said, he had been asked a question on a former evening by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) respecting Chelsea bridge, and had promised to obtain further information. He found that a sum of £5,500 was advanced in 1853 towards the expenses of the bridge; and, on reference to an Act of Parliament passed in 1846, he further found the Treasury was authorised to advance £65,000, to be repaid from tolls to be levied upon the bridge. Therefore there would be tolls upon that bridge, and the proceeds, after repayment of the £65,000, would be devoted to the purposes of metropolitan improvements.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General what course he intended to adopt respecting the Wills and Administrations Bills, when he intended to proceed with the same; and whether he considered that it would be prosecuted to an issue during the present Session?

said, his noble friend at the head of the Government had promised him that Monday, the 23rd of that month, should be devoted to the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. It would be the first Order of the Day, and he hoped the second reading would then take place. He had agreed with the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) to make some modifications in the Government Bill, particularly with reference to facilitating the proof of wills by persons dying in the country, which he thought would render the prosecution of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill wholly unnecessary, and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) had said that if he were assured it was the intention of the Government to prosecute their Bill, he did not intend to proceed with his Bill. The Government never entertained any other intention than that of diligently prosecuting the Bill they had laid on the table; and, if it should be the pleasure of the House to read it a second time on the 23rd instant, he hoped it would be pressed through Committee, so as to go up to the House of Lords within the first seven days of July.

said, he would beg to inquire of the hon. Under Secretary for the War Department whether any reply to the Memorial of the Guards had been drawn up at the War Office; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay it upon the table of the House?

said, that a reply had been sent by the War Office, stating the grounds on which that department considered that the Memorial was without foundation. No further correspondence had taken place, and the position of the Guards remained as it had been before the Memorial was presented. Under those circumstances he did not see that any public advantage would be gained by laying the reply of the War Department on the table.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether any progress had yet been made in the correction of the great evils which had arisen from the crowded state and defective accommodation of St. Pancras Workhouse; and, if not, whether he intended to take any steps to require and enforce the necessary improvements?

said, he would state for the information of the right hon. Gentleman and the House, what had taken place since the right hon. Gentleman had last asked the question. The report of Dr. Jones, on the subject of St. Pancras Workhouse, was forwarded to the directors of the poor under the local Act for the Government of St. Pancras in the month of February. On the 29th of the same month the Poor Law Board received a letter from the directors acknowledging the receipt of the communication, and stating that certain measures for improvements were contemplated being put in operation for putting an end to the state of things to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. On the 4th of March the Poor Law Board wrote, expressing their satisfaction at hearing measures of improvement were contemplated, and hoping no time would be lost. A month after that letter was written he thought it right to instruct the inspector of the metropolitan district again to visit the workhouse, and report what progress had been made. On the 22nd of April the inspector's report was received, stating that no material improvement whatever had been effected upon the state of things reported on by Dr. Jones. The Poor Law Board then addressed a further letter to the directors of the poor, expressing regret at finding no improvement made, and intimating that, unless very material changes were effected in the condition of the workhouse, within two months the Poor Law Board would issue a peremptory order for reducing the number of persons in the workhouse. The two months would expire at the end of July. But he should, in justice to the directors of the poor, who, he believed, were really anxious to carry into effect material measures of improvement—in justice to them, he should read a letter from the senior churchwarden and chairman of the directors. It was as follows:—

"I beg to inform you that, although the present guardians have been in office only two months, vast improvements have been effected. The relieving-office has been enlarged and ventilated and adapted to a new system of out-door relief, to prevent crowding and waiting. Many improvements in the arrangement and management of the workhouse have also been effected, and the schools will be removed in a short time. It is only right that I should state—it would be unfair to the new directors not to do so—that they are doing all they can to alter the wretched state of affairs which they found on coming into power."

He believed the directors were anxious for improvement, although they had difficulties to encounter, not being absolute directors, but having to refer to and fro to their vestry; but he hoped with the creditable disposition of those Gentlemen, that material and effective changes would soon be made.

said, he hoped it would be known that, if improvements were not made within two months, the Government had the power to compel the directors to effect them.

said, they had certain power over the officers of the workhouses, but no direct power over the directors of the poor.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps for providing an increase of salary for the clerks of Nisi Prius in Dublin, in consequence of the increased duties and expenses imposed on them—1, by the establishment of the Consolidated Nisi Prius Court in Dublin; and 2, by the Act called "The Common Law Procedure Act?"

said, in the first place he must inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that to make any alteration legislation would be necessary, and, having regard to the position of Irish business and the facilities given, he did not think it wise to add another to the string of Bills upon the paper for the present Session. The matter was under consideration with regard to these and other officers, with a view to place them on a permanent and more satisfactory footing.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary to the Treasury what provision would be made for the conveyance of the Australian mails between England and Suez, in case parties tendered for carrying the mails to Sydney from Suez, viâ Point de Galle? Also, under what head of expenditure, in the Appropriation Acts of 1854 and 1855, will be the sums of £125,000 and £5,600, expended by the Board of Ordnance in purchasing lands at Aldershot and the adjoining parishes, for the purpose of forming a permanent camp there?

said, that hon. Members were aware that at the present time a contract existed with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the conveyance of mails to Suez. It would, therefore, be obviously inconsistent to propose a new contract for the same route, as in that case the payment for the carriage of mails as far as Suez would be made twice over. Any new company, therefore, must be willing to conform to such conditions as the Government may think proper, while the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company lasted. He could not answer the hon. Gentleman's second question then, but he would do so at a future time.

:^* I could have wished, Sir, that this question had come forward at a time more favourable to calm consideration and deliberate debate, not at the conclusion of a trial of deep and absorbing interest. But the machinery of Parliament moves on undisturbed by external events. I feared that a brief delay might become an indefinite postponement of the question, and I hope that the present solemn occasion may even invite public attention to the serious subject which is now before us. That subject appears to me to be one of increased and increasing interest. Since I last addressed you concerning it, the public aversion to capital punishment has become deepened and extended. Our juries have become more reluctant to convict. Our Judges have become more reluctant to pass sentence. Of one species of murder it may be said that it has ceased to be capital. I mean infanticide by mothers. Yet whom should the laws more vigilantly protect than those who are themselves unprotected? Of one class of murderers it may be remarked, that they are beginning to escape capital punishment altogether. I mean women. Yet it has been truly observed, that "crime is of no sex." If you cease to execute women, can you long continue to execute men? Your executions only amounted to five in the last year of the criminal returns. It is not easy to conceive that the safety of society depends on the execution of five individuals. On the other hand, the repeal of capital punishment has extended itself in foreign countries. It has there been followed, not by danger, but by general benefit. Under these circumstances, I ask you again to consider the question, not to precipitate your conclusion by a sudden abrogation of the present law, but to investigate (before a Committee) the facts which we offer to lay before you: in a word—to pause and to inquire. I am aware that there are those who entertain a preliminary objection to the consideration of this subject. Their objection is founded on religious (or what I should rather venture to call theological) grounds. For an objection so founded, I can only feel the highest respect. But it appears to me that the House of Commons never enters on the path of theology without deserting the more open and safer road of common sense. I think, moreover, that questions of a religious character should not be contaminated by exposure to the heated and feverish atmosphere of a political assembly. On such subjects let every man form his separate and sincere opinion. But in this House let him only express, not argue on, that opinion. For my own part I have been long convinced that the repeal of the punishment of death is in strict conformity with the precepts and the spirit of the Gospel; and I rejoice to think that such was the conviction of those early Christians, on whom the first dawn of Revelation still continued to shed its lingering light. The question then resolves itself into one of a practical and purely deliberative character. Does the punishment of death contain the elements of a sound and valid punishment? What are the elements of such a punishment? This is the question now before us. It appears to me that a punishment, to be a valid punishment, should, as far as possible, be an effective punishment; effective on the mind and soul of the criminal, and effective for the repression of the crime; that it should, as far as possible, be an equal punishment; not unduly weighing down and overwhelming one individual, while it produces little or no effect upon another; that it should especially be a certain punishment; I mean certain in its infliction, since certainty is the essence of punishment, as publicity has been said to be the soul of justice; and lastly (since all mankind are liable to err), that it should be a reversible, remediable, or revocable punishment. Does the punishment of death contain within itself these qualities? It appears to me that it is more than other punishments wanting in all of them. Is it, in the first place, an effective punishment? The frequency of murders in our time does not seem to prove that it is so. It has often been stated, and never, that I am aware, contradicted, that out of a large number of executions, attested by a former Ordinary of Newgate, the great majority were undergone by those who had witnessed executions. But let us descend from general statements to individual facts. It is no agreeable task to undertake what may be called the morbid anatomy of crime. The mind naturally shrinks from such an undertaking. But it has been my duty to investigate such cases, and I now lay the following extracts from them before the House. Not many years since (in 1846) a criminal, Wicks, was executed at Newgate. He had lately seen an execution. He stated that he was "induced to commit the crime that he might signalise himself as a hero on the scaffold." In 1845 another criminal, Connor, committed murder. He had seen an execution on the very morning of the day on which he committed that murder. A criminal, Mobbs, was executed in 1853. Another criminal was brought before the police office, on the day of Mobbs' execution, for trying to imitate his crime, and (according to his own avowal) "to be executed for it." In 1854, Cumming (a man supposed by many to have been innocent) was executed at Edinburgh. After his execution, another man, Wallace, was taken into custody for perpetrating the same species of crime. A Scottish paper, The Scotsman, states that a number of similar crimes followed the execution of Cumming. But we witnessed, not long since, a remarkable case in Ireland, in which the criminals not only patiently endured, but gloried in, their punishment. Three men, it will be remembered, were executed at Monaghan, for the atrocious murder of Mr. Bateson. They were utterly indifferent to the punishment of death. They eat and smoked just before their execution. One of them stated that, if a reprieve came, he would not accept it. They said that the executioner was doing "the best deed that had ever been done for them." When one of them was asked on the scaffold whether he would say anything, he answered, "No! our Saviour said nothing when he was executed." It may be said that this was the effect of fanatical excitement, under the influence of the Catholic religion. But similar instances have occurred in the case of Protestants. In 1852, Elizabeth Pinckard was executed at Northampton:—

"On the fatal morning," (says the Northampton Mercury) "she attended prayers in the chapel; when the hymn was being sung her voice was heard above the rest. She went with perfect indifference to execution."

On the other hand, criminals possessed of no religious feeling whatsoever, have ex- hibited the same indifference. Such appears to have been the case with Sarah Chesham, who committed fourteen murders by poisoning, and who never showed any symptoms of repentance or of fear. So likewise, lately, Bartélemi, an avowed unbeliever, died entirely unconcerned; he went to execution not only with indifference, but with a sort of fanatical curiosity. It would be easy to accumulate more instances; but I think that those I have adduced will tend at least to show that the punishment of death is not an effective punishment. Is it an equal punishment? I do not mean to argue that any punishment can be equal in its operation on all men, any more than I mean to argue that any punishment can be equally effective on all. But I say that there are other punishments more equal than this and more effective. Instances of stoical indifference we have already seen. Here are instances of a contrary effect. It is not long since a woman, Martha Browning was executed at Newgate; she fell down insensible; in that state she was executed. At Chester, a woman, Mary Gallop, could not go to her execution; she was carried to the scaffold in a chair, and executed in a state of insensibility. A very painful case of suffering was lately recorded in Jersey, by M. Victor Hugo; on which occasion he addressed a memorable letter to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In 1851, Thomas Drory was executed at Chelmsford; he was obliged to be supported as he went to execution. We have fresh in our memory the recent case of Bousfield. We remember the prostration of the prisoner; the faltering of the executioner; the miserable struggle between them at the last; and the indignation and execrations of the public. I come now to a very important, perhaps the most important, element in the constitution of a punishment. I mean its certainty of infliction. It is well know that Beccaria, at the opening of one of the chapters of his celebrated work, lays it down as a doctrine that "one of the greatest of all checks on crime consists not in the cruelty, but in the certainty, of its punishment." If the doctrine be true as to crimes in general, it appears to me to be much more applicable to the graver class of crimes, and most applicable to the gravest of all crimes, murder. But, if I may trust to the records of our punishments for a series of years, punishment is much less certain in this single case which remains capital, than in those which are no longer so. Statistics, however, are the constant subject of dispute; they are the debateable land, the border-ground of controversy. I prefer to appeal to facts. I will first exhibit the operation of the maintenance of capital punishment on our juries; scondly, its operation on our Judges; lastly, on what may be called our tribunal of ultimate appeal, the Home Department. First, with repect to the uncertainty of the verdicts of our juries. In 1847, a woman (already referred to), Sarah Chesham, was tried at Chelmsford for poisoning. The case, a most atrocious one, was clearly proved; but the jury, led by their foreman, an enemy to capital punishment, acquitted the prisoner. The acquittal enabled her to resume her career of poisoning; she practised it with augmented skill, acquired from the evidence of a medical witness at the trial. The victims were her own children. In 1848 she was again tried, and again acquitted. In 1851 she was executed for poisoning her husband. Now, had there been another punishment (such as imprisonment for life) attached to the crime of murder, there is no doubt that she would have been found guilty on the first indictment. All her subsequent crimes would have been checked. All her subsequent victims would have been saved; nor would her example have misled others. For, in 1849, a woman, named May, was also executed at Chelmsford for poisoning; she attributed to the example of the first-named criminal, the crime for which she suffered. Two criminals, Battersby and Wilkinson, were tried in 1851 at York. The proof of murder was, to all common apprehension, clear. The Judge told the jury that it was difficult to believe that the death was caused by manslaughter. Yet the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. In January, 1852, Thomas Bare was proved, by the strongest evidence, to have murdered his own wife. He even acknowledged that he deserved to be executed. Yet he was acquitted by the jury. The Times of that date thus concludes a leading article: "If there be such a crime as murder, this is murder; and murder of no common atrocity." It adds that (in cases involving capital punishment) "the Judge, Jury, Home Secretary, and public, contend to mitigate the crime of murder." In the case of the Matfen murder, tried on the 27th March last, at Durham, the guilt of one prisoner appeared certain. A juryman, however, told a person, who can be produced, that they all "agreed on a ver- dict of acquittal rather than the man should hang." In the case of Westron, tried at the Central Criminal Court, in February, 1856, the jury said—

"We find the prisoner guilty of Wilful Murder. We do not think he ought to be acquitted on the ground of insanity; but we recommend him to mercy, because we find there was a predisposition to insanity."

