The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-21 00:00:00

mature certain alterations which he intended to suggest

in Committee.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, with respect to the desi-
rableness t f having a resident clergyman in all cases,
ho hoped and believed that there could be
no difference of opinion. He knew a case where six
different benefices were held by the same individual, and
the aggregate income of the whole did not amount to
3504 the sum which the Hon. Member for Montrose had
estimated should be the minimum stipend of a clergyman
to enable him efficiently to discharge his duties.
He
wished to know how far her Majesty's Government
would hold themselves prepared to adopt the principle of
this Bill before allowing it to go to a Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was desirable to make
further restrictions on the holding of pluralities. He
had it in contemplation himself to introduce a Bill on
the subject, and therefore it was that a postponement of
the present Bill going into Committee was asked.
Mr. HORSMAN said the principle of our constitu-
tion was opposed to all pluralities and sinecures in the
State ; still more did he conceive it necessary to apply
that rule to the Church. As regards the measure be-
fore the House, although he considered it a great im-
provement on the law as it now existed, he should like
to see the principle carried to its full extent, that they
should allow no sinecure in the Church, and should give
to every parish its resident teacher. He should recom-
mend, where there were two contiguous parishes ex-
tremely small, they should be united into one, so as not to
maintain more than one incumben►, and so as to preclude
the possibility of there being only one service on Sundays
in each parish.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought, if the Government
had it in contemplation to introduce a measure on this
subject, it vc, as but an idle waste of time to go on dis-
cussing the present Bill, and he should recommend the
Hon. Gentleman who had it in charge to withdraw or
ro,tpone it.
Captain JONES was of opinion that the Bill would
not be answerable to Ireland at all.
Mr. FREWEN thought the Bill should be made more
stringent than it was.
The Bill was then read a second time without a divi-
sion.

LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON moved the second reading
of this Bill. One object of the Bill was to ext9nd the
provisions of the Juvenile Offenders' Act. It would be
in the recollection cf the House that, when he first in-
troduced that Bill, he drew the distinction at 16 years
of age, but in the Select Committee on the Bill the Com-
mittee though he was carrying the distinction too far.
All who were acquainted with the working of this criminal
portion of the law, were aware that all offences committed
by persons under 16 years were always lightly dealt with.
The only change, then, which he desired to effect, was
t) reduce the age from 16 to 14. The only other part of
the Bill in which he was particularly interested was
one to which he bezged to call the particular attention
of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
His Hon. and Learned Friend would recollect that at
_ _

the beginning of last session the subject of punishment
fir small offences had been largely diicusFel, and that it
was they agreed that—without interfering with the
sacred trust of preserving the trial by jury—it would
be better to reduce these offences by immediate punish-
ment. It was acknowledged on all hands that the
course of prosecution which is now followed was in
every way detrimental to the public interests•.—(Hear.)
He would deprecate the opposition proposed by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. M'Cullagh),
believing that if he looked into the reports he would find
that the objections which he entertained were all ob-
viated in the details cf the measure.—(Hear, bear.) Ile
trusted also that the Government would offer no opposi-
tion to the Bill; fir tiey should recollect that this Bill
was simply in accordance with the Juvenile Offenders'
Bill, and merely carried out that Bill to a further extent.
They ought not to punish the counties in the way cf
expense for the prosecution of small offences. He
had himself had Brest experience in the
investigation cf small offences in the coal districts, and
he had found that, is the neighbourhood cf Dudley, the

criminality of coal-heavers frequently went unpunished
from the expenses likely to be incurred by a prosecu-
tion. He did not hesitat ) to say that the coal-owners
frequently lost several tons a-week, whereas, had there
been a summary means of conviction, some cf those
offences would not have passed unpunished, and the evil
would soon have been concluded. It had been ascer-
tained that although the countiel were allowed 401. for
each prosecution, the real expenses were only 20s. for
each case. On these grounds he trusted that there
would be no opposition to the second reading.
Mr. M'CULLAGH said that he should withdraw
_ _

his opposition for the present, but should certainly take
the sense of the House upon 0:e Bill when it was sent
down for Committee. He hai a great objection to the
extension of the jurisdiction of the nosgistrates in crimi-
nal cases.
After a few words from Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Air.:MILNES said he could not understand the reasons
on which the Hon. Gentleman (11r. ArCullagh) opposed
this Bill. He could not find from his experience that
they could draw any line between criminals of the ages
of 14 and 16, and he thought the extension which was
proposed in this Bill would be very salutory. His only
objection to this Bill was that it was not summary
enough, and his experience went to show that the more
summary the punishment for such javenile offenders,
the better it would be.

