said, he rose to ask the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), If it is true, as has been stated, that a Sub Inspector of Police, attended by men of the force under his command, trespassed and shot game on the estates of the hon. Member, without permission or authority; and that he refused to desist or to leave the lands, when warned off by the tenants.

rose to order. He wished to know, whether it was consistent with the rules and orders of the House that such a Question as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had placed on the paper should be asked of any private Member?

The rule of the House with respect to asking question of a private Member is that any question may be put relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which such Member may be concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to show that the Question he is about to ask comes within these limits he may put it; otherwise he may take the opportunity in debate of referring to the matter, but he cannot put it in the shape of a question.

said, he would bring up the matter in another form.

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Conference. The House is aware that the Conference met on Monday last. It is adjourned; and I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government, Whether on Monday it adjourned to any particular day, and whether they can inform us when the Conference will reassemble?

I am not able to say on what day the Conference will re-assemble. They have not adjourned sine die, but to an early day. I do not, however, know that the day is fixed.

May I venture to ask the Government whether they can state to the House what is the cause of the adjournment of the Conference?

I am not prepared at this moment to state.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. W. Bewicke, of Threepwood Hall, in the county of Northumberland. He trusted the House, when they considered the nature of the subject, would excuse him for bringing it forward a second time. When he last brought this subject before the House, there were forty-six hon. Members present, of whom, deducting four tellers, twenty-two voted against his Motion, and twenty voted in its favour. But the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) by mistake went into the Government lobby, but for which accident the numbers would have been equal, and the result would have been decided by the casting vote of the Speaker. He would not presume to inquire how that right hon. Gentleman would have voted, but from his known character as a friend of the oppressed, he was confident that his Motion would have been carried. After the division he received many communications expressive of regret that his Motion had been unsuccessful, and the press generally took up the subject in a fair and generous manner. He was, therefore, induced a second time to trouble the House with the story of Mr. Bewicke's wrongs. Mr. Bewicke was a man of respectable position, of independent fortune, and of an ancient family, which had been in the armigery of the county of Northumberland for 800 years. He got into a lawsuit, but, for some reason or other, he refused to pay the costs, and allowed the sheriff to levy for them. It became important to consider who were the men employed by the Sheriff of Northumberland. Although it was quite proper that strict inquiries should be made into the character of men seeking to enter the police force, yet it was still more necessary to be particular in selecting persons to serve as sheriff's officers, because, while the policeman had to deal with crime, the sheriff's officer had to deal with misfortune. In that case, the chief officer employed to levy was a man named Stainthorpe, who, he found, from recent intelligence, had been discharged for embezzlement. That man had been convicted before the Hexham magistrates for heating his wife, had been fined and bound over to keep the peace. He had been several times summoned for assaults, and upon another occasion for deserting his wife and family. Such wore the antecedents of one of the men employed to carry out the law. The second officer was a person of the name of John Dodd. That gentleman had been sentenced in 1852 to seven years' transportation for perjury, and he was at the time of that transaction out upon a ticket-of-leave. [Sir GEORGE GREY: That was nine years after, in 1861.] That man was then at large upon a ticket-of-leave, and he was employed to assert the majesty of the law. He had also been convicted of poaching and other offences, and altogether he was a very pleasing character. The third man employed was named Hutchinson, against whom were recorded four convictions for assaults, as well as two other convictions for felony. Daglish, the fourth man, was an extremely bad character, and had been; brought up for assaults and poaching times without number. There might be some hon. Members in the House who looked with great leniency upon poaching, but for himself he had always found poaching and graver offences went hand in hand. These men proceeded to Threepwood Hall to arrest Mr. Bewicke, who, it seemed, had been prepared to pay the debt, which amounted to something like £49. When he observed the banditti approaching, he was somewhat startled; he thought it would be best to pay the money to prevent them from robbing his house. The chief of the party proceeded with great nonchalance to pull out pistols and to distribute them among his followers. There upon Mr. Bewicke went into his house, produced his revolver, and said, "the fact is, if this is your sort of game you shall not play it with impunity." He said "I will not admit such a set of blackguards into my house, for you will pillage it." They then waxed somewhat more civil. He went into his house and barricaded it, there being carts and cart horses which he permitted them to take in execution. The sheriff's officer departed, leaving the other four worthies outside. It had since come out that when the men were approaching the house they halted and resolved themselves into a sort of committee of supply, and held a council as to how they should proceed when they got into the house. The sheriff's officer said they showed great ignorance; that they knew nothing of their profession, as it was always a settled thing to go at once to the wine cellar. Well, it was settled nemine contradicente that that should be their mode of proceeding. During the night, probably finding themselves chilly, they sent to Mr. Bewicke begging for provisions, and being an open hearted Englishman he sent some out to them. The next morning Mr. Bewicke, having occasion to discharge his pistol, called out to the men down below to get out of the way, as he was going to fire. They called out, "All right," and then he discharged the weapon. Thereupon they said, "Now we have got him," and they went to a magistrate and laid an information against Mr. Bewicke for obstructing them in the execution of their duty, and firing at them with intent to do them some bodily harm. Dodd brought a bullet in his waistcoat, which another of the villains was to find and did find. The characters of all the men were perfectly well known to the magistrates; but in spite of this, Mr. Bewicke was committed for trial, bail to the amount of £2,000 being accepted for his appearance. Mr. Bewicke, who regarded the turn affairs had taken as being merely an exhibition of ill-feeling on the part of the magistrates, employed no counsel to defend him, believing that the characters of the men alone would be sufficient to repel so monstrous and absurd a charge. He was, however, found guilty and sentenced to four years penal servitude. In prison Mr. Bewicke might have remained until now—or he would not say that Mr. Bewicke would have remained until the present time, because he was nearly dead when he was released. It happened that he had a faithful and very clever housekeeper, a Mrs. Lodge. She had been examined at the trial, but her feelings overcame her and she broke down. Afterwards, however, she collected a large mass of evidence; and she went straight to Mr. Serjeant Shee, who received her kindly, and since counsel cannot look at a case in the first instance, gave her a note to Mr. Ivimey, of Staple Inn. Mr. Ivimey looked to the proof, found it to be valid, went down into the country, arrested the four men, and brought them to trial. John Dodd was sentenced to two years' hard labour for the part he took with reference to the bullet, Daglish was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in Morpeth gaol for perjury, and Hutchinson was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. This last villain had been a perjurer from the commencement; had come out of prison on a ticket-of-leave, had perjured himself on the trial of Mr. Bewicke, had perjured himself for his companions, and when he came to be tried himself pleaded guilty. It was not for him to question the decision of the Judges, but Mr. Justice Mellor let this rascal off from the severer part of the punishment on account of his having pleaded guilty. It was not necessary for him to dwell upon that point, but it struck him as being rather an extraordinary one. Stainthorpe, who, as he himself expressed it, had had so much of prison that he did not want any more, turned Queen's evidence. Would it be believed that Dodd, instead of being allowed to pass his full term in prison, was permitted to go at large at the expiration of sixteen months on a ticket-of-leave. What must have been the feelings of Mr. Bewicke during his dreary imprisonment of twelve months? A man born and educated as a gentleman, having ancestors to look back to, and desirous of not dishonouring them, must have suffered most acutely. A fine, robust, powerful man when he went to prison, he came out broken in constitution and in heart. He was liberated on the authority of a most objectionable document, granting him Her Majesty's pardon. Could innocence be pardoned? Could a man be pardoned for being innocent? If it were necessary to keep to forms, and if the word "pardon" must be employed in the warrant, then the "pardon" should be, granted to the Judge and jury who had made the blunder. But this was not the end of Mr. Bewicke's troubles. The trustees of Greenwich Hospital, it appears, are Lords of the manor of Langley, on which Mr. Bewicke's property is situated, it having been granted to them by the Crown on the attainder of the Earl of Derwentwater. On Mr. Bewicke's conviction, they came down, and at one fell swoop seized every thing in the house. Away went the family pictures; away went the timber; away went the plate, that had been in the family for years; away went the library, Mr. Bewicke's chief solace. There was one little room which the ruffians employed did not touch; it was the room of the housekeeper —Mrs. Lodge. She was a widow, and when she came to live at Mr. Bewicke's she asked permission to bring some of her furniture to increase the comfort of her own room. That was accorded to her, and the sheriff's officer, with good feeling, said he did not desire to take her furniture. The chief officer went away, but that same evening the rest of the men broke into the room, took Mrs. Lodge's bed from under her, and left her to lie upon the floor. Mr. Bewicke returned, and found bare walls and discomfort where all had been comfort; but the circumstance which hurt him more than anything else — and that showed the good feeling of the man—was the treatment received by Mrs. Lodge. Mr. Bewicke determined to proceed against the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, but when the case was laid before counsel, the opinion given was, that he was not capable of bringing the action, being a felon when the furniture was seized. Thus a pardon did not remove the stain of felony from even an innocent man. Such was one of the beautiful anomalies of the existing law. It was not for him to point out the remedy for such a state of things, but the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir Fitzroy Kelly), who was, unfortunately, absent, had taken up this matter strongly, and was of opinion that there should be a Court of Appeal. Such, then, was the end of the tragedy, for he might almost call it a tragedy. Mr. Bewicke's law expenses amounted to between £2,000 and £3,000, and the loss consequent upon the forced sale of his furniture was fully 80 per cent. Among this furniture, much of which was quite new, was a marble tessellated and antique table, which he had obtained from Italy, and for which he gave 100 guineas. This was sold for £17, and it was afterwards offered to Mr. Bewicke as a favour for £37. A grand piano by Broadwood, in excellent order, sold for £20. A pony sold for £14, and was offered back to Mr. Bewicke for £25. He had a great many valuable books, especially in French literature. He had the whole works of Voltaire, Racine, Moliére, and Corneille, and down in that part of the country those books fetched little more than the price of waste paper — they were in all probability destined to become wrappers for tobacco and cheese. He appealed, then, to the House to take the hard case he had again stated into consideration. He could not, for his life, understand what answer the Attorney General would make, though it would, no doubt, be very ingenious. Perhaps he would say that if there were one Bewicke with such a case, there might be twenty. He would answer that as long ns the Legislature thought proper to keep the law in its present state, it was their duty to satisfy every one of these cases. The House might compensate Mr. Bewicke for his furniture, they might give him a quid pro quo for that which he had lost, but how were they to compensate him for his sufferings? How were they to compensate a man of honour and a gentleman for having been herded with the lowest felons, and subjected to every indignity to which the most wretched criminal could be subjected? Let them ask Mr. Bewicke which he would rather do—meet death or undergo another year of penal servitude, and he would tell them to be merciful, and to give him dentil. As far inferior as was bodily suffering to mental anguish, so to a man of honour a crushed reputation far exceeded the agony of death. It was to compensate Mr. Bewicke, then, that he appealed to an assembly formed of 600 Gentlemen, the first assembly in the world; and he did not believe that he should ask in vain, or that little Home Office scruples, or the quirks of the legal profession, would prevent that compensation being granted.

