§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Earl the President of the Council of which he had given private notice, as to the mode in which the Orders in Council and the rules of the local authorities with reference to the suppression of the cattle plague were to be carried into effect. Since be had given notice to the noble Earl a great change in the position of the general question had taken place. A Bill upon the subject carefully elaborated in the House of Commons, and afterwards in that House, had been withdrawn, and the Government had taken upon themselves the whole responsibility of providing for the suppression of the cattle plague by Orders in Council. That did not diminish the importance of the Question which he wished to ask. Now, it was a matter of the greatest importance that magistrates should thoroughly understand that the rules established by the local authorities under Orders in Council had all the binding power of law, and that they were as much bound to carry them into execution as any Act of Parliament. He therefore desired to know, How the Government intended to proceed in the event of there being reason to suppose that the magistrates had acted in contravention of the rules framed under Orders in Council. For instance, the movement of cattle was only permitted under a certificate from a magistrate, to be granted under certain conditions. Now, what would be done if magistrates granted the certificate without the fulfilment of one or more of the conditions required?
§ EARL GRANVILLEbegged, in the first place, to thank the noble Earl for the invariable courtesy with which he always gave notice of the Questions which he in tended to ask, and also for the precise character of the explanations which he might think it necessary in each case to 278 demand. In the event of the misconduct of the magistrate being brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, it would be for him to consider whether that misconduct was of such a nature as would require that the name of such magistrate should be taken off the list of magistrates In the instance which the noble Earl suggested the magistrate could be indicted for misdemeanor, and in such a case it was not usual for the Lord Chancellor to cause the magistrate's name to be removed from the commission of the peace until a prosecution had been instituted. If such a prosecution were instituted the Lord Chancellor would deem it his duty to take all the facts into consideration, and adopt such a course as he might feel it his duty to take. The noble Earl had stated quite correctly that the rules framed under Orders in Council were as binding as an Act of Parliament, for they were issued under the authority of Acts of Parliament.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked by whom the prosecution was to be instituted? It would be a strange proceeding for a Court of Quarter Sessions to institute a prosecution for misdemeanor against one of their own body. He apprehended that the proper course to be pursued would be this—If there were a primâ facie case which seemed to implicate a magistrate it would be the duty of the other magistrates to appoint a committee to inquire into the matter, and if the report of that committee were such as to substantiate the case the report should be transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who might recommend what course he thought fit. He would probably direct a prosecution against the magistrate; and in the event of such misconduct being proved, then the action of the Lord Chancellor would come in.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble Friend had stated quite correctly the course which the holder of the Great Seal always thought it his duty to follow. If the complaint against a magistrate was one of misconduct not exposing him to criminal proceedings then it would be for the Lord Chancellor to consider whether the offence was such as to call upon him to remove the magistrate from the commission of the peace. But if the misconduct alleged was such as might be made the subject of a prosecution in a criminal court, it was usual for the Lord Chancellor to let the law take its course before taking any action; for to remove the magistrate pending the 279 inquiry would be to prejudge the case. He could conceive a case in which the Lord Chancellor need not wait—where, for instance, the person admitted to the Lord Chancellor he was guilty. In that case there would be no need to wait the result of the trial, because the use of the trial was to obtain certainty of the faet. However, it was impossible to say beforehand what should be done. It would be necessary to weigh each particular case.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, as the quarter sessions would meet next week it would be convenient if the noble and learned Lord would state what course the magistrates ought to pursue in a case such as he had supposed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there were many different ways in which the matter might be brought under the notice of the Government, and then the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor would consider the case with a view to considering what was to be done.