Lords Sitting of 3 March 1854

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Cloncurry, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Registration of Bills of Sale.

STATUTE LAW CONSOLIDATION COMMISSION—

  EXPLANATION—MR. BELLENDEN KER.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, their Lordships would remember that a few days ago he put a question to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, with respect to the Commission issued some time back, for the purpose of considering the subject of the consolidation of the statute law of this country. On his arrival in town last night he was informed, for the first time, that in the course of the observations which he made on that occasion he was supposed to have intended to cast some reflections on the principal member of that Commission (Mr. Bellenden Ker). Now, he entertained the greatest possible respect for that learned Gentleman, from the knowledge he had of his talents, his varied information, his ability as a lawyer, and, above all, of his fair and honourable dealing on all occasions; and nothing could have been further from his intention than to make any insinuation or reflection regarding him. The charge to which he alluded was contained in an article in a morning newspaper (the Morning Chronicle) of the 16th of February. That article contained much abuse directed against that learned Gentleman, and concluded in these terms:—
  "We have further sought to show that Lord Lyndhurst's pregnant caution in the discussion of

  261
  last week had a meaning which it behoved the Lord Chancellor, in his answer, not to overlook or evade—above all, that he ought to have avoided every appearance of a personal participation in contrivances utterly unworthy of his character and station."
  Now, the facts of the case were shortly these. He stated to his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), and to their Lordships, that the Report of the Commissioners was directed to three purposes, and described three methods in which the consolidation of the statute law might be carried into effect; and his object in calling the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the subject was, in order that he might be informed, and that their Lordships and the public might also be informed, which of these three courses it was intended by his noble and learned Friend to pursue. In the course of his observations in putting that question, he referred to the history of former attempts to carry into effect a measure of this description. He said that measures of this kind had been introduced into Parliament by the Government, and had uniformly failed; and therefore he pressed most strongly that his noble and learned Friend would exercise the greatest vigilance and activity, for the purpose of preventing an additional failure on this occasion. That was the only observation directed to that point to which this article seemed to refer. The observation was entirely of a general character, and was addressed to his noble and learned Friend with the view to his exercising, on a subject of this importance, that vigilance which he was known to possess. He begged leave, therefore, to say that the imputation which he was supposed to have directed against the learned Gentleman in question was utterly without foundation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould only say that he had never heard of this matter until his noble and learned Friend alluded to it just now, and at this moment he did not understand what it meant. The learned Gentleman, Mr. Bellenden Ker, who, as the chief member of that Commission, suggested different modes by which that object—namely, the consolidation of the statute law—might be obtained, had been in constant communication with him, and they had had a great deal of discussion as to what was the best mode of effecting that object. The last Report pointed out what he (the Lord Chancellor) sanctioned as the best mode; and if there was any suggestion as to anything sinister, or any-
  262
  thing behind the curtain, or not brought forward, or attempted to be concealed, he did not understand what it meant. Everything that was necessary had been made public, or was intended to be made public; and that gentleman on this, as on all other occasions, had shown the most perfect candour and gentlemanlike openness in all his dealings; and what the insinuation could be, or what could be meant, he was unable to conjecture.

PALIAMENTARY REFORM—

  POSTPONEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT MEASURES.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am induced, in consequence of certain rumours, and perhaps I may say somewhat more than rumours, which have acquired a good deal of force and consistency during the last week, to put a question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, of which I have given him notice, and to which I hope he will have no difficulty or hesitation in giving an answer. My Lords, you will recollect that, in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, Her Majesty was advised to recommend to the consideration of Parliament in the course of the present Session the law affecting the representation of the people in Parliament; and that, at a very early period after the delivery of that Speech, the noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons gave notice in another place of his intention to bring in a Bill for the purpose of effecting a reform in the representation of the people. My Lords, both upon the occasion of that first announcement of this intention, and also upon a subsequent occasion, Her Majesty's Government were appealed to by friends and by foes, more especially by a noble Earl whom I do not now see in his place (Earl Grey)—and I believe in the other House of Parliament similar appeals were made—not to introduce, at a period when it was important that all the energies of the country should be concentrated in preparing for that great and formidable war, in which it was obvious to every one we were about to be engaged—not, I say, to distract the country by introducing a subject of bitterness and animosity, excitement and controversy, which would divide parties at a time when it was most important that they should be united. I believe the answer given in the other House of Parliament was, that Her Majesty's Government brought forward this measure in

