(NO. 112.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 June 1882)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that, considering the great experience which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had had in trying the cases with which the Bill was intended to deal on Circuit, he could not hesitate to agree to the second reading of this Bill; but it was desirable that it should be considered by the Home Office, and therefore he hoped, if the Motion were agreed to, that a reasonably long interval would be allowed to elapse before the stage of Committee.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
said he also hoped that some time would be given for considering the provisions of the Bill. He was sorry that the Bill was introduced when the noble Earl who represented the Home Office (the Earl of Rosebery) was not present, as it would be well that their Lordships should know what the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in regard to it. He was glad to find, from the introduction of this Bill, proposing, 455 as it did, to extend the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) did not entertain that low opinion of the county justices which was held in other quarters. For instance, he might refer to a speech which was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), in which the right hon. Gentleman said that they were a foolish and unjust body of men, though it was his duty to appoint some to the Bench. Now, if they were as the right hon. Gentleman had described, they should not be allowed to try cases in Quarter Sessions. However, he was glad to find a different opinion in that House. There was, however, clearly a difference between the two classes of offences, the jurisdiction over which his noble and learned Friend proposed to intrust to the magistrates at Quarter Sessions. With respect to certain cases of burglary, a jurisdiction might properly be given to the magistrates; and one great reason for the change was that, under the present system, persons accused of comparatively slight offences might be kept a long time in prison without trial; but when they came to deal with the question of forgery, the matter required more consideration, because the evidence then was of a different character from that which commonly came before Quarter Sessions. There was no evidence which required more sifting than that with respect to handwriting. Many of those cases could not, he thought, be satisfactorily tried by the magistrates, who, in many cases, had had no legal training; but ought to be relegated to a Court where the very highest legal talent presided. The general scope of the Bill was, however, in the right direction.

§ LORD COLERIDGE
said, that, though he should not oppose the second reading, being inclined almost at once to accept any measure proposed on the authority of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), he must confess he did not desire, for several reasons, to see this Bill become law. No doubt, occasionally, trumpery cases of burglary and forgery were sent to the Assizes, and the persons guilty or not guilty of them might, on that account, be kept in prison a few weeks longer than they otherwise would be. Now, he would be the last person to wish to see anyone accused of a trivial offence, coming under those heads, 456 remaining in prison for a long time awaiting trial; but they must legislate, as it appeared to him, upon the general reason of the thing, and the offences of burglary and forgery contained some of the very gravest cases which, short of capital ones, could come on for trial, and required the ablest tribunal which the country could afford. He was perfectly aware that the Bill gave the committing magistrate a discretionary power to say whether particular cases should be tried at the Assizes or at the Quarter Sessions; but it by no means necessarily appeared, on the first investigation before the magistrate, what would be the real character of the offence, when it came to be tried before the tribunal which ultimately was to dispose of it. This jurisdiction was proposed to be conferred on a body of men who were to be numbered by thousands, many of whom were doubtless as competent to try the cases as any of the Judges on the Bench; but many of whom, on the other hand—and he desired to speak with all respect—had not had the experience that would enable them to exercise this jurisdiction satisfactorily. It was true that his noble and learned Friend attached to the exercise of this discretion certain safeguards. The Public Prosecutor, for instance, might intervene, and remove a case from the Quarter Sessions if he thought fit. But who was to tell the Public Prosecutor whether the discretion was well or ill-exercised, or who was to put him in motion, and was it certain that he would be put in motion in cases in which he ought? This matter did not come before him for the first time. When the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) was Lord Chancellor, he was good enough to appoint a Committee to investigate the question of Circuit jurisdiction, and to see how the time of Circuits could be economized. He (Lord Coleridge) was Chairman of that Committee, and their Report was laid before both Houses of Parliament. Probably none of their Lordships had read that Report; but in it were to be found reasons, stated at some length and with some care, why, in substance, the present jurisdiction should not be interfered with. First of all, the relief which this measure, if fairly worked, would give to the Judges would be very slight. The actual time taken up in the trial of these trumpery cases was very small 457 now. In the next place, he was by no means sure that it was an unwise thing that Judges should, in the face of the country, now and then, for a reasonable portion of their time, try cases not of the very first importance. And it was to be remembered that the business on Circuit was gradually lessening. He was happy to say that the business of the Queen's Bench Division, which had charge of the Circuits, was now coming within reasonable limits; the arrears were nothing, so that the argument for economizing the time of the Judges had lost its force. Further, he thought it unwise to deal with the question in this way. If it were desired to re-construct the whole system of the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Quarter Sessions upon a better, or, at any rate, another principle, that was one thing. But just to take away some cases which were now and then important, but which might be insignificant in themselves, from a tribunal where they were well tried, and where they did not now occupy any great length of time, and to transfer them to a tribunal which had not the same experience, was not the way to deal with the question. He would not trouble their Lordships to divide against the second reading; but he must say that, in the position which he filled, he did not desire to see the Bill proceed further.