The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-27 00:00:00

SULPHUR MONOPOLY.

Lord SANDON said that he had seen in the news•
papers a report that a commercial treaty between
this country and Naples had been concluded, and that
the question of the sulphur monopoly had by that treaty
been settled. He wished to ask the Noble Lord if he
could give any information to the House as to the truth
of these statements ?

Lord PALMERSTON was sorry he could not con-
firm the report alluded to. Negotiations were still
going on with the Court of Naples, and ho hoped that
the result would be the speedy conclusion of a
commercial treaty. With regard to the sulphur
monopoly, he contended that that was a violation
of existing treaties—(Hear, hear)—and on that ground
they claimed that it should be done away with imme-
diately, and did not make it a matter of negotiation in
the new treaty. From the accounts which he had re-
uived from Naples, he hoped soon to have it ha his
power to state that the sulphur monopoly had been put
an end to.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

Sir E. WILMOT, in moving the second reading of
the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, wished to say a few
:cords as to the details of the measure, as he was fear-
ful some Hon. Members would confound the details
eith the principle. The title of the Bill was to give
summary jurisdiction in cases of larceny and misde-
meanor The latter offences were so numerous as to
render it almost impossible to embrace the whole of
them. If
a.
ietogsnthtni
ncsra.
teut
hrscanwkvtvdeeei
oerst
defined,
the
nrhteehedocs ep,fe
jre,cvnttcalairt.l s esnet
jurie
sdiction
cases,etesi
ht
hi i
Bill, or
hnsuo uol uchrmial
held
doosahmhramoyhev
should
ulsuvddiernl
doi
sit
cen( orei
have
jurisdiction
jtt
nonaic
nnor-t
fe:t
enonteogli
venfie altogether hhnNneaelf
offences
o
o
objection to make any alterations that Hon. Members,
Wright suggest, as he was not wedded so to the details
of the Bill as not to entertain any suggestions that
might be made. His object was to have an interme-
diate jurisdiction between Criminal and High Courts of
Law. Then, with respect to the clause which forbids
the holding of Petty Sessions in public-houses, he had
-ems great evils arising from that practice ; but it was
tot his intention to prevent Magistrates from holding
Petty Sessions where only Ministerial acts were to be
done. Then, with respect to the expenses, if the
present Bill passed, the counties would bo benefited,
because it would have the effect of decreasing the ex-
penses one half. He was willing that the Clerk's salary
4hould be fixed that he should receive the fees and ac-
count for them to the Treasurer of the county. Let
lot Gentlemen suppose that because some of the
clauses were obnoxious, that they were to fount-
upon them their objeotions to the Bill. 'Eller-
ought to be places in every county for the seem,
lit)/ of prisoners. In Monmouthshire there was a rural
police, as he supposed there would be in every county
in England ; and there must also be places for receiving
the persons taken into custody, and for hearing the
charges. He was sure th it the advantages to the coun-
ties would greatly overbalance the expense which the
Bill might occasion. It was his wish to leave the dis-
cussion of the details for the Committee. But
as to its principles, ha need not remind th
House that the proposition had often been before Par-
liament. Grand jurors, magistrates, and persons of all
descriptions had petitioned for it, and two Committee!.
,f that House had reported in its favour. He thought
that something ought to be done to interpose between
young children of nine, ten, oreleven years of age, and
-_he severities or contamination of a common prison. I;
had been objected that felonies ought not to be tried
without the intervention of juries, and also that the
power of summary punishment ought not to be given toan
irresponsible magistracy. With respect to the first object
' he must say that it was the absurd disproportion of pu-
nishment and crime thatcreated the felony,and not the act
itself. If a great number of the offences called felo-
nies were punished only as misdemeanors it would be
evident enough that their guilt amounted to nothing
more. Until the reform of the penal code, many
trivial offences were designated capital felonies, as
it was a capital felony to deface London-bridge.
Then, with respect to the other part of the Bill, that
the investing of Magistrates with extra power, he denied
that it would have any such effect. His object was to
give him the power of a farmer over his ser-
vant, or of a master over his pupil, and no more—
to give him the power to send a boy from
