Sitting of 8 February 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Brighton v. William Coningham, esquire, Manor of North-stead.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Railway Schemes (Metropolis); Railway Companies' Powers; Controverted Elections (General Committee).
COMMITTEE—Sir John Lawrence's Salary considered.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Malt for Cattle.
Ordered—Collection of Taxes.
First Reading—Rents (Ireland)* [Bill 1]; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act Amendment* [Bill 2]; Judgments, &c, Law Amendment* [Bill 3]; Insane Prisoners Act Amendment [Bill 4]; Conveyancing, &c, (Ireland)* [Bill 5].

COURT MARTIAL ON COLONEL CRAWLEY.-MOTION.
MR. D. FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to move an address to Her Majesty for a copy of the proceedings of the late Court Martial for the trial of Colonel Crawley.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Andover, whether he intended to found a Motion upon these papers; and, if so, whether he would give early notice of its terms?
MR. D. FORTESCUEsaid, that when the proceedings were produced he should make a statement upon them, and conclude it with a Motion for papers. He would give early intimation what were the papers he intended to ask for.
Motion agreed to.

SOOCHOW.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the town of Soochow in China has been taken from the Taepings by help of Her Majesty's officers employed by the Imperialists with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government; whether, also, the Imperialists were aided by supplies from Her Majesty's arsenals; and whether the town thus taken was delivered over to pillage and massacre by the Imperialist troops, notwithstanding the protest and contrary to the pledge of the British officer in command; and, if so, whether any and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to withdraw their assistance to the Pekin Government?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was unable to give the hon. Member a very definite answer to his question. Her Majesty's Government had received information that the town of Soochow had been taken, and that an act of great treachery had been committed, but of the exact nature and extent of that act he was unable to inform his hon. Friend, as the only account he had seen of it was in the public newspapers. From the latest advices received from Shanghai, General Brown, who was about to leave that place for Hong Kong, had delayed his departure in order to make full inquiries into what had taken place at Soochow, and he hoped soon to receive such information as would enable him to give a complete answer to his hon. Friend's question. In the absence of definite information, of course Her Majesty's Government
216
were unable to state what steps it might be necessary for them to take.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that he had not answered the latter part of his question, Whether the town was taken by the assistance of British officers and supplies from Her Majesty's arsenals?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that inquiries were about to be made into the circumstances. Of course it was well known to the House that Major Gordon, an officer in Her Majesty's service, had received permission to take service with the Imperial Government of China. With regard to the supplies, he was unable to answer that part of the question.

THE INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
MR. WARNERsaid, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that it has been found necessary in some cases to resort to a voluntary rate in order to provide for the collection of the Income Tax by parochial officers; and whether he will consider the propriety of adopting a more regular system?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not quite certain if he understood precisely the meaning of the expression used by the hon. Member in his question when he spoke of a "voluntary rate." He was aware the collection of the Income Tax by parochial officers was in a state which called for the attention of Parliament, and in the statement he was about to make to the House at a later period of the evening it would be found that Her Majesty's Government had had their attention directed to the subject.

CHINA.—QUESTION.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any despatches have been received during the recess from Sir Frederick Bruce relative to the state of affairs in China; and whether the Government have received any official accounts of the proceedings of the Chinese force under the command of Major Gordon, of the Royal Engineers; and if so, whether he will lay them upon the table of the House; also, whether he will lay upon the table all the documents in possession of the Government relative to the dismissal of Mr. Lay from the service of the Emperor of China, and the withdrawal from the Chinese waters of the fleet lately under the command of

217
Captain Sherard Osborne of the Royal Navy?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that papers on the affairs of China in continuation of those laid upon the table of the House in the previous year, would be shortly presented to Parliament. With regard to Mr. Lay, Her Majesty's Government had no official information, and, therefore, they had no papers in reference to him which could be laid on the table of the House. With reference to the withdrawal of Captain Sherard Osborne's fleet there could be no objection to present those papers to the House if the noble Lord would move for them in the usual manner.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: I wish to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, If any explanations have been demanded from the Austrian and Prussian Governments with respect to the proclamations of the pretender, Prince Frederick Augustenburg, which have been made in the presence of the Austrian and Prussian troops in various places in Schleswig? If no such explanations have been asked, I wish to know if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make such a demand? And I wish also to ask the noble Lord if he has received any official information to the effect that, in the opinion of the Prussian Government, the despatch which he read to us on Thursday night has no further validity after war has broken out?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated with the Austrian and Prussian Governments upon the steps taken both in Holstein and Schleswig, under shadow of the protection of the Austrian and Prussian troops, to proclaim the Prince of Augustenburg as Duke of those two Duchies, such a proceeding being thoroughly inconsistent with the good faith that ought to have been observed by Austria and Prussia, admitting, as they do, the binding nature of the Treaty of 1852, which compels them to acknowledge the King of Denmark as Sovereign of all the States that were under the sway of the late King, and inconsistent with their declaration that they are ready to maintain the integrity of the Danish monarchy. The Prussian Government has stated, it is true, that it disapproves the
218
proceedings in Schleswig, and that orders were to be sent from Berlin to set these matters right. With regard to what took place in Holstein, it must be remembered that Holstein was occupied by troops acting under the orders of the Diet, and, therefore, not under the immediate authority of the Austrian and Prussian Governments. The Prussian Government, moreover, has not denied the positive declaration that it abides by the Treaty of 1852, and is prepared to respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. The latter part of the despatch containing this statement has been already detailed in another place—its meaning certainly is not very clear—but the conclusion which it implies is that, whatever questions may arise, the Prussian and Austrian Governments are prepared to discuss this question in concert with the other Powers, who were parties to the Treaty of 1852. For some time it was alleged in Berlin, that if resistance were made in Schleswig to the entry of German troops, and resistance led to conflict, that conflict would establish war, and war would put an end to treaties. In reply, we said that such would be a most preposterous doctrine, for if it were once established any strong Power, having an inconvenient treaty with a weak Power, would have nothing to do for the purpose of freeing itself from that engagement, but to make an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack, and then to say, "War has broken out, and war puts an end to treaties, and we, therefore, by our own unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression, have freed ourselves from the engagements into which we had entered." That is a doctrine which I am sure no Government that has any respect for itself, or any regard for the principles of good faith, could seriously uphold. It would be utterly disgraceful for any civilized country to stand on such a position. In answer to the last question of the noble Lord as to what has taken place, it is sufficient to say that the Prussian Government, since the commencement of these warlike measures, has informed us that it abides by the Treaty of 1852, and maintains the integrity of the Danish monarchy.

THE CONVICT TOWNLEY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which he had already

  219
  asked him in the lobby, obtaining but a very unsatisfactory reply. A notice was standing for that evening in the name of the right hon. Gentleman relative to the introduction of a Bill which was understood to have been necessitated by the recent escape from justice of the convicted murderer Townley. On Friday night the Under Secretary of State moved for papers connected with the Townley case, and as he understood these could not be in the hands of hon. Members for some days, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to prejudge the case by any statement until the papers had been produced.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hardly understood the Question which the noble Lord had put to him. He had felt it his duty to give notice at the earliest day of a proposal to correct what he believed to be a serious defect in the law, and he should, therefore, ask leave to bring in the Bill for the purpose that evening. In the course of his introductory statement it would be necessary to refer to the Townley case, but lie should have occasion to allude very slightly to the Correspondence which had been moved for. There would be ample opportunity for comment, either on the second reading of the Bill, or upon a substantive Motion, when the papers were produced.

  LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH. MOTION OF SUPPLY.
  LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH considered, and again read by Mr. Speaker.
  Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty:"—(Mr. Peel.)

  THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the granting supply to her Majesty, but to do what was almost as difficult a task —that of obtaining a direct answer to a question put to the Treasury bench. On a very recent occasion he put two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he was not fortunate enough to be able to extract an answer. The first question which he put was with reference to what, he admitted, was only a rumour, but one which from the best information he could obtain had so much foundation that, if true, he was sure it would fill not only the House but the country generally with astonishment and consternation; and he, therefore, took the earliest oppor-
  220
  tunity of endeavouring to obtain a denial of its correctness. The rumour to which he referred was that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a reduction of the military establishments of the country, and not only did the rumour say that such was the intention of the Government, but it went on to say that the proposed reduction was in the artillery force. So far as he could learn, there was no military man in that House who would not admit that the artillery force was the branch which required the longest time to bring to a state of efficiency, and therefore it was the one which it was the most inexpedient to reduce. But without going into details of that kind, the first question he had to ask was, Whether or not, in the critical aspect of affairs in Europe, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any reduction in the military forces? The second question, which he also put on a former occasion, was of a more comprehensive character, and one which the noble Lord would probably tell him must be answered by the progress of events. There might be some truth in that view of the case if the noble Lord thought fit to urge it. It was in the recollection of the House, that in the course of the present Session discussions had taken place as to whether it was the duty of this country, either on a point of honour or interest, to embark in the struggle now going on in Denmark. The noble Lord had given them no information on that subject, nor had he thought right to assure them that there was no probability or no possibility of the country being involved in war. They were therefore bound to assume that circumstances might occur which, in the opinion of the noble Lord and his Cabinet, would compel them to embark this country in war. With such a probability hanging over them he was justified in asking the noble Lord whether, in his opinion, the military force in the country was such as in reason and common sense would justify our embarking in such an undertaking? It might be said that in all foreign countries armies were on a peace establishment, but they could be raised to a war strength in a few days; whereas with us it took months, almost years, to make up the war establishment. Remembering the enormous sacrifices of men and money entailed upon us during the Crimean war by our utter want of preparation, he hoped the noble Lord would declare that such an event was not likely to occur again. He was aware of the weight attaching to

  221
  the noble Lord's opinion, but if it should differ from his own, it would give him and others the opportunity of raising the question on some future occasion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—Sir, I think that the first question which the hon. Gentleman has asked me might as well have been postponed for a day or two, until the Army and Navy Estimates are laid upon the Table, because they will show what is the amount of military and naval force which Her Majesty's Government think it expedient and proper to ask the House to vote for the present year, But I can so far assure the hon Gentleman that the consternation which seems to have pressed so much upon his mind, arising from the notion that there is to be a great reduction of our naval and military force, may be dispelled. Because, although we hope to make some reduction in the charges connected with the army and navy, there will be no material reduction of military force, beyond that which is the natural consequence of the transfer of the Ionian Islands to the kingdom of Greece. With regard to the other part of the question, which calls upon me to perform the part of a prophet, I really must decline that office. I am very sorry I cannot give him a plain and positive answer, such as he desires. But it is not the habit, and it is very undesirable that it ever should be the habit, of Her Majesty's Government to state prospectively what course they will advise the Crown or this House to sanction under circumstances which have not yet happened. The future is a closed book, and those who attempt to read it very often find themselves mistaken in their interpretation. But I am quite persuaded that if, under any circumstances, it should be the opinion of the Government, supported by Parliament and the country, that any great effort should be made, either military or naval, the resources of the country and the spirit of the country will never be found unequal to the occasion. And, therefore, the hon. Gentleman may rest confident, that whatever future circumstances may require, the country will be always able to find the means of answering those requirements. But I must decline stating what the course of Her Majesty's Government will be with regard to events which have not yet happened. We are perfectly free, and shall remain so, but, of course, it will be the duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to form
  222
  an opinion upon matters when they arise, and not before they arise.
  Motion agreed to; Committee thereupon To-morrow.

SIR JOHN LAWRENCE'S SALARY.

  RESOLUTION.
  Sir John Lawrence's Salary considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that very few words were necessary to explain the Resolution he had to propose. By an Act of Parliament passed in 1833 it was enacted, that if the Governor General of India, or the Governor of a Presidency, or a Member of Council was in receipt of a place, salary, or pension, his salary should be reduced by the amount of that salary or pension. Since the passing of the Act, however, exceptions had been always made in favour of individuals in receipt of pensions granted in recognition of special services. Lord Hardinge, when he was Governor General of India, had a pension conferred upon him by the East India Company for his services in the first Sikh war, and a special Act of Parliament was passed, with the unanimous concurrence of the House, enabling him to receive the full emoluments of Governor General of India, together with the pension. The case of Sir Henry Pottinger was similar. He was in the receipt of a pension for special services in the East, and when he was appointed Governor of Madras, he was, nevertheless, permitted to receive the full salary of Governor of Madras and his pension also. These were the only two instances in which any of the offices specified in the Act of 1833 had been held by persons in the receipt of pensions for special services, and he proposed to follow the precedents thus established. The House was aware that the career of the late Governor General of India had been prematurely terminated, and that India had been deprived of the services of Lord Elgin just when he was becoming well acquainted with the country, and when he was proceeding on most important duties to the upper part of India. The moment he found himself unable to discharge his duties, Lord Elgin's first thought was to apprise the Government at home of his state, and to request that a successor might be appointed. He (Sir Charles Wood) had no hesitation in recommending Sir John Lawrence to Her Ma-

  223
  jesty for the Governor Generalship of India, and within two days from the receipt of the intelligence from India, he was authorized to offer the high post to Sir John Lawrence. He accepted it at once, and, knowing the importance of despatch, he showed the same zeal for the service of the country which had always distinguished him, by declaring himself ready to leave this country for India by the first mail to Calcutta. The services of Sir John Lawrence were well known, and so universally recognised, that it would only be necessary to read the Resolution under which the pension in question was conferred upon Sir John Lawrence. That Resolution, passed at a meeting of the Court of Directors, August 11, 1858, and approved by a General Court of Proprietors, August 25, was as follows:—
  "Resolved unanimously, that in consideration of the eminent services of Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, G.C.B., whose prompt, vigorous, and judicious measures crushed incipient mutiny in the Punjaub, and maintained the province in tranquillity during a year of almost universal convulsion, and who by his extraordinary exertions was enabled to equip troops and to prepare munitions of war for distant operations, thus mainly contributing to the recapture of Delhi and to the subsequent successes which attended our arms, and in testimony of the high sense entertained by the East India Company of his public character and conduct throughout a long and distinguished career, an annuity of £2,000 be granted to him."
  It would only be fair to add that Sir John Lawrence, in accepting the Governor Generalship of India, vacated his seat in the Council of India, and the salary of his office, and sacrificed the quiet and tranquil enjoyment of domestic life in order to perform the duty to which he was called. The least, therefore, that the House of Commons could do was to pass a special Act, according to the practice in such cases, enabling Sir John Lawrence to receive the full amount of the salary of Governor General together with the pension awarded him by the East India Company for special services. It was hardly necessary to refer to the fact that Sir John Lawrence was the younger son of an officer in the British army; that he had raised himself to his present high position unaided and unassisted by any extraneous influence, and entirely by the force of his own character and abilities. He would, therefore, conclude by moving a Resolution.
  That it is expedient to enable the Right Honourable Sir John Lawrence, baronet, G.C.B., to re-
  224
  ceive the full amount of the Salary of the Office of Governor General of India, notwithstanding his being in receipt of an Annuity of £2,000 granted to him by the East India Company as an acknowledgment of his distinguished Services.
  LORD STANLEY: I apprehend that there will be no difference of opinion on any side of the House upon this Resolution. I rise merely to express my entire concurrence—having been connected with Indian affairs during part of the time when the services of Sir John Lawrence were performed—in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. The pension granted to Sir John Lawrence by the East India Company was not a retiring pension, but was a recognition, and a very inadequate recognition, of services as distinguished as had ever been performed by a public servant in India. The Governor-General of India was well paid, hut it certainly would not be just that Sir John Lawrence should lose this reward simply because he has undertaken an office which is one of the most arduous that could ever devolve upon any man.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he could not permit that opportunity to pass without expressing his heartfelt gratification at the proposition of his right hon. Friend. It was, moreover, creditable to the Government that they had selected Sir John Lawrence, considering that the Viceroyalty of India was such an object of ambition to the great families of this country. The East India Company's service had produced some of the most distinguished men in the annals of British history, such as Clive, Malcolm, Elphinstone, Ochterlony, the two Lawrences, and many others; men who, entering the civil and military services as boys, by the force of their character and talents raised themselves to high stations unaided by interest. He heartily wished he could see, under the altered circumstances of the Indian Administration, the same prospect of obtaining high-minded, intelligent, and able men for the Government of India. Shortly the remainder of the East India Company's servants would be extinct; and he much feared that they might have governors-general of India very unlike Sir John Lawrence, who would have so little knowledge of the country as to suppose its inhabitants to be a homogeneous nation, instead of consisting, as they did, of twenty-one different nations and languages, and whose legislation would be influenced by European ideas, instead of being adapted to the habits and sympathies of the people.
  Motion agreed to:— Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MALT FOR CATTLE.—RESOLUTION.
  Malt for Cattle — Acts considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the House is well aware that the subject of the operation of the malt duty in restricting the employment of malt for the feeding of cattle has long been a matter of serious complaint, great controversy, and great interest. There are, I think, authorities of great weight and intimately conversant with agricultural affairs, who are of opinion that the matter is not of great practical importance, and that it never will be found gainful to make an extended use of malt in the feeding of cattle, even if the occasional use of it should be expedient. But, on the other hand, there are many who do not hesitate to say that they have made trial, and judging by the effect upon their own interests they are well satisfied with the result. Now, whatever be the truth of this question, it is very desirable we should get at it. If it be the effect of the malt duty to restrict and, indeed, prevent the employment in the feeding of cattle of a material really useful for that purpose, it is impossible to conceive a heavier charge or greater objection to any tax levied under the authority of Parliament. If, on the other hand, that material be not of great importance for that particular object, it is certainly much to be desired that the minds of those interested in the subject should be satisfied and enabled to arrive at a right conclusion. At different periods experiments have been made under the authority of the Government, in order, if possible, to arrive at a clear conclusion; but, whatever may have been the result of those experiments, I do not think that perfect satisfaction would be given to the persons interested if the matter were allowed to rest there. It is, therefore, with great satisfaction I have found that the authorities of the department of Inland Revenue have arrived at the conclusion that it may be in our power, without any serious risk to the great revenue dependent upon malt, and without imposing any onerous or vexatious restrictions, to bring the matter to issue in the broadest and freest manner by authorizing the erection
  226
  of malthouses where malt should be made free of duty for the exclusive purpose of feeding cattle. I anticipate no objection to the introduction of this plan, and, undoubtedly, I should be exceedingly well pleased if it be found that the most sanguine expectations of those who have recommended the employment of malt should be fulfilled, because the effect of the measure in that case would be—first of all, a vexatious restriction would be taken out of the way of legitimate trade; and, secondly, a very important addition would be made to the materials and resources of one of the most extensive classes of British producers. The provisions of the Bill will speak for themselves. Of course we cannot permit that malt should be made duty-free for the feeding of cattle in the same premises as malt for purposes of brewing. That would be attended with difficulties entirely insurmountable in the levying of one of the most important branches of the public revenue. Therefore, separate premises will be required. The great security, however, to which we look, and it is the only important restriction imposed by the Bill, is that the malt to be used for the feeding of cattle shall be mixed with linseed meal or cake in the proportion of at least one-tenth of the weight. That restriction can, I think, in no case operate as a sensible burden, and we have arrived at the conclusion that it will be a sufficient protection to the revenue, inasmuch as it will effectually prevent the employment of the same malt by the brewers. The matter being one of an experimental character we propose, as I have often found the most convenient course in such matters, that the Bill in the first instance should be only for a limited period—namely, for two years from the passing thereof and until the end of the next Session of Parliament—that is to say, for somewhat more than three years. That will give a fair opportunity for trying the effects of the measure, and, if necessary, for introducing amendments before it receives the final sanction of Parliament. I beg leave to move—
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the making of Malt Duty-free to be used in feeding Cattle."
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he must congratulate the House and the country upon the appearance of the first legislative measure in the slightest degree favourable to the agricultural interest during the last

