§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 4:—;
§ Motion made, Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said he desired to point out in regard to this clause that it seemed to him a great constitutional difficulty was bound to arise if this Bill applied to Scotland. The Solicitor-General was no doubt aware that in Scotland in the issue of Commissioners of the Peace there were invariably included certain Privy Councillors, the Lord-Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Senators of the College of Justice and the sheriffs. The Senators of the College of Justice and the sheriffs were irremovable from their positions upon any account whatever save fault or misdemeanour of their own. This clause proposed that justices of the peace who held office ex officio should be removable by the same authority as the other justices, which meant that they might be removed by the Crown through the exercise of its Commissioners. He suggested that if the Bill were passed into law and was to affect Scotland Borne constitutional safeguard on the point ought to be inserted.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said the Lord Advocate was not present at the moment, but it did not seem to him that any great injustice was likely to be caused, because it would not affect any of the gentlemen named in their offices. It would be in regard to their functions as Justices of the Peace alone that the Bill would affect them. The point, however, might be considered when the Bill got to the other House.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
thought the Question was a much larger one than the few words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead them to suppose. He thought there was a very big constitutional question involved. Under this clause ex officio justices, who had been elected to the post of chairman of a district council and other important bodies, were to be removed from the Bench, not necessarily for any statutory offence, but merely upon the ipse dixit of the Lord Chancellor. The principles of the Liberal Party appeared to be at stake—;if they had any principles left—;on this important point. A direct interference was proposed with men elected by the ratepayers to fill certain important posts which carried with them the duties of acting as Justices of the Peace. Were they going in this Bill, without any adequate explanation, to allow a Lord Chancellor to annul the election of the ratepayers without any limitations? A justice so elected might be excluded on mere grounds of caprice. Limiting words, requiring that the justice should be first convicted before he was removed, should certainly be introduced.
§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)
said he could not see on what principle in the Bill the Lord Chancellor should be allowed to stop the exercise of their jurisdiction as Justices of the Peace by such people as sheriffs in Scotland. It might as well be suggested that the Lord Chancellor should have the same power to stop the excercise of their judicial functions.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said the framers of this clause clearly contemplated that the Lord Chancellor would not exercise this power without good reasons, and he took it the clause got into the Bill largely in consequence of a matter which arose in a certain case where the conduct of a man who was elected mayor became objectionable. It was perfectly evident that he was an unfit person to be either mayor or chairman, or a member of the Bench. His fellow members of the Town Council boycotted him, but had to form a quorum as he had the power to pass resolutions, and he continued to sit on the Bench in spite of everybody. That case had evidently called forth this clause, but in so far as it 594 was framed in a way which apparently gave very arbitrary power to the Lord Chancellor to deprive a Justice of the Peace of his office without any reasonable restrictions, he thought the criticism passed upon the clause was perfectly justified.
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawick Burghs
said he was sorry he was not present when the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire raised this point. There was, however, nothing specially Scottish about the clause. There was no disqualification. There were not a few officers, notably under the recent Local Government Acts in Scotland, who acted ex officio as justices, the most numerous being chairmen of Parish Councils. There might be cases in which it would be expedient that a person of that kind should be excluded from the functions of the justices, and all that was done by the clause was that if such a case arose the powers of the clause could be properly and wisely exercised with the entire consent of the person involved, because it was often a matter of convenience that there should be no exercise of judicial powers in the case of an ex officio appointment. There was nothing compulsory in the clause, and he saw no reason to differentiate between England and Scotland.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman did not bear exactly on the point to which he had referred, namely, the constitutional point. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, he, in common with the Solicitor-General for Scotland and sundry others, was by virtue of his office a Justice of the Peace for every county in Scotland. While the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General were removed from the position, no doubt, with their removal from office owing to the demise of their Government, the Senators of the College of Justice were ex officio Justices of the Peace whom nothing but death could remove, and it would be committing a breach of constitutional usage to interfere with that privilege.
§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
said he had omitted to mention that the clause originated with the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, and therefore 595 might be taken by hon. Members to be perfectly in order. A very exceptional case had been mentioned by his hon. and learned friend, but he might point out that in a short clause of this kind it would be highly inexpedient to provide for exceptional cases.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)
said it was perfectly true that this clause was in a Bill which was carried through the House of Lords by the late Lord Chancellor. Its object was to give the Lord Chancellor power to remove justices whose past history in connection with crime or misconduct in office, such as the gratification of personal spite on the Bench, rendered them unfit to be magistrates. His experience at the Home Office showed him that there ought to be a power in the hands of some authority to remove justices. There was an instance of an ex officio justice who, if he remembered rightly, was the mayor of a town, and who in the course of an action for slander was proved to have used his official position in order to gratify a personal spite. It was obviously very undesirable that a man of that character should be allowed to remain on the Bench. In another case it was proved that an ex officio justice had taken money and acted in collusion with licensed victuallers. Clearly, too, he ought not to have sat on the Bench. Therefore, he entirely approved the principle of this clause, though it was hardly clear, at all events to the lay mind, and he suggested that words should be inserted to make it plain that a previous conviction, bankruptcy, or some other stated causes, should be a condition of the liability to removal. He was most anxious that the clause should remain in the Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
said the Labour Members viewed this clause with suspicion, which suspicion had been considerably increased by the Lord Advocate's statement. The fact that the late Lord Chancellor was responsible for the insertion of the clause in the Bill was sufficient to condemn it so far as the Labour Members were concerned. Apart from that they would have suspected any attempt to remove without some legitimate cause—;and there was no reference to that in the clause—;magistrates holding their position by the representative vote of the people.
596 They admitted there might be cases where the discretion of the Lord Chancellor ought to be used, and whore a name ought to be struck off the list of justices; but he thought it ought to be because of a very serious charge. In this clause, however, there was not a single suggestion as to why a justice should be removed, and that was their great objection to it. They had a right to expect from the present Government, believing as they did that they wished to recognise democratic tendencies, that they would protect the men whom they were now going to give the opportunity of taking part in the work of county magistrates, and he appealed to the Solictor-General to insert some words to that effect in the clause even at the risk of necessitating a Report Stage in the progress of the Bill, for there was nothing the country suffered from more than ill-considered and hasty legislation.
§ * MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)
was sorry to hear the reference of the last speaker to Lord Halsbury, seeing how much the Labour Members owed to his judgments interpreting the Workmen's Compensation Act. The attitude of the Law Officers for both England and Scotland had been very conciliatory, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way even now to accept an Amendment which he suggested was really one of substance. Many hon. Members in different parts of the House felt the strongest possible objection to the idea of a man who enjoyed his office by virtue of a popular vote running the danger of being removed on grounds which were not merely badly defined, but not defined at all. He believed he was right in saying that the justices would be at the mercy of the Lord Chancellor, and, if so, it was intolerable in these days that a man who was chosen to an honourable post as mayor of a corporation by the votes of the citizens should even theoretically be deposable from his judicial functions by the Lord Chancellor without any reason given.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
said that unless the Solicitor-General would undertake that there should be some modification of the clause the Labour Members would be obliged to vote against it altogether. This class contained the only 597 popularly elected element upon the county benches; therefore they would have to be sure not to allow the authority of the Lord Chancellor to remove these justices from their position without some limitations. Reference had been made to Lord Halsbury's connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act. The late Lord Chancellor was responsible for the serious difficulties which had arisen out of the Taff Vale judgment.
said the hon. Member must not question his ruling. The preceding speaker would have been called to order if he had made more than a passing reference to this question.
