The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-27 00:00:00

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in rising to move the
second reading of the above bill, said it was well known
to their lordships that, during the last two or three years,
the subject of the trial of offenders for petty offences had
very much attracted public attention. It was felt that,
during assizes and sessions, cases of persons charged with
petty larcenies had much increased, and caused very
unnecessary expense. He should put that part of the
question aside ; but he thought persons brought to as-
sizes or sessions for petty larcenies of articles worth one
shilling or two shillings created an effect on the public
mind which was very injurious. Such cases excited a
feeling that they ought not to be brought before such
tribunals, ancl that it was infinitely better if they had
been disposed of a summary way. How to meet that
objection there seemed but one obvious way—that such
cases should be tried before the justices of the peace sit-
ting in petty-sessions. The only question, then, would
be as to the nature of the offences. What he proposed
in this bill was, that magistrates in petty sessions should
take cognisance of all simple larcenies, for it was absurd
to say that those justices who could take cognisance of
a case of deg stealing could not take cognisance of a case
of stealing a duck. Then, with regard to the power of
punishment, he did not think it a very expedient matter
to limit the power of justices. He did not think that
very slight punishments tended either to reform crimi-
nals or to lessen crime. (Hear, hear.) He thought,
therefore, magistrates should have the power of award-
ing one year's imprisonment. There was another provi-
sion of a different character. It was proposed last ses-
sion by a learned friend of his now no more—Mr. Ag-
lionby—that where persons were charged with offences
before magistrates, they might plead guilty, and the jus-
tices in that case might sentence them or transmit the
record of the plea to the assizes. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) had originally prepared the bill in that sense, but
oo
fn
ocvoi si d
He r
ea t
di ei
dn
no 1 i et ,
tthought
,t
meana t m
tgoh tbe productive
adopt
that
p ro.
vision further than that, when a party shall be brought
before a justice, and shall plead guilty, the justice may
dispose of the case if the larceny be not above the value
of 20s. The noble lord then moved the second reading
of the bill.

Lord BROUGHAM would not apohigise for making
a few observations which he wished to state to the house
on a subject of so great importance. He would impress
upon their lordships' minds the great necessity for
passing some such measure as that now before the house
grounded upon the same principle as that in this bill.
The state of the administration of the criminal law of this
country was most deplorable. It had been described by
many, but by none better than by his noble and learned
friend the Chief Justice (Lord Campbell), who had added
to it by the weight of his great authority. From the
returns laid before Parliament—which plainly show the
absolute necessity of the Legislature providing a more
summary system of punishment in cases of criminal
justice—he would merely refer to those for six counties,
viz. Somerset, Sussex, Berks, Hants, Wilts, and Dor-
set, which comprised a population of 1,800,000, or
1-10th of the people of England and Wales. From those
counties, the returns of the details of the trials and
punishments, and the number of persons tried at. the
quarter sessions, showed that, out of 1,500 prisoners
tried, 895, or nearly three-fifths of the whole number,
were for larceny under the amount of ss. For larceny
under the amount of Is. 400 were tried, or nearly one
Quarter of the whole ; and 243 prilkoperg were triers
for stealing property under the value of sixpence.
Upon this calculation, taking the whole population
of this country, he found that 12,000 cases were tried
yearly in England and Wales, where the value of the
property did not amount to ss. These-were cases of mere
simple larceny. The consequence of the present system
was, as his noble and learned friend, the Chief Justice,
had described, injurious to the due administration of
justice, and to all those who had to assist in adjudicating
upon such cases, to grand and petty jurors. The prac-
tical grievance was very great—the expenses of all
parties concerned—the expenses to the counties—the
expenses of the witnesses—and the expenses of the
jurors, both grand and petty, were enormous. But all
these evils he considered, although of great importance,
were not so great as those inflicted upon the prisoners
themselves. The prisoners in many cases were detained
days and weeks in prison, and when they came to be
tried were probably acquitted ; but, if convicted, it be-
came almost impossible to award a proper amount of
punishment, because all of them had undergone—though
secretly and unknown—a certain amount of punish.