  227
  thirty years. Whatever difference of opinion there might be, even at that distance of time, upon the subject of the" repeal of the Corn Laws, there would be none upon this—that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were entitled to the thanks of all interested in the agriculture of the country, for having thus given an opportunity of testing the matter in dispute. A great number of persons, uninfluenced by philosophic or scientific principles, who had applied their capital to the subject, maintained that the use of malt in the feeding of cattle would tend greatly to the advantage of the agricultural interest. He had been told that the Government had directed certain experiments to be made as to the ingredients or materials to be used in the feeding of cattle, and the expense of such experiments. He had been informed through the courtesy of the President of the Board of Trade, that those experiments had gone to some length. He would urge upon the Government to continue them, as of the utmost importance to the public in general, and as a great boon to the agricultural portion of the community. He might remark, however, that the limitation of the operation of the Bill to three years would, in his opinion, be found inconvenient. For so short a period it would hardly be worth the while of any one to erect buildings for the express purpose of malting in order to carry out merely an experiment.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he did not rise to oppose the motion, but to express a hope that it was not brought forward as a substitute for a reduction of the Malt Duty. If it were so brought forward, it would not satisfy the agricultural interest. As a body, they felt deeply interested in the Malt Duty, because they had felt it as a most oppressive burden for a considerable time. It was almost impossible that wheat, at existing prices, could be grown to pay a remunerative price; but as barley might, the agriculturists hoped to see it freed, as far as the finances of the country permitted, from that most obnoxious tax with which it was burdened when made into malt. The farmers, therefore, were not prepared in any way to relinquish their efforts to get some reduction of this tax, with a view to its ultimate repeal.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGthought that the Bill was likely to give universal satisfaction to the country, and that it would be advantageous to others besides the agriculturists, for, considering what had been the prices of meat for the last few
  228
  years, he conceived that the proposed measure was as much in the interest of the consumers as the producers. But he had risen to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the erection of buildings for the exclusive purpose of malting barley for the feeding of cattle. Now, in the county with which he had the honour of being connected, as well as in the adjoining county of Sussex, there were many buildings at present used only for drying hops, but which were equally well adapted for malting barley, and he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those who possessed what were called "oast houses" would beat liberty, under the provisions of the proposed Bill, to make use of them for the purpose of malting for their own consumption.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to take the opportunity of re-echoing what had fallen from his hon. Friend behind him (Colonel Barttelot). He trusted that the proposed measure would not have the effect of preventing a future discussion on the repeal of the malt duties. At the same time he must admit that, as far as it went, the growers of barley ought to feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having taken into consideration the subject he had brought to the attention of the House. He could not help thinking that if inferior barley could be malted for cattle it would prove beneficial to the farmers. He trusted, however, that the provisions of the Bill respecting the erection of malt-houses would receive some enlargement, or else, in thinly-populated districts, where capital was scarce, no persons would embark in the erection of such buildings for so short a period as two or three years. He therefore trusted that the existing malting-houses might, with due restrictions, be made available for the purpose, and, if so, the measure would be productive of real benefit.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, that, provided malt was better food for cattle than barley, then he was prepared to concur in the statement of the hon. Member for Kent that the proposed measure was a boon not only to agriculturists but also to the consumers. The question, however, was not a new one, but had been before the country for the last thirty years. A Commission, consisting of Dr. Lyon Playfair, Dr. Thomson, and Mr. Thompson, was appointed in Scotland to consider the subject; and after a variety of experiments the Commission

  229
  came to the conclusion that barley, in being malted, lost a portion of its valuable properties, and that raw barley was a better material for feeding cattle than malt. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by the proposed Bill he was merely doing something calculated to lead astray the agricultural mind. The measure would, it was to be feared, open the door to great fraud, and the farmhouses of England would become, in a great many instances, the scenes of illicit distillation.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he presumed that the malting-houses now at work would be allowed to make malt for the purpose of feeding cattle, for no persons would erect special buildings merely for a term of two or three years.
  MR. DUTTONsaid, he approved of the Bill as far as it went. He hoped the experiments would be conducted in such a clear and simple form as would make them conclusive on the disputed point as to the value of malt for the feeding of cattle.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know a little more about the Bill before he did that which he felt inclined to do—namely, thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for introducing the Bill. According to its provisions, as he understood them, in order to protect the revenue against fraud, the malting of barley for cattle-feeding would have to be carried on in a building separate from that in which barley was malted for brewing, and the Bill was to last for three years. But was it right to require the erection of special buildings for such an experimental purpose? Supposing it should turn out at the end of the three years that the system was a failure, all the expense would be thrown away. However, he would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his having at last condescended to turn his attention to the interests of agriculture. He agreed with his hon. Friend behind him, that the Bill must not be taken as a substitute for the reduction or repeal of the malt duties. At most it should only be taken as an instalment of the large measure of justice which had so long been due to the great body of agriculturists. The agriculturists would have no attention paid to them till they bestirred themselves; but if they were persistent in their claims the Government would be obliged to attend to them, and they would obtain that justice with respect to legislation which the demands of other classes had put in their possession.
  MR. BASSsaid, that having felt a deep
  230
  interest in the question, he had given it a good deal of consideration, and his conviction was that no one would erect offices for the special purpose in question, unless with a view at the same time to illicit operations. As to the mixing, brewers must be very much maligned, indeed, if they never put worse things in their beer than linseed. Notwithstanding the progress of the teetotal principles advocated by his hon. Friends behind him and the general dislike to adulterations, he suspected there would be found plenty of labourers in charge of cattle who would be glad of beer from malt, even though one in ten of linseed were mixed with it. It seemed to him that agriculturists were disposed rather to repudiate the concession and to go against the duty as a whole. If the duty generally were abolished, then the revenue would run no risk, but he was satisfied that if malt were allowed to be dried in this way, however it might be mixed with cattle food, the revenue would suffer. Without entering into the question of the relative merits of malt and barley for feeding purposes, he must remind Members that, at present, farmers were at liberty to malt barley for that object, on giving notice to the Excise and observing certain restrictions. He had recently entered into correspondence with some of the highest authorities on this question; and he had received a letter from Baron Liebig, stating that the drying of malt, that was of barley already germinated, instead of adding to its value as food, would rather diminish it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the subject before the House; when he recently attended a county meeting, convened for advocating the repeal of the malt tax, he considered it his duty to intimate to that meeting that he, for one, in the present position of affairs, was not prepared to sacrifice so large an amount of revenue as £6,000,000. He joined however with other hon. Members in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting one of the demands of the agriculturists. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) seemed to doubt whether malt was an advantageous material for the feeding of cattle; he (Mr. Newdegate) although at one time sceptical had become a convert to the opinion that it was so—a convert not upon a theory, but from the experience of his own neighbours. Many of the agriculturists in the Midland counties,

  231
  stimulated by the competition which had been excited by agricultural exhibitions, had tried the experiment of feeding cattle with malt, and he had their authority for saying that their experiments, made not merely for scientific purposes, but for the purpose of producing the best animal in the best condition, had convinced them that malt was- a most valuable article for the purpose. It was a long time before he became a convert to that opinion, but he could not withstand the evidence which had been brought before him by his personal friends, whose testimony he could not doubt, and whose experience had been most ample. He trusted therefore that the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of satisfying one portion of the requirements of the agriculturists; but whether it would remove their objections to the malt tax entirely he was unable to say. But he thought the proposal was a fair one, and it would be received in that sense by the agriculturists. At the same time he wished to guard himself as being taken to express any opinion as to the efficacy of the measure. He should not like to place his opinion in competition with that of the hon. Member for Derby, who was a high authority on this part of the subject, as to whether the revenue would be duly secured; but he felt that it was well worth the while of the House to make some attempt to remove the complaints of the agriculturists, which were valid in this respect, that amongst all the trades and all the pursuits carried on in this country theirs alone was subjected to excise restrictions, which not only intercepted their profits but interrupted the due course of the business from which they derived their livelihood.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he was very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it in his power to grant the proposed boon to the agriculturists. At the same time, he did not think it would be regarded as at all doing away with their just claims to have the whole subject of the malt-tax considered. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), having unintentionally misled the House, in some degree, as to Baron Liebig's views, had kindly given him permission to read the whole letter of that eminent man. It ran as follows:—
  "Munich, July 6, 1863.
  "In forming a judgment on the feeding properties of malt, when given to horses, cattle, and sheep, it is obvious that in comparing it with
  232
  barley we must not lose sight of the fact, that there is a larger amount of nourishment in barley than in the malt manufactured from it; for in the process of malting, barley suffers a loss in weight amounting to from 7 to 11 per cent of dry substance. The 'rootlets' constitute 3 to 3½ per cent of this loss, and as they contain a pretty large quantity of blood-forming (nitrogenous) matter (25 to 30 per cent), the grain, by their separation from it, undergoes a loss of one of its nutritive elements. Hence it is clear, that if in practice the feeding qualities of malt are found to be greater than those of barley, this can only arise from the circumstance that the nutritive matter contained in malt is present there in a more soluble, more digestible state than in barley; and that, therefore, in feeding with barley more nutritive matter leaves the body in an undigested state than in the case when an equal weight of malt is used as food. There can be no doubt whatever that in malt blood-forming matter is contained in a more soluble form than in barley; for the process of malting occasions a loosening of the component parts of the grain in so great a degree that 100 volumes of dry barley yield (notwithstanding the loss of weight) 112 to 114 volumes of dry malt. Such a loosening of the inner parts of the grain, thus enabling the gastric juice in the animal body to penetrate it more easily and thoroughly, is not to be attained in a like degree by a mechanical process. The comparative analysis shows finally that the amount of readily soluble blood-forming elements in barley is 1¼ per cent, and in malt 2 2⅛ per cent. By the process of drying in the kiln, a part of the soluble blood-forming elements is rendered insoluble, and from this it cannot add to the feeding capabilities."
  He (Mr. Caird) might add, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the experiments made in Scotland in 1862 were of a most limited and restricted character, being confined to two or three cows only, and therefore could not be regarded as a settlement of the question.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I do not now enter into the important question, whether the Bill will be received by the farmers with disappointment or satisfaction. That is entirely beyond my view. I think, however, that the letter just read by my hon. friend from so high an authority entirely justifies the Bill. It may be that after all there will be disappointment, but there is at least a sufficient amount of uncertainty about the matter to give the English producers a fair right to have the experiment made, provided it can be done without danger to the revenue. My hon. friend the member for Derby (Mr. Bass) is persuaded that there will be a great risk in that respect. Well, the securities I propose are twofold—separate buildings, of course under the inspection of the Revenue Department, and the mixture of the malt with linseed. Although I

  233
  do not consider myself as competent to give an opinion on the subject, I have such a degree of confidence in those charged with the administration of the Department of Inland Revenue that I feel fully warranted, without any misgivings, in recommending to the House the adoption of this experimental Bill. I fear I somewhat misled the House as to the question of time. Instead of speaking only of the erection of malt-houses—I should have said, "the erection or adaptation of malt-houses." My idea is that the premises must be separate, and that the mixture with linseed must also be compulsory, for we can have no security whatever for the revenue unless these conditions are enforced. But there is no reason why the malthouses should necessarily be new. The number of maltsters, it is well known, has diminished, and there are many premises now unused which might be adapted to the purpose. With regard to the observations of the hon. member for East Kent (Sir E. Dering), the question is of too technical a kind for me to give an opinion on it at the moment. I do not, however, see why any premises now applied to other operations may not be also available for this purpose, provided, of course, that they are not connected with malting or calculated to affect the duty. I think that there is reason in what has been said as to the shortness of the time allowed in the Bill, and I, therefore, propose to double the term of three years—that is, to insert five years in the Bill, and to make it expire at the end of the then next Session of Parliament. Of course if any case of gross abuse or difficulty shall arise, the Government will not be precluded from applying to Parliament for an amendment of the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. PEEL, and Mr. HUTT.
  In reply to Mr. BASS,
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERstated that persons operating under the Bill, like any other maltsters, would come under the general law with respect to the payment of licenses.
  Sir E. DERINGinquired, whether he was to understand that a person making malt for his own use must take out a licence?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERreplied that the Bill did not con-
  234
  template such cases. It applied only to persons making malt for sale.

COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have now to ask leave to introduce another measure, which is not without its importance, as bearing upon the comfort and convenience of various classes of persons, and likewise upon the interests of the State and of the revenue. The House will remember that, from time to time, we have had conversational discussions upon the subject of the administration of our laws with respect to the collection of what are called the Queen's taxes through the medium of a voluntary agency. In that voluntary agency are included four different descriptions of persons—first, the Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament in the various districts of the country, each set of Commissioners having exclusive jurisdiction within its own district; secondly, the clerks to these Commissioners, to whom they look as their legal advisers; thirdly, the assessors, whose business it is to perform the preliminary process of bringing persons under taxation; and, fourthly, the collectors, whose business it is to obtain from the taxpayers the sums which they have become liable to pay. With respect to the first two of these classes, so far as I am concerned, I regard them as permanently established; and not only so, but I conceive that the establishment of such local officers is of almost indescribable value and importance. I very much doubt, indeed, whether it would be practicable to levy some of our direct taxes —the income-tax in particular—if it were not for the extremely valuable assistance which the Government derives from the gratuitous labours of the Commissioners in all parts of the country. Therefore, I need not say that the Bill which I propose to introduce does nothing whatever towards shaking or impairing the jurisdiction of these bodies, nor indicates any disinclination to the continuance of that jurisdiction. The third class is the assessors, with respect to whom I do not take precisely the same view; on the contrary, I think it may be open to consideration, at a fitting period, whether it is expedient that the whole of the assessments for direct taxation should be made by Queen's officers or by local officers. That, however, is a matter upon which I do not profess to have a

  235
  positive and formed opinion; it is a matter in which there is no great or serious evil calling for redress; and it is a matter which I do not propose in any manner to touch by the present Bill. The Bill, then, has exclusive reference to the class of collectors, and to the business of the collection of taxes; and it aims, subject, however, to certain important restrictions, at establishing in England the system which is at present in operation both in Ireland and Scotland, which, with respect to Ireland, I believe works well, and which with respect to Scotland I may say I know works exceedingly well, and to the satisfaction both of the persons responsible for the collection of the revenue, and of the community at large. Although the Bill might fairly be called a theoretical improvement upon the present system, yet it is not a mere theoretical improvement, for it aims at the removal of certain serious inconveniences—inconveniences which sometimes amount to positive grievances.
  There is, in the first place, the grievance of parishes. The collectors of taxes at present are local officers; but, although they are local officers, they are not popularly elected. They derive their nomination immediately from the assessors; the assessors derive their nomination from the commissioners; and the commissioners derive their jurisdiction from Parliament. Therefore, the taxpayers in a parish, as a body, have no immediate connexion with the appointment of the collectors; but, nevertheless, inasmuch as collectors are purely local officers, and are not in any way under the control of the Executive Government, the law has of necessity provided that in case of default on the part of a collector, the parish shall he responsible; and, although I am happy to say—for I am not here to bring any general charge against the body of collectors—that cases of entire default are rare, yet, undoubtedly, when they do occur, they are of a very severe and onerous character. This is no mere abstract grievance, for cases have occurred in different parts of the country, sometimes in smaller parishes, sometimes in larger, where it has been necessary to take the same tax twice over from the community, in consequence of the default of the collector. The law being so severe, of course parishes make every effort to escape from it. Sometimes they endeavour to show a mixed liability, and to bring in the Revenue Department, directly or indirectly, as partly responsible for that de-
  236
  fault, even though it has not had anything to do with the appointment of the collector. This leads to difficulties of another class, because, wherever it can be shown that the Revenue Department is in any degree responsible, even indirectly, it is impossible for us to proceed to a measure so odious as would then be a second collection of the tax. There arises another public evil— namely, that we are obliged to take into our own hands the exercise of a jurisdiction as to what parishes shall be let off and what not, which is in itself of a very slippery character, and of which we wish to get rid. That is the grievance of the parishes.
  The grievance of the taxpayers, individually and independently of their character as belonging to a particular pariah, is that they have no hold over the collector. The collector may make a premature demand, or he may menace proceedings with regard to the collection of taxes. We have no power to prevent him, and it is difficult for a body constituted as are the local commissioners, only meeting at rare intervals, to exercise over their subordinate officers that kind of close and stringent supervision which ought to be exercised by somebody or other over all persons that are engaged in the collection of taxes. That is the grievance of the taxpayers.
  The revenue has its grievance also, because though, as I have said, I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the general body of collectors—on the contrary, I believe they do all that we can fairly expect from an ill-paid class of men —a class sometimes not highly educated, and never under the degree of control that ought to be applied to their office,—yet it naturally follows from the collection of taxes, often of a very small amount, by persons not officers of the Government, that the work is sometimes imperfectly done. In some cases, for example, a great deal of unnecessary delay is allowed, thereby increasing the risk of final default, and there is a want of punctuality in the collection which causes serious public inconvenience.
  Lastly, there is the grievance of the collectors themselves. I doubt whether many hon. Members are aware how serious that grievance is. It is double; first, it is difficult, with justice to the Exchequer, to give to the collectors in many instances a degree of remuneration that would make it worth while for them to undertake the office; but, secondly, this is not a voluntary but a compulsory office on their part. They are compelled to undertake it, and

