§ Mr. Humesaid, he rose to bring forward his promised motion for a return of the Commitments by magistrates, in certain districts, together with the names of the magistrates by whom such commitments were made. He understood that objections were made to returning the names of the magistrates, unless in specified cases, where it could be shewn they were necessary. To this he answered, that there was an opinion abroad that a certain set of gentlemen in the magistracy were convicting magistrates—that was to say, that any culprits brought before certain magistrates stood little or no chance of escaping being committed. New, he felt, that if the commitment were a just one, no objection could be urged to giving the name of the magistrate, and if unjust, then the name of the magistrate became absolutely necessary. He wished to obtain correct returns, in order to ascertain the causes of the disproportion between the commitments and convictions in the city of London, and in the county of Middlesex, and which disproportion was highly to the credit of the former. The returns already on the table were very imperfect; but if they had been made out 903 according to his original intention, he apprehended they would have borne out the statement he formerly made. At present, a comparison could not be fairly instituted. He would first advert to what appeared on the face of the documents furnished. One magistrate had committed 152 prisoners, and of that number bills were found only against 66, and 58 were convicted. Another magistrate at Union-hall had committed 139 persons, while bills were found only against 48. It was to be observed, that the different police offices varied in the mode of making those returns; indeed, they were upon some points so contradictory, that further information was absolutely necessary. During the inquiries of committees on prison discipline much had been said of the evil of allowing persons not hacknied in vice to mix for months together with the most degraded criminals. If this contamination amounted to only half what was stated in the various reports, it was a subject requiring the utmost attention. In this point of view it became of consequence to ascertain with precision the disproportion between the commitments and the convictions. The courtesy of the secretary for the home department had furnished him with a document of value, inasmuch as it shewed the proportion between commitments and convictions at two periods, viz. for the seven years before 1816, and for the seven years before 1823. In the seven years before 1816, there were committed for trial 36,000 men, and 11,000 women. In the seven years preceding 1823, there were committed for trial 78,000 men and 14,000 women. With such an enormous increase of offenders in so limited a time, was it possible to pretend that the community was in a moral healthy state? Looking at the comparative number of convictions in the same period, it became an important matter of attention, whether some other mode could not be invented to prevent persons, proved in the result to be innocent, from suffering the moral infection of a prison. Of the 47,000 men and women committed in the seven years prior to 1816, 29,000 had been convicted and 18,000 acquitted, being in the proportion of 33 in the hundred found not guilty. In the seven years preceding 1823, the total number of commitments was 93,000, and of these 62,000 had been convicted, and 31,000 acquitted, being in the proportion of 33 in the hundred. In London 904 and Middlesex the proportion was nearly the same; the committals during 7 years before 1816 were 12,000, the convictions 7,400, and the acquittals 4,700, which was in the ratio of about 39 per cent. During the seven years before 1823, the committals were 18,000, the convictions 11,000, and the acquittals 7,000. It was lamentable to find, on the same authority, the number of our fellow creatures sentenced to death by the present state of our penal laws. In the first period to which he had alluded, they were 1,018, of whom twelve in the hundred were executed; and in the last period 1,216, of whom 14 in the hundred were executed. This brought him back to the consideration how it happened, that so many more of the prisoners committed by one magistrate were acquitted than by another. Was the mode of conducting business different at different police offices? He had been also anxious, when he formerly brought this question before the House, to learn the proportions of the persons committed, convicted, or acquitted by magistrates, who were not stipendiary, in order to see whether there were any deserving the title of "committing magistrates," who, without due attention to the evidence, allowed their fellow-subjects to run the risk of the injury to be derived from intercourse in a gaol. A magistrate, with his commission, undertook a highly responsible duty; and he could not conceive any good reason why the magistracy should be desirous of concealment. As to the numbers, they had been obtained already; but he wished also to see on the table the names of the committing magistrates. He had been informed, that the number of persons convicted in Scotland, compared with those committed, exceeded the proportion in any part of England, arising probably from the peculiar care taken in the examination of witnesses. How far the method, pursued in Scotland, ought to be adopted in England, was another question. His motion would extend to Scotland, and he saw no reason why Ireland should be excluded, so that the whole might be seen at one view. The hon. gentleman then moved, "that there be laid before this House, a return of the number of persons charged with criminal offences, who were committed to the different gaols in England and Wales during the year 1822 or 1823; distinguishing those by summary commitments, and those for trial at the assizes 905 and sessions held for the several counties, cities, towns, and liberties therein; showing the name of the magistrate or magistrates who signed the warrants of committal, and distinguishing the number of persons so committed by summary commitments by him or them, and the number committed for trial, who were convicted, acquitted, or against whom no bills were found, or who were not prosecuted."
