§ Mr. Humesaid, he had some nights back presented a petition to the House from an individual, complaining of the conduct of a police magistrate, who had sentenced him to prison without sufficient evidence. He had then stated, that it was his intention to submit a motion to the House on the subject, the result of which, he expected, would explain the whole conduct of the magistrates of the metropolis and its neighbourhood. He had communicated to the Secretary of State for the home department his intention of moving for certain documents, and the right hon. gentleman had said he had no objection. He should therefore move, "That there be laid before the House, a return of the number of persons committed to Newgate or any other prison in London, Middlesex, and Surrey, from the several police offices, by the several magistrates of the city of London, and of the counties of Middlesex, and Surrey, in the years 1821,1822, and 1823; stating the number of persons committed from each office, and the number committed to each prison; the number of those committed against whom bills were found by the grand jury, the number convicted, and the number acquitted; distinguishing the number of those discharged, on verdict of not guilty, from those discharged from the non-appearance of witnesses or prosecutors; and also the number of commitments of those so convicted, acquitted, and discharged respectively.
§ Mr. Sumnerasked, whether the motion extended to the county magistrates of Middlesex and Surrey, or was confined to the police magistrates?
§ Mr. Sumnersaid, if the motion had been confined to the magistrates of London, he should have no objection to it; but he was decidedly opposed to the practice of bringing before the public on all occasions the names of magistrates. The office was attended with great trouble and inconvenience, and he was persuaded 647 that no gentlemen would be found to undertake the duties of the office, if their names were to be shewn up whenever it suited the pleasure of any member of the House. He should therefore take the sense of the House upon the question.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he was never more surprised in his life than at the statement of the hon. gentleman. He was himself a county magistrate, and he should be ashamed if he objected to his name being produced upon any occasion, and subjected to the fullest inquiry. He was sure he spoke the sense of every country gentleman in England of sound principles, when he said that they would never object to have their names produced, or would never shun inquiry.
Mr. Maberlyrose, to enter his protest against the doctrine which had been laid down by the hon. gentleman, respecting county magistrates. He was himself in the habit of acting frequently in a town which required the constant attention of several magistrates, and he was sure they would have no objection to the motion. He considered the observations of the hon. member, as a slur upon the magistrates of Surrey; and he would protest on behalf of nine-tenths of them, against such an imputation.
§ Sir E. Knatchbullcomplained, that the hon. gentleman had stated no reasonable grounds, to induce the House to accede to his motion, but seemed to consider it as a matter of course. He therefore thought his hon. friend was quite justified in opposing it. But, there was another objection to the production of these returns; namely, that it would be attended with great trouble, expense, and inconvenience. Unless the hon. member stated some good grounds for complying with the motion, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had thought it was fresh in the recollection of the House, that when he had called their attention to this subject, he held in his hand a return of the commitments by magistrates in London, and magistrates of other places, from which it appeared, that the greater part of those who had been committed by the London magistrates, had been convicted; from which he inferred, that a greater degree of attention must have been bestowed on the sifting of the evidence before committal. If he had supposed that any opposition would have been given to the motion, he would have brought down a document which was 648 called the calendar of the Old Bailey. From this it would appear, that, of the number of individuals committed to prison, one half were discharged without trial, or any evidence having been produced. Let the House figure to itself such a state of things as 1400 human beings committed to different gaols, on the warrants of the magistrates, 600 of whom were discharged subsequently! What objection, in the name of common sense, could there exist to the return of the fact? It could impute misconduct to none but those who deserved it. He must do the Secretary of State for the home department the justice so say, that when the resolution was shewn to him, he did not anticipate any objection, although he did not see the necessity for demanding the names of the unpaid magistracy. It struck him at the time that no one could object to the return of the names who did not feel that those magistrates had acted wrong.
Mr. Ashurstsaid, that his fears arose from the probability that imputations would be thrown upon the magistrates which they would not possess the means of refuting.