§ MR. WARD
was sorry if he had broken the rules. The Solicitor-General had enumerated several things, such as bankruptcy, as a reason for the Lord Chancellor having the power to remove a justice, but surely that worked automatically. He understood that a bankrupt could not hold an office of that sort or on a board of guardians, district council, or any other public body. Under these circumstances it was most essential that the Committee should have some guarantee that the only popularly elected justices would not run the risk of being removed from their office without some substantial cause.
§ MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)
suggested that the Solicitor-General should see his way at this or some later stage to amend the clause so that a popularly-elected justice of the peace, who had disqualified himself from holding his position, might be removed only on the representation of the town council or other local governing body.
§ * MR. GEORGE FABER (York)
said he would take the case of his own constituency to illustrate what might happen under the clause. In York the Lord Mayor was Chairman of the Bench during his year of office, and under this 598 clause it would be in the power of the Lord Chancellor, without giving any reason at all and suddenly on his own ipse dixit, to remove from the bench the gentleman occupying that responsible position. He did not say that the Lord Chancellor of the day would do anything of the kind, but he urged that the clause should say specifically what it meant. It should not be left for any official to interpret it as he liked. He hoped the Law Officers would take this point into their serious consideration.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)
said he was delighted at the number of recruits on the Opposition side of the House who desired to get something like a democratic bench. The Solicitor-General had no desire that the clause should be misinterpreted, and if there was any doubt in the matter he hoped it would be made perfectly clear that no person democratically elected, perhaps a mayor, should be excluded at once from the bench through the whim or fancy of some person in authority. A whole neighbourhood might be robbed in that way of the useful services of a democratically elected person who was more known to the exceedingly poor people in the district than the ordinary justice of the peace. Poor people who could not leave their work without serious loss to make application to magistrates in the day time went to such a person as he referred to. When it became known that the magistrate was acting in this way some people might say, "Its time to clip that fellow's wings, and therefore we will write to the Lord Chancellor to get him cut off." He hoped the Solicitor-General would see his way to safeguard the interests of the justices who might be treated in that way.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)
said the object of the clause was exceedingly simple. There was power at present to remove all justices who were put on by the Lord-Lieutenant. Every person would agree that it was right that there should be the power of removal. Whether it was properly vested in the Lord Chancellor was a different matter. As to the power of removal it was contended by some hon. Members that there should be a difference between a person who held the office ex officio for one year and those who were permanent 599 members of the bench. His lion, friends opposite thought that a person who might at one time or other have the confidence of the public should remain a justice of peace without being liable to removal at all whatever his misconduct might be. [Cries of "No."] If necessary let it be proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be in some way or other fettered in the discretion he had to remove justices of the peace from office, but it would be a great mistake to make a distinction by which certain justices could not be removed from office at all. Broadly speaking, the whole of the justices were removable for misconduct.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said there never was any clause plainer than this one. Its object was simply to bring ex officio justices of the peace into line with all other justices in regard to being removable. It might be right—;he was not saying that it was—;to deprive the Lord Chancellor of this power, and that some other person should have it, but that was not the question now before the Committee. The powers of the Lord Chancellor to deal with justices who were not ex officio justices was not touched by the clause.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
thought there was a good deal of misapprehension as to the scope and effect of the clause. He would again remind the Committee that this Bill did not pretend to codify the law. The small and simple object of the Bill was to abolish the double qualification now required, and the object of this clause was simply to create a perfectly just and necessary uniformity. In allocating to certain officials the functions of justices of the peace, previous Acts had omitted to say that they should hold the office on the same conditions as other justices. Therefore, it was stated in this clause. It simply stated that any person who became a justice of the peace by virtue of holding an office might be excluded from the exercise of the functions of a justice by the same authority by whom other justices could be removed. There was nothing invidious in that. Some hon. Members seemed to think that some insult was directed against ex-officio magistrates. Nothing of the kind. The clause was based on a necessary and proper uniform- 600 ity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's had said that there were cases which had made the clause necessary. He himself did not like to refer to individual cases; one could not be quite sure that he was acquainted with all the circumstances, and the person concerned was not here to answer for himself. He did not care to put this clause on the ground that in several well-known instances it had been necessary to remove justices. He was astonished that hon. Members opposite should get up, one after another, to attack a clause adopted by their own Government and suggested by by their Lord Chancellor. He thought he was entitled to say that. He dared say that there were hon. Members who would be astonished at his astonishment. That was just what he might expect from the course of the discussion. It was said that this clause did not state the grounds upon which a magistrate could be removed. Why should it state the ground? The general law remained, and upon the grounds upon which other magistrates could be removed these magistrates were to be removed. Unless he was prepared to do what he was not prepared to do, and codify the law referring to magistrates, he did not see in what other way the matter could be dealt with. He certainly could not undertake to express all the grounds upon which magistrates might be removed. It had been expressed, he thought rather unthinkingly, that a magistrate could be removed upon the mere ipse dixit of the Lord Chancellor. It was true that all judicial functionaries were appointed by the Lord Chancellor and were under his authority, but the Lord Chancellor was a member of the Government, and he and his colleagues in the Cabinet were responsible to Parliament. The Committee could have no better guarantee against wrongful, capricious, or illegal conduct than the fact that in these matters the Government were liable to the censure of this House, and that what they had got was not a guarantee of some collateral authority established side by side with the Lord Chancellor, but the judgment of the Lord Chancellor under the supervision of Parliament. He would like any hon. Member who differed from him to suggest any better tribunal for this purpose than the House of Commons. Of 601 course it was to some extent an incongruous tribunal for dealing with personal misconduct, but it had been thought fit to put this matter under the supervision of Parliament and that was why the Government were made responsible. He did not think anybody could suggest, much loss remember, a case where there had been any illegal or capricious removal on the part of the Lord Chancellor. What the Lord Chancellor did in this matter was merely an administrative act and was not an act done of his own personal and private will. It was an administrative act for which he was responsible to his colleagues and, therefore, as far as guarantee was concerned, hon. Members had under the existing law the best of all possible guarantees. They were not, in regard to this question, dealing with hypothetical cases, but with cases of which they had experience. Where in the whole history of the English judiciary could there be found a case of a Lord Chancellor removing a justice of the peace or other judicial officer without stating any grounds for his action? If he were guilty of such action it would probably be followed before very long by the removal of the Lord Chancellor himself. Hon. Members must not imagine that they were dealing here with any attack upon the elective element. Nothing could be further from the minds of those who framed the Bill. Certainly nothing could be further from his mind, and if he thought that all the dreadful consequences which had been predicted would follow from the passing of the Bill he would not have brought it forward or at that moment advocate the desirability of its passing. Under these circumstances he thought he might ask the Committee to allow the measure to proceed without further discussion upon this point.
* COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)
thought the remarks of the Solicitor-General, about what had happened the night before, were rather uncalled for, especially as this clause had never been before the House of Commons before, although it had been before the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Gentleman had seemed to imply an immunity from error on the part of anybody who happened to sit upon the Treasury Bench, and that a clause must be right because it had been approved by both Govern- 602 ments. Nobody wanted to delay the Bill, and they were quite content with the promise that it should be considered in the House of Lords; but he would suggest the insertion of words which would provide that the magistrates now in question might be excluded from the exercise of judicial functions by the same authority and for the same reasons by and for which other justices were, disqualified from acting. [An HON. MEMBER: It is so under the Common Law.] He was sure that the Committee would be glad if the hon. and learned Member would accept some such words.
§ * MR. F. E. SMITH
said he was not satisfied as to the effect of this clause, and as to the existing law if this clause were allowed to pass. The hon. Member for Glamorgan had said that by Clause 4 the same conditions, and the same conditions only, would be attached to popularly elected justices as were attached to justices at the present time. That was not the effect of the clause. At the present time ordinary justices could be removed on grounds which were well understood, and which any lawyer could give after five minutes reference to the statute, but it was the whole object of the insertion of this clause that these popularly elected ex officio justices should not, so far as the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor was concerned, be on the same footing as ordinary justices. If that were not so, what in the name of common sense was the necessity for the clause at all? If they were in the same position why should not the Solicitor-General state that they should be removed, not merely by the same authority as ordinary justices, but for the same causes? The very reluctance of the Solicitor-General to do this created the gravest suspicion. He would make a suggestion that just as the Attorney-General withdrew from one Bill, because he fell out with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, the Solicitor-General should hand over the further conduct of this Bill to the Attorney-General. He was perfectly certain they would make progress then.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
said he was very much surprised to hear from hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, that they did not think that this clause should 603 stand part of the Bill, because it seemed to him that if the Committee excluded this clause they would be setting up a kind of class legislation which there was every prospect would be set up in other respects during the present Parliament. He was not surprised at hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House attempting to do that, but he was surprised that hon. Members on the Opposition side should lend themselves to such an attempt. He had listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in the course of which he had explained very lucidly and fully that Parliament or some other authority had decided that the Lord Chancellor was responsible to that House, not only for the appointment but the dismissal of magistrates. He had given, however, various reasons, which could not be reconciled one with another. He had said in the first place, that the Lord Chancellor was responsible to Parliament. That prima facie might be very good reasoning, but in practice it was not carried out. No later than that afternoon he himself had submitted, as on a previous occasion, a Question on this very subject in regard to a magistrate who held office by reason of his being a district councillor in Ireland, and on each occasion he had been informed by the Minister to whom the Question was addressed that he could give no information, and that it was a subject entirely within the province of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said that at a later period he intended to put down an Amendment to this clause which should make it apply to Ireland, and the fact that such an Amendment was going to be put down he respectfully submitted would make it permissible for him to argue upon the subject.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has not handed in any Amendment of that kind, and if he had I am not sure that I should allow him to proceed with his remarks on Ireland at this point.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
asked whether he might argue from analogy. This House was not the ultimate Court of Appeal in matters of this kind, and therefore the Solicitor-General's reference to the Lord Chancellor was not justified. On the other points he perfectly agreed with the Solicitor-General. He thought it was obvious that whether a Justice of the Peace was appointed in the ordinary way or whether he was elected, his duties and position ought to be the same, and he should be subject to the same conditions as any other magistrate. It seemed to him perfectly clear that if an ordinary magistrate was removable by the Lord Chancellor the other class of magistrates should be subjected to the same rules and regulations. Therefore he trusted that if the clause went to a division the Committee would affirm it.
§ * MR. MADDISON (Burnley)
said he desired to see the ex officio magistrates treated as fairly as, and on an absolute equality with, other magistrates. He admitted he could rarely understand the clause by once reading it through. During the discussion which had taken place he had read this clause over and over again and he could not see in it anything but absolute equality. This was all his hon. friend representing Barnard Castle wanted, and he would suggest to him that as this was a question of law he would be well advised not to take the law from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, because during the discussion on this Bill the Committee had been treated to something besides law: there had been a frivolous childish discussion by the very Gentlemen who were now trying to mislead the Labour Members about the law. He hoped the Labour Members would not be led into the Lobby against the Clause, because nothing would do more injury to the cause they represented than to put forward the idea that the working men of the country wanted some preference for the workman magistrate. Democratic representation would be seriously injured by demanding anything else but equality, and that was what the Bill gave.
