a select committee, and that committee reported in favour
of the other amendments; but they decided that any arrangement which
would deprive the prisoner of the last word would be injurious to his
interests, and to the ends of justice. The attorney-general urged the
house to accept the bill as it stood; but the amendment was rejected,
and its rejection immediately communicated to the other house. The
lords, however, still resolved to adhere to the amendment, and a
conference was held, at which their reasons for adhering to it were
communicated to the commons. The amendment was finally adopted by the
lower house, and the bill passed--Lord John Russell stating that the
matter in dispute would form a subject of future deliberation, and Mr.
Ewart assuring the house that he would not fail still to press upon
it the principle which he now sacrificed, rather than reject the bill,
which still retained a great deal of good.

Another act passed during this session had reference to the execution
of those convicted of murder. By the existing law a person convicted of
murder was directed to be executed the next day but one after that on
which he was convicted, unless it should happen on a Sunday, in which
case the execution was to take place on the following Monday. The law
further required that after conviction such persons should be fed only
on bread and water, except in case of sickness, and that no other person
than the gaoler, surgeon, and chaplain, should have access to them,
unless by the permission of the sheriff or the judge who had presided on
the trial. During the present session an act was passed repealing these
provisions, enacting that "sentence of death maybe pronounced after
conviction for murder in the same manner, and the judge shall have
the same power in all respects, as after conviction for other capital
offences."

A third act passed this session related to medical attendance on
inquests. This was an act to provide that when medical men were called
from their ordinary duties to serve the public by giving evidence
on coroners' inquests, and going through the anatomical and chemical
processes which these examinations sometimes required, they should
receive a proper remuneration. This bill, which was brought in by Mr.
Wakley, enacted that not only the coroner should have power to summon
medical witnesses, but "that if the jury were not satisfied with
such medical evidence, the coroner should be bound to summon a