The law of the country could justify no such recommendation. The Times newspaper, of February 8, 1856, calls the verdict "an anomaly in criminal proceedings, and one of most evil precedent." Last year (1855), at Maidstone, during the spring assizes, Elizabeth Avis Lawes was tried for murder. Her guilt was clear. She afterwards confessed it. Yet she was acquitted. The South Eastern Gazette, of that date, says this is "a memorable example of the impunity awarded to murderers." I can produce (if I am allowed to bring evidence before a Committee) instances of jurors having stated that they would have found prisoners guilty, as they were bound to do; but when they learnt from the Judge that the penalty would be death, they resolved on an acquittal. So far for the effect on our juries. But let us turn to the feelings and opinions of our Judges. Do they not indicate a change with regard to this question, corresponding with the change observable in public feeling and opinion? And first, as to the feelings of our Judges on pronouncing sentence of death. Among other instances, I find the following facts recorded in the journals of the day. At a late trial for murder at Bodmin—

"The learned Judge, on pronouncing sentence, expressed himself with much emotion: in the last sentence his utterance was almost choked; after completing it, his Lordship burst into tears, and continued weeping for some time."

So, in the case of a trial at Aylesbury—

"During the delivery of the sentence, his Lordship appeared almost choked with emotion."

Again, in a case tried at Exeter—

"The Judge at last came to the sentence; but his sobs, which could be heard all over the court, prevented him from proceeding. He rested his head on his hand, and wept most bitterly. He then, in broken words, and with a voice almost stifled by emotion, pronounced the sentence."

I mention these facts (to which it would be easy for me to add more) as highly honourable to our Judges. But they indicate a state of feeling with respect to capital punishment which did not exist in former times. How different from those times in which Pope could say—

"Hard words and hanging if your Judge be Page."

Can the expression of such feelings by the Judges fail to produce sympathetic feelings on the part of juries and of the public? What effect has it on the mind of the prisoner, and on the minds of criminals in general? Does it not, so far as it extends, add to the uncertainty of the execution of the law by showing the disinclination of our Judges to inflict the punishment of death? Such, then, are the feelings of the Judges. But what are their recorded opinions? Nine years ago (in the year 1847), a Committee of the House of Lords investigated the subject of criminal punishment. The written opinions of the Judges were taken in evidence. Among the questions proposed to them was this: "Do you think any punishment would be a sufficient substitute for death?" Out of all the Judges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, four delivered their opinions in favour of substituting another punishment. Several declined to give an opinion, or declared themselves doubtful. First, let us take the Lord Chief Justice (Denman). He declines to give an opinion. Next, Mr. Justice Wightman. His answer is as follows:—

"There can be little doubt that a secondary punishment may be made so severe as to be a sufficient substitute for the punishment of death."

he gives no answer.

he answers:—

"I am disposed to think that imprisonment for life, without any remission of the sentence, might be substituted for capital punishment. Many guilty persons now escape who would then be convicted. I do not think the apprehension of death operates much on the mind of a man meditating a great crime."

The answer of Lord Chief Justice Wilde is as follows:—

"The question involves considerations much too grave to warrant a hasty opinion, however great may be the objections to the punishment of death; and, in my opinion, they are very great."

From the Irish Bench, Mr. Justice Perrin thus answers the question, "Do you think any punishment, by transportation or imprisonment, would be a sufficient substitute for death?"

"I do. I am convinced that juries acquit or disagree from an apprehension of taking away life."

Chief Baron Richards also answers:—

"I am inclined to think that transportation attended with stringent regulations might be substituted for the punishment of death. But I cannot say that I have formed a very decided opinion."

Now, if nine years ago many of the Judges were doubtful as to the expediency of inflicting the punishment of death, or opposed to it, is it likely that they would be less doubtful or less unfavourable now? Is it not rather more probable that the Judges who have been since appointed, and the Judges who are being appointed from time to time may be still more disinclined to such a punishment; just as the Judges of the year 1847 were more disinclined to it than the Judges of the year 1827? Here, again, is another and an increasing element of uncertainty. Let us now turn to the final tribunal of appeal, the Home Office. Are there no elements of uncertainty here? Do not Members know that if a sentence of death is impending in any of the towns they represent they are frequently called on to interpose? Do not deputations hurry up to London? Are there not those who, resident in London, on almost every occasion, exert themselves to intercept the execution of the law? The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Drummond) has signified his intention of endeavouring to relieve the Home Secretary from this assiduity of intervention. But, with great respect for the hon. Gentleman, I think he is undertaking nothing less than the task of the Danaids. For my own part, I feel bound to testify, on behalf of those who make these applications, their sense of the ready attention of the right hon. Secretary to every fact which may tend to mitigate the sentence. Nevertheless, the public do not understand on what principle some criminals are executed, after appeal to the Home Office, while others, apparently of equal guilt, escape. We all remember, a few years ago, the case of Annette Meyer. There appeared to be, in her case, full premeditation of the murder. Yet she escaped the punishment of death. Not long since, the case of Corrigan, whose sentence was remitted, called forth the animadversions of the press and of the public. Still more, the recent case of Celestina Somner. She coolly and cruelly premeditated and prepared for the murder of her child. Few instances of more unrelenting cruelty have been recorded. Yet she, too, escaped. After this and similar cases, I doubt very much whether you can long continue to execute women. You may try to bring us back to the ancient rigour of the law. It will be in vain. The evil lies not in the administration of the law, but to the nature of the punishment awarded by the law. Here, in my opinion, is the source and origin of the evil. The power of the executive at the Home Office is enfeebled by the awful responsibility involved in the punishment. This is in itself an element of uncertainty. But there are others. Different Secretaries may be of different minds. The present Secretary may be of a lenient, his successor may be of a severer character. A crime which would escape the punishment of death under the one would incur such punishment under the other. Again, the Secretaries of State generally refer the case back for reconsideration to the Judge who tried it. Judges differ in their characters as Secretaries do. A sentence which one Judge might mitigate, another Judge might be determined to maintain. Here, again, arises another cause to be added to the various causes I have already cited of the uncertainty of capital punishment. I have said that an essential ingredient in the character of a punishment should be its reversibility; its revocable or remedial nature. It is not likely that, in these times, the execution of an innocent person can occur. Nevertheless, though not likely, it is not impossible. For felonies inferior to murder, but of an aggravated character, it is easy to cite instances of innocent persons having been punished. They have been brought back from transportation, and their sentences have been revoked. I have myself brought such cases under the consideration of this House. The case of Eliza Fenning, executed many years ago for the alleged crime of attempting to poison the family of her master, a crime of which she was afterwards shown to be innocent, is familiar to most of us. But, more recently, in the case of Mr. Bateson's murder, two men, the Kellys, were twice or three times put upon their trial for life for that murder, under the sanction of the most eminent of the Solicitors and Attorneys General for Ireland. The two Kellys were seen to run across a field after the shot was fired; they were entirely innocent, yet they might have been convicted—and of one of them, it is stated in an Irish paper, that he has since died of a broken heart in consequence of the prosecution. Three other men were afterwards proved to have committed the murder. A very short time ago a man named Cummings was executed at Edinburgh. He is now generally believed to have been innocent. Such are the dangers which attend an irremediable punishment. These, then, as I have classed them, are the principal impediments to the execution of capital punishment. The question naturally suggests itself—whence in all their stages arise these impediments to the law? How comes there to be this consentaneous restriction by juries, by Judges, by the Home Office, and the public, to the infliction of the sentence of the law? I believe that these impediments arise from two causes. No punishment has been found to be an approved or lasting punishment which contains in it the principle of retaliatory revenge. We know that in the time of Queen Elizabeth the punishment of branding was adopted—it could not be maintained. In the same way the punishment of the pillory and other ignominious punishments have speedily or gradually vanished. In more remote times we find the principle of retaliatory vengeance carried to its greatest excess. Yet in those times, crimes abounded. Capital punishment is nearly the last trace which we retain of the principle of retaliatory revenge; and the more we advance in civilisation, the more deep our religious feelings become, the greater will be our repugnance to the punishment of death. Another, and an inconquerable objection, arises from the irremediable nature of the punishment. Never, while human nature exists, never will you induce mankind to view a punishment which cannot be remitted or recalled in the same light in which they view a remissible or revocable punishment. This objection, too, will infallibly increase as society advances. Such appears to me to be the real causes of the non-execution of the law. But what remedies have been proposed? A distinguished and right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) has lately suggested the consideration of a new mode of conducting executions. They are no longer to be witnessed by the public, but by a sort of deputation on behalf of the public. This system would, no doubt, exclude the evils arising from a vast congregation of the people, their vindictiveness, or their indifference, their profaneness, their revelry, and their crimes. Nor can it be doubted that these evils are aggravated by the facilities of intercourse in modern times. Even now, I am told, special trains are announced in the newspapers as about to run to and from Stafford to enable the public to witness the last moments of an expected victim. All these, the mere external evils of publicity, will be removed by the change proposed. But publicity, in modern times, does not consist so much in seeing, as in reading an account of what occurs. A few thousands witness an execution, many millions read of it. You may exclude the public, but you cannot exclude the press. The interest taken in an execution will continue to exist. It will even be aggravated and stimulated by concealment. Public curiosity will rush the more eagerly per vetitum nefas. The most minute details will have to be recorded; more minute, if possible, than those which are recorded now. By adopting this change you will have only veiled, not removed, the evil. Another system proposed is very nearly the one prevailing now; that of occasional executions. In the first place, this system abandons the principle of a fixed punishment for murder. It substitutes a possibility of execution for a certainty of execution. It encourages a species of gambling in crime. When you have arrived at occasional punishment, you have abandoned one fixed punishment, and you have not arrived at another fixed punishment. This is a most vague and fluctuating, and consequently a most impolitic and unjust, state of the criminal law. Now, what remedy do we venture to propose? We suggest the substitution of a lesser punishment attended with comparative certainty of execution, for a severer punishment attended with uncertainty. And we rest our cause on those words of the illustrious Beccariáa:

"The certainty of a more moderate punishment will always produce a greater impression than the fear of a more terrible punishment, accompanied with the hope of impunity."

This is our principle. We, not you, are the real friends of effective punishment for crime. You call us false philosophers, theorists, and speculative reformers: while we in fact pursue a clear, practical, and decided course. It is you who, by lingering in a system no longer maintainable, enfeeble the arm of justice and promote impunity for crime. We have not proved theorists as to the other numerous cases (of forgery, of house- breaking, of stealing in dwelling-houses, of cattle-stealing) for which we have induced you tardily and unwillingly to abolish the punishment of death. In not one of those cases can an advocate be found for the restoration of capital punishment. But we also appeal to the example of foreign countries. If foreign nations can successfully abolish capital punishment, why should not we? The case of Tuscany, under Leopold II., has often been referred to. The successful repeal of the punishment of death in Tuscany (dated November 30, 1786) has never, that I am aware, been denied. And, though in the first excesses of the French Revolution capital punishment was revived, it appears since that time to have been gradually dying out in Tuscany. In 1838 the unanimous consent of the Judges was required for its infliction. This enactment amounted almost to abolition. In 1847, the Grand Duke abolished it in the Duchy of Lucca, and in 1849 he sanctioned the Decree of the Provisional Government which had suppressed capital punishment in Tuscany. It appears from the writings of the Rev. Mr. Townshend, that in Bavaria, reformatory discipline and imprisonment are successfully substituted for the punishment of death. In Switzerland, capital punishment has been abolished in the cantons of Freiburg and Neufchâtel. In Freiburg, the abolition took place eight years ago. My informant, a member of the Legislation of Neufchâtel, assures me that crime has not increased there; while, in the canton of Berne, where executions are frequent, great crimes are frequent also. In Neufchâtel, the repeal of capital punishment is more recent. So far, I understand, it has given general satisfaction. Let us now turn to America. From a speech of Mr. Andrews, delivered before a Committee of the Legislature of Massachussets, March 22, 1855, I learn that, "Alabama abolished capital punishment many years ago." He adds "the experiment may be considered to work well in Alabama." The State of Michigan led the way in the career of total abolition. The Secretary of State (as quoted by Mr. Andrews) says, in 1846,

"It has produced a greater certainty of conviction, consequently of relief to the community, lessening the number of aggravated offences. There is no probability of a return to the old law."

This is the result of an experiment of nine years in Michigan. Of Rhode Island (where capital punishment appears to have been repealed in 1851) the Hon. P. R. Hazard, of that State, observes,

"I believe there were pending before the Court of Providence County, no less than six indictments for murder. Since the passing" (that is the repeal of the punishment of death), "I do not remember that there has been more than one indictment for murder in the first degree."

The Act for abolishing capital punishment was passed in the Senate by only a majority of 4. When it was attempted to restore capital punishment, there was a majority of 30 to 7 against its restoration.

"In the State of Maine" (says Professor Upham) "it is now twenty years since capital punishment was inflicted. It is understood to be practically abolished. I have heard no wish in any quarter to restore it."

