asked whether orders had been issued by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the destruction of the deer in the forest of Dean, and in the New Forest? And, if so, whether copies of the orders would be laid upon the table of the House, as there was no right to destroy deer in a royal forest without an Act of Parliament?

said, that there were no such orders issued regarding the New Forest, of which His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was ranger, and over which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had no power to make such an order. With regard to the Forest of Dean, over which they had full power, and where there was no ranger, there had been such universal complaints of the demoralising influence upon the people living around, produced by the opportunities they had of killing the deer, that the commissioners had at length acceded to the requests of the mining proprietors, and ordered the destruction of the deer. Their objects in so doing were, at once to check the demoralising effects upon the population, to prevent the frequent collisions between the keepers and poachers, and to preserve the valuable young timber which was growing in the forest. The number of deer in the forest of Dean and in the Highmeadow Woods adjoining, was by statute restricted to 800, nor was it essential that there should be any deer in the forest of Dean at all. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by letter dated the 15th of January, 1850, informed the verderers of Dean Forest that they had decided on the discontinuance of deer in Dean Forest and in the Highmeadow Woods adjoining. The commissioners received their power over the forest from an Act of Parliament passed ten or twelve years ago, appointing them chief wardens; and the forest itself was regulated by the provisions of two Acts of Parliament, the 20th Chas. IL, and another Act that was passed in the year 1808, reviving the 20th Chas. II.

said, that under those circumstances he was quite sure it would be a boon to the forest to have the deer destroyed.

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies a question upon a subject which had been noticed already in another place, and of which he had given the hon. Gentleman notice. He had that morning sent a paper to the hon. Gentleman, which he had received from New South Wales, in which details were set forth of the most disgusting nature, regarding certain conduct of men and officers, which had taken place on board the barque Indian. The colonial officials had properly taken measures to bring the offenders to punishment, and from the proceedings it appeared that the owners had certainly placed a most dissolute set of officers on board their vessel. What he wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman was, whether he was aware of the circumstances that had taken place? And whether, in the event of the statement turning out to be true, such directions would be given to the Emigration Commissioners as would induce them to put forth to the fullest extent the powers vested in them to punish the owners of the ship, as well as the guilty parties? There was a vast number of persons about to go to the colonies. But they had become so alarmed at the account of this misconduct, that they had great doubts whether they could venture to proceed to their several destinations; and it was most important that they should receive some assurance to allay their fears.

said, that in answer to the question, which was one to which he attached very considerable importance, and which he did not at all regret the hon. Gentleman had brought under the consideration of the House, he should reply that the Government had as yet received no official account of the conduct of the officers of the barque Indian. But he was bound to state that if the ex parte statement which had been made should be proved, it would justify the infliction of the severest penalties which the law provided, as soon as the conviction should have been obtained. And he would undertake to promise his hon. Friend that the subject should be closely attended to, because he had already called the attention of the Emigration Commissioners to it, and they would be instructed to enforce the severest penalties which the law enabled them to inflict, if the facts should be proved.

said, that the reply of his hon. Friend would give general satisfaction throughout the country.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the object of it was, first, to remove the privileges which were at present retained by insolvent Members of that House not in trade; and, secondly, to deal with Members similarly situated who were in trade. Most persons agreed in thinking that it was very discreditable to Parliament that it should be the only sanctuary still existing in which fraudulent bankrupts and insolvents could take refuge. There could be no difficulty in proving the insolvency of a Member by the plan which he proposed. He had been, indeed, told that a great objection was, that parties might buy up judgments against Members, and so get them expelled the House. But that would be impossible, for no proceedings could be taken by any creditor who held security for his debt; and the present privilege went into the other extreme of unduly shielding Members. Besides, nearly six months would have to elapse before the insolvency could be satisfactorily proved, and a Member lose his seat, and that would give time for unravelling the real condition of his liabilities. Besides, the object of the qualification required at present was to insure the possession by every Member of that House of at least 8,000l. or 9,000l. above his liabilities. That might be assumed as the value of the income of 300l. a year, which was necessary. And, if a Member did not possess that sum, he could not truly undertake to say that he was qualified. He had been told that there was no great popular feeling in favour of the measure. He admitted that; and, moreover, he did not think they ought to wait for such a feeling to arise. He thought they ought to anticipate the popular displeasure at Parliament being the only sanctuary remaining in the united kingdom for insolvent debtors. The privilege of Parliament had been greatly abused. A law, indeed, had been passed some years ago which made the chattels of Members liable to be seized for debt, but nothing was easier than for a Member to make over his chattels to a brother or sister, and so evade the law. It was also objected to his Bill that it did not include Peers. He found that in all questions of privilege it had been customary for each House to arrange its own affairs, and generally when the Commons set a good example, it had been followed by the Lords. But, supposing that the Peers did not choose to give up their privilege, did that invalidate the utility of the Bill to the Commons? The Bill before the House had been introduced in the last Session. It was then referred to a Committee upstairs, where it was improved and formed. The right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who seldom entered the House, came down, for almost the only time he had attended during the Session, to oppose it when it came from the Committee. He said that the privilege could be rescinded without a Bill, by the simple resolution of the House, and that the Bill was therefore unnecessary. It was then late in the Session. The opposition was strong, and he (Mr. Moffatt) thought it better to withdraw it, and bring it on again early in the present Session. He did so; but hardly had the Session ended, when he received a communication from the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, stating that he had found he was wrong—that the privilege could not be rescinded by a resolution of the House, and that an Act of Parliament was necessary. To the present Bill, amended as it had been, there could be only objections to small points of detail. None had been made to its principle. He, therefore, hoped, that the second reading would be taken at once, and any amendments which could be suggested could be considered in Committee.