§ MR. JOHN JOHNSON (Gateshead)
said the Labour Members at first feared that the new magistrates were going to be put on a footing different from that of other magistrates. They did not desire 605 any special advantage for their class, but it should be distinctly understood that they were exceedingly zealous for the maintenance of the dignity of the class to which they belonged, and therefore they did not desire that magistrates should be removable at the mere caprice of any individual. He was satisfied however with the explanation of the Solicitor-General. He had sufficient confidence not only in his levelness of head but also in his buoyancy of heart. He was satisfied that the
§ hon. and learned Gentleman desired to do all he could in the interest of the working classes, and therefore he had no objection to the clause as framed, being prepared to accept the statement that no special disability would be imposed on new magistrates.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 355; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 65)609
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cawley, Frederick||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Channing, Francis Allston||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Cheetham, John Frederick||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Agnew, George William||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Alden, Percy||Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Ginnell, L.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Clough, W.||Glover, Thomas|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Clynes, J. R.||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.||Grant, Corrie|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Cogan, Denis J.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gulland, John W.|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. P'ncr's, W||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cooper, G. J.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hall, Frederick|
|Barker, John||Corbett, C.H. (S's'x, E.Grinst'd||Halpin, J.|
|Barlow, John E. (Somerset)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hammond, John|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cory, Clifford John||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr T'd'l)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Beale, W. P.||Crean, Eugene||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cromer, William Randal||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Crombie, John William||Harvey, A G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Beck, A Cecil||Crooks, William||Harwood, George|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Crossley, William J.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S Geo.||Dalziel, James Henry||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Bertram, Julius||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Delany, William||Hazleton, Richard|
|Billson, Alfred||Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Blake, Edward||Dowar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberd'n, W.)|
|Boland, John||Dillon, John||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Brace, William||Donelan, Captain A.||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Branch, James||Duckworth, James||Hooper, A. G.|
|Brigg, John||Duffy, William J.||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Brooke, Stopford||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire||Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)||Hudson, Walter|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n)||Edwards, Clements (Denbigh)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Elibank, Master of||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Erskine, David C.||Jenkins, J.|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Essex, R. W.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Evans, Samuel T.||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea|
|Byles, William Pollard||Everett, R. Lacey||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Cairns, Thomas||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Fenwick, Charles||Jowett, F. W.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Findlay, Alexander||Joyce, Michael|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool||Spicer, Albert|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||O'Doherty, Philip||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Kitson, Sir James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||O'Grady, J.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||O'Hare, Patrick||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||O'Kelly, James (Roscom'n, N.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Law, Hugh Alexander||O'Malley, William||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid||O'Mara, James||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Shee, James John||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Paul, Herbert||Summerbell, T.|
|Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Paulton, James Mellor||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Levy, Maurice||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n||Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)|
|Lough, Thomas||Pirie, Duncan V.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Lundon, W.||Pollard, Dr.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Power, Patrick Joseph||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central||Tillett, Louis John|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.||Tomkinson, James|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E||Torrance, A. M.|
|Macdonald, J.M. (F'lk'rk B'ghs||Radford, G. H.||Toulmin, George|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rainy, A. Roland||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Ure, Alexander|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Verney, F. W.|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|M'Callum, John M.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|M'Crae, George||Redmond, William (Clare)||Wallace, Robert|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rees, J. D.||Walsh, Stephen|
|M'Killop, W.||Renton, Major Leslie||Walters, John Tudor|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Richardson, A.||Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wason, John Cothcart (Orkney|
|Marks G. Croydon (Launcest'n||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Massie, J.||Robinson, S.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Meagher, Michael||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Weir, James Galloway|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Menzies, Walter||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Molteno, Percy Alfred||Rose, Charles Day||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Mond, A.||Rowlands, J.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Runciman, Walter||Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Montagu, E. S.||Russell, T. W.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Montgomery, H. H.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Mooney, J. J.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Morse, L. L.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Schwann, Chas. E. (Manch'st'r||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Murphy, John||Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-L'ne||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Murray, James||Sears, J. E.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Myer, Horatio||Seaverns, J. H.||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Seddon, J.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Napier, T. B.||Seely, Major J. B.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Nicholls, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Winfrey, R.|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Nolan, Joseph||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hud's'f'd|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Young, Samuel|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Nuttall, Harry||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'ry Mid.)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Snowden, P.|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balcarres, Lord||Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Bignold, Sir Arthur|
|Ashley, W. W.||Barnes, G. N.||Bowles, G. Stewart|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm's||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Dowland||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fare'm||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Starkey, John R.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Ev'sh'm||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Dairyrmple, Viscount||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd U'v.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dixon, Sir Daniel||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Doughty, Sir George||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield||Younger, George|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nield, Herbert|
|Fletcher, J. S.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;|
|Forster, Henry William||Parkes, Ebenezer||Colonel Lockwood and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.|
|Haddock, George R.||Percy, Earl|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
§ Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
§ MR. BRACE (Glamorganshire, S.)
said he desired to move the new clause standing in his name. His proposal was that every elected mayor of a municipal authority or chairman of a county council, urban, or rural district council, or other like authority should automatically become a permanent justice of the peace. His chief reason for bringing the matter before the Committee was the experience of recent years, in which there had been the extraordinary spectacle of large progressive areas with no justice of the peace who could be fairly called representative of the people. The Committee would be doing a great act of justice if they placed in the hands of the people the election of a magistrate, as would be done if this clause were accepted.
Now clause—;Any person qualified to be elected mayor of a municipal authority or chairman of a county council, urban or rural district council, or other like authority, and who, in fact, has been elected and served in the office of mayor for one year, or in the office of chairman as aforesaid for one year, shall be a permanent Justice of the Peace with all the rights and privileges appertaining to that office.Brought up and road the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."610
