The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS. April 28.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
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withdrawn, he must still say that he agreed with its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
it 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 lion.
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
campelled 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 Memberof that
House who had not received a legal education, and who
was not connected with the administrathoo. Baronet
nh
ofpublic
justice. He hoped that at least the Right
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 bad a direct tendency to do away with one of the
principal safeguards of the English subject—namely,
trial by jury. Ho hoped that the magistrates of this
country would not attempt to have any such power de-
puted to them, for there was, even under the present
public systems 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
measure 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 hands of some professional man,
and be regretted that it had been left to him. The first
objection of the Hon. Member for Bath, as to the exer-
cise of these very large powers 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 he
proposed to give them. Under that Act, any single
magistrate sitting in his private parlour might send any
6flender to prison for not six, but twelve months. He
begged the lion. Member for Bath to reflect that those
who were magistrates, and who objected to this mea-
sure, 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 unobjectionable.) He must now ex-
press his great regret for the manner in which the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary dealt with the
Bill. When he (Sir J. Pakington) introduced the
Bill the Right Hon. Gentleman gave him a good
reception, but now, on the second reading, he
withdrew his support on the grounds of the details be-
in.. 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
to 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 forward 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 objection 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 affirming 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-
ture.

Mr. HENLEY thought the measure did not gee
far enough. The question, in his opinion, 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 ; and, 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. ADDERLEY said that the principle of separate
imprisonment was just gaining ground in this country;
but that principle could not be carried out with yegard
to juvenile offenders, towards whom a system of corporal
punishment should be adopted. He did hope that the
Bill would be allowed to go to a second reading.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that it was quite clear that
the present Bill would not pass during this ses-
sion. Even if the second reading were carried by
a division, it would be sent to a Committee
up-stairs, and thee, 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 parties
in rendering matters worse than they were at the pre-
sent. He would vote against the measure.
Mr. 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 in the Bill 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 were 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 vote for the Right lion. Baronet's
Bill, 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—
For the Amendment
Against it! 75
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
RATING 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 Gentleman the Member for Stroud
(Mr. Poulett Scrape) had a Bill on the paper
- (the Poor and Highway RatesExcemption Bill), which ,1
professed to obtain the same object as the Rating of ;
Tenements Bill, but in a different may; but he (Sir G.
Grey) did not think it would answer the end for which
it was designed, and h
he could not support
the second
begged to intimate that
second reading of his Bill.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the Bill now before the House
had caused the greatest collstoernation among those per-
sons who, on the score
o{ rates, tied been hitherto
exempted from the paymenri'.
and therefore lie
mild not be agreed
hoped the second reading of the Bill
persons to pay
to by the House, as it would call,uoposn
o on account of
rates who were wholly unable to Li
their poverty.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE objected to the Bill the ground that it would entail great. hards'll'n
upon the pour. The present law was enacted in teliPe
54th year of George 111., and invested magistrates
with
the power of exempting persons from the payment of
rates who were unable to du so t n account of their
poverty ; and thus a vast proportion of the cot-
tage property of the country had been exempted
from the payment of rates ; but, it' this Act were
passed, it would compel the landlords to impose
a higher rent than heretofore on their tenants, or com-
e.: pel the tenant, if the duty of :paying the rates did
not devoive on the landlord, to pay a sum in addition to
his rent, though, perhaps, barely able to do that. A
vast numb ..r of petitions had been presented from the
zvrer parts of the kingdom in favour of his Bill, and
amongst them there were two from the county
with which he was connected —Wiltshire one
stated that the cottage property of the place formed one
twenty .second part of the whole house property, and
that nearly all the cottages under 6/. were exempted
from the payment of rates. In Liverpool there were
40,000 cottages, 32,000 of which were exempted from the
payment of rates. The rates an the whole amounted to

a

tr i

t*