Commons Sitting of 5 March 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—The Marquess of Lorne, for Argyleshire.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Fairs (Ireland); Metropolis Gas.*
First Reading—Fairs (Ireland) [48]; Metropolis Gas* [49].
Second Reading—Capital Punishment within Prisons [36]; Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [27]; Sea Fisheries* [42]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [43]; Judgments Extension* [34]; Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [31].
Committee—Public Schools* [24]; Railways (Extension of Time)* [39].
Report—Public Schools* [24–47]; Railways (Extension of Time)* [39].
Withdrawn—Railway and Gas Shares* [23].

METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.

  (By Order) SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HARVEY LEWIS, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said that, as the proposal, very seriously affected the interests of the metropolis, he hoped the House would consider very carefully before deciding to refer it to a Committee in its then form. He thought that if it were considered desirable to make any number of tramways in the metropolis, the direct and proper course would be to refer the whole question to a Committee, in order to have the metropolis mapped out, and to have it decided where tramways should be placed and where they should not. At present the streets of London were too narrow, and if half of the present width were to be occupied by a tramway, those streets would many of them be made absolutely impassable. The Bill was what may be described as a fishing Bill. It had no real company at the back of it, but was in the hands of persons who would, no doubt, be able to make money of it when passed. The article of association stated that the Company was the Metropolitan Tramways Company (Limited), and that the registered offices of the Company would be "situated in England." Yet this was a company which proposed to take power to break up twenty-six miles of streets in London. The Company was stated to have a capital of £450,000, but who were the proprietors? One of them—a very respectable man, no doubt—described himself, or was described
  1110
  as a financial agent; the next wag also a financial agent; the third was a well-known bookseller in Parliament Street, who is down for one share; then there was a "merchant," a "shipbroker," and an "auctioneer's clerk," from Camberwell, who holds one share. He would now call attention to some of the clauses. The Company proposed to take power to make iron tramways without asking the consent of the authorities of the parishes through which they would run, and there were other clauses of an equally extraordinary and objectionable character. This was not the first time either that this proposition had been before the House. The Bill further proposed to take powers to break up the roads in all places where such a course was necessary, in order to the laying down of the tramways, a proceeding which would entail an enormous expense upon the ratepayers; and, in addition, it was proposed to give power to take up pipes in streets and to break into drains. The company did not wish to purchase land for their tramways—they wanted to take the open streets, and create for themselves a monopoly within them. When the proposition, or one very similar to it, was made before, in 1858 and 1861, Lord Llanover (then Sir Benjamin Hall) proposed, on the Order for the second reading, that the Bill be a second time that day six months, on the ground that it would be very detrimental to the public government of the metropolis. The Bill was on that occasion thrown out. On the subsequent occasion, in 1861, a similar fate befel the measure, Mr. Massey, the then Chairman of Committee, opposing it strongly, on the ground that it ought to have been introduced as a public, instead of as a Private Bill. That objection, apposite then, was much more apposite now that the Bill proposed to affect very materially the public interests of the metropolis. He therefore hoped, for these and other reasons, that the House would consider well before consenting to hand over the metropolis to the auctioneer's clerk and his influential companions.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months:"—(Mr. Harvey Lewis.)
  MR. SEELYsupported the second reading of the Bill. It was proposed to lay down tramways—with double and single lines—in the metropolis, but the rails were to be flush with the streets, and the flanges

  1111
  of the car wheels would run in a groove; not more than three-quarters of an inch wide from about a quarter to half an inch deep, so that vehicles could pass along or even over them. So far from doing any injury to the ratepayers the company would do them considerable benefit, because the company would be bound to make good the roads which they took up, and to keep them in repair for a width, in the case of double lines, of sixteen feet, and in the case of single lines of seven feet six inches. The Bill could go before the ordinary Select Committee, and the objections to it, which were mere questions of detail, could be discussed better there than in the Honse. The benefits which these tramways would give to the metropolis would be very considerable. The tramway cars would carry twice the number of passengers carried by omnibuses, and would save the employment of a very large number of horses. That the metropolis did not look with very great fear or suspicion upon this Bill was shown by the fact that of the fourteen different authorities connected with the districts in which the lines were proposed to be laid, seven did not oppose the Bill in any shape, five did not oppose the preamble, but had petitioned with a view of obtaining clauses, and only two really opposed the measure. In the United States and Canada tramways were in successful operation, and there would now be as much opposition to their removal as was originally offered to their introduction. The accidents in New York, where sixty-three miles of tramway had been laid down, were considerably less, according to the testimony of the coroner, than those attending the ordinary omnibuses, and in 1866 70,000,000 passengers were thus conveyed, 5,500 horses being employed, whereas the London General Omnibus Company required 6,600 horses for the conveyance of 41,000,000 passengers. The cars were more commodious than omnibuses; to get in and out of them was easier, and they were more quickly started and stopped, while the speed was greater. In America they were used by all classes—physicians thus going to their patients, ladies to shop, and artisans to work. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow the Bill to be referred to a Committee in the ordinary way.
  MR. MELLERalso supported the second reading of the Bill, urging that although the system of tramways previously adopted in this country was dangerous, the one now proposed was a totally different thing. The
  1112
  present system, wherever established, had been most successful, and it formed a very cheap and desirable mode of conveyance.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHES, believing the present locomotion of the metropolis, as compared with other great capitals, to be the slowest, the most dangerous, and the most expensive, was of opinion that the introduction of tramways would make it cheaper, less dangerous, and more expeditious. The Bill might require alteration in Committee, but it brought the principle of tramways fairly before the House.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that he could lay before the House the result of some experience upon the subject. In the county which he had the honour to represent the tramway system had been tried, and it was found to be a perfect nuisance. That was at Darlington, a place not very thickly populated, and danger had arisen from the tramway to foot passengers, to horses, and to carriages. Of course, in a great metropolis like London, it was impossible to say to what extent the danger might go, and he trusted the House would stop the progress of a Bill fraught with so much danger to life and property.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he found it stated in a work recently published by a nobleman (the Marquess of Lorne) who had lately been returned to that House, that the result of the adoption of the system of tramways for omnibuses in New York was the frequent dislocation of the wheels of all other carriages. He also hoped the House would reject this Bill.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

INDIA—THE COMMISSION ON CURRENCY LAWS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If it is true that more than fourteen months ago a Government Commission recommended a Gold Currency for India; and, if so, whether that recommendation will be carried into effect?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that at the beginning of 1866 the Government of India issued a Commission to inquire into the operation of the present

1113
Currency Laws in that country, and especially of the paper currency, and they also added to their investigation the question whether it was desirable to introduce a gold currency into India. The Commission made their Report at the close of the same year, which contained a great many recommendations and suggestions as to the paper currency, and also a general recommendation as to the introduction of a gold currency. That Report was forwarded home by the Government of India in January last, with a statement that they would very shortly communicate their views on the subject. The Home Government had, however, never heard from them since on the matter, he therefore supposed that the subject was still under their consideration.
MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to know, whether the Report of the Commission would be laid on the table?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the Report was rather voluminous, but he would see whether it could be done.

IRELAND—POLICE BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD OTHO FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether a Circular issued to the Proprietors of Police Barracks in Ireland, calling upon them to put up certain iron fortifications upon plans enclosed, has been acceded to; and, if not, whether those Barracks are to remain in an indefensible state, or what further steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, the Government were merely tenants-at-will of nearly all the Police Barracks in Ireland. It had been found that there was a great necessity for improving and strengthening some of them, and consequently a proposal was made by the Government to the proprietors, that if they would undertake to pay the expenses of making them more commodious and defensible, the Government would pay 5 per cent upon the outlay; and further, that if the police should be removed from any of the Barracks, the proprietors should be repaid their outlay, and the Barracks remain the property of the Government. That, he considered, was a fair proposal, and he might state that several of these proprietors had availed themselves of the offer, and were proceeding to improve the Barracks. With regard to some of these Barracks, the Government proposed to take
  1114
  leases of them for terms of twenty-one years.

NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Proceedings and Report of the Admiralty Committee which, on the 5th August, 1867, he stated had been appointed to inquire into the management and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital; and, when the following Returns will be in the hands of Members:—1. Ships Sold, ordered 9th May, 1867, and presented 15th August, 1867; 2. Iron Ballast, ordered 7th May, 1867, and presented 15th August, 1867?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, he had to state that there would be no objection on the part of the Admiralty to lay on the table a Copy of the Proceedings and Report of the Greenwich Hospital Committee when they received it. Since the inquiry was instituted the scope and tendency of it had been enlarged. The Committee were now considering their Report, and he had the authority of the Chairman, the Member for North Essex, for saying that they hoped to be able to conclude their labours in about ten days or a fortnight. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the Return referred to was a most voluminous one, and had to be prepared by three different Departments of the Admiralty. Two of those Departments had done their part of the work, but that of the third, the Accountant General, was still unfinished, although many of the clerks had been obliged to work over hours to complete it; yet it was hoped that, in the space of about a week, that Return would also be in the hands of the hon. Gentleman. As to the Return relating to the Iron Ballast, when the hon. Member moved for it last year he had distinctly told him that there was no possible chance of its being in his hands till the middle or end of the Session of 1868. This Return was for all the Iron Ballast the property of the Crown, and therefore included all that was, not only in their various establishments at home and abroad, but also in the holds of all Her Majesty's Ships in commission; and he saw no reason now to qualify the statement which he had made to the hon. Mem-

  1115
  ber last year on that point, but the contrary, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would be extremely fortunate if the Return in question was in his hands before the present Session closed.

POSTAGE FROM ABYSSINIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that the Officers at Senafé are unable to procure a supply of postage-stamps, and that, in consequence, their letters to England are charged at an increased rate; and, whether the authorities will in future provide a sufficient supply, in order to the avoidance of inconvenience and expense?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the Post Office Establishment connected with the Abyssinian Expeditionary Force was a branch of the Bombay Establishment. It therefore devolved on the authorities at Bombay to provide for the proper distribution of postage-stamps to the Army. The Postmaster General, however, having heard of the inconvenience to which the hon. Gentleman referred, had given notice that the fine of double postage would no longer be enforced in the case of letters from Abyssinia. He had also ordered arrangements to be made for a better supply of postage-stamps in that country in future.

CHARGES BY THE DEAL BOATMEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having reference to the cases of the ships Kit Carson and Bazaar, as detailed in the Report made by Mr. Montague Bere and presented to this House, he intends to take any further steps; and if he thinks it will be possible to frame a Measure, to be passed into Law, which will help to protect English and Foreign Vessels from the very large and apparently exorbitant charges that are so often exacted by Deal boatmen when ships are placed in necessitous circumstances?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that it was not intended to take any further steps in the cases to which the hon. Member referred. The Kit Carson and Bazaar were both American vessels. Therefore the Board of Trade had no power over the Captain's certificate, supposing him in fault, and though some of the wit-
  1116
  nesses gave their evidence in a very discreditable way, it was doubtful whether proceedings against them for perjury would be successful. The great advantage of these inquiries was the publicity given to these disgraceful proceedings. That this had not been without fruit was shown in the case of the Olivia, where, in consequence of the exposure by the Board of Trade inquiry, the shipowner refused to pay more than £150 of the agent's claim of £628, and succeeded in defending an action for the balance on the 25th of last month, and where criminal proceedings had been instituted by Lloyd's Salvage Committee against three of the parties concerned. It was his belief that one of the principal causes of this abominable extortion which disgraced us in the eyes of foreign nations was the want of means of obtaining speedy settlement. The arbitration was a mere farce, and this enormous injustice was borne as a leas evil than the detention of the ship, or a suit in the Admiralty Court, or before the Cinque Ports Commissioners. He fully agreed with Mr. Montagu Bere that it would be very desirable that some impartial tribunal should at once, and on the spot, settle what charges should be allowed in case of goods supplied, and services rendered, and the Board of Trade was doing its best to accomplish this desirable object.

TURKEY—THE VICE-CONSUL AT CRETE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken with a view to increasing the salary of Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Canea, in consequence of the high prices of provisions in the island of Crete?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that the salary of the Vice-Consul had been advanced £20 last year, and as at present advised, he did not see any necessity for further augmenting it.

THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have to ask the House to allow me to make a few remarks in consequence of the change which has taken place in my relations to the House since I last had the honour of addressing it. The retirement of Lord Derby from the chief conduct of affairs was unexpected. Personally, as well as

  1117
  politically, devoted to him as were his Colleagues, they were unreasonable in their expectations, and shrank from realizing the immense loss they must experience from being deprived of his guidance and his services. I have no language which can describe my sense of those services, but I will not attempt for an instant to dilate on the career or character of Lord Derby. I feel that it would be a great want of propriety, both in taste and sentiment, were I to do so. I hope and believe that Lord Derby will be restored to health, and not only to health, but to enduring health; and in that case he must always exercise in this country that influence over public affairs which is the consequence of his great position and greater character. Least of all should I think it necessary to touch on that character in this House. It is our pride and boast that he lived long among us, and that this is the arena in which were disciplined that political experience and those Parliamentary accomplishments for which he is so distinguished. I might add that I am here surrounded by many who have a personal recollection of that brilliant perception and that fiery eloquence which he certainly possesses more than most of the men I have been acquainted with. If I were—which I will not—to touch on any characteristic of Lord Derby, there is one which I should notice, because it is one of the principal causes of the great grief which his late Colleagues experience at this moment, and because it is a trait in his character little known to the world, I mean his great capacity for labour. He was always the most hardworking member of his Cabinet; nor do I think that any more lucid master of details ever existed.
  On the retirement of Lord Derby Her Majesty was most graciously pleased to intrust to me the office of forming a Government. Under any circumstances, I should think no one, when such a trust has been proposed to him, would not feel that if accepted he must incur a great burden and encounter great difficulties; and though in my case there are personal and peculiar reasons which aggravate that burden and multiply those difficulties, yet I did not think that I could, with self-respect, refuse an offer of such a character. I trusted to the support of my Colleagues; I trusted to the sympathy of a generous party; and, perhaps I may be permitted to say, I trusted to receiving fair and impartial treatment
  1118
  from a House of Parliament in which I have now passed half of my existence. Under these circumstance I have presumed to undertake the office; and I am bound, in gratitude to all of those who are now my Colleagues, to express my sense of the generous manner in which they have granted me their assistance.
  In circumstances of this nature, when a new Government is formed, it is not unreasonable that the House of Commons should expect some intimation of the principles on which the new Administration is established. But I apprehend that in the present instance that desire will be limited and modified; because it is known that in succeeding to the position of Lord Derby I have succeeded to the policy which he inaugurated when, somewhat less than two years ago, he acceded to power. For twenty years I enjoyed his unbroken and unreserved confidence. Twenty years were passed by us in confidential co-operation without a cloud—absolutely without a cloud—and I must, therefore, be cognizant of his opinions and his policy on all the great questions of the day.
  With respect to the foreign policy of the present Administration, we shall follow that course which has been pursued under the guidance of my noble Friend near me (Lord Stanley), I believe I may say, with the approbation of Parliament, and, I think I may add, with the confidence of Europe. That policy is a policy of peace—not of peace at any price, not a peace sought for the mere interests of England, but a policy of peace—from the conviction that such a policy is for the general interests of the world. We do not believe that that policy is likely to be secured by a selfish isolation on the part of this country [Mr. J. STUART MILL: Hear, hear!] but, on the contrary, we believe it may be secured by sympathy with other countries, not merely in their prosperous fortunes, but even in their anxieties and troubles, If such a policy be continued, I have no doubt when the occasion may arise—and periodical occasions will arise when the influence of England is necessary to maintain the peace of the world—that influence will not be found to be inefficient, because it is founded on respect and regard.
  With reference to our domestic policy, I say at once that the present Administration will pursue a liberal policy. [Cries of "Hear!"] I mean a truly liberal policy—a policy that will not

