Sitting of 28 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Juvenile Offenders; County Buildings.
Reported.—Naval Prisons.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Adderley, from Biddulph, for Repeal of the Maynooth College Act; and against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and from Roman Catholics of Alton, against the Roman Catholic Bil.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Belfast and Methven, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries—By Mr. P. Scrope, from several places, in favour, of the Poor and Highway Rates Exemption Bill.—By Mr. Spooner, from Warwick, against, and by Mr. Waddington, and Mr. Buck, from several places, in favour of the Rating of Tenements (No. 2) Bill.—By Mr. V. Smith, from Guardians of the Northampton Union, in favour of the Government Plan of Education; and by Sir W. Moles-worth, from Liverpool, for Alteration of the same.—By Sir G. Grey, from Devonport, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By several Hon. Members, from different places, in favour of the Juvenile Offenders Bill.—By Sir T. Esmonde, from County of Wexford, for Alteration of Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill—By Sir J. Y. Duller, from Devon, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act; and from Guardians of the Honiton Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
SIR J. PAKINGTON SIR J. PAKINGTON moved, that the Juvenile Offenders Bill be read a Second Time; upon which
MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK moved, that it be read a second time that day six months. He wished to know whether the Government were prepared to sanction the measure? The hon. Gentleman opposite had presented petitions from certain magistrates in its favour; but it struck him that those gentlemen understood very little of what was for their own interest, to say nothing of the interests of the country. It was proposed that two magistrates, sitting in private, not in a public court, should have the option to adjudicate on cases where the age of the offender did not exceed fifteen years, and when the property did not exceed the value of 40 s. Now, that was opposed to the principle of the constitution of this coun-
34
try, which was that there should be perfect publicity given to the administration of the law. By this Bill two magistrates would be empowered, on the complaint of one party, to adjudicate and determine on cases of simple larceny, and felony punishable as simple larceny, obtaining money under false pretences, escheats, and misdemeanors. One justice, on the confession of the party accused, was to have the power of deciding the case in his own private parlour. No body of men should be intrusted with such a power, and no body of men who wished to stand well with the community could desire to take it upon themselves. The Bill provided for the summary conviction and punishment of offenders; but these advantages might be obtained by increasing the number of times on which public courts could sit. The Bill before the House was so concocted as to be productive of the greatest possible amount of mischief. The proceedings were to be in secret; there was no responsibility attached to the uninstructed party who was to judge and determine the nicest points of law. He might act as he pleased; and who was to determine whether he decided rightly or wrongly? These extraordinary powers were to be given, not to a learned Judge, but it might be to a fox-hunting justice; and the trial might be conducted in such privacy that private passions, particular interests, and sinister motives might be put into motion to carry out the wishes of particular parties. As he understood, the great object was to prevent the contamination of young persons by their congregating in prison; but by this Bill, although there was the power of summary conviction, yet the punishment was imprisonment. He would not enter further into the details of the Bill; but would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he was prepared to give it his support?
MR. BANKESsaid, that feeling the very great necessity, which had been long known to exist by those who took any share in the administration of the law, of some alteration of the kind proposed by this Bill, he thought they could not be better employed than in considering how far it was practicable to improve the exercise of the criminal law in regard to juvenile offenders. But although be should vote for the second reading, he could not support the Bill in its future stages, unless it should convey in its enactments a direct and specific option to the party accused, of an appeal to a jury if he desired it. Some

35
time ago he had introduced a similar measure, containing a clause by which that option was given; and providing that where the party accused was young, and had no parents or friends with whom he could advise, the guardians of the poor of the district should watch over his interests, and make that election which might be most desirable for him. As the sessions were at present conducted, young persons might remain in gaol for two or three months after commitment before they were tried, it being almost impossible for them to procure bail.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that when the hon. Baronet moved for leave to bring in this Bill, he (Sir G. Grey) stated to him that the subject was one of the greatest importance, and that he was glad the hon. Baronet had brought it before the House. He should be sorry now to say one word dissenting from the principle of the measure, namely, that some more speedy mode of trying juvenile offenders was desirable; but he was bound to say there were very serious objections to most of the details of the Bill. The subject required very full and ample consideration; and he could not express a hope, that during the present Session this Bill could be put into such a shape as to receive the sanction of the Legislature. It would only he a partial measure upon a subject which required very full consideration. The objections of the hon. and learned Member for Bath were addressed entirely to the details; but to one of those objections—namely, that if this summary jurisdiction were to be exercised at all, it ought to be exercised in public, and not in private—he thought the hon. Baronet would assent. [Cheers.] He understood from that cheer that the principle was at once conceded. But other questions arose, and one of them was a most difficult one, namely, as to the punishment to be inflicted on juvenile offenders in such cases as those which occurred day by day—of children of seven, eight, and nine years of ago, being sentenced to transportation, the sentence being accompanied with a recommendation from the chairman of quarter-sessions, or the judge, that it should not be carried into effect, and which no one would dream of carrying into effect; but that the offenders should be taken charge of by the Government, with a view to their reformation, and of their not falling back into the hands of the parents or friends who had totally neglected their education, and who had allowed them to be trained up in vice and crime.
36
That subject had been a good deal under consideration; and although he was not at the moment prepared to lay before the House any definite plan, yet he hoped in the course of the present Session to submit to Parliament a measure which would enable counties or boroughs, or unions, to provide some asylums for criminals of the kind—if they could be called criminals, for it was rather their misfortune than crime—where they might receive a certain degree of punishment, for punishment must be connected with criminality; but more with a view to their reformation, which was the great object after all. If that were accomplished, and the subject was undergoing very full consideration, then it would be much more easy and practicable to give a summary jurisdiction, attended with those guards which there ought to be in all cases where they consigned offenders of that class to prison, so that they might avoid not only that contamination of a long detention in prison previously to their trial, which it was the object of the hon. Baronet's Bill to protect them from; but that which might be occasioned by their imprisonment subsequently to their trial and conviction. He would, therefore, venture to express a hope that, under these circumstances, the hon. Baronet would not press his Bill in the present Session, seeing, as he did, no probability of its becoming law. At the same time, if the hon. Baronet wished to have an affirmation of the principle that there should be a more speedy trial of juvenile offenders, he should be sorry to vote against it; but beyond that he could not go. He thought that if the details of this Bill were as perfect as possible, it would require to be accompanied by other measures. A question arose as to who should exercise this jurisdiction. He did not agree with some observations of the hon. and learned Member respecting the local magistrates, who, in most instances, exercised the authority and jurisdiction vested in them in a manner moat satisfactory; but if the Legislature extended their jurisdiction, he thought it became a very material question whether they ought not, in populous districts, to have stipendiary magistrates. It had been extended lately to a great degree; and from the representations made to him from certain districts—such as the mining districts of South Wales—he thought they might look forward to an extension of the appointment of those magistrates—not to supersede the local magistrates, but to act with them; and that a system of that kind

