protested against the measure being proceeded with, and regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not interfered to stop it. It was a measure of great importance to a large class of the community, for it proposed to alter the position of the owners and occupiers of property to the number of two millions. One million of this number were at present excused altogether from the payment of poor and highway rates; but this measure was intended to impose rates upon them to the extent of 500,000l. annually, for the benefit of owners of property. It might be said it was a measure to relieve the occupier, and place the burden upon the owner; but, to his mind, it appeared certain that if the owners were made liable to the rates, they would screw them out of the occupiers in the shape of increased rent. What would be its effect upon the owners of cottage property? The owners of this kind of property might be divided into two classes. The first were those landlords who, from benevolent motives, built houses for the accommodation of their neighbours, and let them upon a moderate rent. The Bill would impose rates upon them, whether they received a fair rent or not. The Duke of Bedford, for example, had recently built 500 or 600 cottages for his tenants and labourers. This Bill would impose poor and highway rates upon the noble Duke for all those houses. In this respect, therefore, it would operate to check the extension of small tenements for the occupation of the poor. Lord Ward, also, was the owner of 1,400 cottages, which had been built by his father for the accommodation of the labourers upon his estate. Under this Bill the noble Lord would be liable for the rates in respect of all those cottages, which, upon a moderate estimate, would be 1l. each. A tax, therefore, of 1,400l. a year would be imposed upon Lord Ward for having built cottages for the accommodation of the labouring classes. The other class of owners were those who built houses upon speculation, and who looked mainly for their profit to an increased population creating a demand for houses. The effect of the Bill upon this class would be, to discourage their proceedings. He opposed the measure, therefore, because it tended to make houses scarcer and dearer than they were at present to the poorer classes of the community. Another consideration was, by an ex post facto law, it would impose a tax upon tenements already built. In the houses occupied by the wealthy all the rates were paid by the occupier, and he contended that the Bill sanctioned a departure from the uniform practice of the country in this respect since the 43rd of Elizabeth. He should not divide the House upon the question, but he hoped that in Committee the clauses would be carefully considered, and that time would be given before the third reading for the country to consider the nature of the measure.

concurred very much with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stroud. He thought the practical effect of rating the owners of small tenements rather than the occupiers would be to diminish any inducement people might have to build cottages for the poor. The great object in country parishes was rather to hold out inducements to do so; but he was afraid that when a landlord who might be desirous to build comfortable cottages found that he was to be saddled with rates for so doing, he would, in many instances, give up his intentions. He was perfectly aware that the chief ground on which the measure was brought forward was to render it more convenient to collect the rates from small tenements. He admitted that inconvenience was at present felt; but still he thought that where people had laid out the savings of a long life of industry in the purchase of a small portion of land, and had, besides, invested money in the erection of a building on the faith of the law as it now stood, it would be unfair, by means of an ex post facto law, to impose upon them a rate in the way proposed by this Bill. He thought, however, that his hon. Friend had acted wisely in not dividing the House at this stage, considering the great majority that voted in favour of the Bill on the second reading.

had always objected to the system of exempting particular persons from the payment of rates, because he was aware that in many cases the persons who asked for mitigation or relief were the mere agents of the owners. This was quite notorious. Tenants pleaded they were unable to pay; the authorities relieved them from the rate, and the landlord, m the end, got the benefit. He should be glad to see magistrates relieved from the unwholesome power of remitting poor-rates to the lower class of tenants, because the relief was, in fact, in such cases given to the landlords, who remained in the background.

hoped, that as the House had already affirmed the principle of the Bill on the second reading, the hon. Member for Stroud would allow the Rill to go into Committee. The hon. Member assumed that cottage property was now by law exempt from rating. Now, it enjoyed no such exemption. The exemption which magistrates were entitled to give was a personal exemption, and he believed that great inconvenience and inequality arose from the exercise of this power of exemption. It was said it was bard a retired tradesman should not be able to invest his savings in the construction of some cottages without making himself liable to the poor-rate in respect thereof. But the Bill, in fact, only placed the law on the same footing with regard to property under 6l. value upon which it now stood with respect to houses of between 6l. and 20l. If the retired tradesman invested his property in building looses, say of 12l. value, he might be made liable by the vote of a majority of the vestry to the payment of the rates upon this property. The Bill was not in the hands of the Government, but he trusted the House would go into Committee.