said, he was aware of the disadvantage under which he laboured in objecting to a Motion of that nature, in a case which was undoubtedly calculated to excite the sympathy of the House, and to which, were he to be guided only by personal feelings, he should be very glad to assent. In the discharge of his duty, he should be compelled to ask the House seriously to consider the question raised by the Motion, and to hesitate before they committed themselves to a principle which must have a much wider application than to the particular case before them, and which, in fact, involved an entire alteration of the law. He did not mean to prejudge the consideration of the particular question, if it were brought properly before the House; but it would be his duty to point out the results which, in his opinion, would follow from the adoption of the Motion in its present form. With regard to the facts of the case, he had heard for the first time some of the details in the picturesque narrative of his hon. Friend, but there was no difficulty in gathering an outline of the case, and that he took from Mr. Bewicke's petition, presented during the last Session. In 1861, Mr. Bewicke was defendant in an action in which the verdict was against him, and as he refused to pay the costs, the sheriff of Northumberland by his officers proceeded to levy them. He was not about to defend the character of the sheriff's officers, but he thought the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) must be mistaken in his statement that one of those men, who was afterwards convicted of perjury and sentenced to two years' penal servitude, was discharged with a ticket-of-leave after only sixteen months of his sentence had expired. He could not understand how that had happened unless it was upon the recommendation of the visiting justices of the gaol, on the ground of danger to life from further imprisonment. If the visiting justices stated that longer confinement would endanger the life of a prisoner, and their statement was supported by medical testimony, then the sentence of imprisonment was not converted into a capital sentence, as would be the case if the prisoner were longer confined, and he was released. He did not know whether that had been the case in the present instance, but he would make inquiry as to the facts. Mr. Bewicke resisted the execution of the process, and was charged with the very serious offence of shooting with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. He was committed for trial by magistrates residing in his own neighbourhood, with regard to whom the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) might have spared the imputation that they acted upon feelings of personal dislike for Mr. Bewicke. With regard to one of these gentlemen, who had served the office of High Sheriff, he believed him to be utterly incapable of having been actuated by any other feeling than that of a desire to discharge his duty; and he presumed the same might be said of the other though he was not personally known to him. Mr. Bewicke was committed for trial, and the case came on before Mr. Justice Keating at the Spring Assizes for 1861. Mr. Bewicke, unfortunately for himself, employed neither attorney nor counsel, but conducted his own defence. The case was tried with great patience and forbearance by the learned Judge, for there was public testimony to this, and the jury found Mr. Bewicke guilty—a verdict in which the learned Judge, upon the evidence given, entirely concurred—though it was known that the character of the witnesses was not the best. The Judge did not pass sentence instantly, but communicated with Mr. Justice Hill, who was on circuit with him, and than whom there was no more learned or able Judge upon the Bench. The facts were considered by those two Judges, and next day Mr. Bewicke was sentenced to four years' penal servitude— a sentence which both Judges were of opinion was demanded under the circumstances of the case. A petition was subsequently presented to the Home Office on behalf of Mr. Bewicke, and it was referred to the Judge who had tried the case; but, notwithstanding the statements made on behalf of Mr. Bewicke, that learned Judge and Mr. Justice Hill, with whom he conferred, were of opinion there was no reason to doubt that the verdict was a right one. He had understood his hon. Friend to suggest that a pardon ought to be granted to the Judge and the jury to free them from their guilt in the transaction; but he could not think that any blame whatever was attributable to either the Judge or the jury. Well, then, they came to the year 1862, when; Mr. Bewicke was enabled to bring forward evidence to show that those who had deposed to the important fact in the case-namely, whether the gun was loaded or not—had committed perjury. Those persons was prosecuted and a conviction was obtained against them. When the conviction was obtained a free pardon was at once granted to Mr. Bewicke. A wrong had been done him undoubtedly, but that was the only way it could be redressed— by means of a free pardon. Bills to establish a Court of Appeal had been brought forward from time to time; but he had never heard it proposed that the time of appeal and of application for a. new trial should be indefinite. In the present case the Judge was perfectly satisfied with the verdict, and it was not till nearly a year after the trial the evidence was discovered which proved the perjury. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen would propose that a power of appeal extending over so long a period should be given in criminal cases. A free pardon, therefore, was the only form by which the wrong committed on a prisoner in such a case could be redressed. But his hon. Friend complained that as soon as Mr. Bewicke was convicted the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, as grantees of the Crown, became possessed of his property, stripped his house of all it possessed, and took away his furniture. He spoke from information communicated to him from a source which he could not doubt, when he said that the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital had been most anxious that not a particle of the furniture should be removed from the house. They had made repeated attempts by communications with members of his family to make arrangements by which the property might remain in the house until Mr. Bewicke himself was set free; but all those attempts having failed, as Trustees for a Public Charity, they were bound to advertise the property for sale. It was sold, with the exception of some of the pictures, and the whole proceeds of the sale, minus £30 for expenses, and the unsold pictures were handed over to him when he was discharged on the free pardon. Those being the facts of the case, his hon. Friend asked for compensation for Mr. Bewicke on three grounds—first, "for the pain, degradation, anguish of mind, and consequent ill-health he had suffered in being confined for twelve months in a prison as a felon on a charge since proved to be false." That demand appeared to him to raise the important question, whether in every case in which a person had been convicted of crime, and was afterwards proved to be innocent of that crime, though the conviction might have taken place not through any defect in the law, or in the administration of the law, but from the inherent defect of human testimony, compensation was to be given to the sufferer out of the public funds. No doubt the case of Mr. Bewicke was one calculated to call forth the sympathy of the House; but he was sure the House would not agree on a Motion to give him compensation, unless they were prepared to give it to every person, however humble, who might be convicted and imprisoned, and whose innocence might afterwards be proved. Those cases, happily, were not very numerous; but his experience informed him that they were not very rare. Cases occurred of mistaken identity, in which the evidence had been honestly given, but in which there had been an unintentional mistake as to identity. In these cases, when the mistake was discovered, no compensation was given, even although the innocent person had suffered imprisonment. Then there were other cases in which convictions had taken place in consequence of wilfully false swearing. Some time ago the chaplain of a large county gaol in the neighbourhood of London was charged with a very serious offence, and convicted on the evidence of two girls. He lost his situation as chaplain of the gaol, and suffered imprisonment. After a considerable time he was able to convict the witnesses of perjury, and, of course, he was discharged from prison; but no compensation was asked for him, though he must have suffered very much from the charge and the conviction, the more particularly as he was a clergyman. He believed that gentleman's friends raised a subscription for him, but no claim was made on the public for compensation, though the case was a stronger one than that now before the House. He wanted to know how compensation of this kind was to be measured —how the suffering in mind and body was to be estimated? There was one circumstance in this case which it appeared to him did not tell in favour of Mr. Bewicke's claim. That gentleman had defended himself, and had employed no lawyer or counsel, Were persons who acted in that way to come to Parliament and ask for compensation if they were convicted on the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution? He believed himself it was highly probable that those witnesses whose evidence had convicted Mr. Bewicke would have broken down under the searching cross-examination of counsel. Passing from the first ground on which compensation was asked for Mr. Bewicke, he would take the third before the second. The third ground was "for the heavy pecuniary loss he had suffered in prosecuting and bringing to justice the persons who had conspired against him, such having been the only means by which eventually he was able to establish his innocence." If the House agreed to the present Motion, was it to be understood that they were prepared to grant compensation, not only to Mr. Bewicke, but to all other persons who might be obliged to undertake a prosecution in order to prove their innocence. Were they prepared to pay the expense of all such prosecutions out of the public purse? If so, that ought to be clearly understood. The second ground of compensation, which he was taking last, was really the main ground—namely, "the confiscation of his goods, chattels, family pictures, plate, and library." He was bound to say he thought that claim stood in a different position from the two others. A Bill had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Foster), to abolish the law by which the property of felons went to the Crown. That subject, in his opinion, deserved attention; but it was one on which hasty legislation would be very unadvisable, and therefore he thought his hon. and learned Friend had done well to give time for its further consideration. If it were true, as Mr. Bewicke appeared to think, that his property was sold for far less than its value, then he might have some claim on the consideration of the House, and he should have no objection to a Committee to inquire into those special circumstances of the case. He believed that such an inquiry would show that the conduct of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital towards the family of Mr. Bewicke had been marked by great kindness and consider- ation, and it would enable the House at the same time to say whether there were any special circumstances in the case which would justify them in deciding that Mr. Bewicke was entitled to compensation in that respect. The House would take the course which it thought best under the circumstances, but he had felt himself compelled to point out the inexpediency of introducing any new principle of law founded on a particular instance without a deliberate inquiry. The form in which the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), had made his Motion prevented him from moving his Amendment, but if the hon. Gentleman was disposed to accept the suggestion he had made, and would on a future occasion move for a Committee to inquire into so much of the petition as referred to his loss by the sale of his property, he should not offer any objection.