  1119
  shrink from any changes which are required by the wants of the age we live in, while, at the same time, we will never forget that it is our happy lot to dwell in an ancient and historic country, rich in traditionary influences that are the best security for order and liberty, and which form the most valuable element of our national character and our national strength. Speaking of our domestic policy, I must express the deep mortification which this Administration feels, and the late Administration felt, that in one of the most interesting and important portions of the United Kingdom we are obliged still to maintain the suspension of the most influential security for the personal liberty of the subject; but, Sir, upon the question of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland, I will express the same opinion Lord Derby did when he was at the head of affairs. We look upon that measure not as directed against the Irish people, but as a means of protecting the Irish people from the machinations of an unprincipled foreign confederacy. And, Sir, though I do not for a moment pretend to conceal my deep regret at still continuing the suspension of that Act, I think that Parliament—that the country—that all sides—must find great consolation in this—namely, that in the enlightened age of tempered opinion in which we live, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the greatest security for the freedom of the subject, has yet been found consistent with a due, an impartial, and even a lenient administration of the law. I trust and believe that the agitations which have prevailed in Ireland are disappearing, and will soon altogether disappear. Then the House will proceed with increased zeal to undertake and carry such measures (as it has already done during this generation in many memorable instances) for the amelioration of the condition of that country; and I doubt not, if they proceed with circumspection—if they proceed with an anxious desire to concilate the enlightened and temperate opinion of all parties—they may be successful in greatly advancing the prosperity of that country and the happiness of its people. Sir, I will not dwell at this moment in detail upon this subject, because I know that the few observations I can venture to make on an occasion like the present may be misapprehended, and because I am aware that the interest which the House feels on such an occasion ought not to be frittered away. We have
  1120
  now immediately at hand an important debate on the whole condition of Ireland. I should have been happy to facilitate its introduction by giving the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire), who has taken up the question, a day for bringing it forward; but that opportunity he already enjoys, and therefore my exertions can only be limited to facilitating the progress of the debate when it is brought on. Upon that occasion my noble Friend the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant will take an early occasion in the debate to state our general policy with regard to Ireland; and, if that policy be impugned, I and my Colleagues shall be prepared to vindicate it.
  There is only one topic on which I think the House will permit me to touch before I sit down. It has been stated in my absence, and with great justice, that there has been unfortunate delay from concurrent circumstances in the progress of business during this Session. No doubt, the occurrence of an autumnal Session, and the unfortunate change that has taken place in the Government, have rendered such delay unavoidable. But I can only say that, so long as I continue to conduct its business, this House may rest assured that there shall be no luck of energy and no want of labour on the part of the Government in conducting the public business; while, at the some time, I may be permitted to add that it will be always most agreeable to me, so far as the position of that public business will permit, to facilitate the course of hon. Gentlemen opposite in bringing forward their Motions, and advancing those measures which they wish to bring under discussion in the House.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I wish to make a few observations on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall, to put myself in order, conclude with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, in conformity with the usual practice, he thought it his duty to explain to the House the policy he intended to pursue, and he went on to say that his policy would be that of the late Prime Minister, Lord Derby. Now, what I desire is that the right hon. Gentleman should have explained more fully what that policy was. Is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to be that which was announced two years ago, or is it to be that of last year? Is the course of education of the party opposite to be continued, or is it concluded? I think the House is entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some more frank exposi-

  1121
  tion of policy on such an occasion. Speaking personally, I must say for myself there was no need for the right hon. Gentleman to deprecate the judgment of the House on assuming the high position he now fills. That appeared to me to be simply his due. No one could have sat as I have done for near twenty-five years in this House in company with the right hon. Gentleman, watching his career, and seeing him gradually ascending in power and influence, without being convinced that he has fairly earned the position he has won. But, at the same time, I cannot help observing that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be affected by the same fatal malady which afflicted that of Lord Derby—it is too weak in Parliamentary power, and the new Premier, not having a majority at his command, will be unable to carry on the business of the country in a satisfactory manner. Lord Derby, on assuming the reins of power in 1866, admitted that this was the fact, for he stated in the House of Lords that he had, when forming an Administration, sought the assistance of Lord Clarendon, the Duke of Somerset, the deceased Marquess of Lansdowne, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of Chester (Earl Grosvenor), but that he had been baffled in his hopes of assistance in these quarters. Lord Derby's conduct in that instance was an admission that he knew that his power in Parliament was not sufficient properly to carry on the business of the country. In addition to that, the noble Earl stated last year in the House of Lords that he was determined, if possible, not to submit to the infliction he had had to endure on two previous occasions—that of attempting to carry on the business of the Government with a minority of the House of Commons, and that he would at no price any longer continue to act as a mere stop-gap for the Liberal party, but would endeavour to turn his minority into a majority. That was his policy; how did he endeavour to carry it out? We know that last year, instead of strengthening his party, he created an irremediable schism, and if his Government was weak when he formed it, it became weaker still by the secession of three of its ablest and most respected Members. Moreover, at the period I am referring to, a large section of the party on the other side of the House also seceded, and no longer gave the unlimited confidence to Lord Derby which they had formerly given; but, on the contrary,
  1122
  looked askance upon him and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I have often thought it would be a great advantage to Ministers if they could have their own followers facing them, instead of sitting behind them, and they would learn from the countenances of that party how much surprise, dismay, and disgust, was felt at many of the propositions which they made. If, then, the Government of last year was weakened by the secession of the three Gentlemen I have alluded to, how much more must it be weakened now, as the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit, by the loss of Lord Derby himself—a nobleman whose great social position, enormous wealth, distinguished Parliamentary career, great abilities, and high character, made him the keystone of the arch of his party? Is it to be supposed that when this keystone is removed that the arch is to remain as strong as ever, whatever may be the abilities of the right hon. Gentleman, or in however able a manner he may conduct the Government of the country? I am not saying this with the view of blaming the right hon. Gentleman for the course he has adopted. On the contrary, I think that if blame is to be attached to anybody it rests, not with the right hon. Gentleman, but with us who sit on this side of the House. Why is it that the hon. Gentlemen opposite are now in possession of the Government? Simply because the Liberal party, which has undoubtedly a large majority here, and which represents a vast preponderance of the opinion of the people of this country, does not deserve to be called a party. This may be an unpalatable truth; but it is the truth notwithstanding. We have leaders who do not lead, and followers who do not follow. Instead of being an organized party, we are little better than a rabble. In fact, we have none of the advantages of a party in this House, except that of numbers, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite lacks, and yet we have the privilege of having one sitting in front of us as our chief who is one of the most distinguished and eminent men that ever adorned Parliament. I say that this is a great public calamity. It is most detrimental and injurious to the public interests that the Government of the country should be carried on by those who are in an actual minority in the House of Commons. It must lead to a wavering, inconsistent, uncertain policy, and I think the experiences of the past two years ought to satisfy the House that such a condition of

