Strong reasons are to be ...
The Times, 1824-07-15T00:00:00

Strong reasons are to be found in the occurrences of every day why the Legislature sbould be slow to grant even the smnallest addition of power to the county justices of England. The various misinterpretations and abuses of tbose extensive powers wbhich they already claim would form, if we had time or space to enumerate them, a suffl- ciently alarming catalogue; and, as one may well imagine, such errors are almost invariably on the stretching side. From the Lancashire,. justices, who let loose a body of dr2goons against an unarmned and unassailing popu- lace, to those of Yorkshire, who inflicted on every inmate of their gaol the punishment of the tread-mill before trial; and last, though not least striking, to Mr. HOL3iE SUM- NER and the Surrey Magistrates, who. signalized within these three days in a manner so edifying their hatred of " players," and contempt for argument;-from the first to the last of all these, we trace the predominancy of one sin- gle spirit-a tendency to excess in the exercise of power, which, it can never be too often repeated, ought to make the Legislature exceedingly reluctant to increase that power by even the most minute proportion. It is known to every body that a Mr. O'CALLAGHAN was convicted at the Surrey Sessions of having beaten a reverend person, named SAUIJlN, and recommended to mercy by the jury on account of the provocation by which, it appeared to them, that the reverend prosecutor had been instrumental in drawing upon himself the chastisement which he had suffered. The sentence of the Justices was imprisounmeit for a certain tern ; and Mr. PEE1., when the matter was debated in the House of Commons, declared that, in apportioning the punishment, regard had been had to the recoremendation of the jury-tbat is, to the ground of the recommendation-viz, that Mlr. O'CALLAGHAN had been " provoked" to commit the assault on Mr. SAUltIN. Now comes the chapter of inconsistencies: Lord EASTNOR asserts that it was the opinion "of every Magistrate who had ' sat on the Bench at the trial, that no intentional insult " had been given to the ladies who were with Mr. O'CAL- " LAGHAN." If so, we must ask what becomes of Mr. PEEL'S declaration, that the sentence had been moderated on the understanding of Mr. O'CALLAGH sN having been provoked ; for could he have been justly provoked without an intentional insult ? Next, in execution of this sentence, with regard to the grounds of whichl there is such an utter variance between the Secretary of State and the noble Lord. Mr. O'CAL- LAGHIAlf was thrown into a dungeon, eight feet by five, re- strained in his diet to bread and water, and refused all in- tercourse with his friends. On this point the incossis- tenciesbetween the worshipful Magistrates are even more remarkable thani that between t.he Minister and the Peer; and more interesting besides, from the light which they throw upon character. Lord EASTNonr deprecates these unbecoming and revolting hardships. His Lordship pro- tested that he had not been aware of the prison rules, and in passing sentence upon the prisoner, had not intended to inflict upon him the severe privations which he had endured. Mr. SutinEr,who seems the RHADAMANTHUS of the judg- ment-seat, gets up to allege that all the Magistrates, Lord EASTNOR only excepted, had understood the prison rules, and had actually meant that Mr. O'CALLAGHAN shiould be tormented to the full amount complainedl of. Now to this we can only reply by facts. If the grievous nature of the discipline was matter of notoriety, and anti- cipated by all the Justices of Surrey, how does it happen that on the first description received of them by several Magistrates, they were instantly relaxed, as each had the opportunity of knowing them ? Mr. DENISON was one of these exceptions to Mr. SU3iNER's sweeping allegation; Mr. HEDGER was another; the visiting Magistrates and the High Sheriff, by their several dispensations with the rules, gave a plump set down to Mr. SUMINER. But this gentleman figures in another form. The ques. tion was asked by Mr. HUDSON-" of vha.t professioR was "fr. O'CAI.LAGHAN ?" "' A theatrical character." Why " not say a player at once?" cries Mr. SuArNER,-the im- port of which was, " why riot degrade to the utmost the station of Mr. O'CALLAGHAN, as some sort of excuse " for the treatment wye have infl,cted on him ?" Pretty justice this ! Strange mode of answering the charge of cruelty, that the victim of it was only-as Mlr. BEN- NET well remarked-of the same calling with KEBIL.E, YouNr,, anid GARRICR ! But on this attempt to de- feat the sympathy natural to most Englishbnen witlh the object of oppression, the Honourable Member turns short round, and to those who exclaim against such hardships imposed upon a gentleman, he answers-" Ay, and when a gentleman commits an offence, he ought to be punishe(d even more severely than men of inferior station." Is this, again, the justice of a Member of Parliamenllt for Surrey? Is this equial justice ? antd is not the same treatmenlt, when offered to a genitlemani, a punislhment incalculably more difficult to bear tlhan if a man in humble life has to sustain it? The wound- cd spirit Is the true chastisement to a person of decent rank in society. Wliat a coal-porter would laikgh at, a gentleman would perish rather than cndure. But the Hon. Gentleman, with a perverseness of a stickler for authority, no matter bow conducted, first strives to pal- liate oppression, because the sufferer is efi mean estate; and, failing that purpose, he makes severity a virtue-pro- vided it be exercised in proportion to the ratik of the vic- tim ! This spirit will not do: it goes to weaken the moral influence of the laws: it is a spirit characteristic of a stern anad unbending oligarchy-of that species of Govern- ment wvhich ignorant foreigners reproach the people of England wvithl having borne for ages, disguised tinder the name of a limited monarchy and of a representative con- stitution.