HC Deb 22 May 1879 vol 246 cc1093-108

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

drew attention to the alteration in the position of Clerks of the Peace which would be brought about by the operation of this Bill; and as the question was one which involved a principle of justice, he was quite sure the House would give it fair consideration. It had always been usual, whenever any change had been made which affected property, that compensation should be given for the loss sustained by reason of such change; and that principle had always been applied in cases where any change had been made which affected the holders of offices, either by depriving them of those offices, or by reducing the emoluments derived there- from. It had been the invariable custom of the House to grant the holders of such offices compensation for the loss sustained. The office of Clerk of the Peace was an ancient office, and was held for life. Formerly, the Clerks of the Peace were paid, either wholly or in part, by fees which they received for cases tried at Quarter Sessions; but in consequence of the change which took place in 1851, at least two-thirds in number of the Clerks of the Peace had had to commute their fees, and were now paid by salaries. But he believed a certain number of them, under 20 he thought, were still paid by fees. The proposition which he had to submit to the House was that, as the effect of this Bill would be seriously to reduce the income of these officers, some compensation should be made to them. Without troubling the House with the details of cases in point, he thought that the precedent established in the case of the Summary Jurisdiction Bill of 1855 ought to be applied on the present occasion. That Act contained the provision that Clerks of the Peace should receive compensation for the loss they had sustained by the reduction of their fees consequent upon the passing of that Act, and that principle had, he believed, been acted upon ever since that time. Compensation had also been granted in cases where offices in different Courts of Law had been abolished; and, again, where, as in the present case, the fees and emoluments were decreased, although the offices might not have been actually done away with. But it might be asked whether it was true that the operation of this Bill, when it became law, would seriously diminish the amount of fees? That, he thought, would be perfectly obvious from the Bill itself. He held in his hand the Calendar for the last Sessions for the County of Kent; and it was clear that of the 44 prisoners tried, 31 would have come under the operation of the Act, had, it been in force. That, of course, meant a loss of a certain number of shillings in each of the 31 cases, which would, but for the operation of the Act when in force, have gone to the Clerk of the Peace. Again, with regard to the County of Middlesex, he had been told that 800 out of 1,800 prisoners tried would at once be summarily disposed of under the provisions of this Bill; and the same with other counties. These figures, he thought, showed that the result of the Bill, in its present form, would he a very material diminution of the amount of the fees now paid to Clerics of the Peace. But he had heard it said that the provisions of the Criminal Code would, when passed into law, compensate Clerks of the Peace for the loss which they were about to sustain by the operation of the present measure. That, however, was not likely to be the effect of the Code in its present shape. Its result would be this—First of all, there were five classes of offences now triable at the Sessions which, under the provisions of the Code, would be triable at the Assizes only. Against those there were two offences—namely, burglary and highway robbery, in which jurisdiction would be given to the Sessions; but he asked any hon. Member who was in the habit of acting as Chairman at Quarter Sessions, whether the cases under the five heads referred to, which were to be taken from the Sessions to the Assizes, would not be much more numerous than the cases of burglary and highway robbery, which would be added to the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions? The argument, therefore, that the Clerks of the Peace would derive any equivalent from the Criminal Code for the losses which they would sustain by the operation of this Bill, fell to the ground. Again, it was said that the Bill itself furnished some remedy for the loss of fees by the provisions made for appeals. But the number of these, it was well known, would be very inconsiderable; because prisoners and their relations were usually very poor, and in cases where they were defended before the magistrates their means were so exhausted that they were unable to prosecute an appeal. How few appeals, except in bastardy cases, ever came to Quarter Sessions? He ventured to say that the appeals under the provisions of this Bill, so far from adding in any essential degree to the fees at Quarter Sessions, would add very little indeed. Therefore, it came to this—that the incomes of the gentlemen who held the offices of Clerks of the Peace, and who took those offices on the supposition that the fees were to be continued to them, would be very seriously diminished, for which reason he hoped that the House would consider that it was but just and right that the precedent which had been over and over again followed in similar cases should not be departed from in the present instance. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, compensation should be made to clerks of the peace, now paid by fees, for the diminution of their incomes which will be caused by the provisions of this Bill,"—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would not trouble the House with many words, for all that he had to say on this subject he stated the other night. He entirely agreed that everyone having a freehold office was entitled, when that office was abolished, to be compensated; but he entirely denied that Clerks of the Peace, or any other clerks, had a vested interest in crime. Their claim was ludicrous. The hon. and learned Gentleman might just as well say, because they had taken steps to improve the dwellings of the working classes, and also to promote education, by which means they hoped to diminish crime, that Clerks of the Peace on that account had a claim to compensation. What Clerks of the Peace had was a vested right to their office, and they had a vested right, as Clerks of the Peace in the Courts, to get all the fees in respect of the business that came before those Courts; and if no business came before their Courts, then they had no right at all to compensation. He would not take up the time of the House by further debating the matter.