had a pecular desire to support the Bill. He did not see why a trader in the House should be exempted from the laws which affected traders in general. He would, therefore, support the second reading.

entertained great objections to the principle of the Bill, and should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He admitted that there were few things more objectionable than contracting debts without the means of paying them. But if the question was to be considered as a moral one, there were a great number of offences just as bad, in a moral point of view as the nonpayment of debts, and with which the House was just as much called on to interfere. But the fact was, that the matter was one for the decision of constituencies, who were the best judges of whether or no a man's circumstances fitted him for representing them in that House. The Bill, if carried, would circumscribe the powers of the constituencies; for many a man under temporary circumstances of embarrassment, might nevertheless be chosen as a representative by a constituency having the fullest confidence in the integrity of his intentions. Many Gentlemen of limited means had thought it right, for the honour of their family, to take upon themselves debts which they inherited from their parents, and, if unable to discharge the obligation thus assumed within a limited period, they were to be liable to be expelled from the House as unworthy of a seat in it. A person in this unfortunate situation might even, under this Bill, be by law incapable of being re-elected. Besides, the measure if carried would revive the old disputes between the House and the constituent body of the empire, as to whether the former had the power of rejecting a representative chosen by the latter. He repeated that he thought the matter ought to be left to the discretion of constituencies. But the hon. Gentleman argued that a Member becoming bankrupt would lose his qualification. The qualification, however, was merely to be considered as being in some respect a guarantee for the sufficient education of Members of Parliament, and in the case of the poor scholars of the universities, of whom he was one, no qualification whatever was required. Besides, a man might possess a qualification when he entered Parliament, and convey it away next day, without endangering his seat.

supported the Bill, thinking that no person ought to have his property or his person exempted from legal process by Parliamentary privilege, so long as he was unable to pay his just debts.

said, that having voted for a Bill requiring a bankrupt to vacate his seat six months after his failure, he could not be said to favour the doctrine that Parliamentary privilege ought to shield a man from just legal process. This Bill would, however, be attended with great injustice in many of its bearings. He thought that no individual ought to be empowered to plead Parliamentary privilege when called upon to pay his debts; and he would be prepared to concur in any measure, so far abolishing that privilege; but he repeated that a great many cases would arise in which, from the arrangements of society, the Bill before them would operate most cruelly. He submitted that a Bill ought to be introduced for the purpose of remedying the evils to which he had alluded.

would oppose the measure, thinking that agricultural Members in the present state of matters would require to have some protection against the stringent working of the bankruptcy laws.

would observe that the discussion, last year, upon the subject to which this Bill related, showed the difficulty of carrying out the principle proposed without a measure applying with great harshness in many cases. Feeling how little prospect there was of the House ultimately agreeing to a Bill which would accomplish the object in view without involving still greater inconveniences and evils than it was to remove, he was not prepared to support the second reading of this measure.

remarked, that though quite willing to facilitate the proceedings of creditors against property, he apprehended that this Bill might place the votes of Members too much under pressure. A judgment was often given along with a mortgage, the rents might happen to be in arrear, and moneyed men might acquire undue influence over votes.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that the House must he aware that a very great amount of property now escaped the payment of rates, and that, at the same time, the constant changes of occupation in small tenements caused immense trouble to the overseers. He had with him a letter from a most excellent magistrate of Bedfordshire, expressing the pain with which he signed warrants to distrain perhaps the beds of poor families for rates, and urging the expediency of charging them upon the landlords in the case of small houses. The existing law was really a premium upon idleness and dissipation, for the party who was made to pay was the industrious man who saved a little money and bought furniture. It was a mistake to suppose that if the rates were charged on the owners, the rents would be raised; but the comforts of the cottages would be increased. [The hon. Member read a letter from a parish containing a large quantity of cottage property, and an extract from the tenth report of the Poor Law Commissioners, in regard to the effect of an Act passed in 1841, empowering the overseers of Kidderminster to rate the landlords of small tenements.] He asked the House to mark the success of such a measure where it had been tried. The Committee of the House of Commons, in 1837, and the Committee of the House of Lords, in 1846, reported in favour of the view he had taken. He trusted he had shown the necessity which existed for an alteration in the law, and that the measure he proposed was calculated to effect such an alteration in a mild and beneficial manner. He hoped, therefore, the House would not re- ject it, but allow the Bill to receive a second reading.

