Lords Sitting of 23 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (£407,649); Offences against the Person; Lar-

1559
ceny, &c.; Forgery; Malicious Injuries to Property; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal. 3a Saint Mary in Rydal Marriages Validity.

THE NEW FOREST.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to call the attention of the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty to some circumstances connected with the management of the New Forest, and particularly with regard to the removal of some beech timber trees, which were some of the finest and largest in England. These trees had been cut down. He understood also that the roots of these trees had been grubbed up at an expense which could never be repaid. There were also a great many ancient yew trees in the New Forest which had been cut down. Now every one knew that single yew trees took up little or no space in such an area as that of the New Forest. He wished to ask the noble Duke whether he would have any objection to give the House a Return of the Number of Beech and Yew Trees cut in the New Forest between the 1st January, 1858, and 1st January, 1860, and the Amount for which they had been sold?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he was quite aware of the existence of some fine beech trees in the New Forest, but he had no knowledge of their having been cut down. He regretted that such fine trees should have been sacrificed, especially as they were of little or no value for timber. He believed that the felling of beech did not contribute much to the benefit of a proprietor, and he recollected the advice said to have been given by a nobleman to his son, always to plant beech in his park, because it was very possible that they might be spared by his successor, when oaks would not. He had no objection to the Return proposed.
Return ordered.

BILLS FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE AND CRIMINAL LAW.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for Second Reading of the Offences against the Person Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORin moving the second reading of the Bill said, it was one of a series of measures of great importance; which, if their Lordships would read a second time, he should ask should be referred to a Select Committee, at which not merely the law Members of their Lordships' House, but other noble Lords,
  1560
  both law and lay, might attend, and offer suggestions for their improvement. He had given their Lordships a history of these Bills at no distant period, which he would not then repeat. A proposition had been entertained for attempting the consolidation into one code, not, indeed, of the whole law of the country—that would be almost a hopeless task—but of the criminal law only, and the present series of Bills consolidating the Criminal Statute Law was the result. The Bills had been carefully considered by learned persons on both side St. George's Channel, and the criminal law of England and Ireland had been assimilated on some important points. He would draw their Lordships' attention to one of these. By the law of England to conspire to murder was a misdemeanour: by the law of Ireland it was and is a capital offence. Their Lordships in considering the law as it applied to Bernard's case had thought that there ought to be a uniformity of law upon this subject. The opportunity for a change had now occurred, and it was proposed by the Bill which he now introduced to assimilate the penalty in Ireland and England, by making it not merely a misdemeanour but a felony in both countries, punishable not with death, but with penal servitude
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHaddressed some remarks to the House, which were inaudible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would attend the sittings of the Committee, where he had no doubt of being able to prove to him that the alterations he proposed, so far as they affected the law of Ireland, were unexceptionable.
  Bill read 2a and referred to a Select Committee. As also were Larceny, &c, Bill, Forgery Bill, Malicious Injuries to Property Bill, Coinage Offences Bill, Accessories and Abettors Bill, and Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill.

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee according to Order.
  Clause 2,
  LORD CHELMSFORDreferring to some objections taken to the Bill on the second reading, said the only difficulty in carrying out the principle of the measure lay in this, that the district of the Central Criminal Courtand the metropolitan police district were not co-extensive. The Central

  1561
  Criminal Court district comprised the City of London, the county of Middlesex, and portions of the counties of Kent, Essex, and Surrey, including the borough of Southwark. By Act of Parliament Her Majesty in Council was entitled to assign as the metropolitan police district any portion of the Central Criminal Court district (with the exception of the City of London), and any place within fifteen miles of Charing-cross. The effect was that there were various portions of the counties he had named which were within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, but over which no police districts had been established; and the difficulty he had in framing this measure arose out of the fact that the City of London and portions of those counties were entirely out of the metropolitan police district. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had expressed some misgivings as to intrusting to the Lord Mayor or to a single Alderman of London functions superseding those of the grand jury. Now he had given his noble and learned Friend's objection the best consideration; but he could see no way of obviating it short of leaving the City of London entirely out of the Bill, which would have the effect of defeating its object. He would submit to their Lordships that the City police courts, like the other police courts of the metropolis, were open to the public, and there was no reason to complain of the mode in which justice was administered in them. They would in every respect bear comparison with the other police courts—indeed if the ratio of acquittals to committals was taken as the test it would be found to tell rather against the police magistrates than the civic magistrates—and this probably arose from the fact that the Aldermen had the valuable assistance of clerks learned in the law, who prevented any mistakes being committed. The Legislature had certainly shown no disposition to disparage the City police courts; for in 1848 an Act was passed which gave to the Lord Mayor or to any single Alderman, sitting in public court, the same power and authority which could be exercised by any two magistrates sitting in petty sessions. They had, therefore, not only the power of committing persons for trial, but of exercising individually the power of summary conviction. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) said nice questions of law might arise in cases of this description; but he (Lord Chelmsford)
  1562
  ventured to submit that in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred no such case would arise. Nice questions of law might arise in cases of summary conviction, and yet the Legislature had intrusted the Lord Mayor and the City magistrates with the power of summary conviction. It was quite impossible that he could proceed with the Bill if their Lordships should be of opinion that any distinction should be made between the City magistrates and the other police magistrates of the metropolis. With regard to the outlying districts it would be in the power of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), in case he disapproved of the working of the Bill, to advise Her Majesty to annex them to police courts. There was only one other objection to the Bill, namely, that it would cause persons to be put on their trial at the discretion of a single person for offences that left an indelible stigma on those who were accused of them. Now if the accused were guilty, that objection would of course have no place; and he should imagine there was no innocent man who would not infinitely prefer an acquittal after a public trial than to have the bill against him ignored, because if the latter took place there would always remain a suspicion that it had been brought about by some underhand contrivance to evade justice. The principle of the Bill had been recognized by their Lordships twice, and also by the other House of Parliament. It was a Bill which had met with almost universal approbation both in and out of Parliament, and he trusted there would be no objection interposed to prevent their Lordships' adoption of a measure which he believed would introduce a very great improvement into the administration of criminal justice within the metropolitan district.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was still unconvinced of the propriety of empowering the City magistrates to send for trial without the intervention of a grand jury. He thought, moreover, there was an advantage in the grand jury system, for it was obviously a good thing that persons of all classes should be periodically brought together to administer justice. At the same time, it was a very serious thing to put a man in the felon's dock and cause him to undergo a solemn trial—it was a thing that ought never to be done lightly—but where the magistrate was a trained lawyer he should be content to leave in his hands the discretion of committing or not

