The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-08 00:00:00

HAYSIARK ET.

THv EVININO, THE WOLY AND THF: L %MB. Mew,.
Chippendalel, Yarrert. dc.; Mrs. Fitzwillium, at,.. —A WILD
000611. Mama Sotheni, Ruckstonv, Koons, k... Mesdames
Barka. Chippendale. VIII, G:.—And A K ISS IN 'FILE DARK.

LYCFI,SI

TWA Eunuch:l, BAMBOOZLINO. Mr. Price and Miss
Kate Bishop. —TOY. DIOS VA MOTTO. Mr. Pechter, Messrs.
/Snowy, Widdiconih, Jui‘Lin, Price, kc. ; Nilsen Elaworthy, Ilen-
rade, Grattan, and Carlotta Leclerc:4.

STRAND,

THIS EVIr/Inftl, M Mr. F. Itnl)..
Rao -FYI:NI A 1,11)N .1/tt, Y. :4 FAIT E F. 111: Nlesars. !Tonle,
James, &c. Nlemlatne, A. Swaloboro.hch, 1/Ayliluano,
Johnstune, Holt, & Newton.—And DIE Fitt:NCl! EX I LITION.

HOLBORN.

THN EVK?um), MY TURN NEXT. Mr. Bahama; Thames
Foote sad Leann:.—And FLYING SCUD. Messrs. Neville, Hal-
mon; Kiska YoUnlre, &c. ; Mesdames F. Josephs, C. dauadars,
Bessie Foote. Yktdas, Lennox, Baymoud. &e.

BRITANNIA.

'Bs EVFNINO, THE WINDIND-MIIEET.
Iteynolds, <Lc. S M MHOS Iluseney. --CHERRY AND
PAIR STAR. Messrs. libiwooil. Leslie. A. Eltiin Mrs. S. Linea
Wu Edwin, Ac. —And TIIE WORK GIRLS oB LONDON.

man WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Ting 11AY —Morph*, 4h. 40w Afternoon, f.h. Ira.
TO-MOLlWW—Northing. &h. :ilot Afternoon,

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 8.

THE. Government was asked last night whether
it was not time to alter the law under which at
present a judge, in passing sentence on persons
convicted of high treason, is compelled to give
a number of orders as to the butchery of
their bodies after death. At Dublin, last
week, sentence was pronounced upon two men,
who were ordered to be dragged on a hurdle to
the place of execution, to be decapitated, and to
have their bodies divided into four quarters and
placed at the disposal of her 31v.1 esry and her
advisers. Mr. CHARLES GILPIN, who asked
the question, was of opinion that the law under
which this sentence was pronounced needs to
be altered to bring it into harmony with
the judgment and feeling of our age. Lord
NAAS, speaking in the name of the Government,
thought not ; and the reason he assigned for that
opinion is worth notice. He would maintain the
sentence in its present form, because it is certain
not to be executed. "It was," he said, "in the
" power of the Crown to remit any portion of the
" sentence, and as no Government would autho-
" rise the execution of any criminal convicted of
" high treason in a mode different from other
" criminals, he saw no present necessity for any
" alteration in the law." The answer might have
been different. Mr. GILPIN might have been told
that although, in the cases of Bum( z and
Doers, the sentence would not be executed in
all its revolting details, yet other cases might
arise for carrying it into effect, and that there-
fore the present form would be retained. Lord
if ass is satisfied, however, that no such cases can
arise. He is sure that no Government would
authorise the treatment of prisoners in this savage
way, so the judges are to continue directing them to
do so. To our apprehension this seems a very Hiber-
nian anode of reasoning. It has, moreover, its
practical inconvenience. If it is certain that no
Government in future will draw and quarter its
criminals, it must be because the practice is too
low and inhuman for it to stoop to. But why
should the judiciary not have the same privilege as
the executive? Why should one parade its
civilization and refinement, and the other be com-
pelled to talk the language of barbarism according
to the statute ? That which it is beneath the
SECRETARY of STATE and the Sheriffs to do,
the Judge should not be required to
order. It may be said that Lord NA tH'S explana-
tion reduces the question to one of taste. But
taste, when it attaches itself to the moral feel-
ings, is too important to be trifled with, and Lord
lisas informs us that the Executive does keep a
taste for its own use, and he even declares its dic-
tates at the expense of the judges. There is an-
other important point to be noticed. The autho-
rity of the law is more impaired than it could be
by any other means when sentences are pro-
nounced which the judges, the prisoners, and the
public know beforehand will not take effect. The
experienced and intelligent portion of the public
may adjust their minds to such an anomaly ;
but upon the ignorant, who most be in-
fluenced chiefly through their impressions,
the effect is most pernicious. Instead of learning
to reverence the law in its calm, majestic aspect,
they get to think of it as a mouthing bully, seek-
ing to terrify them by bugbears. There are prac-
tical reasons for amending the law. Lord NAAS
offered none on the other side, and as he is far too
sensible a man to respect a law which cannot be
executed, we can only suppose that he objects to
any change for fear of offending the prejudices of
the less enlightened members of his party.

Now that the Government has admitted the
principle of a Lodger Franchise, wo may take
leave to ask what importance can any longer
attach to the personal rating of householders. We
all know how tenaciously the Government has
clung to the principle of personal rating as the
safeguard of the extension of the suffrage in the
boroughs. It was not enough that a man paid
his rent to the landlord, and his rates—his full
rates, as Mr. DISRAELI now admits—to the parish
through the landlord. The householder must not
only pay his full rates, but he must pay
them in a particular way. Without this
atirulation the proposed extension of the suffrage
would be unsafe, the Constitution would be
endangered, and rather than be responsible for
such risks Lord DERBY would give up the Reform
Bill. Thus personal rating attained to the dignity
of a " great principle." To us it has always
appeared the most fanciful and arbitrary of con-
ditions, and Mr. DisitAELl'S acceptance of a ledger
franchise now comes to prove it. A lodger franchise
cannot be guarded by ratepaying claims, although
nobody will affirm that it has less need to be gua-
ranteed than household suffrage, and nevertheless