The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-29 00:00:00

ration was whether there should be an option given to
the prisoner.
Mr. PRYME said his chief objection to the Bill
was the power of summary conviction. There might
be inconvenience from sending persons to prison be-
fore trial, but this Bill sent them there after
trial—and where was the difference?—(H'-fear, hear.)
True, the prisoner had the option of having one
whipping and being discharged, but might not that be
done as well without this summary—cot to say arbi-
' trary—conviction ? Might there not be a jury of six or
eight—(a laugh)—or a jury at Petty Sessions. It was
said that three Magistrates would be an approach to a
jury, but his objection was, the Magistrates were not at
all of the same class of society as the prisoner ; whereas
when a Magistrate presided before a jury, the case was
decided upon by two classes of persons. He had
rather have the responsibility divided among a smaller
number of Magistrates than a larger. It might be
difficult in some cases to get three Magistrates to attend.
Allusion had been made to the proposal he had made, but
what connection was there between abolishing the Grand
Jury, which did not decide upon the guilt or innocence
of the prisoner, but was a secret tribunal, and doing
away with the petty jury, which did decide upon the
fate of the prisoner.
Mr. DARUY objected to the Bill for several reasons
which be had stated on other Occasions, and with which
he would not now trouble the House. One in-
superable objection amongst the many which pre-
sented themselves against the details was that the
offences in respect to which the Magistrate was
to have summary jurisdiction, were not defined or dis-
tinguished from those cases which were to be tried
before a jury. He thought the Bill would not operate
faisly, and he would vote for the amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Committal of the Bill 7O
Against it
Majority in favour of the Committal
of the Bill
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on
the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET observed that he had not op-
posed the Bill in its former stages, because he had un-
derstood it was to be referred to a Select Committee,
where many of the objections that at present existed to
the Bill might be removed. He wished to draw the
attention of the House to one point particularly, namely,
in what way the Magistrates were to ascertain
the age of the parties brought before them. He did
not find any thing in the Bill to meet that difficulty.
Sir E. WILM o'r said the reputed age of the parties
mint be acted on, as was the case at present.
Mr. JONES would suggest that the culprit should
have the option of being tried either by a Jury or by
the Magistrates, as he might elect ; there could then
be no question raised as to the age of the party. He
moved that three Magistrates form the Petty Sessions
in place of two.
Mr. HUME had no doubt the Honourable Baro-
net's only object was to save innocent parties from a
long imprisonment, and to sere the young culprit from
being locked up and contaminated by a hardened of-
fender, but he (Mr. Hume) did not think he was
going the proper way to work—the only remedy would
be to have Courts sitting in every county in England
and Wales, so that the gaols might be delivered at least
once every month. He objected to summary punish-
ment—Magistrates had frequently oppressed the poor
and might do so again. The Courts in counties were
objected to on account of the expense they would
create. But what was all the expense compared with
the punishment of the innocent, and the delay of jus-
tice ? Besides, he did not think the expense would
be much increased, for there would be a great saving
in the keep of so many prisoners. Magistrates
had now enough of power in their hands, and he was
unwilling to increase it. The present proposition did
not go to the root of the evil, and he thought it would
be an act of clemency to the poor, and of economy
to counties to establish those permanent Courts.
He entreated the House not to lose time in such paltry
trifling, but to take the whole question of the adminis-
tration of justice into its consideration.
• Mr. FOX MAULE thought the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman would be better addressed to the House on
the second reading of the Bill than now when they were
in Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Although he agreed
with much of what had fallen from the Hon. Member,
yet he'considered the present Bill a decided step in the
amendment of their criminal jurisdiction. He did not
see any great advantage in the substitution of three for
two Magistrates ; on the contrary, he thought it would
occasion some chance of the failure of justice, and great
delay, and he should therefore decidedly oppose it.
Mr. DARBY did not think the amendment any im-
provement. With respect to the suggestion of the
Hon. Member to have the prisoners tried every month,
there were at the present moment in East Sussex eight
Quarter Sessions held in the ye .r„ The object of the
Bill was much more extensive than merely to increase
the times of trial.
sir: E. WILMOT made some observations, which
were inaudible.
LordG. SOMERSET thought the effect of the
aMendMent would be to make the Bill operative in
some places and inoperative in others, he should, there.
fore, oppose it.
Mr. J. JONES said if the Hon, Under Secretary of
State proposed to give the prisoner the option of being
tried by a Jury his objection would be done away with.
After a few observations from Mr. W. T. EGER-
TON, which did not reach us,
Mr. WAK LEY said, there was nothing like reducing
responsibility into the smallest possiole compass, in order
more speedily to discover a wrong-doer, and therefore he
considered the appointing of .Justices as proposed by the
Hon. Member ag evil. if they were appointed, and a
wtong, decision come to, the excuse would be, " Oh !
I was urged on by colleagues ;" or if I were ap-
pointed it would be, " Oh! I deferred to the.* opi-
nion of one superior in judgment and age to
myself. Therefore, if they were to have this sum-
mary power, he would rather it should be confided to
one Magistrate only. It would be a good thing for
the country, if three Justices were never to assemble to-
gether again. He bad seen a great deal of Justices
and lie would say, that a more incompetent body of
men could no where be found—(A laugh from the Op-
position—A body of men more characterized by ill
temper, faction, and the most besotted !ignorance, could
not be found than the Justices of the Peace of this
country. Within these few days al instance had come
under his notice in the metropolitan Courts, where, if
anywhere, it might be presumed, Magistrates would
be found who knew their duty. By an Act
of Parliament, every pauper sent to a County
Lunatic Asylum, must be seen by the Justices before
he was so sent, and they must have before them some
disinterested surgeon to testify to the lunacy of the said
person ; hut the Magistrates, in the instance to which
he alluded, had neither seen the person nor examined
a disinterested surgeon—the common practice was
for somebody to say to the Magistrates that somebody
%vas mad, and to ask the Magistrates to sign a certifi•
cate committing somebody to a lunatic asylum, and
if somebody was troublesome in the workhouse he was
carted off at once to the lunatic asylum. Seeing the errors
the Magistrates committed he was averse to trusting
them with any further authority. He would say that
a person under fourteen years of age was as much en-
titled to trial by Jury as a person of double that age,
and in all cases trial by Jury should be had recourse to
and not that cases should be disposed, of in a sum-
mary manner. The Government ought to take
this question up, and to obviate the evil com-
plained of by granting more frequent gaol deliveries.
.r-Ie hoped and trusted that instead of bringing in some
measure such as that before them, the Government
would propose one of a more general nature, and
which would be better adapted to meet the views
of the Hon. Baronet the, Member for Warwickshire.
Mr. liINDLEY hoped that the House would agree
to the st.ggestion which was then under their considera-
tion.

