Sitting of 3 December 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right Hon. Edward Strathearn Gordon, for Thetford.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Church Rates Abolition*; Church Rates Regulation*; Railway and Gas Shares.
First Reading—Church Rates Abolition* [21]; Church Rates Regulation* [22]; Railway and Gas Shares [23].
Second Reading—Totnes, &c. Writs [20].
Committee—Totnes, &c. Writs [20].
Report—Totnes, &c. Writs [20].
Third Reading—Income Tax [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000)*; Totnes, &c. Writs [20], and passed.

THE LATE MEMBER FOR ANDOVER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked the Government, Whether it is the intention of the Government to advise the Crown to confer a title of dignity on a gentleman who was for a short time a Member of this House for the Borough of Andover,
  536
  on account of his having vacated his seat in order to provide a seat for one of the Law Officers of the Crown?
  LORD STANLEY: It is not the intention of the Government to advise the Crown to confer a title upon any gentleman on account of his having vacated his seat in order to provide one for a Law Officer of the Crown. Such a use of the patronage of the Crown we should consider improper, not to say corrupt.

THE MERCANTILE MARINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is his intention to introduce any measure with reference to the Laws which regulated the Mercantile Marine before the Recess?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he had already stated that a measure for the improvement and consolidation of the laws relating to commercial shipping was in course of preparation by the Board of Trade. It was a work that required very great care and that would occupy much time, and the utmost that could be done would be to introduce it in good time after the re-assembling of Parliament in February.

  NAVAL CHAPLAINS.—QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked the first Lord of the Admiralty, If it is the intention of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to improve the position, pay, and organization of the duties of the Naval Chaplains?
  MR. CORRYsaid, that the subject was under consideration, not only as respected naval chaplains, but also as regarded Roman Catholic and other clergymen. The question presented some difficulties in consequence of the peculiar character of the naval service, and no determination had as yet been arrived at.

SCOTLAND—THE SUPREME CIVIL COURTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government intend to bring forward any Measure in February, or soon after, so as to obviate the dissatisfaction said to exist owing to the "great expense, delay, and uncertainty" attending the administration of justice in the Supreme Civil Courts of Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not admit that the administration of justice by the Supreme Civil Courts in Scotland was correctly described by the terms used in the Question. It would be improper in answering a Question to comment on the statement from which the terms of the Question were quoted, and he would therefore proceed to answer it. In virtue of the powers they possessed, the Courts had within the last eighteen months made very considerable improvements, calculated to prevent delay and expense, and which had been successful; and he had given some consideration to the question whether still further improvement might not be effected by a Legislative measure affecting the forms of process. If the state of Scotch business would admit of it, it was probable that some such measure would be brought forward in the course of the Session. He must be allowed also to observe that, under the Debts Recovery Act of last Session, an action for the recovery of an account, the last item of which was dated the 27th of September, had been decided by the Sheriff as local judge, and had been decided on appeal by the Court of Session; so he thought it could not be said the Government were negligent of their duties in this respect.

SHIELDS FOR MALTA AND GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has taken any and what steps to prevent the erection of the Shields sent to Malta and Gibraltar until the result of the inquiry by the Committee of which he announced the appointment on Monday last shall have been submitted to the House; whether he can inform the House when, it is proposed that the experiments with reference to the Plymouth and Bermuda Forts shall take place; whether it is true that, contrary to the custom usually observed on such occasions, the experiments which took place at Shoeburyness on the 25th of October last to test the Malta and Gibraltar Shields was kept strictly private, even the representatives of the Press being excluded from the ground; whether the Shield was not closely covered up in tarpaulins immediately after being shot at, and by whose orders was this strict privacy maintained; if he will inform the House whether the specifications and drawings issued from the
  538
  War Office for the Target intended to be shot at as a true section of the Plymouth and Bermuda Forts were in fact identical with the specifications and drawings issued for the original contract for that Fort and if they were not identical, by whose orders were the alterations made, and what steps have been taken, if any, to procure a perfectly correct section of the Fort as it is being manufactured; and, if he will inform the House whether it is the intention of the Government to observe the same degree of privacy with reference to the experiments to be made to test the principle upon which the Plymouth and Bermuda Forts are to be constructed?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would give the best answer he could to what the hon. and learned Gentleman called a Question, but which was really a long series of inquiries. He would take the Questions in the order they stood. His answer to the first was that he had not taken any steps to prevent the erection of the shield sent to Malta and Gibraltar until the result of the inquiry by the Committee, of which he announced the appointment on Monday, had been submitted to the House—in fact, it had not been in his power to do so. The shields were sent out to Malta and Gibraltar some months ago; with orders that they should be put in their places; but, whether or not they had been completely placed, he was unable to say. He begged to add that if it appeared as the result of trial necessary that they should be made stronger, there would be no difficulty in strengthening them in their places. In answer to the second Question, he was unable to say with precision when it was proposed that the experiments with reference to the Plymouth and Bermuda forts should take place. The target was being constructed under a contract, and from what he heard he apprehended it would be nearly two months from this time before it could be completed. Whenever that target trial took place, it was his intention to be present, and he should be happy if the hon. Member would accompany him. As to the third Question, he could hardly say that the experiments which took place at Shoeburyness on the 25th of October to test the Malta and Gibraltar shields were kept strictly private, and that the representatives of the press were excluded, inasmuch as a day or two afterwards an accurate account appeared in The Standard newspaper; but, certainly, it was intended to

  539
  exclude the press on that occasion, and its representatives had received no permission to be present. As to the fourth Question, it was quite true that immediately after the experiments the shield was closely covered up in tarpaulins; but he could not say by whose orders the press were excluded and the shield was covered up. No order to that effect proceeded from the War Office, and he believed that such privacy as was maintained was the spontaneous decision of the officer on the spot representing the Ordnance Select Committee. With respect to the fifth Question, the most important part of it, as he understood, consisted in the inquiry whether this target was to be a bonâ fide honest section of the fort as it was intended to be constructed? He (Sir John Pakington) had given the most strict injunctions that the target should be a faithful and correct representation of the Plymouth and Bermuda forts as it was intended to erect them. He did not say that in the erection of the target there might not be some slight deviation, on account of the fact to which he had alluded on a former day—that in erecting a section of this kind, it was difficult to give it anything like the real strength and solidity of a connected building, such as an entire fort. Therefore, some additional strength might be required; but he had given the strictest orders that there should be nothing like unfairness, and that the target when erected should be a bonâ fide section of the fort as it was intended to complete it. The last Question was one of no inconsiderable national importance. It was, whether the Government intended to observe the same degree of privacy as that described with reference to the experiments to be made to test the principle upon which the Plymouth and Bermuda forts were to be constructed? His answer to the Question as it stood was simply that he did not intend the attempt at privacy to be repeated. He would take the opportunity of saying it was a question how far it was desirable for the interests of the country that these experiments should be witnessed by representatives of the press and by foreign military officers. The question had lately received serious consideration at the Admiralty and at the War Office. The Government had consulted officers whom they thought most competent to give sound and judicious advice; and the result was this—In the first place, they were of opinion that if they desired secrecy in such a case it was
  540
  very difficult to obtain it; but the conclusion at which they had arrived, from the best opinions they could obtain, was, that on the whole the interests of the country were more likely to gain than to lose by permitting these experiments to be public. It was therefore his intention immediately to draw up regulations, which he would reserve the power to alter in the event of any peculiar circumstances rendering alteration necessary. Reserving this right, the rule will be that the representatives of the press and officers from foreign countries might, on application at the proper quarter, obtain tickets which would enable them to witness these experiments.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the fifth Question—whether the specifications and drawings issued from the War Office for the target intended to be shot at as a true section of the Plymouth and Bermuda forts were, in fact, identical with the specifications and drawings issued for the original contract for that fort? The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had been informed that they were not, and it was very important that they should know if any alterations had been made, and, if so, by whose authority.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he intended to answer this Question as distinctly as he could, and thought he had done so. He had not himself seen the specifications and drawings, and he was not aware of any alterations; but if there were any, they had been introduced for the purpose already mentioned—namely, in order to impart additional strength and stability to the target. If any alterations, except for that object, had been made—of which he was not aware—they had been made by order of the Engineer officer to whom had been intrusted the preparation of the specifications.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—WATER SUPPLY.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, What preparations have been made for the artificial supply of fresh water at and in the neighbourhood of the point of disembarcation of the Abyssinian Expedition; and if he will grant a Return of the amount of condensing power for the supply of fresh water in each vessel intended to be employed in the Expedition, including that of the condensing vessel to be stationed at Annesley Bay?
SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE: It has been thought desirable that I should answer this Question, inasmuch as the arrangements of the expedition have been left to the Governor of Bombay. We have no such detailed information in this country as would enable us to answer the specific Question put by the noble Lord; but I can give some information which may, perhaps, meet the point he raises. The House is aware that the course taken has been to send forward an advance party, under the command of Colonel Merewether, with a small committee of officers, who were to select a proper landing-place; and they were instructed, among other things, to fix upon a place where a proper supply of water could be obtained. They have selected Annesley Bay as the landing-place, where was at the moment a moderate supply of water, but not such as was likely to be sufficient for a large force, should it land there. They therefore had recourse for the time to the condensing apparatus of the Euphrates, which was the vessel in Annesley Bay. A vessel, which left England in June last, took to Aden two condensing machines, one able to supply 4,000 and the other 2,000 gallons of water a day. The Government of Bombay were told that they might send on one of those, and a third condenser is about to be despatched from this country. With regard to the supply of water, I will read one or two extracts from the Report of the committee of officers appointed to select a landing-place. They say—
"There is a supply of excellent fresh water within a mile of the shore. This is found in a branch of the Huddas, and is renewed by occasional descents of that river, especially during this season of the year, from October to March. The villagers of Zoula draw from it all the year round; pits are sunk two to three feet below the surface of the ground, and the water freely flows in. Water also is reported to be procurable, by digging, all along the Huddas. At sixteen miles from the shore there is a running stream, from a spring, yielding a plentiful supply of very good water; this is perennial."
Colonel Merewether in his Report, received November 21, says—
"On inquiry about water supply, it was stated that a running stream existed about twelve miles to the westward of Zoula.…. At a little under sixteen miles from the sea-shore, four hours' marching, we came on the water—a clear, running stream, as pure as could be wished. There were two channels; we went to the head of one and found it a natural spring, arising from the side of a hill, and running quickly down into the torrent's bed. The Arkeeko chief and people of the country who were with us said the flow was perennial,
542
never known to dry even in the hottest weather; and, judging from the way it was running, the supply would be inexhaustible. This is a most important point, for it gives within easy access of the shore, at a place not far distant, a spot where the cattle might be sent on arrival from Egypt, India, or elsewhere. Cisterns can quickly be made in which the water could be caught, and animals drink from them without difficulty or mudding the water."
The information at present in possession of the Government is very meagre, we only know that the Committee have decided on selecting this landing-place, having reference to the supply of water among other considerations. But by the next mail, which will probably arrive before the House adjourns, we shall receive much fuller details on this subject, and I will communicate them to the House. With regard to the Return mentioned by the noble Lord, it shall be produced if he will move for it.

