The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-28 00:00:00

t. to the Motion ac it was now framed, inasmuch as it crimi.
I;aied the Magistracy.—(Hear I)—It was eliminatory on the
„Aiagistracy, but had not been supported by any fact. It was
aa,id that there were Magistrates who had such an appetite for
• come iunents that they were called the committing Magistrates.
But where was this said ; and who were the persons of whom
it was said? He (Mr. P.) had never heard of such Magis-
trates ; but if they facts were really as was alleged, that there
were Gentlemen so called, did this furnish matter of charge
against them ?—( Hear, hear I)—Were gentlemen to be branded
in this manner, because they might be more vigilant, more
.active, or more zealous than others ?—(Hear, hear, hear 1)
He
hoped not ; and therefore so far as they were concerned,
he saw no reason for acceding to the motion. Besides, if the
Motionwere granted, the Return could not show whether the
Magistrates had been right or wrong' in committing. He denied
-that the mere number of acquittals, compared with the number
of comments, offered any just ground for censure against the
Magistrates; or that a return, merely showing such numbers,
.would enable the House to judge whether the Magistrates
were right or wrong. In proof of this assertion, he would ob-
serve that on the former occasion the Hon. Member had men-
tioned-the names of three respectable Magistrates, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Swabey. He (Mr. P.) had therefore sent for
:Mr. Dyer, and that Gentleman had abundantly satisfied him
that in a great number of cases, wherein acquittals had taken
place, he (Mr. Dyer) not only was justified in committing for
• trial, but would have abandoned his duty had he not done so ;
although the subsequent acquittal might be altogether legal and
proper. In one case, which was that of an assault upon a fe-
Male, the evidence adduced before 3lr. Dyer was so clear, that
he (Mr. Peel) was convinced no Magistrate could forbear com-
mitting for trial. Yet what had happened afterwards ? The wo-
man weritbefore the Grand Jury in such a state of intoxica-
tion that not a word she said could be understood, and still less
believed,. and the Grand Jury very properly threw out the
Bill. In another case a prosecutor told a very plausible story
before the Magistrate, and on the trial he was proved (by wit.
reseesproduced by the prisoner) to be unworthy of belief. In
these and many other cases it happened ; and in similar cases
if would again and again happen that the Magistrate would do
no more than his duty in lawfully committing, though the pri-
soner might afterwards be lawfully acquitted. Sometimes a
compromise would take place between the friends of the pri-
soner and the prosecutor before the trial; and the prisoner
would improperly get his discharge, althongli the Magistrate
might have performed his duty by committing ,the prisoner for
trial, and binding the witnesses over to prosecute. Sometimes
people who were so bound over were wearied in .attending at
-the Sessions- from day to day and losing their time, and they
therefore- preferred forfeiting a recognizance Which they knew
could never be enforced against them with any effect. In a
-eery large class of cases prosecutors relented between the
commitment and the trial. Their feelings were warmed by
• anger at the time of the commitment, and became cooled
thy the time the trial was coming on ; and this occurred very
frequently in cases wherein the parties were relatives or
.friends and kind feelings or a dread of exposure induced an
ithanalc>riment. of the prosecution. In all these cases the corn-
,mitments might be very proper on the part of the Magistrates,
and yet, by the returns now called for, these, and many other
:cases, would appear simply by the commitment and the ac-
. quittal in each, and would not disclose any of the circumstances
by which the conduct of the Magistrates was probably guided,
, and by which it might he justified. For these reasons, because
the motion was uncalled for by any case of misconduct on the
part of the 3lrgistrates' and because the return which it called
• for would give no satisfactory information, he should meet it
by a decided negative.
Mr. DENMAN admitted the necessity of the distinction
- between commitments for trial and commitments in execution.
• He thought, however, that the latter called for the utmost jea.
• ' lousy of the House, in consequence of the powers which Par-
. liament was giving every day to the Magistracy. Ile could
not see any sound objection to the present Motion, as it called
for information only, and did not criminate any one. He ad-
- :flitted, however, that no argument against the Magistracy
could' e drawn rom the mere disproportion in number between
committals and convictions. Many of the committals were
pressed on account of the facility with which expences were
allowed to witnesses at the expence sf the county, a subject
which called for a very serious inquiry.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL denied that any case of misconduct
