said, that he begged to call the attention of the House to a discussion which had taken place yesterday evening, connected with the Great Yarmouth election. A petition had been presented by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, from Mr. Baker, the agent of the petitioners against the return, in which it was alleged, that Mr. Barth, the mayor, and returning officer, had absented himself with the poll-books, in order to defeat the case of the petitioners. Now to his (the hon. Member's) astonishment, the first person whom he met this evening, on coming to the House, was Mr. Barth himself, who assured him that he had had no intention to evade the order of the House. To his own knowledge, Mr. Barth was very largely engaged in business all over the country, and obliged, in consequence, to pass very suddenly from one place to another; but he was quite convinced that Mr. Barth would be the last person to do anything in the slightest way dishonourable, or tending to defeat the course of justice.

rose to move, that for one month from and after the 14th of May, an additional day in the week should be appropriated to Orders of the Day. It was a matter of considerable consequence, that both Houses of Parliament should have full time to consider the various measures that were brought before them; and it was very desirable, that when measures of great importance were under discussion, a full attendance of the Members of either House should be insured. This very desirable object had been defeated, to some extent, for several years past, owing to the lateness of the period at which measures of the very greatest importance had been sent up to the other House. It was well known, that in the earlier part of the Session, several of the motions which stood on the votes, were preparatory to bringing in bills. If those bills were then introduced, they afterwards became included amongst the Orders of the Day; but if the motions for bringing in such bills were rejected, there was an end to all legislation on such subjects for the current Session. He thought, therefore, that at a period of the Session like the present, the occasion for notices of motion was proportionably diminished, and that there would no inconvenience result from adopting the motion which he had now to make. Besides the Government bills, there were several bills brought in by individual Members, upon subjects of great importance, and of which he thought it extremely desirable that they should be discussed in the presence of a full House. He should, therefore, conclude by moving, that for one month, from and after the 14th of May next, Orders of the Day should have precedence on Thursdays.

said, that the proposed arrangement would interfere with a subject of great importance which he had on the papers.

said, that the proposition of the noble Lord seemed to him to involve considerations of very great importance—it was commencing at the middle of a Session, and when Gentlemen were most assiduous and regular in their attendance on their duties in that House, to interpose and procure for the Government a larger portion of precedence than any other Government ever had enjoyed. The notice days, as he had always considered them, and according to what he thought was the constitutional mode of viewing them, gave opportunities to private Members of Parliament to question the acts of Government, and to bring forward anything to which they thought fit to call the attention of the House. This was his view, but he must say, that the motion of the noble Lord had a direct tendency to prevent any Gentleman who might have to call the attention of the House to any grievance, or any matter of interest to his constituents, or to any class of the community, or to the public generally, not, it was true, from bringing it forward at all, but from bringing it forward in due time; he repeated, if the motion were agreed to, its tendency would be, to postpone bringing on questions of such a nature, until a period when the grievance respecting which notice of motion had been given, would be totally past remedy. He was quite aware that, towards the close of a Session, this practice had frequently obtained, and it might then be right or not, but the motion of the noble Lord came too early, when they were in the very heat of the Session, and when, as he had said, Members were most numerous and assiduous in their attendance. There might be, as he believed there was, much business on the books of the House; but why this mode of remedy? Parliament had now been sitting since November, and he would say, that if Government had used due diligence, they would have been able to bring forward, at an earlier period of the Session, those measures which yet remained for consideration. They were arrived almost at the beginning of May, yet no financial statement had been made on the part of the Government; and very few even of the estimates had passed; and he thought it was too much that Government should come down seeking a remedy for the existing state of things in this motion, instead of having begun, as it was their duty to have done, at the beginning of the Session, to bring forward the important business of the country.

begged to submit to the House, that this motion would interfere with the notice of motion which he had placed on the book, respecting a subject to which he was most anxious to call the attention of the House—he meant the proceedings at the late and preceding Roxburghshire elections, as transactions had taken place there, which it seemed to him especially necessary should be brought under the consideration of the House. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge in what had fallen from him respecting the character of this attempt on the part of Government, at engrossing to themselves those opportunities which independent Members had hitherto enjoyed of bringing forward questions of importance; and he must say, that he hoped it would not be submitted to by the House. He would not wish to look at this question with reference to his own side of the House merely, but he would appeal to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and all hon. Members on the other side, who were unconnected with Government, whether this was a fitting, proper, or even convenient course? He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would reconsider his proposition, and not attempt, thus early, to amend a regulation of the House, which had passed no longer ago than the early part of the Session; but more especially since, as the noble Lord had stated, Government would only gain three days by the change, he did hope that they would not seek to impose additional restrictions on a regulation which was already very strict.

said, that the delay in proceeding with Government Bills proceeded in some measure from the motions relative to foreign affairs and to Lord Durham's mission, which had occupied the time of the House. Of this, however, he was far from complaining, as it was undoubtedly the right of Members to bring forward motions condemning the policy of which they disapproved, and it tended to the interest of the country, that these motions should be brought forward. He thought, however, that in the present state of the public business, unless hon. Members were prepared to sit till August or September, they must be prepared to give up the day, as suggested by the noble Lord.

