LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

HC Deb 18 April 1850 vol 110 cc496-532

Order for Committee read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH, moved that the House resolve itself into the said Committee upon that day six months, and begged the attention of the House whilst he stated the reasons which had induced him to give notice of the Amendment. He did not wish to forestall any discussion, which might more properly be taken upon particular details of the measure. His objections were to the whole substance of the Bill. In point of principle, he thought it would be admitted that no subject could be more important than that which related to the administration of justice. In point of practice it would be enough for him to call the attention of the House to a return which he had obtained with much care of the total number of committals for trial at the assizes and quarter-sessions in the year ending December, 1849: the return specified the number of committals and the number of prisoners exceeding 16 years of age, together with the number of offences where property was stolen which did not exceed the value of Is. The total committals in 1849, by magistrates, were 2,024 in 52 of the largest towns in England. The total number of crimes committed by persons under 16 years was 251, being about one-eighth of the whole number. The number of offences committed, which did not exceed 1s., were about one-seventh of the whole. The total number of bills ignored was 26. These offences, it was conceded, were committed by persons of the poorer classes of the community, and what he objected to was, that you were proposing to change the statute, where the poor were concerned, while in every instance where the guilt or innocence of the more opulent classes of society was questioned, you left unchanged the ancient principles of the constitution. He thought it would be admitted on all hands, as a principle of the criminal law of this country, that there should be a competent judge, and a competent, impartial, and local jury. It was proposed by this Bill, as far as offences were concerned, to take away from those who were least able to defend themselves by reason of their age or poverty, the protection of a competent judge. It was proposed to substitute nothing which could be compared with what was taken away, and as such it was proposed to establish a principle dangerous to the best interests of society. The object put forward ostensibly was, to save expense to the ratepayers in each locality; and although it appeared a most legitimate object where the ratepayers were concerned, it did appear to be one open to the greatest objection when the pockets of the upper classes were to be saved at the expense of the legal rights and privileges of the lower. He did not know whether it might be superfluous to mention this fact: until an Act of George II. no Judge of assize was allowed to try criminals in his own county. By a statute of Edward III. it was enacted, that where criminals were tried at quarter-sessions, one at least of the magistrates of the quorum should be "learned in the law," in order to act as a check upon the unlearned part of the bench; but this Bill took away altogether the quorum of the quarter-sessions, containing often persons "learned in the law," but substituted any two magistrates of the locality, learned or unlearned; and country Gentlemen might be reminded, without offence, that it was no part of their good qualities to be learned in the criminal statutes. He had obtained the opinions of practical men as to the effect of the Bill if it came into operation. The chairman of the county of Limerick, who had filled that situation for thirteen years, said— I am most decidedly opposed to the Bill as it is proposed. I should deeply regret, having to deal myself with criminal cases, to be deprived of the local knowledge of the jury, for, during the experience of many years, I have frequently seen the course of trials changed by the good sense of jurors, upon points material to the issue which had escaped the attention, or were misunderstood by the court or by counsel. A learned Judge, in Ireland, whose name he forebore to mention, said— I think the Bill unnecessary and mischievous, both as regards England and Ireland. It is not what it professes to be—for the relief of prisoners, by accelerating their trials, or for their amendment, by means of proper correction. One of the ablest judges of the county courts in England (Mr. Temple) had in terms still stronger stated to him (Mr. M'Cullagh) his strong objections to the proposed enactment. And he would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who supported this Bill—refer it to the Judges of the supreme courts of criminal jurisdiction, and ask for their advice ere you proceed further. It was no part of his duty to enter into the subject of the unfitness of magistrates to judge of innocence or guilt; but he would remind the House that when they placed the liberty and character of accused persons at the disposal of two magistrates, they were trusting it to the will, the ignorance, the partiality, or the caprice of any two gentlemen who might be upon the bench. If it should be necessary to accelerate trials, the State ought to provide the necessary tribunals. It was out of the question that you gave an option whether the accused would be tried by these two gentlemen or by a jury. This option was not a reality, it was a sham. He would give an instance of what the option was. He heard only this day from the clerk of the peace of Portsmouth, that out of sixty-six cases which had been tried and adjudicated on under the Summary Jurisdiction Act since 1847, in no case was the prisoner told he had the option which it was proposed to insert in this Bill. It was stated, and with considerable force, that in the present state of this country taxation was of such pressure that there should be no waste of the money of the public in making a criminal amenable to justice. He did not suppose that any one in the House could dispute that proposition, or urge one word against its being duly considered; but there was a warning familiar to men, it was the danger of asking for public remedies for mere inconveniences, where departure from custom and principle was implied by the innovation. It was said that this was at most but an experiment. His answer was, experimentalise on yourselves in the first instance. If it were true that there was distrust and disaffection likely to be engendered by such a change in the criminal code, would it not be wiser that you should abolish trial by jury in cases where the high-born and luxurious were concerned, before you trifle with the patience of the ignorant? The opinion which he had received from a barrister whose knowledge as a practitioner at the bar, entitled him to speak with more confidence of the provisions of the Act, was worthy of attention. He said, "I am of opinion that the power of summary conviction ought never to be entrusted to judges in cases involving the infamy of the accused." He therefore did not think they would be acting rightly if they allowed this measure to proceed further without taking the sense of the House upon it.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

SIR G. STRICKLAND

, in seconding the Amendment, deeply lamented to see the attempts which were continually made to do away with that which from his earliest years he had been taught to believe was the dearest right of Englishmen—he meant trial by jury. 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 unconstitutional power at a time when the public indignation had almost put an end to the practice of flogging in the Army. He believed that the old Mosaic law was humane—it provided that the stripes given 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 advantages 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 placed authority in the hands of parties who were incompetent to administer the law. The magistracy of this country were perfectly incapable of administering the law in the cases contemplated by this Bill. He himself bad had for twenty-five years the management of the legal business at the petty sessions of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and the result of that experience induced him to believe that the county magistracy were totally incompetent to exercise the power which this Bill would impose upon them. By the 10 & 11 Victoria they had been giving summary jurisdiction to one magistrate at sessions, or to two magistrates at petty sessions, to try and punish and convict, without the intervention of a jury, persons under fourteen years of age. He believed that ever since the time of Sir Matthew Hale fourteen years had been the commencement of the time at which any one was answerable for his acts; but now they were going one step further, and all persons under sixteen years of age were, by a sudden change of the law, called juveniles. To show that this was attracting the attention of all persons, he would read an extract from a well-conducted provincial journal, which stated— Let it be considered that this power is unconstitutionally given, at the very time when public opinion—we had almost said public indignation—had almost entirely put an end to the practice of flogging in the Army, where the necessities of discipline might have been some excuse. We believe that the old Mosaic law was humane, and that the number of stripes were defined by legislation. No such thing here. The flogging is un- limited; and we think it might be proved without much difficulty that it gives to these two magistrates the power of life and death. There was another most unconstitutional provision in this Bill; the learned Judges of the land had never yet been trusted with any such power. The other objection he had to this Bill was the utter incompetency of the tribunal to be entrusted with such a fearful power. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich very justly boasted of having been for many years chairman of quarter-sessions; and he said, that having been for many years chairman of quarter-sessions, he had acquired such a knowledge of the law of evidence that he was fully capable of trying a criminal. He objected to this Bill also, because it gave to the magistrate who may convict the criminal the power of nominating the constable who should inflict the punishment to be awarded to the criminal. He sincerely trusted that the Bill would be rejected by the House; and he hoped to live to see the day when the Juvenile Offenders Bill would be repealed. If they passed this Bill, they would entrust into the hands of two magistrates unconstitutional powers which were never given to the Judges of the land. He would let the House know that the real judge in the petty sessions courts was the clerks. That clerk had his own enmities and affections towards individuals in the neighbourhood, and if any of them at any time should appear as criminals before the magistrates, he, no doubt, would use his influence as his disposition directed him. It was said that this Bill would save expense, but, in his mind, it would add to it. There would be no economy in doing away with trial by jury, which was the birthright of Englishmen. He thought that if the Bill were passed, they would lose still more of that popularity which they had already lost to some extent.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, that he thought that the time for debating the principle of the Bill was on the second reading. On the second reading there was a full debate and no division; and though the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had given notice that on that reading he would move an Amendment, yet he sat in his place and moved no Amendment. The Bill was then fixed for Committee; and when it came to that stage an Amendment was moved that the Bill should be divided into two parts. And now, for the third time, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk moved an Amendment that the House should go into Committee on that day six months. He was now in the hands of the House. If they desired it, he was quite prepared to debate the principle for the third time, and to answer all that had been said against it; but, without disrespect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he must protest against the practice, and should persist in calling on the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, when he should be ready to defend every portion of it.