said, he was not aware what course the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) meant to pursue, but, if he might offer a word of advice, he should counsel him not to close with the offer of the right hon. Baronet. The whole argument of the right hon. Baronet was simply, that the House of Commons was not to perform one act of justice, lest it should be called upon at some future time to do another. The illustration which he had used to prove the soundness of his advice to the House proved its unsoundness. He cited the case of a clergyman who was convicted unjustly, and who never made any claim on the Crown for compensation. That showed that if the House did justice in the present case it did not follow that it would be called on to do justice in every other similar case which might happen. Whether it were in respect to a gentleman of birth and education equal to themselves, as Mr. Bewicke was said to be, or in the case of the humblest member of society, he hoped the House would never hesitate to do such an act of justice as the hon. Gentleman now called on them to perform. The right hon. Baronet said that, though he might have no objection to change the law, as long as it remained unchanged he objected to justice being done in exceptional cases; but so long as the Government, who were chiefly responsible for the existing state of the law, were contented with that state of the law, and permitted those exceptional acts of injustice to be perpetrated, it was to that House the sufferers must appeal. The right hon. Baronet had not referred to the case of Mr, Barber, which was a precedent for the course they were now asked to take. It could not be said that any great evil had followed from the act of justice which the House of Commons then performed. The right hon. Baronet's own statement showed that those cases occurred very rarely, and he hoped the House of Commons would not be frightened by the terrible unknown consequences which the right hon. Baronet had conjured up from the performance of an act of justice, whether it were to a well-born, educated man, or to the humblest member of society.

said, that being well acquainted with the unfortunate gentleman who was the subject of the present Motion, he trusted the House would allow him to make a few remarks which would generally confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley). When he first heard of the charge from the High Sheriff of the county, he was: under the impression that it was merely an ordinary charge of a trifling breach of the peace, violent language, or something of that sort. To his surprise he found he was charged with wilfully firing at the sheriff's officer with a felonious intent. He went to see him, and could scarcely bring him to realize the gravity of the position in which he was placed. In fact, Mr. Bewicke treated the charge from the first as a monstrous one; he could not be persuaded to attach any importance to it, So fully was the evil character of these men known, that he fully expected that when the charge was examined in court it would explode of itself. He could hardly describe the consternation and dismay created in the north of England when Mr. Bewicke was convicted. A large number of memorials were forwarded to him from almost every parish in the neighbourhood, signed by thousands of persons, which he laid before the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. Of course, the Home Office could not act until some new facts were laid before it, and though the men on whose evidence Mr. Bewicke was convicted had been heard afterwards to express their disappointment at not getting the compensation, or hush money, they wanted, yet it was some time before any trustworthy, credible witnesses could be procured, whose evidence proved that the charge was provoked by the cupidity of those perjured witnesses.

said, he felt bound to make a few remarks on this matter, as in some respects the character of his fellow magistrates had been impugned. He must express, with all his heart, his thanks to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), who had, in so feeling and able a manner, brought this melancholy case before the House; and he was also bound to thank the House for the way in which it had received the hon. Member's statement. When precedents were spoken of, he must say he believed that such a case of hardship as the present was quite unprecedented, and would probably never occur again. It was, he thought, a case alike discreditable to English law and practice, and the sooner the House set about finding a remedy for such legal anomalies the better. He desired, however, to say that one of the magistrates who, he believed, acted on the bench on that occasion was Mr. Knowing, whom he had the pleasure of knowing as one of the most active and able members of the bench, and a gentleman who was held in the highest estimation in the district. He must have been misinformed as to the real facts, or he never would have allowed the character of those rascals, who acted as assistants to the sheriff's officer, to pass without inquiry. It was to be regretted that Mr. Bewicke had undertaken to defend himself at the assizes, instead of obtaining professional assistance; but that was only an additional proof that he was conscious of his own innocence. He trusted that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) would not accede to the proposition of the Government, but would take the sense of the House on his Motion.