  263
  pursuance of a pledge which they were absolutely compelled to redeem. Now, if the noble Earl and his Colleagues had confined themselves to the introduction of the measure in redemption of the pledge which they had given—although I might have thought it was exceedingly imprudent to fling down before the country a measure of such importance without proceeding to its consideration—I certainly should have made allowance: For the position in which the Government had placed themselves on a former occasion by pledging themselves, as one of the points on which they rested their claims to the confidence of the country, to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform. But, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government went further than this; for, appealed to, as I have said, by all sides of this and the other House of Parliament, not unnecessarily to enter into a conflict on so exciting a topic, and having the example set them in the other House by their opponents, of declining to enter into this matter of controversy, by allowing the Bill to be read a first time without opposition, and almost without observation, Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to state that they brought forward this Bill not only in performance of this pledge, but that they considered the war which threatened to interrupt our foreign relations, not only formed no ground why the discussion, consideration, and enactment of that measure should be postponed, but that, on the contrary, there was a peculiar fitness in bringing it forward at this particular time—that it would be a magnificent spectacle to Europe and to the world to see that, while we were engaged in a war, which really after all could not be of very great importance with a Power like Russia, we were able at the same time—considering war a matter of secondary importance—to apply our undivided attention to the reform and improvement of our domestic institutions. That was the statement made on the part of the Government both in this House and in the other House of Parliament; and, accordingly, a day was fixed for the second reading of that measure of reform—an interval, I think, of three weeks or a month from the period when it was first introduced into Parliament—a period certainly sufficiently long to enable the country to form, as I think they have formed, a very decided opinion with regard to the merits of the proposition, and to give to Members of the other
  264
  House of Parliament an opportunity of considering the course they ought to take. But, I confess that, although it is with great satisfaction, yet, after what has taken place, it is with some surprise, that in the course of the last three or four days I find rumours have been very rife, that a general expectation is entertained—notwithstanding all the peculiar propriety of this time for the consideration of the measure—notwithstanding the little influence which the state of our foreign relations need exercise on matters of domestic policy—that, after all, this measure of reform, on which the Government rest their claims to the support of the country, and which they brought forward in redemption of a most solemn pledge, given in the face of Parliament, is to be allowed to lie on the table of the other House of Parliament, and is not intended, at all events for the present, to be proceeded with. I think Her Majesty's Government have done very wisely if they have adopted the course of postponing, if not of abandoning for the present Session, this measure of reform. At the same time, it seems to me inconsistent with the declarations which they volunteered, and with the strong assertions they made, of the necessity, for their own character and for the advantage of the country, of pressing this measure forward; and, under these circumstances, I venture to ask the noble Earl opposite whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government intend to postpone the consideration of their Bill for the reform of the system of Parliamentary representation; and, if it be true, for what length of time the measure is to be postponed; and whether it is to be considered as a postponement or an abandonment of the measure for the present Session, or whether at a late period of the present Session a question of this kind is to be taken into consideration by the House of Commons; and, if passed by that House—of which I confess I entertain considerable doubts—it is to he sent up to your Lordships' House at a still later period of the Session, and at a time when, in all probability, we shall be engaged in a foreign war? I hope the noble Earl will not say this is a question peculiarly belonging to the House of Commons; for, although it may peculiarly affect the representation in that House, yet I think that neither the noble Earl nor any of your Lordships will consider that a question of

