ASSISTANT JUDGE (MIDDLESEX SESSIONS) BILL. (Hansard, 18 July 1853)

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a an Amendment that the Bill be read a 431 third time that day three months, as the people of Surrey thought the Judge was already paid most handsomely, considering the honourable position which the office gave him.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he was never more surprised in his life than when he heard of the introduction of this Bill; for it would be in the recollection of the House that it was only a short time ago that he brought the conduct of this Judge under the notice of Parliament with reference to the case of Mary Hill, and then not all the adroitness, and all the talent, and all the pleasantry of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department could get rid of the bad impression which the conduct of the learned gentleman created in the minds of hon. Members. And yet within three months after that occurrence the House was asked to increase the learned gentleman's salary, thus as it were passing a vote of confidence in the Judge, and stultifying its own previous decision. The eccentricities and peculiarities which characterised the administration of justice in the learned Judge's Court were too well known to need recapitulation; but, nevertheless, there were one or two instances of scenes in the Court which he must be permitted briefly to refer to. He held in his hand a report of the proceedings in the Middlesex Court, wherein it was stated that a person was brought before this gentleman to be re-examined, and he told the accused that he was convinced he was a thief, although there was no evidence adduced against him, nor had any trial taken place. Immediately another prisoner was brought before him, a woman who was not blessed with handsome features, and the learned Judge becoming jocular upon the villanous character of ask whether the woman was to be tried according to her physiognomy or according to the evidence. Scenes of this unseemly nature were constantly taking place in the Court over which this gentleman presided, and they did not always partake of the ludicrous—since in two cases where an acquittal had taken place, the Judge went the length of pronouncing the parties to be guilty in spite of the verdict of the jury of the contrary. Now, he would ask the House to add these cases to the medium 432 instance of the poor woman who had three years' transportation clapped on to her sentence for simply using an offensive expression, and then to say whether they could with common decency pass this Bill? There was, however, another case to which he must call attention in the hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department would be enabled to give some satisfactory account of it to the House. It might be entirely unfounded, for aught that he knew to the contrary, but at the same time it was to be found in the published reports of the trials of this gentleman's Court, and he should treat it as a fact unless it was contradicted by the noble Lord. It occurred on the 22nd of June, 1852, and was the case of a man named James, who was charged with having stolen a purse containing 1l. 1s. 6d. For this, on being found guilty, he was sentenced to ten years' transportation—

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member; but he found that an understanding had been come to with an hon. Baronet opposite, that this Bill should not be discussed until Thursday. It would perhaps be convenient, therefore, if the debate was adjourned till then.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he could not consent to this delay without concluding the only other statement of importance that he had to make with reference to this Bill. Well, then, this man was said to have been sentenced to ten years' transportation. Certainly a very severe punishment, considering the insignificant nature of the offence; and upon hearing the sentence, the man, who was of a rather violent temper, somewhat after the manner of Mary Hill, let fly a penny ink-bottle at the Judge, who thereupon, without any trial whatever, or without going through any legal proceedings, sentenced him to five years' additional transportation. He would say no more at present upon this to him painful topic; but before this Bill passed, he begged the noble Lord to inform the House whether what he had stated was a fact or not.