thought it would be better if the adoption of the measure was made compulsory instead of being left optional with the vestry. He should have moved an Amendment to that effect, but that he feared he might thereby endanger the ultimate success of the Bill. Several local Acts had been passed by the House containing these compulsory enactments. These local Acts had worked very well, while the public Act to which the; right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had adverted, which gave an optional power to the vestry to obtain poor-rates from the landlords of houses of between 6l. and 20l. value, had remained a dead letter on the Statute-book. He was apprehensive of a somewhat similar result if the adoption of the present Bill were loft to the option of the vestry instead of being made compulsory. The hon. Member for Stroud opposed this Billon behalf of the poor; but if there were one reason more than another that weighed with him in supporting this Bill, it was because he believed it would be of the greatest possible benefit to the poor.

could corroborate the statement of the hon. Baronet, that in the greater number of local Acts which passed that House, the payment of the rates by the landlords of small cottage properties was made compulsory, and no discretion was left to the vestry. Those Bills varied as to the value of the tenements for which the owner was declared liable; but they appeared to have worked well, and if the House were justified in making the operation of these local Acts compulsory, why should they not adopt a similar course in legislating for the entire country? In his opinion, the less local legislation they had the better. He considered this a measure which would work for the benefit of the poor.

gave the Bill his cordial support, believing that it would be highly beneficial.

wished to deny the charge that in bringing forward this Bill, he desired to keep down the population. He believed that the Bill would encourage the formation of a better class of houses.

proposed to omit the words "by a majority of two-thirds," so as to leave the adoption of the clause to be decided by a bare majority of the persons present at the vestry.

said, that by a subsequent part of the clause it required a majority of two-thirds of the vestry to rescind the order for the operation of the Act.

was strongly in favour of making the Bill compulsory; and, as that appeared to be the general feeling of the House, he would move to insert, after "It shall be lawful for the vestry of any parish to make the order," the words, "and they are hereby required." This would make it compulsory upon the vestry to meet and make the order.

suggested, that if the Bill were made compulsory, its success might be endangered elsewhere. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere in his Amendment.

joined in the same request. No notice had been given of any Motion or Amendment to make the powers of the Bill compulsory, and it would be better to make such Motion, not in Com- mittee, but at a subsequent stage of the Bill. If they made the Bill compulsory, then it might deserve the consideration of the House whether it might not be desirable to make a corresponding change in the law regarding houses of between 6l. and 20l. value.

was in favour of making the clause compulsory, and thought that one of the most objectionable features in the present law was, that there should be any doubt upon the subject. He thought that all property ought to be rated to all rates, nor did he see why, if a speculator in cottages wished to lay out his money in building a considerable number of cottages, he should do so in the expectation that this property would be relieved from the payment of poor-rates. So long as magistrates were enabled to exempt persons from payment of poor-rates, so long would jobbing, favouritism, and partiality exist in obtaining this exemption.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge as a matter of principle, that a measure like the present ought to be compulsory in its operation. He was, however, anxious to obtain the greatest amount of good that he could procure, and he feared that if the Amendment were carried, the success of the Bill would be endangered. Still, he felt so strongly on the subject that if his hon. and learned Friend gave notice that on a subsequent stage of the Bill he would submit a clause making the Bill compulsory, he (Mr. Baines) would vote for it. The consent of a bare majority of the vestry only was required by Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and if that were sufficient to enable the vestry to make an order in respect of houses of from 6l. to 20l. value, he did not see why the consent of two-thirds should be necessary to make a similar order in the case of tenements below 6l. in value.

hoped his hon. and learned Friend would persevere in his Amendment, and protested against the doctrine that the House of Commons were not to do what hon. Members felt to be right, on some apprehension that if they did so the Bill might be thrown out elsewhere. That was not a mode of proceeding that would obtain for them the respect and confidence of the country. The optional clause in the present law bad given occasion for much strong party feeling and irritation in Southampton, and other towns; and he did not see why they should retain the same provision in the present Bill, seeing that it could not fail to create much animosity.

recommended that the compulsory clause should not be proposed until the Bill came out of Committee.

would be sorry to do anything to risk the loss of the Bill, but he would support the proposal to make it compulsory.

confessed that he should prefer making the Bill compulsory. If they left it optional they would throw a firebrand into almost every parish vestry. There would be a struggle, in the first place, to obtain a bare majority in favour of the order, and then there would be a never-ending struggle to repeal it.

