said, that he was about to propose the reappointment of a Committee, which sat last Session, for the purpose of inquiring into the Private Business of the House, with the view of reducing the expenses connected therewith. The suggestions contained in the report of the Committee which sat last Session, had, in several instances, been acted upon with great advantage, and particularly as re- spected the proving of Standing Orders. Under the old system, it frequently happened that 200 or 300 witnesses were detained in town for upwards of twenty days, at the expense of the promoters of a Bill, whilst the Standing Orders were being proved; but now the business was despatched in a couple of days. One very important object, however, had still to be effected, and that was the establishment of a table of fees, by which the charges of promoters and opponents of Private Bills should be regulated. Every tribunal but the House of Commons had enforced a system of that nature. In the early part of the Session, he proposed a resolution on the subject; but it then appeared to be the opinion of the House that it would be the better course for him to bring in a Bill to effect the object which he had in view; but he found that so much difference of opinion prevailed with respect to the mode of taxing costs, that he found himself obliged to propose the reappointment of the Committee to consider that point. He, therefore, moved—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into the Private Business of the House, the expenses attending the obtaining of all Private Bills, including all the expenses of the opponents as well as the promoters of Bills, and the taxing of expenses thereto."

asked, whether the inquiry of the Committee could not be extended to Bills already passed? He thought some retrospective investigation called for; the contradictory legislation of the House on Private Bills produced great inconvenience. In the town he represented (Hull), different local Bills contained contradictory enactments.

said, the inconvenience had been already provided for as far as the expressed opinion of a Committee could go. It had recommended that, in all cases in which corporate bodies applied to Parliament for new Bills, they should be, if possible, consolidated into one measure, avoiding contradictory clauses; that Bill to be the only measure regulating the local business of the corporation.

, seeing the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, although the noble Lord at the head of the Government was absent, wished to put a question to him regarding the vote agreed to last night, by which 1,500,000l. were granted under the Landed Property (Ireland) Bill. He had thought from what the noble Member for London had said on a former day, that this measure was to proceed pari passu with the Irish Poor Law; and as the essence of the measure was money, he wished to know whether the vote of last night was a mere formal resolution not binding upon the House hereafter; or, in other words, whether the engagement entered into between the noble Lord and himself was to be infringed?

said, that the resolution of last night was merely a formal proceeding, necessary in all similar cases, in order that a clause might be introduced into the Bill which any Member might oppose if he saw reason to do so.

, in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to referring all Railway Bills to the Railway Commissioners, observed, that the necessity for it was so self-evident, from the magnitude of railway transactions, and their connexion with the financial interests of the country, and indeed on every other account, that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House long with any detailed facts, or comments upon them. When he had mentioned the matter before, he was led to infer, from the information which had been furnished him, that the amount of capital to be raised for the construction of railways in the present Session, would be about 40,000,000l. sterling. He had moved for an accurate return, but there had not been time as yet to make it. However, as far as he could ascertain the fact, it appeared that, instead of 40,000,000l., the amount would be in reality 120,000,000l., of which 80,000,000l. were capital, and 40,000,000l. borrowed money. He had moved at the same time for another return, which he could have wished was before the House, before moving his proposed resolution—namely, the actual amount of capital raised under former Acts—of the extent of power still remaining to be exercised, to raise further capital and loans—and of the amount of loan notes, debentures, or money borrowed in other ways, still outstanding. The complicated and difficult character of that return necessarily caused delay; and it was not yet, he regretted to say, in a condition to be laid before the House. The only course left him in the case, therefore, was to endeavour to give an idea of the nature and extent of the enormous monetary operations of these undertakings, by stating the condition of some of the companies, as represented in published proceedings, at the meetings of their shareholders. The first he should take was the North Western, late the London and Birmingham Railway. That company had raised 10,000,000l. of capital, and 6,000,000l. of loan; they had, moreover, a power to raise a sum equal to 10,000,000l. more of both; thus extending their engagements to 28,000,000l. The Great Western had raised 4,800,000l. capital, with 4,500,000l. of loan, and was represented as involved in engagements for leases, amalgamations, and unfinished undertakings, to an extent exceeding 30,000,000l. The Eastern Counties, which succeeded in his list, had raised a capital of 4,200,000l., and 3,400,000l. on terminable annuities and preferential stock, part of which was represented by fictitious stock, under the title of bonus. That company had also a further power of raising money, but he did not exactly know the sum. The Manchester and Leeds, which followed, raised 2,000,000l. capital, and 1,800,000l. by loan; and they had a power in their Act to increase it to 10,000,000l. The fifth and last he should refer to, was the Midland Railway, with their connexions of the North Junction, the engagements of which he could not accurately state to the House; but if the Bills on the Table were to be all passed, he believed that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hudson), would be placed at the head of railway concerns with a capital of 30,000,000l. In these cases, there were various powers, most of them very anomalous, given to raise capital and to contract loans—powers, which, if not of an absolutely conflicting nature, were founded on different principles in every case. He found, besides this, that the North Western Company had last year been authorized to raise 5,700,000l. exclusively by loan, and that they had now Bills to raise further capital, in guarantees to other companies, or in subscribing capital to these companies. That being the extent of the existing transactions of a few of these companies, he deemed it necessary to call the attention of the House to the numberless Bills then lying on the Table, principally promoted by old companies, for the purpose of obtaining powers to raise additional capital; some for new branches, others for amalgamations, more for leases, many for purchase of other lines, several for guaranteeing profits from railways in cases where there were no returns, and not a few for various and anomalous arrangements for raising money, converting loans into shares, and paying interest on capital yielding no return. To show the House how various were the provisions of the Bills brought before it, he had in his hand half a dozen, which he believed offered a tolerable illustration of the general description. The first was a Bill for making a Cheltenham and Oxford Railway, giving power to the Great Western Company to raise 1,000,000l. of capital, and 330,000l. loan for that object. It enabled the company to subscribe to the undertaking an amount not exceeding the whole amount of the capital authorized to be raised, by the creation of new shares, or guaranteeing interest at the rate of 5 per cent, and undertaking the responsibility of the work. Now, it was very advisable that an inquiry should be made with respect to these provisions; if the Great Western Company were to be undertakers, and there were to be no new subscribers, it was advisable that an inquiry should take place as to the means at the disposal of the Great Western Company, beyond the means required for the accomplishment of their present objects. The next Bill was the Dundee and Newtyle Railway Bill. This Bill authorized the parties to raise a certain additional capital, in addition to the sum authorized to be borrowed by the former Acts, or any further sum which they may be authorized to borrow by any other Act to be passed in this Session. These two Bills might get before different Committees, one not knowing what the other was about, with reference to the extent of money to be raised on the whole by these undertakings. He took next—and he only mentioned this and other Bills as an illustration of his whole case—the Eastern Union Bill. The capital of the company was to be 1,866,000l. of which a certain proportion was to be distributed among the shareholders of the Eastern Counties Railway. He held also in his hand a paper circulated by persons opposing a Bill now on the Table, but which, notwithstanding, appeared on the face of it to be a very accurate statement of what the Bill purported to be, and which proved the necessity of previous inquiry. It referred to the Sheffield, Rotherham, and Doncaster Railway. The parties opposing this Bill stated that upon examination of the subscription contract, it appeared that three solicitors, two engineers, and twelve directors of the company promoting this Bill, subscribed 192,000l. to the capital, and the public subscribed 30,000l. This Bill proceeded to give to the promoters a power to sell the proposed railroad to five different companies, or to any other company or companies, person or persons, who might be willing to purchase. It was evident that a Bill of this kind should be referred to some previous examination before it was sent to a Committee of that House, otherwise they might subject parties who wished to oppose it to enormous expense for no purpose. He would not fatigue the House with more illustrations of the case he wished to lay before it. It appeared to him that it would be most desirable that a previous examination and report by the Railroad Commissioners should take place, first of all, with respect to the Amalgamation Bills. He saw in those Bills, again, many and different principles laid down, and the same thing with respect to leasing. There were some leases on which old companies guaranteed a stated amount of interest to new companies; there were others on which they were made upon a division of profits. He did not intend to offer any comment of his own on any of these principles or details. In many, power was taken to pay interest to the adventurers on capital, previous to the railroad producing any return; in some Bills there was no such provision; in others there was a provision that they should be paid four per cent, in others that they should be paid five per cent. He was no friend to imposing more restrictions than was politic on any of those undertakings; but surely the House should endeavour to arrive at some uniform principle on that subject. With respect to fictitious additions to capital, his attention was first drawn to the subject by being ordered last year to sit on a Committee on a monstrous case of that description. So far from thinking that he, or the Committee, was competent to go into the grounds on which that proposal was made, they thought it much better to report the facts, and leave them to the decision of the House. The House took no notice of the report, and the Bill passed; and it was for the purpose of preventing such Bills from passing easily, that he had ventured to submit this resolution, requir- ing a previous examination and report by the Railroad Commissioners. Ought interest to be paid on fictitious capital by the public, taxed already to pay 10 per cent profit on the money actually invested in the construction of railroads? One company borrowed loans on mortgage, another on debentures. The terms of doing that, he was aware, were, in certain cases, prescribed by the Clauses Consolidation Act; but there were propositions at variance with them. One company created perpetual annuities, another capitalised its debt. In those cases, the public should be aware whether, when one company raised ten millions, and borrowed five millions, the guarantee of ten per cent on the ten millions, should also extend to the five millions. It was well that these things should be understood. In the case of the North Western Company, there were various Bills on the Table, under which the directors proposed to pledge their old capital for the purpose of carrying out branches and extensions. It was very desirable that some inquiry should be made how far such a proceeding on the part of the directors might be in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. He had turned his attention, as he had already said, to the subject, in consequence of having been appointed chairman of a Committee last year. He had avoided expressing any opinion on the various points he had adverted to; but he believed that he spoke the opinion of a great number of Members when he said, that definite principles and a well-considered system should be laid down, under which Committees could perform their duties much more to their own satisfaction, and, he was sure, much more for the public benefit, as well as for the interest of railroad companies themselves. He did not know whether it was absolutely necessary that the same principle should prevail in all cases; but if they wished their proceedings to be beneficial to the public, and at the same time creditable to the House, it would be desirable that they should be guided by some authority having access to information which might enable them to form right decisions, and whose opinions could be maintained before the Committee. He could assure Gentlemen connected with railroads—for himself he had no interest in them—that he took up this subject rather with a view to their benefit, than from the least desire to check this meritorious exertion of enterprise. He was as desirous as they could be to see the success of these undertakings; but he was quite sure it was for their own interest that the undertakings should proceed on grounds not open to suspicion; and even if delay should take place, it would be amply compensated for by their proceeding on settled and satisfactory principles; and he should be very much surprised, in the event of the House adopting the resolution he proposed, if they did not feel an obligation to him for having brought it forward. He thought it of the greatest importance that another subject should be taken up by the Commissioners of Railways. Cases had come before Committees in which that much-contested question of the gauge had to be decided. That on which he sat supported him in declining to hear evidence as to the superiority of one gauge over the other. They thought themselves perfectly incompetent to decide the question, and it was referred to the Board of Trade for its opinion. That opinion was, that it was better not to change one gauge into the other, but that both could be used on the same line. The Committee unanimously came to the resolution, that they did not think that consistent with the public safety. A Bill had, indeed, been passed, which was intended to settle this affair of the gauges; but which, as he was informed by parties very conversant with the subject out of doors, would put it in some respects as much at sea as ever. Questions would arise before the Committees connected with the gauges, and he believed they would have again brought before them that Session the question of the two gauges on the same line. If three or four Committees were formed, the probability was, that one half would be for one plan, and the other half for the other. It would be very desirable if, before this question of the gauges were referred to the Committees, the Railroad Commissioners, after examining the whole question, should report their opinion. He only stated this with the view to save enormous expense. He might mention the fact, that the proceedings before one of the Committees of last Session cost one of the parties before the House 150,000l. That party carried their Bill through that House, and probably the other side spent almost the same money. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, where it was thrown out. These facts were scandalous to the reputation of that House; and imputations of every description were cast by the public on the Committees both of that House and the other House of Parliament. It was absolutely necessary they should shelter the reputation of that House from such imputations. He had not included this subject in the resolution he intended to propose; but he hoped his right hon. Friend the Commissioner of Railroads would see the necessity of undertaking this duty, or that the House would impose it on the board, and that at all events they would have these matters either recommended to the House, or decided upon by authorities responsible for their decision to the public. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first of the following resolutions:—

