Lords Sitting of 3 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Unions (Ireland); Brazil Slave Trade.
2a. Assessed Taxes Composition; Games and Wagers; Administration of Criminal Justice (Lord Denman).
Reported. — Banking (Ireland); Real Property (Lord Chancellor).
3a. and passed:—Granting of Leases; West India Islands Relief.
Private.—1a. Bermondsey Improvement; Forth and Clyde Navigation and Union Canal Junction; Newport and Pontypool Railway; London and South Western Railway.
2a. Glossop Gas; Shepley Lane Head and Barnsley Road. Reported.—Quinborowe Borough; Winchester College Estate: Leeds and Hirsk Railway; Great North of England and Richmond Railway; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Trent Valley Railway; Totnes Markets and Waterworks; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway; Oxford Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Oxford and Rugby Railway; Cork and Bandon Railway; Great Western Railway, Ireland (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Great North of England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction, Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; Waterford and Limerick Railway; Eastern Union Railway Amendment.
3a. and passed:—Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch); Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood Branch); Whitehaven and Furness Railway; Eastern Union (Bury St. Ed-

1429
mund's) Railway; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; North Woolwich Railway; Guildford Junction Railway; Winwick Rectory; Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Polwarth, from Legislative Council of New South Wales, for the Better Regulation of the Local Taxation of the Colony; and from Shareholders and others of City of Sydney (New South Wales) for Alteration of Law relating to the Disposal of Land, etc.

RAILWAY AND OTHER BILLS
Lord Brougham, in moving the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Resolutions of which he had given notice, said, he had to inform their Lordships, that upon the subject of the Resolutions which he submitted to their Lordships on Tuesday last, a most satisfactory conference had taken place with the Committee of the House of Commons; and it was found that that Committee had resolved to report to the other House of Parliament seven Resolutions which were entirely in accordance with the terms of the three Resolutions which he had proposed for their Lordships' adoption. His Lordship then moved the Resolutions, with Amendments:—

"1. That in all future Sessions, after any Road or Canal or Railway or Dock Bill shall be read a First Time, and before any further Proceeding thereupon, there be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a Statement of the Length and Breadth of the Space which is intended or sought to be taken for the proposed Works, and to give up which the Consent of the Owners of the Land has not been obtained; together with the Names of such Owners, and the Heights above the Surface of all proposed Works on the Ground of each such Owner.

"2. That a Return shall also be presented at the same Time of the Names of the Owners or Occupiers of any Houses situated within Three hundred Yards of the proposed Works, who shall have, before the Thirty-first December preceding the Introduction of the Bill into Parliament, deposited written Objections to the said Railway with the public Officer appointed to receive the Plans of the said Railway within the Parish or Township in which their Property is situate; or, if the Railway should not be proposed to be carried through that Parish or Township, in the one through which the Railway is to pass in the Manner objected to by the above-mentioned Parties.

"3. That where any Party or Parties have appeared and contested any such Bills at the Bar or in the Committees of the House, it shall be lawful for the House or Committees, if in their Discretion they shall think fit, to direct the Expenses of such Party or Parties to be paid by the opposite Party promoting the Bill."

Two first Resolutions carried. The third postponed.

BANKING (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of Ripon, in moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Banking (Ireland) Bill, said, that the measure was so nearly identical with the Scottish Banking Bill, that he should not upon that occasion trouble them with any lengthened observations; and still less would it he necessary for him to state in detail the grounds upon which the measure rested. Thus much, however, he might say, that it was intended to give the Bank of Ireland privileges, as regarded issue, somewhat similar to those enjoyed by the Bank of England. The Bill which he now moved should be committed, was one that he had no doubt would prove highly advantageous to the joint-stock hanks at present existing in Ireland; and he must say, that those establishments appeared to him to be eminently entitled to the support of the Government and of the Legislature, for they had conferred great benefits upon Ireland. With respect to the connexion subsisting between the Bank of Ireland and the Government, it was only necessary for him to say that such dividends on the public debt as were paid in Ireland should continue to be paid by the Bank of Ireland; and as regarded the interest which the Government paid to the Bank for the amount of its capital in the hands of the Government, that would be reduced to 3½ per cent. The effect of the Bill, he hoped, would be to promote objects that the Legislature must be most anxious to promote, namely, commercial enterprise, and a development of the resources of Ireland by the extensive introduction of capital.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the Bill was founded upon sound principles, and, on the whole, would be likely to prove beneficial to Ireland. But, with respect to the Bank of Ireland, it was only of late years that it could be said really to discharge those functions which the public had a right to expect from that establishment. Between the years 1814 and 1824, the manner in which the Bank of Ireland did business was so inconvenient, and towards the merchants of Dublin so unfair, that it became necessary to establish the Hibernian and the Royal Banking Companies; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would see the necessity and the justice of allowing those banks to circulate notes on the same security as the other