  237
  cases of the most serious vexation often occur. Spite and revenge are motives which, I am happy to believe, lie at the bottom of but a small proportion of human actions; but sometimes there are individuals who will act even from such despicable motives as spite and revenge, and will inflict an inconvenience upon their neighbours because it is an inconvenience. Some of these individuals occasionally get appointed assessors, and there are cases where assessors have nominated particular persons to be collectors—that being a function placed in their hands bylaw—simply because they knew the office was one totally incompatible with the station in life of the parties selected, and with their personal convenience. Among the gentlemen who have been nominated collectors of taxes, the office being one in which personal service is expected, I find a general officer in the army, a retired barrister, merchants absent from home during the entire day attending to their businesses, the principals of grammar schools, the captain of a merchant vessel, and, lastly, a lady. It is a fact also that assessors have sometimes nominated persons of great age, who have long retired from business. That is a serious hardship, and one which it is surprising has been tolerated so long. Of course, general officers and masters of grammar schools do not give up their military or educational pursuits when they are nominated collectors of taxes; but they pay substitutes, and in that way are obliged to make themselves criminal in the eye of the law for not performing a duty that ought never to have been laid upon them. That is a state of things which it is not desirable should be continued. These are, I think, ample grounds to justify an attempt to improve the present state of the law. At the same time I have always been of opinion, that it would be very unwise to force an extensive change in the state of the law against the will of the local communities, even though that change might in certain respects be an improvement; and I have given more than once the double pledge—first, that if the Government attempted to legislate on the question they would do so with ample notice; and, second, that in whatever they did, they would act with great regard to the free agency and assent of the local authorities throughout the country. These pledges I hope to redeem by the present Bill. As respects the question of notice, that is simply a matter of procedure, and I propose, if the Bill is allowed to be brought
  238
  in, to place it in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow or next day, and to fix the second reading for an early date, because I do not think that on that stage there is likely to be any dispute. Then I propose that a month or six weeks should intervene before we take the Bill into committee, that all who are interested in the measure may have an opportunity of fully considering its provisions.
  With regard to the other point, I have said that I think a Bill of this kind ought to depend as far as possible on what may be called voluntary operations. To give effect to this view we provide that it shall be in the power of the Department of Inland Revenue to give notice, in any county or any place where there are Parliamentary Commissioners with exclusive jurisdiction, that they propose to take into their own hands the collection of the Queen's taxes. That notice will be brought to the knowledge of the various Boards of Commissioners. An interval must then be allowed, within which the Board of Inland Revenue can take no further step; and we propose that if, for example, in any division of a county, within the time specified by the Bill, one-third of the number of Boards existing shall declare their dissent from the intention of the Board of Inland Revenue, it shall not be permitted to that department to carry its intention into effect. It is obvious that we cannot undertake to deal in every case with each Board of Commissioners singly. The Bill will require a very considerable change in the arrangements of the Inland Revenue Department; and it would not be possible for that department, without very great inconvenience and large public expense, to effect that change unless it were made over considerable districts. We therefore deal with the local unit of jurisdiction which Parliament itself has created; and if one-third of the Boards there do not dissent—that is, if two-thirds of them are presumably favourable to the plan—then it shall be put into operation. We also propose, in all cases where a district comes, as far as the collection of taxes is concerned, under the supervision of the Board of Inland Revenue, to make one other important change—namely, no longer to require that there shall be a personal call at the house of every taxpayer in order to obtain payment of his taxes, but to substitute for it the obligation to transmit to him a notice that the taxes will be payable at an office in the nearest market town. That is the

  239
  system on which the collection of the taxes now rests in Scotland, and it is found to be in the highest degree economical and convenient. We all know that the visit of the collector as it now takes place is a most burdensome affair. He is not bound to give any notice when he will come, and when he does come probably his victim is not at home; or, if at home, he may not be in the humour, or may not happen to have the money, to meet the demand. We admit the importance of the change we propose in this respect; but we think it beneficial as regards the taxpayer, if we are to judge from the experience of two out of three of the divisions of the United Kingdom. I believe it will also realize a very considerable saving in the public establishments, and thereby relieve the taxpayer in another form. These, then, are the most material provisions of the Bill. It contains, however, other provisions, which I hope will contribute largely to the convenience of the taxpayer, particularly in relation to those parts of the law which now concern the making out of the assessments and the time of the appeals. The arrangements as to these points are at present very defective. But I will not attempt to explain verbally what the Bill itself will serve best to make clear, the subject being very dry and complicated. I trust hon. Members will take the pains to read the Bill, which is not of very great length. I have confined myself to the leading and fundamental provisions of a measure which I think deserves the favourable attention of the House. We are by no means moving in this matter without invitation and incitement from various parts of the country. We have received memorials from Clifton and other places, requesting us to take over the collection of the Queen's taxes. I am aware that there will be districts where the Commissioners will probably be against this change, and such districts probably will frequently be those in which the collector-ships are most valuable. I do not complain of that; we do not wish to override the power of the local authorities, but we believe, from actual information we have obtained, that the majority of the Boards will be found friendly to the change. I therefore hope the House will be of opinion with the Government, that the time has come when the attempt may fairly be made to introduce a measure which I trust will be useful, beneficial, and economical. I will, therefore, conclude by moving for
  240
  leave to bring in a "Bill to alter and amend the Laws relating to the collection of the Land Tax, Assessed Taxes, and Income Tax."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to meddle with the assessors. He did not know what might be the practice in towns, but, in the country districts, the assessors were remunerated for their trouble—which was considerable and disagreeable — in making the assessment by being appointed collectors afterwards. He therefore thought it would be very difficult to get assessors to act if they were not to be paid. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: We provide for that.] He would postpone giving any opinion on the general question till he had seen the Bill. But another point which struck him as material was how the notices for payment were to be served. Many of the taxpayers were assessed for very small amounts, and if the notices were to be served by post he was afraid that many persons might not get them.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought nobody would complain of the proposed alteration as regarded the land and assessed taxes, but the question of the income tax was one of a different character. The land and assessed taxes were in their nature permanent, but before the Bill passed which the right hon. Gentleman was about to introduce, there would be no income tax at all. The impost expired on the 1st or 5th of April next; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was asking for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the system of collecting a tax which was to be raised by virtue of a law not yet passed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: There are arrears.] He objected in the strongest manner to a different and more stringent mode of collecting the arrears of the tax: being adopted from that contemplated when the tax was temporarily imposed. Were they to infer that the income tax was to form an important feature in the next Budget, and re-appear as a permanent tax? The income tax stood in a different category from the other taxes, because it proceeded to a large extent on the principle of self-assessment. He thought it would be far more convenient if they knew what they had to pay, and to whom it should be paid, through one and the same Act. As regarded the income tax, at all events the question as to its collection had better be taken in connection with legislation on the tax itself.
  MAJOR STUARTsaid, he had to complain of the inconvenience to which small ratepayers were put by the great distance of the place of appeal. He resided within two miles of the town of Bedford, but one place of appeal was twenty miles away, without a railway, and the other seven or eight miles across the country. He believed that the same inconvenience existed in many other counties.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to mention the grievances of the local commissioners, who had often to deal with a set of collectors who were perfectly ignorant of their duties. He thought it would be a great boon to the rural districts to have collectors appointed and paid by the Government. But there was one change proposed which he did not approve. It would be a hardship on the taxpayer to require him to call at an office with the money instead of having the collector to make his calls as at present. That hardship was felt with regard to the Excise duty in his neighbourhood, where the farmers had to walk eleven or twelve miles to pay it. There might be a saving to the revenue from the proposed change, but undoubtedly there would be no saving, but rather an increased cost, to the public at large. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist on that part of his scheme.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he believed there was not that unanimity in Scotland in relation to the matter that the right hon. Gentleman had intimated. There was, on the contrary, considerable difference of opinion on the subject. He hoped, therefore, the second reading of the Bill would not be taken without giving sufficient time to consider its principle. There could be no greater mistake than to pass the second reading lightly, and then discuss the principle on some subsequent stage.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to inquire if any provision would be made with regard to payments in anticipation. He would put the case of a tax paid for a whole year. The second half, being voluntary, remained in the hands of the collector; he wished to know at whose risk.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not aware that the payment of a tax by anticipation was known to the Inland Revenue. "Wherever it was paid by anticipation, it was entirely a matter of local arrangement, under local authority, and might lead to considerable
  242
  difficulties. It was certainly not desirable that the State should be in possession of any portion of the taxes before the time they were due, and still less desirable was it that those taxes should be in the possession of the collector. With regard to places of appeal, he thought it very far from desirable that Government should take into their own hand compulsory power for fixing them, because although they might be disposed to exercise it in the interest of the taxpayer, they might exercise it very inconveniently for the Commissioners, and probably without sufficient consideration. He sometimes received complaints from taxpayers that the places of appeal were inconveniently situated, and the course pursued was this—he immediately communicated with the Commissioners, and he invariably found every disposition to accommodate matters to the wishes and convenience of all parties. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Stuart) would favour him with the particulars of any case on paper in which complaint had arisen, he would take care that it was attended to. With reference to the time he should fix for the second reading, he certainly had proceeded on the assumption that, as far as the second reading was concerned, the House would desire to pass it over lightly, because the Bill purported to be not for any general transfer of powers, but only in cases where it was agreeable to the wishes of the Commissioners of the local community; but even as regarded the second reading, he had no disposition to hurry it. The Bill was already printed, and would be ready for distribution on the next or following day, and he should propose the second reading, probably, on Thursday week; but what he thought material was, that there should be ample time before the Committee on the Bill, which he proposed to fix not less than a month after the second reading. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) would therefore have the opportunity of throwing the full light of day on the whole subject of the income tax before the Bill passed through committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to alter and amend the Laws relating to the collection of the Land Tax, Assessed Taxes, and Income Tax, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.

INSANE PRISONERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.— MOTION FOR LEAVE.

  THE CONVICT TOWNLEY.
  SIR GEORGE GREY:—Sir, in rising to make the Motion of which I have given notice for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 3 &c 4 of Her Majesty, c. 54, relating to the care and treatment of criminal lunatics, I think I ought at the outset to state what is the existing law on the subject which I propose to amend. That law is contained in the 3 &c 4 of Her present Majesty's reign, c. 54, s. 1. That Act was an amendment of the 9 & 10 Geo. IV., c. 40, s. 55, to which it may be necessary, for a few moments, to refer. It was a general Act, and was entitled "An Act to amend the Laws for the Erection and Regulation of County Lunatic Asylums, and more effectually to provide for the Care and Maintenance of Pauper and Criminal Lunatics in England." That Act embodied in its 55th section the provision of a former Act upon the same subject, with but slight and immaterial alterations. The law, therefore, before the present Act of 1840, provided that, with regard to two classes of prisoners only, under certain circumstances a prisoner might be certified by two medical men to be insane, and on such certificate might be removed by a warrant of the Secretary of State to a lunatic asylum, The two classes of prisoners to which the Act of 9 Geo. IV. related were persons imprisoned in any county or borough prison, under any sentence of imprisonment, and persons under sentence of transportation in this country. All other classes of prisoners were excluded from the operation of the Act. With respect to those two classes of prisoners the Act provided that they might be certified to be insane while in a borough or county gaol, or in the hulks, or in a convict prison, by two physicians or surgeons; and it went on to provide, that when a certificate to that effect was received by the Secretary of State, "it shall be lawful for him to direct by his warrant the removal of such prisoner to some lunatic asylum," to be detained there, or in some other asylum to which he might subsequently be removed, until he should be certified by two physicians or surgeons to have become sane; in which case, upon the receipt of such certificate, the Secretary of State was authorized, if the term of the sentence had expired, to discharge the man, or if the sentence was not expired,
  244
  then to remit him to the hulk or convict prison, or county or borough gaol as the case might be, in which he had been originally confined, there to undergo the remainder of his punishment. In 1840 those provisions were revised, and the present law was passed, with some material alterations. The first alteration referred to the class of prisoners comprised within the Act; and the object of that Act seems to have been—an object in which the public interest was concerned—to authorize the removal of prisoners charged with or convicted of any class of crime, and who had become insane, from the prisons in which they were confined, and to subject them to proper medical care in some lunatic asylum. The Act provided that,
  "If any person while imprisoned in any prison or other place of confinement, under any sentence of death, transportation, or imprisonment, or under a charge of any offence, or for not finding bail for good behaviour or to keep the peace, or to answer a criminal charge, or in consequence of any summary conviction or order by any justice or justices of the peace, or under any other than civil process, shall appear to be insane, it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace of the county, city, borough, or place where such person is imprisoned, to inquire, with the aid of two physicians or surgeons, as to the insanity of such person;"
  And it went on to enact that, when such insanity was so certified to the Secretary of State, it should be lawful for the Secretary of State to direct the removal of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum. Thus the effect of this alteration was to include every class of prisoners except those under civil process, for whom other provision was made. Beyond thus including every class of criminal prisoners, the Act went on to require—I presume with a view to greater care and precaution in the giving certificates, the effect of which would be to remove criminals from prisons to lunatic asylums—that an inquiry should be made which was not required in terms by the previous Act, and that such inquiry should be made by two justices of the county, borough, or place where such person was in prison, with the aid of two medical men. This Act threw the chief responsibility upon the justices who were to make the inquiry, with the aid of two medical men; and the certificate upon which the Secretary of State was to act was required to be signed by the justices and the physicians or surgeons. The latter part of the clause in the former Act remained unaltered, and it is important to bear that in mind when we are considering the operation of this Act in a case

  245
  which has recently occurred. The old Act only related to the two classes of prisoners I have described—those who were imprisoned in any borough or county gaol, and those who were under sentence of transportation and were retained in this country in the bulks or in convict prisons—and the latter part of the clause, therefore, had reference only to those two classes; but no alteration was made in the Act of 1840 calculated to meet the case of prisoners differently circumstanced. The Act of 1840 went on to provide, that upon the receipt of a certificate properly signed, it should be lawful for the Secretary of State (exactly in the terms of the former Act) to order the removal of the prisoner so certified to be insane, to a lunatic asylum, there to remain, subject to removal from one asylum to another, until certified to be sane, whereupon he was to be discharged if his term of imprisonment had expired, otherwise to be sent back to prison for the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced. It is under this Act that the recent case of George Victor Townley has occurred; a case which has not unreasonably—I may say has properly—excited public attention, and in respect of which I feel bound to give the fullest explanation in my power. It is well known that Townley was convicted of murder. I need not enter into a detail of the circumstances of the crime, but will simply say that he was tried at the last winter assize for wilful murder, was convicted, and sentenced to death. The defence of insanity was set up at the trial and failed. The day after the trial the Judge, Mr. Baron Martin, addressed to me this letter—
  "Nottingham, Dec. 13, 1863.
  "Sir,—George Victor Townley was convicted yesterday before me at Derby of murder, and sentenced to be executed. I have directed a copy of my notes to be made for you, should you desire to have it; but there is a full report of the trial in the newspapers. The conviction was in my opinion right; but Mr. Forbes Winslow and Dr. Gisburn were examined at the trial, and both deposed in the strongest manner that the prisoner is now of diseased mind and absolutely insane. I think it right to call your attention at once to the subject, with a view to a correct opinion being formed as to the propriety of his execution.
  "I have, &c.,
  "SAMUEL MARTIN."
  Upon receiving that letter, I read, as it was my duty to do, with attention the evidence at the trial, including, of course, the evidence of the two medical witnesses, to which the learned Judge had pointedly called my attention. I intimated to the
  246
  learned Judge that that evidence did not impress me to the same extent as it appeared to have impressed him. But then a Judge who tries a case, whose whole attention is given to the evidence, who sees the manner in which the witnesses give that evidence, is more competent to form an opinion of its weight than a person who merely reads a report of it. I wrote, therefore, to the learned Judge, intimating that to me the evidence did not appear to be conclusive as to the insanity of the prisoner, hut that I wished to know from him whether—from the evidence given at the trial, or from the demeanour of the prisoner, which might form an essential element upon a question of this kind — he had formed any opinion of his own as to whether the prisoner was insane, or whether, as I rather collected from his letter to me, he was of opinion that the case was one in which further inquiry ought to take place. In reply, Mr. Baron Martin wrote to the Under Secretary of State as follows:—
  "Norwich, Dec. 18, 1863.
  "Sir,—I have received your letter of the 17th instant, requesting me to inform Sir George Grey whether the impression produced on my mind by the evidence of the two medical witnesses on the trial of George Victor Townley, coupled with the demeanour of the prisoner, was such as to induce me to believe that the prisoner is now insane, or that there is such reason to believe him so as to call for further inquiry. I cannot say that I have formed any decided opinion upon the point. The demeanour of the prisoner afforded me no means of arriving at one. He sat during the trial with his head depressed; I scarcely once saw his countenance; and he never spoke. I would not be justified in saying that the evidence of Mr. Forbes Winslow and Dr. Gisburn is not correct, but I certainly think, and have thought ever since the trial, that there ought to be further inquiry.
  "I enclose a copy of my notes of the evidence. You will find that of Dr. Winslow and Dr. Gisburn at page 25 and following pages.
  "I am, &c,
  "SAMUEL MARTIN."
  Let me say here that this has been by no means the first case in which there have been similar recommendations of a Judge after trial of a prisoner convicted of murder—sometimes where the evidence of insanity has failed, and sometimes even when the defence of insanity was not set up at the time, and when counsel had not been instructed to press that defence. There have been, during a series of years, cases which have been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State—not only my own notice,—as some of the most remarkable cases have been submitted to the decision of other Secretaries of State; cases in which either by recommendation

