The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-28 00:00:00

erlitrb ISbitton

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. LAW said, that while he wished the Bill to be
withdrawn, he must still say that he agreed with its
principle, and considered that the time had arrived when
at was necessary to adopt means of proceeding against
offenders in a more summary manner than at present.
He thought what had fallen from the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment was, however, sufficient to show that the time
had arrived when it was fit to discuss the present Bill.
He was quite opposed to the summary jurisdiction
which this Bill proposed to give the magistrates. He
did not object to the Hon. Baronet having introduced
such a Bill to promote discussion, but he should be
compelled to oppose it as a measure. He hoped that
the admission of the principle of the measure by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment would induce the introducer of this Bill to with-
draw it. He thought that the subject was too extensive
a one to be introduced by any private Member of that
House who had not received a legal ed ucation, and who
was not connected with the administration of public
justice. He hoped that at least the Right Hon. Baronet
would postpone the second reading of this Bill until the
report from the Upper House was laid upon the table.
Mr. B. DENISON said, that he for one should feel
it necessary to oppose this measure if it were pressed.
It had a direct tendency to do away with one of the
principal sateguards of the English subject—namely,
trial by jury. He hoped that the magistrates of this
country would not attempt to have any such power de-
puted them, for there was, even under the present
public system, a great difficulty in trying many of this
class of offenders at public quarter sessions. That diffi-
culty would be much increased by the operation of the
Right Hon. Baronet's Bill, and he hoped that the
house would not sanction it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that, after the expression
of the sense of the House against this measure, he hoped
the House would permit him to make a few observa-
tions. He did not when he came down to the House
that day anticipate any such opposition as the
pleasure had met with, especially after the
favourable reception it had received in the first in-
stance. He did think that such a measure as the pre-
sent one would have been better in the hands of the
Government, or in the hand of some professional man,
and he regretted that it had been left to him. The first
objection of the Hon. Member for Bath as to the exer-
cise of there being large power by the magistrates—in
private was certainly correct. He quite admitted that
these powers ought to be exercised publicly,
and in 99 cases out of 100, these powers
would be exercised in public. The power given to
the magistrates of England under the 7th and Bth of
George IV., were infinitely greater than the ones ho
proposed to give them. Under that Act, any single
magistrate sitting in his private parlour might send any
offender to prison for not six, but twelve months. He
begged the Hon. Member for Bath to reflect that those
who were magistrates, and who objected to this measure,
that they were already possessed of much greater power.
The provisions of this Act were framed under
the report and recommendation of the Criminal-
law Commissioners in 1837, who stated that the
powers to be exercised were not so great as those of
which the magistrates were already in possession. Sir
.Edward Ryan, the head of the Criminal Law Com-
mission, had given him (Sir J. Pakington) permission
to say that his opinions were entirely in favour of the
principle of this measure. The Hon. Member for Bath
had also objected that while the Bill professed to
avoid the necessity of imprisonment, it gave the
power of inflicting it, and thus inculcated
the very evil it sought to avoid. Although
in some instances imprisonment could be inflicted, it
would be inflicted at once without the necessity of a
long imprisonment before conviction. It would remedy
the evil of infants having to stand before the bar as
felons, and, in many instances, a very strong feeling
had been shown by the judges in order,
if possible, to discourage the practice.—(The
Hon. Member here read extracts from the speech
of Sir John Campbell, from which it appeared that he
considered the Bill unquestionable.) He must now ex-
press his great regret for the manner in which the Right
11.0 n. Gentleman the Home Secretary dealt with the
Bill. When he (Sir J. Packingtoii) introduced the
Bill the Right Hon. Gentleman gave him a good
reception, but now, on the second reading, he
withdrawhis support on the grounds of the details be-
ing objectionable. He begged, however, to tell him
that these details were considered under good authority,
but to remove all objection he was quite willing
to reconsider them before a Committee up stairs,
when the Right Honourable Gentleman would
have an opportunity of stating the points
which he objected. He hoped the Right Honour-
able Gentleman would accede to the proposition
and not throw the weight of his authority against'
the Bill, the more especially as it had cost him
(Sir J. Pakington) a good deal of trouble, and
had not been brought for ward without the
most careful consideration. He thought the Bill was
demanded by a sense of justice and mercy, and he had
received the greatest encouragement from all parts of the
country in bringing it forward. He would not, therefore,
withdraw it. He would submit to any fair proposition
for the amendment of the details, but he would entreat
the House to give its sanction to the Bill, and read it a
second time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would vote
for the second reading of the Bill. His Right Hon.
Friend (Sir George Grey) did not oppose the principle
of the Bill ; all he wished was, time for the further
consideration of the details of the measure. He (the
Attorney-General) had great ()ejection to many of
the details—which were principally objections referring
to omissions. By the vote he now gave, he only
wished to be understood, as offering the principle of
the Bill; and he hoped his Hon. Friend would adopt
the course of allowing the Bill to go up stairs, or to
withdraw it for the purpose of allowing time for the in
troduction of a measure of a more comprehensive na.
Lure.