MR. P. H. HOWARD

should give the Bill his strenuous opposition, because he conceived that the powers which it conferred were not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. As the Bill at present stood, the degrading punishment of flogging might be inflicted on females as well as males. ["No, no!"] Might it not? Then he was glad to find that the Bill was not so odious as he had thought it. It was still sufficiently bad, however, to justify him in offering it every opposition, and he trusted the House would reject it by a triumphant majority, for, without sharing in any feeling of distrust towards his fellow magistrates, he was unwilling to confide to mortal man such an extent of arbitrary power as this Bill proposed.

MR. AGLIONBY

had great confidence both in the justice and the mercy of the magistrates, and if he were a criminal he would infinitely prefer being tried by them than to have the case sent before a jury. He cordially supported the Bill out of mercy towards the prisoners, whether innocent or guilty.

MR. HENLEY

wished to know whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, in pursuance of the power given to the Committee, intended to divide the Bill into two parts or not, because upon the answer to that question would depend his vote?

SIR G. GREY

wished to say, before the hon. Baronet answered the question, that after the expression of the opinion of the House on a former occasion, it would be the wisest course for the hon. Baronet to consent at once to divide the Bill into two parts. He begged it to be understood that, in going into Committee, he did so for the purpose of supporting that part of the Bill which extended summary jurisdiction to the cases of persons from fourteen to sixteen years of age, and that he expressed no opinion upon any other part of the Bill.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, it was quite true that a majority of the House on a former occasion were in favour of the hon. and learned Recorder's instructions; but, as it was not usual to move an Amendment of such importance without notice, he believed he had a right to consider that division as hardly a fair expression of the opinion of the House. It was therefore his intention, if it was the pleasure of the House to go into Committee, to oppose the division of the Bill into two parts.

MR. LAW

doubted whether it was competent for the hon. Baronet to take the sense of the Committee whether or not they should obey the instructions of the House. But, supposing it was, he begged to remind the hon. Baronet, that, although he did not give notice of his Motion in the precise form he had moved it, he had given notice of one substantially the same, and had only altered it in order to meet a technical objection. Since the hon. Baronet was determined to oppose the division of the Bill into two parts, he (Mr. Law) must take a course which he should not otherwise have felt called upon to pursue, and vote with the hon. Member for Dundalk to negative the Bill altogether.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 76: Majority 57.

Question put, and agreed to.

The House then went into Committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIRMAN

announced that, according to an instruction of the House, the Committee had power to divide the Bill into two parts.

MR. LAW,

in accordance with that instruction, begged to move that the Committee leave out all the words in the Bill which referred to adults.

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "exceed the age of sixteen years, and also to all cases in which any person whose age exceeds the age of sixteen years."

SIR J. PAKINGTON

insisted upon the Bill being retained in its original shape.

SIR G. GREY

said, it was quite true that the terms of the instructions agreed to by the House on a former occasion did not bind the Committee to divide the Bill, but certainly, after the clear and unequivocal expression of the opinion of the House on that point, he did not think it was expedient to reopen the question.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

considered himself justified in the course he was pursuing in consequence of the want of notice on the previous occasion. In his opinion the second part of the Bill was the most important of the two. Hon. Members who were so opposed to extending summary jurisdiction to adults in petty cases, must have forgotten the statutes which were known as Sir Robert Peel's Acts, by which a large mass of offences were brought under summary jurisdiction, and had given rise to no complaint of want of trial by jury. He maintained that there was a general feeling in favour of that portion of the measure, and that at present a large number of petty cases escaped altogether, because persons would not be at the expense and trouble of going twenty miles to a county town to prosecute before a jury. He denied the charge that it did away with trial by jury. It surely was no boon to a man to be kept in prison some forty or sixty days, in order to be tried by a jury for the offence of stealing an article which was of less value than the smallest current coin of the realm, and for which the jury refused to convict. Let them trust to the discretion of the magistracy of England in the exercise of summary jurisdiction, and there would be no reason to apprehend injustice. If the Bill were a serious encroachment upon trial by jury, he would not propose it, but it was no such thing.

MR. ROBERT PALMER

was of opinion that it would have been much better if the Bill had originally been divided into two parts, because there was no necessary connection between them; but he should vote with the hon. Member for Droitwich against the division of the Bill into two, because he saw that the desire of those who advocated the division was to get rid of the latter part altogether.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 102: Majority 52.

SIR G. GREY

observed, that the alteration which had just been effected would not render it necessary to begin de novo. It was competent to the Committee to proceed with the remaining portion of the Bill.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

understood, then, that he was to proceed with the first part of the Bill.

MR. HUME

suggested that as it had now been decided to divide the Bill, the better course would be for the Chairman to do so at once, and then report progress, in order that the two Bills might be printed in their separate shape before they were called upon to consider them further.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

thought as there appeared to be a general feeling in favour of the first part of the Bill, they might go on with that now, leaving the latter part to be dealt with as a separate measure hereafter.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, they ought to understand what the Bill was. The whole of the Bill now before them was to extend the summary jurisdiction of magistrates in the case of young persons from fourteen years, as the law now stood, to sixteen years of age; and the question which the Committee had to decide was, whether it was advisable to give justices at petty sessions the power of flogging and imprisoning children of sixteen years of age summarily. The whole Bill was confined to giving the magistrates the opportunity of enjoying this pleasure. Every step of the proceeding went towards depriving the people of this country of trial by jury. By whom was this bill brought in? By a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, one of a class for whom, abstractedly speaking—as Martinus Scriblerus towards the Lord Mayor riding on a great horse—he had great respect, but nothing beyond, and whom he was not disposed to indulge with any more power over the poor of this country. They first asked for, and got, jurisdiction up to fourteen years. They now asked for a further extension to sixteen years; and, in fact, by a sly artifice, which he hoped would be prevented by the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London, they sought to extend it to persons of any age where the property stolen was under one shilling. This would, no doubt, be a very easy mode of dealing with poachers who stole pheasants' eggs, and such offenders. Let the Committee understand in what way justice was administered to the poor of this country. The offender was brought into a back parlour in the squire's house by the constable of the parish. The squire had another squire to aid him, neither the one nor the other knowing the least of the law, but both having strong prejudices in the case. There was no bar; and, though a member of the profession, he would not hesitate to say that the presence of the bar on such occasions was a great safeguard for the freedom of the subject. There was not oven a reporter of a newspaper present; and even if the county newspaper had a representative at the proceedings, it was not very likely that any account detrimental to the character of a patron would be published. The fact was, a trial under such circumstances was a denial of justice to the poor man. It was a mockery and a shame, and he hoped the people of this country would stand up against this attack on the palladium of their liberty, as trial by jury had been called. He wished to see the honest man, the attorney, the barrister, and, above all, the newspaper reporter, watching these proceedings. He regarded the administering of a law such as this, in the back parlour of a country gentleman, as a base perversion of justice; and he should therefore feel bound to offer the Bill every opposition in his power.

