HC Deb 23 February 1847 vol 90 cc430-40
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more speedy trial and punishment of juvenile offenders. The subject might be divided into three distinct branches. The first was that frightful state of ignorance of every duty towards God and man, which must strike every one at all conversant with the condition of criminals in this country as being their peculiar characteristic. The second was the present mode of trying and convicting juvenile offenders in this country, with all its attendant evils of previous contamination and subsequent ruin. And the third, which, although he had ranked it last, was probably the most important of all, and which was certainly the most difficult, was, how they were to dispose of juvenile offenders after their conviction, so as to inflict a proper punishment for the offence committed, and at the same time to keep in view the great object of the reformation of the offender. That was not a proper occasion upon which to enter into the subject of national education; but he should nevertheless say that he held a strong opinion upon the subject—an opinion which he had formed from his experience in courts of justice—that the want of a better education in this country was one of the most fruitful sources of crime, and that some extensive system of education throughout the country would be found to be a great means of its diminution. Some progress had been already made with the question to which he was alluding; but the question of how they could deal with juvenile offenders after conviction was one which could only be dealt with successfully in the manner in which, he was happy to say, it had been taken up by the Government of the day. He returned his thanks to the right hon. Baronet for the attention which he had given to the subject; and he did not hesitate to give it as his opinion that the right hon. Baronet, if successful in the task he had undertaken (he well knew the difficulties attending it, but if successful), he would have conferred upon the country as great a service as had ever been rendered by any Minister holding the situation which the right hon. Baronet held. He should now confine himself to the second of the divisions of the subject which he had mentioned; and he should say that whatever might be the services which the right hon. Baronet, if successful in his endeavours, should render, his success would be incomplete—any good which he might seek to achieve would be incomplete—unless the mode of trying juvenile offenders should be totally altered—unless he should get rid of the evils attendant upon the system of imprisonment before trial. Therefore it was that with regard to the second branch of his subject, namely, the present mode of trying juvenile offenders, he would state to the House that the Bill which he then sought to introduce, had for its object the substitution, in certain cases, and under certain limitations, of a power of summary conviction instead of the trial by jury. Great as was the value which was in this country attached to the trial by jury, there was a class of cases in which by its abolition the evils attendant upon the previous imprisonment would be avoided—evils which in those cases were so great as to do away completely with the advantage which the trial by jury gave. He would not detain the House by going into the question at any considerable length, but he would beg to mention a few cases that had come under his own observation in the county of Worcester. In November last a boy, fourteen years of years of age, was committed for trial at the January sessions for stealing twopence; and the consequence was that he was obliged to remain in prison for seven weeks before he could be tried. In another instance a girl, twelve years of age, was committed for stealing one quart of milk, the highest value of which was no more than 2d.; and the consequence was that she had to undergo a long imprisonment, during which she was exposed to the corrupting society of the most abandoned persons. Neither must it be supposed that only a small class of criminals were involved in this question. Some idea of the number of juvenile offenders committed to prison throughout the kingdom might be formed from the fact stated in the petition from Liverpool, presented in the other House of Parliament the other evening by Lord Brougham, that out of 50,000 persons committed to prison, no less than 5,000, or 10 per cent, were under seventeen years of age. In Worcester, he found the proportion of juvenile offenders fluctuate very much. In 1845 the prisoners under sixteen years of age were between one-sixth and one-seventh of the whole number of persons committed. In urging the necessity of the change in the law which he advocated, he should make some allusion to the weight of authority by which he was supported. He would not dwell on the fact, that in the last few years men of great weight in both Houses of Parliament had pressed forward the neces- sity of a change; but he would call the attention of the House to other authorities that must be of the highest weight with the House. The first of these was the report of the inspectors of prisons for 1846. In their report for the home district for last year, they stated, in allusion to this subject, that— There is, however, another cause of the offences of youth which most powerfully contributes to strengthen the vicious propensities which they derive from every other source. We refer to the corruption produced by imprisonment. It is painful to reflect that the remedy provided by law for the correction of the offender, should only tend to render him more criminal. Of many children whom we have seen in prison, we hesitate not to affirm that absolute impunity would have been far less mischievous than the effects of their confinement. He could also appeal, he believed, to his right hon. Friend below him (Sir Robert Peel), who was a member of the Committee of Inquiry into County Expenditure of 1834; the Committee divided itself into four sub-committees, one of which, appointed to investigate the subject of criminal prosecutions, was presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. That sub-committee presented an elaborate report, at the end of which they stated— We have reserved for the conclusion of our report an earnest