THE FOREIGN OFFICE—DIPLOMATIC AGENTS—QUESTION.
MR. BAYLEY POTTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to give a Return of the names of the Employés in the Foreign Office who are allowed to act or do act as agents for officers holding Diplomatic or Consular appointments under the Crown?
LORD STANLEY: In anticipation of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have laid this Return on the table.

NAVY—THE TRAINING SHIP "CHICHESTER."—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that twenty of the destitute boys from the training ship Chichester, after having been duly passed and favourably reported upon by Sir Baldwin Walker, were struck off the books of the Formidable, because the certificates of their births could not be produced; and, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will deem it right to remove this obstacle to the employment of such boys in the Royal Navy, and will communicate his decision to the Committee of the training ship Chichester?
MR. CORRY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in explanation of the circumstances to which the Question refers. By the 2nd clause of the Continuous Service Act, passed in 1853, it is provided that—

543
"Every boy entering when under the age of 18 years into the naval service shall be liable to serve until he attain the age of 23 years."
But in order to make this entry binding it must be legal, and, as these boys are infants in the eye of the law, the entry is not legal unless it obtains the concurrence of the parent or guardian of the boy. In consequence of this, immediately after the passing of the Continuous Service Act, in 1853, an Admiralty circular was issued, which is to the following effect:—
"Boys must be over the age of 14½, and not above 16 years of age. They must have the written consent of parents or nearest relations, and must produce a certificate of birth from the registrar of the district in which they were born, or a declaration made by one of their parents before a magistrate of the day on which they were born."
With reference to the necessity of this sanction to the entry of the boy I referred the question to the Solicitor of the Admiralty, Mr. Bristow, who says—
"The Act of 16 &c 17 Vict. c. 69, sec. 2, contemplates a legal entry by boys, and this can only be attained by their being entered with the consent of their parent or guardian. If this legal entry is not effected, the boy or man can take advantage of the flaw, and either leave the service at will or refuse to be bound by the Naval Discipline Act. Of course, a boy having no parent or guardian cannot be legally entered."
Now, the cost of educating these boys is very considerable, and amounts, on an average, to £45 a year; so that in the case of a boy entering at 14½ years of age and remaining till 18 more than £150 would have been spent on his education, from which the country would derive little or no benefit if he then chose to leave the service. Perhaps the House may suppose that these claims to a discharge are of rare occurrence, but the contrary is the fact, and I am informed by my Colleague, Sir Sydney Dacres, that a great portion of his time is taken up with inquiries into applications by boys and their parents for discharge on account of alleged illegality of entry. These applications average, I am told, five per week. In addition to this reason against dispensing with the certificate of birth and the consent of the parent, there are other objections which I cannot better state than in the words of Captain Tremlett, Captain of the Impregnable, training ship at Devonport, and also Superintendent of the other training ships at Portsmouth, Portland, Devonport, and Falmouth. He says—
544
"Either a certificate of birth from the registrar of the district in which the candidate was born, or a declaration of age made by one of the parents before a magistrate, is absolutely requisite to determine the period at which the engagement from the age of eighteen is to commence; the frauds as to age are numerous and very vexatious; were this not very carefully attended to, large numbers would enter by misrepresentation, and, instead of getting strong, growing, and well-developed lads, we should be receiving dwarfs, who would in the end have to be discharged. As a rule, I have found that the development of lads from charitable institutions is very poor, and that they are greatly wanting in physique, and, further, that they do not grow. This I attribute to having in childhood been exposed to much privation, from which cause their system has received a shock which they rarely get over. Lastly, I beg to observe that we experience no difficulty in recruiting boys from the inland counties, from which we obtain a supply of fine, healthy, and strong country agriculturists; they soon become attached to the service, while the town boys, and especially those from London, are most restless, and endeavour to return to their old haunts."
I can corroborate this statement from a personal inspection of the two training ships at Devonport in September last. We were much struck with the great superiority of the boys on board the Impregnable over those on board the Implacable—the other ship, and we ascertained that the cause of this difference was that the boys in one case came from the neighbouring counties, while in the other case they were received from the large towns of Plymouth, Stoke, and Devonport, and the immediate neighbourhood. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that, although we prefer boys from the agricultural districts, those to whom his Question refers were not rejected because they came from the Chichester, but simply because they could not comply with the rules of the service by producing a certificate of birth and procuring the consent of their parents. Six, I think, were received because they were able to comply with these requisitions; and, under all the circumstances of the case, although my sympathies would be entirely in favour of these poor boys, I do not think it would be consistent with my duty to recommend a relaxation of the existing rules.

CHURCH RATES—QUESTION.
MR. GILPIN(on behalf of Mr. Hadfield) begged to ask, Whether the Government intend to introduce a measure this Session for the abolition of Church Rates?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The Government have no such intention.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

  STATEMENT.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that there were upon the Paper three Orders of the Day none of which were likely to lead to protracted discussion. Two of these Orders were the Income Tax Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, both of which, having gone through all former stages, now stood for third reading. There was no reason to suppose that there would be any long discussion with regard to these Bills. The third Order of the Day was the Totnes, &c. Writs Bill, the object of which was to correct a slight oversight in the Reform Act of last Session, and he did not apprehend that any difficulty would be raised with reference to it. Under these circumstances, it would be a considerable convenience to the other House of Parliament if these Orders should be taken first and the Bills sent up without delay. He did not apprehend that those Gentlemen who had Notices on the Paper would be very much delayed, and he would therefore suggest that the Orders of the Day take precedence of Notices of Motion.
  Motion made, and agreed to.

  INCOME TAX BILL— [BILL 16.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hunt.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. SCHREIBERrose to enter a protest against the mode in which it was proposed to make provision for the Abyssinian Expedition. It appeared from the statements made to the House that the force could not be thrown on the shore of Abyssinia for less than £2,000,000, and that if the Expedition went on until the end of March it would entail an additional cost of £2,000,000; so that at the end of the current financial year it was almost certain that we should be in debt for this expenditure to the extent of £2,500,000. He agreed with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that of all financial errors none was so seductive, so plausible, and therefore so dangerous, as that of postponing the provision for such undertakings as this.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he understood that in some instances the Income Tax collectors were proceeding to levy the tax before the Bill on the subject had passed. He wanted to know whether persons could
  546
  be called upon to pay merely upon a Resolution of the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had no official information on the subject; but he understood from some hon. Members that what the hon. Gentleman complained of had been done. He believed it was usual when a Resolution proposing a tax was passed for the officers to act upon it, and that it would be the more convenient course for the taxpayers themselves; but in case the Bill did not pass, the money so levied would have to be returned.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

TOTNES, &c. WRITS BILL— [BILL 20.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)

SECOND READING, THIRD READING.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he intended to ask the House to permit the measure to be passed through its remaining stages this evening, otherwise it would be impossible that it should become law before the Recess.
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, the Bill had not as yet been circulated.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, its object was well known. It was merely to correct an oversight. There could be no difficulty, therefore, about the matter.
Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
On Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time,
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked, whether in a case where it was intended to put a Bill in one night through all its stages, it would not be proper to put a Notice on the Paper that such a course would be proposed? He thought the present mode of proceeding rather objectionable.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he agreed in principle with the hon. Member; but he believed it was not usual to make a proposal for carrying a Bill through all its stages until its principle had received the assent of the House by being read a second time. He would not have recommended the present course if it were not that the Bill was simply intended to correct an accidental omission in the Representation of the People Act.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that while satisfied with the removal of the anomaly which

547
he had pointed out, and that the voters who had been guilty of corrupt practices in the four disfranchised boroughs had been properly and severely punished, he believed the country would never be convinced of the sincerity of Parliament in dealing with electoral corruption until the bribers were visited with the same punishment as the bribed. He regretted that the Government had not disfranchised the former as well as the latter, and especially a candidate at Lancaster, who had had former experience of election contests.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Moved, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday."

ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MAGUIREcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a certain statement made in The Pall Mall Gazette, of the 19th November, with reference to the religious instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners in Tothill Fields House of Correction. There were, he said, 600 inmates in that prison; 400 of them were Protestants, and enjoyed the ministrations of a chaplain, with a salary of £400 a year, who had several teachers under him. The remaining 200 were Roman Catholics; but notwithstanding the Act which was passed two years ago, the Roman Catholic clergyman who offered his gratuitous ministrations to them was only allowed to see his unhappy flock one at a time, and then through the trap-door of the cell. He could therefore only visit each prisoner once in four or five weeks, and could not collect them for worship or instruction. Another clergyman of distinguished birth and attainments, who also volunteered his services, had to communicate with the prisoners in one of the cells, and his health had broken down under the severity of his treatment and the zeal which he displayed. It was true that a room was now allowed. The bigotry of these wretched justices ill contrasted with the conduct pursued at the Cork Workhouse, where the 200 Protestant inmates were allowed by the Roman Catholic Guardians a church and chaplain, and where a Presbyterian minister had been appointed to visit the few prisoners of his persuasion, and was permitted, on the Anglican clergyman refusing the use of his
  548
  church, to use the board-room for religious services. Such an arrangement commended itself to the mind of every honourable man, and if religion exercised any influence it was essential that the pauper or prisoner should have the ministrations of a clergyman of his own denomination. He understood that at Tothill Fields Prison many of the Roman Catholic prisoners, in order to break the monotony of their condition, were induced to attend Protestant worship on Sundays. He thought it not right that these poor Roman Catholics should be subjected to this kind of oppression. The Directors of Government Convict Prisons, in their Report for 1865, stated that unmixed good had arisen from the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, it having been attended with a great improvement in the conduct of the convicts; but at Tothill Fields the bigotry of the justices interposed between the prisoners and reformation, the inmates going out worse than they came in; and being convicted over and over again, injury thereby accruing to society and expense to the ratepayers. If the Middlesex justices, from any private motives, continued to oppress the poor Roman Catholics, he trusted the Secretary for the Home Department would address to them a remonstrance; and if they did not attend to that, then that the Government would have the courage to introduce a Bill dealing with county prisons in the same manner as Government prisons. He would now ask the Home Secretary to express his feelings upon the matter, which he believed was a violation of the spirit of our legislation.
  MR. MELLER, as one of the Middlesex magistrates, said, he believed that Tothill Fields was under a separate Commission. If the hon. Gentleman were correct in stating that the chapel was not adapted for the performance of the service of the Roman Catholic Church—[Mr. MAGUIRE: There is no chapel at all]—he had no doubt that proper accommodation would be provided by the magistrates.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the subject of the Prison Discipline Act was taken into consideration some years ago, and the House thought proper to pass a permissive Bill, saving themselves the trouble of coming to a decision, and introducing a most unfortunate subject of debate at quarter sessions, which ought, in his opinion, to have been determined one way or the other by that House. The hon.