  265
  making a material alteration in the representation, and, in point of fact, of the constitution of the country, is not a matter in which your Lordships are as deeply interested as the other House of Parliament itself. My question, therefore, is—whether it is intended to proceed, as was announced, with the consideration of the Reform Bill, or whether that Bill is to be postponed; and, if postponed, whether it is to be postponed for a period altogether indefinite, or for an indefinite period of the present Session?
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, although the measure referred to by the noble Earl is now before the other House of Parliament, and although my noble Friend who has charge of that measure will this night make a statement of the course intended to be pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and notwithstanding the Bill, as the noble Earl observed, relates mainly, or rather entirely, to the representation of the people in Parliament, I do not in the least complain of the noble Earl for taking the course which he has now thought proper to take. The interest and importance of this subject fully justify him in the course he has pursued, and I have no hesitation in giving him the answer which he desires to have. Your Lordships are aware that the second reading of this Bill now stands for the 13th day of this month. In answer to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) on the bench below me, at a very early period of the Session, I replied to the question put by him on that occasion, when he asked me whether the Bill would be introduced before the Army and Navy Estimates would be laid on the table, by stating that it would be so; and I also added that the consideration of the measure would not be hastily pressed, so as to interfere with the progress of the public service, in making those preparations which the exigencies of the time rendered necessary. My Lords, in consequence, the 13th March (although I believe the Bill was read on the 13th February for the first time) was fixed for the second reading. It would then have been before the country for a month. The noble Earl has said that the country has had a full opportunity of forming an opinion upon the nature of that measure. I know not what may be the opinion of the noble Earl, or what he supposes the opinion of the country may be; but this I say, that Her Majesty's Government have had no reason to be dissatisfied with the opinion of the country
  266
  upon that measure, so far as it has been expressed. I believe it has found favour with the country; that it has been considered as a just, a liberal, and honest, and a safe measure. But, my Lords, although I admit that the calamity of war must necessarily interfere with all social progress, still I am not aware that it is absolutely necessary that this curse which we are to endure is to impede and utterly prevent all domestic improvement. My Lords, when I said, in answer to the noble Earl below me, that the necessary measures would be taken to provide for the public service, in contemplation of this calamity then impending, I gave that as a reason why the measure should not be immediately proceeded with; and that reason I now repeat. I see that the necessary supplies have not yet been passed for the service in which we are about to engage. This very night a vote will be proposed for an additional 15,000 men; and on Monday, as my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) has observed, the financial prospects and measures of the year for providing for this increased expenditure will be laid before the other Muse of Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have thought it right, not only to provide a sufficient force for the great operations in which we may be engaged, but to provide the means by which the expense of that force may be defrayed. This I think it is the duty of Government to do, and this it is which we propose to do. Under these circumstances, therefore, my noble Friend, who has the charge of this Bill, will propose to-night to postpone the second reading of the measure until an early day after Easter—that is, until the 27th of April. On that day it is the intention of my noble Friend to move the second reading of the Bill.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILLS—

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, although I may congratulate the House upon the result of the conversation this evening, by which the assistance of the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) has been secured to the Committee appointed to consider and report upon the Irish Land Bills, it is with much regret that I find myself under the necessity of proceeding with the Motion of which I yesterday gave notice for the appointment of certain Irish Representative Peers to