  247
  from the Judge, or representations from other persons entitled to credit, sufficient grounds were shown to exist for further inquiry; and in some cases the inquiry has gone so far as to recur back to the time when the crime was committed, so as, in effect, to revise the evidence at the trial, and actually to reverse the verdict of the jury. I believe in all those cases the result was a commutation of the capital sentence. There is the remarkable case of Dalmas, about twenty years ago, who committed a murder on Battersea Bridge under somewhat similar circumstances to those in the present case. That prisoner was removed by the order of Sir James Graham, who was then Secretary of State, to Bethlehem Hospital, after an enquiry by two medical men. Shortly afterwards he was certified to be sane and was then sent back to prison, but his sentence was commuted to transportation for life, and I believe he is now in one of the Colonies, by virtue of the commuted sentence. There have been many cases in which, after representations from Judges or other persons, the Secretary of State has made inquiries as to the sanity of the particular prisoner. I do not think any fault can be found with the Judges on this account, and I would specially wish not to be understood as implying that any fault can be found with Mr. Baron Martin for having called my attention to the subject. The comments of the newspapers upon the case, or at least of some of them, seem to indicate ignorance on the part of the writers of what is the law of England upon this subject. I find it stated in a late edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, by Serjeant Stephens—
  "By the Common Law, if a man in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and before arraignment for it he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it, because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought; and if after he has pleaded the prisoner becomes mad he shall not be tried, for how can he make his defence? If after he be tried and found guilty he loses his senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced; and if after judgment he becomes of nonsane memory, execution shall be stayed; for, peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution." [Stephens' Blackstone, bk. vi., chap. 2, s. 2.]
  He goes on to say (and these are Black-stone's words)—
  "In the bloody reign, indeed, of Henry VIII. a statute was made, which enacted that if a person being compos mentis should commit high treason and after fall into madness he might be tried in his absence and should suffer death as if he were
  248
  of perfect memory. But this savage and inhuman law was repealed by the statute 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, a. 10. For, as is observed by Sir Edward Coke, 'The execution of an offender is for example, ut pœna ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat; but so it is not when a madman is executed, but should be a miserable spectacle, both against law and of extreme inhumanity and cruelty, and can be of no example to others.'"
  I will only add to this a short passage taken from some remarks made by Sir John Hawles, the Solicitor General in the reign of William III., on the trial of Mr. Bateman in the previous reign. It will be found in the 11th volume of the State Trials. After stating that—
  "Nothing is more certain law than that a person who falls mad after a crime committed shall not be tried for it, and if he falls mad after judgment he shall not be executed."
  He adds—
  "That it would be inconsistent with humanity and inconsistent with religion to make examples of such persons, as being 'against Christian charity to send a great offender quick, as it is styled, into another world when he is not of a capacity to fit himself for it.'"
  Such being the humane and Christian principle of English law, let me ask whether, if serious doubts present themselves to the mind of a Judge as to the sanity of a prisoner, it is not his duty, whatever may have been the verdict of a jury, to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the case—the Secretary of State being the only authority through which any intervention can take place—to prevent the execution of a prisoner contrary to the common law of England? If Mr. Baron Martin was impressed by evidence which tended to show that Townley was of unsound mind, he was only performing an obvious duty in calling my attention to the facts. Well, then, knowing what the law of England was on this point, was I not bound by the respect due to any Judge, and especially to so distinguished a Judge as Mr. Baron Martin, to pay proper attention to such a representation? Would it not, in fact, have been a gross violation of my duty if I had not done so? I could not have justified myself to Parliament or the country, to my own conscience, and before God, if, after the representations that had been addressed to me by the Judge, I had abstained from instituting further inquiry. Sir, I felt that I had no choice. In communication with the Under Secretary of State it occurred to us that the best persons to conduct the inquiry would be the Lunacy Commissioners, who are intrusted with large powers by law to inquire into the

  249
  state of mind of persons in public and' private asylums, and either to continue them in confinement or discharge them. Their experience is consequently great. The Under Secretary of State having ascertained, by a communication with them, that they were willing and able to undertake this inquiry, I addressed a letter to them requesting them to do so. In that letter I stated what the precise point of inquiry was. I stated that the Judge had expressed an opinion that the verdict was right; that having read the evidence I concurred with the Judge in that opinion; but that as the Judge had also expressed doubts, founded upon the evidence, whether at that time—which was some months subsequent to the commission of the crime —the prisoner was or was not insane. I desired them, if they could, to solve that doubt, and, abstaining from any review of the trial, and from any interference with the verdict, to inform me what their opinion was as to the prisoner's present state of mind. On the morning of the 29th of December I received the Report from the Lunacy Commissioners. It is necessary to bear in mind the date, for it was just forty-eight hours before the time fixed for the execution. The Report of the Commissioners was not so clear and explicit as I had hoped for, and it did not distinctly answer the question which had been addressed to them. The Commissioners stated that in their opinion, so far as they could collect from the evidence, no change had taken place in the state of mind of the prisoner since the trial, or since the commission of the offence. They further stated that in their opinion, for certain reasons which they gave, they could not consider the prisoner to be of sound mind, but that according to the law, as it was laid down by Mr. Baron Martin, which is in accordance with the law as it has been collectively declared by the Judges in M'Naughten's case, the prisoner was responsible for his acts. Now, it is clear upon this Report, that if the prisoner had been one of the patients examined by the Lunacy Commissioners they would not have declared him to be of sound mind with a view to his discharge; but the Commissioners found it impossible, according to the law as laid down, to come to any other conclusion than that he was responsible for his actions. I must say, for my own part, that, believing that the law as laid down by the Judges in criminal cases ought to be acted on, I should not, upon such a report, have felt
  250
  justified in interfering to stay execution. At the same time, this report placed me in a painful position. The Lunacy Commissioners said, in effect, "We do not consider this criminal to be of sound mind, and yet, according to the law of the land, he was responsible for his acts." On such a Report alone, I repeat that I should not have felt justified in interfering to prevent the law from taking its course. But at the same time that I received this Report, I received a certificate purporting to be signed by three magistrates — two of of whom were magistrates of the borough of Derby, and one was a county magistrate—and by two medical men, a surgeon and a physician, as required by the existing law. That certificate was in the following terms:—"Derby County and Borough Gaol." It is material that these words should be borne in mind, with reference to the jurisdiction of the magistrates, considering some of the objections taken to the course which I followed:—
  "Derby County and Borough Gaol, Dec. 27, 1863. "We, the undersigned, William Thomas Cox, Thomas Boden Forman, and Thomas Roe, being three justices of the peace for the county or borough of Derby, as hereunder described, hereby certify that we this day attended at the County and Borough Gaol, situate in the said borough of Derby, and with the aid of Henry Goode, of Derby, aforesaid, Doctor of Medicine, and Thomas Harwood, of the same place, surgeon, then and there proceeded to examine and inquire into the mental state und condition of George Victor Townley, confined in the said gaol under sentence of death: and we, the said William Thomas Cox, Thomas Boden Forman, Thomas Roe, Henry Goode, and Thomas Harwood, further certify that the said George Victor Townley is insane.

  "W. T. Cox, Justice of the Peace for the County and Borough of Derby.

  T.B. FORMAN, Justice of the Peace for the Borough of Derby.

  THOMAS ROE, Mayor of the Borough of Derby.

  "HENRY GOODE, M.B., M.R.C.S.

  "THOMAS HARWOOD, Surgeon and Apothecary, and Medical Officer of the Derby Union."

  It must be borne in mind that an immediate decision was necessary as to the course to be taken. Since this case has been under discussion it has been said that the certificate was invalid, and that I ought to have disregarded it, to have taken no steps with respect to it, and to have allowed the law to take its course, if I thought the report of the Lunacy Commissioners justified that step. Two reasons have since been alleged—I say since, because I believe that at the time no one thought of them—why the certificate was invalid. One—I am almost ashamed to men-

  251
  tion it—was that it was signed on a Sunday. The next was that the Act required that the justices who signed the certificate should be justices of the county, the prisoner referred to being in the county part of the gaol, where the borough justices had no jurisdiction. Now, if my attention had been called to these facts at the time (which they were not), the result would have been the same; I should not have hesitated to take the course 'which I really adopted. Well, then, great stress has been laid upon the fact that I signed a respite and forwarded it to Derby in consequence of this certificate. Sir, I avow that I did so; and I could not have done otherwise. Remember there were but forty-eight hours before the execution; and though to have referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown and to have instituted an inquiry at Derby would have been all very well if I had had a month before me, as the case stood the man would meanwhile have been hanged. Even had there been the delay of a day, the respite could not have reached Derby till the night before the execution, and the accident of a train breaking down, or any occurrence of that nature, might have prevented the receipt of the respite until after the execution had taken place. I determined, therefore, at once—not to commute the sentence—butrespitethe execution, taking time to consider the steps which should be resorted to. As it was, the respite did not arrive in Derby until the day before that fixed for the execution. The certificate I have read to the House was followed by a letter from the Governor of the gaol, stating that he had been requested to forward the certificate, showing that what was done was done with the full acquiescence —at all events, with the full knowledge —of the authorities of the gaol. It was accompanied by no intimation to me from any of the authorities that any irregularity had been committed, or that there was any reason to suppose that the certificate ought not to have been given. I was left to act upon it, without any intimation from that quarter; and I therefore took the course which I thought my official duty and regard for the law required. Next day—the 30th December—I received a second certificate, also without any intimation, on the subject, from the local authorities; and that was the first circumstance that suggested a doubt to my mind whether the first certificate was not informal, and whether it was not necessary that the certificate should be signed, not by borough
  252
  magistrates, although the gaol was within I the borough, and was both the county and borough goal, but by two county magistrates. This second certificate was identical in terms with the former; but the names of the borough magistrates were omitted, and those of two county magistrates were substituted. No suggestion was made that this certificate was not in perfect conformity with the Act, and on it, and it alone, the warrant for the prisoner's removal to Bethlehem Hospital was founded. If the warrant had been founded on the other certificate, I could understand the doubts which were subsequently suggested: there might have been some material question for a court of law, as to whether the warrant of removal was right on technical grounds; but in the case of the second certificate, no point whatever as to the validity of the warrant could arise. The effect of the two certificates together was that four justices and two medical men had certified in the terms required by the Act—having that Act before them, and knowing what the effect would be — as to the insanity of the prisoner. Well, on receiving the second certificate, I issued a warrant for the removal of Townley to Bethlehem. It has, however, been said that I had a perfect discretion in the matter, and that I was not bound to take the step even after the receipt of those certificates—that, however regular the second certificate may have been, I was not bound to act on it, but might have disregarded it, it being a matter of discretion. Now, let me say that such a construction of the Act is contrary to that uniformly put upon it by every Secretary of State who has been in office since it passed. Many cases have occurred in which certificates, signed by two magistrates and two medical men, have been sent to the Secretary of State; and I have not been able to find one in which he has not felt bound, as a matter of course, or rather positive duty, to order the removal of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum. But my argument does not rest merely on the construction given to the Act by successive Secretaries of State; because there have been several solemn decisions of Judges in which it is held, that where an Act of Parliament is for the public benefit—as is clearly the case here—words "empowering" or "enabling" have a compulsory sense, and that the exercise of the power depends upon the point whether the case conies within the Act, and not on the discretion of the

  253
  person intrusted with the duty of giving it effect. Any one reading this Act will find that it makes the certificate of two medical men and two justices final on the question of sanity up to the removal of the prisoner, and until the date of a subsequent certificate of sanity after inquiry held in the asylum after his removal. Even the very form of the certificate to be signed by those intrusted with the inquiry in the asylum assumes that the certificate on which the warrant of removal had been issued was well founded, because it states that the prisoner "has become sane," thus pointing to the state of mind of the prisoner when examined in the asylum, as having undergone a change since his admission. I therefore think it was clearly contemplated that the certificate of insanity on which a prisoner is entitled to removal from gaol must be considered final up to the issuing of the certificate of the medical men who shall have examined the prisoner in the lunatic asylum. I therefore felt myself bound to issue a warrant for the removal of the prisoner. I signed the order for Townley's removal on the 30th of December; but, owing to some cause, of which I am not aware, it was not executed till the 11th of January, and it was not until then that he was received into Bethlehem. A correspondence has taken place between my Office and the magistrates of Derby, to which I do not think it necessary to refer in detail on this occasion. An additional reason for my not doing so is, that I received a letter from the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Mundy), who is chairman of the Visiting Justices, stating, that owing to an accident he would not be able to attend in his place this evening. In reply I stated that though it would be impossible for me to avoid making a reference to the Townley case in moving this Bill, I would advert to the correspondence as slightly as possible. I may, however, observe, that owing to a communication from the magistrates, I felt it my duty to ask an explanation of the justices who had signed the certificate. It may be asked why I did not take a similar course with regard to the medical men who signed it. The reason is, that as Secretary of State I had a right to call on the justices for an explanation; but I had no such right in the case of the medical men. I will not refer to the letters I received in reply, further than to say that they satisfied me on two points — first, that those certificates signed by the magistrates
  254
  had been signed by them bonâ fide, and after due inquiry, and with a conviction on their minds that Townley was insane, however mistaken that opinion may have been; and, secondly, that the machinery of the law had been put in motion by the attorney for the prisoner, who had called on the magistrates to go to his client and examine him, and who had, I believe, also called on the medical men with the same object. I impute no blame to the prisoner's attorney for taking this course as long as the law sanctioned it. I do not think he was to blame for using every effort to save the life of his client. But I think it is a serious defect in the law that the attorney of a prisoner, acting irresponsibly, should be able to select the magistrates and the medical men who are to make an inquiry of this kind. Such a circumstance is calculated to affect, not the validity of the certificate to be signed, but its value. At the same time I think that no blame is to be attributed to the magistrates for the course which they took under the existing law. One of them who signed the certificate seems to have been anything but favourably disposed towards the prisoner, or inclined to believe him insane before he went to make the examination. But as the matter now stands, the clearly expressed report of four men, of the greatest eminence and the greatest experience, which has since been received, leads me to believe that a miscarriage of justice has taken place in this case, against the recurrence of which we ought to provide. With regard to the opinion of medical men on insanity, there is one point which has not been sufficiently adverted to—that is, the great difficulty there is in defining insanity. Hale says, "It is very difficult to draw the invisible line that divides perfect and partial insanity;" and in Blackstone's Commentaries, Stephen's edition, 1863, vol. iv. p. 112, it is stated:—
  "The line of distinction referred to by Hale has never yet been fully traced. The judges on a late occasion (Macnaughten's case in 1843), however, gave it as their opinion, that if a man who takes another's life appears to have known at the time that he was acting contrary to law, his being under an insane delusion that he was thereby redressing some supposed grievance or producing some public benefit will not exempt him from the guilt of murder; neither will he be exempted by being under an insane delusion as to facts, provided the supposed facts, if real, would not have justified the act; but that, on the other hand, he will be exempted by such delusion as last mentioned where the facts, if real, would have justified the act."

  255
  It is impossible for me, as long as that is the law, not to feel that a conviction may be right on the principle laid down by the Judges; and that, at the same time, justices and medical men may conscientiously arrive at the conclusion that a prisoner is insane. I think the conviction in this case may have been right, and that still the certificate may have been honestly given. I think the Amendment which I propose to the House, and which I hope the House will entertain, is calculated to correct this defect in the law, which allows its machinery to be put in motion, not necessarily by an impartial person, but by the agent of the prisoner, selecting himself the instruments by which the law ia to be carried into effect. What I propose to do in the Bill is to repeal altogether the first clause of the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 51, and to substitute an enactment having the same object—namely, proper provision for the care and disposal of criminal lunatics, who clearly ought not to remain in a prison, but to be removed to an asylum. I do not propose to limit the general operation of the Act. It is clear that every prisoner, if lunatic, should be removed without making any distinction as to the nature of his crime. I do not propose in any way to exempt from the provisions of the law any class of prisoners to which the law now applies. But, instead of leaving this delicate, difficult, and responsible duty to any two justices, I propose that the duty shall be imposed exclusively on the visiting justices of the prison. I propose, further, that instead of any two medical men volunteering their services, which must necessarily be most hazardous when we bear in mind the vague and crude opinions entertained by some medical men with regard to insanity, that upon the visiting justices upon whom will be cast the duty of inquiring, shall also devolve the duty of selecting the medical men whom they shall call in to aid their inquiry. I think these duties may safely be left to the visiting justices. They are selected from the general body of magistrates; all the internal arrangements of the gaol are under their supervision, and they have constant intercourse with every officer of the gaol; they know or have the means of knowing the mental and bodily conditions of every prisoner; and if they cannot safely be intrusted with these duties, we had better decide that they should be relieved of the general administration of the gaol, and
  256
  that it should be transferred to some central authority; which would be a change I could not recommend, and one not expedient, I think, for the House to adopt. I propose in addition that the physicians or surgeons who are called in should be registered as such under the Medical Registration Act. This brings me to a point which I ought to notice. Some time after the certificate in Townley's case was signed, I was informed that Mr. Harwood was not a surgeon registered under the Act, and I was asked whether the certificate was legal. He is described as "surgeon" by the visiting justices who gave the order for entering the prison. He is described as surgeon in the body of the certificate, and he is described as surgeon and medical officer of a board of guardians in the words attached to his signature. There is nothing to suggest a doubt on the face of the document; but when I was told that he was not a surgeon registered under the Act, I thought it my duty to call for an explanation of it. I received a letter from him, which, I think, is not necessary to read, but in which he distinctly admitted that although registered, he was not registered as a surgeon. In fact, Mr. Harwood is a general practitioner, who has for forty-three years acted as a surgeon, who is well known to every one in the locality, and who has frequently signed certificates relating to insanity in connection with the union of which he is medical officer. No question arose in this case upon the point. But I communicated with the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor gave me an unqualified opinion that Mr. Harwood was a surgeon within the meaning of the Act. Here I may say, that although for all that happened up to the reception of Townley into Bethlehem Hospital I am alone responsible, every act done by me since that time has been with the advice and concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. I think it right, in the Amendments which are now proposed, in order to remove all future doubt, to provide that the physicians or surgeons called in aid by the visiting justices shall be registered as such under the Medical Registration Act. The other, and perhaps the most important, provision in the Bill is, that the certificate of insanity, signed by the visiting justices and medical men, shall no longer be final or conclusive. In the great majority of cases, no doubt, it will still be final. The certificate will be, not a mere surmise or suggestion to the Secretary of

