said, that before the Orders of the Day were read, he would venture to make an appeal to hon. Members in charge of Bills on the Paper that day to facilitate Public Business by allowing them to stand over for another day, so that some further progress might be made with the Education Bill. He only made that application as a request, because he had no right to press it on the House.

said, he rose on a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a rather unprecedented request without any previous Notice. The Prime Minister had a Notice on the Paper a day or two since asking for Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman forbore to make the Motion. Every hon. Member had a right to believe that the ordinary course would be adopted that day; and if the Elementary Education Bill was proceeded with, the House would be placed at a great disadvantage by this sudden change at the last moment, when many Gentlemen, including his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), were absent in the full conviction that the Education Bill was not coming on.

said, there was nothing out of Order in the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He had only put a Question to hon. Gentlemen in charge of Bills as to the course they intended to pursue.

who had charge of the Burial Grounds Bill, which stood as the First Order of the Day, said, he was willing to assist the Government. He had some days ago suggested to the Prime Minister that he should ask for precedence on Wednesdays, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course. The request now made placed him in a difficult position, because he had assured the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and others that his Bill would come on that day, and it was hardly fair that he should deprive them of the opportunity of discussing it. At the same time, he was willing to do all he could to expedite Public Business, and if other hon. Members would adopt the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would waive his right to proceed with the Bill which stood in his name.

who had charge of the Criminal Law Evidence Amendment Bill, which stood as the Second Order of the Day, said, he also was placed in a peculiar position; but after what had taken place he must decline to accede to the request which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members had asked him whether his Bill would come on that day, and he had told them that he thought it would, and consequently those who were interested in other Bills were absent. Moreover, he objected to the Education Bill being taken in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and others who took great interest in the subject of education. He might also state that he had been waiting the whole Session hoping to bring on his Bill, and that day he expected having the opportunity of doing so.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the question had been before the public for something like 20 years, and the failure to provide any solution hitherto was not creditable to Parliament. The sanitary difficulty was one to which public attention should be directed. He be- lieved that the public would be shocked at the scandalous condition of many burial grounds in the country districts, as well as some of the cemeteries of our large towns, and he hoped that one result of the discussion, by calling attention to the subject, would be an inquiry into their condition by the Government. So far as the Bill now before the House was concerned no further provision for burials was required in the metropolis or large towns, except in the sanitary direction he had indicated. But as to burial in the country generally, he believed he was correct in saying that the State had made no provision for it, but that it was a matter left at present to the charity of the Church. Then as to the wish of Dissenters, that they should be buried according to their rites, the way to remove one conscientious objection was not by transferring it from one set of shoulders to another—from Nonconformists to Churchmen, but rather by legislating in the direction of this Bill, which would relieve Nonconformists from the grievance under which they now laboured, as it would allow them to have a burial ground of their own. Would it not be better to treat the question from the sanitary point of view? His Bill proceeded upon that basis. It provided both in urban and rural districts for the establishment of unconsecrated burial grounds, creating no new local authority for this purpose, but calling upon rural and urban sanitary authorities to put the provisions of the Bill into operation, because the burial of the dead was a sanitary matter, which the State ought to take into its consideration and provide for. It also enabled several small parishes to combine for the purposes of the Bill. The chief peculiarity of the measure was the power it would give to minorities to put it into operation. Twenty ratepayers might call a meeting in any parish; if no poll was demanded, the votes of one-fourth of the ratepayers present would put in force the provisions of the Bill; and upon a poll the same proportion of votes would have the same effect. He admitted that there was no precedent for such a proposal, but it must be remembered that the Bill was one for the protection of minorities. With a view to limit the expense to the rates, the Bill contained what he might call a statutable suggestion to every Burial Committee appointed by a rural sanitary authority that a site for the new burial ground might probably be given by one of the chief landowners; but if not, provision was made for the purchase of the site, spreading the repayment over a period not exceeding 50 years. The Bill provided for the appointment of a Burial Committee, and if they did not do their work it gave power to the Secretary for the Home Department to take measures that the work should be done. There was also a provision to enable chapels to be erected where they might be desired, but only, let it be observed, where they were desired, and power was given to enable persons now disqualified from doing so to grant sites for burial grounds in the same way as sites for schools might be granted. He hoped the debate would not close before the House heard from the Home Secretary that the Government were prepared to take up and settle the matter on sanitary grounds. If they were prepared to do so, the best way in which they could deal with it was by the appointment of a Commission, the result of whose inquiries might form the basis of legislation. If the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) were carried, it would only introduce into the churchyard alien ministrations without settling the sanitary question. For his own part, he was prepared to say that no churchyard should be extended without making provision in it for some portion of unconsecrated ground. He hoped he had shown, by the introduction of this measure, a bonâ fide desire to assist the solution of the question. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped, at all events, that if nothing else came of the measure this Session, the House would affirm its principle, which was neither controversial nor theological, but, on the contrary, social and sanitary.

in moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day two months, said, that notwithstanding the lateness of the Session he was glad that the hon. Member had had an opportunity of moving the second reading of the Bill, because he felt that the more such proposals as this were discussed, the more would it be seen that they were utterly inadequate to remedy the grievance they sought to remedy. If it had been brought forward as a sanitary measure, he should have had little to say about it, except that it was rather late to bring forward so important a measure on the 26th July. But the scandals to which the hon. Member had referred had not come home to his experience. Whatever necessity existed for increased burial accommodation in the crowded districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, no such necessity existed in the district in which he lived. If they were to tell the Denbighshire peasant that the churchyard on the hillside in which the bones of his fathers were laid, and in which he expected to lay his bones, would shortly be closed for sanitary reasons, he would laugh in their faces. This was not a sanitary measure at all, for it did not contain a single provision for closing a churchyard, so that, unless its promoters were prepared to say that the interment of Dissenters was more injurious to public health than the burial of Churchmen—on account of the odour of sanctity in which the latter died, or something of that kind—theBill left the question of sanitary reform where it was at present. The hon. Gentleman had said that the object of the Bill was to relieve Nonconformists from the grievance of being compelled to bury their dead without the forms and ceremonies which they approved. How did the Bill attempt to accomplish that object? In the first place, it enabled a mere handful of ratepayers to call a meeting together, and if they obtained a vote in their favour, they were to put into operation the cumbrous machinery of the Bill. Why, this Bill was ten times more vicious in principle than the Permissive Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, because while that Bill would enable a majority to oppress the minority, this one would give a power to a minority to oppress the majority. He could not conceive a more invidious task thrown upon the rural sanitary authority than that of requiring them to elect the Burials Committee every three years. In Wales, if not in England, almost every parish would be the hot-bed of discord whenever such an election took place. The question of expenses the hon. Member had treated as a mere bagatelle, and he proposed to allow the Burial Committee to purchase land as sites for burial grounds, though he hoped that persons sufficiently munificent would be found to make a free gift of the sites. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) doubted whether under the present law there were more than a dozen such free gifts; and the ratepayers, therefore, would have to bear the expense, which would be extremely heavy. A short time ago an advertisement appeared in The Times from Bromley, a parish in Kent, a division of which county his hon. Friend so ably represented and according to that advertisement £12,500 would be required to provide a burial ground. There were 9,000 parishes in England in which there were no cemeteries, and in which the ratepayers would be entitled to invoke the assistance of this Bill. If a third only of those parishes availed themselves of its provisions, at a tenth of the money which the parish of Bromley required, the cost to the taxpayers would be over £3,000,000. The Bill would therefore be far too expensive, and such a proposal, emanating from a party that had always prided itself upon a stubborn resistance to increasing the burdens on local rates, seemed to him absolutely monstrous. The Dissenters did not want the Bill. They said—"We are entitled to be buried in the parish churchyards with such rites and ceremonies as we think proper; but you say—We will not grant you that right; we give you the right of obtaining cemeteries for yourselves, with the privileges of putting your hands in your pockets and paying for them. "What was that, but to give them a stone when they were asking for bread. If he and those who acted with him differed with the promoter only as to the machinery of the Bill, that matter might be arranged in Committee, and some agreement might be come to, but they differed as to the principle of the Bill. Neither did he think any good would come of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. That had been done before, and the whole question had to be fought over again. He objected to the Bill because it was a crude measure, because it was an utterly unpractical one, and because it would entirely fail to remedy the grievance which it professed to remedy. For those reasons he would conclude by moving its rejection.

acknowledged the conciliatory tone both of the introducer of the Bill and the mover of the Amendment, but deprecated discussion as likely to be unfruitful at that period of the Session. Some hon. Members were prepared, if necessary, to vote for the Bill as a declaration of principle in which they concurred, while others were desirous to study the details of the measure; and probably, in regard to a question so complicated as this, no two hon. Members could be found to come to an identical opinion upon all points. Under these circumstances he would suggest to his hon. Friend that, having held out the olive branch, he should, now withdraw the Bill, and not put the House to the trouble of dividing on the second reading. At the same time, he hoped the Government would tell them something of their views about a question which it was now impossible for private Members to bring to a solution.

said, before the Order was discharged, he would like to have an opportunity, as a member of the Disestablished Church in Ireland, to say a few words upon the Bill. The real question, as he understood it, really was—whether Dissenters should have separate burial grounds, or whether they should be permitted to perform their rites and ceremonies in the old churchyards. Let him briefly tell the House what had been done in Ireland. In 1824 a Bill was passed by the Imperial Parliament giving Dissenters the right of burial, with their own rights, in the Irish churchyards. Up to that period the law as to burial in Ireland and England was exactly the same. That law was introduced to the House by a great lawyer, Mr. Plunket. Mr. Plunket, in introducing the Bill, which afterwards passed, made a remarkable statement as to the law. He declared that the Protestant parson had a freehold in the churchyard, and no one could enter without his leave without committing a trespass. But besides his rights as a possessor of the soil, he was appointed to superintend Christian burial, and he could grant permission for interment. By the Act of Uniformity he was to read the Burial Service of the Church of England over every person, and therefore, if the Protestant clergy insisted upon their rights, the Act virtually deprived the general body of the people of their right of interment. As he (Mr. Plunket) put it—it was an interception of the rights of the people, imposed upon them by the Act of Uniformity. That was how the matter stood in England at the present day. According to the law of the land, every person living in the parish had a right to be buried in his churchyard with what rights he chose, subject to the rights of the Protestant clergyman before mentioned. There was no illegality in the performance of those rites. Supposing a clergyman had performed the rites of the Church of England, or waived their performance, there was no law to prohibit the performance of Dissenting rites in Protestant churchyards. Therefore, there was no illegality in the performance of those rites, and the only difficulty in the way was the Act of Uniformity. So far as to the law on the one side. Now, mark what it was on the other. According to the law at the present time, everyone had a right of interment in some Protestant churchyard. His relatives were entitled to claim it, subject to the rights of the parson. There was no difficulty but the Act of Uniformity in the way, and of that Act Churchmen had little reason to be proud; for it expelled the best men in the Church of England, and left a legacy of weakness and dishonour to the Establishment which she had never recovered. It was that Act only which stood between the full right of the Dissenters to use the churchyards for burial. And what did that word burial mean at the Common Law? It did not mean simply placing the body in the ground. It meant interring it with such solemnity, and such reverential rites, as each person in his own conscience desired to be employed. That was the right of burial which the Common Law gave to every parishioner, and the Act was intercepted only by the Act of Uniformity. He most cordially supported the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to admit Dissenters to the same rights in England which they had long enjoyed in Ireland. They had found no inconvenience, no dissension to result from the system in Ireland. He (Mr. Butt) was brought up in his childhood in an old parsonage close to the churchyard, and he well remembered with affection that some near and dear to him lay buried there. He thought it would be a great misfortune if the affections of the people were turned away from the old churchyard, by their being sent to the cemetery instead of their bones being laid by those who were near and dear to them in the old churchyard. He did not think it was an act of statesmanship to take away from the old churchyards the affections and the memories of a large proportion of the people, nor did he think it was entirely consistent with Conservative principles thus to detach burial from the religion of the land. He opposed the Bill on the ground of Christian liberty; on the ground that it really was not fair to refuse the Dissenters the Common Law right which they at present possessed, and on the good old Conservative principle that they ought not to detach the affections of the people from the Church and the churchyard, and weaken the Church by relegating the people in that way to the cemeteries.

