Sitting of 22 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Mortgages (No. 2) [Stamp Duty] *.
Second Reading—Medical Officers Superannuation [70]; Capital Sentences (Court of Appeal) [85], put off; Brokers (City of London) [71], debate adjourned; Settled Estates [110], debate adjourned; Lodgers' Goods Protection * [96]; Joint Stock Companies' Arrangement* [143].
Committee—Mortgages (No. 2)* [52]—R.P.
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* [136], and passed.

KENSINGTON ROAD IMPROVEMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he intends to bring forward his Motion for a Select Committee on the Kensington Road Improvement Bill during the present Session; and, if he does so intend, if he will inform the House on what day he intends to bring the Motion before the House?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that he was anxious to give a very full reply to the Question put to him by the noble Lord. This Bill was not an ordinary public measure for objects affecting the whole community, but it was one of a special character, and had been introduced into the House by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of fulfilling a pledge which had been given to a large body of the community who were desirous of erecting a tribute to the memory of the late Prince Consort, whom the nation had for a long time delighted to honour. The pledge was, in effect, given by the late Lord Derby and other distinguished individuals, Members of the Committee appointed to carry out the wishes of that part of the community to whom he had referred in relation to this subject. That Committee advised Her Majesty that this memorial should be erected on the site then chosen for it, on the understanding that the public road in the neighbourhood of that site should be brought into due relation with the memorial. The First Commissioner of Works of that day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple)—Lord Palmerston being Prime Minister at the

715
time—advised Her Majesty that the memorial should be proceeded with on that understanding. Unfortunately, however, instead of immediately giving effect to that understanding by passing the Bill then in contemplation for the improvement of the adjoining road, they allowed that which was the proper opportunity to pass away. When the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) was First Commissioner of Works, under the Government of Lord Derby, he naturally felt it to be his duty to give effect to that understanding that had been arrived at, and he accordingly prepared a plan upon the subject, which he submitted to the two local Boards in the neighbourhood of the district in question, both of whom passed resolutions approving that plan. The noble Lord, however, left Office without being able to complete the transaction. When he (Mr. Ayrton) assumed Office it became his duty to look into the matter, and he found the noble Lord's plan lying there uncompleted. He felt then that he had no alternative but to submit that measure to the consideration of the House. The course which he adopted in the matter was the usual one, and no step was taken by the Government which could have in any way prejudiced the rights of any person who might have wished to have them investigated. No Papers were circulated; but the House approved what had been done by a majority of 3 to 1, and unanimously agreed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for investigation. After all this had been done a Motion was made suddenly and without notice, at 2 o'clock in the morning, that the Order to refer the Bill to a Select Committee should be discharged; and by a small majority that Motion was carried, it appearing that the hon. Members opposite had come—curiously perhaps—to a determination to discard the opinions and pledges of Lord Derby and of their own Commissioner of Works—a proceeding which, of course, it was impossible for him to have anticipated. By so doing they had placed the House in a position of great embarrassment; because, if Her Majesty's Government were to regard the course taken by the Conservative party under the conduct of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare) as a direction to be carried into effect, they would have to invite the
716
House to go into Committee of the Whole House at perhaps 12 o'clock in the day, and to sit and take evidence on the Bill, and to hear the views of the parties expounded probably by the forensic rhetoric of the learned counsel whom they might employ. That would be the natural consequence of the course taken by the Conservative party; but Her Majesty's Government could not, of course, ask the House to take so ridiculous a step. The only other course open to the Government would be to ask the House to reverse what had been so inconsiderately done at 2 o'clock in the morning; but in the present state of Public Business it was not easy for the Government to find time to embark upon such questions—and, besides, it would not be becoming in them to attempt to force this Bill through the House as a party measure, the Government thinking that if it were to pass at all it should, after the pledges which had been given, be passed by an overwhelming majority. There was the less necessity for embarking in such a contest from the statements made in respect to the Bill. He felt satisfied that when that beautiful and remarkable work was completed, so that the public could see and understand its architectural features in conjunction with the other works in the neighbourhood, they would be the best judges of what was required to be done, and hon. Members would have an opportunity of satisfying themselves as to the necessity of passing this Bill. He admitted the desirability of everything being completed before next season, when that part of Kensington would be the general resort of the public who might visit the Exhibition; and he had wished to do his duty by taking care that all the works in that neighbourhood should be brought into harmonious relation with the memorial before that time. That being the present state of things the Government thought they should be best discharging their duty by not forcing this Bill on, but by bringing it forward at a future time, when hon. Members would have had ample time to consider what was best to be done in reference to the great work which had been erected as a tribute of respect to the memory of the late Prince Consort. Under these circumstances, he should, when the proper time arrived, withdraw the Bill.

MEDICAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL— [BILL 70.]
(Mr. Brady, Sir Henry Hoare, Mr. Brodrick Mr. Clay.)
MEDICAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL— [BILL 70.]