said, it would, no doubt, be far more agreeable to the House to support a Motion of that kind, if convinced that it was right, than it would be to oppose it; but persons who stood in his position were bound to take care that the House should, as far as possible, be made thoroughly aware of the true nature and probable consequences of the Resolution it was asked to adopt. The Question was one which emphatically belonged to the House; and the Government could have no object except that if the House thought fit to affirm the Resolution it should clearly understand the principle involved, and the serious pecuniary charge which might possibly be placed upon the nation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) described that case as discreditable to English law and practice, and as resulting from legal anomalies. If they considered the different steps of the transaction, it would be difficult to say what part of the case was discreditable to the law or could be held justly chargeable to its administration. In every country in the world where justice was administered, if persons came before the competent authorities and laid informations upon oath of offences said to have been committed against the law, it was the bounden duty of the magistrates to receive those informations, and deal with them according to the evidence adduced and the principles of law applicable to the case. The criminal law had been brought into operation before the Hexham bench in the usual manner; and it would surely not be said that the magistrates, having the means of knowing that no credit ought to be attached to the evidence given before them, nevertheless proceeded to require very heavy recognizances for the appearance of that unfortunate gentleman Mr. Bewicke to take his trial. The magistrates had discharged their duty with perfect honesty; and there being nothing before them at the time to discredit the evidence, they could not do otherwise than act upon it. What possible amendment of the law could alter that state of things? Nothing could be more disagreeable to him than to have to remind the House that the indiscretion and want of judgment which that unfortunate gentleman displayed had placed him in a most false position. He originally refused to pay the costs recovered in an action against him, and legal process was employed to enforce their payment. Unfortunately, his indiscretion did not stop there. As if to supply to malicious persons a link that might he wanting in the chain of evidence against him, he fired off a pistol, and that the pistol was actually fired there could be no doubt. The trial took place before a jury and before Judges of the highest impartiality; but, unhappily, Mr. Bewicke treated the charge with contempt. No man in the kingdom was entitled to treat such a criminal charge with neglect, or to leave that to be done after his conviction which ought to have been done before it. That, however, was the course taken by Mr. Bewicke. He omitted to retain an attorney or counsel for his defence. [An hon. MEMBER: He did quite right.] He could not think that any Gentleman whom he now addressed would, if placed in a similar position, not have felt it his bounden duty to prepare for his trial on so serious a charge, and employ those indispensable adjuncts of justice—attorneys and counsel. They must all lament what had happened in this case, and sympathize with Mr. Bewicke's misfortune; but when a Motion like the present was proposed, the House could not overlook the indiscretion and the negligence which that gentleman had shown after solemn warning. Was the jury to blame? Were they to know by intuition that the witnesses were perjured, and had convictions recorded against them? Was it the duty of the Judge or jury to supply evidence out of their own imagination? That evidence ought to have been brought forward by the diligence of the person accused. There had been no defect in the administration of justice. The Judge and jury were satisfied; and it was only some time afterwards that steps were taken to discover those facts, which due diligence should have discovered before. What was the charge against the law? That when this gentleman had been convicted the law could not assume his innocence till he had prosecuted these parties for perjury by evidence which ought to have been produced by him at his own trial; and the country was now asked to repay the expenses of that prosecution for perjury in consequence of his own neglect to take the proper means of defending himself in the first instance. The next charge against the law was that Her Majesty had granted this unfortunate gentleman a free pardon. But a solemn sentence could not be treated as a nullity merely because a conviction had proceeded on false evidence, for which the law was not responsible, and which did not appear in the course of the trial. If this Resolution were affirmed, except so far as it had been assented to by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the House would be asserting the principle, that wherever false evidence in the due administration of the law had resulted in procuring a conviction which afterwards turned out to be erroneous they would make compensation, although the neglect of the person who was the sufferer had contributed in a very great and important degree to that result. In that particular case they were all satisfied of the innocence of Mr. Bewicke. The circumstances were remarkable which established his innocence. But if the House agreed to the present Motion, would it not afford a general encouragement to convicted per- sons of all degrees to speculate on the means of throwing doubt on the justice of their convictions, relying on Parliament afterwards indemnifying them for their sufferings? It was not very easy to sec to what extent such demands on the public would go. If the House was determined still to assent to the Motion, he hoped they would do so on some ground which might hereafter be referred to as exceptional. The only point he could find of that nature in this case was, that the persons out of whose perjured accusations this series of misfortunes originally arose were persons in a certain sense denominated officers of the law, but not officers of the public administrative law of the land. They were officers of the sheriff, selected by him, and for whose acts the sheriff was civilly responsible. If anyone ought to pay this gentleman's expenses it was the sheriff. He hoped if a Committee were appointed they would take care to state the grounds on which they proceeded, and that, at least, the nation would be saved from the consequences of other demands of a similar character.

said, there could be no doubt that the case of Mr. Bewicke not only demanded but had the sympathy of the House. The only question was as to the best mode of doing him justice. He understood the right lion. Baronet was willing to refer the question of the forfeiture of the goods to a Committee of Inquiry. That being so, why not add to that inquiry the best means of doing justice to Mr. Bewicke. It would be difficult to adopt the Motion as it now stood, but he certainly considered that some inquiry was necessary.

observed, that the great fault which, according to the Attorney General, the unfortunate gentleman had committed was, that he neglected to retain the services of counsel. No doubt that was a grave error in the estimation of those hon. Members who belonged to the Bar, but in the present case it had arisen from the entire consciousness of innocence. Besides, Mr. Bewicke possessed considerable abilities, and he thought he should have no difficulty in establishing his innocence. The Attorney General had said this was a question more for the House than the Government to consider, he therefore hoped he might appeal to his hon. and learned Friend and his Colleagues, as Members of the House, so to record their votes that justice might be done.

stated, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), that he proposed that the petition of Mr. Bewicke should be referred to a Select Committee, so far as it related to the sale and disposal of his property,

said, he was not able to give a silent vote on the Motion before the House, because it might go further than many hon. Gentlemen supposed. It was most important that the House of Commons should not constitute itself a tribunal to decide on ex parte statements without a full and adequate inquiry. There was the case of Mr. Barber. An inquiry was instituted, a careful investigation was made by a Committee, and upon the Report of that Committee and the evidence it obtained the House came to a decision. But now, what they were called upon to do was, in a most unreasonable manner to judge, under the heat and indignation which they all felt (and he must say that he had the deepest sympathy with the story of the wrongs of Mr. Bewicke), as to the compensation due to that gentleman upon grounds which they did not thoroughly understand. He must urge upon the hon. Gentleman opposite to consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole petition, in order to see whether the circumstances of the case were not so exceptional as to justify the House in going out of its way to deal with it in a manner different from that in which it had dealt with former cases. The House wished to see justice done, but let them act with deliberation, and not with too great haste. Let the Committee be appointed, and if the Government agreed to that course he could never consent to vote for the Resolution before the House.

said, it was the universal opinion that the sufferings of Mr. Bewicke were such as to entitle him to compensation. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had consented to refer part of the petition to a Committee—that part having reference to compensation with respect to the loss of his furniture. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) that the reference ought to be general; that the whole petition should be referred to a Select Committee, who should be desired to report upon all the allegations, and say whether Mr. Bewicke was entitled to any and what compensation. The substance of the whole case ought to be referred.

My right hon. Friend has explained that it is impossible for the Government to assent to a Resolution which, like the one before us, pledges the House, as we consider and construe it, to this principle—that whenever pain, degradation, and anguish of mind arise out of an erroneous conviction, quite irrespective of loss of a tangible kind, the case should be made the subject of an application to Parliament for pecuniary compensation. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) opposite, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) who followed him, have made a proposition which we feel ourselves able to assent to. I do not deny, and my right hon. Friend has not denied, that there are contained in the petition allegations which may be made the subject of inquiry. The best mode of proceeding will be to agree that the petition should be referred to a Select Committee, and the Government assent to it on the understanding that the Resolution is withdrawn.

I should like to understand distinctly whether the whole merits of the case are to be referred to a Committee. I confess I have a sort of compunction in agreeing to the suggestion, because we do not always know that the formation of a Committee is one on which we can depend. However, I am in the hands of the House, and if they consider I ought to agree to this proposal, I will do so.

said, he was a Member of the Committee in Mr. Barber's case. The whole petition was referred to them to report as they thought fit.

I understand my hon. Friend is invited to follow the precedent set in the case of Mr. Barber. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances; they made a Report; upon that Report the House took action, and awarded compensation.

What we agree to is the appointment of a Committee, to whom the petition [Mr. DISRAELI: What petition?] shall be referred, with a direction to report their opinion to the House. It is impossible to pledge the House to act upon the Report of the Committee.

I wish to remind the House that there is a great difference between the case of Mr. Barber and the case of Mr. Bewicke. Mr. Barber had not con- victed any person of perjury against him. The case of Mr. Bewicke is the case of an individual who has found that those who were the origin and cause of the infamous injustice he has experienced were perjurers. The case of Mr. Barber required great investigation, because in it were involved circumstances of a suspicious character; but in this case the whole facts are before us; nobody doubts them. Then, again, we are told about a petition being referred to a Committee. We know of no petition for our consideration to-night; and how can we agree to refer a petition to a Committee when it is a document with which we are not acquainted? Besides, we are not sure that the petition is wide enough to bring the whole facts of the case before the Committee. With regard to the case itself, there has been a great objection made against Mr. Bewicke that he was indiscreet, because he did not avail himself of the assistance of the members of the long robe and the other learned branch of the profession. It has been very well said by one of his neighbours, that he had great confidence in his own I abilities (which, I believe, are not inconsiderable); but we are not to treat it as a great offence because an individual on his trial does not retain counsel. Then we are told that no one can question the conduct of the Judge. Well, the Judge might have cross-examined these men; and if a man like the present Lord Chief Justice of England had been Judge in this case, he would soon have found out the character of the witnesses. Or the Judge might have appointed counsel to watch the case for Mr. Bewicke. This is a case of infamous oppression. I do not remember any case like it. The argument of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General, is most inconsistent. They say, "We admit the sufferings of Mr. Bewicke and the injustice which he has experienced; but if you agree to this Resolution you establish a precedent dangerous in its consequences, and the claims which will be pressed on the consideration of the House will be so numerous that they will weigh seriously upon the Exchequer." Then they immediately say, "The case is rare; it never happened before; and it may never happen again." How can they reconcile these two statements? The fact is, that instances of this kind must be decided upon their merits, and there is no gene- ral principle which can be applied. The case of Mr. Bewicke is before us; the facts are known; no investigation is required. It is one of unparalleled oppression, and exactly one with which we can deal. As to the petition which we are asked to refer to the Committee, I myself know nothing about it; and my advice to the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) is to stand upon the Motion which he has placed before us, and take the opinion of the House.

