LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from a most respectable person in the city of London, complaining of a practice repugnant to the pure administration of justice; he meant that of magistrates entertaining questions before them which they had by law no more right to entertain, than they had to enter into any of their Lordships' houses and seize upon their property. This was formerly a practice existing not only in the city of London, but in the city and liberties of Westminster and the borough of Southwark. While he had held possession of the Great Seal, he took the opportunity, seeing the evil, to call the attention of his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) then Secretary of State for the Home Department, to these practices; and he had, as the matter was manifestly in the department of his noble Friend, asked him seriously to represent to the magistrates of the city of Westminster—he having no power over the magistrates of London, who were corporate magistrates merely — the great grievance and inconvenience to which this practice led. The evil which invariably resulted from the entertaining of complaints, or of requests for advice by a magistrate, might not at first be apparent; but it was always to be remembered, that when a man came before a magistrate, he not only told a story for himself, but he told a story against another man, and so far injured that man. And this story was not only heard by the magistrate—that would not much matter—but it was heard by others—by the public in the court, and by those who reported for the newspapers, and who, for aught he knew, reported very correctly; so that when a man spoke against his neighbour, that neighbour being absent and unable to reply, the slander, if it were a slander, went all over the country. He would give an instance of this—and indeed he might find thousands, for it had become a regular and ordinary proceeding to come before a magistrate, as it was called, "to complain and to take advice." A noble Lord, now dead, a very dear friend of his, and who had held a high judicial station, had made an unfortunate marriage; and, on his death, his widow was left in great pecuniary difficulties. With very great benevolence and generosity, the Prince Regent issued a certain sum of money to two noble Friends of his (Lord Brougham's) to be paid to this lady at the rate of 40s. a week; for, 1402 such were her habits, and so improper were her associations, that it was impossible to give her the whole sum at once; and the condition of trust was, that only 40s. a week should be paid. But this did not satisfy the lady; and when she wanted more money, she went before a city magistrate for advice, and to him she told her story. It was bruited over the three kingdoms, and the tale went as she had told it, that these two noble Lords wrongfully held possession of the funds granted out of the public purse—though in reality by the private munificence of the late King George IV.; that they withheld the money from her, and that they applied it to their own particular purposes. And—would it be believed?—the then Lord Mayor, instead of saying, as he ought to have said, "Go about your business," heard the whole story out, and then said, "The woman tells a consistent story. Is it to be endured that these two noble Lords, wallowing in wealth, shall take this miserable pittance of the bounty of the nation from this helpless widow, and apply it to their own uses?" And, of course, with the story went the authority—valeat quantum—and that was not much, of this Lord Mayor, charging these noble Lords with embezzlement. This might be an extreme case; but many believed it, and did believe it to this day, and the story was put in one of the black lists against the House of Lords. In another case a charge was brought before the Lord Mayor against a noble Duke for unjustly keeping a poor man out of a farm in the county of Northumberland, worth 150l. a year; and the Lord Mayor told the person, "Go to his grace, and let him know my opinion upon Iris conduct." Instances of a similar kind formerly occurred in the city of Westminster, and in the borough of Southwark, as well as in the city of London; but his noble Friend effectually put a stop to the evil, by notifying to the magistrates there that they would be struck out of the commission of the peace if they were again guilty of such conduct. Since 1831, they had heard no more of such cases in Westminster; but in the city of London they continued to this day; and in the petition he now presented there was an instance well deserving of attention. The petitioner, on the 9th of March last, was Drought before the Lord Mayor and another Alderman for misdemeanour, a trespass; and after investigating the charge, they thought fit, without any legal authority whatever, to adjudge a fine of 20l., or 1403 if that were not paid or could not be paid, imprisonment and hard labour for two months. Now, that was utterly and absolutely illegal; it would have been just as legal had they ordered him to be hanged. This man had no friends in London; but a relation in Scotland went before one of the Judges of the superior courts of Westminster, who being made aware of the petitioner's case, directed him to be set at liberty forthwith. But then the petitioner had been illegally fined, he had been illegally imprisoned, and he had no redress, no compensation, unless he were to bring an action; and in that there would be a difficulty, inasmuch as it would be said, that though this magistrate had no right to inflict that amount of punishment, he yet had a jurisdiction over misdemeanour. He (Lord Brougham) sincerely and heartily hoped that a very long time would not elapse before they saw a thorough reform in the police, and of all that was connected with police, in the city of London, and that it would be put on a footing with Westminster and other places. He considered that the administration of police in the city of London was exceedingly hurtful, and tended much to impede the due administration of justice.