Page images

Also, for the names of the persons appointed to act on the Special Council, and the day on which the proclamation or ordinance had passed. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, would see the propriety of his calling for the date; because, he believed, connected with the date, he could show that three other grounds of illegality with reference to this proceeding existed, besides that which his noble and learned Friend had pointed out. Before Sir J. Colborne left the Special Council he sanctioned certain rules for the government of the proceedings of that council. One of these rules set forth, that every meeting of that council should be convened by proclamation twenty-one days before the meeting took plnce. Now, the council at which this ordinance was passed was summoned on the 28th of June, and proceeded to business on that day, which was manifestly against the regulation. Again, the 15th resolution directed, that when any new law was introduced, any Member might move, that it should be read a second time on the next day of meeting, and thnt it might then be read, unless some more distant day was proposed. In this case, however, the rule was wholly departed from; and the ordinance was read a first, second, and third time, and agreed to, on the same day—■ the day that he had already mentioned. This was contrary to the standing order. It was at least irregular, if not actually illegal. He now came to his last, but to his most important, objection. Five persons only had been appointed to the Special Council, and it had been ordered, that five should be prespnt when any act was passed. The ordinance in question was discussed on the 28th of June; and he found that one of the five members of the Special Council did not arrive at Quebec till the 29th of June, the day after the ordinance was passed. Therefore, there could have been only four members in the council when the decision took place, which rendered the whole proceeding illegal. There was not anything, he must obserTe, that required more anxious deliberation than cases of that description to which the ordinance referred; because it was necessary to draw a line of distinction between persons who, on the first glimpse, might seem to be involved in the same degree of criminality; and it was a nice thing to declare, without serious deliberation, that some should be

transported, and others, on their recognizance, sfet free. Here he Baw, after a very short consideration, that eight persons should be transported to Bermuda, and hanged if they dared to come back; and sixteen mote were outlawed—banished from the colony, and subjected to capital punishment if they returned. Others, it appeared were to be pardoned on giving security. These, he repeated, were matters that required deep consideration; but here tvyenty-fcxur cases of transportation and banishment, with the penalty, on returning, of death, were decided in one day. Gr»at punishment was awarded against these persons, while pardon was extended to others. It was necessary that their Lordships should have these papers before them, in order, that they might investigate a proceeding which appeared to him to be disgraceful to the Government, and likely to bring into hatred the authority of this country.

Lord Glenelg was quite ready to lay upon their Lordships' table any papers upon thi* subject in his possession. All 1hat he now had were the ordinances, and some private letters, which he was not at liberty to- produce. He had only to observe, that it wns premature to condemn the conduct of Lord Durham, which had gained the confidence of both parties in Canada.

Lord Brougham said, that he did not absolutely condemn Lord Durham. He only condemned him, in the event of its being true, that he had issued such a proclamation! He appealed to any lawyer in the House whether murder would not be committed in- hanging a man without first bringing him to trial.

Viscount Melbourne said, that considering the difficulties of Lord Durham's position—considering the distracted state of the colonies over which he was sent to presid*-—considering the state of the empire, ajid how deeply the empire might be affected by what passed in that House, it was in the very highest degree imprudent, and he would add, unpatriotic—it was sacrificing the interests of the country to fhc interested party—it was sacrificing the highest objects to the desire of attacking an individual, to pass such a decided and determined condemnation uoon sfn act which had been deemed necessary by the noble Lord who was upon the spot, and had the best means of judging what was fit to be done and what was for the benefit of the State. He had no objection to the production of the papers, or to the fullest discussion in that House or elsewhere of what had been done in the province. He could not refrain from expressing the strong opinion which he felt upon the course which had been adopted in reference to Canadian affairs.