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. BRADY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object which the measure had in view was not merely to do a slight act of justice to medical officers of the poor, by entitling them to superannuation after the age of 60, but indirectly to confer a substantial benefit on the poor themselves, and to relieve the local taxation of this country. The sanitary condition of the country was in a most deplorable state, and it cried aloud for alteration and improvement. The amount of preventible disease which stalked abroad in the rural districts, as well as in the cities and towns, was really alarming, and some means should be found to put an end to such a state of things. He found, from Reports which had been laid upon the Table of that House, that there were about 1,000,000 cases of preventible illness occurring annually in the United Kingdom, and no less than 111,318 deaths resulting from preventible diseases. These facts afforded sufficient reason for them to say that some change was absolutely necessary in the matter of Poor Law medical relief. The present system of such relief was introduced into this country in the year 1834, and it must be admitted that it brought about a great improvement in regard to the poor. But notwithstanding that improvement, there was one great drawback, and that was the power which was given to the Poor Law Guardians to appoint and control the medical officers. In conjunction with every hon. Member who had studied the question, he hoped and trusted that the time was not far distant when the Government would feel it to be their duty to take up the subject, and to re-model and re-cast the whole system of Poor Law medical relief. He was surprised that they had not done so long since. He asked the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill, on the grounds—first, of justice to men who had sacrificed both time and money; secondly, of economy; and thirdly, of common humanity to the poor of the country. The medical officers gave themselves up to their duties with a devotion that was truly admirable.
  718
  They ran great risks, and in several cases they had brought fever home to their own houses, and in some instances they themselves fell victims. Their remuneration was so small that they could not I retire when ago and infirmities came upon them, but were obliged to continue to do their work as best they could. Two objections had been raised to the Bill, the same as those urged against a similar Bill he introduced and passed last Session for Ireland. The first was that the people of this country were already over-taxed; and, the second, that the whole of the time of these medical officers was not employed. As abstract propositions he agreed with them. But this Bill, if passed into a law, would have the effect of lessening taxation, by improving the health of the poor. The rich, were equally interested in the success of the measure with the poor, because zymotic diseases were preventible diseases, and if proper precautions were taken they might be stamped out. The small amount of money necessary for this purpose would be more than provided by the economy which was capable of being introduced into local expenditure. If the medical officer had a private practice, and was not dependent upon the salary attached to the office, it did not require much observation to know that he had quite work enough to entitle him to the consideration that was now asked for him. He held that these medical officers were not parochial officers; they ought, in fact, to be considered officers of the State, and not be subjected to the whim and caprice of guardians, because they efficiently discharged their duties. Over 72 per cent of the poverty of the United Kingdom arose from disease, and for the sake of the public welfare the medical officers ought to be well cared for. These men were liable to be called on at all hours of the clay and night, and had to proceed great distances in all weathers, for a remuneration that was truly disgraceful. In 239 unions the average pay was from 8d. to 3s. per case, and in 384 from 3s. to 7s. per case. The average salary in the metropolis was £81 per annum, and in the country £49 per annum. If the Government would take the subject up they would confer a lasting benefit on the profession.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEseconded the Motion. He asked it as an act of justice, and not as an act of charity, that the medical officers should be put on the

  719
  same footing as the clerks and other officers of Unions. The profession had not taken its proper position from a want of esprit de corps; but a change for the better had taken place amongst the medical officers of the Army, Navy, and Indian Service, which had greatly benefited them, and he should like to see the same reasonable combination amongst the Union medical officers. He hoped the innate soundness of the claim would be acknowledged by the House. As a Poor Law Guardian he knew that the remuneration of the Union medical officers was scandalously low, especially in the country—in some cases not more than £30 a year, and rarely more than £80. It was no excuse to say that all the time and skill of the medical officer was not taken up, though in almost all populous districts it was nearly so. The medical officers braved every kind of danger in the exercise of their profession, and it was melancholy to see the suffering, paralysis, fever, and early death to which, they were subjected by attendance on the poor in workhouses and other places. He was sure that no one among the public would deny that they were entitled to some small superannuation. He thought that if a reasonable retiring allowance was given they would improve the service—they would get a better class of men, and would retain their services longer than at present; and they would get rid of many of those complaints which were now so frequently made to the Poor Law Board.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Brady.)
  MR. J. FIELDENsaid, he must oppose the measure, first, on the general ground that the granting of superannuation allowances was unwise in policy. It was most impolitic, either in the guardians or the State, to make provision for old age in the case of men in a position to make such provision for themselves, and if this policy were once admitted as sound no limit could be put to it, and the State would have to provide superannuation allowances for the labourer in the fields or the factory hand, simply because they had done their duty by the State in their youth. He also opposed the measure in the interests of the medical officers themselves. He admitted they were underpaid, but he must point out that guardians who would treat
  720
  medical officers with the indignity with which many Boards at present treated them would not scruple to use the superannuation allowance as an instrument for lowering the pay; and the threat to introduce another medical man to the parish would force the local doctor to comply. Thus the medical officers would be more the tools of the guardians and of the Poor Law Board than they were at present. The profession felt that, and the majority of them were therefore opposed to the measure. A Bill of this kind was an attempt merely to patch up a system which required re-casting altogether. He moved that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
  MR. MELLORseconded the Amendment. He said that claims for superannuation allowances had been raised on behalf of so many professions of late that it was high time to make a stand against the further extension of the system. He quite admitted that the medical men had, like others, to struggle to support themselves and educate their children. This Bill, however, was against public policy, and he was sure would be objected to by the great body of ratepayers. In the Union with which he was connected, there was no difficulty in procuring the services of the most efficient men to fill the position of medical officers, and he did not believe there was a medical man in the whole Union who was in favour of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he quite sympathized with the feelings of those who looked with jealousy upon the increase of superannuation allowances; but the necessity which obliged the authorities to resort to them arose from the permanency of the appointments and the difficulty of removing the officer when he ceased through age to be competent to perform the duties devolving upon him. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mellor) that the opinions of the ratepayers ought to be consulted, and he believed that the Bill could not be supported on the strict ground of justice. Superannuation allowances were, as a rule, only given to persons who were under a permanent contract to devote the whole of their

