§ Mr. Hawesbegged to be informed, whether the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had had his attention drawn to the two cases which appeared in The Morning Chronicle on the l6th of the present month, in one of which it was represented that a police magistrate, by some of the papers said to have been in a state of intoxication, had given a gentleman in custody who was subsequently discharged. Being engaged on a Committee appointed to inquire what alterations were necessary to be made in police-offices, he was most anxious on this point. The 1621 other case which appeared in the same paper was, where the chief magistrate of Bow-street had suspended the execution of a warrant in the case of felony, the consequence of which was, that the individual had not been taken into custody, the magistrate himself becoming personally responsible for his appearance. The hon. Member wished to know, whether the noble Lord's attention had been called to these cases, and whether he had thought proper to institute proceedings to protect the public.
§ Lord J. Russellsaid, that with respect to the first case he had made inquiries upon the subject, but finding that it was probable that an action would be brought, he thought it would be unfair to give any answer to the hon. Member until the case had been investigated in a court of law. With respect to the other case, of defacing a statute, upon inquiry he had found that Sir F. Roe, having no doubt, from the circumstances of the party who had been accused of the transaction, that he would appear and answer the charge, had adopted the course he had pursued in the present instance. He was asked to back the warrant of the local authorities, which he had done, but had not required bail when the party was taken. He believed, that such a course was not uncommon when it was certain that the party would appear.