The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1847.

now there WON notmorethan 11,000. Id Liverpool there were
42,000 houses rated to the full amount, and only 14,000 per-
sons on the registry ; in Birmingham 36,000 houses, and only
4,600 on the regutry,—the same disparity befits observable
in Manchester, and many othir towns. Thus had this
objectionable provision in the Reform Bill bad the effect of
diminishing instead of enlarging the electoral body. It was
a provision, moreover, which led to all kinds of bribery and
favouritism, through the collectors and overseers of parihes,
and was declared in an article in the rimer newspaper in 1834,
which fully bore out his view of the question, to be an entirely
new principle. Ile, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a bill
to repeal so much of an act pared in the reign of William
IV., intituled " An Act to Amend the Representation of the
people in England and Wales," as makes the right to regis-
tration in cities and boroughs conditional on the payment of
poor 's-rates and assessed taxes.
[ln the course of the hon. member's athletes the Usher of
the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and summoned the
House to attend the )louse of Loris, and hear the royal
assent given by commission to several bills, for which, see
lords' report.)
Lord J. RUSSELL mid, that if his bon. friend had
merely wished to lay the bill on the table of the house, he
should not hese objected to its introduction, but as he had
thought it advisable to take the discussion now, unless be
(Lord J. Russell) would promise to support it on the second
reading, be felt bound to oppose its introduction. His hon,
friend had read a paragraph from a newspapoq stating that this
was entirely a new priuciple introduced by the Reform hilt, and
that the payment of rates was never before de: rued anecessary
preliminary to registration. That was altogether a mistake.
The ancient vght of voting in counties mote out of the pos-
session of property to the amount of 40s. a year, which seas
coneidered as a sufficient guarantee te the state that the per-
son so possessed was worthy of being entrusted with a side.
There was likewise in boroughs what was called the commas
law right of voting, when there was no particular charter
restricting it—and that was rho right of all householders
paying scot and lot—the meaning of which was, that they
should be persons paying the poor-rates, as interpreted by
our courts of justice. Such woo the ancient law and the
ancient constitution respecting counties and boroughs ; and
the principle was not therefore a new one introduced into
the Refinin Bill, but transferred in an altered form to the
provisions of that measure. Hie hon. friend complained
that the Reform Bill had not extended the right
of voting as much as he (Lord J. Russell) had
promised. The calculations he had made when stating
the general provisions of the bill were, of course, formed
upon rude andvague estimates, and could not be expected
to be accurately borne out. But he thought his hon.
friend had proved that there had been a very great extrusion
of the franchise under the Reform Bill. Ile bad admitted
that Lambeth, Marylebone, Finsbury, and the Tower Ham-
lets contained 46,000 electors, which, as these places returned
no members previous to the Reform Bill, must be regarded as
a very considerable extension of the franchise of the country.
But in thus extending the franchise to 101. householders in
many towns, as Manchcater, Leeds, and Birmingham, and to
Bath, and others in which the electoral rights had hitherto
been confined to five or ten persons, it was intended that
101. householders should be subject to a test similar to the
scot and lot franchise by the payment of poor-rates and as-
sessed taxes. He thought this a wise and constitutional
provision, and in conformity with the ancient law, and it
was wise to ascertain that persons to whom the franchise
was given, should be those who were possessed of
certain property. According to his belief, it was
better to entrust the franchise to persons of pro-
perty, than to adopt a universal suffrage. If it
was laid down as a principle that the franchise should
be obtained by the posserion of property, there should be
a test by which they could be known to have that property ;
that they were not merely inhabitants of houses, but that
they paid the usual and regularaseessed taxes and poor-sates,
and, in the case of counties, were subject to the expenses of
gaols and the like expenditure, by means of the county rates.