said, he was sorry his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been obliged to leave the House on Public Business, as he would have spoken with more authority than he could command, but as he knew his right hon. Friend's views he would endeavour to state them. His right hon. Friend would have concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that no further progress should be made with the Bill. They could not expect at that time of the Session any practical result from a division on the principle of the Bill; and to vote on the second reading now, would be voting on something in the nature of an abstract Resolution. The measure involved many details which could not be accepted without considerable discussion. The discussion which they had already had could not fail to make it evident that it was the duty of the Government to give their best attention to this question; his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was giving his attention to it, and no doubt he would consider during the Recess whether it would be possible in another Session to make any suggestion or proposal on the subject; but he thought it would be inexpedient at the present time to attempt to develop any views of the Government on the subject, which must either be done fully, or the statement would really amount to nothing. He thought perhaps the best course would be to allow this Bill to be withdrawn, or, if there was any indisposition to withdraw the Amendment, to adjourn the debate, which it was obvious could not be discussed with any prospect of a practical result.

said, that the Bill only touched a portion of a large and difficult question, but it was an honest endeavour on the part of Churchmen to meet the views of those who differed from them. He had no hope of ever being able to satisfy all parties who considered themselves aggrieved, as there were many who would accept no compromise upon the question. He was very glad to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which had, indeed, been given in "another place" by another Cabinet Minister—that the Government would take this matter into consideration, and he hoped that next Session they would be able to introduce a Bill which, without giving up the rights of Churchmen, would remedy any grievance of which the Dissenters could justly complain. He therefore recommended his hon. Friend the Member for West Kent to withdraw the Bill.

said, he had no wish to divide on the Bill, nor did he wish to divide the feelings of hon. Members upon the matter. He hoped that as the Government had announced their intention of dealing with the question, that a pacific solution of it would be arrived at. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire had another idea as to the way it should be dealt with, but probably they were both wrong, and as it was a question which must be solved in one way or another, he was pleased to find the Government were prepared to undertake it. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) that we ought not to sever the association of the living from the resting-places of the dead, but it was because Churchmen had such an intense affection for their churchyards, where, for 300 years, nothing but the words of consolation of the Burial Service had been heard, that they objected so strongly to their—he would not say desecration—they objected to the provisions of a Bill which allowed not merely Roman Catholic services, and what Secularists called their Liturgy to be performed, but harangues to be delivered, displacing the services of the Es- tablished Church, unless proper securities were taken against them. The associations connected with burial grounds were of a sacred character, and they would never allow them to be desecrated or misused. He understood the Amendment would be withdrawn. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: No.] That being so, it would be better to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, he should not have spoken had not the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) made a speech so defiant and strong in its language that it might have been delivered on the second reading of a Bill vehemently opposed, and ought never to have been delivered on a Bill about to be withdrawn. He, for his part, had advised that the withdrawal of the Bill should not be opposed; but after the speech to which they had just listened he should certainly vote against the Bill or against the adjournment if a division was called. The Bill itself was in his opinion a bad Bill, but it was needless to discuss its details when its passing was impossible. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had many tenants and neighbours who were Nonconformists, and he altogether deprecated and protested against the tone and language of the hon. Member for West Kent. That hon. Member and those who thought with him appeared to draw a broad line of demarcation between Churchmen and Nonconformists, as if the latter were scarcely of the same race as themselves. When the hon. Member used such a word as "desecration" in regard to the services of Dissenters in churchyards, he was doing his best to render any settlement of the question impossible. If the Church of England was to maintain its position in this country, it would not be by cultivating a spirit of narrow exclusiveness, but a spirit of enlarged toleration, and in these days it was much more desirable to draw near and heal the breach between the Church of England and the Nonconformists rather than widen it by such language as that of the hon. Member for West Kent.

explained he had not used the term "desecration"with reference to the burial of Dissenters, but to rites which might be introduced in churchyards under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), which would in the estimation of Churchmen amount to "desecration."

insisted that no safeguards against "desecration"of churchyards had been provided by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire. He had himself admitted the fact.

said, that in moving the second reading of his Bill he had distinctly said that he had introduced no safeguards, because, in his individual opinion, none were necessary, but that if any safeguards were suggested from the other side they should receive from him the fullest consideration.

thought safeguards were necessary. The right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had misunderstood the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot). He simply tried to show that Churchmen had those strong feelings for the resting places of the dead to which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) referred, and that under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire those feelings might be seriously violated. When his hon. Friend spoke of "desecration," he referred not to the Nonconformist service, but to the Secularist Liturgy, the use of which they would probably desire, equally with clergymen, to see rendered absolutely impossible in their churchyards.

