The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-11 00:00:00

Is --
agreed to employ a solicitor at the expense of fifteen pounds
to lodge an appeal against the Magistrate's conviction at
the Sessions. In order to pay off this fifteen ponnds, the
petitioner stated that be had mortgaged his labour for
twelve moutits.—(Hear, bear.) The appeal to the Ses-
sions was successful, and the conviction by Sir Daniel Wil-
liams quashed.—(Hears hear.) But the woman remained
bier full time in prison, for she had neither friends nor fif-
teen pounds to defray the expense of an appeal to the Ses-
sions. She was not competent to purchase law—for
law we bad in abundance. but who was able to purchase
it? He was not aware that the petitioner did apply to
petitionrnment bad,
been sent nor was
to he prthepared to say, that if the present
em they would not grant re-
dress ; but this house had still a right to interfere for the
correction of such an abuse of power as was here com-
plained of. The object of the petition was to lessen the
aggregate of the injuries inflicted on this individual; but
several circumstances arose out of the case in respect to
those Justices, to show how they exercised their authority.
He had been furnished with a comparative statement of
the commitments by the city of London Magistrates and
by those hired Police Magistrates; and it appeared that
the City Magistrates committed none that were not after-
wards convicted of the offences charged to them; so
"careful were those Magistrates not to bring to the conta-
minating society of a prison any persons that were not
very likely to be guilty. The number of persona com-
mitted to Middlesex during the last year was 1.652 ; of
which number, when brought to triat, after suffering the
contagion of bad example, and of all the • other evils of a
prison, there were—
Acquitted no less than - -
Bills were " not fisund" against
Not prosecuted

478
125
26

Thus there were in one year - - 699
innocent persons committed by those Magistrates for
dlesex to that sink of iniquity, the Old Bailey.—(Hear,
Lear.) Was not this a subject worth the attention of the
Secretary of State, more particularly while we were spend-
ing so much money privately and publicly in order to
improve the morals of the people? He bad made that
statement to the house as an example of the dire situation
we were in by want of proper attention in our Police Ma-
gistrates. The very reverse of that statement was pre-
sented in the conduct of the city of London Magistrates.
There, out of the number committed fur the last year,

there were—
Convicted on trial
Acquitted - - -
Bills "not found" against

420
79
39

So that ont of - - - 538
prisoners, I IS, or about one-fifth, were disaarged, while
nearly one-half of the Middlesex prisoners were acquitted.
This statement would bring before the house the ques-
tion how far hired Justices were performing the business
of Magistrates. With that view, it was his intention, in
a very few days, to move for official Returns of the number
of persons committed by the Police Magistrates. The house
should have before them the acts of Mr. Over, of Mr. Swa-
bey, Sir Daniel Williams, and every one cf them. He pro-
fessed not to know what wagon.' were taken by the Se-
cretary of State, in cases similar to the present—whether
they were called: on to account or explain these acts. The
object of the petition was compensation, and the house
was to see first, what recompense was to be made to this
man for the injury done him, by the conduct of Sir Daniel
Williams, an lin the second place what recompense ought
to be male for the stain thus unjustly thrown on his cha-
racter. His labour for the year was stated in the petition
to have been mortgaged to repay those friends by whose
aid he was saved from the tread-mill. He did not know
any thing of the petitioner : but lie was informed that the
circumstances stated in the petition were correct, and that
tie petition was drawn ep by a person accustomed to such
things. The woman who was committed and sentenced at
the same time, and to the swam punishment, worked, he
was informed, her way out of prison by labouring at the
tread4uill. The Act itself gave to Magistrates a discre•
lion which ought not to be continued to them. It would
expire In September nest ; and if it was to be renewed, be
would oppose some pans of it, particularly that clause
which entitled the police to five shillings per head, of
those that were brought np by them and afterwards sen-
tenced.
The petition was brought up.
Mr. DAWSON said that with respect to the Vagrant
Act itself, the house would have another opportunity of
considering that, and he would not connect it with -this pe-
tition. The case before the house was far from having
any hardship in it. The petitioner was in the street—per-
haps going home late at night, he fell in with a woman of
the town—the watchman of the station came up, and
finding them acting indecently, took them to the watch-
house. where they remained for the night. The next day
they were brought before the Magistrate, and the watch-
man deposed positively and unequivocally to the acts in
the street. 111 e allegation of money being the tempta-
tion to the watchman's charge was qnfounded, as no re.
ward was given, and it was therefore to be hoped that the
imputation of being actuated by the reward was fully con-
tradicted. The appeal was certainly sent to the Sessions
afterwards, and the conviction by the Magistrate quashed,
not on account of any error of the Magistrate, but from an
informality in the proceedings. There was, therefore, no
ground for contendiag that the petitioner was innocent.
The woman wes found to be a common woman of the
town, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment.
There was nothing wrong or exceptionable in the ease; the
man was found making an indecent exposure of his per-
son; there Was nothing extraordinary in the punishment to
which be was sentenced.

Mr. LITTLETON said be rose to defend his Honour-
able Friend, the Member for Stafford (Mr. Chetwynde),
for the share be had in the law which was the subject of
the Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hume's) attack. He would
challenge any Hon. Member, who knew any thing of the
last and present law, to say if the punishment was net
greatly mitigated by his Hon. Friend's exertions, from his
apprehension of too much severity being used in cases of

vagrancy.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that tike Hon. Gentleman, in
presenting the petition, did not confine himself to the case
of the petitioner. He was surprised that the Hon. Mem-
ber would, without having given notice, advert to those
extraneous circumstances. The Hon. Member bad certain.
ly given him (Mr. Peel) notice, but such notice as tended
rather to mislead than prepare him--.lte bad, indeed, put
the petition into his hand, but be did not give him to un-
derstand that be was going to comment on other Magis-
trates besides the individdal named in the petition. Nei-
ther this petitioner, nor the woman confined on the ante
charge had sent any petitiotis to his (Mr. Peel's) office, as
many other persons did, for whom be consequently inter-
fered, whose cases he investigated, and whose sentences he
got mitigated. Of the tiefttioner's case, therefore, be bad
no previous knowledge. -The charge against the petitioner
rested upon the evidence or a watchman, but was not the
Magistrate therefore to proceed upon it ? Was it to be
assumed that watchmen mast necessarily speak ttetroth, or
that the petitioner was correct in charging them with po-
verty, cupidity and ignorance ? It was a charge made upon
oath, and be (Mr. P.) could not see how the Magistrate
could do otherwise than award the sum of money to the
informer to which be was by law entitled, though it was
another question whether the Magistrate ought not to have
exercised a discrotioa as to giving. the reward. The Hon.
Member bad made frequent allusion to the Home Depart-
ment. He could assure him that this subject had received
&due share of attention from that quarter. And here it
might not be amiss to say, that the present Vagrant Act
gale a reward of be. to the persons apprebendiagoffenders,