HC Deb 04 May 1842 vol 63 cc94-7
Mr. G. Bankes

moved the second reading of the Special Petty Sessions Bill. He believed that the principle of the bill would not be contested. He trusted that those hon. Members who had taken the trouble to look into its provisions, would see that it proposed to remedy an evil which was very generally acknowledged as one of the unhappy causes of the increase of crime in this country. The evil he alluded to, was the necessity which magistrates were at present under of sending persons accused of petty offences to the county prisons, to await their trial at the ensuing quarter sessions or at the assizes. Out of this state of the law many evils sprung. In the first place, the accused parties were exposed to the contaminating influence arising from their associating with great criminals than themselves. Minor offenders were often very contrite on being apprehended, and would plead guilty, if the magistrates had the power to dispose summarily of the charges against them. But, as the law now stood, no such power existed. Another evil was the compelling prosecutors and witnesses to travel many miles to the assize town or the quarter sessions, to attend the trial of a prisoner, who perhaps had committed a very petty theft. The loss of time and the expense thus incurred was of serious importance to poor people, who would much rather sustain the first injury. The trouble to those who served on juries also was extremely vexatious. Chief Justice Tindal, at the last assizes held at Aylesbury, in his charge to the grand jury, adverted to this point, and expressed his regret that the magistrates had no option whatever, but were bound however inconsiderable the value of the property might be, to commit the offender. The expense which the present state of the law imposed on the counties was very great. At the summer assizes for the county of Dorset, in 1841, there were sixty criminal causes tried, and each cause, however small or trifling the offence, cost the county upwards of 16l. These were the evils he proposed to remedy, and the mode by which he sought to do so, was to give to magistrates in petty sessions, summary power to inflict punishment on all offenders who were disposed to plead guilty to the offences charged against them. According to his view, this, so far from working injuriously, would produce great benefit, by very materially diminishing all the evils he had enumerated.

Sir J. Graham

assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that, entertaining as he did, great respect for his legal knowledge and experience, he was disposed to view this measure with a strong prejudice in its favour, yet he was bound to state that the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, had led him to the conclusion that it was his duty on principle to oppose it. He was one of those who were most anxious to sustain the jurisdiction of the magistracy in sessions assembled. He thought that all the advantages of the present system would be lost under the proposed measure. The authority to be given to the two magistrates in petty sessions was not to depend upon the nature of the crime committed, but entirely upon the accident of the party accused pleading guilty. The tendency of the measure was to dispense with trial by jury; the effect of it would be, if adopted, that a large number of offences would be disposed of in petty sessions, in the absence of barristers and of legal advisers, and of all those other checks which now made the administration of justice in this country satisfactory to the people. With respect to the saving of expense, he thought, that where the county funds were administered under the revision of a good bench of magistrates, and the taxation of costs was performed by an intelligent clerk of the peace, the chances were, that the expenses would not be greater by prisoners being tried before the sessions, than if they were summarily disposed of in petty sessions, which would want ail those checks on the expenditure of the public money. For these reasons he felt bound to oppose the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

was pleased to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. That some measure was necessary to diminish the expenses attending prosecutions must be admitted, but that measure ought to be brought forward on the authority of the Government. He disapproved of giving a summary power over a great variety of offences that would be referred to magistrates by this measure. It would tend to render the law of punishment very uncertain. At present, the whole bench of magistrates sat together in quarter sessions, and then a uniformity in the adjudication of punishment was preserved, but if these petty sessions were to be scattered all over the country, different opinions would be entertained as to the nature of offences, and different punishments would be awarded for the same offence.

Mr. Bankes,

in reply, said, that he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member, that such a measure as this should be taken up by Government, and it was not till he had understood from the right hon. Baronet, that there was no present intention to bring forward this matter, that he had taken upon himself the introduction of this bill. After what had passed, he should not trouble the House to divide,

Motion negatived.

Bill lost.