The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-26 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

The report of the committee appointed on Jan.
14, 1864, to consider suggested amendments to the
17th and 18th Vict. c. 169, and empowered to carry
out the recommendations contained in their report
on Jan. 19, 1835, was presented to the court on
Thursday last, when this special day was appointed.
The report has since been printed and circulated.
After reciting the fact that the bill promoted by
the county was referred to a select committee of the
House of Commons, and that the select committee
heard evidence, &c., the report proceeds : _ _ _

"The committee of the Commons, for reasons of their
own, which they did not impart to your committee, struck
out the proposed clause by which the word ' reformatory'
would have been substituted for the word industrial,' and
also the clause under which the Middlesex schools might
have become entitled to a certificate from the Secretary of
State, and consequently to a grant from the Treasury in aid
of the maintenance of the juvenile offenders detained in
such schools, and after hearing counsel and evidence in sup-
port of and in opposition to three several clauses proposed
to be added to the bill by certain Roman Catholics who had
petitioned against it, the Select Committee added to the
Bill Cjauses 5 and 6 (see Appendix) by virtue of which the
warrant of commitment of a juvenile offender must specify
the religious persuasions to which he shall appear to be-
long, and if it be different from that of the Established
Church, the committee of visitors shall allow a minister of
that persuasion to visit such offender, subject to regula-
lations to be imposed by them, and unless such offender
objects to be so visited. And further, that no juvenile
offender so visited shall be compelled to attend any reli-
gious service, or to receive any religious instruction given
by the minister of any other persuasion."
The committee further reported :
" While your committee are still of opinion that it is a
hardship upon the ratepayers of Middlesex that they should
be refused such assistance towards the maintenance of
juvenile offenders as is granted to the supporters of other
reformatories, they have reason to believe that there is
little or no hope that the Legislature can be prevailed upon
to grant such assistance to reformatories such as the Fel-

thanxSchool, which are maintained out of the county rates i
and not by voluntary contributions, and consequently they 1
see no reason on this account to defer passing the present
bill. The clause which has been added to the bill by the
Select Committee granting greater privileges to juvenile
offenders of a religious persuasion other than the Estab-
lished Church, is very nearly the same which has been in-
troduced into the New Prison Bill, and is a concession
which cannot reasonably be refused, if indeed such offen-
ders are to be detained in the Middlesex schools at all, but
inasmuch as their presence must, under any circumstances,
interfere materially with the general discipline of the
school, and especially so if the proposed privileges be con-
ceded, it is much to be desired that the Secretary of State
may be prevailed upon to exercise the power which he will
have of removing such offenders to a certified reforma-
tory, where they will be under the undivided control of
ministers of your own persuasion. Your committee also
beg to call the attention of the Court to the fact that under
Clause 2 of the bill no juvenile offender can in future be
sent to a school provided under the Middlesex Act unless
the committee of visitors are willing to receive him. On
full consideration of all the circumstances, your committee
are of opinion that the alterations introduced into the Bill
by the Committee of the Commons are of such importance
as to render it necessary to bring them specially under the
notice of the Court, in the hope that they will appoint a
special day for the consideration of the question, whether
the present Bill shall be proceeded with or not. Appended
is a copy of the bill, as amended and finally settled by the
select committee of the House of Commons, and a summary
of the gains and losses under the bill as amended."