stated that after the second speech of the hon. Member for West Kent he felt some difficulty in withdrawing his Amendment. He must divide the House.

said, he was surprised, and very much regretted that a discussion of that nature should be necessary in that House. In Scotland they had ample experience of the freedom of interments in the graveyards of that country, and he must say that although even a Secularist might pronounce any sort of oration over the grave of a deceased relative which he thought proper, it did not appear to the people of Scotland that such an oration was any desecration to their feelings. Scotland might well be cited as an example of a country where there was perfect freedom to inter in such way as the relatives of the deceased might think proper. In the graveyards of Scotland the Ritualistic Episcopalian might perform the ceremony according to the Burial Service of the Episcopalian Church, the Roman Catholic might do the same, according to the ritual of Rome, and a Presbyterian might be interred without any form of worship at the grave. It was becoming the practice to recite passages of Scripture and deliver short prayers; but on no occasion had the feelings of the people of Scotland been violated or offended in any way, and in his opinion the sooner they saw a similar liberality in existence in England the better it would be for the Established Church.

said, all he desired was that a system under which we had lived for so many years should not be wantonly broken up. He desired to maintain the order which he believed was precious to the people, and to preserve the sacred character of churchyards. He, however, considered that a time had arrived when all Churchmen admitted that some change in the law was necessary, and they were prepared to approach this question in a spirit of charity and conciliation.

said, that as the churches and churchyards were national property no one had a right to use them unless subject to those restrictions which the nation imposed. He therefore thought some compromise should be adopted on this question which would satisfy the views of Churchmen and moderate Dissenters. The Bill was not a religious Bill at all, and he regretted that religious feeling had been introduced in connection with it.

said, he did not think that the Opposition were acting in a spirit which was likely to produce a settlement of the question.

desired to say that he was sorry that if, under the strong feelings he entertained on the subject, he had used any expression which could give the least offence to hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had referred to the feelings of Nonconformists, and his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) object was to show that if feelings existed on the other side of the House they equally existed on his side. He repeated that he was sincerely sorry if he had said anything which could be the least offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was quite unintentional; and he still hoped that the Bill would be allowed to be withdrawn.

said, that after the appeal of the hon. Member for West Kent he would not persist in dividing the House.

said, he must apologize for not being present during the discussion on the Bill. Nothing but pressing business of a public character would have kept him away. He was very glad to think that the discussion had ended in the way it had done. He sincerely hoped that in the course of next Session they would be enabled to come to some satisfactory arrangement on the subject. He was quite sure that the best course they could take was to avoid doing anything to raise an angry feeling on the one side or the other.

in moving, that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to enable prisoners, their wives and husbands, and co-prisoners, their wives and husbands, to give evidence when on their trial on a criminal process. Many of the Judges had recently expressed their dissatisfaction at the present condition of the law, and many of the more thinking of the Professional classes desired to see a change made. In the Eupion Gas Case, for example, the Lord Chief Justice of England complained that the fact of the law shutting the months of all the persons charged rendered it very difficult for the Court to get at the truth. There was, again, the Wainwright Murder Case. Was there not even now considerable doubt in the public mind as to which of the two brothers was the more guilty of that crime? Was it not manifest that if the two men could have gone into the witness box and told their own story, we should have been better able to tell which was the more guilty of the two? It had been objected to the Bill that it would prove a torture to the prisoners, as it was in Germany; but he maintained that the abuses which were connected with the examination of accused persons in foreign Courts of Justice could not occur in our own, where all tradition was in favour of fairness to the prisoner, who would not be examined by the Court, but by his own counsel, if he had one, and cross-examined by the counsel for the prosecution; and under such circumstances he was less likely to be entrapped into admitting his own guilt than he was by the policeman who arrested him, whose evidence of such admission often secured conviction. It might raise a strong inference against him if he did not go into the witness box, but it would be a just inference; and it might be enacted that no comment should be made on that fact by counsel. It was so contrary to the spirit of our judicial proceedings to tolerate anything approaching to torture that such a result need not be feared; and any apprehension of an increase of perjury, which had not followed the admission of the evidence of the parties to a suit, ought not to prevent an improvement in the law. Mere lying, as contradistinguished from legal perjury, was a thing with which we had nothing to do; and we tempted prisoners to tell lies at present. He did not lay much stress on an oath, though it was a good form to maintain; but in this case the object could be attained without an oath if the accused could be cross-examined. He believed that a system such as he proposed would go far to elicit the truth, because no one could give better evidence than those who were concerned in the transaction, and he was confident that time would overcome the natural prejudices of the Legal Profession against the change of a system which they had supported and which had supported them, and that public opinion was becoming ripe for that change.

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day two months, said, he thought his hon. Friend had hardly realized the magnitude of the change to which he had called the attention of the House. The Bill, though a short and apparently a simple one, struck at the very root of the principles upon which their law was administered in Criminal Courts, and was contrary to the very instincts of the people in this country with regard to dealing with criminals. He disputed the recital in the Preamble of the Bill, that the examination of prisoners and their relatives would assist the conviction of offenders and the discovery of truth; and speaking from some experience of criminal matters, he maintained that such examination would work injustice in many instances and prevent the ascertainment of truth. It was one of the most re-actionary measures he had ever known to be introduced into the House, and would be quite unworkable. So far from being an improvement, it would be a return to the practice of the dark ages, when it was the business of those who presided at criminal inquiries to do all they could to entrap the accused into fatal admissions. The result of the proposed change would often be that the hardened, guilty offender would get the benefit of his evidence, while a timid, nervous person, though innocent, would involve himself in greater difficulty. A man often derived more benefit from the fact that the mouth of his wife was closed than he could possibly derive from the evidence of the wife. If we could not convict an offender from the evidence of independent persons, it was better he should escape than that we should run the risk of putting an innocent man in jeopardy. He could, if necessary, quote the opinions of many Judges against the proposed change, and the Lord Chief Justice, in the opinion which had been quoted by the hon. Member, referred to the hardship of including several persons in one indictment, so that one could not be examined in favour of another. He would conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.

