(NO. 112.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 June 1882)

§ EARL COWPER
, who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:— In page 1, line 10, after "recorder," add, "or with stealing records, bills, or documents relating to real estate, and persons charged with offences as fraudulent agents, trustees, or bankers; or persons charged with bigamy, said, that anyone acquainted with the proceedings of Assizes must be aware of the great waste of power which there took place by the trial of simple eases, in which the punishment was, at most, two or three months' imprisonment. On the other hand, Justices at Quarter Sessions now tried many very grave offences, which required very considerable skill to deal with, and which involved very severe penalties. He believed that the manner 901 in which magistrates had conducted these complicated cases had been such as, on the whole, to command the confidence of the country. It should also be remembered that the ultimate decision in all these cases rested with a jury. With very great deference to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord who was in charge of the Bill, he ventured to think that some amendment of the Bill, in a certain direction, would be desirable. He had, therefore, placed on the Paper an Amendment, which he had intended to move, providing that cases of stealing documents relating to real estates, and various other cases, should be placed within the jurisdiction of magistrates.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, he would point out to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Cowper) that the Amendment he referred to was to be made in the Preamble of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF POWIS
, in moving an Amendment for the purpose of preventing the crime of burglary accompanied with violence being tried at Quarter Sessions, said, he thought that the criterion of the heinousness of burglary was whether or not it was accompanied by violence—

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, that he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. He thought that they must trust to the discretion of magistrates, in cases of that character, as to whether they committed to Sessions or Assizes. Practical inconvenience, moreover, would arise from the adoption of the proposed Amendment, because, if a case were committed to Quarter Sessions, no evidence of violence having been given before the committing magistrate, and it should turn out at the trial that violence had been used, the prisoner would be entitled to his acquittal for want of jurisdiction. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships not to agree to the Amendment. It was not his intention, however, that cases which were accompanied by personal violence should be sent to the Sessions.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
then moved to omit from the clause the provisions giving jurisdiction to Courts of Quarter Session in cases of forgery. The noble and learned Lord said, he did not take that course because he thought no such cases should be tried at Quarter Sessions, for some cases of forgery and false pretences came very near each other. But the proposition to confer jurisdiction on Quarter Sessions with regard to forgery had alarmed a good many persons, and it was thought that cases of difficulty might arise which it would be improper for Sessions to try. Therefore, he proposed to leave them out of the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
said, he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, as the Quarter Sessions had now jurisdiction to give higher sentences than 10 years. He objected to place this check upon the power of the magistrates.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, he would be glad if the Amendment and others of which he had not received any Notice were reserved for the Report, so that he might consult the authorities at the Home Office, who had not yet had time to consider the Bill.

§ EARL CAIRNS
said, the point was a simple one. A sentence of 15 years' penal servitude might now be awarded 903 for burglary, and cases sent to the Quarter Sessions were sometimes very serious. They ought not to give a power which would be different to the general law in these cases.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
pointed out that a man might be tried for a burglary committed without personal violence, but who had been convicted on previous occasions of felony of a serious character, and sentenced already to 15 or 20 years' penal servitude; for such an offence a sentence of 10 years for a subsequent felony might be a wholly inadequate punishment.