  549
  Member (Mr. Maguire) had asked him to address a remonstrance to the visiting justices of Tothill Fields Prison. He could not admit that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to address a remonstrance when he had no authority to enforce it, because such a course only led to replies which were very inconvenient, and which did not add to the dignity of either party. The view he had always taken of this subject was that prisoners of every creed ought to have facilities for the exercise of their religion. Many of the prisoners might be very hardened; but if ever there was a time when they were open to religious impressions, it was when they were confined in solitude and brought into close intercourse with those who had their religious improvement at heart. He did not know that he could say any more. He could not address the magistrates—and, indeed, he did not know the particulars except from the paper which the hon. Gentleman had shown him. Assuming, however, that the facts were as stated by the hon. Gentleman, he thought—although he had not been able to ascertain what the practice was—that the visiting justices were not carrying out the intentions of the Legislature.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was a magistrate of Middlesex, and he was quite sure that the magistrates had shown every anxiety to meet the just claims of the Roman Catholic prisoners. They would, however, strictly adhere to the principle they had laid down, and they would not, under pretence of granting a privilege, subject any prisoner to coercion.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not understand the language of the hon. Gentleman, because a man in prison must naturally be subjected to coercion. One of the prison regulations—made for the benefit of the prisoner as well as for the benefit of society—was that no prisoner should be allowed to refuse religious instruction, and it was surely not too much to require that where a prisoner was not a member of the Church of England he should see some minister of his own religion. When the Prison Discipline Act passed, it was understood that the magistrates would fairly carry out the intentions of the Legislature; but, unfortunately, in many cases the magistrates had done all they could to defeat those intentions. It was all very well to try a permissive Bill in the first instance; but when that failed, it was time to make it compulsory. He trusted that the Go-
  550
  vernment would take into consideration the necessity of introducing a Bill next Session which would enforce an equal rule with regard to all prisons, and not leave to the magistrates the power of defeating the wise and benevolent intentions of the Legislature.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that since he sat down, the rules of the Cold-bath Fields Prison had been sent to him. He found that up to the month of May an impression was entertained by the Middlesex magistrates that they had no authority to allow a religious service to be conducted in the prison according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. Upon that point they had taken the opinion of the late Attorney General (Sir John Rolt), and of the present Attorney General, on which they rescinded their resolution. The opinion stated that the Act did not make it incumbent on the visiting justices to allow such an assembling of prisoners for religious worship; but that in permitting such assemblages the visiting justices would be acting not only according to the letter but the spirit of the Prison Discipline Act, care being taken to maintain the discipline of the gaol. Under these circumstances, the visiting justices recommended that their resolution of the previous May, stating that there was no authority for such services, be rescinded by the Court.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION— MR. LAYARD, MR. RASSAM, AND DR. BEKE—THE RECENT DEBATE.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to give notice that on a suitable occasion at the next meeting of the House he would give the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) an opportunity of making an explanation to the House in reference to the matter which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He questioned whether a Member of Parliament was morally justified in making strong statements in the House, and then absenting himself afterwards from the House during the period when the House was sitting, and when he might be reasonably challenged to give an explanation. He did not think that was in accordance with the rules of this House, because it put hon. Gentlemen to a disadvantage; and he did not consider that the publica-

  551
  tion of a letter in the newspapers was sufficient to meet the case, because it was in that House that the rectification should be made, and a letter published in the newspapers was not the same thing as a speech made in that House. He raised a quasi point of Order the other day, which he believed was not altogether as unfounded as at first sight appeared. There was some hesitation as to whether some strong language applied by a Member of this House to a person not a Member of this House could be taken down. He supposed he was correctly informed that it could not be taken down according to the rules of the House; but it might be a question whether circumstances had not greatly changed since those rules were made. Those rules were intended to preserve peace between Members, when the object in view was to prevent their coming into actual conflict with each other. At that time the House sat with closed doors, and whatever was said merely concerned those Gentlemen who were present, and those gentlemen who were out of doors were not affected by it. That rule, then, was sufficient for the purpose in those days. But now that the debates were published and known all over the world, it became a question, which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair might usefully consider, whether there should not be some check on the language of Gentlemen speaking in this House, and seriously affecting, in a manner in which the publication of no other libel could do it, the character of those outside the House, and who were now perfectly helpless under such circumstances, and incapable of obtaining any redress.
  Motion agreed to.
  House, at its rising, to adjourn till Thursday.

REMISSION OF SENTENCES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in moving an Address for Returns for Copies of Memorials for the Commutation or Remission of Sentences of Death or to Penal Servitude, addressed to the Secretary for the Home Department, and of the Replies to such Memorials, as also of the Correspondence relating thereto, said: Sir, I need all the indulgence which the House may think fit to extend to me in bringing under its notice a subject which has occupied the grave attention of the Commissioners on
  552
  Capital Punishment; a subject which also fills with apprehension those whom I represent in this House, as expressed in a petition that I presented to the House from Birmingham a day or two before the 13th of August, which referred to the reprieve of the convict Scott. The reprieve of this convict produced a very deep impression in the Midland Counties. It raised a spirit of inquiry as to the terms upon which the sentence pronounced by the Judges had been practically defeated. It is reported to me that the feeling prevails to a wide extent that punishment by law is uncertain; that punishment by imprisonment has lost a great part of its deterrent effect; and subsequent inquiries have convinced me that the representations made upon this subject by the Commission on Capital Punishment are well-founded. With the permission of the House, then, I will read the concluding portion of the Report of the Commissioners. On the 13th of August last, in speaking upon a Motion which I then made at the instance of 3,000 of the most respectable inhabitants of Birmingham, among whom were ten magistrates, including the stipendiary magistrate, by whom the convict Scott was originally committed, I ventured to call the attention of the House to the last paragraphs in the Report of the Commissioners who sat in the year 1866. I then expressed a doubt whether these passages did not tend to aggravate the evil which already existed—namely, the feeling that punishment was uncertain; that when Her Majesty's Judges had fully heard the trial of a case, after the jury had pronounced a verdict of guilty, that after sentence had been pronounced, without any intimation that it was likely to be mitigated, or that the mercy or pardon of the Crown were likely to be extended to the prisoner, all knew that these sentences were never likely to be carried out; that punishment in the case of those who were sentenced to penal servitude was utterly uncertain; that men sentenced to long periods of penal servitude were virtually liberated at the expiration of seven or four years, while those who were sentenced to minor periods of punishment were liberated, God knows how soon. I was not then aware of the extent to which the public mind had been unsettled. Now, this is the conclusion of the Report of the Commissioners on Capital Punishment:—
  "Upon another important point there is also

  553
  a great preponderance of opinion against the present state of the law. The witnesses whom we have examined are, with very few exceptions, in favour of the abolition of the present system of public executions, and it seems impossible to resist such a weight of authority. We therefore recommend that an Act be passed putting an end to public executions, and directing that sentences of death shall be carried out within the precincts of the prison, under such regulations as may be considered necessary to prevent abuse, and satisfy the public that the law has been complied with."
  I venture very clearly to dissent from this; but I have thought it necessary to read it to the House in order to introduce the paragraph which follows, and because I wish to distinguish my Motion as not being directed solely to the subject of capital punishment, but as bearing with, even greater force upon the system of secondary punishment adopted by law in this country. The Commissioners say—
  "There are other questions of great importance upon which we have taken evidence—namely, 1. The propriety of allowing an appeal on matters of fact to a Court of Law in criminal cases. 2. The mode in which the Crown is advised to exercise the prerogative of mercy by the Home Secretary. 3. The present state of the law as to the nature and degree of insanity, which is held to relieve the accused from penal responsibility in criminal cases. It is obvious that these difficult cases are not confined to capital crimes only, but pervade the whole administration of the criminal law. They therefore require a more general and comprehensive treatment than the terms of the commission under which we act will admit. We think, therefore, that while we should not be justified in making any recommendation to Your Majesty on any of these points, we should fail in our duty did we not humbly solicit Your Majesty's attention to them as requiring further investigation."
  There could, Sir, scarcely be a stronger opinion expressed than this, enunciated at the conclusion of their Report by the Commissioners on Capital Punishment. I will now proceed to point out the terms of my Motion, in order to guard myself against the imputation of presumptuously or hastily suggesting a change in the criminal law of this country. I beg to call the attention of hon. Members to the terms of the Motion, because I have endeavoured in those terms to express the exact intention with which I submit the Motion to the House. What I desire to move, then, is—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Petitions or Memorials and of all Communications praying for or recommending the suspension, commutation, or remission of sentences of death or of penal servitude, received by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  554
  ment, or at the Home Office, during the six months ending on the 30th day of November and on the 30th day of June of each year, together with Copies of the Signatures attached to such Documents and of the Replies thereto, except Communications between the Secretary of State and the Judges, be presented to Parliament on each of the aforesaid days of each year if Parliament be then sitting; or if Parliament be not sitting, then on the first subsequent day on which Parliament may sit, or on the fifth day of the first Session of a new Parliament."
  What I ask of the House therefore is this:—to obtain information with regard to the operation of the criminal law, as it is practically put into execution, apart from the sentences pronounced by the Judges. I do not propose that Parliament should interfere in any particular case. No one would be more averse than I should be to the idea of Parliament trespassing upon the province of the Executive, or of Parliament endeavouring to intercept the exercise of the discretion which it has vested in the Executive. But what I desire is this:—that Parliament, which is supreme in its power of altering the law; that Parliament, acting with the consent of the Sovereign, should seek information for its guidance in the exercise of its supremacy in sanctioning, in the maintenance of, in making, and in altering of the law, and thus should secure to itself such a record of the real execution of the laws, of the actual operation of the law upon the people of this country—whether upon criminals or in respect of the peaceful citizen—as shall enable us to judge with what success we have sanctioned, made, or altered the criminal law; and thus ascertain in what direction Parliament may best proceed in reforming the penal jurisdiction of the country. I propose no change in the law; but I ask Parliament, which is responsible to the country for the state of the law, to obtain periodically such information as alone can enable it to judge of the actual operation of the law upon the criminal classes of the country in furtherance of that great object, securing to the peaceful citizen, securing to the owners of property, securing to the fathers of families, securing to every individual safety for property, safety for the person, security against outrage and violence. I think I can show the House that the information which I seek to obtain is not only consistent with, but is absolutely necessary to, the due performance of the functions of Parliament. Let us for a moment glance back to the changes that we have made, during the

