§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his remarks in answer to a question on June 6th, upon the conduct of the two justices of Chipping Norton for sending certain women to prison for an offence which he admitted was fully proved, with no evidence for the defence, under the provisions of an Act quoted, upon what authority he then stated
That those justices, instead of sending the women to prison, ought either to have bound them over in their own recognizances to appear and submit to the sentence, when called on, or that it would have been quite competent for the magistrates, on the evidence before them, to convict those who had taken the most active 1785 part in the disturbance for an assault, and to fine them, enforcing the fine, if necessary, by imprisonment;and, as he further added,that neither of those courses appeared to have occurred to the magistrates, and the case did seem to show a very grave want of discretion,whether he is prepared to state that either of those courses suggested by him would have been in conformity with the Law?
§ MR. COBBETTasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be well to order that the depositions taken before the magistrates and the summonses should be laid before the House, in order that it might form an opinion for itself on the whole merits of the case?
MR. BRUCEI believe, Sir, that either of the courses referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet, as also a third course—namely, the absolute dismissal of the case against some of the women charged—would have been within the competency of the magistrates. I did not make my statement on this subject without consulting one of the most eminent and experienced of the London Police Magistrates as to the Law, and as to the practice of the Magistrates in similar cases. Nothing is more common than to dismiss with a warning from the Bench persons charged with slight offences, or even less prominent participators in graver offences, although legally subject to punishment; and the practice of binding prisoners to appear on their own recognizances to receive sentence when called upon to do so is one frequently resorted to in the higher Courts of Justice, and occasionally by justices of the peace. The substitution of the charge of assault for a graver charge would be also within the competency of a magistrate to recommend. But when that is done the prisoner must, of course, be allowed the opportunity of rebutting by evidence the substituted charge. A large power is given to magistrates in the exercise of their functions, and I am bound to say they use it with great discretion and humanity. If they availed themselves of every opportunity they had to punish offenders, the country would require double the number of prisons it now possesses. It is a very serious thing to send a person to prison, and the magis- 1786 trates, I am happy to know, exercise a wise and sound discretion in these matters. In reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), I may say that in the Correspondence which has been moved for, the evidence that was taken will be found. Magistrates do not take the evidence in summary cases with the same accuracy with which they take the evidence in cases to be sent for trial, but the Correspondence that took place between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire contains the most correct version of it, and will be very shortly laid on the Table of the House.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONwished to know, If the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to two cases, in which it had been held that the magistrates had no such power of convicting for one offence a person summoned for another, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested?
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no doubt those cases perfectly represented the law; but he was informed, on good authority, that it was perfectly legal for the magistrates to dismiss a summons, and then to proceed upon another charge.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONgave Notice that he would bring the subject forward again, for the purpose of having it debated.
In reply to Mr. BOWRING,
MR. BRUCEsaid, he should prefer not to say what was the Lord Chancellor's decision upon the case until the Papers were before the House.