intended to propose that vestries should have the option either of making an abatement with the landlord, if he paid the rates, or of collecting the whole of the rates from the occupiers. In some cases vestries might prefer to obtain the rates from the occupiers. He thought that in cases where they elected to obtain the rates from the landlord, they ought to be empowered to make an abatement from the assessment.

said, it was his intention to have proposed an Amendment similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, and if the hon. and learned Member should press his Amendment to a division, he would vote with him. When the whole question came to be more fully considered, and after the present Bill had worked for some time, the proposal to make its provisions compulsory would not, as he believed, excite that diversity of opinion with which it was at present regarded. He contended that no species of real property, whether cottage property or otherwise, should be suffered to be exempt from poor-rates. But the question was one of convenience as well as of principle; for in cases where it happened that the owners of small tenements did not reside in the same part of the country, it was found almost impossible to collect the rates from the occupiers, and this difficulty and inconvenience were provided for by obtaining payment of the poor-rates from the landlord. This was a question in which he (Mr. Walter) took great interest, and he tendered his thanks to the framers of the Bill for having brought in a measure on this subject. If they had not done so, he should himself have proposed, during the present Session of Parliament, some Bill of the same nature as that now before the House. With regard to the question, how far such a Bill as the present might deter landlords from building cottages, he believed that entirely erroneous views were entertained upon this point. The difficulties in the way of building cottages were of a different character, and might be referred to different sources. The law of settlement, for example, had a vast deal more to do with the building of cottages than the apprehension, on the part of proprietors, of being called upon to pay rates upon this property.

was sorry to hear-the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board express so strong an opinion in favour of making the provisions of the Bill compulsory. He hoped that the Bill would be passed in its present state, and then, four or five years hence, if it should work well, it might be made compulsory. The compulsory provision might pass this House, but elsewhere it would endanger the success of the Bill.

believed there would be great anxiety on the part of parish vestries to enforce the provisions of this Bill.

hoped the measure would not be made compulsory. He believed that the Bill would be a great boon to the poor, even if the landlord should make a corresponding addition to his rent. The occupiers of these tenements would much rather pay the same sum in the rent than in the form of rates, because, in the event of their temporary inability to pay their rent, they might expect to have a little time from the landlord; hut, when the rate collector came round, their goods were distrained upon if they could not pay the poor-rates.

wished the Committee to observe that not one hon. Member had addressed them who did not admit that the principle of this Bill ought to be compulsory. Where the danger to the Bill was to come from, when the House were so unanimous, he could not conceive. The discussion had, however, been valuable, because it would go forth to the public, and parties concerned would ascertain that the avowed opinion of the House of Commons was in favour of the compulsory principle; and they might expect that those parties would attend most diligently to the opinion so expressed by the House.

believed that they had lost several Bills with the compulsory clause, still he would vote for making the Bill compulsory if it came to a division; but rather than lose the Bill, which he believed would be of great public advantage, he would support it in its present shape. He had received assurances from several vestries that they would avail themselves of the permissive powers of the Bill if it were passed in its present form.

had had charge of a Bill on this subject for three years. A Committee upstairs had sat for three months, and they decided in favour of such a measure as the present. He was also favourable to the compulsory principle. But he thought it better to discuss the proposal to make the Bill compulsory at a future stage.

repeated his opinion that so important a change in the Bill should not be proposed without distinct notice.

was decidedly in favour of the compulsory clause.

said, that after the suggestion of the right hon. Home Secretary, he would not press the Amendment then, but reserved to himself the power of doing so at the proper opportunity. Almost every hon. Member who had spoken was in favour of the compulsory clause.

said, there was one question upon which the compulsory clause appeared to him entirely to depend, and he, for one, required to be set right on that point. It was this—whether or no, under any circumstances, the power of exempting certain cottages from rating was to be continued to magistrates, because, if that power of exemption under any circumstances was to be continued, he thought the whole object of the Bill would be defeated.

said, the question was an extremely important one, and be had no doubt whatever the effect of this Bill, coupled with the 54th of George III., c. 170, s. 11, under which these excusals took place, would leave the law in this state—that with regard to cases in which the vestry determined to rate these owners, the rate would be recovered from them under the provisions of this Bill; but when that resolution in vestry was not come to, then the occupiers would continue to be rated as at present, the magistrates having the same power to excuse as they now had.

