(NO. 172.) REPORT. (Hansard, 6 July 1882)

§ EARL COWPER
, in moving an Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, its effect would be to extend the principle of the Bill. In his opinion, that principle might be extended in many cases, by which the time of the Assize Courts was at present very much wasted. In the first place, magistrates might try simple cases of fraudulent 1573 trustees, agents, and bankers. Complicated cases, such as the City of Glasgow Bank and other cases of fraud, by the issue of fraudulent prospectuses and information by directors and trustees, would still be tried as heretofore; but there were many simple cases, which might well be disposed of by magistrates. He proposed, also, that slight cases of felonious wounding should be placed under the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. Although, at present, they could try cases of assault, yet, if there were any evidence of an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, they had not jurisdiction. The crime of bigamy, too, was one in which it was desirable there should be an option in the magistrate as to sending the accused for trial to the Assizes. Among the migratory poor, bigamy was often a venial offence, and was seldom of a complicated nature. The Bill was safeguarded by giving the magistrate the choice of sending to the Assizes, and there was a power of changing the place of trial, both in the Public Prosecutor and in a Judge of the High Court. With those safeguards he thought that there would be no fear that complicated cases would be sent to the Sessions. If magistrates were empowered to try such cases as he had mentioned, much waste of power would be avoided, the long detention of untried prisoners would be prevented, and the Winter Assizes, by which so much inconvenience was caused, might, perhaps, be dispensed with. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he hardly knew how to deal with the proposal of the noble Earl (Earl Cowper), because he (Lord Bramwell) could not deny that Quarter Sessions might be safely trusted to try simple cases of the offences enumerated, especially that of bigamy. It frequently happened that cases of bigamy came before Judges of Assize, for which 1574 only a day's imprisonment was given. After, perhaps, being ill-used, poor women were frequently deserted by their husbands, and then re-married, their second husbands well knowing that they were married. Such cases as those might be well relegated to Quarter Sessions. But he had already made a jettison of "forgery" to save the rest of his cargo, and was afraid that the chance of passing the Bill in "another place" would be very much lessened if the Amendment were adopted; and, therefore, although he would not vote against it, he would be glad if it were not pressed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that, in his opinion, the Amendment, in its present shape, could not possibly be accepted.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
submitted that the Bill should not be extended as proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Cowper), but that the Government should deal with the whole subject, as there were, no doubt, many cases that might be left to be dealt with at the Quarter Sessions.

§ EARL COWPER
said, after the expression of these opinions by his noble and learned Friends (the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bramwell), he would withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
said, that, in his opinion, if the onus of giving notice were thrown upon a private person, a failure of justice might sometimes result. He would suggest that notice should be given by the Clerk of the Peace.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, his experience was that the policeman in charge of the case was almost invariably bound over to prosecute, and it would, therefore, be his duty to give notice.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would suggest that the Clerk of the Petty Sessions Division where the person was committed was the most fitting 1575 and convenient person to give notice to all persons bound to appear at the trial.