MR. AGLIONBY

was not afraid of hard words, and would not suffer sarcasm to turn him from what he believed to be his duty. He was of the same profession with the hon. and learned Gentleman; he had been in the profession longer, and he had practised, he believed, more than the hon. and learned Member in courts where criminal justice was administered, and he begged to say most distinctly that he wholly differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman in his view of the subject. He was not, and never had been, a chairman of quarter-sessions; but he should none the less protest against ill motives being attributed to those functionaries, and against the assumption that the hon. Baronet, for example, was, as a chairman of quarter-sessions, less alive to the rights of the poor than the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had never even acted in petty sessions, and was therefore free from the charge of class predilections; but he would never admit that magistrates in petty sessions were guilty of the injustice which the hon. and learned Member imputed to them; and he strongly protested against the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that they took any pleasure in flogging people; he could not conceive, indeed, what pleasure there could be enjoyed by any man, on the bench or off it, in flogging people, and his conviction was that flogging, when ordered, was only ordered in fulfilment of what was always felt to be, on the contrary, a most painful duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained that petty sessions were held in back rooms. He (Mr. Aglionby) believed that they were not now held, as they had been in the time of Fielding and some of our older novelists, in the back parlours of magistrates', or in the back rooms of pub- lic-houses. If they were held in such places, he strongly protested against the system, and he would give his support to any Bill enacting that petty sessions should be held in some public place, where the bar and the press could attend, if they chose, to watch the proceedings. He fully agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that the only safeguard for the poor, and for the rich as well, was publicity in all their proceedings.

MR. ROEBUCK

begged to assure the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth that he had not had the slightest desire to point to him in the observations he had made. Indeed, he knew nothing about that hon. and learned Gentleman, and was not aware that he had any peculiar interest in this question. He (Mr. Roebuck) had simply dealt with the matter as one in which the people of England were interested. He would ask why they did not give the county courts jurisdiction with regard to the class of offences to which this Bill referred? He would ten thousand times rather that such a power should be given to the judges of the county courts, than that it should be exercised by magistrates in petty sessions. Let them give the power of deciding these questions to the judges of those courts, who were bred to the profession, instead of thrusting the poor into dark holes, The hon. and learned Member for Cocker-mouth might talk about hard words; but it was well known that the poor were robbed, in the cases to which he was referring, of the advantages of publicity, and were placed in the hands of men among whom, although many might be learned, enlightened, instructed, and benevolent, some were ignorant and prejudiced. He called upon the House to insist upon publicity, and to take the class of cases to which the Bill related out of the jurisdiction of individuals who might be influenced by local prejudices.

MR. PACKE

was satisfied that it was quite unnecessary to defend the conduct of the magistrates of this country who sat in petty sessions against the animadversions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He wished, however, to refer to one point to which that hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded—namely, the want of publicity with regard to proceedings at petty sessions. Every Gentleman in the habit of attending petty sessions knew that those courts were as much open to the public as the quarter-sessions or the assizes. In the county in which he resided (Leicestershire), four weekly newspapers were published, and the reporters for these journals regularly attended the petty sessions at Leicester and Longborough, and reported the proceedings.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was so accustomed to indulge his sarcasm, and seemed to think it so necessary that he should give point to his speeches by attacking somebody, and the more sneeringly and ill-natured the better, that he felt no surprise that that hon. and learned Gentleman had selected him to-night as the object of his sneers. He was very happy to find, however, that the only ground on which the hon. and learned Gentleman sneered at him was because he happened to be chairman of the quarter-sessions. He would tell that hon. and learned Gentleman that he felt the fact of his having enjoyed the confidence of his brother magistrates for a period of sixteen years was no matter of shame to him, and he was quite willing to submit to any sneer in which the hon. and learned Member chose to indulge on that subject. When the hon. and learned Gentleman indulged in sneers and sarcasms at his expense, he thought, however, that he had some right to expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be accurate in his facts; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman, alluding to the measure of 1847, to which he (Sir J. Pakington) was a party, complained that persons of wealth dealt with the poor in their back parlours, the hon. and learned Member only showed his own utter ignorance. He thought it would be better for the character and credit of the hon. and learned Gentleman if he contrived to be somewhat better informed on the subjects upon which he spoke; for, if the hon. and learned Member referred to the Act in question, he would find that it gave certain powers to justices of the peace of any county, riding, division, &c., in petty sessions assembled, at the usual place, and in open court.

MR. ROEBUCK

asked the House to deal with this subject as men of common sense, and to consider how justice was likely to be administered by two magistrates meeting at the accustomed place, in a country district, far away from anything like newspapers, lawyers, or attorneys. The hon. Baronet had talked about "open courts;" but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew something of these matters, for he lived in the country, and knew what the country was, as well as the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his whole life was passed among gentlemen exactly like the hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Roebuck) understood how magistrates met together, for instance, to stop a footpath. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had said that in the crowded district in which he lived, the petty sessions were held in open court. Yes, if a petty session was held in a town it then became an open court; but what he (Mr. Roebuck) complained of was, that in the country they did not possess the advantage of this publicity. He did not wish to throw any imputation upon the gentlemen of England, but he wished to stop this Bill; and if the powers it proposed to confer were given to anybody, he hoped they would be devolved upon judges in whose courts publicity was not a mere name but a reality.

SIR G. GREY

hoped that this measure would be discussed without indulging in these personalities. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Bill involved a new proposal to give summary jurisdiction to magistrates in petty sessions; but he begged to remind the House that Acts were passed some years ago, at the instance of the right hon. Member for Tam-worth, which gave to magistrates in petty sessions the power of summary adjudication in cases of malicious injury to property. There was also an Act now in force—the Juvenile Offenders Act—which had been considered by a Select Committee of that House, and which gave the power of summary adjudication to magistrates in petty sessions, where the offenders were under the age of 14 years. That Act was passed with the general assent of that House and of the House of Lords, and received the marked and distinct approval of Lord Denman, the late Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, who, indeed, proposed an Amendment, which he eventually withdrew, in order to bring within its operation persons of adult age. The real question they had now to consider was the proper definition of juvenile offenders. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had argued that persons under the age of 14 came within the recognised legal definition of youth. He (Sir G. Grey) presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had founded his argument on the fact, that, in law, children above 14 years of age were considered capax doli. The ordinary practice was, however, to regard as juvenile offenders all persons under the age of 16. Up to the age of 16, for instance, prisoners were classed by the prison inspectors "juvenile offenders," as distinguished from adults. There was also some analogy in the regulations of the poor-law, which held that relief afforded to children under the age of 16 was relief to the parents. He thought, therefore, that the proposition now made was in accordance with the ordinary practice with regard to the distinction between juveniles and adults. A great deal had been said about intrusting powers of this kind to magistrates in petty sessions. He could only say, that the measure applicable to juvenile offenders under the age of 14 had now been in operation for two years and a half, and he was not aware that a single complaint had been addressed to him as to any abuse of the powers conferred under that Act. He believed it was a merciful administration of the law to preserve juvenile offenders up to 16 from contamination with hardened criminals before trial. He was, therefore, prepared to support this Bill as far as it related to the extension from 14 to 16 years of age, for he believed that might be very safely and beneficially done.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

regretted as much as the right hon. Baronet the personality which had been introduced into this discussion, but he thought he could not be accused of commencing that personality. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, however, if he came down and attacked every one who was a magistrate, must not be surprised if he got an answer. That hon. and learned Gentleman had made another blunder in supposing that magistrates in petty sessions had the power to stop footpaths, for when their decision was appealed against, such questions were referred to the determination of a jury. He considered that the present Bill, in extending what he did not hesitate to call the benefits of the Juvenile Offenders Act to persons of 16 years of age, would effect a very advantageous change in the existing law.