  555
  last twenty years, in the whole criminal jurisprudence of the country, in the administration of our penal laws. We have practically abolished transportation; we have adopted a totally novel system of prison discipline; we have aimed at the reformation of prisoners until we have deprived the law of that deterrent effect, which is valuable if there is any truth in the maxim, that "prevention is better than cure." Throughout the whole of our penal system, from the Government prisons, through the county prisons and the borough prisons, we have established the reformatory principle; but we have neglected the established and ordinary principle of repression; we have established reformatories so called, which are a kind of subsidiary prison for carrying out the Reformatory principle. It is a principle which has at all times been recognised in our penal legislation, but we have made it so predominant that we have come to this point:—We have so extended the Prerogative of the Crown as to make the exercise of it not exceptional, but regular. We have produced this state of things:—we have told every one who is guilty of crime—"You shall not be punished according to the sentence pronounced upon you in the court in which you have been publicly tried, but you shall be punished according to the discretion which we have vested in the Home Minister, as the representative of the Crown." And what has been the effect of this course? It was but the other day that we saw the Home Office—to use an expression contained in the written evidence of the late learned Recorder of Birmingham—literally the Home Office positively besieged. We have seen a deputation take possession of the Home Office, and in that Office they used expressions which, only a few years ago, would have been held to be seditious, if not treasonable, and certainly criminal. What further have we seen? We have seen a deputation go down to Windsor and attempt to supersede the Executive Government by thrusting themselves between Her Majesty's person and her responsible Ministers. Are not these grave symptoms? And do not such facts as these furnish evidence in support of the allegations of the Commissioners on Capital Punishment, and of the feeling which I represent as prevailing in the Midland Counties, that the uncertainty of punishment, the uncertainty of our criminal law, is such as to undermine the confidence of the country? Well, Sir, I think
  556
  no one who is cognizant of this state of things can doubt that it is the effect of the changes that have been made in the law of late years, with a view to the reformation of prisoners. Is it not clear and evident to us, and to Parliament generally—to us who are responsible for the state of the law—that we have proceeded to such an extent in the Reformatory system, in granting discretionary power to the Executive, that it has become absolutely necessary that this House should obtain information periodically, which will enable us to judge how successive Ministers of the Home Department have acted in the discharge of the grave responsibility imposed upon them by virtue of the discretionary powers with which we have invested them as the representatives of the Prerogative of the Crown? and this, Sir, is my excuse for undertaking so grave a subject. If no Motion is made in this House, if no independent Member of the House takes up this question, any Government would be beset with great difficulty in attempting to deal with it. The ex-Government would immediately say, "You desire to reflect upon our conduct." Yet, this is no party question. If I have confidence in any of the Ministers who now sit on the Treasury Bench I have confidence in the present Home Secretary, and it is because I have confidence in him, that I feel now is the time that I may ask Parliament to obtain, if possible, this information; because in doing so I cannot be suspected of any minor or party purpose. I have spoken of the great changes which we have made in the criminal law by the abolition of transportation and the alteration of the whole system of prison discipline, but we have done still more. Not content with investing the Home Secretary with an increased discretionary power, as the virtual administrator of the Prerogative of the Crown in dealing with sentences to penal servitude, but by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, we have vastly increased the discretionary power of the minor and subordinate administrators of justice. There has, however, been a recoil. Outrages were committed in the streets; Parliament took fright and recognised the fact that the punishment of imprisonment has lost its terrors. And what is the result? A result which I deprecate. We turned suddenly round and pursued a reactionary course by resorting to the infliction of corporal punishment. Parliament rushed back into barbarism. The fact that Par-

  557
  liament has been compelled by outrages committed in our streets to turn back in its course of leniency and restore corporal punishment, is a proof in itself that we ought to re-consider the policy which we have adopted, and satisfy ourselves whether it is altogether safe. The result has been that the certainty as to the duration of imprisonment, the chief deterrent element of that punishment for the prevention of crime, is impaired; that prevention, which is so much better than cure, the cure represented by the Reformatory system—a system which confers its benefits only on the individual prisoner, and even of this object, though carried out at such an enormous expense, is not always successful. The system fails, I am afraid, too often, even in this success. In this House, and in addressing my fellow-Members, I feel sure that they will not be offended at my appealing to a great principle—to first principles, which of late years have been too much forgotten. It happens that a friend of mine has put into my hands a work which has had far too small a circulation among those who, like ourselves, are bound to seek every means of information, in order to the due performance of the high duties which devolve upon us. It is a work on Civil Liberty and Self-Government, written by Dr. Francis Lieber, a distinguished American Jurist, and one of the most trusted and accomplished instructors in the United States. I quote from a document which he has appended to this most valuable work. I have not had time to take more than a hasty glance at this work generally; still, I am confident that every hon. Member who values the Constitution of this country, and desires to understand it and make it his guide, would do well to peruse the work to which I refer. I quote a paper appended to this work; it treats of the abuse of the pardoning power. Dr. Lieber writes p. 390)—
  "This paper was originally a report. I had been appointed by a meeting of the Friends of Prison Discipline, without being present, the chairman of the committee, which was requested to report to the next meeting on 'the pardoning privilege and its abuse.' The following was the result of this appointment:—The Legislature of the State of New York did me the honour of publishing it as a document; but that was so incorrectly done, the subject is of such vital importance to the people, who desire to live under the supremacy of the law, and the abuse continues in many parts of our country to so alarming an extent, that I do not hesitate here to produce the paper."
  558
  Therefore, this document having been first tendered to the Legislature of Massachusetts, was thought so valuable that the Legislature of New York reprinted it. The passage to which I refer the House is this (appendix, pp. 392–3)—
  "Although the pardoning power has always existed, and has been abandoned by ultra-despotism for the sake of despotism itself, yet the abuse to which it easily leads, and the apparent incongruity which it involves, have induced many men of deep reflection, in ancient as well as modern times, to raise their voices against it, of whom we mention Plato and Cicero (Cicero in Verrem) among the ancients, and Pastoret (des Lois Penales), Servin, Filangieri, and the benevolent Beccaria among the moderns."
  The latter, the pioneer of penal reform, and one of the benefactors of mankind, has the following remarkable passage—and to this I beg the particular attention of the House, because there is an exactitude, a truth, and a force in the mode of expression that I could not pretend to imitate:—
  "As punishment becomes more mild, clemency and pardon are less necessary. Happy the nation in which they will be considered as dangerous. Clemency, which has often been deemed a sufficient substitute for every other virtue in Sovereigns, should be excluded in a perfect legislation, where punishments are mild and the proceedings in criminal cases regular and expeditious. This truth may seem cruel to those who live in countries where, from the absurdity of the laws and the severity of punishment, pardons and the clemency of the Prince are necessary. It is, indeed, one of the noblest Prerogatives of the Throne; but, at the same time, a tacit disapprobation of the laws. Clemency is a virtue which belongs to the legislator, and not to the executor of laws; a virtue which ought to shine in the code and not in private judgment. To show mankind that crimes are sometimes pardoned, and that punishment is not a necessary consequence, is to nourish the flattering hope of impunity, and is the cause of their considering every punishment inflicted as an act of injustice and oppression."
  My object is not to increase the severity of the laws, but to enable Parliament to proceed by legislation in the direction of clemency. The passage then proceeds—
  "The Prince, in pardoning, gives up the public security in favour of an individual, and by ill-judged benevolence proclaims a public act of impunity. Let, then, the legislation be tender, indulgent, and humane."
  Now Lieber qualifies his use of this quotation on account of the inevitable imperfection of all human legislation and the equally inevitable failure in the symbolical power of language. I admit the necessity for qualification; but Beccaria admirably states a principle which Parliament seems to have forgotten. Is it not evident from

  559
  the language of the Fenians and their friends? Is it not evident, I am sorry to say, from the articles which have appeared in some Irish newspapers, that the infliction of punishment even in the case of deliberate murder is not considered by them to be the due vindication of the law, made by the representatives of the people, but that it is simply an act of revenge on the part of the Executive. A recent article in The Times comments most ably and rightly upon those articles in the Irish papers, the whole purport of which was that the executions which lately took place at Manchester were an act not of justice but of revenge—the vindictive act of an enemy who sacrificed his adversary, not the execution of a just law, the only object of which is to secure the freedom and the safety of peaceful citizens, to preserve in peace the community and the State. Sir, the time has arrived when Parliament ought to arm itself with information to which we may be able to refer when we consider the present state of the law, and direct our efforts to recovering the confidence which, as one of the representatives of the Midland Counties, I affirm has been, to a great extent, lost, in consequence of the present state of the criminal law and the uncertainty of its execution. When I point to the Home Office, I do so in no spirit of hostility towards the Minister; but I do this on no light grounds. I have the support of some of our most distinguished Judges. If any man is competent to form an opinion of the effect of the penal code, surely it must be a Judge; but I have selected the evidence of only one of the Judges, who gave evidence before the Commissioners on Capital Punishment, because that opinion happens to be expressed with peculiar distinctness. Before the Commission on Capital Punishment Baron Bramwell gave the following evidence. He was asked by the Attorney General for Ireland, Question 228—
  "Have you considered the question at all, whether in criminal cases there should be a new trial allowed to the prisoner under any circumstances?"
  His answer is—
  "I have."
  Then he is asked—
  "What is your opinion upon that subject?"
  And he says—
  "Again I speak with great embarrassment, because I am afraid that I shall detain the Commission some time to explain myself. So long as the Queen has the Prerogative of pardon, which one
  560
  would be very sorry to see taken away from Her, there always will be a Court of Appeal, because She may be asked to pardon as a matter of grace, and She may be asked to pardon on the score of mistake. You cannot take away from Her that jurisdiction, which one never wishes to see taken away. One cannot help feeling that the Court of Appeal as at present constituted, except that it has one of the best Judges which such a court can possibly have, yet it is the worst court which can possibly exist, because it is not a public court—I mean the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and except that the Secretary of State is always so fit a man, and is always so ably advised, I say unfeignedly that it is the worst court which there can possibly be. It is no court at all in reality, but practically it is a tribunal of appeal—it is private, it proceeds upon written statements and upon ex parte statements, it does not hear the other side, and therefore no doubt there is very great difficulty in saying that it is a satisfactory tribunal to which to appeal from the judgment of a jury, and yet you cannot get rid of it. On the other hand, you cannot have a Court of Appeal without augmenting that uncertainty which it is so desirable to diminish, and without giving more chances and more hopes; and you cannot have it without doing what it is also most desirable to avoid—namely, worrying prosecutors. At present people are very reluctant to prosecute, and I suppose that a very great number of offences go unprosecuted, and there are continued applications made to magistrates to dispose of the case summarily; but, nevertheless, a certain amount of that business comes before the ordinary tribunals where cases are tried by jury. But if you had a Court of Appeal you must properly have the prosecutor, or somebody representing the prosecutor, to take part in the transaction. The reluctance of prosecutors would therefore really be greater than it is now, and I think that that is very much to be deprecated. If such a thing existed, it could not exist except upon the terms of some public prosecutor taking the matter entirely out of the hands of the private prosecutor, who would be likely to be tampered with, and who would otherwise be reluctant to interfere in the matter. In addition to that there would be a great deal of trouble and expense; and I cannot help thinking for my own part, that inasmuch as a Court of Appeal is not what we may call a natural thing, that is to say, is not a thing of necessary existence, there is no more reason why there should be an appeal to one court above than to another court above it, and so on; and inasmuch as people in England are never convicted except in my judgment on the very clearest evidence, I cannot help thinking, that any advantage to be gained from the establishment of a Court of Appeal, although theoretically more perfect than the one which now exists, would not compensate for the disadvantages which would be attendant upon it."
  The House will forgive me for reading this long quotation; but I did not think it fair to stop short of the end of the section in quoting the opinion of the learned Judge. Now I do not advocate the establishment of a final Court of Appeal in criminal cases, though it may be that the