"1. That all Railway Bills in the present Session be referred to the Railway Commissioners, for their Report to this House upon the following points, previously to such Bills being considered in Committees of this House:—

"2. That every Report so to be made upon each Bill shall state the amount of the capital proposed to be raised, and of the loans proposed to be authorized by the Bill; and if, under the provisions of such Bill, any powers are to be given to any Company already incorporated of raising further capital or loans, or of making alterations, branches, or extensions of their existing Lines, or of purchasing or leasing any other Lines made or to be made, or of subscribing to the capital, or guaranteeing the capital of, or amalgamating with, other Companies; such Report shall also state the powers granted by any former Act or Acts to such Companies already incorporated for any of the above purposes, and of the manner in which, and extent to which, such powers have been exercised; and the Report shall further state the opinion of the Commissioners thereon, and also their opinion as to any special provisions with which it may in any case be expedient to accompany the grant of any powers for any of the abovementioned purposes.

"3. That every such Report be referred to the Committee of this House appointed to consider the Bill to which the same may relate."

was not about to take the least objection to the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman, nor was he about to go into all the details on which the right hon. Gentleman had entered; but he would make one or two observations with respect to the statement he had made; and first, as to the capital proposed to be raised for this year by Acts before the House. He believed that in the last Session of Parliament, the amount proposed to be raised under Bills introduced into the House, was something like 350,000,000l. He then stated to the House that the amount which would be ultimately granted or passed by Parliament, would not exceed 100,000,000l. In that he was perfectly right, for the total amount which received the sanction of Parliament, was something like 90,000,000l. He believed that in the present year, a very large amount would probably not receive the sanction of Parliament; and the time given for the execution of the works would, he thought, not cause inconvenience to the public in providing it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to one or two companies over which he (Mr. Hudson) had the honour to preside; and had stated that he was unable, from the accounts, to make out what was the amount of their capital or engagements. If he (Mr. Hudson) had been aware that the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring the matter before the House, he would have been prepared to afford full explanations; but he thought he could, off-hand, give information which would be a guide to the House with respect to the real amount of the engagements of those companies. The right hon. Gentleman put the engagements of the Midland Company at something like 30,000,000l. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not mis-state anything, and he was most ready to acknowledge the kindness and candour with which the right hon. Gentleman had brought the subject forward; but he was in error in placing the engagements of the Midland Company at the sum stated. The original engagements of that company in paid-up capital, amounted to 5,000,000l.; they had afterwards obtained Acts of Parliament in 1845 for the execution of lines, the cost of which would amount to nearly 2,000,000l. They had created shares for the execution of some of those lines; some of them were already executed, and others were in progress. This made the amount of the shares 7,000,000l.; and last year they obtained the sanction of Parliament to projects involving an amount of something more than 2,000,000l. This amount was to be raised by shares, and it increased the capital 2,000,000l. A further provision for the creation of stock by loan, amounting to about 1,700,000l., made the total capital somewhere about 10,500,000l. As near as he could recollect, this was a correct statement of the capital of the Midland Company. There were several other lines in which the Midland Company was concerned—the Bristol and Gloucester, with a capital of 2,000,000l.; and the Leeds and Bradford, with a capital of 1,000,000l. But the Midland Company were not bound to find capital for these two companies, only to pay dividends to them. The Midland Company had no power, at least in the case of one of these companies, to raise the capital for the construction of the line. So far, therefore, from the amount being 30,000,000l., the Midland Company's capital was not more than 12,000,000l. or 14,000,000l. at the most. [Mr. ELLICE: Is that distinct from the Great Northern?] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were perfectly independent and distinct companies in every respect. With respect to the mode of raising capital, that was done sometimes by creating shares, sometimes by borrowing money on guaranteed stock; the only object of the companies was to get the means of executing their works. When the money market assisted their object, they adopted one plan; when it did not, they adopted the other. He did not see any evil from using guaranteed stock. It was not advisable to debar parties who liked to embark in speculative undertakings, and he did not see why the public should not have the liberty of carrying out their projects in that way as well as in another. It was no doubt true that companies had guaranteed over and over again unfortunate investments of capital, just as Government had raised money at large discounts, because they had been obliged to do so. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to introduce some fixed principle for the regulation of these undertakings; but he doubted whether the Railway Commissioners, or Parliament itself, could effect this. As to the means of raising capital, it must be left to the discretion of the company how to obtain it. He recollected that in an early stage of these undertakings, one of the companies with which he was, though only recently connected, had had the utmost difficulty in procuring money. The directors constantly and repeatedly put themselves to the greatest inconvenience to attain this object; and had they not done so, many of those works, from which the public were now deriving benefit and enjoyment, would have been stopped or suspended. When the late Government, by the then Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), introduced their former Railway Bill—which he had hoped was a settlement of a great question, but he was disappointed, and so were many hon. Gentlemen, for there was scarcely an hon. Gentleman in that House who did not think he had some plan from which he could benefit the public by interfering with railways in some manner or other—the question of loans to the companies was most ably and fairly discussed and considered in all its bearings; and the conclusion come to was that they ought to be limited to the means Parliament had given them to raise the money. There was scarcely a company which had not provided for the liquidation of its debts. He had taken an early opportunity, after the last Session, seeing that the prospects of the money market were not so good as they had been, of revising the whole of his debt connected with almost every company in which he was engaged; and shares had been issued, and the capital raised, to provide for the liquidation of those debts. He (Mr. Hudson) would not have the right hon. Gentleman alarm himself about the means of meeting those engagements. From a large experience, and from the calls he had been obliged to make on a large constituency, he found that the calls were never so well paid, or so punctually, as at present, since he had had any acquaintance with railway matters. He had had occasion to call for something like 3,000,000l. within the last two or three months, and he had never known the calls so punctually paid as they had been up to the last week. It was a serious responsibility on that House to see that the proposed lines were not merely speculative, that the public were protected, and that the shareholders had a sufficient remuneration for their capital: he hoped Government, having done this, would not interfere further, for the less Government interfered in railway matters, the better it would be for the public, for the House, and for the undertakings. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the guarantee fund; but he contended it was impossible to dispense with this power. In 1841 it was difficult, if not impossible, to borrow money: persons could not be induced to take shares in a railway, even though 6 per cent were offered to them from the date when they paid their money. He could speak to that fact, for he had to travel, as it were, from door to door to get parties to advance their money to go on with the railways. At that time 6 per cent was no inducement to capitalists, even though five or six principal companies were ready to guarantee the repayment. He merely stated the facts, for the purpose of showing the House the position in which those undertakings had been, and the difficulties they had had to contend with. If they were to be carried out, proper inducements must be held out to the capitalists of this country to embark their money in them; and he knew from experience that a great many parties were embarking money in them from a belief that they would be secure and profitable undertakings, thereby inducing money from foreign countries to come and assist in the execution of great works in this country. But if they discouraged the moneyed interest, they might rely on it that France was quite ready to find employment for it, and would guarantee any amount of capital from this country. He would therefore warn the House to be careful how they interfered with the private enterprise of this great country. Such interference would end in a way disastrous to the Government, injurious to the public, and destructive to the interests of the shareholders.

assured the hon. Gentleman, that he did not intend to express any opinion on guarantees, or to place any restrictions on capital. His only object was, that the various propositions now before the House, based as they were on conflicting principles, should receive a good previous examination from some responsible board before they went to Committees of that House, in each of which there might be a different opinion.

had fully understood, before the explanation of his right hon. Friend, that the question now before the House was not one of the solvency or insolvency of this or that company; but the great principle whether that House would or would not delegate part of its jurisdiction to a tribunal independent of itself. He apprehended that the resolution now before them proposed to attain in another form such a department as they had two years before in the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. It came to the same thing, though the individuals forming the Commission at present consisted of persons one of whom had a seat in that House, and who possessed means of giving effect to their recommendations. Practically, the House would receive from that board much such a report as they had two years ago from the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, containing certain statistics as to the amount of capital and other qualifications of the particular measure. He felt it his duty to take this opportunity of bearing his willing testimony to the merits of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, which, he thought, were very much underrated. He saw no objection to the proposition; and his object in rising had been chiefly to bear his testimony to those who in a former Session had been unfairly undervalued.

could see no obstacle to the House adopting the proposition brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It might be found very useful if such a report as the right hon. Gentleman referred to were made to the Committees sitting on Railway Bills. As his right hon. Friend had stated, it was not proposed that any comparisons should be instituted between competing lines, but that a report should be made with regard to the general principle of borrowing money by way of loans, and that information on these and other matters should be brought under the attention of Committees by the Commissioners, so that the latter might be able to point out what they thought should be the general rule observed by the Committees in the discharge of their duties. He trusted that the adoption of the course now proposed, would not lead to the delay of any of those measures which were at present before the House. He thought it was of importance that Railway Bills should have full consideration before coming before the Committees of the House, and, as he did not see that any inconvenience would result from it, he agreed to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.