There is no petition before the House. Under the circumstances, feeling that the sentiment of the House is with mo, I hold it to be my duty, after the best consideration, to proceed to a division.

I look upon this merely as a proposition to rescind the vote which the House has just come to. Therefore it is unnecessary to revive the discussion which has just terminated, and the best thing to be done is at once to go to a vote.

I cannot accept the proposal, which appears to me to be an attempt to upset the vote, and to be indecent and unparliamentary.

I am sure the Amendment is not unparliamentary. I ask you, Sir, whether I am in order in moving the Amendment?

I think the course which the Government is taking is very unusual. It is taking the House by surprise, and putting it in an unfair position. Who knows anything about this petition? It was not presented during the present Session, and therefore it was presented before many hon. Members were elected who have now a seat. We have never seen it, and yet we are asked to rescind a vote which we have just come to, upon a Motion that has been made, by referring to the consideration of a Committee a document which we know nothing about. We do not know whether the allegations in the petition were the case as stated by the mover of the Resolution. There is this difference between the ease which has been referred to and that of Mr. Bewicke. Here the facts are universally accepted. The statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) are not disputed by the Government. It is quite evident that Mr. Bewicke has been treated unjustly, and we are very much aggravating that injustice by the course proposed.

said, that it was evidently not within the knowledge of his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) that the petition referred to had formed the subject of a division as well as of a debate, and that the House had recorded its opinion upon the question whether the grievances suffered by Mr. Bewicke, as set forth in this petition, were such as to entitle him to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of the course adopted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir George Grey). The House had just divided on the Question, in which one only of the alternatives before it was presented. His right hon. Friend had met the difficulty at the first possible moment by proposing a substantive Motion, and the House had now before it in precise terms each of the two propositions between which it had to choose.

said, the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) said the Amend- ment took the House by surprise. But he (Mr. Hunt) thought the division had taken the House by surprise. His hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) made a suggestion to the Government which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted on their part. It was put to the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) whether he would accept it, and the hon. Member said he accepted it. He believed that many hon. Members had left the House on the understanding that the matter had been arranged. He thought no complaint could be made against the Government.

said, he understood this proposition to be an attempt to negative the vote which had just been taken. He understood the House had affirmed by their vote that Mr. Bewicke was entitled to compensation.; and the proposition now was to refer it to a Committee to say whether he was to receive anything or nothing. No attentive listener could have misunderstood the Question; but the complaint was that they had not decided upon a petition which was not before them. That was not the first, or second, or third time that compensation had been given to an aggrieved man whom the law left with no appeal, and against whom the accusations were false.

was of opinion that the proposals of the Government completely met the justice of the case.

said, he rose to call attention to the extensive employment of Climbing Boys in sweeping Chimneys, and the systematic violation of the "Act for the Regulation of Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys" (3 & 4 Vict, c. 85); and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill during the present Session founded on the recommendations of the Children's Employment Commission (1862)?

said, he rose to Order. He wished for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the fact of an Amendment having been already carried to the Motion for going into Supply the House must not proceed to the Order which came next after Supply.

said, that an Amendment had been proposed to the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, and had been carried. It had been for some years the practice of the House, under such circumstances, for the Minister to move that the House should immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, and that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Such a Motion had been made, and the business of the evening might thus proceed without interruption.

said, his attention had been directed to the subject to which his question related by an article in Good Words, the statements in which induced him to make personal inquiries in quarters where the best information was accessible. The result of these inquiries had been to satisfy his own mind that the humane and benevolent intentions of past legislation were to a very large extent frustrated, and that the practice of employing boys to sweep chimneys had been extensively re-introduced. In London, perhaps, the statute was not evaded to the same extent as in the provinces, but there could be no doubt that the number of boys secretly employed was on the increase. From 1788 till 1840 the House had passed various measures for protecting children against that barbarous employment. The last Act which they had passed being practically a dead letter, it was incumbent on them to pass an amending Act, or adopt some other course to stop the growing evil. In the metropolis and some other towns boys were employed, but only clandestinely. The practice of employing boys was increasing in London. In Marylebone alone eleven boys were employed, and only one of them by his father. The West End capitalists ought to blush at that fact, that it was chiefly in their centre of fashion and capital—in that part of the metropolis where Members of the Legislature chiefly resided — encouragement was given to a violation of the Act. A man named Muggeridge, who had been a chimney sweeper for forty-three years, had stated in evidence given by him on the subject, that those who made the law broke it, and that the owners of houses in Piccadilly, and other parts of the West End, required the services of climbing boys because they would not have their chimneys altered to suit the machines. At Manchester there were twenty climbing boys; and it was believed that if anything were to happen to a gentleman in that city who looked after the master sweeps, the number would soon be increased to sixty. It was stated that these boys were often sold for a pound. The comparative slightness and suppleness of the female form had caused even girls to be immolated by their own parents, when these latter, to use the expression of St. Paul, were "without natural affections." At Birmingham, notwithstanding the expenditure of £500 by a local society, twenty-two climbing boys were now employed, that number having increased from fourteen in the year 1861. It appeared from a case reported in the Cheshire News that a master sweep was charged with an attempt to force a boy to go up a chimney which had been on fire, and in which the fire was scarcely extinguished. Yet for such barbarous conduct the magistrates only imposed a fine of £3 to one fund, and £3 to another. According to the Report of a local association there were in Birmingham fourteen boys employed, two being under twelve years of age, two under ten, one under nine, and one only seven years old. In 1863 the same association reported that twenty-two children of tender age were employed in Birmingham as climbing boys. In Nottingham, according to the evidence of a chimney-sweeper, the law against climbing boys was a dead letter. The coroner, Mr. Brown, had given evidence of having held inquests on two boys who had died from injuries they had received in their attempts to go up a chimney. In Staleybridge it was found that boys were plied with beer, and that two boys had swept seventy-eight chimneys in two days. In a prosecution at the latter place the prisoner said to one of the sitting magistrates, "You know my boy sweeps your chimneys." At Wolverhampton, according to the evidence, the system was encouraged by the local officials, and the Act of Parliament was a dead letter, for the chimneys of the Town Hall were swept by boys. At Sheffield twenty-two, in Chester fourteen, and in Newcastle ten climbing boys were employed; and at Walthamstow the flue of the parish church had to be swept by a boy, who, owing to its peculiar formation, had to go into it head downwards. The barbarous practice was on the increase; and at Buckingham, in particular, it was reported that boys were preferred by most of the tradespeople, the gentry, and particularly by one of the Members for the town, though the other Member had used all the appliances of the law to put down the system. A master sweep at Nottingham described the manner in which the limbs of the poor children were hardened for their work. They were rubbed with the strongest brine, the master compelling them, by coaxing or by blows, to submit to the process a little longer. When the little sufferers first went out to work they returned with their flesh bruised and bleeding; but their wounds were again rubbed with the brine. Some children did not become hardened for years; and it was stated that four or four years and a half was a very good age to begin with them. By that fearful training their bodies were deformed and their backs often covered all over with sores. The "sooty cancer" also prevailed among these children, who had to sleep nine and twelve in a bed in the most fetid atmosphere. The abominations of negro slavery in South Carolina were surpassed by the daily miseries to which these defenceless young creatures were exposed. Mr. Ellis, a magistrate at Leicester, said it had been most painful to him to find that there was a regular system established in this country for the hire and sale of children for the purpose of carrying on that illegal and cruel occupation. What was the cause of that state of things? There was an extraordinary and inexplicable apathy on the part of the judicial bench to enforce the law in many places. It might be that there was some mysterious influence at work, or that magistrates sometimes thought their own houses were so built that it might be necessary for them to employ these boys; or, again, it might be that they had a distrust of informers, by whom cases of that kind were frequently brought forward. But in many cases, though the evidence was overwhelming, the magistrates hesitated to impose even a small fine. Perhaps, also, the law itself was defective. It was a remarkable fact that in Scotland no trace of the evil which existed in England could be found. That resulted most probably from the fact, that in Scotland there were superadded to the provisions of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., certain local municipal regulations empowering the police to interfere, and no person could act as a master sweep in Glasgow or Edinburgh unless he had a licence, which might be forfeited by misconduct. The Commissioners thought that great benefit would arise from the introduction into England of that system of licensing. In conclusion, he earnestly hoped that the Government would promise to adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners, or at least to take some steps for rendering the present law more effectual, and thereby remedy a great and growing evil, which was a reproach to the 19th century and a scandal to our common Christianity.