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he was obliged to his hon. friend for his interesting speech. After all, it did not require very much arguing one way or the other. The proposed clause introduced a very important principle, which was far beyond the scope of this Bill, and he did not propose to argue it as an abstract principle on its merits. What he desired above all things was to get this Bill. He was sorry he was not able to take this opportunity of extending and altering the law in various directions. It was clear, however, that if such a principle as the hon. Member had proposed were inserted in the Bill, it would cause a remarkable degree of discussion and opposition, which might imperil the main principle of the Bill. The number of bodies included in the terms of the hon. Member's clause was about 9,000, and the proposal was to add 9,000 persons per annum to the roll of permanent justices. He did not wish to condemn or approve such a proposal; but it was a large order. The question of how a popular element in the ordinary magistracy could best be introduced required consideration. He would not like to commit himself now to the form which such a proposal should take. It was clearly a subject for a separate measure, for this Bill did not deal with the appointment of magistrates. It dealt only with the qualification of magistrates. He was not sure that it would be altogether to the advantage of those who might be appointed chairmen 611 of parish councils that there should be attached to them a permanent magistracy. There were a great many men who were competent to act as chairman of a council but were unfitted for the high, serious, and sacred responsibility of a magistrate. He thought, therefore, he was justified in declaring that the adoption of this clause, or of the next clause on the Paper,† would hamper and endanger the progress of the Bill.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
recognised the hard necessity under which the Solicitor-General was to evade the principle involved in the Amendment. But they ought not to negative the clause on the ludicrous and fallacious ground put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had said that the clause would have the effect of adding 9,000 persons annually to the roll of Justices of the Peace. That argument rested entirely upon the assumption that no county, district, municipal, or parish council allowed its chairman to exercise his functions for more than a year. Except in the case of municipal councils, the reverse was the practice. He did not believe the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had had more than two chairmen since its inception, and he knew a case of a district council which had been working for many years under one chairman.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said that this clause was by far the most valuable one the Committee had had to discuss in connection with the Bill. If adopted there was no doubt it would be a good thing for the Bench, as it would be frequently recruited with a man who had been selected by his fellows deliberately and in a democratic manner. It would also be a good thing for the councils, because it would attract men of higher attainments to their service. The figures given by the Solicitor-General were utterly fallacious, because the chairmen of these bodies were, for the most part, already magistrates, so that the magis-† The Clause referred to was as follows:—; The chairman of a board of guardians and the chairman of a parish council shall, if otherwise qualified, be by virtue of his office justice of the peace for the county in which the district is situate, in the same way as a chairman of a district council becomes a justice of the peace.612 tracy would not be increased in anything like the proportion suggested. In the part of Lancashire where he lived, there was only about one in seven, he believed, of the gentlemen appointed as chairmen of these bodies who was not already a magistrate. He pointed out that in connection with the Liverpool Bench the average number elected every year was fourteen, and that in four cases out of five the gentleman who was elected Lord Mayor was already a Justice of the Peace. It was, therefore, perfectly obvious that there would not be added to the Bench members in anything like the proportion suggested by the Solicitor-General. He was one of those who believed that the present system of appointing magistrates was open to very grave criticism. Many Members strongly objected to the kind of men who were appointed, and when there was put forward a wholesome and first-class suggestion under which a man selected by his fellows for high office would have a chance of being placed on the Bench he thought it ought not to be lost sight of. He, therefore, supported the proposed new clause.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON
said that every Member of the Committee on whichever side he sat ought to be prepared to support the proposed clause, if only for the reason that it would relieve him of one of the difficulties of his position. No sooner was a Member of Parliament elected than he was appealed to on all hands to obtain appointments to the magisterial bench, and Members sometimes found it impossible to resist the appeals of their strongest supporters, in many cases irrespective of qualification for judicial position. He thought there was something to be said for his hon. friend's Amendment from the standpoint of continuing the services of the Chairmen of county, borough, and rural councils in judicial positions. The numbers given by the Solicitor-General did not at all frighten him, because he did not think they were at all accurate. Those who had been connected with public bodies knew that the chairmen in a considerable number of instances were already magistrates. That remark applied especially to the chairmen of the county and borough councils. He would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that in some of the rural districts there was a great scarcity 613 of magistrates, not so much for performing the actual work of the bench as for minor purposes such as the taking of oaths. There was a very great lack of qualified men to do this work. He knew that from his own experience, representing as he did a very widely scattered rural district. People had sometimes to go miles in order to find a justice to render them the service they needed. He might be told that this would all be altered when the Bill came into operation. It would probably be said that magistrates in the county divisions would come up almost like mushrooms, inasmuch as the Bill removed the qualification which had debarred many people from receiving these appointments. But having removed the high and absurd qualification which had existed so long, the difficulty was that they would commit the making of the appointments to the Lord-Lieutenant or it might be the Lord Chancellor. He was quite willing to make every allowance for the possible argument that the appointments were made fairly. That was not his experience. The political and party element entered far too largely into the appointment of magistrates. The Solicitor-General had urged that the Bill did not deal with the process of appointment by election. While there was something to be said for the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, he would point out that these men were already appointed, and he and his friends merely wanted to extend the period of office. They had received the confidence of the authorities of which they were chairmen, and in order to do so they must have rendered considerable public service. They got their positions not because of any political services rendered to one Party or another. Except in those cases where the local elections were conducted on purely Party lines—;he was pleased to be able to say that there were very few of them, and he hoped they would become fewer—;a man who succeeded to the position of chairman did so because of the very valuable services he had rendered to the public authority by whom he was elected. That being so, why should they object to continue as a permanent justice a man who had secured the confidence of a representative public body? If the Solicitor-General was not prepared to recognise 614 that the time had come when the magistrates should be elected by an entirely different process, he hoped he would be prepared to consider an extension of the term, he did not say to all the authorities named in the Amendment, but to those men who had by virtue of office held the position of magistrates for one or two years. He thought the Bill might be amended in that direction with considerable advantage.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
appealed to his hon. friend who had moved the Amendment not to press it, for the reason that he would not get the sense of the Committee on the particular subject with which it dealt. This was a Bill to remove the present property qualification for the office of Justice of the Peace; it did not deal at all with the persons who appointed him. He was not going to express any final opinion as to the merits or demerits of what had fallen from his hon. friend. There was a great deal to be said both for and against the proposal now before the Committee. One thing that might be said was that Members of Parliament were worried by people who had an ambition to become Justices of the Peace. It might be that in order to achieve that ambition they would obtain the position in local authorities indicated in the Amendment. Having thus qualified for appointment as Justice of the Peace they might no longer care to servo the public in the capacity by virtue of which they gained the office. The proposal was one which required a great deal of consideration. He would point out to his hon. friend also that people who were ex officio Justices of the Peace during a year of office in a post to which they were elected, were people who enjoyed the confidence of the electors at the time, but it did not follow that that confidence would be continued. There were many Members in the last House of Commons who were not elected to the present House, and there were many Members in the present House who would not be elected to the next one. Those were considerations which went to the substance of the clause. He appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment for the reasons stated. If it were possible upon such a Bill as this to deal with the matter they might have long discussions upon whether there 615 out to be Justices of the Peace at all. For Parliamentary reasons he could not support the Amendment.
§ MR. BRACE
said that without some undertaking from the Solicitor-General to deal with this point he was not disposed to withdraw his Amendment. If the present opportunity passed he did not know when another chance would occur for dealing with this question, which was one of considerable public importance. The present Bill only removed the property qualification, and the appointment of magistrates would still remain with the Lords-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, and his object was to secure some selection by the people. The Lords-Lieutenant in many counties had declined to make gentlemen magistrates who had the fullest qualifications. As a rule the fact that a gentleman belonged to the opposite political party to that of the Lord-Lieutenant was sufficient to condemn him. He had been endeavouring to get some labour magistrates appointed, but he had not met with much success, and unless he got more encouragement from the Solicitor-General he could not agree to withdraw his Amendment.
§ * MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said that the Amendment which had been proposed was extremely vague and unworkable. It referred to "all other like authorities" and that was a very vague expression. It proposed that the chairman in question should be a permanent Justice of the Peace, but it did not say whether for the county or for the borough. He agreed that this question was outside the scope of the Bill. It was quite true that chairmen were not changed every year, but if this Amendment were adopted he ventured to say that they would be changed much oftener, and there would be a tendency to allow every member of the District Council to become the chairman in turn, so that they might become permanent Justices of the Peace. In this way they would in some Divisions practically double the number of justices every year, and the magisterial benches would become overcrowded. It had never been considered right in this country that those who were to have criminal jurisdiction over any community should be subject to election by that com- 616 munity. He did not think that a man to whom it was proposed to entrust this power over his fellows should be subject to election. He believed that in America there had been and perhaps still was an elected magistracy, but it had not worked well. In this country the last vestige of the practice disappeared in the abolition of the method by which coroners used to be appointed, and he hoped the House would never revive any proposal of that kind. He did not think any serious attack had been made upon the manner in which magistrates had been appointed, for they all knew what great pains were taken by the lords-lieutenant to select suitable men. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He would remind hon. Members that he was speaking with some experience upon this question. He knew that lords-lieutenant had a great many applications and considerable pressure was brought to bear upon them, and he believed that they all took great pains to sift the applications, and many of them were extremely anxious to appoint magistrates from both sides of politics. Apart from that there was the power of the Lord Chancellor for the time being, who could, if the case required it, exercise a certain amount of persuasion upon lords-lieutenant to submit names from both Parties, and he very properly exercised that power. He did not think any case could be made out for attacking the present system. If they were going to establish a system of indirect popular election to the Bench, then it would become a matter of politics. Many councils were elected for political reasons, and in that way they would get the very thing which they so much objected to, namely, a political selection instead of a selection independent altogether of Party. For those reasons he hoped that the principle of this Amendment would not be admitted.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)
said as a magistrate for several counties that his experience was that the qualification as a rule was not ability, but a question of money. Any man who came into a county, if he were rich, generally managed to be appointed a Justice of the Peace. It had been said that the appointments made by the Lords-Lieutenant were generally of a satisfactory character, but his experience was that 617 the appointments were invariably of a political character, and the question which the Government ought to ask themselves was whether these appointments in the future were going to be free from political bias. During the time he had been a Member of Parliament he had never been asked to recommend names to the Lords-Lieutenant. In his county they had a very excellent Lord-Lieutenant, but what was going to be the position in future? The Bill would remove the property qualification. The reason the Solicitor-General would not accept the Amendment was that he considered it outside the scope of the Bill. He thought it was the duty of hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side to support the Amendment. If the Solicitor-General could give them some undertaking that he would in a reasonable time reconsider this question in all its bearings, and abolish the present system, then he thought the Amendment might be withdrawn, in order that the Government might have time to consider the point. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman could not give such an undertaking he would be bound to vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire W.R., Barkston Ash)
said he should certainly support the Solicitor-General in the stand he had made. A strong attack had been made on the method of appointing magistrates, an attack which was absolutely unjustified, and a strong attack had been made on Lords-Lieutenant which also was unjustified. An interesting statement had been made by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan to the effect that if it was made a little more easy for some of the gentlemen in whom he was interested to be made magistrates he would support the hon. and learned Gentleman. After that they would watch with great interest any appointments to the magistracy in the constituency represented by the hon. Member. They had heard a good deal about integrity, and he would like to know whether the Party opposite were going to set an example of integrity in this matter. He hoped there was no truth in the statement that pressure was being brought to bear upon the Government to appoint magistrates of a different character. Perhaps the most remarkable feature in 618 the debate was the extraordinary dexterity of various legal Members opposite. The speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was in itself remarkable, but the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan was the most remarkable exhibition of skating over thin ice he had over seen. The line taken by the hon. and learned Member was that it would be a mistake to take a division on this Amendment because a division would not record the true opinion of the Committee. Why not? He was going to record his opinion on the merits of the Amendment. He was totally opposed to it, and the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, he was glad to say, had also signified his intention of so doing. He hoped that the pressure from behind would not on this occasion be sufficiently severe to induce hon. Members to recede from that position. Another argument of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan was that these elected gentlemen should not be made permanent magistrates because at some future time they might forfeit the support of those who placed them in their positions.
§ MR. LANE-FOX
If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that he would like to know what his argument was. He also disavowed the attack the hon and learned Gentleman made on the personnel of the magistracy. This was a matter of considerable principle, and he was surprised that hon. Members opposite were not more anxious to do something for their protégé, the chairman of the parish council, who was the one ewe lamb of a Radical Government of other years. The Committee ought to consider those who had taken part in the conduct of affairs before the magistrates and who wished to see the welfare of the bench preserved. They ought to take care that nothing they did impaired the position of the bench and prevented them from giving an unbiassed opinion on the questions which came before them. The Government should insist that those appointed to the position of a magistrate should not be dependent on the vote of anyone. The object of the original property qualification was to secure men who were independent 619 of local feeling or favour and therefore able to give a fair and unbiassed opinion. If the Committee thought they ought to abolish that qualification they ought not to go so far as to create magistrates who might be dependent on the support of their fellows in that way. He certainly hoped hon. Members below the gangway would press this Amendment to a division in order that they might see whether hon. Gentlemen opposite were totally opposed to elected magistrates. In holding the opinions they did and working as strongly as they did for the welfare of the magisterial bench he and his friends were only doing what they thought was right, because they had sat upon the bench and were anxious to keep it in as creditable a position as possible.
§ * MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)
said he only intervened for a moment because he had put down an Amendment on the lines of that moved by the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire. Although he had withdrawn that Amendment after a conversation with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, he had received no less than 123 letters from district councils confirming the view which he had adopted. He did not propose to follow Conservative speakers in their remarks as to a permament bench. It was a mockery to say they were attacking individual lords-lieutenant, but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that very few middle-class Liberals and Radicals ever got on to the bench at all. The system was this. The members of the bench considered who were suitable men and they suggested their names to the Lord-Lieutenant, who in his turn suggested them to the Lord Chancellor. That was all very well, but it practically resulted in a particular class of men being appointed to the bench to the exclusion of those who were perfectly entitled to be appointed. He hoped the Solicitor-General would be able to hold out some hope to the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire, because the present system did work most unfairly and to the disadvantage of those who occupied such positions as he himself occupied.
§ * MR. MADDISON
said that if this clause had any value at all it was for raising the question of elected magistrates. There 620 was much to be said both for and against that system. But it was quite obvious that the matter could not be left where this clause left it. He would therefore suggest to his hon. friend, after listening to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, who was opposed altogether to the elective principle, that it would be more advantageous if he withdrew the clause and took an opportunity of raising the question on another occasion and in another way, when he would not be embarrassed as on the present occasion. What was the central principle which they defended in the country? It was that they were dissatisfied with the present system of appointing magistrates. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Kingston had marred an excellent speech by attempting to show that the appointments of lords-lieutenant had given satisfaction to both Parties. It was deplorably notorious that there were benches almost entirely composed of one side of politics. He was not satisfied with the existing system, and, although he was not so much desirous of voting against the elective principle, he thought it was a matter which required very grave consideration. The great principle he was anxious to secure was the removal of the property qualification for magistrates, and he felt that that central principle would be jeopardised if they allowed this Bill to be encumbered with such a proposal as his hon. friend had moved. [Cries of "Why?"] Because the division would be taken as a vote against the principle and as a declaration that the House of Commons was not in favour of something which it might otherwise be inclined to adopt. In politics he had painfully learned that one could not get all he wanted and when he wanted it. He urged his hon. friend opposite to get hold of a little bit and then to do his best to got the rest afterwards.
§ MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)
believed that the existing system of appointing magistrates worked most objectionably, and he trusted that the present Government would take strong and drastic measures to correct the obvious evils which through a long succession of Governments had arisen from the mode of appointment. The administration of justice required that the magisterial benches 621 should not possess a preponderance of one political Party. Personally he had never felt congenial towards the elective magistrate, but the present system was a scandal, and the best way of getting rid of a dangerous agitation was that bold and active executive action which he ventured to suggest was in the power of the Government. He felt some difficulty in agreeing to the elective magistracy as a permanency, because in the case of the election of a mayor one term of office would entitle him to become a permanent magistrate. They all knew the circumstances under which a man might be elected the mayor of a borough, and it might happen that his one term of office would convince the people that they ought not to have elected him. If the mayor had served two or three terms of office that might give some assurance that the people, after service, had determined that the man was fit to remain at the head of the municipality. The first election of mayor was as a rule an experiment, and if that experiment terminated to the dissatisfaction of the people and the man lost their confidence, under this Amendment that man would still for all time be a magistrate. He did not think that was a reasonable proposal.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ * Mr. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)
proposed to move the following new clause—;The chairman of a board of guardians and the chairman of a parish council shall, if otherwise qualified, be by virtue of his office justice of the peace for the county in which the union or parish is situate, in the same way as a chairman of a district council becomes a justice of the peace.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
, on a point of order, asked whether in view of the fact that the clause just negatived provided for "other like authorities," this Amendment was in order. He wished to know whether those words did not govern parish councils as well as boards of guardians.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
contended that because the House had refused the larger principle it ought not to be taken that they were not willing to accept the smaller principle.