If *.y did not take on themselves the obligations to pay
rare and taxes, but by the occupation of houses at 101. a
yrs were qualified to vote, it would be difficult to resist the
argument, that the mere occupation of houses should nut be
the only qualification, but that the right should be ex-
tended farther, and no distinction be made in the case of
ledgers. But the payment of rates end taxes not only
showed that the persons claiming the franchise were solvent,
but also that they contributed something to the
state, and wero interested in the maintenance of
the laws and constitution of the country. His
hon. friend said that there were many occupiers of
houses excluded from voting, who possessed the right, and
that when persons paid rates and taxes for others, they were
not able to secure their votes at an election. In that respect
there had been an improvement on the system of soot and
lot. When, under that system, it was required that no one
should vote unless the rates were paid, it happened that
three or four days before an election two or three hundred
persons would say to a candidate, " We are ready to vote for
you, if you will pay our rates." This gave rise to much
bribery, and votes were given to the first candidate who
would pay the rates. It was intended to alter this, and
have the registration fixed at a particular period of the
year, and not at a time near an election. This was cal-
culated to prevent bribery, fur a candidate would not
bribe by paying rates in July, since he was not
sure that in December or January the persons for
whom he had paid them would show their gratitude
by voting fur him. His hon. friend said as much as
this, for he stated that some candidates complained
that they had paid rates in July for voters who would
not vote for them in December. This was what wee
intended, and he (Lord J. Russell) hoped it would be •
lesson to them not to bribe again—(hear, hear)—and he
hoped his hon. friend would advise them that, seeing it was
of no use to attempt to gain cots by paying the rates of
electors, they would leave them to pay for themselves, end
trust to their political principles for their support, whether
they were Whig, Conservative, or Radical. It was
said that it was a defect in the Reform Bill that the
period of registration came too suddenly after the
time that the rates due should be paid up, and votes
in boroughs were often lett out of the registration from
no fault of their own, but from not having notice of the
non-payment of their rates. Since then, there had been an
alteration in the law, and by 6 and 7 Viet., c. 18, s. 11, over-
trees were required to give due notice that the payment of
rates was necessary to secure registration. So, that if a
person was anxious to secure his vote, and was willing and
able to pay the usual rates, he would find, that on the 20th
of June a notice would be posted up in his borough that the
rates due on the 6th of April must be paid before the 20th
of July, or his name would not be registered. This was a
fair and sufficient notice, and any man who was anxious
to vote, who meant to pay his rates, was possessed of a home
of the value of 101. a-year, and had a month's notice, was
inexcusable, if he was solvent and able to pay, if he did not
do so. If, on the other band, ho was unable to pay the
rates on a house of the yearly value of 101., he bad uo right
to claim a vote for it. Any one who looked to others to pay
his rates was very likely to be corrupted ; and every person
not paying his rates should be contented to forego his vote.
He did not think this bill was defensible on principle. It
was a far greater invasion on the constitution than the
Reform Bill, for it was a great innovation that any one who
had not paid his rates should be entitled to vote. His hon. ,
friend haring been desirous that the discussion should take
place, he (Lord J. Russell) had stated the reasons why he
was opposed to this bill, and he should object to its intro-
duction. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GISBORNE would support the introductionof the
bill. The occupier of a house of the yearly value of 101. was
required to pay his rates before he could sote, and there was
a power of distesining for them, and what more was to be
&aired ? If in committee on the bill any bon. member
should propose that when 'distress for rates had been levied,
and • return of nulla bona was made, the vote should be
disallowed, he would agree to such an amendment, but he
could not see on what principle more was asked.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that the avowed object of
the rate paying clauses of the Reform Bill was to show the
solvency of voters, but it appeared from returns on the table
of the house, that they did more, for they deprived many
bond fide electors of their votes. The return from St.
George's, Westminster showed that 399 persons in St.
James' and Belgrave squares, and Great George-street, bad
been deprived of the franchise. Could such persons be said
not to be solvent? The noble lord said that the ancient
principle of the law was, that the rates should be paid by
voters ; but it did not include taxes ; so that the qualifi-
cation was now doubled, and electors were subject to the
improper conduct not only of parethial officers, but the
collectors of government taxes. No less than 100,000 persons
in the metropolis, not only holders of 101. but 50/. houses,
had been deprived of their votes by the operation of this
dose.
After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD,
Mr. HUME said that the law had provided means for
collecting rates and taxes, independent of the franchise.
He had, during the progress of the Reform Bill, seconded •
motion to expunge this clause, and he had presented a peti-
tion from Westminster which showed that one of the greatest
abases of the franchise was, the payment of scot and lot.
Gnat disemitent existed on the subject of the franchise, for
ant sore than 12 males in 100 powered the right of voting.
The noble lord had pledged himself that there should never
be lees than 100 voters in a borough, but there were returns
which showed that there were more than 30, in which the
amber was under that. If the noble lord refused to agree
to the remota of this impediment to the free exercise of the
franchise, he ought to redeem that pledge. The day was
not far distant when the people would not be satisfied with
tie present state of things, and be recommended that some
mesas of conciliation should be resorted to, which this bill
wad go far to effect.