  257
  State, but the deliberate and recorded opinion under the hands of the visiting justices and two medical men, of the insanity of the prisoner to whom it refers; but by the insertion of words showing that it is not mandatory, but permissive, the Secretary of State, "if he thinks fit," will be able to institute further inquiries in any case before he directs the removal of the prisoner, so as to satisfy his mind, if he entertains any doubt, that the certificate is correct. If these alterations are made, I think effectual precautions will be taken against any such miscarriage of justice as may have happened in this case, and that the increased responsibility of the Secretary of State and the new responsibility imposed on the visiting justices will prevent any risk of the course of justice being improperly interfered with.
  Having said thus much, I must be allowed to say a word upon the course finally taken with regard to Townley. He was removed to Bethlehem on the 11th of January. I received no intimation from the officers of Bethlehem as to the state of his mind. In ordinary cases, if the medical officers of an asylum to which a prisoner has been removed are satisfied of his sanity, they send a certificate to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State acts upon their certificate and removes the person back to prison. It would have been very wrong if the officers of Bethlehem had hastily formed an opinion without allowing time to insure their arriving at a sound conclusion by observation and examination, and, as I have said, no certificate was received by me. But at the end of the week following that when Townley arrived in London, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, I requested Dr. Hood and Dr. Bucknell, Visitors of Chancery Lunatics, who have had great experience in such cases, Dr. Meyer, medical superintendent of the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, and Dr. Helps, resident medical superintendent of Bethlehem Hospital, to examine the prisoner, and after sufficient examination to report as to the state of his mind. Dr. Hood was absent on a tour of inspection in the North, which caused a delay of two or three days; but having had two interviews, and having taken the opinion of the medical officers of Bethlehem, on the 28th of January those four gentlemen gave a most clear and explicit opinion, that the prisoner was of sound mind. That opinion appears to me to be conclusive: while, as I have said before, I do not
  258
  impute to any one who signed the certificates of insanity—whether medical men or magistrates—that they signed without a full conviction at the time of the truth of that which they certified. It then became necessary to determine what course should be taken. In anticipation of the possibility of a report such as that which I did receive, I had conferred fully with the Lord Chancellor, in order that whatever course was taken might be taken at once. I stated to the Lord Chancellor my own opinion as to the proper course, and I had the satisfaction of finding that the Lord Chancellor concurred with me in a course which was afterwards also concurred in by Her Majesty's Government. I was of opinion that under the circumstances of the case—after the prisoner had been respited under the certificate, after he had been removed to an asylum, and after the doubts which had existed as to his sanity — it would not be right to carry the capital sentence into execution, to send him back to Derby, and to direct the sheriffs to fix another day for carrying the sentence into effect. Under these circumstances we thought it proper that the sentence of death should be commuted into one of penal servitude for life, and that the convict should be removed from Bethlehem Hospital to Pentonville Prison, which had become the proper legal place of custody under the commuted sentence. If we had acted otherwise, and had ordered the original sentence to be carried into execution, we should, I think, have strained the law beyond what had been done before in our criminal practice, and I think the public feeling has been best consulted by the commutation of the punishment. I have now stated all' the facts connected with the case, and I trust the hon. Member for Derbyshire, the chairman of the visiting justices, will not be of opinion that I have in his absence made any unfair reference to a correspondence in which he was concerned. For my own part, I attribute no fault to the visiting justices or any one else. The defect was in the law, and I, feeling myself called upon to act without delay and without any opportunity of taking any other advice than that legal advice which is always open to the Secretary of State, and in which I place the greatest confidence, I took that course which I considered to be consistent with my sense of duty and with the law. I have only to add that I hope the House will assent to the amendment

  259
  of the law which I now propose, and thus take an effectual precaution against the recurrence of such a miscarriage in any future case. The right hon, Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a Bill.
  Moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill "To amend the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, c. 54, for making further provision for the confinement and maintenance of Insane Prisoners."
  MR. MACDONOUGHsaid, that the question involved in the case on which the Secretary for the Home Department had dwelt at such length was of the utmost importance, as affecting the prerogative of the Crown and the due administration of justice; and it was desirable, that before the House proceeded to legislate on this subject, they should clearly understand what was the state of the law at present. The course taken by the Government on this occasion was a novel, but perhaps a necessary course for their vindication. Still, he thought the Government were acting with a most suspicious alacrity. On the very first day of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave notice of his intention to introduce this Bill, and that step was followed by a Motion of the Under Secretary that the papers should be laid on the table. That seemed to be done with the view to gain priority over assailants, and to submit the first statement to this House and to the country. The right hon. Gentleman in bringing in this Bill has favoured the House with a laboured defence of his conduct. His first proposition might be admitted without difficulty. The right hon. Baronet testified, in the first place, to the admirable manner in which the trial had been conducted by Baron Martin, and in the observations which fell from him on that head he entirely concurred. Baron Martin had submitted the question of sanity or insanity to the jury with the most entire accuracy in point of law, nor was the part which he took in the proceedings subsequent to the trial less worthy of commendation. The right hon. Gentleman himself, too, took at the outset a very proper course. Having received the suggestion of Baron Martin that further inquiry should take place as to the prisoner's sanity, he applied to the Lunacy Commissioners to undertake that inquiry. They did so; and reported that, according to the law laid down by Baron Martin, the prisoner was
  260
  sane enough to be responsible for his acts. Not satisfied with this opinion, he subsequently ordered a fresh inquiry to be made by four most competent persons, who, having examined and re-examined the prisoner, reported that he was a sane man. But in the meantime there had been a miscarriage of justice. Two certificates had been sent to the Home Office, prepared in such hot haste as to be irregular, the attorney who set the parties in motion having procured to one of them the signatures of the borough justices. Now, passing over the objection of its having been signed on the Sabbath, he would observe that if the right hon. Baronet had taken the trouble of reading the existing Act in conjunction with preceding Acts in pari materiâ, he would find that, the prisoner having been confined in the county gaol, the jurisdiction was in the county justices, and that it was they who ought to have signed the document. He would not, however, rely on technical objections, and would proceed to deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that the statute of Victoria was absolutely binding on him and left him no discretion. Now, this he (Mr. Macdonough) denied. The words "it shall be lawful" were words of a permissive character, and were imperative only in those cases in which public duty required that a thing should be done; they were permissive in general, and imperative when for the sake of justice or the public benefit, or looking to the clear context of the statute, they were evidently intended to be so. In the case under discussion they were not imperative, but permissive. All that the Act did was to enable the Secretary of State to remove the prisoner to Bethlehem Hospital if he should think fit. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think, he might add, that the first statute on the subject was the 9 Geo. IV.; but there was a previous statute, the 56 Geo. III., which contained no expression rendering it incumbent on the Secretary of State to act as if he were an automaton. Then came the 9 Geo. IV., and lastly the statute of Victoria, which it was now sought to amend. The common law of England was clear, that if a man was insane when he committed the offence he was not guilty of murder. It was a part of the very essence of the offence that it should be commited by a person of memory and discretion. Then came the statutes, of Geo. III., providing for cases in which persons became insane after conviction.

  261
  These provisions were intended for the care of the lunatic until the return of reason rendered him a fit subject for punishment, and not to enable justice to be defeated by trick or dexterity. On the receipt of the certificate a temporary respite might have been granted by the prerogative of the Crown, and thereupon there should have been an inquiry why the borough justices went to the county gaol, who were the physicians employed by the attorney for the prisoner, and what was the real state of mind of the convict. That was within the competency of the right hon. Baronet, and it was his duty to the Sovereign and to the people of this country to take care that a convicted murderer did not escape by a trick. Assuming, however, that the right hon. Baronet's construction of the statute was the correct one; that the words of the statute were absolutely mandatory; that the verdict of a jury pronounced after the correct legal instructions of a learned judge was to be set aside by the certificate of two physicians; and that, although their sworn statements on the trial might have been disregarded, their unsworn statement embodied in a certificate tied up the prerogative of the Crown and made one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State a mere automaton, who must instantly direct the removal of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum—assuming all that, what followed? Why, that this should be done, not as a conditional or absolute pardon, but merely as a respite of the execution until the return of sanity, and to insure the lunatic being cared for and the law fully carried out. The case was analogous to that in which there was an interference with justice on account of a prisoner's pregnancy. When a woman who had been convicted of murder pleaded that she was quick with child, a jury was empanelled to try whether she was so or not. If the plea was found against her she was not respited; if it was found for her she was respited, but she was respited only until she was delivered of the child, and when that was over she was executed.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Never—I do not think a case can be found within thirty years.
  MR. MACDONOUGH: The right hon. Baronet first said never, and then not for thirty years. His idea of everlasting was rather limited. There were numerous instances in the books in which women had been executed after such respites. If
  262
  while the woman was in prison she became in the familyway again she could not repeat the plea. What he was seeking to establish was the analogy of these temporary respites. He further maintained that if the first part of the section was mandatory the latter part was equally so. The first part of the clause empowered the Secretary of State to direct the removal of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum, and the latter part directed that upon two physicians certifying that he had become sane, the Secretary should order his recommittal to the criminal prison until his sentence of imprisonment had expired. What did that prove? It showed that the respite, which was the necessary consequence of the transfer of the prisoner to the lunatic asylum, was to be only temporary, and was intended for the care of the lunatic, and to prevent justice being defeated. Therefore, he cared not whether the statute was permissive or obligatory. In either case, the law of this country had been violated, and there had been, as was admitted by the right hon. Baronet, a miscarriage of justice—a miscarriage brought about by the attorney for the prisoner who set these people in motion. Was that to be tolerated? It had been announced tonight that after a report had been received from four eminent men declaring that Townley was sane, he was not to be executed. What was the explanation given of the facts of this extraordinary case, upon which the law of the land was now to be altered? If the right hon. Baronet had pushed his inquiries into the law of the country, or had consulted the Attorney or Solicitor General, he would have learnt that in his last act he had violated all the analogies of the law. In former times pardons for the greatest crimes, such as treason and murder, were often obtained by the undue influence of high officers of State. To prevent this the Parliament of England passed certain restricting statutes, which were very ingenionsly contrived so as not to trench upon the prerogatives of the Crown. By one of these statutes it was provided that in all charters of pardon for murder the particular manner in which the murder had been committed should be set forth. The reason of this was, that it was thought that if the murder had been committed after lying in wait, or by other shocking means, no Sovereign would put his hand to a pardon in which such heinous circumstances were disclosed. It was also a principle of the common law, that if a

  263
  Charter of pardon was obtained upon a false suggestion it was void ab initio. That was the case here. The pardon, or respite, or commutation had been obtained upon an absolute falsehood; because it was incredible that after the Judge and jury, the Lunacy Commissioners, and the four gentlemen appointed with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, had all pronounced this man to be sane, he should really be insane. The Secretary of State should have acted upon analogy with the statute and common law, and then this miscarriage of justice, arising out of a false suggestion made by the prisoner's attorney, would not have taken place. For it certainly was a violation of the analogy of the law if a man was pardoned through the aid rendered to him by others who had used their influence unscrupulously. The spirit of all the older statutes was entirely opposed to the theories which were now put forward, and so much was this the case that, after the Revolution, when the doctrine of non obstante was done away with, it was generally argued that the King had no power to pardon for murder; but the contrary was decided, and the Prerogative remained untouched. But if the punishment of death was to be continued in this country it was absolutely necessary that greater caution should be observed in future, for we had gone lamentably far in our interference with the manner in which sentences were carried out. He deeply lamented that a recent instance had occurred in which the last words an unfortunate culprit heard were, not the consolations of religion, but cries of "Where is Townley? Where is Townley?"
  MR. NEATEviewed with surprise and some little indignation the attacks to which the right hon. Baronet had been subjected by the press; and if he differed in opinion from the Secretary for the Home Department, in offering criticism upon his actions, he should at least remember that he was speaking of a man inferior to none in that House for judgment and ability, and superior to all in opportunities for becoming acquainted with the duties of the office he now held. However much he might differ from him, he should certainly express his opinions with forbearance and respect; and this, he thought, had hardly been evinced in the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. It was not, however, as the apologist of the right hon. Baronet, but as a critic of the measure which had been laid on the table, that he had risen to address the House. The Bill was, in his
  264
  opinion, very far from being an adequate remedy for the evil the right hon. Gentleman had so clearly pointed out. Such was the barbarous and unfortunate state of the law at the present day, that it was possible for a confirmed lunatic to be guilty of murdering his keeper, provided only that the act were done in what the law chose to call "a lucid interval;" but though they might convict a lunatic of murder, common sense would not permit him to be hung for the offence. This measure was a very imperfect remedy to the existing conflict between law and common sense and common justice. The law respecting lunatics dated from a time when there was very little knowledge of mental disease, and when the Judges who administered the law believed in witchcraft, and absolutely sent persons to the stake and the gallows for being guilty of that offence. One of the most distinguished of these Judges was Sir Matthew Hale, who was, no doubt, a very good and useful man, but certainly not a very wise one, and to quote him as an authority upon any point of criminal law affecting lunatics would be something like citing the author of the Pilgrim s Progress as an authority in Biblical criticism. But since those days no branch of knowledge had made more progress than that relating to mental disease. The result of the law as it stood had been a state of hopeless discrepancy between the legal notions of insanity and the medical notions. He did not mean to say that medical science had yet succeeded in pointing out any satisfactory test of insanity. It might be that the very nature of medical researches, which, traced the disease from its worst manifestations up to its first slight indications, when the mind was hovering between sanity and insanity, would disqualify medical men from laying down any satisfactory test as to the mental condition at a given moment; but, at any rate, they had arrived at conclusions utterly at variance with those of the lawyers. The test of law was, "Is a man capable of distinguishing between right and wrong?" A medical man declared that one of the most fatal signs of mental disease was an exaggerated sense of moral and religious duty. He did not cast any reflection upon Baron Martin, than whom a more patient and humane Judge did not sit upon the bench, and he gave the learned Judge great credit for the manner in which he dealt with the perplexity in which he found himself; but being a sensible man as well as a sound

  265
  lawyer, Baron Martin was conscious, no doubt, that when he was laying down the legal test of insanity he was laying down a test altogether at variance with justice and common sense—["No, no!"]—at any rate he must have been aware that Dr. Forbes Winslow and the other medical witnesses knew more about insanity than he did, and therefore he was unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of allowing the law to take its course. For these reasons, he was unwilling to throw undue responsibility upon the shoulders of the right hon, Baronet who had already so much to bear. He would not have made these observations if he had not a suggestion to make which might lead to a practical remedy. He would suggest that if the representatives of the medical and legal notions could be brought together—not in the arena of a court of justice, where there was a sort of conflict between them, and where medical men might, under the pressure of cross-examination, and under feelings of natural irritation at being treated with disrespect by persons who knew much less about the subject than themselves, give exaggerated opinions, but where legal and medical men could meet together and discuss the matter upon an equal footing—the result might lead to the clearing away the difficulties and prejudices which now perplexed the subject, and some more satisfactory rule might be arrived at than that which the present state of the law afforded. He recommended, therefore, for the consideration of the Home Secretary whether a Royal Commission or a Committee of that House might not be appointed before which lawyers and physicians might have the opportunity of giving their opinions upon this perplexing question. As to the recent case which had given rise to the proposed change in the law, he could not understand upon what grounds the medical gentlemen who last reported upon the case arrived at so very satisfactory a conviction of the sanity of Townley, and still less could he understand why such great stress was laid upon the opinion of these four gentlemen, so that their evidence was considered more conclusive than that of persons who were much better acquainted with that particular case. He admitted that the report was an able document; but he thought that, of all who were consulted, these gentlemen were the least to be relied on, because, from the very nature of their office, they were only brought into contact with the more developed and unmistakable evidences of insanity, and
  266
  were less capable than others of tracing the disease in its earlier stages.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he regretted that the necessity for the introduction of this Bill should appear to many to have arisen from the circumstance that a very large proportion of the people were of opinion that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. There could be no doubt that, in consequence of the provision in the statute which was now about to be modified, persons of wealth had an opportunity of putting the law in operation, while the poor man was entirely debarred from doing so. But he would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he thought his present proposal, if carried into effect, would get rid of all the objections which had been brought into notice by the late case of Townley? By the law as it existed at present, any two magistrates of a county, coupled with two medical men, might sign a certificate of insanity, and obtain a respite for a criminal. The alteration proposed was that two visiting justices, instead of two justices of the county, simply should have that power. Now, the visiting justices were not always men in whom complete confidence might be placed. They were as any other men liable to be actuated by feelings of detestation for capital punishment, and they were just as likely to be led away as other men. If, then, for the future, a certificate came up to the Home Secretary signed by two visiting justices and two medical men, would that act as a pardon for the criminal? [Sir GEORGE GREY: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said that, under the circumstances, he should have been acting contrary to all precedent if he had not respited Townley on receiving the certificate, and had not commuted the sentence of death to one of penal servitude for life. But in what material particular would the law be amended if there was only a substitution of visiting justices for justices of the peace? Punishment ought to be certain; and unless the punishment of death were abolished altogether, there never was a case which called more for the punishment of death than Townley's case. There were no mitigating circumstances in his crime, and, at the time of its commission, it was proved that he was perfectly sane, that is, as far as any one could judge of the sanity or insanity of a fellow-creature. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), that there should be a Committee or Commission composed of doctors

