objection to this Bill was, that it imparted | Chief Baron; and the authority also of the large powers which were to be exercised County-rate Commission. Besides, he was in private. The law of England recog- not the first man who had introduced Bills nised the existence of such a court as that of this nature in that House. The hon. of petty sessions. Two justices did con- Member for Dorsetshire had introduced a stitutea petty sessions; and such trials as measure of this kind some years ago. In were contemplated under this Bill would the year 1840, Sir Eardley Wilmot probably take place most frequently at brought in the Bill alluded to by the right petty sessions, and therefore in almost hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for every case the trials would be conducted the Home Department; which Bill, he under circumstances of publicity. The begged to remind that right hon. Gentlepower given to the magistrates of England man, proposed to give much greater powers under the 7 and 8 of Geo. IV. were in- to magistrates than the present; for Sir finitely greater than the ones he proposed E. Wilmot proposed by his Bill to limit to give them. Under that Act, any single only the age of the offender, but did not magistrate, sitting in his private parlour, define any limit with regard to the value might send any offender to prison for of the property stolen; every larceny comtwelve months; whereas, by the Bill now mitted by juveniles was under that Bill to before the House the utmost extent of the be disposed of summarily by the magispunishment which two magistrates could trates. The hon. Baronet the Member inflict would only be six months' imprison- for Dorsetshire said, "Do not give to the ment. He trusted the House would do magistrates the extensive powers proposed him the justice to compare the Bill which to be given to them by this Bill;" being he now presented for their acceptance with utterly forgetful, it would appear at the the doctrines laid down in the report of same time, that the magistrates even now the Criminal Law Commission of 1837; possessed powers of a tenfold greater chaand he did not hesitate to say that that racter. In the year 1840, the House by report would be found in perfect unison repeated divisions and repeated majorities, with the Bill now under discussion. He affirmed the principle of this Bill, and dehad very anxiously considered the subject, clared that it was high time that something and he found it impossible to discern any should be done to alter the criminal law evil that would arise from the small addi- with regard to juvenile offenders. After tion which by the Bill it was proposed to an unsuccessful opposition by a small mimake to the existing powers of magistrates. nority to the Bill of 1840, it was sent to That very learned and able person, Sir the House of Lords. And he must here Edward Ryan, who was at the head of the beg to remind the right hon. Baronet the Criminal Law Commission, authorized him Secretary of State for the Home Departto say that he was favourable to the prin- ment that he found his name, in two diciple of the Bill. But he could mention visions, in favour of sending that Bill to the names of other learned Judges whose the Lords; he also found his name inserted authority must doubtless be highly esti- in the list in favour of the third reading of mated by the House. He might remind the Bill. He would take the liberty of them of what Sir Frederick Pollock, the reading a short extract from the speech Chief Baron, had upon a recent occasion of Lord Campbell on the occasion of a Bill done at Bury; and he believed that not of this nature being discussed in the House even that learned person himself would of Commons at a time when he was Atpretend to say that the course which he torney General; and he hoped that the took was legal. A juvenile offender was hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J. Jervis) brought before him-the prisoner pleaded who now filled that high position, would guilty; but the Chief Baron refused to let feel himself bound to follow in the steps of that plea be recorded; desired that the his distinguished predecessor, Lord Camptrial might proceed; directed the jury to hell. He hoped that the hon. and learned acquit the prisoner; and the little culprit Recorder for the city of London, who had was immediately handed over to the care declaimed against this Bill, and who had of his friends. When judges and courts evidently proved himself ignorant of its were driven to adopt such modes of pro- details, would pay particular attention to ceeding, it surely was time for the Legis- the extract he was about to read. The lature to interfere. Thus, then, they had hon. Baronet read the extract as follows:the authority of the head of the Criminal Commission; they had the authority of the The principle of the Bill was, in his opinion, unobjectionable. He should, however, feel dis posed to improve its various details. The object of the whole appeared to him to be the reconciliation of our different enactments upon the subject of felony by juvenile offenders. The principle of the Act was, that when a child should be accused of felony, he should not be compelled to hold up his hand to the bar upon being arraigned after the manner of a felon, and that the usual jury on such occasions should not be charged with his deliverance, but that his case should be subjected to a domestic tribunal, especially entitled to take cognizance of the offence. The more plausible objections to this Bill and its principle were, that it had a positive tendency to abolish that birthright of Britons-the trial by jury. There was not within those walls an individual, nor out of the profession, who had all along entertained a higher respect for the