§ * MR. LUTTRELL
said that the Amendment just disposed of was one to make 622 permanent magistrates, and he wished to point out that his proposal was to make temporary magistrates those who held a temporary office, and he submitted that that proposition was in order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
This Amendment raises a different principle from the last Amendment, and therefore it is in order.
§ * MR. LUTTRELL
said he was proposing to allow men who had been elected by their fellows to responsible positions and who enjoyed public confidence to become justices of the peace during their term of office. If it was admitted, as it must be admitted by all candid men, that the magisterial benches were too largely composed of one particular class, then it seemed to him that what he was proposing was a very fair way of remedying that state of things. His proposal was to allow the chairmen of parish councils to become justices of the peace, and it was practically giving the parish councils power to select a magistrate. One of the great faults of the present system was that a large number of cases were looked at from one particular point of view. With one particular class of magistrates poaching was looked upon as an awful crime, whereas a magistrate who belonged to the labouring class might not look upon poaching as a very serious offence. He believed the benches would be more respected if they were drawn not so much from one class, and by adopting his proposal they would largely achieve that result. By adopting the Amendment the Committee would only be following the example of a country which was certainly not lacking in intelligence, namely, Scotland, where chairmen of parish councils had for some time been justices of the peace. He thought the new clause was fair and reasonable and ought to have the support of a Liberal Government. He brought forward this question many years ago and got a Bill which contained a proposal of this kind through its Second Reading, but it went no further. On this occasion they had an opportunity. They had a Liberal Government bringing forward a Bill to amend the law relating to justices of the peace, and if the Government were worthy of the name of Liberal it would thoroughly amend the law including the 623 point under discussion. He heard an hon. Member say something about "another place," but he thought they would be a very poor sort of Liberals if they moulded their opinion upon what was said by noble Lords in another place. He intended to go to a division.
The chairman of a board of guardians and the chairman of a parish council, unless personally disqualified by any Act, shall be by virtue of his office justice of the peace for the county in which the district is situate, in the same way as a chairman of a district council becomes a justice of the peace.—;(Mr. Luttrell.)
Brought up and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said he would not detain the Committee very long upon this clause, because he really stated upon the last clause what he had to say in reference to this one. He had done so specifically with the other clause which raised the same question in a different and he thought a better and more intelligible form. He had taken the opportunity on the last clause of dealing with the reasons why he should invite the Committee not to accept this clause. His hon. friend had held up the fear of the report stage and of another place. He did not know that he was animated by any fear either of the report stage or of another place, but he took them into potential consideration. The question raised by this clause related more to appointment than to qualification, and if they were to deal with the question relating to appointment they would have to deal with it in a separate measure, in regard to which they would have to treat and discuss many things which were not germane to this question. Therefore he protested against any such principle or scheme being brought into the measure at all, because any one who had to face the programme of work which the House had before them would take note of the large amount of detailed business which awaited the consideration of the House on the various stages of the measure they had before them, and it would indeed be a bold Ministry who did not regard the work before them with some reason- 624 able fear—;he would not say craven fear—;and apprehension. He could not give any promise or undertaking that this question of elective magistracy should be dealt with in this session or in any session to come. He was not a member of the Cabinet, but only a very humble member of the Ministry; therefore he was not entitled to give any such undertaking, and he deprecated the introduction of this topic as one which was not wise in itself, and as one which was likely to damnify and endanger the prospect of carrying a really useful measure. He would not deal with the merits of this clause, but he would remind hon. Members who reproached him that they appeared to have an inordinate appetite for discussions which were beyond the scope of the Bill. He had no such appetite, and nothing would induce him to ask the Committee to vote upon this clause upon its merits. That was not the ground upon which he refused to accept the clause. If the Committee desired to pass this Bill they must carefully restrict its scope, they must not include matters with which it did not deal, and they must refrain from introducing any large and striking principle which it did not contain. The reform dealt with was not a slight one and had long been delayed, and on the eve of achievement he did not wish to see it imperilled.
§ * MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said he was very grieved to hear the decision of the Solicitor-General in this matter. He had thought that after the waste of time in useless discussions and divisions they might have got something more substantial out of the Bill. The Bill as introduced was a useful one, but now they had a real opportunity of going one better. Hon. Members who lived in cities did not realise the responsibilities of chairmen of boards of guardians and parish councils as did those who lived in the country. He urged the Government to make the little concession which was asked for and hoped they would not press the question to a division against those who supported the new clause. If they did, however, he hoped the hon. Member for Tavistock would press the matter to a division himself. It was all very well to say they had the opportunity of raising this question on Tuesdays and Wednesdays when no 625 doubt they would get an expression of sympathy from the Minister concerned, but here they had an opportunity of obtaining real reform and he hoped hon. Members would support the Amendment.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS (Denbigh District)
asked the Chairman, on a point of order, whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would not involve the appointment of women to the judicial bench inasmuch as a woman might hold the position of chairman of a board of guardians.
§ * MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)
said he rose to remind the hon. and learned Solicitor-General of a fact which might have escaped his recollection, viz., that the insertion of the chairman of the board of guardians as an ex officio magistrate was only accidentally omitted from the Local Government Act of 1894. He knew that from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton who was in charge of the Bill. He suggested that if his hon. friend would withdraw from his clause "the chairman of a parish council" they might agree upon the matter.
§ * MR. DUNN (Cornwall, Camborne)
urged that nothing could be better, both for the justices and for the parish councils, than that the chairmen of parish councils should be during their year of office ex officio justices. We had in this country three municipal bodies—;municipal corporations, urban district councils, and parish councils. At the present moment
§ the chairmen of two of these bodies were ex officio justices, while the chairman of last named was not. By adopting the proposed clause the Committee would simply remove a disability which ought not to exist.
§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)
said he could not vote with the hon. Member, and thought that hon. Members who were in favour of making chairmen of parish councils ex officio justices had no idea of the number of parishes in the country. In his own constituency he had no less than 140 parishes, and if the chairmen of the councils were made justices the bench would be swamped.
