CASE OF MART LOVELL.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 6 June 1871)

MR. BRUCE

Sir, I have inquired of the magistrates, and received their answer. The case, as it has appeared in the public journals, is briefly stated as follows. Mary Lovell, a girl of 13 years of age, heretofore of good character, and the child of parents of good character, was charged with stealing a jug, which she had taken to the place whence it was said to have been stolen, and which she accounted for by stating that it had been given to her by one of the servants in consequence of its being broken. It is very naturally urged that, inasmuch as she had taken the jug to the place whence she was supposed to have stolen it, that fact afforded a strong presumption of her innocence. That was the statement of the papers; and yet, it was said, in the face of these facts, the magistrates inflicted a sentence of three weeks' imprisonment and a further sentence of five years' imprisonment in a reformatory. The statement of the magistrates is this. Mary Lovell was the daughter of a labourer, and was in the habit of going to Mr. Foster's to receive charity in the shape of soup and milk. On a certain day, the 1st of May, Mr. Smith, a dairyman and tenant of Mr. Foster's, left a jug at Mr. Poster's house, with milk in it. The jug was washed and put aside, and when Smith's wife called for it in the evening it was gone. Various articles had during the preceding three months been missed from Mr. Foster's house; and three days after this jug had been missed, Mary Lovell took it, not to Mr. Foster's house, but to Mr. Saunders', a different place altogether, and it was there recognized in her possession by Mrs. Smith. She was asked 1600 where she got it, and she said she got it from a man of the name of Charlie Swindle. The house of her parents was searched, and in it were found three or four articles of crockery which were sworn to be the property of Mr. Foster. She was then brought before the magistrates, and the statement she then made was that she had received it not from Charlie Swindle, but from a servant of Mr. Foster's. Mr. Foster's servant maintained that she never gave her the jug; and the magistrates, putting these circumstances together, were of opinion that she had stolen the jug, and that those other articles which had been taken away from Mr. Foster's possession could not have got there without her mother's knowledge. They were of opinion that the facts showed that the girl must have been in the habit of frequently thieving, and that these thefts were committed with the mother's knowledge. They therefore thought it their duty to commit her to prison in order that she might further be committed to a reformatory; and the reason they gave for imposing a sentence of three weeks was that the governor of the prison, who was present at the trial, said that three weeks would elapse before the necessary correspondence of the committee who managed the reformatory could be completed. The reason why so long a sentence as five years in a reformatory was inflicted was that the committee refused to receive any inmate who was not sentenced to that period. The magistrates also said that it would have been in their power to make a representation to the committee at a subsequent period, and to have obtained the release of the girl at an earlier time. However, the committee of the reformatory subjected her to a medical examination; and as it appeared that she suffered from some defect in her eyesight, they declined to receive her. The girl's sentence has, therefore, now expired, and she is released. Under these circumstances—supposing them to be accurate—I think the magistrates acted to the best of their judgment for the good of the child. They were of opinion that whatever might have been the previous good character of the child, she had fallen into frequent error, and that her mother must have been cognizant of her acts; and they thought it their duty to make provision for the child's permanent reformation by sending her to a reformatory.