institution of trial by jury; but he would remind the House, that already the Legislature had departed from that principle in all its strictness, and had sanctioned, in cases of misdemeanor, the adjudication of the case by the magistracy at the sessions. The House ought to be informed of the glaring anomaly that subsisted in our enactments upon the subject of theft. As the law stood, if a boy stole apples from off the tree, it was merely a case of trespass; whereas, strange as it might appear, if he took the apples up from the ground within the orchard, the offence amounted to felony. Such a state of the law was totally irreconcileable to common sense and sound reason, and calculated to bring its authority into disgrace. What he wished upon this subject was, to see adopted some summary but prudent mode of dealing with cases of juvenile offence." He felt himself compelled to express his extreme regret at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had acted in reference to this Bill; indeed, he must say that he thought he had just grounds for complaining of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill was first introduced, the right hon. Gentleman stated most fairly, that in the main he agreed with the principle of the Bill; and that he should not object to its being read a first time, whilst he of course reserved to himself the power of objecting to its details in any future stage. And now the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and told them, that he objected to all the details, though not to the principle of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact of his name having been recorded over and over again in favour of the Bill of 1840, which, as he had previously said, was more extensive than the present. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he objected to the details of the Bill; and yet he had not pointed out in any one single instance what his objections were. Now, he thought that he had every reason to complain of that on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If the details of this Bill were objectionable, he was most willing to alter them, so as to meet the right hon. Gentleman's views, so far as he could consistently with the avowed objects of the Bill. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman had been informed by what a large body of the most experienced authorities on these questions the principles of the Bill were sanctioned, he ought to have stated what were his objections to its details, and he should then have been able to meet them. He was willing to consider those objections, either in a Committee of the whole House, or a Select Committee up stairs. He hoped, then, that the right hon. Gentleman would alter the determination to which he appeared to have come in reference to this measure, and afford him his support in carrying the Bill through the House in such an altered state as was consistent with its principles. He had brought forward this measure, because it had been demanded by the country, by justice, and mercy; it was also called for by the highest legal authorities in the kingdom. He had introduced it with a full sense that such a measure ought to be conducted through the House by the Government; but finding that no one ventured to bring it forward, he had felt it his duty to submit it to the consideration of the House. He had received applications from every county in England, desiring him to urge the measure forward as speedily as possible. He had received from all sides, the most encouraging language to persevere with his Bill. The only objection which he had heard urged by parties out of the House was, that the Bill did not go far enough-that it ought to extend to adults as well as juveniles. He would not then accept the recommendation of the Government to withdraw this Bill. He would press the House to a division, and was willing to abide the result. If the Government succeeded in throwing the Bill out, be it their fault, and not his. He had stated his perfect willingness to submit to any fair alteration in the details which might be suggested by the Government; but consistently with his sense of duty he could not, and would not, consent to withdraw the measure. If they threw out the Bill, the responsibility must rest upon the House; but he did entreat them to give their best consideration to the arguments which he had adduced, and that they would give their sanction to the second reading of the Bill. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that, as the hon. Baronet intended pressing this question to a division, he should this Bill under the jurisdiction of magistrates; and he had also a great distrust to the species of punishment proposed to be inflicted under this Bill. There were many details of omission which, if the Bill were sanctioned as it now stood, would render it almost an impossibility to work it. As his hon. Friend's first object, viz.