recommendation to Government and to Parliament to take into their early consideration the practicability of establishing some tribunal for the speedy trial of young offenders charged with comparatively light offences. The present process of the law is too cumbrous and too dilatory in regard to cases of this description, and neither gives adequate protection to innocence, nor insures a duly regulated punishment to guilt. The committal to prison for trial involves frequently a period of confinement longer than that which follows actual conviction, and a stigma upon character not justified by the moral quality of the offence with which a young person is charged. It has also in many cases a much greater tendency to overcome his repugnance to crime by familiarising him with the society of a gaol, than to deter him from the commission of it by the actual experience of the penalty of imprisonment. The object to be achieved is to establish a tribunal to which immediate appeal can be made, and which can award the species of punishment which may be most suitable to the nature of the offence, and the character and habits of the offender, and at the same time to devise those checks against abuse, and those securities for the deliberate and impartial hearing of each case, which are the more necessary in proportion as the process is summary, and as the public attention is less called to the proceedings of the court. He endeavoured to frame his Bill in the closest accordance with the principles thus laid down in that report; and as his right hon. Friend was chairman of the sub-committee, it was to be presumed that he was a party to the sentiments put forward by them. The next authority to which he would refer, would, he trusted, secure for him the support of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. It was the Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners in 1837. The noble Lord was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and referred at the time in favourable terms to the report on this very question, and said that he had his doubts whether the present state of the law was satisfactory and beneficial. In the year to which he alluded, the Commissioners made a special report, in which they bore out, as strongly as language could bear out, the view which he was now endeavouring to impress upon the House. He would beg to read a rather lengthened extract from that report. They said— But admitting it not to be desirable in general to withdraw any class of offenders from the ancient and popular tribunal, it must be remembered that the choice, in this instance, lies between two evils; and the practical question is, whether the advantage gained by the diminution of imprisonment for safe custody, in the case of young persons, is not cheaply purchased by a sacrifice of the benefit to be derived by themselves and the public from their trial by a jury. Considering the simplicity of the offences in question, and the trivial nature of the circumstances on which they generally depend, we can discover no great or peculiar advantage to the offender or the public in investigating them by a jury; and, on the other hand, both the offenders and the public derive an important and undeniable advantage by the adoption of a course with which a trial by jury is inconsistent. Under such circumstances, it appears to us that a departure from the general and constitutional course is fully justifiable. But with respect to potty thefts, where they constitute larceny, the magistrate has now no power to discharge the offender and punish him summarily, but is bound by law to send the case for adjudication to another tribunal. However small the value of the article stolen, if the offender is above seven years of ago, and if his offence is a felony, he must be committed to take his trial at the assizes or sessions. He must remain for weeks or perhaps months in prison, without being subject to compulsory discipline; and though his guilt may be so clear as not to be denied even by himself, the whole machinery of an indictment, a grand jury, and a petty jury must be applied to investigate the facts before he can be punished for his crime. While it is obvious that the adoption of this course in the case of young offenders is, in various ways, productive of positive evils, especially in the destruction of morals incident to imprisonment before trial, there are no advantages to counterbalance them. The formality of a solemn trial adapted to crimes of magnitude, when applied to such cases, derogates from the dignity of a superior court of justice, and has not the effect of deterring from transgressions of the law; for the slightness of the offence, and the youth of the offender, usually render him more an object of compassion than a fit subject of punishment; and if the jury do not, under such feelings, acquit him altogether, they recommend him to mercy on account of his youth, and the sentence passed upon him by the court is little more than nominal. In trivial felonies, therefore, committed without any collateral circumstances of aggravation, a solemn trial by a jury cannot, we think, be of use in the way of example; and as to the reformation of the offender, the direct tendency of the proceeding, by subjecting him to the demoralization of a prison, is the reverse; so that neither of the two great objects of penal laws, namely, the prevention of crime and the reformation of the criminal, is accomplished by the present mode of trying very young persons for trivial offences. For the above reasons, and after a full consideration of the evidence which has been given upon this subject by practical men on various occasions, and particularly the opinions expressed by Lord Wharncliffe, Mr. Sergeant D'Oyly, Mr. Gawler, and Mr. Alderman Harmer, in the appendix to our second report on the criminal law, and of Sir Frederick Adair Roe and Mr. Mayne, in the appendix to this report, we are convinced that the most salutary mode of diminishing juvenile crime would be by entrusting to magistrates, within certain limits and restrictions, the discretionary powers which we have suggested at the commencement of this report. It might, however, be said that this report was made ten years ago, and that the views of the commissioners might have changed since then. He had not been able to