Mr. GLossIP, in moving the adoption of the re-
port, reminded the Court that the amendments
sought by the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill did
not originate in the crotchets of individuals, but in
the experience of the Feltham committee, which
had enabled them to trace hitches in the management
of the institution to defects in the Act of Parliament.
The special committee which was appointed in
January, 1864, had eventually adopted the whole of
the amendments suggested by the Feltham commit-
tee, and they waited upon Sir George Grey, in the
hope that the Government would extend the general
Act, so as to place Feltham on the same footing as
other reformatories. The Home Secretary pointed
out that the proper course was for the county of
Middlesex to promote a private bill to amend their
own Act, at the same time not committing himself
to any assent to a Treasury grant, as a matter falling
within the province of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. The Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill was in-
troduced in the present Session and referred to a
select committee of the House of Commons. The
committee appointed by this Court, who had the
care of the bill, had great hopes that it would have
received more favourable consideration from the
select committee than had been shown to it ; but he
thought the advantages of those provisions which
were given outweighed the disadvantages withwhich
they were accompanied. One important amendment
of the present state of things was the power to grant
licenses to Feltham boys. It was a power which
was enjoyed by all other reformatories, and would
enable the visitors of Feltham to judge whether a
boy was reformed or not. If the experiment of a
licence in any case was satisfactory, the Secretary of
State then had power to discharge the boy before the
expiration of his sentence, and thus to exonerate the
ratepayers from the cost of his maintenance. Another
important amendment was that which, if this
bill passed, would enable them to retain the boys
to the same age as in all other reformatories. In
practice it was found that there was no difficulty in
providing for strong healthy lads of 17 or 18.
Many of them went into the merchant service, but
a merchant captain would not look at a stunted
London boy of 13 or 14, and they could not be
sent off to Canada to shift for themselves. Another
alteration would enable the County Treasurer to
enforce payments from parents. A magistrate, on
proof that the parents were clearly able to contribute,
might commit them to prison for a monthif they re-
fused to do so. There was also a power of remov-
ing boys to other schools. On representations from
the justices the Secretary of State might remove to
any other certified school, and he trusted they would
be able to induce the Secretary of State to exercise
that power in the case of Roman Catholic boys. It
was expedient that they should be educated under
the training and influence of members of their own
persuasion, and that the general influence of Felt-
ham should not be impaired by the privileges se-
cured to boys of that faith. Another amendment
was that the boys should be subject to previous im-
prisonment. The principle was correct that an
offender should be first punished and then reformed.
At present there were numerous cases of two bro-
thers, and in one instance of three brothers, being
inmates of Feltham. It might be that the parents
thought it desirable that the younger boys should
have the same advantageous training as the elder,
but they might be influenced if they knew that each
boy would be subjected to previous imprisonment.
There was also a power given to the Middlesex
magistrates to decline to receive boys. Unlike every
other reformatory, they had hitherto been unable to
decline, and the consequences had been that a deaf
and dumb boy, an idiot boy, and boys in the last
stage of consumption had been sent to Feltham. He
conceived that it would be the duty of the Feltham
committee to decline to receive any boys who in
their opinion were unfit for the training of Feltham,
or whose presence would be likely to injure the
reformatory effect on the other inmates. The com-
mittee in charge of the bill had made a very hard
fight for a clause providing that, under certain cir-
cumstances, they should have the power of claiming
for the Feltham schools a grant from the Treasury ;
but, unfortunately, they had not succeeded. He had
never expected to obtain it, and he doubted whether
any committee of the House of Commons would re-
lieve Middlesex from an obligation which 10 years
ago they had voluntarily undertaken. It was, never-
theless, a great hardship that Middlesex should be an
exception to the ordinary rule, and he thought it the
more unjust when it was remembered that a Cornish
boy sent to a reformatory was generally born in
Cornwall; whereas the majority of boys in Middle-
sex sent to reformatories were born in other counties.
(Hear.) The bill contained a clause which a special
committee had not asked for. It was introduced at
the instigation of a section of the community who
unfortunately thought it necessary to adopt a very
aggressive policy. If they found people inclined to
give them an inch they immediately insisted that
they must have an ell ; and he regretted to see that
Mr. Hennessy had given notice of amendments on
the third reading beyond even those which the select
committee had inserted. The clause now in the bill
provided that in ~the case of Roman Catholic boys
the priests should not wait until he was asked to
visit, but should visit unless his visits were specially
objected to by the boys. The justices would still
have the duty to approve the minister and the power
to make regulations to prevent the introduction of
improper persons. He therefore deemed the clause
not unreasonable, and he trusted the select commit-
tee of the House of Commons would not assent to
Mr. Hennessy's amendments, or allow the clause to
be altered from the state in which it left their hands.
(Hear, hear.) At Redhill they declined to receive
Roman Catholics at all, and the justices would have
the same power, if it should be necessary to make use
of it. With regard to any objection to the bill on the
ground that the increase of age would lead to an in-
creased number of boys and an increased expense,
the Feltham Committee would have the power to say
they would not admit more than 600, and they might
in that way practically fix the maximum annual
cost. He did not believe that they would get better
terms in another Session, and he therefore hoped
they would not withdraw the bill, which certainly
contained provisions of an extremely valuable nature.
(Cheers.) He begged to move that the report be
received and adopted, and the committee be reap-
pointed, with power to carry the amended bill
through Parliament.
Mr. TURAIt seconded the motion.
Mr. N. LAURIE submitted that all the amendments
upon which the Feltham Committee set great store
would entail additional expenditure ; that as Feltham
could accommodate 800, they could not refuse to re-
ceive boys until they had received the full number;
that payments by parents would amount to nothing ;
and that they would not be able to decline to receive
Roman Catholics. With iegard to what he called
the Conscience Clause, in order to avoid offence,
there was no reason whatever why they should not
take the chance of another session and another Par-
liament, and perhaps another Ministry. He had not
changed his opinion on the Prison Ministers' Act, and
he regretted that this court had not exercised its dis-
cretionary power under its provisions. But that Act

Butland; this bill they could withdraw, and it applied to
children, not adults, which was a very different
thing. Restrictions were to be imposed upon Felt-
ham which were not to be imposed on any other
reformatory in the country, and no grant in aid was
be given, although such grants were enjoyed by
kindred institutions. He moved as an amendment,
. " That the Select Committee of the House of Com-
mons having struck out of the bill provisions which
would have entitled the county to the same allow-
ance from the Consolidated Fund which is made to
other reformatories, and having prescribed condi-
tions in reference to the religious instruction of cer-
tain inmates of the Felthaua establishment which are
not enforced on other reformatories, this court is of
opinion that it is not expedient to proceed with the
bill in the present session."

Mr. ARMSTRONG seconded the amendment.
The amendment was then put and carried by 21
to 3.

The bill, therefore, will be withdrawn.

Charge of Forgery and Uttering a Will.

An elderly man, named James Whalley Cathrill, was
brought before Sir Thomas Henry, at the Bow-street police-
court yesterday, charged with forging and uttering a will,
and Edwin Dresch was charged with aiding and abetting
him in so doing.
This prosecution was directed by the Judge of the Probate
Court, in consequence of certain disclosures made in the
course of the action, " Cathrill v. Kiddie and Jeffree," tried
at the end of February last. His lordship directed that the
documents and alleged will should be impounded with the
view to the indictment of the parties.
Mr. Hannen (instructed by Mr. Pollard, solicitor to the
Treasury) said he appeared on behalf of the Crown to con-
duct the prosecution. For the information of the Court and
of the prisoners themselves, he would briefly state the cir-
cumstances which had led to these proceedings. A Mrs.
Eleanor Saunders died on the 2d February, 1863. On the
14th March, 1859, she made a will, appointing Mr. J. Jef-
free and Mr. Kiddie as her executors, to whom she gave
£lOO each. Mr. Jeffree had been for some years the medi-
cal attendant and friend of the deceased lady, and after the
payment of certain legacies specified in the will, the residue
of her property was bequeathed to Mr. S. Kiddie, also her
friend, and a relative of her late husband. This will was
proved in due course, and some time afterwards, towards the
end of the year, the prisoner Cathrill produced what he re-
presented to be a subsequent will of the deceased Mrs.
Saunders, bearing date the 23d March, 1859, being about
ten days after the date of the genuine will. In this second
will the residue of the property was bequeathed to the pri-
soner himself, instead of to Mr. Kiddie. Of course this
document took the executors by surprise, as their friend-
ship with the deceased had continued up to the death of
Mrs. Saunders, and nothing had ever happened to indi-
cate any alteration in her intention as to the disposal
of her property. On the other hand, the prisoner had
not been for some time apparently on friendly terms
with the deceased, although claiming her as a cousin;
and a legacy of .£5O in favour of the prisoner, which
had appeared in a former will, was struck out of the two
subsequent wills which she had made before her decease.
Witnesses would be called to prove that the prisoner was
present after the funeral of Mrs. Saunders, and heard the will
of March 14 read, when the question was asked if any per-
son present knew of a later will. The prisoner did not re-
ply, although he now states that he did assert the existence
