§ MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case at 966 Guildford Petty Sessions of alleged assault on the police by a hawker, in which it is alleged that the mayor reproved a respectable tradesman, a witness for the defence, for "coming forward to oppose the police;" whether there were three other witnesses for the defence who asked to be allowed to give evidence, but were refused by the court, who fined the defendant without hearing them; and, whether he will think it right to make inquiry of the justices as to these facts?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, no information had yet reached him on the subject. He would make an inquiry, although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knew, he had no power to interfere.
§ MR. HOPWOODasked if the House was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman was not the Official to appeal to in these matters; and, if so, would he point out what Constitutional remedy existed?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the difficulty lay here. Most magistrates were appointed by, and were more or less under the jurisdiction of, the Lord Chancellor. But the Mayor and ex-Mayor of a town were under no authority at all. They were appointed by Statute, and were irremovable. A case occurred some months ago in which he thought a censure had been incurred, and he communicated with the Lord Chancellor, with the result that it was found, he regretted to say, that there was no authority over a Mayor and an ex-Mayor.