POLICE MAGISTRATES BILL. (Hansard, 21 March 1825)

Mr. Secretary Peel
requested the attention of the committee to the subject upon which he proposed to address them; namely, the pecuniary allowance which the police magistrates of the metropolis received for their services. It was his intention to propose, that those individuals should receive an addition to the salary they at present received; a proposition which, he trusted, would not be considered at all unreasonable. He held in his hand papers, from which, if he chose to enter into any detail, he could prove, to the satisfaction of the committee, that since the institution of police magistrates, the business which devolved upon those individuals had, owing to various acts of parliament, independently of the increase of population, greatly augmented. Although that circumstance would, of itself, be a sufficient reason for increasing the salary of the magistrates, he rested his proposition upon grounds which he hoped the committee would consider even more satisfactory. When the police magistrates were first appointed, it was the practice to select individuals to fill the office, who, he must say, were utterly incompetent to discharge the duties which devolved upon them. He found, from the papers which had been laid on the table, that out of twelve police magistrates appointed at a former period, there were only three barristers; the rest were composed of a major in the army, a starch-maker, three clergymen, a Glasgow-trader, and other persons who, from their previous occupations, could not but be utterly unqualified to perform the duties of magistrates. The law had fixed no limitation with respect to the previous education of persons appointed to the office of magistrate; but he thought the committee would be pleased to hear, that a limitation on that point had been prescribed by the Secre- 1129 tary of State. Neither his noble predecessor in office (lord Sidmouth), nor himself, had ever appointed a person to fill the office of magistrate, who had not been a barrister of three years' standing. That was a rule to which, in his opinion, it was most desirable to adhere. But, in order to enable the Secretary of State to abide by that rule, and carry it into practice, it was necessary to augment the present salary of the police-magistrates. He implored the House to consider whether 600l. a year, the present salary, was sufficient to induce a barrister to give up the emoluments of private practice and the hope of preferment in his profession, to undertake the duties of a magistrate, which required their almost constant attendance. It could not, he thought, be considered an unreasonable proposition, that, in future, the Secretary of State should be empowered to give to each police magistrate the sum of 800l. per annum. He hoped he should not be told, that individuals might be found, who would be willing to undertake the magisterial duties for a less sum. It was very true, that such was the case. He was constantly receiving applications from persons who were anxious to be appointed police magistrates. Those applications proceeded principally from country magistrates, who had discharged the duties of their offices ably and satisfactorily; but whom, nevertheless, he did not think it right to appoint to be police magistrates in the metropolis. He held the unpaid magistracy in as high respect as any man; but he could easily conceive, that a gentleman might, in consequence, of the influence which he derived from local circumstance—the relations of landlord and tenant, for instance—be able to discharge the duties of a country magistrate in a satisfactory manner, who would be incompetent to undertake the very important ones of a police-magistrate. "Police-magistrates' was the name generally given to the magistrates to whom he alluded, but those persons were mistaken who supposed that the duties which they had to perform were merely executive. They were called upon to administer the law in a great number of complicated cases which were submitted to them. Out of some recent acts of parliament many very important questions arose, which the police-magistrates were called upon to decide. Several nice cases had occurred under the building acts. He knew one case of that 1130 description, which had occupied the attention of the magistrates for a couple of days; during which surveyors were examined on both sides. He thought that a salary of 800l. a year was not more than a fair remuneration for the practice which a barrister must abandon, when he undertook the duties of a magistrate. It appeared to him, that the individuals appointed to administer justice in this country were more parsimoniously dealt with than in any other country in the world. He thought it was poor economy, to give an inadequate remuneration to individuals selected to administer justice, whether in the high office of judge, or in the less, but still very important, office of police-magistrate. He might, he did not doubt, get persons—those who could not succeed in their profession—the refuse of the bar —to fill the office of police-magistrate, at a lower salary than he proposed to give; he might save 100l. or 200l. a year by such a proceeding, but the public would have cause to lament it. The present police-magistrates were of the highest personal respectability, and performed their duties to the great satisfaction of the country. There were thirty in number; only four of whom were not barristers. The right hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That it is the opinion of the committee, that each of the Justices appointed, or to be appointed, under an act for the more effectual administration of the office of a Justice of the Peace in and near the Metropolis, shall be allowed such yearly salaries not exceeding 800l. as shall be directed by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."

Sir J. Sebright
approved of the proposed addition to the salaries of magistrates, which he thought would have the effect of rendering the body more respectable; and stated, that he was old enough to remember the trading justices, than whom there were not a more contemptible set of persons.

Mr. Hobhouse
said, he did not rise to, oppose the plan, but to guard himself against sanctioning any proposition, the tendency of which might be, to increase the influence of the Crown. He understood that there were at present 820 barristers, and no fewer than 400 places to which barristers were eligible. What he wanted to know was, whether the salaries were to be all raised immediately by this measure; or whether it was to be at 1131 the option of the Secretary of State to raise some, and to leave others without any advance, as he might think proper. If the Secretary of State was to exercise any such discretion, he should say "no" to the proposition. He did not wish to allude to circumstances now gone by, and he hoped never to be repeated, when an individual (sir R. Baker) was removed from the magistracy, not by the right hon. gentleman opposite, but by another secretary, contrary to the feelings and wishes of the whole body of the people. The mere question of money did not weigh with him. It was only the principle that he was anxious to guard.

§ Mr. Peel
said, that if the committee should agree to the resolution which he had proposed, the increase would be extended to every police magistrate. As a proof that there was no wish on the part of government to favour particular magistrates, he might mention, that though the last resolution for regulating the amount of their salaries was passed ten or twelve years ago in precisely the same terms, he believed, as that which he had now proposed, there was no distinction at the present moment in regard to the salaries of magistrates. They all receive 600l. a year. With respect to what the hon. member had said respecting the patronage of the Crown—ift hat were any object, it could be much better attained by giving the appointments to gentlemen from the country, rather than from the bar.

§ Mr. Hume
did not think that 800l. per annum was too much for a magistrate to receive; but he was of opinion that the present number of magistrates might be reduced. In what way were the thirty magistrates to be disposed of in the metropolis? Could not the right hon. Secretary have effected his object, by raising the salaries and reducing the number? If the salary was raised, would not three be amply sufficient, where four were in an office? He wished to know what were the number of offices, and what the hours of attendance?

§ Mr. Peel
said, that the question of the propriety of reducing the number of magistrates had been considered in a committee, which was appointed at his suggestion two sessions since, to inquire into the state of the police of the metropolis. In 1792, London was divided into nine districts, to each of which three magistrates were appointed. Notwithstanding the great increase of population, and the 1132 consequent augmentation of business, no addition had been made to that number, except by the appointment of magistrates to the Thames-police—a most useful institution. A great part of the business transacted in the police offices was done in the presence of two magistrates. He considered that a good arrangement; as one magistrate acted as a check on the other. This being the case, it was necessary to have a third magistrate attached to each office, to provide some little relaxation for the other two. He could assure the House that the periods of relaxation were very short. The office was open from ten in the morning, till eight in the evening; and during that time, the magistrates were compelled to be in constant attendance. The jurisdiction of the magistrates of Union-hall extended over a district containing not less than 243,000 inhabitants. In one month, July 1823, not less than 176 cases of assault came before the magistrates of that office; and in July 1824, the number of assault cases was 150. This was independent of all other cases. It was evident, under these circumstances, that the number of magistrates could not be reduced, without great inconvenience to the public, and prejudice to the administration of justice. That, at least, was the opinion which the committee to which he had alluded had come to on the subject.