37
would tend very much to facilitate the exercise of a more summary jurisdiction by persons who would be more responsible to the Government of the country than the local magistrates. He believed that all the apprehension he had entertained as to the abuse of power might be removed by those safeguards to which he had before referred. The principle of this measure was not new, for in 1840 a Bill of this nature had passed through that House, and was rejected elsewhere. But the subject was now attracting more attention than at that time. A Committee of the House of Lords was sitting on the criminal law and the administration of it; and he thought the object of the hon. Baronet might be defeated by any attempt at hasty legislation. At the same time, he entertained the hope that at no distant period this subject would be placed on a more satisfactory footing.
MR. LAWsaid, that concurring as he did very much in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he must join with him in his application to the hon. Baronet to withdraw this Bill. He agreed with the principle of the Bill, as enunciated in the first part of it; but he thought enough had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman to convince the hon. Baronet that the subject was not ripe for discussion, especially upon so narrow a basis as that laid down in this Bill. The question of punishment of juvenile offenders was one of the deepest importance; and he thought it deserved consideration whether, in ordinary eases of petty larceny, there should be a conviction of felony, with the forfeiture of goods. If this Bill were proceeded with, he should certainty insist, as a condition of his support, that all offences made the subject of the present measure should be designated ass misdemeanors. He greatly regretted that a Bill of this description should be entrusted to private hands. In legislating upon a subject of so much importance, the House ought to be aided by the experience and by the authority of the Government; when a careful digest of all its details might inspire the hope that speedy alterations would not be necessary. It should be a comprehensive and a permanent measure.
MR. E. B. DENISONsaid, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, he trusted the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Bill. If he did not, he (Mr. Denison) should consider it his duty to oppose the second reading. The principle of the Bill
38
was to give to justices the power of trying boys under sixteen years of age in private; a principle most dangerous to the liberty of the subject; upsetting the great principle of trial by jury, and substituting for it a secret tribunal, where no counsel could be heard on the prisoner's behalf. As a magistrate who had frequently taken part in the business of quarter-sessions, and who had occasionally acted as chairman, he thought he might venture to say that he was not altogether without experience. He trusted, therefore, that he should not appeal in vain to his brother magistrates throughout England when he entreated them not only not to ask for such powers as this Bill would impart, but not to be parties to having such powers put upon them. It was only under the pressure of a Government measure that they ought to submit to the responsibility and burden of such authority. There had always been great difficulty in procuring competent chairmen at sessions; and even the most competent of that class often found themselves exceedingly embarrassed without the aid of skilful and learned counsel. He hoped the House would reject the Bill; but he hoped, also, that the Government would take it up, and not expose the country to the danger of having it renewed in private hands.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, that after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and after the other speeches which they had heard in the course of the present discussion—after the favourable reception also which the principle of the Bill bad on previous occasions experienced—he trusted that the House would indulge him with the opportunity of trespassing upon their attention for a few minutes. He quite agreed with those hon. Members who said that a measure of this description ought to be in the hands of the Government; but unfortunately the Government had never taken it up, and he had been informed that the Government entertained no intention of bringing in any such measure during the present Session. Neither had he the least reason to suppose that any professional Gentleman entertained any intention of proposing the subject to Parliament. He trusted, therefore, that, influenced by such abstinence on the part of the persons whose duty it really was to bring forward such a measure, it would not be considered to have been presumptuous on his part to submit such a measure to the consideration of Parliament. The first

