The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, aLONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1864.

Dr. Gisborne, who was surgeon of the gaol, in whose cars
the prisoner had been since his committal, were examined
at the trial, and both deposed in the strongest m u ner that
the prisoner was of diseased mind, and absolu insane.
I think it right to call your attention at once to t-, subject,
with a view to a correct opinion being form as to the

propriety of his execution. -
On receiving that letter, I, after reading ..its attention the

evidence on the trial—including of course t 1 e evidence of

the two medical men to which the judge had thus pointedly

called my attention—l confess the evidence did not impress
me to the extent to which it had appeared to impress the

learned judge. But I felt that a judge who presides over
a trial of this kind, whose whole attention is fixed on the

evidence, and who sees the witnesses give their evidence,

must be much more competent to form an opinion of the

weight which is due to such evidence than any other person
who merely reads a report of it. (Hear.) I wrote to him,
therefore, to say that it appeared to me that the evidence
was by no means conclusive as to the insanity of the pri-
soner, and that I wished to know from him whether he had
formed from the evidence he had heard given during the
trial, as well as from the demeanour of the prisoner—which
might be an essential element of consideration—an opinion
of his own as to the matter; whether ho thought, in fact,
that the prisoner was insane, and whether he did not think
that inquiry should take place. I received from him, in
answer to that letter, a second letter, which I will read to

the house. It was directed to the Under-Secretary :
Norwich, Dec. 13, 1863.
Sir,—l have received a letter, dated the 17th, requesting
me to inform Sir George Grey whether the impression pro-
duced on my mind by the evidence of the two medical wit-
nesses on the trial of Townley, coupled with the demeanour
of the prisoner, were such as to induce me to believe that
the prisoner is now insane ; if so, whether I think it neces-
sary to have any further inquiry. I cannot say that I have
formed any decided opinion on the point. The demeanour
of the prisoner afforded tee no means of arriving at a con-
clusion. In fact, he sat on the trial with his head depressed,
so that I scarcely once saw his countenance, and he never
spoke. I should not be justified in saying that the evidence
of Dr. Forbes Winslow and Dr. Gisborne is not correct, for
I certainly think, and I have thought ever since the trial,
that there ought to be further inquiry. I enclose a copy of

my notes.
This is by no means the first case of a similar recommenda-
tion from a judge, after a trial has taken place in which a
prisoner has been convicted of murder. In some of these
cases the defence of insanity has been set up on the trial
and failed. In some it was not even made on the trial.
For a series of years cases have come under the notice of

myself and other Secretaries of State, by recommendations
of the judge or from other persons, who, if of sufficient
credit, have induced the Secretary of State to inquire into
the state of mind of the prisoner. In some cases the in-
quiry has gone back to the time of the commission of the
offence. I believe in most of these cases the result was a

commutation of the capital sentence, and the temporary re-

moval of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum. The right hon.
gentleman quoted the case of Dallmore, who, tinder some-
what similar circumstances, had after being sentenced to
execution, been removed to Bethlehem, and after being
there found sane had been remitted to prison, and had the
capital sentence commuted to transportation for life, which
he is now undergoing. Ido not find the slightest fault
with Baron Martin for making his recommendation. Com-
ments made in some of the newspapers on the case seemed
to imply in some persons a total ignorance of what the law
of England really was as regarded the treatmeat
of criminals who became insane. Quoting Black-
stone and Sir John Hall (Solicitor-General in the
reign of William III.), to show what was the law in
this respect, the right hon, gentleman showed that it was
clearly and explicitly to the effect that if a prisoner was
found to be insane before trial he should not be put upon his
trial ; and that if found insane after trial, and before execu-
tion, that execution should be stayed. Such being our
humane and Christian law, Baron Martin had clearly no
other alternative than to make known to me the doubts
which he entertained of the sanity of the prisoner, and it

would have been, in fact, a gross violation of his bounden

d.ity if he had not done so. This being done, I could not
justify myself to Parliament and to my own conscience, and
to G od, if, after the communication which had been ad-
dressed to me by Mr. Baron Martin, I had abstained from
ordering this inquiry. (Hear, hear.) I felt that I had no
choice in the matter, and I determined to institute that in-