  1123
  things is most unsatisfactory. Recollect what took place in reference to the proceedings in Hyde Park two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite (Mr. Walpole) was made a scapegoat on that occasion; but, in point of fact, I think if we knew all the secrets of the late Government, we should find that he was but the organ of the Government to bring about a state of things which led us to the edge of anarchy and confusion, and made the Government of the country subject to the dictation of a mob. What happened last year with reference to the government of Ireland? It was understood that the Irish Government were strongly of opinion that those unhappy men who had been taken in array against the Sovereign of this country in Ireland ought to have had their lives forfeited for the crime they had committed; but such was the vacillation and hesitation of the Government, that when pressure came to be put upon them ["Oh, oh!"], they were unable to resist that pressure, or to maintain the opinion urged upon them by the Irish Government. These are examples—and forcible examples—of the disadvantage to the country at large, and to the interests of the public, of this unconstitutional state of things. And can the House suppose that this is the last instance that will occur in which this disadvantage will be apparent? Will there be nothing in the future—is there nothing coming—which will produce the same results, in which we shall see a Government not willing to take the responsibility of facing a hostile majority in the House of Commons, and afraid—and naturally afraid, knowing the feeble support they are likely to receive from their own followers—of urging with the whole strength of the Government their policy upon the House? We must have in the course of this year great financial questions brought before us. Now if there is one thing more than another in which it is important that the Government should be backed by a powerful and confiding majority it is in great questions of finance. When financial difficulties arise, when we are not sailing in smooth waters, when great demands have to be met, and when it is necessary to increase the burdens of the people, it is then that a Minister feels the necessity of having a large and confiding majority at his back, who will be ready to accept his decision as to what is for the interest of the country, and to support in this House the policy he desires to carry
  1124
  into effect. And can it be expected that when these questions come forward the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues—and I give them credit for the utmost ability and skill—will be able to act with that ease and freedom which they ought, for the interest of the country, to possess, when they know that there will be this large majority facing them who would not be disposed to view their proposals with a friendly aspect, but would be ready to criticize rather than assist in carrying their financial measures? The existence of this state of things is not for the interest of the public; and it appears to me, moreover, that the right hon. Gentleman has lost a great opportunity for advancing those interests. As far as one can look to party questions and party divisions, it seems as if the old battle-fields of party were being swept away—as if the old standards of party were going no longer to be raised—and as if we must contemplate some amalgamation or union of those who most sympathize in their general views of present policy, apart from those great questions upon which our leading Statesmen have been separated from each other. Lord Derby himself seemed to have adopted in 1866 this reasonable and rational view, entertained not merely by many Members on both sides of the House, but by numbers of persons amongst the public at large, who are not violent or ardent politicians, but who wonder when they hear the cries raised at elections of "Disraeli" on the one side, and "Gladstone" on the other. Are there no questions of great public policy on which we could unite for the benefit of the community, and especially for that of the sister country? Is the Irish Church again to be the battle-field upon which the opposite sides of the House are to carry on their party contentions, and the question on which Ministers are to be turned out and new Ministries formed? The right hon. Gentleman opposite must be sufficiently acquainted with the spirit of the times to know that he cannot make that question the battle-field on which to stake the existence of his Ministry. As to the Irish land question, are we not all practically agreed, except, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who, by way of wiping out the results and effects of three great land confiscations in that country, proposes a fourth? Practically, are we not substantially agreed on both sides of this House, that some interest must be given to the

  1125
  tenant in that country for the unexhausted improvements which he has effected upon the land? Are there any other questions which are likely to divide parties in this House for some time to come? and if there are not, I think the public interests have suffered by the right hon. Gentleman having neglected to attempt at least some method by which he might bring to bear, for the advantage of the public, the talent which is to be found amongst Gentlemen opposite to him, as well as amongst those behind him, for the purpose of carrying, by a strong and united Government, those measures which he must be convinced are for the benefit of the country. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be sorry to prolong this discussion; but, at the same time, I cannot help rising to deprecate the course which has just been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that if there be any one occasion on which it behoves us to act with great moderation, and even forbearance, it is that on which a new Prime Minister makes his first appearance in this House, not having had an opportunity of consulting fully with his Colleagues, and certainly having had no opportunity of stating to this House what the measures are which he is prepared to carry forward, and on which he must base whatever confidence he can hope to obtain from the House. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to us a regular party speech, attacking the Government for a policy of which he knows little or nothing, as he admits, and measures which he supposes they are going to bring forward, or which they ought to or may bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman complains that the present Government are going to attempt to conduct the affairs of the country without possessing the requisite majority in this House. But I want to know why the Government of Lord Russell was expelled from power? Because they had not a majority. But the right hon. Gentleman himself says that, from the way in which his party acts, it does not deserve to be called a party—that it has leaders who do not lead, and followers who do not follow—and he certainly used language in reference to them which I should rather
  1126
  have expected to have heard from the other side of the House, Admitting the total disorganization of the Liberal party, and that they do not deserve to be called a party, he complains of the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the Treasury Bench for undertaking the Government of the country without a majority. The fact is, we have no party in this House now who, banded together by party ties, will go with their Leaders under any circumstances; and no Government can now obtain a majority in this House, or can maintain a majority, unless they adopt a policy which secures to them the confidence of the House, and unless they bring before it measures which are satisfactory to the House as well as beneficial to the country. Under these circumstances, the party undertaking the Government of the country must not look for support to a Parliamentary majority, but to the measures they introduce: and if those measure are satisfactory, the Ministry will obtain support from both sides of the House. There is one portion of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury—that which relates to Ireland—which, I think, requires some explanation. I understood him to say that political agitation is rapidly ceasing in Ireland, and would soon disappear, and that when tranquillity was restored the time would have arrived for introducing measures for the advantage of the country. If that be the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman I think he is mistaken. The pacification of Ireland, I believe, and the cessation of all kinds of agitation and disorder in that country, must not be sought for by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act alone, or from any penal measures whatever; but that result, so much to be desired, not only for the benefit of Ireland, but the whole of the Empire, must arise from remedial measures—from some re-payment of the great debt which this country owes to Ireland, and in that way alone can Ireland be made happy, peaceful, and contented. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will lose no time in considering the question of the Irish Church. I will not anticipate the debate which is to take place upon the subject by going into details now. I trust also that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to bring forward measures upon the Irish land question, not founded upon the principles advocated by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill); but which will respect the rights of property while giving that relief which the Irish people require. If the