  561
  production of the information, for which I would have the House ask Her Majesty, might lead to the erection of such a court; but as at present advised, I do not seek a final Court of Appeal in criminal cases. Yet I think I may invite those who are adverse to the continuance of capital punishment, and those who desire the appointment of a final Court of Appeal in criminal cases, to give their support in requesting that we may have information placed at our disposal whereby we may be enabled to judge whether a final Court of Appeal in criminal cases is necessary or not. And I would point out this, moreover to those who, actuated by humane motives, seek the abolition of capital punishment—that if our secondary punishments remain uncertain; if they are, as I have shown they are, losing their deterrent effect, then all their hope of obtaining the abolition of capital punishment must be vain, perfectly vain; because at present capital punishment is the only punishment which is certain in its effect, which removes the eventual execution of the sentences from uncertainty. We have abolished transportation. All our convicts are now detained in this country. They can constantly, or rather, periodically communicate with their friends; and the consequence is, as I have been informed on excellent authority, that the Home Office is literally besieged, not only on particular occasions, such as the execution at Manchester, to which I have referred; but that habitually there is such a constant stream of applications for the commutation or remission of punishment, as requires the exercise of such an amount of exact information as to the mental, the physical, and even the moral condition of particular prisoners, and of firmness, as it is almost unreasonable to expect from any man, however trained, and however powerful may be the intellect he possesses. I can speak upon this subject from my own personal experience. As a Member of this House, I have been urged in the most stringent manner to apply for commutations of sentences. I have been literally threatened with the loss of my seat in this House, unless I yielded to what I was told—and let hon. Members observe this, that it is a common practice on the part of Members of this House; not the practice, which I have always pursued, of showing readiness, as a representative of the district in which the conviction has taken place, to press upon the Home Office
  562
  the consideration of any new facts that may have come to light after the trial; but a practice of seeking, as a matter of favour to the relatives, to the friends, aye, to the patrons of the person convicted, a remission of punishment; a remission, mark you, based neither upon new facts discovered since the trial, nor upon the merits of the case, nor upon any real evidence of the reformation of the prisoner. That is what I have been told. These threats and solicitations had no effect upon me, except this, that I determined to appeal to this House on the ground that such reports, whether well or ill-founded, are current with respect to the conduct of its Members. This circumstance not less than any other has prompted my proposal that this House, as one of the constituent elements of the Imperial Parliament, should address Her Majesty, praying that she will direct that periodically there be laid before us information, which will enable us collectively to judge how far individual Members of this House are really amenable to the grave imputation of yielding to solicitations such as I have had to repudiate. It is our duty as Members of this House, wherever the conduct of the Government directly affects our constituents, to intervene individually; but there is no power that can regulate the conduct of the Members of this House, except that of the House itself; and if the House knows not what is the conduct of its Members in this respect, may we not fear that some of us do lapse into the vice of individually contributing to that uncertainty of punishment which is fraught with so much mischief? These sentences, pronounced by the Judges, vary from one to ten years' imprisonment, and even for life; the Judge pronounces the sentence, and not a soul believes that it will be carried out as he declares, for all know that, by the law, Parliament has granted a discretion to the Executive Government with the express intention that the sentences pronounced by the Judges should not be carried out. I respect the Prerogative of the Crown as much as any one, though I think that Parliament has unduly extended it. I have no desire to invade that Prerogative, when confined to its former limits; but I have never yet heard or understood that secret action was among the Prerogatives of the Crown. I have always understood that the intention of the Constitution in making the Ministers responsible (and they became doubly so

  563
  under the settlement arrived at by the Revolution) was, that the Prerogative of the Crown, and every act of the Sovereign in his official capacity, which might affect the subject, should be made public, as that of his responsible advisers, for the information and comment of Parliament. But here, on the authority of Mr. Baron Bramwell, we have, under cover of an extended prerogative, a tribunal—practically, a secret tribunal—a tribunal which by law habitually supersedes the sentences publicly pronounced by the Judges in the courts of this country. I repeat that I am not desirous of invading the legitimate Prerogative of the Crown, the prerogative of mercy or of pardon, nor do I desire that the exercise of the Prerogative in any particular case should be thrust on this House for its immediate comment, so that the action of the prerogative should be intercepted; but that which I desire and propose is, that periodically—and I hope the House will sanction my object—that periodically, information with respect to the general practice of the Home Office in the exercise of the Prerogative, extended, as I have shown, should be placed at the command of Parliament. I know it has been said, "Oh! but think of the expense in printing which you will entail upon the country." Sir, the accomplishment of such an object as I have in view would, in my opinion, be well worth that expense. But I do not desire that all these documents should be printed. Many important documents are now furnished for the use of Parliament which neither House prints. There they are, however, in the Library, accessible to the Members of either House, any one of whom may move that the whole or part of any of these documents be printed, but he must obtain the consent of the House. If the improved action of the criminal jurisprudence of this country, if the improvement of the administration of the law is an object worthy the consideration of Parliament, surely it is worth the small wages of a few copyists, which is all that would generally be required, in order to furnish us with information, without which I very respectfully say to this House we are not justified in proceeding to make any fundamental alterations of the law in matters that affect the personal freedom, the property, and the security for the lives of our fellow countrymen. I thank the House most sincerely for the kindness with which it has allowed me to trespass so long upon their attention. I
  564
  feel that we are not returned to this House for the gratification of personal ambition, or merely to attend to the details of minor matters—such as Railway Bills, Dock Bills, and Turnpike Bills. If there is any meaning in the Constitution of the country; if there is any value in the freedom which we enjoy; if there is anything in the principle of self-government, which Dr. Lieber says is a special property of the Anglo-Saxon tribe, whether in England, in the United States, or in the colonies—and I use the word "property" advisedly—the property of the Anglo-Saxon race, because it is the capacity of the race for self-government, which has enabled us to secure that blessing—if, I say, there is any value in the principle of self-government, then it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament, in a matter which so seriously affects that principle, humbly to address Her Majesty in pursuit of information that will enable us to judge of the operation of the laws that we have passed, and how best we may amend them. The hon. Member concluded by moving an Address.
  MR. NEATEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Petitions or Memorials and of all Communications praying for or recommending the suspension, commutation, or remission of sentences of death or of penal servitude, received by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or at the Home Office, during the six months ending on the 30th day of November and on the 30th day of June of each year, together with Copies of the Signatures attached to such Documents and of the Replies thereto, except Communications between the Secretary of State and the Judges, be presented to Parliament on each of the aforesaid days of each year if Parliament be then sitting; or if Parliament be not sitting, then on the first subsequent day on which Parliament may sit, or on the fifth day of the first Session of a new Parliament."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I should be the last person in this House to take exception to any increase of expenditure or the increase of the staff of any office in connection with the Government if I were thoroughly convinced that the information sought by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were really information that was valuable and worth the expenditure which the procuring of it must cost, or even if I were persuaded that it was information that ought to be laid before the House. I have, however, come to the conclusion that the informa-

  565
  tion now asked by my hon. Friend would not be of the slightest value, so far as advancing the purposes which he has in view is concerned; but would, on the contrary, often mislead those who read it, and cause them to form totally opposite conclusions to those arrived at by those who were in possession of all the information upon all sides of the question. I shall only refer for a moment to the subject which has been the cause of my hon. Friend bringing forward this Motion—that of the remission of a sentence in the case of a man who was convicted of murder at Birmingham. I have already explained to the House the grounds upon which that remission took place. Whether it was right or wrong, it was at least in conformity with the precedent of a great number of years—a precedent which I did not feel myself in that instance called upon to break through. My hon. Friend, as I understand him, says that the object of his Motion is to form a basis of legislation for the administration of the criminal law. Now, the information asked for has, in the main, nothing whatever to do with the administration of the criminal law, as law. It will affect rather the administration of the Prerogative of mercy invested in the Crown. It is information sought for in order to enable those who are responsible to the Crown to arrive at satisfactory conclusions. But there is left out of this Motion—naturally because it would be most improper to produce it—all mention of the important evidence which comes before the Home Secretary, and which enables him to come to and justifies him in his conclusions—there is no mention made of the Judge's notes, the depositions, and the other weighty documents which I, in my official capacity, have always before me in dealing with cases brought under my notice. My hon. Friend says that Members of Parliament often take an active part in procuring remissions of sentences. Now I frankly own that I object extremely to personal communications on such a subject. I think it is far better that all communications on such matters should be made in writing to the Home Secretary, in order that he may have the opportunity of calmly sifting the facts for himself, or of placing documents in the hands of those who are capable of assisting him to form his judgment. If the Home Secretary is to listen to personal arguments, to pick up one person's story here and another's there, he will be led
  566
  into difficulties, and the probability is that in the end he may be led into quite erroneous conclusions. For these reasons alone I think it is preferable that every representation to be urged upon the Home Office should be committed to writing. The Motion that has just been moved does not refer to cases of ordinary imprisonment. My hon. Friend alludes only to cases of penal servitude and capital punishment. Now I contend that if the information sought for is valuable in respect to the two first classes of cases, it is equally so with regard to the other class. I do not think that hon. Members have the least notion of the enormous number of memorials that are yearly presented to the Home Office. I have not calculated the number received in relation to imprisonments; but as respects penal servitude and capital punishment, I am told that they may be assumed to be not less than 1,000 in the course of the year. These involve a large amount of correspondence; and in addition to this there cannot be less than 4,000 or 5,000 documents connected with the memorials, irrespective of Judges' notes and other documents not included in the Motion. I shall assume for a moment that the House will agree to print such a voluminous mass of documents. The difficulty of expense got over, there would be another most serious one to contemplate. Many of the memorials sent to the Home Office are of an extremely libellous character. They almost all impute perjury and falsehood to some of the witnesses who have given evidence at the trial, and many of them charge other persons with the crimes for which the prisoners were convicted. I would ask the House whether it would be desirable to print such documents, or lay them upon the table of the House? Moreover, a great many anonymous communications are sent in; but these cannot be rejected because they are anonymous, for they sometimes contain arguments which are as worthy of consideration as those which are forwarded under signature, and they are not rejected if they contain anything in the shape of argument which can impress the mind of the Home Secretary. On the other hand, there are memorials containing an enormous number of signatures, and if we were to print these they would be mere lists of names bearing no meaning. My hon. Friend says the Home Office sees one side, but never sees the other. But that is not so, because the