39
objection to this Bill was, that it imparted large powers which were to be exercised in private. The law of England recognised the existence of such a court as that of petty sessions. Two justices did constitutea petty sessions; and such trials as were contemplated under this Bill would probably take place most frequently at petty sessions, and therefore in almost every case the trials would be conducted under circumstances of publicity. The power given to the magistrates of England under the 7 and 8 of Geo. IV. were infinitely greater than the ones he proposed to give them. Under that Act, any single magistrate, sitting in his private parlour, might send any offender to prison for twelve months; whereas, by the Bill now before the House the utmost extent of the punishment which two magistrates could inflict would only be six months' imprisonment. He trusted the House would do him the justice to compare the Bill which he now presented for their acceptance with the doctrines laid down in the report of the Criminal Law Commission of 1837; and he did not hesitate to say that that report would be found in perfect unison with the Bill now under discussion. He had very anxiously considered the subject, and he found it impossible to discern any evil that would arise from the small addition which by the Bill it was proposed to make to the existing powers of magistrates. That very learned and able person, Sir Edward Ryan, who was at the head of the Criminal Law Commission, authorized him to say that he was favourable to the principle of the Bill. But he could mention the names of other learned Judges whose authority must doubtless be highly estimated by the House. He might remind them of what Sir Frederick Pollock, the Chief Baron, had upon a recent occasion done at Bury; and he believed that not even that learned person himself would pretend to say that the course which he took was legal. A juvenile offender was brought before him—the prisoner pleaded guilty; but the Chief Baron refused to let that plea be recorded; desired that the trial might proceed; directed the jury to acquit the prisoner; and the little culprit was immediately handed over to the care of his friends. When judges and courts were driven to adopt such modes of proceeding, it surely was time for the Legislature to interfere. Thus, then, they had the authority of the head of the Criminal Commission; they had the authority of the
40
Chief Baron; and the authority also of the County-rate Commission. Besides, he was not the first man who had introduced Bills of this nature in that House. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had introduced a measure of this kind some years ago. In the year 1840, Sir Eardley Wilmot brought in the Bill alluded to by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department; which Bill, he begged to remind that right hon. Gentleman, proposed to give much greater powers to magistrates than the present; for Sir E. Wilmot proposed by his Bill to limit only the age of the offender, but did not define any limit with regard to the value of the property stolen; every larceny committed by juveniles was under that Bill to be disposed of summarily by the magistrates. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dorsetshire said, "Do not give to the magistrates the extensive powers proposed to be given to them by this Bill;" being utterly forgetful, it would appear at the same time, that the magistrates even now possessed powers of a tenfold greater character. In the year 1840, the House by repeated divisions and repeated majorities, affirmed the principle of this Bill, and declared that it was high time that something should be done to alter the criminal law with regard to juvenile offenders. After an unsuccessful opposition by a small minority to the Bill of 1840, it was sent to the House of Lords. And he must here beg to remind the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he found his name, in two divisions, in favour of sending that Bill to the Lords; he also found his name inserted in the list in favour of the third reading of the Bill. He would take the liberty of reading a short extract from the speech of Lord Campbell on the occasion of a Bill of this nature being discussed in the House of Commons at a time when he was Attorney General; and he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J. Jervis) who now filled that high position, would feel himself bound to follow in the steps of his distinguished predecessor, Lord Campbell. He hoped that the hon. and learned Recorder for the city of London, who had declaimed against this Bill, and who had evidently proved himself ignorant of its details, would pay particular attention to the extract he was about to read. The hon. Baronet road the extract as follows:—
"The principle of the Bill was, in his opinion, unobjectionable. He should, however, feel dis-

41
posed to improve its various details. The object of the whole appeared to him to be the reconciliation of our different enactments upon the subject of felony by juvenile offenders. The principle of the Act was, that when a child should be accused of felony, he should not be compelled to hold up his hand to the bar upon being arraigned after the manner of a felon, and that the usual jury on such occasions should not be charged with his deliverance, but that his ease should be subjected to a domestic tribunal, especially entitled to take cognizance of the offence. The more plausible objections to this Bill and its principle were, that it had a positive tendency to abolish that birthright of Britons—the trial by jury. There was not within those walls an individual, nor out of the profession, who had all along entertained a higher respect for the institution of trial by jury; but he would remind the House, that already the Legislature had departed from that principle in all its strictness, and had sanctioned, in cases of misdemeanor, the adjudication of the case by the magistracy at the sessions. The House ought to be informed of the glaring anomaly that subsisted in our enactments upon the subject of theft. As the law stood, if a boy stole apples from off the tree, it was merely a case of trespass; whereas, strange as it might appear, if he took the apples up from the ground within the orchard, the offence amounted to felony. Such a state of the law was totally irreconcileable to common sense and sound reason, and calculated to bring its authority into disgrace. What he wished upon this subject was, to see adopted some summary but prudent mode of dealing with cases of juvenile offence."
He felt himself compelled to express his extreme regret at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had acted in reference to this Bill; indeed, he must say that he thought he had just grounds for complaining of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill was first introduced, the right hon. Gentleman stated most fairly, that in the main he agreed with the principle of the Bill; and that he should not object to its being read a first time, whilst he of course reserved to himself the power of objecting to its details in any future stage. And now the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and told them, that he objected to all the details, though not to the principle of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact of his name having been recorded over and over again in favour of the Bill of 1840, which, as he had previously said, was more extensive than the present. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he objected to the details of the Bill; and yet he had not pointed out in any one single instance what his objections were. Now, he thought that he had every reason to complain of that on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If the details of this Bill were objectionable, he was most
42
willing to alter them, so as to meet the right hon. Gentleman's views, so far as he could consistently with the avowed objects of the Bill. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman had been informed by what a large body of the most experienced authorities on these questions the principles of the Bill were sanctioned, he ought to have stated what were his objections to its details, and he should then have been able to meet them. He was willing to consider those objections, either in a Committee of the whole House, or a Select Committee up stairs. He hoped, then, that the right hon. Gentleman would alter the determination to which he appeared to have come in reference to this measure, and afford him his support in carrying the Bill through the House in such an altered state as was consistent with its principles. He had brought forward this measure, because it had been demanded by the country, by justice, and mercy; it was also called for by the highest legal authorities in the kingdom. He had introduced it with a full sense that such a measure ought to be conducted through the House by the Government; but finding that no one ventured to bring it forward, he had felt it his duty to submit it to the consideration of the House. He had received applications from every county in England, desiring him to urge the measure forward as speedily as possible. He had received from all sides, the most encouraging language to persevere with his Bill. The only objection which he had heard urged by parties out of the House was, that the Bill did not go far enough—that it ought to extend to adults as well as juveniles. He would not then accept the recommendation of the Government to withdraw this Bill. He would press the House to a division, and was willing to abide the result. If the Government succeeded in throwing the Bill out, be it their fault, and not his. He had stated his perfect willingness to submit to any fair alteration in the details which might be suggested by the Government; but consistently with his sense of duty he could not, and would not, consent to withdraw the measure. If they threw out the Bill, the responsibility must rest upon the House; but he did entreat them to give their best consideration to the arguments which he had adduced, and that they would give their sanction to the second reading of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that, as the hon. Baronet intended pressing this question to a division, he should

