nature. Hence, if he suffers his child to grow up in crime, he must support it till it is twenty-one, not as he would wish, but as the outraged State decides: if he have brought it up to crime for the sake of profiting by the emoluments of its delinquency, not only will he be deprived of those emoluments, but will be mulcted in a considerable weekly sum into the bargain.

Two points remain for consideration—whether the county or borough authorities should have to recover directly from the parent, or should be empowered to make an order on the parish, leaving it for the parish, as in the case of bastardy, to recover; and whether the parish, as in some measure answerable for the child, should become chargeable in default of parental capacity to pay. The first point is one of mere administrative convenience and facility, on which we do not feel competent to pronounce an opinion. As to the second, the Scotch Act decides in the affirmative; the English Act is silent. We confess we can see no objection, either in point of justice or of precedent, to rendering the parish responsible. We do so in the case of paupers who cannot or will not maintain themselves; why should we not in the case of criminals who can not or will not maintain themselves honestly? If a man deserts his children, the parish has to support them, and to fine or punish him; if he neglects them, so that they become chargeable through crime, is it not the same then as if, owing to his neglect, they become chargeable through poverty? In the first case the law orders the parish to stand in loco parentis; ought it not, by a parity of reasoning, to do so in the second case likewise? It is true that by acting thus we should be imposing responsibility where we do not confer power, since we do not recognise in the parish an authority to take upon itself the control and upbringing of children whose parent neglects to educate or send them to school. But this virtual injustice is one which at present the State inflicts upon itself; it has no power to enforce good training on the children of the poor, yet it has to suffer and to pay for the consequences which the absence of good training inevitably entails. The question is only whether the parish or the community-the corporation which has some power on the upbringing and surrounding influences of those within its limits, or the corporation which has none-should submit to this injustice. And practically, we believe, if thrown upon the parish, the injustice would be the sooner remedied; for a district which found itself heavily mulcted for the consequences of the noneducation of its infantine poor, would not be long before its ratepayers established schools to save themselves from the con

VOL. CI. NO. CCVI.

EE

sequences, and applied, if need were, for legislative authorisation to compel the use of them.*

It is urged, further, that the reformatory plan is open to the objection of being unjust, inasmuch as it takes more care of criminal than of honest children, and secures them a better future. Thousands of industrious and respectable parents, it is said, struggling with poverty and all the difficulties of a precarious position, are left to provide an education for their children out of their own unaided resources, and to place them out in life as they best may; for them the parish does nothing, the State does nothing; if they want to send their children to the land of promise in a new world, they are unable to do so. But as soon as a child has broken the laws, and adopted evil courses, as soon as a parent neglects or mis-trains his child so as to lead it to those habits and that ill-companionship from which they have been straining every nerve to save their children, the State is to step in to rescue, to instruct, and to settle it in the world,-in a word, to do for the guilty what it never does for the innocent. Now, we will not elude the objection by reminding those who urge it how much their representation is exaggerated; by pleading that the State does something, and that voluntary benevolence does much, to provide schools for the children of the honest and industrious poor; that as soon as they fall into want, the parish steps in to maintain them; and that the large funds at the disposal of the Emigration Commissioners for assisting likely parties to transfer themselves to the Colonies are reserved exclusively for the respectable and correct. We will not take refuge in the remark that whatever is inequitable in the proposed system should be rectified not by doing less for the criminal but more for the honest population; and that whatever is done for juvenile delinquents, ought, as far as possible, to be done at the cost of the negligent and guilty parent. The objection deserves to be more candidly weighed, and we think it may be disposed of on these grounds.

First. These delinquent children, by virtue of their delinquency, come under the cognisance of the State. They fall into its hands. It is compelled to deal with them in some way

* What may be effected in diminishing crime and its preliminaries by local and parochial efforts, without or with imperfect legislative aid, has been shown in Aberdeen, where, by the establishment of free industrial schools, the committals to prison have fallen from 52 in 1843, to 19 in 1850; the adult female vagrants (who used infants) from 1203 in 1841 to 387 in 1850; and the juvenile vagrants from 62 in 1845 to 2 in 1850. (Report of Conference, p. 79.; Essay on Juvenile Delinquency, p. 228.)

or other. It cannot evade the duty-it must perform it. It must therefore deal with these children in the best mode for the attainment of its end. What is that end? Clearly not to relieve its own vindictive feelings by the infliction of useless pain, but to get rid of crime-to extinguish delinquency, not to punish and then dismiss the individual delinquent. Well, experience has proved that punishment does not effect this object, and that reformation does; on this point there is no further controversy. Is the State, then, having a certain duty to do, to pursue a course calculated to defeat or one calculated to secure that end? Obviously the latter. It reforms the children therefore, and replaces them in the category of true men' and honest citizens, not out of any special regard or tenderness for them, but out of regard to the interests of the community whose servant and guardian it is.

Secondly. These children have become by their criminal courses a burden upon society. They have become chargeable. They prey upon it and impoverish it in a twofold shape. They abstract from its wealth by pilfering, and by the expenses incurred in their apprehension, prosecution, and safe custody. They greatly augment both the legal and the illegal taxation of the country. Every juvenile delinquent increases the cost of living to the honest labourer, in an indisputable though perhaps an inappreciable degree, by increasing the demands on the public revenue to which the honest labourer has to contribute, and in a still greater degree by the thefts by which the poor as well as the rich often more than the rich-are sufferers. In common, therefore, with every other section of the community, the working classes are interested in the juvenile criminal ceasing to be such, and in one way only can this cessation be effected,-viz. by his rescue and reformation.

