more sensible one than that which would necessarily be substituted, viz. pairing. At a later period of the year an announcement was often made that two members of the other House had paired for the remainder of the Session, but in many instances those gentlemen might have voted on the same side. It was surely better for an absent peer to entrust a proxy to a person in whom he reposed confidence, so that his vote might not be lost on any important occasion. Since, however, the majority of the committee, and probably of their lordships, were opposed to the use of proxies, he should not oppose the resolution.

Earl Stanhope gave credit to the noble lord (Redesdale) for consistency, he having both in the committee and on this occasion objected to the discontinuance of proxies. He could not, however, agree with him that pairing was equally open to exception, for there was this important difference, that the addition of a certain number of pairs to both the majority and the minority made no difference in the result, whereas the use of proxies might lead to a decision the reverse of what would otherwise have been given. Indeed, this happened on the last occasion when proxies were used -namely, on the motion of the noble earl (Malmesbury) on the affairs of Denmark and Germany. The majority of the peers present were satisfied with the defence of the Government of the day, but proxies being called for-most unwisely, in his judgment -the majority of the peers absent decided the division against the Government.

Lord Lyveden thought that the abandonment of proxies was a necessary concession to public opinion. After some further discussion the following Standing Order was agreed to:

"Ordered, that the practice of calling for proxies on a division shall be discontinued, and that two days' notice be given of any motion for the suspension of this order."

The discontinuance of proxies was thus placed on the foundation of a Standing Order, which it is at the discretion of the House at any time by its own resolution to suspend. It may be anticipated, however, that the occasion for such a suspension will very rarely, if ever, occur in practice.

Among the earliest measures brought in by the Government was one designed to effect an important practical reform in the administration of criminal justice. The execution of capital sentences in public had for some time past been strongly condemned by public opinion on account of the scandalous and revolting scenes with which these spectacles were attended, the lawlessness and brutality of the crowds which they brought together, and the tendency of the exhibition rather to degrade and harden the minds of the spectators than to produce any ameliorating or deterrent effect. The Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, which investigated this subject, confirmed the prevailing impression of the public mind, and induced the Government to bring in a measure for putting an end to the practice of executing in public. Mr.

Gathorne Hardy, Secretary of State for the Home Department, introduced the Bill for this purpose, and explained the regulations and securities which would be adopted for giving assurance to the public that the sentence had been really carried into effect, a fact of which some thought it would be difficult to afford evidence that would satisfy the incredulous. A few members took exception to the measure, some on the ground of the loss of the deterring force of public example which the existing mode of execution afforded, others from a desire to abolish capital punishment altogether. One of the most earnest opponents of the latter class was Mr. Gilpin, who, on the proposal to commit the Bill, moved, as an amend

ment

"That it is expedient that, instead of carrying out the punishment of death in prisons, capital punishment should be abolished."

He said the question between him and those who were in favour of capital punishment was by what means they should prevent the crime of murder. Whilst other crimes for which capital punishment was formerly administered had decreased, the crime of murder, for which it was still retained, had increased. The first objection he had to this punishment was its essential injustice. He did not hesitate to say that there were many persons walking about red-handed amongst us who had been unquestionably guilty of murder, and who, if the punishment had been short of that of taking life, would have been found guilty and now be in prison. This arose from the unwillingness of jurors to convict. Evidence which would be considered sufficient if the punishment were merely imprisonment was properly regarded as insufficient when it involved the taking of life. Thus the guilty often escaped. On the other hand, it not unfrequently happened that innocent persons were executed, or were in danger of being executed, and of this he gave several instances.

Mr. Gregory opposed the motion. The punishment of death was the great deterrent. Of the eminent men who formed the commission of 1866 only four were in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. The Irish judges were unanimous for the retention of the punishment, as were also the English judges, with the exception of Mr. Justice Shee, and the opinion of all those who were best acquainted with the criminal class was that but for fear of the punishment of death the lives of police-officers would not be safe from them.