bad been proved against the Magistracy to justify the motion,
which in some degree went to criminate them.
Mr. 11. SUMNER thought, the fact that Parliament was
. annually granting increased powers to Magistrates, was a proof
that it was thought they had properly discharged their duties.
Mr. CI: RWEN opposed the motion.
Lord STANLEY also thought the motion implied a censure
..upon the Magistracy.
Mr. DENMAN explained.
Sir CHA 'ILES BURRELL opposed the motion.
Mr. DICKINSON said, it was generally the wish of the
IViagistrates to avoid commitments for trial if possible.
Mr. toe A Rl' opposed the motion; and Mr. Alderman
Woon supported it.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, if the Hon. Member would select
any one case of misconduct on the part of a stipendiary Ma-
-gistrate lie air. Peel) would give him every facility for ex-
amination.
Mr. HUME begged to decline this ; as it was not his wish
to bring forward charges against particular individuals. The
Hon. Member then shortly replied, as to the present motion,
which he said he had no objection to withdraw, upon the un-
--derstanding held out by the Right Hon. Secretary.
After a few words from Mr. Dawson, Mr. Alderman Wood,
-and Mr. Herne,
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he could not allow the motion to
be withdrawn ; as he thought it ought to be negatived.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion -
Against it
Majority -
On our re-admission we found
Mr. HUME on his legs, observing that there was something
very singular in the conduct of country Gentlemen who were
_always against any inquiry into their conduct, and were always
an in arms at the bare mention of misconduct in a Country
-Magistrate. Ile did not at all envy the Right Hon. Secretary
hi:: triumph on the last motion, if so he thought it. He (Mr. 11.)
had only, in a general way, called for information, and he now
repeated that call. The Hon. Member then n'oved for a return
similar to the last, only that it related to Ireland.
Mr. Secretary PEEI, said he had not asked the Hon. Gen-
tleman to withdraw his last motion, as it was perfectly indif-
ferent to him whether he withdrew it or not. The information
he had offered before, he (Mr. P.) now again offered, and he
• should be still happy to give it.
dr. CURWEN opposed the motion.
- Mr. F. PALMER said he hoped the Magistrates in general
had no objection to inquiry. He saw no objection to it him-
self. On the contrary, he should support the. motion.
• Mr. Secretary PEEL explained.
Mr. DENMAN observed, that his Honourable Friend had
been taken by surprise on the last motion ; and he did not
think that the triumph of the country Gentlemen on that occa-
aion did any credit to those whose conduct was likely to be
affected by it. He trusted that ultimately it would be ordered
that all commitments should annually be laid on the table of
that house.
Mr. TWIS3 and Sir W. DE CRESFIGNY opposed the
motion.
Mr. I'. WILSON thought no case whatever had been made
out to call for inquiry.
Mr. 11011110 USE supported the motion. He did not think
• so highly of the Magistrates as did the majority of the lion.
Members of that House. He would really prefer seeing a re-
sponsible stipendiary Magistracy to a Magistracy unpaid and
irresponaihle.
Mr. MONCK spoke a few words in favour of the motion.
Mr. PELII 111 opposed the motion.
Mr. II UM Ii replied, observing that all the remarks made by
• the Hon. Members against the motion had nothing to do with
iteas the present motion referred to the Irish, and not the Eng-
lish Magistrates.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the Motion - 34
AgaNst - 71
Majority -
similar
A third Division took place on a motion respecting
Scotland—The numbers were,
For the Motion -
'Against it
Majority
PRIVATE, BILLS.
On strangers being re-admitted, we found
dt9 bmit fo
Mr. HUME addressing the House. Ile ha
their consideration, a motion respecting, the practicsu
enow obr -
served with regard to Private Bills. It was most important
that the people of this country should be satisfied that measures
were net passed in that House, respecting their property,
without a due attention to justice. At present the business of
Private • Bills was generally a mere business of canvass.—
(Rear, hear!)—lt was a business carried on out of doors, by
persons who sometimes were not Members of the House; and
was as 'different in the Committees up stairs front what it 'was
iritte House as could possibly be imagined. —(Hear, hear !)
Every Hon. Member .must have been subjected to the impor-
tunities by.which he had suffered from letters written to hint
from various persona, solicitors, and others, res iectiia. his vote
in private Committees. •Noth.", could be' morei improper.—
Every' Member of piwaitm ' in
this respect ought to be a
i Age, and ready to express i • • indignation
a: at way letters .ad-
'dressed to hint with a view to bi • his conduct upon a ques-
tion pending his decision. •The request in these letters was,
not to hear the evidence, but to .be.sure to be at the Committee
at three to vote .in the division as a, personal favour. To

8
81
-73

33
75
- ---42