  1127
  right hon. Gentleman takes a wise and liberal view of the Irish question, and brings forward measures satisfactory to this House and to this country, he will be in no danger for want of a majority to carry on the business of the country. I am convinced that if the Government adopt a wise and liberal course they will find supporters in every part of the House, regardless of party.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WITHIN PRISONS BILL— [BILL 36.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Attorney General.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I wish, as one of the Commissioners upon whose Report the measure is founded, to state the reasons for their recommendation that capital punishment shall in future take place within the walls of the prisons, instead of publicly, as at present. A similar Bill to this was introduced last Session by the present Government, and a measure having the same object was proposed by the late Government, and the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) who was also a Witness before the Commission, supported its principle. With regard to the question of capital punishment itself, I am not about to make any observations. Capital punishment is the law, and there is no proposition to repeal it; and presuming that the punishment of death is to be continued, my object is to show the House that it can be carried out with greater effect, as regards the public, within the prison walls, and that the change would be beneficial to the criminals themselves. There was a great preponderance of opinion before the Commission against the present state of the law; the witnesses examined were, with very few exceptions, in favour of a system of executions within the prison walls, and it seemed to the Commissioners that public executions should be put an end to, and that the sentence of death should be carried out within the precincts of the prison under certain regulations. The Bill, of which I am about to move the second reading, is identical with the one which was laid upon the table last year, and is not merely for altering the place of punishment, but also for regulating the mode of conducting executions.
1128
It provides that by the order of the sheriff a certain number of persons in public capacities and the relatives of the convict shall be admitted to witness the execution, and also that there shall afterwards be a coroner's inquest, and a full publication of the proceedings before the coroner. I assume that no one would wish that so ghastly a spectacle as a public execution should take place except as a deterrent, and if it can be shown by experience that the deterrent influence is greater when the sentence is carried out privately, every one will wish to remove from public view a spectacle of so objectionable and horrible a character. I therefore propose to place before you the opinions, gained from considerable experience, of certain persons of high authority upon this subject. In other countries the experiment of hanging within the prison walls has been tried for a considerable period, and with success. In the United States the practice has been carried out with satisfactory results in the majority of the States. Mr. Dana, of Massachusetts, says—
"We should look with horror on a public execution, unless in some sparse rural district, out of reach of crowds."
The Attorney General of the same State records his opinion as follows:—
"Public executions were abandoned many years ago, and I believe the change has been universally regarded as beneficial."
Of those who have had opportunities of judging of the question from experience in our own colonies, I may refer to Sir Dominic Daly, who says with respect to South Australia—
"I feel quite satisfied, and it is the opinion of those who have the best means of knowing the moral effect of such punishment, that the penalty of death is not less deterrent in consequence of its being inflicted in a comparatively private manner."
Sir John Young writes to the same effect from Sydney, and in Queensland the same practice is adopted and approved; and from Tasmania Governor Brown writes—
"I believe that inasmuch as a private execution removes the opportunity for display, it withdraws a stimulant which operates on the criminal population in a manner not much unlike that in which laudable ambition acts on a soldier."
In Governor Brown's opinion, it seems, public executions are not only not deterrent, but stimulate the criminal classes to invest those who suffer the extreme penalty of the law with something of the heroic. By ordering executions to be conducted in

1129
private, we should prevent the criminal from aspiring to what he and many of his fellows may, unfortunately, regard as a glorious end. The Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria, Van Diemen's Land, says—
"I am informed by those who have good opportunities of knowing, that the criminal class have a greater dread of death on a private than on a public scaffold."
This I fully believe. But the evidence on the subject which most struck me was that given by Colonel Henderson, who was, it is well known, Superintendent of Convict arrangements in Western Australia, and who is now Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons in this country. He spoke in the very strongest manner upon this subject, because both private and public executions had been tried in Western Australia with different effects. He says—
"Executions in private are far preferable to those in public. The fact of the man disappearing from the Court of Justice, and of the people knowing that he never would be seen again, would be far more deterring. I believe that a public execution destroys the whole value of an execution."
He adds that the coroner's inquest is quite sufficient to satisfy the public that the execution has taken place; and, for my part, I cannot see why executions should be the only punishment administered in public. By the present rule guiding the administering of capital punishment, all our convicts should be exhibited in cages, and as much might be urged in favour of public floggings as in favour of public executions. Colonel Henderson says that flogging criminals in public had not half the effect of flogging them in private. Evidence based upon experience is therefore strongly in favour of the change we propose. Then we have to consider the quality and behaviour of the crowd who flock to witness public executions. Do we not hear, over and over again, that they represent the very worst classes, and that many of them are themselves on the very road to the gallows? It is notorious that they go only to make a jest of what is to every worthy person a subject of the gravest regret. They do not go alone. If they pondered over the scene alone, it might have some effect upon them; but they flock there in companies, and keep one another's courage up by singing low songs and laughing at low jests. Thus an execution has become nothing but a species of amusement, and is in nowise deterrent to the classes whom it is most desirable
1130
it should affect. It is the same as in past times, when, as a criminal passed along the streets on his way to Tyburn, all sorts of presents were made to him, and the bravado of the culprit tempted others to follow in his footsteps. But how impressive and how deterrent would be the scene when the criminal was removed from the Court on sentence of death being pronounced. His acquaintances would look on him and know that they saw him for the last time as he was led from the dock, and taken wholly out of their sight to be dealt with by the law. The deterrent effect would be the same as I have observed in the case of a sentence of transportation for life. A deep sob has run through the Court as the convict was led away; and the people feel that, although he has been removed from their sight, he will be subjected to a punishment which will be extremely painful, and the mystery and indefiniteness attending the punishment serves only to increase its terrors in their eyes. I may add that efforts have already been made in various parts of the country to make executions as private as possible. In some instances a screen has been erected before the scaffold, so that, as soon as the drop has fallen, everything of interest to the crowd is out of Bight. This shows how general the feeling has become that such spectacles are prejudicial in their effect on the public mind. Again, if it were desirable to secure publicity, full notice of an execution would be given; but the custom at present is to leave the time in uncertainty, and place it at a very early hour, so that the crowd may be small. And let me add a word respecting the criminal himself. Can anyone imagine that it is beneficial to him that, in his last moments, he should be brought out to be inspected by these mobs, to be received, as has been the case in one instance in London, with great applause, or with hooting and execrations, which must distract his mind from the religious and devotional duties in which everyone would wish that he should be at such a moment engaged? Both as regards the public and the criminal, the change will be a beneficial one, and upon the authority of such persons as Lord Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale, and Sir George Grey, I venture to recommend its adoption to the House, and therefore beg to move the second reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he rose with very great diffidence—to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He wished his right hon. Friend had withdrawn this as he did its sister measure, the Law of Capital Punishment Amendment Bill. A private execution would have satisfied nobody in the case of the recent Manchester executions. The friends of the culprits in Ireland would have said that they were tortured in prison, and that the Government was afraid to execute them in public. When he found that out of the twelve Commissioners appointed only seven were in favour of private executions and five against them, and that these five were Dr. Lushington, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Neate, Mr. Moncreiff, and Mr. John Bright, he was very doubtful if the adoption of private executions would be an advantage to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had added nothing to his old arguments. He had simply drawn the precedents beyond their legitimate bearing. He had stated the effect of the abolition of public executions in other distant countries; but he had omitted to state in what countries, as in France, they were still retained. The right hon. Gentleman also confined his Bill to cases of murder, and did not extend it to treason, nor did he apply it to Scotland. In this age of assassination and revolvers, it was not desirable that the Government should set the example of private assassination. Such, however, was the character of the Bill, and, if passed, it would, in his opinion, give an impetus to the system of assassination by the revolver and stiletto, which had unfortunately become so prevalent in the country. He did not see why they should consider the criminal. He did not believe that capital punishment was in the majority of cases deterrent at all; but it would be more satisfactory to the public to have criminals executed in its presence. A distinguished Judge, Mr. Baron Martin, had given evidence before the Commission in favour of public executions. Such disgusting scenes as those which took place at Muller's execution were unknown except in London, and, although persons went to such spectacles for the purpose of robbery, might not many a young man go home and reflect on what he had seen, and be thus deterred from the commission of murder? Mr. Davis, the Ordinary of Newgate was inclined to regard public executions as more efficacious than private ones would be, but wished to give the latter a trial. It was evident, however, that after
1132
once adopting them it would be impossible to revert to the present method, and he (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) contended that the wisest policy was to make no change. One of the witnesses before the Commissioners described Calcraft's manner as very rough, remarking that he hung people as if he were hanging dogs. Now, if executions were private, his treatment might be still rougher, and criminals might be absolutely tortured. Many, moreover, would never believe that persons had been executed at all. Some persons still contended that Sadleir was living, and that Fauntleroy was not executed; and the opinion was prevalent in some quarters that if a rich man were condemned to death, he would be able to procure a substitute as in China. He viewed this as a poor man's question, for the poor man had a right to be hanged in public. If innocent, he had a right to appear before the people and declare his innocence, or, if guilty, to acknowledge his crime, and warn others by his example. On these grounds he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he must admit that there were great authorities in favour of the Bill. His right rev. Friend (Dr. Ullathorne), the Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham, had attended more than twenty criminals in their last moments, and was therefore well qualified to give an opinion. He (Sir George Bowyer) accordingly wrote to him last year, when the Bill on this subject had been announced, and his right rev. Friend replied that he thought it better that executions should be private. After examining the question, however, on all sides, he (Sir George Bowyer) had come to the conclusion that it was best to leave things as they were. He had thought it a duty, though a painful one, to attend two executions, and he did not see them from a window, but he mixed with the crowd during the night to observe everything that occurred; while, on several others, he had visited Newgate and Horsemonger Lane late on the night preceding an execution, and this had led him to believe that the horrible accounts which appeared in the newspapers of what took place before executions were greatly exaggerated. No doubt, executions brought together many "roughs" and members of what were called the "dangerous classes," and in so motley an assemblage good manners, or even good morals, could not be expected to prevail universally; but, when