On all these facts, and more, we offer evidence, if you will consent to grant a Select Committee of Inquiry. We propose then to establish, both by reasoning and facts, that the change we suggest, would lessen impunity to crime by annexing greater certainty to punishment. We offer more than this. We say that in a free State, the effect with which a punishment acts, is combined of two forces; the direct force of the punishment itself, and the additional force of public opinion. If both coincide, if they strike with united power, you inflict the whole accumulated force of punishment. If you separate them, the weight of the punishment is broken and intercepted. It is met and defeated by the counteracting influence of public opinion. It falls a tetum imbelle sine ictu: a large portion of your power of punishment is gone. We offer to restore to its natural authority this combination of the law and of public opinion. We offer you more than this. What is it but the punishment of death which gives a sort of false pre-eminence to crime? You are wont to call us sentimentalists. It is you who, by continuing this excess of punishment, give a factitious interest to crime. You invest it with somewhat of the dignity of death. We ask you to expose it in its native deformity. Reason and morality proclaim the criminal a villain. The punishment you inflict converts him into a kind of felonious hero. What has been the result of abolishing capital punishment for other crimes? There was a time when even the highwayman's fate was invested with a kind of mockheroic dignity. He was then capitally punishable. Since he is no longer so, this false feeling has vanished. There was a time (many of us can remember it) when the forger was raised to this bad eminence. Such was the case of Dr. Dodd; such, more recently, was the case of Fauntleroy. But since forgery is no longer capitally punishable, the forger has sunk into unmitigated disgrace. Why is this? It is because in these cases you have ceased to create a counteracting public feeling, by ceasing to inflict the punishment of death. Both the criminal and the crime are visited by the undivided weight of legal punishment, and of public indignation. Again, what is the effect of this penalty on the criminal? Does it not avert his mind from the sanguinary crime he has committed, and lead him to dwell on the sanguinary punishment he is about to undergo? Instead of concentrating his conscience and his thoughts on the past and on the future, you confine his mental vision to the horrors of the present. You drive him to the dread alternative of seeking, like the fallen spirits of Milton,

"What re-inforcement he may gain from hope,

If not, what resolution from despair."

We ask you, in the case of the criminal, as in the case of the public, to concentrate their undivided attention on the magnitude of the crime. We ask you no longer to pass an irrevocable doom, but one which, if erroneous, may yet be recalled. You banish, by the present system, or you greatly tend to banish, the solemn, yet consolatory spirit of repentance. We ask you to revive it in the holy ministrations of religion, and in the solitude and silence of the cell. Finally, we adjure you to remove from your Courts of Law (if I may borrow a phrase from Cowley) this "scare-crow deity" which has so long dishonoured and deformed them; to replace it by the unstained effigy of justice; to substitute for the last vestiges of a barbarous code, the precepts of a milder wisdom; and to breathe into the laws of your country, the pure and peaceful spirit of the Gospel.

in seconding the Motion said, he thought that the feeling of the country was in favour of the Motion. The object of the hon. Member was not to do away with punishment, but to make it effective, and bring criminals more effectually under the power of the law. Was it not appalling to hear of executions attended by thousands and tens of thousands of people? Nothing could be more repulsive to any one wishing well to the administration of justice. He had seen in his own county at least thirty persons brought up to receive a sentence of death that was never intended to be carried out. Subsequently the ceremony of sentencing to death in such cases as those to which he alluded was dispensed with, and the sentence merely recorded in the books of the Court. There had been no execution in the country, except for wilful murder, saving in one case, since 1841. That exceptional case had been alluded to by his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Hadfield) rejoiced that he was not the man with whom the responsibility of Palmer's death rested. At the same time he admitted that the power to reprieve could not be placed in better hands than those of the right hon. Baronet who at present filled the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department. To assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Ewart) would be to follow the course which was commenced by those great men, Sir Samuel Romilly, Sir James Macintosh, and Sir Robert Peel, with whom he would now associate the hon. Member for Dumfries. The passing of sentence of death frequently gave rise to the most painful scenes in court. There were instances of mere children having been tried and convicted to capital punishment. In one of those cases Mr. Justice Talfourd covered his face with his hands and sank back upon his seat with grief. It was desirable the Committee should be granted to ascertain whether the punishment of death bad been instrumental in procuring that which its advocates supposed to be accomplished by this severe punishment, or whether it had not a contrary effect, and a tendency to brutalise society at large. He therefore trusted the House would grant the Committee.

said, he would venture to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes—not certainly with the presumptuous idea of interfering to convert public opinion, because he had not the presumption to imagine that, in the year 1856, for the first time since the creation of the world, men were about to learn how they should punish for crime. Men having, through all ages and at all times continued the punishment of death, it appeared to him to be monstrous presumption to pass so sweeping a censure upon all that had been done in former times. The hon. Mover had stated that as it was impossible to prevent the course of justice being occasionally impeded and the judg- ments of tribunals defeated, therefore capital punishment should be abolished. A Select Committee was asked for to inquire into the operation of the law imposing the punishment of death. Why, what could be the operation of that law, if carried out, but simply death? That would be its operation if it were allowed to operate, but if persons chose to intervene then it would not act at all. The hon. Gentleman had objected to the introduction of religion upon this matter, but nevertheless had the hardihood to declare that the punishment of death was contrary to the spirit and practice of the Gospel. But surely there could not be a sentence expressed in plainer words than that which said, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." It was absurd to hold forth the Bible as the religion of Protestants if they were to set aside plain words which could not be controverted, and upon which their law should be founded. It was argued, however, that the words applied to a Jewish people and not to Christians; but he (Mr. Drummond) had heard of a bishop, somewhat famous in Christian history, who, when a man told him a lie, immediately struck him dead, and so far from repenting of the act soon after administered the same punishment to that man's wife for a similar offence. What would Exeter Hall say if a bishop were now to strike a man dead for a lie? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Ewart) said that the evil of punishment of death was its uncertainty. Why, what could be so certain? The hon. Gentleman meant, perhaps, it was not with certainty carried into effect. Was that what he meant? And he proposed to substitute for this punishment of death perpetual imprisonment. Had the hon. Gentleman any argument to show that that punishment of perpetual imprisonment would be with certainty carried into effect? The same argument on the ground of uncertainty would apply against any other species of punishment as well as against that of capital punishment. The hon. Gentleman had appealed to the opinion of jurors. The hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him had told juries to prepare themselves. That was the effect of their glorious teaching; that was the effect of their poisoning the public mind. The hon. Gentleman promised them increased civilisation and increased intelligence if they put an end to punishment by death. He said that the science of poison had made such rapid strides it was now impossible to detect the presence of poison. Was that a reason for giving increased facilities to poisoners? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had told them that Judges sometimes wept while pronouncing sentence of death, and both that hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dumfries called on the House not to subject Judges to so disagreeable a task. However, both those hon. Members had been supporters of the late war. Where were their horrors at the duty which the generals engaged in that war had to carry out? Were they desirous of putting an end to war? Did they think that their generals and colonels had no feeling when giving orders that doomed men to destruction? Pictures more horrible than anything that could be drawn at public executions might be painted of scenes in every way. He had thought it right, in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries, to put on the paper a notice of his intention to suggest that some means should be taken to relieve the Secretary of State from the importunities to which he was subjected from persons who sought to get reprieves for criminals sentenced to capital punishment. He (Mr. Drummond) had been acquainted with the late Sir Fowell Buxton, and he had never met him but he found he was engaged in some scheme to get off some scoundrel under sentence of death. On the first occasion of his meeting his late Friend, he was on an expedition of that sort to the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir Robert Peel. He (Mr. Drummond) asked him was there any doubt of the prisoner's guilt? His friend replied there was not. He (Mr. Drummond) then asked him why he interfered? The hon. Gentleman replied that he felt it his duty to interfere. The next time he met him he was visiting the prisons of Rome, and he went to the Pope to beg, some of the prisoners off. Now, he had no doubt that the Pope told him to mind his own affairs. The last time he met his friend, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) was Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the gentleman in question was, with others, about to wait on him on behalf of a criminal who had committed an atrocious murder at Bath. In that case the Judge had expressed his approval of the verdict of the jury; and he (Mr. Drummond) refused to accompany his friend and others to the Secretary of State, for which refusal his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) thanked him for not countenancing the deputation. The House might judge of the importunities to which a Gentleman in the position at present occupied by his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) was subjected. There was at present a petition, to which signatures were being obtained, and which was to be presented to his right hon. Friend. In that petition the fellows who signed it stated that they were not satisfied with a certain trial. How could they be? They had not been the jurors; they had not been the Judges—how could they know anything about the matter? Then came Mr. Herapath. He (Mr. Drummond) would not say what Mr. Herapath's opinion was about, for it was not worth much, unless he (Mr. Drummond) was greatly misinformed. A right hon. Gentleman was present who could contradict him if he was wrong in stating that on a particular occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, Mr. Herapath importuned him to stay an execution, because he was sure that a certain drug had not been used. Well, it turned out that at the very moment when Mr. Herapath was so importuning the Secretary of State, the criminal was confessing to having committed the crime. Was it not heartrending that the Secretary of State should be put in such a position and subjected to such a pressure? Originally a person tried in the country was left in the custody of the sheriffs, with a mark opposite his name if he were to be executed, and the sheriffs saw that the sentence was carried into effect. In London the sentence was reported to the Recorder, who reported it to the Sovereign. However, that system had since been altered. Now, what he (Mr. Drummond) proposed was, that when a respite was sought for, reference should be made to a Commission to which the Crown could refer cases in which reconsideration might be deemed necessary. That body might comprise the President of the Council, the Judge who tried the case, the Lord Chief Justices of the Queen's Bench and the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chancellor; and, if it should appear to them that fresh evidence had been discovered, then they could advise the Crown to interpose. He (Mr. Drummond) did not seek to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. The Sovereign might make the whole regiment of Horse Guards dukes if she pleased; she might pardon whom she pleased; but he did say the matter should not be left as it was at present. There should be some better organised machinery that should have a complete surveillance of sentences, and, if no sufficient reason for staying the execution of the sentence should be shown, then that the sentence should be carried into effect.

said, that some years ago he happened to fill the office of sheriff in the Principality of Wales, and it was his duty to sit side by side with a learned Judge upon the trial of two individuals for murder. A more humane Judge could not have existed, and a more painstaking jury could not have been empanelled. He watched the case with the deepest interest, and arrived at the deliberate conviction that both men were perfectly innocent. To his horror the jury pronounced them guilty, and the Judge condemned them to death. By great exertions and the assistance of friends he obtained the release of one prisoner, but he regretted to say that the other had ever since been undergoing an undeserved sentence in a penal colony. He drew from that experience the conclusion that there was wide room for the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Ewart) invited the House to undertake. He thought there was good reason for preventing importunities of the Secretary of State by an amended system, and he should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