  267
  serve upon that Committee, there being at present appointed but two out of the twenty-eight who have seats in this House. I had hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers, when I yesterday brought this subject under their notice, would have offered to reconsider the construction of the Committee; but the slight they have put upon the Irish Peerage now appears to have been intentional. The Bills which the Select Committee have to report upon relate exclusively to Ireland, and, in fact, are of no interest to any other part of the empire, provided they do not involve the establishment in Ireland of any new principle in the relations between landlord and tenant that might affect the stability of those laws and customs relating to the tenure of land under which this country and Scotland have attained to so prosperous a condition. On this account, I fully admit that the assistance of some English and Scotch upon the Committee would be of great value and importance. The Committee, as at present composed, I am bound to say, is, in one respect, most satisfactory, including as it does two most eminent law Lords. The noble Lord, late the Lord Chancellor of England, held for many years the Great Seal in Ireland, where his abilities in the discharge of his high functions were not unappreciated; and, as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he was the landlord of a large number of estates under the guardianship of the Court of Chancery. The Lord Chief Justice of England will bring to the consideration of the amendment of the laws relating to land in Ireland, not only an intimate acquaintance with the law of Scotland, of which he is a native, and of the English law which he is charged with administering, but also of the law of Ireland, where he, too, formerly presided over the Court of Chancery. He has also become of late very practically acquainted with the working of the law of landlord and tenant, having purchased a considerable estate in a remote and most unimproved part of the west of Ireland. Aided by the experience and judgment of these two noble and learned Lords, the Committee could not have the legal element better provided. With respect to the other English and Scotch Peers who are named upon the Committee, I do not for a moment question their high talents and ability to deal with any legislative measures that may be submitted to them; but, I must say, that as the questions to be considered relate exclusively to Ireland,
  268
  a part of the United Kingdom with which they are but little acquainted, and have no great concern, their number is out of all proportion to that of those who in this House are best entitled to be consulted upon Irish interests—I mean the Representative Peers of Ireland. Looking at the constitution of the Committee, your Lordships will find that of the twenty-one members, there are but two Irish Representative Peers; while of Peers wholly unconnected with Ireland there are no less than eight; of the remaining members of the Committee, five have property in Ireland upon which they do not reside—they are, in fact, absentees, and commonly reside in England, where their property and interests chiefly lie; and six are what may be termed resident Irish landlords. Now, my Lords, I would appeal to your Lordships whether such ought to be the constitution of a Committee for the consideration of Bills relating exclusively to Ireland. I should like to know what the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll) would say if, upon interests exclusively Scotch, only eight Scotch Peers were admitted upon a Committee of twenty-one. My Lords, I am far from saying that the marked preponderance of English influence upon this Committee would be exercised otherwise than with the best intentions towards Ireland. I am not disposed to think that any purpose exists of keeping Ireland from rising to her proper level as a civilised and well-ordered country; but past experience does not warrant me in saying that English counsels in Irish affairs are always well directed, however well intended. The condition of Ireland—though, thank God, in some respects improving—is lamentably illustrative of the want of a wise direction in the framing of her laws and institutions, which have all emanated from counsels essentially English. Not to speak in general terms, I may refer to a somewhat recent case in illustration of my argument. At the occurrence of the late famine in Ireland, measures were taken with the best intentions to meet that calamity, but no measures could have been worse devised for such a purpose. They proved most injurious, and, indeed, ruinous to the country; and, instead of lessening, actually aggravated and prolonged the evil of scarcity, by withdrawing from agriculture to work upon the public roads those whose labour was essential to the cultivation of the land. These measures were adopted, my Lords, with the best intentions, but in

  269
  the face of Irish remonstrance and representations of the course that ought to have been taken, and which, if taken, would have been permanently serviceable to the country. Again, my Lords, I am reminded of another case by the conversation that occurred yesterday in this House relative to the Poor Removal Act. The Irish Poor Law was considerably extended in 1847, securing, as was right, relief to the destitute from whatsoever country they might come; but in the same year was passed the Poor Removal Act, by which any Irish who became destitute in England, are at once shipped off to the nearest Irish seaports. English or Scotch settlers who may become destitute in Ireland, must be supported at the charge of the Irish ratepayer; but the Irishman, who may have spent the best part of his life in England, and given his strength and labour for the augmentation of the wealth of the English manufacturer, and whose family, born and reared in England, he may have considered as naturalised in the country, if from age or accident he becomes helpless and in need of relief, is then driven from the inhospitable shores of England to find refuge with his family in an Irish workhouse. Were Irish Members consulted on this Act? No. I, myself, protested, but in vain, against it in this House. Its glaring and now acknowledged injustice did not prevent its passing; and it still continues in operation. Cases, such as I have noticed, are not calculated to beget confidence in the treatment of Irish interests, when there is an exclusion of those who are constitutionally chosen to represent the interests of Ireland; and, looking at the construction of the Committee, I do not think it much better entitled to the confidence of the country in the consideration of interests wholly Irish, than Her Majesty's present Cabinet. Therefore, whatever respect I feel for English counsels in general, and, however desirable it is that they should have their due weight in what relates to Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, I cannot allow them to have a preponderating weight in the Committee upon the Irish Land Bills, unless the House, by negativing my Motion, should declare that so it must be. To me, it appears that, apart from the valuable assistance the Representative Peers of Ireland could afford upon such a Committee, they ought constitutionally to be placed in the position of accepting the responsibility of such measures as the Committee may ulti-
  270
  mately recommend; and that their exclusion cannot be justified, let me remind your Lordships of the understanding upon which it was agreed to have these Bills referred to a Committee upstairs. My Lords, at the close of the last Session the Bills were put by upon the express understanding that the consideration of them should be entered upon early this Session, and that, however objectionable any of them might be, your Lordships should acquiesce in the second reading of them, in order that they might be fully discussed in a Committee to be appointed for that purpose. Now, my Lords, I am aware that several Representative Peers did come over expressly to take part in the deliberations upon these Bills, and that, in the discussion upon the second reading, very little was said upon their respective merits, except by my noble Friend who opened the debate, because it was the understanding that the Bills were elsewhere to be debated. Do your Lordships then think that Irish Peers would come all the way from Ireland to attend this House merely to acquiesce in the second reading of the Bills pro formâ? My Lords, if such was their only object, if they had known that the doors of the Committee were to have been closed against them, they might better have stayed away. The course taken in the House of Commons was very different; the Committee was there extended to twenty-eight Members, of whom twenty were Irish representatives, and two were by title and property connected with Ireland, I mean Lord Palmerston and Lord Monck, leaving but six English Members; whereas here it is proposed that the Irish element upon the Committee should be in a very small minority. I think, my Lords, I have made out a case to warrant your Lordships in acceding to my Motion, that the Peers' names set forth in my notice should be added to the list of the Committee. It is not to be a judicial Committee, or one for the purpose of mere inquiry; but it is to be practically a legislative Committee, and, as such, there is no reason why the number to serve on it should be limited to twenty-one. Of the Peers whose names I have to propose, they were, with the exception of the Lord Clonbrock, all present at the debate on Tuesday last. I ventured to propose the name of Lord Clonbrock, although not at present in London, as the Marquess of Sligo has been proposed in his absence by the noble Duke. The Lord Clonbrock has peculiar claims to