ten, eleven, or twelve years of age to some :place where
he would have a chance of being reclaimed. He said
that it was a Bill of mercy ; its only object was to erect
a Magistrate to the condition of a parent, and, when a
child had no parent, to give him national parents and na-
tional guardians—(Hear)—and prevent him from being
sent to a gaol where he could not but be contaminated
Last year they had passed a Bill for the erection of a
Penitentiary in the Isle of Wight, which he had ne
doubt would effect much good. In the county of
Warwick they had long had one established, and he
could assure Hon. Members that they had really re-
formed boys—not reformed them and turned them
out, but they had traced them afterwards,
and found them good members of society.
In France the same system had long been established,
and he was assured with great success. He had been
told, on the best authority, that by the French Code,
article 66, persons under sixteen years of age were ac-
quitted, on the ground of insufficient reason. He had
gone thus into detail, because he understood it was
intended to oppose the second reading. He would ask
whether they thought the education of the people
was of importance? He could testify himself, and
he had seen thousands of cases, that not one in a hun-
dred were urged to crime from distress, but from their
ignorance of their moral, social, and religious duties.
He read in a paper, a few days ago, an account of the
trial of two girls of the age of nine and eleven years for
stealing five books, and who were convicted ; and what
was done with them ? In order to get rid of them,
the one was sentenced to seven days' impri-
sonment, and the other, in order that she might
be sent to the Children's Friendly Society, was sen-
tenced to be transported for seven years. Now, he
really thought if she had been sent there in the first in-
stance, there would have been a much greater chance of
her reformation. He, therefore, hoped they would
allow the Bill to be read a second time and go
into Committee, and not confound matters of detail
with principle, but establish an intermediate Court
for juvenile offenders, and thus put an end to, in his
opinion the greatest source of crime in this country.
Mr. MILES said it was with great regret he felt
himself bound to oppose the second reading
of the Bill. He had found the greatest difficulty
in discovering any principle in it, and the Right Hon.
Baronet in his speech had not only altered the
details, but every principle he could find. He was
far from stating that the jurisprudence of the coun-
try ought to be left in its present state, and he
was for excluding many offences from trial by Jury,
upon which he thought that a wrong decision was
often come to. The Hon. Baronet had correctly
stated the different attempts that had been made
to legislate upon this subject. In 1834 the County-
rate Committee, of which the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Tarnworth was Chairman,
suggested that part of the criminal expense
which bore on the county-rates should be trans-
ferred to the Consolidated Fund, and they stated that
some tribunal or other ought to be established for
the trial of juvenile offenders. The Government so
far acted on this Report that they referred the subject
to the Commissioners then sitting upon the Criminal
Law ; and they produced a Report on juvenile delin-
quency which might be called the third Report of the
Commissioners. They state that if the pr?perty.
stolen was under the sum of lOs., the Justice of
the Peace ought to have the power of
or punishing the offender with six months' I,.mpvreistohnc:
ment. If above lOs., and under 51., he wasnm teontaa
Then
power of inflicting twelve months' imprisonment.
tryingage.
airrt n washye
B offence,pirl proposed stle,
hcel e to
nno
toßite
i 3
prisonertor Justiceson
etwas,o u
underltdi s the
a powercertain
impose
greatf.
ex-
penses on the counties for the erection and support of
new edifices, &c. ; and the counties were already
sufficiently burdened.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon-
ourable Baronet meant that his measeur?irerent4isihrowteunel;nl,
operate on oangec. children
(oi\fire.levi‘einil,est,)welevxep,
that crime began at very early ages, certainly in
the first instance oriainating in bad education. Front
a Report of the Commission of which the speaker had
been Chairman, the Hon. Member proceeded to read
the confessions of two boys of the ages of fifteen and
fourteen, who stated that they had three years ago left
honest labour and taken to thieving—that they used to
travel from town to town—that their adult friends used,
when they got into scrapes in the streets, " to mill them
outlet the crowd"—and that they often used " to gammon'

