JUVENILE OFFENDERS. (Hansard, 27 May 1840)

§ General Johnson
was opposed to the principle of the measure, and he moved, that the House should go into Committee on the bill on that day six months.

Sir G. Strickland
thought that the bill would sanction great severity towards children. It would also strike a fatal blow at the trial by jury, and take it away in those cases where it was most wanted. He also objected to the punishment of whipping, as it was not stated how long, or with what instrument, or at whose discretion, it was to be inflicted. He therefore felt it his duty to second the amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir E. Wilmot
said, that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in his opinion as to the severity of the bill, and his objections 657 could only apply to the details, and not to the principle of the measure. The House had already decided that the bill was an improvement on the former system, inasmuch as it gave a summary jurisdiction in certain cases to the magistrates. The object of this bill was simply to provide for the time between commitment and trial, in order that boys of eleven or twelve years of age, when brought up for some petty offence, might have a chance of being reclaimed. It was true that the bill said they were to be sent to a common gaol, but unless they were subjected to such imprisonment, magistrates had no power over them at all. As to the private whipping, that might be dispensed with. His object was, to stop a boy of fourteen years of age from being sent to gaol, to be ruined for life. Let him have a tribunal by which he could save him from that degradation. It was only three weeks since, that a boy had been convicted, in order that the judge might have the power of sending him to the Penitentiary.

§ Mr. J. Jervis
would support the motion for going into committee, though he objected to the principles of the bill; and he did not see how any alteration could make it meet his views. These offenders would be tried in the absence of the public, in the absence of the press, and in the absence of the salutary check of the bar. There would, in fact, be nothing but hole-and-corner decisions. These circumstances, of themselves were sufficient to induce him to oppose the bill.

§ Mr. Barneby
said, that no one could be more opposed to the principle of the bill than he was, but he thought it would be unfair to the promoter of the bill, after the House had decided in favour of the principle of it, to refuse to allow it to go into Committee.

Colonel Wood
thought it would be a mere waste of time to go into Committee upon a bill, to the whole of the clauses of which every hon. Member who had spoken, had expressed himself opposed.

§ Sir E. Sugden
said he should vote against the committee. The object of the hon. Baronet seemed to be, to provide for the punishment of young offenders, and also to provide, after their conviction, for their improvement and reform; so far he was disposed to support the measure; but he must object to that part of the plan which placed the extent of the im- 658 prisonment of the culprit, or his punishment in other respects, within the breast, not of the judges and the jury who had tried the criminal, but in that of the magistrates, who were not cognizant of the merits of the case. The effect of the second clause was to throw upon the counties that expense to which they were not prepared to submit. To the first clause he should offer his opposition if they went into the committee upon the bill, and if that clause were defeated upon a division, he confessed he should be of opinion there was an end to the whole bill.

§ The Attorney-General
observed, the principle of the bill was, in his opinion, unobjectionable. He should, however, feel disposed to improve its various details. The object of the whole appeared to him to be the reconciliation of our different enactments upon the subject of felony by juvenile offenders. The principle of the act was, that when a child should be accused of felony, he should not be compelled to hold up his hand to the bar upon being arraigned, after the manner of a felon, and that the usual jury on such occasions should not be charged with his deliverance, but that his case should be subjected to a domestic tribunal, especially entitled to take cognizance of the offence. The more plausible objections to this bill and its principle were, that it had a positive tendency to abolish that birth-right of Britons—the trial by jury. There was not within those walls an individual, nor out of the profession, who had all along entertained a higher respect for the institution of trial by jury, but he would remind the House, that already the Legislature had departed from that principle in all its strictness; and had sanctioned, in cases of misdemeanor, the adjudication of the case by the magistracy at the sessions. The House ought to be informed of the glaring anomaly that subsisted in our enactments upon the subject of theft. As the law stood, if a boy stole apples from off the tree, it was merely a case of trespass; whereas, strange as it might appear, if he took the apples up from the ground within the orchard, the offence amounted to felony. Such a a state of the law was totally irreconcileable to common sense and sound reason, and calculated to bring its authority into disgrace. What he wished upon this subject was, to see adopted some summary 659 but prudent mode of dealing with cases of juvenile offence. Why should a child, seeing apples upon the ground, and being induced to take them up, as shed from the tree, be compelled to go through the form of a trial, and hold up his hands with felons in the dock, upon being arraigned for a crime of such a description? Why not prefer the summary mode of punishing such trivial offences, under proper regulation, by a domestic tribunal. He could not see why the jurisdiction of such cases could not be safely intrusted to two justices at sessions. It was a painful reflection to think that, under the forms of law at this day, a child should be committed for ten or twelve weeks to a gaol, there to keep company with the lowest felons, to become schooled in vice, to be tried with them at the same bar, and, possibly, be condemned to expiate their trifling and inconsiderate offences by a period of incarceration with experienced villains, who took pains to instruct them in all the arts which might render them expert common thieves. He hoped the bill might secure the country from the growing evil of juvenile vice and youthful profligacy. So far it should, as respected its principle, have his cordial support, though he confessed there were in the bill deformities and defects which he should assist in attempting to remedy, if the House agreed to commit the bill.

