ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (Hansard, 9 May 1882)

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, in page 62, line 36, to leave out from "county" to the end of sub-section. The section provided that— No part of a borough, having a separate court of quarter sessions, should be within the jurisdiction, exercisable out of quarter sessions, of the justices of a county, where the borough was exempt therefrom before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835. He proposed to omit the last part of the section—the words— Where the borough was exempt therefrom before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835. The clause would then read— No part of a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions shall be within the jurisdiction, exercisable out of quarter sessions, of the justices of a county. There were a considerable number of boroughs which had separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, and many of them had been created since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. He did not see why the County Justices should exercise jurisdiction in such boroughs any more than in those which were exempt prior to 1835.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he was sorry that he was unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It would be very inconvenient to do so, as it would entirely change the course now adopted; and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

§ MR. BULWER
said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper; and as the Committee might not appreciate the meaning of it without a little explanation he proposed to give that explanation. The sub-section to which the Amendment referred was the 7th of the clause; and it provided that there should be paid to the Recorder a yearly salary not exceeding that stated in the Petition on which the grant of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions was made, as Her Majesty should direct, but that such salary might at any time be increased by a Resolution of the Council approved by the Secretary of State. He proposed to add, at the end of the sub-section, the words— And in the event of the salary of the recorder being increased as aforesaid, he shall thenceforth hold office as recorder with such increased salary without re-appointment. Under the existing law the salary of the Recorder, as originally fixed, may be increased; and he knew that in several cases an increase had been made, with the approval of the Home Office. But it was the practice, as the law now stood, for the Home Office to require that before a Recorder could obtain an increase of salary he should resign his appointment, and that a fresh appointment should be made out at the increased salary. It so happened that several Recorders of boroughs were also Members of the House of Commons; and if the Council of a borough desired to increase the salary of a Recorder, who was also a Member of Parliament, the Recorder had not only to resign his appointment and be re-appointed, but, as it was an appointment under the Crown, it was necessary, by reason of the Statute which prevented him from accepting an office of profit under the Crown, without vacating his seat, that he should put himself to the expense and inconvenience of a re-election as Member of Parliament. He had no doubt it would strike the Committee, as it did himself, that it was altogether unnecessary that such a consequence should follow, and that a 357 gentleman filling the position of Recorder of a borough, on having his salary-increased by £10 or £20 a-year, should be required not only to resign his original appointment as Recorder, but should also be compelled to vacate his seat as a Member of Parliament, and go through the turmoil, possibly, of a contested election. He therefore proposed to amend the 7th sub-section of the present clause by adding the words— And in the event of the salary of the recorder being increased as aforesaid, he shall thenceforth hold office as recorder with such increased salary without re-apppointment. He hoped, after the explanation he had given, that the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he quite agreed with the object the hon. and learned Member had in view in proposing this addition, and he had no objection to the insertion of these words; but, at the same time, if it was found, on reconsideration, that the Amendment was mere surplusage, he presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman would not object to have them struck out.

§ MR. BULWER
assented.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, in page 66, line 8, to leave out the words "and as he thinks fit or." He said the clause enabled the Recorder to hold a Court of Session once a quarter or oftener, as he might think fit, or as the Secretary of State should direct. Now, the holding of a Court of Sessions oftener than once a quarter imposed a burden upon the borough; and he thought the propriety of holding additional Sessions should not be left to the discretion of 358 the Recorder, but to that of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) had accepted a number of minor Amendments, which had very much improved the Bill; and he hoped that his hon. Friend, in a similar spirit, would accept this.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend. He did not think that it was desirable in every case that the consent of the Secretary of State should be obtained before an additional Court of Quarter Sessions could be held. He was not personally aware that the exercise of this power had been attended with inconvenience. Perhaps his hon. Friend might be acquainted with some special case in which inconvenience had resulted; but, if so, he had not mentioned it. Personally, he (Mr. Hibbert) was of opinion that no harm would result from leaving the discretion in the hands of the Recorder.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the same argument would apply to the holding of Assizes. Her Majesty's Judges were not allowed to hold Assizes at their pleasure; but they were fixed by Statute, and the additional holding of a Winter Assize was fixed specially by the Crown. He had no wish, however, to put the Committee to the trouble of a division upon a matter of this kind. At the same time, he hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board would reconsider his decision, and accept the Amendment, which merely provided that the discretionary power of holding additional Courts of Quarter Sessions in boroughs should be vested in a responsible Minister of the Crown, and not be left to the option of the Recorder.

§ MR. HIBBERT
repeated, that he was unable to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he would withdraw it, and not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, in page 67, line 18, to leave out "three," and insert "five." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide that a second Court should not be formed unless there was a probability of the Quarter Sessions lasting more than five days. He was afraid that it was a great temptation to do something in the nature of an abuse to empower the Recorder of his own will to constitute a second Court, the holding of which must necessarily put the borough to considerable expense, and also, to a certain extent, deprive the prisoners of the advantages of the tribunal provided especially for them, and which was constituted on a very different principle. He was afraid that he must press the Amendment, if his hon. Friend, acting on behalf of the Government, declined to accept it.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he had no objection to the Amendment.