HC Deb 08 July 1879 vol 247 cc1915-9

Clause 158 (Prosecution of offences, and recovery and application of fines).

MR. PARNELL

moved to leave out the word "may," in page 88, line 2, in order to insert the word "shall." The clause would then run— Any proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction in pursuance of this Act shall be taken in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, so far as applicable.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

objected to the payment to informers of any portion of the fines incurred by persons against whom they informed; and, therefore, begged to move the omission of all the words from the word " applicable," in page 88, line 6, down to the end of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 88, line 3, to leave out from the word " applicable," to the word " informer," in line 6, inclusive.— (Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR HENRY JAMES

supported the Amendment, and said the informer was hardly ever a deserving person, and he had never known any good come from the practice of allowing him to receive part of the fine.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

entirely agreed that the informer was not always a worthy person; but it was part of our policy to make use of the information derived from such persons for the purpose of enforcing the law. It was not desirable, but necessary to do so.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the Committee were asked to give a reward for evidence which every Judge would describe to the jury as tainted.

MR. E. JENKINS

pointed out that Members of Parliament and publishers of pirated works of authors were liable to be informed against; it would, therefore, be going a long way to relieve soldiers from a liability to which all other classes were exposed.

MR. HOPWOOD

supported the Amendment. The clause dealt with soldiers, and with a class of men who might by the promptings of an informer be led to commit an offence. It encouraged a class of men whose business it was to bring about the commission of offences against the law, in order that they might derive some benefit there-from.

MR. BIGGAR,

thought that he remembered some hon. and gallant Gentlemen to have argued on former occasions that a system of giving a share of the fines to soldiers was very objectionable, on the ground that it led to cases of collusion. He might remind the Secretary of State for War of this circumstance, as an additional reason for his accepting the proposed Amendment.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the reply of the Solicitor General was irrelevant. It was no argument to say that the use of the informer was part of our system, if it could not be shown that the informer had done any good.

THE SOLICITOR, GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, he had known the law to be enforced by this means in a great many cases where otherwise it would not have been enforced.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 184 Noes 97: Majority 87. — (Div. List, No. 153.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 159 (Summary proceedings in Scotland) agreed to.

Clause 160 (Summary proceedings in Isle of Man, Channel Islands, India, and the Colonies) agreed to.

Clause 161 (Protection of persons acting under Act).

MR. E. JENKINS

said, that if the nature of the acts likely to be charged against persons under the Act were considered, it would hardly be thought unreasonable that the time mentioned in the clause within which redress might be sought should be extended to 12 months. He, therefore, moved, in page 89, line 27, to leave out the word " six, ' in order to insert the word " twelve."

MR. PARNELL

supported the Amendment. De did not see how the six months mentioned in the clause would render its working more simple, or involve any advantage to the Public Service.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, he could not advise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to agree to the proposed alteration. The period of six months was one which ran through our criminal jurisprudence.

SIR HENRY JAMES

pointed out that the offence might be committed in India, and that the necessary communications with legal advisers in England would occupy much time. There was a marked difference between the time necessary to get evidence in England and that required for the same purpose in India. He thought the Amendment should be agreed to.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

hoped the Secretary of State for War would see no objection to extending the time to 12 months. From his personal acquaintance with cases which had occurred, he was sure that six months was not a sufficiently long period to allow to persons in India and China for bringing their action. More than six months might elapse before persons so situated could come home and take action.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, it had been stated by an hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench that this Act empowered officials to do exceptional things; and he, therefore, thought, in view of that fact, an exception might be made from the general rule of our jurisprudence, and longer time given for obtaining redress. They were placing tremendous powers in the hands of officers, and if a wrong should be done by them, that wrong would be intensi- fied by unduly restricting the time for obtaining redress.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought the policy of the clause was very doubtful. There was every reason why disabling clauses of this kind should be watched very narrowly, and that care should be taken that they were not made to affect the right of a person to come to a court to demand justice. There were many impediments to a man's ascertaining his right to justice, and everyone could understand how persons distributed upon the face of the globe should not be able to get justice on the spot. It might be an exceeding important thing for a person to have a longer time than six months within which to bring his action. The period of 12 months appeared to him a reasonable one; and he trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would see his way to accepting the proposed Amendment.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

considered that it would be much better to extend the period named in the clause to 12 months, and hoped the Secretary of State for War would give way upon this point.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. E. JENKINS

moved, in page 89, line 29, to leave out the word "six," and insert " twelve."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

pointed out that the provisions of the second paragraph of the clause with regard to the tender of amends and the recovery of costs were already the law of the land. Their introduction into the clause was, in his opinion, a doubtful policy; and he, therefore, moved to omit the whole paragraph from line 30 to line 39, inclusive.

MR. HERSCHELL

was quite of opinion that the portion of the clause referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was unnecessary, so far as it applied to the United Kingdom. He was not aware, however, whether it was equally unnecessary as applied to India.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

thought that the clause should remain without alteration.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PARNELL

moved the insertion after the word "India," in page 90, line 5, of the words— Or in any colonial court of superior jurisdiction provided that the matter complained of occurred within the jurisdiction of such court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.