Lord Brougham dissented most strongly and peremptorily from the doctrines which had been laid down by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He held it to be neither premature, nor imprudent, nor unpatriotic in that House to keep a watchful eye on the exercise of the dictatorial powers which had been intrusted to the Governor-general of Canada. They were told during the debates which preceded the passing of the bill that Parliament would be always at hand to superintend and control the exercise of those powers. "Don't fear," said the noble Viscount and his colleagues, " to give ample authority. It will be always under the control and supervision of Parliament, and if unduly exercised, Parliament can be called upon to interfere." Powers ample and extensive were accordingly given—powers hideous and portentous in their nature, and yet even these had been exceeded by the noble Lord to whom they were intrusted. This authority, however ample and tyrannical, was not considered sufficient by those upon the spot. They were exceeded to an extent, that if before they were given any one had predicted such a result, it would immediately have been pronounced to be impossible. The noble Viscount talked as if the powers given to Lord Durham had been exercised, but not exceeded. Was the issuing of such an ordinance an exercise of the powers of the act? Instead of confining himself to the powers of the act, the noble Earl was running in the teeth of the act, and of every known law and usage in England. The noble Viscount had talked of a person upon the spot knowing best what was necessary to be done for the good of the public; he would ask was it necessary to commit a felony for the good of the public? Was it necessary to hang a man before they brought him to trial? Could any difficulties of the noble Lord's position—could any state of the empire, justify the tolerating of such orders? The House, he thought, would fail in their duty to their country if they allowed a single day to

elapse without calling for an explanation of such proceedings. He denied, that he sought an occasion of attacking Lord Durham. These ordinances had been published in America, and were known to the world. But, says the noble Lord, Lord Durham has conciliated all parties in Canada. Did all parties in Canada, then, approve of illegal acts? When Lord Durham was given up by the noble Viscount, he had defended the noble Lord, and bydoing so called down upon himself the censure of a right rev. Prelate for whom he had a great respect, because he always acted conscientiously, and also the censure of a noble Duke. Nothing could be more solemn than the denunciation upon that occasion by the noble Viscount of Lord Durham and Mr. Turton. In its generality there was wanted no charge, however odious. He never desired to be set-down more in his presence or in his absence—in public or in private—than to have it said of him by the one who had appointed him to a confidential situation, "I have seen with deep regret the acts which he has done, and am greatly surprised at them." With respect to the charges which had been made against him by the noble Viscount, of being influenced by factious motives, he regarded them as little as the noble Viscount used himself to regard similar charges when he was accused for bringing charges against the Government of that period, being influenced by factious motives.

Lord Glenelg repeated, that he had no objection to lay the papers upon the Table.

Motion agreed to.

Juvenile Offenders.] The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the third readjng of the Juvenile Offenders' Bill, said, that he wished to correct a statement which he had formerly made respecting the number of children lost or abandoned in the town of Manchester. He had stated the numbers correctly, according to the police returns, but the inference which he had drawn was incorrect, for the number of children returned as lost or abandoned included the whole number every day in.the year; and, consequently, it was not to be inferred, that that immense number was the actual number of children permanently lost or abandoned; for the fact was, that a great number included in the returns were afterwards claimed by their parents and returned to their homes.

Bill read a third time.

Lord Lyndhurst said, that he was desirous before the bill passed of calling their Lordships' attention to it. The subject was one of great interest and importance, and he was ready to admit fully that the object of the bill was in every respect' laudable. Its object was to have a separate prison for offenders under a certain age ; and nothing could be more desirable than that offenders of that class should be enabled to avoid that influence and example, which were found to be prejudicial to their morals, when they were kept in the same custody with the general class of offenders. Looking at the preamble, he found, that part of the object of the bill was to reform and instruct juvenile offenders. The object, therefore, was highly laudable, and in proportion to the importance of the object was the importance of considering the manner in which that object was to be effected; but he did not find on the face of the bill, nor in the statement of the noble Marquess, either today or on a former occasion anything which could give them any insight into the system which was intended to be pursued. In the first place, however, he wished to remark, that the observations of the noble' Marquess with regard to the town of Manchester were founded in a total misapprehension; the fact was, that there were scarcely any instances of children being lost or abandoned there. A humane regulation existed in the town, by which the police took any children whom they found wandering to the nearest police station, that parents might know where to claim them; for this purpose they were taken there; and though it was true, that in that manner upwards of 8,000 had been found within the last four years, still he understood that all of them, with the exception of a single instance, had been claimed and had returned to their parents. Now, considering the importance of this subject, he submitted that there ought to be, either on the face of the bill or in the statement of the noble Marquess, some explanation of the course which was intended to be pursued. If they intended to adopt anything like the separate system, he protested vehemently against it; but further, there was a principle now introduced for the first time in this bill, to which he very strongly objected. In all