said, he was, and had always been, a law reformer, but he could not support the Bill, because it was based entirely upon theoretical principles, and was not calculated to cure any practical evil which experience had brought to light. He did not hesitate to say that having had a large experience in criminal practice, he had never known an instance in which innocence had suffered, or justice been defeated, in consequence of the want of the power proposed to be given by this Bill. All the points were generally brought in evidence before the jury. He thought that a Bill of this kind, involving questions of the greatest magnitude, ought not to be brought in at this advanced stage of the Session, when there was not sufficient time to consider and discuss its provisions; and looking at the great changes which it proposed, he begged to say that he could not give his assent to it. Instead of reform, he regarded it as a retrograde Bill—a Bill of torture, going back to the dark ages, and not a progressive Bill. A fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence was, that a person accused of crime was held to be innocent until his guilt was proved. But this Bill would practically reverse that principle. The so-called permission to the accused to tender himself for examination, was no permission at all, but, in practice, would be compulsory, for the prisoner who did not tender himself, would be open to adverse comment on the part of the prosecution for not doing so. The state of things then would be this—that instead of the prosecution being obliged to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, it would be the duty of the accused to prove his innocence. Another important principle was also at stake, and one that deeply concerned the due administration of justice, he meant the public confidence in the impartiality of our Judges. At present the Judge sat to hear and take down the evidence, interfering in no way with, the prisoner in the conduct of his case, or with the witnesses, unless to prevent improper evidence being given. Indeed, it was his duty to interfere for the protection of the prisoner oven against himself, or, sometimes, the imprudence of his counsel. Under the Bill, if it became law, the timid prisoner—the innocent prisoner—and not the experienced rogue—would be placed at a disadvantage. He had often seen this in Court, and many a time had he said to himself—"How fortunate it is that I am not obliged to call upon the prisoner as a witness, and subject a respectable inexperienced man to the ordeal of a cross-examination. "At present there was confidence in our Courts of Justice, because the Judge sat there calm and impartial, and at the close of the evidence he summed it up, leaving out nothing which told in favour of the prisoner, and with that aid the jury were enabled to arrive at a proper decision. This gave confidence in the administration of justice; but if an accused person could be examined as a witness and cross-examined, he believed that they would have scenes of wrangling between Judges and prisoners which would become a public scandal. The prisoner would inevitably be tendered for examination in every case; a scene of wrangling between him and the Judge would often ensue; the dignity of the Bench would be lowered, and the public confidence in the impartiality of our Judges and in the administration of justice be shaken. He asserted that it would be a great improvement if the law were altered so as to permit a husband to be called as a witness for a wife and a wife for a husband; but in regard to the other principles of the measure, he was satisfied that the change proposed ought not to be adopted. He regretted that the Session was so late that he could not state all his objections to this Bill; but he would conclude by expressing his earnest hope that the Bill would not pass, and he only regretted that a Bill dealing with a matter of such importance could not have been brought forward at a time when the subject could have been fully discussed.

