assaulted probably; and if what is called | victed? Nothing had been said about MR. BRUCE regarded this as one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and hoped the Committee would support the Bill as it stood. The object was to secure improved order, and the great cause of disorder was knowingly permitting drunkenness. The publican did not run any risk of unjust conviction, and the public had a right to insist that every necessary security should be taken for the proper conduct of a business which was undoubtedly a valuable monopoly. MR. NEWDEGATE said, in view of the heavy nature of the penalties, it would be far better to give the justices a discretion as to whether, on a conviction, they would take the first step towards the cancelling of the licenses. MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE wished to know if a licensed person was to be answerable for the acts or conduct of his servants? because, if not, all he had to do was to go away from his house and allow them to do what they pleased. It seemed to him, looking at the whole case, that the magistrates ought to have a discretion in such cases, and he should therefore support the Amendment. MR. STRAIGHT had some experience in matters of this description, and believed there would be found the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining a conviction at all. He thought there would be the greatest difficulty in getting magistrates to convict if the penalty were made so heavy, especially in very numerous cases in which they would feel that the evidence was just sufficient to warrant a conviction. He hoped the Amendment would be pushed to a division. MR. FOTHERGILL pointed out that a landlord was liable to be convicted for suffering quarrelsome conduct; but what was quarrelsome conduct?" He thought he had witnessed scenes in the House in which the occupants of the Treasury bench might be charged with quarrelsome conduct. And then, on whose evidence were parties to be conMr. Whitbread MR. ASSHETON CROSS wished to call attention to the effect of recording the offence a certain number of times. As regarded the tenant, he would not have his license for five years. The consequence to the landlord was much more serious, because if those conviclose their license for two years" if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so think fit to order." Then, if magistrates were to have a discretion in a great matter like that, why should it be refused to them in trifling ones? MR. RATHBONE expressed his belief that the House would insist upon it that the owner of premises who had not taken proper pains to ensure that his house should be regularly conducted should be punished. The hon. Member for London had hit a great blot in the Bill, and that was the word "knowingly." If after having brought the fact of conviction home two or three times to a person, it was not to tell against him for serious punishment, they might as well throw the Bill into the fire. MR. J. G. TALBOT suggested that the provision of the clause should be "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary." MR. BRUCE said, that the provision in the Bill was necessary from the peculiar nature of the monopoly_which had been created for this trade. Magistrates hesitated to exercise the power with which they were armed by several Acts for taking away a license on a third offence. It was rarely they did exercise the power, and therefore, in the interests of society, they were justified in selecting a few offences under the Bill, and saying that in such cases the action of the magistrates should be compulsory. MR. J. G. TALBOT then moved to substitute "unless" for "if." MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE COUNTESS OF MAYO'S ANNUITY BILL. Resolution [July 22] reported, and agreed to: CARTER, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.] ROYAL MILITARY CANAL ACT AMENDMENT said, he could not allow the last state--Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAMment of the Home Secretary to pass unchallenged. He could himself speak for the magistrates of Middlesex and of the City of London that they had never shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses when necessary, and afterwards application to obtain the licenses so refused had been made to the Lord Chamberlain, and by him granted. He should support the Amendment, which he hoped would be pressed to a division. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, that the statement of the Home Secretary was strong, and he believed unjustifiable. The magistrates had not shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses, but the truth was they were rarely called upon to do so. It was against beerhouses and not against houses licensed by the magistrates that they had to proceed in that manner. MR. BRUCE hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kent would be withdrawn in order that the Committee might divide on the main question. MR. J. G. TALBOT said, he felt so strongly on this point that he must press his Amendment. MR. NEWDEGATE thought these words were necessary in order to make the Bill consistent with itself. It gave the magistrates discretion with respect to the period during which the House might be deprived of a license, and they ought also to have discretion with respect to the penalty to be inflicted. MR. R. N. FOWLER hoped the hon. Member for Kent would proceed with his Amendment, for he feared the Government were going so far that the magistrates would not convict. On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, Bill to amend the Royal Military Canal Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL and Sir HENRY STORKS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 24th July, 1872. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS Resolution in * Second Reading-Capital Punishment Abolition Withdrawn-Local Taxation Accounts* [220]; * SMOKE PREVENTION ACT-THE LAM- MR. HEYGATE asked the Secretary he would state to the House whether he of State for the Home Department, If possesses any power under the Smoke Prevention Act, or under any other Act Question put, "That those words be of Parliament, enabling him to deal with there inserted." the nuisance created in Lambeth and Westminster by the muriatic acid fumes arising from the Lambeth potteries? MR. BRUCE said, there could be no doubt that under the provisions of the Smoke Nuisances Act, the Secretary of State constantly exercised jurisdiction with respect to the consumption of smoke in potteries. It had been reported to him | acted efficiently as a deterrent and prethat the kilns of the potteries in ques- ventive of crime. Could it, he would tion had been as well made as possible for ask, tend to the reputation of the judithe purpose of consuming the smoke, and cial Bench that the Judge should be that, if any escape of smoke occurred, it obliged to pass sentence of death, when must be through the fault of the stokers. he knew perfectly well that that sentence The police had strict orders with refer- would not be executed? There were ence to those cases, and where necessary, many cases in modern times which it was their duty to prosecute. Prose- showed the great uncertainty of capital cutions were frequently being instituted punishment. There was the case of the before the magistrates, and he hoped clergyman Watson, who had unquestionthey would in future consider the ex- ably been guilty of an atrocious murder, pediency of passing somewhat severe but who yet obtained a reprieve; and sentences for a violation of the law. He there was the Brighton poisoning case, hoped, however, now that attention had in which Christina Edmunds was found been called to the matter that the stokers guilty of murder, and the Judge who would be more attentive to their duty. tried her declared that the jury had done The complaint in the present instance quite right in rejecting the hypothesis was not so much of the escape of pal- of her insanity; and yet that same pable smoke, as of muriatic acid gas. Judge shortly afterwards recommended. The escaped gas was not provided for by her to mercy, and she was sent to a the Smoke Nuisances Act; nor did the lunatic asylum. On the other hand, case come within the Alkali Act. If any there was the case of a man named Adsmoke or gas was evolved injurious to dington, a shoemaker, in Northamptonhealth, it was the duty of the local shire, who was unreasonably jealous of authorities under the Sanitary Act to his wife, and who murdered her. There prosecute, and in cases where it was in- could be no doubt that the man was jurious to property the law left the re- mad, but he was tried and convicted. medy to be provided by the individual Strong efforts were then made to save suffering. the man's life, and Dr. Pritchard, one of the best medical authorities in Northamptonshire, went with him (Mr. Gilpin) to the Home Secretary, to whom Dr. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ABOLITION (Mr. Charles Gilpin, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Pritchard said he would stake his pro Mc Laren, Sir John Gray.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. GILPIN, in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time" said, that the question was making a considerable advance not merely in public opinion out-of-doors, but in the minds of that House, and was proving itself to be sound philosophically, sound in practice, and approved by Christianity. He would also point out that none of those who opposed it in that House, even the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, approved the law relating to capital punishment as it stood, and was now administered, and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it could not be rightly carried out. Under the existing system the punishment of the criminal was frequently a matter of chance; and his (Mr. Gilpin's) conviction was, that it was the certainty and not the severity of the punishment which Mr. Bruce fessional reputation on the prisoner's the cases of Mr. Watson and Miss Edmunds. He remembered one Home Secretary who was not satisfied in merely recording the capital sentences passed by the Judges, and that was Sir George Lewis, who took upon himself in more than one instance to differ from the Judges and to act upon his own opinion. [Mr. BRUCE: So does every Home Secretary.] He was glad that such was the mode of proceeding; but the right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. Gilpin) did, that practically, it was the opinion of the Judge that decided these cases. In the course of the speech he made on this subject three years ago, he mentioned the case of Samuel Wright as that of a man who ought to have been reprieved. That man, under circumstances of provocation, having when asleep been dragged out of his bed, in the struggle that ensued, cut the throat of the woman who lived with him in Southwark. The man was conscientious in his way, and directly he had committed the crime he gave himself up to justice, stating that he was guilty of murder. He was tried immediately, and nothing could persuade him to plead "Not guilty;" for he said that he killed the woman, and he was guilty. Two thousand of his fellow-workmen, appreciating his character, went to the Home Office to petition for his life; but the man was hanged, and every house in the neighbourhood where he had lived had the shutters up or the blinds drawn down, showing the strong feeling which the execution had excited. Let hon. Members compare such a case as that with those of Watson and Miss Edmunds. There could be no doubt that the question of the abolition of capital punishment was only a question of time, and that before long the object he had in view would be accomplished by the substitution of a certain punishment for what he maintained was an uncertain one. Indeed, many leading men were adopting views in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, and in confirmation of that statement, among those whose opinions were in favour of the abolition of the death punishment, he could instance Earl Russell, Mr. John Bright, M.P., the Duke of Argyll, the Lord Chief Baron, Lord Lytton, Mr. Henley the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, the late Lord Brougham, and others. [The hon. Member here quoted extracts from speeches and writings of those authorities.] This was a matter on which the security of society depended, and he wanted to have a law which would prevent the crime of murder by the certainty of conviction, and by offering the least possible chance of escape to the perpetrators of the crime. In Tuscany, Portugal, part of Russia, Saxony, Belgium, Holland, and other countries on the Continent, and in several States of the United States, where capital punishment