§ Mr. Pease
said, if the House were to suffer itself to be diverted from the serious consideration of the subject embodied in the bill before the House, they would ere long have reason to regret their imprudence. For his part he must acknowledge he felt a deep sense of gratitude to the hon. Baronet for the introduction of the bill under discussion.

Mr. Aglionby
said, the state of the law of England was such, that the merest child was liable to all the tedious forms of imprisonment, commitment, and trial, for stealing a few peats from a peat stack. Such a state of the law was a disgrace to the jurisdiction of the country.

§ Mr. Benett
objected to that part of the bill before the House, which rendered it necessary that hereafter no petty sessions of the peace should be held for any purpose whatever within the walls of a public or of a private house. The bill would entail, in this respect, great expense upon the several counties, inasmuch as all such petty sessions must be held, even for the 660 trial of juvenile offences, or other matters, in sessions houses erected at the expense of the several counties.

§ Mr. F. Maule
said, such an amendment as that would do away with the principle of the bill; he could not support it.

§ Mr. Darby
was opposed to the bill, but he was more opposed to reducing juries, and he could not attempt to defeat the bill by a side wind. He must oppose the amendment.

Sir G. Strickland
was opposed to the reduction of the juries—he was a Conservative so far—but he would prefer a trial by six jurymen to no trial at all.

§ Mr. Wakley
thought the words "in open court," ought to be added, because he decidedly objected to these decisions and convictions being had in private.

§ Sir Eardley Wilmot
was sure the hon. 661 Member had never attended courts of justice, or he would not make such a suggestion. It was never intended that these decisions should take place in private.

Sir George Strickland
had frequently seen persons turned out of court, and as the law was not defined on that point, he thought it would be advisable to insert these words.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
thought the suggestion of the hon. Member was calculated very much to embarrass the question. With respect to the amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge, he certainly should object to a small jury of six—the law provided that they should either have a jury of twelve, or reject the jury altogether. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Adm. Sir C.	Marsland, H.
Aglionby, Major	Maule, hon. F.
Baines, E.	Morris, D.
Briscoe, J. I.	Packe, C. W.
Brotherton, J.	Palmer G.
Buller, E.	Pease, J.
Busfield, W.	Pendarves, E.W.W.
Campbell, Sir J	Rolleston, L.
Collier, J.	Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Scrope, G. P.
Finch, F.	Stansfield, W.R.C.
Freshfield, J. W.	Verney, Sir H.
Handley, H.	Vigors, N. A.
Hodgson, R.	Warburton, H.
Hughes, W. B.	Wood, B.
Irving, J.	Yates, J. A.
Jackson, Sergeant	TELLERS.
Lambton, H.	Wilmot, Sir E.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Aglionby, H. A.

List of the NOES.
Benett, J.	Pigot, D. R.
Bridgeman, H.	Pryme, G.
Buck, L. W.	Salwey, Colonel
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Somerset, rt. hn Lord G.
Fielden, J.	Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Greenaway, C.	Wakley, T.
Hector, C. J.	Williams, W.
Henniker, Lord	Wodehouse, E.
Lister, E. C.	Wood, Colonel
Litton, E.
Parker, R. T.	TELLERS.
Patten, J. W.	Johnson, General
Pechell, Captain	Strickland, Sir G.

List of the AYES.
Butler, hon. Col.	Williams, W.
Fielden, J.
Johnson, General	TELLERS.
Vigors, N.A.	Pryme, G.
Wakley, T.	Strickland, Sir G.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Packe, C. W.
Aglionby, Major	Parker, R. T.
Baines, E.	Patten, J. W.
Bewes, T.	Pease, J.
Briscoe, J. I.	Richards, R.
Brotherton, J.	Rolleston, L.
Buck, L. W.	Rundle, J.
Busfield, W.	Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Darby, G.	Warburton, H.
Handley, H.	Wodehouse, E.
Henniker, Lord	Wood, Colonel
Hughes, W. B.	Wood, B.
Lister, E. C.	Yates, J. A.
Marsland, H.	TELLERS.
Marsland, T.	Wilmot, Sir E.
Maule, hon. F.	Buller, E.