THE MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES. (Hansard, 12 July 1833)

Colonel Evans
wished to ask the Solicitor-General whether his attention had been called to a circumstance of great Importance which had occurred at the Old Bailey. An apprehension was entertained, in consequence of certain proceedings on the part of the Middlesex Magistrates, that all the Middlesex trials which had taken place there were irregular, and that the prisoners who had been convicted of very serious crimes, might again be let loose upon society. He wished to know whether his Majesty's Government knew anything of the circumstances.

§ The Solicitor General
said, he feared there was great reason to apprehend, though he imputed blame to no one, that above 100 individuals had been illegally tried at the Old Bailey. The circumstances, as he understood them, were these:—Towards the end of the Sessions it was stated to the Judges that some bills of indictment had not been lawfully found; an inquiry took place into the facts, and the Judges were induced to put an end to the trials. A meeting of the Judges took place at the chambers of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and they were unanimously of opinion that the trials which had taken place were illegal. They caused information to be given to the Middlesex Magistrates, in order that the Grand Jury might be resummoned, the witnesses resworn, the bills again presented, and the accused retried; but the Middlesex Magistrates thought they knew the law better than the Judges. They 634 resolved that no irregularity or illegality had taken place, they prevented the Grand Jury from being resummoned, and of course prevented the possibility of the prisoners being retried. The circumstances attending the irregularity were these—the bills were to be found at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell. On Monday the Magistrates met, but on Tuesday and Wednesday no Magistrates were there, yet, during those two days, the crier went on swearing witnesses, as if the Court were sitting—those witnesses went before the Grand Jury, and upon their evidence the bills were found. The Judges were unanimously of opinion, that the crier had no authority to administer the oath, and that, therefore, the bills were not lawfully found. The Middlesex Magistrates were of a different opinion, and what under those circumstances was now to be done was more than he could tell, for there could be now no new trials, and the sentences on the prisoners could not be carried into effect.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
said, that being himself a Middlesex Magistrate, in the absence of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough (Mr. Rotch), who was Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, he would inform the House what those Magistrates had done when they met at the Sessions House yesterday, on Clerkenwell-green; and he would state what the course was, which they had, perhaps imprudently, adopted. It was alleged, that the Court had adjourned from Monday to Thursday, and that, in consequence, all that had been done in the interval had been illegal. They, however, found, on inquiry, that the adjournment had been from Monday to Tuesday, from Tuesday to Wednesday, and from Wednesday to Thursday, as usual. The question yesterday discussed was, whether the course which had been pursued was a regular one; and they called before them the Crier of the Court, who had been in the service of the Court for sixty years, and he said it had been the uniform practice to do as had been done in this instance, during all that period. The Crier stated, it was true, that on that and other occasions he had been alone when witnesses were sworn to go before the Grand Jury. The difficulty which the Magistrates felt was, that there was no Statute law to guide them; therefore they imagined that the ancient custom must prevail. He could only say, for himself, 635 in answer to the smiles of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, that he had been but a short period in the Commission, and that he had only attended the Sessions three times; he was obliged to inquire what had been the custom in such a case, and particularly as there was a question whether those who had been tried and acquitted should be retried? The error, if an error, had prevailed for the last sixty years, and all the prisoners who had been convicted during that period, had been improperly condemned. As to the opinion of the Judges, it was not conveyed to the Magistrates in such a shape as to make it appear desirable to them to stultify both themselves and their predecessors. If the law were as had been stated, the prison doors had better be at once thrown open.

§ The Solicitor General
said, that the Judges had employed au unauthorized officer, the Clerk of the Peace, to communicate with the Magistrates. He denied the existence of the practice affirmed to have existed by the hon. Member. He had made inquiries, and was convinced no such practice had ever existed. On former occasions when the Court adjourned, they met again on the adjournment day; but, on the present occasion, there was a careful attendance of Magistrates on Monday, and they adjourned to bare walls on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. Chapman,
as a Magistrate for Middlesex, maintained, that the usual practice of the Court had been followed on the late occasion.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
said, that repeated instances were found on the minutes of one Magistrate only being present whilst the Grand Jury was sitting.

§ The Solicitor General
said, the Judges did not come to their decision till they had previously examined the Crier and Officers of the Court.

Mr. O'Connell
No Magistrate was present on Tuesday. As far as he could learn, the Crier was the only Magistrate.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
Several Magistrates were in and out of the building in the course of the day, but they had no business to detain them.

Mr. O'Connell
Precisely; and so the whole dignity of the Court was left to be represented by the Crier. The Court, however, had business, witnesses were to be sworn, and bills to be brought up. If there was a Chairman, why at least did he 636 not attend? It was a most extraordinary thing that a recommendation, coming from the twelve Judges to an inferior tribunal, should not be attended to. The hon. Member spoke of the practice as customary for the last sixty years; why, he knew an instance of a man who was tried for sheep-stealing, and whose counsel set up a similar defence—namely, that sheep-stealing was so common in England, that the poor innocent man at the bar was ignorant that he was committing a crime.

Mr. Wynn
entirely concurred with the hon. member for Dublin in the opinion that the Magistrates, in this instance, ought to respect the higher authority of the Judges. The House, however, ought now to consider what was to be done. No remedy appeared to lie in any existing Court, and he consequently thought, that an Act should be passed to authorize the appointment of a special commission to retry the prisoners in question.

§ The Solicitor General
thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the best which could be acted upon.