43
follow the course which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend, and give his vote for the second reading of this Bill. His right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) did not oppose the principle of the Bill; all he wished, was time for the further consideration of its details. His right hon. Friend deemed the measure to be ill-timed, and he thought it was imperfect in many respects; and the reason why he opposed its further progress was, that time should be allowed to the Government to introduce a measure of a more comprehensive character. They all admitted that it would be very desirable to prevent children who had broken the laws of the country from being subjected to the contamination of our public prisons. Everybody admitted that the class for whom this Bill was intended should not be tried as felons, and everybody was anxious to cure the anomaly of the law which allowed children to be summarily convicted before magistrates for stealing apples from a tree, but in cases where the apples were stolen from the ground under the tree, the law compelled the children to be sent before juries and tried as felons. But this Bill of his hon. Friend did not cure that anomaly. He therefore requested him to delay his measure until the whole question had undergone a complete revision by the Government; after which a comprehensive measure, based on such inquiries, would be submitted to the House. The Government hoped to be able, in a short time, to introduce a measure on this subject which would be acceptable to the House and the country at large. His hon. Friend had said that he was not prepared for the opposition of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), seeing that he had voted so frequently for the Bill introduced in the year 1840; but since that period many objections presented themselves to his right hon. Friend's notice, which had induced him to alter his opinions; and, indeed, he confessed that his own opinions on this subject had undergone a considerable change, for in 1840 he opposed the measure, and now he was prepared to vote in favour of this Bill, which involved precisely the same principle. He thought it was very desirable, if possible, that some means should be adopted for the more speedy trial of juvenile offenders; hut, in common with his right hon. Friend, he had a most insuperable objection to private tribunals. He doubted very much the propriety of placing the offences named in
44
this Bill under the jurisdiction of magistrates; and he had also a great distrust to the species of punishment proposed to be inflicted under this Bill. There were many details of omission which, if the Bill were sanctioned as it now stood, would render it almost an impossibility to work it. As his hon. Friend's first object, viz.—the affirmation by the House of the principle that it was desirable to introduce a more speedy trial of juvenile offenders—now appeared to be gained, he did hope that he would consent to the withdrawal of his Bill. The hon. Baronet, for the part which he had taken in reference to this subject, unquestionably deserved well of the House and the country. He had provoked a most beneficial discussion; and he hoped that as all parties, even the dissentients to the measure, had willingly confessed that they approved of its principle, he hoped his hon. Friend would not at present persevere with his Bill.
MR. HENLEYmust confess that the speech of the hon. Baronet who had introduced this Bill, had led him strongly to the opinion that he did not wish to consent to any alteration in the details of his Bill, because he had taken this course. He had said that the details of his Bill were framed in accordance with the opinions of the highest possible authorities; that the details were founded upon the report of the commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the state of the criminal law; and that very statement induced him (Mr. Henley) to believe that the hon. Baronet intended standing fast by his details. They had heard a good deal about substituting tribunals for the adjudication of infringements of the law committed by juveniles; and he was very much struck by the observations of the hon. Baronet as to the desirableness of providing domestic tribunals. But he did not define very exactly what he meant by domestic tribunals. As far as he understood the hon. Baronet, the tribunals which he meant to establish were not such as the House ought to approve of. He knew very well the difficulties attending trials at petty sessions, because in some places they were held only once a fortnight, and in some instances only once a month. Now, he wished to know what the hon. Baronet proposed to do with juvenile offenders in such districts, taken into custody during those periods? Much had been said about the anomalies of the existing laws; but they were no justification for such a measure as this. If