1133
mixing with the crowd, he had heard many excellent remarks, showing that the object of the spectacle was clearly understood. He had heard it said, "Well, the man has been fairly tried, the laws of the country are just, and it is quite right he should be executed as an example to others." At Horsemonger Lane, when mingling, the night prior to the execution of the Mannings, with the crowd, he came to a group of men evidently belonging to the criminal population, and he heard one of them use this remarkable expression, "Well, I knows many a man as would think no more of taking a man's life than of eating his breakfast, if it wasn't for this," meaning the execution; and the remark met with general assent. The theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with reference to the deterrent effect which would be produced by a man's disappearance into some sort of mysterious darkness was just a little too poetical to be understood by the class who were sought to be deterred from crime. If any scandals attended public executions, their deterrent effect ought fairly to be set off against them. No person who had not witnessed an execution could form any idea of the impression produced on the crowd of spectators when they saw before them the dreadful spectacle of a man in his full vigour about to be put to death. On the prisoner appearing on the scaffold there was a moment of awful silence—then the cry of "Hats off!" amid an indescribable mixture of sounds of which no one can have an idea who has not heard them, and which clearly indicate the horror and terror felt by the multitude. On such occasions prayers were offered up, and religious reflections suggested by persons whose theological principles did not perhaps agree with those which he himself held, but whose influence had a beneficial effect on those who heard them praying. If executions were conducted in private, there would be no such solemn awe in connection with the infliction of capital punishment. He believed that scandalous or indecorous conduct was the exception and not the rule on such occasions. Another great objection to private executions arose from the feeling among the lower classes, that criminals who had occupied an influential position in life, and especially criminals who had money, were not put to death. He had heard it said that any man with £1,000 might escape from capital punishment, even after sentence had been pronounced. Soon
1134
after he was called to the Bar he had seen instructions for counsel to draw a Bill in Chancery based on the supposed fact that Fauntleroy was still living. Again, after sentence had been pronounced on Tawell, there was a popular belief that his wealth and position would save him; and after the execution had taken place people believed that he was still living, and that a stuffed figure had been hanged in his stead. If such impressions existed, despite the fact that executions were public, what would be the case if capital punishment were inflicted in private? The fact that executions were private in some parts of America was no argument for introducing the practice into a country where the circumstances were entirely different from those of a pure democracy. For these reasons, and believing as he did that so serious a change as that proposed by the Bill ought not to adopted without more consideration than the subject had hitherto received, he begged to second the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.)
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that if he thought the "poor man" was about to be deprived of a right or privilege, he should hesitate as to his vote in support of the Bill, but this was not a question as to any legal distinction being drawn between the rich and the poor, but as to whether a great public scandal could be abolished or very much diminished without doing away with capital punishment, which Parliament still thought it necessary to retain. If the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Serjeant Gaselee) had read the Bill he could not have done so with his usual care, because he had spoken of the danger which might arise from the hangman being able to treat roughly and torture the criminal whom he had to execute in private. But the Bill provided that every execution should be witnessed by the sheriff, the governor of the gaol, the surgeon, the chaplain, and certain justices, if they pleased; and that there should be a coroner's inquest on every criminal who had been executed, so that there might be no doubt as to his identity. There was, therefore, no such danger as that apprehended by the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless a collusion, which was scarcely credible, should exist between all

1135
these officials. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had quoted a number of opinions of persons on the Capital Punishment Commissions against private executions; but it must be borne in mind that almost all of them were the opinions of gentlemen who were opposed to capital punishment altogether, against which their votes were given, and not in favour of public as against so-called "private" executions. The hon. Baronet, having been present at an execution, certainly had the advantage of him in point of experience; but he ventured to think that some of the deductions drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman from what he had heard on those occasions were not exactly correct. For instance, that which was probably meant by the observation that "but for such things very many more innocent lives would be taken by the murderers," was not that murderers were deterred by public executions, but by the fear of the punishment of death at all. It appeared to him that the weight of evidence was in favour of the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Making even the fullest allowance for exaggeration, any person who read the newspapers could not doubt that the scenes which really did take place at public executions were a disgrace not only to civilization but to our common humanity. A proposal had been made to abolish capital punishment altogether. Upon that he would not pronounce an opinion further than to say he did not think public feeling would justify them in taking that step at the present moment. He thought the deterrent effects of capital punishment were wholesome, and should not be dealt with lightly. He felt that the House would do wisely to allow the Bill to pass into law, and he should therefore support the Motion for the second reading.
MR. GILPINsaid, he must demur to the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, that those who had a strong objection to capital punishment, and regarded it as a relic of barbarism which must before long disappear, were upon that account shut out from discussing the question whether executions ought to take place in public or in private as long as capital punishment was continued. He confessed that he would rather have met the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with an Amendment declaring that it was expedient to abolish the punishment of death.
1136
Fifteen or sixteen years ago upwards of 100 Members of that House voted for the immediate abolition of capital punishment, and he could not therefore but think that he should have taken more Members into the Lobby in support of such an Amendment than his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) would take for that which he had made. He did not mean to attribute any blame to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he confessed that this Bill had come by surprise on him and other independent Members. He (Mr. Gilpin) thought it was much to be deplored that at this time of day—in the year 1868—the House should be engaged in a discussion as to whether hanging men publicly or privately were best in a civilized country. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said the opinion of the country would not justify the House in abolishing capital punishment. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and on this subject he ventured to put his experience in opposition to that of his hon. Friend, for he might say that there were few counties of England in which he had not attended public meetings called to promote the abolition of the punishment of death, and he knew that the feeling of the people in regard to it was not that which had been described. In regard to the argument that, if executions took place inside prisons they would have a greater deterrent effect than at present, he thought that was a subject on which it was impossible to form any just opinion, because, while some criminals showed great bravado when they came upon the scaffold) others, especially women, regarded the publicity as the worst part of the punishment. This subject had been much discussed out of doors, though it was comparatively new to the House. He held in his hand a letter addressed to him by the late Mr. Cobden, who, after expressing his regret at being unable to attend a meeting convened to consider the question of capital punishment, went on to say—
"I am sorry that I cannot attend the anti-capital-punishment meeting; but I congratulate you upon the great progress you have made during the last week. Your opponents are half-ashamed of their cause; but they seem not to be aware that, when they denounce the evils of public executions, they are abandoning the chief argument with which they have defended the halter. If they really thought that the gallows was a good and useful public instructor, they ought to be satisfied with the countless multitude of pupils

