(NO. 55.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 April 1863)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, he did not see why the Act should not come into operation before.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, the apparatus that would be required would take some time to erect; but he had no objection to alter the clause so as to enact that the Act should come into operation on the 1st January 1864.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
proposed to substitute for the present clause (which imposed a penalty not exceeding £50 in respect of the first offence, and for the second offence a penalty not exceeding £20, or not less than £2 for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section) a new 550 clause which would impose a penalty not exceeding £50, and in respect of a continuing offence, after notice, a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5 for every day.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
proposed that in the case of a second or any subsequent offence the penalty should be increased to not less than £50 and not more than £100. He would leave the Board of Trade to define what a "continuing offence" should be held to be.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that until a court of law had decided that the owner of the work had committed a violation of the law, it would be rather hard to double the penalty.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, that every alkali work was to be carried on to the satisfaction of the Inspector. Not to do so was in itself an offence under the Act, and he did not therefore see the hardship of increasing the penalty.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he would consider the suggestion proposed by the noble Earl.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
proposed to add a proviso enabling the Board of Trade, on the application of an Inspector, to appoint and remove sub-Inspectors.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
desired to call the attention of the House to a feature in the Bill which, unless it was altered, would render it inoperative. The difficulty which had always arisen in cases of nuisance, and which rendered the Bills to remedy them inoperative, was the power which was given to the party charged with occasioning the nuisance to appeal to the superior courts; for it was frequently well worth while for a wealthy manufacturer convicted of occasioning a nuisance to appeal to the superior courts, knowing full well that the informer was not likely to incur the expense of such a proceeding. The Committee on this subject recommended strongly that there should he no such anneal from the Court of 551 Quarter Sessions, and it appeared to him that the questions to be determined upon the evidence of the Inspector were so simple that he could not see any necessity for giving an appeal except when some point of law should arise. He therefore proposed to omit that part of the clause giving the appeal, and to insert the words— And no appeal may be had from such orders to any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts, except in cases in which the Court shall certify that some question of law is involved which renders expedient such appeal. He felt so strongly, as did the Committee on the subject, that he should feel it his duty, if necessary, to divide the House upon the subject.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, their Lordships must remember, that while the expenses of an appeal were very moderate, the consequences to the manufacturer of a conviction would be very serious, as numerous actions for damages would, of course, follow, and be sustained, as a matter of course, by the fact of the previous conviction. An additional reason in favour of allowing an appeal was that the tribunal of primary jurisdiction decided without a jury.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the provision contained in the Bill was that the appeal should be had in the same way in which appeals could be had under the existing law, and such appeals were now allowed only where there was a question of law, and not upon a matter of fact. There was, in fact, no appeal in the proper sense of the word; but the proceedings being removed by certiorari, the superior court would take notice of any errors which appeared on the face of them.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, his noble and learned Friend was quite right; but he would observe that this clause distinctly gave an appeal, which must mean something more than that which now existed by means of certiorari. He suggested that the clause be struck out altogether, and the law left as it now stood.