MR. COLE

said, that, although the claim of the Clerks of the Peace to conpensation might seem very ludicrous to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, yet he must venture to differ from him. He quite agreed with him that Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in crime; but they had a vested interest in their fees. What was now being done was to transfer the dealing with crime from one jurisdiction to another. The amount of crime would remain entirely the same; but it was treated in a dif- ferent manner. Let them consider I what now happened. A man was charged before a magistrate, and there was a magistrate's or a Justice's clerk, or both, who received certain fees when the matter was inquired into. Everyone who knew anything at all about the Criminal Law was aware that, in the event of the prisoner being committed by a magistrate or a Justice to Sessions, magistrate's clerks' fees on committal were inserted in the order made, and were allowed in the costs of the prosecution. If the case was sent to Sessions, the fees of the Clerk of the Peace were in addition to those of the clerk to the magistrates. In fact, there was one class of fees for prisoners dealt with at once by the Justices, and another for prisoners committed for trial at the Assizes or Sessions. If a prisoner were committed to Sessions for trial, the Clerk of the Peace, for the first time, had something to do with the case; for if the case were prosecuted at the Sessions, he was entitled to fees for such prosecution. No doubt, the Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in crime—the crime remained the same; but the question under the Bill was as to the tribunal which was to deal with it. It was a question whether a prisoner should be dealt with by the magistrates, or sent to the Sessions for trial. If not sent to the Sessions for trial, prisoners were dealt with by the magistrates; and if dealt with by the magistrates, the magistrates' clerk got his fees; but the Clerks of the Peace got no fees at all. So that, by enabling the magistrates to deal summarily with certain offences, they had deprived the Clerks of the Peace of those fees to which thej7 had been formerly entitled. He could not understand the right hon. Gentleman thinking it ludicrous that the Clerks of the Peace should wish for some compensation for the business of which they would be deprived. What was the position of the case? The Treasury would, under this Act, pocket a large amount of the fees hitherto payable to the Clerks of the Peace. It was perfectly clear to everyone knowing anything about the matter that there were two sets of fees, those payable to the magistrates' clerks and those payable to the Clerks of the Peace. If the magistrates were enabled to commit summarily in the cases provided for in the Bill, a prisoner would not be sent to the Sessions for trial. The result was that those fees which would have been payable to the Clerks of the Peace if a prisoner had been sent to trial were saved to the Treasury. The Clerks of the Peace did not ask for what was called compensation. It was not compensation they wanted; but they simply asked that the fees that they were at the present moment entitled to claim on certain committals should be paid to them. They had been appointed to freehold offices on the understanding that they were to receive those fees. There was no question about that. They did not ask that one sixpence should be paid out of the Treasury that was not paid at the present moment. Certain offences must be now tried at Quarter Sessions, and not be tried summarily by the Justices, and in respect of these offences they were entitled to fees. But it was now proposed to take away from the Quarter Sessions the trying of those particular offences, and to allow the Justices at Petty Sessions to deal with them. No one objected to that arrangement; but it was certainly depriving the Clerks of the Peace of the fees which they would have been paid if those offences were still triable at Quarter Sessions. He did not ask that two sets of fees should be paid; but there were certain gentlemen who were not paid by salary, and only by fees. No doubt, the Justices at Quarter Sessions had the power, if so minded, to say that Clerks of the Peace should be paid by salary; but the Clerks of the Peace could not force the Justices to give them a salary. If they could do so, they would have no complaint; and he should like to see all Clerks of the Peace paid by salary. There was a certain number—perhaps a considerable number—of them paid by salary; and it would be very desirable that all should be paid by salary, as when only payable by fees Clerks of the Peace and magistrates' clerks were offered an inducement to commit prisoners for trial for the purpose of making fees. He did not say that that was done; but, still, he thought all such officials should be paid by salary. He knew many gentlemen who had accepted the position of Clerks of the Peace for counties, and had given up their profession in reliance upon receiving the lees payable in that office. These gentlemen, in many cases, would lose £500 or £600 a-year by this Act; and he would ask if this was fair, right, or just? When they accepted those appointments, it was upon a distinct understanding that as the law was so it should continue. That they should have an interest in crimes as imputed to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was, of course, repugnant to everyone: but that was not the proper way of looking at the question. The crime remained the same, and the whole question was, if they removed these crimes from the jurisdiction of Clerks of the Peace, they removed from them their fees. It seemed to him extremely hard and improper to deprive these gentlemen of the fees which, when they accepted office, they were led to believe were inseparable from it. He would most strongly support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris.

