SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 July 1861)

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
moved the second reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that was a worse Bill than the last they had discussed. Up to the year 1846 the expenses of prosecutions were borne one-half by the Government, and the other half by counties or towns. After 1846 the Government took the whole payment into their own hands, and set to work to cut down the allowances, which he did not believe were too extensive before. By the Bill it was proposed to give to the magistrates the power of making a scale of payments in each county and town, which was 1451 to be sanctioned by the Secretary for the Home Department. Now, if the Home Secretary was to sanction such a scale, he should like to know why the Treasury should not make the payment? It was unjust not to do so. The Bill might he made a means of getting rid of the obligation altogether. The Treasury had nothing to do but diminish their own scale—and there was nothing to prevent them doing so—and the expense would, by degrees, be thrown upon the rateable property of the country, which would be most unjust. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he should be glad to withdraw the Bill if such a course would not be inconsistent with the engagements into which he had entered. There was a scale of allowances to witnesses, and the payments out of the Consolidated Fund were regulated according to that scale; but complaints were made in some counties that that scale was insufficient, and many representations of that nature had been made to him, especially from Yorkshire and Lancashire. The question he had to consider was whether he should be justified in recommending a general increase. But in many counties there was no complaint as to its sufficiency, and it would be a throwing away of the public money to make a general increase. Another plan was to alter the allowance in some counties, but he found it was not desirable to adopt that course. He had, therefore, suggested that a permissive power should be given to the magistrates to increase the allowances out of the county rate, and though they thought the whole amount should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund they reluctantly agreed to the proposal. It was in accordance with that engagement that he brought in the Bill. It must be remembered that the Bill was entirely permissive, and he thought the magistrates might very well be trusted with the power proposed. He, therefore, hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the measure.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
observed that the question to be dealt with was very embarrassing, for it was alleged that there Was a failure of justice in consequence of the present low scale of allowances. He would suggest that as the insufficiency Of the present scale of allowances was mostly felt in Lancashire and Yorkshire it would be better to limit the operation of the Bill to those counties, and 1452 if it worked well there it could be extended afterwards.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, the dissatisfaction at the existing scale of allowances was more widely extended than his right hon. Friend seemed to think. The Commission which inquired into the subject two years ago, and of which he was a member, suggested some alterations, but certainly nothing like the provisions of the Bill, to give the Treasury power still further to reduce the scale of allowances. In one respect, at least, he hoped the Bill would be altered. If the justices sent in a new scale, and that scale was sanctioned by the Home Secretary it would become a permanent scale, while the charge upon the county-rate might afterwards be increased by a further reduction in the scale allowed by the Treasury.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, if the objection was to the Secretary of State fixing the fees he was prepared to transfer that power to the justices.

MR. HENLEY
said, that arrangement would only tend to throw odium upon them. Debate adjourned till To-morrow.