asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he proposes to institute any inquiry into the case of the ship North, lost on the Goodwin Sands last autumn; and, if so, whether he will engage that the inquiry shall extend to the cause of the wreck in the first instance; and that, with regard to the subsequent proceedings, full opportunity shall be given to the boatmen and other inhabitants of Deal to answer the accusations made against them in the public press and elsewhere?

said, that the Board of Trade had received from the Committee of Lloyd's a formal complaint of the circumstances attending the loss of the North. He had directed that an inquiry should take place. That inquiry had been committed to Mr. Montagu Bere, and letters had been addressed to the hon. Member and his colleague, and others interested, stating what course the inquiry would take. The inquiry would be open, and every opportunity would be given to the inhabitants of Deal to adduce any evidence they desired to give. He did not perceive that there was any occasion for extending the inquiry to the cause of the wreck; that question appeared to be in no way connected with the plunder of the vessel. If it should appear that a second inquiry was desirable it could be instituted.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that a Lieutenant of the Royal Navy, whose commission as Lieutenant only dates from the 22nd May 1861, has been promoted to the rank of Commander by the present Board of Admiralty, over the heads of nearly 370 of his seniors, whose promotion has been for a considerable time almost at a standstill; if so, what special reasons can be assigned for so unusual a proceeding?

It is quite true that in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers I did promote a young officer of unimpeachable character and professional reputation to the rank of commander. His service as lieutenant was between five and six years, during which he had served five years at sea. I believe that in doing so I only acted upon the principle which has been recognised by successive Boards of Admiralty for a great length of time—namely, that it is for the benefit of the naval service from time to time to promote a certain proportion of young officers. I confess that I heard with some surprise that passage in the Question which relates to this officer being promoted "over the heads" of 370 others. The hon. Gentleman has been himself a naval officer, and he must, therefore, know perfectly well that promotions in the Royal Navy from the rank of lieutenant always are, and always must be, by selection, not by seniority, and he must also know perfectly well that a large proportion of these 370 officers cannot hope ever to reach the rank of commander on the active list. I only wish to add that I think the House would infer from the Question of the hon. Gentleman that this was a single promotion. On the contrary, it was one of five promotions which were made on the same day. I am unwilling, because I think it might create misunderstanding, to enter into explanations of my reasons for making one of these five promotions. I am perfectly willing to explain my reasons for the whole of those promotions. If I were to do so now I should exceed the ordinary limits of an answer to the Question; but should the hon. Gentleman be of opinion that I have acted improperly in making these five promotions, I shall be ready at any moment to defend the course I have pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment, with reference to the recent Fenian alarm at Chester, Whether any inquiry will be made as to the extent to which the Fenians had reason to rely on finding accomplices amongst the soldiers, police, or others in authority; whether the Government have considered the risk of any such parties failing in their duty if called upon to act in such cases; and, generally, for such information as to the nature, extent, and organization of this conspiracy as may, in case of necessity, enable the public to provide for their own protection?

I do not think the House will expect me to go into "the nature, extent, and organization" of the Fenian conspiracy. The only part of the Question requiring a distinct answer is that as to the existence of Fenianism among the troops. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War has already given a substantial answer to that question; but I may add that in the report which I have read this morning from Captain Edwards, who commanded the 54th at Chester, he expresses his opinion strongly that the rumours of Fenianism in that body of men are entirely without foundation.