MR. DODSON

said, that it had been admitted that the Clerks of the Peace had no vested interest in the crime of the country; but it had been argued that the crime remained, and that they had a vested interest in its not being transferred to a cheaper and prompter tribunal. He could not agree with that view. Under this Bill not only would there be more appeals, but where a person was charged with a crime for which he was liable to three months' imprisonment he could claim to be tried before a jury. Therefore, the Act, while it took away some business, would have the effect of sending some business to the Clerks of the Peace. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that if they abolished a freehold office they were bound to pay compensation, but not otherwise. They were not bound to provide crime for the Clerks of the Peace, and he did not think that Clerks of the Peace had any vested interest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. SPEAKER

wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Cole) that his Amendment involved a charge and could only be inserted in Committee of the Whole House.

MR. COLE

accepted the ruling of the Chair, and would not press the consideration of his clause. After the strong feeling the House had evinced against the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris, he thought it was idle for him to move this clause, even if he were entitled to do so, as it embodied the substance of that Resolution. At the same time he must express a hope that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would re-consider his decision. It did strike him as an exceedingly hard case on those gentlemen, and he thought something should be done to relieve them.

MR. RIDLEY

said, that it appeared to him that if they gave the Justices a right not to proceed to conviction, although an offence should be proved to have been committed, it was desirable that it should be expressed that that discretion should only be exercised on a consideration of the particular case. The words in the 10th clause, as it at present stood, gave the Justices liberty not to convict when they thought fit. Therefore, without considering the particular circumstances of the case, they might think themselves at liberty to excercise this discretion without reference to the case itself. He therefore begged to move, in Clause 16, page 8, line 30, after the word "inexpedient," to insert "under the particular circumstances of the case."

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 30, after the word "inexpedient," to insert the words "under the particular circumstances of the case."—(Mr. Ridley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR HENRY JAMES