  267
  and lawyers, he did not think that the proposition made was by any means clear. This, however, he knew, that if a man had any peculiar turn of mind which was a little different from that of his neighbours, you could easily find a couple of doctors to come and say that he was a madman. If a man were addicted to hunting—a pastime in which, of course, he ran the risk of breaking his neck—and if he followed that pursuit to any great extent, he (Mr. Locke) would undertake to say that he could find doctors who would say that the man was not of sound mind. This being the case, there was no implicit reliance to be placed upon doctors any more than upon any other class of men. The jury, however, after hearing the doctors, found Townley guilty of murder and held him to be sane. He had since been certified to be insane, and was now shown to be sane. Was there any reason, therefore, why Townley should not have been executed? He was at a loss to know what reason could be adduced for respiting him unless it was intended to abolish the punishment of death altogether, nor was he prepared to say that this would not be advisable. But because, in the interim between his trial and the day on which he would have been executed he had been declared insane, was that any reason for commuting the sentence, when it was found that he was sane when he committed the crime and sane now? The very circumstance of his being placed upon his trial might have rendered him for the time insane. With regard to the Bill now proposed to be brought in, was it intended that if similar representations were hereafter made by the visiting justices and by doctors as had been made in the Townley case, that the same course was to be taken as at present? Because, if so, the friends of a person under sentence of capital punishment would avail themselves of the same opportunity that now existed, find which had been taken advantage of by those who had got up the representation to the Secretary of State. He sincerely hoped that the Bill would be most carefully looked at by hon. Members, so that they might avoid the opprobrium that had been recently cast upon the law in consequence of an execution that had taken place—he meant that of Wright; for it was very generally believed that if he had had rich friends he would have had a better claim than Townley to have his life spared. That Wright was in a fit state to be tried most people would doubt.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved, that much had been said, both in the press and in the course of recent discussions, with regard to the supposed conflict between the medical and the legal idea of insanity; and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had suggested a conference between medical men and lawyers to settle the supposed conflict. In reality, however, such a conflict did not exist; for the medical idea of insanity and the legal idea of it had perfectly different objects; and that was the real solution of the difficulty. The medical man was bound to ascertain the smallest trace of mental disease, with the view of finding a cure or an alleviation of it. The legal idea of insanity was always applied to a particular act. For instance, if a man had executed a deed or a will, the legal question was whether at the time he was competent to do that legal act; and so it was in the criminal law, for if a man committed an offence, the question was not whether he was of perfectly sound mind at the time, but whether he had that degree of knowledge of right and wrong to which the law attached responsibility and liability to punishment. He thought that it very often happened, that in criminal trials the distinction to which he had referred was lost sight of; and no doubt counsel were interested in doing so in order to induce the jury to believe that any amount of unsoundness of mind in the prisoner would warrant an acquittal. Medical men should not on such occasions be asked the question whether the man was of sound mind, but whether the insanity or unsoundness of mind under which he might labour was such as to deprive him of the knowledge of right and wrong, and of that responsibility, without which the law never inflicted criminal punishment. If the distinction between medical and legal insanity were kept clearly in view, a great deal of the difficulty that was now felt would be avoided. He would not stop to inquire whether the words in the Act, "It shall be lawful," were mandatory or permissive, for in the face of that Act of Parliament it would have been hardly possible for the Secretary of State to do otherwise than he had done, when the doubt was once raised. As long as there was a doubt on the point of law it was impossible for him to do otherwise than grant a respite. But there was one other subject in reference to which he did not think that the Secretary of State had acted with as much judgment as was desirable; he meant the case of the

  269
  prisoner Wright, who was executed. It seemed that Wright and the woman had been quarrelling all night—he believed they were both drunk—and in the morning it was found that Wright had murdered the woman. But it was at least doubtful whether he had done it in hot blood or with deliberation; and there being this doubt he thought that it was possible for the Secretary of State, without departing from the usual course, to have commuted the sentence. His own opinion was that it would have been wise to do it. He did not say whether the man deserved to be hanged or not, for that was not the question; prisoners were not hanged because they deserved to be hanged, but because it was good for the community that deserving death they should suffer death. If all those who deserved to be hanged were hanged, a great many would be put out of the way. In his opinion the execution of Wright had not a beneficial effect. Wright's execution took place immediately after Townley was saved from death. This had a very bad effect upon the lower class of the people; it had produced a strong impression among them that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. Hon. Members knew that that was really so, and to some extent it was unavoidable; but still it was a very dangerous thing that that impression should be deeply rooted in the minds of the working classes. He took some pains to ascertain the feelings of the people in reference to Wright, and he went to various parts of London, and among others to the neighbourhood of Horsemonger Lane, and heard many speeches made by working men. Some of them were as good as some he was in the habit of hearing in that House, though a good deal of nonsense was also spoken, and he came to the conclusion that the execution of Wright would produce a bad feeling between the poor and the higher classes. One man was declaiming against the aristocracy; and he (Sir George Bowyer) took the liberty of saying that he did not think that the aristocracy had anything to do with it, but that it was simply a mistake on the part of the people in authority. He (Sir George Bowyer) could not say that the feeling which had sprung up among working men was groundless, but he hoped that time would alleviate it. With regard to the Bill which would be brought in, he hoped that it would have the fullest attention of the House, so that an efficient remedy might be applied to the evil which now existed. In his opinion,
  270
  where it was clear that prisoners had become insane between the sentence and the time for the execution, there should be a discretion to send the prisoner to a lunatic asylum; but the discretion should be vested in the Home Secretary, and exercised on his responsibility. It was too important a matter to be left to the visiting justices. He himself was at that moment a visiting magistrate, and he should be very sorry to have such a responsibility thrown upon him. The Act should be framed in such a way that where it was pretty clear a man had become insane there should be a discretionary power in the Home Secretary to take evidence in a formal manner, and act upon his own responsibility.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid that the law relating to insane prisoners was much more frequently put in force than hon. Members seemed to suppose. He imagined that the Secretary of State must receive at least fifty certificates of insanity every year. The average from the gaol of which he was a visiting magistrate was about one a year, and he should be very much surprised if the matter did not meet with the immediate attention of the Home-office—in fact, if an answer was not received by return of post. It was very seldom, however, that a certificate was sent up about a prisoner under sentence of death. In this instance he was certainly surprised at the Derby magistrates who signed the certificates—one of them, he believed, said he did not know much of the law. In most counties there was a certain courtesy among the magistrates which prevented one magistrate from interfering with the visiting duties of another, and in his own county he should be very much surprised if two Shrewsbury magistrates should come into the county gaol on such business, unless asked by the visiting magistrates. With regard to the medical men, they always employed their own gaol surgeon and gaol physician, and he thought that the gaol surgeon, being appointed by the magistrates, should be one of the persons who should sign the certificate, and not any medical man who might anywhere be found. It was said the visiting justices were like other magistrates. But they were selected by their brother magistrates as having some knowledge of their duties, and being likely to attend to them; and therefore they were in a certain sense not like the other magistrates. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to repeal the present Bill and bring in an

  271
  entirely now one, because it was astonishing what trouble it gave the magistrates to have to look after the practical working of two Bills. He was not likely to be ever in a position to arbitrate upon the fate of an unhappy man, but if ever he should be, he should act precisely as the right hon. Gentleman had done; and he believed that there was no Member of that House who was at all acquainted with the course of criminal procedure who would not have acted in the same way.
  MR. BRIGHT: I have heard with a good deal of pain the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has left the House (Mr. Macdonough), who has repeated in the House a great deal of what we have seen in certain newspapers out of it. The hon. and learned Member and the writers in question, who probably represent some portion of the public, seem to be extremely unhappy because a criminal has escaped, not punishment, but a certain punishment which is generally considered to be the most dreadful of all the penalties the law can inflict. I confess that the calamity seems to be—and is, I believe— to the country much less than if an innocent man had happened to be hanged—and therefore I feel a great consolation. I think, if I were in favour of capital punishment—which I am not—1 should feel a great consolation that it was not an innocent man that had been hanged, but a guilty man that had escaped a certain punishment which the law apportions to his crime. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) has made a statement which, I think, to every person who heard it, except the hon. and learned Member for Sligo, must have been a complete justification for his whole course in this matter. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a statement with regard to its effect on his own mind; and I am rather sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Bowyer) has mixed up the case with that of another unhappy man who was executed. That is a question not before this House; the two questions made into one are not before the House; the subject for consideration is the Bill which the Home Secretary asks the House to agree to. I believe there is no man in the House, unless it be the hon. and learned Member for Sligo—and I will not even except him—who, had he been in the position of the Secretary for the Home Department, would have taken any course other than that which the' right hon.
  272
  Gentleman pursued. Why, it is a saying of an ancient writer—and not a Christian writer even—that when the life of man is in debate no delay is too great. And when the right hon. Gentleman had the facts brought before him which were disclosed at the trial, of the notorious insanity of members of the prisoner's family—when he had the, I will not say opinion, but, at least, I may say the doubts of the Judge, which he afterwards received — when he had medical evidence brought before him, besides other testimony other than that of medical men—I say it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to take any other course. I did not distinctly hear one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but he referred, I think, to a case which occurred some years ago at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I speak from memory. It was my fortune at that time to be applied to by medical men at Newcastle on behalf of the prisoner under sentence of death. He, it appeared, being a morose and passionate man, had quarrelled with a tax or rate collector, and, having followed him into the street, had stabbed him in the back and killed him. He was tried, and, if I am not mistaken, the plea of insanity was set up; but the jury, exactly as in the case at Derby, thought that if there was insanity at all it was not the sort of insanity of which the law takes cognizance, and he was accordingly convicted. The Judge who presided wrote to the Home Secretary expressing his doubts as to the sanity of the condemned man, and I think, also, he expressed a stronger opinion in favour of the view of insanity of the man than did the Judge in the case at Derby. An investigation took place, and the result was the same as in the case of Townley—the prisoner was respited, and transferred from gaol to some hospital for criminal lunatics, where, if he is yet living, he still remains. From the time of his removal he remained hopelessly insane. The medical gentleman who generally attends my family was at that time living in Newcastle, and he lately told me that he had had an opportunity frequently of seeing the prisoner in gaol, at times, too, when the man could not see him; and he stated there could be no doubt of his insanity. However, he was tried and convicted; and if it had not been for the interference of somebody who thought he ought not to be hanged, and for the proper view which the Home Secretary took of the case, the man, who was a confirmed

  273
  lunatic, would have been put to death in the presence of thousands of the people of Newcastle. Townley's might have been precisely a similar case. For anything any one knew, at the commencement of the trial he might have been as complete a lunatic as the criminal at Newcastle. Looking at the case in this light, the right hon. Gentleman could take no other course than he did. And if any additional feeling has been created because it occurred so near to another case in which the execution took place, I can only think that to be very unfortunate. It is unfortunate for the right hon. Gentleman and for a fair view of that case. But I shut that case out entirely. It is most unjust, in my opinion, to associate one case with the other. I have been in Parliament now twenty years, and during that time have been frequently in communication with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, as well as with others who have filled that office; and I must say that every man holding it whom I have had occasion to see, and no one more than the right hon. Gentleman, has showed the most intense anxiety to do that which was just, and that which the law and public opinion would sanction in respect of such cases. I have not agreed on several occasions with the decisions which were come to; but it was not my office to decide. My business was to state all the facts I could in favour of a merciful consideration; and I believe that every gentleman who has held the office of Secretary of State has decided impartially in every case, without reference to the consideration, who was rich or who was poor. There must, however, be a difference between the rich and the poor, if you have a law, and if you enforce the execution of that law; because it is clear that in this, as in almost every other situation of life, the poor man is placed at a disadvantage. He cannot bring down a practised lawyer from London, and pay a fee of three hundred guineas; he cannot send two or three keen-scented solicitors to discover every particle of evidence that can be obtained. A poor man, therefore, stands before the tribunal in a different position from the rich—in a position which challenges the sympathy and merciful consideration of every man engaged in the administration of justice, and especially in the case of the penalty of death.—a punishment so dreadful, be unlike other punishments, and, still more unlike them, irrevocable. In this case the poor
  274
  man's position is still worse. It used to be far worse when the execution took place within three days of the conviction. Now, when it is extended to three weeks or a month after sentence, his case is charged with difficulty. An unknown man lies in gaol, and unless some one, actuated by a higher and better spirit, endeavours to rescue him from his doom, he passes to it, and the public know little about it, except from a newspaper paragraph or two from time to time of the progress of the dismal story. It is in the punishment of death that the evil lies. It is inseparable from that punishment that this great and terrible injustice is committed; and there can never be any remedy so long as that punishment remains. There may be more care—but I do not know that there can—and the Home Secretary may be appealed to in the matter; but there can be no remedy so long as the punishment remains. And with regard to the uncertainty of it—the hon. and learned Gentleman said that what was wanted was certainty of punishment. How can you have any certainty of punishment with the punishment of death? It is a remnant of the savagery and barbarism of old times, which has already perished before the enlightenment and indignation of the people as applied to every crime but that of murder; and whether you hang Townley or Wright, or any one else, your punishment is at war with the best and noblest sentiments of the noblest portion of your people. That warfare which you allow to remain year after year, will continue to be a warfare with the best sense of the Home Department and the best sense of our population. I am astonished—and I say now publicly what I said to the Home Secretary in private—I am astonished that there is a man to be found who has held the office for several years to sit down again after his address—for I have seen the agony of doubt which has seized the Minister who has had to decide in these cases—without stating that upon a philosophical consideration of the whole question, he has come to the conclusion, with the approval of his colleagues of the Cabinet, that capital punishments are unnecessary, and without stating that he is able to submit to the House a measure for its abolition. There has been no country in the world in which, for any length of time, capital punishment has been abolished in which there has been an increase of crime. Since that punishment has been abolished in this country for all other offences, crimes have,

  275
  on the whole, diminished, and the public have gained immensely; and I believe now, as much as I believe anything that I do not know for a fact, or as much as anything that is past, that the abolition of capital punishment in this country would not be accompanied by an increase of murder; but I believe it would tend to make life more sacred amongst all the people, and would cease to subject in the course of a year scores of thousands of your population to the most demoralising and frightful spectacle which it is possible to hold forth to civilized men.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the measure proposed by the right hon. Baronet, and upon the case of Townley, which had excited so much public attention, the phases and circumstances of which he (Sir John Pakington) had followed with the utmost care and attention. He believed it would be very satisfactory to the public that this case had been brought forward in the House of Commons and been fairly and impartially discussed, and he must add that he did not think it could have been brought forward in a more satisfactory manner than by the introduction of the Bill which the right hon. Baronet had moved to bring in that evening. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had taken a course the most becoming his position, and that he had done no more than his duty in bringing forward the present measure. He would go further, and say he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman would have failed in his duty if he had not, upon the first opportunity afforded him, dealt with what he (Sir John Pakington) must call the bad and objectionable law under which Townley had just escaped the consequence of his great crime. The right hon. Baronet had only to choose one of two alternatives—either to repeal the law altogether or amend it. He (Sir John Pakington) thought there were obvious reasons why it would have been unwise to propose a total repeal of the law, and therefore he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in proposing to amend it. Concurring then in the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, he was bound to say lie thought that the right hon. Baronet could not have made more wise or judicious provisions for the amendment of that objectionable law than those he proposed in his new Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) took an objection to the provision
  276
  respecting visiting justices, observing that they were not better than other justices, and were liable to the same infirmities. That was very likely; but if it were right to maintain the principle of the enactment of the law, some such power as that proposed must be given to some persons. The law itself enacted that the justices in conjunction with medical men were to exercise the power in question. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Locke) would not say that the justices were to be selected, as heretofore, by the agent of the prisoner. Some mode of selection must be adopted in confiding this power into particular hands, and he confessed he could not see any better mode than that proposed of entrusting this power to the hands of the magistrates who were in the habit of visiting gaols. And as to the choice of the medical men, he was also of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was right in leaving it to the visiting justices on their own responsibility. It appeared to him to be of little importance how the medical men were to be appointed, provided they were not selected by the agent of the prisoner. He must now allude to the obloquy to which the right hon. Gentleman was exposed in consequence of the part which he had felt it his duty to take in the case of Townley. It was no part of his (Sir John Pakington's) duty to pay compliments to the right hon. Baronet, but he would tell him frankly he very much doubted whether he would have been so severely attacked if it had not been for the distrust created in the public mind by, as he (Sir John Pakington) ventured to think, the mistaken conduct he pursued in the case of Jessie Maclachlan at Glasgow last year. He thought that those attacks would not have been made upon the right hon. Gentleman but for the serious error he had committed in the case to which he had referred. But, in regard to the case of Townley, he considered it would be an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman, of which he would not consent to be guilty, if he did not express in explicit terms his opinion that he did not deserve the blame that had been cast upon him. The chief attack to which the right hon. Baronet had been subjected was for having acted as he had done in relation to the certificate sent in to him from Derby. Technical objections had been taken against the certificate itself, as well as to the authority of the borough magistrates in the county gaol. The right hon. Gentleman treated with

  277
  very proper ridicule the difficulty suggested on account of the certificate having been signed on a Sunday. The other objection was of more weight, and turned on the formal question whether the magistrates of the borough of Derby have any authority in regard to the county gaol. But that, he submitted, was not the fair way to look at this question. The Act of Parliament was clear and definite in its provisions, and the certificate was a document in exact compliance with the statute. The proper way to look at the question was this— Would any reasonable or sensible man, in the position of the right hon. Baronet, venture to send Townley to execution in the face of that certificate? If the right hon. Gentleman had taken that course, he would indeed have incurred a grave and serious responsibility, from which any other man in his place would have shrunk. The Only course open to the right hon. Baronet, under the circumstances, was to obey the Act of Parliament, and that was the course which the right hon. Baronet had taken. Nor did he think that any blame could be cast upon the attorney for the defence for having availed himself of every means within his power to extricate his client from the fate that seemed to await him. Every person of common sense, however, must feel that Townley had been saved from execution by what he could not call anything better than a juggle or a trick. As to the man's insanity he believed there were not fifty men in England who did not think that when Townley committed the crime, and at that present moment, that he was as sane as any man could be whose state of mind was such as to permit him to commit so atrocious a crime. Up then to the period of the report of the four medical men who went to visit Townley at Bethlehem Hospital, it appeared to him (Sir John Pakington) that the right hon. Baronet had been most unfairly blamed, and that, under the very difficult and painful circumstances, he took the only course that was open to him. In what I am about to add, he was glad to have the sanction of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke); but he feared he should not express an opinion which was shared by the public generally. He felt bound to say that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had committed a mistake in the ultimate reprieve which he granted to Townley. He confessed he could not see upon what principle Townley had been saved at last from execution. They had heard from the hon. Member for
  278
  Birmingham (Mr. Bright) a great deal of argument in opposition to the punishment of death. But that was not the question before them. Such was the law, and so long as it existed the Government were bound to see it carried out. The case of Townley was a case in which one of the most atrocious crimes on record, without one palliating circumstance, had been committed. Now, if ever a man were to be executed, Townley should have been the man; he was not, and he is not, insane; but his life had been saved by a mere juggle or a trick. And let him remind the House that when writing to the Derbyshire magistrates the right hon. Gentleman distinctly told them to recollect that Townley's sentence was only respited; it had not been commuted. As soon, however, as the right hon. Baronet was at liberty to order the execution of Townley, then the respite ceased, and the sentence of death was commuted to one of penal servitude for life. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent for the course he had taken by referring to a case that had occurred two years before of a somewhat similar character; but he (Sir John Pakington) did not think that that was a fairway of treating so serious a question as the one under observation. The case of Townley ought to be decided on its own merits, in connection with all its circumstances. The shortness of time which had elapsed in the course of the proceedings ought to be borne in mind. Had there not been a special winter assize Townley would not have been tried until March. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt deserved credit for having lost no time in making those inquiries, and in sending a most competent tribunal to inquire into the sanity of Townley's mind at Bethlehem. They reported in favour of the sanity of the prisoner, and the Act really stated that when the sanity was established the punishment was to revive. He was struck by a quotation from Blackstone, made by the right hon. Baronet, as to the definition of insanity, and its effect as regarded the operation of the law. It was therein laid down that where insanity was proved execution must be stayed. No one can doubt the propriety of the rule; and it must necessarily be left a matter of discretion, under the circumstances, how far the punishment is to be revived. Seeing, however, that in this case the sanity of the prisoner was placed beyond a doubt, considering the shortness of time which had elapsed, and the atrocity of the crime,

  279
  he could not but think that justice should have been allowed to take its course. Whilst differing from the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of commuting the punishment to which Townley was condemned, he felt bound to say that in the case of Wright the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was characterized by a firmness and determination, under the most difficult and painful circumstances, which reflected upon him the highest credit. He could take no exception to the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in that case. The right hon. Baronet had a most painful duty to discharge, and was exposed to a degree of pressure which required the utmost firmness to withstand. The conduct and demeanour of the right hon. Baronet all through those proceedings were most creditable to him.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, c. 54, for making further provision for the confinement and maintenance of Insane Prisoners, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. BRUCE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 4.]

  RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS). MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid he rose to move "the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the best method of dealing with the various schemes for the formation of railways within the limits of the metropolis, which were likely to be laid before Parliament during the present Session." He would shortly state to the House the general grounds upon which it had appeared to the Government desirable to take this course. It would be remembered that, during last Session, a Committee of the other House of Parliament was appointed to consider the Metropolitan Railway Bills that were introduced during that Session, and they made that inquiry a preliminary step before any Bill was introduced in the other House, and in point of fact they recommended that some of the schemes then proposed should be stopped. It had appeared to Her Majesty's Government that if an exceptional course of that kind were desirable in reference to this class of Railway Bills, that at any rate it should be concurred in by both Houses of Parliament, and that a Committee of one House, or a Committee of the other, separately, was not so desirable, as a preliminary inquiry
  280
  would be by a Committee of both Houses, which would give the weight of the whole of the Legislature to the recommendation. With regard to the Metropolitan Railway Bills of last Session, the House of Lords' Committee of last Session recommended that there should be a Committee appointed for the purpose of subjecting the Metropolitan Railway schemes of that Session to a careful inquiry previous to their second reading, and in all probability the other House of Parliament would again adopt that course, whatever might be the course which the Committee of the House of Commons might this Session agree to. Whether that course of proceeding had been suggested or not by the other House, Her Majesty's Government had thought it desirable that, considering the vast importance of the Railway Bills affecting the Metropolis that were proposed to be introduced this Session—the magnitude of the interests with which they proposed to interfere—the great powers asked by them for taking lands and houses—the great interference that would thereby take place with all the public thoroughfares of the Metropolis during the time the works were under construction, and also the great interference with the drainage of the Metropolis that was threatened, it had appeared to the Government that it was most desirable that, independent of what might take place in the other House, there must be a Committee appointed for the purpose of considering these Railway schemes as a whole, and for the purpose of endeavouring to give to Parliament that advice it might, on the whole, appear to them desirable to be followed, in order that, if Metropolitan Railway accommodation be a necessity of the day, at all events that accommodation should be adopted which, after a careful consideration, would give a minimum amount of interference with local interest with a maximum amount of public advantage. If the other House of Parliament considered last Session, when the number of Metropolitan Railway Bills before Parliament were much fewer in number than at present, and so much less important in character, that a somewhat novel and exceptional course should be taken with reference to them, he thought that House would agree with him, that in the circumstances in which they were now placed, that a preliminary inquiry by a Committee of both Houses was most desirable, and that certain general principles might be adopted or recommended which would

  281
  be a guide to the various Railway Committees, which would ultimately have to decide on the various schemes that would be laid before them. Such general principles, to have any weight with the Railway Committees, should, he thought, have the concurrence and sanction of a Committee of both Houses of the Legislature, because it was most undesirable that the promoters of Bills should, after incurring large expenditure and succeeding in passing their measures through the Committees of one House, have them rejected in the other, because in all probability some rule had been laid down in the other House which would have the effect of rejecting the Bills for want of non-compliance with it, and the time and money be thereby wasted. He had suggested as a remedy what might at first sight appear to be a somewhat novel course, that of a joint Committee of both Houses; and he proposed, in the event of that House assenting to the Committee, that a Message should be sent to the other House of Parliament requesting them to appoint an equal number of Members of the House of Lords to join with the Committee of that House, so that the Members of both Houses would form a united Committee, and would, if possible, be able to concur in a joint Report. The course proposed, though apparently novel, was not without a precedent, there being instances, though certainly not within recent years, of united Committees of both Houses of Parliament similar to that which he now proposed. The subject of metropolitan railway accommodation was one of vast importance, and he considered the Report of a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament would have more weight and influence than the Reports of separate Committees, and that the Bills about to he introduced concerned both Houses of Parliament, the recommendations which were to guide the Private Committees should have the authority of both Houses. He had not had an opportunity of communicating personally on the subject with more than two or three Peers conversant with the private business of Parliament, but so far as he could judge, the Members of the other House were likely to take a favourable view of the proposal. He, however, by this Resolution, moved a Select Committee of the House of Commons, so that if the other House declined a joint Committee, still their proceedings, so far as they went, would be complete, and they could make the preliminary inquiry that he had suggested.
  282
  On examining the Bills that were to be laid before Parliament during the present Session, he could assure the House that the attempt to group them, to put side by side such as could best be considered together, was perplexing in the extreme. Yet the proper grouping of the Bills was a matter of the greatest importance, and it could not be done without the most careful examination. It was not for him to offer any opinion upon the merits of the projected schemes. He would not prejudge any question, but when it could be stated that the estimated expense of the schemes to be considered in the present Session was something like £34,000,000 or £35,000,000 within the limited area of the metropolis alone, and when he was told, as he had been, by a deputation introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), that one-fourth of the whole area of the city proper was scheduled for railway purposes, he thought the House would feel that the Government had done no more than their duty in perhaps going beyond the usual practice in private business, and themselves taking the responsibility of recommending a preliminary inquiry by a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. He would not detain the House by pointing out the many useful functions the Committee would perform, because it must be obvious to every one that such an inquiry must be most valuable. It might be in their power to indicate certain general principles for adoption—he did not mean a final and permanent system, to suit the growing wants of the population for any definite time, because he knew they could only see but a short distance before them—but they could see some distance in advance, and he said that when parties came to Parliament for compulsory powers to take lands and houses and to interfere with the commercial interests and the property of such a community, that Parliament ought to exercise the utmost caution and take such a course as should appear to them most calculated to secure the public advantage and private interests. He should be sorry to see any crude system of metropolitan railway accommodation adopted, and therefore he hoped the House would agree to his Motion, and it was to prevent those Bills from being handed over to separate and independent Committees, who probably would decide on different principles, and probably give them railway communication of a most anomalous character—one, perhaps, conflicting with another—that he had been induced to bring

  283
  it forward on the part of the Government. He wished to see adopted, if possible, something like intercommunication within the limits of the metropolis, suited to the present times, without pretending that they could lay down anything final and permanent. It might be that most of the schemes, if not all of them, ought to be carried out, but at any rate let them first have the advice of the joint Committee for the guidance of those of the Committees who would afterwards he called upon to decide on the relative proposals that would come before them, and which would enable them to proceed with their duties with much greater confidence and with a better chance of their taking a more safe and judicious step.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and if any, what schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session."— (Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR, CRAWFORDsaid, he confessed that lie had read the terms of the Motion with some disappointment and apprehension, because the proposed order of reference, as he understood its wording, would relegate to the Committee part only of a very large and comprehensive question, which at the present time imperiously demanded a settlement at the hands of Parliament. The effect of the limitation put upon the reference would be that the Committee would be at liberty to bestow its attention only on those particular schemes for which Bills had been sent before Parliament, and that its duty would be simply to determine which of those Bills should be allowed to be proceeded with, and which should be thrown aside, and he had heard nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which tended to allay that apprehension. The present was perhaps the most important subject connected with the metropolis which could be submitted to the Legislature, and whatever interest other parts of the metropolis might have in the question was nothing compared to the vital interest that the City Proper, which he had the honour to represent, had in it, no less than one quarter of its entire area being, as the right hon. Member said, scheduled in the Bills now claiming their attention. Scheme upon scheme was submitted to Parliament for literally destroying the City. The object sought was to get into the City
  284
  to transact one's business there; but when the City itself was mutilated or destroyed by railways, what business would remain to be done there? That reminded him of the saying of Juvenal, Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. The matter to be considered was not one of mere engineering, it involved many question of social economy, and the well-being of a very large population, whose interests would be sacrificed if these railway companies were permitted to cut and carve, hack and hew the metropolis at their pleasure. Hon. Members might not be aware of the extent of railway accommodation already existing, and being provided for those who wished for quick and easy access to the City. The great centre of attraction was the spot surrounded by the Bank, the Royal Exchange, and the Mansion House. When the railway schemes now in course of actual execution were completed, when the stations in Cannon Street, in Liverpool Street, and in Moorgate Street were finished, there would be three termini from which persons could walk to the Bank in five minutes. Besides these, there were the Fenchurch Street, the Shoreditch, and the London Bridge stations, from which people could walk to the Bank in ten minutes. Then, again, there were three more new stations at Farringdon Street, Blackfriars, and Smithfield, in course of construction by the London, Chatham, and Dover, and other Railway Companies, so that there would be nine stations in all from which persons could get to or from their places of business in the City. In addition to that they would have the new street to be opened from Blackfriars to the Mansion House, which would go far to obviate the delay and inconvenience arising from any overcrowding of the traffic. He believed that that delay and inconvenience was greatly exaggerated, and was more of a sentimental grievance than anything else. He was himself one of the 700,000 persons who went into the City every morning and left it in the evening, and during the last five months ho had not been inconvenienced by a delay of more than five minutes at a time. So much for the passenger traffic. As to the transit of goods, unless they were to have a railway to every man's door the multiplication of railways would not effectually relieve the streets. He contended, then, that the City had now in prospect, from schemes which had already been sanctioned by Parliament, and for which money was being

  285
  laid out, all the railway accommodation that could possibly be required, and that, therefore, the further reduplication of lines and junctions and stations was not only useless, but positively mischievous. The terms of the present Motion were objectionable, because they implied that railways were the sole remedy for existing inconveniences. No allusion was made to the opening of new thoroughfares. He held in his hand a memorial from the Institute of British Architects, who, perhaps, desired an opportunity of displaying their talents in this matter, and certainly there was nothing like leather. But that memorial, in condemning these crude railway projects, as based on no uniform or recognized principle, as having no reference to the public welfare, but as being merely designed "to serve the interests of the promoters," only stated what was strictly true. He had had occasional opportunities of looking behind the scenes and seeing the manner in which these projects were got up, and he could not think that the parties concerned had much claim to the consideration of that House. It might be said that they had deposited large sums of money, but he maintained that the intentions of Parliament had been evaded. So far as any damage might be occasioned to those parties by delay, they had not much claim for any consideration at the hands of that House, for the deposits were not paid as required, as Parliament intended they should be, out of capital raised legitimately to carry out the undertakings, but with money borrowed for the express purpose of depositing. The House, therefore, should lay aside all idea as to hardship ensuing from delaying this question. Not only were the interests of the trade and commerce of the City here involved, but the well-being of the poorer inhabitants was seriously affected. Anybody who went to see the demolitions going on in Cannon Street for the South Eastern Station would find acre upon acre being cleared, and warehouses, shops, and dwellings of all kinds undergoing destruction. Where were the poor persons who were thus turned out of house and home to go to? Only a few days ago he saw in a paper the report of a case at a Police Court, in which the owner of a house applied to a magistrate to turn out a woman who had been a lodger in his house. She had five children, and no place to go to with them. She could not get a lodging. Her husband worked in the City. She was asked why
  286
  she could not get another lodging, and her answer was the railways had destroyed all the houses where lodgings could be had. An amount of personal inconvenience, loss, and misery had been inflicted by railways in this way of which the House could have no conception. The very incommensurate compensation that had been awarded by the railways where house property was taken showed the intolerable hardship which had been inflicted. The City Press mentioned a number of these which deserved attention. He had observed the case of a publican who had taken the remaining term of a lease and put the premises in good repair. Being an industrious man, he had improved his income; and, after making proper arrangements with his brewer, he suddenly got notice that his house was required for the construction of one of these railways. He went before the Court and claimed compensation, hut he was dealt with only on the principle of being a yearly tenant, although the custom of the trade was that a man having a public-house, so long as he behaved and paid his rent, his tenure was equal to a holding of his premises for life. This was only one of scores of cases occurring in the City, in which intolerable hardships had been inflicted. Some provision, he held, should be made in carrying out such schemes on behalf of the poorer classes who were turned out of their houses. Wherever railways dispossessed any considerable number of persons they should be bound to provide other suitable accommodation for them in the neighbourhood. He should, therefore, have been glad if the order of reference in this case had been to consider the whole question of metropolitan intercommunication in connection with these railways.
  LORD STANLEY:—Sir, I do not rise to express any opinion upon the subject of metropolitan communication, for that is the very question the Committee is to deal with, and it would, therefore, be very improper for a member of that Committee to prejudge it. What I wish to say is, that I do not object in this particular case to the plan of a joint Committee of the two Houses; but I hope it will be distinctly understood, that if we adopt it on this occasion we do so as an experimental arrangement, and not necessarily to be regarded as a precedent. I say that for this reason. The plan of a joint Committee is practically an absolute novelty. I say practically, for I know

  287
  there are precedents in existence, but the latest of these dates from 1690, and even before that time joint Committees were not frequent. There are half-a-dozen cases quoted in Hatsell, but these joint Committees were altogether different from that which it is proposed to constitute now. In those Committees this House sent a number of Members double that sent by the Peers, and it naturally followed that no divisions were taken and no discussions took place loading to any Report. The business of these joint Committees in former days was simply to investigate evidence, so that identical evidence should be laid before the two Houses. Therefore, what we are doing now is absolutely a novelty. I do not say that in this peculiar and exceptional case of the metropolitan railways it will not be right, but I must remind the House that last year a Committee sat on the subject of Private Bill legislation, and after a good deal of inquiry recommended a different mode of proceeding. It was recommended, to save the expense of double inquiries, to reduce the number of Members serving on each Committee from five to three; that before that tribunal Bills should be examined into, and that by an understanding between the two Houses, if a Bill passed through Committee of this House it should not, as a matter of course, be submitted to a Committee in the other House of Parliament. A power of rehearing the case was given if it pleased the other House specially to appoint one, hut the intention was that one hearing should suffice as a general rule. It was proposed that the House of Lords should accept the decision of the House of Commons, and we should do the same with theirs. I believe, if the private railway business be retained in Parliament at all, that is the only way in which practically to deal with it, and I am sure it is a much better plan than joint Committees. Certain difficulties will attend these joint Committees—for instance, in the choice of a Chairman—and there may also be the risk of a difference between the two Houses if it should happen that a great majority, or perhaps an unanimity, of the Members of one House went one way, and those of the other House went another way." No doubt the case of the London railways is peculiar. It may fairly be pleaded as an exception; and if you intend only to deal with them I do not object. I think, however, it would have been better, under the circumstances, if for once the general prin-
  288
  ciple of leaving the initiative to private enterprise had been departed from. No doubt the late Sir Robert Peel was right in declining, on behalf of the Executive, to undertake the initiative in railway matters; but the case of London is peculiar, and I think it would have been better if some body, such as a Royal Commission, whose opinion would have been listened to with respect, had, after carefully examining the whole question, laid down a plan without reference to these competing schemes of railway companies. The Government might then have brought forward that plan as their own, to be afterwards carried into effect by any company that would undertake it. In that way we should have had a much more complete and homogeneous scheme than we are likely to have now. But the opportunity for such a scheme seems now likely to have gone by. ["No, no!"] Well, if it is still to be thought of, although I apprehend such is not the view of the House, I can only say so much the better. But what I rose to say was simply to protest against this plan of a joint Committee, except for the special case of the metropolitan railways.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he thought that the course which his right hon. Friend proposed to adopt was one warranted by the special circumstances of the case. He did not pretend to say that the Committee would interpret their duty in the restricted sense suggested by the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford). He apprehended the functions of the Committee would be to consider some principle or general rule upon which railways in the metropolis could be constructed, and if none of the schemes proposed were in accordance with that rule, the result would be that the Committee would recommend the rejection of these schemes, and the question would remain open. Although he was quite willing that the scheme should be considered by a preliminary Committee before being sent for separate examination by Committees upstairs, he was not quite sure of the soundness of the plan which had been proposed. He agreed very much with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in doubting the practical utility of a joint Committee. It might be desirable that Parliament should express an authoritative opinion as to the various schemes for metropolitan railways, and it might also be desirable that the opinion of the House should be expressed concurrently with that of the other House, but there were difficul-