  567
  Home Secretary has the Judge's notes and evidence before him. With respect to the case to which my hon. Friend called attention last Session, I understood that a complaint was made because I referred at once to the Judge. That, however, was a necessity. I was not in possession of the slightest information until I got the Judge's notes; and when a memorial for remission of sentence was forwarded to me I sent for these notes, and asked the Judge to enclose any remarks which he saw fit to make. The Judge's notes form the most material evidence as to the facts of a case; and his comments one of the most important aids which the Home Secretary can procure in forming his decision. My hon. Friend says he does not wish to interfere with the Royal Prerogative of mercy, but that he merely desires this information in order to see how the Home Secretary uses it. In answer to that, I have only to say that even if he did get all the information he desires it would not inform him correctly how the Home Secretary has acted, because the documents relating to the memorials, such as the Judge's notes, would be left out, and the memorials themselves would be as misleading as documents could possibly be. I can quote an example. Very soon after acceding to the office I have the honour to hold a case of great importance was brought under my notice, in connection with which long memorials, some of which would take hours to read and discuss, were forwarded. A great many of these memorials were argumentative, but the whole of them were based upon the assumption that the chief witness had been guilty of falsehood. These representations came from so many quarters that I was anxious to ascertain whether the witness could have possibly made any mistake in his evidence, and I accordingly had a letter written to the man himself, asking whether his evidence had been correctly reported, and whether he adhered to it. The man, after considering what had been said by others, replied, "I adhere to everything that I have here said." Now, suppose that these memorials had been laid upon the table of the House without the evidence of the man himself and without the Judge's notes—the House would have entertained a very different impression of the case to that which, with better means of judging, was arrived at by the Home Office. These memorials would, in fact, have been libellous, and I think it would be a most un-
  568
  just thing for the House to make itself a receptacle for libels which could not be published in any other way. It is most desirable, when the exercise of mercy is under consideration, that nothing that can possibly be said should be shut out; but a great deal that should be considered would be shut out under the terms of this Motion. Upon these grounds, I cannot accede to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I cannot consent to it, because I do not believe it will lead to the results he anticipates. I cannot consent to it because I think it would be unjust to many persons who would have no opportunity of defending themselves; and because I think it would throw a very great impediment in the way of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, which, as a last resort, must be brought into requisition. Baron Bramwell himself stated before the Commission that whatever Courts of Appeal may be instituted we must in the last resort have some one to exercise the prerogative of mercy. After the trial and condemnation facts might come out which it would be desirable to sift; and however long it might be after a man's conviction, if circumstances transpired showing that the conviction was unjust, or throwing such a doubt upon it as to make it clear that there ought to be some interference, there must necessarily be some authority to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Personally, I am not advocating the prerogative of mercy as a matter pertaining to my office, for I know no duty so painful as that which the present practice devolves upon me. But that prerogative must occasionally be exercised, and some one must take upon himself the responsibility of acting on the part of the Crown. That duty falls upon me at present; and I say that, so far from this Motion, if carried, giving the information desired—information such as would lead the House to just conclusions—it would mislead them, and cause them to arrive at conclusions the reverse of correct. I do not wish to go into all the questions adverted to by my hon. Friend, because the opportunity does not appear to me to be favourable. If the great questions he has alluded to are to be properly judged, they must be judged upon distinct and specific Motions brought before the House, and not in connection with another matter.
  Before sitting down, however, I desire to call the attention of the House to the last Report of the Directors of Public Prisons, and to the extraordinary revela-

  569
  tions which it makes as to the effects of those punishments which are said not to be deterrent. It is a remarkable fact to observe how steadily during the last few years the number of cases of penal servitude has decreased. In the year 1853 the number of life sentences was 783; in 1857 the number was only 35; while in 1866 there were only two life sentences given during the whole of the year. That shows a most remarkable diminution in the number of cases of extreme punishment, which we may fairly attribute to a diminution in the enormity of the offences committed. In the year 1858 the number of life sentences was 17; in 1859 the number was 16; in 1860 the number was 21; in 1861 the number was 16; in 1862 the number was 25; in 1863 the number was 20; in 1864 the number was 12; in 1865 the number was 4; and in 1866 the number was 2. These figures, as I have already remarked, show that there is an immense diminution in the enormity of the offences committed, and they also show that the Judges, looking to the deterrent influence of punishment, do not consider it necessary to pass such heavy sentences as they formerly did, and the Judges are in the best position to form an opinion as to what is sufficient punishment for an offence. I do not wish to enter upon the questions whether there ought to be a Court of Appeal or whether the Home Secretary ought in the last resort to exercise the prerogative of mercy? These questions did not properly arise upon this Motion. With great respect for my hon. Friend I oppose the Motion, because the adoption of it would rather defeat than promote the object my hon. Friend has in view.
  MR. NEATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given such good reasons for objecting to the Motion as it stood, that he hoped it would be withdrawn; but he had scarcely met the meaning and spirit of the Motion. The House was entitled to know a great deal more than it did of the circumstances under which the Home Secretary exercised the prerogative of mercy, which really was in his hands, although it was the fashion to speak of the uncontrolled and unquestioned Prerogative of the Crown. If the Motion had been so worded as to ask for a Return of the number of cases in which the Home Secretary was asked to remit or commute sentences, the number in which he refused to do so, and the reasons which influenced his decisions, the Return might
  570
  have guided Parliament in future legislation, and might have had a bearing on the desirability of exercising greater control than was exercised over the mode in which Judges were appointed. He did not see the difficulty of making a Return which should state that in one case there was an insufficiency of evidence, that in another a man had borne a good character, and that in another a man's behaviour in prison had been good, and for such a Return the Secretary of State ought to be accountable to the House.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, a great deal of confusion had been introduced into the question by the practice of speaking of the Home Office as a Court of Appeal, which it was not. Whether we had a Court of Appeal or not, we must have some person responsible to Parliament for the advice given in regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The reason why people had come to speak of the Home Office as a Court of Appeal was that there was no Court of Appeal in England, as there was in every other civilized country; and this was a matter which must force itself more and more upon the public mind. Many of the arguments against a Court of Criminal Appeal were equally applicable as against a Court of Appeal in civil cases. Appeal was as necessary and useful in criminal as in civil cases. While Judges saw and heard witnesses, and could examine them, and also heard the arguments of counsel, the Home Secretary had only the notes and opinions of the Judge; and it was impossible, under these circumstances, that the Home Office could be a satisfactory Court of Appeal. It would be deemed absurd to appeal to the Home Secretary against a decision in the Court of Chancery, and yet in principle the absurdity existed; for, although the Home Office was not a Court of Appeal, cases came before the Home Secretary which ought to be decided by such a Court, and they were brought before the Home Secretary because we had no Court of Appeal. This question of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases must engage increasing attention, and he believed that common sense and reason would ultimately induce Parliament to establish such a Court, leaving still to the decision of the Home Secretary those cases which were not properly the subject of appeal, but belonged to the Prerogative of the Crown, exercised under the advice of a responsible Minister.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that a Court of Appeal in criminal cases could not do harm, and might prevent a judicial murder. The establishment of such a court would give satisfaction to many persons who thought that capital punishment should be abolished altogether.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker—In reply to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) I beg to say, that whatever opinion he may entertain with respect to my view of the abuse of an extended prerogative, no one who knows anything about the hon. Baronet doubts that he is in favour of the establishment of absolute power in Government. It is in a different sense that I shall endeavour to answer the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). He appears to me to have used several arguments that support my case. Supposing these memorials, to which he has referred, are of the libellous character he has described, whilst many of the signatures attached to them are fictitious, is that a reason why this House should be kept in ignorance of the fact or of the proceedings to which those resort who attempt to interfere by such means with the administration of justice? One fact which I believe would come out if the information I ask for were granted is this—that it is only a small number of persons who create the greater part of the pressure that is brought to bear upon the Home Office, persons who are ever ready to interfere. I know that the system has grown up in recent years. There are persons, there is an organization, employed in beseeching jurymen the instant they leave the box to sign memorials in favour of reversing the effect of the verdict which they have just given. There is a regular machinery at work for this very purpose. Let not the House imagine that this is likely to be a small evil. I have here the authority of M. de Tocqueville, and others, cited by Lieber, that in the United States of America the abuse of the privilege of pardon had, until the matter was taken up by the State Legislatures, grown to the most frightful proportions; and it appears to me that, as we have copied the system of prison discipline and penal legislation which the Americans first adopted, we are bound to guard against the evils against which, those who first tried it, have had to provide. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the number of sentences of penal servitude
  572
  for life are not so many as they were. And why is this? Because it is notorious that the present system of separate confinement cannot be carried out for life with safety to either the intellect or bodily health of the prisoner. The present system of prison discipline does not admit of long sentences, and that is one reason why many of our Judges do not pronounce them. I am grateful to the House for hearing me at such length on this occasion. I yield to the opinion of the Home Secretary, that this Motion will not accomplish my object, and therefore, with the permission of the House, I will withdraw it, but upon the understanding that I shall seek other means, either by appointment of a Select Committee, or in some other manner, which may induce the House to turn its attention to that which is really a growing evil in the Midland Counties, trusting that the wisdom of Parliament may discover some remedy.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RAILWAY AND GAS SHARES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIE, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill "to amend the law in respect of the Sale and Purchase of Shares in Railway and Gas Companies," said, it resembled very nearly the Bill affecting the sale and purchase of bank shares, brought forward by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman). To show the necessity for such a measure, he might refer to the City Article of The Times of November 28, which stated—
  "In the railway-market the daily increase of distrust continues, and after regular hours this evening Caledonian, which left off yesterday at 72½, went to 70½ to 71 for the next half-monthly settlement. Midland, also, at 110 to ¼, showed a further fall of nearly 2 per cent, although the traffic returns of that line for the week present the large increase of £7,547. Those of the London and North-Western line likewise show an increase of £7,130, but in that stock, too, there has been a fall of 1 per cent. At the same time, the extent to which the cause of depreciation is due to speculative operations has been exemplified by the fact that a rate of from 20 to 24 per cent per annum has been paid to-day for the loan of Caledonian Stock until the next half-monthly settlement, while 9 per cent has been paid for Midland and Lancashire and Yorkshire, and 6 per cent for Brighton."
  The railway "bearing" was then upon the Caledonian Railway; but it was reported that other lines were to be taken in turn.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law in respect of the sale and purchase of Shares in Railway and Gas Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Mr. GRAHAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 23.]

  CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill for the abolition of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. GILPIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 21.]

  CHURCH RATES REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUBBARD, Bill for the Regulation of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 22.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock, till Thursday.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Elphinstone.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Income Tax*; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000)*; Totnes, &c. Writs* (7).
Second Reading—Sales of Reversions (5); Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment [8].

GAMBLING IN HONG KONG AND HELIGOLAND.—QUESTION.
LORD TAUNTONsaid, he wished to ask two Questions deeply affecting the honour and character of this country. He was induced to do so, because he understood that an ordinance had come home from Hong Kong licensing some gambling houses in the colony. At the time that he held the seals of the Colonial Office a similar ordinance came home, and he felt it his duty to recommend that the sanction of the Crown should not be given. It was reported in the papers that the sanction of the Crown had been given in the present instance; but he had since received information which led him to doubt that such was the case, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) probably would have no objection to give their Lordships accurate information upon the subject. At a place nearer home there was reason to believe that a notorious public gambling - house had also been established. Heligoland during the summer was very much resorted to for purposes of health and bathing, especially by the citizens of Hamburg; and these complained that their young men, belonging principally to mercantile houses, were there attracted to the gaming table, to the serious injury of their interests and prospects. It certainly was not creditable to this country that a gambling-house should exist under-British protection so close to our own shores. He remembered that when at the Colonial Office he had sent out peremptory instructions to put an end to the system, and he now heard with some surprise that it was still in existence. He wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether he was prepared to lay upon the table any Papers showing what the facts in these two cases really were?
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, it was quite true that both at Heligoland and
524
Hong Kong gambling-houses existed, and that their existence was an evil to those colonies, and, to some extent, an imputation on our administration. They were no doubt a very great evil, which ought to be put an end to at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to Heligoland, there was only one gambling-house, but the last renewal of the lease under which the property was held, granted in 1855, would not expire until January, 1871. He had been in communication with the authorities of the Island, and also with the Governor, as to whether the practice could be discontinued earlier; but it was very doubtful whether, under the peculiar arrangements of the colony, that would be possible. Certain funds belonging to the orphans of the Island had really no other security than the income derived from this property, let and used as a gambling-house. Peremptory instructions, however, had been given to the Governor to see that during the current year, and as far as necessary during the remainder of the lease, the revenue received should be applied to no other purpose than to the reduction of the debt charged upon this property, so as to facilitate the abolition, at the earliest moment, of what really might be called one of the institutions of the Island. There would be no objection to lay on the table a copy of the lease, if one existed in this country; and, if not, one could be applied for. With regard to Hong Kong, it was quite true that an ordinance was sent home from the colony in 1866, which provided for the general improvement and for the maintenance of order and cleanliness in the colony. This ordinance contained a clause to the following effect:—
"And whereas the evils of gambling in the colony are found to be on the increase, notwithstanding the application of the penal laws in force for their prevention, and it is expedient to devise and adopt further measures for the gradual control and ultimate suppression thereof; be it therefore enacted that it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council from time to time to frame and pass such rules, regulations, and conditions as may be deemed expedient for the total suppression, or in the meanwhile for the better limitation and control of gambling in this colony, with power from time to time to alter and amend such rules and regulations or repeal the same or any part thereof."
A copy of that ordinance arrived in this country in the latter part of the year 1866, and came under the notice of the noble Earl who was then at the head of the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon),

525
and, after some considerable investigation, the noble Earl came to the conclusion which was expressed in his despatch to the Governor of Hong Kong, to the following effect:—
"Looking to the special circumstances and the state of society to be found in the Chinese community at Hong Kong, I am led to the conclusion that the evils arising from this apparently irrepressible vice require and justify exceptional treatment."
That despatch of the noble Earl was dated in November of last year. On receiving it the Governor of Hong Kong remonstrated against the limitation proposed, and argued very strongly in favour of a practice which appeared to have been very common in some of the Chinese cities—namely, that of granting Government licences to gambling-houses, not with the view of putting them down, but with the object of obtaining a large revenue from them, and of insuring that no other such houses should be opened. This remonstrance from the Governor came into his (the Duke of Buckingham's) hands almost immediately after he had undertaken the duties of head of the Colonial Office, and he at once proceeded to review the circumstances which had induced the Earl of Carnarvon to give the instructions objected to by the Governor. In the course of his investigations he found that the view taken by the Governor had frequently been put forward by the authorities of Hong Kong. At the time when Lord Stanley and his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) were at the Colonial Office a long correspondence took place upon this subject, in which it was distinctly announced that Her Majesty's Government could not and would not sanction the raising of revenue from such a source. He further found that under the system hitherto adopted by the police the number of gambling-houses and of those frequenting them had considerably increased instead of diminishing, and that the Government of the colony had found themselves unable to put down the evil. The facility with which the practice was carried on he found to result from the system adopted by the proprietors of the gambling-houses of regularly bribing the police—a system which, of course, had a most demoralizing effect upon that force. After a careful consideration of the whole subject, he had come to the conclusion that the decision arrived at by his noble Predecessor was the right one, and that
526
the first step towards the suppression of these houses was to obtain a full knowledge of them by means of a compulsory registration. Under these circumstances, he informed the Governor that he declined to sanction any departure from the previous instructions, and that any charges that might be made on the registration of the houses should be such as should merely meet the expenses incurred in keeping them under surveillance and the control of the police. In the meanwhile the rumour that it was the intention of the Governor to grant licences had spread through the adjoining towns, and numerous offers were made to the Governor of large sums for the privilege of keeping gaming-houses in Hong Kong. In consequence of the spread of these rumours he (the Duke of Buckingham) had considered it necessary to repeat to the Governor his instructions that no revenues could be permitted to be raised through granting such licences, and that his attention should be directed towards the ultimate suppression of these houses, and not towards drawing a revenue out of them. It appeared that subsequently to the despatch of those instructions a certain number of these houses had been registered, and that considerable fees had been paid by their proprietors; but at the present moment the Government had not received from the Governor a copy of the rules and regulations under which the registration had taken place, neither were they aware of the steps that the Governor had taken in the matter. The object which both he and his noble Predecessor had in view in the instructions they had sent to the Governor of the colony was to secure the ultimate suppression of these gaming-houses, and they never for one moment thought of permitting revenue to be raised by means of licensing such places. There certainly appeared to be an inordinate desire in the colony that the revenues should be raised by any means except that of taxation; but those who advocated such a system would receive no support from Her Majesty's Government. The Governor had intimated his opinion that in a very short period, if stringent means were adopted, the evil of gaming would be extirpated in the island in the same manner that piracy had been put down; but the opinion of Her Majesty's Government was that the spirit of gambling was so innate among the Chinese population that, although it might be

527
greatly mitigated, the evil would not be entirely removed within the time contemplated by the Governor. In conclusion, he had to say that he had no objection whatever to laying the ordinances upon the table of their Lordships' House, but that he could not consent to lay upon the table a Correspondence which was not yet brought to a conclusion.

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE RECESS.
  STATEMENT.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I wish to state for the information of this House that I find that the business of the House of Commons will be brought to a close certainly by Friday next; and therefore I think it desirable that the adjournment of both Houses should not be postponed longer than that day. In order that the business of this House may be concluded within that period I have to propose to your Lordships to sit for a short time to-morrow, for the purpose of advancing a stage certain Bills to which no objection has been raised. I was afraid at first that, even in the event of your Lordships agreeing to the proposition I have just made, it would be impossible to adjourn the House before Saturday; but if the business is got through on an early hour on Friday, we may be able to adjourn on that day until the ordinary period of meeting in February.
  SALES OF REVERSIONS BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 5.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to place the sales of reversions and ordinary sales of land in possession upon an equal footing. Under the existing law a purchaser of a reversion must prove that he has given adequate value for the property—a proof which was not required in the case of the sale of property in possession. In one instance, where the purchaser had evidently acted in the most upright and fair manner, the Judges had felt bound by the authorities to reverse the decision of the Master of the Rolls holding the sale in question good. All that the Bill now before the House proposed to do was to enact that the pur-
  528
  chase of a reversion should not be set aside merely upon the ground of the inadequacy of the price paid, leaving the law as it at present stood in cases of fraud, overreaching, or gross inadequacy from which fraud may be presumed. He thought he need say no more to induce their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 4.)
  (The Lord Clinton.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Clinton.)
  LORD CLINTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been introduced for the purpose of remedying a defect in an Act which was passed last Session by altering its 6th clause, so that it should no longer apply to costermongers or other itinerant tradesmen, and by this means to place the costermongers in the same position they occupied before the passing of that Act, with the exception that they were to be under the control of the Commissioners of Police. If this Bill were not passed, not only would serious injury be inflicted upon these persons, but considerable loss and great inconvenience would be caused to numbers of poor persons throughout the metropolis who were enabled through the means of itinerant vendors of provisions to obtain articles of food and small luxuries more cheaply and more readily than they could do in any other way. He trusted that their Lordships would consent to read the Bill a second time.
  Motion ageeed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).