of a previous will at that time. It would be also shown that
some time after this the prisoner called on Mr. Jeffree, and
asked him to intercede with Mr. Keddle to grant him a sum
of money out of the estate. This application was repeated
several times, and the prisoner was again and again in-
formed that it would be refused, till at length the prisoner
said, "Then I am determined to upset the will in one way
or another, and you will find the ecclesiastical courts
rather expensive." Then came the production of the
alleged will of March 24, and the proceedings in the Pro-
bate Courts, a full shorthand report of which would be
produced by Mr. Gerrans. At the trial of the suit the
second prisoner Dresch was called as a witness, and he
stated on oath that he was present when the latter will was
dictated to Cathrill by the deceased lady, Mrs. Saunders, at
her residence, No. 3, Walnut Tree-walk, Kennington, that
he saw her sign the will, and appended his own signature
as the "attesting witness," and his residence as "49, Wych-
street, Strand," where it would be shown he had no resi-
dence at the time in question.
Mr. J. F. Coleman, one of the Record-keepers of the Pro-
bate Court, produced the alleged will and other documents
impounded by order of Judge Wilde, and also the genuine
will of March 13, 1859.
The prisoner Cathrill expressed a wish that the whole of
the evidence given by him in the Probate Court should be
read over.

Mr. Hannen said that this would occupy two or three
hours. He proposed only to read certain parts of it.
The prisoner, however, demanded that it should be all
read. He claimed this as a right.
Sir Thomas Henry said it should be all read if the prisoner
thought it desirable for his interests, and accordingly the
shorthand writer read his full report of the examination of
both of the prisoners, before Sir J. Wilde, occupying some
400 pages of manuscript. In effect the prisoner's state-
ment was—That he was an advertising agent, about 65
years of age, and had been at sea, living on a biscuit and
half a pint of water per day ; that he was formerly a mer-
chant, and had been cashier to Mr. Bentley, the publisher,
when £lOO,OOO a year passed through his hands; that the
deceased, Mrs. Saunders was his cousin, and was always
very fond of him, calling his daughter "her pet," and kiss-
ing her occasionally, and making her presents. That on
the 23d March, when he happened to call on her, she said,
"James, I have not done right by you. This chair I Sit
upon is yours. Your father lent my father £BOO, and it
made me what I am." That at her dictation he wrote out
the second will, desiring him tp take it to a lawyer; that
he took it to a Mr. Biston, a barrister's clerk, who put it
into proper shape, and the same day it was signed and duly
attested ; that after the death of Mrs. Saunders he had tried
in vain to find the will, and only succeeded on receiving a
letter upon the subject from his son in Australia.

The evidence of Dresch went to show that he was the at-
testing witness to the will, and he gave a minute account of
the personal apparance of the old lady, Mrs. Saunders, &c.
Mr. James Hooker, 30, Bartlett's-buildings, solicitor for
the defendants at the trial in the Probate Court, and one of
the attesting witnesses to the will of March 14, deposed that
he knew the handwriting of the late Mrs. Saunders, and he
believed the signature purporting to be hers in the alleged
will of March 23 was a forgery.

Cross-examined by Cathrill—l never had any difference
with Mrs. Saunders. No doubt she made a fresh will
about once a year.