MR. LAW

said, the legal maxim applicable to children charged with great crimes was malitia supplet œtatem, so that their responsibility to the law depended upon circumstances, although they were exempted from the responsibility of contracts into which they entered under the age of 14, and which might prejudice them in after life; but the age of 14 was regarded as the period when juvenile life ceased, and a more adult character commenced. He might remind the House, however, that whether they should whip a boy of 14 or a youth of 16 were very different questions.

MR. HUME

was not disposed to throw any blame upon those who were engaged in carrying on the institutions of the country, because he thought persons who endeavoured to discharge such duties to the best of their ability deserved credit; but he believed that many offences were left to the adjudication of magistrates in petty sessions which might cause some persons to doubt whether justice was impartially administered. He thought, and he had made the suggestion some years ago, that they ought to have to every board of petty sessions a paid chairman who had been bred to the law. His suggestion had been objected to on the ground of expense; but he thought such expense would be true economy, if the better administration of justice was secured. Some complaints had been made of the places where petty sessions were held. An hon. Friend of his some time ago proposed the insertion of a clause in a Bill before the House, requiring that all petty sessions should be held in a public place, on particular days, and that they should be open to the public; but that clause was rejected. There was a return obtained with regard to petty sessions, and probably it would be found, upon going through it, that one-half of them were held in public-houses; in Cambridgeshire the number was 9 out of 12, and in Buckinghamshire about the same. In Worcestershire, it was stated, that there were 15 places where the petty sessions were held, and in four instances they were public-houses, in three they were the clerk's house, and in two the union workhouse. This was not the way to secure either publicity or respect for the administration of the law. As to what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said, was it likely that a boy of fourteen would make a complaint to the Secretary of State? What said the prison inspectors? Was not the number of juvenile offenders increasing? He (Mr. Hume) should object to the extension of this summary jurisdiction from 14 to 16. If innocent persons were liable to be imprisoned three or four months, the courts should sit more frequently. The time was arrived, too, when the Government ought to come forward and commit the administration of justice to men learned in the law.

MR. E. B. DENISON

objected to extend the jurisdiction of petty sessions to offences committed by persons of the age of 16. There could be no doubt that the class of offenders between the age of 14 and 16 formed a very considerable portion of the rising rogues of the kingdom, and it was on that account that he doubted the propriety of allowing them to be tried in petty sessions. The hon. Baronet who had brought forward the measure observed that it had the almost unanimous consent of the magistrates of the kingdom. Now he (Mr. Denison) belonged to the West Riding of Yorkshire, which contained very nearly the largest number of magistrates of any part of the kingdom, and he had thought it his duty the other day, as chairman of the quarter-sessions, simply to bring this Bill under the notice of the magistrates, without making a single comment, and gave them an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it, but he had heard nothing of any manifestation in its favour on their part; and he had reason to believe that it would not be generally resorted to in his district. Even now it appeared that out of 120,000 or 130,000 prisoners tried in the course of the year, 85,000 were already dealt with by summary jurisdiction. But, in addition to that, he had a right to argue, that out of 10,000 more tried at the quarter-sessions, and not included in the 85,000, the greater part would go to swell the number subjected to summary jurisdiction if this Bill should pass. He asked whether it was wise so to extend the summary jurisdiction exercised by magistrates, however well he might admit them to administer the law? It was undoubtedly true that quarter-sessions were frequently held in public-houses, in back parlours, and other objectionable places. He also objected to extend the summary jurisdiction, because the former Act had only been in operation three years, which was not long enough to enable them to form a satisfactory estimate as to its advantages.

MR. LAW

would move that the Chairman now leave the chair, with the view of raising the question as to the age of 16 years.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."

MR. M. MILNES

thought, that if hon. Members had paid due attention to the state of juvenile crime in this country, they would see that the mode of dealing with young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 involved a question of the highest importance. The French law treated them as juvenile criminals up to the age of 16, and made special provisions for their punishment. Another consideration which I ought not to be lost sight of was, the danger of exposing young persons to the contamination of a prison at an age when their imaginations were most susceptible of impressions, and when the character, in fact, was formed for good or evil.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, the hon. Member for the West Riding had adverted to the absence of any manifestation in favour of the Bill on the part of the magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire; but, at all events, it could not be said that they had taken any active part against it, and he himself (Sir J. Pakington) had had the honour of presenting a petition in its favour from the magistrates of the East Riding. With respect to holding petty sessions in public-houses, no one more heartily disapproved of the practice than himself; but the same objection did not apply to holding them in clerks' dwelling-houses, many of which contained convenient and capacious courts fitted up for the purpose; but, as far as he knew, whether the sessions were held in public-houses or elsewhere, their proceedings were always regularly published in the local newspaper. The hon. Member for the West Riding had talked of sessions held in back parlours; he should be glad to know to what magistrate he alluded as having held petty sessions in his back parlour?

MR. E. B. DENISON

had referred to the back parlours of public-houses only. With regard to the West Riding, he thought the magistrates of that district had shown something more than indifference, seeing that the hon. Baronet had sent round circulars to all magistrates urging them to support his measure.

MR. ROEBUCK

wished to divest the question of all personal considerations, and begged the hon. Baronet's pardon if he had given him offence. The hon. Member for Pontefract, addressing himself to their sentimentalities, cited the instance of France, and told them that the age between fourteen and sixteen began and ended by distinguishing the boy from the man. What, then, did this Bill do? It enabled a magistrate to inflict punishment upon him when he had ceased to be a boy—a disgraceful and degrading punishment, which must cast a stigma on him for the rest of his life. Was the House prepared to give to two magistrates, sitting, as the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire—himself the chairman of a quarter-sessions—confessed, in the back parlours of public-houses, without the aid of a jury, without any one of the bulwarks which the institutions of this country had thrown around us all, a power to degrade a young man for life by exposing him in the marketplace and ordering him to be whipped? Whip a boy, and there was nothing in it. If you struck your own child, which he would not advise any man to do—and if he had a child, and struck him, he would not be a man—but supposing a child to be struck, no imputation would be cast upon the boy, whereas a grave imputation would be cast upon a man if personal chastisement were inflicted upon him. He hoped, for the sake of the due administration of justice, that the House would support the proposition of the hon. and learned Recorder for the city of London, who had dealt with more criminals than any other Member of that House, and who had told them that this was a most mischievous Bill.

MR. J. H. VIVIAN

called attention to the heavy expense which counties had to meet at present for removing criminals from sessions to gaols, and said that some alteration of the law in this respect was needed.

VISCOUNT BERNARD

said, that the existing law in Ireland had been instrumental in suppressing much of juvenile delinquency.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, the knotty point before the House appeared to be—at what age posterity should be whipped. Now, he was not for whipping them at all; and upon that principle he would endeavour to regulate his vote.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 70: Majority 9.

Same Clause: Amendment proposed, line 28, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "exceed the age of sixteen years."

MR. ROEBUCK

objected to give the magistrates jurisdiction in the case of offenders sixteen years of age, and said he should take the sense of the Committee upon the point.

MR. AGLIONBY

would be willing to accede to the Amendment, or to the withdrawal of the Bill, if he saw any evidence that Government would take the matter up, or that the jurisdiction of the county courts' judges would be extended to juvenile offenders; but, in the absence of any proof of the sort, he would support the measure.

