Lords Sitting of 2 April 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Forestalling, Regrating, and Engrossing; Bail in Error; Edinburgh Poor Assessment
3a. and passed:—Dean Forest Encroachments; International Copyright.
Received the Royal Assent.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity.
Private—2a. Brandes Burton Inclosure.
Reported.—Severn Navigation; Great Western Railway.
3a. and passed:—Edinburgh Cattle Market; Rochdale Gas.
Received the Royal Assent.—Ribble Navigation; Bury (Huntingdonshire) Inclosure; Ramsey Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Roseberry, from Birkinhead and Manchester, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Lord Lorton, from Hepworth, and from Poslingford, and 3 other places, against any further Grant to Maynooth, or Payment of Romish Priesthood by the State.—By Lord Campbell, from Portaferry, in favour of the Presbyterian and Dissenters Marriages (Ireland) Bill.—By the Marquess of Bute, from Glasgow, and other places, in favour, and by the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Paisley and Greenock, against, the present Laws respecting Scotch Universities.

RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE.
Lord Monteaglebrought in a Bill to repeal certain Laws now upon the statute-book but obsolete in practice, though liable to be brought into mischievous operation at any time, restricting the purchase and sale of goods, which restrictions were opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, and if carried into effect would interfere with almost every operation of trade. In Ireland, none of these Acts had been repealed, and his object was to make the law similar to that in England, and also to improve the latter. This was only pursuing the same course which had been long since recommended in the House of Commons.
Bill read a first time.

CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Lord Campbellrose to present to their Lordships a Bill of some importance as connected with the administration of justice, which had been prepared, not by himself, but by an hon. Friend in the other House of Parliament, where it was intended to have been brought in, but as it affected the judicial jurisdiction of their Lordships, it was found that in the House of Lords only could it properly be introduced. The object of the Bill was to remove a great objection which, as the law now stood, might be taken against the administration of justice in this country respecting Appeals and Writs of Error. Their Lordships would be aware that the right of Appeal was given both in civil and criminal cases; respecting the decision in an Appeal in one of the latter class of cases, he had that night presented a petition in which the Appeal had been against a conviction for bigamy. In civil cases the parties prosecuting the Appeal entered into recognizances of double the amount in dispute, and the execution of the judgment was suspended until the

1743
decision on the Writ of Error was given. There was, consequently, in civil cases, no difficulty. But in criminal cases much doubt existed as to what should be done with the party convicted while the Appeal was pending—that was, whether or not the sentence should be carried into effect pending the Appeal. As an instance of the inconvenience and injustice which might be inflicted by carrying the sentence into effect, notwithstanding an Appeal against the conviction, suppose the case of a man sentenced to transportation, he might be sent abroad before the Appeal was decided, though it might be ultimately found that the conviction was wrong, and the party undeserving of punishment; while on the other hand, if the sentence were unconditionally suspended until the superior court had decided, every criminal would appeal in the hope of delaying or escaping the punishment due to his offence. To remedy this, the Bill he was about to submit provided that upon the defendant giving security to the satisfaction of the Court, and in such sum as the Court might direct, that any fine that might be imposed should be paid, and that the defendant should be forthcoming to undergo any sentence which might be pronounced upon him, that sentence should be suspended until the Court of Appeal should have decided upon the merits of the case. He did not propose that this alteration in the law should be retrospective, and therefore he had inserted a Clause providing that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of August next.
Bill read a first time.

FEES To JUSTICES' CLERKS, &c.
The Marquess of Lansdownemoved for a return from each of the Clerks of the Peace at the several Assizes in England and Wales, of the amount of the Fees received by him during each of the last three years ending the 31st of December, 1842;—his object being to bring before their Lordships a tabular statement of those fees in continuation of those returns which had been already ordered in respect to the fees taken by the Clerks of the Magistrates. He would take that opportunity of stating, that having seen the partial returns which had been laid before the other House upon this subject, his opinion was confirmed that this was a case requiring legislative interference—and legislative interference under the authority and
1744
sanction of the Government. From all the information he had obtained he was persuaded that there existed two or three classes of poor persons on whom the system, as it prevailed in regard to these fees, pressed most severely and unjustly, and whose case called for redress. In the first place, there were those poor persons, who, though guilty of small offences, were, by the practical effect of that system, subjected to a punishment out of all proportion to the offence committed; then there were those persons who were charged with those small offences, but were acquitted; and then, though declared to be guilty of no crime, were nevertheless punished by being taxed with certain fees; then again, there were those persons, who, in the protection of their own property, found it necessary to prosecute, and then, though prosecuting justly, were yet subjected themselves to punishment in the shape of pecuniary demands made upon them, and which they were compelled to pay. In regard to the first class of persons, those who were convicted and sentenced to pay such fines, this was a matter which pressed most heavily upon them, because the costs which they were called upon to pay also amounted in many cases to twenty or thirty times the amount of the fine. For instance, in one case a man had been fined 1s., and the costs were 22 s. 6d. Thus, as he had stated, there was no proportion between the crime and the punishment to which the unfortunate culprit was subjected. On the other hand, the charge to which the prosecutor was liable deterred him in many cases from prosecuting the offender. A clergyman had informed him that in one case, in which a farmer had prosecuted a party for stealing some trifling articles of garden produce, he had been mulcted in the sum of 18 s. as fees; and the consequence had been, that in that parish no one would now prosecute, and a system of lawlessness, resulting from the impunity with which these crimes could be committed, prevailed. He was sure this was a question in which all their Lordships would feel a deep interest; and he thought, in addition to the Motion he made, considering the subject had been noticed both in that and the other House of Parliament, and had attracted the attention of the right hon. the Home Secretary, it was not too much to ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) now to state whether the Government had any

1745
intention to do that which no private Member of either House could do so effectually—viz., to introduce some measure of legislation to remedy the evil?
The Duke of Wellingtonreplied, that his attention having been called to the subject, he had consulted with his noble Friend as to the course to be adopted, and his noble Friend, admitting fully its importance, had turned his attention to it, and had now under consideration measures for remedying the grievance complained of in regard to the fees paid to the Clerks of the Peace, Clerks of Assize, and Clerks to the Magistrates at petty sessions. It was intended to submit those measures to Parliament during the present Session. He could not now state at what time, but he assured their Lordships that it should be at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Wharncliffewas informed upon good authority that the fees which had been referred to did not go wholly to the Magistrates' Clerks, but were generally appropriated to defraying the incidental expenses of the trial, such as paying witnesses and constables, so that very often only a very small amount of the fees reached the Clerk of the Peace.
Lord Beaumontsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the whole of the fees went to the Magistrates' Clerks. They received a very small proportion of them, the rest going towards the necessary expenses.
Lord Redesdalesaid, there was another erroneous impression which he was anxious to correct. It was mentioned as the gist of the complaint that a small fine, as of 1s., did carry large costs, the fact being that the Magistrates in inflicting such a small fine upon a poor man did so in consideration of the amount of costs; whereas, if the defendant had been a public company or a richer party, the fine inflicted would have been much higher.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that the Magistrates could not always tell beforehand what the costs would be.
Lord Colchestersaid, that he considered it the duty of a Magistrate to inquire what the costs would be, and that such was the practice at the Sessions which he attended. Besides, in many cases the Act of Parliament provided that the fine and costs should not together exceed a certain amount.
Lord Campbellsaid, that as the subject was about to be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government, there was
1746
one point upon which he hoped they would take care to make provision, namely, that the amount of fees should not depend upon the length of the proceedings. He knew that great extortion was practised at present by swelling out the proceedings, for the mere purpose of increasing the costs at so much per folio.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.