MR. O'HARA (Monaghan, N.)
said that in Scotland the chairman of a parish council was a justice of peace, and he did not see why the least objection should be taken to the appointment of such chairmen in this country to a similar office. Scotland had not suffered in consequence of these appointments, and the people who occupied the position in England were surely in no way inferior to those in Scotland. He could not see why the proposal should not be accepted unanimously. He had had experience of a great many areas in Scotland since the Local Government Bill came into operation, and he knew of no more useful men in the capacity of magistrates than the chairmen of parish councils had been. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 59; Noes, 315. (Division List No. 66.)629
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Dairymple, Viscount||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T.C.||Dillon, John||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Duffy, William J.||Marks, H. H. (Kent)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Meagher, Michael|
|Barnard, E. B.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Barnes, G. N.||Gill, A. H.||Murphy, John|
|Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hazleton, Richard||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid|
|Brace, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Grady, J.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Higham, John Sharp||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hodge, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Clough, W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jenkins, J.||Radford, G. H.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jowett, F. W.||Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Craig, Captain James(Down, E.||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Scott, A.H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne||Summerbell, T.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Seddon, J.||Thomson W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Shackleton, David James||Toulmin, George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr. Luttrell and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.|
|Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)||Wardle, George J.|
|Steadman, W. C.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Cogan, Denis J.||Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Cory, Clifford John||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||Hazle, Dr. A. E.|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Crean, Eugene||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cremer, William Randall||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Crombie, John William||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Barlow, John E. (Somerset)||Crooks, William||Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Crossley, William J.||Hervey, F.W.F(BuryS.Edm'ds|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dalziel, James Henry||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Delany, William||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y||Hooper, A. G.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Benn, John Williams (Dev'np'rt||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Benn, W(T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo.||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Donelan, Captain A.||Hudson, Walter|
|Bertram, Julius||Doughty, Sir George||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)||Duckworth, James||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Du Cros, Harvey||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Billson, Alfred||Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Boland, John||Elibank, Master of||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire,N.E.)||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Erskine, David C.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Branch, James||Evans, Samuel T.||Joyce, Michael|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Brigg, John||Everett, R. Lacey||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Brooke, Stopford||Faber, George Denison (York)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen||Findlay, Alexander||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Forster, Henry William||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Fullerton, Hugh||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Burnyeat, J. D. W.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Levy, Maurice|
|Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas||Ginnell, L.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Cairns, Thomas||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Glover, Thomas||Lough, Thomas|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gooch, George Peabody||Lundon, W.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Grant, Corrie||Lupton, Arnold|
|Cave, George||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Griffith, Ellis J.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Gulland, John W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hall, Frederick||M'Callum, John M.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Halpin, J.||M'Crae, George|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Hambro, Charles Eric||M'Kean, John|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hammond, John||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Maddison, Frederick|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Pollard, Dr.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Massie, J.||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Rainy, A. Rolland||Tillett, Louis John|
|Menzies, Walter||Raphael, Herbert H.||Tomkinson, James|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Torrance, A. M.|
|Molteno, Percy Alfred||Rees, J. D.||Ure, Alexander|
|Mond, A.||Renton, Major Leslie||Verney, F. W.|
|Montagu, E. S.||Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Montgomery, H. H.||Richardson, A.||Wallace, Robert|
|Mooney, J. J.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Morse, L. L.||Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robinson, S.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Murray, James||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Myer, Horatio||Roe, Sir Thomas||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Napier, T. B.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Weir, James Galloway|
|Nicholls, George||Rose, Charles Day||Whitbread, Howard|
|Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r||Runciman, Walter||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)||Russell, T. W.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Salter, Arthur Clavell||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sears, J. E.||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Seely, Major J. B.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|O'Malley, William||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|O'Mara, James||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Soares, Ernest J.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Spicer, Albert||Young, Samuel|
|Paul, Herbert||Stanger, H. Y.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Starkey, John R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
§ Schedules agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill without630
§ Amendment to the House."
§ The Committee divided:—;Ayes, 314; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 67.)633
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Benn, John Williams (Devonp't||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Adkins, W. Ryland||Berridge, T. H. D.||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.||Bertram, Julius||Burke, E. Haviland-|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Burnyeat, J. D. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Billson, Alfred||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Byles, William Pollard|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire||Cairns, Thomas|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight||Boland, John||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Barker, John||Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)||Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight|
|Barlow, John E. (Somerset)||Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Cawley, Frederick|
|Barnard, E. B.||Brace, William||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Barnes, G. N.||Bramsdon, T. A.||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Branch, James||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Brigg, John||Churchill, Winston Spencer|
|Beauchamp, E.||Brooke, Stopford||Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh||Cleland, J. W.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Bryce, Rt. Hn James(Aberdeen||Clough, W.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Higham, John Sharp||Nicholls, George|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hodge, John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J(S. Pancras, W||Hooper, A. G.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Cory, Clifford John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Crean, Eugene||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cremer, William Randal||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Crooks, William||Jardine, Sir J.||O'Grady, J.|
|Crossley, William J.||Jenkins, J.||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Malley, William|
|Delany, William||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||O'Mara, James|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jowett, F. W.||Paul, Herbert|
|Dillon, John||Joyce, Michael||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kearley, Hudson E.||Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kekewich, Sir George||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Duckworth, James||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Duffy, William J.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)||Laidlaw, Robert||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid||Radford, G. H.|
|Elibank, Master of||Lehmann, R. C.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Erskine, David C.||Levy, Maurice||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lewis, John Herbert||Rees, J. D.|
|Essex, R. W.||Lough, Thomas||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lundon, W.||Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lupton, Arnold||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Richardson, A.|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Robinson, S.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Macpherson, J. T.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||MacVeigh, Char les(Donegal, E.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gill, A. H.||M'Callum, John M.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Ginnell, L.||M'Crae, George||Rose, Charles Day|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||M'Kenna, Reginald||Rowlands, J.|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Micking, Major G.||Runciman, Walter|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Maddison, Frederick||Russell, T. W.|
|Grant, Corrie||Mallet, Charles E.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)||Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Marnham, F. J.||Seddon, J.|
|Gulland, John W.||Massie, J.||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Meagher, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Hall, Frederick||Meehan, Patrick A.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Halpin, J.||Menzies, Walter||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Hammond, John||Micklem, Nathaniel||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Molteno, Percy Alfred||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||Mond, A.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Montagu, E. S.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Montgomery, H. H.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mooney, J. J.||Spicer, Albert|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morse, L. L.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Murphy, John||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Murray, James||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Myer, Horatio||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Napier, T. B.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.||Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sullivan, Donal||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent||Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Summerbell, T.||Wardle, George J.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Waterlow, D. S.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)||Watt, H. Anderson||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Weir, James Galloway||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Tillett, Louis John||Whitbread, Howard||Young, Samuel|
|Tomkinson, James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Torrance, A. M.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ure, Alexander||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Verney, F. W.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Wallace, Robert||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Walsh, Stephen||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Dalrymple, Viscount||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Doughty, Sir George||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Du Cros, Harvey||Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Faber, George Denison (York)||Starkey, John R.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Helmsley, Viscount||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cave, George||Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Houston, Robert Paterson||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. H. H. Marks.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n|
|Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)||Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.