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH

could not agree in the praises which they had heard bestowed on the Juvenile Offenders Act in this country or in Ireland. He believed the country would not be satisfied with any increase to the powers at present possessed by magistrates at petty sessions. The Juvenile Offenders Act had not proved a beneficial change in the law. He spoke from experience of the subject, having studied the working of the Act in the metropolis and elsewhere, and was convinced of the evils which had been caused by gaol contamination. He would just quote two instances of recent occurrence: one was a case of a boy not 12 years of age, who had been sentenced five times in a year and a half, and was now in prison; the other the case of a still younger boy, who had been punished twelve times in a proportionately short space of time. It was with surprise he heard hon. Members say that general satisfaction was evinced at this Bill. The opinion of Judges of the higher and inferior courts could be quoted against that assertion, and he had read many letters from all parts of the country which agreed in condemning its provisions. They could not, let them do what they might, they could not disguise from the people out of doors the fact that they were making one law for the poor and another for the rich; that they were exposing the poor to punishment without judge, jury, bar, or publicity.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he should vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, though he was not influenced in the least by the arguments which he had heard on the subject, for those arguments had no foundation in fact. He was opposed to sending prisoners great distances to be tried, not so much on account of the prisoners themselves as on account of the witnesses, upon whom the demoralising effect of even a short stay in a large town was often strikingly apparent. Grand juries and magistrates had often remonstrated against the evil consequences of the present practice, With respect to the exercise of power by the magistrates, he could undertake to say that there was no jealousy felt towards them; quite the contrary was the fact; at the same time he did by no means think that their power should be extended in the manner now proposed by the Bill.

MR. P. HOWARD

observed, that the civil law fixed the age of 14 as that at which a distinction was to be taken between the juvenile and the adult, and he thought that on this point the House ought to regard with great respect the opinion of those the most learned in the law, who had always held that that was the age at which persons accused ought not to be placed amongst the juvenile delinquents. With respect to giving the judges of the county courts the power of dealing with such cases, he should have no objection to such an arrangement, provided those judges were to summon juries to their aid; but, unless they were to possess the constitutional support of juries, he should decidedly object to their being invested with any such power.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 78: Majority 6.

SIR G. STRICKLAND

objected to that portion in which the preceding Acts were recited in order to give them effect. He said that the extension of this summary jurisdiction, and the giving the power to magistrates to inflict the punishment of whipping upon youths of 16, was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and cruel. He thought that in these days they ought to have recourse to moral instead of brute violence, and he should, therefore, move a proviso at the end of the clause to prohibit the whipping of youths above 14.

At the end of the clause, proposed to add the following proviso:— Provided alway, that nothing herein contained shall authorise or empower any Justice or Justices to order the punishment of whipping to be inflicted upon any offender whose age shall exceed the age of 14 years.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, that the power of punishing youths under 14 years of age by whipping was already the law of the land, and it had been enacted with the humane and benevolent intention of enabling magistrates to save young offenders from the contamination of the gaol, by ordering them to be whipped and discharged. It had operated beneficially hitherto, and it might be found equally beneficial if it were extended to cases in which the offenders were of the age of 16. Why, whipping was a punishment that their own sons underwent in the public schools of this country.

MR. ROEBUCK

hoped the House would not permit its extension to persons of the age of sixteen, because, as he had said before, the child was a child up to fourteen, but he was a man at sixteen. They all knew what human nature was, and what its feelings were in that respect. The punishment to the boy was the mere bodily pain which he suffered. The punishment of flogging to the man was as nothing in respect to the bodily pain. His suffering arose from the sense of degradation. It was a grave and serious distinction. As to talking about whipping at school, why they all knew it was a totally different matter. There, there was a sort of triumph in the capability of enduring the bodily pain of a whipping at school. But strike a man with only a glove upon the face—there was no physical pain in the case whatsoever, but what would be the effect upon his moral sense? Were they prepared to make their peasant a slave, and to apply this degrading punishment, this last resort of poor and pitiful jurisdiction, to enforce their criminal code? Were they obliged to admit, in this age that boasted of its civilisation, that they could not govern their fellow men without the whip? He was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen tell him that whipping belonged to the law of England. Whipping, it was said, was part of the spirit of the British law; then God help them if they were not to get out of that spirit! They had done so in the case of women, let them get out of it in the case of men; and he hoped to see the day when they might get out of it in the case of boys. There was great flippancy in taking of the case of boys, but let them recollect that "the boy is father of the man." [Laughter.] They might laugh at the phrase, but it was a very pertinent one. When he felt thus for himself, why should he not suppose that the same feeling was in the heart of the peasant? Fortune had condemned him to poverty, and let not the law also condemn him to degradation because he was poor. Would they like their own children to be whipped at sixteen?—but they were gentlemen. Were there no gentlemen who had committed larceny at sixteen? Were there no parents who would not sink into the earth if they knew that their sons at the age of sixteen were to be exhibited in the market place? And would not the poor peasant, when his child was brought into the market place feel the degradation as bitterly? [An Hon. MEMBER: There is to be no whipping in the market place.] Well, if not in the market place, it was to be in the prison. He would like to see if the hon. Member for Pontefract could explain the difference between flogging in the market place and in the prison. He hoped the good feeling of the country would erase this stigma from the Bill. Bad as the thing might be, he trusted that the word would be fourteen instead of sixteen.

MR. LAW

anticipated that one useful result that would follow from the adoption of the Amendment limiting the punishment to lads of fourteen, would be, that it would be a guide to Judges and to magistrates at quarter-sessions in limiting the age to which they should in future apportion the punishment of whipping. We had arrived at a time when it was felt that what was a fit punishment for boys, was an irritating, insulting, degrading, and unfit punishment for men.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had a right to object to a clause, and to draw a distinction between a boy of 14 and a boy of 16, and say the one was a boy and the other a man; but he had no right to say that this Bill had for its object the degradation of the poor. It was not the poor, it was the criminal. Those who supported this Bill considered that it was likely to diminish crime; and he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich that in many instances it would be a mercy to the criminal himself. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield said it was a degrading punishment, it might not be more so than incarceration for many months. And this he must say, that the son of a rich man would be subject to the same punishment. ["No, no!"] There was nothing in the Bill to make a distinction, and he did not believe that those who administered it would make a distinction; and he believed that in the case of the son of a rich man, it would be a mercy to flog him rather than send him to gaol.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