, believing that the deficiency of house accommodation for the poorer classes was most prejudicial to the interests of society at large, and that the proposed Bill would tend to augment the evil, was prepared to offer the second reading his decided opposition. The Poor Law Commissioners, Captain Robinson, Mr. Austin, and others, had reported strongly that house accommodation had not extended in proportion to the increase of the population. They stated that the proprietors disliked cottage property, as there was a difficulty in collecting the rates, and sometimes the cottages were pulled down. He admitted the difficulty of the present system, but he would rather endure it than submit to the alterations proposed by the Bill. He anxiously asked the Government to postpone, at all events, the consideration of it till they had disposed of the settlement question. It was no light matter, for it affected that large class of the people who were unable to pay the poor-rates, and were not paupers. If they rated the owners, they might depend on it the pressure of the rate would fall on the occupier. The rents received generally on this class of property did not return more than 2 per cent, and no person would build cottages for the poor in future, if he had to pay 4s. or 5s. out of that. Captain Hoskyn and Mr. Austin had stated that any tax laid on the owners of cottages would be laid by them on the occupiers, in the form of an increase of rent. The general rule of the law of England, he observed, was, with the exception of Stourges Bourne's Act, to rate the occupiers, and not the owners. The case of Kidderminster showed, that when that rule was departed from, the owners continued to make use of the law for their own advantage. The same was found to be the case in Liverpool, and the owners increased the rents so much as to create an immense amount of pauperism, in consequence of which the town had applied to Parliament for the repeal of the local Act, passed three or four years ago, for the rating of owners. Ireland presented a still stronger case in point, because the best authorities were of opinion that the immense evictions were attributable to the pressure of the poor-law, which laid the rates on the owners.

said, that if he agreed in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, that the Bill would press heavily on the poorer classes, he should be the last man in the House to vote for it; but he honestly believed it would not have any such effect. Under the present system, the owner of property on which there was an exclusion of rates contrived to get a higher rent than he otherwise would, and was the only person who benefited by the law, while the poor man did not gain any advantage from the exemption, and the public generally lost by it. And when the hon. Gentleman alluded to speculators running up cottages for the poorer classes, and concluded the Bill would prevent their doing so, he actually adduced one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill, because he called attention to the case of persons who in building laid out their ground in such parcels as they knew would be exempt from the rate, and thereby gained a benefit all their own. The Bill of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire was not, as the hon. Member for Stroud might have led the House to understand, a compulsory measure, rendering all persons, owners of cottages within a certain limit of value, liable to be rated. His (Mr. Baines's) opinion was, that if any fault was to be found with the Bill, it was that it did not go far enough; but it was a step in the right direction; and, as it would effect a certain amount of good, though not all that might be effected by improved legislation, he hoped the House would give their assent to the second reading. He wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for Hertfortshire to one point. By the 59th George III., c. 12, sec. 19, known as Sturges Bourne's Act, there was a power given to the vestry to pass resolutions by a majority, with the object that, in certain cases, the owners should be rated instead of the occupiers; and the evils which that Act was intended to meet, and which existed to a tenfold degree at present, were recited in the clause as follows:—

"And whereas in many parishes, more especially in large and populous towns, the payment of the poor-rates is greatly evaded, &c., and it hath been found persons letting houses do receive much higher rents for the same, on the ground that the occupiers thereof cannot be effectually assessed to the poor-rates, and do thus obtain an undue advantage to themselves; be it enacted, &c., that the owners of all houses, &c., which shall be let to the occupiers thereof at any rent not exceeding 20l., nor less than 6l. by the year, &c., shall be assessed to the relief of the poor."

And the clause further directed how far the inhabitants in vestry might vary the resolutions of any former vestry in this respect, and provided for the assessment of the rate on the owners by an equal pound-rate, after making a reasonable deduction from the rent, not exceeding in any case one-half, and for the levy and recovery against the owner in the same way as for the levy and recovery of poor-rates against the actual occupier under other circumstances. The hon. Member proposed to do away with the minimum of 6l., which, so far as he (Mr. Baines) could learn from those hon. Members who had been in the House when the Act was passed, was fixed upon without any reason whatever. If these evils existed on 6l. houses, it appeared to him the argument would be very much à fortiori with respect to houses below 6l. The hon. Member proposed that henceforth there should be power in a vestry to rate the owners of houses from 20l. downwards, without any minimum, instead of the occupiers. That was the whole scope of his Bill. He wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention, however, to the provision that there should be a majority of two-thirds of the vestry. Why require a different proportion of the vestry from that which was sufficient to sanction the rating on the owners in cases of 6l. houses? It seemed to him the bare majority of the vestry ought to be sufficient, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to such an alteration when they went into Committee. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud said, that rating small tenements had failed in Liverpool. He (Mr. Baines) was not aware of that fact, but he certainly knew that a great number of local Acts for rating the owners of small tenements had lately been applied by the inhabitants of that town. As regarded Kidderminster, so far from the Act rating small tenements working badly, the union had come to Parliament and asked for a similar principle to be extended from the town to the union. He would support the second reading.