45
they wished to abolish those anomalies, let them grapple with the whole of them, and bring forward a measure for their abolition, and not deal with them piecemeal, as was proposed by this Bill. Such measures as these ought to be taken up by the Government, and not by a private Member of the House. He was by no means anxious to see any more power entrusted into the hands of magistrates. He did not think it at all to be a good argument that, because they already possessed great powers, the Legislature should grant them more. He was quite sure that it was by no means an agreeable task to the majority of magistrates to exercise the large powers which they possessed at present; and he believed that if those powers were increased, the public would not be benefited, whilst to the great body of the magistrates they would be a very disagreeable authority. This measure was really one of details. They might all be desirous of seeing juvenile offenders brought to a more speedy trial than they could be under the present state of the law; but that was no reason why they should give their sanction to this Bill, which, instead of dealing generally with the acknowledged abuses of the law, was merely a measure of details, confined to a portion of those abuses. He had given the Bill his full and deliberate consideration; and the conclusion to which he had come was, that if the hon. Baronet pressed the House to a division, he should feel himself bound to vote against the second reading of the Bill. There was one feature in the Bill which was most objectionable, and against which he could not help protesting; he referred to that portion of the Bill which proposed to constitute one tribunal for the trial of a man, and another which was to sentence him to imprisonment on the admission of his guilt. That, he thought, was the most objectionable clause in the Bill. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: It is recommended by the commissioners on criminal law.] He did not care who recommended it: it was, in his opinion, a most dangerous principle to institute a tribunal for the admission of guilt, when they all knew how liable criminals were to be tampered with before they were arraigned. He, of course, gave the hon. Baronet all credit, and he thought the House must do so too, for his having introduced this Bill, and the manner in which he had defended it; but he could not consent to its being read a second time.
MR. PACKEobjected to many of the
46
details of the Bill; but the evil was so great that he could not consent to delay for one hour the attempt to remedy it. When magistrates felt themselves obliged to resort to shifts, with regard to juvenile offenders, which the law did not sanction, it was time for the House to interfere. He would support the second reading.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he had never heard a magistrate of extensive experience express any opinion but one strongly in favour of adopting the principle of this Bill. The grand jury at the Old Bailey, every session, recorded their opinion that the majority of the cases of juvenile offenders that came before them, ought to have been disposed of summarily. To say that the Government and the House were well disposed in favour of such a Bill as the present, would not satisfy the feeling out of doors, which was in favour of some speedy remedy being applied to the evils which the present mensure proposed to remove.
MR. BICKHAM ESCOTThad thought it quite clear that the Bill would not pass this Session. It provided a new mode of trying juvenile offenders, a new tribunal, and new punishments, all of which were condemned by some one or other hon. Member. With this want of agreement as to the principles of the measure, it would be a waste of time to read it a second time.
MR. R. PALMERsaid, that having acted for many years as chairman of quarter-sessions, he thanked the hon. Baronet for the pains he had taken in introducing a measure so much wanted as the present. Looking at the calendars which came before him, he should be disposed to say, that not three-fourths of the criminal cases were, if they looked to the value of the article stolen, worth the trouble of being brought into court. If an apple were taken out of a basket, a magistrate must send the case to the quarter-sessions; and many instances occurred in which prosecutions for stealing articles not worth 1s., entailed a charge upon the county-rate of not less than 12 l. He thought the Bill ought not to be limited in its operation to juvenile offenders; for, if an article were of very trifling value, the age of the offender did not make much difference. It would be a god amendment if the value of the article stolen were made the criterion whether it should come under the present Bill or not. He was satisfied that some more speedy means of bringing to trial juvenile offenders and others charged with stealing ar-

47
tides of trifling value was very much required. He had handed over to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) a memorial signed by the grand jury of his (Mr. Palmer's) county, who expressed themselves strongly in favour of some such measure as the present. He would vote for the second reading.
MR. TATTON EGERTONwould support the second reading of the Bill; but he was not prepared to give his unqualified assent to all the details of the measure. He thought it would be most desirable to send it to a Committee up stairs, with a view to mating the Bill as perfect as possible, for such a measure was much wanted.
MR. PROTHEROEwished to express his satisfaction at what fell from the hon. Member for Warwickshire that the judge should take into consideration the state of education of the criminal. The connexion between ignorance and crime had been proved; and therefore it was unjust to punish the ignorant as much as the educated. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, though he was far from assenting to many of its provisions.
The House divided on the question that the word now stand part of the question: —Ayes 75; Noes 23: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Frewen, C. H.

Aldam, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Allix, J. P.

Gladstone, Capt.

Antrobus, E.

Goring, C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Greene, T.

Arkwright, G.

Grimsditch, T.

Austen, Col.

Halsey, T. P.

Bailey, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bailey, J., jun.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Barnard, E. G.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Bateson, T.

Hill, Lord E.

Bell, M.

Houldsworth, T.

Benbow, J.

Howard, P. H.

Bennet, P.

Jervis, Sir J.

Beresford, Major

Knight, F. W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Le Marchant, Sir D.

Bramston, T. W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Broadley, H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Buck, L. W.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bunbury, W. M.

Maitland, T.

Carew, W. H. P.

March, Earl of

Christie, W. D.

Monahan, J. H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Compton, H. C.

O'Brien, A. S.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Osborne, R.

Copeland, Ald.

Packe, C. W.

Courtenay, Lord

Palmer, R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Perfect, R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Prime, R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Protheroe, E. D.

East, Sir J. B.

Rolleston, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Round, J.

Finch, G.

Scrope, G. P.

48

Seymer, H. K.

Walker, R.

Sheppard, T.

Wilmington, Sir T. E.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wood, Col. T.

Spooner, R.

TELLERS.

Trollope, Sir J.

Cripps, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Pakington, Sir J.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Pechell, Capt.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Browne, R. D.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Crawford, W. S.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Denison, E. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Duncan, Visct.

Thornely, T.

Duncan, G.

Trelawny, J. S.

Fielden, J.

Trotter, J.

Gardner, J. D.

Wawn, J. T.

Henley, J. W.

Williams, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Escott, B.

