§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. HARDCASTLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that from time immemorial the office of clerk of the peace of the County Palatine had been a sinecure, the duties being entirely performed by deputy; but in 1872 an Act of Parliament was passed by which, on the death of the then occupant of the office, who was still living, the sinecure clerkship was to be done away with, and a really active clerk of the peace appointed, and it was provided, in addition, that there should be two deputy clerks of the peace appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy. 336 The magistrates of the county, however, were unanimously of opinion that this last provision would not work well; that the two deputies appointed by the Chancellor would be practically independent local clerks of the peace, with whom the magistrates would have to deal instead of with one head clerk, and that there would necessarily be a divided responsibility which would be attended with great inconvenience both as regarded the criminal and civil business of the county. The Bill now before the House had been brought in with the approval of the justices, and it sought to repeal the clause empowering the Chancellor of the Duchy to appoint deputy clerks of the peace, and to enact that the appointment of those officers should be intrusted to the clerk of the peace himself, as was the case in all other counties.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hardcastle.)
§ MR. RATHBONEdenied that any inconvenience had been shown to exist sufficient to justify a change in the present law, which was the result of a compromise, and was, he considered, a step in the right direction. It was a mistake to think that the sub-division of business which the hon. Member complained of did not exist in other counties. In Yorkshire the business of the county was much sub-divided, and it was the opinion of many able magistrates that subdivision should be carried to a greater extent in Lancashire also. The point to which the present Bill applied was, he admitted, not one of great public importance; but inasmuch as no adequate reasons had been assigned for changing the law, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
§ MR. ASSHETONsupported the second reading, and stated that in 1875 the whole of the magistrates of Lancashire assembled at Preston and unanimously agreed to promote this Bill.
SIR EDWAER WATKN, as a magistrate of Lancashire, felt bound to say that a large majority of the magistrates were anxious that the Bill should be passed.
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 29th February.