said, he should support the measure, but he could not help remarking that, as long as he had been in the House they had had a Bill before them about highways, and another for rating small tenements; but he hoped the present year would dispose of both questions. Any one conversant with the country must know the present state of the law was productive of great inequality and injustice, and bore very hardly on the poor. The only objection he had to the Bill was, that it was not compulsory. They had had a great deal too much of permissive legislation. Parliament should make up their mind as to what was right, and then declare it binding upon all. It so happened that two-thirds of the vestry were not the persons he should exactly like to decide the question of rating. He would much rather see a compulsory enactment that up to 5l. or 6l. the rate should be paid by owners of property. A large amount of property escaped taxation at present, and the result was that a greater burden was thrown on the rest of the country.

said, that although he had found it necessary to oppose former measures on this subject, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

declared that he was not at all satisfied in his mind that the present measure was right, or was better than the measures which he had opposed on previous occasions. He was much inclined to think with the hon. Member for Stroud that the effect of rating the owners would be to check what was so much wanted—the building of convenient cottages, affording comfortable accommodation for the labouring population, at low rents. The object of every Gentleman was to afford such accommodation at the lowest possible cost. If a labourer was unable from poverty to pay the rate, he could, Tinder the present law, go before the magistrates, with the consent of the overseers, and prove his inability, and they would then excuse him for the time being. It was also a very common practice for the overseers to take into consideration the state of cottage property in their district, and if they knew a certain number of persons were, from poverty and low wages, unable to support themselves, and pay rates, to come to a resolution not to charge them to the poor-rates. It was a common practice for persons who had laid by money in youth to purchase a plot of land and erect cottages on it, under an impression that the sort of tenants to whom they intended to let those cottages would never be charged with any rates; and he doubted whether, under the provisions of the Bill, they could fix any particular species of property with rates; he also had serious doubts whether the House ought to agree to a measure like the present, which was in the nature of an ex post facto law, inasmuch as it enabled one set of persons to come upon another for that which they never expected to be called upon to pay. It happened to him that he had upon his estate cottages for which he only received 50s. a year; but those cottages, if fairly valued, could not be considered as worth less than 5l. a year, and that, he doubted not, was the case with many others besides himself; he did then think it most unfair if a man were to be called on to pay rates upon a higher scale of valuation than the actual rent which he might receive for the cottage property that he possessed. He did not mean to offer any further opposition to the Bill, but in Committee he intended to propose that no landlord should be expected to pay upon any valuation above the rent which he actually received. He was quite aware of the growing feeling in favour of such a measure, and he took the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud not to take the sense of the House on the second reading.

observed, that there existed a general impression that speculative builders erected better cottages than were usually built by other parties, and at more reasonable rents. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would persevere with the Bill—that he would make it compulsory and final. To leave the application of it discretionary, would be, as he thought, most inexpedient. He might mention to the House a case in which the collection of the arrears cost 17 per cent, and that cost fell, not upon the owners, but the occupiers. For these reasons then he thought it the most just and expedient plan that the owners should pay the rates.

supported the second reading of the Bill, and hoped that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire would improve his measure by adopting some of the suggestions that had been made.

stated, that speculative builders often came into a neighbourhood where their presence was not much desired; that they ran up cottages and filled them with inhabitants, who competed with and often did great injury to the independent labourer, and thus the whole population of the district became more or less deteriorated. When he looked at the authorities which had given opinions upon these subjects, he found that thay were all in favour of such a measure as that before the House, and he hoped that in Committee the hon. Gentleman would consent to such clauses as would make the Bill just and palatable.

was of opinion that the discussion of these points had much better be postponed until the Bill went into Committee; he was bound, however, frankly to state that he could not continue his support to the Bill unless the right of voting were permanently secured to the occupier.

, referring to the Municipal Reform Act, said that it provided sufficiently for securing to occupiers the full right of voting, whether they were liable to the rates or not. The overseer must, under that Act, put the name of the occupier on the roll. He was sure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire desired to secure to occupiers the indisputable right of voting.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had referred to the Municipal Reform Act for the purpose of showing that that statute Secured to the occupier the right of voting; but though the Irish Municipal Reform Act contained a clause copied from that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, yet it did not secure to the occupier the right of voting. The occupier of a shop or of a tenement might claim to be rated, but that was not the point; occupiers ought to possess the franchise, no matter who paid the rates. His own case was this—he rented a counting-house; he served a notice desiring to be rated; at the same time, also, he offered to pay any rates that might be due; but he was told that nothing was due, which was giving him what in Ireland was called "a Quaker's receipt," being an ingenious mode of evading the stamp duties. Upon the subject of the notice which he served he had taken the opinion of counsel, and he had been told that his notice was insufficient, because it did not set forth the value of the tenement. Now, it was most absurd to require that a tenant should set a value upon the premises which he himself occupied. It might seem some-. what impertinent in him to speak upon a Bill which only affected England and Wales; but hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were only English Members, had continually interfered in the affairs of Ireland, and had spoken as if they meant to minister to all the social diseases on the other side of the water. He did not complain of such political doctor- ing. On the contrary, he felt much obliged to them for it, and was only anxious that they should not, by the adoption of this Bill, reduce the franchise. It might not affect the rural districts, but by taking the small tenements in corporate towns out of the rate-book they would be cutting off a large and very useful class from their political privileges.

