The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-25 00:00:00

-- -
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

1100-5 E OF COMMONS, April 24
JUVENILE O:;FENDERS BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Sir GEOR,GE GREY was not in the least diipCned
treat with il:dift,renee the questi3n before the House;
ho think the House would be indifferent

to rely prautic d measure on the subject.—(Hear,
hear.) The Bill now before the House contemplated
the ex•ension of the summary jurisdiction possessed by
megistrates with regard to juvenile offender?. That
was nothing more nor less than to leave the law pre-
cisely 03 it was under the Juvenile Offenders
Act, introduced by his Honourable Friend the
Member fir Droiteich (Sir John Pakington). The
Bill, secondly, proposed the adoption of the principle
of the criminal responsibility of parents; and he (Sir
George Grey) was not prepared to give such a
latitude of power to the magistrates as was con-
templated by that part of the Bill. The third
object of the Bill was the establishment of county and
district industrial schools in respect to juvenile of-
fenders. It however was of a different character; it
proposed that two justices should have power to adju-
dicate in cases where parents instigated their children to
the committal of crime, so that a man who urged his
child to commit a murder would be liable to a trumpery
fine, while the child would be tried for the
capital offence, (Hew, hear.) The fact was
the Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the measure
had mistaken the criminal responsibility of the parent
for a pecuniary liability. These formed two distinct
questions of a very different character, and this circum-
stance only showed the inoperative nature of the
Bill. The remaining clauses were equally objectionable,
Many of them were really extraordinary, if not dan-
gerous, while some were laughably ridiculous. No ma-
gistrate indeed could venture to put auy of them in
force. One of them came directly in contact with tie
Mutiny Act, and in not a few respects the provisions
of the Bill would inflict great hardships
on the juvenile offenders rather than benefit him or im-
prove his condition. With regard to the third object
of the Bill, which related to the establishment of in-
duetrial schools, he did not object to the principle
of this part of the measure in the abstract,
but then the question was, would the Bill as it
stood, lead to the realization of that principle. He was
afraid not, while if the principle were good, as no doubt
it was, why confine the industrial schools to counties?
Why should t iey not be extended to towns?—(tlear,
ar.) This point of the subject, however,
was not of so pressing a nature as to justify the passing
of this Bill, and though he agreed with the well-
merited eulogiums which the Honourable Gentleman
had pissed upon the exertions of the Phi-
lanthropic Society. whose efforts were ever di-
rected to the reclamation of youthful offenders, he did
not think the Bill would tend to reduce the evil it eae
proposed to meet, if it were held out to the world that all
juvenile offenders would be provided for, and he must
therefore resist the motion for its second reading.—
(Heae.) No later than yesterday he received a commu-
nication from the secretary to the Philanthropic Society,
enclosing him a translated report to the French Republic
on this very subject, and he felt bound to state that its
conclusions were quite opposite to those ho had just
urged upon the attention of the House. With regard
to the question of pecuniary responsibility on
tLe part of the parent, he at once admitted that the
principle was an admirable one ; but here again the
provisions of this Bill were highly objectionable, and
most inoperative. To a certain extent this very prin.
cinciple was already in force, but the Bill proposed that
it should be extended to every case—an absolute
impossibility. In a word, the whole ma-
chinery of the Bill was impracticable, and
however laudable its object might be, or however admi-
rable its principle was, in many respects, he must give it
his decided opposition.—(Bear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND rose to move that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months ; but it
was not his intention to make a speech in support of the
amendment. 03 the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat dew❑ had anticipated every objection he could
urge against the measure. In fast the Right lion. Ba-
Tenet had taken his speech out of his lips—(Hear and a
la'igh)—and he should therefore content himself with
pointing out one or two defects in the measure which had
moat forcibly struck him. From beginning to end
the Bill had been drawn un in a most careless
manner. Its preamble stated that great evils resulted
from the continual imprisonment of juvenile offenders,
and yet one of the clauses distinc:ly provided that an
offender after so many convictions should be liable to
ba imprisoned in what was celled an industrial school
for seven years.
Mr. M. MILNES said the Hon. Baronet was in
terror, and was proceeding to explain when he was called
to order.

Sir G. STRICKLAND then proceeded, to say that
the Bill was full of imagination, and as a natural conse-
rin,nce, full of inconsistencies.—(A. laugh.) It aimed
another blow at the palladium of British liberty—trial by
jury, and he was therefore surprised to find on the back
the name of an Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who
must have had ample opportunities, in his own
time, of witnessing the advantages which resulted
to the country from the existence of this institution.
Ile would venture to say that the present Bill was one
of the molt ludicrous pices of legislation that
was ever brought before the House, for by
its provisions any party might be tried,
not before a magistrate, but in his servants' hall, before
all his drunken servants—(Hear, hear)—for the Bill
gave power to the magistrate to depute any one to
try parties charged with criminal oflbnc:',.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member cmclud-d by moving that the Bill be
read a second time that day six months.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the amendment.