But, thirdly, we say with confidence that if there be oneportion of the community more deeply interested than all others. in the adoption of the plan proposed, it is the respectable and struggling portion of the working class. It is these that suffer most from the prevalence of juvenile delinquents. It is the property of these that is most exposed to their depredations. It is the children of these that are most exposed to contamination from their companionship. It is they who above all would benefit by the withdrawal and extinction of these 'City Arabs.' It is they who above all ought to pray for the establishment of reformatories in every parish, and in every town, even were it at their own expense. And we find that the more observant and thoughtful among them take precisely this view of the matter. We have already referred to the Industrial Feeding

6

Schools at Aberdeen, established for clearing off the streets the criminal and vagrant juveniles of that town. If there ever was a case that might have warranted jealousy and complaint on the part of the respectable poor, it was this, for here these little vagabonds were fed as well as taught. But what was the fact? After these schools had been for some time in operation, and when their effect had been clearly seen, their funds fell short, and there was some danger of their being given up. But the working classes of Aberdeen' (says Mr. Thomson *) came forward and expressed an earnest desire that the schools should not be given up, but that, if possible, they should be extended. They offered to raise subscriptions among themselves, and subscription papers were accordingly carried round both among 'the higher and the lower classes, and of the whole amount contributed (3001.) two-thirds came from the hard earnings of the working men and working women of Aberdeen. When the question was put to them, Why do you subscribe so liberally to these schools, which are not for your children, "but for a class below them?" They replied," We do it ""because, before these schools were established we were afraid "to let our children go out to play in the streets, for fear they "would be learning mischief; since their establishment we "have no longer this fear, and therefore we subscribe."'†

6

6

66

In truth the difficulty pointed at by the objection we are considering is one which, though affording an excellent topic

* Report of Conference, p. 80.; Blue Book, 1852. Quest. 3132. † Blue Book, 1852. Question 1745. Mr. Ellis is asked:

666

"Do you not think there would be fear, if criminal boys were taken care of in this way, that it would be an encouragement to other boys to commit crimes for the sake of being taken care of?" He replies, No; I am sure that the honest poor would be the first to hold up both hands to remove at once the criminal class; and I can illustrate this by stating a fact that came under my notice. Mrs. C. was the mother of seven children, residing in Fitzroy Court, in the same court in which a poor honest woman lived with the same number of children, Mrs. B. When I took C.'s children, Mrs. B. came to me, and said, Mr. Ellis, you have passed by my poor children who never did anything wrong, and you have taken these vagabonds.' I could not at that time explain to her why I had done so; but some six months afterwards she came and said, 'I see now why you took C.'s children, and I am very glad you did so;' and she gave me three or four distinct reasons. One was, that since we had interested ourselves in that family the court was not like the same place; much of the drunkenness and rioting had ceased; the fruit and vegetables the poor honest women used to sell were no longer stolen; and not only that, but the bad influence was removed from her children.”

for theoretical declamation, would rarely be practically felt. The discontented labourer may be allowed to grumble at the care bestowed upon the fallen and withheld from those who stand, but he will not act upon the sentiment; and a slight reflection will show that, though natural, it is not correct. The fact objected to is a general arrangement of Providence. There is always more trouble upon earth, as well as more joy in heaven, over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and 'nine just men who need no repentance.' What child occupies the largest portion of its parents' forbearance, effort, and care? Constantly, the ill-disposed and wayward. Are the others jealous or demoralised in consequence? What member of society calls for the greatest vigilance, gives the greatest trouble, incurs the greatest expense, has, in a word, most done for him? Invariably, and of necessity, the wrong-doer. This seems unsound at first sight, but it is clearly inevitable. We know that, as a whole, the condition of the malefactor, except under scandalous mismanagement, can never be made more desirable than that of the honest labourer: we must take care that it is not so; -that done, all we have further to do is to see that the care, vigilance, forbearance, and cost which we are obliged to bestow upon him shall not, after all, have been bestowed in vain. There can be no doubt that it is right, consistent, and wise to extinguish juvenile delinquency by a process which ultimately and incidentally benefits the young offender, rather than to prolong, propagate, and confirm it by a process which makes him ultimately and irreparably wretched; --and this is the true statement of the difference between the two rival systems.

A fourth objection-urged by economists more pedantic than profound has been raised against teaching trades to the inmates of Reformatory Schools-obviously an essential and indispensable feature in their arrangements. By this plan, it is said, you are disturbing the labour market; you are creating 'tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, ploughmen, who are not wanted, who would not exist without you, for whose labour there is no demand, and who, therefore, will not be able to 'maintain themselves without displacing others. You are augmenting the natural competition in each of the trades you teach.' The plea is a plausible one; but there is an evident unsoundness and fallacy at its root. By this industrial training, we are clearly adding to the wealth of the community. We are making numbers contribute to its resources who formerly only preyed upon and lessened those resources. We are transforming tax-eaters into tax-payers. We are replacing things