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

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' Amendments to the Cheltenham Water-
works Bill were agreed to.
The report on the Colchester, Stour Valley, Sudbury,
and Halstead Railway (Extension to Melford, Laren-
ham, and Clare) was further considered and agreed to.

GRAIN IN DISTILLERIES.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented petitions from Belfast
and Methune ar,ainst the use of grain in distilleries.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from
Warrington complaining of the state of that town, and
praying for some legislative enactment.
EDUCATION.
Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from Northamp-
ton in favour of the Government plan of education.
SMALL TENEMENTS BILL.
Mr. R. SPOONER presented petitions from several
parishes in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, praying
for exemption from the Rating of Small Tenements Bill.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool
against certain clauses in the Rating of Small Tene-
ments Bill.
Mr. P. SCEOPE presented similar petitions from
parishes in Lancashire.
BANK OF ENGLAND.

On the motion of Mr. FORSTER the following returns
were ordered :—Returat of the circulation of the Bank
of England, and of the banks of issue in England and
Wales, Scotland and Ireland, from January, 1846, to
the present time (in continuation of Parliamentary,
Paper, No. 27, of session 1846). Of the notes, securi-
ties, Bullion, &c., of the Bank of England, as published
in the Gazette, from the passing of the Act 7 and 8 Vic.
e. 32, to tho present time (in eontinuation of Parliamen-
tary Paper, No. 336, of session 184 b). Account of the
quarterly averages of the Bank of England since the 24th
day of January, 1846 (in continuation of Parliamentary
Paper, Nc•. 27. of session 1846).
DROPPED ORDERS OF THE DAY.

The dropped notices of motion and orders of the day
were reappointed.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL
Sir J. PAKINGTON presented several petitions
from parts of Worcester in favour of the Juvenile
Offenders Bill.
On the motion that the Juvenile Offenders Bill be
read a second time,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Bill be read that
day six months. A very extensive power was pro-
posed to be vested in the magistrates of this coun-
try ; but, in his opinion, the magistrates of this
country did not know their duty. (Hear, hear.)
It was proposed that two magistrates, sitting in private,
not in a public court, should have the option to adjudi-
cate on cases where the age of the offender did not ex-
ceed fifteen years. and when the property did not exceed
the value of 40s. Now, that was opposed to the principle
of the constitution of this country, which was that
there should be perfect publicity given to
administer the law ; but, perhaps, a fox-hunting jus-
tice would not, by want of legal information, and by
the operation of injurious influences, be competent to
administer justice fairly.
An How. MEMBER seconded the motion.
Mr. G. BANKES—There certainly were some provi-
sions in the Bill to which he could not give a very warm
assent. But, at the same time, it was most
important that there should be some law on this
subject.—(Hear, hear.) Under the present system
contamination to juvenile offenders was inevitable.
Publicity to the proceedings of Courts of Justice
should be of the fullest character ; not only should the
public generally be admitted, but the press should be
also admitted, and not only that, but both the public
and the press should, by the arrangements made,
be invited to attend. And it was most important that
the subject should be considered by the House. He would,
therefore, cordially concur in the principle of the Bill.
Sir GEORGE GREY—The subject was certainly one
of the greatest importance. He dissented, however,
from the Bill of the Honourable Gentleman,
and was sorry that he could not express a hope that it
would be put in a state in which it would receive the
sanction of the House. He agreed with the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) that summary jurisdiction
should be exercised in public. There could be no doubt
that there should be some provision in reference to
juvenile offenders, and he hoped to be able yet to pre.
sent a Bill to Parliament by which asylums would be
provided for those whose offences were rather the effect
of their misfortunes than their crimes, and in which the
object would be not punishment but reformation. Under
these circumstances, he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would
not press his Bill. He should not say anything against the
principle of more speedy punishment of offenders. He
agreed with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) as to
the impolicy of giving such extensive jurisdiction as was
eroposed by this Bill to county magistrates, and he con-
sidered that it would be most advantageous to increase
stipendiary magistrates, who would not supersede local
magistrates, but not with them, and then summary
jurisdiction would be in the hands of gentlemen imme-
diet. ly responsible to the Executive Government. The
subject of the Bill was attracting attention every day,
there was a • Committee in the House of Lord;
had
dec of the
totthank Hthoenopuaireasblehe Gheandtlbeemsatonw,
upon it, and he had no doubt that the
f or
edwhuopraon hi he
Bill, would be accomplimhed.
Mr ROEBUCK explained, that he did not wish to be
understood as saying anything personally disrespectful to
county magistrates.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
_ _ _

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 proceeoing against
offenders in a more summary manner than at present.
He thought what had fallen from the Right Hon.
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 Member of that
House who had not received a legal education, and who
was not connected with the administration of public
justice. He hoped that at least the Right Hon. Baronet
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 had a direct tendency to do away with one of the
principal sa.eguards of the English subject—namely,
trial by jury. He 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 system, a great difficulty in trying mane 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 he 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
offender 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 recomm-ndation 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
uld b i 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
c.nsidered the Bill unotijccionable.) 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) introduoed the
Bill the Right lion. Gentleman gave him a good
recef Lion, but now, on the second reading, he
withdrew his support on the grounds of the details he-
ing objectionable. He begged, however, to tell him
move all
walilreocboin,,soitdioearedbuer dw.ars
taeuthwoilrlin)
tbhuatt tthoe ser
otavi
g
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
the Bill, the more especially as it had cosatg him
(Sir J. Pakiegton) a good deal of trouble, and
had not been brought forward without the
moat careful consideration. Lie thought the Bill was