1431
banks. Those banks had been conducted on the soundest and best principles; they had conferred great benefit upon the trading community, and had reaped considerable profit from their mode of dealing. The only objection against this proposal was, that an Act had passed last year putting a stop to further issue in the United Kingdom; but that Act really applied only to the banking transactions of Great Britain, and there was only one phrase in it which could be construed to extend the provisions to Ireland. The case of these two banks was one of extreme hardship; and he trusted the Government would allow the introduction of a clause giving to them, as well as to other banks, the benefit of breaking up the monopoly of banking in Ireland. He would not move any specific proposition in Committee; but if the Government refused to entertain the prayer of these banks, he should feel it his duty to move a clause on a future stage of the Bill.
Lord Monteagledid not wish to refuse his assent to the general principles of the measure; but there were some points to which he wished the Government would direct their attention. He approved of the joint-stock banking principle, if it were carefully managed, while the number of branches made a central superintending authority to control their issues more necessary. He would most earnestly advise those engaged in the joint-stock banks of Ireland to pause before they incurred the additional risk of a metropolitan circulation. He thought the Government would act wisely and justly if they allowed the Hibernian and National Banks to have the power of issue. When they conceded the power of metropolitan issue to other banks, he thought they could not fairly refuse it to two banks of the most undoubted capital and respectability. As they had prohibited fractional notes, he recommended to the Government to provide a sufficient supply of silver.
The Earl of Riponsaid, with respect to the silver currency, it was a matter to be taken into consideration by the Government, with a view to make provision against any inconvenience being suffered by the labouring classes from the want of it.
House in Committee. Bill reported without Amendment.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL—LORD DENMAN.
Lord Denman, in
1432
moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that the object of the measure was to remedy certain existing defects in the administration of the Criminal Law, which the Judges had experienced in the execution of their duty. One of the chief of these was, that in many cases where a less severe punishment than was enacted by Statute would answer the ends of justice, the Judge was wholly without any discretionary power of mitigating the penalty. Thus, where transportation for life was the punishment affixed to an offence by Statute, the Judge was bound, if the party was convicted, to pass sentence of transportation for life, though he might very often be of opinion that a milder sentence would be of adequate severity. In some cases a part of the sentence was remitted upon subsequent application to the Secretary of State; but where mitigation was required, it was fit and proper that the court which tried the individual should be the authority that was to apportion the measure of punishment. There were two other objects proposed by this Bill: one was to correct certain defects in the Central Criminal Court, rendering it necessary for the party to give recognizances, as was now required before he went before the Grand Jury, which had been found attended with considerable inconvenience in practice. Again, as the matter now stood, after a writ of certiorari had been moved in the Court of Queen's Bench, the venue became no venue at all when the case was brought into the Superior Court; and it must be tried in some county, for the fictitious venue of the Central Criminal Court had ceased to have any value. To obviate this inconvenience, it was provided by the Bill that the writ of certiorari must always state where the trial was to take place, and the Sheriff was to be empowered to empanel a jury. With respect to another provision of the Bill, he was not quite satisfied with it as it stood at present, nor was his noble and learned Friend behind him. Very serious offences were often committed, short of felony, but accompanied with malignity, such as aggravated assaults, breaches of trust, &c. These the law comprised under the head of misdemeanors, and there was at present no power of adding solitary confinement or hard labour to the term of imprisonment provided for them. So that in one class of offences this additional punishment might be awarded; but other offenders, who were far more deserving of punishment, might escape it. In cases of assault, perhaps, of