communicate with all the commissioners; but he had communicated with some of them, and he could tell the House that these gentlemen retained the opinion which they then expressed as strongly as they did ten years ago, and that they still thought another plan ought to be substituted for the existing mode of treating juvenile offenders. He could also toll the House that he was empowered to support his Motion by another authority which was deservedly of great weight in that House. He alluded to Sir Edward Ryan. Though now at the head of the Criminal Law Commission, Sir Edward Ryan was not connected with it in 1837; but still he had great experience as a lawyer, and had, during the time he was chief justice in India, introduced a similar system there with great success, and had now given him (Sir J. Pakington) permission to state his entire concurrence in his views. In the report of 1837, the commissioners state that they disapprove of magistrates not having power to treat the cases of juvenile offenders in a summary manner; and they add, that neither of the two great objects of criminal law, the prevention of crime and the reformation of the criminal, was secured by the existing sys- tem. They were convinced that the most salutary mode of diminishing juvenile crime would be the entrusting to magistrates the power, within certain limits, of summarily punishing juvenile offenders. He would wish to remind the House what was the practice followed under the present law. Why, that magistrates were so impressed with the disadvantage, and, he might say, cruelty, of sending those infants to gaol for long periods before their trial, that many of them felt it to be their duty to refuse receiving informations, though if they could deal summarily with the cases, they would not suffer the offenders to escape. On the other hand, other magistrates, entertaining a more strict sense of duty, felt bound to commit these young offenders for trial. He need not point out to the House the inconvenience which must result from the inequality thus produced where inequality ought not to exist, and of the extremely bad moral effect of humane magistrates appearing to hold out an impunity for crime. But this kind of humanity was not confined to magistrates. There were others, acting in a judicial capacity, who acted in the same manner; and within the last few weeks they had the case of a judge sentencing a young offender, convicted before him of felony, to imprisonment for one hour. He held in his hand a report, prepared by a very able lawyer, Mr. Matthew D. Hill, for the Law Amendment Society, in which he described an arrangement introduced at the Birmingham sessions. The report stated, that— By an arrangement which has been in operation at the Birmingham sessions, from the beginning of the year 1841, young convicts, who are not hardened in crime, are, after trial, delivered to the care of their employers or parents, as the case may be. These persons enter into an engagement to superintend the conduct of their young wards, and to furnish them with the opportunity of earning, or assisting to earn, their livelihood. Both guardians and wards are visited from time to time by one of the superior officers of police, for the purpose of ascertaining the conduct of the parties. The results of this treatment, up to October last, were as follows: 113 convicts had been so delivered up. Of these, forty-four were reformed, forty relapsed, and of twenty-nine the conduct was doubtful. The majority of these twenty-nine, there was reason to fear had relapsed. But all having left their masters, and many having left the town, nothing certain was known of them. This experiment, which, at all events, is inexpensive, may be called satisfactory, when it is considered, that from the moment the young offender leaves the bar the court has no legal control either over him or over his guardian, who, of course, acts gratuitously. It was not for him to say anything of the propriety of such a course; but if the judges of the land felt it necessary to adopt such modes of evading the law, it was, he thought, clear that great danger existed of the worst results accruing from the feeling extending abroad, that crime might be committed by young persons with impunity. He thought they ought to shape the law so that the danger of contamination during imprisonment would be made as light as possible; and he also thought that good would result from young offenders being taught to feel that their crimes would be followed by immediate punishment. It was said by many persons who had specially considered the subject, that they ought to give the right of trial at petty sessions by small juries. He would not be a party to any such change; but, he thought, if any alteration were made, they should substitute summary jurisdiction for trial by jury; and that, in cases where the larceny did not exceed 40s., the prisoner should be liable to trial at petty sessions, before two magistrates, who should have power to imprison for periods not exceeding six months. He was also for giving a power of appeal to quarter-sessions, and likewise for giving the magistrates a power to send the parties for trial before a jury at quarter-sessions, in the usual course, when they should think proper. There was only one other point to which he would refer. He thought it would be desirable for magistrates to have, also, the power of imposing a fine in lieu of imprisonment. This, he confessed, would involve the introduction of a new principle; but still, if adopted, it would save many of the juvenile offenders from being sent to prison at all, while they would also be thus able more effectually to touch the parents, who, in four cases out of five, were the really guilty parties. Having thus stated the outline of his plan, he would only further state his conviction that some such change in the law as he now proposed was demanded alike by justice, by mercy, and by sound policy. He must express a most earnest hope that the House and the Government would not only allow him to introduce his Bill, but that, when introduced, they would give it the fullest and the best consideration, and that they would feel that the time had arrived when it was thought by almost all who had reflected on this subject that such a measure ought to receive the sanction of Parliament.