Sir, as I have had occasion three or four times previously, when I held the office which I now have the honour to hold, to state the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject, I am afraid I can offer nothing new in argument against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries. The House has on all former occasions concurred with me in rejecting these Motions, and I must express my earnest hope that, for the sake of the protection which the law and the execution of the law throw around society against the destruction of human life, they will reject this Motion of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman's Motion is slightly varied in terms from those which he formerly submitted to the House. He has on former occasions submitted a Resolution as to the expediency of abolishing capital punishment, or he has asked to be allowed to lay a Bill on the table for that purpose. On the present occasion the notice originally given was framed in similar terms, being for the entire abolition of capital punishment. But within the last few days, influenced perhaps, by circumstances which have occurred, inducing him to think that a Motion pledging the House to the abolition of capital punishment was little likely to meet with acceptance, he has changed the form of his Motion, and now asks for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law which imposes the punishment of death for offences still capital. Now, Sir, I confess I can see little substantial difference between the Motion now submitted and the Motions which have been submitted by the hon. Gentleman on former occasions. By his speech the hon. Gentleman asked the House to consent to the abolition of the punishment of death, and the substitution of what he terms a less cruel punishment; and, if the House were to agree to the Motion now proposed, I must say that, coupling it with the speech of the hon. Member, it would be understood by the country to be the opinion of the House of Commons that it was expedient the punishment of death should not be continued, and that the House was prepared to agree to a measure for its abolition after this Committee should have made its Report. I think, Sir, that would be a very dangerous course for this House to adopt. In one point I am in perfect agreement with the hon. Member who made this Motion. He said, let us discard the theological grounds, and consider the question simply as one of expediency A preliminary objection to entertaining the question of abolishing capital punishment has been sometimes founded on theological grounds by those who say that under the Divine law it is imperative, and that the text quoted by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) makes it obligatory on the State that where murder is committed the punishment of death shall follow, Now, Sir, I do not go with those who hold that doctrine. Neither do I go with those who hold that the punishment of death, established by any civil Government or State for that purpose which alone justifies it, is contrary to the law of God. If, then, we are to discard theological grounds, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Ewart) must reject altogether the aid which he summoned from the petition which was read at the table, and which stated that the Gospel of Christ recognises the inviolability of the life of man, and the petitioners therefore express their opinion that it is contrary to the Gospel to inflict capital punishment for any crime. The hon. Member has two alternatives—either to admit the theological grounds, and encounter those who object, on alleged scriptural grounds, even to consider the question of abolishing capital punishment for murder, or to reject the theological grounds, and give up the support of those who petition for its abolition as objectionable and unlawful, because in their view it is opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. One other preliminary observation as to these petitions—a good many have been presented for the total abolition of the punishment of death, and none have been presented against such abolition. Now, I will admit that if it were a case of an ordinary kind, a strong inference might be drawn that public opinion ran strongly in one direction, and that it was the general desire of the country that capital punishment should be abolished. That inference cannot, however, be legitimately drawn in this instance. There are numbers of persons who, actuated no doubt by feelings of humanity, devote their time and their best exertions to procure the abolition of the punishment of death. They get up petitions upon the subject. Many of the petitions bear so great a similarity to one another that, in fact, they are almost stereotyped in the same terms. They express, no doubt, the opinions of those who sign them. But a feeling of humanity in men's minds deters them from asking that capital punishment shall be enforced, and thus it is that in particular cases importunity is always one-sided. As long as a man is suspected of being guilty of an atrocious murder the feeling of the people is against the criminal and with the law. They are anxious that no means shall be omitted which can insure the conviction of the prisoner, if he be guilty of the crime of which he is charged. But the moment he is convicted and sentenced to punishment, be it death or transportation, a certain number immediately sympathise with the criminal, look upon him as an object of pity, and exert themselves to obtain a commutation or remission of his sentence; while, on the other hand, no one petitions that the person on whom sentence is passed shall not be recommended to mercy. Public feeling is not expressed accurately. The opinion against remission is, in many cases, strongly but silently entertained. Do not let us, therefore, suppose that the real feeling of the people is expressed by petitions on this subject. One other preliminary observation. When the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) enumerated the names of great men who assisted benevolent persona like the hon. Member for Dumfries in their exertions to mitigate the severity of the criminal law, he mentioned those of Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Robert Peel; but history and Parliamentary records prove that, although they were favourable to removing capital punishment from a great many crimes, the hon. Gentleman is in error in supposing they were among those who ask that in the case of a person guilty of the atrocious crime of murder he shall not suffer death as the punishment of that offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries placed this question on the ground of expediency, and asked, is it desirable to retain the punishment of death for murder? He has defined what he conceives punishment ought always to comprise. He said, first, that it should be effective for the repression of crime; secondly, that it should be equal; thirdly, that it should be certain; and, fourthly, that it should be revocable. Following those points, relying chiefly on the first—namely, the efficiency of the punishment, I must express my opinion—an opinion which I strongly entertain, which is confirmed more and more by reference to statistical records, and which rests on the inward conviction of every man's mind, that is not capable of being refuted—that the punishment of death is looked to with greater dread than any other punishment, and is more effectual than any other in repressing crime. I observe that, at the meeting held in the City yesterday, from which a petition has to-night been presented, it was stated as evidence of its inefficiency, that whereas all those crimes with regard to which the punishment of death was repealed had diminished, the crime of murder, for which it was retained, had increased. Now without going into statistics, I may state at once that the contrary is the fact. My hon. Friend must give me leave to state to him, that he is mistaken in supposing that his statistics warrant the conclusion that the abolition of capital punishment has caused a diminution in the number of those offences to which the penalty of death was at one time attached. Not only is that not true, but the very reverse is the fact. Robberies, burglaries, and other felonies of the secondary class have increased in number, and progressively so, since the punishment of death has been abrogated. The crime of murder, on the contrary, has remained about stationary, but stationary, be it remembered, in relation to a population which is rapidly increasing. The number of persons, committed not convicted, on charges of murder in the year 1845, was sixty-five; in 1854 it was sixty-two. The difference is scarcely appreciable, yet the population had increased in the interim by nearly 2,000,000. Some of the intermediate years show a trifling excess, but it is so very small as scarcely to admit of its being taken into calculation, and upon the whole we are justified in estimating that the crime of murder is rather upon the decrease than the increase. This shows that, let theorists say what they will, the fear of an ignominious death as the punishment of murder does deter some persons from the perpetration of that awful crime. Nor let it be supposed that there is any intention to exempt women from that punishment. During the last ten years fourteen women have been executed for murder, and of these I grieve to say that ten forfeited their lives during the period that I have held the office of Home Secretary. In the year 1849 no fewer than five women were brought to the scaffold. This being the state of the case, I hope that no erroneous opinion will get abroad that women may commit murder with impunity. The next point on which my hon. Friend insisted was, that punishment should be equal, and in this respect he deems the penalty of death defective. He told us that some Criminals go to the scaffold without appearing to feel their dreadful position—that they are obdurate, hardened, impenitent, and were anxious to be regarded as heroes; whereas others are so overcome with shame and terror that at last they lose motion and consciousness, and have almost to be dragged to the gallows. But can my hon. Friend suggest any punishment, whether transportation, imprisonment, or penal servitude, which will not be liable to this objection of inequality? If you sentence to transportation a man surrounded by all the luxuries of life, having a wife, children, and friends, to all of whom he is tenderly attached, the punishment will certainly fall upon him with crushing severity; but it will not have the same effect on a man in humble life, who, unmarried and childless, has no friends and relations for whom he cares. This objection of inequality, therefore, is one which applies with equal cogency to all kinds of punishment as well as that of death; therefore, the idea of an absolute equality of punishment is altogether Uto- pian. But then my hon. Friend urges the argument of "certainty," and contends that the particular punishment annexed to an offence ought in every case to be inflicted. Now, Sir, that is a doctrine which would be found very difficult of application. The law of itself affords a very liberal discretion to Judges as to the period of imprisonment or penal servitude that may be awarded for a stated offence. That which is in the eye of the law the very same crime may be visited with punishment of very different degrees according to the varying circumstances of each particular Case. And so with regard to murder; it is impossible to overlook the vast difference in the degrees of guilt that two cases may present. We may imagine a case of the most deliberate and cold-blooded assassination, and we may picture to ourselves another case where, though the jury found the prisoner guilty of murder, his offence was, in point of fact, scarcely distinguishable from manslaughter. If by "certainty," then, you mean that, without reference to the distinctive circumstances, the same punishment shall in each case be inflicted, you will lay down a rule which will be productive of great injustice. It is no uncommon occurrence that, even after the trial has terminated, circumstances not known at the time come unexpectedly to light, which justify an exercise of the Royal clemency on behalf of the condemned person. If this be an evil, will it be remedied by substituting imprisonment or transportation for capital punishment? Assuredly not, for the Royal prerogative will remain untouched. My hon. Friend advocates the infliction of such a punishment as imprisonment for life in the case of murder, making it irrevocable and irremediable, and yet—strange inconsistency!—he objects to capital punishment for the very same reason. The theory is, that a sentence of imprisonment has this advantage over one of capital punishment, that it may be revoked in the event of its being discovered that the verdict was unjust; yet my hon. Friend, from the tenor of his arguments, would destroy that theory and doom to imprisonment without hope of emancipation. With regard to juries it appears to me that my hon. Friend has very much over-stated his case. He would have us believe that one of the consequences of annexing capital punishment to the crime of murder is that juries frequently refuse to convict, even on the clearest evidence. There may have been a few such cases— though for my own part I know of none—but I am sure that it is true as a general rule that, where the evidence is clear and conclusive, and when it has been laid before the jury with that lucidity, happily so characteristic of the charges of English Judges, juries return a conscientious verdict, and do not disregard the solemn obligation of their oath through a disinclination to pronounce a verdict the consequence of which may be death to the prisoner. No doubt the knowledge that such may be the result of the verdict may make juries and even Judges more willing to present a case to their own mind in the point of view most favourable to the accused, so that they may avoid a mistake that can never be remedied. There have been many cases in which the line between murder and manslaughter—being a very nice one—a verdict of manslaughter, although the evidence might have justified a verdict of murder, has been returned; but it cannot be said that the ends of justice have been defeated by such a result. In that event, the punishment inflicted is what my hon. Friend would award in every instance—that of penal servitude, or transportation, and generally for life. The emotion manifested by Judges in sentencing prisoners to death has really nothing to do with the question. It must be distressing to a Judge to doom a fellow-creature to an ignominious death on the scaffold; but my hon. Friend has failed to mention any occason on which a Judge has shrunk from the performance of that duty, however painful it may be. With respect to the office of Home Secretary, which I have the honour to hold, I admit with the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) that there can be no duty more painful than that of receiving the importunate applications made for mercy between the time of passing sentence and that of carrying it into effect; and assuredly there is no duty which requires to be more firmly performed than that which involves the careful examination of the grounds on which such applications are urged. In cases of this nature the Home Secretary, assisted by that legal advice which is always available, puts himself in communication with the Judge who presided at the trial. In the great majority of cases there are no difficulties. If the evidence at the trial was incontrovertible, and if the application does not rest upon matters which have subsequently come to light, but simply upon the general objections which certain well-meaning per- sons entertain towards capital punishment in any form and under any circumstances, the course to be taken by the Home Secretary is clear and does not admit of doubt. Other cases there are, in which the Judge represents to the Government that there are circumstances which render it advisable that the extreme penalty should not be inflicted, and in such cases the Secretary of State is in a great measure relieved from responsibility. But no doubt the duty and responsibility of the Secretary of State have been much increased by a humane alteration of the law made in the last year of the reign of William IV., when a Bill was passed repealing the law by which it was provided that in cases of murder the sentence should be carried into effect on the next day but one after conviction. At that time there were not the same facilities of locomotion as at present, and in many instances the law precluded the possibility of an appeal to the Home Office; the sentence having been carried into effect before it could be known to the Secretary of State to have been passed. There is now a considerable interval between the sentence and execution, during which strong representations and statements of facts, or alleged facts, are sometimes laid before the Secretary of State, even within a few days of the execution, and which, if true, may have an important bearing on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. Such memorials are referred to the Judge who presided at the trial, with a request that he will send his report on the subject. An instance of this occurred within my own official experience. Great difficulty presented itself in dealing with the statements founded upon affidavit made to the Home Office, and the convict was respited for a week, an intimation being given at the same time to the prison authorities, to be communicated to the convict, that this step did not justify any expectation that the sentence would be remitted, but was only intended to enable the truth of the representations made in favour of the convict to be properly investigated. In some cases of that kind it has turned out that the affidavits were good for nothing, their allegations breaking down as soon as they came to be investigated before the magistrates on the spot, and the sentence was therefore executed. In some instances, however, statements of the previous history of the criminal, of the peculiar circumstances under which the crime was committed, and other considerations which cannot be very easily explained, have been brought under the attention of the Government, and received that weight to which they were entitled. Some deference must also be paid to public opinion, which cannot be wholly disregarded without enlisting the sympathy of the people on behalf of the criminal an against the law; and the rule, therefore, to be observed is so to administer the law that public opinion shall go along with its enforcement, and that where a prisoner has suffered the extreme penalty it may be generally felt that nothing that told in his favour was overlooked, and that his execution was fully justified. At the same time, if the hon. Member for West Surrey can suggest a mode by which the responsibility of the Secretary of State shall be lessened he will confer a very great boon on the occupant of an onerous office. Yet I know not how that responsibility can be transferred to other hands, and therefore, while I hold my present situation, I can only say that I shall continue to exercise the power intrusted to me impartially, firmly, and to the best of my ability, with an earnest desire to render the law efficacious for the repression of crime. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Ewart) says that as the science of chemistry advances the difficulty of detecting murder by poisoning will increase. That is a most dangerous doctrine; but, happily, it has no solid foundation. The crime of poisoning by arsenic used to be very common, but it has been checked, because the progress of chemical research enables it to be discovered with certainty. Such, I believe, will be the case with other poisons, and I maintain that the chances of detection are infinitely augmented, not diminished, by the improvements of science. I need not touch on public executions, since they do not enter into the question whether or not the punishment of death ought to be retained. The objection that executions are vindictive, retaliatory, and revengeful, if it has any force, applies equally to every other mode of punishment. How is there more of a retaliatory spirit evinced in putting to death a man who has taken away the life of a fellow-creature than in immuring him in a prison for life? My hon. Friend himself says the latter is the severer punishment of the two. If that be so, according to his own argument his substitute for the punishment of death must be more revengeful. My hon. Friend has, in my opinion, adduced nothing from the example of other countries that should prevail upon us to depart from our established law. I believe that death is the punishment which men most dread, and that it is the right and the bounden duty of the State to inflict it for wilful and deliberate murder. On these grounds I hope the House will not accede to this Motion.

said, that the hon. Member for Dumfries had urged as a strong reason, in favour of his Motion for a Committee, the difficulty of bringing public opinion to bear upon the question—that was to say, unanimously; but where was the country in which free discussion existed to such an extent, and where could public opinion be brought to bear upon any question by means of an unshackled press, more powerfully than here? The hon. Member seemed to have confounded public opinion with private judgment, and not to have allowed the weight to which they were entitled to the opinions of our lawgivers, and to the customs and usages of the country in reference to this question. Now, Judge Blackstone, a great authority upon this subject, said, that when the question arose whether death might be lawfully inflicted, the wisdom of the law had to decide it, and that to this public judgment or decision all private judgment must submit, or else there was an end to the first principles of all society and government. The onus probandi rested on the assailants of the existing law, who were bound to show that some other mode of punishment than death would operate as a greater preventive of murder. Those who were in favour of the abolition of capital punishment did so upon the ground that statistics proved that it did not act as a preventive of crime. But the House should consider, in regard to these statistics, how many things acted upon the sources and causes of crime. The circumstances of a county, its state in any particular year, the want of occupation for its inhabitants—all these things tended materially to affect the calendar of crime. Consequently, such statistics were not very safe or reliable guides for legislation upon the subject. After some further observations, which the continuous calls for a division rendered altogether inaudible, the hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he should vote against the Motion.

said, he could not allow the debate to close without offering his tribute of thanks to his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries for bringing this subject again under the consideration of the House. The question was a most important one, and although it might not be popular in that House, he had no hesitation in avowing it as his conscientious opinion that capital punishments were contrary alike to the law of God, the spirit of the Christian religion, and to sound policy. The object of punishment must be either to reform the criminal, make reparation to society for the injury done, or to deter others from the commission of crime, by the example afforded. It could easily be shown that capital punishment did not produce any such results. It was recorded as a fact that out of 167 persons who had been sentenced to death, 164 had witnessed executions. Formerly, men were hanged for forgery and many other minor offences. The improvement in public opinion on this subject might be illustrated by a case that occurred in the year 1814, when a man was executed at Chelmsford, in Essex, for cutting down a cherry-tree. It was reported that the Judge on that trial observed, that a man who would cut down a tree maliciously, would not hesitate to kill a man. No Judge at this day would utter such a sentimept. He trusted that public opinion would improve still further, until the punishment of death was finally abolished. In his opinion it was of the greatest importance that the laws and institutions of a country should cherish in the minds of the people a feeling of the sacredness of human life, and he believed that in proportion as capital punishments had been abolished public feeling had been improved. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey made no allowance for the improved spirit of the age, and according to his doctrine, burning, hanging, and gibbeting alive were to be sanctioned because they had been practised in former times. The hon. Member says, the scriptural command, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," is in his opinion as plain as words can make it. He (Mr. Brotherton) had the best authority for declaring that that text was not a command but simply a declaration of the principle of retributive justice. That it was no more to be taken as a justification of the punishment of death than the words of our Saviour, when he said, "He that takes the sword will perish by the sword," or "With what measure ye mete to others it will be measured to you again." If the text were to be taken in the sense in which it was commonly understood, one murder would lead directly to another, and in that case where was blood-shedding to end? He believed that if he had the opportunity he could show that the text of the Old Testament, on which the advocates of capital punishment relied, might be very differently interpreted. The same God gave the laws of the Old Testament that gave the laws of the New; and he would not contradict himself, he would not say, "Thou shalt not kill," and afterwards ordain that the disobedient child, the Sabbath-breaker, or, if an ox killed a man the owner should be put to death. "Putting to death" could not mean in Scripture the taking of the natural life; in many cases it meant excommunication. The crimes which were formerly punished by death, and which are no longer so punished have not increased, but decreased, since that punishment was abolished, and he believed that there was a growing public opinion, that crime diminished in proportion to the mildness of the laws. The State had power over the civil, but it had no right to take the natural life. Man had not the right to destroy his own life, and he had no right to delegate that power to the State. Believing that many important facts might be brought before a Select Committee proving that public executions were demoralising by their example, and did not deter from crime, he should cordially support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries.

said, he must complain that the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, had misrepresented the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Ewart). He treated it as if it had been for the total and immediate abolition of capital punishment. If this had been its object, he for one could never have given it his support. He did not believe that the punishment of death could be abolished in the present state of society in this country. He hoped the time might come when it would be still more seldom resorted to, or perhaps even abolished altogether. In the meantime it was most desirable to consider of the means which were in our power to provide a substitute in secondary punishments. At present there was no certainty in our secondary punishments. We must find means to overcome the difficulties connected with transportation. We must be prepared to provide a system of severe imprisonment. We might not find it necessary to adopt imprisonment for life, with periodical corporal punishment, though he believed that had been tried with success in some countries. But we must, at least, introduce solitary confinement for life, without any hope of pardon. These were important questions for a Committee to consider. Perhaps they might also devise some improvement in the manner of capital punishments, as long as we were compelled to continue them. He did not speak of private execution. No one, he believed, had ever recommended private execution. What had been often proposed here, and had been tried in some States of America, was executions within the walls of the prison, taking place, not privately, but before a numerous jury of witnesses. For these reasons he would support the Motion. He was sorry that the theological question had been introduced into the debate. There was little force in the arguments from it on either side. He maintained, that those who possessed the Sovereign power in every country, be they kings or people, had the power of life and death delegated to them by Providence. They were bound to make such laws as they believed would best secure the great interests of the State, and they were responsible only to God and to their own consciences. As a member of the Legislature of this country, he would never consent to abdicate the right and the responsibility which belonged to it. If they did this, they would deserve to lose their place among the nations, and the high character they held for the justice of the laws, and the uprightness of their administration. But there was room for inquiry, how far these laws could be improved, and with that view he should give his vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, he would beg to move for a Select Committee to inquire what public measures could be adopted to advance science, and improve the position of its cultivators. London was remarkable as a great centre of science, and was distinguished by many scientific societies. It was with great pleasure he was able to say that Government had given considerable attention to the subject. In the department of geology it had instituted a school, and it had formed a department of science and art, which was placed under the control of the President of the Council. Science was thus brought into connection with the general education of the country. There were schools already established, of which the most important was the School of Mines, in Jermyn Street, which was especially intended to instruct persons who had the control of mining operations. Many persons, he understood, had derived considerable benefit from an attendance at that excellent institution. The British Government had imitated, in this respect, the conduct of other Governments; for instance, that of Saxony, in which country great progress had been made in consequence of the establishment of a school of that nature at Freiberg. He considered that we were much indebted to the gentlemen who had been placed at the head of those departments, and, in particular, he might allude to the late Sir Henry De la Beche, and to Sir Roderick Murchison. Amongst other institutions of this kind he might mention the Sailors' School at Poplar, in which instruction of a really practical kind was given to a number of industrious persons. Notwithstanding all this, however, there was in this country a great want of scientific instruction. He believed that at Magdalen College, Oxford, it had been recommended by the Oxford Commissioners, that a considerable portion of the college revenues should be set apart for the reward of science in scholarships and fellowships. He trusted that the same thing would be done at Cambridge. It was observed by Professor Liebig, when in this country, that England was remarkable for paying no attention to anything that had not a practical tendency, and that they neglected abstract science, while in Germany the contrary was the case. He considered that they had a most important duty to perform in endeavouring to promote science as much as possible. There was a scientific department which Government had established, in connection with the Board of Trade, under Captain Fitzroy, which was likely to prove exceedingly beneficial, and this was done in imitation of the American Government, who had a similar department under Captain Maury. It was to be wished that the various scientific societies of London should be collected in one spot, and Government had purchased Burlington House, which was to be devoted to that object. It was found that the British Museum, at the present time, was overflowing in various departments, and especially in natural history. They had recently placed Professor Owen over that department, and had given directions that he should give lectures. There was no lecture-room at the Museum, and he would have to give them in Jermyn Street; so that the specimens would have to be carried backwards and forwards. He believed that the British Museum was so overflowing that it would be to the public advantage that there should be a division of its stores, and he thought the natural history department might be removed to the west end of the town. He was exceedingly anxious that scientific men should have a better standing in the country. He did not think that their merits were appreciated by the Government or the public. He did not wish to depreciate others; he thought that, in case of war, Generals, and Admirals, and others who distinguished themselves ought to be honoured, but scientific men were not recognised in any way. He was very much in favour of some Order of Merit being established for persons in civil departments. With a view to the advancement of science, he would also strongly urge the expediency of some alteration in the system of fees for taking out patents. At present a payment of £25 was required from any person taking out a new invention, and many individuals were not in a position to command that sum, and it appeared that the Attorney and Solicitor Generals received from that source a very large proportion of their salaries. The salaries of those officers ought to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and patentees ought to be charged a lower sum. He thought it very important that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into these points, and especially on the subject of education; and without further detaining the House, he would move for the appointment of a Committee on the subject of science.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was as much inclined to give every possible encouragement to science as the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this question, but he would ask the House to consider, before going to a division, what would be the result of assenting to it. According to an old and trite saying—Poeta nascitur non fit, and certainly the men who most distinguished themselves in any particular branch of scientific inquiry were not those upon whose education the largest sums had been expended. To be a scientific man there must be a talent for science. A large amount of property was devoted in this country to the encouragement of the science of mathematics. In the University of Cambridge especially, great mathematical attainments led to fellowships and to livings; but, although the University had produced Professor Airy, and two or three other individuals who were an honour to it from their scientific attainments, how few of its members had arrived at any eminence in mathematics, notwithstanding the advantages they would derive from proficiency in that science. If men of eminence in mathematics could be produced by bestowing wealth upon those who studied mathematics, the members of the University of Cambridge ought to be the first mathematicians of the world. But was that the case? No. The majority of them had very little mathematical knowledge, and the science of mathematics was cultivated to a much greater extent in France than in this country. The conclusion he drew from these facts was, that science was not advanced by having a large amount of property devoted to its encouragement. The two greatest men of science whom this country had lately produced were neither of them members of the University. Neither Herschel, the discoverer of the Georgium Sidus, nor Brunel, the constructor of the Thames tunnel, belonged to the University of Cambridge, or to any great public seminary. They both attained eminence by their individual genius alone. Look at the two discoveries that had been lately made, and which had raised this nation to the highest position among the nations of the world—he meant the application of steam to railways, and the application of electricity to communication. To whom were those discoveries owing? To men of talent, to civil engineers, several of whom were Members of that House, but none of whom had been educated at public seminaries; but whose ability and genius had placed them in the distinguished station in which they now were. An application of the public funds for the purpose of the cultivation of science appeared to him to be perfectly useless. Give the public a general education, and those persons of genius who especially cultivated it rose at once to notoriety. Having been a member for twenty-five years of the Royal Society, he certainly did not think that, as a public body, it did much good either in promoting men of literature or of science. It appeared to him that the society consisted rather of men who had already become eminent in science or other attainments, and who had since become its members, than of men whose knowledge had been enlarged or whose discoveries in science had been stimulated by their becoming members of that society. There was nothing definite in the Motion, and it would require a great deal of discussion in Committee. There would be no harm in that, to be sure, but still, he objected to a proposed Vote to take money out of the public purse for the promotion of science.

Sir, in the object of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which is to advance science and to improve the cultivation of it in this country, I feel certain that there is no Member of this House who does not cordially sympathise. But that is not precisely the form in which it presents itself to our acceptance. The hon. Gentleman does not propose any specific measure for that object, but he asks us to assent to a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire what public measures can be adopted to advance science and to improve the position of its cultivators. Now, Sir, without explaining what is the nature of the measure he would recommend for the promotion of that object, he asks us to appoint a Committee, not to consider a plan which he is already prepared to submit, but to investigate generally the means that might be adopted to accomplish the object he has in view. In the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman went through a long list of institutions which have been established for the promotion of art and science. He, at the same time, showed that many of them were for the promotion of certain scientific purposes and for the facility of various national scientific objects. The hon. Gentleman might most truly have added that large sums of the public money had at different times been expended on scientific voyages and travels, and that in that manner the pursuits of science had been largely assisted. But the question really resolves itself into this—whether it would be possible for the Government, by a judicious application of the public money, to give assistance to the cultivation of science. It is true that science does not in general afford any remuneration to those who cultivate it. It is not, like many branches of literature and of art, a remunerative pursuit. But those who cultivate it do so for the love they have for science, and not for the sake of any pecuniary gain, as making that their chief and direct object. But I am not aware that it is possible by any application of the public money to increase the resources of science beyond what are already afforded by the patronage of the Royal Society and the numerous other public institutions that exist—such as the collections in all the various departments of zoology, mineralogy, and natural history, which are under the superintendence of Professor Owen, whose original researches and application in those departments, together with his development of the science of comparative anatomy, are known throughout the whole civilized world; the Botanic Gardens at Kew, where there is a collection of the rarest plants for the study of those who feel an interest in the science of botany; in short, I am not aware that there is any want of the materials of science in any department, whether as regards the collections of specimens of scientific objects, or of works of scientific pursuits. If it can be shown that there are other things required for promoting the cultivation of science, then, as I understand the object of the hon. Member is not merely the diffusion of a knowledge of science, but the cultivation and improvement of it, I doubt, Sir, very much whether any practical benefit would arise from the appointment of a Committee without some more definite subject of inquiry than that which my hon. Friend proposes for its investigation. If he would come forward and say, "Here is a certain plan or certain suggestions for the advancement of science and the improvement of the position of its cultivators, which I submit to the House and wish to be made the subject of examination before a Select Committee"—that would be matter, no doubt, which might reasonably demand our assent; but when he merely proposes that a Committee should be appointed to consider whether something cannot be found for the promotion of an object which every one admits to be laudable and useful, I confess I entertain great doubts whether any advantage would arise from acceding to his Motion. I confess I rather agree in the speech of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) who spoke second in the debate, and which speech appeared to be delivered for the purpose of showing the impropriety of the Motion. Under these circumstances, I trust that my hon. Friend (Mr. Heywood) will not think it necessary to press this Motion to a division, until he is able to propose something definite to the House, but that he will consider his object sufficiently attained by the discussion that has taken place.

said, he wished the House should thoroughly understand the object of the Motion. It originated with the British Association for the Advancement of Science, who, when they met at Glasgow, expressed a strong desire that the question should be considered, and they had twice referred the subject to a Committee in the very terms of the Motion now before the House. On the part of the British Association he distinctly protested against the impression that money was the thing wanted; what was wanted was some means of advancing science. On this subject Professor Liebig observes, in a letter to Professor Faraday, dated February, 1845, and cited in Lyell's Travels in North America—

"What struck me most in England was the perception that only those works that have a practical tendency awake attention and command respect; while the purely scientific, which possess far greater merit, are almost unknown. And yet the latter are the proper and true source from which the others flow. Practice alone can never lead to the discovery of a truth or a principle. In Germany it is quite the contrary. Here, in the eyes of scientific men, no value, or at least but a trifling one, is placed on the practical results. The enrichment of science is alone considered worthy of attention. I do not mean to say that this is better, for both nations the golden medium would certainly be a real good fortune."

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked that some distinct plan should be suggested. Well, in the pamphlet which he held in his hand, which was the Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Association, the plan was distinctly shown. It required that a Board should be constituted, which Board should consist of all the leading men of science in this country, and before whom all plans should be brought that might be proposed for its advancement. This Report also stated that the Royal Society might not be in itself sufficient to answer the questions that constantly arose in connection with science, though it was well known that hitherto the Royal Society had met all the matters submitted to them to the satisfaction of the Government and the public; but still a larger body in the nature of a Council of Science was required to meet the increasing wants of science, and the main object of this Motion was to promote the establishment of such a body. Questions were continually occurring where such a body would be eminently useful. It could be established without any unreasonable expense; probably it would only require the mere expenses attached to keeping up the office of a paid secretary; and when so established, it should be the quarter to which every scientific question should be addressed, and to which the Government should have access at all moments. Mr. Tite, in conclusion, deprecated the idea that men of science were anxious for merely decorative distinctions. On this subject he entirely agreed with Dr. Faraday, who, after speaking of the distinctions, both national and foreign, which may even now be earned, writes—

"I cannot say that I have not valued such distinctions; on the contrary, I esteem them very highly, but I do not think I have ever worked for or sought after them."

said, as it appeared to him that the House was not inclined to enter fully into the subject at present, his observations should be very brief. He believed that there was a great deal of force in the objection of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the hon. Member who introduced this subject had no specific measure to propose. As far as his (Lord Stanley's) experience went, he did not believe that an inquiry could be well conducted by a Committee, unless there was some distinct proposition submitted for approval or rejection. If the House appointed a Committee merely on the principle of asking all the scientific men who could be collected together to give generally their opinions as to what was best to be done for science, a risk would be run of having a very vague and indefinite inquiry. There was also another objection to the appointment of a Committee now. The middle of June was at hand, and the Session was far advanced, but an inquiry, of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, to be productive of any useful result, ought to be conducted, not in haste, but in a manner so that the whole country might have ample notice of it. Such being the case, he rather hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion at present, but take the opportunity of the coming recess, which doubtless was not far distant, to consult with the most eminent scientific men as to the exact nature of the measures which they might think desirable to be adopted, and submit them in a substantive Motion to the House. That was all he should have said but for one or two remarks which had been thrown out in the course of the debate, and which appeared to him to rest on misconception. He quite allowed that, in the case of the University of Cambridge, there could not be a better mathematical education, up to a certain point, than was there given. He agreed also in the remark, that in point of the practical application of science to mechanics and such matters this country equalled, and probably exceeded, other nations. But between these two points there lay a wide intermediate space, which was not touched. The mathematics of the University as taught were, generally speaking, pure science, and not applied science. Then it was said that a mathematical genius or an inventive genius could not be made by any amount of patronage. That certainly was true; but he thought that there was some confusion as to the distinction between original invention and the diffusion and application of knowledge already existing. As regarded original invention, he allowed that they could not hope by the application of Government funds very greatly to increase the amount, though even in that respect there was probably a number of men qualified for scientific pursuits who were prevented from following them, principally in consequence of the want of means for obtaining that early education which was necessary. But invention was one thing, and the diffusion and application of knowledge already attained another.