Sir B. HALL wished to call attention to the favouritism
exhibited by the collectors of taxes. In the borough of
Marylebone 1,033 voters were disqualified on account of the
non-payment of assessed taxes, and only 384 by the non-
payment of parish rates, and this not by the unwillingness or
incapacity of the parties themselves but the wilful carelem-
nets of the collectors. He would mention an instance in
which an election had been nearly turned by the carelessness
of the collectors. In 1834 he, being abroad, was a candidate
for Monmouth, and the collector of taxes did not call for
the payment of the rates of some persons who voted for him.
On the being represented to him he required him to do his
duty, and he called on four persons whose names were put
on the register, and he (Mr. B. Hall) was returned by a
majority of four. If, therefore, the collector had not
been compelled to do his duty another member would'
have been returned. In the borough of Marylebone
there were 32,000 houses of the yearly value of 101., and only
14,000 voters. If this bill was rejected, he hoped the go-
vernment would take the matter into consideration, so that
ample time might be given in which persons might pay their
rates, and that they should not be placed so much in the
power of the collectors.
Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT said that the collectors ought to
make a demand for the payment of rates at every house, and
if they did not do so the vote should not be Iced. There were
200,000 voters ler than were intended by the Reform Bill ;
and while the population had increased the electoral body
had fallen far abort of It, He had Furled, during the pro-

grass of the Reform Bill, that the franchies should be under
the scot and lot system. This made the peyizent of rates
necessary to the franchise. But it was inconsistent with the
system, under the old constitution, that the payment of as-
sessed taxes should also be a requirement for the franceise.
He trusted that if the noble lard rejected this bill, he
would think a case was made out for another, which muds it
imperative that the collectors should call at every 1 ouse
where taxes were due. Many .persons corapouudee
for their taxes, the Yates being paid by other perms/.
These were cues which rs quired Interference, and he trusted
this bill would be allowed to be introduced, or some
other measure to relieve the constituent body of this country
from the glaring evils which exist.
Captain PECHELL observed that he gathered from the
close of the speech of the noble lord the member ex the
City of London, that " final:ty " was to be the order of the
day, and that in order to obtain a redress of Ririe, awe-, they
must as heretofore take up the muter into their own hinds.
With the speech of the noble lord, he (Capt. Pechell) coa-
ti:seed he was, gricsously disappointed. He was sure that
large classes of the community were not only discontented
with the state of the representation, but also were disap-
pointed with the fruits the Ref.= Act had produced, and
yet now, when an opportunity was afforded for effec ing a
sort of compromise with the large bodies who have sent pe-
titions from all parts of the kingdom, praying or a far more
extended species of suffrage, the opportunity woe neg'ected,
and, on the contrary the noble lord refused to allow a mea-
sure of a less extende'd character, but which the peep! • were
willing to accept, to come even to a first reading. having
been entrusted with petitions from hie constituents in favour
of the proposition of the hon. member for Finsbury, he
should give his support to this measure as a means of en-
suring a fairer representation of the people in that house.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped that if the bill of his hon. co:league
was to be opposed by the government, a divi-ion would be
taken at this stage, as it would be aperft et waste of the
public time to introduce the bill, and after a repetition of
the arguments adduced to-night that it should be rejected.
The noble lord at the head of the government had shown
great talent but not much discretion in his opposition to this
bill. He had wholly tailed to show that the measure was
either of an unjust or uuconstitution al character. Toe case
in favour of the measure was, that under the Reform Act no
such qualification was imposed upon the county voter as was
affixed to the electors in titles and boroughs, end it was
fur the opponents of the proposition of his hon. col-
league to show why one principle should prevail In a
county and another principle in a borough or city
The only reason for the difference was, that the county
voter was of tho richer class, while the borough eke-
tors were for the most part poor men ; but the fact that
they bad been rendered so by a lone couree of bad legis-
lation, afforded no reason for refusing them a voice in
the election of their representatives. lie was surprised at
the silence which, on the present occasion, prevailed on the
Treasury bench, many of the present occupanteof which had,
on a former occasion, supt.ertei the proposition now repeated
by his hon. colleague. It appeared to hint that hating pre-
tended to give the people a 10/. franchise by the Reform Act,
it was a mean, paltry trick, and most dishonest on the part
of the coneoctors:of that scheme, to rob them by tl.c opera-
tion of the rate paying clauses of the right which it was pre-
teuded to bestow upon them, (Hear, hear.) Under these
clauses, not merely the poor, but the higher classes were
not unfrcquently disfranchised, and he might instance the
cues of the governor of Antigua and of the right hon. baronet
the member for Tamworth. Ho trusted that the division
would not be postponed, but that the question would be got
rid of at once one way or the other. (Hear, hear.)
