An exaction like this, which eats into and devours nearly a fourth of the capital, ceases to be of the nature of a tax, and amounts to confiscation of property, paralyses the desire for amassing of wealth, and leads to evasion of duty. A like sum, left direct under the first will, would be subject to half the amount of duty; and yet no one would pretend to assert, except, perhaps, in strained legal phraseology, that there were two successions, two devolutions, two beneficial enjoyments; and it was sound policy to encourage the leaving of general power of appointments, and to defer to as late a period as possible the appropriation of the corpus, as none can foresee the changes which death and ever varying circumstances may bring about. It was hard to understand why leasehold should be included with personal property as subject to probate duty, and freehold property should be exempt. If it be contended that freehold property has its special burdens, such as tithe, poor and highway rates, &c., the answer is good as against personal property, but breaks down as regards leasehold property. Both freehold and leasehold property are similarly circumstanced. There is but one alternative-both or neither should be included. From what had appeared recently in the public press, it was probable that the probate and succession duties would be re-considered in the approaching Session of Parliament, and Mr. Stephenson hoped that the whole subject would be first of all taken up by the Law Amendment Society, now united with the Association, that they would draw up a Bill, and that the grievances complained of would be abated.

THE LAW OF BANNS OF MARRIAGE.

In a paper on this subject, by the Rev. S. C. WILKS, the defects of the present law of marriage by banns were pointed out, and a plan proposed for obtaining, as a preliminary to the publication of banns, a declaration somewhat similar to the registration certificate. Under the existing law a beneficed clergyman is bound seven days after receipt of a written statement containing the names and abodes of any two persons residing in his parish, and the time they have "dwelt, inhabited, or lodged" there, to publish the banns of marriage between them. He cannot oblige either of the parties to tell him where they come from, whether they are minors, or of full age; whether their fathers or guardians approve of the marriage, or whether they know of any legal impediment. When the banns have been duly published, he is obliged to solemnize the marriage. It appears by the last return (1862), that more than 100,000 out of the 164,000 marriages which took place in England and Wales during the preceding year were by banns. Mr. Wilks having showed the necessity for putting some restraint upon the facility now afforded for contracting clandestine and improvident marriages urged the introduction of bann books, containing a declaration to be signed by both applicants in answer to printed questions, in the subjoined form.

BANNS OF MARRIAGE: NURSLING PARISH, COUNTY OF HANTS, 1864.

Mr. ALFRED WADDILOVE, D.C.L., read a paper "On the Exclusion of Evidence," in which he advocated the following propositions:-1. That persons charged with a criminal offence should on their trial be permitted, if they thought fit, to give their own evidence on oath in order to clear themselves of the charge against them; 2. That husbands and wives should be competent and compellable to give evidence for and against each other in criminal as well as in civil cases; 3. That parties to a suit, of whatever nature, should be competent and compellable to give evidence bearing on the issue for and against each other; 4. That judges should be empowered to summon any person to give evidence if they thought necessary, whether in civil or criminal cases, and that they might adjourn the hearing of the cause for that purpose.

LEGISLATION ON INTEMPERANCE.†

Mr. JAMES H. RAPER read a paper on "The Office of Legislation in the Prevention of Intemperance," submitted by the Executive of the United Kingdom Alliance. To prevent intemperance, which is the source of numerous evils, not to the drunkard alone, but to his family and to society, is an object not outside the province of legislation, if it be allowed that legislation may prevent as well as punish wrong. Those who object to legislation against intemperance do not

* See Transactions, 1863, p. 172.

† See Transactions, 1860, pp. 532-538; 1862, pp. 452, 458.

so much object to all legislation, as to some special kind which they believe is intended. The common objectiou, "you cannot make men sober by Act of Parliament," is inconsistently urged by persons who do not object to all legislation against intemperance, it is only used as a convenient way of disparaging some particular method of attacking drunkenness, which they do not like. But if the objection mean that no law can render intemperance impracticable, it is a futile objection, for no law is perfect in operation. We can diminish facilities for evil, that is all, and make external conditions more favourable to virtue. Legislation, therefore, ought to act to this end, and should carefully consider how best it can attain it. To help in this inquiry has been the aim of the United Kingdom Alliance, believing with Mr. Charles Buxton that "the question is, whether millions of our countrymen shall be helped to become happier and wiser-whether pauperism, lunacy, disease and crime shall be diminished-whether multitudes of men, women, and children, shall be aided to escape from utter ruin of body and soul? Surely such a question as this ought to be weighed with earnest thought by all our patriots." I. It may be objected that legislation against drunkenness has been tried, and has failed. There are laws to punish drunkenness and drunkards.

But

1. The mass of offenders is so great that only the very worst can be arrested, and only the most disorderly of these are punished. 2. Drunkenness too renders men too blind to self-interest to allow them to be restrained by a simple fine; and, 3. Intentional drunkenness is rare: people never feel so very sober, as just when getting drunk. II. Laws regulating the sale of drink have been tried and failed: they have not failed to diminish drunkenness in proportion that they diminish facilities, but they do not sensibly affect the sale in legal hours, or render the drink then consumed less productive of intemperance. Putting the seller under heavy bonds would not provide means of meeting the difficulty in any way than by making the seller eject the drinker upon the streets more frequently. III. Fiscal laws have been used to diminish intemperance. Increased taxes have done some, but very little good. IV. Schemes for reducing numbers of licences have been proposed, but if the size of the shops be increased this would also fail. V. Attempts have been made to introduce weaker beverages; the Beer Act of 1830, and Mr. Gladstone's Wine Act of 1860; but both have failed to change national taste: the weaker beverage is the stepping-stone to the stronger. The interest of the licensed seller of intoxicating drinks is opposed to society; legislation therefore against the trade is needed. The conjunction of the sale of food with that of intoxicating drinks must be stopped, and if he cannot make a living by supplying wholesome food, it is clear that his previous prosperity has been built on the cultivation of a pernicious taste for drink. But it would be unjust to forbid the victualler to sell drink and permit others to do so, and hence the only efficient guard against intemperance which at the same time is fair, would be to give permission to the inhabitants of a district to prohibit the sale of intoxi

