QUESTION. (Hansard, 1 June 1858)

§ MR. WALPOLE

said, the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman was one of no inconsiderable importance. His answer to the first question, however, was that there were only two ways in which the recommendation alluded to by the hon. Member could be done, either by an Order in Council, emanating from the Crown, or by proceedings to be taken in that House. The recommendations of the Commissioners which they made in their Report were in three respects sought to be carried into execution by Order in Council upon the suggestion of the Governor and the law officers of the Crown in Jersey. On the 11th February, 1852, they proposed three Orders in Council in pursuance of recommendations contained in the Commissioners' Re- 1309 port. The first was to establish a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for Criminal Procedure in small cases. The second was for the establishment of a Small Debts Court; and the third was for the establishment of a better system of Police. The States in Jersey resisted these Orders in Council, appealed to the Crown, and the matter was heard before the Privy Council, which came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether the prerogative of the Crown exercised in that manner was consistent with the rights of the States and the people of Jersey, and accordingly they recommended that those Orders in Council should be revoked. At the same time, the States in Jersey proposed of their own accord six Acts, which embraced some of the points contained in the three Orders of Council, and those six Acts had become now the law in Jersey, and had been put into operation. More than that unquestionably, for the sake of the administration of justice in Jersey, both criminal and civil, required to be done; but it was clear from the statement he had made that no amendment in that respect could be made by Orders in Council emanating from the Crown, but the matter must be left more or less to the States and people of the island. The other mode by which it could be done was by legislation. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was aware, but he ought to be aware if he was not, that no Act of Parliament could have any operation in the Island of Jersey until it was duly registered by the States. Consequently, if the Legislature were to attempt to pass an Act of Parliament to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners, they might bring themselves into collision with the authorities of Jersey; jealousy would arise between the two countries, and he was pursuaded that less would be done by means of attempted coercion than by leaving it to the legislature of the island. The second question of the hon. Member was, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue a Commission of Inquiry into the Civil Laws of Jersey and the mode of administering them. He (Mr. Walpole) had great doubts whether the issuing of such a Commission would not, by provoking the jealousy of the island, do more harm than good. The answer to the third question, whether it was their intention to take any measures for assimilating the Laws of Jersey to the Laws of England, was in fact involved in his answer to the first. He 1310 would say in conclusion, that having taken the liberty of answering the questions with more detail than usual, because it was a matter of great importance with which the House was perhaps not familiar, he could only add that the attention of Government had been for some time called to many grievous defects in the administration of justice in Jersey, and he had himself since he had been in office taken some means to remedy those defects, but he believed that more would be done by suggestion than by any attempted force on the part of the Crown or of Parliament.