did not see how he could move his Amendment to leave out Sub-section 1 of this clause, if the Amendment now moved was inserted. He wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, and he should like to say a few words upon the principle involved in it. This sub-section had the effect of placing every magistrate who administered the law above that House and above the law. It would give a magis- trate power to say—"I think that although the Legislature have said a certain thing is a crime, yet that it ought not to be so." Although this seemed a very small matter, yet he thought the principle involved in it very serious. In the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill a provision similar to this was inserted, by which they gave to every Judge who tried a case a power to say that although the Legislature had said that a certain act constituted a crime, yet if that Judge thought that the Legislature was wrong, he could say that the crime should not result in a conviction, and that the prisoner, however guilty, might go free. A Judge would be enabled, because he thought the Legislature wrong in making a particular act a crime, to say that he would exercise this power and refuse to convict for it. This case might very readily happen. A Judge might say that poaching ought not to be a crime, and that he would not convict for it; and he might tell the jury that he would refuse to convict a man, not because he was innocent of the offence with which he was charged, but because, in his opinion, poaching was not a crime. The Legislature determined what acts were crimes, and ought to be punished; but this subsection, and the power proposed to be put in the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, put the Judge above that House, and put him into a position to say—"I will not allow the jury to convict, not because the man is not guilty—not because it is not a gross case within the purview of legislation—but because I think the crime ought not to exist." He did not think that any such power as that should be given to any magistrate or Judge. He did not object to a magistrate, or a Judge, having the power to say that a case was so slight that a nominal penalty was sufficient punishment; he was only objecting to a magistrate of summary jurisdiction, or a Judge of greater power, being permitted to say—"I will not allow a jury to convict on this crime, because I think that it ought not to be a crime at all." If they allowed that power to be given in small matters, as was done by the Bill, it seemed to him that they would not be able to object to the insertion of a similar provision in the Criminal Code. He would refer, for one moment, to the cases in which magis- trates would be called upon to exercise their discretion. Persons who might be charged before them might be in their employment, or might be known to them, and an appeal would be made to the clemency of the magistrates. At present, the magistrate was able to say—"I am very sorry, but I am bound to obey the law—I am bound to carry the law into effect and commit the prisoner for trial;" but under this section of the Bill it would he in the discretion of the magistrate to dismiss any prisoner, however guilty. He would not be able to say, as before—"I am bound to administer the law," for a discretion was expressly given him here to dismiss a criminal, however guilty, if he thought fit. In dealing with this question, they must consider weak magistrates as well as strong ones. He did not wish to enter into the question of political bias; but there were various questions coming before magistrates upon which they might entertain opinions. He would appeal to those hon. Members who, like himself, were magistrates, and would ask them whether they would like to be placed in this position—that they could not fall back upon the strength of that which they had always been able to do—namely, that they simply administered the law as the Legislature had made it? He could not conceive any position more objectionable than that magistrates should not be protected by the law itself, but left to their own individual discretion in determining whether a conviction should take place. He hoped the House would draw the distinction between the object of this clause—namely, clemency by means of making a conviction only nominal, and the placing a discretion in the hands of the magistrate to say that he would not convict for a crime, however guilty the prisoner might be proved of the offence with which he was charged. He would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland; but it seemed to him that the Amendment would not be sufficient to meet the objection he had raised. So far as he could see, they were introducing a principle into the law which was most dangerous and most injurious to the administration of justice, and which he believed would be personally felt to be a great burden, instead of a benefit, to the magistracy of this country. He trusted that he had not pressed his views too strongly upon the House. He did not like to divide against hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he hoped the House would, if it passed this section, accept the responsibility of affirming a principle which he had pointed out would have such untoward results.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, so far as the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland went, it was not affected by the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton. He thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would be a very great improvement on the Bill, whatever might be done when they came to deal with Sub-section 1. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton had urged that the introduction of the power given in Sub-section 1 would be very dangerous. But it was only proposed by this section to legalize what it was now the constant practice to do in Petty Sessions. A man was charged with an offence, and that offence might be proved; the magistrates, being of opinion that no punishment ought to be inflicted, had been in the habit of saying—"You have been guilty of this offence; but as you are a man of excellent character, and we do not think you deserve punishment, on the whole we will dismiss the case against you on payment of costs." That had been the practice up to the present moment; but when he (Mr. Assheton Cross) first took the chair at Petty Sessions he immediately put a stop to that practice, as he did not think that it was legal, and he had not allowed it to take place since. But the hardship inflicted by the want of such a power was very great; and he thought that a power such as that given by the subsection was required. At present, if a man were fined even the smallest amount it involved the penalty of paying the costs. The magistrates were not to have the smallest discretion in saying whether a particular act was or was not to be a crime; but they were to be allowed to say that, under the particular circumstances of the case, they did not think it necessary to inflict any punishment at all. He agreed that magistrates ought not to have a power to dismiss a case because they did not think the law making it a crime was right; but it was necessary to give them a discretion to say that, under the particular circumstances, no punishment ought to be inflicted. The only question between his view and that of his hon. and learned Friend seemed to be whether a person should be actually convicted or not. It was now constantly the practice of magistrates to dismiss cases upon payment of costs. That was not legal; but, still, it was done, and instead of leaving it in that way it was proposed to give a power in the matter. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Northumberland would show more distinctly that magistrates were to exercise their discretion according to the particular circumstances of the case before them, and that it should, therefore, be adopted.