  721
  time to the service of the public, and for this class a regular scale of retirement, after a certain period of service, was fixed by law. That was not the case with medical officers of Unions. As a matter of justice superannuation could not be demanded by them; but as a question of expediency it might be worth while to consider whether it would not be advantageous to the public service to grant such a boon to a valuable profession. The contract, or implied contract, of permanent employment could not well be broken without giving something in the way of compensation. Nor was it necessarily a question of actually increasing their remuneration. The question was, whether medical officers would accept a lower salary with superannuation, or a higher salary without superannuation. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Fielden), who asked why labourers should not be superannuated by the State, must remember that it was not in the interest of the employed, but in that of the employer that these superannuations were granted; it was necessary to offer some bonus to the official to enable him to retire, for it seldom happened that a man came to the conclusion he was too old to perform his duties. It would be a short-sighted policy for the guardians to retain the services of any officer except so long as he was able to perform his duties competently. On behalf of the Government, he should support the Motion, because the Bill would have the effect of improving the medical service in Poor Law Unions by enabling Boards of Guardians, when they chose, to grant superannuation allowances to medical officers.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), it would be of little use to say anything on the other side, but he would nevertheless venture to refer to one or two points. To begin with, he believed we were now for the first time introducing the principle of superannuation in favour of persons who were only partially employed, and confessed he looked with some jealousy on such an extension of the principle. He had long entertained the opinion that Poor Law medical officers were very badly paid; and, indeed, it was in consequence of this that a partial attempt was made to compensate them by giving them a quasi permanence in their offices. But how had that system worked? In a great
  722
  many instances they discharged their duties by deputy—a practice which was extremely unfortunate for the poor. There must, of course, be some kind of agreement or permission to employ a deputy; but he asked whether, in the event of this principle of superannuation being conceded, the duties would not always continue to be discharged by deputy after the medical officer was unable by reason of age or infirmity to perform them in person? Every gentleman who held such an appointment would make his money by taking pupils, and such a system would surely be detrimental to the interests of the poor. A year or two ago a case occurred in the East-end of the metropolis when it was proved that a pauper who died under very painful circumstances had been attended by the deputy of the medical officer, who said by way of excuse—"See what I have to do, and the money I am paid for doing it." The adoption of this superannuation scheme would, he feared, perpetuate the employment of deputies, and no greater evil could result to the poor than that. If the guardians wanted to prevent a medical officer from receiving the superannuation allowance, they would insist on his not employing a deputy. The better plan would be to pay these medical gentlemen a fair price for their work.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the first objection brought against the Bill by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Fielden) was so purely theoretical that it might apply to all questions of superannuation, but ought to have no weight in regard to this particular measure. Perhaps it might be true that there should be no such thing as superannuation, and that all these officers should exercise a sagacious prudence during their lives, so as to have a provision for their sickness and old age. But then their incomes must be of a character to render this economy possible. In the case of officers of the Army they gave superannuation, because their pay was so small that they could not save money. If it were just in such a case, it was far more necessary in the instance of Poor Law medical officers, who receive such miserable pittances for the exercise of most irksome duties, involving much professional knowledge, and exposing them not unfrequently to danger of life. The next objection, taken by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr.

