CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS. (Hansard, 18 June 1841)

The Earl of Wilton
objected to the bill proceeding in its present state, his object being to exempt Manchester from its operation. He therefore objected to the motion that the bill go into committee. The reason why he proposed this was, that the clerk of the peace of Manchester had had no compensation given to him, and this bill would therefore inflict great injustice on him.

§ The Earl of Warwick
would consent to this exemption, as it would not endanger the bill, as it was a good bill as far as it concerned Warwickshire.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
said, when this bill had been brought forward on a former occasion a complaint,had been made, that certain officers whose offices were to be put an end to by the bill had not had compensation, and it was agreed that the bill should stand over in order that compensation might be given and a bill brought into the House of Commons for that purpose. The House of Commons had given compensation in two instances, but had refused it in the case of Manchester. Their Lordships having previously allowed the bill to stand over till compensation was granted, and that having been refused as to Manchester, it appeared to him that this bill ought not to pass as regarded Manchester. The bill applied to various boroughs, and if they left out the borough of Manchester there would be no hardship as to rates on the other boroughs, as the charges relating to Manchester would be left out.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, that if the noble Lord pressed his amendment, he would decidedly endanger the passing of the bill. He thought if they exempted Manchester from the operation of the bill, a heavier rate must fall on other places. It would in fact, transfer the payment of the rates from one party to another.

The Marquess of Salisbury
must object to the manner in which the noble Marquess was pressing on this bill.

The Marquess of Normanby
denied, that he was pressing this bill at all improperly upon the House. It had been for a considerable time under discussion in the other House, as well as in that of their Lordships, and came up now in its due course from the House of Commons.

§ Viscount Duncannon
said, he did not know how they could leave out Manchester from the operation, so as to render the measure efficient or satisfactory.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, he was certain that the noble Lord opposite could not be aware of the great inconvenience which would be produced in Manchester and elsewhere if the amendment were to be carried. It would, in fact, be impossible for him to overstate the serious consequences which would then arise, and the great confusion which it would cause in those places. He begged to inform the noble Lord that it was to the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the peace only, that compensation was to be granted. He would hope, that under all these circumstances, the noble Lord would not endanger the bill itself, by pressing his amendment to a division.

§ The Lord Chancellor
said, their Lordships were perhaps not aware of the extensive objects of this bill to facilitate the administration of the criminal law in all the new boroughs. They could not proceed to the administration of justice without the assistance of this bill. The bill had come before the House, and objections had been made that certain persons supposed to be entitled to compensation were not provided for; and to a certain extent the clerk of the peace of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared to be entitled to compensation. There were other claims also, and it was clear that their Lordships would not support the measure without such provision. But their Lordships could not introduce this provision, and they had suspended the proceedings on the bill, in order to see what the House of Commons would do as to compensation. The case of the individual that the noble Earl advocated was subjected to discussion in the House of Commons, and that House decided against the claim. Their Lordships had been in the habit of considering that compensation was not a subject for the jurisdiction of that (the Lords) House, and the question now, therefore, was whether the House of Commons were competent to decide that ques- 1572 tion; and, having decided that this individual was not entitled to any compensation, whether their Lordships would deny to all these borough towns the benefit of this act, in order to compel the House of Commons to grant this compensation. The party having failed this Session in obtaining compensation, was not at all precluded from making another attempt in the House of Commons next Session.

Lord Brougham
reminded noble Lords that this had not been treated as any party question by the other House of Parliament, as it appeared that Sir Robert Peel as well as Lord John Russell had voted against any compensation. In mentioning this fact, he only spoke in vindication of the course which the other House had thought proper to pursue upon this subject.

The Earl of Wilton
having pressed his motion, the House divided on the question that the bill be committed—Contents 32: Not Contents 32.

The Earl of Wilton
then moved a proviso to the effect, "that nothing in the act should be construed as affecting the borough of Manchester."

The Marquess of Normanby
observed, that the effect of the proviso, if carried, would be to defeat the bill.