could do no more, in answer to the two right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the opposite side, than to repeat what he had said on introducing the motion—that complaints had been made in the other House of Parliament, that measures came up to them for consideration at a period of the Session, when Members of neither House were in sufficiently numerous attendance to give opportunity for a due consideration of such measures, and therefore measures of great importance were not rejected on the ground of their merits, but postponed to another year, in order to get time for further consideration. Now, he must say he thought that if this were true, the House of Commons were bound to remove this ground of objection; and if, on the other hand, any persons made this an excuse to get rid of measures which they did not like, then the House had equal reason to take measures to do away with that excuse. He wished, that it might no longer be said, that Government brought forward measures to which there was no time for giving due consideration. With respect to what had been said of the negligence of Government in not bringing forward important public measures at an early period of the Session, he wished it to be considered that in the year before last, the great questions of Municipal Corporations, and tithes had been considered in that House, and bills sent up to the other House, where they were rejected, it being understood, that both Houses were ready to reconsider those measures. This was the case in the year before last, and last year those measures had again come before them, with the addition of the Poor Relief Bill for Ireland; he therefore considered, that in the present year, they had in that House a very great and unusual accumulation of business. But what had they gone through in the former part of the Session? Why, first they had the settlement of the civil list; then they had the measures arising out of the very important affairs of the insurrection in Canada; they had lately a bill for amendment of the act of abolition of slavery, and pointing out and supplying the means by which it was to be carried into effect; they had had this business, he wished it to be remarked, in the present Session in addition to the measures on which they had before legislated. Then the Irish Poor Relief Bill had received a very full discussion and consideration, having occupied five or six weeks; then some progress had been made in the Tithes (Ireland) Bill, and the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, the Pluralities, and Clergy Residences Bills, the Benefices in Cathedrals Bill, in various measures for the better administration of justice, and in other measures of very great importance which were before the House. Looking at these circumstances, he did not think the Government could be said to have delayed the conduct of any important business, and he must say, also, that Members in general had this Session, paid very great attention to the business of the House. The proposition he had made, he considered to be one which would prove a very important benefit, if it enabled them to send up to the House of Lords the great measures to which he had referred at a period when that House would have June and July for the consideration of them. If the House agreed to the motion, it was likely, he thought, that the measures he had mentioned, might be passed this Session; if they did not agree to it, then Government ought not to be accused of not proceeding with them rapidly enough.

said, the consequence of agreeing to this motion would be, that the Government would give notice, and probably bring on nothing. If the noble Lord would give notice, and on doing so, pledge himself to bring forward his motion on the day fixed, then he would support the motion, for there were several measures of Government, which he was very anxious to see proceeded with. But if the noble Lord would not give him this pledge, then he must vote against the motion, as he thought that there was very much in the objection which had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite against Government's engrossing all the time to themselves, and preventing individuals from bringing forward questions of importance to their constituents or the public at large.

observed, that there was one consideration which was not, in his opinion, an unimportant one, and which would probably induce the House to accede to the noble Lord's proposition. It had been stated in another place, the House of Lords, that the Irish Corporation Bill, the Irish Tithe Bill, and the Irish Poor-law Bill, would be by them considered as parts of one measure, and that the Irish Corporation Bill would not be passed unless the other bills were laid before them at the same time. It followed, therefore, that if they sent up only one of those measures, the Lords would come to the resolution which they had already announced, of postponing it till the other two reached them. It was necessary, therefore, that the three measures should go up together to the other House, and after they were disposed of there, and they should come back to this House, there would be ample time for their reconsideration. For this reason, if for no other, he would support the proposition of the noble Lord.

should give his vote against the proposition of the noble Lord. He was quite certain, that if the House sanctioned the precedent, sought to be laid down in this instance, they would be appealed to next year to pass a similar one. The noble Lord said, they had done nothing but considered bills, and that there never was a Session in which the business of legislation occupied so much of the attention of the House. He said,—See what important bills we have been consi- dering; the Canada Bill, the Slavery Amendment Bill, and the Irish Poor-law Bill. Now, considering that they had discussed these measures without any party spirit, he thought they ought to have some better reward than restricting them after the 14th of May next, to only one day for the discussion of other than Government measures. The noble Lord's proposition was an attempt to deprive independent Members of the House of the opportunity of bringing forward and canvassing measures on the only two days left open to them. For at the commencement of the Session, the Government had imposed a new restriction before that time unknown upon independent Members of the House, by not allowing them to occupy the notice-book more than fourteen days. In consequence of that restriction, limiting the giving of notices to a fortnight, it was altogether impossible to know the intentions of hon. Members from an inspection of the notice-book alone. Formerly, they might see the notice-book crowded with motions for days long distant. But now the case was different; and the Government, not content with having succeeded at the beginning of the Session in limiting the giving of notices to a day not more distant than a fortnight now came forward, and endeavoured to impose an additional restriction. He was quite sure, that the House would not have acquiesced in the first arrangement, if they had had any idea that it was to be followed up by the present proceeding. He could not avoid perceiving that there was a growing tendency to discourage the bringing forward of motions by independent Members. On the only night on which were usually brought forward, questions of the greatest interest, and the most paramount importance to the whole country, Government proposed to give their own business precedence, and to limit the right of full and free discussion. Considering that they had devoted themselves lately to the great business of legislation—considering that a restriction had been already imposed by her Majesty's Ministers upon the right of giving notices—considering, also, that every facility had been afforded to the Government, towards carrying on the public business, he must protest against the establishment of a precedent shutting out all discussion upon the policy of the Government. There was, as he before observed, a great tendency on the part of the Government to abridge the privilege of discussion enjoyed by independent Members of the House, and indeed the arguments made use of in support of the proposition applied with equal force to limiting discussion to only one day. If the learned Commissioner opposite, he begged pardon, he meant the hon. Member for Tipperary, thought the Corporation Bill, or the Tithe Bill was connected with the Poor-law Bill, perhaps, he would ask the noble Lord why they were not to be brought forward earlier than the 14th of May? The Tithe Bill was originally fixed for the 30th of April, but it was postponed at the desire of the noble Lord himself until the 14th of May. What was the cause? Hearing no indication of any such intention, and knowing no reason why the Session should be abruptly or prematurely terminated before the entire business of the country was disposed of, he (Sir Robert Peel) must protest against establishing a precedent which might be readily appealed to on a future occasion by a Government stronger than the present, and which was avowedly founded upon some imaginary necessity for despatch.

