that there was great difficulty in obtaining a full number of special jurors, and he thought that the question whether there should not be some legislation on the subject deserved consideration. With regard to the last Question of the hon. Member, as to the liability of Members of that House to serve upon special juries, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that their exemption was not founded on any statute, but merely upon the privileges of the House. There could be no doubt that a Member of Parliament was exempt while Parliament was sitting, and in 1829 it was decided by the then Speaker that a Member was exempt when the House adjourned. The question whether that exemption held good during a prorogation had not yet been settled by any authoritative decision, but it appeared to him that exemption from serving upon special juries could not be less extensive than the exemption from arrest. He was, therefore, of opinion that the exemption referred to extended over a proro the High Bailiff of Westminster and other SALE OF BEER.-QUESTION. SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he would THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in re- beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Excheply, said, that special jury lists were made quer, Whether a Return can be made by out by the parish officers, whose duty it the Government of the quantity of Beer was to place upon the list the name of every sold in the United Kingdom in any one householder qualified to serve. Special year; and, if so, whether there is any obsessions were held for the purpose of revis-jection to a Motion for such a Return for ing the lists, and if the hon. Member found the years 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865? his name improperly placed upon the list his THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEremedy was to apply to the Justices to ex- QUER: Unfortunately, Sir, it is not in punge it. When the list was made out it our power to give any Returns on the subwas entered in the jury book for the follow-ject which I could in any manner guarantee. ing year, and then it became the duty of There are apparently the means of renderthe summoning officer to summon every ing such Returns, because the licences of person whose name appeared in it. It was brewers are charged according to a scale, not the duty of the summoning officer to the steps of which are described by so inquire whether any person liable to be many barrels of beer. Therefore, it may summoned was or was not permanently be supposed that we have the power of resident in London, as it was sufficient to giving very nearly the number of barrels of leave the summons at the place of residence, beer. But in point of fact, although that law there being no necessity for personal ser- is founded, and always has been founded, vice. If the person summoned desired to on a certain number of barrels of beerhave the fine for non-attendance remitted that is, a supposed number of barrels of on the ground of his absence from town, beer, or the number of barrels of beer he must apply to the Court, who would take computed to be brewed from the quantity the matter into consideration. In answer of malt used by each maltster, which quan. to the third Question of the hon. Member, tity of malt of course is known-yet there he believed that some inconvenience had is no rule of knowledge whatever. In point arisen from the fact that many persons of fact, information given on that ground, occupied residences both in London and while it might mislead people by an apin the country, which gave rise to much pearance of reality, would be but of a dedifficulty. At the same time, he must say ceptive character. CATTLE DISEASES BILL-REMOVAL OF | be no objection to the production of these HIDES THE TANNING TRADE. Papers, which might be useful as showing the course which the Government had taken QUESTION. COLONEL EDWARDS said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the staple trade of many towns, and of Beverley in particular, will, if the present restriction be continued, be injured, and a large proportion of the population thrown out of employment, it is the intention of the Government to redress the inequalities in the Tanning Trade now arising out of the differences in Local Orders with regard to the removal of Hides, by issuing an uniform Order in Council on the subject? MR. BARING said, in reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to state that the Government was aware that there was a very great disturbance in the tanning trade, mainly in consequence of the decision at which Parliament had recently arrived, prohibiting the removal of cattle by railway until the 25th of March, and the result of which was that animals were slaughtered in places where there were no conveniences for doing so. The Question, however, was now before Parliament in the form of clauses contained in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which was now in another place. He was informed, and he believed, that the Bill would be sent down to that House shortly, and, therefore, until Parliament should have expressed an opinion upon the subject, it would be clearly improper on the part of Government to issue any Order on the subject. COLONEL EDWARDS said, he wished to know, whether Government were inclined to support the clause having reference to this subject which had been introduced into the Bill of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire when it came down to that House? SMITHFIELD DEAD MEAT MARKET. QUESTION. MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table a Memorial addressed to him by the Churchwardens