1433
a very aggravated nature, it often happened that the public were disappointed to see the party escape with the punishment of an assault of the most ordinary kind, and this from the want of some more particular definition of what were to be considered aggravated cases. He did not know how a more particular description could be given, or how it would be possible to prevent the evil of inadequate punishment, but by leaving a discretionary power to the Judge, to be exercised upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. If, however, any noble Lord was prepared to point out a better mode of securing the end, there would be ample opportunity of taking the subject into consideration when the Bill had been printed. He should be disposed to suggest that this discretionary power should be confined to the Superior Courts.
The Lord Chancellor: I am satisfied of the propriety of that.
Lord Denmanwas still open to hear of any method by which the purpose might be more conveniently effected. Some discretion must be exercised in almost all cases; and that could only be upon a view taken by the Court at the time of all the circumstances of the offence. He hoped their Lordships would give this Bill a second reading.
Lord Campbellhighly approved of the three clauses to which his noble and learned Friend first referred; and any one who read them must say that they were great improvements on the present law. With respect to the second section of this Bill, however, he entertained the most serious objection to it. As it now stood, any person convicted before any tribunal of an assault, was liable to be imprisoned for three years; he might be held to hard labour during the whole of that time, and sentenced to solitary confinement for a period to be determined by the court. What was an assault? If a man held up his fist in the face of another within striking distance, that was an assault. To leave such a punishment at the discretion of the judge was, he thought, hardly consistent with the spirit now pervading the administration of criminal justice in this country. See what the consequences might be. Inferior magistrates might suppose that they were bound to give the maximum of punishment. In a game case, for instance, where a notorious poacher, who had been several times convicted, was indicted at the quarter sessions for an assault or other misdemeanor,
1434
would the noble Earl opposite wish to be subjected to the temptation of having such a man at the mercy of justice, with the tremendous power of giving him three years' imprisonment, with hard labour and solitary confinement, while his offence might only call for a very slight punishment in itself? He thought the discretionary power, therefore, ought clearly not to be left to the quarter sessions. Was it to be allowed at the assizes? If not, it would be quite inoperative. But there not only did the Queen's Judges administer justice, but Serjeants, Queen's Counsel, and others, to whom, however anxious they might be to do their duty, he would be extremely reluctant to leave this tremendous discretion. Yet it would be very invidious to say that it should belong to the Court of Queen's Bench, and not to the noble Earl, the President of the Council, for instance, sitting in quarter sessions. On these grounds he should certainly think it his duty to move that the clause be struck out.
Lord Denmansuggested that assaults to which the higher penalty was to be allotted, might be described as assaults "with intent to commit a felony."
Lord Campbellsaid, a definition might be found for them which could be inserted in the indictment.
The Earl of Devon, as the person who had introduced into the other House the Bill on which rested the power of committing with hard labour, felt that the class of cases to which this punishment was to be made applicable, should be strictly defined.
Lord Broughamagreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking several of the clauses great improvements on the present law; his only doubt was as to the provision alluded to respecting assaults. He would suggest that the definition of offences which were to be vested with the severer penalty might be, "all attempts to commit felony, and all assaults accompanied by such attempt." At all events, there could be no doubt that the words should not be left as they now stood, making a common assault, without the attempt, liable to be punished in this way.
The Earl of Stradbrokedenied that there would be any disposition, in a court of quarter sessions, to punish offenders against the game laws with the extreme severity conjectured by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
Lord Broughamthought the words might be introduced "assaults with intent to commit a felony," or "assaults of an indecent description."
The Lord Chancellor: Might it not be better to except from the operation of this Bill such assaults as common assaults? By the Common Law, all cases of fine and imprisonment, and fine or imprisonment, were left to the discretion of the judge. He understood his noble and learned Friend's principle to be the same, with the addition, that instead of fine and imprisonment, the parties should be liable to hard labour and solitary confinement; leaving the law in the other particular, namely, as to the discretion of the court, as it was; but with this restriction, that the punishment should in no case exceed the limit imposed by this Act. He thought, however, that the extensive discretionary power proposed should be confined to the Judges of the Superior Courts.
After a few words from Lord Demnan, Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.