O'Brien, T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Bill read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

RATING OF TENEMENTS (No. 2) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Debate upon the Second Reading of the Rating of Tenements Bill adjourned from the 17th of March was resumed. Question put that the word "now" stand part of the question.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that additional reflections upon the provisions of this Bill had not induced him to think more favourably of it. He had received several communications, stating that its operation would cause a great disturbance of property. It applied to the town as well as to the country; and, upon the whole, its application was of too extensive a nature to be passed without much more serious deliberation.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, that the Bill had caused great consternation in many parts of the country; and he hoped the House would not agree to the second reading.
MR. P. SCROPEwished to make a few observations, with a view of showing to the House why they ought not to give their sanction to this measure. There were a great number of persons who were excluded from rates by the 54th of George III., and who occupied cottages at a low rent in accordance with that exclusion. They were all working persons; and if this Bill passed, they would be obliged to pay a higher rent for their dwellings, in order to make up to the landlord for the additional rates which would be imposed under this measure. If hon. Members considered the great number of houses excluded under the 54th George III., they

49
would at once perceive the important character of this measure. The persons who built houses for the accommodation of labourers were generally industrious tradesmen, who had laid up 100 l. or 200 l., and who having sufficient time to spare, were enabled to collect their own rents, and were thus induced to invest their money in building in their own neighbourhood. Now, if this measure were passed into a law, it was quite clear that it was not the owner but the occupier who would have virtually to pay the rates imposed under it. Those who took a comprehensive view of the subject were aware that the speculation in the building of those cottages for the labouring classes conferred a great advantage upon the poor; but if this measure were passed, it would impose a penalty upon the speculations of men who were so useful to society, and would throw an impediment in the way of building houses for labourers. If they agreed to the measure, they would reduce the cottage accommodation for the poor in a very great degree; they would oblige many who now dwelt in single cottages to reside in lodgings; and would cause many families who now occupied two rooms, to reduce their accommodation to one. The men who built those rows of houses for the labouring classes, calculated on a certain interest for their money; but the imposition of this rate would reduce that interest, and consequently have a great tendency to lessen the amount of speculation in such buildings. Thus the effect of the measure would be, to deprive the poor of cottage accommodation, whilst it would defeat its own object by increasing the poor rates. He had a measure before the House which would draw a line distinctly between those cottages which were to be rated, and those which were to be excluded, and which would, in his opinion, be a great improvement on the present system. Under the existing law, persons requiring to be excluded were obliged to go to the parish officer and make an application for the purpose. He then went to a magistrate; an inquiry took place into the capacity of the man to pay 2s., perhaps, for his cottage; and this led to so much practical difficulty in many cases, that the law was not carried out. One consequence of the present system was, that the overseers were often put to very great expense in collecting small sums, so that the expense frequently exceeded the rate; indeed it had happened that the overseers were obliged to expend
50
6s. or 7s. in collecting a rate of 9d. or 10 d. Now, he proposed to carry out in his Bill the principle of drawing a distinct line between the class of cottages which were to be rated, and those which were to be excluded, so that both might distinctly appear on the face of the rate-book. He would suggest the exemption of all houses under 5l. value in the rural districts, and under 8l. value in towns. He begged pardon of the House for detaining them so long; but he thought it better to give his reasons for the views which he entertained.
MR. CRIPPSobserved, that the hon. Member for Stroud had taken the opportunity afforded him by this Bill of speaking in favour of a clause of his own which stood on the Paper for this day. His hon. Friend said, that this Bill bad caused a ferment in all the towns in England. Now, he could only say that he had himself presented twenty petitions in favour of the Bill, and he had not heard one single objection out of doors against this measure. He believed that the measure would not have the effect of raising the rent of cottages. The rates were, in point of fact, now paid by the landlords. Whether the machinery of the Bill was perfect or not, was another matter; but he thought that the Bill was capable of being reduced into it very tangible and practical shape. No system was more liable to abuse, and was more capable of being abused, than the system of excusing persons from the payment of rates on the score of poverty. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee; and he felt confident that, sooner or later, the identical principle of this Bill would become the law of the land.
MR. V. SMITHthought that exemptions, whenever they were allowed, were exercised in favour of the owner, and not in favour of the occupier; and he had himself known cases in which the owner of a cottage attended a vestry meeting, and obtained exemption for it, and then returned home and charged his tenant an increased rent in consequence of the exemption. He believed, farther, that exemption tended to encourage cottages of an inferior class, unfit for the poor to live in; and he hoped that if this Bill were to pass, it would encourage the building of cottages of a superior class. He wished the principle contained in this Bill—that of charging the owner instead of the occupier—was carried farther than it was, as be believed that