the prisons of this country whether county gaols, houses of correction, or penitentiaries, a system of inspection was established, which had been of the greatest public benefit. Nothing was so liable to abuse as imprisonment, sometimes from negligence, sometimes from indifference, sometimes from cruelty, sometimes from passion, and therefore the law had wisely provided for the strict inspection of all the gaols of this country. By the 31st of George the 3rd, visiting magistrates were appointed, who were bound to inspect the prisons three times in every quarter, and individual magistrates had the right of inspecting them at any time. That system had been found to work very beneficially; and it applied to all the prisons of England, with a single exception, and that exception was the Penitentiary at Millbank, which the magistrates had no right to visit," and which did not come under their jurisdiction; but so anxious was Parliament on this subject, that a committee had been appointed by the Privy Council for that purpose. Now, what was the principle which was attempted to be established for the first time by this bill? That no magistrate should have any right to enter the juvenile prison, which was to be liable to the inspection of no one but the individuals appointed by the Government, and in the pay of the Government. It would, perhaps, be said, that there was already persons appointed as inspectors of prisons; but they were appointed by the Government, and dependant upon the Government; and as the existence of their offices did not interfere with the visiting power of the magistrates in regard to other prisons, he protested most strongly against the principle which was sought to be established. He knew some noble Lords considered this bill an experiment, which ought to be made on the responsibility of Government, and that that responsibility would be diminished if they admitted the magistrates to have any control or influence in the management of this prison; and he admitted, that it was an experiment which should be made on the responsibility of the Government; but how were they to know in what manner the system worked, and with what success it was attended, unless some persons were allowed to witness its operation besides those who were dependent on the Government and favourable to their views? Another point which rendered this impec> tion still more important was, that the governor was to have the right to inflict corporal punishment: it was true, the Secretary of State was to lay down certain regulations, but who was to apply them? The nature and extent of that corporal punishment was left in the breast of" the governor, for anything that appeared to the contrary. For these reasons he submitted, that the general rulo ought not to be departed from in thi* instance, but that the visiting magistrates should be required to report either to the bench of magis-trates, if the noble Marquess pleased, or to Parliament, or to the Secretary of Slate, from time to time, upon lh? success of the system. He had said, that if the separata system of punishment were to be adopted for the reformation, instruction, and improvement, of juvenile offenders, he protested strongly against it; and why? He had had his attention drawn to this subject by being a member of a committee of their Lordships, which sat early this Session; and he would advert to the separate system established in the Penitentiary which was then examined. He did not mean to make any charges againrt any individuals or body of men connected with that prison, for he believed that the persons superintending the Penitentiary were persons of great humanity, and discharged their duty well and faithfully; but hu objection was to the system; and be would state the instance of one of the persons to whom that inquiry before their Lordships extended—he meant the case of Matilda Seymour. She had been instigated by her mother to commit a trifling theft, and her mother received tho goods which she stole. Both were tried and convicted; and the mother was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, which consisted, he believed, in being kept at the washing tub. The child was sentenced to be transported; but her sentence was commuted into a sentence of imprisonment for three years. That child was scarcely an object of punishmfmt; at the most she was about ten years of age, and she had acted at the instigation of her mother. Accordingly, it must be said, by way of defence, that the sentonce was not intended as punishment, but for her reformation and instruction. Sha was sentenced to the Penitentiary for three years for her improvement and reformation. Cut if the Government undertook the reformation and improvement of chil

