The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-02 00:00:00

JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
On the first clans., being moved,
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said he considered that the

term of imprisonment proposed ought to br extented to
six months, as originally proposed in Committee, but the
Committee altered it to three months. He considered

that the alteration would have a salutary effect upon the
offenders.

Sir GEORGE GREY said the proposed alteration
had much to do with the place of confinement. He ad-
mitted that he was in favour of the extension of the term
of imprisonment provided that it was of a purely reforma.
tory character ; but, in the present condition of the
prisons, and the lack of ample reformatory means, he
acquiesced in the recommendation of the Committee,
and thought it would be well to postpone any alteration
in the Bill in this respect until the great reformatory
measures recommended by the Committee on Criminal
juvenile
offenders could be carried out. Unquestionably
offenders ought not to be exposed to the contamination
of offenders of riper age and greater depravity; but, as
there was no Bill before the House at present for carry-
ing out a plan of improved discipline as far as regarded
juvenile offenders, he thought it would be well to adhere
to the recommendation of the Committee.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the next clause being proposed,
Sir J. PAKINGTON recommended that the magis-
trates should be empowered to inflict a fine upon
juvenile offenders in some cases; thus he conceived their
parents would be induced to keep their children out of
the clutches of the Jaw, and they would thus, in many
cases, not be exposed to the contamination of the gaol.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said it was likely to
lead to abuse, as those who could pay would escape with
slight punishment, whilst those unable to pay would
meet with severe punishment. It certainly might induce
parents to keep their children out of the clutches of
the law, but he did not think that the plan would work
well.

The clause was then agreed to.
On the next clause being proposed,
Colonel WOOD said the number of times a boy
should be whipped should be left to the option of the
magistrates. He begged to move, as an amendment,
that the words " once or twice " be omitted.

Sir G. GREY considered that this was a matter
which might be left to the option of the magistrates.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that all words with re-
spect to whipping should be omitted. Juvenile offenders
were the very persons on whom such a punishment ought
to be inflicted.

Mr. GREENE explained that the amendments could
not be made until the bringing up of the npart.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said he should divide the House upon
the clause.

Atter a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY,
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the Right lion. Baronet would
Leave out the clause.

Sir GEORGE GREY consented to leave out the word
" twice," as it would enable a magistrate to substitute a
short period of imprisonment instead.
Sir J. PAKING TON consented, on the bringing up
of the report, to leave out the word "twice."
Mr. WAKLEY said the magistrates, if it were left to
them, might inflict a greater punishment in one
whipping, than they could in two—(Hear, hear)
—but he objected to it altogether, he objected to
whipping, because it was a brutal practice—it was not
fit for a human being at all; and after the course the
House had taken on the subject of corporal punishment
during the session, he trusted that they would not pass
any law which permitted whipping. He had seen
enough of their conduct to dread placing more in their
power, and he would conjure the Government not to do
away with so much of the privilege of trial by jury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the Hon.
Gentleman objected to the Bill without exactly knowing
its details. The friends of the children were not adverse
to having a private tribunal where they could take their
children to be punished, in order to deter them from
crime. By the present law a criminal could be im-
prisoned and ordered to be whipped either once, twice,
or thrice, privately, at the option of the magistrate.
Mr. WAKLEY said such a system was most dis-
graceful.

, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he did not
mean to enter into that part of the subject, but it was
much better, in his opinion, to hive such a tribunal
than to subject the offender to the ill consequences of a
confinement with hardened criminals.
Lord SANDON approved very much of the principle
of the Bill ; a good wholesome thrashing would prevent
the young criminal from a second offence.
Mr. WAKLEY desired to know what the Noble
Lord meant by a wholesome thrashing? flogging
a boy degraded him, and he never forgot a blow. If
the principle of the Bill was good, why not extend it to
men ?

After a few words from Mr. ADDERLEY and
PALMER,
Mr. CHRISTOPHER expressed himself in favour of
the Bill.

Mr. CURTEIS considered that flogging ought to be
administered in the presence of two or three magistrates.
He was generally adverse to the system of flogging.
Mr. DUG DALE said that he hoped the Honourable
Member would not divide the House on the question. In
fact, he considered that the Member for Finsbury had
made the speech most in favour of the Bill, for he said
that the boy would never forget it.
Mr. WAKLEY said that, in his opinion, flogging had
a bad effect upon the character, and the boy that w,s
flogged for stealing a few apples might be rendered a
burglar by the fact.

Mr. 13.4:SCOTT said that the question was, whether
they should subject boys to the piznis',.ment which, in
the opinion of some of the most scientific men, was hurt-
ful and dangerous.

After a few words in explanation from Mr. TRE,
LAWNY,

The gallery was cleared for a division, when there ap
peared—

Against the amendment
For it
Majority against the amendment — 48
On our re aimission we found

Mr. BODKIN moving that all the words from the
word " with," in the third line, to the word " judge," in
the fifth line, bP omitted.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the powers given in
this clause were only similar to the powers already in
existence. If the House gave this power, they would
enable magistrates to punish offenders properly, with-
out avoiding the infliction of proper punishment, or the
bad alternative of sending to the House of Correction.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped that care would be taken, if
the provision was put in force at all, that it should
apply equally to all classes, and that the children of
both rich and poor should have the benefit of a good
wholesome flogging.—(A laugh.)
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
which did not reach the gallery,
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
_ _ _

Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 4 being proposed,
Mr. WARLEY suggested, that in the case of a justice
issuing his warrant for the apprehension of a party, the
evidence of the party on whose oath the warrant was
granted should be taken in writing.
After a few words from' the ATTORNEY-GE-
NERAL the amendment was withdrawn, and the clause
was agreed to.

Clauses up to 14 were agreed to.
(LEFT SITTING.)

RAILWAY CONIMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP XVIII.
CHELTENHAM A ..14 D OXFORD.

The Committee met this morning at twelve o'clock (the
Earl of Lincoln in the chair), and immediately proceeded to
the consideration of the clauses of the Bill.