could not help expressing his cordial concurrence with the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; and, although it might be unpopular after the eloquent denunciation of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, yet he should not discharge his duty if, thinking that this was the cause of humanity, he shrunk from saying so on the present occasion. It appeared to him that they should not be led away by sentimentality, which might do very well in a popular assembly, but in that House they must look to the real and practical interests of society. They had to deal with a class in which sentimentality did not prevail in the same degree as in their own. When they talked of stigma and a degradation, it was the duty of the Legislature to say crime was the stigma, and they must not be deterred from applying the corrective, because the criminal might for the moment have irritated feelings with respect to the punishment. And he would just ask the House whether that was not the best punishment which combined these qualities—the quality of being sufficiently severe to prevent repetition, the quality of being cheap, the quality of being quick in its operation, and of being expeditious in its infliction? Did not this punishment and personal chastisement unite all these points more than any other? In the first place, would it not be more feared by a boy, if he knew that he had to undergo sharp punishment and pain, though but for a short time, than if he knew that he had to go to prison and associate with others like himself, where probably his moral susceptibilities would be so blunted that he had no fear of imprisonment? They knew by experience that the fear of the punishment of whipping was the more effective. Then, which was the more merciful, which left the greatest stigma in the long run? The knowledge that a person had been in gaol, and had there served an apprenticeship to crime, was much more of a stigma than that of a boy having to undergo that kind of punishment which every gentleman's son in the kingdom had to undergo. Then there was the consideration of cheapness—and though far be it from him to urge that as a consideration apart from others—yet considered along with others, it was worthy of being taken into account. On these grounds he hoped the House would agree to the clause, believing as he did that the punishment of whipping, whatever might be said against it, was really merciful. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield said it made no difference whether the punishment took place in the prison or in the market place; but he entirely differed from this opinion. The irritation to the feelings, and the injurious recollection in the minds of others, were in direct proportion to the publicity of the infliction. But by the Bill before the House, an offender under the age of 16 might be once privately whipped, and there was an end of the market place.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he agreed with all that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said on the subject of whipping. He should object to whipping persons 16 years of age, precisely on the ground that the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to it. But he objected to it on other grounds, which made him revolt at the idea of passing the Bill in its present shape. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich proposed that the punishment should be inflicted by the order of two magistrates. Now, let them consider who magistrates were—how they were appointed, and the mode in which their business was sometimes conducted. Now, he believed there were many hundreds of magistrates to whom the country was greatly indebted; many who knew the law, and who were just and careful judges; but then he knew that magistrates were appointed frequently because they happened to be rich gentlemen of the neighbourhood, or because they happened to be the political partisans of a Government, and that they were not appointed from any inquiry into their capacity or knowledge. Take a rural district, for instance, and see a young man of 15 or 16 years of age brought before a magistrate, such as some of those whose conduct had been occasionally commented on in that House—let a police officer suggest that he is a lad of bad character, and had been known to go after hares—and allowing magistrates to be good men, as hon. Gentlemen believed them to be, and as he believed a great number of them were, he said it was more than that House ought to do with regard to the interests of the public to commit so severe and degrading a punishment to the adjudication and determination of gentlemen of that class. He was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct when he stated that the infliction of this punishment upon young men of this age by the sentence of two magistrates, without the intervention of a jury, would tend, in a multitude of cases, to create discontent in many parts of the country, and particularly in the rural districts, where public opinion had less influence on the conduct of magistrates than it had in towns. And if he regarded only the conduct and the character and the influence of the magistrates themselves, he would warn them against seeking from Parliament those additional powers, and he would ask them, more than any other men in that House, to vote decidedly against the proposition now before them.

MR. ROEBUCK

was at no loss to meet the argument of the hon. and learned Gen- tleman the Member for Plymouth. He had put it on a ground he could perfectly understand, and he would meet him on that ground. He said first of all this punishment was cheap, was very painful, and did not inflict a lasting degradation. Now, he could show him there was another punishment quite as cheap, that would inflict a good deal more pain, and not a whit less degradation. Let them take torture. ["Oh!"] He had a right to argue the question as the hon. and learned Gentleman had put it. What was this punishment of flogging but torture? The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were not going to do it publicly, as if that would take away from the mischief. That would enhance the mischief, because it was no example, it had an effect only upon the individual. Now, what they wanted to do by punishment was not only to affect the individual punished, but, through the punishment of the individual, to affect the public at large. Let them take the thumbscrew. The boy came into the back room of a prison and put his thumb into the screw, and if that should maim him they should suggest some other portion of his body that could be screwed and do no harm. That would effect the object that seemed to be worthy of consideration with the hon. and learned Gentleman—the cheapness of giving pain. How cheap it is to give pain! The slightest knife, not worth a penny, would inflict a pain so great that they could not measure it by words that language would afford. Therefore let them strike that out at once—cheapness let them not consider—the only real question was, did this infliction degrade the man? Society was entitled to inflict such punishments as would deter men from the perpetration of crime; but they must be content with inflicting the least possible punishment that would be efficacious to this end. For if, for argument's sake, he could prevent the crime of murder from being committed by a fine of one farthing, that was the utmost penalty he ought to exact. He had no vengeance to gratify. Could they be asked to do anything more frightful in the way of degradation than to whip a man? When hon. Gentlemen said that imprisonment for a month was a greater degradation than flogging, they knew very little of their countrymen or of the idea they entertained of such an infliction. It was a degradation that would last for life, and no future conduct of the boy of 16 to the man of 60 would wipe out the imputation. It would haunt him like a spirit from that hour, until the moment at which he breathed his last. He would be pointed out as the man who had been degraded by corporal punishment, and being so degraded, he will, like the slave in Homer, "lose half his manhood in being a slave,"

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, one of the worst things about the Bill was, that there was no intention whatever of applying it to the children of the gentry. It was a Bill intended solely for application to the children of the working classes. Eton boys stole geese. He knew they did; for he had heard men holding His Majesty's commission declare they had done it, and add, moreover, that they did it in submission to the rules by which the sons of the gentry at public schools were forced to steal at the command of their superiors. But there was no intention that the son of a gentleman should be whipped for stealing, either in a prison or in the market place. All this only showed the low moral state of the upper classes, and one which the middle and working classes were ashamed of. He saw serious dangers in the plan. The people of this country had always been a thoughtful people, but sometimes a wild-blooded one. What might be the consequences if some man of a hot temperament saw the child of his affections sent home to him lacerated by the public executioner for having eaten a turnip? [A laugh.] It was very well for Gentlemen of good degree to laugh; but Wat Tyler turned out upon an insult to his child, and there was not a peasant's heart in the country that might not be moved to fearful thoughts of vengeance if such a misfortune should meet him in the proper mood. It would be one of those cases, where no habit of reverence for authority could be depended on to bind. He believed that even the negro slave, while slavery was legal in the colonies, would have risen in resistance, and multitudes in this country would have held him justified, if his child had been returned to him whipped as the children of the working classes in England were to be whipped by this law. He would warn the Members, that if the consequences fell in sorrow on themselves, they would have nothing to thank but their own insensibility to the feelings of their humbler countrymen.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, the hon. and learned Member for Bath—[Cries of "Sheffield!"] He begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon, he should have said for Sheffield—who was one of the greatest orators as well as one of the greatest actors in that House, had expatiated with great feeling upon the suffering of boys from 14 to 16; but the hon. and learned Member had left some of the punishment he proposed to the imagination of the House. An hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the Eton boys; but on looking round the House he would ask which of them were not Eton boys? He would ask them, moreover, who was it that liked punishment? If a person committed an offence, he should expect some result in the way of punishment. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield said, he could give them something as cheap, as lasting, and as painful as the penalty proposed. He supposed the hon. and learned Member meant hanging. Now, he asked what punishment they were to have? The hon. Member for Dumfries objected to hanging; other hon. Gentlemen objected to transportation; and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, with the amenity he always displayed in that House, contended against whipping. But was crime, therefore, to go unpunished? The question was not whether hanging was good, or whether transportation was good per se, but where crime existed, crime must be punished. Punishment was necessary far more than prevention or repression—it was necessary for correction. He did not coincide with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that punishment was to be looked upon only in the light of a matter to prevent crime; for he thought that it ought also to be considered as a means of correcting and reforming offenders.

MR. PACKE

said, that whipping was the law at present for boys of 16, when tried at the sessions. The question now was as to changing the tribunal; but the arguments had been directed against the punishment altogether. When whipping was inflicted at the sessions, it should be remembered that the jury had nothing whatever to do with the sentence; after they had found their verdict, it was for the bench to direct what the punishment should be. The object of the clause was merely to transfer this jurisdiction from the quarter to the petty sessions.

