18-26.] Publication of Police Reports. 467 



gcrous pi-inciplc, or undue limitation of the subject's liberty which 

 Englishmen find so detestable. Mere is the strongest of all possible 

 protections against the extension (and for the detection) of offence — an 

 advertisement in the most certain and ])opuIar shape, of every offence as 

 soon as it is committed. This is an extent of advertisement, to furnish 

 which in the most ordinary way, if it had to be purchased, must cost 

 the public aimually an enormous sum of money. Fifty thousand pounds 

 a year would not pay for doing the thing in a manner comparatively very 

 limited and inefficient, and twice that sum would not pay for doing it in 

 the way in which it is done at present : we have it done in the best way 

 — and done at no cost at all to the country — and yet it is objected to. 



Now, the main objection (as we understand the dicta of the Judges) 

 taken to the publication of police reports, is that these reports convey 

 unfair impressions into the public mind, by describing proceedings which 

 take place ex parte. The futility and short-sightedness of this allega- 

 tion, are such as deserve very particular notice and exposure. Of all 

 the tribunals in the kingdom, the proceedings of which are capable of 

 being reported, a police office — to say nothing at all of what claims to 

 particular forbearance the people may have whose affairs are taken into 

 consideration there — is just that in which, from the nature of its consti- 

 tution, ex parte proceedings can the least frequently occur. Four-fifths 

 of the cases that come there are discussed in one hearing ; and the 

 judgments are summary. In nine-tenths of the cases, it rests within 

 the choice of the accused party that the disclosure should be complete. 

 At a given hour an offender, or supposed offender, is placed at the bar ; 

 the complaint against him is stated in his presence, and — there are no 

 nice points to attend to of form or restriction — there is not one word 

 uttered to his prejudice, which he may not fully and instantly reply to. 

 Of late, indeed, since the fashion has crept in for attornies to appear 

 more frequently at police offices, we find cases now and then reported 

 ex parte, where gentlemen who are charged with felonies, take tlic 

 " advice of their solicitors " (and the chance of an insufficient case 

 against them), and say nothing. But surely it would be too much to 

 contend that the silence (on deliberation) of an individual, under such 

 circumstances, should, or could, prevent the free discussion of his caoe by 

 the public at large, to whom it is entitled to be known ? The charge is 

 clear, definite, and public ; the accused ma)^ answer if he will, and he 

 refuses to do so. He elects to go to trial upon his defence at law ; to see 

 the case (as he is entitled to do) made out against him ; and to take the 

 chance, which in the clearest cases constantly occurs, of insufficient 

 proof or formal error. But surelj^, because the humanity of the law 

 is most cautious, and wisely so, in all that concerns the interests of a 

 prisoner, still we should not make a business of affectation, a mere toy, 

 a plaything, of our delicacy. The object is to do justice; neither to 

 expose the accused to the slightest undue danger, nor yet to go out o. 

 our way to find some flaw or quirk on which we may acquit him. If the 

 man is properly brought to trial, we ought to convict him if we can. The 

 true anxiety should be to let in all safe light upon the case in its progress, 

 not to hush it up in darkness and mystery until after it is concluded. 

 Publicity can, by no moral possibility, produce injustice. It may hang 

 a man who without it would have escaped ; but if he would only have 

 escaped for want of that testimony which a knowledge of his case brings 

 forward, it is due to the country that he should be convicted. Besides 



3 2 