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that, before the Bill was read a second time, he would venture to say a word or two upon it. Speaking as one of the officials to whom the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) proposed, by the Bill, to hand over jurisdiction in certain cases of burglary and forgery, he must remark that the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, in opposing it, was a remarkably Conservative speech to come from the Government side of the House. There was one thing to consider—they might be able to pass this small measure through Parliament, while a large measure would require a strong force to get it through. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not feel much enthusiasm for the measure; but, at the same time, he had no great sympathy with the objections of the noble and learned Lord, and failed to see that the points as to which it was said the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was inferior to a Judge had been clearly 458 made out. The great weakness of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was that he had not the legal training and experience of a Judge, and was, therefore, not equally well able to decide points of law; and, again, without a Judge's experience of Criminal Courts, a Chairman of Quarter Sessions had not the same capacity for deciding questions of evidence; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was not sure that in another and by no means unimportant particular, the apportionment of sentences, the inferiority was manifest. Indeed, having regard to the knowledge gained by the Judge and the Chairman respectively of the rural population and of the true character of the offences usually dealt with by the Quarter Sessions, he held that the latter was more likely to apportion penalties justly than the former, for he had more opportunity of gathering within the grasp of his mind the various considerations which should determine whether the felony he was trying should be regarded as a large or a small offence than had the Judge. In this respect, the Judge's legal superiority was of little or no consequence. He thought it very desirable, as the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had said, that intricate cases should not come before the Quarter Sessions; but the presiding magistrate might be trusted not to attempt the decision of questions of law, or the investigation of difficult evidence. In such cases he would probably see where the difficulty arose, and, in the event of a mistake, the Public Prosecutor would be able to correct it. As to cases of burglary—he was not so clear with regard to forgery—many difficult legal points were not likely to arise; and he, therefore, thought the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was as efficient to determine the amount of the penalty as the Judge. He felt convinced, however, that the majority of the cases contemplated by the Bill were such as might be properly dealt with at the Quarter Sessions.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
, in reply, said his noble and learned Friend (Lord Coleridge) had stated several objections to the Bill; but there were no two crimes, with the exception of manslaughter, in which the degrees of guilt varied more widely than in burglary and forgery. There were, of course, cases of burglary which demanded the attention of the very best 459 tribunal; but others were of the most trivial description, and might easily be disposed of at Quarter Sessions. For example, if, between 9 at night and 6 in the morning, a man opened a pantry window and stole a piece of meat, he committed burglary; and the lodger who, before 6 in the morning, walked away with another man's coat from a lodging-house, would be held to have broken out of the house and to be guilty of burglary. Neither of these acts, though both were criminal, constituted very grave or very dangerous crimes; but, as things were, they could not be sent to the Quarter Sessions. So as to forgery, the cases generally should be tried by the best tribunal; but there were some which were as trivial as were those of burglary, and could be better tried by the magistrates, as he proposed. He had once had before him a case in which a man was imprisoned for six months for forging an order for six-penn3'worth of groceries. Could anyone give a reason why such cases should not be tried at Quarter Sessions, where, he believed, they would often be better tried and the sentences better apportioned than by the Superior Court? While he had no fear as to trusting these cases to the Quarter Sessions, he had no misgivings as to the way in which the magistrates would exercise their discretion of remitting difficult eases, both of burglary and forgery, to the Assizes. He claimed for the Bill that one of its results would be the more speedy trial of a large number of cases. In the next place, a great deal of time and expense would be saved to the prosecutors. It was true that the system of holding Assizes was altered, and that they were now held more often than was formerly the case; but the counties were fused, and witnesses and prosecutors frequently had to come from a distance, and were put to great inconvenience and expense. A man was not always willing to travel a long distance, say, from Cornwall to Exeter, in order to prosecute in a trivial case; and a prisoner, in such circumstances, might not be able to procure the attendance of witnesses as to character. Moreover, the time of the Judges would be saved to an appreciable extent, and this, which was important in the interests of the public, had also to be taken into consideration. He thought that, for these and various 460 other reasons. they might safely trust to the discretion of the committing magistrates whether the cases should go to the Assizes or the Quarter Sessions; and, therefore, with the other safeguards it contained, he hoped that the Bill would be approved by the House.