51
much of the unpopularity of the poor law arose from the rates being levied on the tenant, though, in fact, the owner, it was well known, paid in the end. The only objection he had heard to the Bill was, that a Committee was now sitting up stairs, which must consider the question of rating, and that it would he injudicious to proceed with this Bill pending their decision.
COLONEL THOMAS WOODsaid, that a Committee had sat upon this question, and the evidence of all classes—magistrates, clergymen, and others—was in favour of the principle. His hon. Friend was about to propose a clause exempting towns from the operation of the Bill; not that he thought such an exemption was just, but they must take only such measures as they could carry. As to the encouragement of pauperism, he read an extract from the report of the Commissioners of Local Taxation, setting forth that one of the most active causes of pauperism was the practice of exempting small cottages from taxation. The case of Liverpool had been referred to; and certainly that was a case of grievous hardship. By exempting from rates all houses under 20 l. a year rent, the burden of the poor rate was thrown upon 6,000 houses, to the manifest oppression of the owners of that property. This Bill would remedy that inconvenience, as Liverpool was not under a local Act, and, therefore, would be subjected to the operation of this Bill. He hoped the Government would think better of their opposition to this Act, and that, in consideration, at least, of the report of the Commissioners of Local Taxation, they would allow it to go into Committee.
CAPTAIN PECHELLobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it would deprive parties rated under 6l. from attending vestries. He could not see that the Bill, in its present state, was for any other object than the disfranchisement of the class of ratepayers alluded to. The hon. Member for Cirencester said, there was no objection to the Bill out of doors; but he (Captain Pechell) found that several petitions had been presented against it, and more would be presented before the Bill was allowed to pass into a law.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad always been a friend of the poor, but, at the same time, he had a right to consider all parties; and when they talked of assessing owners, the House ought to remember there was often a difficulty of finding the owner, as the owner might live in one county, while
52
the cottage was situate in another. He further thought that this Bill would not relieve the poor, as they were still liable to have their rents distrained for the rates. He gave the hon. Member every credit for his intentions, but he could not support the Bill.
MR. BUCKsupported the Bill, and insisted that the exemption from rate at present was unduly in favour of the manufacturing interest, and of those who lived in the towns. The Government seemed to consider in all things, not the landed interest, but only the towns.
MR. GRIMSDITCHreminded the House, that in times of great public distress and pressure upon the working classes it was next to impossible to get rent from them; the owners of the species of property in question often permitted the poor occupiers to remain there at such periods; but it was now proposed to make those owners not only allow that, but pay the rates. If this Bill were to become a law, it would operate most injuriously upon the poor.
MR. HENLEYopposed the Bill. At present the poor rate was not upon property, but upon the occupier in respect of property; it was now proposed to alter that principle with respect to the poor man. The poor man had now a complete exemption from rating at all if he could prove his poverty; this Bill would virtually repeal that exemption. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Buck) complained that people in towns were exempt to a greater extent than those in the country; but how were people driven into the towns, but by the gentlemen in the country refusing to build cottages on their estates? The great difficulty of the poor in this country was to get houses to hide their heads in at all.
MR. ALLIXthought it was hardly fair to call upon the poor man, who was receiving relief one week perhaps, to pay poor rate the next week.
MR. CAREWwas certain that if those hon. Members who intended to oppose the measure had seen the scenes of distress which he had witnessed, arising from the attempts made to levy rates where the persons were unable to pay them, they would vote with him for the second reading of the Bill.
SIR J. PAKINGTONdid not think that the poor tenant would derive any benefit from the transference of the payment to the landlord, as the landlord would be sure to

53
take care of himself by levying an additional rent. If the House really intended to benefit the poor, the better way would be to exempt altogether certain properties from paying the rate.
MR. PACKEconsidered the Bill as only requiring the owners to pay what in law they ought to pay. Considering how harsh the operation of the existing system often was in regard to the poor, he would certainly support the Bill.
MR. HUDSONsaid, he could not give a silent vote, seeing that several hon. Members had asserted that the representatives of the larger towns were not opposed to the measure. Now, he could state that he had received a representation from the borough with which he had the honour of being connected, expressing a strong opinion as to the impolicy and injustice of the Bill. Could it be supposed that the owners of property would not increase the rents if they were saddled with the rates now payable by the tenants? Under these circumstances, the measure could be no been to the poor. Allusion had been made to those parties who had built houses for the poorer class of tenants, and they had been spoken of as speculators; but he entertained a much higher opinion of these parties than to think or speak of them as having been solely actuated by a desire to benefit themselves. Looking at the miserable unhealthy hovels into which the poor were too frequently thrust, he considered that the persons who provided them with improved residences had shown themselves to be the true friends of suffering humanity. He could not support the second reading of the Bill, as he believed it would bear oppressively on the poor. In taking that course he had the satisfaction of knowing that he was supported by the good sense of the city over which he presided (York), and of the town which he represented.
MR. BROTHERTONsuggested that, in a case where opinion was so much divided as it was on the present measure, the better course would be to postpone the Bill till another year.
MR. STANSFIELDsaid, that if he was to be actuated by his experience as a magistrate, he would give his vote in favour of the Bill; but taking a broader view of the question, and being anxious to preserve the independence of the poor, and the rights and duties to which the payment of rates entitled them, he would oppose the further progress of the Bill.
MR. WODEHOUSEwould vote for the second reading under the assumption that the hon. Member for Suffolk had made out his case; but he was convinced that the Bill could not advance a step further.
The ATTORNEY GENERALobserved, that he had heard nothing since the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department had addressed the House, to induce him to alter the vote he intended to give. The strongest objections had been received from towns against the Bill; and the extent of the opposition was evident from the statements of almost every Gentleman representing a town who had spoken. The tendency of the measure was to influence the value of house property in towns, and so directly to affect the comfort of the poor. He should, therefore, vote against the second reading.
MR. MILESsupported the Bill. At present people on the verge of pauperism were often reduced to extremity by the enforcement of rates. In one case with which he was acquainted, a rate of 11 s. had involved costs amounting to 13 s.
The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 89: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Adderley, C. B.

Hussey, T.

Allix, J. P.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Antrobus, E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Lennox, Lord G. H. G.

Austen, Col.

March, Earl of

Baillie, H. J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bankes, G.

Miles, W.

Beckett, W.

Milnes, R. M.

Bennet, P.

Neville, R.

Beresford, Maj.