MR. HERSCHELL

agreed with a great deal that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton had said; but he was not now going to discuss the question raised by him. He wished only to draw attention to the Amendment before the House. He should like the matter limited more than the hon. Member proposed. In certain circumstances it was intended to impose a certain limitation. He did not think that magistrates should have any discretion except where, under the particular circumstances of the case, the offence was of a trifling character. Unless the power was specific, the clause might include more than that. He should prefer to have words stating that the offence was so trifling that it was not expedient, under the particular circumstances, to convict for the offence. He should, therefore, suggest that the words of the clause should be altered; and instead of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland should be inserted the words— The offence was, under the particular circumstances of the case, of so trifling a character that it is inexpedient.

MR. RIDLEY

accepted the words proposed, and begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Herschell) agreed to.

MR. PAGET

wished to move an Amendment, at the end of this sub-section, in these words, "or any other nominal punishment." His object in inserting the Amendment was to make the sentences harmonize.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR HENRY JAMES

remarked, that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) mitigated, to some extent, the evil which he was anxious to obviate; but he still thought there was some objection to this clause, and for this reason. It had been said that the question at issue was whether the magistrates should he able to say that they would not convict at all, or whether they would give only a nominal punishment. Every Judge was bound to have a discretion as to the infliction of punishment; but his objection was to magistrates being put above the law, and enabled to say that they would not convict of crime. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that wherever even a nominal punishment was indicted costs must follow the event, and that the object of the sub-section was to remedy that. He would point out that the Bill remedied that defect in the law; and that, oven after a conviction, it was in the power of the magistrates to let a person go without the payment of costs. He must protest against the magistrates being for one moment put above the law; and he more particularly objected to this, as furnishing a precedent for a similar but more extended power being inserted in the Criminal Code.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

wished to point out that the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper dealt with a class of crime not contemplated when the question was raised before. The Bill contained a scheme of penalties, by which the nonpayment of any sum above £20 was punishable by imprisonment for three months. In many Revenue cases penalties amounted to £1,800 or £2,000; and in a case which was at present proceeding Her Majesty's Government claimed £1,800 penalty. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would think that three months' imprisonment for an offence against the Revenue, in which the penalty amounted to £1,800, was hardly adequate. He wished to prevent the occurrence of offences against the Revenue; and he was afraid if three months were left as the alternative to breaking these laws, that it would not sufficiently deter crime. Under these circumstances, he had to ask the House to add to the powers of the magistrates in those cases, and to extend the punishment in Revenue eases to a longer period of imprisonment—namely, six months. He moved, in Clause 54, page 32, line 3, to leave out from the word "act" to the word "shall" in line 8.