said, he regretted to say that the Report of the Commission, and the evidence on which it was founded, fully sustained the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there were very extensive violations of the law which prohibited the employment of climbing boys in the sweeping of chimneys. He would not go into the question in the then state of the House, and for this additional reason —the attention of the Government had for some time been directed to the Report; but a noble Friend of his (Lord Shaftesbury), at whose instance the Commission was issued, had expressed his wish and intention elsewhere to bring in a Bill on the subject. That noble Lord had been good enough to place himself in communication with the Home Office, and they were giving him all the assistance they could. As the subject, then, would come before Parliament soon, he hoped its discussion would be postponed till that period.

said, he rose to call attention to the insufficiency and inconvenience of the temporary Museum for Inventions at South Kensington, and the Patent Office in Southampton Buildings, and to the expediency of uniting the Museum of Inventions and the Patent Office under one building, and at a convenient distance from the law courts. On two former occasions when he had the Motion on the paper the House was counted out. He therefore had no alternative but to bring it forward even in the then thin state of the House, The Patent Office in Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, contained the specifications of patents and a valuable collection of books. It was near the law courts, and as far as site was concerned, was well enough adapted to its purpose. Several years ago the patented and other inventions which had come into the possession of the institution in Southampton Buildings were removed to South Kensington for exhibition at the request of the authorities. Though the exhibition was attended by some success, it did not prove very attractive, for the authorities at South Kensington devoted their energies rather to giving amusement than real practical instruction.

resumed his statement. In 1859 a proposal was made that the inventions should be transferred from the South Kensington institution to a building to be erected on a piece of ground in the same neighbourhood. Desiring that they should be exhibited at some place near the centre of the metropolis, and knowing the grasping disposition of the authorities at South Kensington, he took exception to the estimate for the new building, as he feared that if once located there they would probably be permanently retained there. The Government told him, in reply to his remarks, that they had considered the question of site and had determined that the new building at South Kensington should be regarded as a temporary erection. Eventually the vote passed on that distinct understanding. After some time the inventions were transferred to it. They still remained there, and a large number of fresh models had been added to the collection, which now formed the nucleus of a very valuable museum. But the authorities at South Kensington were quite unable to exhibit the inventions to advantage. The models were crowded higgledy-piggledy together at a great distance from the law courts, which prevented the possessors of inventions from sending them for exhibition, and so the museum was at a complete standstill. Matters were even worse in Southampton Buildings, where the books and specifications were stowed away in narrow inconvenient cells and passages, in the latter of which they were not sufficiently protected from the weather. The Government appeared to be quite alive to the necessity of doing something in the matter; but he was rather afraid they were proceeding too fast. It was a subject upon which the opinion of the House certainly ought to be taken. There was something very curious in the absorbing powers of Brompton for museums, The Members of the Government seemed to have taken a new oath of allegiance which bound them to Brompton. He knew several who used to speak rather disparagingly of the South Kensington concerns when independent Members, but who became thorough and devoted supporters of them as soon as they took their seats on the Treasury Bench. He hoped that the Patent Library would not be transferred thither. It ought to be placed in the vicinity of the law courts, where patent agents and others interested in these matters chiefly congregated. Then again, the utility of the Patent Museum would very much depend on its being in the neighbourhood of the library, so that persons might inspect the models when they had consulted the specifications and books. It would be very hard on manufacturers, mechanics, inventors, and others of the kind, to compel them to go all the way to Brompton in order to visit the library and museum. He was surprised at the extent and magnificence of the buildings proposed to be erected according to the exhibited plans. If sanctioned, they would involve a vast amount of expenditure, and he could not help suspecting that they formed only an instalment of an undertaking of much wider scope. It was rather significant that one of the plans was labelled "Acropolis of Art," that was not a title which could apply either to a Patent Museum or a Gallery of Natural History, and he thought if carried out it might be more properly called a Necropolis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus revenue. The Government found it necessary to provide attractions to induce people to visit the building at Kensington, and wines and spirits, cold luncheons and lobster-salads were to be obtained there. It would no doubt be said that it was difficult to obtain a site elsewhere; but Chancery Lane would be a much better spot, and he believed there was available space in the locality. A scheme had once been put forward by a private company for building a museum in Southampton Buildings, and it would have been handed over to the Government when completed. He earnestly hoped the Government would consider their decision.

said, he thought the hon. Member had done well in calling attention to the matter. He wished to know whether the First Commissioner of Works had had any communication with the Patent Commissioners on the subject of the future Patent Museum, and whether they agreed that it should be located at Kensington; because, if so, he should be curious to know what had induced them, within the short period of two years, to change the opinion they expressed in favour of the Patent Office, library, and museum being placed, not merely in close contiguity to each other, if not tinder one roof, but also in close proximity to the class of persons such as barristers, mechanical engineers, skilled workmen, solicitors, and patent agents, who were most interested in the use of them. He, therefore, asked whether the Patent Commissioners were now willing, in spite of their Report, to dissociate the museum from the library and office; and whether they considered Kensington to be a central situation, such as is considered indispensable in the Report? He calculated that there must now be about £240,000 derived from patent funds, and which should be applicable for patent purposes, and he thought that sum would be sufficient to buy ground in a region proper for patent purposes, and to build on it. In the temporary structure at Kensington there were 909 models, but of these, only 108 belonged to the owners of patents. The rest were models which had been lent: to the superintendent of specifications, and: might be taken away at any time. He was afraid, therefore, that the Government might be miscalculating, and might erect a very large building and have only 108 models to put in it. The House had been asked last year by the Prime Minister, whether they would grudge the Government three acres for this purpose, while the Americans had eleven acres. But he ventured to say that there was no building in the world which contained such rubbish as that which contained the models at Washington. The most interesting model in the collection was one of the famous ballot-box with a false bottom, which was used at San Francisco. The persons appointed to be the judges of the building which the First Commissioner of Works proposed to erect were three architects, one amateur, and one painter. In the case of the British Museum and that of the new building at Kensington the proper persons had not been consulted. If the gentleman who had charge of the mediaeval collection had been consulted, when the large northern court at Kensington was constructed, a huge glass-house with excessive light in the main portion of the structure would not have been the result. Objects of the slightest delicacy had to be placed in the arcades where they could not be seen — places which were nothing but the abodes of Nox and Erebus, He trusted, therefore, if these new Museums were to be made, that no final decision would be arrived at without the persons who were intrusted with the care of the collections to be exhibited being consulted as to the suitability of the galleries.

said, he quite admitted the importance of the subject under discussion, as no one could doubt that the Patent Office was unfit for its purpose. It was placed in Chancery Lane in 1853, and the building there was at that time sufficient for the wants of the office and the library, but the library had increased so rapidly that it had outgrown the space allotted to it. The necessity, therefore, for increased accommodation had pressed upon the Government and upon the Commissioners; but, for the convenience of persons engaged in legal proceedings, the Patent Office must be in the neighbourhood of the Courts. It was exceedingly difficult to find accommodation for the purpose in that part of the town; but there was a building which appeared to be suitable, Last year, when they were asked the purposes for which they wanted to purchase the site of the Exhibition building at Kensington, they mentioned the Patent Museum and the Collection of Natural History, for it was not possible to find sufficient accommodation for the models in the same building with the office. The House had thought proper not to agree to the proposition of purchasing the Exhibition building itself, and therefore he felt bound to turn his attention to the erection of a new structure, and with that view he had invited competition for a design for one which would hold the patent models and the Natural History collection of the British Museum, and which would harmonize with other buildings that might subsequently be erected for purposes of science and art. South Kensington, to which the hon. Member for Swansea seemed to have such an objection, would be equally and even more convenient for the working men of the metropolis and of the country at large than Chancery Lane. It had never entered into the mind of any one to remove the library from the office, but the Museum was not an essential part of either one or the other. A model was not a part of a legal description of a patent, which consisted altogether in the verbal description and engravings. A great number of the models in the Museum were not models of patents, and it was very desirable that these models of mechanical inventions should be placed in those spots to which the working classes were in the habit of resorting for that kind of amusement and instruction. The Commissioners were of opinion that the Museum ought to be an historical and educational institution, for the benefit of the skilled workmen in the various factories of the kingdom. At present, they calculated that about half an acre would be required, but as the number of models was certain to increase rapidly, provision ought to be made for the future extension of the Museum. In the plans, half an acre had been provided, or 23,000 square feet, on two stories, independent of future requirement. It would be impossible to provide space sufficient for present and future requirements in close contiguity to the office, and he, therefore, thought it desirable that the vacant space at South Kensington should be employed as the receptacle for the interesting models which it was certain would be congregated there. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway had asked whether the Commissioners had approved the proposed site of the Museum. He could not point to any particular statement of theirs to that effect, but he gathered from the general terms of their Report that they wished to see an ample space provided for the Museum, and that they did not attach importance to its being under the same roof as the office. Former Commissioners had recommended that the Museum should be placed at South Kensington. The Government had not lost sight of the matter, and when their plan was matured and brought before the House, he did not think it would meet with the opposition which the hon. Gentleman anticipated.