said, that with regard to the postponement of the Tithe Bill, which had been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, he had only to say, that it appeared to him that when one measure had been for a long time under discussion, it was better to bring it to a close, than distract the attention by bringing forward other measures concurrently. Therefore it was, that he proposed the third reading of the Irish Poor-law Bill, on the day when Irish Members were likely to be present. There were at present only two days, Mondays and Fridays, on which the Government could bring forward measures. By measures, he meant not only bills, but also the supplies for the year. Considering the present state of the business of the House, he must say, that it was difficult to proceed satisfactorily with more than one or two measures at a time, unless an additional day were allowed. The right hon. Baronet opposite, (Sir Robert Peel) seemed to think, that the proposition for limiting notices of motions was an innovation, and that they formerly existed in great frequency and number. Now, when he sat at the opposite side of the House, he recollected that there were comparatively few notices of motions, and these were given not to embarrass the Government, or interrupt the progress of public business. If the proposition did not meet the wishes of the House, he would not press it. He must say, that the proposition not being pressed, and there being only the days allowed at present to the Government to bring forward measures, it must happen, that measures of the greatest importance could not pass the House before the latter end of July, and they would then be rejected in the other House on the former plea, that there was not sufficient time for consideration, thus creating arrears of business for the next Session, and making it a matter of triumph that the Government had not been able to carry their own measures.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the better ordering of prisons. This was the supplement of a bill which had been introduced in another House by a noble Friend of his; according to which, inspectors of prisons had been appointed, and various other acts had been suggested, which, however, he was induced to think might be amended. This bill enabled the councils of cities and boroughs to visit gaols in the same way as magistrates at quarter sessions were now enabled. It provided for the separation of different classes of prisoners; that was to say, that those who were committed for misdemeanors only (but who very often, he admitted, were persons of as depraved habits as those who were felons) should be classified and separated from the felons. Another object which he had in view was to do away altogether with the practice (which he considered to be most erroneous in principle) of employing prisoners as officers in prisons. Such a system, no doubt, as that which existed of employing a certain number of convicted prisoners to fill offices within the gaols, might be said to be one of practical economy, but it was, in his opinion, the worst possible principle which could be devised, and undoubtedly in its working gave rise to the worst consequences. It was a bad principle to proceed upon, that those who had been convicted of crime should possess any power over their fellow-prisoners. Those criminals who were the friends of these officers, who were, in fact, inspectors, were treated with unmerited kindness, whilst less un- deserving individuals encountered very different treatment. There were various other provisions in the bill which it would be better to discuss when the bill should be before them. He would now move for leave to bring in a bill for the better ordering of prisons.

said, that there could be no doubt whatever that very great practical reforms were required in the regulation of our prisons, and he rose, in the first place, to express his concurrence in the principle which the noble Lord's measure went to establish, of preventing those, who had been convicted of crime from acting as servants or assistants in prisons. He wished to ask the noble Lord in what manner he meant to carry out the general superintending power over prisons, so as to secure a uniformity of action in all cases. He believed, that unless some powerful and stringent authority were established by the Government, it would be impossible to prevent many of the abuses which did exist. He was rather of opinion that the whole subject of prison regulation ought to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that a uniform system of practice and regulation should be followed throughout all the different gaols of the kingdom.

