observed, that he concurred in the principle of the Bill; but as there appeared to he an expectation of a general election taking place during the present year, he thought it would not be desirable to pass the Bill at the present moment; as, if a general election should take place this year, there would not be time for the magistrates at the county courts to fix the additional polling places rendered necessary by the Bill.

said, that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he did not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing the Bill, and would therefore withdraw it.

observed, that certain changes of an important nature had been introduced into the Bill, partly in conformity with the opinion expressed by the House on a former occasion, and partly in consequence of suggestions made in the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred. Generally, he did not object to these alterations; but there was one, of an important character, which he thought to be no improvement. As the Bill was first drawn, a power of imprisonment for six months was given to the magistrates. That maximum of imprisonment had been reduced by the Select Committee to three months; and, though this was an alteration not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, yet he did not approve of it, as it was now desired by all to make imprisonment a means of reformation. However, if the sense of the House were in favour of the alteration, he was content to abide by it.

said, that this was one of the points connected with another subject, namely, the nature of the places of confinement to which the offenders were to be sent. He should be in favour of the longer term of imprisonment, provided these juvenile offenders were committed to a place of a purely reformatory character; but rather than commit these offenders for any lengthened period to the gaols as at present constituted, he should be disposed to concur in the view taken of the subject by the Select Committee. This, however, only confirmed him in the opinion that it would have been better to postpone the Bill until they could have taken up the large question of the reformatory system with respect to juvenile offenders. The words in the clause limiting the term of imprisonment to three months, adopted. The words authorizing the "public" whipping of male juvenile offenders were, at the suggestion of the Attorney General, omitted from the clause.

said, that the clause, as now amended, gave the power of inflicting "private" whipping twice on these juvenile offenders. He thought that one whipping was quite enough for boys.

suggested that all the words relating to whipping should be omitted from the clause.

(the Chairman) stated, that in point of form such an Amendment could not now be moved, as that part of the clause was already passed. It must be postponed until the report on the Bill.

was convinced that whipping was a very bad punishment, and the sooner it was wholly discontinued the better. The magistrates of this country were not a very wise or discreet body of men, nor were they always selected on account of their love of justice; he had seen enough of their conduct to tremble at a proposal to place more power in their hands. Such a Bill as this ought not to have received any support from the Government.

thought the hon. Member ought not to blame the Government without first considering what was the present state of the law. A child might now be committed to gaol, stay there for weeks, and then be tried as a felon, and sentenced to be once, twice, or thrice whipped. The question was, whether, having a defective mode of punishment at present, Parliament ought, in altering the tribunal, to disarm it of the power of sentencing a child to be privately whipped instead of imprisoned, the whipping being under the control of the superintending justices, and regulated by the rules of the prison. It should be remembered, too, that the present Bill was not to apply to cases where the young person charged "objected to the case being summarily disposed of" under these provisions.

thought the power to sentence to a whipping was exceedingly important, even for the interests of the poor themselves. Why should a boy, taken up for stealing a few apples, be sent to prison for several weeks, to be then discharged, ruined in character? A good wholesome flogging would be infinitely better for him. It was useless to try reformatory discipline for less than several months; and how could any one stand up for a long sentence of imprisonment for boyish offences, which were often brought before a magistrate in too serious a manner?

wondered why, if the noble Lord thought the lash so good for boys, he did not propose it also as a punishment for men. Did not he believe that a boy felt a blow as much as a man? It was a thing that a boy never forgot. He (Mr. Wakley) would say,"Don't whip, but educate." Flogging was altogether an improper species of punishment, and the power of inflicting it ought not to be in the hands of the magistrates. Every time a boy was flogged, he became worse than he was before; it nourished in him a bad, revengeful disposition.

denied that the punishment of flogging was the same to boys as to men; by men it was felt to be a degradation—by boys it was not. How would the hon. Member propose to punish boys for trifling offences?

said, the question was not settled by saying, "Don't whip, but educate;" for whipping was a part of education.

remarked, that the hon. Member for Finsbury himself made out that whipping was an effective punishment; for he said a boy would recollect it as long as he lived.

did not see that any advantage came of the boys so recollecting the flogging; and as to whipping being a part of education, he preferred an education that dealt with head rather than tail. He know an instance lately where a poacher's son was subjected by a magistrate to great severity, in the opinion of the son, because his father was a poacher; and he (Mr. Wakley) could not consent to giving a large discretionary power to magistrates, however excellent they might be. He was not for long imprisonments; but, with the present system, he confessed he hardly knew what to propose. We wanted not merely good laws, but a better mode of administering them. In our courts of law, justice seemed to be denied under certain circumstances; and feelings were in operation there which, in his opinion, were most prejudicial to society.