  271
  serve on the Committee, as an excellent landlord intimately acquainted with the relations between landlords and the various classes of tenants in the west of Ireland, and one who has taken a leading interest in the agricultural improvement of Ireland, as one of the founders of the Royal Agricultural Society in that country. Of the Earl of Desart I need hardly say that he, too, has peculiar claims to be upon the Committee. The part he took in the late debate manifested both his desire to serve, and his ability to render valuable service in the consideration of a subject to which he had given much attention; and, besides his qualification as a Representative Peer, the part he so often takes in the proceedings of the House, together with his practical acquaintance with the forms and details of public business, acquired while in office under the late Government, should have at once pointed him out as one who should, of right, have been placed upon the Committee. It only remains for me to move, in the terms of my notice, that the Earl of Desart, the Earl of Glengall, the Lord Clonbrock, the Lord Crofton, and the Lord Castlemaine, being Representative Peers of Ireland, be added to the Select Committee on the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bills.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it was always invidious to make any objection to the addition of names to a Committee, and he was sure their Lordships would acquit him of being influenced by any personal objections to any of the noble Lords whom it was now proposed to place on the Committee; but he thought that the number of the members of the Committee should not be increased beyond what the forms of the House sanctioned; indeed, he only doubted whether the Committee was not even now too large for the investigation of such a subject. There was no foundation for any charge of unfairness in the selection of the Committee, because the names had been submitted to and approved by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore), who had charge of some of the Bills referring to it. The noble Earl had said that only two of the Irish Representative Peers were placed upon the Committee; but surely he did not mean to say that the fact of a noble Lord being a Representative Peer rendered him more able to discuss questions of this kind than any other Member of their Lordships' House connected with Ireland? And how, then, did the case
  272
  stand with respect to the selection of Peers who were connected with Ireland? Out of the twenty-one members of the Committee, thirteen were connected with the land of Ireland; and when the noble Earl objected to having eight English and Scotch Peers there, he (the Duke of Newcastle) must reply that he considered it absolutely necessary to have there men who had given attention to cognate subjects to those embraced in the Committee's inquiries, but whose personal interests were not involved in the decision that might be arrived at. His only fear was, not that the English and Scotch element in the Committee was too large, but that it was not large enough; and he could not therefore assent to the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, that the Committee appeared to him to have been remarkably well and fairly chosen. At the same time he thought it would be very unwise to allow the people of Ireland to suppose otherwise; and therefore, after the observations of the noble Earl, he would suggest to the Government, that they should either add to the Committee two out of the five Irish Peers whose names had been mentioned, or should substitute them for two of the English or Scotch Peers at present nominated.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that he found no fault whatever with the selection of the Committee; but, though he considered that Ireland was fairly represented upon it, he might observe that, as there were twenty-eight legitimate representatives of that country in the House, it would only be paying proper respect to them if they were asked to assist in deliberations which so materially concerned the interests of Ireland. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion, but he agreed in the suggestion of the noble Earl who had just spoken, as to the addition of two of the Peers who had been proposed.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSappealed to the noble Earl not to press his Motion, which, he observed, was obviously opposed to the feelings of both sides of the House.
  On Question, Resolved in the negative.