SIR GEORGE GREY

rose for the purpose of giving his very willing consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but without committing himself, which it could not be expected he should, at the present moment, to the precise measure to be introduced. After the attention which the hon. Gentleman had given to the subject, it would not be just to deny him an opportunity of bringing his own experience before the House, and offering his suggestions in the shape of the Bill which they would have to discuss. He was not aware that there was any subject of greater importance which could come before them. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the question had already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, in providing a remedy for the evil, he sincerely hoped that they would derive much assistance from the consideration which the hon. Gentleman had given to the subject.

MR. HUME

wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, deserved much credit for bringing the subject before the House. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the principal cause of these juvenile delinquencies prevailing to such an extent, was the gross ignorance in which the offenders were reared. But whose fault was that? Why, it was the fault of those who complained most of it. It was the fault of that religious bigotry which prevented the inculcation of sound, moral, and useful learning. He would wish that the hon. Gentleman, instead of looking only to the question of punishment, had directed his attention to the means of prevention. He should say that he did not join in the opinion which the hon. Member had expressed, of the great improvement that had taken place in the education of the people. All those who refused to assist in introducing a general system of education, whereby the people might be better informed upon their duties to society, were undoubtedly the cause of the evils which the hon. Gentleman so feelingly lamented. At the same time, it was to him a matter of the deepest astonishment that the Government should have allowed the reports of the Criminal Law Commissioners to remain unnoticed now for ten years. He blamed the successive Governments for not paying attention to those documents; juvenile delinquency had therefore gone on increasing yearly, without any efficient steps being taken to prevent it. The time, however, was now come for a change; the law in its present state was a reproach to the country, and it was the duty of the Government not to allow it to remain. The hon. Baronet deserved thanks for bringing this question forward; but he was beginning at the wrong end. A general system of secular education should have been introduced in the first instance; and any Government that took that step, would receive the thanks of the country.

MR. SHAW

congratulated the hon. Baronet upon the able and clear manner in which he had introduced this important subject; and begged to offer one suggestion with regard to a material feature in the Bill. It was proposed to give to juvenile offenders the right of appeal to quarter-sessions. If this principle were conceded, he (Mr. Shaw) thought it should be accompanied with an option to the presiding magistrates whether they would try the case or not. He feared the right of appeal would not be found to work well in practice; for his experience led him to believe that the multiplication of appeals more frequently led to litigation than to justice. Besides, who was to advise the juvenile criminal whether he should appeal or not? Without advice, he did not see how a sound discretion could be exercised. In Ireland, it had been found necessary, in order to prevent litigation, to require the professional party representing a criminal to make an affidavit that he was of opinion there were grounds for an appeal.

COLONEL T. WOOD

expressed his satisfaction at the introduction of this subject. He regretted, however, that the proposed Bill appeared to affect only one part of this difficult question, and that greater advances were not made in the way of summary jurisdiction. Great alterations were required in the mode of treating juvenile offenders after conviction. Education alone was not sufficient for their reformation. He suggested that penitentiaries should be built at the expense of the country to secure this object, as far as it was possible. Pour or five would be sufficient. When a child had been found guilty of an offence, either by summary conviction or after trial, he should be immediately transferred to one of these penitentiaries, and the cost of his maintenance be recoverable from the county where the offence was committed; and the county should have the power of recovering from the child's parents the cost of his maintenance, because in many cases they encouraged him to crime. Certainly, where there was a possibility of it, parents should be made to feel the responbility of training their children to nothing but running in the streets.

Leave given.