Mr. SIMEON supported the second reading of the
Bill. He thought the course that had been adopted
by the Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir G. Strickland)
most inconsistent and totally uncalled for, if the mea-
sure introduced by his Honourable Friend the Mem-
b^r fir Pontefract was only rightly considered.
The principle of the Bill was one which would meet with
the approbation of eviry man who had given a due degree
of attention to this important subject. The Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Milnes) had showed beyond doubt that
the present state of the law with regard to this class of
offenders was bad and mischievous iu the highest degree.
He (Mr. Sime.in) concurred in that opinion. Ourtrew-
ment of this unfortunate class of the population was
well described by one of our poets, who said—

"Their infant minds, their infant years,
Owed nothing to our care;
Their minds neglected and their bodies bare."
The Honourable Member went on to draw a contrast
between the French prison of MAtray and our prison
at Parkhurst, unfavourable to the latter. The prisoners
who went to Mettray went not to a prison, but to an
agricultural colony; but the offender who went to Park-
ha rst went directly to a prison. The fact of a boy hav-
ing been at Mettray was an inducement for his fellow-
men t) respeao him in after life; and it was no uncom-
mon thing in France for persons who had been trained
at that colony to have placed over their shop signs the
words " Educated at Mettray."
Mr. lIEADL AM would give his cordial assent to the
broad principle involved in the Bill before the House,
though he would not pledge himself to vote for all its
details. One of the most important parts of the Bill
was that which gave power to the magistrates to make
the parish or the parents liable for the maintenance of
the juvenile offenders while in the proposed reformatory
asylums. He held in his hand the report which was made
by several of the greatest men in France to the National
Assembly, in which they recommended the Legislature
to establish industrial schools, on the ground that, after
n years' experience, they had been fully successful.
Being of opinion that the present Bill would accomplish
a great amount of good, he should give it his decided
support.
Sir J. PAKINGTON gave the Hon. Member who
introduced the Bill credit for his benevolent and praise-
worthy intentions, but he could not agree with him in
the mode by which he proposed to carry those intentions
into effect. The Bill would not only offer a premium on ,
vice
and dishonesty, but would saddle a large expense
on the county rates; and he should therefore feel it his
duty to vote f the amendment.
Colonel TawarsoN said he had looked over the
re port which was mode by a Committee of the
' Na-
tional Assembly of France and he could not find
in it the mention of anything which at all approached
to corporal punishment.—(Hear.) He was
.fluence in
sorry when
this species of punishment was losing its
introductionm
the army that any one should Propose its
into civil affairs. toliev,d that Napoleon
o u l d no
more have thought of submitting a young French officer
to corporal punishment than he would have considered
hirli fitted for service in a seraglio.—(Laughter.) He
remembered a captain of her Majesty's guards telling
him many years ago that he consid( red Wat Tyler the
first of Etigli:h reformers, though to be sure he I
was of a very rough sort.—(Loud laughter.)
The peacantrY of this country were a very sensitive
class, and if this species of punishment was to be put
again into practice, he th>ught there would be an end of
that wholesome compact which existed between the pea-
santry and the arist ,cracy.
Mr. TREL A WNY called upon the House to give
their serious attention to this important measure, which
it was his intention to support. He, however, begged it
to be distinctly understood that he supported the prin-
cip'e and not the details of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. RICE,
Mr. M. MILNES, amidst considerable impatience and
some confusion, essayed to reply, but the House seemed
indisposed to hear him further, and he at length put an
end to the noisy scene by stating that it was his inten-
tion to withdraw the Bill, au announcement that was
received with loud cheers.
The motion for the second reading was then negatived
wilhont a division, and the amendment agreed to.
VESTRIES AND VESTRY CLERKS' BILL.
This Bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed on the 22d of May.
AFFIRMATION BILL.
Mr. PAGE WOOD, after presenting large number
of petitions in favour of this Bill, proceeded to move
its committal, observing that its jorinciple had been twice
affirmed by the House. The ea perhaps was not
aware of it, but it was neverthelesuss that not only ,
were Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, relieved from
taking an oath in courts a Jaw, bat one who had
ever belonged to these bodies also enjoyed the same
privilege; and he could see no reason whlylleiedsirtirne con-
o cession should not be extended to all parties
of ano oath.
enter-
tained conscientious objections to the taking
He rested the second reading of the Bill
ground s—first, the right that the public had, in
atw°
to have the best evidence that could be procured, anall
d, es
se-
condly, on the extensive persecution that had prevailed
against those who conscientiously refused to take an
oath. The Hon. and Learned Member at some length
referred to caoes that had occurred, showing the evils
and grievancei; that had taken place from not allowing
parties to gicw evidence who would not take an oath.