Sir 0. GREY said he was surprised that the boa. mem-
ber should complain of the silence of the Treasury bench,
after the full and candid statement made by his noble friend
(Lord J. Ruuell) of the grounds upon which the govern-
ment intended to oppose the second reeling of the bill.
But the bill to which the arguments used in a form, r debate
applied was the measure brought in by the hon. and gallant
member for Westminster, to carry out the intentions of the
Reform Act, by adhering more closely to the ancieut privi-
lege of the constitution with regard to scot and lot
voters, and to extend the time for the payment of
rates and taxes, in order to avoid accidental disfranchise-
ment. This was not the question now before the house ;
the question to-night was • much wider one, namely, whe-
ther or not the rate-paying clauses ought to be got rid cf.
He denied that the effect of this measure would be to in-
crease the constituent bodies in the metropolitan districts,
and it was quite clear to him, that it would fail to Faddy the
expectatiou of those who sought a more extended franchise.
When the addition of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and
the large towns in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire
and Yorkshire, had been made to those already sending
members to parliament, it was unfair to say that the
Reform Act had failed to increase the number and
amount of the constituency of the kingdom. It had
been asked why a difference had been made between the
county and borough voter. The answer was, that such dis-
tinctions had existed before the Reform Act. On all the
grounds stated by his noble friend (Lord J. Russell), he
I Sir G. Grey) considered the government pursued a right
principle in objecting to the introduction of this bid.
Sir C. NAPIER remarked, that as the hon. member for
Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had succeeded in unfeeling the
mouth of the right hon. baronet (Sir George Grey), he
ehould he glad if he could unseal the mouths of some of the
metropolitan members, who, on the last connote had sup-
ported a similar measure to that now proposed to be intro-
duced. He should be glad to hear what explanation his
hon. and gallant friend (Admiral Dundee) would give to his
constituents at Greenwich when he appeared before them
next year, if he now voted against this bill, lie desired the
same from the hon. member for Lambeth, now one of the
under secretaries for the colonies (Mr. Hawes), and from the
hon. and gallant member for the Tower Hamlets (Omer, 1
Fox), who now held office in the ordnance department.
(Hear, and a laugh.) With reference to the question now
before the house, he (Sir Charles Napier) had elesys under
stood the intention of tae rate-paying clauses to be to induce
the people to pay up their rates and taxes with greater
facility than they hod formerly done. lie did not think
they had succeeded in accomplishing that object, but as
there existed laws by which payment could be enforced, he
was of opinion that the franchise should not be taken from
them also. He should therefore support the motion of the
hon. member for Finsbury, and vote for the introduction of
the bill.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that be could not understand
the anomaly of requiring a money qualification for a 101.
householder and none from a freeman or burgess. As
a freeman he was one of the constituents of the noble
lord the member for the City of London, but lance
the noble lord had shown so backward a movement
in the march of reform, if it were not for the good
the noble lord had effected in former days, he doubted
whether he should continue to support him. (Laughter.)
lathe borough in which he resided, 2,814 voters bad been
disfranchised, from the fact of having forgotten or overlooked
the payment of rates. Much discontent prevailed on the
subject throughout the country, and the time was not fur
distant when the noble lord at the head of the government
would be compelled to abandon hie adoption of "finality "
principles.
Lard G. BENTINCK said the hon, gentlemen who had
just eat down had charged his noble friend app site (Lord J.
Rumen) with a backward movement. If hi, noble friend
had done so, he (Lord G. Bentinck) should, not on this occa-
sion give him his support; but because his no ale friend had
taken a firm stand on that great measure of Worm, of which
be bad himself been the father, he should to-night
vote with him • and he thought that all thou gentlemen
who were members of the House of Commons in 1830 and
1832, and who remembered that the country had been appealed
to on " the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,"
which contained clauses identical with those sought now to
barepeided, were bound in honour and consietency to sup-
pee lk sable friend against the proposition of the hon.
weseaberkw Finsbury. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. ESCOTT expressed his determination of suorting
the introduction of this bill, conceiving. it to be calculated to
get rid of a mass of corruption in elections, fueling from the
payment for electors of their rates.
After a few words from Col. T. Woos, which did not
reach us,
The house. divided—For the motion 3B
Against it
JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
. _

Sir J. PAKINGTON, in moving for lure to bring in I
A bill for the more speedy trial and punishment of juve-
nile offenders," said that the subject divided itself into three 1
branches, all important, and all surrounded with consider- I
able difficulty. The first was the frightful Lnoranee which I
prevailed amongst juvenile offenders, generally, of every
duty towards God and man; the next was the present mode
of trying and convicting juvenile offenders, with all its at-
tendant evils of previous contamination and subsequent
ruin ; and the third—perhaps the most important, and aw-
-1 taint y the most difficult part of the subject—was the ques-
tion how to dispose of juvenile offenders aft or conviction, in
such • manner is not to abrogate the proper punishment for
the offence, and at the same time to keep is view the great
object of reforming the offender. Upon the first and third of
these benches of the question, he would off, r no observation
beyond the remark that his experience in courts of justice
had led him to the conclusion, that the want of better means
of education in this country was the most fertile source of
crime—(hear, hear)—and had impressed his mind with the
necessity of some extended system of national education as
one means of diminishing the serious am nint of juvenile
crime. He could not but express his (lb appointment that
the government had not gone further on the question ef edu-
cation ; and he hoped the time wee not far distant when they
would be prepared to carry some national system of education
to a much greater extent. That branch of the subject which
related to the management ofjuvenile offenders after convic-
tion could only be dealt with successfully in the way in which
it had been taken up by the government of the day. He wished
to tender his thanks to the right hon. bait. opposite (Sir G.
Grey) for the attention he had given to this subject,and to state
his opinion that if the hon.hart.was successful in devising some
eye= of reformation for juvenile offenders lie would con ler the
greatest service upon the country. (Hear.) ButAwhatever his
success, it would be incomplete and imperfect, unless he got
rid of the eras attending imprisonment before trial, and
altered the present mode of trying juvenile offenders. The
object of the bill he sought to introduce was to substitute, in
certain cases and under strict limitation, a power of summary
conviction in lieu of committal for trial. Notwithstanding
the just value which was placed in this country upon trial by
jury, there was a class of cases in which the evils of
previous imprisonment and the value of prompt
and appropriate punishment were so great, as to make it'
worth while to do away with the advantages of
trial by jury. The offences for which juvenile prisoners were
committed were in general extremely trifling. lie had care-
fully analysed the calendars of the county of Worcester, and
found that this was the case to a great extent. In one case
• boy bad been committed for stealing twopence. on the 13th
November ; and he could not take his trial until the Epiphany
sessions in January. In another, • lite.e girl, 12 years of
age, had been charged with stealing • quart •
of milk. The
statements of the Liverpool magistrates, in thoir recent pe-
tition to the other house, were moot imp. tut on this subject,

He found that In sgej, the juvenile offenders under 15 years
of age, formed between one-sixth undone-seventh of the whole
of the criminals in the country. The authorities in favour of
the change he now proposed were numerous and of great
weight. He would first mention the inspectors of prisons,
who, in 1836, had reported that the vice and corruption
produced by the imprisonment of juvenile offenders was
very aerioue, and that each imprisonment invariably
tended to render them w one. With regard to many
of the children imprisoned, absolute impunity would
have been a far less evil than the effects of the system
now pursued. (Hear, beer.) In 1334, a committee
of that hr woe had been appointed on the subject of capital
punishment; it was divided into four sub-committees, one
of which, presided over by the right hon. baronet the
member for Tamworth, had assigned to it the subject of
criminal prosecutions. In their report, they earnestly re-
commended the government and parliament to take into
their early consideration the practicability of establishing
some tribunal for the speedy trial of young offenders charged
with comparatively light offences—grounding their recom•
mendation on the fact, that imprisonment, instead of creating
repugnance to crime, familiarised the minds of the youthful
offenders with its most revolfing features. The bill now
sought to be introduced had been formed in accord-
ance with the principles laid down by that com-
mittee; and on that ground, he hoped for the sup-
port of the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth.
