He was not opposed to what were called | might be obtained in our ordinary schools "fancy franchises," but maintained that in reading, writing, and ciphering, or was they ought to be unconnected with the it that more extensive instruction which Government for the time being. This would enable a man to judge of the value Bill, however, placed in the hands of subor- of the vote with which he might be indinate officers of the executive Govern- trusted? Upon that point no two speakers ment the power of conferring the right of seemed to concur in opinion, each person voting in this country as regarded all men classifying the description of education to who did not live in £10 houses. If that be required under different heads. Supprinciple were applied to the boroughs, posing it to mean, to use an ancient exhon. Gentlemen opposite could not with pression to be found in Bacon, that it was any face refuse to apply it also to the coun- simply book-learning, then the course of ties. Were they prepared to say that the the debate had introduced a number of mere abstract, standard of reading, writing, difficulties having reference to University and ciphering, applicable to little boys of or middle-class education, and such as was eleven or twelve years of age who worked given to the working classes. But if the for farmers, was to be the test by which supporters of the Bill would look to its promen should be admitted to exercise the visions and see the nature and character of elective franchise? Hon. Gentlemen op- the education contemplated, and the exposite knew there was nothing which in amination which those who desired: a their hearts they so much hated as a mere vote were to undergo, this would be found abstract intellectual qualification. A notice to be an attempt to deceive and injure of Motion which he had himself given had them, and he had no hesitation in saying been referred to as being of an analogous that it was an extremely insidious Bill, and character to the present measure; but likely to do them more harm than good. none of the franchises proposed by him Scarcely a working man would submit himwere dependent on the official action of self to the examination proposed, and, acGovernment employés. He had often said cording to his impression of the working that a mere house test, though a good classes, when they came to read this debate one, ought not to be the only test for a they would exclaim "What is the House voter. He was very favourable to educa- of Commons about?" If any hon. Memtional tests which fulfilled the conditions bers had taken the trouble merely to of social as well as purely intellectual glance over the heads of the clauses they qualification. If the hon. Member could would find how impossible it would be to point out any local or other machinery in work this Bill. Hon. Members opposite dependent of the Government and applied did not appear to understand its remarkby persons having no direct interest in the able provisions. The third clause enacted control of the examinations he would be disposed to support it. MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS said, he wished to explain his reasons for voting against the Bill. Although he had listened attentively to the debate, he had failed to discover that anything liked a fixed idea prevailed with regard to the principle of the Bill, or any precise explanation as to what was contemplated by it. He was unable to discover whether it was education alone or education coupled with some other qualification that should give the vote. He would therefore start with supposing that they meant education alone; and having listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, and certain philosophic extracts that had been read from the writings of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, he could not ascertain what was meant by education. Was it mere book learning? Was it the instruction which "That any such person, to be entitled to a certificate of educational qualification under this Act must pass, in conformity with the provisions therein contained, a satisfactory examination in reading, writing from dictation, and elementary arithmetic, that is to say in simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division; and also addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of money." Now, he ventured to affirm that there was not a Member in that House who was not a banker, or accountant, or very quick at figures who could do a sum that might be required under this Bill in the division of called upon hon. Gentlemen to rapidly anmoney; and to prove that assertion he swer him this question. Supposing that they had £100 placed in their hands, and they had to pay their workmen £3 8s. 6d. each, how many could they pay out of it? Debate adjourned till To-morrow. House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock. of the Commissioners, and after introducing it he thought it right to submit it to the Judges. The result was that only two objected to the proposed distinction, while many of the others expressed themselves MINUTES.PUBLIC BILLS First Reading-strongly in its favour as likely to act very Nuisances Removal* (182); Belfast Constabulary* (133). Second Reading Companies' Act (1862) Amendment (124). Committee-Law of Capital Punishment Amendment (61); Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man) (68 & 134); Hop Trade (123 & 125). LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COMMITTEE. beneficially. There was an objection to giving the name of manslaughter to murder of the second degree, manslaughter being a crime of which the degrees were very wide apart, and the penalty varying from a day's imprisonment to penal servitude for life. It would not be right to class a man who had carelessly caused the death of another by running over him with a person who had nearly incurred the capital penalty. He thought it was very desirable that the term murder should attach House in Committee (according to Order.) to some cases where capital punishment was Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to. Clause 4 (Murder to be of two degrees). EARL GREY objected to the proposed division of murder into first and second degrees. He thought that it would be better to place the latter in the category of manslaughter and to have two degrees of the latter crime; but he thought it would be better to retain the punishment of death for murder according to the existing state of the law. He moved the omission of the clause. not inflicted, for the name of murder would be regarded as a stigma even among the most depraved classes. He could not therefore accede to the Amendment, and hoped their Lordships would adopt a clause which had received the sanction of a large proportion of the Judges. THE EARL OF LONGFORD supported the Amendment, regarding the proposed distinction as uncalled for. EARL RUSSELL thought the clause was in accordance with the present state of public opinion, which was in favour of Moved to omit Clause 4.