§ Mr. Denmanwas astonished at the extraordinary reason given for opposing the production of this return. What! was the proposition to be entertained, that as the powers of the magistracy were increased, they were to be made irresponsible? The unpaid magistracy must not be subjected to the possibility of aspersions being cast on their character. Then, on what ground was it that the police magistrates were to be exposed to imputations? Their labours were much more extensive and equally useful. The paid magistracy were, it was to be recollected, amenable to the home office, as well as to the House of Commons, and yet it was contended in that House, that it would be felt as a considerable hardship to call for any disclosure respecting the conduct of the unpaid magistracy! If such a feeling was to be permitted to prevail—if that House sanctioned the irresponsibility called for—then that body of magistrates would become an intolerable nuisance. Look at the variety of new powers that every session, somehow or other, these magistrates were acquiring. Let it look at the trespass act, and the many other acts, that gave the right of summary correction; and the House must feel that it was of the utmost consequence to watch 649 the conduct of the magistracy with a constitutional vigilance. He should state an instance that happened before himself and other magistrates, that shewed the enormous power that was given to that body by acts of parliament. A man was charged before them, under the statute of obstructing the highway. The proof was, that he had asked a person at the entrance of Doctors' Commons whether he wanted a proctor. He saw that the person on leaving the carriage was in black, and thought that he probably wanted to execute some business in the Commons. This interruption on the footpath amounted to an obstruction on the highway, under the express statute, and the magistrates were compelled to convict. Had the whole penalty been enforced, the man charged must have paid five pounds or gone to gaol for three months. Unless that House exercised a due degree of circumspection, was it not to be feared, that such monstrous powers would be abused? In place of limiting the information sought for, he would wish it to be extended to every county in England. As to the fears expressed by hon. members, lest magistrates should be exposed to unwarrantable imputations, he could not see on what ground such an apprehension existed. With respect to the expense, that would be altogether trifling.
§ Mr. Sumnerdenied that the unpaid magistracy was uncontrolled, they were subject to that most powerful control, the superintendence of the court of King's-bench.
Sir R. Heronavowed himself as a county magistrate most solicitous to have his conduct fully investigated. The public superintendance ought to be exercised for the good of the people. As the Trespass act had been mentioned he must say, that he expected some member of influence would have before now moved for the repeal of that most unconstitutional act, by which a British subject might be punished for any thing, or for nothing.
The Attorney Generalexpressed himself most ready to subscribe to the principle, that every abuse of the administration of criminal justice should be fully investigated. The object of the motion was, to ascertain if any magisterial mismanagement existed in the adjoining counties to the metropolis, as compared with similar returns from the metropolis. He would therefore suggest, that in the first stage the returns might be made, with the omission of the names 650 of the committing magistrates. The return would either substantiate the fact, as to the commitments and discharges stated by the hon. member, or it would not. If it did not, there would be no further necessity for inquiry; if it did bear out his statement, then it would be open for him to follow it up, by calling upon the House to require the names of the magistrates. To the motion thus modified, he should have no objection.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he considered the stipendiary magistrates, as of the government, to stand in a different situation from the county magistrates. He meant, that the conduct of the former was necessarily more open to inquiry. The motion, as proposed to be modified, he certainly should not object to.
Mr. Denisonapproved of the suggestion of the attorney-general. As to his own conduct as a magistrate, he wished to have it fully investigated; and he felt himself bound in justice to say, that there was not a more diligent, anxious, or praiseworthy body, than the magistrates of Surrey.
Mr. Alderman Thompsoninstanced a case that had come before himself, where the accused parties, amounting to three, were committed on the clearest evidence; but, in consequence of the prosecutor declining to prosecute, they were discharged without trial. And yet, by such a return, an imputation would be thrown upon him.
§ Mr. Grey Bennet,as a magistrate of Surrey, expressed himself anxious for the fullest publicity. He also bore his testimony to the respectability of the magistracy of that county.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that when he first intended to move for these returns, he never contemplated any objection thereto. The object he had in view was, that having had presented to him the names of some three, four, or five magistrates, he was anxious to have the regular returns, in order to compare the statements he had received with the official documents. He should then have been able to ascertain what was the more advisable course to take. He had no objection, however, to shape the motion so as to meet the suggestion of the attorney-general.
§ The motion so modified was then agreed to.