The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

JUVENILE REFORMATORIES.

THE conversation which took place last week
in the House of Commons upon this subject
showed very clearly the experimental nature
of the present reformatory movement. The
only point on which every one see►ns agreed
is, that it is advisable and necessary that
juvenile offenders should he reformed. Even
Government has mastered that idea—mas-
tered it to an extent which, according to Sim'
JOHN PAIUNGTON, we shall be surprised to
hear. "He doubted whether the country was
" aware of the very large powers conferred
" upon the courts by the act which was passed
" two years ago." This act, it appears, em-
powers any two magistrates, without interven-
tion of a jury, to confine juvenile offenders in
reformatory institutions for a period of five
years. Seeing how few institutions of the kind
were inexistence two years ago, the " very large
powers " conferred upon the courts resemble
the ♦ery large powers committed by a doctor
to a penniless patient when he recommends a
plentiful consumption of port wine and
turtle soup. The lapse of two years has not
very much mended the matter, according to
Mr. MILES, who still contrasts the enormous
number of offenders with the paucity of in-
stitutions.

What, then, is to be the remedy ? Is it to be
of a permissive or a compulsory character? Or
are we still to trust to the efforts of voluntary
benevolence ? It is, perhaps, almost prema-
ture, in regard to the country at large, to come
to any con fusion unfavorable to the latter,
seeing that public attention has only just been
awakened to the subject, and that public
meetings have recently been held in various
places, animated by the most enthusiastic
spirit towards these institutions. Yet, if we
look to the situation of affairs in the metro-
polis, the prospect is far less encouraging. It
is said, and we believe with perfect truth, that
the very spread of philanthropy in the pro-
vinces has been detrimental to the cause in
London. In the Metropolis, the reformatory
movement was never supported either by
general local charity, or systematic parochial
action. The funds came principally from
strangers, who now, however, appreciating
the truth that charity begins at home, are
seeking to found these institutions in their
own vicinities, and are thus compelled
to withdraw their assistance from metropolitan
establishments. No substitute has been found,
and London reformatories are languishing
for want of funds. Thus far the voluntary
system has failed in London. Have we any
similar test of the efficacy of permissive rates ?
In the conversation of last week we find
an appropriate answer. " Did not," says the
Home Secretary, " the Middlesex magistrates
" obtain such permission a year and a half ago,
"and what have they done ?" It must be ac-
knowledged that the plans for a building, which
Lord ROBERT GROBVENOR assured the House
are forthcoming, are but a sorry result to point
to. Neither must it be denied that, as human
nature is constituted, permission does often
operate as a wet blanket. Let us not,
however, in the present case, at once
condemn the principle of permission upon an
induction, per eimplicent enumerationem, of a
single instance. Possibly Sir GEORGE may,
after all, have asserted this paradoxical law of
our nature only by way of twitting the Middle-
sex magistrates. Wk• not permit first, and
then if needful compel? Experiment seems
to be the order of the day. Let permission be
the next experiment. Will Sir GEORGE go so
far as to denoance it altogether, on the ground
that it is absolutely certain to extinguish all
charitable ardour, and that the compulsion
we shall be afterwards driven to employ
will but send the country gentlemen like sulky
schoolboys to a task 9 Let us hope better
things. We would rather not have the corn-