-(The Earl capital punishment for aggravated cases of Grey.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that in his evidence before the Royal Commission he declared such a distinction unnecessary; not, however, that he thought any harm would accrue from it. The intention of the clause was that aggravated murder should be punishable with death, and that murders not so aggravated, and the punishment of which under the present system was commuted on appeal to the Home Secretary, should not involve the capital penalty. This would be effected by calling the latter murder of second degree. He thought it essential to draw a distinction between murder of an aggravated distinction and murder committed on the spur of the moment without premeditation-such for instance as the case of a man who killed a keeper in a poaching encounter, or a shepherd who took the life of a thief breaking into his master's sheep. fold. Such a distinction had been successfully adopted in New York, Massachusetts, and other States of North America. The Bill was framed on the recommendations murder. He did not, however, think that the distinction between the two degrees of murder was drawn with sufficient distinc tion; and that as the clause now stood it might happen that crimes of one degree might be punished under the head of the other degree. At the same time, he believed the Bill to be a step towards the abolition of capital punishment. While he agreed to the distinction he would ask his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) a question with respect to the precise effect of the clause as it stood; for he remembered a case of a man being pushed by another into a river and drowned, which he thought under the wording of the clause would be murder of the second degree, though it appeared to him that if capital punishment was desirable it should apply to a case of that kind. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he was somewhat surprised at the remarks made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. Until he heard the noble Earl's observations he had been under the impression that this was a Government Bill, that its details had been discussed in LORD ROMILLY said, he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend. He feared that if there were two classes of murder there would not be in the public mind the same degree of culpability attached to the crime as it was desirable should exist. He thought that if there was to be any change that instead of making two classes of murder, it would be much better to have two classes of manslaughter simple manslaughter and criminal manslaughter. His noble and learned Friend instanced the case of a man who might kill a keeper in a poaching affray: but that was murder. Murder should be held up always as a horrible thing, and the public should be led to view it with the utmost detestation, which would not be the case if a distinction were drawn between murders of the first and second class. the Cabinet, and that it had now been | Lord Chancellor with respect to this Bill, brought forward on the united authority of and had been in communication with him the Government. Not, however, having in regard to it. He also agreed with ever had the honour of a seat in the the Commissioners that there should be a Cabinet he might be wrong in his con- distinction between murders-as of the jectures as to what took place in that first and second degree. august assembly. He hoped to convince his noble Friend behind him (Earl Grey) that the fourth clause ought to be retained. This was a part of the subject which had several times been discussed by the Commissioners, who were clearly of opinion that there should be two classes of murder. Eight of the Commissioners were in favour of the retention of capital punishment, while four thought it might be done away with at once; but the whole of the Commissioners were of opinion that if capital punishment was retained, murders should be divided into two classes. A case occurred not long ago which showed the necessity of having two classes of murder. A number of sailors, having got drunk in a public-house, one of them produced a knife, and, being interfered with by the landlord, the sailor, in giving a drunken lurch, struck him; the man died; the sailor was tried for murder; the Judge who tried the case Mr. Baron Channell, told the jury that, according to the present state of the law, they must find him guilty of murder. He was found guilty, and the last sentence of the law was pronounced with all solemnity; but the same night the learned Judge wrote to the Home Secretary his opinion that the sentence ought to be commuted, and it was commuted to transportation for life. If the distinction now sought to be established between murders of the first and second degree had existed, the prisoner would have been found guilty of murder in the second degree, and the Judge would at once have pronounced the appropriate sentence, which would have been carried into effect. It was very inconvenient when a prisoner was found guilty of a particular crime, and the sentence due to it was pronounced, yet was not carried into effect. If this clause of the Bill were adopted, in murders of the second degree the proper sentence would be pronounced, and almost always carried into effect. He was quite of opinion that capital punishment should be retained. He believed that burglars were often prevented from committing murder knowing that they would be hung for it. He hoped their Lordships would support the clause. EARL RUSSELL said, he quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend the THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought the distinction raised by the clause a good one. He was of opinion that there were crimes to which it was quite proper that the name of murder should continue to attach, whilst the capital punishment should be taken away. For instance, where a burglary was committed and resistance was made, and the burglars offered violence and killed a man, though without having had any intention to kill. This was mur der now, and would remain so stili, though the clause would, in such a case, not inflict capital punishment. Where there was the intention to take life, or where the violence was of such a bloody nature as to clearly endanger life, the offence would remain capital. If they substituted aggravated manslaughter instead of murder of the second degree, it would only amount to a change of words, but the effect would not in his opinion be advantageous as if the Bill remained as it was. EARL GREY explained that he did not propose to do away with the three classifications of crime; but his object was that murder in the first degree as defined in the Bill should remain murder, and that that alone should be murder. The next class of crime would be that of aggravated homicide, to be punishable as proposed in the Bill; and beyond that there would be a third class, comprising cases of ordinary manslaughter. He thought that this would be a far better mode of classification than that contained in the Bill; and if he had had any doubt on the subject, that doubt was removed by the reasons given by the First Lord of the Treasury, who supported the Bill as it stood, on the ground that it would be a stepping-stone to doing away with capital punishment altogether. Now, in his judgment, on the contrary, the abolition of capital punishment altogether would be a very imprudent and dangerous thing. On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:-Contents 38; Not-Contents 38. The Numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient Rule) Resolved in the Negative. Stanley of Alderley, L. NOT-CONTENTS. Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Carlisle, Bp. Belper, L. Brodrick, L. (V. Midle- Harris, L. Heytesbury, L. Moore, L. (M. Drog- Redesdale, L. Romilly, L. [Teller.] THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, tha t in consequence of the decision just come to it would be necessary to give a very careful and attentive consideration to the definitions to be applied to murder and manslaughter; and he would therefore move that the Chairman report Progress. Motion agreed to. House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Thursday next. House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, May 31, 1866. MINUTES. NEW WRIT ISSUED-For Bridgwater, v. Henry Westropp, esquire, void Elec tion. SELECT COMMITTEE-On Standing Orders, Mr. PUBLIC BILLS-Resolutions in Committee-In- Ordered-General Police and Improvement (Scot- First Reading-General Police and Improve- Marriages (Sydmonton) Committee-Representation of the People [68] and Re-distribution of Seats [138], adjourned debate [28th May] resumed and again adjourned; Glebe Lands (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [165]. Report Glebe Lands (Scotland) (re-comm)* Considered as amended-Lunacy Acts (Scotland) * Third Reading-Customs and Inland Revenue [145]. THE VICE ROYALTY OF EGYPT. QUESTION. MR. GREGORY said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a change has taken place in the succession to the Vice-royalty of Silchester, L. (E. Long-Egypt, from the eldest agnate of Mohamford.) Somerhill, L. (M. Clan- med Ali to the descendants of the present ricarde.) Viceroy; if so, how that change of sucSouthampton, L. cession has been effected, and whether there is any information on the subject which may be laid before the House ? Gloucester and Bristol, Taunton, L. Bp. Walsingham, L. Lichfield, Bp. Wynford, L. Peterborough, Bp. MR. LAYARD said, in reply, that a change had taken place in the succession | find nothing in the Maritime Code of Italy of the Vice-royalty of Egypt, and that it declaring that the enemy's merchant vessels. had been brought about exclusively by an were not liable to capture. He would, howunderstanding between the Sultan and the ever, have further inquiries made in referViceroy, with which no Foreign Power had ence to the matter. As to the last part of anything to do. It would doubtless be the question, he had to say that no commuremembered by his hon. Friend that a nication had been received from Foreign similar change had been made some years Powers upon the subject. ago in the Royal family of Persia. He (Mr. Layard) understood, by a recently received telegram, that the firman authorizing the change of succession had been issued. No papers, however, having reference to the subject were in the possession of the Government, but he believed the reasons for making the change would be communicated to Her Majesty's Ministers, and when that had occurred he promised to lay the communication before the House. AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, AND ITALY- QUESTION. MR. GREGORY said, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Austria, by an Imperial Decree dated May 13th, and Prussia by a Decree dated May 19th, have agreed, in case of war, to confer on the enemy's merchant ships at sea the same immunities as have been granted to neutral vessels by the Declaration of Paris (1856); whether this principle is set forth in the Italian Maritime Code, and that, therefore, no declaration to this effect was required from Italy; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has received any recent communications from Foreign Powers upon this subject? MR. LAYARD said, in calling attention to the wording of the hon. Gentleman's question, he seemed to confound two things which differed. The Declaration of Paris related to neutral goods on board enemy's vessels and enemy's goods on board neutral vessels. The decrees said to have been issued by Austria and Prussia announced the willingness of the Governments of those countries not to touch the enemy's property in enemy's vessels; that is to say, not to interfere with private property at sea, although belonging to the enemy, if they were assured of reciprocal treatment. He believed the decrees to that effect had been issued; but he did not know what reply Italy had made upon the subject. With respect to the second part of the question, he could. CHILE. QUESTION. MR. LIDDELL said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Chilean Minister has demanded his passport; and, if so, what are the grounds for this rupture of friendly relations with that Government? MR. LAYARD; Sir, the Chilean Minister has not asked for his passport; he has delivered letters of recall, but no reasons are assigned for that recall. From despatches received only yesterday from Chile, there is no reason to fear that there will be any interruption of the friendly relations between the two countries. THE CHINESE VISITORS. COLONEL SYKES said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Pim and his son Yo-ho, and their Tartar and Mongol friends from Pekin, who have accompanied Mr. Hart, the Imperial Inspector of Customs, and are now in England, are accredited to the British Government in any official capacity, or are merely recommended to its courtesies as travellers from China? MR. LAYARD said, in reply, that these Chinese gentlemen, with their Tartar and Mongol friends, as the hon. and gallant Member called them, had not been officially accredited to us, but they had come to England introduced by our Minister in China, to whom they had been very strongly recommended by the Chinese Government, in order to see the country and its institutions. He need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government would do all in their power to render their visit useful and agreeable. He had every reason to hope that this preliminary visit would lead to a more formal Mission, and would tend greatly to improve the relations between the two countries. |