, pursuant to notice, inquired whether any and what measures had been adopted to put an end to the dispute between the House of Assembly and the Judge of the Island of Tobago, by which all public business in that island had been interrupted for a year?

replied, that the Governor of the Leeward Islands had visited Tobago, and he was happy to assure the hon. Member that there was every probability of reconciling the parties and establishing a better understanding between them.

said, the House was aware that, under the Drainage Act, large sums of money had been applied for by proprietors of land in Scotland; but it had been recently stated, in a letter written by Mr. Blamire, the secretary to the commission for carrying out that Act, that it was meant to include, not only draining, but fencing, trenching, and the general clearing of waste lands. Now, he wished to know, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to introduce a new Bill for effecting that object, and if so, when that Bill was likely to be laid on the Table of the House?

said, the draught of a Bill had been prepared for amending the Drainage Act of last Session, and to extend the objects for which that Act was passed to other purposes than mere draining. In a day or two the Bill would be laid before the House.

wished to know whether there was any objection on the part of the Government to bring in a Bill to enable persons having land entailed to sell a portion to raise money for improvement, instead of burdening the country in this way.

had not stated that in the amended Bill which he proposed to lay on the Table, there would be any authority to advance an additional sum of money, but merely that it would authorize the application of the 2,000,000l. granted last year to other purposes besides draining. The whole subject was under the consideration of the Lord Advocate, and the Bill would be laid on the Table in a short time.

regretted that no information had yet been furnished respecting the new Bishop of Manchester, and wished to know the intention of the Government regarding the appointment of that or any other bishop.

said, he had thought that the best way of giving the information to which the hon. Member referred, would be to lay on the Table the report of the Commission issued by Her Majesty, and he had done so some time ago. He believed it was printed, but was not sure whether it was yet in the hands of Members. The hon. Member would see by that document that it was proposed to retain the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor as they were, and to found a bishopric of Manchester. It was likewise proposed to found three additional bishoprics. The report also contained information as to the manner in which the episcopal revenues were to be applied to the purposes of these foundations. It was not intended by Her Majesty to summon the new bishops to sit in Parliament; but it was intended that the prelates holding those sees should take their seats in rotation as other dioceses became vacant, so that the number of bishops in the House of Lords would remain unchanged.

wished to know if the whole of this arrangement could be carried out without an Act of Parliament.

replied, that it would be impossible to carry any part of it into effect without an Act of Parliament. For the sake of arriving at a decision with respect to the bishopric of Manchester, he should probably ask leave to introduce a Bill on that subject alone; but he did not wish yet to give a positive answer on that point.

then rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill for repealing the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Bill. He understood Government had no objection to his introducing this Bill, but that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had an objection to it. Now, he did not wish to urge either Government or the Gentlemen opposite to give him permission to introduce the Bill, if it was done only with the view of more effectually strangling it on a future day. If the Bill was admitted by them to be good in principle, then he would at once, without discussion, ask the leave of the House to introduce it. The object of the measure was to repeal those portions of the Reform Act which made payment of rates and taxes necessary for a qualification to vote. That was the simple principle of the Bill; and if it was admitted to be a good one, he would at once move for leave to bring it in; but, if not, he was prepared to go on with the discussion.

said, if his hon. Friend thought fit to introduce his Bill, in order that the House might know what its clauses and provisions were, he had no objection to that course, and should not oppose his hon. Friend laying the Bill upon the Table. But, if the Bill was, as his hon. Friend stated, merely to repeal the provisions of the Reform Act as to the payment of rates and taxes, without substituting any other provision for that purpose, he would state at once that to the principle of such a Bill he was opposed. If, therefore, his hon. Friend thought it more convenient to discuss the Bill now, he (Lord John Russell) did not object to that course, and was prepared to discuss it.

recommended his hon. Friend to abide by the suggestion of the noble Lord, and adopt the usual course, of introducing the Bill, and taking the discussion upon the second reading.

said, he was aware that the noble Lord had, on a former occasion, opposed the principle of this Bill; and if they were to have a discussion upon it, he thought it was best to fight it out at once. He would, therefore, proceed to state his reasons for asking leave to introduce a Bill to remove one of the greatest grievances of the Reform Act, and which was generally complained of by electors. The chief objections to this part of the Reform Act were these: first, that it was unconstitutional in principle; and, secondly, that it was most vexatious in its operation, and opened a door to all sorts of bribery and favouritism on the part of the parochial officers. As to its being unconstitutional in principle, he had the noble Lord's own words, in introducing the Reform Bill, when he said that "the constitution of this country declared that no man should be taxed for the support of the State, who had not consented by himself, or by his representative, to the imposition of such taxes." But the part of the Reform Act which he (Mr. Duncombe) proposed to repeal, completely reversed that principle, for it declared not only that a man shall be taxed, but that he should pay the tax by a certain day, before he could claim a right to exercise the power—in the absence of which, according to the position laid down by the noble Lord, no tax should be imposed. The Reform Bill, then, had not answered the expectations of those who introduced it, according to the declaration of the noble Lord at the time he introduced the measure, who stated that the class to whom he expected it would give the franchise, would amount to nearly 500,000 persons, namely, the English counties, 100,000; Scotland, 60,000; Ireland, 40,000; towns already represented, 50,000; and the metropolis, 95,000; and that it would add that number to the persons then exercising the right of sending Members to that House. What had been the result? In the metropolitan boroughs, the noble Lord stated the number of new voters would be 95,000. If, however, he looked to the state of the registers in those boroughs, he found this expectation by no means realized. In Marylebone, there were 32,240 houses rated above 10l., whilst on the register there were only 11,625 persons entitled to vote in 1846, out of which a great number were duplicates. In Finsbury, there were 32,580 houses, and only 12,974 electors; in the Tower Hamlets, 64,896 houses, and 13,551 electors; in Lambeth, 17,379 houses, and the number of electors 6,547; in Greenwich, the number of houses was 11,536, and of electors 3,610—and in Greenwich almost all the houses were above 10l., the tenants of which were entitled to vote; so that the metropolitan boroughs added very little more than 45,000 voters, and the duplicates were one-fifth of the whole number. So that, fifteen years after the passing of the Reform Bill, the constituency had not increased; in fact it had diminished in Westminster, the city of London, and Southwark. In Westminster, there were 23,295 houses, and only 13,866 voters on the register. At this moment Westminster was in a much worse situation than before the Reform Bill, for the first time Sir Francis Burdett was returned for Westminster, in 1807, 18,000 electors voted. In Southwark it was the same: there were 16,213 houses, and 5,047 voters on the register. In Liverpool, there were 42,924 houses, and only 14,970 electors on the register. In Manchester, 42,059 houses, and 12,150 voters; in Birmingham 36,121 houses, and only 4,619 names upon the register. In the city of London, the constituency had greatly diminished since the Reform Bill; and he believed that this diminution had been owing entirely to the operation of the clauses in the Reform Bill called the rate-paying clauses. Looking to one of the statements of the Conservative Registration Association, he found it asserted there that 7,000 electors of the city of London had been deprived of their franchise, owing to the omission of tenants' names from the rates. He understood that in the city of London fourteen parishes had refused to put any man upon the register unless he claimed to be rated; and he must also claim to be put upon the register. There was another great reason for the repeal of this clause given by the Court of Common Pleas last year. It was well known that in a great number of boroughs, landlords frequently compounded for rates; it was a great object to parishes to get the landlords to compound, and, according to the Court of Common Pleas, it would not do to make a single claim to be rated; but that Court decided in the Stockport case, that where there were eight rates in one year, the voter must make eight separate claims in the year to keep his vote upon the register: so that, in the words of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, "it is like keeping up a right by continual claim." That was found to be vexatious and harassing, and had produced results which could not have been contemplated by the original framers of the measure. It was only citizens and the inhabitants of boroughs who were obliged to have their taxes paid against a certain day, and whose votes depended on their punctuality; and he could not understand upon what principle of fair play it could be maintained that citizen sand residents in boroughs should be subjected to a restriction which was not applicable to country voters. Besides, under the present system too much power was vested in the hands of the parochial officers, who by their neglect or remissness could vitiate any man's right they pleased. In the borough of Marylebone, no less than 1,200 electors had been disfranchised in consequence of there being no collector to receive the rates from them. The former collector died, and as no one was appointed to fill his place until within seven days of the expiration of the period within which the rates were to be paid, there was not time to receive them all. But for the injured parties there was neither remedy nor redress. Last year a curious case occurred in the borough of Lambeth. There was some squabble between the poor-law collector and the overseer, and it so happened that a week before the 20th of July the collector was dismissed. When an elector applied to him, he referred him to his successor; but as the successor had not the books at his command, he sent the applicant on to the vestry clerk, who in his turn referred him to the overseer, who for a time received the rates. But observe to what interminable annoyance and vexation the unfortunate elector was exposed in running from one official to another. At a meeting at St. Mary's, Islington, in July, 1845, the vestry clerk stated that there were no less than 2,000 houses the rates of which had been compounded for. This composition system he did not all approve of, though it was easy to see why it found such favour in the eyes of the parochial officers, who were spared a vast deal of trouble and annoyance by it, inasmuch as the payment of the poor rates conferred a title of settlement. He did not hesitate to assert that, on the whole, the present system was in many respects highly objectionable, and in no respect more objectionable than in this, that it encouraged all kinds of favouritism and bribery. If the collector and overseer were inclined to a particular party, they had it in their power to grant facilities and show marked partiality to members of that party; whereas, on the other hand, they could throw great obstructions in the way of persons of the opposite party, whom they could disfranchise at will by not applying to him for his rates until it was too late to pay them in such a manner as that the payment would secure their being registered. He had heard of many cases of that kind. It was occasionally the practice of collectors, before the 20th of July arrived, to tear out of their books the receipt of any man who was their friend, and to keep it by them until the time of making objections had passed by. When this period had gone over, the collector stuck or pinned it into the book again, and when the time of the election came, the defaulter was told that he had no option but to vote for suck or such a candidate who had paid his rate for him. If he remonstrated or showed any unwillingness to comply, he was reminded the receipt was not in his own possession, but in that of the collector, and that if he were to persist in his obstinacy, a distress on his property would be the result. Surely these were gross and scandalous abuses, such as could never have been contemplated by the original passers of the Reform Act. Indeed the particular abuse to which he had last referred, had grown to such extent, that in Cambridge, Bristol, and other places there were associations for the express purpose of paying the rates of electors. He was for abolishing this state of things, and putting the borough and city constituents on the same footing with the county voters. This was no new demand now made for the first time by him (Mr. Duncombe). The mal-practices, grievances, and abuses which he had detailed that evening in full, had been a subject of continual complaint for a length of time—in fact from the passing of the Reform Act to the present day. He would read for the edification of the House, and more especially for that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the opinions expressed upon this subject in the year 1834 by The Times newspaper. In an article in that journal, on the 16th October, 1834, there occurred the following passages, commenting on some pa- ragraphs which appeared in the Leeds Times:—

"The subjoined statement from the Leeds Times is curious, and stimulates curiosity the more for being so meagre and imperfect:—'In the township of Leeds the names of 418, and in the out-townships the names of 93 Whig voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of 511 votes lost to this party. In the township of Leeds, the names of 219, and in the out-townships the names of 49 Tory voters, have been struck off the list, forming a total of 268 lost to this party. Here then, the Tories have gained an advantage over the Whigs tantamount to 243 votes But this is not all. In the whole borough, 45 new Whig claims have been allowed, and 76 Tory claims, giving the latter an advantage of 31 votes. The whole advantage of the Tories, therefore, amounts to no less than 274 votes. The Leeds Times concludes its enumeration by adverting to this memorable fact—that the Whigs and Tories, in their mutual squabbling, have succeeded in disfranchising no less than 822 inhabitants of Leeds! Now, the unsatisfactory meagreness whereof we complain in the above five or six short paragraphs from our Leeds namesake, consists in the absence of every fact from which might be inferred the causes of rejection, as influencing the revising barristers in their treatment of the several claimants, whether Whig or Tory. It appears indisputably, if the account be correct, that on the new registration of voters for the township of and out-township of Leeds, a much larger number of Whig votes have been struck out of the list than of Tories; also, that as respects new votes, a smaller number of Whigs have been admitted than of Tories, making a total difference in favour of the Tories of 274. One of our contemporaries alleges it broadly as a charge against the working of the Reform Bill, that so vast a body of constituents should under its operation have been deprived of their votes; and so far we are disposed to agree with him, but not when he extends his grievance to the fact that the revising barristers' court has in the present instance disfranchised a greater proportion of Whigs than of their adversaries. The law of registration being the same for both parties, it is plain the surplus of rejection falling upon one of them must have been produced by something extrinsic to the law, and arising out of the different conduct or circumstances of the individuals; that nothing can be more obvious, without going into details, than the mischievous structure of the law itself, in the gross amount of the disfranchisement which it has effected, exceeding 800 inhabitants of a single borough in a single year; and that without the slightest criminality or fault on their part, as regards the exercise of their franchise; but the truth is, that a very disputable policy has been exhibited in the framing of that portion of the Reform Bill which specifics the limitations to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. It does not seem to us that any natural connexion exists between a man's right of voting and his punctuality in paying the King's or parochial taxes. Are there no means of enforcing the demands of the tax-collector, but by making the deprivation of a high political trust the consequence of any delay, however short or unavoidable, in discharging them? If no such thing as a distress-warrant were known to the law of England, or if the honest pride of voting were a more powerful agent in the recovery of a debt for Crown or parish, than the dread of seeing one's furniture sold by auction; something might be said for this harsh innovation upon the usages of a free people. The question is not whether the tax shall be paid or left unpaid; it is merely a question of punctuality, whether the tax shall be paid a few weeks sooner or later, for its ultimate recovery is well enough secured already, and better by the old and acknowledged law, than by this newfangled political process. We ask, would it be no misfortune to the State, if, through the crabbed and obstrusive intermixture of fiscal obligations with political functions, half the kingdom—as there is no difficulty in supposing—were to be disfranchised on the same day, and that day six months a dissolution of Parliament were to be desirable? It is clear, and we do not deny, that some test may be necessary to prove the continued possession of a certain class of qualifications; but we are sure that proof of having paid a man's taxes, when by a hundred tricks of the tax-collectors, the payment might be most innocently and unavoidably (on his part) delayed, is most harsh, most ill-judged, and unconstitutional. Why was such a thing never thought of before in England?"