had been abolished, it had been found that the result of the relaxation of the law had been beneficial in checking the crime; and as juries in this country hesitated to pronounce a conviction which might be followed by the loss of life, the penalty of death was itself becoming the cause of its own abolition. It appeared from a Parliamentary Return for the 10 years ending in December, 1870, that during that decade there were 242 convictions for murder, and that 129 persons were hanged, the sentence of death in 113 cases being commuted. In 1835 Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst pointed out, that of the total committals for murder only half resulted in convictions, and only one-third of the prisoners were put to death. In 1867 there were 255 verdicts of wilful murder returned by coroners' juries, and 261 in 1868, and those verdicts resulted in 94 persons being committed for trial in 1867, and 71 in 1868. Of the persons committed for trial 7 were found insane in 1867 and 12 in 1868; 60 were acquitted in 1867 and 38 in 1868; 27 were sentenced to death in 1867 and 21 in 1868; and 10 were hanged in 1867 and 12 in 1868. The experience of other countries produced a very similar result. In Holland there had been no execution for murder since 1860, and in the 20 years previous to that time there were only 11 executions arising out of 205 committals. To show that the fear of the death punishment had not a deterrent effect he would cite the case of Sarah Chesham, who, in 1847, was indicted at Chelmsford on a charge of poisoning. She was however acquitted, and rumour declared that her acquittal was brought about by the efforts of an influential juryman who was opposed to capital punishment. In 1848 she was indicted for the murder of her children, and was again acquitted. She afterwards murdered her husband, altogether discontinued the detection and punishment of murderers were much more certain than in those countries where the death penalty prevailed. The accounts of the revolutionary trials and executions that were still going on in France were enough to chill the blood of Europe; and, as one might anticipate future revolutions in that country, one could not doubt that the present sowing of dragons' teeth would produce its terrible reprisals. In America, on the contrary, after the Civil War, as soon as order was proclaimed, the pardon of rebels was almost unlimited, and not one was executed. Of the recommenda|tions of the Capital Punishnment Com for which crime she was executed. In all, | the deaths of 14 persons were laid to her charge; but if the punishment had been anything short of death, society would have been rid of her after the first case. There could be no doubt that in most cases where the evidence was overwhelmingly strong a jury would be found to convict; but there could be no doubt also that jurymen engaged in trying murder cases were apt to do what jurymen should not do, and what they would not do if the punishment was not one from which there was no appeal namely, try to find out loopholes which would enable them to give such a verdict as would not involve the last penalty of the law. Hon. Members might, per-mission, only one, relating to the privacy haps, be disposed to say that all his of executions, had been acted upon. He sympathy was for the criminals and appealed to the Home Secretary, whethat he had none for the victims; but ther he could defend the law as it stood, that was not the case, for his argu- which could not be carried out, and ment was, that by the punishment of would not be as long as the right hon. death no good was done to the victims, Gentleman retained his present office? and that harm was done to society. The Commissioners unanimously recomThere were many instances of innocent mended that juries should have the oppersons being found guilty of murder, portunity of deciding in reference to a and Chief Baron Kelly had mentioned murder whether it was of the first or of that in his experience he had become the second degree. Adopt the recomacquainted with 22 cases of capital con-mendation for the classification of murvictions, in all of which the innocence ders, and we should be certain of conof the accused had been subsequently victions in all cases of murder of the established. In connection with this second degree; and then, instead of part of the subject, he would refer to murderers being let loose upon society, the case of the Saffron Hill murder, in we should have the crime of murder which Pollizioni was tried before Baron effectually discouraged. It was true Martin, and sentenced to death, the Lord Mayo would have escaped assassinlearned Judge remarking that he was ation at the hands of the man who mursatisfied the prisoner was the man who dered him, if that man had been hanged inflicted the wound. Four weeks after- on his former conviction; but let it be wards new facts were collected by Mr. remembered that in this and other cases Negretti, and subsequently a man convictions were made under the law as named Gregorio was found guilty of it was, and not under the law as he prothe offence with which Pollizioni was posed it should be. We had abolished charged. But Pollizioni had stood upon a large number of capital offences by the very verge of the scaffold-was in making the punishment secondary, and the condemned cell, saw no escape from the offences had not increased either in it but through the gallows; and yet was number or in atrocity; and that which as innocent as the right hon. Gentleman had checked other crimes would have in the Chair whom he (Mr. Gilpin) was an equal, if not a greater, effect in now addressing. They should also bear checking that of murder. In fact, every in mind that although it might be said amelioration of the penal laws had been that there were very few cases com- attended by a lessening of the crime paratively in which innocent people against which the laws were directed. had been hanged, that after the drop The punishment of death for small had fallen there would not exist the offences had been abolished, because it same reason for attempting to prove was found that juries would not convict, the innocence of the culprit that would in spite of Legislature and Judges, when exist if he were still alive. In all coun- it was known that execution would tries where capital punishment had been follow conviction In confirmation of Mr. Gilpin |