wished to guard himself against the statement of the hon. and learned Recorder, that the Committee generally were in favour of the compulsory clause; and his reason was this, that by the law of England property was not liable to be rated. The rate was on the occupier, and he, for one, was unwilling to make a distinction between that property in which the poor alone were concerned and other property.

then proposed, that in line 14 the words "rent or" should be omitted, and the word "rateable" inserted in their place.

said, that Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act had laid down an invariable rule for ascertaining the assessable value of property, although it appeared that it was not so strictly adhered to as it might be. He apprehended they were to look to the definition of assessable value as given by that Act, and the words "rateable value," therefore, were the best to be inserted in this Bill.

said, the law as it now stood was much evaded, although considerable expense was incurred by the parishes to ascertain a correct valuation of property.

moved that the following proviso be added at the end of the first clause:—

"Provided always, that in every case where the owner of such tenement shall be so rated and assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor, in respect of such tenement, instead of the occupier thereof, it shall be lawful for such occupier to demand at any time to have his name substituted on the rate as the party assessed, instead of such owner; and after such demand and payment, or tender, of the last made rate, if then in arrear in respect of such tenement, such occupier shall be entitled to exercise all rights, privileges, and franchises whatsoever, as fully as if his name had originally appeared upon the rate as the party assessed."

thought it better the Amendment of which he had given notice should be moved before the proviso of the hon. Gentleman. It was to this effect:—

"Provided always, that no owner of any such tenement shall be assessed on any higher valuation than the sum at which the said tenement shall be let to any occupier thereof."

considered the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berks objectionable. Its effect would be to repeal the principle to which they had just agreed as to the rateable value. The question ought to be, what was the assessable value? and not what was the particular contract between landlords and tenants.

then proposed to leave out all the words in the proviso of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire after the word "thereof," and that in place of them should be inserted others, that such occupiers should be entitled to be placed on the burgess roll under the Municipal Corporations Act, although they had not paid the poor-rates for such premises, provided they were otherwise duly qualified,

thought the House ought not to decide that question without further consideration. He had every wish to preserve the franchise to all who now possessed it; but he could not help seeing that one consequence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would be, that the occupiers of tenements under 6l. would be placed on a different footing from occupiers above that amount and under 20l.

recommended the postponement of the question, to allow time for its consideration.

intimated his willingness to postpone his Amendment if the hon. Member for Herefordshire would do the same with respect to his.

then proposed an addition to the clause, the object of which was to enable occupiers of tenements at a rack-rent not exceeding 6l. to deduct from the landlord's rent all the poor-rates and highway rates which they might pay.

protested against amendments of this description being brought forward without notice. It was unfair to call upon the Committee to give an opinion at once, aye or no, upon the important point raised by this Amendment.

thought that the Amendment now proposed would aggravate what he conceived to be the evil tendency of the Bill; he alluded to the check it would exercise upon the benevolent intentions of landlords who built cottages and let them to labourers at a merely nominal rate. It was within his own know- ledge that one landowner had built 1,400 cottages, and let them at 1s. each per annum.

suggested that the Committee should entertain no amendments which had not been printed with the votes.

denounced the Bill as a mischievous attempt at legislation. It was preposterous to delegate to vestries the power of deciding important questions between landlord and tenant.

thought it was rather hard on those Members who were endeavouring to make the Bill perfect in its details to be met with sweeping denunciations of its principle, or amendments moved without notice. He hoped that hon. Members who had amendments to propose would be kind enough to cause them to be printed.

said, he would not press his proviso then, as he believed the Bill to be a most beneficial measure. He was glad to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham that so many as 1,400 cottages existed on the property of one person, which were let at a mere nominal rent; he wished more instances of the kind could be quoted.

remarked that it had been stated that the object of the Bill was to make property pay the rates, but it appeared that it was intended by it to make the owners pay the rates. He believed this Bill, if it should pass, would operate as an Act for the abolition of cottages. This was not only his own opinion, but also that of many persons in the part of the country with which he was connected. Cottages on an estate were generally very unprofitable; and he knew instances where lords of manors were owners of 300 or 400 of them, which would not be kept up if they found themselves liable for the rates. Under such circumstances he thought he was justified, at that stage, in expressing his opinion against the Bill, as this first clause involved the principle of it. If any hon. Gentleman would divide upon it he should certainly vote with him.

did not believe that the owners of cottages for the poor would be influenced by considerations of such a nature as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint. At present in many parts of the country the cot- tages were of a most miserable character. He knew an instance of a beershop-keeper who bought a block of thirteen cottages for 270l., and they had only one privy for the whole of them, and for these places he obtained 22l. a year. The more wretched the cottage, the more profitable it was to the owner, because he got exempted from the rates under the plea of poverty. This Bill would affect that class of persons.

was sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint had not made his speech on the second reading of the Bill, instead of now getting up a discussion on the principle of it when they were considering the details.

felt that his hon. Friend the Member for Flint was perfectly justified in the course he had taken in discussing the principle of the measure on the question being put that this clause stand part of the Bill. He doubted whether the owners of property would be induced to build cottages in consequence of the remission of the duty on bricks. He was desirous that they should exempt all small cottages from rates, for in such cases the occupiers would derive the benefit, and not the owner. He would appeal to the hon. Member for the West Riding as to whether he anticipated any beneficial results from the abolition of the brick duty? The object of the proposed Bill was to abolish all cottages, or to make them so dear that the peasantry could not occupy them.

having been thus appealed to, would not hesitate to say that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in repealing the brick duty was to benefit the poorer classes, and he (Mr. Denison) believed that the measure would have that effect. With respect to the Bill now under the consideration of the Committee, the chief reason which influenced its framers in making the payment of rates compulsory was, that there might be no opportunity for jobbing or evasion, but that all property should contribute its fair proportion to the rates. It was well known that at present a large portion of cottage property was unfairly exempted from the payment of rates. It was not his opinion that the Bill would have the effect of diminishing the number of cottages. It was said that in some parts of the country cottages were let at a nominal rent; but he believed that the owners obtained the annual value of the cottages either in meal or in malt. They obtained from their tenants services which were equivalent to the rents paid in other parts of the country for better cottages.

wished to know from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire what would be the effect of the words, "such owner shall be rated and assessed?" In a case of the owner of a cottage, where he lets at a nominal rent of one shilling a year, was it intended that he should pay all the rates on the house and garden? How was he to reimburse himself without raising the rent?

, in reply, said, that the onus of paying the rates would be thrown on the owners of cottages.

said, if this was not the case, they would exempt the property from paying all these rates.

said, the object of the Motion he was about to make was to discuss this Bill on its merits by dividing it into two Bills. It was highly probable, from the experience of the past, that the House might be disposed to sanction the application of the Juvenile Offenders Act (which was limited to persons of fourteen years of age) to persons of the age of sixteen; but the question was totally different when they were to consider the law as applicable to adults. By applying the rule to them, they would be taking the first step to deprive the subject of trial by jury. It involved that question to a large extent, and that magistrate who asked to possess this power was seeking to have a fatal power placed in his hands. By granting to the magistrate that power, they would deprive him of the respect and love of all those around him; they would make him the enemy of the poorer classes of society, and his decisions, instead of being respected, would be suspected. It was merely the duty of a magistrate, acting in his proper capacity, to put a case in course of further inquiry without performing an act which properly was within the province of a jury; and if he went beyond that, he would expose himself to suspicion on every occasion. And as the poor alone would be the persons with whom he would have to deal, every decision adverse to the poor would then be referred to anything but the real merits of the case he was called upon to decide. They would load with odium magistrates who were now respected by the poor, and would strike a great blow against the best franchise that every Englishman enjoyed, namely, not only the right but the opportunity of being tried by a jury of his countrymen. He was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwitch, who had obtained the character of a very able magistrate at quarter-sessions, should not feel the objection that must be made to a magistrate assuming such a power, and dealing in such a manner with cases of petty larceny, when he reflected that his best services to the public in his judicial capacity were mainly owing to the publicity of the proceedings, and the knowledge that every step he took was taken under the observation of persons learned in the law, and that he was required to state in vindication of his own opinion the facts of the case to the jury in such a manner as ought to recommend the case to their attention; and that every judicial person did not himself make up his mind as to the full bearing of a case until he had recapitulated the evidence and publicly stated the case, and his reasons for recommending any particular course to a jury. He (Mr. Law) declared he would not hold such an office on any terms that were offered to him if the jury were withdrawn, and he was called upon to perform the duty of jury as well as of judge, on the responsibility of possibly forming an erroneous judgment of the facts. All the pleasure that could attend well-directed efforts to discharge a public duty would be removed from him, and he would feel nothing but anxiety, misery, doubt, and vexation with regard to every question he should so decide. To decide on the facts was the proper province of a jury—on that province no judge should presume to intrude. But then it was said that the Act would only apply to trifling cases, where the amount of the larceny imputed was only one shilling. He was surprised that any Gentleman of the experience of his hon. Friend should attach any importance to the smallness of the amount. Did not his hon. Friend recollect that one of the most important alterations established by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in the law was, to abolish the distinction between grand and petty larceny, and declare that a person charged with the commission of larceny to the extent only of a shilling was to be treated in the same manner as if the amount were larger? Did he forget how lately Parliament had protected the accused, by declaring that every person on trial should be entitled to make a defence by counsel, that he should have the inspection of depositions, and be at liberty to use them on his trial? Were they then, he asked, to have such trials as those referred to in this Bill, before a single magistrate, unchecked on matters of law by the presence of a professional gentleman? He knew it was not intended at present to close the door of the court on the public, but it could never be the interest of the public to attend proceedings conducted in a corner by two magistrates in their own rooms. Unless he should receive from his hon. Friend his concurrence in the proposal to divide the Bill into two, in order to raise the separate question whether it should extend to adults, or be limited to juvenile offenders, he should certainly feel it his duty not to relax an iota in his opposition. He should, therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be divided into two Bills.