the constables to let them go. Now, under the Bill of
the Hon. Bart., which would allow bail to be taken
for such offenders, who could doubt that these elder
professors of felony would come forward, and bail their
proteges. He had another objection to this Bill, be-
cause he thought they ought to look more especially to
the taking away from the code of felony all minor of-
fences. He would ask his Honourable Friend if
he had ever found any difficulty with Juries in returning
a verdict on the score of age, and if it was not
almost always on account of the almost valueless nature
of the property stolen, that they hesitated about return-
ing a verdict ? According to the proposed Bill, if a
lad of 16 stole property to any amount the case might
be disposed of summarily by two Magistrates, and if a
poor old woman picked up a bundle of wood, her
case must be sent before a jury. He hoped
the Honourable Baronet would allow this Bill to
go to a Committee up stairs, with a view to
amending the law of felony, generally removing from it
altogether many minor offences ; therefore, he should
feel disposed, unless the Hon. Baronet would consent
to go to a Committee up stairs, to move that the Bill
should be read a second time that day six months.
He would ask whether, if the Bill passed in the House
at present, there would be any chance of their being able
to proceed with it any further ? Under those circum-
stances he hoped the Hon. Member would accede to his
suggestion by sending the Bill to a Committee up stairs.
If not, he would move that the Bill should be read again
that day six months.
Mr. FOX MAULE said that he thought the Hon.
Gentleman bad thrown out a suggestion, which should
be attended to, and he hoped the Hon. Member would
I consent to adopt the proposition that had been made.He
1 (Mr. M.) was afraid that it would otherwise not be ad-
visable to pass the Bill. There was much, however, that
was good in the principle of the Right Hon. Baronet. He
thought that in particular the resolution to dispose of
juvenile offenders in a way different from anything they
had hitherto done was a useful one. In a Committee
up stairs they would have an opportunity of discussing
that matter, as well as the other advantages of
the Bill. He believed that it would also be im-
portant to ascertain whether they might not be able to
, change the manner of holding Petty Sessions at
present, without incurring any additional expense.
He was unwilling to vote against a Bill containing the
principles which the present one did, and he trusted,
therefore, that the Hon. Baronet would consent to its
being referred to a Committee up stairs.
Colonel WOOD did not think the present Bill
would be improved by sending it to a Committee up
stairs, because be thought the punishment of minor
offences would be better effected by a Bill intro-
duced by the Honourable Gentleman opposite.—
(Hear, hear.) Whether the Secretary of State
would like to originate such a Bill or refer the matter
to a Committee up stairs, was a question for his
own consideration, but be (Colonel Wood)
thought that one or other of these courses
ought to be adopted. He could not see the
reasonableness of age limiting the jurisdiction.
He considered that instead of dealing with these petty
thefts as larcenies, they ought to see if they could not
enact that thefts of a small nature should be dealt
with sutnmarily.—(Hear, hear.) He objected, how-
ever, to summary jurisdiction, giving the Magistrates
a power to imprison in petty cases, as he considered a
fine much better. It was found that when large fines
were imposed, poor men went to prison, but when
a fine of a few shillings, being, however, more than
the value of the property stolen, not, only
was the fine paid, but a repetition of the offence was
prevented. It was not necessary to send the Bill to
a Committee up stairs, for the purpose of ascertaining
what were the opinions of fa) country gentle-
men upon the second clause, for the building of
sessions houses and prisons for juvenile offenders.
Country gentlemen would certainly not be favourable to
the incurring of such expenses. The rural police had been
established in some counties, and would be established
throughout the country ; and nothing could reconcile
the country to the expense of that establishment, but
die efficacy of that force in preventing crime. If it was
only useful in detecting crimes after they had been
committed, certainly the country would not be contented
with the expense, much less with the expense of
new prisons and Courts. He hoped the Bill would not
be pressed to a second reading now. but that the Go-
vernment would either take the matter into its own
hands, or refer it to a Committee up stairs.
Mr. SANFORD though'... t',e House was indebted
to his Hon. Friend for bringing forward the measure,
and he did not think it necessary to refer the question
of summary punishment in cases of minor offences to a
Committee up stairs, as that question had already been
examined in Select Committees, and reported upon by
them.