said: The Resolutions which I am about to propose will, if adopted, effect a great change in a very important portion of our Customs revenue. They are the consequence of a Convention into which Her Majesty entered in 864 with the Emperor of the French, the King of the Belgians, and the King of the Netherlands, with the object of putting an end to great abuses existing in the assessment of the drawback in several countries of Europe, and establishing a drawback upon a common principle to be adopted by all those countries. In our own country I am bound to say that I believe the drawback upon refined sugar was, upon the whole, established upon fair principles, and bore an approximate proportion to the duty received upon the importation of the raw material; but it was far otherwise on the Continent of Europe, especially in the countries where the great sugar refineries existed—Holland, Belgium, and France. There the drawback was, I will not say calculated, but arranged upon a most extravagant scale; and, in fact, under the name of drawback in those three countries, practically speaking, a great bounty was furnished to the sugar refiners. The consequence of this bounty was that the sugar refiners of England could no longer compete with those of the countries I have named in neutral markets, and not only could they not compete in neutral markets, but they soon found the sugar refiners of France and the Low Countries competing successfully with them in our own markets. Under these circumstances, the sugar refining trade of this country greatly decreased, and was, in fact, fast disappearing; and at the first blush it seemed difficult to suppose that anything could be done to relieve this body of our fellow-subjects from so great a disadvantage. It so happened, however, that in time a mode of relief occurred, and in a very remarkable and significant manner. Some years ago the finances of France were not in a satisfactory state, and M. Fould, a Minister of great ability and acuteness, especially on financial subjects, having been called upon to examine the state of French finance and devise remedies, found, on examining the expenditure of the country, that there was what he properly considered a large and most indefensible expenditure in the shape of bounties to sugar refiners. The French Government, under these circumstances, placed themselves in communication with the authorities of this country. The sugar refiners of France did not attempt to defend the principle of the abuse under which their trade had flourished, but defended the practice on the ground that all other countries also, under the name of drawbacks, really supplied bounties to the sugar refiners. It was in 1862 that the French Government communicated with Her Majesty's Government, and about the time of the last Exhibition M. Rouher, the Minister of Commerce, visited this country, and had a communication with the authorities on this subject. The result of M. Rouher's visit was to convince him that the fault did not lie with England, and that our drawback was calculated on principles which bore a fair and just relation to the duties maintained on the raw material. But that was not the case with Belgium and Holland. The French Government then communicated with the Ministers of Belgium and Holland; and after a conference, they were of opinion that it was much better that all the countries interested in the trade of sugar refining should agree upon a bonâ fide drawback, if possible, and make a saving of the large sum which was expended under the name of drawback, but which was really in the nature of a bounty. After coming to that conclusion, the French Government caused a Conference to take place, first, I think, in Paris, and this Conference in due course led to the Convention of 1864 between the four Powers to which I have referred. The object of the Convention was to establish in the four countries a drawback upon the exportation of refined sugars which should be founded upon just and identical principles. By one of the articles of that treaty, it was agreed that experiments in refining sugar should be carried on upon a considerable scale in a neutral State. It was impossible to arrive at the conclusion which was requisite unless a process of that kind was undertaken. At the commencement of the proceedings, when this Resolution was arrived at, the foreign Governments in question were anxious that the drawbacks should be estimated upon sugar considered solely as one article, and they objected greatly to the classification which has prevailed in this country for a considerable time. But when they had thoroughly investigated the question they found it was utterly impossible to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty—which in a commercial point of view is an affair of great magnitude—without adopting the English system; their prejudices accordingly disappeared, and they did adopt our system of classification. Upon that system the experiments devised by eminent men, the head of the Customs in France and the Surveyor General of the Customs in England—Mr. Ogilvie, a distinguished member of the Civil Service—were carried on at Cologne. A considerable refinery was hired there, and experiments on a very elaborate and extensive scale were carried on upon every variety of sugar. Holland sent specimens from Java, France supplied her beetroot sugar, and England all the other samples. The experiments were prosecuted for more than a year; but though they were elaborate and costly, their result was most satisfactory, for the four Powers were enabled to arrive at a clear conclusion, according to which the drawback upon exported refined sugar in the four countries is established upon precise and similar principles. To complete these labours and carry the Convention entirely into effect, it is necessary that this scale of duties, which I am going to propose to-night, should be adopted by the Committee. I may congratulate the country on the conclusion of this very laborious business. Some of the results are highly favourable, and I think we may fairly congratulate ourselves upon them; because, while France and the other countries concerned have obtained a result which is perfectly satisfactory to themselves, and in which we also share, there are some benefits which are peculiar to England, owing to the remarkable circumstances in which England is placed. In the first place, the trade of our sugar refiners will be completely restored. They will be able to meet in neutral markets on fair terms with their natural rivals, and they will not encounter any vexatious rivalry in our own markets. In the next place, from the adoption throughout the Continent of our classification of duties, a new impulse will be given to the trade and produce of the West Indies. There are West Indian sugars which will find a market on the Continent, which they have not been able to find hitherto. And in the third place, these negotiations will lead to a very considerable reduction in the sugar duties of the other countries concerned. These are results highly satisfactory, and it only re- mains for me to inform the House of the effect of these arrangements upon our revenue. I hope the account I give will be perfectly satisfactory; because by the new duties which I am now going to propose it will be seen that England will obtain all the legitimate advantages to which I have referred, while our revenue will not be affected in the slightest degree. By one of the schemes proposed there would have been a considerable increase in the revenue, and an increase of duty; by another scheme there would have been a loss of about £300,000; but after further labours and arrangements a scheme was devised, and is now adopted, which really will not affect the revenue in any tangible degree. It is hardly necessary for me to explain minutely to the Committee the changes which have taken place with regard to a most important article—that of refined sugar. There is a reduction upon it of from 12s. 10d. to 12s. There is a slight reduction in one other article, and a slight increase in the third scale of the unrefined sugar; but the general result is that the effect upon the revenue is nil. This is a conclusion which, I hope, will be quite satisfactory to the Committee, as it is to myself. The subject is complicated, but I trust I have explained it with sufficient clearness, and I beg now, Sir, to move the Resolutions which I place in your hands. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the following Resolutions:—

said, he had no objection whatever to offer to the changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. On the contrary, they were perfectly satisfactory to him, because they would bring the duties more nearly to an equalization than before—a principle for which he had always contended in and out of the House. As far as the effect of these alterations upon trade was concerned, that would depend in a great degree upon the interpretation that might be placed upon the terms—first, second, and third classes. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentle- man whether it was intended by the use of the terms first, second, third, and fourth classes to depart in any way from the mode in which the sugars were already known as classified for the purposes of the present duties. The best feature in the change was the reduction of the duty on the finest descriptions of sugars from 12s. 10d. to 12s. There was one point upon which he wished for an answer. He found in the schedule two items—the second, one of 11s. 5d.; the third, one of 11s. 3d. The drawbacks corresponded exactly with the duties imposed. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the meaning of the second item of 11s. 5d., which he did not see in the scale of duties on the imported sugars?

