PLACE OF HOLDING THE NORFOLK ASSIZES. (Hansard, 23 May 1832)

§ Mr. Robert Grant
presented a Petition from the county of Norfolk, in favour of the removal.

§ Mr. Ridley Colborne
presented a petition from the north western portions of the county, against the removal, and four from other parts of the county to the same pur- 1412 pose. He had presented, a year ago, a petition for the same purpose signed by forty-eight Magistrates.

§ Mr. Weyland
said, the general feeling of the county was in favour of the removal, and the petition just presented by the right hon. member for Norwich was signed, amongst others, by seventy or eighty Magistrates.

§ Mr. Robert Grant
moved the second reading of the Bill for removing the Assizes for the county of Norfolk from the town of Thetford to the city of Norwich. The right hon. Gentleman explained that, by the Act of 11th Richard 2nd, it was ordered that the Assizes should be held in the county town, but that this having been found in some cases, inconvenient, it had subsequently, in the same reign, been directed that the Lord Chancellor and the Judges might direct the Assizes to be held in other towns. The latter Act did hot, however, repeal the former; and subsequent statutes, particularly those for regulating the holding of Assizes in Cumberland and Cornwall, recognised its existence. In the county of Norfolk, the Assizes were held alternately at Norwich and Thetford; and the holding them at the latter place was found to be very inconvenient, because that town was situated at one extremity of the county, and the greater number of prisoners had to be brought from Norwich, which was a considerable distance from Thetford. Norwich was, in all respects, the most convenient place for holding the Assizes, and it was the wish of the great majority of the inhabitants that they should be held there. The expense of sending prisoners, attornies, and witnesses all the way to Thetford was very great. At Thetford, too, there was no accommodation for either Barristers, Judges, or prisoners, while at Norwich the accommodation was abundant. The necessity for passing the Bill arose from an application having been made to the Judges to remove the Assizes, who were unwilling to comply with the request. There was some doubts of their power, and a great dislike on their part to exercise it. The change was necessary for the due administration of justice, and a Bill was necessary to effect it, because there was no other certain means. He might be told, perhaps, to introduce a general measure, but lie could not take such a task on himself; but there was a crying grievance which it was within his power, by the assistance of the House, to remedy. He, moved that the Bill be read a second time.

Mr. Baring
opposed the Motion. Thetford was a quiet town, much better adapted for the administration of justice than such a city as Norwich. He had heard nothing of complaints made by either the Judges or Barristers that Thetford was an improper place: but a conclusive argument against such a statement was to be found in the conduct of the Judges, who, having the power to order the removal, had not done so. There were notices on the paper for bills to remove other Assize towns, and he thought it would be better to bring forward some general measure, rather than to pass bills, Session after Session, for regulating the holding of the Assizes in every county of England. He thought no case had been Made out for the interference of Parliament, and that the matter should be left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges.

Mr. Rigby Wason
supported the Motion. He did not question the motives of the Judges, but there were many causes which made those learned persons unwilling to interfere. The mere inspection of a map was sufficient to decide the question, but all doubts were removed by the fact, that in the centre of the county the population was most numerous, that Thetford was not only remote as to place, but was actually far re-Moved from the mass of the population. It was more fitting that the Assizes should be held in a town which contained 70,000 people, than in one which did not contain 5,000.

§ Mr. Ridley Colborne
opposed the Motion because it was improper to apply to Parliament. The power of remedying the inconveniences complained of was placed in the hands of the Judges, and if they had thought the removal not warranted, that House had no ground for interfering.

§ Mr. Weyland
supported the Motion. He knew that the Magistrates had petitioned for the change, and he knew, too, that the present place of holding the Assizes was productive of great inconvenience and great expense. The gentlemen of the county were the best judges of what was desirable, and they were almost to a man in favour of the change.

§ Mr. Petre
supported the Bill.

Lord James Fitzroy
opposed it. He had heard no reason to justify so important a change.

§ Mr. John Campbell
knew that the Bill Was called for by the county at large, but as the Judges had the power of regulating the matter, it ought to be left to them.

§ Sir James Scarlett
recommended the 1414 House, before proceeding, to ascertain whether the Judges had the power of removing the Assizes.

The Attorney General
thought the measure desirable, and it was not the less proper because his right hon. friend had brought it forward to please his constituents.