  723
  Henley), was more practical. The right hon. Gentleman said they were introducing a new principle when they proposed to give retiring allowances for partial services—that was, for persons whose time was only partly and not wholly given to the public. But the right hon. Member was wrong in thinking that this had not already been done on previous occasions. Last year they passed a precisely similar measure for the Poor Law medical officers of Ireland; and clerks and auditors to Boards of Guardians, who only gave their time partially to their duties, were entitled to superannuation. It was quite true that Poor Law medical officers gave only part of their time; but then their pay was only for that portion, and miserably indeed were they paid for it. The average payment was about 3s. 3d. per case—not for each visit, but for each case, which might last for a month or longer; and out of this poor pittance they had in most cases to supply drugs and all medical appliances. Only a portion of the time was demanded, and thus paid for, but that portion was exacted to the full extent. But he supported this Bill on public grounds. The services of medical officers, especially when they were efficient, were of very great importance to the community. Perhaps that was more obvious in Ireland than in England, where the result of their efforts had been to mitigate to a very large extent the fever of Ireland, which was at one time its peculiar scourge, to stamp out small-pox, and to resist the last invasion of cholera in a remarkable degree. Cholera in its last appearance in this country invaded Ireland. Formerly when it did so it desolated that country; but on the last occasion it found a new army of efficient medical Poor Law officers ready to resist its attack, and during the whole time that it remained, Ireland did not lose more than London did in a fortnight. The money saving to the country of these remarkable hygienic achievements had been infinitely greater than the cost of the medical service which had thus proved its utility—he did not mean the mere saving from preventible disease, but also from the pauperism which invariably followed in its train. No doubt, largely guided by these considerations, the House last year passed the Superannuation Bill for the medical officers in Ireland; and the question now was whether they
  724
  should extend this principle to England. Unfortunately for this country the Poor Law medical service was not so well organized, and consequently the hygienic effects of their services to the State was not so conspicuous as in Ireland; but it was because he thought this Bill would have the effect of improving their condition, and of giving to the Poor Law medical officers that recognition of public service which was so important to them and the country, that he was anxious to see the principle of the measure extended. The operation of the Bill was made permissive. The immediate advantage would be that those medical officers whom age and infirmity prevented from discharging their duties would give way to more efficient men. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire opposed the Bill because he thought it would lead to duties being performed by deputy. To his (Dr. Playfair's) view the very reverse effect would be produced. The old, worn-out parish doctor was often tempted to send his pupils or a deputy to attend on pauper patients; but with these powers of superannuation, younger and more efficient medical men were alone likely to be kept in their service. He supported the Bill further because he thought it would tend to diminish the poor rates. It was far cheaper to prevent pauperism than to pay for the support of pauperism. Preventible disease and sickness lay at the root of the pauperism of this country. If they properly paid and organized their medical combatants, whose profession it was to fight with disease, so that they had a right to count upon their services and efficiency, the economy to the country would be great. It was because this Bill gave the first official recognition of the public character of these services, and was, he hoped, the first step to its proper reorganization, that he gave to it his hearty support.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he should give his support to the measure on economical grounds. No one who knew how badly the medical officers were paid could doubt but that for the fact of their having other practice they could not be induced to take office under the Poor Law Board. The poor ought to have the best possible medical advice, because we should then get rid of a large amount of disease, and also effect a considerable pecuniary saving
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he had placed his name on the back of the Bill because he thought a great injustice had been done for a long period to a most useful and deserving body of men. He admitted that to some degree it was useful to a young medical man to accept the office of Poor Law medical officer, but in other respects it was likely to keep men out of practice; for, as a general rule, the members of the richer classes did not much like to employ the parish doctor. He thought it was an act of sound justice to give such officers a small superannuation. These gentlemen, who had very limited incomes, and were obliged to marry young, could not in the majority of cases afford the money necessary to insure their lives.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he must support the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. J. Fielden) in his opposition to the Bill. While sympathizing with the kind-hearted benevolence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brady) he thought they ought not to legislate solely under the influence of a benevolent impulse, and he protested against the adoption of a principle which, if once admitted by Parliament, would lead to applications for similar allowances from other officers engaged in the public service. The true reason why medical men were badly paid was that there were too many of them for the demand. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Poor Law Board in that House had not at once given his strenuous opposition to the measure.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he wished to explain why Scotland ought to be exempted from the operation of this Bill, which he should most cordially support in the interests, not of the medical officers alone, but of the poor and the ratepayers. The hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that the supply of medical officers was in excess of the demand; but this very circumstance in repect to tenants in Ireland had been loudly urged by hon. Members on the Ministerial side in justification of a departure from the strict principles of political economy. In Scotland the Poor Law medical officers were not permanently appointed, and, indeed, they were in other respects in a far less favourable position than their English and Irish brethren. They were appointed annually, their salaries were in most cases wholly inadequate, and
  726
  very often they were required to contract to supply medicines out of their salaries. A Select Committee was at the present moment considering the subject of the Scotch Poor Law system, and he had no doubt they would recommend that the medical officers in that country should be put on the same footing with those in England and Ireland both as regards permanence of appointment and superannuation allowances; but as that Committee had not yet presented their Report it would be inadvisable to include Scotland in the present Bill. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he was of opinion that the granting of superannuation allowances would prevent medical officers from doing their business by deputy. A provision was made for the families of medical officers who fell in battle, and it would be a very fair extension of that principle if it were enacted that the wives and children of Poor Law medical officers who died in consequence of infection or contagion should be provided for out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he could perceive no analogy between the case of a medical man who was slain in battle and of one who died in the service of a Poor Law Union. He felt that medical officers were very much underpaid. Think of a medical man being appointed to attend a large district and find medicines at £40 a year. Why this was less than hon. Members paid to their butlers. Men of honour could not take such situations. It had been said that a medical man was seeking practice during the time he received the £40 a year; but if he did so he must devolve the duties on a very young assistant. It was a sham to talk about attendance on the medical wants of the poor at £40 a year, but if this Bill were carried, the Boards of Guardians would pay £10 a year less on the ground that the medical officers would be entitled to superannuation. He should oppose the second reading, and he hoped the hon. Member for the West Riding would divide the House.
  COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he should give his support to the Bill, which his experience as a Poor Law Guardian had shown to be necessary. He thought the poor would be greatly benefited by such legislation.
  MR. BEACHsaid, that the Bill would make an addition to the establishment charges which had been so loudly complained of throughout the country. He could not, however, refrain from supporting the measure, as justice ought to be done to these gentlemen; but he trusted that in the end the charge would be imposed on the public funds instead of the local rates.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that in Ireland a better class of Poor Law medical officers had arisen in consequence of a provision being made for old age. He had known cases, previously, where a good medical man was, owing to the want of superannuation, kept on as an officer to a too late age to his own prejudice, to the injury of the poor, and to the deterioration of the pockets of the ratepayers. The medical man was entitled to as much consideration as the military man.
  MR. A. PEELsaid, the policy of the Poor Law Board was to make the medical officers permanent, for otherwise they would not be independent of the guardians; but, in order to obviate the inconvenience of permanency and hold out some inducement to them to retire when they became old or feeble, it was necessary that there should be a superannuation allowance.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 28: Majority 111.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CAPITAL SENTENCES (COURT OF APPEAL) BILL.— [BILL 85.]
(Sir George Jenkinson, Mr. Staveley Bill, Mr. Wren-Hoskyns.)
CAPITAL SENTENCES (COURT OF APPEAL) BILL.— [BILL 85.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONin rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said he hoped that nothing he might say might be regarded as reflecting in the slightest degree on any individual who had ever held the Office of Home Secretary. A Bill on the same subject was introduced some 10 years ago by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon); but it dealt with all classes of criminal cases, whereas the present measure was limited to cases of
  728
  persons convicted of capital offences, where the Judge certified for an appeal in the event of his being satisfied upon affidavits either that some facts not brought forward at the trial might, if proved, have obtained an acquittal of the prisoner on the ground of insanity; or that some facts exculpatory of the prisoner had been discovered since the trial, which, if proved at the trial, might have affected the verdict. He intended to add a third proviso, to the effect that an appeal should lie if the Judge were of opinion that circumstances existed in the case which rendered it questionable whether the extreme penalty of the law ought to be carried out. The reprieve of a prisoner ought in his opinion to be based on grounds which were made known to the public. The Criminal Law Commission had reported very strongly in favour of the view which he held, and said that the law of England was at present very defective as regarded the correction of errors committed under trial by jury. The essence of his contention was, that the proceedings in the way of appeal should take place before a public tribunal; and Sir Frederick Pollock, in his evidence given before the Commission laid down the same principle. Mr. Charles Greaves, who was appointed some years ago by the then Lord Chancellor to prepare a Report on Criminal Procedure, said the present system worked unsatisfactorily. It might, perhaps, be said that the French Court of Cassation considered only questions of form and law, and not questions of fact; but surely this was no reason why we should not adopt a better system. That was also the opinion of Mr. Greaves. He (Sir George Jenkinson) wished it to be understood that nothing in the Bill was intended, in the slightest degree, to interfere with the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. The appeal he proposed only applied to the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, based on new evidence, the accuracy or otherwise of which ought to be decided by a trial before a properly constituted tribunal in order that the public might know the grounds of the alteration of the original verdict. Assuming the guilt he did not propose that the prerogative of the Crown to pardon criminals should be in the least degree interfered with. At present the Home Secretary was obliged to proceed

