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

diction of the Act. The summary object Of the Bill
was to protect juvenile offenders from the contamination
which must result from their being imprisoned with
adult criminals. He was, therefore, for those reasons,
pre pared to support the Bill of the Hor, Member.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, thought that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, before he came down to make those
attacks on magistrates, should have taken up his own
law on " footpaths."
Mr. LAW (the Recorder of London) thought that
stopping the business of the House in this manner, was
more serious than the considerations about footpaths to
which the Hon. Baronet was referring, and he should,
therefore, move, " that the Chairman leave the chair
and report progress."
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON would only say in addi-
tion, with respect to the extension of the Act to sixteen
years, he considered it a very valuable extension.
Mr. LAW said the Right Honourable Baronet argued,
that the age of 14 years was regarded, in the classifica-
tion of crime, as the age supposed to be incapable of
committing rape; but although it might not be deemed
capable of committing a rape in his own person, he
might be chargeable with assisting another in the com-
mission of crime .

Mr. HUME was not disposed to blame any of those
parties who carried on the institutions of the country,
because to whoever undertook those duties he would
give the credit of meaning rightly. But he had often
regretted the situation in which the magistrates of petty
sessions were placed with regard to the administration
of justice. There ought to be no petty sessions without
a chairman brought up to the law, and appointed for
that purpose. The expense was nothing compared with
the importance of the considerations and interests to be
determined upon in relation to the due administration of
justice. He found that in Worcestershire the petty
sessions were often held in places where many of the
magistrates had objection to attend. :He considered that
they ought to be held in places more appropriate than
back pralours, or clerks' offices, or union workhouses.
He was rather surprised to hear the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department say that he had
not received any complaints from juvenile offenders of
the operation of this Bill. Why, who had ever heard of
complaints to a Secretary of State from boys of the age
of fourteen?—(Hear, bear.) He should, as far as his
humble.vote would go, object to the extension of the ju-
risdiction on this question from fourteen to sixteen
years.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON—The Hon. Baronet
(Sir John rakington) said that this Bill would bring
under the jurisdiction of the magistrates at patty sessions
an increased number of offenders. Now that was tbe
great objection which he (Mr. B. Denison) bad to the
Bill. Every person knew that the class of offenders
from fourteen to sixteen years of age, formed a very
considerable portion of the " rising rogues" of the coun-
try; and he did not think that such cases ought to be
carried to petty sessions. He thought it his duty the
other day in quarter sessions, in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, to bring this Bill under consideration of the
magistrates, without expressing any opinion of his own
upon it. He thus gave them the opportunity to express
their opinions upon it then or since, but he had not heard
one word from them on the subject. He had strong rea-
sons for believing that if the bill were extended to 16
years it would be.attended with bad effects, and there-
fore he had strong objections that the age should be ex-
tended. Out of about 120,000 or 130,000 prisoners tried
in the course of the year, 85,000 were dealt with by sum-
mary jurisdiction; and he found that of those 10,000
were not included in the 80,000, who were confined from
14 days to 3 months, and who would come under the
jurisdiction of this Bill. He should also object to the
extension of the Bill, because he did not think it had yet
had sufficient trial.

Mr. LAW, to shorten the discussion, should repeat his
motion " that the Chairman do now leave the chair."

Mr. M. MILNES considered this subject of great im-
portance. Ile would refer the Committee to the wisdom
of the French code, which considered that boys at 16
years of age ought to be dealt with under special con-
siderations. It was of importance that they should con-
sider the question with regard to the time at which the
boy becomes a man; and it was also of the utmost im-
portance to try to rescue him from the association with
criminals. _ _

Mr. ROEBUCK would ask the Committee to address
itself to the question. This Bill would enable magis-
trates to inflict a most disgraceful and degrading punish •
went on a boy who was already a man. He asked them
if they mere prepared to give the magistrates sitting, as
the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had de-
clared, in inappropriate places, without the aid of a
jury or the benefit of judicial guidance, power to de-
grade a maa in time to come by exposing him in the
common market place to be whipped? He held that
no man had a right to strike even his own child,
and if he had a child he should not dare to
strike him. If they dared to whip a man at six-
teen years of age—[An Honourable Member—He is
not a man.]—Tbe Honourable Member says he is not
a man. lie (Mr. Roebuck) held that they had no
right to whip a person at that age, and that in doing
so they would for ever degrade him as a man.—(Hear,
hear.) He hoped that those who valued the adminis
tration of justice in this country would support the
proposition of the Honourable Member the Recorder of
London, a judge who had more extensive knowledge
of criminals than any other man in this country. He
(Mr. Roebuck) appealed, then, to the Committee , and
hoped they would not permit the proposed extension of
age.