Mr. HENLEY thought the measure did not go
far enough. The question, in his opinien, ought to be
taken up by the Government, and dealt with in a com-
prehensive manner. He disapproved entirely of a great
many of the details of the Bill, and if it was pressed to
a division, he should vote against it.
Mr. PACKE was in favour of the principle of the
Bill ; arid, though he objected to many of the details, he
thought some measure of the kind was so necessary, that
he would consent to any postponement.
Mr. ADDERLY said that the principle of separate
imprisonment was just gaining ground in this country ;
but that principle could not be carried out with regard
to juvenile offenders, towards whom a system of corporal
punishment should he adopted. lie did hope that the
Bill would be allowed to go to a second readin.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that it was quite clear that
the present Bill would not pass during the present ses
sion. Even if the second reading were carried by
a division, :it would be sent to a Committee
up-stairs, and them like many others it would
not be heard of until some better considered
measure was introduced to the attention of the House.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped that the honourable Baronet
would not go to a division, for they all felt that
something should be done ; but the present measure
would have the effect, it was agreed by all putties would
only render matters worse than they were at the pre-
sent. He would vote against the measure.
3lr. ROBERT PALMER thanked his Hon. Friend for
bringing the question under the consideration of the
House, he considered that the value of the article should
be taken as the criterion of the punishment to be in-
flicted on the offender. This he considered to be a valu-
able amendment at present. The stealing of an apple
subjected the offender to the same punishment as
the stealing of a more valuable article. There were
many provisions of the 13 11 of which he did not approve,
but he thought it would be a very desirable course to
send the measure to a Committee, who would have an
opportunity of examining into the question.
Mr. T. EGERTON said that he would vote for the
second reading of the Bill, in order to its being sent to
a Select Committee; at the same time, he felt himself
bound to say that there many of the provisions of the
Bill to which he entertained the most decided objection.
Mr. PROTHEROE said that if the question came to
a division, he would rote for the Right Hon. Baronet,
in order to recognise the principle of the measure, but
therere were many provisions to which he could by no
means assent.
The House then divided, when there appeared-
-23
For the Amendment
Against
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
commit t ed.
R&TING OF TENEMENTS BILL (No. 2).
Sir G. GREY moved the resumption of the debate on
this Bill. He said • it was proposed to apply the Bill to
the whole country, and not exclusively to towns.
The Honourable
setirentleman the Member for Stroud
(Mr. Poulett
(the Poor and IlighTe) R had a Bill on the paper
Rates Excemption Bill), which
professed to obtaininth:e
different
object as the Rating of
Tenants Bill, but
Grey) did not think it would an" Way; but he (Sir G.
wr the end for which
to intimate that
it was designed, and he therefor:
beggedreading he could not support the second
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the Bill now gboeff his Bill.
bad caused the greatest consternation amongore the House
per-
sons who, on the score of poverty, had been hitherto
exempted from the payment of rates, and therefore
hoped the second reading of the Bill would not be [tog" he
to by the House, as it woad call upon persons terpeaecly
rates who were wholly unable to do so on account of
their poverty.
Mr. POT:LETT SCROPE objected to the Bill, on
the ground that it would entail great hardship
upon the poor. The present law was enacted in the
54th year of George 111., and invested magistrates with
the power of exempting persons from the payment of
rates who were unable to do so cn acceunt of their
poverty ; and thus a vast proportion of the cottage pro-
perty of the cottage property of the country had been
exempted from the payment of rates ; but if this
act were passed, it would compel the landlords
to impose a higher rent than Tiftstef4;e on their tenants,
or compel the tenant, if the duty &paying the rates did
not devolve on the landlord, to pay a sum in.addition to
his rent, though, perhaps, barely able to do that. A
vast number of petitions, bad been presented from the
poorer parts of the kingdom in favour of his Bill, and
amongst them there were two from the county
with he was COClatted C;Lie