General JOHNSON did not know whether the prin-
ciple or details of the Bill was the most objectionable.
He did not think it could be made better up stairs,
and therefore he would vote against it. There would be
no end to the expense under the Bill ; but above
all, it was a direct attack upon the trial by jury. No
Committee could remedy the evils it contained, and if
the Hon. Member for Somersetshire did not divide the
House upon reading the Bill, he would certainly make
that motion.

Mr. ESTCOURT should be sorry to see this mea-
, sure thrown out without the chance of amending it be-
' fore a Committee up stairs, but if he were called upon
to vote upon the Bill as it stood, he should most deci•
dedly vote against it. He thought nothing could be
worse than considering age as the criterion by which to
be guided in subjecting offenders to a summary jurisdic-
tion, as it was admitted that among young persons
were to be found the greatest offenders, while among
older persons there were many whose offences ought to
be dealt with in a summary way from motives of hu-
manity.
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT had never thought of
adopting age as the criterion of punishment, but as the
criterion of education, and his object was not the pu-
nishment of juvenile offenders, but their education, with
a view to their reformation. He was willing to consent
that the Bill should go to a Committee up stairs, but he
predicted that a Bill would come down from that Com-
mittee totally different in principle from that which was
then before the House. The principle of his Bill was
to prevent a boy sixteen years of age being contami-
nated by imprisonment, and thus being made a rogue.
Si: G. STRICKLAND thought the Bill of the
Hon. Baronet was of the most objectionable kind. It
would, in fact, take the right of trial by jury from those
who most needed that protection, and who could not be
expected to be able to plead their own cause as well as
those more advanced in years. He thought the magis-
trates were rightly trusted with the powers they had,
but he was not inclined to extend their powers further.
and to take away from the people the right of trial by
jury. He had looked over the Bill, and could not see
one redeeming point in it, and he should, therefore, con-
cur in the amendment, that it be read a second time that
day six months.

Mr. AGLIONBY wished not to give a silent vote
on this question, since he should vote for the second
reading, notwithstanding what had been said respecting
trial by jury and expense. There was no person who
more highly estimated trial by jury than he did, but he
believed there might be many cases in which, however
good it might be in theory, it would be very injurious in
practice. The Bill appeared to him to be one not of
punishment but reformation—to save juvenile offenders
from the contamination of a gaol, and to educate them
in their duty. He had not had so much experience as a
magistrate as many gentlemen, yet in practising his
profession at Quarter Sessions, he had ofttimes been
painzd to see children of eight, nine, or ten years of
age subjected to all the formalities of a public trial for
the offence—he might almost say natural to children—
of stealing a few apples, or similar articles. The ex-
pense he considered a matter of minor importance, when
the object of the Bill was the reformation of morals.
He should therefore vote for the second reading.
Mr. PRYME asked where the magistrates were to
send the youths—to prison ? The only point was,
then, whether there should be contamination before or
after conviction. The whole question resolved itself
into one of prison discipline.
Sir E. WILMOT—The Hon. Member cannot have
read the Bill—(Order, order)—for the Bill says nothing
about sending to prison, but sending to asylums or peni-
tentiaries.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PRYME—The very words of the Act are—
to the common gaol, or house of correction, or some
asylum."—( Hear, hear.)
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the Bill
Against it
Majority —33