quiry. In communicating with the Under-Secretary on the
subject, it occurred to me that the best persons to conduct
that inquiry would be the Lunacy Commissioners, who are
entrusted with large powers by law to conduct such in-
quiries, and whose experience, therefore, is great. I re-
quested them, by a letter, to conduct that inquiry into the
actual state of mind of the prisoner, without any reference
to the opinions which had been expressed on the trial,
or to the proceedings since, and to inform me of the
present state of mind of the prisoner. I received their
report on the 29th of December, just forty-eight hours
before the time fixed for the execution. That report was
not as clear and explicit as I hoped. It was a report
which did not distinctly answer the question which was
addre.ned to the Lunacy Commissioners. It stated that,
in their opinion, as far as they could collect from the evi-
dence they had obtained, no change had taken place in
the state of oaind of the prisoner since the trial, or since
the commission of the offence. They stated further that
in their opinion they could not consider the prisoner to be
of sound mind ; but that, according to the law laid down
by Baron Martin, which is in accordance with the law cel-
-1 lectively laid down by the judges in the case of APNaughton,
the prisoner was in a state responsible for his actions, and
was rightly convicted. Now I believe that the law as laid
down by the judges ought to prevail in criminal cases, and
if I had followed that report alone, I should not have felt
justified in stopping the clue course of law, though it placed
me in the painful position of doing so after their statement
that they did not think him of sound mind ; yet according
to the law of the land, as laid down 1)y the judges, ho was
responsible for his acts. But at the same time I received
this report, I received by the same conveyance a certificate
purporting to be signed by three magistrates, ond by two
medical men, a surgeon and a physician, certifying !be in-
sanity of Townley, Under these circumstances it w'°3
necessary to come to an immediate decision. It has been
said since that the certificate was invalid, two reasons being
given—the first, lam ashamed to say, that it was signed
on a Sunday ; and the other that the Act required that the
signing justices should be for the county where the case
was in the county part of the gaol, I feel bound to say that
if my attention had been called to these facts at the time
my decision would have been just the same. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman defended the course he had taken ice
granting a respite, showing that he had not time to refer
the matter to the law officers of the Crown ; for if he had
not signed the respite on that night it could not have ar-
rived in Derby until the night of the 30th, the execution
being fixed for the morning of the 31st ; and if an accident
had happened to a train or anything of that kind, it
might not have arrived until after the execution had
taken place. What I did was not to commute the
sentence, but to respite the execution, The next day a letter
was forwarded to me from the governor of the gaol, saying
that he had been requested to forward a certificate to me. It
was accompanied by no information that any irregularity
had been committed. On Dec. 30 I received a second cer-
tificate without any explanation ; and then, for the firs
time, doubts suggested themselves to my mind, because of
its being signed by county magistrates. the names of the
borough magistrates being omitted. Therefore, no sugges-
tion was made that that certificate was not perfectly formal;
and upon that certificate, and that atone, the warrant of re-
moval was granted. If the warrant were founded upon the
first certificate, I could have understood that these doubts
with regard to that certificate might arise, although I believe
they had but little foundation. It might have been a ques-
tion before a court of law, whether the warrant was founded
upon a certificate which was not technically correct. But,
with regard to the respite no such question could arise, as
that was in the discretion of the Secretary of State. As to
the second certificate, the fast of its having been signed by
four justice's and two medical men, certifying in the terms
of the Act the insanity of Townley, evidently showed that
they had the Act before them ; and upon that secon certifi-
cate I issued the warrant fur the removal of the prisoner
from Derby Gaol to Bethlehem Hospital. It was said I was
not bound to regard the second certificate, but to suffer the
man to be executed, But such a construction of the Act
is contrary to the uniform interpretation put upon it by
every Secretary of State who has held office, and I have
not been able to find a single exception since the time of
George IV. Let any man read the Act itself, and he
will see that it makes the certificate of two justices and
two medical men final and conclusive up to the point at
which the person so certified is removed to a lunatic
asylum, and until after such removal no new process can
be instituted for ascertaining whether such person is sane
or not. I felt bound, therefore, under these circumstances,
to issue a warrant for the removal of the prisoner, and con-
sequently, on the 11th of January, he was received into a
lunatic asylum. I will not refer to the correspondence be-
tween myself and the magistrates of Derbyshire, because
the hon. member for the county (Mr. Mundy)—who, I
regret to say, is confined to his room in consequence of an
accident—has requested me to abstain from doing so until
he was present. I will only make this remark, that I felt
it my duty to call npen the magistrates who signed the
cez-tificates, both borough and county, to ask for an expla-
nation of the course which they have taken. I have since
been -asked why I did not call on the medical for men similar
explan.'etion. My answer is that I did not do so because, as
Secretary of state, I had no right to apply to the medical
men for explanation; where as Secretary of Stete,l had an
authority to ask the magistrates for an explanation of acts
done in .`heir magisterial capacity. The magistrates satisfied
ma
and
ono] a
lt
yw
.signed
no iendt sa—f t
efirr sdt
u,
et h
lent
qto uh r
y and certificates
when were ere
they bona
became
fide,ame
convinced in their own minds that Townley was insane,
however mistakes that conviction might have been;
secondly, that the machinery of the law put in motion by
the attorney for the prisoner, who had called on
s the m
o n er a
andgist
hett e
alsos to ac catl ne
yd
.di
ne rlt thdheoi s
nml
oaetwd
cad
impute
anl me xeanmbwilnahe h
blame
etwtee p
or
et ri
the
:-
that course; as long as the
atatktoenpiaeyrt inktrhe
tainkqinugir
law allowed it, he had a right to do so. But, at
the same time, I think it is a serious defect in the law
which enables a prisoner, by his attorney or agent, to select
the magistrates or medical men who are to conduct an in-
quiry of that nature. (Hear.) At the same time I must
say that no blame is to be imputed to the magistrates for
the course they have taken under the existing law, one of
them having appeared not to be prepossessed in favour of

