The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-20 00:00:00

be exempted from taking certain oaths, had chosen to
sneer at these men and to insinuate that they had very
elastic consciences "—( Cheers.) He regretted the
exhibition that had been made that evening, and he must
say, if ever there was ground for adhering to the princi-
ple that Judges should be excluded from taking part in
their discussions; the speech of the Hon. and Learned
Member would have afforded it.—( Cheers.) It was said
that the Bill would abolish the liberty of the subject and
trial by jury. Why, the Report of the Committee on the
subject had been agreed to unanimously. And who
were the persons who composed
,the Committee. He
found in the list the names of Sir R. Peel, Lord Hotham,
Mrr Estcourt, Mr. R. Clive, and Sir E. Wilmot. The
proceedings had occupied the attention of the Committee
for two years, and there was not a single instance in
which they had divided. Now be (Mr. Hawes) would
venture to appeal to an authority quite as high as that of
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentlema:r—it was that of

Sir Robert Peel. Did the Right Honourable Baronet,
in his Act for the Consolidation of the Criminal
Law require a Jury in petty cases ?—( Hear, hear. )
C.2rtainly not. But he would ask, was the police magis-
trate the only person who was likely to abuse his power
cf Summary conviction? Were there no records of
erronecus sentences and erroneous convictions ?—( Hear,
hear.) And it was to be regretted that there was not
some means of revising these erroneous decisions.—
(Cheers.) He must say that when the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman attempted to cast imputations upon one branch
of the Executive authority, he stepped a little out of
his way, he descended from his judicial dignity and lowered
himself in his (Mr. Hawes) estimation. He had been
abused for the I a :t he had taken as Chairman of the Com-
mittee in prometieg that Bill but he regarded such abuse
very little. He had not been proposed to the situation by
the Government or by any political friend, and he would
appeal to the Noble Lord opposite ( Hutham) in support
of the truth of that assertion. From the support of
that measure he would not recede even to avoid the
castigation of the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man. He would take the liberty of reading to
the House a very remarkable passage from the
second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire
into the Criminal law. It was the evidence of Alderman
Harmer, and referred to juvenile offenders, and the Worthy
Alderman said they had a constant source of creating of-
fenders by sending little children to trial for the
first offence, and they could never retrieve their station in
after life. That a summary slight punishment would be
much more effectual, without endangering their morals,
and he then gave a very remarkable account of the trial of
a little boy in the Central Criminal Court, all the parapher-
nalia of trial, and his being himself the hero of the scene.
being calculated, instead of awakening his fears, to flatter his
vanity; that he found himself the object of commisseration
by the auditory, while he heard some one say, " what a
pity that such a child should be brought here." He ( Mr.
Hawes) fully subscribed to all that ; such a system was cal-
culated to do much more harm than good. And if
be told the House what was the nature of these offences,
they would feel satisfied that summary jurisdiction would
much more fully answer the purposes of justice. He had
before him a tist of the persons convicted and sentenced to
periods of less than three months' confinement in the Cen-
tral Criminal Court, among which were persons for steal-
ing a handkerchief, stealing an awl, stealing a loaf of
br,:ad, and matters of that sort, and these cases occupied
the time of the Grand Jury, the Petty Jury, the Judge,
and the Magistrate who committed, when he would ven-
ture to say in ad these cases the facts were fully di:closed
in the original hearing before the Police Magistrate.—
( Hear, hear.) Were these cases proper ones to be sent
for trial to a jury ? Or if all cases should be tried by a
jury, why did not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman move
for a repeal of all the Acts, giving a summary jurisdiction
to Magistrates Hear, hear.) Sir R. Peel's Consoli-
dation Acts, the Vagrant Acts, and many others, had these
powers of summary jurisdiction, which the Hon. Gentle-
man said were unfavourable to the liberty of the subject.
It appeared from the reports of the Inspectors of Prisons
that they found in Coldhat h-fields a boy committed for steal.
ing an orange ; in Westminster a boy for stealing a few
apples, another for stealing two buns; a boy for stealing
sixpence from his master ; and trifling offences of that na-
ture. He must say that it appeared to him that Hon.
and Learned Gentlemen came down to make an ad cap-
tandem speech, while his arguments were not supported
by the slightest authority.—( Cheers.) As the law at
present stood if a man Ras suspected of felony the case
might be dealt with summarily, but if he had com-
mitted it the case vvoull be sent to trial, and
in a great many instances the parties prayed to
have the case disposed of summarily, both sides consent-
ing, rather than be subjected to the delay, the expense, and
the uncertainty of sendiog the case to trial. He held in
iiis hand the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords
unanimously recommending the same thing, namely, the
abolition of trial by Jury in certain cases. and yet that had
been denounced as a violent and unconstitutional inf. inge-
ment of the liberty of the subject. He was disposed to
think that the House would he more inclined to rely
upon these authorities, than that of the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman who had chosen to raise a debate
upon the principle of the measure at its very last stage.
Why, where was the Hon. Gentleman when it stood for
second reading 1—( Hear, hear.) That was the time to
make his objections. It was then discussed fully, and af-
terwarsis clause by clause in Committee, and he must say
that the course now pursued was most unusual and extra-
ordinary. In opposing this Bill the Hon. and Learned Gent.
was opposing a great deal of useful legislation in favour of
these classes who were excluded from the superior Courts
by reason of the great delay and expense incidental to
them. When the Hon. and Learned Gentleman talked
about the salaries of these Magistrates, he (Mr. Hawes)
begged to state that these gentlemen had to discharge impor-
tant duties, and that the duties discharged by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would bear no comparison to them. The
Judge of the Central Criminal Court had 3,0001. a-year and
the Police Magistrates by this Bill were to have only 1.200/.
a-year. although they would have double the labour the Judge
of the Central Criminal Court had, and if this rule of argu-
ment was to be raised, it would become the Corporation of
London to look after the salary of the next Judge, whom thee
might appoint. An attempt to raise a question about money,
when the interests of the people were concerned in the admi-
nistration of justice, did not come with a good grace from
a person holding the high judicial situation of the Ho-
nourable anti Learned Gentleman.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had read the report of the
Committee on which this Bill was founded, he would have
found strong and cogent reasons given for the increase of sa-
lary, and if there was a department in the administration of
justice which demanded talent, patience, and assiduity, it was
that department of police they were then considering. If there
was a department in the administration of justice, taking the
largest mass of the poi:illation in all their ordinary estates of
occupation and business, it was that branch of the police which
was underpaid, and which being underpaid had not been filled
by men of such ability as might. be found in the profession.
It was bad economy in any department of justice to raise a
money question, when the duty ought to be performed by men
of education and standing, and not by those who could not
succeed in their profession.—( Hear, hear.) Then the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had raised a question as to the patron-
age. He had not said it might be safely entrusted to the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, but he said he
would give it to the Judges. Why did he propose to take it
from the Secretary of State for the Home Department?—that
question had never been raised before.—( Hear, hear.) The
complaint made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman agreed
very much with the cry that had been raised elsewhere as to
certain appointments, because the men had been political par-
tisans at one time of their lives—he had referred to the ap-
pointments of Magistrates at Birmingham, anal said here is
another instance in which the Secretary of State has exercised
his patronage injuriously, and having done that may we not
infer he will abuse his patronage under this 48i11.—( Hear. )
In conclusion the Hon. Member trusted that the House would
go into Committee on the Bill, as he felt convinced that there
never was a Bill before the House that was calculated to do so
much to relieve the wants and necessities of the pourer popu-
lation of the country.—( Hear. )
Mr. LAW explained—He had not intended in what he said
to make any personal observations with respect to the Noble
Lord. His observations were directed to the office he filled,
and that alone.