begged the noble Lord to recollect the resolutions which had been agreed to by the Select Committee, which had been appointed by the noble Lord himself. A considerable time had elapsed since the report of that Committee had been made, and a serious increase of crime amounting to no less than eighteen per cent., had taken place. The report of the Committee to which he alluded, on the laws and regulations relating to prisons, declared it to be the opinion of that Committee that means should be taken for the separate keeping of prisoners; and, secondly, that, for the purpose of carrying this object into effect, it would be necessary to reconstruct or to rebuild certain gaols. On this subject the noble Lord had had a correspondence with the city authorities. Now, the noble Lord, after this correspondence, had an excellent opportunity to establish the best model of prison discipline. He thought there was no one who would not admit, that our gaols, instead of being places of reform, were the nurseries of crime. Let the Central Criminal Court be made the seat of the experiment which had been sug- gested. He wished not to impede the progress of this bill, but he must say, it did not go far enough. It gave a certain power which might not be exercised—it gave a power to the magistrates at the quarter sessions, which practically would not tend one single step towards the reform of prison discipline. But it was important that this change of system should be made on a general and important scale; and if such should be the opinion of the House, let them have a good prison bill. He would here call the attention of the House to the great importance of an improved system of police. From criminal returns which had been made from the office of the Secretary for the Home Department, he found this important fact, that out of forty counties there was an increase of crime in the case of thirty-three. In eight of these counties this increase exceeded thirty per cent.; in nine counties it was between twenty and thirty per cent.; in ten it was from ten to twenty, and the only two counties in which there was stated to be a decrease of crime was, in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey. He attributed this circumstance to the better administration of justice, and to the very improved state of the police. He, therefore, thought, that the whole subject was well worthy of the attention of Government. He wanted much to know what were the intentions of the noble Lord with reference to the resolutions of the Committee, to which he had alluded. Let the House understand whether this was to be the only measure proposed for the improvement of prisons. He understood, that the noble Lord intended to refer this and other bills to a Select Committee. He must say, that a Committee on the subject of prisons having been appointed by the House of Lords—inspectors having been nominated, who had made their report—information having been obtained from Commissioners in France, America, Prussia, and Belgium, and all this information being in the hands of many hon. Members, it would be loss of time to go over the same ground, and he, therefore, hoped, that the noble Lord would reconsider his proposition, as it was of the utmost importance at once to give practical knowledge to those who had not had an opportunity of obtaining it.

said, there was one point connected with prison discipline on which he wished to offer a few words. He had taken the trouble to visit several prisons in this great metropolis, in order to ascertain what was the system adopted with regard to military offenders. He found eighty of those persons in some gaols without labour; in other prisons there were ten and twenty kept to hard labour. But such was the want of uniformity of system, that no court-martial could be satisfied as to those who were kept without labour, or as to those who were really kept at hard labour. Now, in the Penitentiary, as far as regarded the extreme cleanliness of the gaol, and 'the uniformity of heat conveyed through that vast building, it reflected the highest possible credit on those who had the superintendence of the prison. Then there was a fly-wheel for raising water, which was no hard labour for military men. In the Cold-Bath-fields, on the contrary—which he had also visited—the prisoners worked severely. Thus, if a court-martial sentenced a man to hard labour, and he was sent to the Penitentiary, their object was, in a great degree, defeated. He was, however, satisfied of this, that if the noble Lord would establish a uniformity of practice with regard to military offenders, he would do away with the cruel torture of flogging. He had taken a lively interest in the management of prisons, and he thought the punishment of women on the treadmill ought to be abolished. No man, who had not witnessed the effects of that punishment, could judge of it. He had watched the working of the treadmill on a day in March last, and stopped till the men upon it were relieved. Every man, as he came off the wheel (and many of them very hearty able-bodied persons), immediately sat himself down, and commenced wiping the sweat from his brow, though it was an extremely cold day. He mentioned this fact to show, that the labour on the tread-wheel was very severe, and, therefore, he wished it done away with in the case of women. He found that the crimes, generally speaking, of which women had been convicted, were shop-lifting, receiving stolen goods, and passing bad coin. These were all crimes of a very grave nature, yet he did not think that many of these individuals' characters were to be held in so degraded a light as those of men who had been committed for housebreaking, attended, in many instances, with maltreatment of persons. He found, by various reports on the subject of prisons in America, the practice prevailed of making each prison support itself by the work done by the prisoners; and those persons who contracted to feed the prisoners, took care that they attended to their work. Let there be but one uniform line of punishment throughout the whole country for military offenders, and let the soldier be made aware of the exact punishment which would be awarded for each particular offence. It would be also productive of advantage, that in case of courts-martial the officers composing them should be aware what prisons were set apart for the separate confinement of military offenders.

concurred in some of the suggestions thrown out by the gallant officer, particularly as to that respecting a uniformity of sentence in cases of similar military offence. He had intended to meet the difficulties of the case by the introduction of a bill limiting a particular prison, or part of a prison, to the purpose of confining military offenders under the superintendence of a suitable inspector, the whole, at the same time, to be subject to the control of the gaoler in chief. With reference to the suggestions thrown out in favour of the prison discipline in the gaols of the United States, he must say he would never lend his influence to sanction a system of such extreme severity as that adopted by the American Government in this respect. He was not at all disposed, though favourable to the separate system after conviction, to build a prison upon the plan of the Commissioners, for the use of the city of London, although they were not of themselves likely to adopt the resolution to build one upon that plan. He was extremely anxious to effect some valuable improvement in the discipline of prisons; but he would not, by proposing a system which must be very costly in the experiment, raise an alarm and opposition that might defeat the benevolent objects which he trusted were yet attainable.

proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing a prison for Juvenile Offenders.