That extract was in itself a much better speech than he could deliver. It came from a paper which was the present organ of the Government, and he hoped that Ministers would attentively learn and inwardly digest it. If they did so, they might rest confidently assured that that paper would bear them out and carry them triumphantly through any struggle and difficulty which might ensue in the passing of the Bill, which he hoped to have the honour of introducing. It was quite time that abuses which could never have been contemplated by the framers of the Reform Act, and which disfigured and dishonoured that measure, should be now abolished, and that electors of counties and those of boroughs should be placed upon the same footing. Why should not the former be compelled to pay the county rates against a certain day, if the poor rates and assessed taxes were to be paid against a certain day by the latter class of voters? He hoped he had said enough to induce the noble Lord at the head of the Government, not only to give permission for the introduction of this Bill, but also to afford some hope that it would obtain the support of the Government. If they would do so, he should look with confidence to the ultimate success of the measure. It was in the power of the noble Lord to get the Bill passed if he pleased. It was only for him to threaten to resign. Recent events had shown that any measure could be passed just at the present moment. He knew that many of the present Ministers had already, when differently situated, voted for this measure of his. Some of those who were now Members of the Government opposed the noble Lord for opposing this measure on a bygone occasion; and he hoped that, now they were in office, they would be consistent with themselves, and give him their continued support through the different stages of the Bill. At all events, where could be the difficulty of leaving it an open question? It was merely a question of Parliamentary reform more or less, of extension of the franchise more or less. It was, in fact, a matter not of principle but of degree; and if Government were not prepared to actively support it, they might at least leave it an open question, until it could be seen in what direction public opinion bore. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of an Act passed in the Reign of William IV., entitled 'An Act to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,' as makes the right to Registration in Cities and Boroughs conditional on the payment of Poor's Rates and Assessed Taxes."

Sir, I stated to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, at the commencement, that if he was desirous of laying this Bill upon the Table of the House without entering into a discussion upon its merits at the present moment, I should not be adverse to such a course; but that I could not promise him my support in the future stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend, however, thought it better to have the discussion on the subject immediately, unless I could promise him the support of the Government on the second reading; and in the absence of any such engagement on my part, he has now stated the purport of the Bill, and the reasons on which he grounds his introduction of this Motion. In meeting my hon. Friend, I must be permitted to state what he does not appear to have at all clearly apprehended, namely, the ancient law and constitution of boroughs in this country. The hon. Member has read paragraphs, stating that it was entirely a new principle that was introduced by the Reform Act, and that before the passing of that measure nobody ever thought that the payment of rates was a necessary preliminary to the acquisition or exercise of a vote. He is entirely mistaken upon that subject. The ancient right of voting in counties was the possession of certain property, and anybody having it to the amount of 40s. a year, on proving that he possessed it as freehold, was considered as a person of sufficient property to afford a guarantee to the State that he was a man fit to be entrusted with the privilege of the franchise. In that respect the State took the security it thought necessary. So, too, in regard to boroughs where there was a common-law right of voting—that is to say, in boroughs where there were no particular charters to restrict and regulate the right—the right was vested in householders, but with this qualification, that they were to be householders paying scot and lot. The meaning of that was, that they were persons liable to pay and paying the poor rate. So it has been interpreted by the courts of justice. Therefore, as with regard to county voters, there was a security of their being possessed of property, so too, with regard to boroughs, was there a security not only that they should inhabit a house as regular occupiers, not as chance lodgers, or occasional residents, but that they were persons who, by their payments of rates, were certified and assured to the State to be persons fit, according to the opinion of those who framed the laws of this country, to be entrusted with the exercise of a vote. Therefore the principle was not one introduced and acknowledged for the first time under the Reform Act. Whatever the Reform Act may have done to modify or change the ancient constitution of the country, the principle that occupiers should pay some of the rates, in order to qualify them for the exercise of votes, was the old principle transferred from the ancient constitution of this country into the provisions of the Reform Act. The Reform Act extended very much the right of voting in this country. The hon. Gentleman maintains that it did not extend it as much as I had anticipated. My calculation at the time was, of course, formed on a crude and vague estimate; and I could not expect that that estimate would be borne out with critical accuracy in its details. But my hon. Friend has himself satisfactorily proved, that there has been a very great extension of the franchise through the operation of the Reform Act. For example, the borough of Lambeth formerly returned no Members to Parliament—the borough of Marylebone formerly returned no Members to Parliament—neither did the borough of Finsbury nor the Tower Hamlets; and with regard to those different places thus admitted for the first time to the right of having representatives, my hon. Friend himself calculates, that in those newly constituted metropolitan boroughs, there are no less than 45,000 persons enjoying the right of voting for Members of Parliament. Surely that is in itself no inconsiderable extension of the elective franchise. But there was also an extension of the franchise to a great many towns which never before enjoyed the right of sending Members to Parliament; as, for instance, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, where the right of voting was given to 10l. householders; and Bath, where hitherto the exercise of the right was limited to some twenty, twenty-three, or twenty-five persons. To all those places we gave the right of sending Members to Parliament. We did not make it a household franchise, in the strict scot and lot sense, but we proposed that the House should be of the value of 10l. a year; and the test was similar to the old test of scot and lot, for we proposed that the payment of taxes should be ascertained, and that the assessed taxes and the poor rate should be payable by the man seeking to be qualified to vote. I own that, in my opinion, that was a wise and constitutional provision. It was in strict conformity with the ancient law of this country for entrusting the right to vote to persons holding a certain amount of property. It was wise, I think, to ascertain that the persons to whom you grant the franchise, are men of a certain amount of property; not but that there may be persons with no property whatever who would make as good a choice, but because, in my belief, when you do grant the privilege to men possessing a certain amount of property, there is a likelihood that you will have a better election generally, than you would have if you were to make the suffrage universal. Now I do think if you lay down the qualification that there must be this certain amount of property, you must test it in some manner or other, and give some practical proof that those pretending to the use of the franchise do really possess property, and do not simply inhabit a house, but that they are men in the regular payment of the rate which is due by them for the usual and regularly assessed taxes of the State, and of the poor rates which go to maintain the poor of the borough. It seems that there is now mixed up with those payments a certain amount of county rates, such as the maintenance of gaols, and other expenses of a similar kind. The principle, however, is the old constitutional one of the country. I own I think that if you take away all obligation to pay rates and taxes, and say that the mere occupation of a house of 10l. yearly value is to qualify a man to vote, it would be difficult to resist the argument urged by many, that such mere occupation would not be sufficient test for eligibility to vote, but that the right should be extended very much farther, for that there is no virtue in brick and mortar to distinguish between regular fixed residents and mere casual lodgers. But when, in addition to this, you require that there shall be practical proof that they are solvent men and regular in the payment of their rates, you have the security of the State that they are men of credit and substance, having a stake in the country and an interest in the maintenance of the law and the constitution. The hon. Member asserts that there have been many omissions of persons who ought to have been qualified; and he has stated, what I am surprised he should state as favourable to his argument, namely, that after persons have paid the rates and taxes for others at the time of their registration, they have not been able to secure the votes of such persons at the ensuing election. In that respect I am decidedly of opinion that a very great improvement has been introduced on the old constitution of the scot and lot boroughs; because, as we said at the time, if you require in the scot and lot boroughs that no man should vote unless he pays his rate, this will happen, as it frequently has happened, that a few days before the elections, some two or three hundred voters will go to one candidate or other, and say, "We are ready to vote for you, but our rates must be paid." The principle was an excellent one; but it carried that taint along with it, that it had the tendency of giving rise to bribery, and the tendering of votes to whichever party would be the first to pay the rates. We said, "Alter that, and have a registration to take place at a fixed time of the year, and not at the time of the election, and there will not then be this sin of bribery, for the candidate will not find it his interest to buy the voters at that time. There may not be an election that year; or if the election should take place in December or January, the candidate will have no reason to be quite sure that the man whose rates were paid for him in July, may be disposed to carry his gratitude through so long a period as the whole six months." The hon. Member proves the truth of our anticipations, and tells us that complaints are continually made that persons whose rates have been paid in July by one party, cross over and vote for the opposite party when the election comes on. Why, Sir, that is the very consequence we expected; but I hope that it will serve as a lesson to hon. Gentlemen never to be guilty of attempting that kind of bribery again. I hope that the hon. Member for Finsbury will give all Gentlemen who may be inclined to do so the benefit of his advice in this respect, and exhort them thus: "You see it is no use your trying to play this game. You do not carry the voters with you by paying their rates for them, and therefore I would advise you to leave it to such of the electors themselves as are willing and able to pay. Trust to their politics, whether they be Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, and, trusting to your own merits, take your chances to get their votes as best you may." But there was, it was said, a defect, and I felt it, namely, that the period of registration came very suddenly after the time at which the rates which were due, should be paid up, and that electors from being away from their town or borough, or by reason of any other accidental circumstances, were left out of the registration, when really it was not so much by any fault of their own, as because of their not having notice that such omission was likely to take place. But since that was complained of, an alteration has been made in the law, not to the effect that a longer period should be granted, as I suggested, but that due notice shall be given to all persons that the payment of the rates will be required for the purpose of being registered. The Act 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 8, contains this provision in its 11th section, and enacts that the overseers of every parish shall give notice in writing, on the 20th day of June, that nobody can be admitted on any list of voters unless he shall have paid, on or before the 20th of July, all poor rates and assessed taxes which may have become payable by him in the course of twelve calendar months, ending on the 12th of April previous. If a man be really anxious to have a vote, and willing to pay his usual rates, and has sufficient money to be able to pay them, he has, on the 20th of June, a notice posted up in his borough that the rates accruing due in the preceding April must be paid in a month from the date of that notice, for that otherwise his name cannot be registered as a voter. This is quite a fair and sufficient notice for all voters, and in- deed I must maintain that a man really anxious about the privilege of the franchise, having at his command the means of paying, living in a 10l. house, and seeing a notice posted up in his borough for a whole month before, advertising him that if he does not pay the rates within a month from that period, he will be struck off—I say that a man thus situated is utterly inexcusable if he neglects to pay in time. If he is solvent and able to pay, he ought to pay; but if he is not able to pay, if he is incapacitated from paying the rates due on the 10l. house which he occupies, then I say he has no right to claim a vote in respect of that house, for he is a person likely to be corrupted by the payment of his rates for him by other persons, and he ought to be content to forego his vote. I cannot think that the Bill of the hon. Member is at all defensible in principle. So far from the Reform Act having been an innovation, the Bill of the hon. Member, which would go to repeal some of the clauses of that measure, would be the greatest possible innovation on the constitution of this country. Nothing surely could be more foreign to the principles of the constitution, than to declare that the payment of rates of all kinds without proof of any possession of property, should be omitted from amongst the qualifications for a vote. My hon. Friend has thought fit to enter upon this discussion. I have stated the reasons and considerations which appear to me to work against his Bill; and as he has chosen to go into this disquisition, I have only to state, in conclusion, that I will oppose the introduction of the Bill, and vote against it.