the prisoner, but he WAS sane, and the law ought to take its
course. Judging from the report of four medical men,

which I have since received, I am led to believe that there
had been a miscarriage of justice in this matter—(hear, hear)
—and that there ought to be an amendment of the law ; and
that the amendment ought to be directed to correct that

defect of the law which allows this machinery to be put in
motion, not by any responsible person, but by the agent of
the prisoner. I propose, therefore, to repeal altogether the

first clause of the 3d and 4th Vic., ch:.p. 54, and to substi-
tute for it an amendment having the same object, namely,
the care and disposal of criminal lunatics who should not

be detained in prison, but with some material alterations ;
at the same time, the provisions of the law will not be con-
fined to any class of prisoners. I propose also not to limit
its administration to any two justices, but to vest its opera-

tion exclusively in the visiting justices of the gaol—(hear,
hear)—and, instead of any two medical men, as under the
existing law, being called in, the duty shall devolve upon
I he visiting justices, who aro to be responsible for the selec-

tion of the medical men. I think this duty might be safely
entrusted to the visiting justices, who are selected from the
great body of magistrates, and who are acquainted with
all the details of the gaol, and who are in constant
intercourse with every officer, and are acquainted
with the mental and bodily condition of every

prisoner lodged there. I further propose that the physi-
cians and surgeons who are called in shall be registered

under the Medical Registration Act. Another important

provision in the bill will be that the certificate of insanity by
the magistrates and medical men shall be no longer final
and conclusive, but that it shall be competent for the Secre-
tary of State, in case he entertain doubts, to order further
inquiry. After the removal of Townley on the 11th Jan.,

I directed, with the full concurrence of the Lord Chancellor,

four medical men to make a further examination into the

mental condition of the prisoner ; and they certified that he

was sane, It than became necessary to consider what course
should be determined upon with regard to the future cus-
tody of the prisoner, and the Government came to the dcci-

sion that, after the certificates and the removal to a lunatic
asylum, and after the doubts that were raised, it would not
be right to send the prisoner back to Derby and order the
sheriff to fix another day for the execution. (Hear, hear.)

He was then removed to Pentonville Prison by warrant
under my hand. I believe that we took the course most con-
sistent with public feeling, under the circumstances, which
I much regret, in sentencing Townley to penal servitude
for life. I have found no fault with the visiting justices or

with any person connected with these transactions, which

seem to me to have arisen out of a defect in the law. I feel,

however, that I took the only course I could do consistently
with my duty and with what the act required, obliged es-
pecially as I was to act at once on my own responsibility,
since any delay on my part would have necessarily involved

the execution of the criminal. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACDONOUGH thought that, before the house
proceeded to legislate on this subject, it should clearly
_ . .

understand what was the state of the law at present

The course taken by the Government on this occasion
was a novel, but, he admitted, a necessary one. On the first
day of the session, the right hon. gentleman the Secretary
of State for the Home Department had given notice of his
intention to introduce this bill, and he had now, on bring-
ing it in, favoured the house with a laboured defence of his
conduct. His first proposition might be admitted with no
difficulty. The conduct of the judge who tried Townley had

been admirable, both at and after the trial. Having received
the suggestion of Baron Martin, that further inquiry should
be made into the prisoner's sanity, the right lion, gentleman
had, in the first instance, desired the Lunacy Commis-

sioners to undertake the inquiry. They did so; and re.

ported that, according to the law as laid down by Baron
Martin, the prisoner was sane and criminally responsible for
his actions. Passing over the two subsequent certificates,

