SECOND READING. (Hansard, 26 July 1870)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would state what it proposed to do in a very few words. Its object was briefly to carry into further effect the provisions of an Act of Parliament — the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 92 — by which, so far as related to the jurisdiction of the sheriff, certain counties would be consolidated and united, and some disunited which were now united, and to make provision for the administration of the offices and duties consequential upon the alterations now proposed. He believed his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay) had some objections to make to the proposed details, but no one he thought had made any objection to the principle of the Bill.

§ LORD COLONSAY

said, that he should not make any objection to the principle of the Bill if it was precisely what the noble and learned Lord had stated. He should, on the contrary, rather approve of it, for it carried out the suggestion made by the Royal Commission, of which he had had the honour to be a member. He was not prepared to approve of all 948 the methods adopted to carry out the object of the Bill, but he did not object to the proposed combinations, because while there might be differences of opinion even on the point, he did not think the matter worth discussing. Had the Bill, therefore, been confined to the combining of counties, he would not have had a word to say; but, as a matter of fact, the Bill went a great deal farther. For the information of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would mention the subject to which his objections referred. In the first place, he objected to the clause which provided that when a number of counties were united there should be only one sheriff-clerk for all. He could not understand how one sheriff-clerk could perform the duties for five counties. How the sheriff-clerk of Peeblesshire, for instance, could be sheriff clerk for Edinburgh was more than he could understand. Such a proposal appeared to him to be unworkable. He did not object to sheriffs or sheriffs-substitute having jurisdiction over four counties in that way, because the sheriff could fix a limit within which the duties might be exercised. He did object to the proposal with regard to the clerks, who were necessarily local officers. There were also some omissions of consequence in the Bill. No provision was made as to the person who should register the voters. They seemed to have been altogether lost sight of, as well as some other circumstances in connection with the political position of the counties. On these various points he should make some observations when the Bill got into Committee.