After a few observations from Mr. G. H. VIVIAN, as
to the heavy expense which this prosecution of offenders
entailed on the Consolidated Fund—an expense which he,
in one case, knew to exceed 1001.,
Mr. LAWLESS ga►e notice that he should, at the
proper time, move two amendments—the one, that the
jurisdiction be not extended to 16 years—the other, that
the Bill be not extended to Ireland. He should do all in
his power to prevent corporal punishment in cases above
the age of 14 years.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Lord BERNARD, stating
that in some cases accused parties were taken fifty
miles to the county gaol, and back to the quarter
sessions,

Colonel THOMPSON said it appeared to him that
the " knotty " (knonty) point before the Committee
was, as to the age at which posterity:should be whipped.
—(Great laughter, caused by the Honourable and
Gallant Member's "punning" propeniity.) Now he
was not for whipping them at all, and by that principle
he would endeavour to regulate his vote.
The Committee then divided on Mr. Law's motion,
that the Chairman leave the chair, when there ap-
peared—
For the motion ... 61
Against it ... 70
Majority against... —9

Mr. ROEBUCK moved an amendment, the effect of
which would be to restrict the operation of the Bill, so
far as personal chastisement was concerned, to persons
of 14 instead of 16 years of age.
After a few words from Mr. AOLIONBY and Mr.
RUNE,

Mr. M'CULLOGU again declared his opposition to
the Bill, believing it to be a measure which would spread
discontent among the labouring classes.
Mr. DRUMMOND declared his intention of voting
for the amendment, but he maintained that the Juvenile
Offenders Act had not been, as Mr. M`Cullogh insinu-
ated, unsuccessful.
Mr. P. HOWARD would give his determined opposi-
tian to the Bill. He objected altogether to giving in-
creased power to the county courts, unless guarded by
the check of a jury.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... • 78
Against it ... •
84
Majority... ... —6
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the Bill because it was
most unconstitutional. The great objection to it, how-
ever, was, that it gave the power of inflicting unlimited
torture to any two magistrates. The infliction of such a
punishment brutalised both these who were subjected to
it, and those who ordered it. We ought now to rely on
moral, not physical means. He, therefore, would move
a proviso to the clause, that nothing in the Act should
authorise the magistrates to inflict the punishment of
whipping upon any offender whose age shall exceed 14
years.
Sir J. PAKINGTON defended the infliction of whip-
ping. The children of the rich were whipped in our
public schools, and their after lives did not prove the
punishment had such a degrading effect as was attri-
buted to it.
'
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the House would support the
amendment. Because a boy was at 14'at 16 he was
a child
a man. The punishment to a
be
suffered; the punishment to a many was . the Mere pain he
wassethreioduesgrdaidffaetreioincteo
which he was subjected, a grave and .
The Hon. Member talked of boys being whipped at
school, but the schoolboy, they all knew,gloriseudffienrisnhgo.w--
ing himself superior to merely physical
(Hear, hear.) Strike a man with a glove
theon indignity
be there was no physical pain, but would nct
be felt? Were they really reduced so low. that they
could not govern their men without ,the whip?
Hon. Gentleman said whipping was the spirit of the
English law, and that at one time even women were
whipped in the market. If they were not to get out of
that spirit, God help them. They had got out of it in the
case of women:' ho hoped to see the day when they
would get out of it with boys also. " The hoy was the
father of the min." Why was the boy, therefore, to be
degraded? He should have liked to see the man who
would have laid a hand upon him when be was a boy.—
(A_ laugh.) He knew what he would have done.—(A
laugh.) But he would ask if they were to treat the chil-
dren of the poor in this way? Why not rather endea-
vour to raise them up, instead of degrading them? But,
gently; were there no sons of the rich who committed
petty larceny at 1G years of age? He protested against
the punishment as a brutal and degrading one.
Mr. LAW approied of the limitation as a guide to the
magistrates in the infliction of an irritating and painful
punishment.
Mr. AGLIONBY protested against the Hon. and
Learned Member for Sheffield saying that the House
was legislating for the degradation of the poor. They
were not legislating for the poor, but for the criminal.—
(Hear.) The law would apply alike to both rich and
poor criminals, and, therefore, ou his own part, and the
part of the House.he protested
against the charge made
M
by the Hon.
PALMER agreed with the Hon. Member who
had jus
and was convinced that the course
R.
aPtAdLo whin,
Theyni ost merciful that could be adopted.—
must not act upon sentimentality—
(Hear, proposedhear.) r. ) was
the
and degradation was not the
me,—(llear, hear.) The great
e
p( Hu
ne ias rh)m—e
tnht e,
bt ruut e
the stigma
n
object they should have in view
d,
to inflict a punish-
ment which should be feare, which would be cheap to
the State, and which, though
painful in its immediate
effects, would leave no permanent
. The punishment of whipping combined all these ad-
vantages; whereas, by being sent o herd with older
criminals, the worst of all degradation was thrust upon
a boy. Five minutes' personal pain, bi the proposed