was in favour of the Bill. He hoped that it would obtain a first and second reading; for he warmly approved of the principle it affirmed. If an occupier of a 10l. house was a defaulter in his taxes, let a distress be levied against his property; and if the return should be nulla bona, then let him he by all means rejected from the registry. A sufficient guarantee would be thus secured.

observed, that if the Bill proposed by his hon. Friend was to be rejected on the ground of a comparison between the corruption that existed before the Reform Bill, and the corruption that now exists, or a comparison of the numbers of the constituency before the Reform Bill, and the numbers of the constituency now, they might be unable to adduce sufficient arguments to induce the House to pass the Bill. But the question was, had the avowed objects of those ratepaying clauses been really no more in practice than they were informed they would be? It was considered that the only object of those clauses was to afford a test of the solvency of the voters; but there were returns before the House which proved that they went beyond that, and that they deprived one-half of many constituencies altogether of their franchise. He should not trouble the House with many details; but he would refer to returns from St. George's parish, Westminster, by which it appeared that 399 persons had been deprived of their franchise. And what was the description of persons who were so deprived of the franchise? And what was the description of houses occupied by them? The houses were in St. George's Square, and Belgrave Square, and Belgrave Street, and Great George Street. The noble Lord had stated, that it was an ancient principle of the constitution that the rates should be paid; but, even assuming that to be the case, it was not an ancient principle of the constitution that the taxes should also be paid; and the Act required, not only the rates, but the assessed taxes to be paid. The electors were subjected, not only to the proper or improper performance of their duties by the parochial officers, but they were also subjected to the proper or improper performance of their duties by the Government officers. In the whole of the parish to which he had referred, not one person was disfranchised for non-payment of rates, but the whole 399 were disfranchised for non-payment of Government taxes. That was a proof of the mischievous consequences of adding to the old qualification of rating the payment of assessed taxes. There were 100,000 qualified persons in the metropolis deprived by this clause, and the obstructions that were produced by this clause, of their votes, including people, not merely occupying 10l. houses, but the great majority of whom occupied 40l. and 50l. houses. With that fact, which was undeniable, he should leave the matter to the House, and trusted they should not be called upon to divide on this Bill.

remarked, that if the persons referred to did not pay their rates and taxes, and if they did not exercise proper diligence in doing so, it was through their own fault they were disfranchised. The payment of the poor rates he conceived to be one of their first duties to the poor; and those persons who composed the constituencies of Great Britain ought to be ready to pay them cheerfully. It would, in fact, be impossible to object to universal suffrage, if they did not require from the persons who had property the payment of those rates; and he should give a decided negative to this measure.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was the duty of every man to pay his poor rates and taxes. It was a duty which he hoped every man who had property would perform; but the law should provide the means by which those taxes could be collected in a manner altogether distinct from the elective franchise. He would remind the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that when the Reform Bill was introduced, a proposition was made to expunge this very clause from the Bill, and on the occasion a very strong petition was presented from the city of Westminster on the subject, showing that one of the greatest abuses of which the electors had to complain during the preceding twenty years, had arisen from the payment of scot and lot, and predicting that it would be a great means of impeding the exercise of that power which was intended to be given by the Bill. It was said by the noble Lord, when he introduced it, that he was not about to give a fanciful reform, but a House of Commons to represent the mass of the community. It was, he said, his object to extend their franchises so as there should not be any constituency less than 300; and he expressed a hope, that, at least, the constituencies would consist of from 500 to 1,000 electors: and the noble Lord certainly surprised him by the statement which he now made, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury was a violation of the principle of the constitution. He would vote for this proposition, because the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government when the Reform Bill was passed (Earl Grey), had made use of this very important phrase when introducing that question, on the 3rd of October, 1831. He said—

"I believe the present measure to be a measure of justice, sound policy, peace, and conciliation. I believe that on its acceptance or rejection depend, on the one hand, peace, tranquillity, and prosperity; on the other, that state of political dissatisfaction and discontent, the continuance of which threatens all those disastrous consequences which must arise when ill-feeling is engendered in the people towards the Government of the country."

The noble Earl, therefore, urged the measure on the understanding that it would give satisfaction to the people of England, and remove dissatisfaction. But what was the case now? He believed that only twelve males of twenty-one years of age in every hundred in this country had the elective franchise. In Ireland there were a great many less. Was it possible to believe that these men, thus deprived of the franchise, would be satisfied? It was plain that numbers were deprived of a portion of those advantages which it was intended they should have by the Reform Act, owing to the operation of these clauses. To remove them would be an act of justice, would be the means of extending the franchise, and of giving greater security in the election of representatives. If the noble Lord resisted the proposal on the ground that it would be a violation of the constitution, he could not understand why the supporters of the Bill were not entitled to call on the noble Lord to see that each borough had a constituency of at least 300 electors. He had in his hand a list of 35 boroughs, in each of which there were less than 300 electors at this moment, the numbers being, in some 250, in some 180, and in others 100. Now, every man who was disfranchised, he said, was a slave; and every man who was not qualified to vote for a representative in Parliament was in the condition of having a master over him whose orders he must obey at any rate. Being desirous to conciliate and keep the peace of this country, he should vote for the Bill, because it would tend to increase the number of electors, and to remove those impediments to the acquirement of the franchise which were most inconvenient to the mass of the people.

called the attention of the House to returns showing the number of persons disfranchised in Marylebone for non-payment of rates and taxes; and from which it was to be inferred that the total number disfranchised for non-payment of the assessed taxes amounted to 1,033, and for non-payment of parish rates 339. Persons were often disfranchised by the wilful carelessness of those persons who were appointed to collect those assessed taxes; and he would give one instance in which the election of a borough was all but turned by the negligence of the collectors. It had occurred to himself. In the year 1834 he found that the assessed-tax collector in the borough which he had the honour then to represent—Monmouth—did not call for payment of the taxes on those persons who were likely to vote for him; and this fact coming to his knowledge, he called at the office in London, and insisted that the collector should call on those persons. The result was, that four of them were put on the register. He happened to be in Italy at the time of the election, and he found, to his surprise, that he was returned to Parliament by a majority of four; and, therefore, it was owing to the circumstance of his making the tax-collector do his duty that he obtained the seat; for if he had not compelled him to do his duty, another Member would have been returned to Parliament for the borough. The present law gave the assessed-tax collectors great power to exercise favour towards those parties who entertained opinions similar to those which the tax-collectors themselves were supposed to hold. If the noble Lord were resolved to persevere in his determination to oppose the Bill, and if the Bill were not carried, he (Sir B. Hall) did hope the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. He trusted that at least they would give more ample time to parties to pay the rates; that they would put back to a more distant period the time for the collection of the rates; and that they would not allow the collectors to have that great power which they had at present.

was of opinion that the collector should be obliged to call on the individual who owed the tax, and that he should not have to seek out the collector. The collector should be bound to make a demand on the taxpayer, and if he did not call on him the law should be that the party who was to pay the assessed taxes should not lose his vote. It was anticipated at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill that the constituency would receive a very material addition, amounting, as had been stated, to somewhere about half a million; and he thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had admitted that the number had fallen short of that. He believed the increase of the constituency was two hundred thousand short of that; while the population, which in 1831 amounted to 16,000,000, was now somewhere about 18,000,000. It appeared, therefore, that while the population had materially increased, the constituency was very materially short of the number specified. His noble Friend had talked a great deal of constitutional practice, and of the unconstitutional nature of his hon. Friend's Motion, and seemed to think that the payment of scot and lot formed a part of the ancient constitution of the country; but if the noble Lord restored the right of voting on payment of scot and lot, and treated householders paying scot and lot as substantial voters, the noble Lord should have his support. That was the proposition he had the honour to submit to the House at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill; and he thought if there was anything unconstitutional in the Reform Bill, it was the introduction of that clause which made it necessary for the electors to pay the King's taxes in addition to the scot and lot payment. That was quite a new principle to the constitution of this country; it was a matter of novel introduction that the payment of the King's taxes should form part of the franchise of this country. It was necessary to give a substantial franchise to the electoral body; but that was impossible as long as they made the payment of the assessed taxes an element of that franchise. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to propose, next year, some scheme by which they might get rid of the assessed taxes altogether; and what then was to become of this important element of the franchise, according to the opinion of the noble Lord? On the whole, he trusted that if the noble Lord persevered in his objection to the Bill, he would see the necessity of bringing in a Bill to make it imperative on the collector to call for payment at the house of the individual who owed this tax.

said, that it was clear, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, that the people must take this case into their hands, as they could not look for the assistance of the Government. He confessed that he was grievously disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord, when there was such a large mass of the people so much discontented with the present state of the representative system in this country. The large meetings which had been recently held in so many populous places, showed the state of public feeling as to the failure of the Reform Bill. If the Motion was pressed to a division, he should give it his cordial support; and, above all, as he had been entrusted with a petition from his constituents, which demanded, in strong language, the repeal of the hateful ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act.

said, if the noble Lord intended, at some future time, to oppose the Bill with the whole strength of the Government, he trusted that the noble Lord would do so at once, instead of wasting so much public time, and at the same time exciting expectations which he did not mean to fulfil. The noble Lord, how-over, had that night shown great valour in opposing the Bill, but he did not show much discretion or wisdom in the course he had taken. He would appeal to the House as to whether there ever was a case on which the arguments were so completely on one side. The noble Lord had altogether failed in showing that the proposed measure of his (Mr. Wakley's) honourable Colleague was of an unjust or unconstitutional character. The case, as stated by his hon. Friend, had not even been touched upon by the noble Lord. It was very remarkable that there was nothing like the ratepaying clause in connexion with county voters. Why should the poor voters in towns be put under such restrictions, when the county voters were altogether exempted from everything of the kind? Again, Scotch Members were not required to show any qualification before they took their seats in that House; while a 10l. householder could not be placed on the register until he had shown that he had paid his rates. A man who inherited a landed property in a county, or a clergyman who had been inducted to a living, could at once be placed on the county register; while a person claiming to vote for a borough, must have resided and paid rates in it for upwards of twelve months before his name could appear on the register. In the counties, also, the 50l. tenants at will were, for the most part, the mere serfs of the landlords, and often did not know the name of the candidate they were to vote for, until they received directions to go up to the poll. It was a mere pretence to say that the people had a 10l. franchise conferred on them, when such a trick was played as to place the restrictions on it which were imposed by the ratepaying clauses. It was not always the poor that were affected by these clauses, for at one time the Governor of the Bank of England, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, were disfranchised for not having paid their rates within due time.

entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that it was very desirable that the decision of the House should now be taken on the Bill proposed, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury had stated its objects so clearly, that if they had the Bill before them, they would know no more about it. But the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had complained of the extraordinary silence of the Treasury Bench; and a strange complaint it was after the speech of his noble Friend, who had so clearly stated the views of the Government, holding out no hope whatever of their being able to support it at any stage, that it was quite unnecessary for any other Member of the Government to address the House on the subject. At the same time the hon. Member expressed no surprise, unlike the hon. Member for Brighton, who had been greatly disappointed by the speech of his noble Friend, of which he had heard only a small portion. Having listened to the speeches which had been delivered in favour of the proposed measure, he could not but think that many of the arguments adduced were very wide of the question; and that some of them might have been urged, and were, indeed, urged, when the hon. Member for Westminster brought forward this measure for facilitating the operation of the franchise, by extending the period for the payment of the taxes to avoid the accidental disfranchisements which had occurred. The theme of many of the speeches embraced a question not now before the House. The Member for Montrose had used an argument that seemed to go far beyond the question. He complained that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had held out an expectation, when he introduced the Reform Bill, that a large increase would take place in the number of voters, and that he (the hon. Member for Montrose) and others had been much disappointed at the non-realization of that expectation. The hon. Member for Montrose had said that not more than twelve in every hundred capable of exercising the franchise had a vote; but he would ask if the present Bill, which merely went to repeal the ratepaying clauses, would be a remedy for that evil? Did his hon. Friend believe that the repeal of these clauses would double the voters in the metropolis? The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had gone to a very indefinite extent, and had asserted that the Reform Bill had utterly failed to answer the expectation which he, in common with many others, had entertained at the time of its passing. It should be recollected, however, that a very large increase in the constituencies of the country had taken place through the instrumentality of the Reform Act, not only in the metropolis, but in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and other populous boroughs and districts; and, therefore, it was not a proper mode of speaking to say that that measure had disappointed the expectations of the people. It had been stated, however, by his noble Friend, that he, and the others who introduced the Reform Bill, thought it desirable to adhere to the principle that the payment of rates ought to be a condition, and it was accordingly embodied in the measure. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Montrose presented a petition against the scot and lot franchise, showing that the greatest abuse had been committed by candidates paying the rates before an election. That statement was well founded. It ought to be recollected, that the grievance which was found to exist in the working of the original clause, had been corrected; and it might also be borne in mind, that the measure proposed to be introduced, did not rest on any alleged corruption. His noble Friend, in replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Marylebone, had alluded to the alteration which had been made in the law, by which overseers were compelled to give notice to voters of the payment of their rates, in order that those persons who were able or willing to pay the rates might do so in time. Reference had been made during the discussion, to the difference which existed between county and borough voters; but his noble Friend had shown that that distinction had not been created by the Reform Bill. Previous to that time forty-shilling freeholds were recognised as evidence of the possession of property, and no other test was deemed necessary. But there was another difference besides this. There was no such thing as a 10l. franchise in counties, although many thought there ought to be; but if it were contended that the county and borough franchise should be assimilated, the House must be prepared to go far beyond what was provided for in the Bill now sought to be introduced.

was glad to find that the hon. Member for Finsbury had succeeded in unsealing the lips of some of the Ministers; and he wished that he had the power of unsealing the lips of some other hon. Members. There was the hon. Member for Greenwich: he (Sir C. Napier) would like to know what he would say to his constituents when he met them. There was also the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), who held the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies; there was also the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who held an office in the Ordnance Department. He should like to know the opinion of these Gentlemen at the present moment. [An Hon. MEMBER: Not to-night.] Oh, yes; to-night. An election was coming on, and it was necessary that the constituents of hon. Gentlemen should know on what ground they stood. He had always understood, so far as his limited knowledge went, that one object of the clauses objected to, was to induce people to pay their rates and taxes with greater facility than before; but he did not think that that object had succeeded. It had been found that people had not paid up their rates and dues any readier than before; but as the law possessed the power of compelling payment, he did not see the necessity of giving an additional stimulus to the payment of taxes by visiting non-payment with disfranchisement. His own opinion was, that the repeal of the ratepaying clauses would tend to practically extend the franchise; and such being his opinion, he should vote for the introduction of the Bill.

said, that, the noble Lord had only two points of opposition to urge to the proposed measure. The first was, that previous to the passing of the Reform Bill the franchise was that of scot and lot; and the second reason was, that 40s. freeholds afforded a great security that property was possessed by the holders. He was really surprised to hear the noble Lord introduce the scot and lot franchise as an argument, for he must have known that only a very small portion of the constituencies which existed previous to the Reform Bill were made up of scot and lot voters. He should very much doubt if the noble Lord could prove that any one of the towns in schedule A had a scot and lot voter, or that schedule B was in different circumstances. In fact, that class of voters was exceedingly limited, and almost confined to large and populous towns. The noble Lord had forgotten one important class of voters, the freemen and burgesses, who were not called upon to pay rates or taxes as a condition of their voting. Now, it appeared most extraordinary that the noble Lord, in introducing his Reform Bill and defending it now, should consent to allow a large class of freemen and burgesses to have votes without any sort of qualification whatever, with the exception of that of continued residence for twelve months. It so happened that he (Mr. Williams) was possessed of each of the three kinds of franchises he had specified. He was a voter in virtue of being a householder, and as a qualification for the exercise of that vote he was compelled to pay rates and taxes within a certain time. He had also the honour of being one of the noble Lord's constituents as a liveryman of the city of London. In connexion with that vote he held no property, and yet he was a constituent of the noble Lord, and one of his supporters; but really, looking at his backward movement on the question of the franchise, he believed that were it not for the good he had done in former days, he should be inclined to oppose him on the next occasion. Among his (Mr. Williams's) own constituents were six hundred freemen—honest freemen—from whom no qualification was asked save that of having resided in the borough for twelve months. Amongst these voters were men of large property; but the generality of them were not in the same circumstances as the 10l. voters, and yet by the operation of the clauses in question an obligation was laid in a most inconsistent manner upon the richer portion, and an exception made in favour of the poorer. In the borough in which he resided, there were at the present moment on the register 2,814 householders, many of them holding large property, who were disqualified through the operation of the clauses which formed the subject of discussion. Now, this had not arisen from inability or unwillingness to pay the taxes, but from oversight. A gentleman came to him lately—a man possessed of great wealth, and the occupier of a house worth perhaps 500l. a year—complaining that in consequence of his having mislaid a paper which had been left at his house by a tax-gatherer, he had overlooked the payment of his taxes, and had just received intimation that he would be prosecuted in the Court of Exchequer if he did not make the payment within a fortnight. Now that gentleman never was applied to for payment before. He wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Stamps, complaining of what he thought to be negligence on the part of the collector; and to his letter he received a pithy and dry answer, stating that the collector had no business to call for payment, and that if he left the paper it was all that he was required to do—it was the business of those owing the taxes to call upon the collector and pay the money.

The hon. Gentleman has charged my noble Friend with making a backward movement. Now, if my noble Friend had been guilty of a backward movement, he should not have had my support; but it is because in my opinion he is taking a firm stand upon that great measure of reform of which he is himself the father, that he meets my support; and I think that all those Gentlemen who were Members of the House of Commons in 1830 and 1832, and who can remember also that the country was appealed to on "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," and that the clause objected to is identically the same with that upon which the country was appealed to, are bound in honour and consistency to support my noble Friend on the present occasion in rejecting the proposition of the hon. Member.

said, that the appeal which had been made to the country relative to "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," had nothing to do with the present question. The question at issue was this, whether the respectable middle classes of England should have a clear stage and a fair opportunity of returning Members to represent them in Parliament, uninfluenced by corrupt motives. For himself he should vote in favour of the introduction of the Bill. He believed the existing law was exceedingly productive of corrupt practices at elections. He believed that there were whole boroughs which were entirely swayed by the corrupt payment of the rates. This was one of the worst kinds of bribery—it was a mixture between charity and bribery, so closely combined that it was difficult to distinguish between the two. Under the pretence of charity, coals and candles were distributed in some quarters; but the real object was to ensure the return of Members to Parliament. He (Mr. Escott) believed that the noble Lord would be the first to condemn any such practice, because he did that noble Lord the credit to believe that he wished a pure representation of the people. He believed that the Bill which that noble Lord introduced the Session before last was one which would have a material effect in preventing that effect. He was sorry that the noble Lord should deem it his duty to oppose the proposed measure, as the effect of that opposition would no doubt be to secure its defeat in the present Session.

was satisfied the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that there was any corruption of the kind he had referred to going on in the borough towns of Middlesex. He believed the hon. Gentleman could not give a single instance of the corrupt payment of rates and taxes.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more speedy trial and punishment of juvenile offenders. The subject might be divided into three distinct branches. The first was that frightful state of ignorance of every duty towards God and man, which must strike every one at all conversant with the condition of criminals in this country as being their peculiar characteristic. The second was the present mode of trying and convicting juvenile offenders in this country, with all its attendant evils of previous contamination and subsequent ruin. And the third, which, although he had ranked it last, was probably the most important of all, and which was certainly the most difficult, was, how they were to dispose of juvenile offenders after their conviction, so as to inflict a proper punishment for the offence committed, and at the same time to keep in view the great object of the reformation of the offender. That was not a proper occasion upon which to enter into the subject of national education; but he should nevertheless say that he held a strong opinion upon the subject—an opinion which he had formed from his experience in courts of justice—that the want of a better education in this country was one of the most fruitful sources of crime, and that some extensive system of education throughout the country would be found to be a great means of its diminution. Some progress had been already made with the question to which he was alluding; but the question of how they could deal with juvenile offenders after conviction was one which could only be dealt with successfully in the manner in which, he was happy to say, it had been taken up by the Government of the day. He returned his thanks to the right hon. Baronet for the attention which he had given to the subject; and he did not hesitate to give it as his opinion that the right hon. Baronet, if successful in the task he had undertaken (he well knew the difficulties attending it, but if successful), he would have conferred upon the country as great a service as had ever been rendered by any Minister holding the situation which the right hon. Baronet held. He should now confine himself to the second of the divisions of the subject which he had mentioned; and he should say that whatever might be the services which the right hon. Baronet, if successful in his endeavours, should render, his success would be incomplete—any good which he might seek to achieve would be incomplete—unless the mode of trying juvenile offenders should be totally altered—unless he should get rid of the evils attendant upon the system of imprisonment before trial. Therefore it was that with regard to the second branch of his subject, namely, the present mode of trying juvenile offenders, he would state to the House that the Bill which he then sought to introduce, had for its object the substitution, in certain cases, and under certain limitations, of a power of summary conviction instead of the trial by jury. Great as was the value which was in this country attached to the trial by jury, there was a class of cases in which by its abolition the evils attendant upon the previous imprisonment would be avoided—evils which in those cases were so great as to do away completely with the advantage which the trial by jury gave. He would not detain the House by going into the question at any considerable length, but he would beg to mention a few cases that had come under his own observation in the county of Worcester. In November last a boy, fourteen years of years of age, was committed for trial at the January sessions for stealing twopence; and the consequence was that he was obliged to remain in prison for seven weeks before he could be tried. In another instance a girl, twelve years of age, was committed for stealing one quart of milk, the highest value of which was no more than 2d.; and the consequence was that she had to undergo a long imprisonment, during which she was exposed to the corrupting society of the most abandoned persons. Neither must it be supposed that only a small class of criminals were involved in this question. Some idea of the number of juvenile offenders committed to prison throughout the kingdom might be formed from the fact stated in the petition from Liverpool, presented in the other House of Parliament the other evening by Lord Brougham, that out of 50,000 persons committed to prison, no less than 5,000, or 10 per cent, were under seventeen years of age. In Worcester, he found the proportion of juvenile offenders fluctuate very much. In 1845 the prisoners under sixteen years of age were between one-sixth and one-seventh of the whole number of persons committed. In urging the necessity of the change in the law which he advocated, he should make some allusion to the weight of authority by which he was supported. He would not dwell on the fact, that in the last few years men of great weight in both Houses of Parliament had pressed forward the neces- sity of a change; but he would call the attention of the House to other authorities that must be of the highest weight with the House. The first of these was the report of the inspectors of prisons for 1846. In their report for the home district for last year, they stated, in allusion to this subject, that—

"There is, however, another cause of the offences of youth which most powerfully contributes to strengthen the vicious propensities which they derive from every other source. We refer to the corruption produced by imprisonment. It is painful to reflect that the remedy provided by law for the correction of the offender, should only tend to render him more criminal. Of many children whom we have seen in prison, we hesitate not to affirm that absolute impunity would have been far less mischievous than the effects of their confinement."