-the affirmation by the House of the principle that it was desirable to introduce a more speedy trial of juvenile offenders-now appeared to be gained, he did hope that he would consent to the withdrawal of his Bill. The hon. Baronet, for the part which he had taken in reference to this subject, unquestionably deserved well of the House and the country. He had provoked a most beneficial discussion; and he hoped that as all parties, even the dissentients to the measure, had willingly confessed that they approved of its principle, he hoped his hon. Friend would not at present persevere with his Bill. follow the course which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend, and give his vote for the second reading of this Bill. His right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) did not oppose the principle of the Bill; all he wished, was time for the further consideration of its details. His right hon. Friend deemed the measure to be ill-timed, and he thought it was imperfect in many respects; and the reason why he opposed its further progress was, that time should be allowed to the Government to introduce a measure of a more comprehensive character. They all admitted that it would be very desirable to prevent children who had broken the laws of the country from being subjected to the contamination of our public prisons. Everybody admitted that the class for whom this Bill was intended should not be tried as felons, and everybody was anxious to cure the anomaly of the law which allowed children to be summarily convicted before magistrates for stealing apples from a tree, but in cases MR. HENLEY must confess that the where the apples were stolen from the speech of the hon. Baronet who had inground under the tree, the law compelled troduced this Bill, had led him strongly to the children to be sent before juries and the opinion that he did not wish to consent tried as felons. But this Bill of his hon. to any alteration in the details of his Bill, Friend did not cure that anomaly. He because he had taken this course. He had therefore requested him to delay his mea- said that the details of his Bill were sure until the whole question had under- framed in accordance with the opinions of gone a complete revision by the Govern- the highest possible authorities; that the ment; after which a comprehensive mea- details were founded upon the report of sure, based on such inquiries, would be the commissioners who had been appointed submitted to the House. The Government to inquire into the state of the criminal hoped to be able, in a short time, to intro- law; and that very statement induced him duce a measure on this subject which (Mr. Henley) to believe that the hon. Bawould be acceptable to the House and the ronet intended standing fast by his details. country at large. His hon. Friend had They had heard a good deal about substisaid that he was not prepared for the op- tuting tribunals for the adjudication of inposition of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. fringements of the law committed by juGrey), seeing that he had voted so fre- veniles; and he was very much struck by quently for the Bill introduced in the year the observations of the hon. Baronet as to 1840; but since that period many objec- the desirableness of providing domestic tions presented themselves to his right tribunals. But he did not define very exhon. Friend's notice, which had induced actly what he meant by domestic tribunals. him to alter his opinions; and, indeed, he As far as he understood the hon. Baronet, confessed that his own opinions on this the tribunals which he meant to establish subject had undergone a considerable were not such as the House ought to apchange, for in 1840 he opposed the mea- prove of. He knew very well the difficulsure, and now he was prepared to vote in ties attending trials at petty sessions, befavour of this Bill, which involved pre- cause in some places they were held only cisely the same principle. He thought it once a fortnight, and in some instances was very desirable, if possible, that some only once a month. Now, he wished to means should be adopted for the more know what the hon. Baronet proposed to speedy trial of juvenile offenders; but, in do with juvenile offenders in such districts, common with his right hon. Friend, he taken into custody during those periods? had a most insuperable objection to private Much had been said about the anomalies tribunals. He doubted very much the of the existing laws; but they were no propriety of placing the offences named in justification for such a measure as this. If they wished to abolish those anomalies, let them grapple with the whole of them, and bring forward a measure for their abolition, and not deal with them piecemeal, as was proposed by this Bill. Such measures as these ought to be taken up by the Government, and not by a private Member of the House. He was by no means anxious to see any more power entrusted into the hands of magistrates. He did not think it at all to be a good argument that, because they already possessed great powers, the Legislature should grant them more. He was quite sure that it was by no means an agreeable task to the majority of magistrates to exercise the large powers which they possessed at present; and he believed that if those powers were increased, the public would not be benefited, whilst to the great body of the magistrates they would be a very disagreeable authority. This measure was really one of details. They might all be desirous of seeing juvenile offenders brought to a more speedy trial than they could be under the present state of the law; but that was no reason why they should give their sanction to this Bill, which, instead of dealing generally with the acknowledged abuses of the law, was merely a measure of details, confined to a portion of those abuses. He had given the Bill his full and deliberate consideration; and the conclusion to which he had come was, that if the hon. Baronet pressed the House to a division, he should feel himself bound to vote against the second reading of the Bill. There was one feature in the Bill which was most objectionable, and against which he could not help protesting; he referred to that portion of the Bill which proposed to constitute one tribunal for the trial of a man, and another which was to sentence him to imprisonment on the admission of his guilt. That, he thought, was the most objectionable clause in the Bill. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: It is recommended by the commissioners on criminal law.] He did not care who recommended it: it was, in his opinion, a most dangerous principle to institute a tribunal for the admission of guilt, when they all knew how liable criminals were to be tampered with before they were arraigned. He, of course, gave the hon. Baronet all credit, and he thought the House must do so too, for his having introduced this Bill, and the manner in which he had defended it; but he could not consent to its being read a second time. MR. PACKE objected to many of the details of the Bill; but the evil was so great that he could not consent to delay for one hour the attempt to remedy it. When magistrates felt themselves obliged to resort to shifts, with regard to juvenile offenders, which the law did not sanction, it was time for the House to interfere. He would support the second reading. MR. ADDERLEY said, he had never heard a magistrate of extensive experience express any opinion but one strongly in favour of adopting the principle of this Bill. The grand jury at the Old Bailey, every session, recorded their opinion that the majority of the cases of juvenile offenders that came before them, ought to have been disposed of summarily. To say that the Government and the House were well disposed in favour of such a Bill as the present, would not satisfy the feeling out of doors, which was in favour of some speedy remedy being applied to the evils which the present measure proposed to remove. MR. BICKHAM ESCOTT had thought it quite clear that the Bill would not pass this Session. It provided a new mode of trying juvenile offenders, a new tribunal, and new punishments, all of which were condemned by some one or other hon. Member. With this want of agreement as to the principles of the measure, it would be a waste of time to read it a second time. MR. R. PALMER said, that having acted for many years as chairman of quarter-sessions, he thanked the hon. Baronet for the pains he had taken in introducing a measure so much wanted as the present. Looking at the calendars which came before him, he should be disposed to say, that not three-fourths of the criminal cases were, if they looked to the value of the article stolen, worth the trouble of being brought into court. If an apple were taken out of a basket, a magistrate must send the case to the quarter-sessions; and many instances occurred in which prosecutions for stealing articles not worth 1s., entailed a charge upon the county-rate of not less than 121. He thought the Bill ought not to be limited in its operation to juvenile offenders; for, if an article were of very trifling value, the age of the offender did not make much difference. It would be a god amendment if the value of the article stolen were made the criterion whether it should come under the present Bill or not. He was satisfied that some more speedy means of bringing to trial juvenile offenders and others charged with stealing ar Sheppard, T. Sotheron, T. H. S. Spooner, R. Trollope, Sir J. Waddington, H. S. ticles of trifling value was very much re- | Seymer, H. K. quired. He had handed over to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) a memorial signed by the grand jury of his (Mr. Palmer's) county, who expressed themselves strongly in favour of some such measure as the present. vote for the second reading. He would sup MR. TATTON EGERTON would port the second reading of the Bill; but he was not prepared to give his unqualified assent to all the details of the measure. He thought it would be most desirable to send it to a Committee up stairs, with a view to making the Bill as perfect as possible, for such a measure was much wanted. MR. PROTHEROE wished to express his satisfaction at what fell from the hon. Member for Warwickshire that the judge should take into consideration the state of education of the criminal. The connexion between ignorance and crime had been proved; and therefore it was unjust to punish the ignorant as much as the educated. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, though he was far from assenting to many of its provisions. The House divided on the question that the word now stand part of the question: -Ayes 75; Noes 23: Majority 52. List of the AYES. Frewen, C. H. Protheroe, E. D. Scrope, G. P. Walker, R. Winnington, Sir T. E. Wood, Col. T. TELLERS. Cripps, W. Pakington, Sir J. Armstrong, Sir A. Bill read a second time, and ordered to be committed. RATING OF TENEMENTS (No. 2) BILLADJOURNED DEBATE. The Debate upon the Second Reading of the Rating of Tenements Bill adjourned from the 17th of March was resumed. Question put that the word "now" stand part of the question. SIR G. GREY said, that additional reflections upon the provisions of this Bill had not induced him to think more favourably of it. He had received several communications, stating that its operation would cause a great disturbance of property. It applied to the town as well as to the country; and, upon the whole, its application was of too extensive a nature to be passed without much more serious deliberation. MR. B. OSBORNE said, that the Bill had caused great consternation in many parts of the country; and he hoped the House would not agree to the second reading. MR. P. SCROPE wished to make a few observations, with a view of showing to the House why they ought not to give their sanction to this measure. There were a great number of persons who were excluded from rates by the 54th of George III., and who occupied cottages at a low rent in accordance with that exclusion. They were all working persons; and if this Bill passed, they would be obliged to pay a higher rent for their dwellings, in order to make up to the landlord for the additional rates which would be imposed under this measure. If hon. Members considered the great number of houses excluded under the 54th George III., they |