I am sure, Sir, the House will believe that any Government must be anxious to promote the diffusion and advancement of science, because that is an object so eminently connected with the best interests of a country—its intellectual progress, its material prosperity, and its commercial advancement—that no man who had found his way to high office in the State could be insensible to the advantages derived from the furtherance of such an object. The difficulty, however, lies in determining how that advancement of science is to be promoted, and I confess I do not think that the appointment of such a Committee as is now proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Heywood), particularly, as was suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), at this late period of the Session, would be likely to lead to any such result. Two modes of accomplishing the desired end have been indicated in the course of this discussion. One, which was immediately disclaimed, is by a grant of money from the Government. It has been said that money is not wanted. But money is wanted in a certain way; that is to say, there are men of science zealously pursuing their investigations, but who have not the means of providing instruments or books from their own funds, and of properly following these researches. To men of that sort there is no doubt that any aid afforded through the Royal Society or other channels must prove of great service, and that the interests of science are thereby advanced. Then it has been suggested that a Board of scientific men should be established, to which questions connected with doubtful points of science might be referred. Now, I confess, Sir, that I have great doubts in my own mind of the advantage of corpo- rate bodies with reference to intellectual improvements. If there is one department of intellect in which a corporate body might perhaps be more expedient than another, it would be in that of painting, because such a body might collect models, encourage the study of those models, provide lectures, and afford great advantage to those who practise the art. At the same time it is well known that there exists a diversity of opinion even upon that point, and I have great doubts whether the establishment of a Board of scientific persons would be productive of any great advantage in the promotion of science. A remark made by Professor Liebig has been quoted, to the effect that there is a great difference between England and Germany in this respect—namely, that while here we look to the practical application of science, in Germany they look more to the theoretical advancement of the principles of science. Well, but it seems to me, Sir, that this is a contrast more striking in words than in things, because, how are you to carry forward to any great extent, and to any successful results, the practical application of science if yon do not make advances in the theory upon which that practice is to be founded? Practice without theory is only, in other words, theory without the grounds upon which theory should be founded; and, therefore, I think Professor Liebig's observations have not the force which my hon. Friends behind me would attribute to them. We are certainly an eminently practical nation, and we study the theory of science not with a view simply to abstract reasoning, but with a view to its application to the purposes of life and to the material interests of the country. I can only say that the Government will be at all times most thankful to any persons who can suggest to them anything within the competence of Government to propose or within the scope of Parliament to entertain, which can tend really to the advancement of science; but I think, as my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of Parliament to the subject by his speech, and has elicited the opinions which have been expressed in the course of this debate, he will, perhaps, think he has done enough, at all events in the present Session, and that it would not be advisable to press his Motion to a division, the result of which would be to involve the appearance of a difference of opinion where there really exists no difference at all.

in reply, said, he did not wish to divide the House upon the subject. He would have brought the question earlier before the House if an opportunity had offered itself. With regard, however, to the fees paid for obtaining patents, he must point out that the present system was a gross injustice to those individuals who followed scientific pursuits. That was a great impediment in the way of science. The great proportion of the fees paid went into the pockets of the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, and that might in some degree be the reason of the repeated attempts that had been made to count out the House that evening. He therefore hoped the salaries of those officers of the Crown would be put upon a better footing. He would now beg leave to withdraw his Motion, and would endeavour to bring it forward at an earlier period in the next Session.

said, he rose pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present state of the law with regard to the rights of married women. The subject was one which had excited considerable interest out of doors, and during the Session no less than seventy petitions had been presented complaining of the law as it affected the property of married women. Some of those petitions bore the signatures of the most thoughtful portion of society; the most marked one of the whole, perhaps, was the one which he presented before Easter, which was signed by 3,000 women, amongst whom were ladies who had made the present epoch remarkable in the annals of literature. It was only by accident that these ladies had entrusted him with the charge of presenting their views to the House. At the annual meeting of the Law Amendment Society, he spoke a few words on the subject of the rights of married women, and those observations coming to the notice of the memorialists, they determined to entrust their petition to his hands. Neither was it upon any sudden impulse, or without due meditation, that he had ventured to bring this question forward; for in the judicial situation which he had had the honour to hold, the question had often forced itself upon his mind. Having, then, had every opportunity for considering the question, and having most carefully looked into it, he could unhesitatingly pronounce his solemn conviction that the law of England, as it affected the property of married women, was not only discreditable to the age, but that it demanded immediate alteration. By the old English law there could be no doubt that a wife succeeded on equal terms, with women of other nations, to the common property of her husband; she was entitled to one-third of the land, and one-third of the personal property. The decrees of the legal tribunals of the country, however, had abrogated this old English law, and deprived married women of their rights, while the husband had acquired the right from the same source, of dealing with the property of his wife just as he thought fit. The law had not been changed by any act of the Legislature, but solely by the decisions of the Judges. According to the dictum of the common law, a married woman had no right to personal property, but the Equity Courts recognised and acted upon the very opposite principle. Equity dealt with the personal property of a wife as though she were a single woman, but the common law held that it belonged to the husband. These diametrically opposite views of the law had arisen out of the decisions of different Judges, and the object of his bringing the question now before the House was to elicit an opinion as to which of the two principles was the sound one, as applicable to the case of married women. The rule which enabled families to settle property upon females before marriage was a correct one—it was founded in justice, and useful to society; but while the Legislature admitted the expediency of that law, it was equally incumbent upon them to reconcile the conflicting principles of law and equity which now prevailed with regard to the rights of married women. Now, to what did this conflict between the two classes of Courts tend? Why, to this, that those who are rich, add are able to apply to the Courts of Equity, have the means of defeating the stringent injustice of the common law. It tended, also, to show that for the rich there was one law, and for the poor another; but then that description was not strictly applicable. It was accurate to divide society into two classes of rich and poor. There were a great mass, perhaps the bulk, of the community who were happily removed above poverty, but who were not yet rich enough to go into the Courts of Equity, and this class had a strong claim upon the Legislature to be put in the same position with respect to the rights of property as the more wealthy. It was not necessary to describe the existing state of common law with respect to the property of women, as the facts were familiar and of every day occurrence. It was incumbent upon him, however, to prove that he was not insisting upon a theoretical grievance. He had been met by the objection that though the rule might present a hardship, yet practically it did neither mischief nor wrong, for where there was property, settlements beforehand might be made; where no property, settlements were unnecessary. It was, however, a serious practical grievance that he complained of; but the proofs of it would occupy too much time for him to go fully into them on the present occasion. Suffice it that there was one sort of case which had been reported to him in dozens ever since he had given notice of his intention to bring forward this subject; such, for instance, as that of a man who, leaving his wife, went to live in adultery, or, at all events, to lead a life of viciousness, and yet came in to claim her property. Instances innumerable had come to his knowledge where the wife, so abused and neglected, had been enabled by her industry to set up in business, and yet the brute of a man could, and did, come down upon her, after a few months absence, and seize the proceeds of her labour under the sanction of the law. Now, he would ask hon. Members if it was fitting or just that they should any longer give the sanction of law to such iniquities? It certainly would not be difficult to frame a simple remedy. All that would be necessary would be to abolish the artificial rule of common law which had grown up, and to apply exactly the same principle to the property of the wife as was applied to the property of the husband. If no antenuptial contract was entered into, let the property of the wife remain in her own hands, and he disposed of at her death in the manner she might choose to direct. No doubt some further rules would have to be laid down with regard to the wife's obligation to the support of her children, and to contribute to the charges of the joint household. Some alteration, however, should be made with regard to the absurd laws relating to debts contracted by the wife before marriage—for absurd they undoubtedly were. A husband, after marriage, was not bound to pay any debt his wife might contract unless they were for such things as were suitable for her station in life; and yet he was responsible for any debts whatever that she might have contracted before marriage, although he might never have so much as dreamt of their existence. The difference of the two rules was itself enough to demonstrate that one of them was absurd, and, necessarily, that one of them ought to be altered. In conclusion, he ventured to appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, whom he knew to be a sound law reformer, to apply his mind to this subject, and to satisfy himself whether the conflict between common law and equity ought not to cease? If there must he any difference between the rights of husband and wife, the woman ought to be the favoured party, for she was the weaker, and assuredly stood more in need of the protection of the law. Let it not be supposed that he entertained any novel or theoretical notions on the position which women ought to occupy in society. The Resolutions he wished to propose were practical ones, and were intended to meet a real and practical grievance. No one could recognise more clearly than he the principle that the fitting place for woman was not to be engaged in a struggle with man for her bread. In nine cases out of ten the stronger sex must bear off the prize. He wished rather to see her enshrined in her own home, relieved from the carking cares of life, and enabled to make her home, however humble, a place of light and joy to her husband. But he could not overlook the fact, that in the existing state of society there were hundreds and thousands of women to whom no such description could apply. The laws of property pressed most grievously upon the interests of such, for those laws were the product of a rude age, and applied to a state of civilisation wholly different from our own, and ought to be altered or modified, now that so many women were found in the manufacturing districts and elsewhere earning the means of Subsistence by their own labour. He might refer to the example of a nation in many respects resembling ourselves, and in jurisprudence immeasurably our superiors. Originally the Roman law treated women as mere chattels; but at a very early period that was altered, and where, in all antiquity, could they find women equal in every civil virtue to the matrons of the Roman Commonwealth? The Minister who, in the present day, would bring forward a comprehensive measure to extirpate the evils of which he complained would not only effect a great social improvement, but would show himself fit to hold the helm of this country at the present critical period.

seconded the Motion.

said, he cordially concurred in the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Perry). He quite agreed with him that the rules of the common law were injurious and unjust, that they were no longer applicable to the present state of society, that the rules acted upon by the Courts of Equity were much more consistent with the requirements of the age, and that the conflicting rules and principles of the two systems ought to be brought into unison. On the other hand, he would urge his hon. and learned Friend not to press the House to adopt his Resolution, for, if it were proposed to amend the law in a matter of this kind, it would be much better to proceed by introducing a Bill for that purpose than by calling on the House to discuss an abstract Resolution, which was, in fact, making it neither more nor less than a debating society. He had communicated with his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor upon the subject, and that noble Lord fully concurred with him in thinking that the time had come when the common law and equity ought, upon this point at all events, to be reconciled. The best attention of the legal authorities connected with the Government would, during the recess, be given to the subject, and he hoped that in the next Session of Parliament they should be able to introduce a more comprehensive and more satisfactory measure upon the subject. He might take that opportunity of saying that he should look upon such a measure, if it were passed, as only a part of a far greater one, for which the time had fully arrived, namely, the removal of the inconsistencies existing between common law and equity, by making the more rigid and stubborn maxims of the common law consistent with equity—that was, with reason, justice, and common sense. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied with the assurance which he had given him, and would not press his Resolution.

said, he must deny that the existing law placed any distinction between rich and poor, as the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) seemed to suppose. The rule of Equity was a very simple one. Before marriage any woman might herself, and after marriage her friends might for her, take steps to secure her property to her separate use. The simplest instrument that could be devised would be quite sufficient for that purpose. If all that was desired by the hon. and learned Member was to assimilate the rules of Law and Equity, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman should receive his cordial support; and for that purpose a very simple enactment, he apprehended, would suffice. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to go further than that—if he wished to set up a separate establishment in every house—then he must resist it to the ütmost extent of his power. If it was meant that henceforth the husband should have his establishment and the wife hers, he must regard the proposal as contrary not only to the law of England, but to the law of God. The law of England with regard to matrimony, as it at present stood, was founded upon the soundest principle—upon the principle, namely, that when a man and woman married they became one, and that their property ought not, therefore, to be separated. If a woman had not full confidence in a man let her refrain from marrying him; but still, as the law stood, she might, if she thought fit, protect herself. If during coverture property devolved upon her, it would no doubt become the property of her husband, and his receipt for it would be perfectly good. That was equally the rule of the Courts of Common Law as well as of Equity. But there was this difference between the two. If a woman had not complete confidence in her husband, and if he were a bankrupt, she might go to the Court of Equity and press it to assign her a settlement. The usual rule in such cases was to give her one half, but she might get three-fourths, or even the whole. Could anything be more reasonable than that? But it was said a married woman might set up in business for herself, and her husband would have a right to seize the fruits of her industry. If the husband was an assenting party, she might contract with him that quoad the business she should be as if she were still a femme sole. Of course, except under what was called an equitable settlement, no contract between a husband and a wife during her coverture would be good as against his creditors. But did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to give a wife power to set up in business in defiance of her husband, and to conduct it so as not to be liable for his debts. Certainly he (Mr. Malins) was not prepared to go so far as that. Indeed, there were some who thought that the whole equity doctrine of separate use was based upon an erroneous principle; and he was himself so impressed with the necessity of insisting on the perfect identity in all things of husband and wife, so convinced of the tendency of settlements to foster habits of extravagance on both sides, that, taking an enlarged view of the case, he was not satisfied that the doctrine in question had not proved detrimental to the best interests of society. He most solemnly protested against the new doctrine springing up, that it was for the interests of society that the wife should have separate interests from those of her husband. He believed that the interests of society involved quite a contrary principle, and he therefore hoped that the House would maintain the law in that respect as it now stood.