said, he also regretted that the Bill had come on for discussion so late in the Session, when there was so little probability that it would become law. He differed en- tirely, in his experience of the administration of justice from his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Serjeant Simon); but he could not permit the question to pass away without expressing his opinion upon it. Having been brought up to the Profession almost from a child, he had been favourable to the institutions and practices that he found in existence; but his experience, the experience of many years, as Recorder of London and one of the principal Judges of the Central Criminal Court, had convinced him that it was most important for the interests of justice—for the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent—that some such change as was now proposed should be made in the law of this country. Wives now could not be examined where their husbands were concerned, or husbands for their wives, and nothing more absurd could be conceived. Very often the only person who could prove a man's innocence was the wife, especially as to events which were alleged to have occurred at night. If the accused husband was a good, moral man and lived with his wife, her mouth was closed; but if he were an immoral man and lived with a mistress, she could be examined in his defence. All the objections which had been urged against that portion of the Bill which proposed to change the law in that respect had been urged against previous changes of the law which, nevertheless, had been found to work beneficially and materially to promote the interests of justice, as, for instance, in the case of allowing the parties interested in civil suits to give evidence. He had lately been reading the Memoir of Lord Althorp, in which it was stated that that nobleman brought forward a Small Debts Bill in which he proposed to give power to the parties to be examined. A Judge of those days said of the proposal that it was most barbarous and abhorrent, and that nothing would result from it but unmitigated perjury. But the change had been made, and what had been the result? No person who practised in our Courts wished to return to the old system. No doubt, perjury was occasionally committed, yet the alteration in the law had tended most materially to the elucidation of truth. Justice was more speedily and more certainly arrived at, and under the species of compulsion that now existed the defendant was often obliged to admit the debt which otherwise he might have successfully disputed. But we had gone rather further than altering the law in mere civil actions. When the Divorce Courts were established, there were universal complaints from women that their mouths were closed in matters of supreme importance to them. That was felt to be a great hardship, and by universal consent the parties to a suit were allowed to be examined. In no cases was there a stronger temptation to commit perjury, and perjury was no doubt sometimes committed, but the truth was more certainly arrived at. He now asked for the same relief for the innocent prisoner who stood at the bar charged with some criminal offence, and he could not, with his experience, say with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, that the change was unnecessary. He had often felt when he entertained doubts about a case that those doubts would be entirely removed if he could put six questions to the prisoner. In two cases of forgery which had occurred before him, women had been called whose evidence could not have been received if they had been the wives of the prisoners. One woman told the truth, and most reluctantly established the case on the part of the prosecution. The prisoner was according convicted; but if she had been married to the prisoner, he would wrongly have been acquitted, because her mouth would have been stopped. The other woman was not called by the prosecution, but her evidence in the prisoner's favour soon broke down on cross-examination, and her statement having been found to be untrue, the prisoner was in that case also convicted. If those women had been the wives of the prisoners, and one of them had been convicted, application would have been made to the Home Office for the release of the prisoner upon the affidavits of those women, and when they were referred to him, as they probably would have been, for his report, he might have found it very difficult to come to the conclusion which he had arrived at without hesitation when the women were examined in open Court. He was not proceeding in this matter upon theory; but upon facts which had forced themselves upon him in course of his judicial life. The only misgiving he had had in regard to the proposed change was as to how far the popular feeling would go with it. During the period, little short of two years, which he recently spent in the United States, he lost no opportunity of visiting the Criminal Courts to see the working of this system. He heard several trials in which the prisoners were examined, and in every case their evidence tended to the elucidation of the truth. He was specially struck by the manner in which this system worked for the deliverance of the innocent. He was present at one trial where the prisoner admitted that he had been previously convicted, and of the same sort of offence. He gave, however, as a witness, such a complete explanation of all the circumstances against him, and his evidence was so completely confirmed, that he was at once acquitted by the jury. He might go further than his own experience, because he lost no opportunity of asking the opinion of the Judges and. the prosecuting officers, and one and all agreed that the change had been an improvement. The Chief Justice of Maine, Justice Appleton, stated that the new system had worked admirably, and had given great satisfaction to the Judge, the Bar, and the public. Innocent men were able to give important evidence in their own defence, and the Chief Justice said he regarded the change as absolutely indispensable to the due administration of the law. The district prosecuting attorneys described the change as having assisted greatly in bringing the guilty to punishment, while the innocent might rejoice in the opportunity thus afforded of proving their innocence. The prosecuting attorney for the district of New York stated that the Bench and the Bar were once all opposed to the change, but they were now unanimous in its favour. This officer told him that in seven cases in which he had conducted the prosecution he had, after hearing the explanation of the prisoner, thrown up the case. It was said that, although the Bill only provided that a prisoner "might" submit himself as a witness, yet the effect must be that he would be compelled to get into the box, or, if he did not, his guilt would be presumed. That was, he admitted, a somewhat strong point; but the objection might be, to some extent, obviated by providing that the Judge should be bound to tell the jury that they were to give their decision upon the evidence, and not to draw any inference from the fact that the prisoner had not chosen to be examined. This was the law in the United States; and it had the effect, at any rate, of preventing the prosecuting counsel from using this as a topic against the prisoner. Unless it could be alleged that our Judges were unfit for their high offices, he had no fear of any change in their manner or demeanour as a consequence of the change now proposed. He had felt it his duty to offer to the House such assistance in coming to a right decision as might be derived from a not inconsiderable experience in criminal trials, and he trusted that the House would affirm the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time.

regretted to be obliged to differ from his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder. Speaking from his experience as Common Serjeant, he contended that his right hon. and learned Friend had not made out any case for subverting the principles upon which the criminal law of this country was administered. He did not believe there was one case in a hundred about which the Judges had any doubt; and, that being so, where was the necessity for the Bill? Was it contended that innocent people were largely convicted? No one pretended to say that. It was the rarest thing possible for an innocent person to be convicted in the English Courts. Again, were the guilty not convicted? No one ever pretended to say that. It was said that there was a great number of persons, of whose guilt there was no moral doubt, who were acquitted by reason of the technicalities—the just technicalities—of the law, which required that a case should be proved beyond the region of doubt. He utterly denied that proposition; and, moreover, if it had been so, he was certain that the evil would not be corrected by the Bill. A great point had been made as to the desirability of getting at the truth; but the truth was only worth a certain purchase, and if it required the assistance of the present Bill to establish a case of petty larceny, then he said that the price paid for the truth was too great. The chances, too, were that the prisoners would add perjury to the crimes with which they stood charged, merely making the case of the prosecution against them stronger than before. Everybody knew that there was a great amount of perjury committed in the Divorce and Civil Courts—committed, too, under far less pressure than existed in the Criminal Courts. It was said by his right hon. and learned Friend that the system had been found to work in America; but no one would deny, he thought, that acts of perjury had been largely multiplied since the change in the law took place. It was immoral—immoral in the highest degree—that the House should legislate for the admission of witnesses who would get into the box under influences which would make it imposssible for them to tell the truth. It was the principle of the law as it stood that it was not for a prisoner to prove his innocence, but for the prosecution to make out the case it had brought against him; and if this proposed change of the law came about that axiom could not be maintained. Differing as he did from his right hon. and learned Friend, with great diffidence he felt bound to declare that anything more injurious, more calculated to affect the credit of the administration of the law in this country than the proposed changes, he could not imagine.

said, he had listened most attentively to his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder of London, whose great experience enabled him to speak with authority; but, after all he had heard, his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) own experience had brought him to a contrary conclusion, and he was constrained to oppose the Bill, because he believed the proposed alteration in the law would work injustice. It would neither tend to the elucidation of truth, nor to the protection of innocence. He concurred with much of what had been said by the hon. and learned Common Serjeant (Sir Thomas Chambers). In the County Courts, of which he had much experience, there was no doubt some perjury; but he believed nothing like that which would take place in Criminal Courts, with, of course, greater injury to public morals and the administration of public justice. There might be some advantage in admitting a wife as witness for her husband, and a husband as witness for his wife, and he cordially approved of such a proposal; but to the general principle of the Bill he could not give his support.