JUVENILE CRIMINALS.
THE EARL OF ELLESMEREpresented a petition from the Justices of the Peace for the City of Manchester, praying for the establishment of Reformatory Institutions for Juvenile Criminals, The noble

273
Earl said he knew of no subject of greater or more pressing importance than that to which the petition related. The petition was not very numerously signed; but he believed that the persons who had signed it concentrated amongst them as much intelligence and as much knowledge of the subject as could be found in any similar body of men. There was, indeed, no community which had a larger experience of juvenile delinquency than that of the city of Mancester. The nineteen signatures to the petition included those of the late and present chief magistrate, and of Mr. Maude, the present stipendiary magistrate, who, from having filled that position for several years, must necessarily have acquired great knowledge of the subject. The petitioners expressed their belief that, while the most effectual means of checking crime consisted in the general diffusion of education amongst the ignorant classes, a good deal might still be done in the case of juvenile delinquents by substituting for imprisonment in the ordinary gaols a course of reformatory discipline and moral and industrial training in institutions established for the purpose. In that opinion he (the Earl of Ellesmere) concurred; and he also believed that the best means for the prevention of crime consisted in the general diffusion of education. If, indeed, he had had any doubt upon that subject it must have been removed by the visit he had recently made to America. It was impossible after visiting that country to underrate the effect of a comprehensive system of education in enabling parties in all ranks of life to provide the means of obtaining an honest livelihood, and in thus neutralising the great temptation to crime. At the same time, he must express his belief that not even in America, where education had assumed a more diffused and comprehensive shape than in any other part of the world, did it reach the particular class of juvenile delinquents who were particularly referred to in this petition. He believed that he was not uttering anything disparaging or disrepectful to the United States when he said that, in spite of the general diffusion of education there, the streets, nevertheless, swarmed with juvenile delinquents, who, availing themselves of the liberty allowed to every one in that country, refused to avail themselves of the means of education that were there thrown open to every one. He must also say, and with still greater regret, that
274
if we were to wait for the establishment of reformatory institutions until education should be as generally diffused in England as in the United States, we would have to wait for a very long time; for he very much despaired of being able at any early period to establish a more general and comprehensive system of education than that which now existed, and which was originated under the auspices of the noble Marquess on the Treasury bench (the Marquess of Lansdowne). He attributed to that system as it was worked by the Government and the Privy Council, the very best effects as far as it went. Still he believed that we could not look to an enlargement of that system as the means of diffusing education throughout the country. It had already raised both the quality and the amount of the education given; but he certainly could not hope from it anything like the diffusion of education which now existed in the United States. If, however, the experiment they made upon a small scale were successful, schemes of a similar character might be carried to a greater extent, and they might finally proceed to legislate on the subject. If they wished to see an instance of the effect of a reformatory system of discipline, they would find one within a few hundred yards of their Lordships' House. That was an establishment, not for juvenile offenders, but for those with whom it might be thought much more difficult to deal, persons who had taken degrees in crime. The establishment to which he referred was assisted by a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who took so great a part in every philanthropic institution, and was managed under the auspices of that remarkable man Mr. Nash. From that establishment they might derive encouragement that such reforms were not impossible when a good system was applied for the purpose. The subject was much too large—and there would be other opportunities for referring to it—to be discussed on the presentation of a petition; but he thought he should not do his duty to the parties whose claims to their Lordships' attention he sought to enforce, if he did not draw the attention of the Government to the subject.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Monday next.