I do not wish to trouble the Committee by many observations; but I think it my duty to rise and sustain altogether, so far as my information and memory serve me, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. In point of fact, this is a proposal for which the late Government are fully responsible; and the right hon. Gentleman, I think, in the exercise of a very just judgment, has approved the result of certain inquiries for which we were responsible. There is only one point upon which I am anxious the House should not labour under any misunderstanding; because, in point of fact, it indicates and illustrates that approximation in the relation of friendly Powers which enables them to confer together, to concur and cooperate in joint proceedings for the regulation of their mutual interests in a manner which, I think, heretofore has been without example. So far it may be said to be realizing the interests of that kind of progress which we must all desire to see realized, and which tends so much to the benefit of mankind. But I wish to state even more openly that the merit of this proposal, which I take to be a very great merit, does not belong to the late Government, nor to the agents of the late Government; the merit of its conception belongs to the Government of France. The right hon. Gentleman was, I think, no more than just in speaking of the assiduity, the knowledge, and the skill with which the duties devolving on our revenue officers have been performed. With regard to Mr. Ogilvie, in particular, I must say that nothing can be more creditable to any public servant than the clearness of the views which he entertains and the aptitude and precision with which he sustains and applies them. There is one point on which I am desirous there should be no misunderstanding. The Convention does not impose any fetter or restraint upon the discretion of the British Legislature or on that of the Legislatures of the three other countries with regard to the use of sugar as a fiscal resource. That branch of our revenue was much too important to allow of its being placed under any such restraint. The points to which we are restrained are the points on which it is actually beneficial for us to be restrained. What I mean is that while agreeing that the duties upon different descriptions of sugar shall bear a certain relation to one another, and that the drawbacks thereon shall bear a certain relation to the duties, the stipulations of an international character are entirely relative, the absolute duties which may be imposed being subject, as heretofore, to the discretion of Parliament. I believe that that is a correct statement; but if it is not, I hope I shall be corrected. Now, besides being a great sign of international progress, this happy occasion marks, I trust, the close of a domestic controversy—a controversy in which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) displayed, as the representative of the cause which he espoused, an ability, an amount of knowledge, and a clearness of statement that I have never seen surpassed in this House. I think, however, my hon. Friend has tonight stated the case a little too much upon his own side, for we must not forget the principle which was contended for by the Committee of 1861, as well as by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, and the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave)—namely, that the duty ought to vary according to the real value of the sugar, which ought to be regarded as raw material intended to undergo a further process of manufacture. That is the very principle which has now been arrived at by an investigation, carried on with all the resources which science and national funds could supply, and has received so high a sanction that I doubt whether it will ever again be overset or even assailed. I do not think any of us can view that conclusion with regret; because throughout these controversies it was impossible to contend for any other principle than that the real value of the several classes of sugar is the just basis for differences of duty, and the only object was to arrive at a just criterion for determining that value. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that this proposal will have no effect upon the revenue. I can quite understand the sense in which those words are to be taken, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in adopting such a scale of duties as to leave matters, with regard to the amount of duty, as nearly as possible in the state in which he found them. I think, however, that inasmuch as this is decidedly a sound commercial change, and tends to bring the incidence of duty in closer relation to the value, we should derive the same advantages which we have derived in every department from everything that gets rid of a protective or differential element, and that much greater vigour will be imparted to the operations of the sugar trade under the new than under previous scales. We have from time to time in alterations of the duties endeavoured to reduce those differences. In 1864 we made a very great reduction in the scale, and there is now a further approximation to unity. I hope we have now got to a condition of things in which the enormous interests abroad and the considerable interests at home may look upon the principle of our system of duties as definitely established, and may consequently resume commercial operations free from the disturbing influences and apprehensions which must always be felt so long as uncertainty hangs over the proceedings of the Legislature.

said, he believed that a simpler plan might have been adopted than was now proposed. The Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cave) suggested last year that the duty should be greatly reduced, expressing his belief that a duty of a half-penny a pound would lead to so enormous a consumption as to protect the revenue from loss. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman adhered to that opinion. A plan even better than that would be to allow the privilege of refining in bond, for then the grower would produce his sugar in the most economical state he could, whereas at present he was forced to make it so as to suit the various duties. He had been informed that a patent had been taken out in France for converting sugar into hard cakes like brickbats, so as to render unnecessary the use of casks, and greatly to diminish the expense of freight. He believed there were many other modes to which growers of sugar would resort if allowed, and he had no doubt these would have the effect of reducing the price of sugar 1d. a pound, independent of the duty altogether. He could testify to the ability which had been shown by Mr. Ogilvie; no more able officer could have been selected for the purpose.

said, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Crum-Ewing) express so much dissatisfaction with the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having sat on the West India Committees, and having been for many years connected with the West India trade, he believed that a great point had been achieved in putting an end to the controversies between the different scales, and arriving at what promised to be a permanent understanding. His hon. Friend thought the question might have been settled in a more simple manner by a single duty; but this was not a mode which the West Indian interest thought was to their advantage. They had always contended that the duty should be levied on the quantity of saccharine matter; and he believed the West Indian interest would read the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with entire satisfaction.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if they should agree to the Resolutions, the sugar duties would continue as they are for the next twelve months? The time was come for considering whether they should try to reduce the duty on an article of such consumption amongst the humbler classes. If they did away with the classification altogether and brought down the duty to a half-penny per pound, the increase in consumption would make up for the reduction of duty.

