§ Order for Committee read.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause I (Short title) agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Payment of clerks of petty sessions, &c. by salary under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, s. 9 made compulsory).
§ MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the clause provided that the Secretary of State might, with or without the consent of the local authority, order that the payment of a clerk might be by salary in lieu of fees, and might also fix the amount of the salary. That provision might operate very hardly on some of those existing officers, who, in the majority of cases, received very small payments; and, therefore, he proposed to qualify it by moving in page 2, line 22, after "business," to insert—
But such salary, in the case of a clerk appointed before the passing of this Act, shall not be less than the average amount of the fees received by such clerk during the three years preceding the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the hard-and-fast line which the Amendment would draw would be exceedingly prejudicial. In many cases the services of a perfectly efficient clerk at an adequate salary could be obtained for a less sum than an average of the fees received within the last three years. The effect of the Amendment would be to give fabulous salaries in some cases. At Liverpool he believed the average would amount to £6,000 or £7,000 a-year. Holding, as he did, the opinion that the justices ought to be allowed to 1638 make their contract with the man who was to serve them, he would ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he had an Amendment on the same clause, which he thought would obviate the difficulty.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend was so kindred to his own that he would, with the consent of the Committee, withdraw his.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GRANTHAMthen proposed the following Amendment:—
No clerk of special or petty sessions, or clerk of justices of the peace within the jurisdiction of any local authority, and holding such office at the date of the passing of this Act, shall in any case receive a less salary than the average annual amount of fees earned by him or by his predecessors in such office in respect of the services and business performed and transacted by such clerk during the three years ending the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, except in those cases in which a Secretary of State certifies to any local authority that a less salary may be given.He admitted there were a few cases in which the fees received would amount to an excessive salary, but they were very- exceptional, and the proviso he had inserted would enable the Home Secretary to deal with such cases. It was most desirable that solicitors of good local position should be obtained as clerks, and, unless they were fairly paid, a very inferior set of men would fill those posts.
§ MR. J. GOLDSMIDmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting from it the concluding words, which he thought highly objectionable. How could the Secretary of State know what should be the amount of a clerk's salary? It was carrying the principle of centralization much too far, and he thought the three years' average was a very good rule, which they might safely lay down for the regulation of these salaries.
§ MR. KNOWLESthought the Amendment should be rejected altogether, and he should certainly vote against it. The clerks' fees were very heavy, and they fell with great force on humble people. It was only poor people who were brought up before magistrates and fined small sums, such as 5s., and the fees often swelled the fine up to three or four times the amount.
§ LORD ESLINGTONsaid, it was not too much to ask that the clerks should be paid according to the average of the three years' fees. No hon. Member could have served as a magistrate without recognizing to the fullest extent the inestimable advantages of an able clerk. He supported the original Amendment.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that the Amendment should read that the Secretary of State's certificate should be given, not "to the local authority," but "on the application of the local authority," and he should move an Amendment of the Amendment for that purpose.
MR. PAGETsupported the principle of the average of the previous three years' fees, which, he said, had worked well in his own county. He repudiated the idea that the clerks had any vested rights.
§ MR. J. GOLDSMIDsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarberough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) so completely answered his intention that he was ready to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Baronet.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEmoved the substitution in the proposed Amendment, "on the application of the local authority," instead of "to the local authority."
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbelieved the three years' average system had been generally adopted as the fairest method of getting at the salaries that should be paid to clerks. He thought the most reasonable thing to do would be to allow the present provision of the law to remain in force. The clerk was at present absolutely liable to dismissal by the bench of magistrates, and he thought Parliament ought not to say that they must not fix the salary. The magistrates were forced to procure the services of a competent man for their own protection. He denied that the Bill set up a centralizing system in the Home Office.
§ MR. COURTNEYwas not disposed to uphold unduly vested interests; but at the same time would like to secure to a man that which he had been accustomed to receive. If the salary of a clerk were made dependent on the 1640 caprice of the magistrates, a most undesirable element of uncertainty would be introduced; and feeling that there would be no possibility of serious error if the matter were left to the Home Secretary and the justices, he should support the original Amendment.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that there was no real difference between the phraseology suggested by the hon. Baronet and the language adopted in his Amendment, but he would accept the alteration.
§ Motion agreed to; Amendment amended accordingly.
§ MR. W. STANHOPEthought it would be advisable to adopt the three years' system.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, this was an attempt to push the question of vested interests further than it had ever been carried by the House, and he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill.
§ MR. DODSONthought it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates to make the best bargain they could for securing efficient clerks. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. GRANTHAMrefused to withdraw his Amendment.
§
Question put,
That the words 'No clerk of special or petty sessions, or clerk of justices of the peace within the jurisdiction of any local authority, and holding such office at the date of the passing of this Act, shall in any case receive a less salary than the average annual amount of fees earned by him or his predecessors in such office in respect of the services and business performed and transacted by such clerk during the three years ending the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, except in those cases in which a Secretary of State certifies, on the application of any local authority, that a less salary may be given,' be there added.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 150: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 30.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Appointment of one salaried clerk only in a petty sessional division).
§ MR. GRANTHAMmoved, in page 3, line 10, after "and," insert as separate sub-section— 1641
Where a justices clerk or solicitor applying for the appointment of clerk carries on his business in partnership, such partners or two or more of them may be jointly appointed clerk to justices, and in such case the salary of such clerk shall be payable to such partners jointly.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved, in page 3, line 10, after "and," insert as separate sub-section—
Where a Secretary of State has fixed the amount of the salary for one salaried clerk in a division, and there are, at the passing of this Act, two clerks, each of whom perform the duties of clerk of petty sessions and clerk of special sessions in that division, the local authority may, if they think fit, continue such existing clerks in office, and apportion the salary between those clerks in such manner as they think just; and.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GRANTHAMmoved, in page 3, line 18, at end of Clause, add—
But such justices shall one month before dismissing such clerk send their reasons for such dismissal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONopposed the Amendment. It would be carrying the system of centralization too far to say that a bench of magistrates could not have the power of discharging their clerk without sending their reasons to the Home Secretary.
§ MR. WHITWELLthought that as the justices had the power of appointing the clerks they ought to have the power of dismissing them.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, that the clerk would be more valuable if he were not dependent upon the justices.
§ SIR HENRY JACKSONpointed out that there really was no appeal to the Home Secretary given by these words.
§ MR. COURTNEYthought they would do no harm and no good.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. MACDONALDmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Motion would not be pressed, but that the Committee would consent to pass the 4th clause and then resume.
§ Question put.
§ MR. BIGGARobjected to the withdrawal of the Motion.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 8; Noes 192: Majority 184.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
§ MR. GRANTHAMmoved, in page 3, line 28, at end of Clause, to add—
Every clerk of a petty sessional division and every clerk of the justices of a borough may, with the approval of justices for the petty sessional division or borough, as the case may be, in petty sessions, appoint some competent person as his deputy to act for him during illness or unavoidable absence; and any such deputy shall have all the powers and perform all the duties of such clerk during such illness or absence as aforesaid.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the House had been hardly worked all night, and he should therefore propose that the Chairman report Progress. He hoped the Government would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. — (Mr. Parnell.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. The Government did not intend to go further than the clause they were then engaged upon that night. The only Amendments proposed wore agreed to, and therefore it would take less time to finish the clause than to go through the Division lobbies.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid that on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment (Mr. Grantham) agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.