he came to the last stage of the proceedings. The right hon:
gentleman had eventually ordered four other gentlemen of
the highest character to examine Townley, and they also
had reported him sane. But in the meantime there had been
what the Home Secretary called a miscarriage of justice.
Two certificaies had been sent to the Home Office drawn up
in so much haste that both were irregular. The hon. gen-
tleman contended that the words in the statute of Victoria,
" it shall be lawful," were mandatory, and that when he re-
ceived those certificates he was compelled to act upon them.
Bat this he (Mr. Macdonough) denied. These words, "it
shall be lawful," were generally permissive; they were only
mandatory where public duty required a thing to be done.
That was not the case in this instance, and, therefore, all
that this Act did was to enable the Secretary of State to
remove the prisoner to Bethlehem Hospital if he thought
fit. The Home Secretary was not a mere automa•
ton, but had full discretion. The Act was
clearly intended to apply to a man who became lunatic after
judgment and before execution. On the receipt of these
certificates a temporary respite should have bean granted,
and thereupon an inquiry should have been made as to how
the borough justices came to go to the county gaol, and as
to the nature of the evidence of insanity adduced on behalf
of the prisoner by his attorney. It was the Homo Secre-
tary's duty to have instituted such an inquiry, and not to
have allowed a convicted criminal to escape, by a trick. But
ho would, for the sake of argument, assume that the words
in the statute were mandatory, and tied up the prerogative
of the Crown. What, then, followed? Why, that the
respite thus brought about was only to provide for the
postponement of the execution of the criminal's sentence
until sanity returned. A woman quick with child, was,
if convicted of murder, respited, but only until she had
been delivered ; she was then executed.
Sir G. GREY—Never; not for the last 30 years.
Mr. MACDONOUGH—Which did the right hon. gen-
tleman mean-30 years or never ? The books were full of
cases in which women quick with child at the time of sen-
tence had been executed after delivery. If, then, the Home
Secretary was a mere puppet ; if the words of the first part
of the statute were mandatory, the words of the latter part
were also mandatory ; and on two physicians certifying the
prisoner to be sane, he was bound to have ordered him to be
recommitted back to gaol in order to undergo his sentence.
T4ke it therefore either way—either that the words of the
statute were mandatory or obligatory—and the conduct of
the Home ff.cretary had been illegal, and there had been a
miscarriage of justice. It had been announced that night
that after four most eminent medical men had pronounced
Townley sane he was not to be executed. In former times
pardons in case of treason and murder were obtained by the
due influence of the high officers of State. To prevent this
state of things acts of Parliament had been passed, direct-
ing that the mode in which a murder had been committed
should be setlforth in a charter of pardon, in the belief that
no being would ',put his hand to a charter of pardon of a
heinous clime. By the common law, also, a charter of par-
don obtained by a false statement became null and void.
The Home Secretary should have acted by analogy with
the statute and common law, and then this marriage ofjus-
tice arising out of a false suggestion made by the prisoner's
attorney would not have taken place. For it certainly was
a violation of the analogy of the law if a man was pardoned
through the aid rendered to him by others who had used
their influence unscrupulously. In conclusion, the hon.
gentleman remarked that it was a melancholy thing to
consider that a man had recently left this world with the
words ringing in his ears, " Where is Townley ? Where
is Townley ?'' (Cheers.)
Mr. NE ATE thought the bill did not propose an ade-
quate remedy for the evil which had been pointed out,
As the law stood at present, it was possible for a hopeless
lunatic to be executed if he murdered his keeper during
a lucid interval. Great difficulty lay in the erroneous
nature of the law, which dated back to a period when
there was little knowledge of mental disease. There was,
consequently, at the present time considerable difference
between the legal and medical notions of insanity, and this
led to hopeless conflict and perplexity. He would suggest
that a Royal commission, or a committee of the house,
should be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and
that eminent lawyers should be thereby afforded an oppor-
tunity of expressing their several opinions on the matter.
On the Townley case he bad few remarks to make, but he
certainly could not understand on what grounds gentlemen
arrived at so satisfactory convictions as to the sanity of
Townley.
Mr. LOCKE regretted that it should be considered by
many that the introduction of the bill had been made twee.
sary because it had been thought by a large proportion of
the population of the country that there had been one law
for the rich and another for the poor, No doubt, in conse-
quence of tho provision of the Act of Parliament which it
was now sought in some way to modify persons of wealth
had had an opportunity of putting the law into operation,
whereas poor men had been entirely debarred from so doing.
Ho would ask the right hon. baronet whether he thought
the present measure would get rid of all the objections
which had been brought into prominence, on a late occa-
sion, in the case of Townley ? It was proposed that the
certificate should be signed by the visiting justices ; but
would theft certificate compel the Secretary of State to grant
a respite?
Sir U. GREY—No.
Mr. LOCKE—Then where would be the alteration P
The only alteration would merely be the substitution of
"the visiting justices" for the "any two justices" of the
present Act; and visiting justices were not invariably men
in whom implicit confidence could be placed. Punishment
ought to be certain ; and as capital punishment had not
been abolished altogether, he thought that there never
was a case which more called for the punishment of
death than the case of Townley. (Hear, hear.) There
were no mitigating circumstances in it—(hear, hear)—
and it was now clearly proved that at the time of
the commission of the offence Townley was perfectly sane.
He must say he was at a loss to discover why Townley was
not to be executed, unless, indeed, the punishment of death
was to be abolished altogether. Looking at the question
logically, and bringing one's common sense to bear upon it,
he could not see why the sentence was to be commuted.
(Hear, hear.) The very circumstance of being placed on hi■
trial might have affected his mind ; but he was sane at the
period of his trial, and he was sane now. He begged to
ask if, when representations were made by visiting justices
and by the doctors as to the insanity of any prisoner under
sentence of death, the same course would be invariably fol-
lowed as in the case of Townley. He sincerely hoped that,
when the bill was brought in, it would be most carefully
considered by members, and that they would endeavour to
avoid the opprobrium which had been cast upon the law by
a recent execution. It certainly was thought that if tli! man
Wright bad had rich friends he might have put the law in