said, that hon. Members seemed determined to make use of the last opportunity left them to have a sugar debate. The hon. Member for Paisley had asked him whether he was of the same opinion that he had expressed last year as to lowering the sugar duties. He begged to tell him he was, and that whenever the state of the revenue permitted he should be happy to see these duties lowered, if not done away with altogether. Another question—that of refining in bond—had been considered by the Committee, and though in theory there was much to recommend it, in practice it was found to be quite impossible. It was contended that the simplest plan was to tax all kinds of sugar at the same rate. That was exactly what the Government proposed to do by these Resolutions. They had been asked why they put a different value on different kinds of sugar, but they did nothing of the sort. They taxed pure sugar at the same rate in every sample. This was the recommendation of the Committee. At that time the classification was based upon somewhat doubtful rules; but it had been since shown to be possible to find out the exact proportion of sugar in various samples almost to a mathematical certainty. His hon. Friend asked why the Government did not let every one make sugar just as he pleased. This was what the system of classification tended to do, whereas uniform duty would exclude the lower qualities. It was a common fallacy to suppose that every one did not make the best sugar he could. If they went to the various places of growth where duty did not enter into the question, they found the price varied as much as in this country, showing that it paid best to make sugar as good as possible, and the only reason why it was sometimes bad and sometimes good was because the best machinery and appliances could not always be commanded. The ryot of Madras and the free negro of Jamaica could not produce so good an article as those in possession of Derosne's vacuum pans. Colonial refineries seldom answered, and therefore inferior sugar was sent to this country to be refined, just as copper ore was sent to Swansea. It had been truly said that the origin of this movement was due to France, and the reason was that her system of drawbacks was so expensive to the country that the net revenue of the sugar duty, as compared with the gross, was only as 15 to 45. In answer to the hon. Member for London he begged to say that the different grades were precisely the same as those in the present classification, the names only were changed. The old names with which his hon. Friend was familiar, white clayed, brown clayed, muscovado, &c, were unmeaning and sometimes deceptive, and it was thought better to call sugars as of the first, second, third, and fourth class. This was assimilating our practice to the Dutch numbers, which were perfectly well known. The drawback of 11s. 5d. referred to sugar mixed with a certain amount of water, and if the hon. Member looked to the Resolution, he would see that sugar containing not more than 5 per cent of moisture would receive a drawback of 11s. 5d., instead of 12s, If any one imported sugar in a damp state, which was practically never done except by mischance, when allowance was made, it would come in at 12s.; but if it were exported it was fair to allow a drawback of 11s. 5d. only, instead of 12s., otherwise it would be a bounty. The difference of drawback was 7d., or about 5 per cent. It was asked whether we were free to raise or lower duties. Full liberty to do so was reserved by the Convention. We might do as we liked in this respect provided we preserved the proportion between the different grades. It was not usual to publish changes of duty till they were actually in force, but in this case the result of the experiments was published in the French papers, and therefore there had been sufficient data before the trade to enable them to calculate the new duties, and he had that morning received a paper in which they were estimated to within 1d. of the actual amount. The month of May was originally fixed upon as the time at which they would come into operation; but when he was in Paris the other day he heard it stated that all the other countries were ready to begin and were only waiting for us. It was therefore thought desirable to propose the new duties as soon as possible. He heard in Paris that it was hoped the Zollverein would join in the same reform. At present the Zollverein Excise duties and drawbacks were fixed on a different principle—(namely, on the raw root), and one which caused great loss to the Governments of those countries. At all events, when the success of the present experiment was proved it was hoped that other Governments would come in and adopt the same. His hon. Friend had asked him whether the re-arrangement of duties was favourable to the British West Indies. He was sorry to say it was not, and therefore he personally rather objected to it, but it was fair and just, and moreover Her Majesty's Government had no choice as their hands were absolutely tied by the terms of the Convention.

wished to explain that he was not dissatisfied with the plan of the Government altogether. The House owed very much to the Government in regard to the question of drawbacks.

Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill for abolishing the office of Vice President of the Board, of Trade, and substituting a Secretary, with a seat in Parliament; and in doing so I think I need not detain the House at any length. Of late years, as many hon. Gentlemen are well aware, the character of the Board of Trade and the duties which it has to perform have very materially altered. When the Board of Trade—or, as it is more properly called, the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations—was first established, it was in fact a consultative department, to which questions relating to trade were referred as they arose from time to time, and which gave advice on such subjects to the different Departments. At that time the Board of Trade had very few Executive duties to perform, and the Office consisted of a considerable number of Privy Councillors, presided over by a President, and, in his absence, by a Vice President, who really had nothing to do except to take the President's place when he could not attend. But, of late years a very great amount of administrative work has been confided to the Board of Trade, and of a very varied description, with reference, for example, to railways, to merchant shipping, harbours, fisheries, and many other matters; and it has now really and thoroughly become an executive Department. Last Session a good deal of additional business was thrown upon it, because the management of the foreshores was transferred to it from the Office of Woods; and another important function, formerly exercised by the Exchequer—namely, in connection with the standards of weights and measures, has also been vested in it. Under these circumstances, it was of course necessary for the Board of Trade to apply to the Treasury for an addition to its staff to meet this additional work. The application was made in a formal manner, leaving the Lords of the Treasury to authorize the appointment of the officers who were required to discharge the additional duties. On receiving that communication the Treasury replied that they thought it desirable, before sanctioning any increase of strength to the Board of Trade, that there should be an inquiry into the constitution of the Department, in order to see whether it was possible to effect any economy by a revision of the arrangements in the Office. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of the Treasury, were appointed a Committee for that purpose; and having carefully investigated the matters referred to them they drew up an elaborate Report on the state of the Office, containing a variety of proposals. One of the most important of the alterations which they recommended was that, instead of having a President and a Vice President of equal rank and equal salaries, and both Privy Councillors—there being no distinct separation of duties between them—instead of having two such officers, and under them two joint Secretaries, and under those two joint Secretaries again a staff for the most part consisting only of clerks, it would be a preferable arrangement that there should be one head of the Office—namely, the President; that there should also be two Secretaries, one of whom should sit in Parliament; that the office of Vice President should be abolished, and that there should be as many assistant-secretaries as were required for transacting the business of the Board. The Committee accordingly proposed that there should be a subdivision of the Office into four departments, each having an assistant secretary,—namely, one for railway matters, another for matters relating to the Mercantile Marine, another for harbours and foreshores, and another for general commercial business—with a staff of clerks under them. The effect of this arrangement would be, that the office of Vice President, with a salary of £2,000 per annum attached to it, would be abolished, and that that £2,000 would be applicable to the additions which have to be made to the lower portion of the Office. The salaries of the two principal Secretaries would remain as before at £ 1,500 a year, and we shall be able materially to strengthen the Department, and obtain all the assistance we require, without adding anything at all to its total expense. I mean there will be no additional expense when the arrangement is complete. It is necessary that the sanction of Parliament should be asked to the proposal for abolishing the office of Vice President, and for allowing one of the Secretaries to sit in Parliament. For this purpose I seek to introduce the present Bill, which provides that the office of Vice President shall be abolished from and after the next vacancy in it. It was not in our contemplation that my right hon. Friend the present Vice President (Mr. Stephen Cave) should be asked to resign. We certainly felt that that would be a very injudicious and improper proposal to make, and we should suffer much by losing the very valuable assistance which he is able to render. At the same time, my right hon. Friend in a very handsome manner said he was perfectly ready to place his own office at the disposal of the Government, and, if it would facilitate our arrangements, to resign immediately. That very honourable offer on his part, however, the Government thought it would not be right to accept; and I am sure the House will agree to what we propose—namely, that the office of Vice President should remain as it is under his tenure, but that in future, on its he-coming vacant, it should not be filled up again, but that a Parliamentary Secretary should be appointed instead. The benefit of the saving of the difference between £2,000 and £1,500 a year will not, of course, be obtained while my right hon. Friend continues to hold the office. We do not, however, recommend this change as a measure of economy, but rather as one which will place an important Department on a much more satisfactory footing than it has been for the conduct of the public business intrusted to it. I may add that the Vice President of the Board of Trade of late years has usually held the post of Paymaster General, without any salary on account of that office. It was thought that some provision might be made for some other person performing the duties of that office; but I believe there will be no difficulty in attaching those duties to the office of the Judge Advocate General. I propose, after obtaining leave to introduce this Bill, to lay on the table the correspondence which has taken place between the Treasury and the Board of Trade, in order that the House may have the whole matter clearly before it. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for abolishing the Office of Vice President of the Board of Trade, and substituting a Secretary with a seat in Parliament.

said, such a Bill as that which the right hon. Baronet proposed to introduce had been for some time past under consideration, and that the conclusion which had been arrived at by those who had entered into the subject was decidedly in favour of a plan of the nature which he had indicated, The position oc- cupied by the Vice President of the Board of Trade had long been felt to be an anomalous one. He had co-ordinate authority with the President of the Department, and was in no way subordinate to him. The substitution of a paid Secretary subordinate to the head of the Office would, he thought, be a much better arrangement.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to murder, and for giving further protection to new-born children, said: The two Bills which stand on the paper in my name—this and another Bill to provide for carrying into effect capital punishments within prisons—are measures which are brought forward in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the state of the law by which the punishment of death is inflicted on persons convicted of certain crimes, and into the mode in which that punishment is carried into execution. The House will see that the subject divides itself into two distinct branches—the law relative to capital offences, and the manner in which that law is put in force. A Bill which was brought into the other House of Parliament, and which came down to this House at the end of last Session, comprehended within its provisions both those branches; but I have deemed it right, inasmuch as the subject divides itself into two distinct parts, to deal with this subject in two distinct measures. There are some persons who are of opinion that capital punishment ought to be abolished, and that executions ought not to take place in private; whereas there are others who think that executions ought to be private, and that capital punishment should be retained. By dividing the proposals which I have to submit to the House into two parts, I thought I should be furnishing a better opportunity to both the one side and the other to take objections and to state their views upon each of these points than if I were to combine those, proposals in a single Bill. It will, perhaps, be more convenient if I state on this occasion what is the character of each of the Bills which I am about to ask for leave to bring in, rather than enter into any of those controversial points which may, and probably will, arise with reference to the expediency of abolishing the punishment of death in all cases or of maintaining it in some. Although some of the Commissioners thought it might in the abstract be wise to get rid of the punishment of death, yet they all agreed that if it were not absolutely done away with, the law with respect to it, at all events, stood in need of alteration. I see opposite to me a Member of the Commission who has taken a great interest in this question ever since he entered the House of Commons, and I believe that he and all those who desire the abolition of the punishment of death agreed that a considerable change in the state of the law was desirable. [Mr. EWART: Hear, hear!] The Commission came to the conclusion that it was advisable that heinous and aggravated cases of murder should be separated from those which are less deliberate and founded on constructive malice. The House will bear in mind that the strict definition of murder is the "unlawful killing of any person with malice aforethought;" and the malice, in the opinion of a great many able jurists, must be so express that it can be proved as a matter of fact, and not merely implied as a constructive inference from other acts consequent on the supposed wickedness of the person committing the offence. The Commissioners, in dealing with that view, point out the state of the law in several other countries with regard to murder—especially in America—and argue in favour of having the offence classed under two heads—murder in the first and murder in the second degree. The Bill founded on the Report of the Commission, and brought in last Session, was framed in accordance with that distinction. A very able debate took place in the House of Lords on the clause embracing that particular point, when thirty-eight voted in favour of the distinction and thirty-eight against it, and the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the maxim prœsumitur pro negante, withdrew the clause, and introduced another in a different form. That clause, when the Bill came down from the other House, contained the following definition of murder, which would be punishable by death:—