  729
  entirely on ex parte statements got up by the prisoner's friends, and generally without any notice whatever to the prosecutor. Nothing could tend more directly to bring about the abolition of the punishment of death—a result which he should greatly regret—than the commutation of the capital sentence, where a horrible murder had been committed, while the public were unacquainted with the grounds of the commutation. Such proceedings could only tend to weaken the majesty of the law and the confidence which ought to be reposed in its administration. Chief Justice Marcy, of the United States, was also in favour of an appeal on the facts. In the cases of Smethurst and Pellizzioni, there had been a reversal of the solemn verdict of the jury, and very properly so in both those cases; but why should not such reversal—or the grounds of it—have been made public, as well as the evidence on which the decision was arrived at? Instead of a secret investigation by the Home Secretary there should be a re-hearing by a properly-constituted tribunal. Of 206 cases in which reprieves had been granted, 123 prisoners had been convicted of murder and 83 of other crimes. This Bill, if adopted, would relieve the Home Secretary of a most anxious, painful, and often most perplexing duty. It was not expedient that doubts should arise in the minds of the public as to the grounds on which reprieves were given. There was a case in The Times of the 24th of May in which a prisoner who had been sentenced to be hanged many years ago, but was reprieved, had again been tried for a barbarous murder on Bradford Moor. The prisoner turned out to be a returned convict, and had committed grievous injuries on several persons. That certainly was not a case in which a reprieve should have been granted, and if there had been an appeal in criminal cases such a prisoner would not have been set at liberty with a ticket of leave after eight years' penal servitude. There was also the case of Rutterford, convicted of murder and ordered for execution, but whose sentence had been commuted to imprisonment for life in consequence of some thickening in the muscles of his neck, which rendered it difficult to inflict on him the capital punishment, without, as alleged some additional pain. [Mr. BRUCE: That is not so.] He only knew
  730
  what had been stated in the journals at the time; but of course the right hon. Gentleman could tell to the House the whole facts of the case. But what he wanted to know was, what protection they could give to the warders and other officers of the prison where that convict was to be imprisoned for life when he knew that if he committed other murders he could not be hung, owing to this malformation of his neck? In bringing forward this subject and proposing this Bill he was actuated only by a sense of public duty. His object was to remedy a wrong which he believed really existed, and although he might not be successful now, he believed the time not far distant when some change of the nature which he advocated would take place in the law. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. EASTWICKseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Jenkinson.)
  MR. J. D. LEWISsaid, that the Bill of the hon. Baronet opened a very large question—namely, that of appeals in all criminal cases; and, if ever to be dealt with, it should be dealt with by the responsible Ministers of the day. The question was not a new one; it had been brought forward in 1844 by Mr. Kelly, now the Lord Chief Baron; in 1848, by Mr. Ewart; and, in 1860, by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), when the late Sir George Lewis made a most exhaustive speech on the whole subject. Besides this, it had been considered by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1848, and incidentally by the Capital Punishment Commission, which reported in 1866. The hon. Baronet had quoted the evidence of Mr. Greaves; but he was the only witness who gave evidence which was at all in favour of an appeal in criminal cases. Lords Lyndhurst, Denman, and Brougham had declared against it, holding that the Bill introduced by Mr. Kelly would have a mischievous effect. A written letter was addressed to all the then existing Judges for their opinion on the matter, and every single answer was opposed to it. So, in 1864, Lord Wensleydale, Mr. Baron Martin, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) gave their opinion unanimously

  731
  that such an appeal would be mischievous. The testimony of two generations of Judges was surely more than sufficient to outweigh that of Mr. Greaves and Chief Baron Kelly. Almost all the objections urged by the learned Judges were reflected in the provisions of this Bill. One great objection was that it was one-sided; for while an appeal was given to the criminal, none was given to the Crown on behalf of the public. Surely, if additional evidence was to be admitted in favour of the prisoner, additional criminatory evidence ought also to be admitted. Moreover, the Bill was totally unworkable. He did not see how it was possible to constitute a Court within the conditions prescribed by the Bill. Where were the expenses of the appeals to come from? Besides, after all, according to the last clause of the Bill, the appeal must ultimately come to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would have to decide the case, after two bad trials, instead of, as now, one good trial. He moved that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.
  MR. BRISTOWE, in seconding the Amendment, said, that the proposed new tribunal would not be able to do anything which the Home Secretary could not do at present. The Bill contained no provision for granting a new trial, or for quashing a conviction.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. J. D. Lewis.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that attempts had already been made to solve this problem, but always without success, and the present attempt appeared less likely to be successful than any preceding one. There certainly was some authority in favour of instituting new trials in criminal cases; but the weight of authority was decidedly against such a proposition, and there was no authority whatever for such a measure as the present. He did not believe that during the whole of this century there had been a single case of an innocent man having been executed. There might be, and no doubt were, many cases of improper acquittals, nor was he going to deny that there were cases in which the prerogative of mercy had been inexpediently exercised; but the Bill did not
  732
  deal with either of these classes of cases. The Bill had been correctly described as a one-sided measure. It failed to grapple with a difficulty which had never yet been grappled with, and that was the difficulty, if you allow a new trial in criminal as in civil cases, of not allowing it to both parties. Again, if the Judge was to be called upon to certify that additional facts had been brought forward, care would be taken in every case to file affidavits, stating that new facts had been discovered, and they might be kept back for that very purpose until after the trial. The practical effect of the machinery provided by the Bill in respect to the constitution of the Court would be to cause great delay in the execution of the sentence, as some of the proposed Judges might not be able to attend for a long time after being summoned, and then, after that delay, people would say that it was too late to hang the convict. Those who objected to capital punishment might think that that would be a very good result; but surely, if it were deemed right that capital punishment should be got rid of, it ought not to be abolished by a side wind of that kind. Assuming, however, that the new Court assembled in good time, still it had not the power to institute a new trial in a regular way before a jury, but could only enter upon a new investigation of a bastard description unknown to the law, and the new Court was afterwards to report to the Queen as to a free pardon, or commutation of the sentence, or otherwise, as it might deem right. In fact, the Bill placed the Judges of the new Court in the position of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and made them the Advisers of the Crown; and here a constitutional objection arose, because it was a constitutional principle that the executive and judicial functions should be kept distinct. Under the existing system the Crown was advised by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and the Secretary of State was responsible to Parliament for the advice given. The Bill was, therefore, open to the further objection that it made the Advisers of the Crown in respect to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy a body not responsible to Parliament. At the same time the Bill did not relieve the Secretary of State for the Home Department from the duty of advising the Crown in

  733
  that matter, for that high, functionary would still be, after the passing of the Bill, as powerful as ever, and might give the Crown whatever advice he pleased with regard to the commutation of capital sentences. The Bill was an ill-considered attempt to deal with a complicated subject, and he could not give his consent to the second reading.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he must express his unqualified disapproval of the Bill, the principle of which he considered bad, and the machinery, if possible, worse. It would be most unsatisfactory to try a case over again upon written statements when the jury had seen the witnesses. If the measure became law, it would produce uncertainty as to the execution of capital sentences; and, to a great extent, would do away with their deterrent effect. He could come to no other conclusion than that those who were in favour of such a Bill as the present must give it their support because they were advocates for the abolition of capital punishment.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that at present there was substantially an appeal in criminal cases from the Criminal Court to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not regard that as a satisfactory proceeding; and, though he entertained considerable objection to the present Bill, and hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) would not press the Motion to a Division, he thought the subject was one well worthy the consideration of the House.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he fully admitted that the whole subject deserved the consideration of Parliament, but he regarded the provisions of the present Bill as very defective; and he was of opinion that, if the subject was dealt with, it should be dealt with thoroughly and completely. The Bill provided a most inefficient Court of Appeal in respect to criminal sentences; and, after establishing the Court, did not make it a necessary institution, as there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a prisoner appealing, in the first instance, to the Secretary of State. Indeed, after an inquiry by the Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State might still be applied to, and his decision might differ from and overrule the judgment both of the Court which originally tried the case and of the Court of Appeal. The Bill applied to two cases—first,
  734
  where some facts, not brought forward at the trial, might, if proved, have obtained an acquittal of the prisoner, on the ground of insanity; and, secondly, where some facts, exculpatory of the prisoner, had been discovered since the trial, which, if proved at the trial, might have affected the verdict; but there was a third class of cases, which excited quite as much public dissatisfaction as the two former, and they related to the extent of the punishment. When a prisoner was convicted of murder, the Judge was bound to pass sentence of death, although in his opinion, and frequently in that of the jury also, and of the public, the circumstances of the case were not such as to warrant the infliction of the extreme penalty of the law. In the case of manslaughter, unrestricted power was left to the Judge, as to the punishment to be awarded; but after a conviction for murder, the Judge must pass the sentence of death, though murders might either be the result of the most atrocious cruelty, or of suddenness of action, induced by provocation more or less serious. It was this distinction which rendered necessary the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to cure the defect of the law; and in 1864, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) expressed his opinion that without the free exercise of the Royal Prerogative, the law could not remain without alteration for a single day. With that large class of cases the present Bill did not deal. The measure, indeed, was imperfect, both in regard to what it dealt with and what it did not touch; and, therefore, he could not assent to the second reading. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) had alluded to the case of Rutterford, who committed an atrocious murder, and whose capital sentence was commuted on account of same malformation in the man's neck. After making due inquiry, he felt it necessary to commute the sentence, in order to prevent a great public scandal, which would have been the result of an unsuccessful attempt to hang the culprit. That case, however, as well as another referred to by the hon. Baronet, had no relation whatever to the Bill before the House, because neither of them could have gone for review before the Court which the hon. Baronet proposed to establish. Such illustrations showed that the hon. Baronet had not