could not help thinking that he had some little reason to complain of the course which had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University on the present occasion. Some considerable time since this Bill came on for a second reading, with due notice and with ample preparation, in the usual manner. Upon that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had a notice on the paper that he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. and learned Gentleman attended in his place, but did not move his Amendment at that time, when the principle of the measure was fairly at issue. Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) found upon the notices for to-day, that upon the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to make the Motion of which he gave notice on the second reading, and which ought to have been made then, if at all. He found also, that without any notice at all, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had brought forward a Motion which, in effect, was tantamount to that of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, and the avowed object of which was to get rid of that portion of the Bill to which he (Sir J. Pakington) attached the greatest weight and importance, namely, that which enacted that the Juvenile Offenders' Act of 1847 should be made applicable to all cases of petty larceny up to the value of 1s. The hon. and learned Recorder spoke of this as a blow at the system of trial by jury. He bogged to assure his hon. and learned Friend that there was no one in the House more anxious than he was to support trial by jury in all cases to which it was fairly applicable; but he had no hesitation in saying, as a friend to trial by jury, that experience had convinced him of the necessity of removing from that cumbrous and expensive process a number of petty cases to which it was not at all applicable. He thought the hon. and learned Recorder had rather founded his objections on his experience in the city of London, than considered what would be the operation of the Bill in the country at large. Take the cases of two young men, one charged with stealing potatoes from the ground, the other with stealing from the barn—would his hon. and learned Friend have any objection to deal with each in the same manner? It was on his own experience as chairman of the quarter-sessions that he founded the necessity of this Bill; the want of such a measure often defeated justice, many petty cases being at present abandoned in consequence of the parties being unwilling to incur the expense and delay of sending them to a jury. He assured the House that there was a very strong, he might say an almost unanimous, opinion in favour of the change among the magistracy and others out of doors. He begged hon. Members to observe that the Bill was not compulsory; that the magistrates would in every case have the option of cither sending it to a jury, or dealing with it summarily, according to the merits of the case. He hoped, therefore, the House would not consent to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend.

denied that ample time had been allowed the House or the public to become familiar with the merits of the Bill between its first and second reading. With respect to the Motion of which he gave notice for that occasion, he was inexperienced enough to postpone it till the present stage of the measure out of courtesy to the hon. Baronet; a mistake which he should be careful to avoid in future. As to this being an improper time to bring forward his Motion, he begged to say that the forms of the House enabled him to exercise a discretion upon that point, and he availed himself of that discretion. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the opinion out of doors as almost unanimous in favour of the Bill. He (Mr. M'Cullagh) pledged himself, on moving his Amendment, to show an amount of opinion against the principle of the Bill which might fairly stagger any man whose mind was unprejudiced on the subject, and which he hoped would entitle him to ask the House to reject the Bill as at once mischievous, unnecessary, and at variance with the old established principles of the constitution.

did not see how the Amendment raised the question which the hon. and learned Recorder wished, by expressing disapprobation of the second part of the Bill. He should have thought the best course to take in order to carry out the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be to go into Committee, and then to move the omission of that part of the Bill which related to adults.

could not withdraw the Amendment he had moved, as he was satisfied that it would be very inconvenient to move it in Committee. He wished to take the sense of the House on the proposition that the principle of the two measures embodied in one was not safe.