stated that the cottage property of the place formed one
twenty •secend part of the whole house property, and
that nearly all the cottages under 61. were exempted
from the payment of rates. In Liverpool there were
40,000 cottages, 39,000 of which were exempted from the
payment of rates. The rates on the whole amounted to
about 100,0001. a year, but not morc than 70,000/. had been
collected during the last three years, showing that
30,0001. a year had been remitted on the cottage pro-
perty of Liverpool—(Hear, hear)—but, if this Bill were
passed, the occupiers of the cottages so exempted would
have to pay tkis 30,0001. But as the occupiers would
be unable to pay this additional tax, it would fall upon
the landlords, who were mostly small tradesmen,
who had invested some of their savings in house pro-
perty—he would, therefore, be directly taxed ; but if
the occupier were in a condition to pay it his rent would
have to be increased in order to enable the landlord to
do so. Thus those least capable of bearing such a tax
would suffer; and if mining and other property was to be
exempted, he saw no reason why the poor man's cottage
should not be placed in a similar condition. Persons
who speculate in the building of improved houses for the
poor would be discouraged and the poor would suffer.
Such speculations conferred a great benefit on society
by building cottages for the poor, because they supplied
the demand made by the poor for cottage accommodation,
but if any impediment were thrown in their way
they would discontinue their speculations on account
of the improbability of obtaining adequate remuneration,
and the poor, as he had said, would suffer. No one
would lay out 1001. in cottage property, if he knew that
he would have this additional burden imposed npon him.
They would not do well to put a stop to the demand for
cottages, because the health of the poor was pro-
moted by a residence in them. They should also bear
in mind that the population was increasing at the
rate of 800 or 1,000 a day, and that the demand was
thus increased. The question, therefore, resolved itself
into this, whether they would throw an obstscle in the
supply of that demand or not?—(Hear, hear.) If they
did put a stop to it the poor, instead of being domiciled
in cottages would be compelled to reside in single rooms
owing to the high rent. Whole families were
now crowded in single rooms in houses badly
drained and ill-ventilated, and immediately ill-health
and physical deterioration were the natural results, and
it was, therefore, the duty of the House to promote in
every way in its power the giving of proper home ac-
commodation to the poor. He was perfectly aware of
the present mode of excusal—(Hear, hear)—and, there-
fore, in his Bill he proposed carrying out the benevolent
principles of the Act of George 111., and at the same time
drawing a line of a ' different and more certain
nature between those who could and those who could
not pay rates. At present both magistrates and parish
officers were put to great trouble and expense in en-
deavouring to obtain the payment of rates, and the re-
sult was frequently this :—that the magistrates, owing to
the poverty of the persons summoned, often refused to
carry out the law, and that the money recovered did
not pay the trouble and expenses.—(Hear, hear.) The
expense often being 6s. or 7s. for the recovery of 9d.
or 10d.
Mr. CRIPPS—The Honourable Member for
had said that this Bill caused a ferment through-
out the country. He (Mr. Cripps) had pre-
sented twenty petitions in favour of this Bill.
He believed that the Bill would have an ef-
fect quite different from that which the Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite apprehended. He denied that houses
under 51. a year should be exempted from taxation. He
had never heard from any one outside the House one
single word of objection to this Bill, which he considered
to be a most called for and excellent measure.
Mr. VERNON SMITH thought it would be better
for the House if Hon. Gentlemen would confine them-
selves to the Bill before them. The Hon. Member for
Stroud quite misunderstood the question, and he believed
that the speculators in cottages were anything but be-
nefactors to the poor, for a speculator would of course
build cottages as cheaply as possible, in order to evade
the payment of poor-rates. He denied that stock in
trade was exempted, and he considered that the
principle of the Bill, namely, that of charging the owner,
went to the foundation of the evils that at present ex-
isted, and it was a principle that he would wish to see
extended. His only objection was, that which was
urged by his Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, namely, that there was a Committee
sitting up stairs on the law of settlement.
Colonel WOOD was surprised to hear stated by her
Majesty's Government the grounds on which they
were opposed to the Bill. There was sufficient evi
dente of overseers and other functionaries on this
subject, to show the evils that existed at pre-
sent, and this measure would to remedy. The
Honourable Gentleman read an extract from the
report of the Commissioners of local taxation, com-
plaining the present mode of assessment. In the case
of Merthyr Tydvil there were 8,000 cottages under
6/, a year. Now, if the occupier was the owner of the
cottage, he was charged according to the rating, but
if he was not, then he was exempted. He
hoped that the Government would not prevent the House
from going into Committee upon this Bill.
Captain PECHELL said, that he always understood
that the object of the House meeting on Wednesdays
was, that they might calmly discuss measures which
they might not be able to enter upon at another time.
He was somewhat surprised that the Gallant Colonel
who had just sat down had not spoken with his usual
calmness. lie had told the House that the Act had
failed in Liverpool through the corruptness of the
overseers, who wished to overweigh the democratic
influence.—(Bear, hear.) lie thought that it was
just the reverse. lie conceived that they would be
doing a great injustice by not assessing the poor, for
they would prevent them in the rural districts from at-
tending the vestry meetings. This Bill would prevent
parties rated under 61. from attending vestries.
Colonel S. WOOD said that there was a clause pro-
posed in the Bill, by which all parties assessed might
attend at these vestries.
Captain PECHELL said that the Bill was, in his
opinion, a total disfranchisement of the poorer classes
lof Parliamentary electors. They said that they were
going to provide properly for town, and they knew that
it was absurd to attempt to legislate in that way for any
large towns such as Birmingham, Manchester, and Li-
verpool. He thought that there would be a great diffi-
culty in passing :this Bill, unless some provision was
made for the election of guardians.