said, that having had some experience at the Home Office and also as chairman of quarter sessions, he was unwilling to let hon. and learned Gentlemen of the long robe have an entire monopoly of the debate. The permission proposed to be given by the Bill to a prisoner to be examined, if not taken advantage of, must tend materially to the disadvantage of that prisoner; for if he refused, having as he would have under the Bill, the option to be examined, no power on earth could prevent that fact operating against him in the minds of the Jury. This would be much more the case in such an instance as that quoted by the right hon. and learned Recorder, where a man admitted, in answer to his own counsel, a previous conviction for an offence similar to that with which he was charged and afterwards satisfactorily established his innocence of that charge. Suppose the prosecuting counsel had elicited the fact of the previous conviction, and the man's defence had not been so conclusively satisfactory, could any one doubt that the fact of the previous conviction would have weighed heavily against him in the mind of the jury? Chairmen of quarter sessions had recommitted lists before them when they tried prisoners, and he owned that he himself in charging the jury found it sometimes one of the most difficult parts of his duty so to exclude from his mind the knowledge of previous convictions as to prevent its giving a bias to his analysis of the evidence. The law of England was that a prisoner should be tried by the evidence brought upon the particular charge against him, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) deprecated the introduction of anything which would prejudice the jury. Then, again, as regarded the instance brought by the right hon. and learned Recorder, of two men convicted by the evidence of their mistresses, who could not have given evidence if they had been wives. The first woman told the truth and convicted her paramour. Well, suppose she had been his wife, was there not something repugnant to English feeling in the idea of obtaining a conviction against a prisoner by the evidence of his wife? Moreover, what a terrible temptation you would hold out to the wife to commit perjury? But take the right hon. and learned Recorder's second prisoner. His mistress attempted to establish his innocence by lying, but broke down under cross-examination. But suppose the man had been really innocent, and the wife, nervous and full of anxiety, had been called to prove his innocence. Might it not have happened that her very interest in the case would have caused her to break down under the astute cross-examination of counsel, and her evidence might have helped to convict an innocent man just as that of the mistress helped to convict a man who was really guilty? Upon the whole, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) regarded the Bill as one which would militate very greatly against the interest of the prisoners, and, in spite of his respect for the right hon. and learned Recorder, he could not support it. He apprehended that his hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would be satisfied for the present Session with the ventilation which the subject had received; and, for himself, he must say that upon the whole he did not think a sufficient case had been made out for a change in the law of England in this important particular, and he felt bound to say that the Preamble of the Bill was not proven.

in opposing the Bill, said that, not having been present during the entire debate, he would endeavour to avoid urging at any length arguments which he understood had been already submitted to the House. He was not one of those who thought that private Members were to be blamed for bringing forward Bills of that nature. On the contrary, great advantage, he thought, often resulted from the discussion of such questions as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Evelyn Ashley)had brought before the House. The Bill was one of the greatest importance, because if adopted it would effect a radical and sweeping change in the administration of our Criminal Law, and that not only in England, but also in Ireland. Its provisions would apply to every prisoner charged with an indictable offence, or an offence punishable on summary conviction. In either case it would allow the prisoner to submit himself for cross-examination. The Bill said it should be optional for the accused person to do so; but it was clear that if a prisoner failed to avail himself of an opportunity of explaining his position, by giving evidence on oath, his doom would be sealed. He was ready to admit that there was a great amount of plausibility in the Bill—that there was a great deal in it that was seductive, and that the Bill had been supported by arguments of great force; but, nevertheless, he had come to the conclusion that the measure was one that it was not advisable should become law. First, he thought that if the Bill passed, it would tend to weaken the confidence which at present existed in the administration of justice in this country; and, secondly, that whilst they might by it try to bring home a particular crime to a particular person, it would beat the expense of creating even a greater crime than that with which the person stood charged. The widespread and well-founded confidence of the country in the administration of criminal law had its origin in the feeling that although occasionally a criminal might escape, it was almost impossible under our system for an innocent person to be convicted. No man was put upon his trial unless some facts and circumstances of a suspicious character could be proved against him, and if he declined to give an answer the counsel for the prosecution would press forcibly upon the jury the argument that he had no answer to give, and in nine cases out of ten such reasoning would be convincing. Although the Bill was plausible in its object of allowing a prisoner to give evidence, its effect would be to compel him to do so; and, if he did, what would happen? They would have an ignorant, careless, inexperienced man on one side, and pitted against him an astute, trained advocate conducting the prosecution. Would they like to see any such prisoner, however desirous he might be of telling the truth, subjected to an ordeal in which he might be cross-examined as to every event of his life—as to some things which he might not be desirous of disclosing at all, some which he would hesitate to speak to because they would reflect upon a third person, some as to which he might give an evasive answer, and all which circumstances could not fail to weigh against him with the jury? But it was said that the prisoner might be examined by the Judge. Well, he hoped they would not witness the day in which a Judge might be seen engaged in a contest with the prisoner he was trying. The moment a Judge descended from the calm, serene atmosphere with which he ought to be surrounded, to the region of turmoil and advocacy, that moment he would lose the fairness and impartiality which ought to distinguish all who held the high office of a Judge. It might be that he would do so unconsciously; but, even without desiring to do so, he could not help entering into a contest with the prisoner which would, at least, have the effect of shaking confidence in his perfect impartiality. But it was said that the system worked well in America and other countries; and he always remarked that when any of our institutions were arraigned they were invariably referred to those of other countries, which were said to be superior to our own. For his part, he very much doubted whether they were; and this he held—that, so far as the administration of justice was concerned, England stood supreme among all the nations of the world. Among other reasons he might mention which led him to oppose the Bill, he would allude to only one, and that was that in the whole calendar there was hardly an offence of greater heinousness than perjury, for by reason of it men might lose their estates, reputation, and liberty; and yet the Bill would offer a premium for that grave and detestable crime. For these and many other reasons, he was convinced, as he had said, that such a measure ought not to pass into law.

