HL Deb 16 June 1851 vol 117 cc777-8

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.

The EARL of MINTO

objected to the Bill, on the ground that it proposed to supersede the Court of Session as a court of appeal in all matters relating to public-houses, and to substitute for that court a small body of justices of the peace appointed as a select committee to adjudicate on these questions. He appealed to noble and learned Lords in the House whether this was consistent with the ancient jurisprudence of the country. For his part, he believed it would give rise to more abuses than it was intended to cure, and he would, therefore, move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

The DUKE of ARGYLL

thought this Bill would effect an important improvement in the existing law. He believed it was by no means an uncommon case under the present system that justices were assembled at quarter-sessions who knew nothing of the merits of the cases that were appealed to them, but who allowed themselves to be used for the purpose of reversing a decision that had been carefully examined by the Court before. In order to remedy the grievances complained of, it was proposed that the justices should act by a select committee of their own. He held that such a committee would act with greater caution, and far greater responsibility, than if there were a meeting of all the justices. The noble Lord objected that the selection of the committee would become an electioneering matter. But it was not likely such a system could be carried to any great extent. The committee would not consist of more than ten members, and if any favour or gross partiality were shown by it for party reasons or purposes, or through personal favouritism, public opinion would remedy such a proceeding. In so far as it was an alteration of the present law, it was an alteration for the better. It had been said that the Bill had arisen out of a distrust of the justices of the peace; but the clause to which that objection peculiarly applied had been actually framed by the justices themselves, and met with their full concurrence. He trusted that the House would not reject the Bill, which was a great improvement upon the present state of the law. In his opinion, by such a course they would inflict a serious calamity on the people of Scotland.

LORD KINNAIRD

bore out the assertion that the Bill had been framed with the full concurrence of the justices of the peace. The Bill procured, what had been so much desired, a limited responsibility.

The EARL of EGLINTOUN

supported the Bill, which was unanimously demanded in Scotland. It might not do enormous good, but still it was a step in the right direction.

On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion; Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House adjourned till To-morrow.