"No person shall, under any indictment or inquisition, be convicted or deemed guilty of murder, unless the jury by whom he is tried shall be satisfied that he intended to do grievous bodily harm endangering the life of the person whom he killed, or to do grievous bodily harm endangering the life of any person whatsoever."

On the part of the Government I had to consider whether, in point of fact, that definition would or would not carry into effect the view taken by the Commission; and also, whether there was not such an ambiguity in its terms that in many cases, assuming capital punishment still to be continued, it would not be deemed right that execution should follow. Now, I think it clear that there are several cases in which, whether according to that definition or not, you could not execute a convicted, criminal; while yet they are cases in which the Commissioners intended that the capital sentence should be carried out. I will give the House two instances by way of illustrating my meaning. I will take the case of a garotter. He need not primarily intend to do bodily harm endangering the life of the person whom he assails—he may merely intend to disable him for a time for the purpose of robbing him, and the probability is that a jury would, in many instances, come to the conclusion that that was his intention. Again, let me suppose the case of chloroform being administered with the view of committing a rape. There may be in such a case no intention of doing grievous bodily harm endangering life. Now, I do not think it would be satisfactory to the community or sanctioned by public opinion that, so long as capital punishment is part of the law of England, we should not have the option of classing such crimes as those with others in which the infliction of capital punishment might be deemed to be necessary, I forebore, therefore, from proceeding with the Bill of last Session because I could not see my way to adopting the definition which was sent down to us from the House of Lords. Nor did I think it advisable to accept the line drawn by the Commissioners in classing the crime of murder into first and secondary degrees. Murder in either degree would still be looked upon as murder, and I doubt very much whether it would be rightly understood if we should endeavour to place that kind of crime under distinct heads or in different categories. The substantial object which the Commission had in view in their Report may probably be accomplished without adopting such a distinc- tion which would not, I believe, recommend itself to the feeling of the country. What, under these circumstances, I propose to do, after due consideration, is to specify the cases of murder for which the punishment shall be capital, and, having specified those cases, to say that in all others a different punishment shall follow. The different cases of murder for which capital punishment will be inflicted, if the Bill becomes law, will be the following:—First, if any jury before whom any party is tried find that he committed the crime with the deliberate intention to kill or to do some grievous bodily harm to the person killed, or to kill or do some grievous bodily harm to some other person, I substitute the words "deliberate intention" for the words "express malice aforethought," because that is the definition of Sir Matthew Halo, and it seems to be open to less ambiguity. Secondly, capital punishment will be inflicted if a jury find that a man committed the crime with a view to, and in or immediately before or immediately after, the commission by himself of any of the following felonies:—Rape, burglary, robbery, piracy, or the felony of unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to any dwelling-house or any person therein. The third case in which the punishment of death will be inflicted is when a jury find that a man committed the crime for the purpose of thereby enabling himself or any other person to commit any of the above-mentioned felonies. The fourth case in which capital punishment will be applicable is when a jury find that a man committed the crime in the act of escape from, or for the purpose of thereby enabling himself or any other person to escape from or avoid lawful arrest, immediately after he or such other person has committed or attempted to commit murder or any of the above-mentioned felonies; and the last and fifth case for the infliction of capital punishment was suggested by the late Lord Chancellor, and it is the case with respect to which a jury shall find that a man murdered a constable or other peace officer acting in the discharge of his duty. These are the five and only cases in which, if this Bill passes into law, the crime of murder will be punished by death. The Bill goes on to provide that in any other case of murder the offender shall be liable, in the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term of not less than seven years. Such are the alterations proposed in the Bill with reference to the punish- ment of the crime of murder. It will be punishable by death in five cases, and in five cases only. No doubt there are some who think that the punishment of death should be absolutely abolished, and four Commissioners added a paragraph to the Report to that effect. Those hon. Members who entertain that opinion will have an opportunity to take a discussion on the subject in the simplest form when that part of the Bill shall come on for consideration. Another part of the Bill I am now asking to bring in relates to what is commonly called infanticide. I do not anticipate any great objection to this part of the measure. It is quite clear that the crime of infanticide very often goes unpunished because a conviction may be followed by capital punishment, and it is probable that a less punishment, such as penal servitude, will be more likely to secure convictions, and so operate as an increased protection to the lives of innocent infants. The only other clause to which I need refer is a restriction of the law which enabled a Judge to abstain on a conviction for murder from pronouncing judgment of death, and in that case judgment of death be recorded against the offender. With respect to the other measure which it is my intention to ask leave to introduce, I may here state that it has for its object the carrying into execution capital punishments within prisons, and it follows very closely the recommendations contained in the Commissioner's Report. The main question which will arise in connection with this measure is whether due securities are taken for carrying out the execution with propriety, and in a manner which will satisfy the law, leaving no doubt that the execution has taken place. It is provided that certain officers of the gaol shall be present at every execution; and there is power given in the Bill to the visiting justices to authorize the admission into a prison where any execution takes place of the relatives and friends of the criminal, in order that they may see the way in which the sentence is carried into effect. The Bill requires the surgeon of the prison to certify to the death, and a coroner's inquisition is to be held after each case of execution. With all these securities it seems to me that the community may feel complete confidence as to the way in which the execution is carried into effect. Those of the Commissioners who object to capital punishment have objected also to private executions. But I cannot help thinking that the little good which results from such scenes as occur at a public execution—false heroism which the criminal puts on, and the morbid sympathy which is sometimes felt for him—constitute reasons of the strongest kind for changing the law in this respect; while the knowledge that the punishment is duly and properly and certainly inflicted will strike more terror, by way of example, than that which arises from the brutal horrors of a public execution. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill for amending the law relating to murder, and for giving further protection to new-born children.