  735
  thoroughly considered the subject, and did not understand the working of his own Bill. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would support the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON, in reply, said, that not a single argument had been urged against his Bill which did not apply with ten-fold force to the revision of capital sentences by the Home Secretary.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he trusted the hon. Baronet would not divide the House on the Motion for the second reading; as many Members, though feeling some dissatisfaction at the present state of the law, thought the subject of such vast importance that it should be dealt with only by the Government.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for three months.

BROKERS (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.
(Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Morley, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Bowring.)
BROKERS (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.

  [BILL 71.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. FOWLER, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there was no other place in the country besides London in which brokers were required, as they were in the City, to give bonds of £1000 to a municipal corporation, to find two sureties in £250 each for their good conduct, and to pay an annual fee of £5. The fees thus paid in the City of London produced between £6,000 and £7,000 a year. When a broker had been once admitted and had given a bond, there was no renewal of the bond or of the sureties, and everything went on smoothly as long as he paid his annual fee and was not complained of; so that a man might have become utterly untrustworthy, and no one would know anything about it from the action of the Court of Aldermen, who possessed this anomalous jurisdiction over the sworn brokers of the City of London. A good many brokers who were not able to get on the Stock Exchange at all were yet sworn brokers of the City of
  736
  London; and they were able, therefore, to advertise themselves as brokers, and to induce people to trust them who probably would not do so otherwise. He knew of a case in which a broker paid his surety 5s. a week in order to keep him from want, so that his suretyship was not of much use to the public. Owing to some disturbance having been made, the Corporation were now rather more particular about the character of the sureties than they used to be at one time, when the common crier was employed to make inquiries respecting them. He believed, however, that the Court had no power, having once admitted a broker, to inquire into his sureties. On what principle was it that the brokers of the City were subject to this peculiar jurisdiction? No doubt it was a relic of olden times, when all trades were controlled more or less by guilds, and the first legislative mention of it was in 6 Anne, c. 16, which compensated the City for the loss of income in connection with the garbling of spices, by imposing a fine upon brokers. Again, in 1817, to compensate the City for the loss of revenue from wine-guaging, in consequence of the establishment of docks outside the boundaries, the annual fee of a broker was raised from £2 to £5. In 1844 a Commission reported against this civic jurisdiction over the brokers as productive of no public benefit; in 1854 a Bill to remove it was passed by the Commons, and thrown out by the Lords because it was a private Bill, and because it provided no compensation for the fees; and in 1865 another Bill miscarried, owing to a dispute in Committee. One thousand out of the 1,300 City brokers had signed a Petition, objecting to the jurisdiction; and there was no reason why the brokers should be subject to it any more than other traders, or any more than the brokers of Liverpool, Manchester, and other towns—or, indeed, the brokers of London whose places of business were outside the City boundaries. If it was said they were trustees, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) were large trustees, yet they were exempt; and if they went to the other side of the water they would find the hop-factors in the Borough free from this jurisdiction, though it would be hard to distinguish their business from that of brokers. The Court of Al-