  289
  ties in the way of such concurrence. The other House had instituted an extensive inquiry, and had arrived at certain important conclusions. Those conclusions had been communicated to the House in the shape of a Report, together with the evidence upon which it was founded, and he believed there would be a difficulty when a Committee of the House came to confer with the Committee of the other House, they would be invited to examine the question upon the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the other House. He was not prepared to assent to those conclusions. Having carefully examined the evidence upon which those conclusions were founded, he could not agree that the evidence was sufficient to warrant them. The two leading suggestions of the Lords' Committee were two lines of railways encircling the metropolis, one for the heavy traffic, and the other for the passenger traffic. That plan, which was of a very gigantic nature, was calculated, from its symmetry, to recommend itself to some minds, but he could not but think that it far exceeded the exigencies of the case. In the first place, the termini of the great lines were already in communication with each other. Certain works of great magnitude were in progress, some just completed, and the practical test of experience could soon be applied, which would afford the best guide for Parliamentary action. He thought the adoption of a general comprehensive scheme was altogether premature. It would be better to wait until the great works now in progress round London were completed, and then ascertain how far they would meet the object in view, and what, if any, additions would be required. That was not merely his opinion, but it was also the opinion of the most experienced engineers who gave evidence before the Lords' Committee, Messrs. Fowler and Hawkshaw, who had themselves submitted extensive schemes of metropolitan railway communication. Those gentlemen said that so imperfect was the advance of railway science, that a scheme made five or ten years since had become obsolete, and they warned Parliament not to commit itself to extensive schemes, but to go by steps. The House would do well also to notice the statements in the Report of the Board of Trade recently issued, and the opinions expressed by the Directors of the London and North-Western Railway, that the suggestions of the Lords' Committee might be accom-
  290
  plished by means of the lines already constructed and authorized. Surely, after such advice, Parliament would not sanction a wild and extravagant scheme, the carrying out of which would destroy house property of enormous value, and interfere with the great work of sewage, which was infinitely more important than any system of railway communication which, up to the present time, had been suggested. The Report of the London and North-Western Directors was not yet before Parliament, and until it was they would be anticipating their duty in sanctioning extensive schemes such as were proposed by the Committee of the other House. What had been proposed as a desideratum was some scheme to relieve the streets of the metropolis from the overwhelming and daily increasing traffic thrown upon them. The question was, how far railways were calculated to effect that object? They had the experience afforded by the Metropolitan Railway to assist them, and they had been told by the manager of that line that its traffic was almost entirely what was called "omnibus traffic"—passengers, and not heavy goods, being conveyed. The Deputy Chairman of that company had told the Committee that the traffic upon the line was, as far as could be ascertained, new traffic, and that he had ascertained from the omnibus proprietors that their business had not been at all diminished by the railway. The real remedy for meeting the increasing traffic was to provide new streets, and as far as possible widening the existing thoroughfares. He would therefore like the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to abstain from entering further into the subject, as he understood he was to be proposed as a member of the Committee.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade need apologize for interfering upon the subject. The regret should be that the interference of the Government had not taken place three or four years since. He fully agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) that now the question was taken up, the most practical way of dealing with it was by a Royal Commission to inquire not only into the best mode of supplying the metropolis with railway communication, but generally into all the communications, whether by railways, streets, or by the river. He regretted that that course had not been taken by the Government, and even if all the marvellous schemes now proposed were

  291
  postponed for a year or two lie did not think the metropolis would be very much aggrieved. It was ridiculous to talk of the convenience of Yorkshire and Ireland being concerned in attempts to riddle London with railways in the course of the next year. If, however, the Government thought their new-fangled scheme of a joint Committee would meet the requirements of the case, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of opposing it, although he doubted whether anything practical would arise from it. The subject of metropolitan railways must be treated in a comprehensive spirit, but he feared, from the language of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the inquiries of the Committee would be restricted in a manner that would be unsatisfactory to the public, and not at all calculated to probe the question to the bottom. These railways must be divided into two classes—those intended for metropolitan communication, and those intended for the benefit of those who wished to pass through London without the trouble of transhipment. As to the first, if the Committee were only to have regard to railways themselves, the result would be unsatisfactory and shadowy. He agreed with the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), that, to assist the traffic of the metropolis, relief must be afforded by new streets, by the Thames Embankment, and by the River. Cheap river traffic would be more advantageous than any system of underground railway. But when it was proposed, as it now was, to riddle London with railways, for the alleged benefit of those who travelled through London, it really became a question of London against the rest of the community, and the metropolis might be regarded as a besieged city and the rest of the country as an army of besiegers. He was struck with the fact that no gentleman connected with the City or the metropolis, and who might therefore be assumed to be conversant with its wishes and wants, was to be placed upon the Committee. The five Members who were to serve were gentlemen of great ability and experience; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, after hearing the evident opinion of both sides of the House, would give a wider scope to the inquiry, and would place upon the Committee some gentlemen whose presence there would induce confidence in its decisions on the part of the metropolis.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that any
  292
  person coming into the House during the course of the debate would have been surprised to find that no Amendment had been proposed. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Massey), had both attacked the scheme proposed by the Government, and, in fact, no hon. Member who had addressed the House, had concurred in the anticipations of the President of the Board of Trade, that any good could result from the appointment of a joint Committee. He thought that a very small increase of the present railway accommodation was all that was required in the metropolis. If time were given for the development of the existing lines and of those in course of construction, and if the railway companies in general came to an understanding, little addition need be made to the accommodation now enjoyed by the public. What was to become of the wretched individuals who had gone to vast expenditure in promoting new schemes and in making the necessary deposits when money was at 8 or 10 per cent interest? Were they to have their money locked up until the Committee had decided as to the schemes which were not to be sanctioned? Surely the proper course to adopt would be to appoint a Royal Commission, by whom the whole question could be thoroughly considered, excluding from the constitution of that Commission the civil engineer element. Having regard to the fact that the Lords' Committee had already arrived at a foregone conclusion, he thought there was little chance of the proposed hybrid Committee coming to a satisfactory decision. The proper course, he considered, was to move that the debate be adjourned, in order that the Government might have a further opportunity of considering the subject, and he would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he rose to second the Amendment, believing that a short delay would prove disadvantageous neither to the public nor to the railway companies. The President of the Board of Trade deserved credit for endeavouring to grapple with the subject, but he did not meet the difficulty in the right way. The Committee of the House of Lords had already pronounced an opinion. But the five Gentlemen who were to be appointed by that House would not have time to devote to so important a subject, and as the promoters of these schemes had paid

  293
  their money and were anxious for a decision, it was to be feared that a consideration of this fact would make the Committee give a hastier judgment than would be desirable on the question referred to them. On the other hand, a Royal Commission, with no civil engineers as, Members, but able to hear these gentlemen as witnesses, would be able to make a more deliberate inquiry, and if a delay of a year or a year and a half took place no one would suffer. On the contrary, it would be more likely that full justice would then be done both to the railway interest and to the public.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he fully concurred in the opinion generally expressed as to the excessive rashness of all the railway plans proposed with regard to the metropolis; indeed, it was a question whether railway extension generally throughout the country should not undergo consideration. As Chairman of the Hartlepool Railway Committee, which sat last year, such irregularities came to his notice that he should be sorry if some steps were not taken to prevent any such irregularities for the future before Parliament sanctioned any great extension of the railway system. Some step ought to be taken to make the deposit system what it was intended to be —a test of the bona fides of the scheme. At present, many schemes were got up merely for the purpose of occupying ground and being bought off. With regard to the question, whether the inquiry now proposed should be by a Committee or a Royal Commission, he did not wish to give any positive opinion; but he hoped that, pending the general inquiry, no step should be taken to pass particular schemes.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he thought that the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Massey) indicated that Parliament was approaching this important subject in a Conservative spirit; and he was further of opinion that if instead of moving the adjournment of the debate, the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) had asked for the addition to the Committee of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), and the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton) he would be doing better. The House ought to bear in mind
  294
  that many of these schemes were duplicate schemes, and that the whole subject was not so extensive a one as on the first blush it appeared to be. He did not think, therefore, that there would be that great difficulty in arriving at a conclusion which some hon. Members seemed to apprehend. On the contrary, he thought the proposed Committee would be able to dissect the subject very soon, and to arrive at a result that would be satisfactory to the House. He believed they could not do better than adopt the proposal of the Government, which appeared to him to be the only plan likely to bring about a union between the two Houses of Parliament. At the same time, he quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that this joint Committee ought not to be adopted as a precedent, but that for general purposes they ought to keep in the path which they had trodden for so many years. He also hoped that the Committee would not be confined within the limits sketched out for them that night by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, but that they would be able to take into their consideration street communication, and every other auxiliary question bearing on the great question at issue. Railways had produced a great revolution in the metropolis; the greater number of those who now carried on business in London lived out of town; but as yet only the middle classes had benefited by the change. Railway companies had done great mischief to themselves and great injustice to the people by not having put on cheap morning and evening trains for the poor man. Had they done justice to the people in that respect their own dividends would have been greatly augmented. What the Committee would have to do would be to take up the whole subject in the broadest possible sense. Ho therefore supported the proposal of the Government, and had the greatest confidence in the Gentlemen whom they intended to nominate on the Committee; but, at the same time, he hoped they would add to the names by putting on the Members he had indicated.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, it did not appear to him that there was any necessary antagonism between the proposal for a Committee and the other proposition, which seemed to meet with so much favour in the House—namely, a Royal Commission, which could be appointed subsequently, and which might perhaps form one of the recommendations of the Committee. The

  295
  proposal of the Government involved, in his opinion, the suspension of the numerous schemes now before Parliament, and to that he had no objection; but he should like to know what were the limits which were to form the boundary of the schemes to be considered by the Committee. Last year the Committee of the House of Lords referred in their Report to "the limits of the Metropolitan Railways," but those limits were not accurately defined. There was another limit—namely, that of the Metropolis Local Management Act; there was then the limit of the Metropolitan Police; and lastly there was the limit of the taxation—especially the Coal Tax— for the benefit of the metropolis. He was not surprised at the panic which had been described by the hon. Member for the City, as existing on the subject of these schemes; but those who lived or had property in the suburbs had a deep interest in the subject also. He was the owner of two small properties in the suburbs, and for the last ten years he had not had one year of peace. This year he was threatened by five railways. The inhabitants of the suburbs were subject to a state of chronic invasion. He thought that the Government ought not to limit the inquiry of the Committee within a narrow boundary. Several of the new schemes were merely junctions, or were intended to be accessories to existing lines. The principles ought to be arranged before the accessories were discussed, and the lines which it was proposed to join ought to be finally settled before the things to be joined to them were considered. The Motion gave rise to a wider question—namely, the mode in which schemes of this kind ought to be dealt with. It might be presumptuous in him to offer an opinion in the presence of Members of larger experience in the House; but he had had a five-fold experience—as petitioner, as opponent, as witness, as counsel, and as Member of Parliament—and, viewed from each and every of those five points, he did not hesitate to say it was difficult, if not impossible, to find a tribunal more uncertain, more expensive, or more unsatisfactory than a Select Committee on a Railway Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) said there would be the greatest difficulty in putting all these schemes into groups. But there would be the same difficulty when this proposed combined Committee had made its Report, and the same difficulty in avoiding decisions upon adverse
  296
  principles in different Committee rooms. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should define with more accuracy what he meant by the limits of the metropolis, or, at least, give an assurance that dependent schemes should not be allowed to proceed while the main metropolitan schemes were under discussion; and that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should direct their attention to some plan by which all such schemes should be referred to a more satisfactory tribunal, which by a provisional order, subject to the final decision of Parliament, should relieve landowners from the perpetual vexation of having to oppose the same schemes they had already successfully opposed, though without any other satisfaction than paying their own costs. The plan of provisional orders, afterwards sanctioned by Parliament, had already been adopted in several instances, and had proved successful. With respect to those metropolitan schemes there could be no harm to anybody in a little delay. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Morton Peto) had spoken of the hardship to the persons who had made the deposits for these schemes; but there was no real hardship, for in most of the cases the deposits were made in stock, which was borrowed for the time being, the person to whom it belonged receiving the dividends, and a small percentage beside for the use of it; and the result of this practice of borrowing stock was to render altogether illusory the system of deposits which had been devised by Parliament as a protection to the landowners.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he could say with perfect safety that the constituent body which he represented would be greatly relieved on finding that the Government had taken up this question. He did not fear this exceptional remedy, seeing that the circumstances were exceptional, nor would he object to a Royal Commission or a Committee, provided that either would be of sufficient scope to deal with the subject. If they gave a Committee power enough, they ought to strike out the scheme which was required for the whole metropolitan area. The question of compensation was a matter of great importance, and one which required consideration, for it was no uncommon thing for an industrious, struggling tradesman to be absolutely ruined by such railways as the Metropolitan. A tradesman whose property was not touched might have a railway running in front of him, cutting off his customers from his

  297
  shop, and he had no remedy. He (Lord Fermoy) did not know whether the proposed Committee would be able to deal with that subject, but it was a question that ought to be dealt with. The schemes which were now before Parliament must be dealt with at once, in order to set people's minds at rest. Fancy a tradesman receiving notices from three or four different companies. He must be in a state of perpetual anxiety, and therefore this proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory to the public. Parliament was called upon to decide at once with respect to the thirty-one metropolitan schemes now before them, and the proposed Committee would not be satisfactory unless it possessed ample powers. He supposed that the Committee, after considering the schemes and taking evidence, would report that evidence to the House, and the House would then be called upon to act. It was very difficult to decide upon a principle with regard to railway schemes, and in proof of this he referred to the fact that Messrs. Fowler and Hawkshaw, in entire opposition to the opinion they expressed last year, were now the great promoters of rival metropolitan lines. In the interest of the struggling middle classes and unfortunate labouring classes, who found it difficult to obtain a lodging, he would say that whilst he was most anxious to promote any measure calculated to overcome the difficulty in which they were placed with regard to metropolitan railways, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, had taken hold of a subject which would lead him into some embarrassment, and he should be glad if the Government were more explicit as to what was meant to be done in the proposed Committee.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, had made the only proposal practicable, and he could not see why the consideration of new lines of streets and of those various railway schemes should not be submitted simultaneously to a Committee. It was true his constituents in Southwark had not much to fear from any of the proposals, for nearly all the harm that could be done to them had been already done. Still he could not help pointing to the fact, that when the Borough of Southwark was about to be cut up, like a chess-board, as it were, only not near so regularly, no one raised a voice of compassion in its favour; but now, when the ob-
  298
  ject was to get to the Bank of England— where everybody, by the way, wanted to go—all this opposition sprung up. He would suggest to this Committee to go across the water and see what had been done in Southwark before they came to any conclusion on these schemes; and, likewise, that they should have power, not only to approve of the construction of certain lines, but to obtain guarantees as to the mode in which they were carried out, so as the public might be protected against such frightful structures as the new viaduct in Southwark.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, he wished to state, in the first place, in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), that he believed there would be no difficulty in determining what was the area that was to be embraced within the metropolitan district. The Royal Commission of 1846 had described what should be the limits of the metropolis, and he had no doubt the Committee would take the area as settled by the House of Lords Committee of last Session, which was an extension of the boundaries traced by the Royal Commission. As to the point of a suburban line being projected, with the view of making a junction with a metropolitan railway which itself was not about to be made, the House would not allow such a Bill to be read a second time. With regard to the question of the order of reference not being sufficiently explicit, he thought it would have been a mistake if they had attempted to define exactly what should be its duties. In attempting definitions very often restrictions not intended were introduced. He believed that the words of the Resolution were sufficient to carry all that came justly within the scope of the inquiry. They had thirty Railway Bills before them, and either those Bills must be read a second time, and referred to Committees in the ordinary way, or some mode of dealing with them must be provided, which would prevent any what might be termed haphazard metropolitan railway communication. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) had recommended that they should throw out all these Bills. That was too strong a measure for him; he should like to have a preliminary inquiry into the various schemes, with the view of ascertaining how, in justice to the promoters and to the public, they ought to be dealt with. A Royal Commission might

  299
  be advisable, and the Committee might recommend the appointment of a Commission, for it was open to deal with the question referred to them in that way. But they were in the position that something must be done at once; these Bills would come forward for second reading in two or three days, and what he suggested was the parliamentary and rational course of instituting a deliberate inquiry with the view of bringing about a concurrence between the two Houses of the Legislature upon the subject. The Committee would consist of ten Members, five of each House; and he was not inclined to add to the number. Many persons thought that small Committees were quite as likely to discharge responsible duties with satisfaction as large Committees, and he rather inclined to that opinion, in which he was confirmed by those Members of the House of Peers with whom he had communicated in reference to this matter. With regard to the particular Members who should be nominated, he thought it the better course that those who were connected with the metropolitan districts should not form part of the Committee, because they would be placed in difficulties by the inquiry, and would not be so free and unbiassed as those who were entirely unconnected with the metropolis. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) a6ked him to be explicit as to his own principles in reference to railway communication in the metropolis, and he must, with all respect, decline the invitation. He was very shy of committing himself to any principles with regard to that most difficult and complicated question; and if he were to commit himself by propounding any bold principle of his own, he doubted whether it would have much weight, and he was sure it would not be allowed in this way to bind the Committee. The Government had no desire to prejudge any scheme, their only wish being to prevent such a mass of legislation being Bent haphazard before a number of private Committees. He therefore hoped the hon. Member for Westminster would withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR, JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to con-eider the best method of dealing with the Railway
  300
  Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and if any, what Schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session.
  Committee nominated:—Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Lord STANLEY, Mr. MASSEY, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, and Mr. HERBERT.—Power to send for persons, papers, and records. Three to be the quorum.
  Ordered,
  That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that this House hath appointed a Committee, consisting of Five Members, to join with a Committee of The Lords "to consider the best method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and if any, what schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session;" and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of this House.

  RAILWAY BIILS (METROPOLIS).
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 172 be suspended, as regards all Petitions for Railway Bills authorizing the construction of works within the limits of the Metropolis; and that no Petition for any such Bill be presented to this House until the day after the Report from the Select Committee on "Railway Schemes (Metropolis)" shall have been laid upon the Table.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)

RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire and report whether it is expedient that Railway Companies shall be authorized, and, if so, upon what conditions, to construct or enlarge, purchase or take on lease, or otherwise appropriate, any dock, pier, harbour, or ferry, or to acquire, provide, and use any steam vessels for the conveyance of goods and passengers, or to apply any portion of their capital or revenue to other objects distinct from the undertaking of a Railway Company. Although there was a Standing Order in force which prohibited Railway Companies from taking steamboat powers, any Committee could dispense with that prohibition. The result was that great confusion had arisen, and it was now necessary to lay down some rule for the guidance of Committees.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire and report whether it is expedient that Railway Companies shall be authorized, and,

  301
  if so, upon what conditions, to construct or enlarge, purchase, or take on lease, or otherwise appropriate, any Dock, Pier, Harbour, or Ferry, or to acquire, provide, and use any Steam Vessels for the conveyance of goods and passengers, or to apply any portion of their capital or revenue to other objects distinct from the undertaking of a Railway Company."—(Mr. Massey.)

  CONVEYANCING, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Laws relating to Conveyancing, Special Pleaders, and Draughtsmen in Equity practising in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Sir ROBERT PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 5.]

  JUDGMENTS, &C, LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to future Judgments, Statutes, and Recognizances, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. LOCKE KING, and Mr. POWELL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 3.]

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS GENEEAL COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS.
  The Rt. Hon. Sir FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING, baronet; the Right Hon. SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE; the Right Hon. HENRY ARTHUR HERBERT; Sir WILLIAM MILES, baronet; HENRY KER SEYMER, esq.; JOHN BONHAM-CARTER, esq., to be Members of the General Committee of Elections for the present Session.—(By Mr. Speaker's Warrant.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met, and having gone through the business on the paper without debate,
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.