  1563
  persons for trial. The mode of conducting magisterial business in the country was certainly now much more satisfactory than formerly. Formerly the squire sat in his own hall, and had his gamekeeper for his clerk; but now the business was done in petty sessions, and they had for their assessors very able and competent persons—such persons as Mr. Oke and Mr. Martin the clerks at the Mansion House and the Guildhall.
  EARL GREYdoubted whether a grand jury afforded a better preliminary tribunal than the magistrates. True there were twenty-three men instead of two; but he had served on grand juries himself, and knew that the number of their members, so far from being an advantage, was a bar to any effective inquiry. A grand jury decided without hearing both sides, and, however able and anxious they might be, they were not in a position rightly to declare whether the cases which came before them should go for trial or not; whereas, on the other hand, you had two magistrates, men of education, deciding in open court after hearing witnesses, and perhaps solicitors on both sides, having moreover invariably legal assistance of their own. He believed that the Bill would effect a great improvement in the area to which it applied, and was glad that his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) did not propose to amend it.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he believed he was the only person in the House who had had personal experience of the working of the grand jury system in London, and he could say it was impossible for them to make anything like a careful investigation into the cases brought before them. On one occasion when he served, the grand jury agreed among themselves that thirteen or fourteen should remain and do the business, and that the others might go away. They had between 300 and 400 Bills brought before them; and he put it to their Lordships whether such a tribunal could interpose any available protection against any possible mistake by a magistrate.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Amendments made, and Bill to be read 3a To-maorrow.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.—REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  LORD CHELMSFORD LORD CHELMSFORD moved that the words "educational charities" be struck out of the preamble. The preamble, he said, was that of another and larger measure, and these words were not applicable.
  Amendment made.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHrose to propose an Amendment which he believed would carry out the intentions of the House in the clauses to which they had already agreed. It was enacted by this Bill that the trustees of an endowed school where the religious teaching was according to the forms of the Church of England should not debar the children of Dissenters from the secular teaching of that school. In that arrangement he agreed. But at the same time, their Lordships had refused to admit Dissenters to the government of the school, lest they should alter its government. That was a proof, as he apprehended, that their Lordships did not wish any change to be made in the religious teaching of those schools. Still that was not quite clear as the clause stood; for Dissenters taking advantage of the privilege allowed them to send their children, might insist that they had a right also to introduce their own forms of religious teaching, and thus alter the government and constitution of the school. It was to guard against such an event that he wished to propose his clause. The noble Duke concluded by proposing a clause—
  "That where the religious teaching in any Endowed School shall at the Time of the passing of this Act be given in accordance with the Doctrines and Formularies of the Church of England, nothing herein contained shall empower any Trustees to allow any other Form of religious Teaching in such school."
  LORD CRANWORTHconsidered the noble Duke's apprehensions were entirely groundless, but agreed that there ought to no doubt on the subject. He objected to the wording of the proposed Amendment, as not calculated to carry out the object in view, but would introduce words with that view himself.
  THE EARI OF ST. GERMANSregretted the omission of the clause allowing Dissenters to be trustees, the effect of the omission of which he thought would be to oust them from many schools in which they had long acted as trustees.
  LORD CHELMSFORDexpressed his continued adhesion to the view which had been affirmed by their Lordships, that Dissenters had no right to be trustees of Church of England schools.
  Further Amendments made. Bill to be read 3a, To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Seven o'clock, till To morrow half-past Ten o'clock.