HL Deb 23 July 1839 vol 49 cc686-7
The Duke of Richmond

wished to put the question to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, he wished to know whether magistrates of counties, in which the new boroughs were situtated, had authority to act as magistrates in those towns. In the course of a discussion which took place in that House a few evenings back, it was stated by a noble and learned lord (Denman) that magistrates of counties had not any authority to act as magistrates in new boroughs. Since then a question had been put on the subject, in another place, to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who stated that, in his opinion, county magistrates had the power to act in those new boroughs. He certainly concurred in the answer given by the noble Lord the Home Secretary, but as a difference of opinion existed on the subject, he thought it was of importance that the question should be set at rest. It was of importance to Lords-lieutentant of counties to know with certainty what the law was on the matter. For instance, if a county magistrate had been present at the late riots at Birmigham, and if he refused to act in suppressing the riot or committing prisoners, he would (if he had authority to act) be liable to prosecution for refusing; but, on the other hand, he would be liable to prosecution if he acted without authority. He would therefore, beg to ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack whether he was prepared to answer the question now, or if not, if he would read the act and give his opinion on a future evening?

The Lord Chancellor

said, he should feel no hesitation in answering the question put by hit noble Friend; but, as a difference of opinion existed on the point, he would look over the Act, and would endeavour to obtain the grounds of the opinions held on it.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that magistrates should not pay attention to opinions on points of law pronounced in the course of debate in that House.

Lord Ellenborough

said, that the opinion to which his noble Friend the noble Duke referred was not given hastily in the course of debate. In was the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and was supported by that of a noble and learned Lord who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor. The opinion was given at the close of the debate for the information of their Lordships as to the law on the point.

The Duke of Richmond

agreed in the old remark, that an opinion without a fee was not worth much, but he did hope that this important question would be set at rest without delay.

Subject dropped.

Back to