thought that the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down were disposed of by the experience of the Civil Courts, in which no injurious consequences or practical inconvenience had been found to arise from the fact that interested parties were allowed to give evidence in their own cases. The present system left accused persons almost entirely at the mercy of the police, who frequently perjured themselves and conspired together in order to secure convictions. ["Oh, oh!"] There was great and growing dissatisfaction in many places against the conduct of the police, and he was afraid that in some cases policemen were continued in their office who ought to have been removed. He hoped that the existing law would be modified so far as persons charged with misdemeanours were concerned, if the Amendment did not go further. He could assure the hon. and learned Attorney General that he "inherited a pledge" from his Predecessors in office to give this matter full and practical consideration.

referring to an observation of the hon. and learned Attorney General, said, that if the Bill had been proceeded with, many of the arguments against it would have been answered as he would have proposed the insertion of the provisions which he intimated the first time he spoke upon the measure—that neither the Judge nor the prosecuting counsel should make any remarks upon the absence of a prisoner from the box, and that there should be nocross-examination of a prisoner as to previous character or previous convictions. He was perfectly satisfied with the tone of the debate, and he regarded the speech in favour of the Bill by the right hon. and learned Recorder as calculated greatly to assist the progress of opinion on the question. With the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not intend to press the measure upon the House, but that he desired simply to make a statement with a view to some legislation at a future time. [The hon. Member here explained the provisions of the Bill, and entered into some details as to the mode in which he wished the existing law to be amended, particularly as to the mode of assessment.] In conclusion, he said, he would formally move the second reading of the Bill, with the view of hearing something from the Government on the subject, though he felt that there was no option but to allow the Order to be discharged. He was strongly opposed to the discrepancies, the anomalies, and the injustice of the present system, but he thought it would be better to wait for the introduction of a Government measure next Session, which he hoped would supply a general remedy.

regretted that, owing to the present state of Public Business, he should have to move that the Order for the Government Valuation Bill should be discharged, as under that, the general measure, they might have successfully dealt with the particular case of the metropolis. He had been in communication with all parts of the country, and every local authority on the subject, and he believed there was a general approbation of the principle contained in the Bill, which was, if possible, to establish a system of uniformity throughout the country in the cases of valuation of property. He would not enter then into a discussion upon the question whether the charge should be on the rateable or the gross value. He was not prepared to say what might happen during the Recess, but the more he had considered the question, the more satisfied he felt that the plan he had proposed would be the least disturbing. It would be impossible for the Government to agree to the second reading of the Bill, which would apply to the metropolis a measure founded on a principle different from that applicable to the rest of the country.

thought the Bill required great consideration, and hoped the House would have an ample opportunity of discussion. Should it be withdrawn, they might then have a more satisfactory general proposal put before them next year.

entertained the same opinion, that the Bill required serious consideration; and he could say that in the City of Edinburgh, which he represented, the inequality of the valuation of property, as compared with the provisions of this Bill, would be unequal and unjust. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it was a species of class legislation, giving a remedy to the metropolis at the expense of all the large towns in the United Kingdom. Whatever was done in the way of putting the present system of valuation upon a uniform basis should be made to apply to the whole country.

said, that there should be a common measure of value which should be applicable to the whole country, and to all the taxation paid by the country—a thing which it was clearly possible to arrive at.

hoped that when any change was made in England, it would be in favour of a gross rateable value both for Imperial and local purposes. He desired to see adopted also the principle of valuation by counties and by parishes, as it was now in vogue in Scotland.

was anxious that the question of valuation should be properly adjusted, so that irregularities and inequalities might be got rid of. The mode of valuing property both for local and Imperial taxation differed in the three divisions of the Kingdom. The Irish values were, in many instances, based on prices existing many years since; and in England, the county and local valuations were made on data varying with the counties and towns. In Scotland, on the contrary, the basis of valuation was uniform throughout, and had been so since 1854. On the whole the Scotch system was the best; but the supervision of the measure being vested in the Lord Clerk Register, he feared that in practice many irregularities took place which led to great inequalities. It was very necessary that some Department of the Government should attend to the valuing of property throughout the Kingdom. Unfortunately there existed great diversity of administration; the valuation of Ireland being under the Chief Secretary of Ireland, that of England and Wales being divided amongst the Treasury, Home Office, and Local Government Board, whilst that of Scotland was left to that overburdened officer the Lord Advocate; the result being that the valuation of property in the three divisions varied so greatly as to be totally unreliable from the absence of any uniformity in the data on which it was based.

suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn, on the ground that inconvenience would be occasioned by a division being taken upon it. Of course, there was no chance of its passing, and it was useless to press it forward, for as his right hon. Friend had said no Bill could be sanctioned upon the subject, which dealt with the metropolis solely.

said, he would assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and withdraw the Bill.

said, he hoped that the measure would be read a second time, although it would require considerable modification in Committee. It contained an important principle—that was, to divide murder into two degrees, one of which only, murder in the first degree—that was murder deliberately committed—should be punished with death. That was really the proper definition of murder, for, in his opinion, no act should be punished as murder, except the unlawful killing of another with the deliberate intent to kill.