motion with much more reason than in the case of Townley,
as it was exceedingly doubtful whether he was in a fit state
of mind to be placed on his trial. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. BO WYER believed it would ha e been quite im-
possible for the Home Seeretary to have acted otherwise
than ho did in the case of Townley. (Hear, hear.) The very

existence of a doubt upon the occasion rendered it incumbent

upon him to have acted as he did. He did not think, how-
ever, that the right hon. gentleman acted with equal judg-

ment in the case of the prisoner Wright. His execution,
coming immediately after the respite of Townley, had a very

bad effect upon the poorer classes. It had produced amongst
them a strong impression that there was one law for the rich
and another for the poor. And indeed they all knew there
was, although to some extent that was unavoidable; still it
was very dangerous that such an impressson should go forth.
He had taken some pains to ascertain what the feeling abroad

was, and to that end ho had visited the neighbourhood
of the prison the night before the execution. No doubt
he heard some nonsense spoken; but he had also heard
speeches delivered which were marked by as much sound
sense as any delivered in that house. Nor could he say that
the feeling among those people was groundless, nor could

he help feelir g with them much indignation at what had
occurred. As to the bill of the right hon. gentleman, he
trusted that it would receive the fullest consideration ; but
he could not help feeling that the responsibility which it
cast upon the visiting justices was too great.
Sir B. LEIGHTON agreed that the visiting justices
were the persons who ought to sign the certificates ; and
conjointly with them the two medical officers attached to
every gaol, and not medical men picked up anywhere and
anyhow. He would suggest to the Home Secretary to in-
troduce a new bill altogether, first repealing the 3d and 4th
Victoria, instead of a simply amending bill. That would be
much more convenient for justices. He himself was never

likely to be called upon to determine as to the life or death
of a man ; but he must say, if it was his fate, under the
circumstances in which the right hon. gentleman was
placed, he should have done precisely as he did. (Hear,
hear,) Moreover, he believed that every man in that house
at all acquainted with the course of criminal procedure
would have done so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—I wish to say that I have felt a great
deal of pain at the speech of the lion, and learned mem-
ber for Sligo (Mr. Macdonough). (Hear, hear.) He has
repeated in this house a great deal of what we have
heard, or rather seen, in certain newspapers out of it. He
and the writers to whom I refer—and probably they repre-
sent some portion of the public—seem to be extremely un-
happy because a criminal has escaped not punishment, but
a certain punishment, and that considered generally the
most dreadful of all punishments. Now, I confess the ca-

lamity to me is much less than if an innocent man had hap-
pened to be hanged. (Hear, hear.) And therefore I would
feel a great deal of consolation if I was in favour of
capital punishment, which, I am not—(hear, hear)—not
that an innocent man was not hanged, but that a guilty man

had escaped a certain punishment which the law allots to
his crime. The right hon. gentleman has made a statement
which, I think, to every one who heard it—except the hon.
and learned member for Sligo—must have been a complete
justification of the right hon. gentleman's whole conduct in
this matter. (Hear. bear.) The hon. baronet who has just
sat down has told us that was the effect on his mind. But I
am rather sorry that an hon. baronet opposite (Sir George
Bowyer) has mixed up thiF question with the case of another
unhappy man who was executed. That is not the case be-
fore us,and the two questions should not be mixed into one.
It was a perfectly distinct matter on which they were in-
vited to express an opinion. I say there is no man in this
house—unless it be the hon. and learned member for Sligo
—and I will not here except him—who, if he had been in

the position of the Home Secretary, would have acted diffe-
rently from the course which the right hon. gentleman
took. Why, it is a saying of an ancient writer, and not

even a Christian—

When the life of a man is in debate,
No time can be too long, no pains too great.
(Hear,hear.) And when the right hon.gentleman had these
facto before him—of the notorious insanity of members of