  ADDRESS POR PAPERS.
  LORD DUFFERIN, in moving an Address for Police Reports of the recent Processions in Ireland, said, he would take that opportunity of asking the noble Earl at the head of the Government, Whether his attention had been directed to certain processions which were said to have taken

  529
  place in Cork and other parts of Ireland with the avowed object of eliciting an expression of sympathy from certain portions of the population in favour of the unfortunate men who had recently been executed at Manchester? He was, of course, aware that, however intense might have been the spirit of partisanship which gave birth to these demonstrations, it was quite possible that those who took part in them had kept within the letter of the law, and therefore had not rendered themselves liable to any punishment; and upon this point, therefore, he did not wish to express any opinion whatever, nor to elicit one from Her Majesty's Government. In all probability, the Government had not yet in its possession sufficiently full information as to what had occurred to enable them to arrive at a conclusion upon the subject. Nor did he wish to speak in any harsh terms of the processionists themselves. He deeply deplored that these demonstrations should have been made, because they implied the existence of an unhealthy and unfortunate state of feeling in the minds of a certain class of the population of Ireland. But when their Lordships recollected that within the last few days the popular press of Ireland—including, he was sorry to say, some of the most respectable of the journals of that country—had persisted in representing that the murder of the unfortunate policeman Brett in the discharge of his duty was an unforeseen and an unintentional accident, and that the execution of Allen and his accomplices was not carried into effect for the purpose of vindicating our outraged laws, but to gratify a vindictive and anti-Irish spirit on the part of the English Government, they could not be surprised that an essentially warm-hearted and affectionate people like the Irish should give expression to feelings which such gross misrepresentations as those to which he had referred were calculated to elicit. The purpose for which he had ventured to rise was to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for an impartial enforcement from one end of Ireland to the other of the Party Processions Act without regard to religious creed or to political opinion. He did so the more earnestly inasmuch as he had very recently been called upon in the official position he held in his own county to assist in the rigorous application of the regulations of that Act. As their Lordships would probably remember, under the Party
  530
  Processions Act any procession, no matter however orderly it might be, or however respectable the persons composing it, would render those forming it liable to prosecution if any of them decorated themselves with party colours. The case to which he had referred as having occurred in his own county was that of Mr. Johnston and his friends, who had organized a procession from one small town to another. The magistrates went thoroughly into the case, and gave it their most patient attention. It was clearly proved that no breach of the peace had been committed, and that nothing could have been more orderly or more respectably conducted; but it was also clearly established that while proceeding along the public thoroughfare some of those who formed the procession had worn party colours. The magistrates, upon this evidence, felt themselves bound to come to the conclusion that the parties had placed themselves within the provisions of the Act, and that therefore the only course open to them was to send the case to the assizes. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that an impression should become prevalent that the law was different in one part of Ireland to what it was in another, and that the Party Processions Act was to be enforced with rigour in the Northern district of the Island, while it was permitted to be broken with impunity in the South. Of course, he was aware it had been said that those who took part in the processions in question had only worn green, and that as green was not a party, but a national colour, those wearing it had not brought themselves within the provisions of the Act. That was a legal question which he was not in a position to discuss; but he could not help feeling that an Orangeman who had been put into gaol for wearing a blue riband would find a difficulty in assenting to the distinction drawn between the guilt of wearing the different colours. Their Lordships were all aware that green was the national colour of Ireland, and that all Irishmen were proud to wear it on certain occasions; but unfortunately that colour had, in many instances, been degraded from a national colour to a party emblem, and had acquired as sinister a significance as orange or blue. He was certainly no friend to the Orange Society—he had no sympathy with what he might term the presumptuous way in which the Orangemen claimed for themselves a monopoly of loyalty in Ireland. He acknowledged that they were a loyal, orderly, and

  531
  respectable body of men; but he was convinced there were thousands in Ireland who, though not Orangemen, and abhorring the name of the society, were every whit as loyal as the members of that body. But that was no reason why they should be dealt with differently from the rest of their fellow-countrymen, and he confessed he should find difficulty in suppressing feelings of indignation if the law were applied towards one portion of Her Majesty's subjects in one way, while in reference to another portion it received a different interpretation. It was on that account that he had ventured to take this opportunity of pressing upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of an impartial application of the Party Processions Act—so far, of course, as that Act might be found applicable—to every portion or party in Ireland; and he felt convinced that the observations he had made were consonant with the feelings of the noble Earl opposite. No Government had given more tangible proof of its determination to administer the law in Ireland with perfect impartiality than the present Government, and it was only those who were acquainted with the vehemence of opinion on this subject in Ireland who could appreciate the difficulties they had to encounter in adopting such a course. It is true he would not be justified in identifying the noble Earl with the Orange Society; but it was a fact that the members of that society were always more ready to extend their confidence to the noble Earl's Government than to any other great party in the State; and among its chiefs were to be reckoned many of the noble Earl's stanchest supporters. Consequently, Her Majesty's Government must have had very many inducements to act with less vigour than they had done, and it was on that account that he was glad to have the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for the impartiality which he had displayed in connection with the application of this law; and he was also encouraged, on the same account, to recommend the occurrences to which he had referred to the consideration of the noble Earl, and of the Irish Government. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Address to Her Majesty for Police Reports of the recent Processions in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, not only can I not find any fault with the language which the noble Lord has used in asking for these Returns, but I feel
  532
  bound to offer him my sincere thanks for the very handsome manner in which he has spoken of the motives and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the difficult question of the various denominational processions in Ireland. I may also say that the noble Lord did me no more than justice in stating that he entirely disclaimed any idea of connecting me with the Orange Society in Ireland. I have no hesitation, while at all times I am willing to bear testimony to the loyalty of that body—a loyalty which I am far from admitting to belong to them exclusively—in expressing my deep regret that they should be in the habit of keeping up processions, anniversaries, and celebrations which cannot but be displeasing under certain circumstances to a large portion of their fellow-countrymen, who entertain different religious views; and I have the satisfaction of knowing that that feeling of regret is shared by many of the most distinguished leaders of the Orange party themselves. There are many distinguished members of that society who think that, even when care is taken not to fall within the letter of the law prohibiting party processions in Ireland, still on the ordinary grounds of good feeling, processions which are in the slightest degree calculated to raise unpleasant feelings between members of different religions ought to be avoided. I entirely concur also in what the noble Lord has said about the unfortunate state of feeling in Ireland—a state of feeling fostered, as I am sorry to say it has been, by a large portion of the public press of that country, who have entirely misrepresented the course which Her Majesty's Government felt it their painful duty to pursue with regard to the unfortunate men who suffered capital punishment the other day. Nothing can be more contrary to truth than to imagine that a revengeful or vindictive spirit, or even political feeling, actuated the Government in the performance of what they regarded as an extremely painful duty. It was not, in point of fact, a political offence at all of which those men were guilty; it was a deliberate and premeditated murder—that is to say, it was a premeditated and determined act of violence, to be supported by murder if necessary, and I cannot regard murder as less murder because executed in pursuance of a treasonable object. Therefore, with no vindictive feeling—indeed, with the desire of carrying the prerogative of mercy as far as possible—we could not but be-

  533
  lieve that we should have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if we had allowed an act of deliberate and premeditated murder to pass without making such a signal example as would show that treason was not to be played with in this country—that it is an offence that involves the most serious consequences and must be visited with the most serious penalties of the law. We were in hopes, undoubtedly, when last year we forbore from executing the final sentence of the law upon Burke, that the conciliatory spirit by which we were actuated would have a beneficial effect in preventing the recurrence of similar crimes. Unfortunately, we have found that we were mistaken; unfortunately, it may be, the determination of the Government not to carry out the extreme sentence of the law in that case may have encouraged others in the belief that they could commit crimes of the deepest dye with comparative impunity. It became absolutely necessary therefore to show that the Government was not to be deterred, either by the number of those engaged in the commission of these offences, or by the number of those by whom an extension of clemency was demanded, from doing that from which we felt it impossible, consistently with our duty, to shrink. It is, I think, a most unhappy circumstance that in Ireland the feelings of the people on both sides should be so excitable, so easily raised, and so easily led aside, so that almost the whole duty of the Government in that country is to act as a mediator between contending parties, and to prevent bloodshed and mutual violence. The noble Lord did justice to Her Majesty's Government in the impartiality which he attributed to them. In an official answer which I made to the Orange party generally when applied to for the repeal of the Party Processions Act—an answer which the noble Lord may, perhaps, have seen—I said that while we regarded that Act as exceptional legislation, it was called for by the exceptional state of feeling in Ireland. I added, moreover, that it was the bounden duty of the Government to enforce the law, as the noble Lord acknowledges we have done, impartially and fairly between all parties, and not to connive at any violation of it, or at any offence which might bring the parties engaged within the provisions of the Act. But the noble Lord must excuse me if I say that he has to a certain extent misconstrued the provisions of this Act. The
  534
  Party Processions Act does not say that it is penal to wear a riband of a particular colour, even if that riband may be taken to indicate a certain phase of political feeling on the part of the wearer. The words of the Act are these—
  "That from and after the passing of this Act all assemblies of persons in Ireland who shall meet and parade together or join in procession, and who shall bear, wear, or have among them or any of them any firearms or other offensive weapons, or any banner, emblem, flag, or symbol, the display whereof may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects, or who shall be accompanied by any person or persons playing music or singing any song which may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects, shall be unlawful assemblies, and every person present thereat shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished accordingly."
  Now, however much one may regret the tone of public feeling which induces persons either in this country or in Ireland to regard those unfortunate persons who have forfeited their lives in the light rather of political martyrs instead of offenders against the law of their country, neither in this country nor in Ireland, as far as I am aware, have any demonstrations of sympathy or regret been held in which those engaged in the demonstrations have brought themselves by the display of any "banner, emblem, flag, or symbol," under the Party Processions Act, or exposed themselves to the penalties of the law. The question was carefully considered previous to the demonstrations which took place in Dublin and Cork, whether the processions were such as to excite reasonable apprehensions of disturbance; but it was the opinion of the local authorities that no breach of the law was probable, and, in point of fact, there was no violence or disturbance of the public peace. The character of the processions was no doubt greatly to be deplored; but, at the same time, there was no violation either of the ordinary law or of the Party Processions Act, so far as our present information goes, to justify Her Majesty's Government in taking any steps to interfere with the processions, or to punish the persons who took part in them. Further information may show a different state of things; but, on the one hand, while Her Majesty's Government are determined to enforce the law impartially and firmly against all who may violate it from political motives on the one side or the other; on the other hand, I am quite sure the noble Lord

  535
  will not wish us to strain the law, and attempt to bring within its limits offences which do not fairly come within the scope and purpose of the Act. I assure the noble Lord that he said truly that I had no sympathy with the Orange party, nor have I any peculiar sympathy with the Roman Catholic population in the South. Her Majesty's Government are determined to enforce the law firmly, temperately, and, above all, impartially. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the credit he has given to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the present Executive for carrying out the Party Processions Act with perfect impartiality up to the present time. I am not aware that any persons have subjected themselves to the penalty of the law; but if it should come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that any have so subjected themselves, they will without vindictiveness, but at the same time temperately and firmly, discharge the duty cast upon them, and vindicate the law of the land.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.