and Inhabitants of St. Sepulchre's parish in November last regarding the Smithfield Dead Meat Market and the Correspondence consequent thereon? SIR GEORGE GREY said, there would upon the subject with the corporation of London. If the hon. Member would move for the Papers they would be given. CLERKS TO JUSTICES BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. COLVILLE, on rising to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit Justices' clerks for counties conducting prosecutions in cases where the offender has been committed by the Justices to whom he acts as clerk, said, he sought to introduce no new principle, but simply to extend to counties the prohibition which had long existed in boroughs. He felt most strongly how much all those who acted as Justices were advantaged by the assistance of well qualified clerks, but the clerks were, he thought, unfortunately, paid by fees, and a very strong impression existed out of doors that in advising decisions the clerks were influenced by pecuniary motives. Certainly, the fees increased by a commitment; and with £6 or £7 looming in the distance if a prosecution was to be conducted by the clerk in the event of the offender being committed for trial, the pecuniary advantages obtained by a Justices' clerk by recommending a commitment or conviction were considerable. He asked to be allowed to bring in his Bill to avoid in part this scandal. Clerks in boroughs had been prohibited from conducting prosecutions since the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act. The tendency of modern legislation was to prevent officers having any money benefit from advice judicially given. Coroners were, by statute, forbidden to conduct prosecutions where cases had come before them or their jury. He (Mr. Colville) asked the House to extend the same prohibition to County Justices' clerks. He quoted a judgment given by Lord Campbell in the case of R. v. Fox, where the Judge said Unpaid magistracy have been and are a great credit to the country, but it is of the last importprosecutions, that he should have no bias in his mind, and that he should obtain no advantage, either directly or indirectly, from those cases in which he has to give advice." ance that the clerk should have no interest in the He thought that hon. Members, on whichever side the House they might sit, would agree with the remarks made by the learned Judge, and he hoped they would give their support to his Bill. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the Government had no objection to the introduction of the Bill. Motion agreed to. out without considerable difficulty and opposition. It required at the early part of the present century a Romilly and a Macintosh to produce the smallest mitigation of the terrors of the law; and in the present age we were much indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) for his efforts to reduce the severity of our penal code. In reviewing our laws as to capital punishment we should find Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.] satisfied with merely hanging a man outthat in the year 1754 the country was not Bill to prohibit the Clerks to Justices in Counties conducting the prosecution of any offender committed for trial by the Justice or Justices for whom they are acting as Clerk, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLVILLE and Sir HENRY HOARE. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS WITHIN LEAVE. FIRST READING. side the gaol, but required him to be publicly carted from Newgate to Tyburn. There he was hung in chains, and, after the body had been cut down, was dissected. A few years later Parliament required that MR. HIBBERT, in moving for leave to execution should follow sentence within bring in a Bill to permit Capital Punish- forty-eight hours. A few years later, ments to be carried out under certain re- again, the culprit during those forty-eight gulations within the interior of Prisons, said, hours was allowed nothing for his sustenhe should have been very glad to leave the ance but bread and water. It was not question entirely in the hands of the Go- until 1832 that any indication was given of vernment if he had perceived any disposi- an opposite feeling in our nature. In that tion on their part to bring in a Bill on the year the Judge had the option of saying subject, and a desire to carry it to a suc- whether the body after execution should be cessful issue. He was personally careless dissected. Two years passed on, and a as to the fate of his own Bill, provided he further step was taken in this direction. attained the object he had in view. He Two years later, again, the law was put into wished to make a few remarks on the pretty nearly the state in which it stood at question with which the Bill he asked leave the present time, the body being buried in to introduce sought to deal, because last the precincts of the place where the crimiyear, when he had the honour of submit-nal had been confined previous to his exting a similar measure, he was prevented ecution. That was the last legislation making any statement by the fact that the which took place. This mitigation of subject was at the moment under the con- punishment had not had the effect of insideration of the Capital Punishment Com-creasing crime; for he found in the "blue missioners. In looking at the question he could not help referring to the very great change which had taken place in our penal system and in our penal laws during the present century. The House, he was sure, would agree with him in thinking that civilization had advanced concurrently with those changes, and that a mitigation of our penal laws had been produced by the force of public opinion. At the commencement of the present century criminals were hung, one might say, in droves; there were then no less than 160 crimes subject to capital punishment. He could not avoid referring to those times when the pillory was a public punishment, when culprits were hung in chains, and whipping was resorted to as a means of correction. He did so to show how the rigour of the law had been relaxed, and how the result justified our doing away with the few remains that were left of the barbarism of a past age. Those changes had not been carried book "that in the ten years ending with 1832 the average number of executions per annum was 12.8, or 1 in 996,000 of the population; in the ten years ending 1842, 9.7 executions per annum or 1 in 1,536,000; in the next, 106, or 1 in 1,596,000; and in the next decade, ending with the year 1862, 11 executions per annum, or 1 in 1,727,000. Those figures bore out what he had stated namely, that as the penal laws were mitigated, so crime, instead of increasing, had rather decreased. He would not take up the time of the House by referring to the very unpleasant scenes which took place on the occasion of a public execution. Every hon. Member would have read the thrilling descriptions that appeared in the press of what occurred on the occasion of the execution of the five pirates, and also of the man Müller. He would quote an extract from The Times' report of the execution of Müller, and he did so more especially because that journal had expressed a strong opinion against his proposal. The writer of the extract to which he referred said "It was such a concourse as we hope may never again be assembled either for such a spectacle, or for the gratification of such lawless ruffianism as yesterday found scope around the gallows. There can be only one thing more difficult than describing this crowd, and that is to forget it. None but those who looked down upon the crowd of yesterday will ever believe in the leisurely, open, broadcast manner in which garotting and highway robbery were carried on... Such were the open pastimes of the mob from daylight till near the hour of execution. . . . The impression, however (speaking of the silence at the time of execution itself), if any it was, beyond that of mere curiosity, did not last for long; and before the slow slight vibration of the body had well ended, violence, laughing, oaths, obscene conduct, and still more filthy language, reigned around the gallows far and near." The majority of the press in London and the provinces concurred in the alteration which he proposed, and even The Times had seen reason to change its views. That journal stated that the time had, perhaps, arrived when these executions should not be carried out in so large and populous a place as the metropolis. No one anxious to promote civilization could wish to see the recurrence of a scene of that kind. He must say for the press of this country, that, with some exceptions, it was to a very great extent in favour of the change be proposed. It was not in London alone that scenes like that he had referred to occurred. He could give the House as harrowing a description of scenes that took place at Kirkdale, near Liverpool. On one occasion above 100,000 persons were present at an execution there, and on another occasion 200,000 people were drawn from various parts of the manufacturing districts, many of them having travelled night and day to Liverpool to witness an execution, and they were content with catching a glimpse of the last agonies of the dying man. Two points had been raised by way of objection to executions being carried out in private. One was that if they did away with public executions they at once destroyed the deterrent effect on possible criminals; and the other was that they could not carry out executions in the gaol and at the same time satisfy the public that the sentence had been duly carried out. With respect to the deterring effect of public executions a letter appeared a few days ago in one of the morning papers from Dr. Lyford, a gentleman long connected with the Win Mr. Hibbert chester County Gaol, in which the writer stated that it had been his painful duty to witness on the scaffold about forty executions, and that on inquiring of the culprits, just immediately before their execution, as to whether they had ever been present at public executions, with two exceptions all replied in the affirmative, and several stated that they had witnessed many. He had letters from numerous persons in different parts of the country-gaol chaplains and others-very much to the same effect. He had also a letter from Mr. Thomas Wright, known in Lancashire as the prison philanthropist, who having attended more than fifty criminals to the gallows, gave it as his opinion, founded on his own observation, that public executions were not deterring in their effect. The Capital Punishment Commission had very carefully considered this question, and they recommended that "An Act be passed putting an end to publie executions, and directing that sentences of death should be carried out within the precincts of the prison, with such regulations as might be conpublic that the law had been complied with. sidered necessary to prevent abuse and satisfy the He would not enter into the evidence which had been given before the Commissioners; he had no doubt it would be well weighed by hon. Gentlemen; but he desired to remind the House that fourteen or fifteen of the witnesses examined had spoken in favour of the change he proposed, and that several Continental and American States had long since carried out the principle of private executions with success. The countries in Europe in which executions were not public were five in number-namely, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Brunswick. In Prussia the system had been in operation since 1851, and in the other countries since 1856. In Americs the system was in operation in five or six different States, among them being New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maine. In the Report of the Capital Pun ishment Commission there were replies from those different States of America showing that the plan had been entirely successful in that country, and that they did not wish to change it again for the system of public execution. The evidence which bore in the strongest degree in favour of his proposal was that which had been received from the Australian Colonies. In South Australis the system had been in operation since 1858, and in Queensland, Van Diemen's Land, and New South Wales since 1853. The Governors of these several colonies in Royal Commission to consider the question every instance stated, in reply to questions of capital punishments, I assented to a sent out to them from this country, that proposal to offer for the consideration of not only did they consider the present the Commissioners whether those punishsystem of carrying out executions within ments should be conducted in private or as the gaols to be as deterrent as the public at present. And I would take this opporsystem, but that there had never been since tunity of saying how much we owe to the the system was put in operation the slightest Members of that Commission, who, after suspicion on the part of the people that the spending much of their time in hearing sentence was not duly and properly carried and weighing the evidence placed before out. In order that the same result might them, have come to so clear a conclusion attend the adoption of the plan in this upon the whole matter. Their Report is country, he proposed to provide that the very valuable, and I trust by its aid we sheriff, the gaoler, and other persons con- may be able to make a real and substantial nected with the gaol, should be compelled improvement in the law. I think they took to witness the execution, and that the a good deal of evidence with regard to that magistrates of the locality and the repre- part of the subject to which my hon. sentatives of the press should be permitted Friend referred. The Government obtained to be present at the time of execution. He for them the information you have heard also proposed to give the sheriff power to from my hon. Friend, with respect to the admit others who might think proper to be conduct of executions in the colonies, and present. He next provided for a coroner's I confess those facts have produced a great inquest being held within a certain number impression upon my own mind. Indeed, I of hours after the body had been cut down, stated my opinion upon that point when I the jury to consider whether the sentence gave evidence before the Commission in had been duly carried into effect; and then favour of the proposed change. The mahe provided that certificates, signed by jority of Commissioners reported in favour those parties, should be sent to the Home of the change. The course the GovernSecretary, and also posted outside the ment have taken with regard to the Comgaol immediately after the execution. He missioners' Report is this: they have thought that an execution conducted in that prepared a Bill which has been very careformal and solemn manner would be far fully considered, and is now being revised more awful than the present mode of carry- by Mr. Waddington, the Assistant Secreing it out in front of Newgate or the other tary of the Home Department, who was gaols of the country. In this belief he had one of the Commissioners. The measure every confidence that the House would, in is also in the hands of one or two other the interest of justice, humanity, and Members of the Commission, and it has religion, support the Bill which he now been framed with a view to give effect as asked leave to introduce. much as possible to the recommendations contained in their Report. My own opinion is that it would be better to deal with the recommendations of the Committee as a Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to propose for the carrying out of Capital Punishments within Prisons ;"-(Mr. Hibbert.) SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend. He has given great attention to the subject of his Bill; and has many times called the attention of the House to the principle upon which it is founded. The measure he proposes for our consideration does not touch in any degree, as I understand it, the question whether we should have capital punishment or not; it simply relates to the mode of giving effect to that punishment. Permit me, Sir, to remind the House of what has taken place upon this subject. When I announced the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to issue a whole. I think my hou. Friend when he sees the Bill will say that it very fairly embodies his own views as to the mode of dealing with capital punishments. Looking to the present state of public business, probably the best way of obtaining for the measure full consideration at the earliest moment would be by introducing it in the other House of Parliament. I should be sorry for a moment to have the appearance of dictating to my hon. Friend, but, under the circumstances, I hope he will not press on the second reading, being assured that the subject must be brought before Parliament in a Bill founded on the Report of the Royal Commission. MR. GILPIN said, he was not about to oppose the introduction of the Bill; because |