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford that the necessity for an alteration of the law arose from the impossibility of a separation, under any circumstances whatever, in the case of a poor man and his wife. He himself knew several instances in which profligate husbands had squandered the property acquired by their wives to whose support they did not contribute one farthing, and he thought justice demanded that when the conduct of a man was such that his wife could not live with him, he should not be entitled to seize the fruits of her industry. Some alteration of the law was imperatively called for.

said, that the real state of the law had not been represented by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) with his usual accuracy; while, on the other hand, he could not congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) on the clearness of his Resolution, with respect to the evil that required to be redressed. The Common Law, on an occasion of marriage, made a qualified gift of the property of the wife, present and future, to the husband. The qualification consisted in the property being given to the husband, subject to the obligation of main- taining the wife; but the defect of the Common Law lay in the circumstance that it made no provision to compel the husband to perform that obligation. The true evil, therefore, was—and it was one that cried loudly for a remedy—that the husband, abandoning his duty, might totally neglect the obligation of maintaining his wife while possessing himself of all her property. In that respect, if the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Devonport had been properly worded, it would have contained a proposition highly deserving the attention of the House—not with a view to the introduction of a new principle into the law, as the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford supposed, but to enable the law to carry out its own humane principle, and to prevent that hardship which arose from the circumstance that, while the law imposed an obligation in words, it supplied no means by which that obligation could be enforced. There was another particular in which there was a difference between the rules of Common Law and those of Equity, and in which he thought it would be desirable that the Common Law should adopt the principles of Equity. In the case of property acquired by a wife during marriage, when there had been no settlement made for the fulfilment of the obligation imposed by the Common Law, Equity interposed when the property could be got only through the medium of the Court of Chancery, and refused to assist the husband in obtaining possession of the property, unless he consented to dedicate part of it to the maintenance of his wife. Such was one mode in which the Courts of Equity endeavoured to secure that which the Common Law required—the performance of She duty imposed upon the husband to provide for the support of the wife; and it well deserved consideration whether that rule should not be made universal and applied to all property, whether obtained by the husband through the medium of Courts of Equity or not. He confessed, at the same time, that, like his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford, he had some misgivings with regard to the extent to which Courts of Equity had carried the doctrine of separation of interests. He might mention, as an example, one case which occurred not long ago. On the occasion of a marriage a large property was settled for the separate maintenance of the wife. The wife ran away with an adulterer. The husband obtained a divorce a vinculo, and, although there were several children by the marriage, all the property settled for the separate maintenance of the wife went to the adulterer, and not one farthing could be applied to the support of the children. He should not therefore desire to see that general assimilation which seemed to be suggested in the imperfectly worded Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Devonport. But the subject deserved the most careful consideration, and when the Bill which at present engaged the attention of the other branch of the Legislature on the subject of marriage and divorce came down to that House, it might not be impossible to insert a provision securing to married women who were deserted by their husbands the right of enjoying in safety the fruits of their own industry. The question lay too much at the foundation of all our social interests, and was too closely connected with the very constitution of society itself, to be dealt with lightly, rashly, or by piecemeal. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Devonport would accept the assurance given by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that the subject would not escape attention, and, entertaining the hope that something might be done when the Marriage and Divorce Bill came down from the House of Lords, would withdraw his Resolution, which certainly was not framed in such a manner as to put the real question clearly and distinctly before the House.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Solicitor General in thinking that there was a loud call for an amendment of the law on the subject under discussion. He would venture to express a hope that somebody might appear with vigour and capacity to remedy an evil so much deplored. The discussion which had taken place that evening showed how important it would be to have a Minister of Justice capable of dealing with such questions, in order that Parliament might not always be deploring the existence of evils, but might be in a condition to apply speedy and practical remedies.

said, he thought that some amendment was required in the law of divorce, but he trusted that the Legislature would maintain unbroken the ideality of interest between husband and wife. Nothing could surely be more frightful than to teach wives that their interests were on one side, and those of their husband on the other. He thought there were many matters in which we might usefully follow the example of foreign nations; but, if there was one thing more essential than another which foreigners might learn of us, it was the relations which existed in this country between husband and wife. He fully agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) who thought that Equity had gone too far with the doctrine of separate uses; and when people talked of the sufferings which the law caused women, what could be more natural, what more desirable for women to know, than that, if they acted foolishly and contracted imprudent marriages, they must bear the consequences? The law of divorce, as it now stood, was a scandal to the country; and he did not anticipate any very decided amendment from the measure of the Lord Chancellor. What he would suggest was, that when a sentence of separation was pronounced, the same authority should pronounce a decision as to the wife's property. At present the evils of the law of divorce were most strikingly exemplified amongst the lower classes, especially in the case of bigamy. The measure before them was of a piecemeal character; and he thought the evil could only be met in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.

said, that they could not adopt any other than piecemeal measures until there was some officer in this country in the nature of a Minister of Justice, charged with the duty of proposing and carrying out the necessary amendments in the law.

said, that the consolation which a Court of Equity was enabled to afford the wife for the injury and the privation to which she was often subjected at the hands of her husband was of a very cold description indeed. He had himself seen mention made within the last few weeks of two cases of a most distressing nature, in which the wives having been deserted by their husbands, and having been left families to support, had succeeded by their industry in accumulating a small sum of money, which had subsequently been squandered by the husbands, who had rejoined them, and who had in consequence reduced these poor creatures to a state of the utmost destitution. A hard case had also occurred a few days ago, in which a woman possessing a property of £400 or £500 a year had been married, and the entire of her property had gone to her husband's heir-at-law, leaving her penniless. The late celebrated Mrs. Siddons had by the exercise of her great talents accumulated a large fortune; but she had been obliged to beg of her husband not to leave her dependent upon others by disposing of that fortune to her prejudice by his will. Hon. Members could not have failed to see in the public press frequent advertisements from husbands announcing that they would not be responsible for the debts which their wives might contract—a circumstance which, taken together with the cases to which he had before alluded, could not fail to show that the state of the law as affecting the relations of husband and wife was most unsatisfactory, and demanded amendment. It was, therefore, with pleasure that he had listened to the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the effect that the Government would take the matter into their immediate consideration.

said, he thought that, whatever might be the number and pressure of the grievances complained of by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Perry) they would bear no comparison to the mischiefs that would follow from the assertion of the vicious principle involved in the Resolution before the House. All the evils to which his hon. and learned Friend referred arose from a breach of the obligations of religion and morality in the married state; but the proposal now before the House would give the force of law to evils infinitely greater. No doubt the evils which now existed required remedy and ought to be attended to; but to introduce into every house in England the principle of separate rights, separate interests, and a separate legal existence between man and wife, was to nullify and destroy the law of marriage altogether, so far as regarded its sacredness and sanctity. The publication of such advertisements as "I will not be responsible for the debts of my wife" showed that it was not always a profligate and drunken husband who committed wrong, but that there were numerous instances in which a man's home was made wretched by the profligacy of a drunken wife. Evils without doubt existed on both sides, and they sprang from the breach of the laws of morality and religion; but the evils which would spring from the proposed alteration of the law would be far worse, for they would be the result of legislation. He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General took a right view of the question, and he therefore trusted that he would be able to effect a sufficient remedy.

said, he would have been delighted with the assurance of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had it not been followed by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. He was afraid, looking at that speech, that years might elapse before a satisfactory marriage law would be carried out; but still he had such confidence in his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that he would withdraw his Resolution, and look forward to a speedy rectification of the evils which he had too feebly, perhaps, pointed out.

said, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the purchase by Government from Mr. Archer, of the machine and invention for perforating postage labels, and also with reference to the printing and gumming postage and receipt labels. He wished to point out that a few years ago Mr. Archer invented a machine for facilitating the separation of postage labels, an invention hon. Members could not but admit of great utility. Mr. Archer believing that the invention would be successful, applied to a public department with the object of effecting its sale. Such a transaction would doubtless have been arranged by mercantile men in a quarter or an hour, but unfortunately Mr. Archer had to deal with three great departments of the State—the Post Office, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Treasury. No one, as hon. Members must be well aware, who had anything useful to propose was received with favour by our public departments, if he had nothing but his ability to recommend him to their notice. A lengthened correspondence took place between Mr. Archer and the public departments referred to, and he (Mr. Whiteside) had been extremely amused by that correspondence, which, with great ability and uncommon perseverance, had been carried on between the inventor and certain official functionaries for a series of years, it having been found utterly impossible, of course, to persuade them of the usefulness of the proposed machine. Eventually, through the intervention of Mr. Keogh, Secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue, an agreement was concluded to this effect:—

"The Commissioners of Inland Revenue agree with Mr. Archer for the purchase of two machines for separating postage labels, on condition that he is not to be repaid the cost of the same, or compensated for his invention, until the plan is brought into successful operation."

When the success of the invention had been demonstrated, Mr. Archer applied to the Board of Inland Revenue, and, after having bestowed three years' labour, and expended £1,500 in perfecting the machine, that department offered him £100 for his invention. Afterwards they made him another offer of £300; and, gradually increasing in their bids, the Treasury eventually offered the inventor £2,000. Now, after three years' labour and the expenditure he had incurred, Mr. Archer was stubborn and determined, but the public departments were inexorable. They knew they had to deal with a man who possessed no political influence, and who had nothing but his abilities to recommend him, and they therefore determined to persist in their injustice. At last the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and seeing that the invention would be useful to the country he followed up an offer which had been made by his predecessor to Mr. Archer of £300 a year, a share of the proceeds of the postage labels in proportion to the quantity issued, and a sum in hand. By offering Mr. Archer £4,000, and after some four or five years' negotiation, an arrangement was effected on the terms mentioned, which, according to the words of the agreement, related to postage labels only. Mr. Archer, however, foresaw that his invention would be useful also for perforating bankers' checks, and had, he (Mr. Whiteside) understood, entered into contracts with certain bankers in the city to apply his machines to that purpose, believing that his agreement with the Board of Inland Revenue extended only to the application of the invention to postage labels. Soon after Mr. Archer had effected his arrangement with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) that right hon. Gentleman busied himself with the invention of fresh modes of taxing the community. The right hon. Gentleman hit on the ingenious expedient of introducing a penny receipt stamp. This novelty complicated a question already sufficiently confused. Mr. Archer's invention was made the subject of additional inquiries, and the gentleman to whom the question was ultimately referred for decision recommended that an assignment of the patent right should be taken, and that the machine should be also used for the purpose of perforating the bankers' stamps. The Government then gave Mr. Archer to understand that a gentleman in the city had made experiments upon his machine, and that £500 had been expended in attempts to improve it, which sum they insisted upon deducting from the £4,000 agreed to be paid to Mr. Archer. In vain did Mr. Archer remonstrate. He was told once for all that before he received a shilling from the Government he must give a guarantee to pay the £500 to the gentleman in the city; and what aggravated the difficulties of his position was that the gentleman in question refused to accept the security, and declared that he must be paid in money—a demand with which Mr. Archer was unable to comply. About this time the gentleman who conducts the legal affairs of the Treasury began to interfere in the business, and gave it as his opinion that no licence to perforate bankers' stamps should be granted to Mr. Archer, and that the use of his patent for all purposes whatsoever should be transferred to the Treasury. In vain did Mr. Archer protest, remonstrate, resist, and threaten an appeal to Parliament. The Treasury, of course, were too strong for him. They got the assignment from him of his patent right and retain it to this day. They not only refused him a licence to perforate receipt stamps, but they also declined to allow him any additional consideration for the services of his machine in that respect. Nothing, he would appeal to the House, could be more illiberal, more ungenerous, than such treatment. But their injustice did not end there. They would not allow him to superintend the operations which his tender originally contemplated—those of engraving, printing, and gumming, as well as of perforating—but they committed all those matters to other hands, and the consequence was, that the texture of the postage labels was coarse, their colour bad, there was much difficulty in separating them, and, in a word, the English public had the worst article of the kind in all Europe at the very dearest price. Had the arrangements been confided to Mr. Archer, the person best qualified to superintend the working of his own invention, the postage labels would have been struck off by a process of surface-printing similar to that used in the Bank of England, and a superior description of gum would have been employed, instead of the filthy poisonous stuff that was now provided for us by the parental kindness of the Treasury. But the health of the people as well as the claims of justice were disregarded to facilitate the perpetration of a disreputable little job. The consequence was that an article was produced which was a reproach to art and a disgrace to the country. He would leave it to the candid decision of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury to say, whether the postage label used in England was not greatly inferior to anything of the same kind in France, or, indeed, in any other country of the world. In order to understand the unfair manner in which Mr. Archer had been treated it would be necessary to refer to the correspondence that had taken place between him and the Treasury. On the 30th of April, 1851, he wrote to Mr. Keogh to say that he was willing to undertake—

"In conjunction with Mr. Branston, who for many years held the appointment of engraver to the late Commissioners of Excise, to engrave, print, gum, and perforate the sheets of postage labels, and to find and prepare all the necessary printing machinery, plates, and apparatus, and also all perforating machines that may be required (except the present) for the sum of 4½d. for every 1,000 stamps."

As this proposal, however, referred to a mode of engraving and printing materially differing from the one then in use, Mr. Archer proceeded to make some remarks in reference to the comparative merits of the two systems, and having done so, concluded his letter by stating that should—

"The Commissioners deem it advisable not to change the present mode of engraving and printing the labels, he was prepared to undertake to engrave and print the same according to the existing plan, and also to gum and perforate them, and to find all the necessary printing machinery and plates, with all the usual guarantees required, for the sum of 5d. for every 1,000 stamps; so that, even according to the latter proposal, the Commissioners would be enabled to save the Post-office £1,500 per annum."

The Board of Inland Revenue had this letter in their hands on the 16th May, and mark how they proceeded. Instead of putting themselves in communication with Mr. Archer, or offering the contract to public competition, they took a most disingenuous course, for on that very day the solicitor to the "Board," wrote to Bacon and Petch, their old engravers, stating that a tender had been made to print the labels at 5d. (which was not true, for the tender was to print, perforate, and gum them at that price) per 1,000, and asking if they would abate their price from 7d. to 6d. per 1,000. Of course they assented; and without any notice to Mr. Archer, the contract was concluded with them for five years to do the printing at 6d. per 1,000, he having tendered to do the printing, perforating, and gumming, at 5d. per 1,000. The Committee who had sat upon the subject, and of which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was a member, had expressed their opinion upon this transaction. They had passed a Resolution—

"That the tender having been made by Mr. Archer to print, perforate and paste the labels at 5d. per 1,000, a smaller sum than had been paid for the printing alone, it was inexpedient to communicate the terms of the tender to the former contractors."