Mr. John Jeffree, of Howard Lodge, Atkins-road, Clapham-
ioad (one of the defendants in the late action), said he was
a surgeon out of practice, and had attended Mrs. Saunders
professionally for some years. She always spoke of Mr.
and Mrs. Kiddie in terms of the warmest attachment. He
had seen the will of March 23, and was one of the executors,
and she told him where she kept it, in a bureau. He had
heard her complain of the prisoner Cathrill's importunities
for money, and found her once in a state of great excite-
ment through his having forced himself into her presence
in 'Tit() of her orders to the servants to refuse him admit-
tance on all occasions.
Cross-examined—l attended the late Mr. Saunders, and
have known them about 17 years.
Mr. S. Kiddie stated that he resided at Salisbury, andhad
been a friend of the late Mrs. Saunders for many years.
His wife was related to her. He knew nothing of the will
of March 14, 1859, until after her death, although some
years ago she had intimated her intention to him respect-
ing a former will. He last saw her in Jan., 1863, and they
were on the most friendly terms up to the time of her death.
He never heard her mention the name of Cathrill, and was
not even aware of his existence till after the death of Mrs.
Saunders. -He was present at the funeral, and heard the
will of March 14 read. Mr. Jeffree on that occasion asked
the company present if they knew of any other will. Seve-
ral replied, "No," and the others were silent. No one men-
tioned the existence of another will.
Cross-examined—l believe my wife is a cousin of the
late Mrs. Saunders. I saw you at her residence two days
before the funeral.

Louisa Bard, 25, Walcot-place, South Lambeth, deposed
that the prisoner Cathrill told her, about 12 months ago,
that he had found another will of Mrs. Saunders, giving
witness a larger legacy.
Cross-examined—l never heard Mrs. Saunders say that
she had taught you the Lord's Prayer. She said she knew
you as a boy. She spoke of you unkindly sometimes. She
varied in temper.
Mary Ann 0 wnes, a widow, said that no person named
Dresch lived at 49, Wych-street, till 1860. The prisoner
lived there after this period.

Emma Coe said she knew the late Mrs. Saunders for 30
years before her death, and was present at her funeral. The
prisoner Cathrill said nothing of any other will then, but
about a year after, owing to a letter from him, she went to
Cathrill's house. He said, "I suppose you have heard that
another will has been found ?" and asked if she had heard
from his solicitor. He said the first solicitors he had em-
ployed were rogues, and, therefore, he had placed the mat-
ter in other hands. He said the old lady gave him a chest
of drawers while she was at Walnut-tree-walk, and while
looking in them one day ho accidentally discovered the
will, of which he showed her a copy. He read it, and
said she would be a gainer by the discovery, and wanted
to borrow £2O to carry on the suit. Witness's father de-
clined to lend the money, saying that the alleged prospect
of £5O under the new will should have been augmented by
the addition of another " 0," before he could be induced to
advance any money. _ _ _

The prisoners were now asked by Sir Thomas Henry if
they wished to say anything to the charge, upon which
Cathrill expressed a desire to examine Mr. Saunders, a
nephew of the deceased.
Mr. H. Saunders said he was a farmer, living in Berk-
shire, near Oxford, and knew the deceased. Had often
heard her speak affectionately of Cathrill, and she said
once that the chair she sat upon she owed to him (prisoner:,.

He believed that the prisoner was a great favourite of the
husband of deceased. There was a disturbance after the
funeral, much confusion, and he distinctly heard prisoner
say, " That is not the last will of Eleanor Saunders."
Mr. Saunders, jun., confirmed this statement, but admitted
that neither Mr. Jeffree nor Mr. Kiddie was likely to have
heard him, owing to the excited discussion or quarrel going
on. Mrs. Kiddie was taken ill, the room being very small.
Mrs. Kiddie, in answer to the prisoner, said her last inter-
view with the deceased was most friendly. She, with Miss
Coe, destroyed some of the letters of the deceased, which
were of no interest or value.

The prisoners, who reserved their defence, were com-
mitted for trial.