said, that he had received a letter from Manchester—not, however, upon the subject of the present Bill—from parties who were deeply interested in the security and extension of the franchise; that communication stated that in many cases the landlord would not pay the rates, though his rents were regularly paid to him; and thus he might, either through neglect or malevolence, disfranchise his tenants. He did not hesitate to say that no man's franchise ought to be placed in that sort of jeopardy. If he paid his rent and did his duty as a member of society, he ought not to be disfranchised on account of the conduct of any other person. Then there was another ground of complaint fairly enough urged in the letter that he held in his hand, which was this: Landlords often compounded for the rates of houses which were under the value of 10l. That was held not to be a payment in full, and thereby the occupiers were disfranchised. As far as it was connected with rates, this Bill would give great facility to the collectors, but that was no reason why a measure should be hurried through the House which would lead to such a great extent of disfranchisement. He should wish to know from the Government whether, if the House consented to the second reading of the Bill, and if any suggestions for the obviating of this objection should be proposed in Committee, the Government would oppose those amendments?

had no hesitation in saying that he thought it would be extremely wrong if this Bill should operate in any way to the disfranchisement of any parties possessing the franchise, and be believed that nothing was further from the intention of the hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had said he thought a clause in the Municipal Bill would prevent it; but he would look into the subject, and if he were not satisfied that that clause would have that effect, he would take care that a clause for the purpose should be introduced. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not name the Committee for an early day, for there were many points in which it would be well for him to communicate with his right hon. Friend.

did not believe the measure would relieve the poor at all, but at the same time there might be places to which it would be applicable. It would be necessary, however, that in Committee the Bill should be more strictly guarded; for instance, a longer notice should be given when parties were to appear before the vestry, so that no parties should be taken by surprise. He would vote for the second reading, but reserved to himself the right of dealing with it on the third reading according to the state in which it then should come before them.

, in reply, said, he intended to put in some clause or clauses that would have the effect of guarding the franchise, but he was not disposed to make the Bill compulsory.

moved the Second Beading of this Bill. It appeared from a recent return, that there were 589 cases in which clergymen had been appointed to two livings since the passing of the last Act on this subject. This afforded a strong case for passing a Bill in order further to check the practice. He saw no objection to clergymen holding two livings when they were adjoining eadh other, and the population of both was small; and there were many cases of this kind where no inconvenience was sustained, because the people of one parish could attend the services of the other. He would ask the House to affirm, by their assent to the second reading, the principle that the present law was not sufficiently stringent, and that it was desirable it should be made more effective. The Bill which he had had the honour to introduce last Session on this subject passed a second reading; but, on account of the lateness of the Session, he was unable to carry it further. He had since received many letters from clergymen in different parts of the kingdom in favour of his Bill, one in particular from the prebendary of one of our cathedrals, pointing out abuses which existed from prebendaries and their connexions getting possession of livings in their own families. He proposed that the Bill should extend to Ireland, and he trusted the House would allow the Bill, like that of last Session, to pass a second reading.

Is the Bill prospective in its operation?

Yes.

had no objection to make to the second reading. He believed that both the Primate of Ireland and the Archbishop of Canterbury were very desirous that some measure should be passed making an alteration in the law regarding benefices and pluralities. The Bill might, therefore, be read a second time; but the House must not be asked to go into Committee on the Bill until he had had an opportunity of consulting with others, with the view of proposing certain alterations in the Bill which would make it satisfactory.

said, there was no difference of opinion as to the desirableness of having a resident clergyman in every parish in the kingdom. It was easy to say that no two livings ought to be held together by the same person the aggregate value of which should exceed a given sum, except they were contiguous: but he saw in a recent return a case where six livings were held by one clergyman, the united income of which did not amount to more than 300l. per annum. If the right hon. Baronet were not prepared to adopt the principle of the Bill, why should he consent to go into Committee?—and if he were favourable to the second reading, why should he require a long interval before going into Committee?

considered that there were very considerable practical difficulties in the way of dealing with pluralities, especially in cases where no house was provided for the clergyman, and where the income was small. All that the House would do now by voting for the second reading was to affirm that further restrictions in the law permitting pluralities were requisite. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intended to bring forward a similar Bill to the present, and he should therefore like the Committee on the Bill to be postponed, until time had been given to the Government to consider the subject and confer with the Archbishop of Canterbury thereupon.

wished to see the principle of doing away with sinecures and pluralities carried out to the utmost extent in the Church. His objection to the Bill was that it did not go far enough. He held it to be most important to give every parish a resident teacher, by which means a great stimulus was given to private benevolence. Where parishes were small, he would unite them into one for quoad sacra purposes, but not keeping them under one incumbent.

thought that the better course would be to withdraw the Bill than to allow it to pass a second reading, when there was every probability that alterations might be proposed in Committee which would entirely alter the character of the Bill.

did not think the Bill at all suited for Ireland, and considered that even if the present Primate of Ireland was favourable to it, his successor might not be so.