I was one of the Members of the Commission upon whose Report this Bill has been introduced into the House; and I cannot help saying that I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to change the form of doing that which I understand he wishes to do, and which the Commission wished to do—that is, to except a considerable number of cases, hitherto capitally punishable, from the punishment of death. The question was discussed in the Commission very fully on several occasions, and on one occasion the Commissioners came to the opinion that it would be better not to have two classes of the crime of murder. Afterwards dissatisfaction was expressed because it was believed that, leaving the crime still to be only one class, there would be great difficulty in making the real change in the administration of the law which the Commission desired. Therefore the first Resolution to which they had come was abandoned, and another Resolution was passed, after much consideration, that two classes of murder should be established. I was one of those who was opposed to the first Resolution, and who supported the decision which was afterwards arrived at. I did so on this ground—and I think the Commissioners came to that conclusion—that it was desirable that the jury should be permitted to decide distinctly this fact—whether the given crime was a murder of the first class or a murder of the second class. If it was of the first class, it would be in the position that all murders are in now, and the capital sentence would be executed unless the Home Secretary thought proper to interfere. At present there is no doubt whatever that there is the greatest possible and painful irregularity in the final determination in what cases the sentence shall be carried out. Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do—as far as I could gather from what he said—exactly what I want, and what the Commissioners wanted, I do not think he does it—as far as I comprehended from the explanation which he has given us. I am glad he alters the law in this respect, that instead of that monstrous interpretation of what is called malice, which is really Judge-made law, we are to have what is described as "deliberative intention." Assuming the act to have been committed, the jury must bring in a verdict of either murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide. Putting the latter out of the question, and remembering that manslaughter remains where it is, we come to murder, and that is left pretty much as it is now. The jury cannot say whether it is a murder of the first class, or whether it is a murder of the second class, and therefore is not capital. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, the jury, if it be murder, must bring in a verdict of murder, and the sentence will be determined either by some explanatory words which the jury may add, or by the decision of the Judge as to whether there was sufficient deliberativeness to make it what I shall call a classified murder. The object of the Commission was to do something like what there is in France, though not exactly like that system. In France, the juries in general being opposed to capital punishment will bring in a verdict, in a case of murder, "with extenuating circumstances," and in that case the crime is not capital. The Commissioners were of opinion, and I agreed with them in that opinion, that this was not a desirable thing to introduce here. It was better that the law should be more definite. At the same time, we were anxious that the law should be so fixed that every jury, in coming to a verdict, should know exactly into what list they were putting the crime and into what risk they were putting the prisoner. Unless I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope I have—the jury will be left almost in the position they are now in; and they will be only taken out of it by the decision of the Judge in the particular case. I should be glad to take a good many of these things out of the hands of the Judges. They are by no means infallible, and some are less wise than others. We have seen, within two or three years, one case especially, in which, owing to the course of the Judge, a man was hanged in this city whose case infinitely less called for capital punishment than many others to whom mercy has been extended. I am altogether against leaving the whole decision of these questions to these Judges. It was the object of the Commissioners to leave it to the jury; and unless the right hon. Gentleman can show that the object of the Commission in giving an absolute decision as to which list the criminal should be put in is wrong, I should be sorry to give my sanction to the alteration which he has made in the Bill which he is about to introduce.

said, he was very much disposed to agree with the observations of his hon. Friend who had just sat down. The two classes of murder should be distinctly defined, and should not be left to the discretion of the Judge. He had always maintained the expediency of abolishing the punishment of death entirely, and most probably he should again submit to the House a Motion to that effect. With regard to executions within the prison walls, the fact of being private would add to the interest excited in the public mind; and as the press would give every detail of the conduct of the prisoner, there was great danger lest the felon should be made into a hero. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had done well to adopt the definition of the House of Lords; but he considered with Sir FitzRoy Kelly that, resort to what contrivances they might, they never would arrive at a solution of this question without abolishing the punishment of death altogether.