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he had expected to have heard from the hon. member a less objectionable motion than that with which he had concluded, and the returns to which would not, in point of fact, assist him in his ulterior object. The hon. member had said, that when these returns, with the names of the committing magistrates, were made, some individuals would be found who were unnecessarily rigorous in their commitments, and who were designated in their counties as "committing magistrates." He protested that be had never heard of such a distinct class of persons; but, what he principally rose to show was, that the returns called for would not raise the inference which the hon. member supposed, and would therefore be useless for his general argument. For instance, there were several prisons in England in which commitments in execution were only taken; and the hon. member must not confound such commitments in due execution of legal process with the summary commitments in the ordinary administration of magisterial duty. Then, again, the disproportion of commitments between one magistrate and another would not raise the inference of undue rigour in the committing magistrate. For instance, at this time of the year, whilst members were attending their duty in parliament, there must be other magistrates in the counties, whose returns in the discharge of their duty must necessarily be larger than those not so actively engaged, from local removals, without there being the slightest ground for supposing from the distinction, the undue exercise of power. When the hon. gentleman first brought this subject forward, he had said, that there was an immense disproportion between the commitments by police magistrates and by magistrates of the city of London. He (Mr. P.) had then thought, that a prima facie case had been made out against the stipendiary magistrates, and that they were the more responsible, be- 906 cause they received salaries, although he was satisfied that they were men of the highest honour and respectability, and that their conduct would bear the strictest examination. Those magistrates who were unpaid and acted merely from a sense of duty and a love of utility, were of course in a different situation. As far as the hon. gentleman wished to correct the return already made, he (Mr. P.) was ready to concede what was required. There was no indisposition in the home department to give all useful information: but, under no circumstances could he consent to include the names of individual magistrates. He asserted distinctly that it was a criminatory motion. It was criminatory, because it went to shew that magistrates had acted on vague and insufficient grounds. The hon. member had talked of "committing magistrates." He (Mr. P.) had never heard of any individuals deserving such an offensive distinction. Was it fair to brand a gentleman as a "committing magistrate," because he devoted more of his time to the service of his country, and had a larger number of criminals brought before him? Besides, if the returns were made as desired, it would be impossible to draw any fair inference from the intelligence it supplied. The hon. gentleman, on the former oceasion, had introduced the names of three magistrates, Mr. Allen, Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Swabey, and in consequence he (Mr. P.) had sent for Mr. Dyer, and had asked him to furnish some cases in which he had committed, and the grand jury had afterwards thrown out the bill. In the first place, Mr. Dyer proved that the disproportion in his case was not greater than in others, and he pointed out fifteen or sixteen cases in which grand juries had ignored bills, but in which Mr. Dyer would have grossly misconducted himself if he had not committed the party charged. Sometimes the matter had been compromised: perhaps the principal witness was a near relation, and, not wishing to disgrace the family, upon reflection did not choose to persevere in the prosecution: sudden wrong had made him bring the offender before a magistrate, but in his cooler moments perhaps he had repented. In one case, though the charge had been clearly made out before the magistrate, the prosecutrix went before the grand jury in a state of intoxication, and they, of course, threw out the bill. In another case of a criminal assault upon a girl of 907 ten years old, the grand jury obtained information which did not come before Mr. Dyer, shewing that she was not worthy of credit; and on this account the man accused was never put upon his trial. In some instances, parties, though duly bound in recognizances to prosecute, did not appear; and as they were poor, their sureties were of no value, and could not be estreated. In other cases, misunderstandings occurred as to the time when witnesses were to appear, and in others, the prosecution was dropped from carelessness, indifference, or idleness. While these circumstances vindicated the grand jury from any charge of neglect, they at the same time shewed that there was no ground for inculpating the committing magistrate. Unless, therefore, the return could be accompanied with a detail of all that appeared at the police-office, it would be of no use, as it could lead to no just conclusion. For these reasons, he should negative the motion.
§ Mr. Denmansaid, he concurred in many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, respecting the obscurity in which the larger question would still remain, after the returns, as now called for, were produced; but, it would be easy to make the distinction required in the returns, so as to show the commitments in execution, and also those by summary process. He could not, however, concur with the right hon. gentleman in throwing round the magistracy generally, that species of exemption from inquiry which he had talked of. On the contrary, he thought that when parliament were every year intrusting such extended powers to the magistracy, they were bound to investigate with a jealous eye their administration; and the more so on account of the liability to abuse in the exercise of all human power. He rather wished to see the public eye jealously fixed upon the conduct of magistrates, for the sake of bringing to bear upon their acts the wholesome control of public opinion; and he could not disguise from himself, that however meritorious as a body, there were many individual cases in the magistracy, which required revision and correction. It was singular that, the moment the slightest attempt was made in parliament to control or investigate the authority of the magistrates, it was met by the highest panegyrics upon their general honour and utility. This reminded him of the remark of a judge once at the Old 908 Bailey, who, when he heard characters given by witnesses to notorious thieves, exclaimed, "I wonder what has become of the rogues, for every man is honest now-a-days." Unquestionably the mere circumstance of throwing out the bill afforded no ground of charge against the committing magistrate; but, it was a most appalling fact, that for the seven years before 1816 the commitments were only 47,000, and that for the seven years preceding 1823 they had increased to 93,000. They might have been augmented, in some degree, by the greater readiness with which courts granted their expenses to parties prosecuting; but, at all events, it was a very proper subject for inquiry.
§ Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, there was no class of persons who had performed more services to the country than the magistracy. Unless a strong case should first be made out, he could never give his assent to a motion of this nature. There was a sufficient jealousy amongst the magistrates themselves, which made them watch the proceedings of each other; and in this circumstance he saw the best security for the proper discharge of their functions.
§ Mr. H. Sumnerthought the motion would be ineffectual, unless the commitments were returned with a specification of the circumstances of each case; but no man would undertake the arduous duties of a magistrate if his character were to be subjected to this kind of suspicion.
§ Mr. Curwensaid, if he thought there was any intention of casting an imputation on the magistrates, he should not give the motion his assent.
Lord Stanleysaid, he should like to know who were the individuals who were designated "committing magistrates." He thought it unfair to throw out a general aspersion of this nature.
§ Mr. Lockhartthought that the motion should not be entertained, unless good reason were first shown.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, that if the hon. member would point out any one instance in which there had been an improper committal, he would give him any explanation on the subject which he might require.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that all he wanted was sufficient data on which to form a just conclusion. A very unfair construction had been put upon what he had said respecting committing magistrates. He did not mean by that expression those who committed the greatest number of pri- 909 sorters, but those who were in the habit of committing without sufficient evidence. He hoped the right hon. secretary would furnish the House with the necessary information; and, in that hope, he should withdraw his motion.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, he felt it due to the magistrates, not to allow the motion to be withdrawn. It must be negatived.
§ The House divided: Ayes 8. Noes 81.
§ Mr. Humesaid, there was such an esprit de corps in the country gentlemen, that he never knew an instance of inquiry being called for into the conduct of magistrates, that they were not immediately up in arms to stifle all investigation. It had certainly been his understanding when he submitted to withdraw his motion, that the right hon. gentleman would give him the information corrected according to his own statement. He would now move for returns of the number of persons charged with criminal offences in Ireland, and committed in the years 1822 and 1823, excepting such as were committed under the Insurrection act.
§ Mr. Peeldenied that he had entered into any agreement with the hon. member as to any course which he should pursue in the event of the former motion being withdrawn.
Mr. F. Palmercould not see that the motion cast any stigma on the magistrates. If there were any who did not do their duty, inquiry was desirable, to show who they were.
§ Mr. Denmandid think that his hon. friend had not been quite fairly treated. There appeared a considerable degree of soreness on the part of the magistrates; but this stolen march would not tend to raise them in the estimation of the country. It was said, that no case had been made out. Certainly, no case was made out, because no case was intended to be made out. There could be no case of general oppression against a most numerous body. The proposition of his hon. friend was, that a constant and regular return should be laid before the House; because the effect of such a return would be to create a powerful control on the actions of public men. Would it be denied, that such a control was necessary? Was it calumny to argue that magistrates were accessible to the common frailties of human nature
§ Mr. Twissobserved, that as there was no charge against the magistracy, there was no necessity for the returns, to grant which implied an accusation.
§ Mr. T. Wilsonthought that no case had been made out for inquiry, and that when motions of this kind were made groundlessly, the result must be injurious. In defence of magistrates who were not members of that House, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Hubhousewas at a loss to understand on what grounds the returns were refused. Was it not material for that House to be put in possession of the proportion between the number of commitments and convictions? Much had been said in praise of the unpaid magistracy; but he must say he did not think so highly of them. He would prefer a stipendiary magistracy, who would not think it above them to render an account of their conduct, to those unpaid magistrates who exhibited, on all occasions, such a noli-me-tangere disposition.
§ Mr. Moncksaid, that this information was necessary, if it were merely with a view to statistical information. It was desirable that the House should know the amount of crime, and whether it was on the increase or not. The number of summary convictions, too, was important; for as that mode of proceeding was a supersession of the common-law, it was essential to observe its operation.
§ The House divided: Ayes 34. Noes 71.
§ Another division took place on a motion for similar returns as regarded Scotland; when the numbers were, Ayes 3: Noes 75.