the prisoner's family—the evidence given at the trial—l
will not say the opinion of the judge—but, at least the doubt
of the judge—when all this and other evidence, not of me-
dical men, was brought before him, I say it was impossible
for him to have taken any other course than what he did.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman did not allude to
a case which occurred two years ago inNewcastle-on•Tyne.
It was my fortune at that time to be applied to by a medical
man in Newcastle, who is since dead, on behalf of a per-
son then under sentence of death, who, being a man of
morose and perverse nature, had quarrelled with a rate-
collector, followed him through the streets, and stabbed
him in the back and killed him. He was tried, and if I
am not mistaken, the plea of insanity was set up, and the
jury, exactly as in the case of Townley, decided that it was
not a case of the sort of insanity of which the law takes
cognisance, and ho was convicted. The judge wrote to the
Home Secretary expressing his doubts as to the sanity of
the man, and I think also ho expressed an opinion stronger
and firmer of his being insane than in the case of Townley.
An investigation took place, and the same thing was done
as in the case of Townley. lie was respited , and transferred
from Newcastle to some hospital for criminal lunatics.
where, if ho still lives, he now remains, and has been for
some time hopelessly insane. The medical man who attends
my family said that he had opportunities of seeing this per-
son in gaol in Newcastle, where the prisoner could not pos-
sibly see him, and there was no manner of doubt as to his
insanity. The jury decided that he was sane, and if it had
not been for the interference of somebody, and if it had not
been for the proper views the right hon. gentleman took of
the case, that man, though a confirmed lunatic, would have
bean put to death in the presence of some 10,000 people of
Newcastle. That might have been so in the present case ;
and, for anything anybody knew, Townley at this moment,
or when the first investigation took place, might be as
complete a lunatic as the criminal at Newcastle. Then, I
say, the right hon. gentleman could have taken no other
course than he has done—(hear, hear)—and if there is any
additional feeling of regret, and if that feeling has arisen in
consequence of another execution having taken place so
near, it is very unfortunate for the right hon. gentleman,
and unfortunate for a fair view of the whole case. But I
shut that entirely out. It is most unjust, in my opinion, to
associate the last case with this. (Hear.) I have been in
Parliament for 20 years, and have been very frequently in
communication with the right hon. gentleman (the Home
Secretary), and others who had filled that office—l mean in
cases of capital conviction and expected executions, and I must
say that I found every man whom I had occasion to see
holding the office, and in no case more so than in that of the
right hon. gentleman, Vhe most intense anxiety, I believe,
to do what was just, to do what the law and public
opinion would sanction in each particular case. I have not
agreed with the Home Secretary in several cases on the de-
cision that was come to, but it was not my duty to decide.
My office merely was to set before the Minister all the facts
I could, in favour of a merciful consideration. I believe he
has decided most fairly on the merits of each particular case,
with a view as to what was right and proper, and without
reference to r:ch or poor. (Cheers.) There must be a
difference between rich and poor, if you have a law and
execution of that law. It is clear that the poor man is so at
present, in almost every transaction of life, placed at a dis-
advantage. He could not bring down from London an ex-
perienced lawyer at a fee of three hundred guineas ; he
could not employ three keen-scented solicitors to discover
every particle of evidence that could be got up. Therefore
the poor man stands in a position which challenges the
sympathy otievery man who is concerned in the administra-
tion of justice; and especially when you come to consider
the punishment of death, and to look upon it as a punish-
ment, such as no other punishment is, almost irrevocable.
(Hear,) In these cases the position of the convict used to
he far worse when the execution took place within three
days of conviction, Now, when execution takes place in a
fortnight, three weeks, or a month after sentence, a man
lies in gaol, and unless somebody, stirred by a higher or
better spirit, strives against his doom, a few paragraphs in
a newspaper are all that appear to tell of the miserable and
tragic story. It is is the nature of the punishment of death,
and is inseparable from, that this great and terrible wrong
is committed. I believe there can be no remedy so long as
this punishment remains. The right hon. gentleman said,
what you wanted was the certainty of punishment ; but you
can have no certainty of punishment with the punishment of
death. Your punishment of death is the remains of the
savagery and barbarism of old times. (Cheers.) It has already
perished before the indignation and the enlightenment of
the public, except for the crime of murder. Your punish-
ment is at war with the best and noblest sentiments of the
best and noblest portion of the people, and every year, if
you allow this to go on, there will be a groat war between
the duty of the Secretary for the Home Department and the
consciences and sense of the best portion of your population.
I must say I am astonished that there is a man to be found
—and I am only stating now in public what I have fre-
quently stated to the Secretary of State in private—that a
man is to be found to hold that office, and to undergo the
agony—and I have seen the agony—of having to decide
upon these cases ; and if he has not daring that time exa-
mined the whole question philosophically and religiously,
and come to the conclusion that capital punishments are
not necessary, and that he had been able to submit a pro-
posal to Parliament for the abolition of this punishment.
There is not a country in which capital punishment is abo-
lished in which there has been au increase of crime, in
which crime on the whole has not diminished, and in which
the public has not gained immensely. And I believe as
firmly as I do anything I know, anything which is a fact,
that anything which has passed for the abolition of capital
punishments will nct bo accompanied by an increase of the
crime of murder, but will tend to make life more sacred
among our people, and will cease to subject in the course of
a year scores of thousands of your population to the most
demoralising spectacle which it is possible to hold forth to
civilised men. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—The case of Townley has at-
tracted so much public attention that I am anxious to state
the impression made on my mind. It will be very satisfac-
tory to the public that this case has been brought before the
house and fairly and impartially discussed, and I must say
that I do not think it could have been brought forward in a
manner more satisfactory than it has been by the introduc-
tion of the bill moved for this evening. I think the right
hon. gentleman has taken a course becoming his position,
and has done no more than his duty in proposing the bill,
and he would have failed in his duty if he had not dealt

