large had an instinctive feeling, and he thought they should take heed that in carrying out capital punishment in a private manner they did not suggest to criminals the way in which to commit crimes.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he begged to thank his right hon. Friend for again bringing forward this Bill, and he hoped he would press for a second reading at an early day. He did not think it was at all necessary that the Bill should be discussed at this stage. The Bill had been before the country for the last two years, and had recently been discussed in the House of Lords, when it was passed by a large majority. He had met with no opinion in the country against the Bill; therefore, he hoped discussion would be postponed to the second reading.

§ MR. BAZLEY
said, that he had given notice last Session, that when this Bill was brought forward he should move that it be read that day six months, and he was still of the same opinion with respect to the Bill. There were some philanthropists whom no experience could alter; but he thought, after the past year and the executions at Manchester, some change might have taken place in their opinions. This would not be the place to enter into the opinion of the House of Lords; but if it were, he thought he could deal with it. It was a most serious matter that a Government should take up a Bill of this kind, and he begged to give notice that when it was brought forward for a second reading, he would move that it be read that day six months.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
gave notice that when the Bill came on for a second reading he should renew his Motion that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. MITFORD
joined with the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) in the hope that his right hon. Friend would lose no time in asking the House to agree to the second reading.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he had a very strong objection to the principle of this Bill, because it was a very serious thing to enact a law by which private death should under any circumstances be inflicted. If this extreme punishment were inflicted at all, it should be in the face of the sun and in the eye of the people. He was aware of the inconveniences which arose from public executions; but still they were better than having them in private. His own opinion was that it was impolitic to administer the punishment of death at all, but so long as it was administered it should be in public.