, in reply, said a communication was made to the Archbishop of Armagh last Session, and he was aware that it depended upon his Grace whether pluralities should exist in Ireland. He was happy to say that for the last twenty-two years not a single faculty had been granted by the Primate for the holding of pluralities in that country.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He stated that he considered it one which would meet with the general concurrence of the House, its object being to introduce a considerable improvement in the administration of the law with respect to small offences. The Bill proposed, in the first place, to extend the provisions of the Juvenile Offenders Act, and to give magistrates the power of summary jurisdiction, irrespective of age, in cases of larceny below a very limited amount. With respect to the other portions of the Bill, it would be recollected that at the commencement of the last Session he had intimated his intention of bringing in a Bill of this kind, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General then stated that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the subject, they being of opinion that some alteration in the general law of larceny was imperatively called for. He had no wish to interfere with trial by jury in cases of larceny to a greater extent than was absolutely called for by the general sense of the country. To many of the cases of larceny, trial by jury was almost inapplicable. One class of offences which was more particularly adverted to in this part of the Bill, was that of the offence of coal stealing. In some counties the offence of coalstealing was very common; but offenders were brought to trial at great cost, and on account of the insignificant nature of these charges, justice was frequently dispensed with altogether. In and near Dudley, where there were many coalworks, offences of this kind were either passed over and forgiven, or the persons charged were tried at the Worcester quarter-sessions, twenty-six miles distant. A coal-owner told him that he was plundered of many tons of coal per week, owing to the difficulty of prosecuting the offenders. He proposed by the Bill to fix the amount of the larceny at the very low amount of 1s., which the House would be aware was the old distinction between grand and petty larcenies. He believed that in a very large proportion of all cases of larceny, the value of the property did not exceed that sum; and he was confirmed in that view by the elaborate and able reports of the Criminal Law Commissioners and of the County Rate Commissioners. There was another part of the Bill which dealt with the question of costs which might be incurred under the operation of this Act, and upon this subject he was anxious to call the attention of the Government. He would strongly urge on the Government the fact that a great pecuniary saving might be effected to the Government by the operation of the Act. The expense of prosecution under the Juvenile Offenders Act, was limited to forty shillings; but he believed the average cost did not exceed twenty shillings; whereas every trial at quarter-sessions involved an expenditure of from 5l. to 8l. There could be no doubt, therefore, that a considerable saving would accrue to the Government by the operation of this Act. As the counties had been relieved from the cost of prosecution at the sessions under the Juvenile Offenders Act, so ought they to be relieved from the expenses attending the summary convictions under this Act, if the Bill were allowed to become law. The question of costs as affecting the counties would refer solely to the expenses of the trial, because with respect to the maintenance of the prisoners, whatever that amount might be, after conviction, it would be balanced by the saving in the maintenance of the prisoner before trial. He hoped, therefore, that the Bill would meet with the general support of the House.

said, that he had given notice of an Amendment with respect to this Bill, but it was not his intention to move it upon that stage. His objections to the Bill were twofold in their character; he objected to the jurisdiction proposed to be given to the magistrates, and to the alternative punishment which it was proposed to inflict in certain parts of the Bill. He was far from being of opinion that some alterations were not required in the law as it now stood; but he objected to the proposal of giving increased power to the magistrates. With regard to the Juvenile Offenders Act, he did not think that it had been attended with the good results which had been expected from it, because the punishment which it authorised did not apply to offences committed by persons in the higher ranks of society. Juvenile offenders in the superior ranks of life had no temptation to commit larceny; and if the upper classes were not to be visited with a punishment which affected their sense of dignity and of corporal pain, then, he contended, that it was not fair that two justices should be empowered to administer a whipping to persons who stole a bunch of turnips, when they happened to be under sixteen years of age.

begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that under the Juvenile Offenders Act, a discretionary power was reserved to the magistrates either to proceed summarily or to commit for trial.