said, he did not mean to oppose the introduction of a Bill which came to them on the responsibility of the Government; but he must even at that early stage, enter his protest against the retention of the punishment of death. The subject was thoroughly understood outside the House, and the great mass of the people were disgusted to see the Legislature still discussing the propriety of putting men and women to death, whether publicly or privately, and still viewing the penalty of death as a deterrent punishment, which the experience of ages had proved the contrary. But further, they were now called on, whilst retaining the capital punishment, to deprive it of its public character, which was considered to work so well in the way of example. He believed it was a great and ghastly blunder this putting of men and women to death in order to teach others the sanctity of human life—it was discreditable alike to our intelligence and our Christianity. He believed the time would shortly arrive when, instead of tampering with the law, the House would see the propriety of altogether abolishing the punishment of death.

said, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there would be opportunities for fully discussing the subject on the second reading and in Committee, those who were opposed to the punishment of death would not in the least degree advance their views by opposing the introduction of the Bill. As he understood, the Bill was substantially the same as that which was brought in by the late Government last Session and passed through the House of Lords, founded on the Report of the Commission, which had paid the greatest attention to the subject and made a very valuable Report. He therefore thought the Bill should be received by the House with favour. With regard to the alteration made, it did not strike him as an improvement. Great advantage would have been secured if the division of murder into two degrees had been retained, allowing juries to decide into which class the criminal should fall; and this would have removed what was the necessary consequence of the present law—namely, the frequent interference of the prerogative of the Crown, after a review of the evidence and consultation with the Judge. The fewer of these cases the better; the more certainty in the administration of the law the better; and that certainty would have been secured in a much greater degree if the distinction to which he had referred had been retained. He did not clearly understand what part the jury would have in pronouncing to what category the criminal should belong; but it would be better to wait till the Bill was printed to see whether there was any substantial practical difference between the two proposals. With regard to the second Bill, the great argument that weighed with him in favour of executions, not strictly speaking "private," but within the walls of prisons, was derived from the Australian colonies, where the practice was attended with complete success, while the scandal of public executions was obviated.

believed that the country generally would cordially approve of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had just laid on the table—the feeling of the country had gradually become stronger and stronger on this subject. He could not help expressing his surprise at the argument of the hon. Gentleman that execu- tions within the precincts of the gaol would not be of any value as examples. On the contrary, he thought they would be even more deterrent than when they were made public spectacles. The first execution in Manchester lately took place, and there was a concourse of 20,000 or 30,000 spectators to witness it; and there was no person in that large city whose opinion was not that executions ought to take place private, and should no longer be made public spectacles.

hoped that if the Bill passed it would rest with the jury, clear of all misunderstanding, to say whether a prisoner was or was not guilty of murder, in the first or in the second degree—that they should be made clearly to understand and pronounce of what offence they were finding a man guilty. It seemed to him that the definition of the offence was wholly changed, and he hoped that change would not lead them into the position that they should be attaching the penalty of death to a crime which was not murder according to the old definition of the term. For his own part, he was one of those who wished to get rid of capital punishment altogether. We were fast approaching that now. So much success had attended the abolition of capital punishment for various classes of offences that it was a great inducement to follow in that course, and he did not think that in cases where the extreme penalty of the law had been abolished for any description of crime it had been followed by any increase in that particular description of crime. Another reason that weighed with him was that there was at present no secondary punishment for an offence that was not exactly murder, but which was next door to it, except by inflicting the same punishment as that meted out to the man who had committed a number of repeated petty felonies—so many years' penal servitude. He regarded that as a misfortune of the law, which he hoped would be remedied. When the Bill was before them, however, they would be better able to judge to what extent these various questions were affected.

thought that the Bill did not carry out so well the intentions of the Commission as that which had been introduced by the late Government had done; but since a discretion as to the class of offence must be left somewhere he preferred to leave it with the jury. He should oppose the Bill when it came before the House for discussion.

wished to know whether the provisions of the Bill were to extend to Scotland and Ireland as well as to England?

said, that the Bill was only intended to apply to England. As, however, there was a difference between the Scotch and the English criminal law, he thought it would be better if a separate Bill could be introduced to Scotland. In answer to the observations of several hon. Members, he had to state that it was intended in every case that the jury and not the Judge should find the "deliberate intention" to murder. The Bill is drawn up in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, and the only case which is added to the list of capital offences is that of the murder of a policeman in the execution of his duty. If, in the opinion of hon. Members the Bill failed to carry out the intention of the framers, he had no objection to its being amended.

urged, in the strongest possible manner, upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he should include Scotland within the operation of the Bill. The question of capital punishment had long been a question upon which great interest was excited in Scotland, and he himself, twenty years ago, had signed a petition to this House praying for the abolition of capital punishment altogether. Any modification in the law proposed for England should, he thought, be extended also to Scotland. It was a mere matter of framing two or three clauses, and he objected to the principle of passing an Act of this kind which should be applicable only to England. The Law Officers of the Crown were competent to frame two or three clauses that would be sufficient, and he hoped, therefore, that they would be introduced.

wished to know if the Bill would apply to Ireland?

said, it would; and, with regard to Scotland, he would be willing either to bring in a separate Bill for that country, or to insert such clauses in the present Bill as would be sufficient for that purpose. But upon that he must consult the Scotch Law Officers.