Mr. FOX MAULE could not accede to the sug-
gestion, as be thought it was contrary to the provisions
of the Bill.
Mr. EASTCOURT wished to make a few cbserva-
ti?ns on an opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. That Hon. Member had perhaps found his
opinion of the Magistrates of the country, from those
with whom he had himself come in contact.—(Hear,
hear.) And he (Mr. Eastcourt) did not know
how the ease might be in Middlesex, but he could
say that in distant parts of the country the
picture which the Hon. Gentleman had drawn of the
Magistrixy was as difftrent as light from darkness.
He believed that the case which the Honourable
Member said had occurred in Middlesex could
not have taken place in i-sriy other part of ithe
country, and he wos confident that no party with
whom he was acquainted would commit a party to a
lunatic asylum without the strongest testimony
on the
subject. The matter was so improbable that he could
not believe it unless it had been stated by a Mi.m-
ber of that House.--(Hear, hear, hear.) How-
ever,. he Mr. Estcourt) agreed with the Hon.
Member in doubting whether this Bill would have the
effect of contributing to the highly humane
object of the Honourable Baronet who brought
it forward—neinely, the prevention of that moral
contamination which resulted Gan the confine-
ment of juvenile prisoners previous to conviction. lie
looked in vain for that power of appal which
might have obviated the evils arising from too sum-
wary conviction. He believed the Bill to be an in-
friegernent on the constitutional principle of trial
by Jury, and thought that if Magistrates were to de-
cide on the cases the responsibility should be limited,
not divided among several.---(Hear, hear.)
Mr. N'W.AKLEY trusted, after the remarks that
had fallen from the Right lion.
Gentleman, he might
be permitted to mention the Lames of the parties and
of the placer.

Mr. GREENE rose to order. The parties were not
there to defend themselves ; and the Hon. Gentleman
had, therefore. better not mention names. -
Mr. WAKLEY said that was the very rovon he
had not mentioned the names before, but if it was die
desire of the House, he would name the places.,