After a few words from Mr. CRIPPS,
Colonel SIBTHORPE said that there would be some
difficulty in the first place to discover the owners of
these small cottages, and where they did find them, as
their owners were poor people who did not get their
rents, it would be rather hard to call upon them to pay
the rates :from their limited means. This was a ques-
tion which demanded as much consideration from the
House as the case of the occupier of these tenements if
the rate was not paid within a certain time, the over-
seer had a right to distrain upon the occupier, and who
in his turn had to look to the landlord for in-
demnification, by a redaction from the rent,
He thought that the cases of both owner and occupier
demanded equal consideration, and this Bill, worded as

it was, instead of giving a relief to the poor occupier,
gave the power of distraining upon him and oppressing
him.

Mr. BUCK said that, in the case of large towns in
agricultural districts, where people invested large
amounts of capital in business, the agricultural had to
pay for the parts of the district occupied by the esta-
blishments of manufacture. He thought that the pre
sent system of rating wholly inefficient, and he should
therefore give his fullest support to the Bill of the
lion. Member.

Mr. GRIMSDITCH said that this Bill would inflict
a very serious injury upon the poor, for the landlord of
a house was liable for the rate whether the House was
occupied or not. In times of distress the rent could not
be collected, and under this Bill the landlord had not
only to be at the loss of his rent, but to pay
the rate also. That they might not be able in many
instances to do, and thus many poor people would be
driven from the only place where they could obtain
shelter. On these grounds he should vote against the
second reading of this Bill.
Mr. HENLEY wished to state the reasons which
would induce him to vote against this Bill. It was a
subversion of the present system of rating in this
country with respect to the poor man. The poor man,
under the present law, was, by consent, struck off the
list altogether; but now he was to be compelled to pay
it. Such a pressure could not be sustained by the poorer
classes, and therefore he should oppose the Bill.
Mr. ALLEN said, if the Bill did the slightest harm
he would not support it ; but he did not believe that it
would have an injurious effect.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. CAREW supported the 1301.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON was opposed to it, and
believed it would effect very great injustice, as it would
increase the difficulties of the labouring poor in pro-
curing cottages.

Mx:: PACRIE supported the Bill, and believed it would
have a most beneficial effect.