The licit authority was the report of the Criminal Law
Commissioners, which had been quoted f ivourably, on an-
other occesion, by the noble lord at the head of the govern-
ment. Their report in 1837 expressed the valve which seve-
ral of them still entertained, that some other mode of dealing
with juvenile offenders was absolutely necensare. He was
also authorised by Sir Edward Ryan, late a hid justice of
Indio, to rate that he fully approved of the bill now pro-
po,ed. In answer to the allegation that there wen objec-
tions of principle against doing away with the trial by jury
in the cam of juvenile offenders, he read a portion of the
report of the Criminal Law Commissioners in 1537, in which
they referred to this subject, and expressed a di tided opinion
in favour of entrusting magistrates with a summary juris-
diction. Fortified by these authorities, he anticipated that
no opposition would be offered to this bill. In the present
state of the law, an thoroughly cc/evinced were magistrates
throughout. the country of the ruinous COOSeVellCeil of com-
mitting juvenile offenders for trial, that they frequently
exercised a power of summary punishment, which they did
not pews, ; while othe re, taking a stricter view of theirduty,
committed this elan of offenders; and thus different courses
were pursued in different parts of the country. The same
feeling extended to recorders and other judges at quarter
sessions; in one case, in London, a youthful offender,
being convicted of some trivial offence, was senesced
to an imprisonment of one hour, to preserve him (rein the
contamination of the geol. The hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the report of Mr. M. D. Hill to the Society for the
Amendment of the Law, in which the learned gentleman
described die course he hod pursued, in his capacity as
recorder of Birmingham, with reference to juvenile convicts.
Several persons with whom he had conversed, while con-
senting to do away with the trial by jury of these offenders
let quarter sessions, would substitute trial by jury at the
petty sessions ; but to this there would be great objections.
The object of the bill was to give a summary juris-
dictionto the magistrates, whereby, in cases where the
stolen property did not exceed 40s. in value, they might
commit the prisoner for a period not exceeding
six months. A power of appeal against the conviction was
given ; also a doocretion to the magistrates, and where a
case was surrounded with difficulties, to send it to the
quarter sessions, or for trial in the usual course. It was
also desirable that the magistrates should have the alterna-
tive, in trilling charges of felony, either of imposing • fine
or of committing the prisoner ; by this means, many of
the jevenile offenders might be saved from total ruin • and,
by means of the fine, the parents might be reached, who, in
four cases out of five, were the really guiity parties. (Hear,
hear.) Some Beth alteration of the law as he now proposed
was required alike by justice, mercy, and slued policy ; and
he entreated the government aryl the house, not only to
allow him to bring in the bill, but to give it the fairest
and most favourable consideration. After the great attention
which had been given to this subject, he believed that re-
flecting men on all sides had come to the opinion that such
an alteration ought to receive the sanction of parliament.
Sir G. GREY said he rose to give a very willing consent
to the motion for leave to bring in this bill. Without com-
mitting himself to the principle of the bill, as he could
hardly be expected to do, he felt that the thanks of the house
were due to the hon. member for the attention which he had
bestowed on the subject, and for bringing forward the results
' of his own experience, and offering the siggsstione founded
upon that experience in the shape of this bill. There was
no subject of greater importance to the interests of the coun-
try than that to which tthe hon. gentleman had directed
his attention. The attention of the government also bad
been very much directed to the subject ; and he (Sir G.
Grey) should be very happy to derive assistance—he hoped
he should derive much, from the attention which had been
paid to it by the hon. member. (Hear, hear).
Mr. HLME said the hon. gentleman, in moving to in-
troduce this bill, had admitted that the great cause of
juvenile delinquency was general ignorance ; and if so,
whose fault was it ? Of none more so than those who 1
complained ; for sectarian differences and religious bigotry
prevented the adoption of a system of sound moral •
and useful learning. Instead of looking to punishment,
let them consider what were the mess s of prevention.
Every. attempt that bad been made to instruct youth,%oth
in their moral and civil duties, bad been foiled by religious
and sectarian dilierenecs. Yearly had juvenile delinquency
been brought before the house for the last ten years, and no
alteration in the criminal law had yet been made. These
laws were a stigma on the government and the country. It
was the duty of the government to take up this question, and
not to leave it to individual members of that house to do so. '
It was the duty of the government to see that the youth of
every sect should be educated. He did not rise to oppose the
bill, hut to express his belief that it was a great reflection on
the government that no improvement had taken place in the
education of youth and the treatment of juvenile offenders
in prisons.
Mr. SIIAW expressed hie thanks to the lion. gentle-
man for bringing forward this measure, but there was
one objection which he wished to make to that portion of it
which provided that there should he some court of appeal
for juvenile offenders who had been once convicted. He did
not see how that proposition of the hon. gentleman could be
made applicable. Ile did not see how a young criminal
who had been in ono instance found guilty, could without
advice use his own sound discretion on that point. He
could not tell whether his case was one which admitted of
any chance of success by appealing to another court. With
regard to the general principles of the bill, he gave them his
most cordial support.
