Mr. O'Connellbegged to call the attention of the hon. Under-Secretary for the Home Department to an account which appeared in The Times of Tuesday, of a transaction which had taken place at the Thames Police Office. A man named William Stitch had been brought before the Magistrates, on a charge of flogging a boy, named John Scott, and never had there been an instance of greater brutality exhibited, than that which the account in The Times purported to give. The boy's person had been examined, and the Magistrates expressed their horror at what they saw, and a certificate was handed to the Magistrates, of this tenor:—'I certify that I have this day, June 23, examined John Scott, and I find his back, sides, 1088 shoulders, and arms, much bruised and wounded, from severe flogging with a rope. The appearances are such as could only have been inflicted by severe and most brutal means.—J. SHERWIN, Surgeon, Greenwich.' Now, if this report were true, and that the Magistrates had not apprised the lad that the proper means of proceeding were not criminally but by action, they had not done well; for, by not giving him this information, the boy lost all right of action at law, inasmuch as the certificate of the Magistrate, of the infliction of a fine of 5l. and costs, which had taken place in this instance, could be pleaded under the Statute in bar to any action for the same assault. More-over, the 5l. penalty did not go to the party injured, but to the county-rates. If, then, it were true that the magistrates had neglected to give the boy this information, and leave him his option, they had been, in his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion, guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty, for this was the case of a boy of only fourteen years of age, and totally ignorant of his rights under the law. He wished to know, as he had given the hon. Gentleman notice of this question, whether any inquiry had been made into the facts of this case.
Mr. Lambregretted, that owing to an accident, he had not been able to communicate with the Magistrates who were present. However, he had seen some of those who were present, and bating for some small exaggeration of expression, he did not believe that the brutality of the case had been overstated. But, if the matter were properly considered, it would, he thought, be seen that the Magistrates were chargeable, not from any misconduct on their part, but from the defect of the law. This was a very poor boy, without any parent or friend, save a mother in a miserable state of poverty; and, in all probability, the Magistrates had, for this reason, imposed the highest penalty it was in their power to inflict, for fear that otherwise this crime might altogether escape with impunity. Supposing, for instance, that they had bound over the boy and his mother to prosecute, it was more than probable that they would never appear at the Quarter Sessions, and, instead of paying a penalty of 5l., the criminal might not suffer any punishment at all. He agreed with the hon. member for Kerry, that the magistrates ought to have informed the boy of the law, and he hoped they had 1089 done so; but of that he could not assert any thing, as he did not know what their conduct in this respect had been. They seemed, however, to have done all that was in their power, and finding that the boy was an apprentice, they had given directions that he should on no account go back to the same vessel, but that the officers should look out for another to place him on board of. If the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with this explanation, he should make further inquiry.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that his attention had been drawn to the case by a highly respectable professional man, who had declared, were it not for this penalty, the boy should have the means of obtaining adequate remuneration for his sufferings. The course which he (Mr. O'Connell) intended to pursue, should he have a seat in the House in a future Session, would be, to bring in a bill to take away the power of pleading the Magistrates' certificate in bar of a civil action, but leaving it in full force so as to prevent a double prosecution.
§ Subject dropped.