MR. HOPWOOD

observed, that it would meet the justice of the case, if magistrates were allowed to inflict greater punishment in the case of these offences than they could in others. He thought, however, that the Amendment proposed went too far, for it included offences against the Post Office.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

observed, that he would amend that, and proposed to leave out from the word "apply" to "and," inclusive, in line 7.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DODSON

said, that he had to move an Amendment upon the 1st Schedule of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to permit trumpery cases to be dealt with in a summary manner. He proposed to add to the 1st Schedule, amongst the offences which might be dealt with, the obtaining money by false pretences where the value of the money did not, in the opinion of the Court before which the charge was brought, exceed 5s. He had taken the sum of 5s. in order to confine the power to small cases. He might point out that the object was to confine the matter to obtaining money, as it was a much simpler case than that of obtaining goods by false pretences. In the case of obtaining goods by false pretences difficult questions might arise; but the case of obtaining money was much simpler and in harmony with the principle of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 34, column 1, line 20, after the word "sections," to insert the words "7. Obtaining money by false pretences where the value of the whole of the money alleged to have been so obtained does not, in the opinion of the court before which the charge is brought, exceed five shillings."—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

observed, that though the Amendment was worthy of consideration, yet he could not agree with it. His reason for objecting to the Amendment was that he feared it might be used for the purpose of collecting debts. He had great objection to allowing the Criminal Law to be made a medium for debt-collecting; and he wished, by every means in his power, to prevent it. He therefore thought it would be right to leave the Bill as it stood.

SIR HENRY JAMES

observed, that whether made a medium for collecting debts or not, a charge of committing this offence might be sent by the magistrates for trial. He thought it was better to have such a case tried before the magistrates, and a summary conviction take place, than that the matter should be sent to the Quarter Sessions. It was really only a question as to whether a particular offence should be dealt with summarily, or sent to the Quarter Sessions to be disposed of.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked, that the cost of carrying the matter to Quarter Sessions would put a stop to the practice of making use of the Criminal Law in this particular matter for debt-collecting.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 37: Majority 10.—(Div. List, No. 107.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, that he had an Amendment, in page 35, line 10, to insert these words— Provided that the value does not, in the opinion of the Court before which the charge is brought, exceed forty shillings. He did not know the intention of the Government with respect to this matter; but, in point of fact, jurisdiction was given by the Bill to try aiders and abettors without limit as to amount. The compulsory jurisdiction of magistrates under it was limited to the value of 40s., but aiders and abettors of thefts of, say, £1,000, or a valuable horse, might be tried summarily. He did not know whether it was intended to allow this peculiarity to exist, for it was an anomaly; and he could see no reason why, if a principal could not be tried, an accessory before the fact, or after the fact, should be allowed to be tried. The object of his Amendment was to give the same jurisdiction, with regard to accessories before and after the fact, as was exercised with regard to principals.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

I am satisfied, and accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COLE moved an Amendment with a view to limiting the power to try for attempts to steal. As the matter at present stood, there was no limit whatever to the power of the magistrates to try for attempts to steal. It seemed to him that, as respected the tribunal, an attempt to commit an offence ought to be placed on the same footing as the entire offence.

Amendment proposed, In page 35, line 16, after the word "servant," to insert the words "where the property which is the subject of the alleged offence does not, in the opinion of the court before whom the charge is brought, exceed forty shillings."—(Mr. Cole.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

observed, that a man was charged with attempting to steal money, but the amount of the money might be unknown, the Court could not possibly determine the value of the property which he attempted to steal, and that it would be, therefore, absolutely impossible to carry out this provision. If a man attempted to pick a pocket, it would be impossible to charge him with attempting to steal any specific sum, because the amount of money in the pocket would probably not be known.

MR. PAGET

thought that this Amendment was very objectionable, and he should strongly oppose it.

MR. COLE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in Schedule 2, page 36, line 5, to insert—

(11 and 12 Vic. c. 43.)

"An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of justices of the peace out of session, within England and Wales, with respect to summary convictions and orders."

The following words in section thirty-five: "Nor to any information or complaint or other proceeding under or by virtue of any of the statutes relating to Her Majesty's Revenue of Excise or Customs, Stamps, Taxes, or Post Office."

He said, that this Amendment was simply to do away with the exemption of the Customs and Inland Revenue in proceedings under the Larceny Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.