cants in that district if they chose. The proposal of the Alliance is that this power should be given when two-thirds of the votes registered upon the question are opposed to licensing. It is a proposal, the result of which can only be fairly judged by an impartial trial. The operation would be local and voluntary, and would not be perpetuated beyond a certain period if it did not prove itself efficacious. Many politicians have denied that a majority of the people should be entrusted with political power, lest they should endanger the fabric of the State; but it is left with the assailants of the Alliance to refuse a large popular majority the power of delivering themselves from a social evil of the utmost enormity.

REFORMATORY SECTION.

PENAL DISCIPLINE IN COUNTY GAOLS.*

Can a Uniform System of Penal Discipline be established in County Gaols? and, if so, in what way?

The Address of Sir Walter Crofton, which opened the proceedings of the Section, will be found at p. 227.

The Rev. J. FIELD read a paper "On Penal Labour in Houses of Correction," in which he strongly condemned the system of short imprisonment. He considered "hard labour " useless as a deterrent. Labour in prison could not be made equal to the labour of the excavator, the miner, or even the agricultural labourer, nor could the prisoners be exposed to the same privations, and he confidently affirmed that there was nothing in the apprehension of prison-labour as a punishment which could be expected to deter from crime. He also condemned most strongly the tread-wheel and the crank, and all other debasing forms of useless labour. But while he deprecated the infliction of hard labour as an inadequate punishment in itself, and as surely tending to increase depravity when imposed with the aggravations of uselessness and disgrace; he held it further objectionable as counteracting the more severe punishment of separate confinement, and the corrective discipline of which that may be the means. The great principle he recommended was that labour and instruction should be given as the alleviations of punishment. He deeply regretted that the recent committee on prison discipline had recommended an increase of penal labour. He deprecated the continuance of indulgences to prisoners. Their diet was too tempting, their hours of sleep too long. Sloth and sensuality, the latter a general characteristic of the class, should be strictly counteracted in

* See Transactions 1857, p. 306; 1858, p. 382; 1859, p. 496; 1862 pp. 414, 425.

prison by harder beds and less sleep, and less and harder fare. The substance of this paper has been published by the author.*

DISCUSSION.

Mr. T. B. LI. BAKER: I have been for thirty-five years a gaol visitor and have given a great deal of study to the subject of prison discipline. To carry out a universal system in prisons, I do not think quite feasible; one system would not suit all gaols. I have frequently heard from committees of medical men what amount of food a prisoner requires, and committees of the Lords and Commons have discussed what amount of labour and what amount of discipline was necessary to reform a prisoner; and I have often wondered whether a committee of tailors could not be appointed to determine what size of clothes would fit him. It is requisite that his coat should fit him as well as his other clothing, for there are prisoners of all sizes both externally and internally. Men of large frame and vigorous constitution are able to do more work and require more food and a system of treatment which would injure materially a small slender man. A dietary suited to all patients has never been tried in hospitals, and in prisons we can never arrive at a strict system of dietary. Still much may be done to make gaols as regards dietary more uniform than at present. It is a matter of impor tance that in all gaols the punishments should be of a mixed character. Each prison should have provision for separate confinement, the tread-mill, and other means that can be readily adopted in the proper punishment of prisoners. I have met with prisoners who after being kept in separate confinement for a week or two were reduced to weakness though before strong and energetic persons. Their hands would shake, and if talked to a little in a serious way they would burst into tears. In the next cell to a man of this kind might be one who was s dull and unenergetic labourer, who would go easily through his allotted task, and enjoy his diet and find comfort, rest, and ease, in the separate system. Mr. Field has given it as his opinion that the reformatory principle in gaols is more important than the deterrent. I have always taken an opposite view, and I believe that the deterrent influence has the greater power. Although reformation should be attended to, yet, deterring from crime is more important because a far larger number of persons are inclined to run into crime than those who actually commit it. Those who have not come under the grasp of the law are as fifty to one over those who have done so. Prison discipline must therefore be made deterrent. I believe that short terms of imprisonment with strict discipline are the best, for when a man leaves gaol under such circumstances at the expiration of a few weeks, he goes amongst his fellows, those who are likely to become criminals, and tells them what a dreadful place the gaol is. These are the sort of men whom we wish to impress with the discomfort of prisons, and induce not to commit crime. If we let out of a cage a bird which has been confined in it a long time, it will have a liking for the cage, and will try to get back again; but if it is let out at the end of two or three days it will fly away and will have an extreme horror of the cage. This is precisely the case with prisoners, and short sentences have a deterrent influence, long sentences give the prisoner some chance of reformation by keeping him from his evil habits; but in all gaols there are always a large number of prisoners who cannot be reformed at all.

Lord TEIGNMOUTH: I am sure the discussion of this important question will contribute in some degree to bring public opinion to bear upon the subject, and that is a step gained. Parliament ought long before this to have attended to the subject and settled it upon a sound basis. I am in favour of the separate system of confinement, a system which is being adopted in almost every gaol in the kingdom; and it is to the uniform adoption of this system that we must look in the main for improvement in the management of prisons. There were once five

"Remarks on Imprisonment and Penal Labour," by the Rev. J. Field, Rector of West Rounton, and a Visiting Justice of the North Riding House of Correction. London: Longman and Co.