Col. T. WOOD urged upon the house the necessity of
erection separate prisons for juvenile offenders, so as to pre-
clude the possibility of their coming in contact with older
and more hardened criminals. That was not the only thing
that was necessary : they should after their discharge have
further protection from the necessity of following their old
vicious practices. lie suggested that the government should
build four or five penitentiaries in different parts of the
country for the reception of juvenile offenders, and that their
maintenance should be afforded by the counties from which
they cause, and when possible they parents should be com-
pelled to pay for their support.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
RELIGIOUS BEQUESTS.
Lard J.MANNERS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to alter and amend the laws relating to the disposition of pro-
perty for pious and charitable purposes, said that when the
house was kind enough to glee him leave to bring in
a bill of this description before, it was met on its being
brought forward for a second reading, with two objections,
namely, that it did not afford a sufficient protection against
the solicitations urged at the death-bed of a languishing per-
son, and that it was expected it would lead to a large in-
crease in the amount of land tied up in mortmain. In the
bill which he now asked leave to introduce, great are was
taken to meet these two objections. It proposed to require
that all wills or (bade, containing bequests or grants, should
be signed three months before the death of the testator,
and that when bequests or grants were made, they should
go, not as lands, but the property should be sold
and the proceeds should go to charitable purposes. It pro-
posed that small portions of land intended to be sites for
chapel and schools should be exempted fromthe necessity of
being sold. These were the provisions of the bill, and if at
any time there should be any necessity for him to apologize
for bringing thin bill forward, it was not at the present
moment, immediately after the discussion which had taken
place relating to the bill for the introduction of which the
house had just granted leave, in which it was clearly shown
that education in this country was grossly neglected, to
promote which was one of the main objects of this bill.
He would, therefore, humbly ask for leave to bring iu the bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said, that although he entertained
all the objections which he had felt and expressed on all
former occasions to most of the provisions of the bill which
his noble friend had asked leave to introduce, he did not at
the present moment entertain any desire to divide the house
on the subject. Though he regarded the alterations made
in the provisions of the-bill as not inconsiderable, yet they
were far from sufficient to mitigate his general ohjectiens to
this measure. As the house had admitted on • former
occasion the introduction of a bill still more objection-
able, and had consented to take the discussion on •
future stage of the measure, ho was not willing to
object to their following the same course now. lie
would then express as strongly as he could his
general objections to the measure. As his noble friend
alluded to the neglect of education in this country, he would
ask him in what way did this bill tend to supply that defi-
ciency ? There was no provision in it whereby the liberality
of a dying Christian might be directed to the foundation of
a school to disseminate the Christian doctrine. He held that
Christian liberality should be exercised in a man's lifetime,
and defrayed out of the property which he was possessed of
at the time, and that he should deny himself and not his
heirs of that property. When he found that an individual
deprived his natural heirs of half his property, if not
in articulo nsortia, yet with the immediate prospect of I
death, he thought that it was much better that he I
should do it uncontrolled by that immediate pros an
with the full exercise of his reason. He certainly hoped
that the house would reject the DM when it came leeward
for discussion ; but yet be did not think himself called upon
at that moment to oppose its introduction. He trusted that
his noble friend would give them ample nity for con-
sidering the measure, and appoint its see ndoreading Its soots
day after Easter.
Sir O. GREY was glad that his right hon. friend the
member for Oxford did not think it was necessary to oppose
the introduction of this bill. He felt it his duty, whom the
noble lord last brought forward this measure, to unite with
the right hon. baronet in opposing it, and now without
wishing to prejudice the discussion which may hereafter take
place, he would state that he apprehended that the altera-
tions which had been made in the hill were not sufficiently
extensive to induce him to hope that he might be enabled to
support it in its coming before cheat fora second reeding.

Without giving any definite opinion uto what course he
should then think it his duty to take, he thought that the
noble lord was entitled to introduce it. With retard to the
exception that lands intended for sites for chapels and
schools should not be converted into money, he had only n;
say that extensive alterations had already been made aith
regard to churches and schools in the laws of mortmain fax
the purpesa of providing sites for them, and removing
obstacles to their construction.

Leave wasgranted to bring is the bill.