considered that the objection which the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had urged was one which militated against the principle of the Bill, and that he ought therefore to go to a division at once. He himself did not see what reasonable ground there was for objecting, in the case of juvenile offenders, to a summary jurisdiction on the part of magistrates, or to the infliction of corporal punishment. Neither did he see any reason why this summary jurisdiction over juvenile offenders should not be extended, as it was proposed by this Bill to extend it, from fourteen to sixteen years. He found that in nearly all the prisons in the country, juvenile criminals were classed as offenders under the age of sixteen years. The only fault he had to find with the Juvenile Offenders Act was, that the juris- diction which it conferred was hardly summary enough. A very general impression prevailed that it was productive of very bad consequences to take a juvenile offender to prison in a van with other accused persons, and keep him there three or four days, thus giving him a status in the criminal population of the country; and therefore he was strongly in favour of administering a boy's punishment for a boy's offence at the nearest police station. As to the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, with reference to the non-infliction of a similar punishment on youths of high station, it was well known in what manner young gentlemen were corrected for juvenile delinquencies at Eton and Westminster. He gave the Bill his cordial support.

had found, from his communications with Ireland, that a measure of this kind was very much needed, in mercy to the poorer class of criminals who were now tried before a jury. They endured a punishment before they were put on their trial far greater than their offence deserved. He had received a letter from the assistant barrister for the county of Cork, in which it was stated that out of seventy-eight cases in the Crown book for the current sessions, many of the prisoners had been sent from distances ranging between thirty and forty miles. The letter went on to say that there was a man now waiting his trial on a charge of stealing a piece of timber valued at three-halfpence, and when he was discharged from gaol, he would be fifty miles from home. Another would be put on his trial for stealing twelve sods of turf, and he would be thirty-nine miles from home when released from prison. His opinion was, that the law at present in force was too severe on the lower classes. The magistrates had the power of adjudicating in a summary manner where offences were committed on the growing produce of the land to a very considerable amount, though they could not do so when it was severed from the freehold.

thought it was unnecessary for him to say that he approved entirely of this Bill, because, with the exception of fixing the maximum at 1s., he might say it was a transfer of the Bill which he had formerly the honour to introduce. He thought the hon. Gentleman had acted judiciously in taking as the maximum 1s., which formerly was the boundary between grand and petty larceny. When he (the Attorney General) intro- duced his Bill, he was pressed very strongly to fix the amount at 5s. An alteration in the law, as it now stood, was, he thought, imperatively called for. At present, if two boys went into a potato-field, and the one stole potatoes from the ground, he might be taken and summarily punished before the magistrates; but, if the other took them from a heap in the corner of the field, he could not be convicted except by a jury at the assizes or the sessions. In the same way, if two boys went into a garden, and the one took fruit from a tree, while the other picked it up from the foot of the tree, the former was taken before the magistrate, while the latter was tried by a jury. There were many good reasons why they should give to two magistrates the power of summary jurisdiction in the ease of smaller offences. Take the case of the coalowners. They were subjected to great loss by the theft of small articles of coal, and they submitted from time to time to the injury rather than prosecute; till, at last, they found themselves compelled to proceed against some person for the theft of an article not amounting, perhaps, to more than a penny in value. If, however, the magistrates had the power of summary jurisdiction in such cases, the evil would soon be put an end to. It was for reasons like these that he introduced last year a measure at the earnest request of many of the Irish Members. With respect to juvenile offenders, and indeed all offenders, it was not absolutely necessary that they should be brought before the magistrates and punished, as laid down in the Bill. There was a discretionary power left in the magistrate's hands; and it would also be in the power of persons brought before the magistrates, if there was any reason to believe that their cases were not fairly dealt with, to go before the higher court. It should be remembered that when poor persons were sent to the assizes or sessions, they often had not the means of taking witnesses to so great a distance; but if such cases were disposed of by the magistrates, then the accused would be able to bring forward witnesses, and thus have a better opportunity of getting his innocence or guilt clearly established. It seemed to him, therefore, though he was quite aware that the measure would be open to objection on the part of those who were afraid of any invasion of trial by jury, that this Bill ought to receive the sanction of the House.

considered that the House was under great obligations to his hon. Friend for introducing this measure. He was entirely in favour of that part of the Bill which extended summary punishment from boys of 14 to boys of 16 years of age; but he had some difficulty as to the other part of the Bill, and would like to see it sent before a Select Committee. If they once opened the door to admit cases to be dealt with summarily by the magistrates in the way then proposed, he was afraid they would find themselves involved in serious difficulties. He cordially supported the measure so far as it related to the summary punishment of young persons; but it was a matter of grave question whether they should take this step towards doing away with trial by jury in the case of adults.

thought that if the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had made out that this measure was absolutely necessary for Ireland, it would not be difficult also to show that it would be of great advantage in England. He had had some experience of the sematters, as chairman of the quarter-sessions in his district, and he must say that scarcely a session passed during which the grand jury did not, by memorial, complain that a number of trumpery cases were brought before them which any magistrate might easily have disposed of with perfect justice to the parties and to the community. The magistrates, however, had no discretion in such cases, for they were bound by law to send persons charged with those offences to take their trial either at the assizes or the sessions. He had seen cases where the articles stolen were so trifling in point of point of value, that a laugh was caused in the court. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, who, he thought, ought to take the opinion of the House on the principle of the measure now, if he meant to take it at all, objected to giving any further jurisdiction to the magistrates in summary cases; but, in point of fact, the magistrates had, in one respect, more powers at present than this Bill would give them. If, for example, a man were to break into a gentleman's garden and take the fruit from his trees, or break into his hothouse and take the grapes from his vines, he could not be tried by jury, but would be punished by the magistrates. He saw no objection to that part of the Bill which extended the summary jurisdiction to persons of 16 years of age, as he believed that many offenders escaped from the unwillingness of persons to bring their cases before the higher tribunals.

