more than in the former cases. But be could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport Mr Warton), in thinking that this ques tion was to be argued upon Biblies! grounds at all. He thought it was to be argued entirely with reference to the question of convenience and expe diency as regarded the safety of society Every man would feel, of course, m anxious to dispense with this terribe penalty, so far as consistent with the security of society; but what they ha to-day to consider was whether they would by their vote abolish the penalty of death, and whether that would be a judgment which would be approved of by the great and overwhelming majority of the people of this country. That was really the practical question they had to consider, and he did not think that was a course that could be taken with advartage until opinion in this country wa+ so ripe that they could say that the House of Commons, in pronouncing that judgment, was really affirming the settled conviction of the people of this country He did not believe public opinion was ripe for the abolition of the punistment at the present time; and, therefore speaking on behalf of the Executive Gro prevention of crime was the only legiti- | dispense with capital punishment alt mate object of punishment. That might gether, without injury to society ar be true in theory, and he supposed few people would desire to controvert it, or make the opposite contention. But they must look at human nature as it was, and nobody could conceal from themselves the fact that, in the judgment of the community, the feeling of retribution did largely enter into the consideration of this punishment in this country. They might say, as philosophers, they inflicted it for the purposes of prevention; but the great mass of society looked at it also from the point of view of retribution. One hon. Gentleman said, in the course of the debate, that that must have been the opinion of the Commission, when they divided murder into two categories-those of the first and second degrees. It followed from that, that everybody would agree that a capital execution which shocked public opinion was one of the greatest evils to which society could possibly be exposed. The great object of the Commission was, by giving Judge and jury the power of discriminating between the two classes of murder, to prevent such an evil as that occurring; and it was equally the object of the Secretary of State, in the execution of his functions, to prevent such an evil, and to prevent the technicalities of the law, or the particular cir-vernment, he must record his vote against cumstances of the case, from allowing a the second reading of the Bill. capital execution to take place under circumstances which would shock the public sentiment of the community. He should be extremely sorry to say that any Secretary of State, least of all the one who at present filled that Office, was able to discharge that duty to his own satisfaction or the satisfaction of the public. He should heartily welcome any alteration of the law which would alleviate this responsibility, either by the constitution of a Criminal Court of Appeal, or by giving the Judge and jury the power of making that discrimination between various classes of murder, which they did not now possess, and of which the responsibility was cast upon the Secretary of State. But when they came to the question of what they were to do in respect of the Bill, just as in past times it had been found possible to diminish the number of cases in which capital penalties attached to offences, and that without injury to society, so, in the future, it might be possible to Sir William Harcourt SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, ths: no one who had listened to the specà of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite could charge him with having acted inconsistently in this matter. He, therefore, believed he was expressing the entire feeling of the House when he said that the right hon. and learni Gentleman had shown how he might, with perfect consistency, wish pubic opinion to be formed in a certain dire tion in regard to this subject in favour of the views of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), and at the same time vote against the Bill, believing, as he did, that in the present unripe state of public opinion such a measure would practically have an evil effect on the country. The right hon. and learted Gentleman had, in his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) opinion, most correctly stated what were the true functions of a Secre tary of State in this matter. That they were very delicate functions no one could deny, and that they were most painful not understand how it could possibly have arisen in any case that because the Secretary of State for the Home Department happened to be in Scotland the matter could not have been laid before a Secretary of State in London. functions for any officer of State to perform they were all agreed; and he was equally certain that the House of Commons and the country would always look to the action of the present Secretary of State with the same favourable disposition in reviewing his acts which was extended to himself (Sir R. Assheton Cross) when he was Secretary of State, and also to his Predecessors. For his own part, he was most thankful for the generous way in which the people had regarded the manner in which he had exercised that function. He quite agreed that it would be extremely wise that the law with respect to murder should be considered, and that those three or four categories which had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, and to two of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, should be clearly defined by statute. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was very favourably disposed to the formation of a Court of Appeal with regard to capital cases-he did not say in all cases-provided the cases could be speedily disposed of, because he was sure that the country would not allow a man to remain in prison under sentence of death unless the appeal was heard very quickly; but whatever Court of Appeal they established, in his opinion the Secretary of State should have nothing to do with that Court. It had been suggested that he could help the Court; but they must get rid of the Courts of Law before they approached the Secretary of State in any way. When they had got their Court of Appeal there must, from the necessity of the case, remain the Secretary of State as the ultimate Court, because it was that official who alone could advise the Crown in regard to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy; but if they first defined what real murder was, and then added a Court of Appeal, he believed that the great gain, in the first place, would be that by an alteration of the law they would get rid of nine-tenths of the cases that came before the Secretary of State; and, in the next place, if they had a Court of Appeal he thought they would also get rid of the other tenth; and, therefore, the Secretary of State, although they could not absolutely relieve him of his functions altogether, would be practically relieved of them. With regard to a case that had been referred to in the course of the debate, he could SIR EARDLEY WILMOT said, the circumstance referred to was stated in all the newspapers at the time, and it occurred many years ago. SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he was not now questioning the fact; he only said it was remarkable that the persons interested in the case did not apply to the Secretary of State who was in London. Any one of the Principal Secretaries of State who happened to be in London, if an application had been made to him, would, no doubt, have attended to it. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said he did not believe that, at least within recent experience, any person had been unjustly executed. It was a source of sincere satisfaction to him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that, in regard to the man Habron, who afterwards received a pardon, he had thought when it came before him that there was so much doubt about the case that the man ought not to be executed. Although he should like very much to see capital punishment done away with altogether, he did not see that it was right to do away with it at the present moment. He believed that it had a very strong deterrent effect, and he wished to quote a sentence from a speech made in that House by his Predecessor in Office, in which he entirely agreed. Lord Aberdare said "I believe the punishment of death to be a very powerful deterrent, and to say that it does not deter all criminals is no answer whatever. Those who are best acquainted with the criminal them on whom the punishment of death exorclasses are of opinion that there are many of cises a very powerful influence, and that they are prevented by the fear of death alone from committing the most atrocious crimes,” He agreed in his Lordship's opinion that the reason why the criminal classes did not commit murders was through fear of the punishment which would follow. He thought it was only fair and just to the present Secretary of State, having filled the Office himself, to say what he had done; and he thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had truly stated what were the facts with regard to the matter. Armitstead, G. Arnold, A. Balfour, Sir G. Barclay, J. W. Barran, J. Biggar, J. G. Borlase, W. C. Blennerhassett, R. P. Briggs, W. E. M'Carthy, J. M'Laren, C. B. B. Maxwell-Heron, J. O'Connor, T. P. O'Conor, D. M. O'Shaughnessy, R. O'Sullivan, W. H. Paget, T. T. Palmer, C. M. Palmer, J. H. Parnell, C. S. Bright, rt. hon. J. Pease, A. Pender, J. Burt, T. Cameron, C. Cartwright, W. C. Collings, J. Potter, T. B. Reid, R. T. Rendel, S. Commins, A. Corbet, W. J. Storey, S. Daly, J. Edwards, P. Dodds, J. Ferguson, R. Sullivan, A. M. Sullivan, T. D. Summers, W. Davenport, W. B. Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. Elliot, hon. A. R. D. Foljambe, C. G. S. Taylor, P. A. Finigan, J. L. Thomasson, J. P. Firth, J. F. B. Thompson, T. C. Forster, Sir C. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. Foster, W. H. Fowler, W. Waterlow, Sir S. Fry, T. Waugh, E. Gibson, rt. hon. E. Gourley, E. T. Williams, B. T. Givan, J. Hopwood, C. H. Inderwick, F. A. Willis, W. James, C. Lawson, Sir W. Williams, S. C. E. Willyams, E. W. B. Wilson, I. Fremantle, hon. T. F. Gladstone, H. J. Gladstone, W. H. Goldney, Sir G. Grant, A. Grant, Sir G. M. Greene, E. Guest, M. J. Halsey, T. F. Hamilton, Lord C. J. Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. Hayter, Sir A. D. Woodall, W. Laycock, R. Leahy, J. TELLERS. Leake, R. Fowler, R. N. Leamy, E. Pease, J. Leatham, E. A. Healy, T. M. Archdale, W. H. Bolton, J. C. Heneage, E. Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Boord, T. W. Herschell, Sir F. Balfour, A. J. Brodrick, hon. W. St. Holland, Sir H. T. Burrell, Sir W. W Holms, W. Hubbard, rt. hon. J. Lyons, R. D. Mackie, R. B. Mackintosh, C. F. M'Arthur, A. M-Garel-Hogg, Sir J. Monk, C. J. Moreton, Lord Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. Murray, C. J. Playfair, rt. hen. L Price, Captain G. E. Ramsay, J. St. Aubyn, W. M. Smith, rt, hơn. W. F. Warburton, P. E Warton, C. N. Wedderburn, Sir D Welby-Gregory, SirW. Wortley, C. B. Stuart- | should have voted against the abstract TELLERS. Grosvenor, Lord R. Resolution which had been referred to, inasmuch as only one side of a question was brought into prominence in such discussions. He hoped the whole question would be re-considered, for the Law of DISTRESS FOR RENT BILL-[BILL 74.] Distress, though it might work a cruel (Mr. Rendel, Mr. Gurdon.) SECOND READING. injustice, if pushed to the extreme, yet, as practically carried out, protected the tenant; and he considered that without entire abrogation of its principle it might be brought into harmony with justice, and the larger interests involved in the culture of the land. denied MR. BLENNERHASSETT that his Resolution was carried by an accident. If any hon. Member had Order for Second Reading read. MR. STUART RENDEL, in moving that the Order be discharged, said, that since the first reading of the measure the position of the question of Distress had undergone a material change. The Opposition had failed to divide against the Resolution in favour of the abolition of Distress in regard to agricultural hold-wished to challenge it, he had only to ings which was moved by the hon. Member vote against it; but not a single hon. for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett), and the Member was found to take that course. Government had pronounced distinctly The opinion of the House had been for abolition. That being so, he wished expressed through his Resolution that to leave the question in the hands of Distress should be totally abolished. the Government. His Bill would, he ["No, no!"] thought, have provided an immediate and handsome instalment of relief; but, in the present state of Public Business, it was idle to suppose it could become law this Session, and he was, therefore, indisposed to occupy the time of the House with it. He accordingly moved the discharge of the Order. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged.”—(Mr. Rendel.) MR. T. COLLINS said, that it did not follow, because the House had passed an abstract Resolution on that subject, that it was prepared to deal with it in the sense indicated by the hon. Member opposite Mr. Rendel). He (Mr. T. Collins) had always maintained that a limited right of Distress-say, for a twelvemonth's rent-would be a great advantage to the small farmer. If the right of Distress were entirely abolished, the landlords would be driven to obtain their rents in advance, which certainly would not encourage men of small means to take farms. MR. WARTON contended that although it was true in a literal sense that the abstract Resolution lately moved by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett, was carried, yet it was carried by a perfect accident, and the feeling of the House was not with the Resolution. MR. STORY - MASKELYNE said, MR. WARTON said, that in contradiction of what had been alleged by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) he must repeat that the absence of a division was due to an accident. MR. BIGGAR rose to continue the discussion, And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) (OFFICERS AND CLERKS) [SALARIES]. Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of Officers, Clerks, and other persons, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the Official Staff of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. Resolution to be reported To-morrow. METALLIC MINES (GUNPOWDER) BILL. On Motion of Mr. JOSEPH PEASE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the use of Gunpowder in certain stratified Ironstone Mines, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOSEPH PEASE, Mr. MACDONALD, Mr. CHARLES PALMER, and Mr. Bar. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.] House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 23rd June, 1881. the House of Commons without any alteration or opposition. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingSummary Jurisdiction (Process)* (124); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (125); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) (126); Universities (Scotland) Registration of Parliamentary Voters, &c. * (130). Second Reading-Newspapers (101). Committee-Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland)* (100-128). Committee-Report-Veterinary Surgeons (87127); Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) (113); Consolidated Fund (No. 3); Post Office (Land)* (114). Report-Married Women's Property (Scotland)* (75-129); Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.) (111). Third Reading - Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)* (110); Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.) (112), and passed. -- VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL. (The Lord Aberdare.) (NO. 87.) COMMITTEE. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2+.” -The Earl of Dunraren.) Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accor·iingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow. ARMY-THE AUXILIARY FORCES-THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOE QUESTION. VISCOUNT BURY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will make arrangements, so far as the exigencies of the public service will permit, for granting leave to gentlemen employed in the public offices, who are also Volunteers, on Saturday, the 9th of July, in order that they may be enabled to attend the Review to be held by Her Majesty at Windsor? As he understood there would be no objection to complying with this request, he should not trouble their Lordships beyond putting the Question. EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, Mr. Gladstone has signed a Minute to be House in Committee (according to circulated to the Departments, which is Order). EARL SPENCER said, that he had an important Amendment to move in the Bill. He would not move it now, but on the Report, after it had been printed. Bill reported without amendment; amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 127.) NEWSPAPERS BILL.-(No. 101.) (The Earl of Dunraven. ) SECOND READING. founded upon the precedent of 1867. when there was a Review in honour of the Sultan. It states that there appears to be no necessity for a general halfholiday, but expresses the hope that arrangements may be made in each Office to allow those Civil servants who are Volunteers to have leave on the day of the Review, so far as it is compatible with the interests of the Public Service. VISCOUNT BURY said, that the answer of the noble Earl was perfectly satisfactory as far as it went; but he de sired to point out that owing to the large number of Volunteers which would Order of the Day for the Second Read- leave the Metropolis on that day, it ing, read. THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of it was to enable the authorities, by the repeal of the Post Office Act of 1876, to permit newspapers which had been cut and stitched to pass through the Post Office as newspapers. At present there was an objection to that being done on the part of the Post Office. The provisions of the Bill would not extend to supplements of newspapers. The Bill had passed through would be impossible for them to be present at the Review unless they left town at an early hour in the morning, and a whole day's holiday would therefore be required. CHARITY TRUSTEES INCORPORATION ACT, 1872. MOTION FOR A RETURN. THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in moving for a "Return of all applications which have been made to the Charity Commissioners under the |