WOOLWICII ARSENAL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to move for the foUosviag
papers : " Copy of the evidence taken before the court
of inquiry, Instituted in the month of April, 1845, by t!;,
Board of Ordnance, at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, to in.
vestigate charges preferred by Daniel Toner against William
Jones, deputy storekeeper, together with a copy of the
charges, and the report taerenn. Also, a copy of the
charges preferred, end the evidence given against
.Demil
Toner, late a labourer in the Royal Arsenal, Wonlseteh, by
Mr. Reed, a clerk in the stirekeeper's department, before
Lord Bloomfield, Col. Blaynry, and Mr. Cheetham, in Ang ,
114.5, with their report thereon." The hon. member sad
his object in moving for these papers was two-fold. Tie
tint was to show the rules by which the moral treatment of
convicts was governed at Woolwich. Convict, had teem
known to say that in one hour they had committed mere
robberies, under thy officers at Woolwich, than they had
committed in all the rest of their lives. But thu was
not his only object. He wished to chew, in addition, the
abuses which had tak n place in this department. The
Daniel Ton: r who was mentioned in those papers was a
man employed in the Arsenal. He had been instrumental
in laying bare a system of peculation and fraud. People
said he was an impracticable and dangerous man, but it
only seemed thct he woe impracticable and dangerous whey
he encountered the dishonest. Because he had expand
these ebusss in the Arsenal, Toner became a mark, d
There was a clerk there named Reed, who had the payment
of the labourer,. Toner, upon going to receive his pay,
was one day told by Iteed to take off his hat. He refused,
unless there was a general order to that effect. The next
week a general order was posted. Toner took off his hat
in obedience to it. " Ah," said Reed, "you take off
your hat to-day. do sou ? I thought I should make
you obey me." " Yes," replied Tuner, " but I
shall only obey you when your order; are legal, not when
you tell me to rob the Arsenal." " Now I have got you,"
said heed: " you shall be reported for insolence.'
Accordingly he was reported. A tribunal was formed:
Toner was never called before it, but Reed having
been heard on oath, the loan was summarily dis-
missed. It was to prove these facts that he wanted the
papers in question. It was, of course, his intention to found
ulterior proceedings mien them, but what those proceedings
might be be could not say until lie saw the documents. It
they were refused, the government must rest under the on.
potation of refusing them, in order to screen the delinquen-
cies of the department.

Col. ANSON said the pathetic statement of the hon.
member respecting this grave and important muter, about
Mr. Daniel Toner, contain. dby no m' ans an unvar-
nished" tale. Daniel Toner's case, rightly told, would pre-
soot a very different complexion. lint this was not the
ground on which he opposed this motion. Was the time of
the house, he would ask, to be ocenpied with such mere
departmentnl matters ? Was the country to be put to an
enormous c xpense by printing, or tha gratification of the
hon. member or Mr. T ' oner a mass of papers which could
anima no good purpose, and which one member in fifty
would never open ? (Hear, hear.) This Toucr had been a
principal evidence in proving abuses, it was true ; and the
party against wham the ebarges were proved was most
severely punished for his offence. But what bad this Toner
been about ? It was in the year 1842 that he first entered
the arsenal, and from that time till he gave evi-
dence in the transactions referred to, it appeared
that lie had been keeping memoranda in his pocket-book
in order to criminate every one about him! Why, it wawa
likely that ouch a spy as this would bo very popular with his
fellows. The man wan constantly exciting the workpeople
to acts of insubordination. At last he became insufferably
insolent : he was reported and discharged ; and no one with
any sense of justice would pass a reflection upon the decision
of the court which diseharaed him. If the hon. member
wanted the evidence taken respecting Tuner bcf re that
court, he might have it, but to print anything further
would be a mere waste of public money.

Mr. HUME did not nt all agree in the opinion that this
man ought to be condemned for taking notes of what paned
at the arsenal. On the contrary, he considered he deserved
the thanks of his country. if he (Mr. Ilum,) were at
the head of a department, nothing would please
him better than that each man should watch the proceed-
ings of his fellows, and report when they acted improperly.
If persons in public offices were not encouraged in nobly
coming forward and informing against those in the Mule de-
partment, when they had been notiee t to he committing de-
relietions of duty, it would be a grrat injury to the public
service. He considered that Toner had been most diagram-
fully treated.
After some observations from Mr. Du ecotone in reply,

The gallery was cleared for a divicion. hut 4,1 memherg„ oat
being present, the house stood adjourned till to-morrow (this
day).