He could also appeal, he believed, to his right hon. Friend below him (Sir Robert Peel), who was a member of the Committee of Inquiry into County Expenditure of 1834; the Committee divided itself into four sub-committees, one of which, appointed to investigate the subject of criminal prosecutions, was presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. That sub-committee presented an elaborate report, at the end of which they stated—

"We have reserved for the conclusion of our report an earnest recommendation to Government and to Parliament to take into their early consideration the practicability of establishing some tribunal for the speedy trial of young offenders charged with comparatively light offences. The present process of the law is too cumbrous and too dilatory in regard to cases of this description, and neither gives adequate protection to innocence, nor insures a duly regulated punishment to guilt. The committal to prison for trial involves frequently a period of confinement longer than that which follows actual conviction, and a stigma upon character not justified by the moral quality of the offence with which a young person is charged. It has also in many cases a much greater tendency to overcome his repugnance to crime by familiarising him with the society of a gaol, than to deter him from the commission of it by the actual experience of the penalty of imprisonment. The object to be achieved is to establish a tribunal to which immediate appeal can be made, and which can award the species of punishment which may be most suitable to the nature of the offence, and the character and habits of the offender, and at the same time to devise those checks against abuse, and those securities for the deliberate and impartial hearing of each case, which are the more necessary in proportion as the process is summary, and as the public attention is less called to the proceedings of the court."

He endeavoured to frame his Bill in the closest accordance with the principles thus laid down in that report; and as his right hon. Friend was chairman of the sub-committee, it was to be presumed that he was a party to the sentiments put forward by them. The next authority to which he would refer, would, he trusted, secure for him the support of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. It was the Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners in 1837. The noble Lord was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and referred at the time in favourable terms to the report on this very question, and said that he had his doubts whether the present state of the law was satisfactory and beneficial. In the year to which he alluded, the Commissioners made a special report, in which they bore out, as strongly as language could bear out, the view which he was now endeavouring to impress upon the House. He would beg to read a rather lengthened extract from that report. They said—

"But admitting it not to be desirable in general to withdraw any class of offenders from the ancient and popular tribunal, it must be remembered that the choice, in this instance, lies between two evils; and the practical question is, whether the advantage gained by the diminution of imprisonment for safe custody, in the case of young persons, is not cheaply purchased by a sacrifice of the benefit to be derived by themselves and the public from their trial by a jury. Considering the simplicity of the offences in question, and the trivial nature of the circumstances on which they generally depend, we can discover no great or peculiar advantage to the offender or the public in investigating them by a jury; and, on the other hand, both the offenders and the public derive an important and undeniable advantage by the adoption of a course with which a trial by jury is inconsistent. Under such circumstances, it appears to us that a departure from the general and constitutional course is fully justifiable. But with respect to potty thefts, where they constitute larceny, the magistrate has now no power to discharge the offender and punish him summarily, but is bound by law to send the case for adjudication to another tribunal. However small the value of the article stolen, if the offender is above seven years of ago, and if his offence is a felony, he must be committed to take his trial at the assizes or sessions. He must remain for weeks or perhaps months in prison, without being subject to compulsory discipline; and though his guilt may be so clear as not to be denied even by himself, the whole machinery of an indictment, a grand jury, and a petty jury must be applied to investigate the facts before he can be punished for his crime. While it is obvious that the adoption of this course in the case of young offenders is, in various ways, productive of positive evils, especially in the destruction of morals incident to imprisonment before trial, there are no advantages to counterbalance them. The formality of a solemn trial adapted to crimes of magnitude, when applied to such cases, derogates from the dignity of a superior court of justice, and has not the effect of deterring from transgressions of the law; for the slightness of the offence, and the youth of the offender, usually render him more an object of compassion than a fit subject of punishment; and if the jury do not, under such feelings, acquit him altogether, they recommend him to mercy on account of his youth, and the sentence passed upon him by the court is little more than nominal. In trivial felonies, therefore, committed without any collateral circumstances of aggravation, a solemn trial by a jury cannot, we think, be of use in the way of example; and as to the reformation of the offender, the direct tendency of the proceeding, by subjecting him to the demoralization of a prison, is the reverse; so that neither of the two great objects of penal laws, namely, the prevention of crime and the reformation of the criminal, is accomplished by the present mode of trying very young persons for trivial offences. For the above reasons, and after a full consideration of the evidence which has been given upon this subject by practical men on various occasions, and particularly the opinions expressed by Lord Wharncliffe, Mr. Sergeant D'Oyly, Mr. Gawler, and Mr. Alderman Harmer, in the appendix to our second report on the criminal law, and of Sir Frederick Adair Roe and Mr. Mayne, in the appendix to this report, we are convinced that the most salutary mode of diminishing juvenile crime would be by entrusting to magistrates, within certain limits and restrictions, the discretionary powers which we have suggested at the commencement of this report."

It might, however, be said that this report was made ten years ago, and that the views of the commissioners might have changed since then. He had not been able to communicate with all the commissioners; but he had communicated with some of them, and he could tell the House that these gentlemen retained the opinion which they then expressed as strongly as they did ten years ago, and that they still thought another plan ought to be substituted for the existing mode of treating juvenile offenders. He could also toll the House that he was empowered to support his Motion by another authority which was deservedly of great weight in that House. He alluded to Sir Edward Ryan. Though now at the head of the Criminal Law Commission, Sir Edward Ryan was not connected with it in 1837; but still he had great experience as a lawyer, and had, during the time he was chief justice in India, introduced a similar system there with great success, and had now given him (Sir J. Pakington) permission to state his entire concurrence in his views. In the report of 1837, the commissioners state that they disapprove of magistrates not having power to treat the cases of juvenile offenders in a summary manner; and they add, that neither of the two great objects of criminal law, the prevention of crime and the reformation of the criminal, was secured by the existing sys- tem. They were convinced that the most salutary mode of diminishing juvenile crime would be the entrusting to magistrates the power, within certain limits, of summarily punishing juvenile offenders. He would wish to remind the House what was the practice followed under the present law. Why, that magistrates were so impressed with the disadvantage, and, he might say, cruelty, of sending those infants to gaol for long periods before their trial, that many of them felt it to be their duty to refuse receiving informations, though if they could deal summarily with the cases, they would not suffer the offenders to escape. On the other hand, other magistrates, entertaining a more strict sense of duty, felt bound to commit these young offenders for trial. He need not point out to the House the inconvenience which must result from the inequality thus produced where inequality ought not to exist, and of the extremely bad moral effect of humane magistrates appearing to hold out an impunity for crime. But this kind of humanity was not confined to magistrates. There were others, acting in a judicial capacity, who acted in the same manner; and within the last few weeks they had the case of a judge sentencing a young offender, convicted before him of felony, to imprisonment for one hour. He held in his hand a report, prepared by a very able lawyer, Mr. Matthew D. Hill, for the Law Amendment Society, in which he described an arrangement introduced at the Birmingham sessions. The report stated, that—

"By an arrangement which has been in operation at the Birmingham sessions, from the beginning of the year 1841, young convicts, who are not hardened in crime, are, after trial, delivered to the care of their employers or parents, as the case may be. These persons enter into an engagement to superintend the conduct of their young wards, and to furnish them with the opportunity of earning, or assisting to earn, their livelihood. Both guardians and wards are visited from time to time by one of the superior officers of police, for the purpose of ascertaining the conduct of the parties. The results of this treatment, up to October last, were as follows: 113 convicts had been so delivered up. Of these, forty-four were reformed, forty relapsed, and of twenty-nine the conduct was doubtful. The majority of these twenty-nine, there was reason to fear had relapsed. But all having left their masters, and many having left the town, nothing certain was known of them. This experiment, which, at all events, is inexpensive, may be called satisfactory, when it is considered, that from the moment the young offender leaves the bar the court has no legal control either over him or over his guardian, who, of course, acts gratuitously."

It was not for him to say anything of the propriety of such a course; but if the judges of the land felt it necessary to adopt such modes of evading the law, it was, he thought, clear that great danger existed of the worst results accruing from the feeling extending abroad, that crime might be committed by young persons with impunity. He thought they ought to shape the law so that the danger of contamination during imprisonment would be made as light as possible; and he also thought that good would result from young offenders being taught to feel that their crimes would be followed by immediate punishment. It was said by many persons who had specially considered the subject, that they ought to give the right of trial at petty sessions by small juries. He would not be a party to any such change; but, he thought, if any alteration were made, they should substitute summary jurisdiction for trial by jury; and that, in cases where the larceny did not exceed 40s., the prisoner should be liable to trial at petty sessions, before two magistrates, who should have power to imprison for periods not exceeding six months. He was also for giving a power of appeal to quarter-sessions, and likewise for giving the magistrates a power to send the parties for trial before a jury at quarter-sessions, in the usual course, when they should think proper. There was only one other point to which he would refer. He thought it would be desirable for magistrates to have, also, the power of imposing a fine in lieu of imprisonment. This, he confessed, would involve the introduction of a new principle; but still, if adopted, it would save many of the juvenile offenders from being sent to prison at all, while they would also be thus able more effectually to touch the parents, who, in four cases out of five, were the really guilty parties. Having thus stated the outline of his plan, he would only further state his conviction that some such change in the law as he now proposed was demanded alike by justice, by mercy, and by sound policy. He must express a most earnest hope that the House and the Government would not only allow him to introduce his Bill, but that, when introduced, they would give it the fullest and the best consideration, and that they would feel that the time had arrived when it was thought by almost all who had reflected on this subject that such a measure ought to receive the sanction of Parliament.

rose for the purpose of giving his very willing consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but without committing himself, which it could not be expected he should, at the present moment, to the precise measure to be introduced. After the attention which the hon. Gentleman had given to the subject, it would not be just to deny him an opportunity of bringing his own experience before the House, and offering his suggestions in the shape of the Bill which they would have to discuss. He was not aware that there was any subject of greater importance which could come before them. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the question had already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, in providing a remedy for the evil, he sincerely hoped that they would derive much assistance from the consideration which the hon. Gentleman had given to the subject.

wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, deserved much credit for bringing the subject before the House. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the principal cause of these juvenile delinquencies prevailing to such an extent, was the gross ignorance in which the offenders were reared. But whose fault was that? Why, it was the fault of those who complained most of it. It was the fault of that religious bigotry which prevented the inculcation of sound, moral, and useful learning. He would wish that the hon. Gentleman, instead of looking only to the question of punishment, had directed his attention to the means of prevention. He should say that he did not join in the opinion which the hon. Member had expressed, of the great improvement that had taken place in the education of the people. All those who refused to assist in introducing a general system of education, whereby the people might be better informed upon their duties to society, were undoubtedly the cause of the evils which the hon. Gentleman so feelingly lamented. At the same time, it was to him a matter of the deepest astonishment that the Government should have allowed the reports of the Criminal Law Commissioners to remain unnoticed now for ten years. He blamed the successive Governments for not paying attention to those documents; juvenile delinquency had therefore gone on increasing yearly, without any efficient steps being taken to prevent it. The time, however, was now come for a change; the law in its present state was a reproach to the country, and it was the duty of the Government not to allow it to remain. The hon. Baronet deserved thanks for bringing this question forward; but he was beginning at the wrong end. A general system of secular education should have been introduced in the first instance; and any Government that took that step, would receive the thanks of the country.

congratulated the hon. Baronet upon the able and clear manner in which he had introduced this important subject; and begged to offer one suggestion with regard to a material feature in the Bill. It was proposed to give to juvenile offenders the right of appeal to quarter-sessions. If this principle were conceded, he (Mr. Shaw) thought it should be accompanied with an option to the presiding magistrates whether they would try the case or not. He feared the right of appeal would not be found to work well in practice; for his experience led him to believe that the multiplication of appeals more frequently led to litigation than to justice. Besides, who was to advise the juvenile criminal whether he should appeal or not? Without advice, he did not see how a sound discretion could be exercised. In Ireland, it had been found necessary, in order to prevent litigation, to require the professional party representing a criminal to make an affidavit that he was of opinion there were grounds for an appeal.

expressed his satisfaction at the introduction of this subject. He regretted, however, that the proposed Bill appeared to affect only one part of this difficult question, and that greater advances were not made in the way of summary jurisdiction. Great alterations were required in the mode of treating juvenile offenders after conviction. Education alone was not sufficient for their reformation. He suggested that penitentiaries should be built at the expense of the country to secure this object, as far as it was possible. Pour or five would be sufficient. When a child had been found guilty of an offence, either by summary conviction or after trial, he should be immediately transferred to one of these penitentiaries, and the cost of his maintenance be recoverable from the county where the offence was committed; and the county should have the power of recovering from the child's parents the cost of his maintenance, because in many cases they encouraged him to crime. Certainly, where there was a possibility of it, parents should be made to feel the responbility of training their children to nothing but running in the streets.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the disposition of property for pious and charitable purposes. Last year, the House was kind enough to allow him to bring in a Bill with a similar intent; but when it came to the second reading, many hon. Members imagined it did not sufficiently guard against the solicitation that might be urged upon the deathbeds of languishing persons; and also that it did not take sufficient care to prevent a great increase of land being tied up in mortmain. He had endeavoured to meet these two objections in the present Bill. He proposed to require that all wills or deeds containing bequests or grants of landed property for charitable purposes, should be signed three months before the death of the testator; also, that when such bequests or grants had been made, the property should not go as land to the charity, but that it should be sold, and the proceeds devoted to the purposes of the charity. These were the two main provisions of the Bill; but he further proposed that small portions of land, intended as sites for churches, chapels, and schools, should be exempt from the necessity of being sold. He did not think the present was a time to apologize for the introduction of such a Bill. The Motion which had just been granted (Sir J. Pakington's), amply proved that the State had not done its duty in educating and instructing the people, and that very great reliance must be placed upon private efforts to effect that most important object. The present Bill, he believed, would, to a certain extent, fulfil that purpose; and therefore he hoped the House would assent to the Motion.

said, that retaining all the objections which, in former years, he had expressed to many of the provisions and the general object of the Bill, he did not, on the present occasion, intend to divide the House against its introduction. He regarded the improvements as not inconsiderable, yet they were far from sufficient to mitigate his general repugnance to the measure. At the same time, the House having permitted the introduction of a Bill still more objectionable in former times, and having consented to take the discus- sion and division in a subsequent stage of the measure, he was not unwilling to adopt that course in the present instance also; but he desired, even in giving leave to introduce the Bill, to express as strongly as he could his general objection to the measure. When the noble Lord said, in reference to a speech which had been delivered on the last Motion, that the State had not done its duty in the education of the people, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked, what was the tendency of this Bill to supply that omission? As far as he understood the Bill brought forward in former years, there was no provision whatever by which the liberality of a dying Christian might be directed to the maintenance of a school or any other place of education. There was little connexion between bequests which might be made under the provisions of the Bill, and objects which any Member might desire in respect to Christian education. He held that Christian liberality should be exercised in a man's lifetime in respect to property of which he held the personal enjoyment; that he should deny himself, and not deprive his heirs, who might have looked forward for years to succession after his death. If an individual wished to deprive his heir of his fortune, he should do it without the prospect of immediate death, when in the full vigour of life, and in the full exercise of his reason. He did not feel called upon at that moment to do more than express his continued objection to the Bill. He trusted that an ample opportunity would be given of considering the subject, and discussing it, on some future day, in a manner commensurate to its importance.

was glad his hon. Friend did not feel it necessary to divide the House upon the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill; but, without prejudicing the discussion that would take place on it hereafter, he (Sir G. Grey) must express his apprehensions that the alterations which the noble Lord intended to introduce into the measure, were not sufficiently extensive to induce him to hope he should be enabled to support it upon the second reading. As to the exception in favour of land bequeathed for sites for churches and schools, he would remind the noble Lord that extensive alterations had been made in the law, by which the object he had in view was already practically attained.

rose to move—

"For a Copy of the Evidence taken before the Court of Inquiry, instituted in the month of April, 1845, by the Board of Ordnance, at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, to investigate Charges preferred by Daniel Toner against William Jones, deputy storekeeper, together with a Copy of the Charges and the Report thereon; also, a Copy of the Charge preferred and the Evidence given against Daniel Toner, late a labourer in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, by Mr. Reed, a clerk in the storekeeper's department, before Lord Bloomfield, Colonel Blayney, and Mr. Cheetham, in August, 1845, with their Report thereon."

His object in moving for these papers, for withholding of which he could see no good reason, was twofold. In the first place, he wanted to show the mode in which the moral treatment of convicts at Woolwich was conducted; and these papers, he believed, would show, as those convicts had on several occasions told him, that in one hour they had committed more robberies for the officers and clerks of the Royal Arsenal than they had ever committed in their whole lives before; and that instead of being likely to be reclaimed there, they were only encouraged in their evil practices. On a former occasion he had moved for an inquiry into the treatment of the convicts generally in the hulks at Woolwich. That, however, had been refused, and he was now compelled to make the present Motion in order to get at a part of that information. His second object in moving for these papers was to show the abuses that took place in that department of the Ordnance at Woolwich; and he certainly could not understand why the Government should refuse those papers, unless for the purpose of screening some of the delinquencies of that department. Daniel Toner had been the chief prosecutor against one of the officers in that department, and having succeeded in proving all his charges, that officer had been dismissed. From that period Toner and all those who gave evidence against their superior officers, became marked men, and were made the subjects of persecution; whilst several of the officers against whom the charges had been proved, had been promoted. He trusted the House would grant these papers; for there was, in his opinion, nothing more important than that such a class of witnesses should be protected when they dared to expose a general system of fraud and pilfering being carried on in a publie department of the State. It was his intention, should he obtain those papers, to take ulterior proceedings upon them; but what those proceed- ings would be, he was not at that moment prepared to say.

said, his objection to furnish the first class of papers moved for, which related to the case of Mr. Jones, the deputy storekeeper, rested entirely upon public grounds. The facts of the case were not at all such as had been stated by the hon. Member; and if the hon. Member had taken the trouble to have read the papers which he had brought down to the House on purpose to show him, the hon. Member would have seen how unnecessary it was to have troubled the House with his statement, or to have proposed to put the country to the expense of printing those documents; for there were not to be found ten words in the inquiry into Mr. Jones's case which bore at all upon the treatment of convicts in the arsenal at Woolwich. No objection had been found with Toner for making the charges which he had made against Jones: those charges had been found to be correct—Jones had been punished in consequence, and there was an end to the matter. He had no objection, however, to give the evidence in Toner's case. It was not very likely that Toner, who, immediately he entered the arsenal, pulled out his pocket-book and commenced taking notes, with the view of informing against his superior officers, and who had so continued to spy until he found something of which he could lay hold, should meet with very much sympathy from those towards whom he so acted. Accordingly, when Toner infringed the rules of the arsenal, and, after being warned, repeated the offence, his conduct was reported, and he was eventually dismissed. Upon the decision which the court came to, he thought no reflection could be cast, although he did not mean to say but it would have been better had Toner been present before his judges. He believed, however, that the decision was a perfectly just one; and had he been a member of the court he should have concurred in their views. The charge against Jones for having appropriated some wood or shavings belonging to the arsenal, had certainly been proved; but he had been many years a meritorious officer of that establishment, and had since received a very handsome appointment in a private establishment, which was sufficient to prove the respectability of his character.

had taken a great deal of trouble to investigate the matter, and he believed that his hon. Friend's statement respecting Toner was substantially correct. He would put it to the Attorney General whether this man ought not to have been heard in his own defence? He had exposed a system of pilfering—he would not call it robbery—which had been going on at the dockyards; and upon his evidence the deputy storekeeper had been convicted and ordered to pay 217l., on account of stores which had been improperly appropriated. He was, therefore, surprised to hear the gallant Officer, as the head of a department, express such an opinion as the gallant Officer had expressed respecting this man's conduct. If he were at the head of a department, he should wish that every man in it should observe the other; and he should think the department very wrong for punishing them for it. With regard to the first papers, he was not prepared to say to what extent they would be necessary for his hon. Friend's purpose. He (Mr. Hume) had sent down to Woolwich to ascertain the facts; and he was able to say, that no man was worse treated than Toner. If the general system of pilfering that prevailed was not put an end to, the public stores could not be protected, and they might as well shut the doors. He hoped a commission would be issued to inquire into the whole administration of the department.

said, that when he was in the Ordnance Department, Toner visited him, and told him a long tale of his grievances, and asked his opinion of the case; and he told him to go back to Woolwich, to his department, and if the annoyance he complained of continued, he might lay the case before the Master General of the Ordnance. He said, he feared he should be mulcted of his day's pay; and in two days after, he told the authority at Woolwich, that in his opinion the man ought not to lose his pay for his absence on that occasion. He stated that, to show that there was no bad feeling against Toner. With respect to his dismissal, he could not give any particulars, as the dismissal was not his act.

replied, he was surprised to see such tenderness for Mr. Jones, on the part of those in power, though he had been fourteen years engaged in practices complained of; while poor Toner had no pity shown him, but was left to starve. It was a misfortune that there were not many more Toners in the public service, to show up the delinquencies of their superior officers. He should not be satisfied until a public inquiry had taken place into the subject. It was for that purpose he wanted the papers in question; and, if he stood alone, he would press his Motion on the House.