MR. HUME

had been surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth advocate flogging for grown-up men. This was a Bill for regulating the punishment of juvenile offenders. What would the public say when they found the House so ready to degrade persons just entering on manhood? It reminded him of the day when the corporal punishment of soldiers was defended to the extent of 500 or 600, or 1,000 lashes, on the ground that they were a class of men who were not sensible to punishment, and that was the only way by which they could be kept in discipline. The House was by degrees convinced of the atrocity and brutality of these punishments, and they were abandoned. Had not men from the ranks declared that many a good soldier had been destroyed by the first infliction of punishment—that in nine cases out of ten he was lost to the service, and no longer fit to be trusted as a soldier? Since the passing of the Act of 1827, the number of juvenile offenders had been greatly increased. There were instances of boys having been punished five, six, or ten different times; and was that any encouragement to extend this species of punishment? Did it not occur to the House that prevention was better than punishment, and that education might be more properly extended? Judging from the effect of corporal punishment being put an end to in the Army, he must conclude that the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was erroneous. Corporal punishment under 14, when the culprits were considered children, carried no degradation with it. There was the greatest difference between this punishment being inflicted by the court of quarter-sessions, and by a couple of magistrates sitting in a back parlour. The chances of mistake were all the greater; and when once the sentence was carried out, supposing the parties afterwards proved to be innocent, where was the remedy?

MR. PLUMPTRE

would prefer to see corporal punishment confined to those under fourteen.

MR. HEADLAM

said, that two arguments had been brought against the proposal—first, that it ought not to be extended to culprits above fourteen; secondly, that the tribunal was not a proper one. He differed from both those arguments. If a magistrate could be trusted with the infliction of this punishment on boys of fourteen, why not on those of sixteen? The evil of the punishment had been enlarged on, but no reference had been made to the greater evils of other punishments. Suppose the other course pursued, there would be the solemnity of a trial at the assizes, and consequent imprisonment, a thing much more likely to injure juvenile offenders than whipping. By sending them before the higher tribunal, their vanity and importance were flattered; and this would have the worst effect on themselves and their companions. Summary punishment was the most merciful course towards juvenile offenders.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he should have been disposed to support the proposition before the House, to prevent the contamination of boys in prison; but feeling the other objections so strongly, he had not been able to screw up his courage to that point, and had therefore voted against the Bill all the while. Many magistrates, with the best intentions in the world, had no knowledge whatever of law, and almost as little of justice. It often happened, too, that the clerk to the magistrates was the magistrate himself; and that was a very great evil. It had been asked, why should not the same punishment be applied at sixteen as at fourteen? Because, at fourteen they were boys; but he remembered that when he was sixteen, he felt very much like a man. He was, fortunately, one of those who had escaped that punishment; he had never suffered the infliction of a stripe in his life; and, when he was sixteen, that man would have been a very clever fellow who would have laid a stripe upon him. Then there was the possibility of an innocent party being found guilty; and when summary punishment was inflicted, it was without redress, without appeal, the man was degraded for life, no reparation could be made him. He regarded trial by jury as one of the greatest bulwarks of our liberties, and he should ever oppose any attempt to narrow its application.

MR. HENLEY

said, the question before the Committee was, whether corporal punishment should be extended, by a court of petty session, to persons between the age of fourteen and sixteen. The question as to the propriety of flogging, as a punishment, was not before them; and, therefore, he would not enter into that question. With regard to the extension of the punishment, he would vote against it; and for this reason, that persons of the age of fourteen being considered as boys were flogged with a rod, but, in all probability, that would be considered too light a mode of inflicting the punishment on a person of sixteen, and the cat would be used. Now, a person flogged with the cat would be marked for life, and he would net afterwards be taken into the Army.

MR. SLANEY

said, he should vote against the extension of flogging to persons of sixteen years of age, although he admitted that his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich was actuated by the best intentions in what he proposed.

SIR R. PEEL

said, he wished to state, in a few sentences, the grounds on which he should give his vote. At present he found that the law established a distinction between boys who did not exceed the age of fourteen, and boys who were above that age. In the case of the boy who did not exceed fourteen, the law treated him as a. boy, and made him subject to corporal punishment, under the summary jurisdiction of two magistrates. In the case of the boy who exceeded the age of fourteen, true it was that he was not exempted from corporal punishment; but they threw around him this sanction, that they required that the conviction should take place before the ordinary tribunals of the country. It was now proposed to confound this distinction, and to permit the boy, between fourteen and sixteen years of age; to be subjected to corporal punishment the discretion of two magistrates. He apprehended that, before any such alteration of the law was made, which would, apparently at least, be at variance with the principle which of late years dictated a milder policy in their criminal code, a case of necessity should be made out. He had heard none such. He thought it much better that the distinction recognised by the existing law should be maintained, than that they should confound that distinction without any allegation for the necessity of so doing. He apprehended that there was a growing conviction that corporal punishment ought not to be inflicted except in cases of grave necessity; and although adults were subject to corporal punishment, yet, upon their conviction, the Judges generally acted on the principle of selecting some other punishment than that degrading one. But he must say, that if Parliament, without any allegation of necessity, widened the discretion with regard to corporal punishment, it would be giving a tacit encouragement to the substitution of that form of punishment for the milder practice which of late years had made such progress in this country. He held that the practice in public schools had no analogy to the case of corporal punishments inflicted on offenders as a degradation. In his opinion, this would be no improvement of the law. It might make no practical distinction possibly, but it was important in this respect, that it would show that the House of Commons were prepared, without apparent necessity, to retrograde from that course which they had of late years entered upon.

Question put, "That the proposed Proviso be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 89: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Alcock, T.	Grace, O. D. J.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Greenall, G.
Baring, T.	Greene, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Greene, T.
Bass, M. T.	Guest, Sir J.
Beresford, W.	Hale, R. B.
Blake, M. J.	Hall, Sir B.
Boldero, H. G.	Harris, R.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Hastie, A.
Bowles, Adm.	Hayes, Sir E.
Broadwood, H.	Heald, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Brockman, E. D.	Heneage, E.
Brotherton, J.	Henley, J. W.
Brown, W.	Henry, A.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Buxton, Sir E. N.	Heyworth, L.
Chaplin, W. J.	Hildyard, T. B. T.
Christy, S.	Hill, Lord M.
Clay, J.	Hodges, T. L.
Clay, Sir W.	Hodgson, W. N.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Howard, P. H.
Cockburn, A. J. E.	Hudson, G.
Cocks, T. S.	Hughes, W. B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hume, J.
Copeland, Ald.	Humphery, Ald.
Cowan, C.	Hutt, W.
Crawford, W. S.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Denison, E.	Jones, Capt.
Devereux, J. T.	Keating, R.
Divett, E.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Knox, Col.
Drummond, H.	Law, hon. C. E.
Duncan, G.	Lawless, hon. C.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Duncuft, J.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Dundas, Adm.	Locke, J.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Lockhart, A. E.
Du Pre, C. G.	Lockhart, W.
Edwards, H.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Lushington, C.
Ellis, J.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Elliott, hon. J. E.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Estcourt, J. B. B.	M'Neill, D.
Evans, J.	Meagher, T.
Evans, W.	Mahon, Visct.
Fagan, W.	Mangles, R. D.
Farnham, E. B.	Masterman, J.
Farrer, J.	Matheson, Col.
Fergus, J.	Melgund, Visct.
Floyer, J.	Milner, W. M. E.
Foley, J. H. H.	Moffatt, G.
Fordyce, A. D.	Monsell, W.
Fox, W. J.	Morgan, H. K. G.
Galway, Visct.	Morris, D.
Glyn, G. C.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Goddard, A. L.	Muntz, G. F.