Mr. NAPIER had received communications from Ire-
land which show ed that such a measure as this was ab-
solutely necessary. In many cases he believed the
imprisonment which some criminals underwent before
their trial occurred was a much greater punishment
than the offence deserved. The Learned Gentleman
read some extracts from returns, which he had received
from Ireland, in which it was stated that many persons
committed fJr petty offences stealing articles of the
value of a few pence, were often discharged at 30 and 50
miles from home.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL fully agreed with
the principle of this Bill. The only difficulty be
saw in it was to fix the sum. He had received
as many recommendations to fix the sum at
51., as at one shilling. This Bill would put
an end to many anomalies which it was intolerable
should remain on the statute book. For instance, a boy
who stole an apple from a tree could be summarily
punished, but if another boy stele an apple from under
the tree ho was obliged to be committed. He should
support the Bill.
Mr. PACKE thought there was no objection to ex-
tending the jurisdiction to 16 instead of 14 years of age.
He quite agreed with the Learned Attorney-General as
to the anomalies of the law relating t' potty larceny, but
he did not think this Bill met the difficulty. The Bill,
therefore, ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
Offences ought to be placed upon a clear and clerked level,
and until that was done they were only doing mischief
by legislating on the matter. The difficulty in the way of
this Bill would arise in this way:—lt gave the magis-
trates power to adjudicate summarily in the case of petty
offences committed by adults and old offenders, who, in
some districts unknown, might often be dealt with under

the provisions of this Bill, when if they were tried by a
jury, transportation would be their punishment. While,
therefore, he approved of the Bill as fir as it related to
children, he doubted the expediency of opening the door
to the escape of offenders by extending it to adults.
Mr. ROBERT PALMER supported the measure,
knowing from experience that many trumpery cases
were sent to trial under the existing law which ought to
be summarily dispoeed of. He trusted, too, that it
would be extended to Irelsnd. It appeared to him that,
with respect to that part of the Bill which extended sum-
mary jurisdiction over persons of sixteen instead of four-
teen years of age, he saw no objection to that. He be-
lieved that many petty offences were overlooke 1 in con-
sequence of the expense and trouble of going before a
more formidable tribunel than two magistrates. That
was an evil which this Bill would tend to correct.
Mr. HENLEY had very considerable doubt with
respect to the Bill after what had fallen from the At-
torney-General. It was quite clear that a very adroit
distinction had been adopted by the Hon. Member for
Droitwich between grand and petty larceny. It was quite
clear they were commencing a system of doing away with
trial by jury. That was a very grave matter, but
it was one which might be discussed hereafter, and the
Hon. Gentleman opposite would act prudently if he did
now divide the House. With regard to the age of the
children that was a very different question. The reason
for the introduction cf the Juvenile Offenders' Bill was
to prevent the contamination of young persons in gaol
hefore they were tried. So far as that went he entirely con-
curred. He thought sixteen was a very proper age to
which to extend the summary jurisdiction. He thought
there would be some possible inconvenience in the work- I
ing of other parts of the Bill. As to the inconvenience
of turning a man out of gaol, as was suggested by the
Hon. Member for Dublin, that inconvenience would
exist just as much with respect to a man committed
summarily as if committed by a jury.
Mr. P. MILES was of opinion that a great necessity
existed for the adoption of some such measure as this.
He said, that from his experience as a chairman of a
quarter sessions, lasting over a period of sixteen years,
He was sorry that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
would not take the division on the second reading of this
Bill, because they were all acquainted with the details,
and the longer it was delayed the greater would be the
injury to the country.
Mr. VIVIAN said that his name was at the back of
the Bill, and he only wished to say that the expenses which
had been found to press so heavily on the counties would
be greatly relieved by the operation of this Bill. That
which now cost 12/. 10s. would be reduced to 21.
The Bill was then read a second time without a
division.
TENANTS RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL.
On the motion being put for the second reading of this
Bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he did not wish to
oppose the second reading, but he hoped that measures
would be taken to prevent the expenses from falling
upon the counties.
After a few words from Mr. SOTHERON,
Sir H. HALFORD advised that the whole burden
should not be laid on landed property alone, an opinion
in which Mr. Spooner coincided, and suggesting that
the Bill should be deferred, but in the meantime the
expense should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. SPOONER agreed with his Hon. Friend in his
opinion of this Bill. He should, however, advise that
the Bill should be postponed. He did notesee why the
landed interest should bear the expenses of lunatic asy-
lums. He thought that the evils which caused lunacy
were found much oftener in crowded towns than in the,
agricultural districts.
After a few words from Sir G. GREY,
Mr. HUME thought, that if the principle of the Hon.
Gentleman opposite was carried out, that the poor-
rates and country-rates should be transferred to the
Consolidated Fund. He thought that no expenditure
ought to be thrown upon tho Consolidated Fund
unless the Government had the sole superintendence of
it; the Consolidated Fund had quite sufficient to bear at
present. He protested against such doctrines being
I broached in the House at this time.

Mr. HENLEY thought that the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down, if he carried out his principle,
would vote for these charges being transferred to the
Consolidated Fund. Not a single farthing could be laid
out on asylums unless the sanction of the Secretary of
State had been previously obtained.
Mr. HUME said that the Secretary of State had
nothing to do with the details of the plans, but only had
to see that they were adequate.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said the Secretary of State had
power to control the plans and elevations of both
lunatic asylums and prisons.
Sir G. GREY said the approval of lice plans no doubt.
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed.