The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-19 00:00:00

11, I se,•ltud numbered 2,024, of whom 151 were under
1. E. •1s of age, being an eighth of the whole number,
le number cf instances where the value cf the
,peeie r 7 stolen slid. not exceed ls. wee 270. The sic-
' es'.i*:ele.,arceuutiug to 434. Now these figures would
thesee-trate the importance of the change which it
lees : posed to make by this Bill. The criminal law of
tnie country was based upon .the principle, that every
party accused of an offence should be tried by a compe-
tent indge and a competent jury, aid the main object of
/se s
this Bill was to destroy that bulwark of liberty, so far as
th4lhumbler classes were concerned, in order to save
the pockets of the middle and higher classes of society.
He wouldzemind the House that until an Act passed
in the reign of George 11. no judge of .assize was al-
lowed to try ilitoriminal case in his own county. But it
was proposed by th's Bill to take away not merely the
security. of a judge, who would be presumably impartial,
but to substitute for him two magistrates to try cases in
their own neighbourhood and their own parish, although
a judgo in former times was not allowed to try a pri-
soner
i soner n his own county. By an old statute of Edward
111. it was enacted that, where criminals were tried at
quarter-sessions, the magistrates of the quorum should
consist of at least one who was "learned in the law,"
' who should act as a check on the ignorance of the lay
part of.the bench. But they proposed by this Bill not
. merely to take away'the quorum of the quarter• sessions,
but to substitute two magistrates of the locality
who should be learned or unlearned. (The Hon. Member
then proceeded to read a letter, addressed to the Chair-
man of the county of Limerick, stating that he was
most decidedly opposed to the Bill ; also a letter from a
Judge on the Irish bench, whose name, from delicacy,
he forbore to mention, who expressed his opinion that
the Bill was most unnecessary and mischievous, both in
, England and Ireland.) It formed:no part of his (Mr.
M'Cullagh'a) duty, on this occasion, that he should enter
into any statement: of the objections that might be
popularly urged as to the unfitness of the judges who
might be called on to adjudicate on cases of a serious
nature; but he thought it his duty to remind the House
that they were submitting the liberty of the subject
to the whim and ignorance of any two gentlemen who
might happen to be placed in the proposed commission.
It was true that they had the option given to them, but
how few comparatively could ever avail themselves of
that right who.really were deserving of it, while, on the
contrary, the hardened and astute villain would be the
only one ivho would be able to take advantage. It was
stated that it was of great importance that, in a country
like Great Britain, no waste cf public money
should be allowed to take ?pl6.ce, and this was
, a proposition which he did not mean to oppose,
but still that was no argument to legislate for the op-
presaion of any class of criminals on the motives of pub-
lic convenience. lie should say let legislators experi-
, meutalise upon themselves, and not first upon the poorer
. classes. Let them repeal trial by jury for themselves
first, before they tried it upon other classes. He
considered the Bill extremely objectionable, and should
feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon
. his amendment.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said he deeply lamented to
see the attempts which were continually being made
, to do away with trial by jury, which, from his earliest
days, ho had been taught to consider as one of the
dearest rights of Englishmen. The great objection
, which he, entertained to the present Bill was, that it
gave to magistrates, at petty sessions, unlimited power
• to torture a person under sixteen years by flogging,
, without the intervention of a jury. It would be, in his
opinion, extremely injudicious to give this unconstitu-
tionapower at a time when the public indigna-
tion had almost put an end to the prac-
tice of flogging in the army. (Hear, hear.)
, He believed that the old Mosaic law was humane, it pro-
vided that the number of stripes should not exceed a
certain number, but in this case the number was to
be left unlimited, and he insisted that this
part of the Bill was most unconstitutional. The
. advantage of trial by jury was that it forced the judge
who presided over the court so to expound the law that
it should be understood by the most ordinary minds, but
one of his main objections to this Bill was that
, it p'aced authority in the hands of parties
who were incompetent to administer the law. The
, magistracy of this country were perfectly incapable of
a-iwiuistcring the.law in the cases contemplated by this
Ile,- himself, had for 25 years, had the manage-
Eent of the legal business at the petty sessions of the
East and West Riding of Yorkshire, and the result of
that experience induced him to believe that the country
magistracy were totally incompetent to exer-
cise the power which this Bill would impose
. upon them. Be therefore trusted the House would
throw out this Bill, while he hoped to see the day when
the Juvenile Offenders' Act would be repealed. They
were going to entrust unconstitutional powers to the
hands of two magistrates which they would not confide
to the• judges of the land. They were now under-
taking the odious duties of convicting crimi-
nals without the intervention of a jury.
If they passed such a Bill as the present they would give
a death-blow to the unpaid magistracy of the country.
Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to the course that
had been adopted of arguing the principle of
the Bill on the motion for its going into Committee.
Ho was prepared to answer all the objections that had
been made to the 1111, and would do so when the House
was in Committee on it, but he deprecated again argu-
ing its principles.
Mr. C. HOWARD would give his steady opposition
to the Bill, believing its provisions to be inconsistent
with the constitution of England. He objected to the
summary powers of the Bill. The civil law of France
allowed the kings of that country to ascend the throne at
the; age of fourteen, while this Bill classed youths of
sixteen as juveniles.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he would state one single
ground for supporting the Bill. It enabled a criminal to
be tried and summarily decided instead of remaining in
prison three months, as at present. He thought it a
merciful Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said he wished to know whether the
Bill was to be divided into two Bills.
Sir G. GREY said that he would support that part of
the Bill which related to juvenile offenders, and would
abstain from expressing any opinion upon the other
portion of it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that when the House went
. into Committee he would take the sense of the House as
to whether the Bill should be divided into two parts, and
he should be guided by the opinion of Committee.
Mr. LAW said he did not know whether it was com-
petent for the Hon. Baronet to take that course. The
House had already substantially affirmed the question
that the Bill should be divided into two parts. If the
course proposed were persisted in he should vote against
the Bill altogether.
The House then divided when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... ... 183
.Againet it .. „, 76
Majority for going into Committee --57
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. LAW moved, pursuant to the instruction which
had been given to the Committee by the House to divide
it into two parts. He moved that the second part of the
Bill relating to adults be left out.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he would be very glad to
take the sense of the House on that question.
Sir G. GREY said he thought that the Honourable
Baronet was setting a bad example in going to a divi-
sion on this question alter the House, by a majority of
70, had already decided that the Bill should be divided.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that that result was ob-
tained by a motion of which no notice had been given. He
felt the Bill as it stood of so much importance that he
could not assent to the mutilation of the Bill.
Mr. LAW said that he was very sorry that the Hon.
Baronet had alluded again to want of notice. The
course pursued had been adopted by the highest autho-
rity, and his Hon. Friend knew he had given notice of a
motion to exclud adults altogether. He was not, there-
fore, taken by surprise in substance.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he must press upon the Coni-
mittee the necessity of not dividing this Bill as proposed.
'she Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Law's motion 102
Against it 50
••• ••• •••
Majority se, „.. —52
Mr.could AGLIONBY said that he considered nothing
be more beneficial to the prisoner, whether inno-
cent or guilty, than that he s
i summarily hould be tried,
for if innocent, he would be immediately discharged, in-
stead of being pent up in prison for some months to the
deterioraticn of morals a
and character, and if guilty it
were far preferable that he should be tried as soon as
possible.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he would wish to see a
purpose of clause'introduced for the ofextending summary
jurisdiction -to county courts, should say that, on the
whole, the Bill appearedyteoarbsimof useless,age.easonly apper-
taining to youths of 14
then animad-
verted on the system carried on at petty where
the press was generally excluded, and wehaesrni.pro-
c °dings were carried on without the knowledge of the
public.
Mr. PACKE objected to the remarks of the Hon.
anti Learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), as far as ye:
lased to the publicity given through the press, for such
was carried on as freely and as openly as at the quarter

sessions.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he could not account
for the Ifon. Gentleman's
(Mr. Roebuck's) sneering at
him, for during the last sixteen years that he had been
chairman of the petty sessions, he neverknedwreaadenyd 'act
on the part of his brother magistrates
most open publicity, and hoped that
bet.o Gentlemanre he
• would become more conversant
11 a
would make such sweeping allegations again. He then
specifying
rtarl an extract from the Act of Parliament,
that two or more magistrates must meet in the ac-
customed coast.
110E,IttUCK said that two ma 7,16
• tra'es meeting at
the accustomed court did. not qualify the publicity of
their decisions through the press, and that
was the
principal. point of his objectioiti
Sir GEORGE
G
Golitlemem were misßtaLkeYn a's"itsib d
theere d that r
cut
e
t
entitled the Juvenile Offenders Act. That Act gave
soofint e HAoce
jurisdiction to magistrates in petty sessions in CaSes Ot
boys of 14 years of age; aid passed through the House
aui,a,rds with only une-amendment, moved by Lord
IX onion. The real. question which they• bad now to
deterin;aie was, as to what gas the proper juvenile
trenc!ers. The al.-ea:Dent' of the lion. and Learned
Gentleman oppeiite was that 14 was the age to which
they should ,centine their legislation on this question,
and, on the other hand, it was deemed advisable to ex-
trnd the junadiotrion from the age of 14 to 16 years, and
that was the agkl in which governors of prisons classed
juvenile" offididers from adult offenders. And the
distinction war' analogous to the new poor law, which
treated the ease of relia given to a child as relief to the
parent. Pubetty or manhood was taken to commence
at " seventeen" years of age. The Bill had now been in
operation two yev.rs and a half, and not one complaint
had been made- to him by the juvenile offenders with
which it dealt—although complaints were frequent to
him from adults—not one complaint had been made to
him by the juvenile offenders who came within the juris-