Mr. J. S. Mill said it would be a great satisfaction to him if he were able to support this motion, for he always felt reluctance in voting against any measure which was proposed by what were called the philanthropists. He thought, however, that they were mistaken in the present case. When it was shown by clear evidence that a person was guilty of murder with atrocity, it appeared to him that to deprive that criminal of the life which he had forfeited was the most merciful and the most proper course to adopt. It was alleged that capital punishment did not prevent

C

the commission of murder; but who could say how many persons had been deterred from the commission of that crime by the contemplation of the awful circumstances attending an execution?

The amendment of Mr. Gilpin was rejected by the large majority of 127 to 23, and the Bill passed with very slight opposition through both Houses, and received the Royal Assent.

CHAPTER II.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM AND ELECTORAL LAW-Bills for amending the Representation of Scotland and Ireland-The Scottish Reform Bill brought in by the Lord Advocate-Objections taken to the scheme for redistribution of seats-Discussions upon the proposition to increase the number of the House by the addition of seven Members for Scotland-Mr. Baxter proposes as an alternative to disfranchise seven small boroughs in England-Counter-proposition of Sir R. Knightley— Mr. Baxter's proposition is carried on a division, and acquiesced in by the Government-Discussions as to the new constituencies-Mr. Disraeli's proposition as to the distribution of the seven seats is agreed to-A clause is added to the Bill, by which seven English towns having a population below 5000 are disfranchised-The Bill is passed-A corresponding measure for Ireland is brought in by the Earl of MayoDiscussions on the franchise proposed by the Bill, and on the redistribution of seats-Much dissatisfaction is expressed with respect to the latter-The Chancellor of the Exchequer resolves to abandon this portion of the Bill, and to limit its operation to the electoral franchise-Proposal of Col. French to lower the standard for counties from 127. to 87.-The Amendment is negatived on a division-The Bill is passed, but with strong expressions of dissatisfaction as to its incompleteness, in both Houses-The Boundary Bill for England and Wales-Origin and character of this measure-Recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners appointed in 1867-Petitions of various boroughs against the proposed adjustment of limitsDebates in the House of Commons on that subject-The Government accede to the suggestion of referring the boundaries in controversy to a Select Committee-Five members are appointed by the House to consider the subject-They make a report at variance in some cases with the recommendations of the Commissioners-The rival propositions are discussed with some warmth in the House-Those of the Select Committee are ultimately adopted-The same controversy arises in the House of Lords, and leads to a remarkable scene-The Bill is finally passed as sent up from the House of Commons-Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill-A measure for removing the jurisdiction over Election Petitions from the House of Commons is brought in by the Government-Recommendation of the Select Committee of 1867 to transfer this jurisdiction to the Judges-Letter of the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellor, stating strong objections on the part of the Judges to be so employed-The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, in deference to these objections, to create a new tribunal to hear Petitions-Unfavourable reception of this plan-After much debate the House recurs to the proposition of the Select Committee-The Government proposes that three new Judges be created, and that Petitions should be tried by a rota formed out of the three courts-Various Amendments bearing on the electoral laws are moved, and discussed at much length-The Bill, as amended at the instance of the Government, is ultimately passed through both Houses-The Registration of Voters Bill-Object of this measure to accelerate the Elections, and enable the new Parliament to meet before the end of 1868-It is passed with general concurrence, and receives the Royal Assent.

THE Completion of the work of Parliamentary Reform, by extending the franchise and enlarging the basis of representation in Scotland

and Ireland, formed one of the main features in the legislative programme of the Session. In fulfilment of the pledge given by the Government to carry this purpose into execution, the Lord Advocate for Scotland took the earliest opportunity of introducing the measure proposed for that part of the kingdom. In so doing he stated that as regarded the franchise it would be based on the English Act. The borough franchise would be extended to all householders rated and paying rates; and, though he believed the case of lodgers to be amply provided for in Scotland by the present rating laws, there would be no objection to a clause to remove all doubt. In the counties there would be an ownership franchise of 51. clear annual value, and an occupation franchise of 127. There would also be provisions for securing fairness and uniformity of assessment, which the Lord Advocate explained in some detail. Passing to the Distribution clauses, he stated that there would be seven new members given to Scotland, which would be an addition to the aggregate numbers of the House. Of these seven, two would be given to the Scotch Universities, one to each of the counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Aberdeen, one to Glasgow (to be elected on the "representation of minorities" principle), and one to a group consisting of Ardrossan, Coatbridge, Wishaw, Barrhead, Johnstone, Helensburgh, Kirkintilloch, and Pollockshaws, all in the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Ayr, and Dumbarton, and containing a population of 74,000. Further than this, it was proposed to add Hawick and Galashiels to the Haddington Burghs, and Alloa to the Stirling Burghs.

Mr. Baxter said if the occupation franchise in Scotland might consist of land only it would be in the power of one or two landowners in some counties virtually to command the representation of the county. But he still more strongly disapproved of the proposed scheme of redistribution. He protested against adding to the number of members of that House. No one would dispute the claims of Scotland to additional representation, but rather than obtain it by that means he would prefer waiting till they could have the question of redistribution as applied to the whole kingdom dealt with by a reformed Parliament. Scotland demanded to be treated as an integral portion of the United Kingdom. They did not ask for additional representation for Scotland quâ Scotland, but they asked for a redistribution of the representation of the whole of the kingdom.

Mr. Smollett, though holding that the addition to Scotland ought to be obtained by diminishing the representation of England and Ireland, and favourable to a reduction in the numbers of the House, exhorted the Scotch members to accept the offer now made, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread.

Mr. Laing argued that the practical question the House would have to decide was-should the numbers of the House be increased, or should the just addition to the representation of Scotland be indefinitely postponed? His experience last year taught him that

it was hopeless to attempt to reopen the redistribution question in this Parliament. He was favourable to accepting this instalment of justice from the Government, and that, he asserted, was the prevaling sentiment in Scotland. Having examined the arguments against an increase of the House, and concluded that there was no force in them, he criticized some of the details of the Bill, and maintained that, on the principles of the Act of last Session, Aberdeen and Dundee were entitled to additional members.

Mr. Moncrieff canvassed closely the distribution scheme, and asserted that the grouping part of it was a mockery, and could never be accepted by the House. He objected, too, to the proposed increase of the House-the legitimate source was the disfranchisement of the small boroughs. The rating principle would create great inconvenience in Scotland; and he suggested its omission from the Bill and the insertion of some provision against the manufacture of fictitious votes. The details of the distribution scheme were also unfavourably criticized by Colonel Sykes and by Mr. M'Laren, who characterized the Bill as much worse than that of last year, though he justified an increase in the numbers of the House, asserting that it ought to be to the extent of fifteen at least; and by Sir E. Colebrooke.

Sir James Fergusson replied to objections, dwelling on the difficulties of extending the disfranchisement of English boroughs, and of persuading English members to part with any English seats to Scotland, and exhorting Scotch members not to throw away this chance of obtaining an increase in their numbers. Correcting the statement of the Lord Advocate, he explained that Ardrossan would not form part of the new group, but would be added to the Ayr Burghs; and he defended the creation of new burghs by the importance of conferring the franchise on the working classes there.

Mr. Graham objected to the mode in which the constituency of Glasgow was to be increased, and preferred to divide the city. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed some surprise that Scotch members should talk of opposing a Bill which contained the largest extension of the suffrage ever offered simply on the minor ground of the distribution scheme. The only principle of that part of the Bill was an addition to the representation of Scotland, and the manner in which that addition should be carried out was a matter of detail to be settled in Committee. The Government had no personal interest to serve either one way or the other. The representation of England, he maintained, was not disproportionate to population and property, and he warned the Scotch members that if at any time disfranchisement were carried further in England the seats thus gained would be applied to perfecting the English representation, and would not be handed over to Scotland. Looking to the unwillingness of English members to deprive England of any portion of her representation, it would be wiser for Scotch members to unite in passing a moderate measure