Newdegate, C. N.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Bramston, T. W.

Packe, C. W.

Buck, L. W.

Pinncy, W.

Carew, W. H. P.

Polhill, F.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Prime, R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Rashleigh, W.

Colville, C. R.

Rice, E. R.

Compton, H. C.

Rolleston, Col.

Courtenay, Lord

Round, C. G.

Deedes, W.

Round, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Egerton, W. T.

Seymer, H. K.

Fellowes, E.

Sheppard T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Sheridan, R. B.

Floyer, J.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Frewen, C. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Tower, C.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Gore, W. R. O.

Trotter, J.

Goring, C.

Vyse, H.

Greene, T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Halsey, T. P.

Wodehouse, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wood, Col. T.

Harris, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Waddington, H. S.

Hill, Lord E.

Cripps, W.

55

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Knight, F. W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bailey, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Baillie, Col.

Lawson, A.

Barrington, Visct.

Layard, Maj.

Bell, M.

Le Marchant, Sir D.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Lindsay, Col.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Lygon, hon. G.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

M'Carthy, A.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Maitland, T.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Manners, Lord J.

Bowring, Dr.

Monahan, J. H.

Bright, J.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Buckley, E.

O'Brien, C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

O'Connell, M. J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

O'Conor Don

Callaghan, D.

Osborne, R.

Cayley, E. S.

Pakington, Sir J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Palmer, R.

Christopher, R. A.

Pechell, Capt.

Copeland, Ald.

Perfect, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Philips, M.

Denison, E. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Dugdale, W. S.

Reid, Col.

Duncan, G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Rutherfurd, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Sibthorp, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smythe, hon. G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Escott, B.

Spooner, R.

Etwall, R.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Evans, Sir De L.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Fielden, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ferguson, Col.

Thornely, T.

Finch, G.

Trelawny, J. S.

Gore, hon. R.

Tufnell, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Turner, E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Vane, Lord H.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Walker, R.

Hodgson, F.

Williams, W.

Houldsworth, T.

Hudson, G.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Henley, J. W.

Jervis, Sir J.

Scrope, J.

Bill put off for six months.

TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the Second Reading of the Tenants (Ireland) Bill. He remarked, that having received intimation that Government were not engaged in bringing in a Bill on this subject, he had been induced to take the task of doing so upon himself. The question had been repeatedly before the House in different forms; and it had at different times been decided that compensation ought to be given to tenants for improvements. Under these circumstances, he did not wish to detain the House with any statement on the subject just now, but would simply move the second reading of the Bill. If hon. Members consented to the second read-
56
ing, he hoped the discussion would be taken on the details. If, however, the second reading was opposed, he hoped he would be permitted to reply to such arguments as might be urged against it.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that really this Bill struck at the very roots of property, and it would be extremely improper for the Government to give a silent assent to its second reading. It was very fashionable in that House to talk of compensation to Irish tenants for improvements. He was free to confess, that he had at one time been of opinion that Irish landlords were a set of men who were justly proscribed; but that was when he was in the same state of ignorance as a largo portion of Members of that House were still in respecting Ireland. Two years' residence there, however, and his connexion with that country, had shown him that there was considerable sympathy due to Irish proprietors. The present Bill professed to secure the rights of the occupying tenants of Ireland. He thought he might more fairly call upon the House to pass a Bill to secure the rights of resident proprietors. He was quite aware of the existence of what was called "tenant right" in Ulster; but he begged to enter his solemn protest against extending it to the south of Ireland. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) had been in the south of Ireland, or was acquainted with the state of things there between landlord and tenant, but he suspected he was not. He assured the House that he had various tenants who were owing him three or four years' rent, and that, so far from finding it easy to get rid of them, he was obliged not only to give up his claim for the rent, but to make them a present of 50 l. a piece to go out. What more would they have? The fact was, that the whole south of Ireland was a mass of bad cultivation and bad management. A tenant came in without sixpence in his pocket; he exhausted the land in a very short time, and then asked for a reduction of rent; and when the landlord sought to eject him, he was obliged to pay him to go. The House should really consider these things, and instead of raising the cry against landlords, and setting everybody's hand against them, they ought in the first place to confirm the rights of property in Ireland. But the system of legislation the House was pursuing at present, struck at the very roots of property in that country. He

57
cautioned English Gentlemen to beware lest the same rules they were now laying down for Ireland should come to be pretty strictly enforced on this side of the water also. He was unwilling to take upon himself the invidious distinction of opposing this Bill on its second reading; but he should feel obliged to do so. unless he got a distinct assurance from some Member of Government present who took an interest in Irish matters, that they would not consent to its passing in the shape in which it then stood. If they gave him that assurance, he should content himself with protesting against it at present, and try to pull it to pieces as much as he could in Committee. [Cries of "Move,"] Well, then, he begged at once to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. MONAHAN(the Solicitor General for Ireland) regretted very much the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Labouchere). Several other Members of Government were also necessarily absent; and, as the present measure was one of considerable importance, and required the best attention of the House, he would respectfully put it to the hon. Member for Rochdale to allow the debate to be adjourned for the present. If the hon. Member declined to accede to that request, he begged to say, that so far as he was personally concerned, he would not take upon himself, in the absence of the other Members of Government, to oppose the Bill; but neither would he be understood by his silence as pledging himself, or those with whom he acted, to the details.
MR. CRAWFORDfelt unwilling to object to the adjournment of the debate, it another day could be fixed for resuming it.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at Five o'clock.