with that state of the law ender which Townley escaped the
doom due to his crime. The right hon. gentleman had the

alternative of repealing or amending that law, and I think
there are o-uvious reasans why it would have been unwise to
propose altogether to repeal the law ; and concurring as I do
in the determination come to by the right hon. gentleman to
amend the enactments of that objectionable, and I might

almost say absurd law, I am bound to add that I do not
think he could have laid the ground for the amendment of
the law more judiciously than he has explained to-night.
The hon, member for Southwark made some remarks on the
subject of visiting justices, observing that they are liable
to the same infirmities as other justices. That, perhaps,
may be true ; but if the right hon. gentleman is right in
maintaining the principal enactments of the law, you must
give the power to some justices. The law enacts that jus-
tices, in conjunction with medical men, are to have the
power; and would you have them selected, as in the case
of Townley, by the agent of the prisoner ? That is not, I

should say, a course which the hon. and learned gentleman
would approve. It seems to me, then, that no better

plan could be adopted than to commit the duty to the ma-
gistrates 'who are intrusted with the care of the district
gaol. Then as to the choice of the medical men. I am
also of opinion that the right hon. gentleman is right in
leaving it to the visiting justices on their own responsibi-
lity. I must now allude to the obloquy to which the right
hon. gentleman has been subjected for the part he has taken
in the case. It is no part of my duty to pay compliments

to him. I frankly own Ido not think ho would have been
exposed to all theso attacks if it had not been for the serious

mistake which he committed in the case of Jessie Maclachlan

at Glasgow, and the distrust thereby occasioned in the
public mind. (Hear.) With regard to the Townley case it
would be an injustice to the right hon. gentleman, of which
I cannot consent to be guilty, if I did not express in the
most explicit terms my opinion that he does not deserve the
blame which has been cast upon him. (Hear, hear.) The
chief complaint against the right hon. gentleman has been
for having acted on the certificate sent from Derby. It has
been said that that document was open to technical objec-
tions. The right hon. gentleman treated with very proper
ridicule the difficulty suggested on account of its having
been signed on a Sunday. The other objection is of more
weight, and turns on the formal question whether the bo-
rough magistrates have any authority in regard to the
county gaol. That is not a fair way of looking at the matter,
Hero is the Act of Parliament; here is the certificate
mainly and essentially complying with that Act. Would
any sensible man in the position of the right hon. gentle..
man have ventured to send Townley to execution in the
face of that certificate P (Hear, hear.) I say the right hon.
gentleman if he had done so would have assumed a more
grave and solemn responsibility than any other man in his
place would have dared to incur. (Hear, hear.) He took
the only course he could. (gear, hear.) The Act of Parlia-
ment was, no doubt, a bad one ; and hero I agree with the
hon. gentleman that wo cannot blame the attorney for the
prisoner for availing himself of any legitimate means at his
command in order to extricate his client from the position
in which he was placed. At the same time, everybody
must feel, as a matter of common sense, that Townley
escaped the gallows only by what we must call a juggle and
a trick. (Hear.) As to the man's insanity, there are not
fifty persons in England who do not believe that he was
sane at the time he committed the murder, and that he has
been so ever since—as sane as any man can be deemed who
is in such a frame of mind as to be capable of perpetrating
so atrocious a crime. (Hear, hear.) Up, then, to the time of
the report from the four medical men who visisted Townley
in Bedlam, I think the right hon. gentleman has been most
unfairly blamed, and that, under the very difficult and pain-
ful circumstances of the case, he took the only course open
to one in his situation. In what lam about to add I am
glad to have the saection of the hon. and learned member
for Southwark ; but I fear I shall express an opinion which
is not shared by the public generally. I feel bound
to say that I think the Government committed a mis-
take in the ultimate reprieve of Townley. I cannot un-
derstand on what principle of justice he was at last saved
from execution. We have heard a great deal just now from
the hon. member for Birmingham in opposition to death
punishments altogether. That, however, is not tho ques-
tion before us. We must take the law as we find it. Here
is the case of one of the most atrocious crimes on record,
without a single palliating circumstance, ao that if ever a
murderer deserved execution this Townley was that one.
He was not, and is not, insane. He was saved by a trick.
When the right hon. gentleman wrote to the Derby magis-
trates he reminded them distinctly that Townley's sentence
was merely respited, and not commuted. No sooner, hew-
ever, was the right hon. gentleman fully and legally at
liberty to order, the execution of Townley than the sentence
of death was commuted to one of penal servitude for life.
The right hon. gentleman has referred to another case
which happened some years ago, of a somewhat similar
character. That is not a fair way of judging the present
case. It ought to be decided on its own merits, and incon-
nexion with all its circumstances. The shortness of time
which has elapsed in the course of the proceeding 4 ought
to be borne in mind. Had there not been a special winter
assize Townley would not have been tried till March. More-
over, it is to the credit of the light. hon. gentleman that no
time was lost in the subsequent inquiries. Then, again, the
very deficient Act, which it is proposed to amend, ex-
pressly stales that when the sanity of a prisoner is
again established the punishment is to revive. The
right hon. gentleman quoted a passage from .filack-
-Btone in which it is laid down that in a case of in-
sanity execution is to bo stayed. No one can doubt
the propriety of that rule; and it must necessarily be left a
matter of discretion, under such circumstances, how far the
punishment is to be revived. Seeing, however, that in this
case the sanity of the prisoner was placed beyond a doubt,
considering the shortness of the time which had elapsed
and the atrocity of the crime, I cannot but think that justice
should have been allowed to take its course. (Hear; hear.)
As to the case of Wright, the right hon. gentleman was
exposed to a degree of pressure such as few Ministers, per-
haps, could have withstood, and acted, in my opinion, with
a firmness which did him great credit. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
CONVEYANCING, &c., (IRELAND) BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland obtained
leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to con-
veyancing, special pleaders, and draughtsmen in equity
purchasing in Ireland.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY SCHEMES.

Mr, MILNER GIBSON, in moving for a committee to
considering the best method of dealing with the railway
schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the metropolis
by bills to be introduced in the present session, and to re-
port whether any, and, if any, what schemes should not
be proceeded with during the present session, named Mr.
Milner Gibson, Lord Stanley, Mr. Massey, Colonel Wilson
Patten, and Mr. Herbert. He proposed that a message be
sent to the Lords to acquaint them that this House has
appointed a committee consisting of five members to join
with a committee of the Lords "to consider the best
means, &c, and to request that their Lordships
will be pleased to appoint an equal number of
Lords to be joined with the members of this house?
He would state the general grounds on which it appeared
to the Government desirable to adopt that course. It
would be remembered that during the last session the
committeee of the other House had been appointed to con-
sider the railwaybills which had been introduced during the
past session, and that they had made their inquiry a Fell
winery step to any bill. being proceeded with in the other
house, and had recommended that some of the schemes then
proposed should be stopped. It had appeared to the Go-
vernment that, if an exceptional course of that kind were
desirable with reference to that class of private bills, at any
rate it should be concurred in by both Houses of Parlia-
ment ; that a committee of one house, or a committee of
either separately, was not so desirable for a preliminary in-
quiry of that kind as would be a committee composed of
members of both Houses of Parliament, thus giving the
whole weight of the Legislature to a recommendation with
reference to these railway bills. The House of Lords' Com-
mittee of last session had recommended that there should
be a committee for the purpose of subjecting the metropoli-
tan railway schemes of the session, previous to a second
reading, to a critical inquiry. In all probability the other
house would adopt that course, whatever course were
adopted by the House of Commons. It appeared, therefore,
to the Government to be a proper course, considering the
vast number of important railway bills affecting the metro-
pclis which were proposed to be introduced during the pre-
sent session, considering the magnitude of the interests
with which they interfered, considering the great powers
they asked for taking land and houses, and considering the
great interference which were proposed with the public
thoroughfares and drainage which would take place during
the time these railways were under construction, that there
should be a committee for the purpose of considering those
railway schemes as a whole—for the purpose of endeavour-
ing to give Parliament that advice which, on the whole
appeared the most desirable to be followed, in order, if addi-
tional metropolitan railway communication were a necessity
of the day, that communication might, at any rate, be after
full and careful consideration, and with the minimum of
interference with local interests and the maximum of public
convenience. Though the proposal he now made on the
part of the Government was novel, it was not altogether
without precedent. He need hardly say that the subject
of metropolitan communication was of vast importance.
(Hear, hear.) The bills concerned both Houses of Par-
liament, and it was desirable that the recommendation of
a committee should have the authority of both Mouses.
(El ear, hear.) Ho thought a joint committee like that
proposed was much more likely to give a united authorita-
tive opinion than if they were to consist of separate com-
mittees. He bad reason to believe that the proposition
would be favourably received by the other house. If, how-
ever, the other house should, on consideration, decline, the
proposal he now made for the appointment of the committee
of the House of Commons would bo complete as far as it
went. The right hon. gentleman pointed out the necessity
of grouping the schemes now proposed, which, he said, as
far as concerned the limited area of the metropolis, far the
present session involved an expenditure of £31,000,000 or
£35,000,000 sterling, and scheduled out for railway pur-
poses one-fourth of the area of the City proper. (Laughter.)
Under those circumstances he hoped that the house would
feel that the Government had only done their duty in pro-
posing the course to which he then asked the house to a
sent. The right hon. gentleman concluded by pro Nsinsg-
his motion.
Mr CAAWFORD said this was ant an engineering qua.