Napier, J.	Stafford, A.
Neeld, J.	Stanley, hon. E. H.
Newport, Visct.	Stanton, W. H.
Osborne, R.	Stuart, Lord D.
Parker, J.	Stuart, Lord J.
Patten, J. W.	Talbot, J. H.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Tenison, E. K.
Peel, F.	Tennent, R. J.
Peto, S. M.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Pilkington, J.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Plowden, W. H. C.	Thompson, Col.
Plumptre, J. P.	Thompson, Ald.
Power, N.	Thornely, T.
Price, Sir R.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Richards, R.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Robartes, T. J. A.	Walpole, S. H.
Roebuck, J. A.	West, F. R.
Romilly, Col.	Westhead, J. P. B.
Romilly, Sir J.	Willcox, B. M.
Sadleir, J.	Williams, J.
Salwey, Col.	Wilson, J.
Sandars, G.	Wilson, M.
Scholefield, W.	Wood, W. P.
Scully, F.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Slaney, R. A.	Wyld, J.
Smith, J. B.
Smyth, J. G.	TELLERS.
Sotheron, T. H. S.	Strickland, Sir G.
Spearman, H. J.	Bright, J.

List of the NOES.
Adair, R. A. S.	Heywood, J.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hollond, R.
Anson, Visct.	Hope, A.
Armstrong, R. B.	Hotham, Lord
Bagot, hon. W.	Howard hon. C. W. G.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Barrington, Visct.	Jervis, Sir J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Keogh, W.
Berkeley, C. L. G.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Bernard, Visct.	Marshall, W.
Blackall, S. W.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Blakemore, R.	Milnes, R. M.
Booth, Sir R. G.	Mitchell, T. A.
Bromley, R.	Moody, C. A.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Morgan, O.
Carew, W. H. P.	Naas, Lord
Chatterton, Col.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Clive, hon. R. H.	O'Connell, M. J.
Clive, H. B.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Cobbold, J. C.	Oswald, A.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Palmer, R.
Colvile, C. R.	Palmer, R.
Crowder, R. B.	Palmerston, Visct.
Cubitt, W.	Pelham, hon. D. A.
Denison, J. E.	Perfect, R.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Portal, M.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Prime, R.
Duff, G. S.	Rawdon, Col.
Duff, J.	Rendlesham, Lord
Ferguson, Col.	Ronton, J. C.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Repton, G. W. J.
Forbes, W.	Rice, E. R.
Forster, M.	Rushout, Capt.
Freestun, Col	Russell, F. C. H.
Frewen, C. H.	Seymer, H. K.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Seymour, Lord
Gwyn, H.	Sibthorp, Col.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Simeon, J.
Hatchell, J.	Smythe, hon. G.
Headlam, T. E.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Heathcoat, J.	Talbot, C. R. M.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.	Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Townshend, Capt.	Wrightson, W. B.
Villiers, Visct.	TELLERS.
Vivian, J. H.	Packe, C. W.
Wawn, J. T.	Pakington, Sir J.

MR. ROEBUCK

hoped the hon. Baronet, after such a decision, would withdraw the Bill altogether. He could not see what use there would be in proceeding with it further, after the power of whipping offenders between 14 and 16 years of age had been cut out of the measure.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

regretted the decision that the House had just come to, which he did not think a merciful decision; but the Bill as it stood would still leave the magistrates the power, if they saw fit, of discharging an offender altogether who was brought up for the first time on a trifling charge; and as it would enable the juvenile offender to be saved from the contamination of the period passed in the gaol before trial, he thought it worth while to go on with the measure.

MR. ROEBUCK

would like to know how much use a Bill would be that could only save the offender from the contamination of the gaol, by allowing him to go altogether unpunished?

MR. AGLIONBY

concurred with the hon. Baronet in thinking the decision of the Committee an unfortunate one for the criminal himself. But the manner in which they had discussed the Bill was not calculated to raise the credit of their proceedings. They had several divisions upon it earlier in the evening, and at every subsequent hour a set of fresh Members came in, and not having heard the previous speeches they repeated other people's arguments over and over again. And then came, as the climax of all, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth—"Presto, change!" and all that they had already decided, substantially, was all overturned. Still the Bill would prevent contamination in gaol. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman should show a little patience to others, when they had often to show so much to him. The Bill would now enable the magistrates to inflict on these men—for boys he was not allowed to call them—between 14 and 16 years of age, a short period of imprisonment—a week, or a few days, for example—in minor offences; whereas, if they destroyed the Bill altogether, they would have to go to prison six months or so before trial. On that ground he hoped the measure would be proceeded with.

SIR R. PEEL

said, he could not conceive a stronger proof than that given by the hon. and learned Member for Cocker-mouth, that the sense of the House was decidedly against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member said, "Here have been Members dropping in who have not been subjected to the contamination and confinement of the House; and one after another they have expressed an opinion adverse to the proposed jurisdiction." This was no party question: if it were a party question, he apprehended that his (Sir R. Peel's) authority would not be very great. He did not speak until after two of the highest authorities—the hon. Member for East Kent and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire—both of whom had had great experience in such matters, had expressed a decided opinion on the subject. He had no wish, however, to disclaim his own responsibility, but he heartily rejoiced in the decision to which the House had come, and he repeated that the hon. and learned Member had given a most decided proof of the sense of the House in stating that independent Members entering the House at different periods of the debate, had arrived at the same conclusion. This was no very recondite question; it was simply whether the jurisdiction of flogging should be extended to boys between 14 and 16.

MR. HUME

reminded the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth that in two divisions the majority was six and nine; and if the Cabinet had been taken out, the Amendment would in each case have been carried.

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH

The hon. Member for Droitwich had, since the last division, frankly admitted that the great object of the Bill was to secure the power of the lash over those who came under the jurisdiction. If the hon. Baronet were determined to proceed, he was disposed to divide the House against that course.

SIR G. GREY

said, the House had already affirmed the principle of the Bill, which was to extend the summary jurisdiction from offenders of 14 to those of 16 years of age. He, therefore, trusted, although they had rejected a particular species of punishment for the elder class of offenders, they would not now destroy the principle by rejecting the clause altogether; and he thought they had already had divisions enough on the Bill.

MR. BRIGHT

would recommend the hon. Member for Droitwich not to go to a division on the question then. On the question that the Chairman report progress, the Bill had been kept alive only by a majority of 6; on another question the majority was only 9. He thought it would be unwise to proceed with legislation of that nature with such a division of feeling in the House. He would suggest, that under the circumstances it would be best to withdraw the Bill for the present; and two or three years hence, if a case of necessity or desirableness had been made out, the House might return to the consideration of the question, and perhaps decide by a majority which would give weight to the measure proposed.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

was not prepared to admit that the House was so equally divided as the hon. Member for Manchester appeared to suppose. On the question whether the House should or should not go into Committee on the Bill, a full House had divided, and so far he had a right to infer that there was a majority of 60 or 70 Members in favour of that part of the Bill which was retained. If the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk persevered, he should take the sense of the House on the Bill as it stood.

MR. LAWLESS moved the insertion of a clause exempting Ireland from the operation of the Bill; his principal reason for doing so was, that in Ireland there was not the power of appeal which existed in this country.

LORD NAAS

thought the Bill was more required in Ireland than in any other part of the united kingdom, seeing that so much contamination had arisen there from the overcrowded state of the gaols.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

said, that when he introduced the Juvenile Offenders Bill in 1847, he was strongly appealed to by Irish Members to extend it to Ireland. He declined to do so at the time; but in the following year a Bill for that purpose passed unanimously.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel complained of was, that there was no uniformity. He said that Ireland differed from England, inasmuch as the accused had not the power of appeal.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by a power of appeal. He was not aware of the existence of any such power. What the hon. Gentleman called the power of appeal, was no appeal at all. If the hon. Member thought the distinction between the two Acts of so much importance, he could propose a clause on the report.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, 2nd of May.