said, it was evident that the object of the noble Lord, in making this proposition, was to secure young offenders from the contamination to which they were at present exposed by being shut up in the same prison with old and hardened criminals. It appeared to him, however, that to erect any prison for juvenile offenders was totally unnecessary for the accomplishment of that object. What he strongly recommended was, to try the effect on young offenders of summary conviction and summary punishment. If such a system were adopted, he was persuaded, that the amount of crime in the country, instead of increasing, as it had recently done, would soon greatly diminish. Boys were now sent to gaols, where they were taught to consider the crime which they had committed as a mere "lark;" and they came out much worse in point of moral feeling. In the county for which he had the honour of being a Member, there was an asylum to which boys charged with offences were sent, for the purpose of endeavouring to reform them; and although the experiment was not always successful, it was a satisfactory fact, that at least a quarter of those who were sent came out perfectly reformed. Now, he thought, it might be expedient to consider how far it would be well to extend such a system; and to warrant the magistrates, in the case of young offenders, to overlook the felony and to send them to similar asylums. They would then entirely escape the contamination of a gaol. Those to whom he had alluded, and on whom an effectual reform had been worked, had afterwards been observed; and it was found, that they acquitted themselves with perfect correctness in the different situations in which they were placed. He, himself, knew one of those boys who was now a principal clerk in a banking establishment. If some such plan as that could be carried into general effect, it would, in his opinion, do infinitely more good than committing young offenders to a common prison. He was persuaded, that the whole country, from one end of it to the other, would be unanimous in trying the experiment; and he besought the noble Lord to apply himself to that and other means, not of curing, but of preventing the evil of extensive crime. If the noble Lord did so, he would well deserve the best thanks of the country.

begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that much of the delinquency of young offenders arose from their not being able to obtain employment at a time when they were most inclined to activity and disliked idleness; and this want of employment was owing to the combination of workmen, who prevented their masters from taking more than a certain number of apprentices.

would observe, that the inspectors of prisons had said, that prison discipline would be of little use to juvenile offenders, unless they were furnished with some resource of which they might avail themselves in obtaining a livelihood after their discharge, for they were immediately besieged by their old acquaintances, and without such resource they would soon return to their old habits. To think of effecting a perfect reformation was visionary; but it was only right to provide some resources of gaining a subsistence for those who had been confined, many of whom were abandoned by their parents, or were orphans, deserted by their friends, and in his opinion it would be best secured by some system of voluntary emigration. He thought well of the asylum of Captain Brenton, at Hackney-wick, where there was not the degradation of the treadmill; but in spite of all those excellent regulations, unless some kind of emigration were adopted, the children confined there would return to their old habits on being discharged. Children who had been in gaol found themselves proscribed: they had lost their characters, and the only means they had of gaining a livelihood was in the colonies. He hoped the noble Lord (J. Russell) would be prepared to carry out the suggestion of the inspectors of prisons, for he thought that the only method of rendering the reform of prisoners at all permanent.

said, that since the hon. Member had alluded to the inspectors of prisons, he must state what he had intended to state at a later period of the bill. He agreed with them in what they had said respecting juvenile offenders, but it was clear that the condition of their pardon should be, that after their confinement in an asylum they should emigrate or be removed to some colony which was not a penal settlement. He had been some time in attempting a scheme of this kind after considering what had been done hitherto by Captain Brenton and others, and he had been in communication with individuals in the colonies who were willing to take such apprentices. If it were done to a certain extent by Government, great advantages would be obtained but if large numbers were sent out, the feeling of the colonies would be against it, as giving to them a penal character, and they would object to receive a part of our population who were tainted by crime, and disgraced by the sentence of a jury. He agreed with all who treated the subject as totally different with respect to the trial and subsequent treatment of children from that of adults, inasmuch as the former were of an age not old enough to discern as to the offences they committed; whilst the latter are generally persons who had a tendency to crime, and when they came out of gaol were so attached to it, that with the heavy stain on their characters, they fell back into their former practices. But with respect to many of these children, he had no reason to say, that they were worse than others, except from the education given them by their parents to make their crimes a source of profit to themselves. It happened too often in voluntary asylums that when the juvenile offenders were discharged, some parent, or relative, or person belonging to them, took them and held out every inducement, such as food, &c., which children could not resist, if they would persist in crime, and make it a source of profit to their employers. With regard to numbers of them, if they could be removed to such asylums as that at Parkhouse, and be taught to follow some occupations, they might then emigrate to the colonies, and effectual reformation might take place. But he was not very sanguine as to the reformation of adults; he had only hoped to succeed with those who were under a certain age. As to what the hon. Member for Warwick had said, he felt considerable difficulty upon measures of that sort, and he was therefore unwilling to risk any attempt, though he was anxious to see something of the kind established. A difficulty had been lately raised, for it had recently happened to him to receive recommendations from the Recorder, the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and others, that certain children should be confined in the Penitentiary, as they considered the country prisons too bad for them, and he had accordingly been induced to send them thither; but, at the same time, he must say that he did not think it a fit place for those of a tender age, for although the labour was light, yet they had not opportunities of exercise and of out-door work. On this account, therefore, he wished to see established such places as that in the Isle of Wight, where those who where confined might follow some occupation that would influence their future life, prepare them for an industrious course, and render them free from those inducements which led to the commission of crime.

said, that it was possible to make a great improvement in the punishment of juvenile offenders before their conviction. He thought the project of the noble Lord was very satisfactory, but at the same time it did not go far enough to remedy the evil. In his opinion, the great evil arose from the confinement of these juvenile offenders in prison, and that the real contamination was acquired before their trial; but, at the same time, it was impossible not to see, that a great difficulty interposed to a satisfactory arrangement. He entirely concurred in the principle laid down by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot), and thought it most important that some reform should be made, that these young; offenders might be saved from the contamination of a prison. It might be difficult to consider whether there should be a new jurisdiction to which they should submit the trials of juvenile offenders; but it was only by contemplating it that they could hope to discover the means of effecting it. If they agreed that it could be done, the age of the offender must be ascertained before the trial; but supposing twelve years of age to be the limit, it might then be said that they were depriving juvenile offenders of the advantages of a jury which older delinquents possessed; and besides this, the plea might be urged that they were above the age prescribed, in which case there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the truth. Now it seemed to be always thought that juvenile offenders committed only small offences; but this was, in his opinion, a great mistake, for amongst that class there were some of the most formidable villains with which honesty had to contend. The best way to treat a majority of them was to hand them over to a summary jurisdiction and save them from gaol; but then, if such a jurisdiction could be provided, it would be said that there was no reason why every case should not be submitted to it. It would be said too, that there was not a publicity of trial, or the advantages of a jury, and that juvenile offenders were not entitled to the same advantage as older Ones. He wished it was possible to effect a distinction between those boys who were guilty of slight pilfering and others who had committed greater offences but this was the difficulty of the case. It would have been satisfactory to hear from the noble Lord (J. Russell) that with his advantages of official experience he saw his way clearly through this difficulty, and that with the hon. Member for Warwick, who had had great experience as a magistrate, he could propose some remedy of the existing abuse, by which he would confer a great obligation on the country, and insure an impartial administration of justice.

said, that if society took as much pains to prevent crime as it did to punish crime, the advantage would soon be evident. At present, one-half of the money that was spent in punishing crime would educate and train up the children who committed it, and thereby prevent it. He had heard it over and over again stated that there was no question of so much importance as a system of education, and yet it continued untried. Surrounded as children now were with all kinds of allurement to idleness and crime, was it fair to expect any other result than that which was actually met with?

said, that the Bill was valuable as far as it went, but that it would have been better had it contained a provision for young offenders after their discharge from punishment.

thought, that the experiment of sending juvenile offenders as emigrants to the colonies had been successful with reference to those who were under fourteen years of age. He rejoiced at the plan which had just been explained to the House by the noble Lord, and he hoped that every county in England would have the benefit of its operation.

in undertaking to consider an amendment of the law with reference to the trial of controverted Election Petitions, had taken the course which most probably any other person would have pursued under similar circumstances, and had considered the whole process adopted with respect to election petitions from the first step to the last—from the original entering into recognizances to the final taxation of costs consequent upon the termination of the inquiry. In the course of considering the progress of such a proceeding it appeared to him that there were obscurities in the law which ought to be cleared up, and which he thought might be cleared up without much difficulty—cleared up, too, in such a way as to lead to a considerable diminution of the uncertainty as well as the expense consequent upon the present mode of proceeding. He thought, that the motion with which he should conclude would not in any way interfere with any other measure that might be in the contemplation of the House; because whatever tribunal the House might think proper to appoint for the trial of controverted elections, he believed there would still remain an equal necessity for improving the law respecting the entering into recognizances and the taxation of costs. Whether the tribunal which was to have the power of deciding upon controverted elections were to be a tribunal selected from the Members of that House, or whether it were to be composed of persons who had no direct connexion with Parliament, he apprehended that some recognizances would always be required in cases where petitions were lodged against the return of any of the Members of the House. In that case his motion would be useful, because it would tend to amend and improve the law upon a point upon which it was at present decidedly defective. He avowed at the outset that his great object in proposing the appointment of a select Committee respecting the costs and recognizances incidental to the trial of controverted election petitions would be to diminish, if possible, the chance of an appeal to the House itself. These were subordinate matters, and comparatively of very minor importance, but they were matters quite unfit for the consideration of a popular assembly, biassed in a considerable degree as such an assembly must at all times be by party feeling and party spirit. If they could so clear the law that there should be no necessity for an appeal to the House with regard to the subordinate points of the sufficiency of security, or the extension of time, they would advance, he thought materially in diminishing the influence of party spirit upon the subsequent proceedings. In entering upon this subject he felt it to be absolutely necessary, from considerations both of policy and justice, to divest his argument of every vestige of party spirit, and to throw out no reflections that might be distasteful to gentlemen on either side of the House; but he thought he might venture to say, that all who recollected the discussions which had taken place upon the Pontefract, Bodmin, Dublin, Ipswich, Sligo, and Portarlington election petitions in the course of the present Session—all who recollected the debates and decisions which had been come to by the House upon those cases—would admit, that it must be desirable to prevent, if possible, the necessity of an appeal to the whole body of the House. He thought they might do so, by clearing off some of the obscurities which at present blemished the statute of 9th George 1st, by which these proceedings were regulated. He wished it to be observed, that he confined his motion exclusively to the recognizances and to the taxation of costs. The law provided, that the recognizances should be entered into before the Speaker, but left it uncertain as to whether the sufficiency of the security should be established before the recognizances were entered into, or whether the inquiry upon that point might not be entered into afterwards. Out of this doubt many difficulties had arisen. In the course of the present Session a case occurred in which the surety, wishing to give his recognizance, but, at the same time, foreseeing that it would not be convenient to him to be called upon to establish his sufficiency, applied to the Speaker to receive his security, leaving it afterwards to be determined whether that security were sufficient or not. The Speaker most properly refused to accede to the request; but the very circumstance of the application being made, showed that the law upon the point was equivocal, and, therefore, required to be amended. He thought it most advisable that some short enactment should be introduced to clear up all doubt upon the subject, or that those who hereafter would have to determine upon these subordinate points might do so without the necessity of appealing to the body of the House. A simplification of the law, a clear manifestation of the intention of the Legislature upon these minor points, would be attended with great advantage to those who intended honestly, and would also have a great tendency to diminish unnecessary expense. One of the most painful discussions they had had in the course of the present Session was that which arose out of the Pontefract case. The law required not only that the sufficiency of the surety should be ascertained by examination—not only, that the place of residence, should be given for the purpose of ascertaining who the party was—but it also required that "additions" to the name and residence should be given. Surely this was unnecessary. If the name were known, and the place of residence known, what necessity could there be for requiring "additions?" In the Pontefract case, all the difficulty arose out of the question, whether a tradesman residing in the Regent's -park could properly be called a gentleman or not. Long and angry discussions oftentimes arose out of petty points of that description—discussions which amounted to nothing more than a waste of the public time, and which almost invariably ended without affording satisfaction to either party. It was most desirable that the law should be so simplified as to prevent a recurrence of them for the future. Another point for the consideration of the Select Committee would be the defective form of the recognizance. It had been clearly proved that the form of the recognizance, as at present drawn, was defective, and, consequently, liable to raise disputes. This ought to be remedied. Then some difficulty, or some inconvenience had of late years arisen with respect to the payment of the Master in Chancery for the duty he had to perform with respect to election petitions. By an Act of Parliament, passed at the instance of Lord Brougham, Masters in Chancery were, he believed, prevented from taking any fee. The law upon that point ought to be cleared up. If it were the intention of the House that the duty which the Masters in Chancery had to perform, with respect to election petitions, should be continued, some provision ought to be made to remove all doubt as to the manner in which they were to be paid. He trusted, that the House would be of opinion with him that some advantage would result from a careful revision of all these points by a Select Committee. The other point to which he should wish to direct the attention of the Committee would be the taxation of costs. There were two main heads with respect to the costs of election petitions:—First, the legal expenses, being the expenses of solicitors and counsel; second, the expenses of witnesses. It was of very great importance to witnesses that an early decision should be come to with respect to the sums which they were to receive. The law provided, that, unless the parties agreed between themselves, the taxation of costs should be referred to an officer of that House, or to one of the Masters in Chancery; and if the parties did not agree, the process of taxing the costs was found to be very expensive. The fees were considerable; but it was only right that he should mention that, as far as the taxing bills of witnesses went, the expense had of late been very much diminished by enabling the parties, if they both agreed, to refer the matter to an officer of the House. Since that arrangement had been entered into, the proportion of cases referred to the officer of the House was very great as compared with the cases referred to the Master in Chancery. Taking advantage of the experience which had thus been afforded to them, he thought they might devise a plan by which these expenses might be still further diminished. An officer had lately been appointed to decide upon the expenses connected with private bills. He believed, that that officer had discharged his duty most satisfactorily to all the parties immediately concerned, and with great advantage to the public. He (Sir R. Peel) wished, therefore, to throw it out for consideration whether, as they had such an officer appointed, whose time could not be fully occupied in determining the expenses of private bills, it might not be well to make him the judge in all matters of expense connected with election petitions. He (Sir R. Peel) thought, that much advantage would result from employing a person acting under the general direction of the Speaker, with the power of appealing to the Speaker upon matters of doubt, and responsible for the decision to which he might come. He thought, too, it might also be fitting for the House to consider whether some new arrangement might not be made with respect to the payment of costs. At present, the costs were not paid by the parties presenting the petition, unless the petition was pronounced by the Committee to be frivolous and vexatious. He (Sir Robert Peel) thought it might very well be open for consideration, whether a report from the Committee, that there was no "probable or reasonable ground" for the petition might not be sufficient to impose upon the petitioners the payment of the costs. He wished the Select Committee to enter only into an inquiry upon these subordinate matters. He was induced to move for the appointment of such a Committee, because he felt satisfied, that no partial amendment of the present system—no inquiry which did not embrace the whole of the proceedings upon election petitions—could possibly be satisfactory. He was anxious, therefore, that this Committee should be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the obscurities which existed in the law with respect to these subordinate matters, might not be cleared up previous to his bringing in the Bill of which he had given notice that evening, and which he should introduce on the 11th of May. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the law and practice relating to the entering into recognizances, and the payment of costs in the matter of election petitions, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

entirely concurred with the right hon. Baronet opposite in the expediency of devising some plan for rendering the proceedings arising out of contested elections more simple, and for removing those doubts which existed in regard to the law as it now stood. He was sure, all must have felt the necessity of preventing, by a simpler mode of proceeding, those appeals to the House collectively, which had been so common during the present Session, and the House, and the country, were deeply obliged to the right hon. Baronet for having devoted his attention to this important subject. The right hon. Baronet would recollect, that an hon. and learned Member of that House, who had left the country for the present, had introduced a measure in the early part of the Session for the improvement of the tribunal for the trial of contested elections, several clauses of which were intended to remedy some of those evils to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded. The provisions of that bill were worthy of the consideration of the Committee which had been moved for, and he trusted their attention would be directed to the measure. By the bill of his hon. and learned Friend it was proposed, in order to prevent the presentation of frivolous or vexatious petitions, yet, at the same time, to throw no obstacle in the way of those which were well founded, that a deposit should be made before any proceed- ings took place in relation to any contested election. He thought this was a point worthy of the consideration of the Committee, and he had only risen to express a hope, that it would be attended to, and to give his cordial support to the motion of the right hon. Baronet.

