§ Mr. E. Davenportrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to afford to criminals accused of Petty Felonies the option of Summary Conviction by two or more magistrates. In the first place, he begged gentlemen not to suppose that the object of his motion was to increase the power of magistrates. He thought that, in many cases, magistrates had too much power, and he should be happy to see it contracted. It did not however follow, that because they had too much power in some cases, they had not too little in others. He believed that their power of inflicting severe punishments was too great, and that their power in tempering justice with mercy was too small. He begged hon. gentlemen to observe the inconsistency of giving two justices at quarter sessions the power of transportation, while it deprived the same two justices at petty sessions of inflicting the most trifling punishment. All they could do was to commit the offender to prison, where he must remain for months, probably, until the period of his trial approached; and this, too, perhaps, for an offence which, some years ago, would have been much 717 better punished by the parish stocks and the parish beadle. Gentlemen were not perhaps, aware, that those costly buildings called county gaols were no better than so many universities for the propagation of criminal knowledge, in which students took their degrees in vice.—After detailing the causes of the increase of crime, which he contended to have arisen from the profligate issue of paper money during the French war,—from the distress which arose from raising the value of the money in which the national debt had been contracted,—from the game laws,—and from the number and length of the commitments to gaols, where the criminals met with better lodgings, better fare, and worse company, than they had before been accustomed to, the hon. member observed that his motion was principally levelled at the last. He had consulted the most intelligent magistrates and gaolers in the country, and he had found no difference of opinion on this point; namely, that men were certain to leave a prison worse than they entered it. It ought to be recollected, too, that in every gaol-delivery nearly one-third of the prisoners were either acquitted or discharged. The object of the bill which he meant to introduce was, to give magistrates the power of committing boys under a certain age—say sixteen, for a limited period, to solitary confinement, for the first offence, instead of letting them remain among the usual inhabitants of prisons. For the second offence whipping might be resorted to; but then it must never be public, and only inflicted in cases where there was no chance of reforming the offender by other means. To adults he would leave the option of appealing to a jury.
Mr. Fergussonsaid, he was convinced that a bill of this nature could never pass through a single stage in that House. Until that part of the law which made the forfeiture of property consequent on a conviction for felony was altered, he was quite sure that the House would never trust such a matter to magistrates. This deprivation of property seemed to be entirely forgotten by the hon. member. Cases of misdemeanor, such, for instance, as assaults, might be advantageously disposed of in the manner now suggested, but in felonies nothing of the kind could be done, while the law remained as it was.
§ Mr. Sykeshoped the House would give his hon. friend leave to bring in this bill, because it was probable that some measure 718 might emanate from the House which would amend the criminal jurisdiction. At present, the objection of his hon. friend, who had just sat down, appeared to be insurmountable. Every body must agree, that long imprisonments, so far from being calculated to do good, prevented men who had once become inmates of gaols from afterwards returning to the paths of virtue. He never knew of a man being reformed by such a course of punishment; and he had, therefore, always preferred transporting an offender at once, if the offence were a serious one. He recommended to the notice of his hon. friend, a very able pamphlet, written by sir John Eardly Wilmot, which contained some useful suggestions on the subject.
§ Mr. Westernthought the forfeiture of property consequent upon felonies should be removed, before the magisterial jurisdiction, proposed by the bill, was adopted. There were many cases of juvenile offenders, in which a summary power of conviction by the magistrates would be infinitely better than subjecting them to the contamination of a prison before trial. He felt how jealous the legislature ought to be in giving the magistrates this summary jurisdiction; but he did not believe that any evil could result from the measure now proposed. In truth, there were many little offences which it would be much better wholly to overlook, than to bring them before any tribunal.
§ Leave was given to bring in the bill.