dren, it should establish a different system from that pursued in the Penitentiary—a system entirely different from the separate system. What was the evidence of the resident governor himself? He had said, that the system was not generally applicable to children; and Mr. Russell, another governor, had expressed the same opinion, eveu in stronger terms. Was he not right, then, in saying, that if the Government undertook the reformation and instruction of children, they ought to establish a different system? Some exercise was necessary for the preservation of health; but what description of exercise ought it to be? Merely putting one leg before another was not sufficient for a child. The exercise ought to be of every kind and variety; every part of the body ought occasionally to be brought into activity; and at the same time the mind should be employed to render the exercise beneficial. Their Lordships, assenting to these observations, would be surprised at the kind of exercise which was allowed to this child, who was put there not for punishment but improvement. For half an hour in the morning, she was allowed to walk in single file round a small yard, enclosed by a high wail; and if the weather permitted, for half an hour in the afternoon. That was all the exercise she was allowed in the twenty-four hours. Again, he had made a calculation of the average number of hours out of the twenty-four duriug which she was shut up by herself in a cell not much larger than that table. If they added together the hours for attendance in chapel, for instruction, for washing, and for walking, the amount would be twenty hours in the week, or less than three hours each day; so that this child, not more than ten years of age, was to be coufined for twenty-one hours out of the twentyfour during three successive years, iu a cell not larger than that table; and in order that the child might derive no instruction from without, the window-cills were so high as to prevent her from looking out, and there was that child kept for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four— not kept there for punishment, but for the reformation of her morals and the improvement of her mind. Was he wrong, then, when the Government was presenting a bill respecting the imprisonment of juvenile offeuders, to call their attention to these matters, and to urge the necessity of adopting a different system? There was a beautiful passage of a French author, St. Pierre, in which he spoke of the impression produced by external objects on the mind of a child, and of the manner in which the young mind gradually expanded under the influence of those impressions: but here they had acted on a directly contrary principle; they acted on the principle of shutting out all external sources of improvement from the mind of the child, and of barbarising and stupifying its mind. He hoped, therefore, the noble Marquess would have the kindness to tell them, that a system of this kind was not intended to be established under this bill. The beautiful lines of their great epic poet, afforded almost a literal description of the situation of that child placed under the cruelties of that system :—

"Thus with the year Seasons return; but not to me returns Day, or the sweet approach of eve or morn, Or sight of vernal bloom or summer's rose, Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine; But cloud instead, and ever-duiing dark Surrounds me, from the cheerful ways of men Cut off, and for the book of knowledge fair Presented with a universal blank Of nature's works to me expunged and rased."

Almost literally did these beautiful lines apply to the situation of that child. The effect of the confinement had been this— that in a short time she was afflicted with scrofula, and the medical man had said that she would not recover as long as that confinement was continued; and he had further said that scrofula and consumption arising from confinement, were the prevalent diseases of the establishment. Would she not have been better if she had been allowed to walk in the garden of the establishment? Undoubtedly she would; but then the strict rules of discipline would have been broken. He had called their Lordships' attention to this matter for the purpose of mentioning the evidence of tiie Chairman at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Mr. Serjeant Addams), who was a member of the Children's Friend's Society. What was the evidence of the learned Gentleman? Why, that in that society they acted on a principle directly the reverse of that adopted at the Penitentiary, that they allowed the children to associate together, .they indulged them in all the amusements of childhood, that they treated them with great kindness, and that the effects that that system produced were perfectly marvellous. One child,

who had experienced the benefits of that system, had expressed his gratitude in these natural terms :—" You have changed me entirely, and I love you all." Why had he called the attention of their Lordships and of the Government to these subjects? For the purpose of inducing the noble Marquess to tell them what system it was intended to adopt in the prison regulated by this Bill. He called on the noble Marquess to give that explanation, for, if it were intended to adopt,the separate system, he desired to enter his protest against it; but, if, on the contrary, the noble Marquess meant to say that the more benevolent and wiser system acted upon by the Children's Friends' Society were that which he proposed to introduce, he would heartily join with him in pressing forward this measure, which only proposed to do that which ought to have been done much earlier. Whatever that explanation might be, he had merely done his duty in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. The noble and learned Lord then moved the insertion of certain clauses providing for the appointment of visiting magistrates, who were to inspect the prison three times every quarter, and to report on its state from time to time.

The Marquess of Lansdowne was glad of the opportunity of giving an explanation on the points to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and first he would notice the statement made by the noble and learned Lord in reference to his explanation of the returns from Manchester which he had cited on a former occasion; he had given the explanation nearly in the terms of the noble and learned Lord himself. He had said that which was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, viz. that a great proportion of the children included in that return, had been reclaimed by their parents, but he had no authority to go to the extent of saying that there was scarcely any exception. But now he again reverted to that statement as bearing out his argument, that in great cities there must constantly be a vast number of children freed from the care and control of parents, and that that was the class which supplied the materials out of which arose that tremendous increase of crime amongst children, which it was their Lordships' province to check. The noble and learned Lord had proceeded to express doubts as to the character of the remedy which was to be applied, and he had rather

« PreviousContinue »