Star.
London, England, 1824-05-28 00:00:00

. N.,

•

\

for every vice. It was a uti
aitamly picture to hold, up
but unfortunatel wise' fthfill one. Many supposed
that crimes were derreasing in this country: he had him-
self antertained oeinloe : but having' recently ob.
taietaLa dociormiWeorn the office of the Right Honour-
able Gentleman, the Home Secretary of State, he was
convinced that opinion was erroneous. From the state-
ment in question, it appeared, on a comparison of the
two periods, each including seven years, that there was
a considerable increase in crime. In England,. from
1809 to 1816, 36,000 men and- 11,000 wohaen were
committed for trial, making in the whole 47,000 indi-
viduals. From 1816 to 1823 there were 78,000 men
and 11,000 women committed, the total being 93,000
individuals during the last seven year's. This was a
frightful number ; and would any one tell him that the
country was in a sound and healthy state?—(Hear).
When the numbers were seen of the individuals who
were acquitted, or against whom bills were not found,
be thought the subject would be found worthy inquiry,
and whether means could not be devised to prevent so
many persons being subjected to the evils of a prison..
Out of the 47,000 individuals committed during tlitti
first period of seven years (from 1809 to 1816) 29,000,
were convicted and 18,000 acquitted, or against-whom'
bells were not found, making about 38 in every hun-
dred acquitted. Within the last seven years (from 1816
to 1823) out of the 93,000 individuals who were com-
mitted for trial, 62,000 were convicted, and 31,000 ac-
gained; or against whom bills were not found, making
an average of 33 in a hundred acquitted. For London
and Middlesex, during the first period, 12,100 persons
were committed, 7,400 of whom were convicted, and
4,700 acquitted ; being about 39 to every hundred ac-
quitted. Within the last seven years 18,000 individuals
wete committed in London and Middlesex, of whom
11,000 were convicted and 7,000 acquitted, or against'
whom bills were not found. This was an average of
37 acquitted of every hundred who were committed.—
The number who- received the dreadful sentence of
death within the first seven years mentioned, amounted to
1,018, and the number within the last period was 1216.
The Honourable Member then remarked, that he was
exceedingly anxious to have the names of those Magis-
trates before the House, who could send so many of
their fellow-subjects to prison without sufficient incoiry,
for it seemed that a large number of individuals who
were committed to prison for trial were trot convicted.
He thought there was a special reason why their names
should be given, and if so, he was persuaded the re-
turns would he of great advantage. He could not see
what objection there could be to the motion. The nuin-
bers of committals were already before the House, and
he only wanted the names of the Magistrates commit-
ting. He was desirous that the motion might be ex-
tended to Scotland and Ireland. In order to prevent the
possibility of a mistake, be should propose to separate
those who were convicted on summary process from
those who were committed for trial. The Honourable
Member then moved—
" That there b. laid before the House a return of the number of
miens committed charged with criminal offences in England and
Wales for the years 79'23 and 18'23, distinguishing those convicted
under summary processes from those committed to the Assizes or
Sessions; sbewing the name or names of the Magistrate or Magts
traces committing, and distinguishing the number of those summa-
rily convicted, and the number of those convicted on trial; b hcw-
ing also the number of those acquitted, or against whom bills were
not found."
On the motion being put by the SPEAKraI,
Mr. Secretary PEEL, rose and said, that when he
came down to the blouse, be was not prepared to ex-
pect the motion of the Hohourahle Member for Aber-
deen in its present shape. The Honourable Gentleman
had gri unded his motion on fallacious returns. The
Honourable Member did not ask for a distinction in the
returns which were before the House, between those in-
dividuals convicted on summary process and those
committed for trial. It would be found, perhaps, that
one Magistrate had committed 100, fifty of whom were
convicted on summary process, and the remainder com-
mitted for trial. If the Hon. Member had called for an
amended return, there would have been no objection.
When he had stated, on a former occasion, that there
was a great disproportion between the committals and
convictions before the Magistrates of London and the
Magistrates of Middlesex, he (Mr. Secretary Peel)
thought that a prima facie case had been made out,
and the subject was ss orthy investigation. He at that time
stated what he would again repeat, that a distinction
ought to be drawn between the public officers who dis-
charged their duty without being paid, and those who
were paid for it. He alluded to the Stipendiary Ma-
gistrates and those who acted without a salary—(Hear)
—both of whom were highly serviceable to the country.
However, he should always draw a distinction between
the two—t Hear). He (Mr. Secretary Peel) would give
any information to the Honourable Member that lay in
his power; and as a proof of his intention, he had fur-
nished him with a document from the office which
he had the honour of superintending ; but he could
never accede to give up the names of the Magistrates
who committed individuals for trial, inasmuch as no
good could arise from it. It would be establishing a
criminatory inference against the Magistrates of this
country. The Honourable Member had said, that some
Magistrates were well known in the country as com-
mitting Magistrates. Who knew that fact? lie (Mr.
Secretary Peel) had never heard such a thing insinuated
before—(Cheers). Was a Gentleman to be branded as
a committing Magistrate, because the duties of a Ma-
gistrate devolved upon him, whilst other Gentlemen
were attending their duties in that or the other House
of Parliament? Was it to be made a matter of charge
against a Magistrate, that he committed individuals who
were brought before him ?—(Hear, hear)—He for one
would never consent to the names of Magistrates being
thus brought forward. The names of some Police Ma-
gistrates had been mentioned in a former debate, of
whom he had the highest opinion for their probity of
conduct as Magistrates, and respectability as men ; he
alluded to Messrs. Allen, Dyer, and Swabey. After the
debate, be sent for Mr. Dyer, and asked him for some
cases in which he had committed individuals against
whom the Grand Jury refused to find bills ; and that
Gentleman proved, most satisfactorily, there was not a
single case In which it was not his duty to commit...—
There were fourteen or sixteen cases in which the
Grand Jury ignored the bills, but in all of them it was
highly necessary for the Magistrate to commit. Every
inquiry had been instituted, and cases were made out,
and if he had not committed the individuals for trial, he
would have been liable to have his conduct noticed in the
Court of King's Bench. It was not uncommon for parties
who appeased before the committing Magistrate to de-
cline appearing before the Grand Jury. Perhaps a near
relation comes before the Magistrate, and swears to a
fact upon the impulse of the moment, when the pa ns
are warm, and the Magistrate commits. In the