observed, that there were two distinct principles involved in the Bill, and it might be possible to agree with the first, and to entertain considerable doubts about the second. He had, himself, great doubts about the second branch of the measure, particularly after what had been said by the Attorney General, because it was quite clear, though the old distinction between grand and petty larceny had been admirably introduced by the hon. Member for Droitwich, that this Bill would be the commencement of a system for doing away with trial by jury. That, however, was a matter which might be discussed hereafter; and he thought, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had taken a prudent course in not dividing the House now. With regard to juvenile offenders, as the great object of the former Bill was to prevent their contamination in gaols, he thought that sixteen years of age was the proper line of demarcation between the boy and the young man.

regretted to have heard what had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, as, having sat for sixteen years as chairman of the court of quarter-sessions, he was fully convinced of the necessity of some such measure as the present Bill. With regard to the age of juvenile offenders, three years' experience had satisfied him that the discretionary power of magistrates might be advantageously exercised over boys under sixteen years of age. As to that portion of the Bill which related to cases in which the value of the article stolen did not exceed one shilling, he could assure the House that out of sixty or seventy cases at the quarter-sessions, there were nineteen or twenty of this kind, in which felonies had been committed by persons to save themselves for starvation.

felt it unnecessary to trouble the House at any length in moving the second reading of this Bill, as it passed through that House last year without opposition. Its object was to supply an omission in the Act of 1845, relative to pauper lunatic asylums. By the Act of 1828, on that subject, it was enacted that the rate should be charged be- tween owner and occupier, but this provision was omitted in the last Act; by the present Bill it was proposed to restore that mode of rating.

did not understand the principle upon which they were legislating on this Bill. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth when he proposed the repeal of the corn laws, also, for the partial relief of the agricultural interest, removed a portion of the charge for criminal prosecutions, which formerly fell on the county rate, to the Consolidated Fund. He (Sir H. Willoughby) thought the charge for lunatic asylums should be placed on the same footing. He could not conceive why this charge should fall only on real property, while all classes of the community were subject to the grievous calamity of lunacy. Not less than 12,708 persons were confined in the pauper lunatic asylums last year. He thought that it would be better to deal at once with the county rates than by a small measure like the present.

perfectly concurred with the hon. Baronet who had last spoken, that the same principle which recognised the division of the rate between the owners and occupiers for the maintenance of lunatic asylums, equally applied to a division of the rate raised for erecting prisons and all other county buildings; and if his hon. Friend would bring forward a proposition for making the Consolidated Fund bear the expenses of all these county matters, he (Mr. Sotheron) would vote with him; but at present he wished to deal with what he understood to be an evil much complained of. The fact was, that the Bill passed in 1845 for providing for the expense of erecting these buildings, omitted a clause which was inserted in the Act of 1848; and all that he now intended to do was to re-enact that clause.

agreed that the principle of the Bill was in the right direction, but he did not see why it should not be extended to the case of county rates

said, his objection to the measure was that this charge ought not to be thrown upon the landed property at all. Lunatic asylums were buildings in which the whole community had an interest. The charge ought, therefore, to be borne by the whole community, and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

supported the principle of the Bill, but he did not consider that principle to involve the paying of the ex- penses of lunatic asylums out of the Consolidated Fund.

said, that upon the same principle as that which had been urged by Mr. Spooner, the whole charges which now devolved upon owners and occupiers, such as poor-rates, county rates, and other rates, ought to be laid upon the Consolidated Fund. Too much had been already done in that way. He objected upon principle to any charge being thrown upon the Consolidated Fund that was not expended under the direction of Her Majesty's Government. Where the appropriation of the money was under the sole authority of the magistrates, it would be a perversion of principle to impose a charge upon the national taxes. He therefore protested against the doctrine of his hon. Friend. He had no objection to the present measure; it was a very small concern, and it seemed to him that it would be better to bring all these charges under one category.

said, if Mr. Hume was prepared to act upon the principle he had laid down, he would consent to place this charge upon the Consolidated Fund, because not a single shilling could be laid out upon the erection of a lunatic asylum without the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, the Secretary of State had nothing to do with the details.

observed, that to a certain degree, Parliament had imposed a duty on the Secretary of State in reference to the erection of pauper lunatic asylums. The ratepayers in counties and boroughs were under the obligation of building those asylums, and the Secretary of State was bound to see that the obligation was fulfilled; but he had no control over the expense.