Mr. H CLUE could nut see upon what ground the Hon. and
Learned Member objected to going into Committee on that
Bill. It was his firm belief that it was calculated to effect
great good, and therefore he should give it his most cordial
support. He thought that all the charges which had been
made by the Hon. and Learned Member had been most
triumphantly met by the Hon. Member for Lambeth.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the House was now in a condition to pro-
ceed to consider the Bill, and he trusted, therefore, that the
Hon. Member would not put them to the trouble of dividing.
Mr. GO ULBURN, thought it expedient that the Bill
should be discussed, in order that it should, if possible, be so
modified as to be made to succeed the Act that was about to
expire. In saying this he desired to be understood as pro-
mising no general support to the measure. He had the greatest
objection to some of the, clauses, those particularly which
would place such enormous patronage in the hands of the Se-
cretary of State.

Col: SIBTHORP opposed the Bill. It was a job, and ten
times worse than the former Bill. But this was what he
expected, for he really believed her Majesty's Ministers were
not capable of doing anything fairly or openly. The Ministers
came into power on promises of economy, which they had
neter practised. They were totally different in spirit and in
conduct from the independent gentleman at his side of the
Honse.—( Laughter. )
Mr. F. MA ULF. did not deem.the defence which the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had spoked last but one, had made of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's address a very effective
one.--( Hear, hear.) He had never listened to any speech
with more regret thin that of the Hon. anti Learned Gentle-
man's. He had dwelt largely upon the amount of patronage
it would confer upon the Secretary of State, but did the Hon.
Member forget that the twenty,Tven Magistrates to be ap-
pointed were already in existence under the Act.
D.d he forget the Secretary of State had at present
the appointment of police Magistrates, and the power
also of dismissing them '? In fact the only additional power
or patronage it conferred on the Secretary of State was, that
where he felt it to be his duty to remove a Magistrate, he had
the power of conferring upon him a small retiring pension.
There was also the power of increasing the salaries of those
Magistrates by 200/. a year. He regretted Very much to hear
the allusions made by the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man to the appointment of Magistrates at Birmingham. The
only aject of which could be to insinuate that the Secretary
of State had made an improper selection of Magistrates in that
case, and was likely to make it again.—( Hear, hear.) He had
never heard a noire unfair personal allusion in that House, and
it appeared to him that the objections of the Hon. Gentleman
were levelled more at the party from whom it had emanated
than at the measure itself.—( Hear. )
Mr. ESTCOCR'I' suggested to his Hon. and Learned
Friend the propriety of withdrawing his amendment, although
he contended that he had a perfect right to make his ob-
jection at the present stage of the measure. He had no hesi-
tation in bearing his testimony to the able and impartial man-
ner in which the chair of that Committee had been filled by
he Hon. Member for Lambeth.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He could not help expressing his thanks to the Hon. Member
for Lambeth for the trouble and attention he had bestowed on
this subject —( Hear. )
Mr. W. ATTWOOD said, that if an opportunity afforded
itself in Committee, he should move that the Borough he had
the honour to represent (Greenwich) be exempted from the
operation the Act.
Mr. LAW said that after the suggestions of his Hon. Friends
around him, he would not trouble the House with a division.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause lbeing put,

Mr LAW proposed to strike out the word "Court," for the
purpose of inserting the word " Office."
Mr. HAWES objected to the amendramt.
After some discussion,