ment, and which in many cases was greater than was
due to them in proportion to the crime committed. The
public noticed that for a certain offence the prisoner had
been dismissed with one day'aitnprisonment, because,
perhaps, the presiding judge found he had previously
undergone 30 or 40 days, but that the public did not
know. It happened to his noble and learrsed friend the
Chief Justice, at the Lent assizes last year for Bucking-
hamshire, to have to try 15 prisoners, all of whom had
been committed to prison fortwo months, and the average
value of the property stolen was only 10d. or 12s. 6d. in
the whole. The course which his noble andlearned friend
pursued was, and it was the only one open to him, that he
awarded each prisoner one day's imprisonment. He
(Lord Brougham) could not help feeling, with his nobleand
learned friend, that the magistrates of that county were
to blame for not having an adjourned sessions sometime
during those two months. Each prisoner had been, in con-
sequence of that omission, in prison nearly 60 days—in
some cases a great deal too long for the crime which he
had committed. It was now perfectly evident that some
course must be taken for giving a speedy and summary
trial in these cases. He thought it would be an ines-
timable benefit to the magistrates if they were allowed
the power—he would not force it upon them—in case
they desired to have it, of obtaining professional aid, in
the same way as in Ireland, where assistant barristers
were chosen by the magistracy as chairmen of quarter
sessions. But if all chairmen of quarter sessions were
like his noble friend near him (the Marquis of Salisbury)
such a proposal would be superfluous. He regretted
that the bill introduced into the other house by Sir J.
Pakington in the year 1850 was lost. Had it passed a
great improvement would have taken place in the admi-
nistration of the criminal law of the country. He (Lord
Brougham) knew of instances of sentences at sessions
which had surprised him. In the year 1849, in a county
he would not mention, three men were tried, their ages
bordering on 70. One was sentenced to six weeks' im-
prisonment with hard labour for stealing to the amount
of one penny ; another was awarded four weeks and hard
labour for stealing to the value of one halfpenny ; and
the third had four weeks with hard labour for stealing
to the amount of one farthing, In these cases he had
no reason to believe that there were any aggravating cir-
cumstances. In another county a man was sentenced,
at 70 years of age, for stealing to the amount of 3d., 12
months' imprisonment with hard labour ; but he took it
for granted that there must have been some aggravating
facts. Ho would give these particulars to his noble and
learned friend upon the woolsack, in order that he
might inquire into the facts, and no doubt a satisfactory
inquiry and result would be obtained. All these cases
greatly encouraged the hope that, if they wished it,
an option would be given to magistrates to call in the
aid of professional assistance to preside at quarter ses-
sions. He did not believe that any man tried in a court
presided over by an experienced lawyer, in criminal
jurisprudence, would be sentenced to four weeks' im-
prisonment and hard labour for stealing to the extent of
one farthing. He (Lord Brougham) said that by his
bill the jurisdiction was only given to magistrates in
petty session, and to stipendiary and police magistrates;
but his noble and learned friend's bill included those
who, though sitting alone, should be professional men.
With all possible respect to the magistrates of the City,
he should objeCt to extend the jurisdiction to them.
Another case was that of a poor woman in receipt of
355. a-week from an annuity, which was to be stopped
in case she anticipated it. The noble lords who were
the trustees were obliged to stop it ; and the story was
told before those magistrates as though the two noble-
men had, of their own caprice, or worse feeling, kept it
back ; and thus two of the most honourable names that
adorn the peerage or society were: slandered. If that
had happened in any case where the. magitrata was re-
movable he would not have had a second. opportunity of
doing the same injury ; he would have been removed
immediately. The Government of which he was a mem-
ber took that into their consideration. The removable
magistrates were to take the same course—they heard
the story, and then informed the parties that they had
no jurisdiction. But hearing it and having it re-
!port-4 was the great grievance that rcqu; red to be
remedied. Lord Melbourne, then at the head of the
Home-dace, Summoned them before him, and in.