said, he wished to correct an erroneous impression which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under—namely, that the House last year consented that the Patent Museum and other collections should be placed at South Kensington. They did no such thing. All that the House did was to affirm by one vote that the land should be purchased, and by another that the buildings upon it should be pulled down. He believed South Kensington was a great deal too far out of London to have the Museum, or any other collections removed there.

said, he thought that looking to the responsible position of the right hon. Gentleman, he ought to have consulted the Patent Commissioners. It had so happened, however, that the Commissioners had already given an opinion which was to be found in a paragraph a little below one to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. It was hardly ingenuous to overlook that paragraph. And who were the Commissioners? They were such eminent men as the Lord Chancellor, Sir J. Romilly, Sir William Atherton, the late Attorney General, and Sir Roundell Palmer; and yet, without consulting them, the right hon. Gentleman had determined upon a particular plan, and then said he should be very much surprised if they should object to it, merely because they had incidentally remarked on one occasion that the most important consideration in connection with the erection of the necessary buildings was the spot to be selected, and that the readers being a class of scientific persons, it was obvious they should be enabled to read the books and examine the models and machines, and consequently that the Patent Office, the library, and the Museum should be under the same roof, or in close proximity. Could not the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to read the Report? Before the First Commissioner of Works advertised for enormous plans for a special purpose, that House ought to be consulted. The right hon. Gentleman could not appropriate money belonging to the Patent Office to other purposes. It should be recollected that the plans and designs which the right hon. Gentleman called for must cost something, and was it right that they should be involved in that expense without the consent of the House? Unless the purposes for which the buildings were to be erected were clearly defined, it was impossible that proper designs could be got. He was quite dissatisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He supposed they should hear no more of those Estimates until the House was about to be prorogued, and then next year they would be obliged to follow up the plans to which Parliament would be said to have given its assent.

said, the position in which the Question had been left by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was most ambiguous and unsatisfactory. He was not acting in concert with the Commissioners of Patents, and the whole responsibility, therefore, was cast upon the House. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeded without due regard to the objects of the Commissioners, the money available for the Museum would be entirely lost to the public, and it would be necessary to pay for the buildings out of the Consolidated Fund. He hoped, then, that his hon. Friend who had brought the subject forward would not lose sight of it, but would press for a Select Committee, so that when the House should be called upon to vote it would have ample information. Unless that were done, they would have no information except what the right hon. Gentleman chose to give.

Sir, I protest against the Chair being vacated in this way. It is a gross breach of the common courtesy due to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) got up to address the House and yet Mr. Speaker left the Chair. In all the course of my Parliamentary experience, I never saw anything like that clone before. I put it to the House if this can be permitted. It appears to me that we are to be treated like the Conference, and be adjourned sine die, I move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

I think that any observation of this kind ought to be made when the Speaker is in the Chair.

Why, the Speaker ran away!

I heard the Speaker put the Question. The Motion which the hon. Member has made I had already made, for I had moved that you, Sir, report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

As soon as the last speaker had finished his address, I rose, and before the Speaker left the Chair I got up and addressed him.

I think it very inconvenient to report Progress; the proceedings which have taken place must be reversed. There is no doubt that the hon. Baronet was on his legs when the Question was put. There can be no doubt that any erroneous proceeding can be reversed.

The proceedings cannot be reversed. The course will be for the hon. Member now in the Chair to leave the Chair.

I beg your pardon; we can request the Speaker to return.

said, he could answer for it that the Speaker had put the Question and said, the "Ayes have it." The hon. Member for Buckingham then rose, and the Speaker said he had already put the Question.

Sir, I move the adjournment of the House.

The hon. Baronet can address the House on a Question of order without moving the adjournment.

Sir, I wish to address you on a point of order. I beg to state that the name of a Member (Mr. Black) was on the paper before mine. I waited, expecting his name to be called. I thought I had risen to address you before you left the Chair. If you say otherwise, I bow to your decision, but I hope that I may be allowed to proceed with my Motion.

I second the Motion for adjournment. ["Order, order!"] I maintain that this is a Question affecting the privileges of this House; and, without making any pointed allusion to you, I must say that I did not hear you, Sir, put the Question. A noble Lord on the other side (Lord R. Montagu) said he did hear it; but he was sitting in close proximity to the Chair. I was not favoured with that private and confidential communication. My hon. Friend below me rose before you left the Chair. [Cries of No!"] We on this bench are certainly gifted with eyes and ears as well as the more favoured; inhabitants of that lower region, and I say the hon. Member rose before you left the Chair. If you put the Question, it was I put so indistinctly and so hurriedly that no Member on this bench heard it; but I maintain it, contrary to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that we did not hear the Question. I cannot help, thinking that independent Members are hardly treated, and in their name I protest against this sharp practice.

Sir, it so happened that when the Question was put I was standing behind the chair of the Sergeant at Arms; and it seemed to me that that Gentleman rose to advance towards the mace before the hon. Baronet rose from his seat.

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Black) had given notice of his intention to move an Amendment on going into Supply, and his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) had evidently waited for the hon. Member for Edinburgh to be called upon. But the right hon. Gentleman had not called upon the hon. Member for Edinburgh, nor was it necessary or usual for him to do so. For himself, he must say that he distinctly heard the Question put, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman left the Chair before the hon. Baronet rose. What had occurred was explained by the fact that his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) had waited for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who was before him, and who did not rise. He thought that no blame whatever attached to the Speaker, whose conduct was always marked by the most perfect impartiality.

Sir, I was farther off than the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne); and though I do not deny that the hon. Member has eyes and ears, I also claim the privilege to have eyes and ears, and I think it is only due to you, Sir, to state that I heard you put the Question before the hon. Member rose.

As it is a matter of evidence in some respect, I may give the evidence of my senses. I was sitting here very near my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, and I did not hear the Question put by the Chair. I can confidently assert that my hon. Friend rose before the Speaker left the Chair, because when my hon. Friend rose I could not see the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair for my hon. Friend.

said, he had heard the Question put, but he did not hear it carried. He heard the Ayes but not the Noes. He suggested that there might be some confusion as to what was meant by putting the Question. He had very clearly heard the Speaker put the Question, "That I do now leave the Chair." At that moment the hon. Baronet rose. He did not hear the rest of the Question put, "You that are of that opinion say aye, &c." In his opinion the hon. Baronet had risen before the complete form had been gone through.

said, he had distinctly heard the whole of the Question.

I heard the Question, and if those hon. Gentlemen opposite did not hear it, perhaps that is due to the somniferous state into which they had been brought by the speeches which had been previously made.

I am sorry that any misunderstanding or misapprehension should have arisen on the part of any hon. Members as to the course that was pursued. At the same time, I cannot admit for a moment that there was anything in that course which was not strictly in accordance with the exact rules of the House. With no hurry, I rose and put the Question that I should leave the Chair. No hon. Gentleman rose, and I declared the Question carried. I can now understand why the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham did not rise—because he says he thought I should call on the Gentleman who stood before him on the list. Now, the House is aware that unless an hon. Member rises to move an Amendment I do not call upon him. If any Gentleman wishes to move an Amendment it is for him to rise, and then I call upon him to proceed. On this occasion I put the Question, "That I do now leave the Chair." No one rose, and I then said, "As many as are of that opinion say aye; of the contrary opinion, no; I think the ayes have it." I then turned to leave the Chair, and the hon. Member for Buckingham rose in his place. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member rose in his place before I left the Chair, but not before I put the Question. That is an exact statement of the case, and I regret that any hon. Member who was paying any attention to the business of the House should have arrived at a different conclusion.

said, that as he was sitting ["Order, Order!"]

said, the hon. and learned Member had a right to speak on the point of order.

declared that his learned Friend was in order.

