The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

LARCENIES BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. CHARLES PEARSON rose and objected to the
Bill being brought forward at that late hour of the
night. It was a most important Bill, involving the sum.
mary conviction and flogging of juvenile offenders. The
system of flogging had
.been tried, and they badit on
the authority of the Cbatrman of the Middlesex Sessions
that notwithstanding the frequency and severity of it.
application, the juvenile offenders increased in the las,
increased
in from 898 to 1,240. He found they bad
in England and Wales in the last year in the same pro
portion, and more than the ratio increase of crime.
They had on record instances of children who had
been imprisoned, flogged, discharged, taken, and again
and again flogged, twice, three times,—ay, four, five,
and six times during the year; and yet the Govern
went were clinging to and p.msevering in thi,
system. If it could be found that the system o'
flogging had been reformatory of those fiogg,d, thcr
might be some ground for a perseverance in in it• buy
when that was not the fact, when they had it on thy.
authority of magistrates that offenders so punished wer
on the increase, he considered that the measure now be_
fore the House was not a wise one. The children
wanted care and control to refer,..l :le en from those
habits of idleness which were attributable to the neglect
of their parents; and he considered that it was most un-
just to enact laws to punish children for faults which
were attributable to the neglect of their parents and of
pari-hes.—(Hear, hear.) There was a mode of dealing
with the parents. Take away from them the induce-
ment to set them a bad example. As the law now stood
if the parent adds to destitution the oil of bad education
he can shuffle off his responsibility on the country, or
the parish, the duty of supporting the child ho has thus
driven into crime. He would make the parent feel the
consequences of his misconduct. He would like to know
whether it was intended to make the Consolidated Fund
bear the oft of 3urporting the cricainal3 couTi7tod under

this Act. He understood the Attorney-General was
no; averse to considering the question of fourteen or
sixteen years in Committee. lie was willing to take
the Tiestien in Committee, if it was conaidercd a
matter of detail, hut otherwise, if it involved the prin-
ciple of the Bill, he should feel bound to oppose it at
that stage.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the objection of
the Hon. Member was to a detail rather than the prin-
ciple, and therefore it was open to discussion at a fu-
ture stage. With relpect to the cost of prosecutions,
the re was at present no legal objection by Act of Par-
liammt to b. ar the costs out of the Consolidated Fund.
The county rates were still due ; but a vote for the pur-
pose was annually made from the Consolidated Fund,
and that practice would be continued. He should be
quite prepared to meet all the objections to this Bill.
Mr. HENLEY thought the principle of this Bill was
of too important a character, and too wide in its opera-
tion, to b 3 so summarily discussed and disposed of. In
fact, it took away a great number of cases from trial by
jury, and handed them over to the summary jurisdiction
of the magistrates. They had already passed an Act of
the same kind, and he thought the two years experi-
ence they had of that Act was too short to warrant them
in going further at present.
Sir J. PALING CON defended the Act for juvenile
offenders, passed two years ago, and only regretted that
it had not at once drawn the line at the age of
sixteen instead of the age of fourteen.—(Hear.) , He
thanked the Learned Attorney-General for having
restored the provision he had originally introduced in
a Bill, which had been found to work well ; and
he also thanked him for having introduced a summary
jurisdiction into the present measure. He gave his hearty
consent to the principle of the Bill, with the understand-
ing that counties would be placed in the same position
with respect to the costs of these prisoners as they were
under the present law.
Sir G. GREY said that was a matter for consideration
in the Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time.
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved the consideration of the
amendments to this Bill.—(No, no.) The fault was that
of the House and not his. If it had not adjourned over
the Derby day, he should have had the Bill through this
stage. Having had its pleasure, he thought the House
should now do its work.
Mr: MULLINGS said he had amendments to pro-
pose, and if the Hon. Member persisted he would move
them.
BOUV ERIE said the clauses might be proposed
in Committee.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that even if the Honourable
Member adopted that suggestion he must object to
the Bill passing in that stage without discussion ; if
there were many important questions connected with it,
which he should feel it bis duty to call attention to.
Mr. BROTIIERTON moved that the House adjourn,
which being put to the House, was declared to be carried,
and the House adjourned accordingly at a Quarter-past
One o'clock.

PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedinas of the House of Commons. j

MONDAY. JUNG 25.

TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read ; Motion made, and Question
proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time:"--
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at
the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day
three months :"—Question put, " That the word' now' stand
part of the Question." The House divided:—
MAJORITY—AYES. 159.

MINORITY-NOES, 27.

Anstey, T C.
Browne, It. D.
Butler. P. S.:
Crawford, W. S.
Devereux, .Tohn T.
Dickson, Samuel
Douglas, Sir C.
Dunne, Francis P..
Fagan, W.
French, F.

Godson, R. O'Brien, Sir ',Ulna
Grace, 0. D. O'Connell, John
Greene, John O'Connor, Feargue
Lawless, Cecil Rawdon, Colonel
Meagher, Thomas Reynolds, John
Mahon, O'Gorman Roche, E. B.
Monsell, William Sullivan, Michae
Muntz, G. F. TELLERS.
Nugent, Sir Percy Napier, Joseph
O'Brien, J. Spooner, R.

Main Question put, and agreed to :—Bill read a third
time :—Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out
the word " transportation," and insert the words " imprison-
ment during the Queen's pleasure, or banishment," instead
thereof Question. put, " That the word transportation'
stand part of the Bill." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 146.

MINORITY-NOES, 21.
Barron, Sir U. Meagher, Thomas Power, Dr.
Butler, P. S. Mahon, O'Gorman Roche, E. B.
Crawford, W. S. O'Brien, J. . Sadleir, John
Devereux, J. T. 0' ilrien Sir Lucius Somers, J. P.
Dickson, Samuel O'Connell, John Sullivan, Michael
Fagan, William O'Connell, M. J. MIMS.
Greene. John O'Connor. Feargus Ansley, Thomas C.
Magan, IP. IL O'Connor, Feargus Lawless, Cecil