was understood to object to the power given by the same clause of substituting, at the discretion of the magistrates, a fine for whipping, and proposed an Amendment to take away that power.

approved of assimilating the powers given under the Bill to those already possessed by the magistrates. He had seen cases in which no responsibility could be laid on the parents, however well merited, from the want of power to inflict a fine.

thought the rich ought not to have an opportunity of escaping by a pecuniary fine; but if there was to be flogging, then rich and poor alike ought to have the same chance of suffering the punishment.

stated that the penalty was upon the offender, whether it was fine or whipping. A child had no goods on which a distress could be levied, but might be subjected to imprisonment on non-payment; so that, virtually, the clause affected the parents.

entirely concurred with his hon. Friend, that it was very desirable by all moans that were practicable to improve the accommodation for the poor; but he was not at all convinced that the Bill he had now moved would accomplish that object. His hon. Friend pro-posed two objects: to increase the number of cottages available for residences for the poor; and to provide an improved class. The Bill applied to towns as well as the country; in the latter, his hon. Friend suggested that tenements under the value of 6l. should be exempted, though as regarded the former, he left the point open for the Committee. Now, what would be the effect if this Bill were to pass? A direct premium would he held out to speculators building the worst class of cottages. He thought the uncertainty which must attach to any provision of this kind, was in itself, a great exemption, Houses of the class referred to, were not to be assessed to the relief of the poor; therefore, the only evidence to determine the fact of their belonging to it, would be either the rout actually paid, or the evidence of surveyors of that kind with which they had been familiar some years ago. If you fixed a maximum, applicable to both town and country, you had a most uncertain standard of exemption; a cottage which might be had for 6l. in some country town, might cost double that sum in Manchester or Liverpool. For these reasons, he certainly thought it would not be desirable that this Bill should receive the sanction of the House. He was not prepared to say, that the law as to rating was in a satisfactory state, or that abuses did not exist under the Act of the 51st George III., for exempting persons from the payment of rates. The same objections, however, applied to this Bill, as had been brought against that of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Waddington) in the early part of the Session, which the House had then rejected; and he hoped the same course would be taken with this Bill. He should move as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

very much feared that this Bill would not effect the object of the hon. Member for Stroud, or accomplish in any respect the good the hon. Member had so often expressed a desire in that House to bring about. It would hold out, as the Secretary for the Home Department had remarked, a premium to the worst class of building speculators. The rents paid by the poor were now enormous, even for very bad habitations; but he thought this Bill would not improve either the habitations or the rents. Indeed, ho doubted much, whether by direct legislation they could over improve them. The evils of the present state of things wore great; and that the poor paid very much more in proportion than the rich, was also indubitable. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that those habitations belonged to the poor, though the fact was, that they were not the property of the poor, belonging often to the wealthiest men in the land, who expended large sums in building houses, and then screwed up rents to the highest point. Again, under this Bill a man was to be punished if the drainage in his neighbourhood was bad, though it was not under his control. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would see the expediency of withdrawing his Bill. The subject was one of very great difficulty, and ought to be taken into consideration by the Government, as he sincerely hoped it would be in another Session of Parliament. If anything could be done to relieve the annoyances under which the poor now laboured, the House ought to apply its mind vigorously to the subject; an enormous number of persons were now summoned day after day to pay rates, which they were not liable to pay, and assessed under the most cruel regulations.

regretted, that there should appear so little chance of the hon. Member succeeding in his benevolent attempt to amend the evils under which the poor now laboured. He would impress on the Secretary for the Home Department, the importance of taking up this subject in another Session of Parliament.

thought no practical good, but the contrary, would be produced by this Bill. He referred to the effect produced by the exemption of small tenements from rates at Coventry. Persons who had absolutely no money of their own, borrowed money from the corporation, which they laid out in building houses of a very confined and inferior description. The builders had confessed they were receiving 12½ and 13 per cent for their money from the rents; yet, not content with that, an additional charge of 1½d. and 2d. a week was made, on the ground of the houses being exempted from the poor rate.

said, his chief object had been to call the attention of the House and the Government to the importance of the subject; and having effected that, he would withdraw the Bill for the present.