1137
who flocked to the spectacle of Tuesday last. In now calling out for secret hanging (which sounds to my ears very much like private assassination) they have delivered themselves into your hands, and I hope you will deal mercifully with them in your argument on Monday. Be assured that, if hanging be acknowledged to be so unclean a thing that it is no longer to be tolerated in the broad sunlight, the English people will have none of it."
Again, Lord Hobart, in his Essay on Capital Punishment, said—
"It is not likely that in England executions will ever take place otherwise than in public. It seems more probable indeed, as far as this country is concerned, that capital punishment will be discontinued altogether than that it will ever be inflicted except in the full face of day. There is that in our national character to which secret executions are peculiarly abhorrent, and as it does not appear that there is any such preponderance of sound principle in their favour, as might be expected gradually to overcome a popular prejudice, it cannot reasonably be anticipated that they will ever find a place in our penal system."
For his own part, he (Mr. Gilpin) confessed he had never been able to witness a public execution. He had in the grey dawn of the morning witnessed the crowd and the erection of the scaffold, but he turned away with a sick feeling before the criminal was brought out. On scores of occasions, however, he had met the crowds coming away from the scaffold, and certainly none of the descriptions in the newspapers had exaggerated the horrible accompaniments of such scenes. He was convinced that if executions were to take place inside the prisons three-fourths of the arguments in favour of capital punishment would fall to the ground. Perhaps, therefore, he ought to hail this measure as one which went three-fourths of the way to the abolition of the gallows; but, on the whole, he thought it better that the country should decide on the main question of the abolition of capital punishment rather than on the minor one as to the expediency of conducting executions in comparative secrecy.
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state shortly the reasons that compelled him to vote against the second reading of the Bill. He had no sympathy with those who thought it possible to abolish capital punishment; and who, he supposed would be in favour of having executions in private, because one of their staple arguments against capital punishment was that a public execution demoralized those who witnessed it. He had read all the accounts of the disgusting levity which was exhibited by the crowd on such occasions; but he must say that while he agreed in the main with the
1138
opinions expressed by Mr. Cobden, in the letter which had just been read, he (Mr. Newdegate) went further. He remembered that Gentleman saying, in reference to the affected and unnatural hilarity of the crowd after an execution, that it reminded him of boys whistling as they passed through a churchyard. He was convinced that much of the disgusting levity exhibited was no proof of indifference, but was rather an effort of unregulated minds to efface from their recollection the solemn and impressive scene they had beheld. He believed that the Bill was one step in a vicious course of legislation. He pointed out last Session that the remission by the Home Secretary of sentences pronounced in Court by Judges had shaken the confidence of the public in the execution of the law, and he presented a petition from Birmingham signed by 3,000 persons complaining that the certainty of punishment, the chief element in its deterrent effect, had been lost by the uncertainty which had been introduced as to the operation of the law in reference to the period of imprisonment which would really be inflicted for crime. He looked upon the present proposal from the same point of view. He believed that public executions had a most wholesome and deterrent effect. It had been the wise practice of this country for centuries to make the people feel that the law was the expression of their own judgment and will; and he knew nothing that would tend more to shake that impression than withdrawing the execution of the law in capital cases from public supervision. By doing this they would take another step towards making all uninformed persons believe that punishment was not the necessary effect of the law, but that it was an act of the executive itself. When once that feeling was established there would grow up this feeling that the punishment was an act of vengeance inflicted by those who were invested with discretionary power upon the victims of their malice. In other countries there had been examples of the evils of having executions not in public. One of the main causes that tended to shake the throne of Louis Philippe was the scandal as to the death of the Due de Praslin in prison. That nobleman, had been condemned, and justly, to be executed, and his death by suicide in prison, and the reports propagated and believed in reference to it, had raised doubts as to the pure administration of justice in France. Under these circumstances he should vote against the second reading.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, that inasmuch as the Bill provided that executions should be held in a semi-public manner, in the presence of all the prison officers and the relatives of the person executed, and made it necessary that an inquest on the body should be held before twelve jurymen within twelve hours of the execution, it was not open to many of the objections which had been urged against it. The precautions provided by the Bill were such as to prevent any suspicion being entertained that the law had not been duly carried out. After looking into the working of the principle embodied in the Bill, so far as it had been carried into operation in other countries, in America, in Prussia, and our Australian colonies, he found that it generated no suspicion whatever. He hailed the present Bill as a measure thoroughly in consonance with the humane legislation of the past thirty years, and he trusted the House would view it in that light. He believed there had not been a single petition presented against the Bill, and he had himself brought twice forward a similar measure three and four years back, in favour of which numerous petitions had been laid before the House. He asked Mr. Adams, the American Minister, for his opinion on the subject, and he, in reply, wrote that in Massachusetts the system of hanging within the limits of a prison, in the presence of the officials and a few persons admitted by the sheriff, worked so well that nobody would think of returning to the old system. In Pennsylvania the system had been in operation for a quarter of a century; in New Jersey and Maryland executions were conducted in the same manner; and there was every probability of the system becoming universal and permanent. He had found similar testimony as to the working of the system in our Australian colonies. Sir Alfred Stephen, in answer to a question put to him by the Commissioners, stated that in New South Wales private executions were quite as deterrent in their effects, while the criminals suffered without exhibiting that bravado which they so frequently displayed when executed in the presence of large crowds of spectators. He could assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee)—though it was not necessary that he should trouble the House with the particulars—that such scenes as those referred to were by no means confined to London, but occurred for instance, at executions in Liverpool and Manchester. He might remark, too, that
1140
at the execution of the Irishmen for the murder of Serjeant Brett it was generally regretted in Manchester that the mode of conducting our executions had not been altered, and he had heard from several quarters expressions of regret that such a measure as the one before the House had not been passed in the last Session of Parliament. If this alteration had taken place there would have been no necessity for moving large bodies of troops and swearing in great numbers of special constables. In the execution of criminals they had a twofold object in view. In one light such executions might be regarded as examples, and in the other—while the present publicity was retained—as spectacles. Now, he felt convinced that the example would not be lost by the executions being held within the prison walls, while, by adopting such a course, the spectacle might be got rid of. At present that spectacle was seen but by a very few; and while we were doing so much to refine and elevate the poorer classes of our fellow-countrymen, it was scarcely consistent in the House to allow these barbarous exhibitions to be continued. He trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time.
MR. M'LARENthought the Bill would be much more complete if Scotland were included. The question was one which had excited great interest in that part of the kingdom. He had a copy of a petition agreed to by the Town Council of Edinburgh in favour of this measure so early as the year 1854; and others were adopted in 1865 and 1866, all of them unanimously. The petition of 1854 declared that, considering executions as a spectacle, the good effects produced by them were extremely rare, if any at all; and they hardened and brutalized the great mass of those who were present at them; it, therefore, prayed that executions might take place within the walls of the prison, before a limited number of persons, including several public functionaries. He (Mr. M'Laren) had had the painful duty imposed upon him of being present at two public executions, for in Scotland these were conducted under the charge, not of the sheriffs, but the magistrates of cities and boroughs. He had derived from his observations the strongest possible conviction, not only that they did no good whatever, but that they hardened and brutalized many of those who witnessed them, while they were at the same time painful to the feelings of all the better disposed classes of the community, who

1141
certainly were entitled to some consideration at the hands of the House. He could not understand how anyone who had read the clauses of the Bill could assert that the executions under it would be private. It might just as well be said that criminal trials were private, unless 10,000 persons were present, and that therefore all such trials should be held on Salisbury Plain. Every precaution was taken by the Bill to have proper witnesses, and to leave no possibility of a doubt that the criminal had been executed. The measure was a great step in advance of the present state of things, and, as one of those persons who disapproved altogether of the punishment of death, he was glad to give it his cordial support, as it would probably lead to the accomplishment of that more important object. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consent to the insertion of a clause by which its provisions should be extended to Scotland.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that steps would be taken when the Bill was in Committee to make its provisions applicable to Scotland.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 25: Majority 156.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 19th March.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)