  737
  dermen was an unsatisfactory tribunal, there being no regular form of procedure, and no power existing to call witnesses or award costs. It was doubtful whether they had power to administer an oath, and statements were sometimes accepted and allowed to go forth to the public for which there was no foundation. At other times the proceedings were adjourned, and the question settled—a course which, according to the testimony of Alderman Finnis, was analogous to compounding a felony. If there was any tribunal at all it should be one of quite a different character, to which the whole trading community would be amenable. There were several instances in which, solely for the purpose of injuring a firm or forcing them to compound, petitions containing libellous assertions were presented, the refutation of which involved serious loss in the shape of costs to the persons accused, who had no legal remedy. Those who advocated a more enlightened system had several Aldermen on their side, amongst whom were the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), Mr. Alderman Finnis, and others. The true protection to a trader was the law of the land and his own good sense, which should lead him only to confide in trustworthy persons; he had no need to be nursed by the Court of Aldermen. The present system was actually dangerous, because the jurisdiction gave a man an appearance of trustworthiness which was not real. A memorial had been signed by 100 of the leading firms of the City, headed by Baring Brothers & Co., which declared that the regulations affecting sworn brokers were no security of their fitness, and did not in any way increase the confidence which led to the employment of brokers in large transactions. As to widows and orphans, the City, by its name, gave a sanction to brokers whom the Stock Exchange would not have. The Stock Exchange was a voluntary association, with machinery for looking after those under its jurisdiction; but the Court of Aldermen had no such machinery. It was derogatory to men in the high position of a large number of brokers to be treated as if they were an exceptionally dangerous class; and the City of London would do wisely to accept the offer they made, which would not meddle with the funds, and would only relieve the Court of Al-
  738
  dermen from a bad inheritance. Before 1865 the Court tried to regulate the trade of these people, but they had found that a failure, and had given it up; and now the bond was given virtually for good behaviour generally. The arguments used in favour of the continuance of this jurisdiction were futile, for the law of the land already made it an offence for a trustee to sell to himself, while the two sureties of £250 each would, if inquired into, be found to be shadowy in the extreme; and, even if they were not, what did the securities amount to? There were about 1,300 brokers, which would give a sum of £650,000. But the transactions of the Stock Exchange in a year could not be less than £500,000,000, while the transactions of the produce brokers he believed exceeded £120,000,000. With the thousands of pounds passing through a broker's hands in the course of 12 months, what was the security afforded by £500? It was absolutely ridiculous. Sir Sydney Waterlow had supplied a list of cases since 1835 in which sureties were brought before the Court; and, out of 25 cases, five were withdrawn, 12 dismissed, in six proceedings were directed to be taken, and in only two instances was money recovered from the sureties. In conclusion, this jurisdiction should be done away with because it did not protect the public, and because the Courts of Law afforded redress to all persons having cause of complaint. If they were not as rapid as was desirable let that be changed. It was said that petitions were sometimes signed by bankers and merchants without adequate consideration being given to their contents; but this certainly was not the case with regard to the Petition presented in support of this Bill. Its prayer was a reasonable one, and the more the system was investigated against which its prayer was directed the more this would be found to be a relic of a barbarous age, and unworthy of the times in which we lived. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. T. BARING, in seconding the Motion, said, the real question for the House to consider was, whether any good or valid reason existed for maintaining a restriction imposed only upon one class of traders. He should hesitate very much to support any measure which would

  739
  diminish, the revenue of the Corporation of London without granting compensation, but the Bill would not take a single penny from the income of the Corporation. He was willing to admit that the judicial duties devolving upon that body in regard to brokers had been discharged not alone creditably, but equitably, and in the main judiciously. Those duties, meanwhile, were such that the Corporation themselves ought to be glad to get rid of them; and though they might not originate such a proposal, they might very graciously accede to it as proceeding from the House. Why should this jurisdiction, if it had any real value, be confined to the class of brokers, and why did it apply to the City of London alone? Were the brokers, as a class, so dishonest that they and they only need be subjected to this special control? If not, why was this stigma imposed upon them? He challenged the supporters of the present system to state who were the persons and the interests that favoured its continuance. The system might have been well suited to a time when the trade of the City of London was carried on by companies and guilds; but in the present day all traders ought to come under the common law of the land. There was a general feeling in the City that this was an interference with the trade of London which ought not to be continued, and its removal without injuring the Corporation in any way would benefit a respectable body of men who had long expected this measure of justice at the hands of the Legislature.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. Fowler.)
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished to ask, as a matter of regularity, whether the measure was one that ought to be proceeded with as a public or as a private Bill. Reference was made in its provisions to a public Act of Queen Anne's reign, and also to a local and personal Act, by which, he believed, the existing legislation was controlled. In 1864 a Bill very similar in character to the present was introduced as a general measure, but the matter dropped, and there was no record of the proceedings. In the same year, however, a private Bill, having identically the same objects as the present Bill, was introduced, read a second time, and referred to a Select
  740
  Committee, but was defeated, as the report of that Committee was against it.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, the reason was because the former Bill also dealt with the money part of the question.
  MR. W. FOWLERexplained that the opinion of the Examiner had been taken on the point, and that he held this Bill to be properly a public Bill. In 1864 it had been brought forward as a private Bill, and had then been withdrawn because it was considered that it ought to be a public measure.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that the matter has been before the Examiner, who has pronounced that there are no Standing Orders applicable to the point which is now raised.
  MR. EYKYN MR. EYKYN moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned, till Wednesday, 27th July.

SETTLED ESTATES BILL— [BILL 110.]
(Mr. Stapleton, Colonel Stepney, Mr. Stacpoole.)
SETTLED ESTATES BILL— [BILL 110.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STAPLETON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to extend to the rest of the United Kingdom the principle of the Montgomery Act, which had worked with advantage in Scotland. Under the Bill, persons who had settled estates on which there were no country houses would be enabled to build houses upon them, and charge the cost on the estate in the form of an annuity; the expenditure, however, being limited to the amount of three years' rent. The Bill, he anticipated, would have the effect of increasing the number of resident country gentlemen, and of diminishing the numbers of that "lounging class" to which the Prime Minister had sarcastically referred.
  MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stapleton.)
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must oppose the Bill, which he thought ought not to be hurried forward then, as it had not been expected to come on, and

  741
  an opportunity should be afforded for its discussion.
  The hon. Member was proceeding to argue against the Bill when it being Six of the clock.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.