Mr. HUDSON objected to the Bill, on the ground of
its impolicy and injustice. • It was said to be a measure
which would have a good effect towards the poor. but he
disagreed in that opinion, and thought it would operate
most injuriously in their regard.
Mr. BROTIIERTON thought it would be best to
postpone the measure for the present.
Mr. STANSFIELD thought if this measure passed
it would be a disfranchisement of the rights of the poor,
1 and on that account he would give it his most decided
opposition.
Mr. WOODHOUSE would support the second read-
ing, as he thought the case in regard to the poor was
proved, still he thought, from other considerations, that
the Bill could go no further than that stage.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought, from the
great difficulties which would accompany the working of
the Bill that it would be found to operate in certain cases
most prejudicially. He would therefore feel bound to
oppose it, should it be pressed to a division.
Mr. BANKES thought it should be a general Bill,
hut,t,oautlita supporterthact hhtateasneyconaad
reinn
0.. should take place,
The Housewa
ai then
tonint divided, when there 1 red.
The
tFiAllor the second reading appeared---
For 27
1
Maj°rsietqYuently
TENANT RrGer Bloltti, (IRELAND).
reading ll r.SoltlAtblet A
TenantllN Right
Government could not pledge tlietn-
itpti n the subject. The House
raopyreintciple of the Bill, and
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE saidh6thsaectohnde
interpose between the Hon. Gentleman
and
ti7elii sot
the Bill contained some provisions which struck at
root of all property. He was one of those who formerly
thought that the landlords of Ireland ought to be a pro-
scribed class.—(Laughter.) He confessed such were
his opinions while he was in the state of ignorance which
moat of the Blerabero of the Souse were ia With respect to

the state of Ireland. But two years' residence in
that country, had convinced him that instead of their
censure the landlords deserved their sympathy.—(Hear,
hear.) He had tenants in the south of Ireland who
were accustomed to owe him three and four years rent,
when he was constantly obliged to forgive the whole
amount to, and give them 404 or 501. to get rid of them.
quietly. He did not know what better tenant right
they desired. He would not oppose the second reading
if the Government would pledge themselves not to sanc-
tion the passing of the Bill.
Mr. MONAtIAI.O said that all the Members of the
Government were unavoidably absent, and he, therefore,
requested the Hon. Member to postpone his motion.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD postponed the Bill until Wed-
nesday next.

POOP AND HIGH WAYS RATES.
This Bill was also postponed till Wednesday next.
COUNTY BUILDINGS BILL.
This Bill was then read a second time.

The House then adjourned.

DEATH of the DUKE of ARGYLL
(From the Glasgow Courier, of yesterday.)

We regret to have to announce the death of his Grac:
the Duke of Argyll. This venerable and excellent
nobleman died at Inverary Castle yesterday morning,
in the 70th year of his age, having been born on the
21st of December, 1777. In early life he entered
the army, and served under the Duke of York and
Sir Ralph Abercromby in Holland. He after-
wards represented the county of Argyll for upwards
of 20 years. He retired from Parliament
about the year 1821, and chiefly resided at Arden-
capel Castle, his seat in Dumbartonshire, till
his accession to the title on the death of Lis
brother, the sixth Duke, in 1839. The part he took in
endeavouring to arrest the impending disruption in the
Church of Scotland is well known; and although the
propriety of legalising the veto law—which would have
been the effect of his Bill—will be doubted by many,
the attempt was worthy of the descendant of those who
had contributed so essentially to its establishment. In
private life his Grace was distinguished by the warmest
and most generous feelings, united to the highest sense
of honour. He was attached to scientific pursuits,
and was well acquainted with the principles of
chemistry and mechanics. He was a fellow of the Royal
Societies of London and Edinburgh, and Knight of the
Thistle. He is succeeded in his estates and honours by
his only son George, Marquis of Lorne.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 24.
Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week.
Males... ... ... 502 Males ... ... ... 718
Females ... ... 479 Females ... ... 699

Total . . —9-81-

Total ... 1,417

RAILWAY COMMITTEES
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP I.

The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of
the Bills comprised in this group, re-assembled this morning
at the usual hour_in Room 30; Mr. W. 0. Stanley in the
chair.]
THE SOUTH-EASTERN NORTH KENT AND

MID RENT LINES.
The entire day was occupied in disposing of the clauses in
these Bills. The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and
the Chairman was directed to report to the House accord-
ingly.
This closed the labours of the Committee. The Commit-
tee met for the first time on the 11th of March.