[BILL 27.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am about to ask the House to read this Bill a second time. When I introduced the measure great objections were taken to the tribunal proposed for the investigation of Election Petitions. I must candidly admit that I think those objections were sound, and if I had not had the honour of sitting on this Bench I should probably have urged them on my own part. The House, however, will understand the position in which, when I introduced the measure, I was rather suddenly placed. I had to consider whether I should give up all chance of legislating this year, or whether I should
1142
take a course which I did not care to pursue. I thought, however, that by introducing the Bill, and by putting the House in possession of the subject, we might have a chance in a short time of making some suggestions which would meet the difficulties of the case. I am now in a position to make a proposition with regard to the formation of a tribunal—in my opinion a competent tribunal—which will obviate all the objections urged against our first measure by great authorities. What I propose is to read the Bill a second time, that it may be committed to some future day pro formâ, when I will introduce those clauses which, in my opinion, will carry into effect the proposition which I am now going to make. I propose that Her Majesty shall have the power of nominating two Judges of the Superior Courts—either of the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, or the Exchequer; and that these two Judges, when so nominated by the Queen, for the particular purpose to which I will in a moment refer, shall cease to be ordinary Judges of the Superior Courts. They will receive the salaries and emoluments which they would receive before they were nominated, but they will only be honorary Justices. Their business will be as follows:—In the first place these two nominated Judges of the Superior Courts will have to investigate all questions of controverted elections on the spot. In the second place they will become, with Her Majesty's favour, Privy Councillors and members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and they will be constant and competent members of that tribunal, which much requires to be strengthened. Subject to the duties of investigating petitions with respect to controverted elections, and the performance of other duties as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, they will also be required to attend the sittings of the Exchequer Chamber or any future Court of Appeal of an analogous character from the Superior Courts that may be established, and also fulfil other duties there. That is an outline of the tribunal which I propose to establish. The House will observe that this proposal will meet all the chief objections that have been urged against the first tribunal that I proposed, and will also accomplish all the objects on which, I think, the House very properly insisted. It will secure the trial of controverted elections on the spot, and that they shall be conducted before Judges of the Supe-

1143
rior Courts. It will obviate every objection urged by the Lord Chief Justice as to the derangement of the public business conducted by the Judges in case we called upon them to consider these cases of controverted elections. It will supply two constant and competent members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, where judicial strength is absolutely required. It will provide full occupation for these Judges at all times, and will be an experiment which will not involve the House in the expense of any costly establishment, because if, under any at present unforeseen circumstance, this should not prove a successful experiment no future nomination need take place. That is the proposition which Her Majesty's Government have to make to the House. It is one which appears to me to obviate all the main objections to the tribunal originally suggested, and which, without inconveniencing the business of the Judges as urged in the Paper by the Lord Chief Justice recently laid before the House, will accomplish the principal objects which the House has in view. If the House will read the Bill a second time, I will move that it be committed this day week pro formâ, when I will move clauses to carry the scheme into effect.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Treasury) as only intended for the immediate purpose before us, that is to recommend that we should, without entering into the important question at issue, assent to the second reading of the Bill. That, I confess, appears to be reasonable and convenient to the House. The plan which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is, in my opinion, undoubtedly a very great improvement on the provisions of the Bill which he explained on a former occasion, and which were adopted by the right hon. Gentleman with great reluctance. It is evident that he gives us this advantage at least, of transferring a jurisdiction which the House has not yet asserted its determination absolutely to part with to those to whom, if it were transferred at all, it ought in the opinion of the House to be transferred—namely, to persons who stand high in rank in the legal profession. The Bill also gives us the very great advantage
1144
of a local inquiry. These are ample reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should without difficulty have the power of reprinting his Bill, and of placing its provisions before the House in a shape which he thinks is more desirable for obtaining the assent of the House. The matter is necessarily one of a very novel character. It involves many points which may be open to consideration, and I think that, in cheerfully agreeing to the second reading on the basis which he proposes, we shall not be understood in any degree to forfeit or qualify our right to discuss the particulars of the measure when it is in a fit state to receive our consideration.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUES CONTINUANCE BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Lord John Manners, Mr. Hunt.)

[BILL 43.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord John Manners.)
VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked, whether the noble Lord would consent to adopt the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works for this Bill instead of that of the Metropolitan Police Districts?
LORD JOHN MANNERShad given that suggestion his careful consideration, and was sorry to say that it would be fatal to the objects of the measure. He would, however, be happy to listen to any Amendments which might be moved in Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 19th March.

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]
(Major O'Reilly, The Lord Cremorne, Mr. Pim.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. O'REILLY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was precisely the same as the Bill of last year. He was willing to have it referred to a Select Committee and to make whatever amendments in its provisions might be deemed requisite.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O'Reilly.)
MR. MURPHYsaid, it had been his intention to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months, but as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would refer it to a Select Committee, he (Mr. Murphy) would not now adopt that course. He, however, felt it to be his duty to show what the objects of the Bill were. The Bill proposed to prevent intemperance, an object which he (Mr. Murphy) believed to be impossible, so long as human nature remained as it was. But the objects professedly sought to be attained by the promoters of this movement so far from being carried out by the Bill before the House are absolutely inconsistent with its provisions. If the hon. and gallant Member proposed that there should be a total cessation of the sale of liquors on Sunday, then indeed it might be likely to receive support from those who approved of such an idea; but all it proposed was to stop the consumption of liquors on the premises where they were sold, and thus to get rid of police supervision and control. The consequences would be that a number of men might club together, purchase liquor, and take it to some low, obscure house where the constabulary had no power to enter. He (Mr. Murphy) believed that the great proportion of the licensed vintners were most willing and anxious to co-operate with all who are desirous to prevent abuses, but their interests should not be sacrificed for a measure, which, like that now before the House, could not alone do any good, but would rather tend to aggravate any abuses which may exist. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, he hoped that Committee would have power to consider the whole subject of licensing.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, it was the wish of the Government that the inquiry before the Select Committee should be as wide as possible; for unless some alterations were made in the general system of licensing with regard to the wholesale dealer, such a Bill as that before the House would not work, at least in large towns. Very important questions must arise in the consideration of the subject, and he was of opinion that there was nothing either in the Orders or practice of the House which would prevent the inquiry from being carried into all those matters
1146
to which his hon. Friend had referred. Whether the sale of liquors on the Sunday should be restricted or not it would be premature to say; but it would be necessary to investigate the whole of the law with respect to restrictions, and it would be impossible to exclude from the inquiry the licensing system as it prevailed in Ireland. He had very little doubt that before the Session had far advanced the Committee would be in possession of sufficient information to enable the House to legislate in a satisfactory manner, if legislation at all was necessary.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
And, on March 16, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. O'REILLY, The Earl of MAYO, Lord CLAUD HAMILTON, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Mr. STACPOOLE, Mr. MURPHY, Major GAVIN, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. LEADER, Mr. PIM, Mr. MONSELL, Mr. DAWSON, Mr. O'NEILL, and Mr. CUBITT;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the alteration of days upon which Fairs are now held in Ireland, said the principal object of the measure was to enable an arrangement to be made with respect to the day for opening the great fair of Ballinasloe, which would tend very much to the convenience of a large number of persons. As the law stood at present, the fair at Ballinasloe must be held upon a certain day of the month; but under this Bill the Lord Lieutenant would be empowered to issue an Order in Council providing that the great fair, which lasted for four days, should be held on the first Tuesday in October, and in that way it would always be concluded within the week. It would be also necessary to alter the days on which certain other fairs were held which depended upon the great fair. He might state that the noble Lord who was the owner of the tolls of Ballinasloe fair was favourable to the principle of the Bill, and had expressed a wish that it should be passed into law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to facilitate the alteration of days upon which Fairs are now held in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 48.]

  METROPOLIS GAS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MORRISON, Bill to amend "The Metropolis Gas Act, 1860," and to make further provision for regulating the supply of Gas to the Metropolis; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MORRISON, Mr. LOCKE, and Mr. GORST.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 49.]
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.