in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, felt it his duty to state to the House, that it was not his intention to propose, that the Committee which he asked for, should revise all the standing orders of the House. The Committee which had sat last Session, had gone over the whole of them, and introduced many important improvements, so that it was not necessary to go again into the whole subject. The new standing orders, the result of the labours of the Committee of last Session, had worked so well, that although upwards of 150 private bills had been introduced during the present Session, there were only three points in reference to those bills, in regard to which any doubts had arisen. His object, therefore, in moving for the appointment of a Committee, was to have those points examined, so as to remove all doubts which existed in regard to the construction of the orders of the House. There was, however, another point to which he proposed the attention of the Committee should be directed. Material differences existed between the standing orders of the House of Lords, and the standing orders of the House of Commons, and he wished to assimilate them to each other. In regard to railways, the standing orders of the House of Commons required the parties to give notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for a bill in the months of February and March, but by the standing orders of the House of Lords, notice was required to be given at two different periods; and in consequence of this disagreement between the orders of the two Houses, great inconvenience was entailed upon the parties applying for bills. It was therefore important, that the orders of the two Houses of Parliament should be assimilated on this point, and he proposed, that the attention of the Committee should be directed to that ob- ject. He therefore begged leave to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the standing orders of the House of Commons relating to private bills, and to compare them with those of the House of Lords, with the view of assimilating as much as possible the standing orders of both Houses.

said, that when private bills, which had been sent up from that House, were brought down from the House of Lords, clauses were often found added, many of which he considered were useless; yet they were given to understand, that unless they were consented to by the Commons, the bills would not pass the House of Lords. He thought it worth while for the Committee to inquire whether something might not be done to remedy this evil.

was very glad that something was to be done to remedy the evils which arose from the difficulty of construing some of the standing orders of the House. After what had been done by former Committees, he believed, that the standing orders were now nearly in a perfect state, and that little remained to be done but to remove the doubts which existed as to the construction of a few of them. In regard to the differences which existed between the standing orders of the two Houses, he was most anxious that those differences should be removed, but, at the same time, he was unwilling to depart from the order of 1836 in regard to notices of private bills. He thought it important, that that order should continue in force, and that the notices should be still given in February and March, and he did not doubt, that the House of Lords would, when the matter was fairly represented, consent to assimilate their orders to those of the House of Commons on this point. He was perfectly willing to assent to the appointment of a Committee, and he would do everything in his power to render its labours effectual. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he was unable to say anything in regard to the clauses to which the hon. Member had alluded; but, as the subject had been mentioned, he could not forbear giving his testimony to the admirable way in which the private business was conducted in the other House by the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees. But for the care which that noble Lord bestowed upon the private business of Parliament, they would have a great deal of legislation in no way creditable to that House. It was not right, however, that the House of Commons should depend on a noble Lord in another place for correcting their errors, and he should be glad if any means could be devised for remedying the defect.

said, that the difference between the standing orders of the two Houses in regard to the periods for giving notice of any application to Parliament for private bills had given rise to great difficulties, and been productive of much inconvenience to those parties who had embarked in great and important undertakings. He therefore trusted, that the result of the labours of the Committee would be to assimilate the orders of the two Houses so as to prevent the possibility of any inconvenience for the future.

in moving for the re-appointment of the Committee on Joint-stock Banks, reminded the House of the circumstances under which that Committee had originated; and that it was not at all intended to be a Committee adverse to Joint-stock banking companies, but to inquire into the existing state of the law with a view to the improvement of the system. The Committee pursued their labours with great pains and industry during the first year, and the several members thereof were indefatigable in the discharge of their duty. It was revived in the course of last year, but owing to the circumstances which led to the close of the Session, no report was made. He moved for the revival of the Committee in the same spirit that he originally proposed it. The subjects for inquiry were the same—namely, the state of Joint-stock banks; the relation between those banks and the public; the transactions of the Bank of England in connexion with the several branch banks in this country; the effect they might produce on the circulation, and their bearing on the whole system of Joint-stock banks. The House had provided a remedy for the case of difficulty which had arisen in consequence of clergymen holding shares in Joint-stock banks; but that remedy was only temporary, because it was deemed incon- venient and injudicious to attempt to settle the question by piecemeal. That point, therefore, was reserved for consideration. In fact the object of his present motion was merely to cause the resumption of a task which was still incomplete. His hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had given notice that he would move to add to the end of the motion, the words, "also into the state of banking in England generally, the fluctuations in the amount of currency, and the causes thereof, since December, 1833." He would suggest to his hon. Friend, as he did on a former occasion, the propriety of bringing on his amendment on a future day in the shape of an instruction to the Committee. He would not say a single word now on the merits of that proposition, because he thought it would lead to no result if he entered partially into such an important discussion, but he would simply observe, that many hon. Gentlemen who were disposed to take part in it were not present. He would, therefore, first move for the appointment of the Committee, and he would take care to settle with his hon. Friend the day on which his proposition should be brought forward.