said, that as he was sitting in exactly the same latitude as his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney), he could judge what it was possible for him to hear. In the state of the House at the moment a whisper almost might have been heard in the distance, and yet he had not heard the Question put in such a manner that it would have been possible for him to say "No" to the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

said, that in moving the clause of which he had given notice, he had no wish to interfere with what was called the Irish system, but he should pause before introducing it in its integrity into this country, and certainly should not be willing to adopt one portion only, and that the most objectionable part of that system. According to Sir Walter Crofton's view, expressed in a letter to The Times after the debate the other evening, what was needed in this country was a department of supervision, an argument which he thought would not be very consolatory to Gentlemen already complaining of the growth of the Estimates. But if supervision was introduced, he thought it would become absolutely necessary to provide the convicts with situations after they were discharged. This, except by voluntary effort, would be highly objectionable, but what alternative would there be if by interference with convicts in possession of tickets-of-leave they were debarred from competing freely with others in the labour market? A Return relating to the re-committal of persons discharged from the intermediate prisons for the years 1856–62 showed at first sight a very startling result — namely, that they did not amount to more than 7 per cent. But if the cases of persons who were stated in the Returns from Ireland to have gone abroad were eliminated from the list, and the Return compared year by year, it would be found that the re-committals began with less than 1 per cent in 1856, and, after steadily increasing, ended with more than 100 per cent in 1862. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he feared, had been guilty of a piece of refined cruelty in compelling the man to retain his ticket-of-leave and in creating a new offence if he laid it aside. A navvy, unlike a statesman, had no bureau or pigeonholes to keep his papers in, and yet he might just as well be found with his neighbour's gold watch in his pocket as with his ticket-of-leave. The question of emigration, too, was one of some importance. We had hitherto had no serious representations either from our colonies or from foreign countries as to ticket-of-leave men going there, but there was no doubt that a great many of them went abroad, and they did so upon a gratuity of money, voted by Parliament. If exception was taken to that, we could neither assert that they went as free men, nor deny that they were enabled to do so by money provided; by the State. He therefore thought that it would be desirable to adopt such a provision as he proposed, under which, when a man came out of prison, he would be absolutely free and at liberty to go to any part of the world. The last part of his clause provided that if, during the period of sentence which had been remitted, a man committed any offence for which he was summarily committed to prison for three months, or convicted upon indictment, he should return to prison and complete the term of his sentence. To this provision it had been objected that it was too sweeping, and that it would interfere with the Royal prerogative, but he did not think that either of those objections was well founded. If a man committed an offence within a short time after his discharge, it showed that he was not a proper subject for a remission of any part of his punishment; and, as the Act was to be read with those of 1853 and 1857, the words in the former of these Acts which saved the Royal prerogative would apply also to this measure. The proposal was founded upon the broad principle that it was the duty of the State to punish convicts, but that after their discharge it ought neither to debar them from employment or to provide it for them, and he hoped that it would receive the sanction of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—

"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by an order in writing under the hand and seal of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, to grant to any person sentenced to penal servitude after the passing of this Act a remission of such portion of his sentence, not exceeding one fourth part, as to Her Majesty shall seem fit, provided that if any person to whom such remission has been granted shall, before the time at which his original sentence would have expired, be convicted either by the verdict of a jury, or upon his own confession, of an indictable offence, or upon summary conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for three months or for a longer period, he shall, after undergoing the period of imprisonment to which he may be sentenced for such offence, further undergo a term of penal servitude equal to the portion of his original sentence so remitted to him; and shall, for the purpose of his undergoing such last-mentioned punishment, be removed from the prison of any county, borough, or place in which they may be confined, to any prison in which convicts under sentence of penal servitude may lawfully be confined, by warrant under the hand and seal of any justice of the peace of the said county, borough, or place, and shall be liable to be there dealt with in all respects as if such term of penal servitude had formed part of his original sentence."

said, that his hon. Friend appeared to desire remission of sentences without subsequent supervision. He confessed he would himself rather have remission without supervision than none at all. If probation was valuable, especially when carried out by means of intermediate prisons, be should be sorry to lose it. The ticket-of-leave system failed, not so much in consequence of want of supervision, as because the probation was really worthless. The prisoners were, in fact, discharged before their time because the gaols were overcrowded. But if remission of sentence without supervision were resolved upon, there would be the inconvenience of having different regulations for England and Ireland; and besides this, there would be a feeling of insecurity, which he thought the public would not tolerate. Independently of this, supervision was advisable on these two grounds: — In the first place, the clever rogue would frequently work himself out of prison sooner than the really penitent man. He would have sufficient control over himself to go through the whole probation, but that self-control would not last beyond the prison. Once out, he would be a dangerous character, a corrrupter of the young, and the sooner he was brought back the better. It was cheaper for society to keep such a man in prison than out of it. He quite agreed with a remark of Lord Dudley, at Worcester, though not with his conclusion. "When they gave prisoners a fair trial, and found that all that had been done had been thrown away, the least they could do would be to render them incapable of doing any further harm for some time." The Prisoners' Aid Society would be useless in such a case, even if Government ought to intrust so important a part of their system to anything so uncertain, transient, and irresponsible as voluntary agency. There was no force in the objection to the espionage of the police. The police now kept a watch over thieves, companions of thieves, and suspicious characters of all kinds, except those which have given so much ground for suspicion, as convicts on licence. He thought the supervision should be intrusted to the police, or to Government agents, backed by the police (as in Dublin, and, he believed, once in Scotland), which was much the same thing. The plan proposed might not be the best. It might be that a single report to the police on each change of residence might be sufficient, with the understanding that a conviction for an offence in a place where the licence-holder had not reported himself would be more severely punished. But, in the second place, supervision would be useful to the reclaimed convict. The police would be of great assistance to him in obtaining work, if they had proper instructions; and if any hon. Member doubted the wish of many of these poor people to lead an honest life, let him go to the Refuge, established by Captain Shepherd just outside Wakefield Gaol, and he would there see men patiently labouring for the hardest fare and roughest shelter, determined to bear anything rather than return to crime. At the same time, he was not of opinion that a large number of licence-holders would find it easy to obtain employment here; he thought their future career would generally be more hopeful out of England, and here the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society would find its proper work. A man leaving the country partly by means of his own gratuity would give better securities for his future good conduct than if sent at the expense of the State. His mind would be enlisted in his own reformation, and he would work with, and not against us. Fault had been found with the Irish Returns, on account of the large emigration. He thought that was the greatest success of the system. And though no doubt the Irish were more migratory, the English could scarcely be said to be unduly wedded to the soil. In Sweden, where he had once been, the scarcity of workmen was so great that prisoners were in some instances farmed out to contractors on public roads and other works. Yet the disinclination of the people to employ discharged prisoners was so extreme, that the clergy were in the habit of inculcating from the pulpit the duty of giving these poor men a chance of earning a living, as a work of Christian charity. If, then, their difficulty was so great in a thinly peopled country, how much greater must it be in England where every kind of employment was already over-filled. He hoped honest men would always be preferred; he should be sorry to see a stainless character lose its value; therefore, he looked for a solution of this difficulty beyond our own shores. He would be sorry to speak confidently; the subject was a very embarrassing one; the fluctuations of crime depended very much upon external causes mostly beyond our control; but he thought the experiment worth trying, and he was not without hope that it would in time make some impression upon the regular professional crime of this country.

said, he thought the House had expressed a very decided opinion that remission should not be conditional, and that a ticket-of-leave should be given subject to regular supervision. He believed the effect of the supervision as proposed would be, that the greater number of these ticket-of-leave-holders would be driven out of the country. What the effect would be in the colonies he did not know, but, at all events, we should have the benefit of their leaving the kingdom. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Question at this moment.

said, he thought it highly desirable that some supervision should be exercised upon the ticket-of-leave man in order to see that he did not associate with criminal characters. It was very often difficult to find superior labourers in England, whilst it was not so frequently the case in Ireland. He thought that the isolation of the ticket-of-leave man was, to a great extent, asserted by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He, nevertheless, thought the Bill would be better without the clause now proposed.

said, that the Irish system had not prevented the convict from getting employment in Ireland. He trusted the hon. Member would withdraw the clause.

said, he would withdraw the clause.

said, he would propose several Amendments in Clause 4, which would make the clause stand thus—

"If any holder of a licence granted under the said Penal Servitude Acts, or any of them, who shall be at large in the United Kingdom shall, unless prevented by illness or other unavoidable cause, fail to report himself personally to the chief police station of the borough, or police sta- tion to which he may go within three days after his arrival therein, and subsequently once in each month, at such time and place, in such manner, and to such person as the chief officer of such station shall appoint, or shall change his residence without having previously notified the same to the police station to which he last reported himself, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and may be summarily convicted thereof, and his licence shall be forthwith forfeited by virtue of such conviction, but he shall not be liable to any other punishment by virtue of such conviction "