observed that the first part of the Bill did not raise any new principle, but the latter part raised a question for the first time, the House not having yet decided whether adults should be tried by summary jurisdiction. He was therefore fully of opinion that it would be better to divide the Bill into two. With respect to the general object of the measure, he would take the liberty of putting-magistrates on their guard against it. This was a Bill asking the House to confer on them larger powers than they had ever yet possessed. It involved very serious questions—so serious that the measure ought to have been brought forward by the Government if they were of opinion that its principle could be safely adopted.

also entertained strong objections to the Bill. In particular, he objected to the magistrates having the power of deciding whether a child was six- teen years of age or not, and whether the value of the article stolen amounted to a shilling or not. He considered the whole subject of so much importance that it ought either to be preceded by an investigation before a Select Committee, or brought in by Her Majesty's Government.

was inclined to agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Recorder. He begged to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the Bill extended to the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Without saying anything offensive or disrespectful to his fellow-countrymen in Ireland, he might be permitted to remind the House that party prejudice ran very high in that country, and to ask hon. Members if they thought it would add to the peace of the sister kingdom, or to the happiness of hon. Gentlemen who resided there, if the trial of supposed criminals on charges of stealing to the amount of 1s. were left, as this Bill proposed, entirely to the summary jurisdiction of the local magistrates?

was friendly to the first part of the Bill, but very hostile to the second. They had nothing whatever to do with each other.

was in the position of not being friendly to either of the two portions of this Bill, and would have much preferred voting for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, that the Bill be committed that day six months; but coming to a division on the preliminary question, whether the Bill should be divided, he must vote with the Recorder of London. There, were, certainly, two distinct portions of this Bill: the first, whether the age at which the adults were distinguished from juvenile offenders should be altered. He objected to any alteration of that age. From the time of Edward III. till now, the law, as laid down by Sir Matthew Hale, made the age of fourteen the limit between the period during which a man was responsible for his actions, and that during which he was irresponsible. He was not prepared to alter a rule of law which was reasonable and had worked well. The second portion of the Bill he regarded as open to the gravest objection, and thought it should at once be rejected.

contended that the Bill did not take away a single privilege now possessed by the jury; it left the person accused the right of having a jury if he chose.

was anxious to take the sense of the House on the principle of the Bill, because he thought it a matter of great importance whether they were to divest themselves of the privilege hitherto enjoyed by Englishmen, and to which so much importance had always been attached—namely, trial by jury.

said, he agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite that trial by jury was the palladium of English liberty; but, at the same time, it should be recollected, that that right was not taken away by the present Bill, inasmuch as it left the accused party the privilege of objecting to the summary jurisdiction of the magistrate, should be think proper, and of requiring that his case be sent before a jury. The Bill also gave a discretion to the magistrate to send the case to a jury should be so think fit.

said, that the real character of the Bill had been just explained, for the first time, by the hon. Member for East Somersetshire. He (Mr. Aglionby) thought the Bill gave sufficient safeguard to the prisoner, and be was ready to support the principle of it, both in regard to the first and second parts.

said, the two last speakers rested their support of the Bill on the fact that the prisoner was given a right to demand being tried before a jury; but he would ask, what chance of a fair trial would such a man have, if the jury were told that he had refused a summary trial? He saw great objections to the working of the Bill in detail; and he must also own, that he did not much like the principle of the Bill either.

had only to say, that he had the least possible confidence in what he had heard termed the concurrence of the prisoner. He thought the power to be conferred by this Bill was one which no prudent man in the position of a magistrate would wish to embarrass himself with.

trusted that he would not be asked to serve on the Committee, as it would be impossible for him to attend.

complained that the two counties with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester was more immediately connected—namely, Suffolk and Lancashire—had no less than five Members on the Committee, leaving only ten Members for the rest of England. It was his intention to move that the Earl of March and Mr. Deedes be substituted for Mr. Kershaw and Lord Rendlesham.

said, that he was only influenced by a desire to make it a fair and impartial Committee.

denied that the Gentlemen on the list were the most competent that could be selected for the duties to be imposed upon them. They were to be charged with the care of a Bill containing ninety clauses, besides several schedules, and which was to deal with the whole of the internal affairs of the kingdom, and to repeal a great number of Acts of Parliament, and yet there was not a single professional lawyer in the list proposed.