"Inexpedient!"—a delicate expression certainly. He would beg to translate it freely, liberally, and to stigmatise such conduct as unjust and iniquitous. The Committee further reported that, in renewing the contract with Messrs. Bacon and Petch, it was not necessary, neither was it for the interest or the convenience of the public, that it should have been made for five years. A discussion arose in the Committee as to the best mode of printing the postage labels, and three of the most scientific witnesses declared that the system of surface printing must ultimately prevail. Yet the Government alleged that they could not help themselves, being bound by their contract with Messrs. Bacon and Petch for a period of five years, and thus a clear profit actually exceeding the salary allowed to the Prime Minister, or more than £5,000 a year, was secured to that firm! The contract entered into with Messrs. Bacon and Petch having been printed by order of the House, a copy of it was submitted by Mr. Archer to Mr. V. Williams, whose legal opinion, together with that of another eminent barrister, was, that the compact was not binding on the Treasury for five years. Still the extravagant arrangement went on, and enormous profits were pocketed by the contractors, because competition was precluded. The particulars of this job were not yet exhausted—worse still remained. Mr. Archer, persevering in his views with regard to surface-printing, called on Mr. E. Hill, a secretary to one of the Boards, and explained the facts to him. But Mr. E. Hill was so slow to see the supe- riority of Mr. Archer's process, that he did not see it until the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) had written to him, stating that the Bank of England had adopted it, and would before long print all their notes by it, adding—"I cannot understand why the process is not made use of for the postage labels, since ours are by far the most clumsily and badly executed." Well, two or three years after the "Board" had received Mr. Archer's tender to do the whole of the labels upon the superior process, this Mr. E. Hill began to think of securing it for the Government. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the Treasury were restricted by the contract for five years, as far as concerned the postage labels, yet they might have subjected the receipt labels to the open competition of the trade. Now, Mr. Hill was the partner of Mr. Delarue, the stationer, in a patent for cutting envelopes; but, obtaining an excellent Government appointment, he immediately sold his right to the patent, and managed to give to his former co-partner, at the modest price of 7d. per 1,000, the contract which an expert man offered to execute by a superior process at 2½d. per 1,000. Perhaps a more monstrous instance of jobbery had never occurred. Why were they to have a bad envelope, made of paper so thin that the writing may be seen through it, merely that a favour might be conferred upon some person who was perhaps a friend of one of the department? The receipt stamp, he admitted, was far better than the clumsy article of which he had been complaining. Why, he asked as a man of business, were they to have a good receipt stamp and a bad postage label? The answer would doubtless be, that they must fulfil the terms of the contract; and the system would be continued unless the House of Commons granted the inquiry he now demanded. The respectable stationers in the city had no confidence in the contract system pursued by the Government, which they averred was not carried out openly by public advertisement. In the Estimates which had been laid before the House during the present year, the total sum required for postage labels was £29,000, of which £8,000 was for the manufacture of a new postage stamp for the conveyance of newspapers. He supposed the latter sum was for the manufacture of a die for the impression of stamps upon newspapers, and, if so, a very handsome article of that description he was certain could be procured for £50. Who, then, had got the £8,000? He wanted to find out the whole truth if he could, although he would not say that he should succeed in doing so; but, at all events, if the Committee asked for were granted, he would rely upon the good sense and feeling of the Members who composed it to assist him. All the justice Mr. Archer had received had been from that House, and not from the departments. At first, the departments squeezed from that gentleman the entire right to his patent; then refused him a licence; then deducted £500 from the £4,000 they offered him, ousted him from the contract, and yet made good use of his principle for receipt labels; and then gave another person nearly three times the amount for which he was willing to give them a good and satisfactory article. He (Mr. Whiteside) would like to inquire into those matters, and doubted not but that some interesting communication between some persons would transpire, the result of which was that one party obtained a contract which was worth something more than the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had brought forward the subject upon no grounds of personal or political nature, but simply relying upon the good sense of the House to do justice to an injured and an ill-used man, and he had no doubt but it would give the whole case a fair consideration, and after hearing what the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had to say in reply, would, he hoped, grant him the Committee he moved for. He did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was a party to the job, but he hoped that hon. Gentleman would not attempt to defend that which was indefensible. If, however, the hon. Gentleman should succeed in proving to a Committee that the departments were free from blame, he (Mr. Whiteside) would be the first to admit the validity of the defence, and to compliment the hon. Gentleman upon his skill in proving it.

said, that though the hon. and learned Member had exonerated him from personal blame in respect of many of the transactions to which he had alluded, he had not gone on to say who had represented the Government of the day in the Committee which had sat upon this subject, and who consequently were really responsible for the Report of that Com- mittee. That Committee sat in April and May, 1852, and was attended by the Marquess of Chandos, as the representative of the Government of Lord Derby, and than whom a more painstaking Member never sat upon a Committee; therefore, the parties really responsible for that Report were Lord Derby's Government. He (Mr. Wilson) could not pretend to be cognisant of all matters attendant upon the subject, but he would remind the House that they had been brought before the Committee, which had, in consequence, fully investigated the subject. Hence, what had taken place before the Committee sat was hardly a question at the present moment. The Committee had expressed their opinion after due consideration, and it was therefore not to be expected that after four years had elapsed the House would grant a Committee again to investigate the subject. But, in truth, the most important part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was that in which he referred to what had taken place since the Committee reported; the other facts had only been introduced in order that he might heighten, like a skilful advocate, that which was to come. Now he (Mr. Wilson) would take the liberty of informing the House what had actually taken place in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee. The colleagues of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) in pursuance of that Report, entered into correspondence with Mr. Archer. They made him such offers as in accordance with their duty to the country they thought right, but those offers were not agreeable to or at all events did not meet Mr. Archer's views. In the year 1853, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, his (Mr. Wilson's) right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) then Chancellor of the Exchequer, received a deputation, urging upon him the expediency of purchasing the patent of Mr. Archer. He should state to the House that the highest and most liberal offer of Lord Derby's Government had been £2,000, coupled with some offer of a commission upon the sale of postage stamps. On the 24th of May, 1853, he (Mr. Wilson) found that he made a memorandum, stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having intimated his willingness to purchase the patent in question for £4,000, the Lords of the Treasury were pleased to request their solicitor to place himself in communication with Mr. Archer, and to take steps in order to obtain a legal assignment of the patent to Colonel Maberly, in trust for the public. In consequence of this the solicitor to the Treasury put himself into communication with Mr. Archer, and stated the conditions of the bargain to him. Mr. Archer wished, however, although the patent was to be assigned, that there should be an understanding that he might apply to Parliament for further compensation. The Treasury (acting upon the advice of their solicitor) replied, that although they could not prevent Mr. Archer from appealing to Parliament, they did not think it right to enter into any such understanding as he desired. Mr. Archer also made known to the Treasury that there were several incumbrances in existence affecting his rights, which he had incurred in the prosecution of his inventions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen made much of this, and seemed to think that the Treasury had taken the part of these incumbrances. But the fact was, that there was a legal mortgage affecting Mr. Archer's patent, and until that was discharged the interest in the invention could not be properly vested in the Government. On the 20th June, Mr. Archer having consented to assign the patent without condition, the Solicitor to the Treasury wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, stating that fact, and enclosing the assignment, the original letters, and the mortgage to which he had already referred, and giving instructions with regard to the closing of the transaction. Those instructions were ultimately acted upon, and the transaction closed. In the course of the negotiation which took place, Mr. Archer at one time expressed a desire to limit the grant to the Government to the right of perforating postage labels only. That, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it right to accede to, for he considered that the purchase of the patent should be for the benefit of the public generally, so that while the Government availed themselves of it for the purpose of perforating postage stamps, it might be equally available to the public for all other purposes. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also made reference to the subject of surface printing, now a matter not very fit for public discussion. Where they were collecting upwards of £2,000,000 of money in separate pennies, security was the first consideration. Three or four years ago, the Government were induced by repre- sentations made to them to attach great importance to the new discovery of surface printing, but with the knowledge acquired by experiments they were disposed to consider the old style by far the safest. The transactions in 1850 and 1851, having already been inquired into by a Select Committee, could not properly be made the subject of another investigation, unless it could be shown that they bore on the purchase of the patent right. He thought he had proved that the purchase was altogether independent of previous transactions, and up to the present time he had never heard of any complaint showing that Mr. Archer was not satisfied with the arrangement. He thought that the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member.

said, that the whole of the case could be condensed into a very small compass. A man of ability had invented a machine of great usefulness to the public—so useful, indeed, that the Government had considered it necessary to purchase the patent. Now, the object of the Government at the time was to perforate postage stamps, because the perforation of cheques and bankers' drafts was not then thought of. Mr. Archer, however, had ulterior objects in view, and wished to reserve a portion of his right. It was true that Mr. Greenwood, of the Treasury, told him that he did not see how the Government could buy the patent, and yet allow him a right to sell it to bankers; but what Mr. Archer wanted was, that a power should be given him of licensing bankers and others who might wish to use the patent for the purposes alluded to. On that point the agreement was not specific; but when Mr. Archer afterwards wished to exercise such a power, the Government refused to allow him to do so. Considering the enormous amount of property which might be saved to the public were the contracts re-adjusted, and considering that the existing contracts were about shortly to expire, he thought the House would be acting with manifest neglect of what was due to the country if it refused to grant the Committee.

said, he could not help thinking that there was some want of grace on the part of the inventor of the patent in thus coming forward to make a claim upon the Government, after he had unreservedly sold his invention to them for a sum of £4,000. There could be no doubt that the gentleman in ques- tion had transferred his machine to the Government, and parted with his entire interest in it; and with what grace could he now demand additional compensation, because he found his invention was applicable to other purposes? He, therefore, could not support the Motion on the ground alleged. At the same time he thought some explanation was due on the part of the Government as to their paying 7½d. for what they might get for 2½d. The part of the Motion directed to that point should certainly have his support.

said, there was one portion of the subject that ought to be borne in mind, that, however Government had settled with Mr. Archer, they had not settled with him in good faith. They purchased the machinery and patent right merely for the perforation of postage-stamps. That, however, was the smallest part of the question; the largest was, how had the public been dealt with in the matter? The copper-plate process admitted of forgery, and in a conversation which he had had twelve months ago with the Secretary of the Treasury, that hon. Gentleman informed him that they were going to do away with it, and adopt the surface printing in regard to postage-stamps. There was also this proof that they considered the surface printing so superior, that they had adopted it in the printing of the receipt stamps. He was at a loss to understand the vote of £8,000 for a stamp for newspapers, and thought the whole matter called for the investigation of a Committee.

said, the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had raised seemed to divide itself under three heads, the first of which had relation to the remuneration allowed to Mr. Archer for his patent. Now the explanation which his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) had given was perfectly conclusive upon that part of the question. The negotiations with Mr. Archer were spread over a considerable number of years, and he himself, when Secretary to the Treasury, had communicated to that gentleman the offer of what was deemed by the then Government an adequate price for his patent, which certainly showed some ingenuity; nevertheless, in the execution of the idea, Mr. Archer, not having sufficient knowledge of mechanics, was greatly assisted by a gentleman in one of the public offices, who enabled him to carry out his views more effectually. How, therefore, they could think of appointing a Committee, with a view of handing over a sum of £6,000 or £8,000, or whatever sum the liberality of Gentlemen opposite might fix upon, surpassed his comprehension to conceive. He was of opinion that the money offered by the Government was a full equivalent for any claim Mr. Archer might have had upon the Government. That gentleman, however, refused to accept the offer; the question was therefore referred to a Select Committee. That Committee recommended a further negotiation with Mr. Archer, which was made, and which ended in an offer of the most liberal terms. Mr. Archer, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, accepted that offer, without any reservation whatever. The money was paid and received; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not conceive what possible ground, at this distant period of time, there could be for reopening these transactions, or of inducing Mr. Archer to make any additional demand, on the ground that he had been underpaid. With regard to the contract with Messrs. Bacon and Petch, he had no very clear recollection of the proceedings in the year 1852–53; still the subject was investigated in that year. And the Committee concluded its Report with declaring that they were of opinion that in the renewal of the contract it was not necessary to make it for five years, as neither the interests nor convenience of the public were thereby secured. With respect to the question of surface printing and copper-plate printing, the question had been but recently investigated at the Treasury, in concert with scientific persons; and they were of opinion that, in order to secure the Treasury against forgery, it was desirable to have recourse to copper-plate in preference to surface printing. Another point adverted to had been the question with regard to the contract with Mr. Delarue as to surface printing, it being stated that the price at which the contract had been completed was excessive. Now, he had no knowledge upon the subject, not having heard the question raised before. He would, therefore, only content himself with saying that, nevertheless, he did not think they ought to delegate to Select Committees the duty of making Government contracts. He would cause the case to be investigated, and see whether there were any grounds for the statement of the hon. and learned Member.

in reply, said that the complaint amongst the trade was, that they never got the chance of offering for this contract; but that it was given by the Government to Mr. Delarue, because he was in some way connected with people in office. He therefore submitted that it was a clear case for a Committee, and he hoped that the House would declare it to be so.

said, that there was no explanation given of the £8,000.

said, with regard to the claim for £500 which had been alluded to, if not an actual mortgage, it was considered by the solicitor to the Treasury a valid charge, and therefore one which it was necessary to take into account in purchasing the machine. The £8,000 included in the Votes of this year was for the introduction of adhesive stamps instead of impressed stamps for newspapers.

said, he should now move the adjournment of the House. It was nearly midnight; the House had only adjourned at two o'clock that morning, they had to meet at noon to-morrow, and he thought it only right that they should not proceed further with the business on the paper.

said, there were some notices on the paper which might be disposed of without any discussion, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, on the understanding that only unopposed notices should be proceeded with.

said, on that condition he would withdraw his Motion.

rose, to move for a Select Committee to investigate the operation of the recent Statutes relating to the Fisheries of Ireland.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman persevered in going on with this Motion, he should accept the proposition for adjournment.

said, he must re-remind the House of the condition upon which he had just withdrawn his Motion.

said that, as the Motion for adjournment had been withdrawn, and he was now in possession of the House, the hon. Gentleman was out of order in interrupting him.

The Motion for adjournment not having been pressed, the hon. and learned Gentleman has an abstract right to go on with his Motion, but I must remind him that that was not the understanding.

said, he had not been a party to the arrangement, and must deny that he was bound by it. It was a very early hour for the transaction of Irish business in the House of Commons.